03-05-2013, 09:53 PM
Quote:Hi, in regard to the cataphracts at Carrhae, Surena seems to have gone to great lengths to disguise the fact that he had them by making them wear concealing robes and furs over their armour to disguise their true intent which I think was to lure out and come to grips with Crassus's cavalry and destroy it. Other than that I think they just shadowed the Romans awaiting opportunities. The weakness in an infantry square is the corners so with unlimited arrows and fresh horses to advance and then retreat I think Surena would have focused the attack on them. One question I have is a Testudeo formation would be useful against archers but how effective would it have been against cataphracts?
Regards
Michael Kerr
Hiding the gleam of armor until shortly before the battle was something that was supposed to frighten the enemy.
According to Leo VI, an army that had a gloomy appearance was more intimidating than one whose arms were shining. And if the ground was open and the air clear, the helms should be carried by the soldiers in their hands until the enemy was near and then wear them. Their small scutaria shields they should also wear on their chests to hide the gleam of their corselets and generally, they should hide the shine of their equipment until it is time to engage, when the sudden splendor dazzled the enemy, who thought that it was a divine sign and lost heart . (Leo, Tactica, 14.33, 14.34, 14.98)
If the Parthians wanted the Romans to not know about the presence of the cataphracts, they wouldn't have shown them before the battle, nor would they have used them before any attempt of the Romans to fight them off, what came later with the attempt of Crassus' son to forcefully drive off the enemy with disastrous effects.
Regarding your testudo question,it was performed in compact order (Arrian, Tactica, 11.4.) and as such it had all the attributes that were considered advantageous to withstand a cavalry melee attack (whatever anyone understands that to be) as he describes it in his Ektaxis. Regarding the edges of such a formation, there is no fear expressed as to their vulnerability in all the works that analyze it. I do not think that they were a problem (as they were in the Napoleonic era for example) because the depth of the formation was usually much greater, plus the size of the plinthia was normally huge as it was formed by the whole army. What Plutarch does not really say, although he clearly hints at it, is that the formation of a plaesion/plinthion was usually not one with uninterrupted lines in mixed armies. It was advised that intervals be created so that light infantry and cavalry could exit (and reenter) it whenever necessary. After the Parthian cataphracts rode by the plinthion, the Romans sent out their psiloi infantry to harass the enemy horse-archers as was the standard tactic of using skirmishing infantry to push back skirmishing cavalry, which however, in this instance did not work. And beside each cohort (or near it) there was a squadron of cavalry to provide cavalry support.
