Carrhae - could Crassus have won?

[SagittariusRex]

Greetings Sagittarius Rex!

Welcome to our Forum.

Do add your real world name (at least your first name) to your signature.

Are you familiar with the archery employed by the Samurai and how would you compare that to the Mongols, Parthians and others?

Narukami

Thank You.

I've seen some very good shooting from Samurai archers, even mounted! One of the reasons the lower limb on Japanese bows is shorter. The Kamikaze prevented a good showdown between them and the Mongols. :wink:

The Mongol and Mughal horse archers are hard to beat; if anybody could, it would be Samurai.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Michael,

In archery we have three goals; to shoot accurately, to shoot powerfully, to shoot rapidly.
- Anonymous Byzantine general, On Strategy (Peri Strategias) c. AD 527 - 65

Are you referring to De Re Strategica of Syrianus Magister, formerly the 6th-c. Anonymus Byzantinus? Philip rance has recently demostrated that this work is not 6th c., but most likely from the 10th. c.

[SagittariusRex]

Thank You very much!

I'm just a retired military man w an interest in ancient warfare, not a scholar. My interest is more hands on than academic.

I'm gonna love this place, and learn a lot!

[wulfgar60]

The Romans where adept at using their shields in a cooperative manner, that could give them almost full protection from the angle of attack. If "super arrows" could penetrate this efficiently. Then heavy infantry would have been abandoned and ancient warfare would have consisted purely of archers.
The Parthian horse archers in reality had no great ingress again shielded legionaries. However maintaining the wall of shields even for the trained was a tiring exercise. If the legionaries were already fatigued by hunger, thirst and weariness of the march. Then the shield wall could become ineffective. Disorder and tiredness would open gaps in the wall of protection. And unharassed horse archers could take great advantage of any such gap.
The strength of the Parthian horse archers, was not in armor piecing arrows. But in deadly accurate fire.
Crassus would have had good reason to suppose his troops were quite capable of holding the field against horse archers under normal conditions.
Weariness was the basic cause of the Roman defeat. Phil Barker claimed fear and fatigue can be interchangeable. And it appears the Romans lost the morale fight.
Sallying forth against numerous horse archers with a smaller force, sounds like desperation as well. Desperate moves are not a good thing against mobile cavalry
But why were the horse archers so unharassed? Didn't Crassus have 4,000 or something light troops with him? Did the light troops run out of ammo? Or was there some other failure in their commitment?
However I'll reiterate. Roman legionaries would have little to fear from horse archers under more favorable conditions.
One tactic a horseman can use against a steady shield wall. Is to lasso the shields (or use a grappling hook) and bolt away with the cable secured to the horse (not the rider). Thereby wrenching the shields and hopefully creating sufficient gaps.
I'd say the Parthians picked up on the Romans being fatigued at some point. And then proceeded to take full advantage of this. It was a test of wills that didn't go the Romans way.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

As you pointed out, the horse archers strength lay in their accuracy!
So light troops would be a turkey shoot for them!

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

Hmmmmm, turkey. 8)

[wulfgar60]

As you pointed out, the horse archers strength lay in their accuracy!
So light troops would be a turkey shoot for them!

At close range, yes! This is what could have been the lack of commitment on the part of Roman forces light infantry. Good quality foot archers that could take cover or keep distance between themselves and the horse archers. Would have been a real pest for the horse archers.
Was the light infantry of Crassus. Fatigued, lacked ammo? Poor quality? Did they lack cohesion with the heavy infantry? Or in some other way prove not to be up to the task?
Maybe the privations of thirst and hunger dented their efficiency too much.

I'd say the army of Crassus suffered a moral collapse. Privation would have set the stage. Declining commitment would have finished the task.

All this suggests Crassus himself somehow proved to be the failure as the Commander.

You can imagine these two different troop types. Tactically under good conditions neither had much ability to come to grips with the other. It would become a question of who lost confidence or commitment first.

If we look at Surena. He was doing everything in his power to make his army work. It leaves me wondering what Crassus was doing? Sometimes nothing is worse than indecision. Even a bad plan carried out with commitment can be better than none at all. The strength of an army lies in cohesion and steadfastness of purpose.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, the lack of ammo as one part, but I guess experience was another.
These light troops were who? youngsters, or older poorer members of society? But a foot archer is at a distinct disadvantage to a mounted archer, unless he has a height advantage such as a wall or terrain.

As you say, so many facters that in the end, all point back to a lack of leadership.....that can be as fatigueing as physical exhaustion.....

