Romans Really Only Worthy Opponents Parthians?

[rvmaximus]

Can anyone explain a couple of questions I have. I am basically new to this but have read a bit. I ahve a theory..it may sound absurd but you never know. It seems that the Roman generals for the most part engaged enemies being severly out numbered and sometimes trapped. Intelligent gemerals would not allow this. They did have loyalty it seems for the most part. Looking from the outside after reading(Caesar to Vegetius) about thier conquests it seems that the writers alwys elevated the status of their enemies but ussauly anihilated them.(That means Roman wriers used much poetic license to elevate their troops: they inhilated people of great soldiers with enormous bravery...etc.) But an occasional slip up occurs...example when Caesar was fighting a German tribe he mentioned how cowardly they were....and his archers picked off some who tried to hide in trees and so many drowned in the Rhine while retreating. Conclusion: Roman writers did not tell the truth. Also, looking at this from the other side of the Atlantic the only real problems the Romans had was from the Parthians and Hannibal. Europeans seemingly were extremely incompetent against them..accept from an occasional trap. Remember the Romans were severely outnumbered in most battles in Europe with thin supply lines while the natives albetit Celts,Germans,Dacians, Iberians etc. had huge advantages. But and a big but....in Asia the Romans were the incomptent ones against the horse and bow. The Parthians did so much damage that it is incredible the Romans went on after so many large defeats to them. It seems that the best way to beat the Romans was avoid hand to hand combat,simple. ???

[Sextus Roscius]

Interesting point, its simply put, that the Roman Legion was not designed to be foucused around the idea of largely calvery or archer warfare, but instead foucused on the used of infantry, and used archers and calvery to tip tides, rather than do most of the battle.

 

This can be seen in the battles with Hannibal who the Romans only finaly defeated at Zama by effectively using calvery, which they were effetively lacking in previous battles.

 

This also can be pointed out with the huns who where another form of calvery archer warfare like the parthians who the Romans were effectively tromped by becuase their legions were not designed to face hordes of horse-mounted arrow slingers, but hordes of foot mounted barbarian warriors.

 

The Parthians were also, as the Huns, horse-mounted archers who knew that while the Romans had a certain style of warfare which the parthians could easily counter.

 

What one must simply do, is bring in calvery archers and mounted swordmen. The swordmen attack and destroy the Inferior Roman calvery (it was only meant for tactical advantage, not this type) and have the calvery archers come in and open fire on the Roman Legionaries. This would cause the comander to order his men into the defensive testudo formation, in which the Romans could no longer attack a enemy effectively in and eliminated the Legionaries Cheif advantages in hand to hand line fighting and flexibility, along with not allowing them to hurl the pilum, which were their most effective anti-calvery weapon. The calvery archers then open fire to aid the swordsmen-calvery in their fight against the Roman calvery and support units while keeping any Roman legions from going out of testudo formation. Once the Superior Parthian Sword-Calvery had wiped out Roman archers and calvery and most likely the general, the infanty's testudo would be easy pray for the swords, becuase for the Roman legionaries to fight a sword using oponent, they would have to break testudo and be vulnerable to archers.

 

Simply put, this was an obvious flaw in the Roman strategy.

[Virgil61]

Conclusion: Roman writers did not tell the truth. Also, looking at this from the other side of the Atlantic the only real problems the Romans had was from the Parthians and Hannibal. Europeans seemingly were extremely incompetent against them..accept from an occasional trap. Remember the Romans were severely outnumbered in most battles in Europe with thin supply lines while the natives albetit Celts,Germans,Dacians, Iberians etc. had huge advantages. But and a big but....in Asia the Romans were the incomptent ones against the horse and bow. The Parthians did so much damage that it is incredible the Romans went on after so many large defeats to them. It seems that the best way to beat the Romans was avoid hand to hand combat,simple. ???

 

Welcome to the forum rvmaximus. Please do us a favor and split your commentary into paragraphs to make comprehension easier.

 

One pf my biggest pet peeves and one of the biggest fallacies out there is that the Romans could not take on the Parthians because of their tactics and win. That simply not borne out by the facts. I've addressed this before and even Romanophiles have fell for this old saw, mainly because of the disaster at Carrhae due to Crassus ignoring the advice of his military tribunes. What isn't spoke about is the victories against Parthian invasions into Syria and Asia Minor soon after Carrhae or the fact that a combined force of Parthians and rebellious Roman legions was defeated and expelled from Antioch.

 

Thoughtful Roman generals had no problems against the Parthians. Under Nero, Corbula forced them to acquiesce to the Roman choice for the Armenian throne. The Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, was sacked several times in the 2nd and 3rd centuries by Trajan, Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus. The last sack it can be argued led to the final disintegration of Parthia and made the Roman treasury flush with cash.

