cavalry in EB

About the Sassanians, they still had horse archers. But the horse archers in the armies were primarily nomads, most of which were not Iranian. This happened to the Parthians at the end of their time as well, though they had more Iranian nomads.

Heck, they evantaully phased out their super heavy cavalry to an all purpose one with less horse armor and bow and kontus. Admitedly, this change came about mainly due to the Turkish invasions.

The Sassanians also had more foot archers and infantry in general (it is believed) than the Parthians (who of course still had infantry). So hypothetically, a slight decrease in horse archers could be adressed by infantry skirmishers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

I do not think cataphracts evolved as a sort of response of the "horse peoples" to fight heavy Hellenistic or Roman infantry and agree that they probalby evolved to counter light horse archers. However they probably had their use considering that Sarmatians and Parthians used them extensively against hevay infantry armies.

---

That doesn't mean they employed them to frontally charge that infantry when still in good order. As Ludens has pointed out Carrhae became a massacre when disorder and confusion spread among the Romans. A few years later, while fighting the invading Parthians, Publius Ventidius Bassus resorted to deception and planted information to trick the Parthians into charging ready Roman infantry. Result: two clear Roman victories and a dead Parthian Crown Prince. A bit later, in his own Parthian invasion, Mark Anthony was defeated (though not in pitched battle) and had to retreat, but he managed to keep his army together and, though with heavy losses due largely to attrition and logistical constraints, he made it back. It didn't become another Carrhae. Also, in Arrian's Anabasis, we have an account of the anhilation of a Makedonian column by a horse archer army (presumably with some heavier troops too) during the Sogdian revolt of Spitamenes. It reads like a miniature Carrhae: most hand to hand combat (and most of the slaughter) seems to have happened when the Maks were already a routing mob. For some information on Sarmatian cavalry vs. Roman infantry see below.

The point here is not that armies based on the HA+cat (or more generally, HA+heavy cavalry) combo could totally destroy Hellenistic or Roman armies. Obviously they could. The question is how did they generally do it?. a) By sending the cats in frontal charges against formed infantry? I have not been able to find evidence of that. Actually, what it seems is that when cavalry charged infantry ready to receive them (often because they wrongly assessed the infantry's state) the infantry prevailed. b) By using all sort of things to cause disorder and loss of cohesion among their enemies and *then* charging home? What evidence we have seems to point more towards that.

Quote:

---

My most important argument is perhaps that the Sassanids used heavy cavalry with much less horse archer support than the Parthians. This indicates that heavy cavalry can defeat heavy infantry without much support.

---

First, heavy cavalry can do many other things beside charging headlong: fake charges, false retreats, outflanking... Arrian in his "Array against the Alans" is very, very concerned about those manouvers throwing his troops into disorder, specifically warns of them and lays out in detail the measures he is going to apply to avoid that happening. We also have examples of Sarmatian cavalry using the false retreat in Dio Cassius account of a battle during Marcus Aurelius Danubian wars. The picture that emerges is of Sarmatians quite willing to charge Roman infantry, as long as they think it is disordered (and working to try and produce that disorder), but doing poorly when they happen to be wrong.

Second, the exact amount of horse archers the Sassanians used is not at all that clear. The Sassanian military seems to have evolved quite a bit and to have had some regional variation too. Not strange for a polity spanning over 400 years and over a whole lot of land. What Sassanians would we be talking about here?

Third, it seems that it is often assumed that the Sassanid revolt entailed some sort of military revolution too. Well, when they revolted the Sassanians were just part of the Parthian Army, received support from Parthian noble clans and nothing really indicates that they were already substantially dissimilar, specifically, by using less horse archers. So, there was probably little difference between late Parthian and early Sassanian armies. Those rock reliefs mentioned below depict Sassanians fighting against Parthians. You can tell who the Sassanians are because they are gloriously winning, but would be hard pressed to tell them apart from the Parthians based on equipment. However, see below some additional comment on those reliefs.

Quote:

---

Although not the most academic source I’ll post some text from an Osprey volume.

---

I would not want to sound too dismissive, but, sorry, Osprey quotes just won't do here. What we need are reasonably detailed battle accounts in the primary sources. I have not been able to find many, but those that I did find are all coincident in not showing cataphracts, nor any other contemporary cavalry, routinely frontally charging infantry in good order and winning. Remember, I originally set out to checking the sources to find proof of just the opposite. I just couldn't find it and had to give up. It might be there, though, and I'd actually love it...

Quote:

---

‘It was the elite lance-armed charging Savaran who proved decisive in the battles of Misiche, Barbalissos and Carrhae-Edessa.’ p.46 dr Kaveh Farrokh - Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224 - 642

‘The super-heavy Savaran were used as shock troops or ‘Panzers’ with the intent of inflicting as much damage to Roman materiel and morale as possible’ p.47 dr Kaveh Farrokh - Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224 - 642

---

Well, I just don't think we have the *detailed* battle accounts required to support such statements. Of course, "being decisive" can mean a bunch of things.