[wulfgar60]

Well, the lack of ammo as one part, but I guess experience was another.
These light troops were who? youngsters, or older poorer members of society? But a foot archer is at a distinct disadvantage to a mounted archer, unless he has a height advantage such as a wall or terrain.

As you say, so many facters that in the end, all point back to a lack of leadership.....that can be as fatigueing as physical exhaustion.....

I assume you would be correct on the issue of foot archers Vs horse archers, Byron.

I have heard of cases of foot archers held back way behind the lines of a shield wall. And only kept in reserve against enemy troops that found their way past the shield wall.

It would be compounded by the horse archer being an elite member of his society. Who spent his time in practical training for horsemanship. Top quality foot archers were a rarity. Although the later Romans made efforts to create good quality foot archers. They must have learned the lesson.

I don't know how slingers would go? In such circumstances they may have been almost as great as risk to their own side as the other. The same could be true of incompetent archers.

[SagittariusRex]

Crassus could have won, the Surena could have lost. Both sides had a plan, each plan was capable of winning. The Surena executed his plan well (kept the wheel going), Crassus poorly (never broke the wheel). Leadership was the key, not the opposing strategy/tactics.

Day one Crassus encountered the Parthians on his march to Seleucia and formed a defensive square (open, not solid). The Parthian wheel harassed the square wearing it down. Publius sallied w 8 cohorts, 500 archers, and 1300 light and heavy cavalry. The Parthians yield, the Roman sally forces follow. The Parthians turn on them w heavy cavalry and the entire sally force (about 5000 men) is captured or killed. The harassment continues. The Romans decide to retire, leaving behind the wounded.

Day two the Romans are harassed during their march to Carrhae. The march is poorly executed and thousands of wounded/stragglers are killed. Once in Carrhae the harassment continues. At night, the Romans fall back to the mountains, loosing more along the way.

Day three the Romans are fractured w a strong force in the hills and the rest fleeing to Syria. 10,000 safely make it back to Syria under Cassius. Crassus is lured into a parley where he is attacked and killed. The Romans who do not surrender or are taken captive are hunted down and killed.

The total Roman losses over the 3 days are about 10,000 captured, 20,000 killed. Most were not killed in the main battle, but in the retreat after the battle, and the cleaning up after the treachery.

There are lots of different ways to fight; any of them can beat the other on any given day. I prefer to shoot 'n scoot. Your weather, terrain, and leadership may vary. :wink:

[Sean Manning]

Well, the lack of ammo as one part, but I guess experience was another.
These light troops were who? youngsters, or older poorer members of society? But a foot archer is at a distinct disadvantage to a mounted archer, unless he has a height advantage such as a wall or terrain.

As you say, so many facters that in the end, all point back to a lack of leadership.....that can be as fatigueing as physical exhaustion.....

In my impression its the reverse: horse archers are at a disadvantage against foot archers unless the horse archers are much better troops. The foot archers have a more stable position, can use larger bows or crossbows, and can mass more forepower into the same area (especially when the horse-archers are attacking one small group at a time!), and while the horse archers can move, they are bigger targets. And nomad armies are often shy of taking heavy casualties in a long archery duel. The trouble was, as Wulfgar said, that Central Asian armies could raise a lot of good horse archers, whereas other armies often had trouble raising good foot archers/slingers/crossbowmen.

I agree that Crassus could have avoided being smashed like that he he had been luckier and a better leader. Nothing in war is ever certain ...

[fasta]

Having been under live fire (if not sharps) from mounted archers I can tell you it isn't easy for any length of time. Arrows do get through the gaps in formations or hit unprotected areas such as your feet!

[wulfgar60]

The horse archer must have been a highly successful troop type. They continuously existed and were feared from the 9th century BC until the end of the middle ages. And then George Custer ran into trouble against them as recently as 1875.
As with all troop types they had relative strengths and weaknesses. But steppe cavalrymen were members of a "noble" class or the retainers of such. And trained to the art of being on horseback and using their favorite arms almost from infancy.
They were simply highly skilled individuals that the steppes produced in great numbers. Their lifestyle seems to have been perpetual training for war and spent accustomed to danger.
No doubt the foot archers that Crassus took with him were capable bowmen. But how naturally were such troops accustomed to being brigaded in an army. They were hardly the elite of the world they came from.
The foot archers of Crassus are mentioned as emerging from the lines of legionaries only to be beaten back.
Yet history also throws up occasional examples of highly successful foot archers as well. English armies of the middle ages began using them in preference to the traditional foot spearmen. Again these English bowmen were drawn initially from people that lived the lifestyle. Men of the woods and dales of Yorkshire. Men who often exhibited a fierce independence from the rules of the local royal sheriffs! :roll:
Imperial armies see auxiliary archers who spent their lives brigaded in formal commission. And the tendency of increasing use of such until the end of the empire.
Then if we look back hundreds of years prior to Crassus. The Early Persian armies used close formation foot archers as the main infantry arm with a high degree of success. And facing precisely the type of enemy that Crassus did. But then, they were used to it!
Crassus was hardly an incapable leader. But he marched his army through the wilderness. And found himself up against a capable and ambitious opposite number in Surena. A guy who was going to test him all the way.
Perhaps this was more than he was expecting. Somehow Crassus seems to have failed to get immediately to grips with what was a problem.
And the morale and order of his army was ground down.
Would a J. Caesar have done better?

