Roman tactics vs Parthian armies after Carrhae

[Twigler]

After just finishing Rubicon by Tom Holland I became fascinated by Crassus' career, and his relatively quick demise once he stopped being a power behind the throne type of operator, so I picked up a translation of Plutarch's biography. So far so good.

But as a side branch which I though was worth investigating are the tactical/strategical changes the Roman armies made to deal with the Parthian armies that slaughtered Crassus and his legions. The engagements after Carrhae seem a bit of a hit and miss affair - two times plundering Ctesiphon is of course a big win, but the Romans didn't seem to be able to score convincing victories over the Parthians and most easy to find sources seem to consider it as a long drawn out slug fest that exhausted both empires.

So is there a good source to read that deals with these conflicts, specifically the way the Romans changed their tactics, army configuration, etc. ?

[LaCroix]

As the Parthian strengths were mounted archery and heavy cavalry, I suspect that shield walls and 'turtle' formations would be the logical answer. Additionally, more cavalry to bind the Parthian troops to allow infantry to close in.

Also massive fortifications, trying to restrict movement of the more mobile Parthian troops.

But in the end, it was a big tug-o-war that lasted nearly six centuries, as the Parthians became Sassanids, and Rome fell apart, thus Byzantine continuing on the roman end, so whatever change the Romans implemented, (if they did change) was not enough.

[lord Martiya]

Actually, the change WAS enough: the Roman problem with the Parthians was that they were always forced to retire before finishing the mopping up because of Judaic wars and barbarian invasions. Even with that, the Parthians were weakened enough that the Sassanid, a small subject tribe, were able to overthrow them, and the following tug-o-war was because they introduced combat infantry to counter Roman one, matching their enemy.
Roman changes were the following: introduction of combat-capable cavalry (previous Roman cavalry were just glorified scouts) made of cataphracts to charge enemy mounted archers and cataphracts; more ranged weapons (mainly bows and arrows, but there's at least an instance of sling use) to counter Parthian mounted archers; introduction of plate armor to deflect arrows); more fortifications (the Parthians just had no siege abilities, while the Sassanids had).

[Thanas]

Oh goodie, Lord Martiya opens his mouth once again. Keep in mind people that this is the same poster who likes to make assumptions and then run away without even once defending them. I suspect this will be more of the same.

Actually, the change WAS enough: the Roman problem with the Parthians was that they were always forced to retire before finishing the mopping up because of Judaic wars and barbarian invasions.

BS. The Romans were able to finish the mopping up quite thoroughly under Lucius Verus and under Septimius Severus. The latter even turned Mesopotamia into a Roman province.

Even with that, the Parthians were weakened enough that the Sassanid, a small subject tribe, were able to overthrow them, and the following tug-o-war was because they introduced combat infantry to counter Roman one, matching their enemy.

The parthians had combat infantry as well, it is just that the Sassanids employed them in more numbers and copied the Armenian/Roman style.

Roman changes were the following: introduction of combat-capable cavalry (previous Roman cavalry were just glorified scouts)

BS. Previous Roman cavalry ranged from everything from scouts to heavy cavalry and were very combat effective.

made of cataphracts to charge enemy mounted archers and cataphracts;

Actually, the first cataphract unit we know of was modeled on the Sarmatians and stationed near the danube. It is only in the third century that we know of widespread detachements of heavy cavalry to the east, the other were all at the danube, which highlights a need to combat the threat of the Sarmatians and not that of the Parthians.

more ranged weapons (mainly bows and arrows, but there's at least an instance of sling use) to counter Parthian mounted archers;

Actually, the Romans used mounted archers as well. That said, I would like you to cite some numbers for increased use of bow and arrows, given that we already have specialized archer units in the early empire.

introduction of plate armor to deflect arrows);

Please show me the source for the claim that plate armor was introduced to deflect arrows.

more fortifications (the Parthians just had no siege abilities, while the Sassanids had).

The Roman trend to widespread fortification only starts under Hadrian and only goes into full scale in the east under Diocletian.

[Twigler]

[edit] NM, Thanas already answered pretty much what I was going to say, except that he said it with more certainty. I had more "I thought that this wasn't true..." parts.

So the conclusion is more that they didn't change as such, just used better commanders? It's pretty clear from that Crassus made a number of errors during the battle that lost him large numbers of troops and eventually doomed him.

[Thanas]

[edit] NM, Thanas already answered pretty much what I was going to say, except that he said it with more certainty. I had more "I thought that this wasn't true..." parts.

