12-19-2009, 09:40 PM
It's difficult to judge your excerpt without nowing the context. I asume this page is all info given about Anthony's parthian war?
It's certainly an incomplete description, insufficient to judge the campaign by reading this text alone. However I don't have the impression that the author wants to display the campaign as any kind of success or just intentionally paint a more favorable picture than commonly found. The text makes it clear that the Roman army had to retreat and suffered high casualties. Also that Antonius wasn't too well prepared to fight the Parthians and that the described episode was just "a rare tactical success". He probably just choose what he considered as the most interesting anecdote from the various attempts to counter the parthian hit and run tactics. At least Antonius was able to march his army deep into enemy territory and return alive. Thus in this aspect he was indeed much more successful than Crassus who lost his whole force just hundred km beyond the Euphrates during the last Roman invasion of Parthian soil.
It's certainly an incomplete description, insufficient to judge the campaign by reading this text alone. However I don't have the impression that the author wants to display the campaign as any kind of success or just intentionally paint a more favorable picture than commonly found. The text makes it clear that the Roman army had to retreat and suffered high casualties. Also that Antonius wasn't too well prepared to fight the Parthians and that the described episode was just "a rare tactical success". He probably just choose what he considered as the most interesting anecdote from the various attempts to counter the parthian hit and run tactics. At least Antonius was able to march his army deep into enemy territory and return alive. Thus in this aspect he was indeed much more successful than Crassus who lost his whole force just hundred km beyond the Euphrates during the last Roman invasion of Parthian soil.
Michael
