03-05-2013, 06:11 AM
Quote:Plutarch describes as the Parthians seeing "the firmness and composure of the men", which means their will to stand against them, keep their order and not give way.
And you pick irrelevant fragments, about some "firmness" and "composure" (things which can't be measured with senses). What is more important here, is: "the depth of their formation".
"Firmness" is just Roman propaganda - while "the depth of their formation", is a real factor.
But Plutarch did not fight in that battle, and he was just a Greco-Roman historian, he didn't see any real battles in his life. BTW - is it known what primary sources Plutarch based on?
Did he base on any Parthian first-hand accounts from the battle? Or just Roman ones?
Regarding the depth of a formation - "the depth of their formation" is a thing which could be clearly seen - and basing on this Parthians could also estimate how numerous was the Roman unit.
================================================
Once again - Plutarch is NOT a primary source.
He was a historian and researcher, who wrote his works 150 years after the battle took place.
Your major mistake is considering such secondary sources as supposedly "primary sources".
================================================
Quote:Do you realize that the alternative you are suggesting is that the Parthians made the charge because they had nothing better to do?
Nope.
I suggest that feigned charges (attacks) are necessary for subsequent feigned retreats. The Parthians made a feigned charge followed by a feigned retreat. The Romans thought they got scared.
It could also be a reconnaissance charge (do you know the term "reconnaissance in force" ??? - if not, then please check what kind of military maneuver it is) to estimate enemy numerical strength and get other info about the enemy - they had to come close to the Romans in order to do so.
