Login

A Hen · 03-21-2005, 08:14 AM

I'm interested in the battle of Carrhae, and the use of horse archers and heavy cavalry (often referred to as "cataphracts", although I don't think the Parthian heavy horse were actually called this) to keep Crassus' Roman army at bay. The received wisdom on the 'net seems to be that Crassus behaved like an idiot, and that a competent commander could have won. However, no-one ever says how they would have won it if they were in Crassus' shoes! Personally, I'm doubtful that the army Carrus fielded could have overcome the Parthians. 
 
Of course, Crassus erred when he got into the situation in the first place. But - given that he got into that situation - how could he have won? 
 
The Parthians used heavy cavalry to force the Romans into tight formation. Their vast ranks of horse archers then pummeled the easy targets presented by the massed ranks of legionnaries. To the Romans' surprise, the powerful Parthian bows penetrated their shields and armour. 
 
When Crassus sent his Gaulish cavalry against the horse archers, the Parthians withdrew, then sent in the heavy cavalry. The Gauls couldn't penetrate the heavy cataphract armour, and were slaughtered. Then the horse archers moved in again... 
 
Crassus resigned himself to waiting for the bows to run out of ammunition. But the Parthians had a supply train on hand, so while one wave was firing, another wave could be restocking. 
 
The result was a nearly wiped out Roman army (20,000 dead and 10,000 captured). 
 
I can't see how Crassus could have handled this, except for doing the most orderly withdraw possible (and even this may have been a disaster). Even if we assume he hadn't foolishly quick-marched the Roman army in the intense heat, I can't see a happy outcome for the Romans. 
 
What - if anything - am I missing? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ahen>A Hen</A> at: 3/21/05 10:17 am

**Robert Vermaat** · 03-21-2005, 08:46 AM

Are you asking if Crassus could have won with the troops on hand and in the spot that he was? 
Or are you asking what he should have done if he would have prevented this? 
 
In the spot that he was, I think Crassus should have used his Gallic cavalry differently. They could have chased the archers off, and when the Parthians moved the heavy cavalry in, they should have evaded themselves. Heavy cavalry tires very fast, and I think that the Romans could have gained the upper hand after rendering the Parthian heavy cavalry useless in that way. 
 
I think it was Marc Anthony who next had a go at the Parthians, and he used the high ground better, as well as taking the precaution of brionging much more light infantry and slingers, who could keep the Parthian archers at bay. Valete, 
Valerius/Robert 
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]

A Hen · 03-21-2005, 09:16 AM

"Are you asking if Crassus could have won with the troops on hand and in the spot that he was?" 
 
In the spot he was. I agree with the consensus that he shouldn't have got into that situation, but from what I read, many people seem to think Crassus mismanaged the battle itself. I want to know what he could have done with the troops he had. 
 
"In the spot that he was, I think Crassus should have used his Gallic cavalry differently. They could have chased the archers off, and when the Parthians moved the heavy cavalry in, they should have evaded themselves. Heavy cavalry tires very fast, and I think that the Romans could have gained the upper hand after rendering the Parthian heavy cavalry useless in that way." 
 
Good point. 
 
Wasn't this error down to the cavalry commander (Crassus junior) rather than Crassus himself, though? I suppose Crassus should have told them not to go charging off too far away from the main force, but then isn't that an elementary tactical level thing that a general should assume the the unit commander would know? If Crassus junior was such a bad unit commander, perhaps Crassus shouldn't have appointed him. Maybe that was one of his biggest errors. 
 
But I take your point - if the "cataphracts" got tired, the battle could have gone very differently. With the heavy cavalry out of the picture, the Roman infantry could have adopted a looser formation, and thus minimised the target they presented to the archers. The Gauls could then have made a dent in the horse archers (although there were about 1,000 Gauls to 10,000 horse archers, so surely the Gauls would have been tired themselves well before they eliminated the threat). I guess that - eventually - even the horse archers' supply train would have run out of arrows, but who can say how long this would be? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ahen>A Hen</A> at: 3/21/05 10:23 am

Theodosius the Great · 03-21-2005, 09:21 AM

Quote:<hr>Of course, Crassus erred when he got into the situation in the first place<hr> 
 
Well, to be fair, Crassus was the first Roman to take the field against Parthia and was thus somewhat exonerated for being so ill-prepared. (Although, I think the Armenians tried to warn him about the marching thru the open desert.) 
 
