Romans Really Only Worthy Opponents Parthians?

[Viggen]

well to be honest, the Varus disaster had imo the biggest impact of all battles in the history of early imperial rome, from that point on the idea of conquering the east of river rhine was basically dead, there were some raids into that territory but not much else, so imo the germanics never had to prove if they can or can not withstand the romans for almost 150 years then...

 

...and the goths (adrianople) well thats another story, so to sum it up, there were enough opponents apart from the parthians that gave the romans a hard time...

 

regards

viggen

[Primus Pilus]

Indeed, it was the Germano-Celtic condition in western europe that truly shaped the empire. It was the Germanics who were a constant source of border strife and danger until finally over running the west through their own assimilation into the empire and military conquest. The east outlasted the Persians and the Parthians combined and only 'fell' when faced with both Arab and Christian invasions.

[Spurius]

....

 

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.

 

You're right, I was using too much short hand.

(Mental note: edit,edit,edit )

[Guest Echtelion]

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.

 

First sorry for my bad english

 

I read somewhere that each one have a desavantage. The roman had problem in the field with the cavalry (archer) but the parthian are realy bad for sieging cities. Maybe its why they just can't invade rome territory.

[M. Licinius Crassus]

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.

While this is probably true, it is somewhat curious that C. Cassius (who survived Carrhae) comes off as the hero of the day in accounts from the ancient writers I've read. Couldn't this be a modification of the phrase "History is written by the victors" instead in this case it is written by the survivors? Cassisus being a senior commander in the Roman force would certainly have had the motivation to pin the blame on Crassus (where ultimately as the commander blame does lay).

 

That being said, even in the battle of Carrhae, with unfavorable terrain, against the supposedly superior Parthian technology, the Roman army stood its ground and battled hard and was eventually able to retreat. There are some inconsistencies in the accounts of the battle. Even though supposedly the Parthian arrows pierced the shields and armor of the Roman soldiers, a large portion of those killed fell after the battle in the uncoordinated retreat during the following nights and days. If the Parthians were so successful why not slaughter everyone at the battle itself? Also despite it being said, if I recall correctly, the roman spears and lances were not able to penetrate the Parthian cataphract's armor, why was the charge of P. Crassus and the Roman "inferior" cavalry so successful initially? You are not forced into retreat by an enemy that can do you no harm. Of course maybe the Parthians realized this because they turned around, encircled and slaughtered P. Crassus and his men.

 

I think that technically the Parthians would not be invincible to Roman legions, it was a combination of having the advantage of terrain on their side, supplies and the possible mistakes and/or collapse of the Roman command structure. As has been repeated in this thread, subsequent Roman victories over the Parthians with essentially the same forces supports this.

Edited December 28, 2005 by M. Licinius Crassus

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

That being said, even in the battle of Carrhae, with unfavorable terrain, against the supposedly superior Parthian technology, the Roman army stood its ground and battled hard and was eventually able to retreat. There are some inconsistencies in the accounts of the battle. Even though supposedly the Parthian arrows pierced the shields and armor of the Roman soldiers, a large portion of those killed fell after the battle in the uncoordinated retreat during the following nights and days. If the Parthians were so successful why not slaughter everyone at the battle itself? Also despite it being said, if I recall correctly, the roman spears and lances were not able to penetrate the Parthian cataphract's armor, why was the charge of P. Crassus and the Roman "inferior" cavalry so successful initially? You are not forced into retreat by an enemy that can do you no harm. Of course maybe the Parthians realized this because they turned around, encircled and slaughtered P. Crassus and his men.

 

In my opinion, I wouldn't say it was inferior technology, more like different fighting styles. The Romans were heavy infantry while the Parthians regarded riding and archery on horseback more important. All it comes down to really is tactics and terrain. Technology doesn't matter much here since the Romans and Parthians are somewhat on the same level, no one is inferior. The only big mistake here was Crassus arrogance and haste for glory that he ignored the advice of the Armenian King that he should use Armenia as a base which would give the Romans a big advantage in choosing where to fight. Also, lest the Romans used a retreat as a tactic, Armenia would be a good backdrop place.

Edited December 28, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Tobias]

why was the charge of P. Crassus and the Roman "inferior" cavalry so successful initially? You are not forced into retreat by an enemy that can do you no harm. Of course maybe the Parthians realized this because they turned around, encircled and slaughtered P. Crassus and his men.

 

Perhaps the retreat of the Parthian cavalry was actually the usage of one of the oldest tactics in the book?; the false retreat, raising enough confidence in the enemy to cause them to charge, abruptly turn around, surround them and slaughter them. I've seen it in so many battles throughout history that one would think that Generals would know better.