Quote:

---

‘The rock reliefs of Firuzabad and Nagsh-e-Rustam show elite cavalry in action with lances , but no depiction of archery in combat. This has led to the suggestion that horse archery was in decline (or had even disappeared) in Persia by the time the Sassanians rose to power. dr Kaveh Farrokh - Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224 - 642

---

Those reliefs show heroic Sassanian kings and princes battling Parthian kings and high nobility. They certainly are not depicted shooting a bow, but they carry archery equipment on their horses. To derive such a sweeping statement on the general military from the representation in art (artistic convention plays a role) of the absolute elite in battle against other elite seems to me overly bold, to put it mildly. Moreover, Sassanian art *very* abundantly depicts kings shooting bows on horseback in hunt scenes. So, horse archery most certainly did not disappear in Sassanian Persia (more on that below). It just disappeared from the artistic representation of its kings in battle.

Quote:

---

‘For the Sassanians battle was usually decided by a the shock of a single powerful thrust by the Savaran using lances. It is interesting to note that Romano-Byzantines fleeing before the Savaran were recommended not to counterattackthem frontally due to the high risk that they would ‘suffer injury on running into their well-ordered ranks’. (maurice, Strategikon, XI.1, 354-60) dr Kaveh Farrokh - Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224 - 642

---

I wonder about the evidence backing up that claim. We might look, for example, at the accounts of two battles of Belisarius against the Persians in Procopius of Cesarea (who was Belisarius secretary) and, I'd say a different, more complex, picture emerges. At Daras, there was a protracted archery duel and several Persian attempts at feigned flight. At Callinicum, there was again protracted exchange of arrows. This is interesting because the Sassanian army was entirely cavalry. Hence, if horse archery had dissappeared in Persia around 224 CE it seems it had made a major comeback by 531 CE. Again, Sassanian attempts to lure the Byzantines with feigned flights are recorded. Eventually, the Byzantine right wing collapsed and the whole army routed, However, Belisarius made the cavalry under his personal command dismount and joined it with the remaining left wing infantry. Formed in close order they resisted the Persian cavalry until both sides withdrew at nightfall. I think it'll be illustrative quoting Procopius' narrative:

"And the battle became fierce, although the two sides were not evenly matched in strength; for foot-soldiersm and very few of them, were fighting against the whole Persian cavalry. Nevertheless, the enemy were not able to rout them or in any other way to overpower them. For standing shoulder to shoulder they kept themselves constantly massed in a small space, and they formed with their shields a rigid, unyielding barricade; so that they shot at the Persians more conveniently than they were shot at by them. Many a time giving up, the Persians would advance against them determined to break up and destroy their line, but they always retired again from the assault unsuccessful. For their horses, annoyed by the clashing of the shields reared up and made confusion for themselves and their riders"

Notice the mention of the "whole Persian cavalry" shooting, the resort to charges only when "giving up" and the lack of success of said charges against formed infantry.

And, of course, the Strategikon's quote does not say anything about heavy cavalry charging headlong into formed heavy infantry and winning. It is just one of the many warnings of the book about what the author seemed to consider one of the Persians' major assets: their ability to fight in good order. That is a constant theme in the book and other enemies of the Byzantines are duly noted as not fighting in good order and recommendations are given accordingly. Rallying troops might have a chance against enemies disordered by the pursuit, but while some Byzantine foes were prone to that, that was unlikely in the case of the Persians.

Quote:

---

Also, the archer/cataphract combination resulting in the closed order/ open order dilemma suggests that cataphracts charge head on.

---

How so? To me it shows that by forming in close order the Roman infantry actually dissuaded the cataphracts from charging. Which is exactly my point. Again, I don't dispute that cataphracts (heavy cavalry in general) could and were in fact very willing to charge loose order or disordered infantry with good odds.

Quote:

---

I'll post some more sources that made me make this crazy claim later, am a bit busy.

---

I'd be grateful for that.

well, although I hate to quote myself my original question/remark was:

'At this time cavalry charges are capable of breaking only the worst types of infantry. Even elite cavalry such as companions and cataphracts cannot break infantry in a flanking charge. A direct charge is not even an option.

A major problem that can not be solved is of course the fact that phalangites can make a 180 degrees turn in 1 second. Considering all this, is EB going to make cavalry stronger in later builds of the mod?'

Although I may have reasoned in the opposite direction I agree that heavy cavalry charges alone could not break disciplined infantry, however as has been pointed out heavy cavalry should at least have a decent chance against normal infantry when charging them in the rear or flank. At this time, in EB, cavalry is only useful to break wavering infantry. I remember testing 2 units of cataphracts against 1 unit of some sort of germanic spearman in a custom battle and even when charging them repeatedly in the rear and front the cavalry was simply butchered. I am not suggesting a roman legion should be crushed by a frontal charge but a bunch on unarmoured militia infantrymen armed with 2 m sticks should imo be defeated by cataphracts wielding 3,5 m lances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angadil

The Sassanian military seems to have evolved quite a bit and to have had some regional variation too. Not strange for a polity spanning over 400 years and over a whole lot of land. What Sassanians would we be talking about here?

