02-11-2005, 05:48 PM
I don't think any troop type can be considered inherently superior to any other. There are many other facts to consider, otherwise everyone would simply be using the same recipe as natural selection weeds out cultures using inefficient fighting modes.<br>
<br>
As to the superiority of the Parthian horse archers and havy cavalry over the Roman infantrymen, between the Second Triumvirate and the Severan dynasty, how may Parthian troops west of the Euphrates? How many Romans east of it? Simply said, it was the Romans that had the upper hand most of the time, with their army poised like a dagger over the heart of the enemy, within striking distance of Ctesiphon. Carrhae proved that the Parthians were to be taken seriously - and, truth be told, that Crassus was neither a Caesar nor a Pompey - but this doesn't establish superiority. If it had, should the Arsacids not have been able to better protect their capital? <p></p><i></i>
<br>
As to the superiority of the Parthian horse archers and havy cavalry over the Roman infantrymen, between the Second Triumvirate and the Severan dynasty, how may Parthian troops west of the Euphrates? How many Romans east of it? Simply said, it was the Romans that had the upper hand most of the time, with their army poised like a dagger over the heart of the enemy, within striking distance of Ctesiphon. Carrhae proved that the Parthians were to be taken seriously - and, truth be told, that Crassus was neither a Caesar nor a Pompey - but this doesn't establish superiority. If it had, should the Arsacids not have been able to better protect their capital? <p></p><i></i>
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!
Volker Bach
Volker Bach
