Login

John M McDermott · 03-25-2005, 06:14 PM

Yes, Caesar made his own luck. 
 
If we break things down, the terrain favored cavalry over infantry. The terrain was, I believe, hills and dales that offered no cover for the infantry. 
 
Apparently, no effort was made to set up a typical Roman camp with moat and stockade. (Where have I heard this before?) 
 
The Romans tried to seize the high ground, which just made them better targets. 
 
The Parthians attacked relentlessly, inflicting casualties with their bows, while the Romans had no effective way to inflict casualites on the Parthians. 
 
A century later, Ortho kicked Parthian butt with a different approach.

03-25-2005, 11:03 PM

"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity" 
 
Yes, Caesar was very lucky in all senses, including the self-made kind. 
 
Rich

Come in Nighthawk · 03-26-2005, 04:24 AM

Could the answer lie in more simple cultural differences? That is, Crassus, having limited if not non-existant fore-knowledge of Parthian tactics (the Armenian "warnings"), chose to ignore it for reasons having more to do with warfare as understood by the Romans "at that time?" I.E. the thesis expressed in The Western Way of War by Victor Davis Hanson? ========================================== 
"If there's one thing we don't want to see, it's Americans fighting Americans. I won't stand for it, not here, not anywhere." Sergeant Frank Tree, 10th Armored Division, Saturday, 13 December 1941... a little after 0701 hrs... somewhere near Santa Monica, Calif.

Goffredo · 03-26-2005, 09:17 AM

Just about 15-20 years after Crassus romans with 
Ventidius beat parthian butt in a paradigmatic way. Good mix of infantry, slingers, good ground (summarized in notion of good generalship) AND Parthians making foolish mistake of thinking that archers and heavy cavalry can beat Romans any day. 
 
Ventidius' lesson was learned by the romans and by the parthians. The former organized the eastern armies on campaign better, the latter (the parthians!) learned a healthy respect of a deployed roman army. After Crassus the parthians believed they could beat the romans in battle; after Ventidius the parthians avoided pitched battles as did, on average, the Sassanians. The romans looked for pitched battles and maybe this is what Hanson was aiming at. 
 
Both sides got soundly beat if they made the assumption the other side was easy! The lesson, my dear friends, needs still to be learned. Archers and cataphracts are not sure things. Archers can be kept at bay and cataphracts can be mangled. 
 
Over all I think the parthians and later sassanians had a more serious weakness than the romans. Rather than say the romans never developed a good cavalry I think it is more useful to say that the parthians and sassanians never developed a good infantry!

John M McDermott · 03-26-2005, 07:14 PM

A couple of other facts: 
 
I keep hearing the number 10,000 when talking about the archers. If each archer fired 10 arrows(a low figure) in the battle, that's 100,000 arrows fired, accounting for around 20,000 Roman casualties. 
 
I have heard references that the legions used in this campaigns were green troops. The Romans seem to have had an obsession with the status of veterans. They regarded one veteran to be worth several green troops. 
 
What can we assume about the quality and condition of Roman shields and armor at this time? Livy says the Spanish had a spear similar to the pilium that could penetrate Roman armor and shields all at once during the Punic era. Can we assume these Romans were the well armored soldiers of the 1st century AD with segmentatas or good mail with hide covered wood composite shields?

Alexandr K · 03-26-2005, 08:51 PM

Quote:<hr>What can we assume about the quality and condition of Roman shields and armor at this time?<hr> 
 
Hi, 
as I've argued earlier, I think, we could assume that the Roman shields and armour could resist against the Parthian arrows pretty well. In fact 20 000 casualties of 100 000 shots would be a fantastic percentage. However as you already noted, 10 arrows for one archer seems a rather low number. We must also keep in mind that a significant number (and I would perhaps even say a major number) of casualties happened during the chaotic and disordered retreat of the next day, when the Roman army split up and thus became almost defenceless against the pursuing Parthians (the wounded were left behind and, if I recall correctly, slaughtered by the Parthians). 
I've also find a relevant story in Caesar. During the battles at Dyrrhachium (48 BC) a garrison of one fortress faced a fierce attack with heavy missile support. All men in the fortress were wounded, but there were wery low fatalities. In the shield of the centurion Scaeva they found 120 holes from arrows. The centurion survived and was promoted and donated by 200 000 sesterces by Caesar (Caes. B.C III.53). 
From our sources it really doesn't seem that the composite bow could penetrate shield and armour and disable the man behind on a permanent basis. And the tests of these weapons and armour I've read confirm this (Metz, K. S., Gabriel, R. A.: From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies, New York, 1991, p. 72-73). 
I think that the main effect of the Parthian rain of arrows at Carrhae was the wounding (but only sometimes killing) of legionaries and the huge decrease of morale of these men. The fact that the legionaries couldn't catch the Parthians to fight them and that the cataphracts were always near and ready to exploit any mistake of the Romans even enhanced their helplessness. I don't think Crassus could have won the battle, but I think he could retreat without extremely heavy losses and save his life. 
Greetings 
Alexandr

