Rise Of Parthia ?

[kennyxx]

Porthonians And Michael.In connection with the Roman, Phalanx Debate. My mind goes over to the Parthians and the Roman armies at there peek.I am not to familiar with the Prominence of the Parthians but I musta ssume contingents of the Parthian Horse must have been included in the Persian forces. Could it be assume at the time of Alexander they were not as good as they were to become. If so then it underlines again Alexanders generalship and his higher standing than the Roman legions.History shows us that the Legions of the Tiumverate were more developed and trained than the Romans Almost 2 centuries earlier that faced Phyrus.Yet we have Crassus following the defeat of Spartacus glory hunting with his third of Romes military power on the glory hunt in Parthia. As Michael so mentions with the Roman shape discipline and formations we have 8 Roman legions been anhialated by an army based solely on Cavalry.And arhers.It was also mentioned about Alexander losing shape and that Romans never ran away. Well the contradiction is that the Romans ran away from the Parthians. Also Pompeys Soldiers ran away from Caesar. As soon as they saw Pompey making for the hills after his cavaly then his wing were crushed by Caesars Fourth wave of attack.Its been said in the foron that the Romans tactics and whatever would have prevailed maybe taken advantage of any ofAlexanders mistakes. Well its fare to say the Romans had there weeknesses and made many more mistakes. Asia and indeed europe was littered with Roman eagles. Pompey outnumberred Caesar 40000 to 22000 and still lost and fair to say both sets ofCavalry were useless. Parthia is one example that the Roman legionary formation was really no better nor worse than the Macedonian Phalanx. Once again I feel it depended on the era and As Pompey Caesar Proved it was on the commander. Can it still be argued the Romans would cut the Macedonians up. going on history I feel not.
Kenny

[kennyxx]

To second this message. Caesar nor Rome took on the Parthian Empire so Alexander did what the Romans didnt try or only tried Once with Crassus the Result was Crassus head on a pole as a Trophy.The Romans didnt rattle that cage agian.Or I dont think they did I stand to be corrected.Kenny

[Paralus]

Although during the PersianWars of 480/79 there is mentioned a "Parthian" contingent (with mail clad horses) the Parthians to which you refer (that is those doing over the greedy, ambitious Crassus) were actually the result of that province of Iran being overrun by an ethnic group from the central steppes called "Parni". It is this group that Antigonus III (The Great) brought under his control at the close of the third century.These then are the Parthians of the parting shot that Crassus meets at Cahrrae in 53. The Roman army led by the overweening Crassus (all full of himself and looking to do an Alexander) was singularly un-prepared for the opposition it faced. No longer simply the "fish scale" clad armoured heavy horse that fought at Darius' side at Gaugamela, they now possessed lighter units armed with bows. In the face of Roman heavy infantry they simply skirmished, surrounded and fought with bows and lance. Disciplined Roman maniples reformed, pulled back and reformed all over again GÇô to no avail. On the open plains and faced with seas of light and fish scale armoured cavalry they were hopelessly out matched. It was a lesson that not all Roman commanders (outside of Trajan) learned. Think Mongols. A Macedonian Phalanx will have fared little (if any) better. Indeed, after Antigonus' death (about 187 GÇô sometime shortly after Magnesia) Parthia revolted and defied all Macedonian efforts to reconquer it GÇô including capturing the Seleucid monarch Demetrius II.The results of the Triumvir wars deserve better service than I've time for at present. Suffice to say that Roman v Roman is necessarily going to be different than Rome against a foreigner.All formations have their advantages and disadvantages. And when you rule an empire for some five centuries, you are going to litter that with the bones of your dead. It's whether the bones of the enemy dead outnumber your own which counts. In their contests it's the bones of Macedonian Phalangites far outnumber those of legionaries throughout Greece and the Near EastParalus.

