Eastern Warfare

[Titus001]

I said parthia's army with horsearchers/archers is more like han china than of rome,i said nothing about culture.

Edited January 2, 2007 by Titus001

[Rameses the Great]

I said parthia's army with horsearchers/archers is more like han china than of rome,i said nothing about culture.

 

Yes, in terms of army absolutely but in terms of tactics and mindset no. Parthia favored a lot of heavy cavalry known as cataphracts. Han China's army was more like the Mughal army of India, primary use of horsearchers.

 

I referred to culture because it does have correlation with mindset and tactics.

[Titus001]

Did the parthians use more knights i mean cataphracts than horsearchers?I always thought they used more horsearchers than heavy cavarly.Maybe you could give me a link or your info from yourself.

[Rameses the Great]

Here is a good link. Parthian Army (Use of Cataphracts and Horse Archers in relativity to the army)

 

Here is something that explains Parthia's tactics:

 

Historical tactics were typically quite simple. Horse archers would harass enemy formations with mounted archery; riding close enough to let loose their arrows and then retreating to resupply with arrows or when charged, sometimes changing to fresh horses. When the enemy was sufficiently disordered or weakened the cataphracts would initiate a thunderous charge of fully armoured men riding similarly armoured horses to smash through and ride down the unfortunate enemy. Parthian defeat often came when the ratio of cataphracts to horse archers was too high or when the charge came before the enemy was sufficiently disordered.

 

Also remember Han China did rely on mass armies of infantry even though they favored cavalry.

[Titus001]

thanks

[Gaius Octavius]

From which is derived: 'Parting shot' = 'Parthian shot'.

[caldrail]

Infantry wins the day,medieval knights are not all as they were cracked up to be.And the the cultures of gaul,germany did not just run around like mad man.Infact gaul had a good culture with trade made up by villiages almost like medieval europe,gaul was rich in gold and silver and had great metal workers,a little more advanced then just mass crowd of yelling mad men.

 

The barbarian technology of sword making isn't relevant to the tactics they employed in battle. Although extraordinarily courageous, these men weren't very sophisticated in combat. The whole point of their tactics was to frighten the willies out of their opponent by yelling and charging headlong with a sword swinging above their heads. They fought individually, not as a unit. Thats all ok but that doesn't mean they were stupid too. The germans in particular had evolved methods of rapid mobility by horse sharing, yet they understood that throwing a stone was often just as effective as taking weeks to lovingly create a bow and a quiver full of arrows. Its just that barbarian cultures often prized individual bravery as a way of earning respect from their peers as much as their enemy, hence they conducted themselves on the battlefield in way that they thought would achieve it.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Caldrail I must contradict you here about the barbarian technology and it's influence on combat tactics. It is long known that the Gallic way of warfare was dictated by it's long sword which often broke in combat if we accept informations such a those given by Livius where he describes battles between romans and Gauls where in some instances the battle was won due to the Gauls sword breaking on the roman shields and swords, making them defenceless : the problem was not the metal ( which was better ) but the design which called for long strikes coming from the top on the ennemy and was long and very slim, thus making it easy to bend.

 

Study of weapons dedicated by Gauls after a victory also showed this weakness in Gallic weapons.

 

Also the long Gallic sword called for some space around the fighter in order for him to use his weapon, and the roman warrior with his much shorter gladius was able to enter inside the minimum area needed by the Gaul and thus kill him.

 

It's only under the Empire, with the gradual decrease in quality of roman troops ( including roman swordsmanship ) that the roman infantry adopted the spata, long sword of the cavalry, thus negating one of their advantages ( later we'll even see the roman army abandon it's armor, making it's soldiers most vulnerable to arrows ).

[caldrail]

Caldrail I must contradict you here about the barbarian technology and it's influence on combat tactics.

