03-06-2013, 03:24 AM
Horse archers were also good for "softening" enemy units before cataphracts charged them.
And by "softening" I do not mean "causing them to disperse or to lose cohesion".
By "softening", I mean inflicting wounds on many Roman soldiers. Because this is what arrows do - the very nature of arrows is that they are more efficient in causing wounds than in killing. In other words - a much bigger proportion of all soldiers hit by enemy arrows, are soldiers who are wounded, rather than killed. Arrows are not good in inflicting mortal wounds - vast majority of wounds and injuries inflicted by arrows, are not instantly mortal.*
This is also what Cassius Dio confirms regarding Carrhae. He writes:
"The missiles falling thick upon them from all sides at once struck down many by a mortal blow, rendered many useless for battle, and caused distress to all. They flew into their eyes and pierced their hands and all the other parts of their body and, penetrating their armour, deprived them of their protection and compelled them to expose themselves to each new missile. Thus, while a man was guarding against arrows or pulling out one that had stuck fast he received more wounds, one after another. Consequently it was impracticable for them to move, and impracticable to remain at rest. Neither course afforded them safety but each was fraught with destruction, the one because it was out of their power, and the other because they were then more easily wounded."
As you can see this excerpt from Dio clearly suggests, that many Romans suffered multiple wounds from Parthian arrows - but still continued to live and to stand firm and fight.
However, it is obvious that an injured man is not as efficient in combat as a fresh man. When some cohort of 500 includes 150 injured soldiers, they are less efficient than a cohort of 500 fresh soldiers. This means they are "softened" - thus an easier target for cataphracts.
* (but of course in the age when antibiotic drugs were unknown, many of wounded soldiers were later dying of their wounds due to infection - days or weeks after the battle).
"
And by "softening" I do not mean "causing them to disperse or to lose cohesion".
By "softening", I mean inflicting wounds on many Roman soldiers. Because this is what arrows do - the very nature of arrows is that they are more efficient in causing wounds than in killing. In other words - a much bigger proportion of all soldiers hit by enemy arrows, are soldiers who are wounded, rather than killed. Arrows are not good in inflicting mortal wounds - vast majority of wounds and injuries inflicted by arrows, are not instantly mortal.*
This is also what Cassius Dio confirms regarding Carrhae. He writes:
"The missiles falling thick upon them from all sides at once struck down many by a mortal blow, rendered many useless for battle, and caused distress to all. They flew into their eyes and pierced their hands and all the other parts of their body and, penetrating their armour, deprived them of their protection and compelled them to expose themselves to each new missile. Thus, while a man was guarding against arrows or pulling out one that had stuck fast he received more wounds, one after another. Consequently it was impracticable for them to move, and impracticable to remain at rest. Neither course afforded them safety but each was fraught with destruction, the one because it was out of their power, and the other because they were then more easily wounded."
As you can see this excerpt from Dio clearly suggests, that many Romans suffered multiple wounds from Parthian arrows - but still continued to live and to stand firm and fight.
However, it is obvious that an injured man is not as efficient in combat as a fresh man. When some cohort of 500 includes 150 injured soldiers, they are less efficient than a cohort of 500 fresh soldiers. This means they are "softened" - thus an easier target for cataphracts.
* (but of course in the age when antibiotic drugs were unknown, many of wounded soldiers were later dying of their wounds due to infection - days or weeks after the battle).
"
