Compound bow and superior archers= Roman defeat

[rv]

It is so obvious that the Parthian/Persian were easily the hardest enemy for the Romans. This when they were in their prime too. In reality the Romans had little difficulty with other Europeans. (occasional trap) But the Romanos were Always heavily outnumbered there. (so heavily that Anglo Europeans try to lower the numbers..but evidence abounds)(you are talking about a city state only)The Romans mounted most of their legions against the east and still they lost many including an emperors head! The powerful bow and cavalry could easily take out Roman cavalry and foot soldiers. Perhaps the Celts/German/Iberians/Goths could have done like wise. All that had to be done was keep away from their foot soldiers and arrow them to death. The Celts/Germans /Goths had better bows too than the Romans,plus with their numbers this could have been an easy accomplishment. (like the Persians)In all fairness to you Europeans the Persians did get trapped in hand to hand battle too though and got destroyed by the Roman foot soldier but not often. As said...keep away from them and utilize their inferiority of their bowmen. So simple but so few followed this.

[Johnny Shumate]

rv, you're going to ruffle the feathers of alot of folks on this board..!

The Romans always made the mistake of bringing a "knife to a gunfight". One of the best books I've ever read was,"Arrows Against Steel" by Victor Hurley. He noted that the Romans never understood the deadly combination of mobility plus firepower. When to two schools of military doctrines met, the outcome was catatstrophic. The Romans were the best when it came to cut and thrust hand to hand warfare. When they came upon an enemy the was mobile and armed with missle weapons, they learned the hard way the school of death by distant warfare. Why close hand to hand when they can be killed at a distance...?

The Eastern Romans did figure it out under Belisarius and shellacked all opposition. Maybe that's why the Byzantines lasted for about 1000 years longer than the West....Horse and bow is a deadly combination.

[rv]

Am not trying to 'ruffle feathers'( a little maybe)...I greatly admire the empire in many ways...but just want to shed light...that all was not so great. They made many mistakes that many Milty minds would not do. The western Empire could have lasted as long as the Eastern if they had leadership and not so much 'soap opera' commanders and rulers. We all would probably be better in many areas of life(engineering,medicine,science...etc.) if the western Empire lasted. Speculation of course. Also....I want to shake the solely Eurocentic view most have of the Empire. Non- Europe was very important to the empire...and commanded army legions and most of the non-Roman losses and horrendous strategy they used. ( They had the potential to do so much more!) Much happened in that part of the world...one small thing comes of mind...birth of whats his name...Jesus.
The Romans went where their was favorable land and stopped when they wanted(like Scotland) in Europe. Nobody really stopped them in Europe,but they were stopped cold by Persia and they wanted that part of the world badly. In northern Europe they went as far north as they felt the climate would support wealth...Belgium/Holland/Western Germany...but not farther. They could have easily if they had the desire. Tuetonberg trap was really not a land grab...plus they already defeated the best Germanic tribes many times quite easily. However I feel any group could have beaten them if they used the strategy we both mentioned and for some reason the Romans did not adopt. Another fallacy broken: The Romans do not always utilize the best from others and this was the very best strategy for any military machine. It seems to me the Romans were just fixated on hand to hand, perhaps similar consequences like the mounted knight against the crossbow.

[Johnny Shumate]

rv,
I would agree with you on your points except your disparaging remark about Jesus...

[Magnus]

RV,

First of all, please provide ALL of your source materials and references to provide the validity of ALL your statements.

Secondly, allow me to officially warn you about coming here and intentionally trying to provoke a heated debate, ruffle feathers and such. This is not the place for it.

Thanks, and enjoy RAT.

[Goffredo]

Of course you know there was considerable continuity with Romans. Romans evolved in very interesting ways and those hard-to-die views that have hard headed romans insisiting on obsolete legions and ending up getting trampled by morally suprior germanics or shot up by heavy cavalry and archers in the east are, in my opinion, too simplisitic and quite uninteresting (boring! yawn). Things were far more interesting!! The mixture heavy cavalry-arches wasn't good to do much except beat an attacking army that was unfortunatle enought to be out stretched and off balance. Shapor is the only robust example of a extremely talented general managed to turn the Sassanid army into an offensive one that actually entered roman territory and for a while almost did what it wanted.

Polemic question: When did the Roman experience in the Eastern war theater become Byzantium's? Was Heraclius still quite roman or distinctly non-roman?

[hoplite14gr]

Do we forget Levantine archers that could outshoot horsearchers covered by the formed heavy infantry?
Roman tactics in the east seem to have changed from the time of Julian I guess. Velissarios used cavalry and archers but he was not avesrse to steady formed infantry.
Heraklios took office where everything was a <4-letter word> mess.
There was was no army at the time so he had to make everything from the beginig. That was probably a blessing because he had not the luxury to be hampered by tradition too much.
Byzantine successes were possibly because of combined arms tactics. Heavy fromed infantry was part of their arsenal not just Horsemen and archers.
Kind regards
Stefanos

P.S. archers failed at Gaygamela against formed troops so I think it was Roman Generals fault rather than trooper if the archers got the better of them!