 

Not much of a contradiction really. As I said, for celtic warriors, the quality of their swords did not affect their style of combat. That was a cultural bias. In order to be viewed as a man you had to show bravery, and peer pressure to perform wild acts of heroic abandon is fundamental to celtic battle. I agree not all did, because human nature dictates that some are less willing to risk themselves than others, but that was the sort of battle they considered worthwhile. They fought individually, not as a disciplined team. It was their prowess that was on display.

 

Archaeological evidence has shown some swords were of extraordinary quality. These were however expensive and only the wealthiest celts would own them. The rest would have to make do with the cheap stuff, but that still didn't change their outlook. To do otherwise would invite derision and disgust.

 

It was true of roman swords also. Most soldiers had theirs provided by the state, although they still payed for them by stoppages in pay. A sort of hire purchase agreement. Wealthy officers would have better quality swords made for them to order.

 

Quality is a very real issue in roman times. It displayed your authority and status, not your ability to fight.

[edgewaters]

John Keegan in his book A History of Warfare argues that Eastern Warfare was mostly based in surprise attacks and evasive manoeveurs. The purpose was to caught the enemy unaware and avoid as many casualties as possible on your side. On the other side, Western Warfare, was developped by the Greeks during the Classical period and was based in close combat, being the purpose to settle the dispute once and for all in the battle field instead of wasting time with prolongued campaigns as in te East.

 

 

Hmmm ... lets not forget that these same tactics appear to be highly characteristic of several ancient Western cultures, too. Principally Irish warfare comes to mind (throughout its entire history), but it can also be seen in Germanic groups (a famous example being Teutoburger). I think ambush was likely quite a natural method of attack for tribal groups in heavily forested areas.

 

Cavalry, too, seemed to have been frequently employed by Western barbaric groups.

 

Cavalry played an important element as early as the Battle of Allia and the invasion of Greece by Brennus (in fact, cavalry played a key role in the Third Battle of Thermopylae). During the invasion of Greece, the trimarcisia system of cavalry the Celts used is credited as being partially responsible for their victories. Pausanius describes the trimarcisia as follows:

 

The muster of foot amounted to one hundred and fifty-two thousand, with twenty thousand four hundred horse. This was the number of horsemen in action at any one time, but the real number was sixty-one thousand two hundred. For to each horseman were attached two servants, who were themselves skilled riders and, like their masters, had a horse.

 

When the Gallic horsemen were engaged, the servants remained behind the ranks and proved useful in the following way. Should a horseman or his horse fall, the slave brought him a horse to mount; if the rider was killed, the slave mounted the horse in his master's place; if both rider and horse were killed, there was a mounted man ready. When a rider was wounded, one slave brought back to camp the wounded man, while the other took his vacant place in the ranks ... the Gauls kept reinforcing the horsemen to their full number during the height of the action. This organization is called in their native speech trimarcisia, for I would have you know that marca is the Celtic name for a horse."

 

Xenophon describes how Celtic cavalry hired as mercenaries fought, which, surprisingly, bears a great deal of resemblance to the evasive style of the light cavalry of the East:

 

"Few though they were, they were scattered here and there. They charged towards the Thebans, threw their javelins, and then dashed away as the enemy moved towards them, often turning and throwing more javelins. While pursuing these tactics, they sometimes dismounted for a rest. But if anyone charged upon them while they were resting, they would easily leap onto their horses and retreat. If enemy warriors pursued them from the Theban army, these horsemen would then turn around and wrack them with their javelins. Thus they manipulated the entire Theban army, compelling to advance or fall back at their will."

 

Caldrail I must contradict you here about the barbarian technology and it's influence on combat tactics. It is long known that the Gallic way of warfare was dictated by it's long sword which often broke in combat if we accept informations such a those given by Livius where he describes battles between romans and Gauls where in some instances the battle was won due to the Gauls sword breaking on the roman shields and swords, making them defenceless : the problem was not the metal ( which was better ) but the design which called for long strikes coming from the top on the ennemy and was long and very slim, thus making it easy to bend.

