03-05-2013, 02:19 AM
Regarding Carrhae:
One should ask themselves a question - why should cataphracts charge the Roman line as long as horse archers were not out of arrows (and they had 1000 pack mules loaded with arrows)?
Maybe it is not the best comparison - but for the same reason, the USA nuked Japan in 1945, rather than carrying out a seaborne invasion (but nobody doubts such an invasion was going to succeed).
The general principles of war were the same in 53 BC and 1945 - economy of force, minimizing losses.
If Parthians could win just with arrows, they didn't need to risk their lifes in close combat. If Americans could win just with nukes, they didn't need to risk another Okinawa on larger scale.
One should ask themselves a question - why should cataphracts charge the Roman line as long as horse archers were not out of arrows (and they had 1000 pack mules loaded with arrows)?
Maybe it is not the best comparison - but for the same reason, the USA nuked Japan in 1945, rather than carrying out a seaborne invasion (but nobody doubts such an invasion was going to succeed).
The general principles of war were the same in 53 BC and 1945 - economy of force, minimizing losses.
If Parthians could win just with arrows, they didn't need to risk their lifes in close combat. If Americans could win just with nukes, they didn't need to risk another Okinawa on larger scale.