 
Ave, Valerius, 
 
Quote:<hr>Crassus should have used his Gallic cavalry differently. They could have chased the archers off, and when the Parthians moved the heavy cavalry in, they should have evaded themselves<hr> 
 
Crassus had only about 1,000 light cavalry to counter the cataphracts and horse archers. Do you think that's enough to pull off what you suggest ? 
 
If he had to do it over again, I say he should've brought much more cavalry - heavy and light. 
 
-Theo

A Hen · 03-21-2005, 09:24 AM

"Crassus had only about 1,000 light cavalry to counter the cataphracts and horse archers. Do you think that's enough to pull off what you suggest ?" 
 
I wonder this, too. There were about 10,000 horse archers and 1,000 cataphracts. Some very fancy maneuvering would have been called for!

A Hen · 03-21-2005, 09:29 AM

"Well, to be fair, Crassus was the first Roman to take the field against Parthia and was thus somewhat exonerated for being so ill-prepared. (Although, I think the Armenians tried to warn him about the marching thru the open desert.)" 
 
Crassus did meticulously prepare for his expedition, and he did take a contingent of allied cavalry, but they deserted the main force before the battle. 
 
However, he didn't follow the rivers, but tried to take the "short cut" across the desert. He also foolishly insisted that his men do a quick march in the blistering heat. They were probably in pretty bad shape before the battle even started. 
 
But yes, the power of the horse archers' bows was a nasty shock, as was the heaviness of the cataphracts' armour.

A Hen · 03-21-2005, 09:43 AM

Another thought - could Crassus have used his cavalry to stop the cataphracts harrassing them in the first place? In other words, could the Roman infantry have remained in loose formation (to minimise the casualties from arrows) and had the cavalry protect them from the cataphracts?

Goffredo · 03-21-2005, 12:50 PM

The more general formulation of the question is more useful if only because we avoid particulars. 
 
Could the Romans beat Parthians and later Sassanians?Yes! It happened. Was it easy? No; the romans got beaten often. 
 
Why? (one way or the other) 
This is the interesting question. 
 
The romans periodically got themselves worked up into believing they could beat Parthians deep in parthian territory. Over centuries they kept trying even after getting badly beaten. Evidently the romans were aware of being more powerful in setting off a well organized campaign and in direct confrontations (skirmishes, battles, seiges,...). This must have some element of truth else we are forced to think the romans were chronically impractical if not completely irrational, for centuries. But this contrasts too much with other long period roman behaviour we all consider practical if not completely rational. 
 
On the other hand the Parthians and Sassanians probably knew they could beat, sooner or later, the romans in parthian territory. Sooner or later the romans would make a mistake (over-extend, unbalanced forces, tactical mistakes in unfavorable territory far from friendly cities....). It is also true the parthians never had any long term conviction they could do what they wanted in roman territory (Shapur was exception that confirms the rule).

03-21-2005, 06:07 PM

Has anyone read the book by Victor Hurley,"Arrows Against Steel"? He makes the statement that the Roman cohort legion was inferior to mobile missle troops. In other words, don't being a knife to a gun fight. In the open Plains, slow moving infantry is fodder for horse archers. 
Johnny

Q Rutilius · 03-21-2005, 09:35 PM

Do we really know if the Parthian bow was capable of penetrating Roman armor and sheilds? The Romans faced bows in Italy and Europe and still won victories. So, they must have had some tactical system that let them stand up to volleys of arrows. 
 
I am no weapons expert, but I think on other topics I have read about a draw weight of 30 pounds or so. Is this enough to penetrate both a Roman shield and Roman armor? If it can, does it require a nearly perfect shot (hitting the sheild/armor square on)? I really don't know the answer to this, and hope someone on here does. 
 
It just occured to me that Caesar was in a similar situation at Ruspina and escaped. Perhaps if the commander was good enough Roman armies could escape such disasters.