[Robert Vermaat]

The Romans went where their was favorable land and stopped when they wanted(like Scotland) in Europe. Nobody really stopped them in Europe, but they were stopped cold by Persia and they wanted that part of the world badly. In northern Europe they went as far north as they felt the climate would support wealth... Belgium/Holland/Western Germany... but not farther. They could have easily if they had the desire. Tuetonberg trap was really not a land grab... plus they already defeated the best Germanic tribes many times quite easily.

Arvee (I'll address you as Arvee because you're still unwilling to give us your personal name),
That's just a load of bogus. The Roman army was by no means 'unstoppable', Rome did halt their conquests when they were beaten or when further landgrabs became too costly. Sure, until the 3rd century, most enemies could've been beaten, but sometimes the price was deemed too high. The defeat of Varus did not stop campaigning, but it sure stopped expansion of the Empire towards the Elbe. Same with Scotland, occupation would have been too costly considering the gains. Tacitus claimed that Ireland could have been easily conquered:

Agricola had given shelter to one of the petty chieftains whom faction had driven from home, and under the cloak of friendship held him in reserve to be used as opportunity offered. I have often heard my father-in-law say that with one legion and a fair contingent of irregulars Ireland could be overpowered and held, and that the occupation would be useful with regard to Britain also; for so Roman troops would be everywhere and liberty would sink, so to speak, below the horizon.

Those areas that you mention were certainly earmarked for conquest, but after a long time of battles it was decided that gaining these areas was beyond the military/economic limits of the Empire. That means that Rome surely was stopped in its tracks.

[John M McDermott]

I daresay this takes some thoughtful analysis. The Romans kicked Parthian butt on a number of occasions. The Parthians wanted to invade the West too, but got stopped over and over again, first by the Greeks, then by the Romans.

Julius Caesar planned to invade the East, circle north and attack the Germans from the East. This plan involved whipping up on Parthia. He was cut short by his death. Others planned invasions of Parthia that never came off.

It would appear that political limitations interferred with war with Parthia as much as military considerations.

[Richomeres]

Well, I think we can agree on that the Persian (Parthian and Sassanian) and the Roman Empire were two power blocks more or less on a par over time. The weakness of one was always the advantage of the other. This can certainly not be reduced to a single weapon or an armed force like horse archers.

The invention of the composite bow is several thousand years old, probably of eastern central Asia origin, it made its way west. The Roman army used archers armed with (composite-)bows in her own ranks and a mainly mounted army was deploy by mid of the 3rd century.

A contingent of mounted archers can be devastating, if the terrain is right. however the commander has the have a close watch on logistics. If the troops run out of arrows, they are dead meat on a horseback, unless they flee.

Just my two pence.

Cheers,

Helge

[Tasciavanous]

Hi Helge

I'm not sure that this thread is destined to go much further as
A: "RV" our resident troll has been conspicuous by his absence recently (did he get booted?)
and B: RV's stated opinion is a load of Horse poo!
Mounted archers are very effective as you say in the right terrain and with the right logistics but even more so they are only good against the right foe. I would point people in the direction of the 3rd Crusade to support my argument

"Their infantry drawn up in front of the horsemen stood as firm as a wall, and every soldier had a thick gambeson and mail hauberks so thick and strong that our arrows had no effect.I saw soldiers with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, still trudging on in their ranks." - Beha Ad-Din, the life of Saladin.

I think that it is fair to say that the Romans had equal if not better equipment to the Crusade army of Richard I and that the main threat to the Roman armies sent in to Parthia was the same as faced the Crusaders, Heat and overextended logistics. [/quote]

[John M McDermott]

Why then, such a dismal performance at Carrae?

Is it possible that not all of the Romans were equipped with hamatas? We all assume they were, but were thay?

[Tasciavanous]

Why then, such a dismal performance at Carrae?

Err well every one has an off day now and then :oops:
Seriously though I had always seen Carrhae as Pathians fool Publius into overextending a pursuit, Cataphracts stiff Roman cavalry and then go of to find the infantry waving Publius' head on a lance the infantry is understandably disheartened the Cataphracts then charge the legions who fight back and manage to limp off under cover of night. Other than harassing Publius into a rash pursuit the horse Archers don't seem to have done much actual damage it was the Cataphracts that did all the damage Plutarch says quite emphatically that the Kontoi could penetrate two men's bodies at once proof of their impact on this battle I feel. Plutarch also mentions "But the Gauls suffered most of all from the heat to which they were unaccustomed" So I stick by my assertion that the conditions were almost as much of an enemy as the Horse archers.

Is it possible that not all of the Romans were equipped with hamatas? We all assume they were, but were thay?

True I suppose I should get in the habit of "checking my assumptions at the door" just not something I had considered before but Plutarch again "The Gauls lightly equipped and unprotected bodies being struck by Kontoi" Food for thought.

[hoplite14gr]

Logistics is quite a magic word.
Properly used Light Cavalry and skirmishers can starve an arny and force him to abandon its objective. That tactic could be employed more easier by horse archers rather than heavy footmen.
But generally ancient missile troops not standing behind fortifications or bad terrain could not easily resist a fomed heavy unit charge although exceptions might be found.
There are no perfect weapons or troops just the appropriate tactic I guess.
Kind regards
Stefanos

[Antonius Lucretius]

The efficiency or the bow, whether composite or not, against a resolute charge made by well protected and motivated infantry was amply demonstrated at Marathon...