---

Concerning the Sassanian army I was refering to the entire period until the Hephtalite wars. It seems not illogical to me that the defeat of the Sassanian army by a light cavalry force was responsible for the re-introduction of the bow as an important weapon in the persian army. Remember this defeat took place in the fifth century AD. The 'composite' cavalryman both the Romans and Persians used during the 6th 7th century wars only evolved after the fifth century. According to Libianus; Shapur tried (in the third century) to 'make his cavalry invulnerable... he [Shapur] did not limit their armor to helmet, breastplate and greaves... nor even to place bronze plates before the brow and breast of the horse... the man was covered in chain mail from his head to the end of his feet, and the horse from it's crown to the tip of his hooves... they entrusted the body to the protection of iron mail'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angadil

Those reliefs show heroic Sassanian kings and princes battling Parthian kings and high nobility. They certainly are not depicted shooting a bow, but they carry archery equipment on their horses. To derive such a sweeping statement on the general military from the representation in art (artistic convention plays a role) of the absolute elite in battle against other elite seems to me overly bold, to put it mildly. Moreover, Sassanian art *very* abundantly depicts kings shooting bows on horseback in hunt scenes. So, horse archery most certainly did not disappear in Sassanian Persia (more on that below). It just disappeared from the artistic representation of its kings in battle.

---

Considering that Sassanian art depicts kings shooting bows on horseback is it not strange that there are very few images of soldiers shooting bows during battles? Al those hunting scenes show us is that shooting a bow from a horse still was a fine way to kill a lion or whatever animal. Imo this is no proof of horse archery in the army.

I agree the Sassanian army facing the Parthians was probably not to dissimilar, however, Roman historians seem to emphasize the role of heavy cavalry in Persian armies more than their role in Parthian armies. See for instance Ammianus Marcellinus,Julians Orations and Heliodorus Aethiopica and Libianus. Also, the Romans started to arm their own cavalry in a similar manner which of course also had to do with the declining quality of their infantry but according to the apparant popular opinion on this forum Roman heavy infantry under, for instance, Constantine should repulse heavy cavalry with ease.

Also, in order to bunch up infantry so they make nice targets for archers it seems logical to me that they would be frontally charged by heavy cavalry. Of course faking a charge may have the same result but I am not convinced that the opposing infantry would normally be fouled by this.

The real problem is, I think that there is very little information about battles between Romans/Greeks and Parthian armies, therefor we must interpret the information we have and not disregard the option of effective heavy cavalry attacks on organised infantry because we have very little sources. I think it is logical a catphract carrying a 4 m lance charging a not to deep line of not elite infanty should be able to break the infantry by charging repeatedly. Just consider the weight of the horse/soldier with all the armor. The lance itself was according to some ancient author capable of impaling two man (I'll look up the name after having done grocery shoping) at a time. Also, the four horned sadle many Parthians used gave enough stability to charge at full speed and not be launced on impact. Prolonged hand to hand combat with infantry would not be advisable of course.

Quote:

---

Also, in order to bunch up infantry so they make nice targets for archers it seems logical to me that they would be frontally charged by heavy cavalry. Of course faking a charge may have the same result but I am not convinced that the opposing infantry would normally be fouled by this.

---

Why not? After all, it is mentioned in the book you quoted multiple times, but I read about it in more reliable books. After all, how would the infantry know when the cavalry is truly intending to charge or not? To stay in a loose formation would be suicide. Steppe people often used the same tactics, like the feigned retreat time after time against the same enemies, and yet it seems the enemy is very slow to catch on...

Also which cataphract did you test with? The Azad Asavarn? Or the Zradha Pahlavan? I can't really argue with the tests themselves because my computer won't play any CDs (I'm going through withdrawl...), but what difficulty was it at? In addition, while only a minor part, the best of the best cataphracts are not in game yet...

We're not trying to argue that the heavy cavalry of our factions suck, they are certaintly one if not the best at the time, but they were not invincible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

Also, in order to bunch up infantry so they make nice targets for archers it seems logical to me that they would be frontally charged by heavy cavalry. Of course faking a charge may have the same result but I am not convinced that the opposing infantry would normally be fouled by this.

---

Well it's a win/win for the heavy cavalry in this situation, if they don't bunch up to receive the charge then you continue the charge and the infantry takes a beating. If the infantry closes formation to receive the charge the heavy cavalry can wheel off and let the horse archers do their job. Whether or not a charge is a ‘fake charge’ would probably have been determined by the way the infantry responded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

Well, although not a very authoritive and out dated source in Osprey's 'Rome's Enemies - Parthians and Sassanid Persians' Peter Wilcox says on p 20: 'Surena seems to have planned to break the Roman square with a charge by his 1.000 cataphracts, ...'. This seems to imply that a head on charge at the beginning of the battle was a serious option. Due to the fact that the Romans outnumbered the Parthians by a factor of three the charge was cancelled. Also during the same battle the assault force of Crassus' son Publius consisting of 8 cohorts, 500 foot archers and a bunch of gallic cavalry was destroyed in close combat.

---

The statement probably derives from Plutarch's biography of Crassus. However, you seemed to have missed Plutarch's other statement regarding why the Parthians abandoned the frontal charge and it was not because of the Roman's superior numbers. Plutarch says here: "And at first they purposed to charge upon the Romans with their long spears, and throw their front ranks into confusion; but when they saw the depth of their formation, where shield was locked with shield, and the firmness and composure of the men, 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." from here: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/.../Crassus*.html

The Parthian cataphracts knew that they could not break the Roman formation because it was too deep and the men were disciplined enough to hold back the charge. Also, the force of Publius was not at first destroyed just by close combat. The Parthian horsemen tried to cause further disorder within Publius' ranks by raising up sand and dust so the Romans couldn't see. Then the Parthian horsemen shot the Romans down. In fact, this was the encounter where Plutarch makes it clear that the Roman scutum was not strong enough to withstand arrows shot from recurved composite bows, and says that many Romans were felled by arrows: "For, in the agonies of convulsive pain, and writhing about the arrows, they would break them off in their wounds, and then in trying to pull out by force the barbed heads which had pierced their veins and sinews, they tore and disfigured themselves the more."

