How Effective were Spears Against Cavalry?

[Domen]

Plutarch, being a Roman historian, only writes what was the Roman point of view...

Actual intention can be determined only when reading Parthian sources.

A Polish source describing the battle of Legnica in 1241 also writes that the Mongols were "pushed back by attacks of Polish forces" - yet modern historians claim it was a feigned retreat, rather than being pushed back... Here the same can be the case - Romans thought Parthians got scared of their deep formation (how many ranks, BTW?) but Parthians knew better what they were doing and why.

[Macedon]

Goodness Peter... this is your reply? Anyway... until you come up with some Parthian account about the battle of Carrhae, let's stay with what we have. After all, this is not the point, although you do look like you are easy to lose focus. What is important is why the people who wrote anything thought that something was done. Interpretation of why the Parthians did what they did from a Graecoroman source is as valuable in explaining how they understood tactics, theirs and those of their opponents.

Do you realize that the alternative you are suggesting is that the Parthians made the charge because they had nothing better to do? Did you read it in some Parthian chronicle or is it written in any Polish manuals that cavalry contingents should attack the enemy when there was no reason not to?

[Domen]

Plutarch describes as the Parthians seeing "the firmness and composure of the men", which means their will to stand against them, keep their order and not give way.

And you pick irrelevant fragments, about some "firmness" and "composure" (things which can't be measured with senses). What is more important here, is: "the depth of their formation".

"Firmness" is just Roman propaganda - while "the depth of their formation", is a real factor.

But Plutarch did not fight in that battle, and he was just a Greco-Roman historian, he didn't see any real battles in his life. BTW - is it known what primary sources Plutarch based on?

Did he base on any Parthian first-hand accounts from the battle? Or just Roman ones?

Regarding the depth of a formation - "the depth of their formation" is a thing which could be clearly seen - and basing on this Parthians could also estimate how numerous was the Roman unit.

================================================

Once again - Plutarch is NOT a primary source.

He was a historian and researcher, who wrote his works 150 years after the battle took place.

Your major mistake is considering such secondary sources as supposedly "primary sources".

================================================

Do you realize that the alternative you are suggesting is that the Parthians made the charge because they had nothing better to do?

Nope.

I suggest that feigned charges (attacks) are necessary for subsequent feigned retreats. The Parthians made a feigned charge followed by a feigned retreat. The Romans thought they got scared.

It could also be a reconnaissance charge (do you know the term "reconnaissance in force" ??? - if not, then please check what kind of military maneuver it is) to estimate enemy numerical strength and get other info about the enemy - they had to come close to the Romans in order to do so.

[Macedon]

Well... I admit that your new strategy is interesting... I, however, do not have the time or the will to discuss with you the sources, methods and reliability of Plutarch, mostly because I do not think that there is any point. You have an obvious problem to focus your arguments as well as your actual points. I hope it is a linguistic problem but I doubt it. Did you ask for any primary sources? Did I, or anyone else, say that Plutarch was a primary source? Since when can a source not be quoted regarding "things that cannot be measured"? How come "firmness" is Roman propaganda and "depth" is not? How come the whole battle is not Roman propaganda to make Crassus look bad...? And what the heck are you proposing? What are your objections?

-Reconnaissance en force?????? you must be kidding... An army of 10,000, with 9,000 light cavalry, makes a reconnaissance en force with its cataphracts... And by the way, the Parthians did not retreat, they galloped around the Roman formation... and what is your source for any of this? How do you know that there were cataphracts in that battle? Maybe Plutarch wanted to make the Parthians look more fierce, so that Crassus' failure would be somewhat rationalized... Maybe, what truly happened was that the Parthians taunted the Romans to death, Monty Python are a primary source on that being a realistic approach...

Anyway, I have no interest in further debating this issue with you, Peter. Have fun with those who do.

[Michael Kerr]

Hi, in regard to the cataphracts at Carrhae, Surena seems to have gone to great lengths to disguise the fact that he had them by making them wear concealing robes and furs over their armour to disguise their true intent which I think was to lure out and come to grips with Crassus's cavalry and destroy it. Other than that I think they just shadowed the Romans awaiting opportunities. The weakness in an infantry square is the corners so with unlimited arrows and fresh horses to advance and then retreat I think Surena would have focused the attack on them. One question I have is a Testudeo formation would be useful against archers but how effective would it have been against cataphracts?

Regards
Michael Kerr

[Domen]

How come "firmness" is Roman propaganda and "depth" is not?

Firmness is a state of mind that can't be observed, not a physical parameter...

Depth of the Roman formation, on the other hand, could be observed by Parthian cataphracts...