So the conclusion is more that they didn't change as such, just used better commanders? It's pretty clear from that Crassus made a number of errors during the battle that lost him large numbers of troops and eventually doomed him.

They changed a lot, it is just that a lot of this change is not noticeable to the untrained eye and really easy to miss because we do not have a source which starts with "this is the Roman strategy against the Parthians following Carrhae".

That said, here is a quick and dirty overview.

Of the utmost importance is the different strategic picture. One very important factor in both the defeats of Crassus and Marcus Antonius is that the Parthians knew they were coming, because the strategical picture at that time did not allow for more than one direct invasion route (from Judea/Syria onwards). So the Parthians pretty much could afford to choose the battlefield and delay the invasion with fortifications at will while pulling troops from other fronts and concentrating them for a trap.

This changed under Augustus. With Armenia under Roman control and the desert cities of Bostra, Hattra and Palmyra being Roman cities or clients, the Parthians had to not only guard 1, but actually four invasion routes (3 if you count the ones along the Euphrat and Tigris as one route). Add to that the fact that Augustus had numerical superiority and nearly all his forces were combat veterans with a decade of fighting under their belt and you can see why the Parthians agreed to a truce. Armenia is the key here - with it you can pretty much march at will into Parthia. The Parthians tried to change this numerous times, but both in the 42 war and the 58-63 they failed to do anything major.

This strategic blow to the Parthians pretty much doomed them from any success in any war. You can see this especially in the 161-165 war, were one cannot help but admire the clinical Roman reaction. They formed three armies and attacked simultaneously alongside all routes of invasion. As a result, the war was pretty much decided within one year. So we have got this change to the strategical picture.

Whereas Crassus had his legions and only a few clients, the Romans utilized local knowledge and a lot of auxillary forces. They also stationed six-seven legions + auxillary units near the border at all times. These could be reinforced within a few months by danube units. Furthermore, the Romans made sure the client cities were negatively disposed towards the Parthians.

As for battlefield tactics, the Romans made some changes, but these were also employed against other enemies. Generally, I cannot really remember a specific anti-parthian tactic, though if you read Arrian you know of a few tactics that can be used against parthian units as well. One such example is the use of the Roman artillery against massed cavalry formations, one tactic we know the romans used to great success against the parthians. Same thing with caltrops etc.

One specific anti-parthian example I can think of is the development of heavy clubs as anti-cavalry weapons, though this first started in the reign of Commodus and Caracalla.

[lord Martiya]

Oh goodie, Lord Martiya opens his mouth once again. Keep in mind people that this is the same poster who likes to make assumptions and then run away without even once defending them. I suspect this will be more of the same.

Frankly, I have serious problems at defending my argument against you, for a simple reason: my sources are Italian university textbooks, and I have to admit that Italian history books on ancient Rome tends to be quite biased. Please have mercy of somebody honest enough to doubt of possibly biased sources (and with have mercy I mean just give me the sources: the more I know, the less I'll get humiliated).

BS. The Romans were able to finish the mopping up quite thoroughly under Lucius Verus and under Septimius Severus. The latter even turned Mesopotamia into a Roman province.

The following part of my post openly admitted they in the end managed to finish the job, but you'll have to admit they usually had some kind of interference (most notably the Second Judaic War exactly when Trajan was busy installing a puppet ruler in Parthia). By the way, hadn't been Verus the one to take over Mesopotamia?

The parthians had combat infantry as well, it is just that the Sassanids employed them in more numbers and copied the Armenian/Roman style.

Well, then I stand corrected. If I correctly understood, Parthian infantry was numerically and qualitatively inferior, am I right?

BS. Previous Roman cavalry ranged from everything from scouts to heavy cavalry and were very combat effective.

I'll explain myself better: Romans started to include combat cavalry in the regular army instead of raising it from subject populations on demand and treating it as a useful unit instead that as a nuisance (Romans were used at easily defeating cataphracts, and didn't held cavalry in great esteem for a long time).

Actually, the first cataphract unit we know of was modeled on the Sarmatians and stationed near the danube. It is only in the third century that we know of widespread detachements of heavy cavalry to the east, the other were all at the danube, which highlights a need to combat the threat of the Sarmatians and not that of the Parthians.

Checked. I stand corrected.

Actually, the Romans used mounted archers as well. That said, I would like you to cite some numbers for increased use of bow and arrows, given that we already have specialized archer units in the early empire.

