Carrhae - could Crassus have won?

[John M McDermott]

The most common assumption is that at the time, Roman soldiers were armored with mail. Tests with mail are inconclusive at present, because almost all tests are with butted mail or mail made of mild steel, not the mail Romans had which was made of riveted links, and sometimes with a combination of riveted and stamped links, made not of mild steel but of iron. Iron may be better at resisting arrows than steel in one sense in that it is softer and tends to bend and stretch, where steel either repels or breaks. In mail form it may have done a better job at resisiting arrows than our modern steel. However, mail, whether it is made of steel or iron can be penetrated at some point, when the force delivered is enough. <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

<br>
Hi Marcus Seneca Cato. You wrote:<br>
"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."<br>
<br>
The roman commader's name was Ventidius.<br>
The slingers became a standard weapon against parthian light archers (longer range) and their cataphracts. Slings were effective not so much because of their piercing meat-cutting capability but because of their concussion/contusion and fracture capability. Contusions/concussions are very dangerous in a battle. Imagine having nausea and equilibrium problems after having recieved a head concussion from a sling striking you helmet.... <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I'm a slingers' fan!<br>
To add to what Goffredo wrote I remember reading somewhere that sling bullets were also much feared because you couldn't see them, contrary to javelins, arrows(to a lesser extent) and other implements of destruction..<br>
I seems that they also produced septic wounds very fast and were hard to remove when they pierced the skin and lodged just under it.<br>
Not to mention the fact that slingers were able to achieve pinpoint accuracy at quite considerable distances and could probably maintain a rate of fire as high or higher than archers.<br>
And I as I mentioned several times before, the sling is a perfect weapon: never jams, never runs out of ammo, waterproof, nearly undestructible, small (very small) size and light (very light) weight, easily concealable, and almost totally silent.<br>
The only drawback I see is that if it's easy to use a sling, that is throw a stone in the general direction of where you want it to go, it takes several years to be able to hit consistently a chosen target.<br>
But from what I've heard it's like bicycling: once you've learned, you never forget.. <p></p><i></i>

[Theodosius the Great]

Yes, I'm resurrecting this thread

A lot has been said here about Crassus failing to bring a counter to the Parthian horse archers. In fact, Crassus did have archers of his own. I'm not sure how many he brought with him but they were surely far too few to counter the 9,000 Parthian horse archers. Maybe they could have been deployed better in spite of their inferior numbers. Plutarch says in two passages :

1.) After this, he [Crassus] marched along the river with seven legions of men-at‑arms, nearly four thousand horsemen, and about as many light-armed troops ...

2.) Accordingly, the young man [Publius Crassus] took thirteen hundred horsemen, of whom a thousand had come from Caesar, five hundred archers, and eight cohorts of the men-at‑arms who were nearest him, and led them all to the charge. But the Parthians who were trying to envelop him, either because, as some say, they encountered marshes, or because they were manoeuvring to attack Publius as far as possible from his father, wheeled about and made off.

So, Crassus had at least 500 archers. Even if he had brought many more archers could the Romans have escaped after losing their cavalry ? The Parthians had more ammo and maybe a superior firing range. Can anyone confirm the latter ?

BTW, Plutarch says that the Parthians wore "breastplates of raw hide and steel" (Crassus, 25). Does this mean they wore two kinds of "breastplates" or one kind that used both materials ?

~Theo

[Timotheus]

<strong>"I think Crassus was too rash and did not prepare properly for the campaign."</strong><br>
<br>
As I understand it, though, he did make paintstaking plans. Not necessarily the right ones, but he did make the effort! He did have more allied cavalry with him, but they cleared off before the battle (claiming they were going off to harass the enemy!).<br>

Did any Roman commanders ever get sent out to teach the allies a lesson for leaving Crassus the way they did?

I would find it hard to believe that the Romans would not put a major hurt on anyone the abandoned them on the field and resulted in several legions being destroyed.

