The Parthians

[Primus Pilus]

Trajan and Severus both did have some success against Parthia as well, but ultimately returned home in stalemate. Parthia may not have been able to challenge Rome directly, but it maintained its independence throughout.

 

PS. wotwotius... can I assume your forum name is a tribute to King George III... wot wot?

[WotWotius]

True but the organised armies he fought against didn't have cavalry archers.

[Virgil61]

I personally believe that is Caesar...

 

If you don't believe me look at how many Roman military disasters there were against parthia:

-CRASSUS 53BC, Legions anialated by Parthia at Carrahe

-DECIDUS SAXA 40BC, Lost Roman standards to Parthia

-MARK ANOTONY 36BC, Was deafeated by the Parthians in Armenia

 

No wonder Augustus wanted to create a peace with the Parthians in 20 BC

 

That's the popular misconception. Romans were far more successful against the Parthians than the dramatic defeats above. After Crassus the Parthians were forced from Syria and Asia Minor [against a combined Parthian and rebel legions army] to retreat back to their borders. Antony's campaign wasn't a completely one-sided route, he'd entered Parthia and besieged several cities. The true disaster was the harrassment during retreat. Under Nero Corbulo was successful enough to force Parthia to back down and acquiese to Roman demands on Armenia. Marcus Aurelius was successful against them and both Trajan and Septimius Severus captured the Parthian capital.

 

The key to fighting Parthians seems to be bringing enough auxiliary archers to neutralize their tactical advantage. I think the myth of Parthian dominance over Rome is just that-- a myth whose foundation lies in Carrhae. When it came to Parthia Rome gave as good as it got.

[WotWotius]

But in Trajan and Servius' time the Parthian Empire was not as strong as it used to be.

 

If Caesar was to launch an assult of the Parthians he would have faced a much stronger amry than Trajan did.

[Virgil61]

But in Trajan and Servius' time the Parthian Empire was not as strong as it used to be.

 

If Caesar was to launch an assult of the Parthians he would have faced a much stronger amry than Trajan did.

 

Maybe so, but again, both in Asia Minor and in Syria, Roman forces-- immediately after Carrhae-- defeated and drove back Parthian armies. One victory was by Cassius, the same one who told Crassus not to fall into the trap of leaving the Tigris and who had survived Carrhae (and later plotted against Julius Caesar). Those victories don't get the press, so no one inputs them into their thought process when coming up with theories of Parthian dominance.

 

Attacking Parthia was a tougher nut to crack but doable. Parthians were a one-trick pony to a large extent, but it was a very good trick. Keep a keen eye on your logistics--especially water, bring lots of archers/missiles, some good cavalry and attack from the north straddling the Tigris/Euphrates and you make things tough on the Parthians. When Roman generals understood this they were often successful, when they didn't--like Crassus-- they weren't.

 

While no one can know for certain, Caesar was flexible enough and understood logistics enough (important for Mesopotamia) that my gut feeling is he would've adapted.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Armenia is probably the key to deciding whether the Roman forces or the Parthian forces are victorious in any Parthian campaign.

[Virgil61]

Armenia is probably the key to deciding whether the Roman forces or the Parthian forces are victorious in any Parthian campaign.

 

You're absolutely right. I was in that part of what is now western Turkey and Northern Iraq that was Armenia in early 90's during Kurdish Relief and what is now Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The passes through the mountains have probably been traveled for thousands of years and the land between the Tigris and Euphrates is laced with primitive canals even today (I can't imagine it being much different then). A logical avenue of approach for any invading army. You really get an understanding of the value of Armenia to both sides.

[backfire22]

Parthian decentralization of government allowed the continutation of soveriegn governance despite the capture of the Parthian capital at Cstephon by Trajan and Lucius Varus. Also the natural borders of the Empire were long established at the banks of the Rhine, Danube, and Euphrates and there was not much effort to expand those borders after Trajans campaigns (Julian the Apostate and his war against Shapur being the major exception although they were the Sassinids by that time). The Parthians also did not do much to disrupt trade from the Far East and therefore although they limited Roman expansion they did not seriously try to conquer Romans lands. Finally the Roman-Parthian standoff was mutual in that the Parthians could probably not hope to inflict any serious damage to the Roman Empire and when properly equipped, ambitious, and led the Roman Legions where capable of defeating the Parthians.

Edited November 14, 2005 by backfire22