03-21-2005, 10:16 PM

The Asiatic composite bow had a draw weight between 70-150 lbs. 100 being the average. I make traditional longbows and sinew backed recurves. The heaviest weight bow I've made was near 100 lbs. Although I've never tested them on armour! The record states that the Romans were getting their hands pinned to their shields and feet nailed to the ground. Did the arrows punch through the metal boss? 
Johnny

Goffredo · 03-22-2005, 08:07 AM

At least two errors keep fueling in an annoying way the discussion about roman infantry versus parthians. 
 
The parthian asian composite bow was NOT a secret weapon. It was well known to the ancient world for a very long time and to the romans in particular thru their eastern activities. The eastern activities started way before Crassus. So the romans knew well the effect of arrows, and the composite bow in particular. 
 
Another error that fuels some confusion is idea that roman "heavy" infantry armor was supposed to be perfect. Actually roman infantry armor and shield was a wonderful compromise that allowed the legionary to have good protection against random wounds (likely in a tight fight) without making him so heavily loaded as to compromise his mobility. He was more of a medium heavy infantry than truely heavy in the hoplite sense of the word, much less than the medieval knight sense of the word. 
 
I imagine the composite bow was effective if you got within effect range and could shoot away with ease. The whole idea is to not loose the initiative. Crassus completely lost it once he lost his cavarly, having no standoff weapons (slingers) to keep parthian archers out of range. He became a sitting duck. 
Many things went wrong and Crassus must have a made a series of mistakes. The lesson was learned and the romans, with a good mix of slingers, archers, cavalry, could beat parthians and later sassanians.

Alexandr K · 03-22-2005, 08:21 AM

Hi, 
I wouldn't say that the Parthian bow was that powerful and effective against the Romans. 10 000 Parthian horse archers were shooting on legionaries for a major part of a day but even though they were unable to cause them enough fatalities as to beat them. Indeed before nightfall the Romans were still able to fight with Parthian heavy cavalry and repulse it. One would think that if the Parthian bow could penetrate Roman armour, after a few hours the casualties among the legionaries would be so hight that they wouldn't withstand the attack of cataphracts. 
Plutarchos also says that the Romans were mostly wounded. I think that most hits were to the limbs, which weren't covered by armour. 
Greetings 
Alexandr Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=alexandrk>Alexandr K</A> at: 3/22/05 9:22 am

A Hen · 03-22-2005, 08:34 AM

Thanks for the replies. Interesting stuff!

**Robert Vermaat** · 03-23-2005, 08:45 AM

I agree with Goffredo and Alexandr. 
 
I would not look at the number of 10.000 horse archers as decisive in any way. The Gallic cavalry was able to repulse them easily enough, but I think they would never have beaten them. 
However, if the cataphracts would indeed have tired sooner (or through better tactics on behalf of the Romans), the archers are unlikely to have pressed on. I think the Parthian army would have withdrawn, opening up a new can of worms - what would Crassus have done? 
 
This tactic of evading was a common tactic of the Parthians and the Sassanid Persians, who would fight on their terms or evade and fight later. Crasus could possibly have captured much land and even the capital, but like other Emperors after him he would hardly have gained anything lasting. 
 
I agree that this was not a mistake on behalf of the cavalry commander, who in all likelyhood never encountered the Parthians before. I think Crassus was too rash and did not prepare properly for the campaign. He could have been told about Parthian tactics by Roman allies, but either he was not or did not listen. Crassus wanted suceesses on the battlefield, and that got him killed. 
 
It's interesting to speculate though. 
 
What would Crassus have done, had the Parthians withdrawn at Carrhae? Would he have followed them? I think he would have. 
 
Would Caesar have fared any better (as he planned to invade Parthian lands shortly before he got killed)? Valete, 
Valerius/Robert 
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	What if Romans won Carrhae, Teutoburg, Adrianople?	Mrbsct	16	3,434	07-26-2013, 11:01 AM Last Post: Nathan Ross
	Crassus captured at Carrhae?	Epictetus	5	2,341	09-14-2012, 11:23 AM Last Post: Alexandr K