The Parthian Empire

[~Praetoria~]

I've heard few things on the Parthians, but I know they were a big threat to Rome, most of the things I've heard was about the Parthian cavalry, but not much detail on it can anyone tell me why Parthia was such a big threat to Rome?

[S SEVERUS]

The parthians were not a big threat to the Roman Empire like the sasanids. Parthia was not so aggressive as Rome was.

Good introduction : http://www.allempires.com/article/index ... thian_wars

[Jona Lendering]

I agree. After a period of aggressive encounters between, say, 60 and 20 BCE, Rome and Parthia recognized each other's zone of influence. There were violent clashes (during the reigns of Nero, Trajan, and Marcus Aurelius), but usually, the feudal structure of the Parthian empire prevented Parthian aggression (you won't die for the glory of another man).

On the other hand, this feudal structure gave Parthia a tremendous flexibility: Ctesiphon was captured three times in the second century, but it survived. It was also a system that worked well when Parthia was under attack.

The end came by a combination of factors: infighting within the Arsacid dynasty and Roman aggression by Septimius Severus, which was in fact the result of the crisis of the Year of the Five Emperors, 193. To continue the friendly relations, Parthia had recognized Severus' rival Pescennius Niger. Severus wanted to avenge himself, and invaded Iraq Ptwice. This intensified the process of dynastic infighting, and Caracalla/Macrinus speeded up this process.

Or another website is [url:2zpvhcgv]http://www.parthia.com/[/url] and there's also the group of Oxford's Farhad Assar at [url:2zpvhcgv]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Iranica-L/[/url].

[Theodosius the Great]

I'd say the Parthian feudal structure was more of a deficit when it came to defending itself. Under their successor state - the Sassanid Persians - the Emperor could easily bring all arms to bear against Rome since he was an absolute ruler - no longer a literal "King of Kings" ; he was the only King. The Parthians, unlike the Sassanids, did not have an expansionist ideology of reclaiming Rome's Eastern provinces (formerly Achaemenid Persia's Western provinces before Alexander's conquests). So, generally, the Parthians were not the aggressors in most of the wars between them and the Romans. Parthia was merely the strongest and only state on Rome's borders that was able to retain its sovereignty and independence, but no more. It was a mistake for Rome to destabilize Parthia since it would be replaced by a superpower that was the mirror image of itself which would haunt them until the Islamic conquests of the 7th century.

Ctesiphon was captured three times in the second century, but it survived. It was also a system that worked well when Parthia was under attack.

I don't think this is the best criterion to compare the Parthian system with the Sassanid's. Ctesiphon was further sacked twice during the 3rd century AD by Emperors Carus and Galerius. So the Sassanid system doesn't seem more brittle compared to Parthia's based soley on these occasions. The Parthian feudal system may have worked well, but not as well as the Sassanids, IMO. (not that you said otherwise)



Theo

[~Praetoria~]

thanks for all the info, and from what I've read from S Severus' link, the Parthians wer a lot more threatenening tha most other enemies of Rome. so did the PArthians ever use infantry?

[Theodosius the Great]

Not really. The only infantry they seemed to have were militias which were intended mainly for home defense of the former Greek towns within the Parthian kingdom.




Theo

[~Praetoria~]

wow, I can see why their cavalry was famed

[taira1180]

Usually the parthians are seen as a threat by the victories of Carhae and against Mark Antony. But the reality is that their empire was so big and decentralized that no roman emperor with a main foot army could hope to conquer it.

[~Praetoria~]

ah, that makes sense. thanks for the info

[Komet]

The Parthians are also somewhat infamous for jacking the price of silk up.

The Romans only enjoyed military success in their invasions of Parthia during periods of internal turmoil when the armies of Parthia were able to offer very little resistance. Likewise, the Parthians never succeeded in maintaining a foothold in Roman territory (namely Syria) because their cavalry tactics were not suitable for that type of terrain, and they were not adept at siege warfare. The Romans were able to adapt their tactics after the defeats of Crassus and Antony (namely, the utilization of friendly Armenian cataphracts to counter the Parthians', the adoption of their own horse archers, and the adoption of shield-bearing cavalry that were better able to defend against the Parthian mounted archers). The Romans ultimately had the upper hand because they were adept at siege warfare and the Parthian cavalry was ill-equipped to defend against it.

But by the second century, the Parthians were in such disarray that a number of cities were surrendered to the Romans without a fight. To my knowledge, there is scarcely any evidence of large scale battles between the Parthians and Romans in Mesopotamia during the imperial period at all.

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

I have one of Osprey's books, "Rome's enemies (3), Parthians and Sassanid Persians (Peter Wilcox).

In it he writes that the nobility provided the heavy cavalry, the lesser nobles and their retainers provided the mounted archers, and (then he goes on with) their infantry were composed of good quality hillmen and peasants of indifferent military worth.

However, I find no mention of them using infantry in a campaign. Perhaps, because the bulk of their army was mounted, the footmen were used only as skirmishers and flankers when there was time to bring them forward (siege?)

Lothia.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

The infantry are mentioned in their early conquests of the Seleukid empire - in fact IIRC on one occasion they are implied to outnumber the cavalry.

Again IIRC, in this battle the Parthians thought their cavalry would not be able to stand up to the Seleukid cavalry and so drew them into broken ground where the infantry did for them :o