Anyway, I have no interest in further debating this issue with you, Peter. Have fun with those who do.

Thanks for admitting that I am right.

You have hit a dead end with your cavalry vs infantry hypothesis already long time ago.

-Reconnaissance en force?????? you must be kidding... An army of 10,000, with 9,000 light cavalry, makes a reconnaissance en force with its cataphracts...

No - you must be kidding...

What is allegedely so funny in this? Horse archers were busy enough with slaughtering Roman troops - they had no time to make reconnaissance in force. Moreover, cataphracts were fully clad in armor - both them and their horses - which means that they could approach even very close to Roman battle lines, without risking suffering any serious casualties from Roman arrows, javelins or even pila.

Horse archers and their horses wore no armor, thus being more vulnerable to pila and javelins.

And they were already busy with slaughtering the Roman army from distance.

Also - feigned retreat is a maneuver that is carried out in order to encourage the enemy to attack, while doing which the enemy can lose their cohesion and become more vulnerable for counterattack.

What did the Romans do after that feigned attack of cataphracts? Wasn't that the moment when Crassus decided to chase and attack the Parthians with a mixed force of light infantry and light cavalry?!

Exactly, this is what happened after the Parthian feigned retreat:

"(...) they drew back, and while seeming to break their ranks and disperse, they surrounded the hollow square in which their enemy stood before he was aware of the manoeuvre. And when Crassus ordered his light-armed troops to make a charge, they did not advance far, but encountering a multitude of arrows, abandoned their undertaking and ran back for shelter among the men-at‑arms, among whom they caused the beginning of disorder and fear, for these now saw the velocity and force of the arrows, which fractured armour, and tore their way through every covering alike, whether hard or soft."

So that feigned charge and the subsequent feigned retreat of Parthian cataphracts encouraged Crassus to chase and charge the supposedly retreating Parthian cataphracts with his light-armed cavalry and swift infantry - the charge which did not advance far, because the charging Romans quickly encountered a rain of Parthian arrows, suffering heavy losses and being forced to ran back for the shelter...

So - the feigned charge succeeded perfectly in Romans doing what Surena wanted them to do...

But when you tear excerpts from Plutarch out of context, it is hard to notice such "details"... :dizzy:

[koechlyruestow]

Hi Peter,

Whether a feigned charge, or a charge ending in a retreat or turn after noting that the Romans did not flinch, call it what you like, I did not have any trouble understanding Macedon. Perceiving a state of mind, or noting the infantry had started to run, call it what you like, I can understand both and I would say so can most of us.

Relax! I can't help feeling you actually agree with Macedon, and all this is largely a discussion on semanthics. ad:

Let's keep to the point you and Macedon really seem to disagree upon: please correct me if I am wrong, but a "charge a fond" (to avoid any misunderstanding or disagreement on the right word) would according to you mean close combat, and according to Macedon a dupe's game for the infantry, as they were driven in like sheep, unable to defend themselves.

Could you describe what happened if close combat between horsemen and infantry in formation ensued?

[Robert Vermaat]

Plutarch, being a Roman historian, only writes what was the Roman point of view...
Actual intention can be determined only when reading Parthian sources.

While I am the first to agree that an avent is better understood when sources from more than one participating party are available, to conclude that Roman historians only write the Roman point of view and that the intentions of the Parthians can only be determined from Parthian sources is incorrect. As long as it is not determined what the intentions of a source are (propaganda or neutral description), or what sources were used (Romans and/or Parthians), such conclusions are useless to make, while only speculative.

Roman historians (especially writing after the fact) can have used more sources, and did not (as a rule) only write from a Roman perspective. Of Parthian sources we can't say anything, as none have survived to be able to tell us about the nature of Parthian historiography.

Therefore, to disqualify Plutarch with such a simple statement is useless for any discussion.

[Michael Kerr]

Hi, to me Plutarch was more of a biographer than a historian. Sorry I have to quote Wikipedia here
"Plutarch was not concerned with history so much as the influence of character, good or bad, on the lives and destinies of men."
He often seems critical of Crassus's decisions and seems to have had a high regard of Cassius. But he obviously had now lost sources. Gareth C. Sampson in his book "The Defeat of Rome In The East" mentions some earlier writers whose works are now lost, who Plutarch may have gathered some information about the battle from. They were
1. Livy "History Of Rome" who wrote some 142 books of which only the first 45 survive. Many scholars feel that every account on Roman History written after him was based upon his work.
2. Niclolas of Damascus "Universal History" . Served at the court of Herod the Great. He wrote a universal history of the East in 144 books of which nothing survives except a few fragments. He would have provided an authoritave account of the war and not purely from a Roman point of view.
3. Quintus Dellius "History of the Parthian Wars" written in First Century BC who during the 2nd Roman Civil War he served under Cassius. Plutarch used him as a source for his biography of Mark Antony.
4. Appollonius "History of the Parthian Wars".Appollonius who was Publius Crassus freedman which meant he may have accompanied his master to the East and who remained devoted to the memory of his master and he was probably present at the battle.
5. Actual survivors of the battle who returned to Rome in 20BC.
The only surviving Parthian sources are "The Babylonian astronomical records" which as well as recording astronomical data they record some of the historical actions of a particular year. My apologies to those who have the book but to those who haven't I hope this helps.

