Carrhae - could Crassus have won?

[A Hen]

<strong>"I think Crassus was too rash and did not prepare properly for the campaign."</strong><br>
<br>
As I understand it, though, he did make paintstaking plans. Not necessarily the right ones, but he did make the effort! He did have more allied cavalry with him, but they cleared off before the battle (claiming they were going off to harass the enemy!).<br>
<br>
<strong>"What would Crassus have done, had the Parthians withdrawn at Carrhae? Would he have followed them? I think he would have."</strong><br>
<br>
I agree. He was deterimed to equal the glories of Caesar and Pompey, and he had already shown this overcame his reason (not only marching across open desert but also force marching).<br>
<strong><br>
"Would Caesar have fared any better (as he planned to invade Parthian lands shortly before he got killed)?"</strong><br>
<br>
Yes. He was no fool, and would probably have learned from Crassus' mistakes. He would have known why the Romans lost the battle, and I suspect he would have taken more missile and/or cavalry troops to compensate. He could still have been unlucky (allies deserting, bad intel and so on), but the chances are he'd have given a better account of himself. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Crassus made all the bad moves one could make.<br>
The first one was a strategic error which several other Romans did: he tought that invading Parthia would be a piece of cake, Alexander the Great's style.<br>
Three centuries later the emperors Valerian, then Julian made the same mistake. Some people never learn.<br>
But it happens so that the Parthians/Persians had learned the lessons of the past regarding fighting a set piece battle with an european army (See Alexander..)<br>
And they did not fight set piece battles any longer. They used the very efficient combination horse archer/heavy cavalry, perfectly adapted to harass and evade the roman foot soldiers.<br>
To this strategic error may be added faulty intelligence, or rather contempt for the enemy's tactics, which has always been a big mistake.<br>
The second error was logistic and stems from the first one: namely he did not have the right equipment/troops. Not near enough horse and no missile troops. I suspect that a couple of cohorts of slingers/bowmen would have saved the day.<br>
The third error was tactical: he was led by the nose, by a "guide" obviously at the Parthian's service, to the very unfavourable place the Surena wanted him to be.<br>
A second tactical error was to use his cavalry as an offensive force instead of as a screen for his infantry.<br>
As for the penetrating power of bows, we must realize that the Parthian horse archers shot at almost point blank range: the legionaries had no missiles to keep them at bay.<br>
At a distance of say, twenty feet or less, a bodkin arrow shot with a bow drawing 75 pounds will go easily through armour, whether it be mail or plate. Unless some kind of hardened steel is used like in the later middle ages, I suspect it will rip open the mail --even riveted-- and punch through iron plate like the umbos of the legionaries' shields. <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Hen,<br>
<br>
Crassus did bring more cavalry, but cavalry is always more difficult to control. He should have brought more light troops (slingers, javelin-men) and avoided the plains.<br>
<br>
Would Caesar have fared better?<br>
yes and no. Sure he would hardly have made all the mistaes that Crassus made (see the far more cautious campaign of Marcus Antonius), but Caesar could also be a rash man. I would not bet on him having been victorious where Crassus floundered. Caesar was a few times narrowly beaten himself in Gaul. <p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>

[Alexandr K]

Salvete,<br>
<br>
Would Caesar have fared better?<br>
- I think yes... a little. He would learn from Crassus mistakes as Antonius did. Antonius was far more succesful than Crassus and I think, Caesar was much better commander than Antonius. But I don't believe Caesar would incorporate Parthia or a major part of Parthia to the Roman empire. May be he would win some battles, capture Ctesiphon and then with glory return to Rome to celebrate his triumph. During his campaign the Parthians would withdraw, but after his departure, they would return to regain their lands. Similar to many other "Parthian wars" of the Romans.<br>
<br>
Penetrating power of the bow.<br>
- The Romans were of course hidden behind their large shields. I don't believe that even under perfect conditions one shot from Parthian bow can penetrate the shield, mail armour and subarmalis and cause a serious wound. So even if the arrow went through the shield, it could perhaps hit the unguarded limbs and sometimes possibly other unguarded parts of human body (face, throat). However the conditions were by no means perfect. The Parthians were horse archers. A horse (especially a riding horse) is very unstable platform for shooting, so the power of the shot is reduced. Somewhere I've read that todays sporting archers claim that after 10-12 shots fired with maximal power even professionals don't have good performances. To this all we must add the stress and confusion of battle, burning sun of Parthian deserts, wearines of riding the horse before and during the battle.<br>
I think that the picture of almost neverending (for many hours lasting) shower of arrows, which can pierce both armour and shields taken from Plutarchos is exaggerated.<br>
Greetings<br>
Alexandr<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I'll even go further than Vort; if Caesar had organized an expeditio parthica the way he organised his landing in Britain, or worse, his landings in Africa, he would surely have lost.<br>
But Caesar was blessed with a totally obscene luck, so..<br>
He got beaten a few times (Gergovia, Dyrrhachium) but not decisively beaten, so he may have gotten out of it alive.<br>
As for Marcus Antonius' expedition it can't really be termed a great success, unless we consider extricating ourselves from a very difficult sitruation a great success..<br>
As for the bow, I'll ask for an expert opinion, that is someone who has a bow drawing 75 pounds and a roman shield. My bet is that an arrow will go through it like butter.<br>
Alxandr, there was no stress and confusion on the horse archers' part once the gallic cavalry was gone: the Romans were hunkered behind their shields, trying to walk one step at a time and had absolutely no way to hit the horse archers. None. I bet the Parthians didn't even canter, probably not even trot. Some of them just stood there, about ten yards away and shot almost point blank --those were the ones pinning hands to the shields and feet to the ground, while the others kept a continuing stream of arrows overhead. They did not have to gallop. It was basically like hunting down a pack of slow moving cattle.<br>
And they were ready for that as demonstrated by the anecdote about the camels loaded with ammunition waiting in the rear area. <p></p><i></i>