Could I have a source about Roman mounted archers? For the archer unit, I actually deduced it was an improvement from the fact that next to no Italian textbook cites Roman archers (they tend to concentrate on the pilum) in any contest but the Parthian front.

Please show me the source for the claim that plate armor was introduced to deflect arrows.

Sadly unable: it was from a website that is now off-line.

The Roman trend to widespread fortification only starts under Hadrian and only goes into full scale in the east under Diocletian.

Thanks for pointing out my failure in indicating fortification of cities.

[Thanas]

Oh goodie, Lord Martiya opens his mouth once again. Keep in mind people that this is the same poster who likes to make assumptions and then run away without even once defending them. I suspect this will be more of the same.

Frankly, I have serious problems at defending my argument against you, for a simple reason: my sources are Italian university textbooks, and I have to admit that Italian history books on ancient Rome tends to be quite biased. Please have mercy of somebody honest enough to doubt of possibly biased sources (and with have mercy I mean just give me the sources: the more I know, the less I'll get humiliated).

I am not doing your work for you. It is your job to provide your original sources or cite them. I can read Italian, so that will just be fine as well.

The following part of my post openly admitted they in the end managed to finish the job, but you'll have to admit they usually had some kind of interference (most notably the Second Judaic War exactly when Trajan was busy installing a puppet ruler in Parthia). By the way, hadn't been Verus the one to take over Mesopotamia?

The interference only happened in one war. That is one war out of six. Also, Verus did not take over Mesopotamia. He took over the eastern part of it (briefly) and called that one the province Mesopotamia.

The parthians had combat infantry as well, it is just that the Sassanids employed them in more numbers and copied the Armenian/Roman style.

Well, then I stand corrected. If I correctly understood, Parthian infantry was numerically and qualitatively inferior, am I right?

Hardly numerically and to the quality, that depends. They were very good at what they were inteded to do - shower the enemy with arrows and javelins. Problem is, so were the Romans, who also had melee capacity. That said, the Parthians at several times managed to trap Imperial armies and force them to capitulate as well as achieve the destruction of several legions.

BS. Previous Roman cavalry ranged from everything from scouts to heavy cavalry and were very combat effective.

I'll explain myself better: Romans started to include combat cavalry in the regular army instead of raising it from subject populations on demand and treating it as a useful unit instead that as a nuisance (Romans were used at easily defeating cataphracts, and didn't held cavalry in great esteem for a long time).

Combat cavalry in the regular army? WTH are you talking about here? We already have cavalry alae under Augustus, even as very high prestige units. In fact, the highest prestige unit on the Rhine frontier (next to the legions) was a cavalry ala of 1000 men. A lot of those units were also raised from Roman citizens.

Actually, the Romans used mounted archers as well. That said, I would like you to cite some numbers for increased use of bow and arrows, given that we already have specialized archer units in the early empire.

Could I have a source about Roman mounted archers?

Sure. It should be obvious to anybody who has ever read Tacitus. This is about the Roman campaign against Arminius (remember: This is under Tiberius/Germanicus).

Sic accensos et proelium poscentis in campum, cui Idistaviso nomen, deducunt. is medius inter Visurgim et collis, ut ripae fluminis cedunt aut prominentia montium resistunt, inaequaliter sinuatur. pone tergum insurgebat silva editis in altum ramis et pura humo inter arborum truncos. campum et prima silvarum barbara acies tenuit: soli Cherusci iuga insedere ut proeliantibus Romanis desuper incurrerent. noster exercitus sic incessit: auxiliares Galli Germanique in fronte, post quos pedites sagittatii; dein quattuor legiones et cum duabus praetoriis cohortibus ac delecto equite Caesar; exim totidem aliae legiones et levis armatura cum equite sagittario ceteraeque sociorum cohortes. intentus paratusque miles ut ordo agminis in aciem adsisteret.

So as you can see, even in Germany the Romans were already using mounted archers even in the second decade of the first century. I can also show pictures of tombstones showing them with their archers and bows.

For the archer unit, I actually deduced it was an improvement from the fact that next to no Italian textbook cites Roman archers (they tend to concentrate on the pilum) in any contest but the Parthian front.

First - deducing is bad form, especially when you present your opinion as fact.

Second - it is well known by all Roman military historians that Roman archers were very well used by the Romans, for example in the Dacian wars Domitian explicitly ordered archers to be transferred there for the campaign. Or you can just read the above quote from Tacitus, which mentions foot bowmen:

auxiliares Galli Germanique in fronte, post quos pedites sagittatii;

What do you think those are?