A Hen · 03-28-2005, 04:34 PM

"I don't think Crassus could have won the battle, but I think he could retreat without extremely heavy losses and save his life." 
 
Out of interest, how should he go about this? Form a rearguard of infantry to cover the retreat and use the cavalry to keep the cataphracts away?

John M McDermott · 03-28-2005, 06:13 PM

When I say 20,000 casualties, I mean dead and wounded. A hit from an arrow was not necessarily fatal. In fact, from what I know, it was usually not immediately fatal. 
 
It depends where the wound was. Wounds to the torso were the most serious. A punctured lung, liver or intestine was serious. It is doubtful the wounded man could march any more. 
 
A wound to the leg could be almost as debilitating. 
 
There is a possibility that the arrows were treated to cause infection. 
 
In order to have the effect of piercing a shield and armor, the arrow would have to be fired at very close range. As the Romans were immobile this could be done with the fabled Parthian shot. This underscores the value of the entrenching tactics the Romans used which called for a berm, a ditch and obstacles like stakes, spikes and pits. Such preparation could have minimized the Parthian shot tactic, forcing the Parthians to shoot from a greater range, with less effect. Crassus didn't appear to have bothered with this. Hmmmm. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=johnmmcdermott>JOHN M MCDERMOTT</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://photobucket.com/albums/v488/JohnMcDermott/th_DSC00144.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 3/28/05 8:14 pm

Alexandr K · 03-29-2005, 08:42 AM

Salvete 
 
A Hen: 
I think, the night retreat would be the best choice, if properly managed. Crassus failed in this case, for his army split up and isolated units were massacred by Parthians. 
To form a rearguard would be another possibility if he had his cavalry still at hand. However I think the cavalry should primarily keep the horse archers away. Crassus during the combat before nightfall and Antonius during his retrat from Parthia proved that legionaries in good order were able to repel or even beat the cataphracts. The archers would be more dangerous during the retreat, because the soldier cannot hide behind his shield properly when moving. 
 
John: 
"When I say 20,000 casualties, I mean dead and wounded." 
 
I see. But this doesn't change the fact, that a great number of the Romans were killed during the retreat and not in the direct battle of the previous day. Moreover, cca 4 000 soldiers were killed with the young Publius Crassus. Plutarchos says there were cca 4 000 wounded left behind in the camp when the rest of the Roman army departed under cover of the night. If we add to them say 2 000 dead (which I think is a quite high and unprobable number - some hundred would be more likely), then the Parthian horse archers were, after almost whole day of shooting under very favourable circumstances, responsible for just 6 000 casualties, from which the majority were wounded, probably to the limbs, and if they could reach safety, many of them would recover. What evidence do these numbers give about the effectiveness of the composite bow and the Roman defensive kit? I think it's quite clear. In most cases just the shield was enough to prevent the legionary from being killed or wounded. When the shield failed, the legionary could expect either nothing (if the arrow missed his limbs, throat and face) or a wound to his limbs (most likely) face and throat (which could lead to immediate or quick death). If he didn't hide himself behind his shield, again he could be hit to his limbs, throat and face (which would disable him) or to the armoured part of his body, when I believe in most cases the armour would endure, but sometimes the arrow could go through and wound the man. The penetration of the shield and armour at the same time I would call a miracle, which of course could happen, but very very rarely. 
 
"entrenching tactics the Romans used which called for a berm, a ditch and obstacles like stakes, spikes and pits. Such preparation could have minimized the Parthian shot tactic, forcing the Parthians to shoot from a greater range, with less effect." 
 