During all this time, Plutarch does not mention that the Parthian cataphracts directly charged into the Romans and defeated them with the shock; during all this time in the encounter, they were merely stationed in front of the rest of the horsemen, presumably to protect the horse-archers from any possible charge. It was the Gauls who charged the Parthian cataphracts and the latter who stopped them and beat them back. Even in the final destruction of Publius' men, Plutarch says that they were shot to death by arrows. Finally, after Publius, Megabacchus, and Censorinus killed themselves and their men nearly completely destroyed, did the Parthian cataphracts mount and charge. The account goes as (ibid):

"They were therefore compelled to retire upon the men-at-arms, taking with them Publius, who was severely wounded. And seeing a sandy hillock near by, they all retired to it, and fastened their horses in the centre; then locking their shields together on the outside, they thought they could more easily defend themselves against the Barbarians. 10But it turned out just the other way. For on level ground, the front ranks do, to some extent, afford relief to those who are behind them. But here, where the inequality of the ground raised one man above another, and lifted every man who was behind another into greater prominence, there was no such thing as escape, but they were all alike hit with arrows, bewailing their inglorious and ineffectual death.

Now there were with Publius two Greeks, of those who dwelt near by in Carrhae, Hieronymus and Nicomachus. These joined in trying to persuade him to slip away with them and make their escape to Ichnae, a city which had espoused the Roman cause and was not far off. But Publius, declaring that no death could have such terrors for him as to make him desert those who were perishing on his account, ordered them to save their own lives, bade them farewell, and p397dismissed them. Then he himself, being unable to use his hand, which had been pierced through with an arrow, presented his side to his shield-bearer and ordered him to strike home with his sword. 12In like manner also Censorinus is said to have died; but Megabacchus took his own life, and so did the other most notable men. The survivors fought on until the Parthians mounted the hill and transfixed them with their long spears, and they say that not more than five hundred were taken alive. Then the Parthians cut off the head of Publius, and rode off at once to attack Crassus."

An actual analysis of this encounter from Plutarch's account would suggest that the role the Parthian cataphracts played was not to charge home and destroy all with shock, but merely limited to prevent the Parthian horse-archers from being disrupted by enemy cavalry or, possibly enemy missile infantry (remember Publius' 500 archers) as well, and to protect the Parthian horse-archers from enemy troops who were melee-oriented, in addition to mopping up the already fatigued and defeated enemy. As Pedro and Kenny had already explained, another role they played was to force the Romans into a close-order and bunched-up formation so the Parthian horse-archers could do their work easier, ie they could shoot and kill more efficiently without particularly aiming at one enemy. There does not occur any event in Carrhae mentioned by Plutarch where the Parthian cataphracts decided the battle with a powerful frontal charge; rather, it was the recurved composite bow of the Parthian horse archers. In my opinion, even if Surena did not have his 1,000 cataphracts, the Parthians still would've won Carrhae, only that it might've taken them longer to win the battle, like against the Gaulish horsemen who still would've eventually succumbed to the Parthian horse archers anyway (Plutarch says they were lightly-equipped and their bodies were unprotected), probably in another ambush. That is, not to say, that cataphracts were useless or unimportant; they certainly fulfill important roles in battle, as described above, but to charge against a disciplined heavy infantry force head-on was not particularly a sound tactic for cataphracts at this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

The lance itself was according to some ancient author capable of impaling two man (I'll look up the name after having done grocery shoping) at a time.

---

Plutarch.

Hi again MGM,

it seems our opinioins are not actually that distant? Bad computer problems have prevented me from playing the latest builds of EB. In our previous internal builds, I was able to defeat armies with good, heavy infantry with the combination of HAs and some heavy cavalry (not even Parthian cats). It took, time, patience and lots of manouvering, but results were good with minimal casualties. I expect my computer woes to finish soon and then I'll make a point to test those problems you mention.

As for the other points like the relative importance of shock cavalry vs. HAs in late Parthian and early Sassanian armies I think they are mostly of interest for you and I. I'd be prepared to admit a certain decrease of importance of horse archery beginning already in the final Parthian years. Of course, nothing as radical as "disappearance. That would be supported not so much from the "royal" reliefs, but rather from things like the Dura Europus graffiti. I still stress that you need to be very careful to infer trends for the general military from the way the elites choose to depict themselves in art. Note that Sassanian art in the period when you say that mounted archery had made a comeback still depicts kings in battle as lancers, not mounted archers. To me, that indicates that the "battle image" that the Sassanian elites chose for themselves has some serious constraints as source of information for the general Sassanian military and needs to be carefully weighed against other evidence.

Slight off-topic, I must say that reading these informed and in-depth historical debates it gives rise to is one of the things I love about EB. :2thumbsup:

Ditto. It's certainly interesting to read.

Thirded!

It's nice to see the history anoraks debate without it becoming a torrid flamewar. Keep it up chaps. :2thumbsup:

Fourthed :grin: ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Why not? After all, it is mentioned in the book you quoted multiple times, but I read about it in more reliable books. After all, how would the infantry know when the cavalry is truly intending to charge or not? To stay in a loose formation would be suicide. Steppe people often used the same tactics, like the feigned retreat time after time against the same enemies, and yet it seems the enemy is very slow to catch on...