 

The Romans learned how to adapt to Parthian tactics and overpower them. The answer seems to be simple, bring a lot of missiles--archers, ballista, etc. to neutralize the Parthian advantage. Arrian, a military tribune of Trajan's who accompanied him in Parthia, gives us an example in his description his force facing the Alans, of what sort of tactical mix might have been used in Trajan's defeat of the Parthians. Note the large numbers of archers and horse archers mixed in the force.

 

The legions that faced the Huns were a different sort of army than the legions who'd lost at Carrhae and had later sacked Ctesiphon. For some reason, probably due to the reputation of Carrhae, the myth of Parthian dominance has been repeated for centuries even though the evidence shows that the Parthians had a hell of a time dealing with the legions and came out second best a majority of the time.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Am I correct to infer that opposing archers with archers was very expensive and that Rome's vulnerability to horse-mounted archers would be greatest when Rome was poorest? Also, did Rome have a training regime for archers that was as comprehensive as their training for infantry (i.e., not just training individuals, but training archers at larger units of organization)? Also, what were the best tactics for massing fire while retaining flexibility?

[Pantagathus]

In short reply, I do not believe that the Parthians were the only worthy opponents...

 

The Lusitanians in Hispania gave the Romans an extremely tough go and it was really only because their main leader was assassinated that opened them up to being bribed to end the war.

 

It took over 80 years to finally pacify the various Ligurian tribes in the Northern Apennines & Western Alps. Like the Cantabrians, the only way Rome finally succeeded was to resort to mass deportations if/when they achieved a small victory.

 

But I will admit that the difficulty for Rome in these cases had to do with the guerrilla tactics of the foe.

 

Fact of the matter is that it's not right to judge the Romans and their adversaries by the end result of the campains. (Which we all know eventually was in favor of the Romans). If the Romans really had to conquer Parthia I do believe they would have. However, I just don't feel that they had the true economic motivation to see the submission of the Parthian's realized and so they didn't.

[Virgil61]

Am I correct to infer that opposing archers with archers was very expensive and that Rome's vulnerability to horse-mounted archers would be greatest when Rome was poorest? Also, did Rome have a training regime for archers that was as comprehensive as their training for infantry (i.e., not just training individuals, but training archers at larger units of organization)? Also, what were the best tactics for massing fire while retaining flexibility?

 

I'm not sure of the cost to be honest. Antony, who was successful at first in invading Parthia and as a result of a couple of bad decisions was forced to retreat while being continually harassed by the Parthians. This was only a few years after Crassus and I don't think Rome was all that much richer at that point. What kept Antony's army from total annihilation seems to be the fact he'd brought more archers which saved him from a Crassus like disaster (though the Romans were mangled very, very badly).

 

Most foot or horse archers were auxiliaries. At one point--under the Late Republic and early Empire-- most of the Roman foot archers were from Crete, though I'm not sure how long that was the standard. I'll find out who the horse archers were although--suprisingly--Parthian horse archers (probably mercenaries) are recorded to have fought for Rome against the Germans! I vaguely recall something about archery training but I'll bet it was left to the auxiliary experts to carry out.

 

Looking at Arrian's set-up I suspect archers were interspersed behind the line infantry and among the cavalry, although any good commander would probably vary his mix depending on his resources, the terrain and the enemy encountered. What comes to mind immediately is using slingers as a quick-reaction force to assist archers behind the lines in massing fire and/or perhaps a reserve of horse archers in the rear but they're just guesses.

 

And let's not forget another missile asset, the types of ballista--that nasty piece of equipment--the smaller versions spread out one per century. As much for psychological effect as anything else; seeing a bolt the size of a tree branch take out your buddy on your right had to be unnerving.

[rvmaximus]

Am I correct to infer that opposing archers with archers was very expensive and that Rome's vulnerability to horse-mounted archers would be greatest when Rome was poorest? Also, did Rome have a training regime for archers that was as comprehensive as their training for infantry (i.e., not just training individuals, but training archers at larger units of organization)? Also, what were the best tactics for massing fire while retaining flexibility?

 

I'm not sure of the cost to be honest. Antony, who was successful at first in invading Parthia and as a result of a couple of bad decisions was forced to retreat while being continually harassed by the Parthians. This was only a few years after Crassus and I don't think Rome was all that much richer at that point. What kept Antony's army from total annihilation seems to be the fact he'd brought more archers which saved him from a Crassus like disaster (though the Romans were mangled very, very badly).

 

Most foot or horse archers were auxiliaries. At one point--under the Late Republic and early Empire-- most of the Roman foot archers were from Crete, though I'm not sure how long that was the standard. I'll find out who the horse archers were although--suprisingly--Parthian horse archers (probably mercenaries) are recorded to have fought for Rome against the Germans! I vaguely recall something about archery training but I'll bet it was left to the auxiliary experts to carry out.