Regards
Michael Kerr

[Macedon]

Hi, in regard to the cataphracts at Carrhae, Surena seems to have gone to great lengths to disguise the fact that he had them by making them wear concealing robes and furs over their armour to disguise their true intent which I think was to lure out and come to grips with Crassus's cavalry and destroy it. Other than that I think they just shadowed the Romans awaiting opportunities. The weakness in an infantry square is the corners so with unlimited arrows and fresh horses to advance and then retreat I think Surena would have focused the attack on them. One question I have is a Testudeo formation would be useful against archers but how effective would it have been against cataphracts?

Regards
Michael Kerr

Hiding the gleam of armor until shortly before the battle was something that was supposed to frighten the enemy.

According to Leo VI, an army that had a gloomy appearance was more intimidating than one whose arms were shining. And if the ground was open and the air clear, the helms should be carried by the soldiers in their hands until the enemy was near and then wear them. Their small scutaria shields they should also wear on their chests to hide the gleam of their corselets and generally, they should hide the shine of their equipment until it is time to engage, when the sudden splendor dazzled the enemy, who thought that it was a divine sign and lost heart . (Leo, Tactica, 14.33, 14.34, 14.98)

If the Parthians wanted the Romans to not know about the presence of the cataphracts, they wouldn't have shown them before the battle, nor would they have used them before any attempt of the Romans to fight them off, what came later with the attempt of Crassus' son to forcefully drive off the enemy with disastrous effects.

Regarding your testudo question,it was performed in compact order (Arrian, Tactica, 11.4.) and as such it had all the attributes that were considered advantageous to withstand a cavalry melee attack (whatever anyone understands that to be) as he describes it in his Ektaxis. Regarding the edges of such a formation, there is no fear expressed as to their vulnerability in all the works that analyze it. I do not think that they were a problem (as they were in the Napoleonic era for example) because the depth of the formation was usually much greater, plus the size of the plinthia was normally huge as it was formed by the whole army. What Plutarch does not really say, although he clearly hints at it, is that the formation of a plaesion/plinthion was usually not one with uninterrupted lines in mixed armies. It was advised that intervals be created so that light infantry and cavalry could exit (and reenter) it whenever necessary. After the Parthian cataphracts rode by the plinthion, the Romans sent out their psiloi infantry to harass the enemy horse-archers as was the standard tactic of using skirmishing infantry to push back skirmishing cavalry, which however, in this instance did not work. And beside each cohort (or near it) there was a squadron of cavalry to provide cavalry support.

[Domen]

after noting that the Romans did not flinch

Nope...

After noting that each cohort-square of the Roman hollow square formation was ca. 25 ranks deep...

And regarding the available Roman accounts of the battle of Carrhae - Cassius Dio actually writes about cataphracts charging and smashing the ranks of Roman infantry.

[Macedon]

Hi, to me Plutarch was more of a biographer than a historian. Sorry I have to quote Wikipedia here
"Plutarch was not concerned with history so much as the influence of character, good or bad, on the lives and destinies of men."

No Grecoroman historian was a historian per se. Plutarch, in his Lives, was interested mainly in presenting his view on the character and life of the subjects of his work and this is where one has to be careful, since he obviously has his own personal criteria when judging "worth" and "character". However, this does not mean that he was not interested in being historically accurate. He used many sources and was kind enough to often give them to us, which is very useful when studying him, sometimes even criticizing them. What is also interesting is that he often gives multiple, differing sources on the same piece of information, a rare, syncretic approach. Plutarch is a good source as long as the reader understands where the subjectivity of morality invades his work. To me, this is interesting in its own, because he thus gives us insight on at least an aspect of the moral code of his era.

[Domen]

Cassius Dio wrote this about charges of Parthian cataphracts (here: "pikemen") at Carrhae:

"(...) For if they [the Romans] decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the pikemen were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their ranks to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows. Hereupon many died from fright at the very charge of the pikemen, and many perished hemmed in by the horsemen. Others were knocked over by the pikes or were carried off transfixed. (...)"