[stevesarak]

I see two major flaws with Crassus’s battle plan.
First: Crassus should have proceeded with caution against an un fought enemy, gathered as much info as possible, scout the hills for a way through that would counter the effects of horse arches, that they must have know existed in the Parthian army.
When Antony invaded, there were tribes in the hills that offered to show them paths that would lead them somewhat close to the main city without crossing such open land, (I think he chose not to use their help, I may be wrong)

Second: He should have proceeded as Julius Caesar did during some of the campaigns against the Gaul’s. At the foot of the hills build a camp to fall back on. Advance only far enough out, where if attacked and forced to withdraw, you can make it back to your camp. If not attacked, build another camp farther out. Keep moving and building until you reach you’re destination, the city.
If attacked head back to the camp. In the camp, the archers have to come to you, but now you have cover, and can send out your cavalry to break up the lightly armored horse archers, not the cataphracts. If the slower cataphracts do attack, which there’s not much they can do against men behind walls, the Roman’s could then charge out, with cavalry supports and attack the Cataphracts. Even with supplies of arrow being brought up, I doubt they had enough already prepared for a siege war, legions in fortified camps.

Attack, withdraw, attack, withdraw, move up, build a camp, then attack and withdraw.

There were tribes in the hills that didn’t like the Parthians. Use them, learn their battle knowledge against the Parthians, and use their men as support

This is a simplified battle plan, but you get the idea.

Now of course for this to work, there must be a good supply of food, else the archers will just wait you out.

Steve

[wulfgar60]

Having been under live fire (if not sharps) from mounted archers I can tell you it isn't easy for any length of time. Arrows do get through the gaps in formations or hit unprotected areas such as your feet!

You can bet it wasn't easy. Heavy infantry can march against horse archers and win the day. The mounts of the horse archers get blown and men can recover their strength much more than horses can. Typically elite horse archers kept remounts. Heavy infantry can wait until a degree of exhaustion and low ammo affects the horse archers and forces them to retire. And well coordinated fresh horse archers are not replacing them.
The ordinary shield wall can stand up to this. Provided the infantry don't panic and maintain order. And are prepared to accept casualties. Remember unlike the horse archers, the infantry can apply relatively constant pressure.
This can be the tactical result of the first battles.
However even in spite of initially fortuitous conditions. The infantry commander has a prick of a strategic situation on successive occasions. His casualties mount and increasing privation dents the spirit of even the most hardened men. The Horse archer army has the better strategic mobility. And can resupply and rest itself with impunity.
The only counter is a type of shield wall involving overlapping shields that give full protection with minimal casualties. This is very tiring for the infantry. Even worse for the horse archers who find their fire infective and become even more dispirited and exhausted. When their favorite tactics don't work.
But it requires infantry well trained and prepared for the task. And preferably fresh. But this tactic was employed by many successfully, even "barbarian" armies.
The steppe counter to this tactic. As I said, was to send in particularly brave and skilled lasso artists. (these are the ones with the poles, not the trick artists of western movies)
This a tricky operation. A steppe horseman dragged from his mount by nasty infantrymen, is not going to have a nice day.
This was best afforded when the infantry carry squared shields that could be gripped. Not like those smartie-pants Late Romans who carried those big oval shields. In which case try grappling hooks.
I guess if you're on a campaign against horse archers. Prey there is not too many of them, or at least they get bored and wander off.
Otherwise you better achieve your strategic objectives promptly with great determination.
It appears Crassus allowed himself to be overwhelmed by the initial attacks and failed to rally his troops sufficiently.
Maybe the better move would have been to withdraw and wait for the gods to answer your prayers. Although there could be political and monetary considerations against this.