Also which cataphract did you test with? The Azad Asavarn? Or the Zradha Pahlavan? I can't really argue with the tests themselves because my computer won't play any CDs (I'm going through withdrawl...), but what difficulty was it at? In addition, while only a minor part, the best of the best cataphracts are not in game yet...

We're not trying to argue that the heavy cavalry of our factions suck, they are certaintly one if not the best at the time, but they were not invincible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Well it's a win/win for the heavy cavalry in this situation, if they don't bunch up to receive the charge then you continue the charge and the infantry takes a beating. If the infantry closes formation to receive the charge the heavy cavalry can wheel off and let the horse archers do their job. Whether or not a charge is a ‘fake charge’ would probably have been determined by the way the infantry responded.

---

Well, I do not believe the cavalry would continuously feign charges because it would be very exhaustive. Remember it is suggested the term 'clibanarius' comes from a persian word meaning 'field oven'. As has been pointed out, destroying a good quality infantry army with archery alone requires thousands of arrows and resuplying the horse archers. I personally think it is more logical that the heavy cavalry would feign a charge several times. After several feigned charges the infantry would be 'softened up' by the archers and the cavalry would actually charge and try to break the infantry.

I tested the Azad Asavaran, due to their open order they are perhaps better used against horse archers. Anyway, they were completely slaughtered by simple spearmen (don't remember what kind). I also tried the Zradha Pahlavan who performed slightly better due to their close formation but still they suffered heavy casualties and had to retire. I also tested the Sarmatian cataphract and it was the same story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jurchen fury

The statement probably derives from Plutarch's biography of Crassus. However, you seemed to have missed Plutarch's other statement regarding why the Parthians abandoned the frontal charge and it was not because of the Roman's superior numbers. Plutarch says here: "And at first they purposed to charge upon the Romans with their long spears, and throw their front ranks into confusion; but when they saw the depth of their formation, where shield was locked with shield, and the firmness and composure of the men, 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."

---

Well, I did not argue cataphracts should be capable of breaking arguable the best infantry around. Plutarchs statement however can also be interpreted in the following way, the Parthians clearly regarded it a possibility to break heavy infantry in a head on charge. However, due to the fact that 1000 cataphracts were facing 7 legions and thousands of auxilia the charge was stopped. Perhaps it can be derived from this situation that a smaller number of, perhaps auxilia, could be broken by heavy cavalry? The depth and close order of the Roman line was of course only possible because of the huge amount of soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jurchen fury

An actual analysis of this encounter from Plutarch's account would suggest that the role the Parthian cataphracts played was not to charge home and destroy all with shock, but merely limited to prevent the Parthian horse-archers from being disrupted by enemy cavalry or, possibly enemy missile infantry (remember Publius' 500 archers) as well, and to protect the Parthian horse-archers from enemy troops who were melee-oriented, in addition to mopping up the already fatigued and defeated enemy.

---

'Then, as the enemy got to work, their light cavalry rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen in front, plying their long spears, kept driving them together into a narrow space, except those who, to escape death from the arrows, made bold to rush desperately upon their foes. 2These did little damage, but met with a speedy death from great and fatal wounds, since the spear which the Parthians thrust into the horses was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once.' p. 401

This seems to exply to me that the romans were pushed together by heavy cavalry charges although admittedy it refers to the period after Publius was killed. By the way, how do you think the 500 foot archers met their end?

'Four cohorts together, also, which Vargontinus the legate had suffered to get detached from the main body while it was still dark, and which had lost their way, were surrounded on a sort of hill, and cut to pieces as they fought, all except twenty men. The Parthians, admiring these men, who tried to push their way through them with drawn swords, made way for them and suffered them to pass through and march deliberately to Carrhae. 'p.405

Does this imply that they tried to fight their way true the Parthian lines with sowrds, so in had to hand combat? Or does it imply that these crazed romans ran of the hill with swords drawn and the Parthians moved let them through without offering resistance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angadil

it seems our opinioins are not actually that distant? Bad computer problems have prevented me from playing the latest builds of EB. In our previous internal builds, I was able to defeat armies with good, heavy infantry with the combination of HAs and some heavy cavalry (not even Parthian cats). It took, time, patience and lots of manouvering, but results were good with minimal casualties.

---

Imo it is still possible to defeat infantry armies with this combo, however in my experience you might as well have medium or light lancers because they only serve to break wavering troops or hunt down routing soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angadil

To me, that indicates that the "battle image" that the Sassanian elites chose for themselves has some serious constraints as source of information for the general Sassanian military and needs to be carefully weighed against other evidence.

---

I certainly agree, it is imo very difficult to get a clear picture of the Sassanian military but certainly in the 'middle' period there appears to be a general trend towards heavy cavalry - I'll finish my post later, must. have. food.

What difficulty do you do it at? Like mentioned before, Pedro and I both have computer problems, but like him I was able to beat most armies with horse archers and cataphracts. Of course I usually played on Medium...

Well, I tested it on hard, and did not use horse archers. Just 1 unit of spearmen vs 2 units of heavy cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

Well, I tested it on hard, and did not use horse archers. Just 1 unit of spearmen vs 2 units of heavy cavalry.