Source: Cassius Dio, Roman History, 40.22.

So yes - please keep ignoring sources that you don't like, Macedon and others... :dizzy:

============================================

Then Dio writes that many of the cataphracts bent or broke their lances during those attacks:

"(...) And the Romans would have perished utterly, but for the fact that some of the pikes of the barbarians were bent and others were broken, while the bowstrings snapped under the constant shooting, the missiles were exhausted, the swords all blunted, and, most of all, that the men themselves grew weary of the slaughter. (...)"

Source: Cassius Dio, Roman History, 40.24.

Lances cannot get bent or broken just by "approaching" to the enemy battle line... :dizzy:

And swords cannot get blunted just by "approaching" to the enemy as well.

[Robert Vermaat]

So yes - please keep ignoring sources that you don't like, Macedon and others... :dizzy:

Ehmm.. didn't you do that with Plutarch first?

[Macedon]

This is of course not to discuss the issue. I have given up trying that with you Peter. This is to again tell you that you have to sometime focus on what you are "discussing". No one can ignore a source that did not come up. It is you who should stop acting childishly, catching fast on the words you like, denying any discussion. We were supposedly discussing Plutarch's account. When discussing a specific account you focus on it. When you saw that things did not go the way you wanted (if only we knew what that was) you directly attacked the source and insisted that it was worthless. I was always clear, for I am careful with my wording, that whatever I wrote had to do with the account of Plutarch as he understood the battle. No one can profess to know exactly what went on in that battle or in any other battle but we do know what each source supposedly has written on it and most of us can discuss it. Unfortunately it seems you cannot, you are not here to discuss but to preach. So, at first, you seem as though you agree with Plutarch, erroneously assuming that he agrees with your opinion, whatever that might be. When you realize that he does not, you start talking nonsense about how there was no reason for the Parthians to not attack, and you did so because you find it abhorrent to accept that maybe a cavalry force would decide to not attack a massed infantry formation and you had to find another explanation. However, Plutarch had also given his and so you just had to discredit him. Although you had totally found him an unacceptable source, being Graecoroman and not Parthian, (there you accused me of somehow calling him a primary source...) you at first offered a second reason as to why the Parthians retreated (always according to Plutarch, do you see how funny it is to use a source you yourself dismiss?), after the one that had to do with them being too bored to do otherwise. This second theory was a reconnaisance in force... A reconnaisance (!!) when 9,000 Parthians already knew exactly what they were up against and Surena surely had been informed by whatever scouting mechanisms he had (or not,since the 9,000 light cavalry, according to YOU, were TOO BUSY SLAUGHTERING ROMANS!!!! the fact that you deem this to be a logical explanation really frightens me). Maybe you understood that this was also hilarious, maybe not, so then you talked about a feigned retreat in order to lure the Romans.... A cunning plan... However, again you may have realized, albeit late, that 1. according to Plutarch the cataphracts did not "retreat" but rode around the Roman formation and 2. this you surely would not know, this is why discussions are crucial, Plutarch (in the original text) is clear in that ONLY THE LIGHT INFANTRY exited the formation and not any cavalry as you thought. So there was no "attack" lured by this as you claimed based on a translation that had light troops "charge"... Of course, the main question remains... If Plutarch is such a bad source for you then why do you even try to base an argument on him? And then things become even more laughable... You discovered that it was not only Plutarch who wrote about that battle... (did anyone say it was?) Under normal circumstances we could discuss it too but discussions can be made only with parties who are willing to participate. Yet, how can I debate with you? If you are true to your word, then Dio is a much inferior source... Dio wrote in the 3rd century, later even than Plutarch, Dio was also Graecoroman, you know, a propagandist, a philoroman... Did he base his account on Parthian sources? (your question...) This change of heart clearly shows that you have no real interest in discussing anything, you are only ranting, trying to manipulate sources you do not respect. And then, you dare accuse us of "ignoring sources"... A source that had never been brought up, a source that your own source evaluation system dismisses. And you say that to me, while I have clearly stated that I do not want to further discuss this issue with you. What are you gonna do? Drag me into spending valuable time to explain what Dio says? Eduard was right when he said that he did not understand where we actually disagree. Neither do I. And we do not because there was no point that you made. Did I say that there was never contact between kontophoroi cavalry and massed infantry? No. You are arguing with yourself, you ask questions, you answer them yourself, you dismiss anything else...

So, as far as I am concerned, stop mentioning me in your posts and stop addressing me unless it is about an issue that has to do with my capacity as mod.