03-21-2005, 09:16 AM
"Are you asking if Crassus could have won with the troops on hand and in the spot that he was?"<br>
<br>
In the spot he was. I agree with the consensus that he shouldn't have got into that situation, but from what I read, many people seem to think Crassus mismanaged the battle itself. I want to know what he could have done with the troops he had.<br>
<br>
"In the spot that he was, I think Crassus should have used his Gallic cavalry differently. They could have chased the archers off, and when the Parthians moved the heavy cavalry in, they should have evaded themselves. Heavy cavalry tires very fast, and I think that the Romans could have gained the upper hand after rendering the Parthian heavy cavalry useless in that way."<br>
<br>
Good point.<br>
<br>
Wasn't this error down to the cavalry commander (Crassus junior) rather than Crassus himself, though? I suppose Crassus should have told them not to go charging off too far away from the main force, but then isn't that an elementary tactical level thing that a general should assume the the unit commander would know? If Crassus junior was such a bad unit commander, perhaps Crassus shouldn't have appointed him. Maybe that was one of his biggest errors.<br>
<br>
But I take your point - if the "cataphracts" got tired, the battle could have gone very differently. With the heavy cavalry out of the picture, the Roman infantry could have adopted a looser formation, and thus minimised the target they presented to the archers. The Gauls could then have made a dent in the horse archers (although there were about 1,000 Gauls to 10,000 horse archers, so surely the Gauls would have been tired themselves well before they eliminated the threat). I guess that - eventually - even the horse archers' supply train would have run out of arrows, but who can say how long this would be? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ahen>A Hen</A> at: 3/21/05 10:23 am<br></i>
<br>
In the spot he was. I agree with the consensus that he shouldn't have got into that situation, but from what I read, many people seem to think Crassus mismanaged the battle itself. I want to know what he could have done with the troops he had.<br>
<br>
"In the spot that he was, I think Crassus should have used his Gallic cavalry differently. They could have chased the archers off, and when the Parthians moved the heavy cavalry in, they should have evaded themselves. Heavy cavalry tires very fast, and I think that the Romans could have gained the upper hand after rendering the Parthian heavy cavalry useless in that way."<br>
<br>
Good point.<br>
<br>
Wasn't this error down to the cavalry commander (Crassus junior) rather than Crassus himself, though? I suppose Crassus should have told them not to go charging off too far away from the main force, but then isn't that an elementary tactical level thing that a general should assume the the unit commander would know? If Crassus junior was such a bad unit commander, perhaps Crassus shouldn't have appointed him. Maybe that was one of his biggest errors.<br>
<br>
But I take your point - if the "cataphracts" got tired, the battle could have gone very differently. With the heavy cavalry out of the picture, the Roman infantry could have adopted a looser formation, and thus minimised the target they presented to the archers. The Gauls could then have made a dent in the horse archers (although there were about 1,000 Gauls to 10,000 horse archers, so surely the Gauls would have been tired themselves well before they eliminated the threat). I guess that - eventually - even the horse archers' supply train would have run out of arrows, but who can say how long this would be? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ahen>A Hen</A> at: 3/21/05 10:23 am<br></i>
Rob Grainger