 

Looking at Arrian's set-up I suspect archers were interspersed behind the line infantry and among the cavalry, although any good commander would probably vary his mix depending on his resources, the terrain and the enemy encountered. What comes to mind immediately is using slingers as a quick-reaction force to assist archers behind the lines in massing fire and/or perhaps a reserve of horse archers in the rear but they're just guesses.

 

And let's not forget another missile asset, the types of ballista--that nasty piece of equipment--the smaller versions spread out one per century. As much for psychological effect as anything else; seeing a bolt the size of a tree branch take out your buddy on your right had to be unnerving.

 

What about the Partian bow superiority?(Really from China) Perhaps the Romans did not have the technology to copy it, believe it was a tedious process the Chinese came up with. Armor was made obsolute against it and Roman projectiles could not reach them. Maybe the real reason the Romans did not conquer Parthia in its prime was maybe it couldn`t. You cannot make the case that like you could in nordic regions(too cold and limmited riches)...Parthia was rich. Plus the legacy of Alexander haunted a few Roamn notables like Caesar.(as you know was fixated about Alexander)

I feel perhaps the European writers both then and now had a 'European bias' ? Parthia`s success is sometimes mitigated by what I read in this forum and Eurpoeans elevated. Relative neglect of the Eastern Roman empire(It was Roman) for another example. It seems to me that if Rome could take Parthia they would have loved too,,,correct me if I am wrong but I think Caesar was about to attempt this before his assasination. Not to offend the Eurpoeans but I feel the Romans cared little about Germany west of the Rhine or Scandinavia or Russia though they were fully aware of these. They were interested in stopping German and Hun trnsgressions only. They were intertested in Parthia however..it had everything they could have wanted.

[Germanicus]

I feel perhaps the European writers both then and now had a 'European bias' ? Parthia`s success is sometimes mitigated by what I read in this forum and Eurpoeans elevated

 

If you accept what is fact, and what Virgil mentions :-

 

Thoughtful Roman generals had no problems against the Parthians. Under Nero, Corbula forced them to acquiesce to the Roman choice for the Armenian throne. The Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, was sacked several times in the 2nd and 3rd centuries by Trajan, Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus. The last sack it can be argued led to the final disintegration of Parthia and made the Roman treasury flush with cash.

 

Then you should realise that Parthia was not the far superior force you claim it to be. Aside from Carrhae, Parthia toadied to every Emperor or would be Emperor (handing back the taken standards to Augustus, offering Vespasian 40,000 horse archers to fight for him) and when they didn't Rome stepped in and kicked some Parthian backside, usually over a dispute involving the Armenian throne.

 

Reasons Rome didn't expand lastingly into Parthia relate much more to either internal, or external threats to Rome on other borders, not to any fear of Parthian superiority.

[Virgil61]

What about the Partian bow superiority?(Really from China) Perhaps the Romans did not have the technology to copy it, believe it was a tedious process the Chinese came up with. Armor was made obsolute against it and Roman projectiles could not reach them.

 

That Roman armor wasn't up to the task is based on one line from Plutarch (I think) on Carrhae. That same Roman armor seemed up to the task when legions drove Parthian from Syria and Asia Minor in the same decade after Carrhae. The Parthian bow superiority didn't seem to help them any then. Like the Phalanx, the Parthians were a bit of a one-trick pony--a tough trick--but, like the phalanx, once the Romans figured out how to defeat it, the problem for the Parthians had was they had no other tactical answer.

 

The bow superiority thing seems to be the argument of war gamers. Be that as it may, the bow superiority seems to have mysteriously only been availble to the Parthians at Carrhae. Even in their driving off and mauling of Antony's legions the Parthians seemed wary of Roman archers and missiles. The logic of "bow superiority" means you have to explain every other Roman victory over Parthians, some that occured in the same generation as Carrhae.

 

Maybe the real reason the Romans did not conquer Parthia in its prime was maybe it couldn`t. You cannot make the case that like you could in nordic regions(too cold and limmited riches)...Parthia was rich. Plus the legacy of Alexander haunted a few Roamn notables like Caesar.(as you know was fixated about Alexander)

I feel perhaps the European writers both then and now had a 'European bias' ? Parthia`s success is sometimes mitigated by what I read in this forum and Eurpoeans elevated. Relative neglect of the Eastern Roman empire(It was Roman) for another example. It seems to me that if Rome could take Parthia they would have loved too,,,correct me if I am wrong but I think Caesar was about to attempt this before his assasination. Not to offend the Eurpoeans but I feel the Romans cared little about Germany west of the Rhine or Scandinavia or Russia though they were fully aware of these. They were interested in stopping German and Hun trnsgressions only. They were intertested in Parthia however..it had everything they could have wanted.