There aren't many trees on Parthian deserts, from which to make obstacles. Look at these pictures of todays Carrhae (Harran): 
[url=http://www.livius.org/a/turkey/harran/harran_plain.JPG" target="top]Harran plain[/url] 
 
[url=http://www.livius.org/a/turkey/harran/harran_house.JPG" target="top]Harran 2[/url] 
 
Greetings 
Alexandr 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=alexandrk>Alexandr K</A> at: 3/29/05 10:45 am

03-29-2005, 06:27 PM

I'll agree the terrain is not the best suited to Roman foritifications, but they could have improvised. They could easily have dug pits in the dirt. Well camoflaged they'd be hard to see from a horse or even on foot. To a moving horse a pit like this is as good as a land mine and would almost certianly break its leg and possibly the rider's neck. They could also have collected various scraps of iron and other metals and fashoned caltrops out of them, also unhorsing the Parthians. They would have the same effect of keeping the Parthians at bay or if they did press forward, unhorsing a large number of them and making them easy prey for the legionarries.

John M McDermott · 03-29-2005, 07:42 PM

The pictures are helpful to show what the battle would have looked like. 
 
I am not clear of the details on the battle concerning the retreat. I have always thought of Carrae as a set piece battle. 
 
The following scenario has some appeal to me: The Parthians combined their cataphracts and horse archers together. This combined force rode directly up to the Roman lines, unhindered by any obstacle, the cataphracts forcing the Romans into a tight defensive position and the archers firing from behind the protection of the heavily armored cataphracts. The arrow fire was from almost point blank range, and piercing Roman shields and armor became a reality. If the Romans charged, the Parthians scampered away, then began the same thing all over again. This went on hour after hour with the Roman casualties piling up. Also, the horse archers could operate independently from time to time, racing up to the Roman line, loosing a shot at close range, the turning and running off, resulting in more Roman casualties.

Marcus Seneca Cato · 03-29-2005, 08:19 PM

As far as Crassus' possibility of winning, I would say no seeing as it was his lack of skill that brought him there in the first place.

Felix · 03-30-2005, 11:02 PM

The Roman cavalry were in a difficult situation. They could not catch the Parthian light horse (and risked being perforated by the "Parthian Shot"). They could chase the horse archers, but the Parthian heavy horse outweighed the Roman horsemen. The Gallic horse had to keep the archers at bay without getting too far from their infantry support. 
 
This type of maneuver calls for the most delicate timing and superb control of your horsemen. Throughout history, cavalrymen have had trouble stopping a chase against a fleeing foe. The discipline required is comparable to that needed to stage a feigned retreat. I know of no evidence that the Gallic horse had this measure of training. 
 
I do not think that many Parthian arrows pierced Roman shields and armour. I don't think they had to pierce armour in order to pin down the legions. The Parthian bow easily outranged the pilum, and the horse archer moved much faster than any legionary. So, the archers didn't need to shoot from a galloping horse, indeed the horse could be standing still. Also, a "rain" of arrows isn't needed to pin down soldiers. In the situation at Carrhae, the Parthians could used aimed fire at any exposed (i.e. moving) legionaries. A modern analogy would be an Iraqi sniper pinning down a platoon of soldiers, even when the soldiers have body armour. Factor in the greater range of the bow, and the Romans wouldn't have had much mobility. A "drizzle" of arrows would have sufficed, since both sides knew it could turn into a hailstorm in a matter of seconds. 
 
(By the by, the Parthians had a lot of arrows. An English longbowman had 24 arrows at his belt, and a nomad quiver would easily have that many. Add a quiver on the horse, and camel loads of reserve arrows, and it is plausible that each of 10,000 Parthians had 100 arrows. A million arrows are likely to do some damage.)

John M McDermott · 03-31-2005, 12:06 AM

The previous figure of 4000 wounded unable to march has been bandied about. There are references to Parthian arrows penetrating armor and shields.

Marcus Seneca Cato · 03-31-2005, 04:29 AM

I've read accounts of piercing the shield, but not the armor. 
 
The biggest problem, besides Crassus being a nincumpoop, was the lack of a counter. Slingers were *really* effective. I can't remember the commander's name, but I do remember reading in Sherwin-White's "Roman Foriegn Policy in the East" that if the slingers have somewhat favorable ground, they can trash archers as they out-ranged them and their bullets could pierce even cataphract armor.

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