Please show me the source for the claim that plate armor was introduced to deflect arrows.

Sadly unable: it was from a website that is now off-line.

Websites are worthless in a real debate when it comes to ancient history.

[LaCroix]

Combat cavalry in the regular army? WTH are you talking about here? We already have cavalry alae under Augustus, even as very high prestige units. In fact, the highest prestige unit on the Rhine frontier (next to the legions) was a cavalry ala of 1000 men. A lot of those units were also raised from Roman citizens.

Indeed, there is even the famous quote attributed to Plautus - "Ah, yes, mere infantry - poor beggars…"

Thanks for all the info, Thanas. You made me want to brush up my latin again.

[Thanas]

Combat cavalry in the regular army? WTH are you talking about here? We already have cavalry alae under Augustus, even as very high prestige units. In fact, the highest prestige unit on the Rhine frontier (next to the legions) was a cavalry ala of 1000 men. A lot of those units were also raised from Roman citizens.

Indeed, there is even the famous quote attributed to Plautus - "Ah, yes, mere infantry - poor beggars…"

Thanks for all the info, Thanas. You made me want to brush up my latin again.

Yeah, but this is a bad translation. In fact, it is a very bad translation of Plautus and his miles gloriosus, which it is attributed to. The only time there is any mention of infantry in that work is this quote:

Art. Quid in Cappadocia, ubi tu quingentos simul,
ni hebes machaera foret, uno ictu occideras?
Pyrg. At peditastelli quia erant, sivi viverent.

.

Which some people translate as:

Ah, yes, mere infantry. Poor beggars - so I let them live.

but which is more correctly translated as:
"When you were in Cappadocia you would have killed five-hundred men with one stroke, had your sabre not been blunt?"
"Because they were mere poor infantry, I let them live"

Point is, it is a scene in his miles gloriosous, wherein a braggart soldier brags about his exploits and is ridiculed by the other for it. Anybody who translates it as "mere infantry - poor beggars" is just not doing any service to Plautus and leaves out the important context of the scene.

[Twigler]

They changed a lot, it is just that a lot of this change is not noticeable to the untrained eye and really easy to miss because we do not have a source which starts with "this is the Roman strategy against the Parthians following Carrhae".

(cutting the rest to save on space)

Thank you very much for the details, Thanas. I read about the Armenian Wars, but didn't realise their importance as a gateway. I always assumed that both states fought over it to have it in place as a buffer state. Looks like studying the 161-165 war would be a good place to learn more.

[Thanas]

The only sources for that are Cassius Dio LXXI 2,1, and the (largely ahistorical) Vita Cassii in the Historia Augusta. Unless you want to read inhscriptions.

Syme, R., Avidius Cassius. His Rank, Age and Quality, in: Straub, J., Historia – Augusta – Colloquium, Bonn 1984/85, Bonn 1987, 207-222 also has the best summary IMO.

EDIT: You are of course correct about the buffer state as well. There is no reason why one state cannot offer two purposes to each side.

[PainRack]

If Thanas would not mind a thread diversion, just how expensive was it to refit/build a new legion during this era?

I ask this because someone suggested that the supporting alae of cavalry and etc could cost more to equip and supply than the actual Roman legion itself.

[Thanas]

If Thanas would not mind a thread diversion, just how expensive was it to refit/build a new legion during this era?

I ask this because someone suggested that the supporting alae of cavalry and etc could cost more to equip and supply than the actual Roman legion itself.

That someone is an idiot then.

Pay for a legionnary (under Caracalla): 675
Pay for a legionnary cavalrymen: 900
Pay for an auxillary cavalrymen: 450-600
Pay for a member of a citizen ala: 740.

Keep in mind that the rider have to purchase food for their horses with this as well. So everything considered, maintaining a legion was still far more costly than that of an ala, since the latter numbers at most 1000 men, while the other numbers ~6000.

As for equipment, of course Horses are going to cost a lot. However - Roman soldiers had to buy their equipment from the state, so if the soldeir lived long enough he would pay all of those costs back. Iirc that would happen if he lived at least 5-8 years in service. Under Septimius Severus the Legions cost 56 Mio. Denari per year, whereas the entire auxillary forces only cost 18 Mio.

If you want more detailed information I suggest you look into some of the papyri from Egypt, they have detailed listings of how much a horse and how much an armor cost.