 

I'm repeating myself but the Parthian capital was sacked at least three times, that's not bias that's fact. The sacking by Septimius Severus broke the back of their empire financially and the booty captured has been speculated to have enriched the Romans enough that the financial problems the empire was beginning to incure were put off for a generation. If that doesn't convince you I'm not sure what will.

 

Around 1/2 of Roman legions and auxiliaries were occupied with defensive and offensive operations against them from the Danube to northern Britain. That's a lot of resources devoted to a region the Romans "...cared little about...". The main issue with Parthia wasn't the need to conquer them, it was Armenia. Look at a terrain map of far eastern Turkey and northern Iraq--where the old Armenian empire was located--it's strategic location controlled access to both Asia Minor and Mesopotamia. It was the struggle for control of this region that started many of the Parthian/Roman wars and usually nothing to do with conquest.

[Spurius]

It generally looks like whichever's empire star was waxing, was the one who won battles. Ultimately it was the dissolution of the Parthians that decided the issue.

 

A quick review of some major battles and seiges:

 

1) Carrhae (or Harran) - We all know about Crassus and his debacle and Antony's losses. His final failure though left Augutus the task of stabilizing the frontier. Using the diplomatic work Antony had laid out, Augustus succeeded. It wasn't until Severus captured Harran by conquering the Kingdom of Osrhoene that Rome fortified and stayed.

 

2) Hatra - Trajan seiged the city and lost in 117, Severus gained the city as part of the concessions he won in 198, Rome lost it in 238 and finally the Parthians razed the city in 241 during a conflict.

 

3) Edessa - Again, a well discussed Roman defeat resulting in the capture of emperor Valerian in 260.

 

4) Ezerum - In 297 King Narseh is defeated after initial success in the east. His family is captured as hostage, and emperor Galerius gets good terms: Five client states plus recognition of Roman control of Armenia.

 

 

So, it did seem to be about economies and who was on their game as to which empire would defeat the other in battle.

[Pantagathus]

Pardon me if it's been said in here somehwere before but the trick about Parthian archers wasn't some vastly superior technology I don't think. It was more about their ability to fire from horseback.

 

The term 'Parting Shot' comes from this. The Parthians not only sent volleys while on the offensive but could on the defensive as well. While being routed & in retreat which was somewhat unique at the time. But as Virgil said, once the Romans got used to this and modified their persuit tactics, the Parthians lost their advantage.

[Primus Pilus]

Of course, while Rome was repulsed by the Parthians in several campaigns, the Parthians were never terribly likely to mount a massive invasion of Roman territory. Rome invaded deep within Parthian borders on several occassions and Parthia was never able (or willing to risk?) such an expedition.

[Virgil61]

It generally looks like whichever's empire star was waxing, was the one who won battles. Ultimately it was the dissolution of the Parthians that decided the issue.

 

A quick review of some major battles and seiges:

 

1) Carrhae (or Harran) - We all know about Crassus and his debacle and Antony's losses. His final failure though left Augutus the task of stabilizing the frontier. Using the diplomatic work Antony had laid out, Augustus succeeded. It wasn't until Severus captured Harran by conquering the Kingdom of Osrhoene that Rome fortified and stayed.

 

2) Hatra - Trajan seiged the city and lost in 117, Severus gained the city as part of the concessions he won in 198, Rome lost it in 238 and finally the Parthians razed the city in 241 during a conflict.

 

...

 

The Parthian empire fell to the Sassanid Persians and that takeover was to a large extent because of the final Roman sack under Septimius Severus weakening the Parthians. The continuing conflict in the East was now with the Persians.

 

I understood the Persians to be a distinctly different animal than the Parthian empire hence they weren't included, but I'm no expert on them.

[Virgil61]

Of course, while Rome was repulsed by the Parthians in several campaigns, the Parthians were never terribly likely to mount a massive invasion of Roman territory. Rome invaded deep within Parthian borders on several occassions and Parthia was never able (or willing to risk?) such an expedition.

 

They did try a partial invasion of Roman client states just after Antony's debacle. They combined with rebellious legions under Labienus, the last of Brutus' republicans, to take Antioch [i think was still a client state] and invade Syria but were finally defeated in a series of encounters and the heir to the throne of Parthia killed.

[Primus Pilus]

They did try a partial invasion of Roman client states just after Antony's debacle. They combined with rebellious legions under Labienus, the last of Brutus' republicans, to take Antioch [i think was still a client state] and invade Syria but were finally defeated in a series of encounters and the heir to the throne of Parthia killed.

 

Indeed, my point exactly. They had attempts to retake their own former territories and of course there was the ongoing Armenia situation, but they were never a threat to raid the heart of the Roman Empire as the Romans had done to them (albeit without lasting success)