---

Well, EB's stats are designed for Medium difficulty on battles, as repeteadly stated. In Hard and Very Hard the AI gets bonuses (attack, defense and, I think, morale too) that the system is not designed to cope with. Additionally, I have a vague recollection that troops being shot at receive a morale penalty (not 100% sure about this,t though). Hence, even if HAs are not killing lots of well-armored enemy troops, they help the chances of their routing when charged by the heavy partners of the HAs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

Well, I tested it on hard, and did not use horse archers. Just 1 unit of spearmen vs 2 units of heavy cavalry.

---

5 cavalry units vs 10 spearmen probably gives victory for the cavalry, but 2 cavalry vs 1 spearman isn't necessarily going to give victory to the cavalry. The speed and ability to assemble local superiority in numbers is more important for cavalry than a powerful charge is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Guitar Murphy

Well, I tested it on hard, and did not use horse archers. Just 1 unit of spearmen vs 2 units of heavy cavalry.

---

Try with the Zradha Shivatir (not Pahalavan). They have bows as well as the kontus. Of course I think the best way to test would be to do it with both units of cataphracts and horse archers, since it seems to me that rarely in the game would one unit of infantry be against cataphracts.

Oh, and put it on medium too.

I think one thing has been somewhat forgotten or at least lost of sight in all this discussion: all these beautiful shining units are composed of... real men and (even more important in the actual case) real horses.....

From this point of view, no cavalry, as armoured as it could be, could ever frontly beat a disciplined well-trained infantry, unless it could apply a really overpowering effort on a concentrated point, and so wichever the historic period in wich it dwells. The major reason for that is.... horses are affraid by masses (ask a jumping athlet.... ;-) ). Thus, the reluctance of the horses to bump into a wall (be it of men) somewhat breaks the charge just before the impact (i.e. at the worst moment). The success of the "horse peoples" were much more due to the mobility (and therefore flexibility) of their mounted troops, and to some tactical tricks like interrupted charges (wich are not "false" charges but rather real "true" charges not pushed to their fuul extend, wich make them difficult to be identified as such by charged troops.... on this precise point, I totaly agree on the argument that these were not over used, because they really are exhaustive).

As they always did, Romans finally found a way to cope with the new tactical problem. So, to my opinion, cavalry is in no way underpowered. It is only a difficult-to-use tool on a battle field and that is a general's tactical superiority that make cavalry-oriented armies efficient. In fact, they are even more difficult to "drive" in RTW unless you make a heavy use of the pause, because you can't see everything at one moment and the individual units lack the minimum initiative a general is right to expect from his superior officers (and yes that make battles much more boring... this is why I undubtlessly prefer playing Romans or Diadochoi).

Indeed, the only era in wich cavalry was the real "queen of the field" has been the middle-age when there was no such things as formations, but as soon as compact formations came back, cavalry was demoted back to its support/scout role.

P.S.: I hope my non-maternal english has not corrupted my arguments, and I apologize for any grammatical heresy that could have wormed this post.... ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Tollus Galicus

From this point of view, no cavalry, as armoured as it could be, could ever frontly beat a disciplined well-trained infantry, unless it could apply a really overpowering effort on a concentrated point, and so wichever the historic period in wich it dwells. The major reason for that is.... horses are affraid by masses (ask a jumping athlet.... ;-) ). Thus, the reluctance of the horses to bump into a wall (be it of men) somewhat breaks the charge just before the impact (i.e. at the worst moment). The success of the "horse peoples" were much more due to the mobility (and therefore flexibility) of their mounted troops, and to some tactical tricks like interrupted charges (wich are not "false" charges but rather real "true" charges not pushed to their fuul extend, wich make them difficult to be identified as such by charged troops.... on this precise point, I totaly agree on the argument that these were not over used, because they really are exhaustive).

---

I never really got this argument. I certaintly understand a horse not wanting to charge something solid, but these were the best horses trained for a long time. What would be the point of them if they didn't charge? And isn't a running away person just as solid to a horse? Or charging against another group of cavalry? I mean, since they trained horses to accept blood and the noise in the field, I can't think that comparing the horses used in military by people that were excellent with horses (not say, Romans) to a modern day jumper is valid.

That said, it's irellevant, because you just didn't charge a group of fresh elite infantry. You had to break them up first, then you charged. So either the infantry broke at the charge or the cavalry did. If the cavalry was disciplined enough, then it could have stopped it in time and regrouped, which I guess could be considered the false charge.

And about the tiring, yes it would have been tiring. But they didn't have to charge at full tilt, which they didn't until the last minute anyway (and pretty much all heavy cavalry waited). So it wouldn't have necassarily taken them out of the battle. Also keep in mind the false charge was essentially what the horse archer did. He rode up, firing, then fled firing over his shoulder. And he did so multiple times, and could do so because his horse had pony ancestors (or was a pony) and ponies have more stamina (but less speed, which is why they were bred with horses). While they would have of course been lighter than heavy cavalry, probably even the armor carrying horses for the nomads might have had some pony blood. It would have been easy to carry this tactic over to heavy cavalry, most of which had bows anyway.

Quote:

---

As they always did, Romans finally found a way to cope with the new tactical problem.

---

Um, so why did the Romans never conquer the Parthians or Sassanians or have really any great deffienitive success against them?