[P.Clodius]

Perhaps the retreat of the Parthian cavalry was actually the usage of one of the oldest tactics in the book?; the false retreat, raising enough confidence in the enemy to cause them to charge,

 

Indeed this is true and is where we get the english phrase "Parthian Shot" from. I have tons of lectures in MP3 format and in one of these the lecturer talks of the Parthian cavalry. He describes the heavy cavalry as a "Proto-Knight" (heavily armoured) and Crassus' legions were held in check by a threatened charge by these while the mounted archers would try to draw out the legions for these proto-knights to charge. Kind of a rock and a hard place scenario. Having said that, Corbulo kicked major Parthian butt. Effective millitary leadership made the difference between defeat and victory.

[Pertinax]

the constant conundrum of grouped infantry impervious to a cavalry charge but susceptible to artillery intrerdiction, a constant theme until mass killing potential made combat dispersion essential.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I have tons of lectures in MP3 format and in one of these the lecturer talks of the Parthian cavalry.

 

Cool--where do you get history lectures in MP3 format?

[P.Clodius]

Cool--where do you get history lectures in MP3 format?

 

PM me

[Arvioustus]

Romans were a serious threat to other Romans and the loss of lives in these battles adds up to this.

[ungoliant]

i believe the more numerous victories of the romans over the parthians is the final weight in favor of the romans being victorious over the parthians.

[Felix Marcellus]

One theme I've pulled out of this thread is that the Parthians caused the Romans problems because of their horse archers. I would imagine that an infantry based military would have problems with them on the first encounter. But it seems to me that the counter to Horse Archers is not only obvious, but very easy execute.

 

Simple. ARchers vs Horse Archers. Horses offer much larger targets than humans and therefore would be much easier targets. I would think that the Roman Auxiliary Archers would have no trouble dealing with horse archers.

 

The second solution would be the Ballistae. Our resident Roman Army experts here can post more specifics than I can, but don't the Ballistae out range any bows of that era. Well placed Ballistae and archers covered by Infantry or Cavalry would easily counter Horse Archers and any Cavalry trying to take out the Roman Archers.

 

And then there is the Roman ability to fortify their positions. THey could just dig in or form Testudo to mitigate the arrows. Meanwhile, send out some cavalry to set up ambushes for the Horse Archers.

 

I can see where it would be a pain in the butt fighting Horse Archers, but being a nuisance doesn't necessarily equate to being a "worthy opponent" in my book.

[Arvioustus]

I feel that the German, Goth and even the Huns were not the force that some historians place them to be :Here is why? The Germanic tribes were easily handled by Caesar and in spite of outnumbering Caesars legions greatly. Fighting hand to hand gives great advantage to the numbers, yes training matters but not when you are outnumbered the way Caesar was. Laws of physics..you have only one hand to throw a spear or use a gladius. When you so thourougly beat an enemy who has such numeric advantages of you I do not call them a great fighting force. Some historians have used propaganda to make them more fearsome: propaganda. The numbers speak the truth though. Caesar even crossed the Rhine and terrorized them for 18 days ,so much so that they fled from him and were completely afraid to fight him. What happened the 'noble 'Germanics Tacitus spoke of: myth, they ran dropping their weapons! ( unless of course they new they so outrageously outnumbered a legion or can trap one) The Goths and Huns came in great numbers at a time when the Roman empire was really in decline or even in a 'dark age'. Aetius could not even field a second army to fight the Huns! That speaks volumes of the state of the late Roman empire and its legions. The Huns had little trouble with the German tribes too except when the Germans combined with the few Romans remaining. T These very Huns were repelled by the Chinese empire so effectively that they headed west where they had easier pickings. These Huns were then defeated by Aetius and German allies. I feel this late Roman army was quite inferior to those Casear had. So I even think the Huns were over rated because of their defeats. As for the Goths they too were defeated by the western armies and then again by Belisius and Narses. Now here comes the final blow...Belisarius and Narses had armies ( Greek,middle easter,Roman remnants) that could have been even more outnumbered than when Caesar fought against the Gauls and Germans! They did this in N. Africa and Italy in many batttles. Read on these numbers...the only conclusion I can make is that the Goths/Ostro Goths were not much of a fighting force either. They are pure aryan myth, just listen to the numbers and not European historians.

My conclusion: Parthians were the real adversary when Rome was Rome and Caesar was about to invade them before his assination. So the Romans sacked the capital....they still were defeated by the Parthians many times and suffered their greatest loss of Roman legionaires against these Parthians on open battlefields!