[Paralus]

Alexander took on a contingent from the area that would become the Parthia history knows - along with tens of thousands of others.Caesar, by virtue of his appointments, took on the Gauls and made it to England. Have no doubt that - like all ambitious Roman commanders, an Eastern campaign with the attendant glory and money (never forget the gold and silver) was in his mind once Rome was a settled issue.As for Crassus, a full of himself goose who got what he most likely deserved.The Romans did take Parthia - under Trajan. But, given unrest in the West, Trajan had to return and was killed on the way. His successors then vied with each other to take parts of it back and lose them in turn.Indeed, Parthia became a sort of Roman Alsace-Lorraine until the Sassanids put it beyond question.Paralus

[Nicator]

I think the question of maniple vs phalanx has been answered adequately. To add one last statement that maybe I didn't make clear earlier. It's not a fair comparison as the maniple is not designed for crushing and pinning but maneuver. The Macedonian system is what made it so effective. Taking a phalanx out of that system as a virtual stand alone unit and expecting it to be effective against a different system on its own is a recipe for military disaster. This lesson was hard earned for some and unfortunately, for many of those one track minded successors, never learned. To effectively wield a phalanx you must protect its flanks at all costs! Still, those legions were bloody well disciplined at Carhae but all the maneuvering capabilities in their arsenal couldn't have saved them. This battle was compared to Alexander's Zeravshan Valley disaster. Fortunately, Alexander was not present for the massacre. later Nicator

[Paralus]

G'day NicatorI believe we are in concordance on the subject!"This battle was compared to Alexander's Zeravshan Valley disaster".I assume you are referring to Pharnuches' disaster in attacking Spitamenes' mounted Sogdian and Scythian troops? And a total disaster it was: some 2,400 men (860 cavalry and 1500 heavy infantry) massacred. One of the few times that Alexander displayed a dangerous underestimation of both the situation and who he was dealing with.Paralus.

[Nicator]

Hello Paralus,
Just finished a late one with my new boss. He's given me some valuable lessons and I'm totally spent. So now I can get a short reply out before rushing through the crappy Chicago traffic. Indeed I am talking about Pharnuches debacle. I believe it was a similar situation, the horse were too tired and worn down from continuous forced marches and inadequate feeding, the leaders were totally unable to effectively deal with the situation, and in the Macedonian case, were apparently in the middle of changing the leadership duties when the attack came. Perhaps the most striking similarity was the grossly overextended line which left them so vulnerable. There's not much to say about it, except that it clearly demonstrated the weakness of Alexander's machine, in the inept hands of his subordinates and perhaps, its overconfidence. gotta go...before my own starvation sets in.later Nicator

[alejandro]

Hello all,I just wanted to say that Alexander did fight a Parthian-like foe when he crossed the Oxos (I think) and pursued the Scythians. And yet he managed to be victorious in spite of the alleged inferiority of the phalanx (certainly less mobile than the Scythian horse-riders) and the unknown and unfavourable territory (open plain). He was just bloody good tactically and strategically, using the composing elements of his army in a masterful way.Question: Are the Parni a Scythian tribe, Paralus? You say they came GÇ£from the central steppesGÇ¥, but you mean Central-Persian steppes or Central-Asian ones? Since you say they were an ethnic group that overran Iran, I would lean toward the latter option, but I want to be sure.All the best,Alejandro

[Paralus]

G'day Alejandro.Yes it was the Oxus. Can't lay hands on my Arrian, but from memory the victory was achieved by the cavalry, archers and light infantry who had forded the river and engaged the Scythians in rather furious combat whilst the phalanx crossed. Prior to that, things were somewhat dire as I recall.The Parni GÇô to the best of my knowledge GÇô were a semi nomadic tribe originating to the east of the Caspian Sea. That would make them from the central Asian steppes.Parthia existed as an Iranian province from the earliest time of the Achaemenid Empire. It is after Alexander's death that these tribesmen invade that area of Iran that was occupied by the Parthians who, led by Artabazus, took part in the Persian invasion of Greece back in 480.The Parthian Empire dates itself from the time it took control of central Iran from the Seleucids (247) GÇô notwithstanding Antiochus III's (The Great) anabasis that forced them to recognise him as their ruler for a time down to Magnesia (190/89) GÇô until their subjugation by the Sassanids some four hundred or so years later.Paralus

[Roman Alsace-Lorraine]

Roman Alsace-Lorraine
Private Investigator
C10 : 32 Archibald Street
Lyneham,ACT - 2602.