Quote:

---

Indeed, the only era in wich cavalry was the real "queen of the field" has been the middle-age when there was no such things as formations, but as soon as compact formations came back, cavalry was demoted back to its support/scout role.

---

I disagree. Cavalry was never just a scout or support role for the nomads and their cousins, which is where we're talking about. It was the opposite, the infantry was the support for the cavalry. And in the Medeival era, there were deffiently formations of infantry, they just... weren't particullarly well used or common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

5 cavalry units vs 10 spearmen probably gives victory for the cavalry, but 2 cavalry vs 1 spearman isn't necessarily going to give victory to the cavalry. The speed and ability to assemble local superiority in numbers is more important for cavalry than a powerful charge is.

---

Exactly! If you don't take into account the tactical doctrines for effective use of cavalry then any test will come out flawed. EB, in its pursuit of accuracy (or at least verisimilitude), will surely be taking this into account in their balancing of the units so while a head-to-head one-on-one fight might not work out so well for the cavalry they might be vastly more effective in small groups hitting then end, rather than the middle, of the line - just as much cavalry was used.

Also: the writings about heavy cavalry charging into the midst of infantry might not represent accepted use, it might represent the impetuous nature of this well-equipped and confident troops?

Quote:

---

I never really got this argument. I certaintly understand a horse not wanting to charge something solid, but these were the best horses trained for a long time. What would be the point of them if they didn't charge? And isn't a running away person just as solid to a horse? Or charging against another group of cavalry? I mean, since they trained horses to accept blood and the noise in the field, I can't think that comparing the horses used in military by people that were excellent with horses (not say, Romans) to a modern day jumper is valid.

---

Actually, a full Roman maniple behind their scuta or a big great Macedonian phallanx holding firm on their sarissa just appear like walls for a horse (and, I bet, for you too, have you been at the wrong side of the pole ;-) ). Nowaday jumpers are just as long trained as antic battle horses and they still have to be constrained to jump the steeples....

Quote:

---

That said, it's irellevant, because you just didn't charge a group of fresh elite infantry. You had to break them up first, then you charged. So either the infantry broke at the charge or the cavalry did. If the cavalry was disciplined enough, then it could have stopped it in time and regrouped, which I guess could be considered the false charge.

---

That was my point... Disciplined in-formation infantery could not be broken by cavalry without having been "prepared" by archers, skirmishers and the like...

Quote:

---

And about the tiring, yes it would have been tiring. But they didn't have to charge at full tilt, which they didn't until the last minute anyway (and pretty much all heavy cavalry waited). So it wouldn't have necassarily taken them out of the battle. Also keep in mind the false charge was essentially what the horse archer did. He rode up, firing, then fled firing over his shoulder. And he did so multiple times, and could do so because his horse had pony ancestors (or was a pony) and ponies have more stamina (but less speed, which is why they were bred with horses). While they would have of course been lighter than heavy cavalry, probably even the armor carrying horses for the nomads might have had some pony blood. It would have been easy to carry this tactic over to heavy cavalry, most of which had bows anyway.

---

First of all, I want to say that, save in Hollywood, a charge, was it a cavalery one or infantery, is never done at full speed. The charge pace is actually an increased march pace, about twice the speed, wich is in no way a big full run.
Skirmishing, you are right on that point, is made at a greater speed (actually, at least the part wich is at range of enemy). But these kinds of "touch and go" are not repeated hundred of times in one battle. Indeed, they are quite limited, due firstly to the horses' exhaustion and secondly to the limited ammunition an archer (and especially a mounted one) have available. A few dozens arrows are a max for a horse archer. Their job on the field is in no way a 6 hours uninterrupted cavalcade.

Quote:

---

Um, so why did the Romans never conquer the Parthians or Sassanians or have really any great deffienitive success against them?

---

Well answering to this question would take much more than I will take to write this whole post. The reasons are multiple, nomadism (for the Parthes), straight nationalism and religious fanatism (for the Sassanid), first symptoms of the sinking of the Roman Empire, and much more.....

Quote:

---

I disagree. Cavalry was never just a scout or support role for the nomads and their cousins, which is where we're talking about. It was the opposite, the infantry was the support for the cavalry.

---

Nomadic cultures had a raiding-type strategy. They did not theorize on having to fight pitched battles. Originaly, their cavalry is a full scout/raid tool.

Quote:

---

And in the Medeival era, there were deffiently formations of infantry, they just... weren't particullarly well used or common.

---

Well, what I call "formation" is a troup trained to move and fight together in a cohesive manner. So, perhaps we can call "formation" a bunch of unwilling peasantry or of alcohol-impregnated sergents, but in terms of cohesion they are very, very far from a maniple, a phallanx or (the summun of formation) an English Napoleonic-time square. (I will, nevertheless, put apart English bowmen and Welsh knifers who did have a springle of beginning of cohesive and coherent action as France did learn several times on fields of sinister memory (at least for me.... I will shoot the first one who try to write the name "Azin...rt" :laugh4: )).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Tollus Galicus

Well, what I call "formation" is a troup trained to move and fight together in a cohesive manner. So, perhaps we can call "formation" a bunch of unwilling peasantry or of alcohol-impregnated sergents, but in terms of cohesion they are very, very far from a maniple, a phallanx or (the summun of formation) an English Napoleonic-time square. (I will, nevertheless, put apart English bowmen and Welsh knifers who did have a springle of beginning of cohesive and coherent action as France did learn several times on fields of sinister memory (at least for me.... I will shoot the first one who try to write the name "Azin...rt" :laugh4: )).