 

Study of weapons dedicated by Gauls after a victory also showed this weakness in Gallic weapons.

 

Also the long Gallic sword called for some space around the fighter in order for him to use his weapon, and the roman warrior with his much shorter gladius was able to enter inside the minimum area needed by the Gaul and thus kill him.

 

It's only under the Empire, with the gradual decrease in quality of roman troops ( including roman swordsmanship ) that the roman infantry adopted the spata, long sword of the cavalry, thus negating one of their advantages ( later we'll even see the roman army abandon it's armor, making it's soldiers most vulnerable to arrows ).

 

The best Roman swords came from a client state - the Norici - which was a Celtic group. "Noricum Ensis", very very highly prized by Roman elites.

 

Also, not all Celtic groups fought with the longswords. The gladius itself is a weapon originally associated with Celts, and adopted by Romans later:

 

Acquisition by the Romans

 

The Hispanic sword was probably not acquired from Hispania and not from the Carthaginians. Livy[6] relates the story of Titus Manlius taking up a Gallic challenge to a single combat by a large-size soldier at a bridge over the Anio river, where the Gauls and the Romans were encamped on opposite sides of the river. Manlius strapped on a Hispanic sword (Gladius Hispanus[7]). During the combat he thrust twice with it under the shield of the Gaul, dealing fatal blows to the abdomen. He then removed the Gaul's torc and placed it around his own neck, whence the name, torquatus.

 

The combat happened in the consulships of C. Sulpicius and C. Licinius in about 361 BCE, much before the Punic Wars, but during the frontier wars with the Gauls, 366-341. One theory therefore proposes the borrowing of the word gladius from *kladi- during this period, relying on the principle that k becomes g in Latin only in loans. Ennius attests the word. Gladius may have replaced ensis, which in the literary periods was used mainly by the poets.[8]

 

The debate on the origin of the gladius Hispanus continues. That it descended ultimately from Celtic swords of the La Tene and Hallstat periods is unquestioned. Whether it did so directly from Celtiberian troops of the Punic Wars or through Gallic troops of the Gallic Wars remains the question of the Hispanic sword.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius

[Gaius Octavius]

Pausanius describes the trimarcisia as follows:

 

The muster of foot amounted to one hundred and fifty-two thousand, with twenty thousand four hundred horse. This was the number of horsemen in action at any one time, but the real number was sixty-one thousand two hundred. For to each horseman were attached two servants, who were themselves skilled riders and, like their masters, had a horse.

 

When the Gallic horsemen were engaged, the servants remained behind the ranks and proved useful in the following way. Should a horseman or his horse fall, the slave brought him a horse to mount; if the rider was killed, the slave mounted the horse in his master's place; if both rider and horse were killed, there was a mounted man ready. When a rider was wounded, one slave brought back to camp the wounded man, while the other took his vacant place in the ranks ... the Gauls kept reinforcing the horsemen to their full number during the height of the action. This organization is called in their native speech trimarcisia, for I would have you know that marca is the Celtic name for a horse."

 

Far be it for the likes of me to dispute Pausanius, but the cavalry numbers seem rather high. If these numbers are true, how would a servant or slave know when his master was down in the melee?

[edgewaters]

Far be it for the likes of me to dispute Pausanius, but the cavalry numbers seem rather high. If these numbers are true, how would a servant or slave know when his master was down in the melee?

 

 

I won't venture any conclusions about his numbers ... Pausanius is certainly not 100% reliable, given his account of Brennus being driven off by thunderbolts from the sky and ancient heroes appearing from the heavens at Delphi. However, there's no particular reason to dispute his account of the trimarcisia system. Likely his numbers are grossly inflated, as Pausanius seems to be at pains to render excuses for the Greek defeat.

 

My personal suspicion is that the cavalry of Brennus forces' were probably in much smaller numbers, and fought in a manner similar to Xenophon's description of Celtic mercenary cavalry. If so, then the 'squires' would easily be able to observe and replenish their leaders on the field.