[Sardaukar]

By the way, one interesting aspect on Marcus Antonius campaign was that he did not bring big number of archers. He took with him big number of slingers. According to source (that evades me now), slingers were able to outrange the Parthian bow and keep them in bay.

What does that tell us about Parthian bow ?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

All the while the Parthian waiting patiently for them to finish their preparations before commencing the attack? :wink:

Don't want to jump in sounding sarcastic, but this is the first thought that comes to mind....

sadly, Crassus disregarded good sound military advice from allies, his son was an experienced officer sent on an impossible task, and paid for it with his life.....was a major cats-asstrophy, due to PPP and execution...
Crassus should have stayed at home and counted gold, intead of seeking it and glory through military means. It's not as though he did not have enough or any of either.

[Komet]

By the way, one interesting aspect on Marcus Antonius campaign was that he did not bring big number of archers. He took with him big number of slingers. According to source (that evades me now), slingers were able to outrange the Parthian bow and keep them in bay.

What does that tell us about Parthian bow ?

I never read anything about slingers, but I imagine slingers would be far less accurate than bowmen. I disagree with the assertion that the Parthian horse archers were kept at bay because Antony was crushed by the Parthians. They were so pissed off at him for his invasion of their territory that they followed his retreating army all night long (fighting at night is something the Parthians rarely did) and exhausted them to the point that they started drinking water from a salty river. On neither the Crassus nor Antony campaigns were the Romans effectively equipped to deal with the Parthian military, in their tactical faculties.

[Sean Manning]

BTW, Plutarch says that the Parthians wore "breastplates of raw hide and steel" (Crassus, 25). Does this mean they wore two kinds of "breastplates" or one kind that used both materials ?

~Theo

Either is possible. Rawhide or composite rawhide/scale armour was standard in the armies of the Bronze Age chariot kingdoms, and the Dura Europos find shows that the technology didn't die out. I think that a capaphract would need a suit that was at least half metal, though, because he would face many blows at short range without a shield.

With only 4,000 light troops, I think that Crassus had no chance of winning (although he wouldn't have lost his army if he hadn't been such a fool). Beating off horse archers isn't hard if you have large numbers of both heavy infantry (to stop them and any other cavalry from charging) and archers or slingers (to kill them if they get close enough to cause serious damage with arrows) and use them in concert. Of course, they can do lots of nasty things without facing you in open battle ...

[Sardaukar]

I never read anything about slingers, but I imagine slingers would be far less accurate than bowmen. I disagree with the assertion that the Parthian horse archers were kept at bay because Antony was crushed by the Parthians. They were so pissed off at him for his invasion of their territory that they followed his retreating army all night long (fighting at night is something the Parthians rarely did) and exhausted them to the point that they started drinking water from a salty river. On neither the Crassus nor Antony campaigns were the Romans effectively equipped to deal with the Parthian military, in their tactical faculties.

As far as I know, Parthians never "crushed" army of Antonius. They mainly avoided battle with his main force and after he lost his baggage train, they just harassed retreating Romans. But they never had decisive battle against them. Some sources say it was because slingers could keep Parthina horse archers in bay with their lead-shot. Like Ventitius before Antony's Parthian campaign:

http://www.allempires.com/article/index ... n_parthian

(sources are in the end of the page)

[i]III. Publius Ventidius Brussus

Ventidius lies among the accomplished but forgotten generals in history. Ventidius had humble beginnings. Since his parents was disgraced and taken prisoner in the “Social War,â€

[Sardaukar]

I'll "bump" this up, since I'd like to have some feedback about Venditius and Antonius campaigns. 8)

[Marcvs75]

Recently author Gareth Sampson released a book about Crassus' defeat at Carrhae. I think i will buy that book to read more about one of Rome's biggest defeats

[Narukami]

Speaking of Julius Caesar and his aborted Parthian campaign...

Does there exist (somewhere) a detailed TO&E of his invasion force?

Having that information might allow someone of enterprise and skill (and with some time on their hands) to put together an army list for the GMT C&C Ancients game system and allow us to game the invasion and see just how well Caesar might have done had he lived past the Ides of March.