[Alexandr K]

Hi<br>
<br>
As for Marcus Antonius' expedition it can't really be termed a great success<br>
- You're right, it can't. And I didn't say that. I said that Antonius was far more successful than Crassus - and he was. If I recall correctly during his retreat from Parthia the legionaries even beated the cataphracts who attacked them. So while the campaign was in fact failure, in direct combat he was more successful (also thanks greater numbers of missile troops he took with him).<br>
<br>
Bows.<br>
Plutarchos wrote the Romans tried to make sudden charges. The Parthian horseman had to be in constant alert to be faster in his retreat than legionaries/auxiliaries in their attack. He was in the danger of life. Everyone in danger of life is stressed and it doesn't matter how big this danger is. Even sportsmen are under stress during their performances and they really won't be killed if they make a mistake. Ten yards? On that range they could easily be hit by a pilum.<br>
<br>
Greetings<br>
Alexandr<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=alexandrk>Alexandr K</A> at: 3/23/05 6:27 pm<br></i>

[Alexandr K]

Hi,<br>
for you who can read in German I've found an article about the planed Caesar's Parthian campaign. I haven't read it yet, but it can be interesting.<br>
<br>
[url=http://www.gnomon.ku-eichstaett.de/LAG/partherkrieg.html#n111" target="top]Caesars Partherkrieg[/url]<br>
<br>
Greetings<br>
Alexandr <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Yep. The horse archers had to be alert, but that doesn't mean they were galloping all the time at full speed, far from it.<br>
Indeed the Romans tried to break out the encirclement with sudden charges but I've been riding horses long enough to know that those beasts are definitely faster and have much quicker reflexes than humans.<br>
A "'sudden charge" of exhausted legionaries, bearing armour and 12 pound shields is evaded by a horseman by simply trotting away twenty yards, then twenty other, and so on until the "sudden charge" --a slow trot-runs out of the little steam it had left and becomes once again a stationary target --with the added disadvantage that it may be a disorganized one-- unable to keep the horse archers at a respectable distance.<br>
A trained horse can evade a charging bull and can cut a calf from his mother with ease. A human is no challenge at all.<br>
Actually, given the extremely high level of horsemanship of those horse archers, plus their exceptional physical condition, I suspect that not only they weren't exhausted but they may have had a pretty good day for themselves, shooting arrows into the herd of Romans.<br>
Besides, they certainly had a remount of at least two horses. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 3/24/05 4:22 pm<br></i>

[John Maddox Roberts]

I think Caesar might have pulled it off because he had the greatest gift a general can have: he was incredibly lucky. I suspect that if he had lived to conduct his war, the Parthian general would have been bitten by a snake just before the first battle, or a fortuitous flood would have hampered the Parthians while the Romans were on high ground or something of the sort. Realistic generals know that luck is about 50% of what happens in war, it's how you manage the other 50% that counts. When Napoleon was asked which of his officers he singled out for promotion, he replied, "The lucky ones." Caesar had luck by the bucketful. <p></p><i></i>

[A Hen]

When I'm hiring people, I throw 50% of the CVs straight into the bin before I start reading any applications. That gets rid of the unlucky applicants straight away. Napoleon would approve!<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ahen>A Hen</A> at: 3/24/05 5:14 pm<br></i>

[Anonymous]

The Napoleonic anecdote runs thus: Nap was recommended a general as "a good officer".<br>
"Yes, I know, he said, but is he lucky?"<br>
And I totally agree, Caesar's Fortuna, and his total reliance on it can only be termed exceptional, if not outright scandalous.<br>
There should be a law against people that lucky...<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[A Hen]

<strong>"And I totally agree, Caesar's Fortuna, and his total reliance on it can only be termed exceptional, if not outright scandalous.<br>
There should be a law against people that lucky... "</strong><br>
<br>
In my view, it's all in how one looks at it... After all, Caesar wasn't so "lucky" on the Ides of March.<br>
<br>
My tyre blows out on my car during a motorway drive, but I manage to pull onto the hard shoulder. Am I incredibly unlucky (my brand new, high-quality tire blew out) or amazingly lucky (no-one is hurt)?<br>
<br>
Caesar was a great self-propagandist, and claimed descent from Venus... perhaps he really saw himself as lucky, perhaps there was an element of spin-doctoring, but it's not surprising history looks on him as fortunate. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ahen>A Hen</A> at: 3/24/05 6:07 pm<br></i>

[John Maddox Roberts]

The ancients recognized different kinds of luck and Caesar was exceptionally lucky in war. He was lucky in his descent being related both to Marius and to Venus. We tend to think of luck as something blind or random, but to Greeks and Romans it meant that you were especially favored by the gods. That was as good a reason as any for following a general. Of course, the gods could always withdraw their favor... <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Caesar could have said,as Gary Player "the more I practice, the more lucky I get" <p></p><i></i>

[Alexandr K]

Salve Lucretie,<br>
I’m really not trying to question the speed and mobility of horses and the skill of Parthian horsemen. All I wanted to say is that it isn’t so easy to come to the distance of ten or twenty yards from the Roman formation, stop there, and fire powerful shots on legionaries all the day.<br>
For reduced power of your shots you don’t need to be exhausted. Just tired is enough. And I think that a whole day in saddle shooting arrows on the Romans would wear out even the most skillful riders (even if there would be some rotation of ranks). Not to say that after tens of arrows fired, your arm won’t be very powerful.<br>
Greetings<br>
Alexandr<br>
<p></p><i></i>