Granted C&C Ancients is just a game, and a fairly simple one at that, but playing out such a scenario would certainly prove amusing if nothing else.

(I have checked the C&C Ancients site which contains a vast array of scenarios but nothing on Caesar's planed invasion. It is the kind of "What if..." scenario that could prove to be fun to play.)

If someone knows of such a detailed list and could point me in the right direction I would appreciate it.

:wink:

Narukami

[SagittariusRex]

Horse archers can be very effective. The Parthians, Huns, and Mongols certainly were. They can be beaten too; nobody is invincible. Alexander figured out how to do it much earlier; you break their "wheel".

I can fire well over 100 accurate shots from my 70 pound bows, and I doubt I am as good, or as strong, as any real Parthian, Hun, or Mongol was. They paced themselves too. Tactics were to shoot while riding up, wheel and shoot while riding down the line, wheel and fire a parting (Parthian) shot over the shoulder while riding away. Rest and repeat while others take their turn in the "wheel". Multiple "spokes" like this formed a wheel in front of or around the enemy formation. Some horse archer wheels were more organized than others. The Parthians were very organized and could keep the wheel going longer than others. They kept up a constant barrage w/o individual archers/horses having to keep up constant fire/riding. Break the wheel and you win. If you don't, it rides over or around you until you are fatally weakened, lose or give up and go away. Crassus didn't break the wheel.

The Romans probably ran out of pilum long before the Parthians ran out of arrows (1000 camels can cary a lot of arrows). Slings are not very accurate w just any shape of rock, you can't use them from a tight formation, their rate of fire is slower, and the Romans did not have enough of them (or archers) to keep the Parthians off for long in all directions. The Roman sally didn't break the wheel, so it broke them.

The Roman formation wasn't very tight for very long. The Parthians were circling and/or riding down the line, so arrows came in from all directions: top, front, back, and sides. Arrows found the weak spots on individual troops armor and their formations, which meant more weak spots were opening up. In the heat and dust of a long day, the Parthians could maintain effective fire longer than the Romans could maintain effective formations that covered everybody from head to toe in all directions at all times. Tired, thirsty, bleeding Romans who couldn't take breaks/get care became better and more numerous targets as they tripped over each other as well as the wounded/dead more and more. It's pretty demoralizing to be just a target for hour after hour. Being a weak, wounded target is even worse. The wheel wore them down and out.

This set them up for most of the serious killing done later during the massacre of the abandoned/weakened camps and during the sloppy retreat/withdrawal.

Eastern war horse bows out-ranged and out penetrated western war bows, including the later Welsh/English longbows. Those were effective against heavy cavalry at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt, where they did penetrate even heavy plate armor at close range (<20 yds). It's not necessary for every shot to do that to be "effective". Arrows that don't penetrate can still damage bodies under the armor. Arrows that glance off your armor, or your mates armor, can still pierce other parts of you or your mates. A "minor" wound can become a serious problem in minutes/hours.

Horse archers are fast and accurate. Some giving demos today can hit paper plate sized targets thrown in the air at a rate of 10 in 20 seconds or better while standing still, a little slower at a gallop on larger chest sized targets. Multiple arrows are held in the bow hand for a ride at the target. When you are out, you refill your hand from your saddle quivers for the next run. You make your runs, take a break/get a drink while others make their runs. For volley fire and/or at an area target (formation of troops) you don't need pinpoint accuracy anyway. Just more good luck than their bad luck.

[Narukami]

Greetings Sagittarius Rex!

Good points and interesting information -- Thanks!

Also...

Welcome to our Forum.

Take a moment to look at the Rules for Posting and to introduce yourself.

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=5798

You will find that many of our members are scholars and authors of note who are happy to share the fruits of their efforts with those who share their interest in ancient History. You will also note that we discuss a wide range of topics both scholarly and less so... :oops:

And...

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

Finally...

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

Once again welcome to the Forum!

:wink:

Narukami