---

Crecy is okay then? :sweatdrop:

Somewhat less humiliating, to my opinion... Crécy was a defeat (or a victory according from wich side of the sea you are looking ;-) )... but Azincourt was.... a real clear lesson of humility.... I don't think France ever had a worse battle than this one....
(but.... aren't we a bit off-topic???? lol )

While I find myself agreeing on the major points there are a few statements which I find highly debatable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Tollus Galicus

Nomadic cultures had a raiding-type strategy. They did not theorize on having to fight pitched battles. Originaly, their cavalry is a full scout/raid tool.

---

Well, this is one is not just highly debatable, it is plainly very wrong: nomads fought lots of pitched battles both against settled peoples and, quite more frequently (and, often, more critically for their survival) against other nomads. From later nomads (Khitan, Mongols, Kara-Khitai, Karaqhanids, Avars...) we know quite a bit of their regulations, institutions and logistical procedures to put whole cavalry armies on the field (how many warriors for household, how they were expected to be equipped, etc...). Those were their armies. The ones that did everything an army is expected to do for its state. Including, of course, fighting pitched battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Tollus Galicus

Well answering to this question would take much more than I will take to write this whole post. The reasons are multiple, nomadism (for the Parthes), straight nationalism and religious fanatism (for the Sassanid), first symptoms of the sinking of the Roman Empire, and much more.....

---

Nothing as "airy" as that, I'd say. Just logistical/operational constraints. Overstretching. Armies operating far away from their bases in hostile ground and along long, vulnerable supply lines. Think Napoleon losing the Russian Campaign. The Romans managed to sack the Parthian/Sassanian capital a number of times. Napoleon also took Moscow. Still, that didn't do the trick for either of them. When they had got to that point ("Hey! We just burned down their capital!"), there was still a whole, very large easten portion of enemy land (holding manpower and resources) yet to be subdued ("You mean we still have to conquer twice as much land and to march twice as far to *really* win this?"). Btw, that seems to have also been the major reason for the Seleukids failing to reconquer the lands they lost to Parthia. They (like the Romans) managed to defeat the Parthians in the field with reasonable regularity, but were never able to deal them the definitive "blow".

One additional consideration that may also play a role is that, when a heavy-infantry army and a cavalry army clash, it would seem that the consequences of defeat tend to (or at least, can) be quite different for each one. If the infantry army routs it's awful news, because they just have a whole army very well suited for pursuit (for days of pursuit, if need be) on their heels. If the cavalry army breaks and runs, it will often be able to save significant amounts of their strength to fight another day. Now add to that the infantry army being far away from home with lots and lots of hostile land to traverse before reaching a safe base. Therefore, strings of Roman (or Seleukid) victories in pitched battles proved inconclusive, but one defeat could be catastrophic.

Finally, just to set things straight, when it clashed with Rome, the Parthian Empire had stopped being a nomadic polity for nearly 200 years (though some components of it, were nomads, yeah)

Quote:

---

Indeed, they are quite limited, due firstly to the horses' exhaustion and secondly to the limited ammunition an archer (and especially a mounted one) have available. A few dozens arrows are a max for a horse archer. Their job on the field is in no way a 6 hours uninterrupted cavalcade.

---

Yup, those are factors that play important roles. But can be (and were) countered.

1) First, "A few dozen arrows" would look like a whole lot to the poor chaps at who they are being shot, IMO. Then, crafty generals (Surena at Carrhae) could also arrange for resupply.

2) Of course, no "6 hours uninterrupted" riding. But a) not every HA has to be fighting at the same time and b) the nomads used remounts.

Quote:

---

Well, this is one is not just highly debatable, it is plainly very wrong: nomads fought lots of pitched battles both against settled peoples and, quite more frequently (and, often, more critically for their survival) against other nomads. From later nomads (Khitan, Mongols, Kara-Khitai, Karaqhanids, Avars...) we know quite a bit of their regulations, institutions and logistical procedures to put whole cavalry armies on the field (how many warriors for household, how they were expected to be equipped, etc...). Those were their armies. The ones that did everything an army is expected to do for its state. Including, of course, fighting pitched battles.

---

Ok, I think i di not express myself correctly about that point... :embarassed:
I was not arguing that nomadic people could not fight pitched battles but that this kind of battle did not represent the same thing for them it did for western settled people.
Roman or Macedonian strategy is fully directed at provoking the battle (preferably in the best conditions). Roman land conquest were consequences of their victory, not a way to victory (wich indeed it could be, according to Clausewitz...). In the case of the eastern peoples, the thing are more a matter of: "we go there to take their gold/women/land and if they try to stop us then we wil do this and that..." (and the last point being more a matter of try, see and keep the good things than scholarly theoric thinking...).

Quote:

---

Nothing as "airy" as that, I'd say. Just logistical/operational constraints. Overstretching. Armies operating far away from their bases in hostile ground and along long, vulnerable supply lines. Think Napoleon losing the Russian Campaign. The Romans managed to sack the Parthian/Sassanian capital a number of times. Napoleon also took Moscow. Still, that didn't do the trick for either of them. When they had got to that point ("Hey! We just burned down their capital!"), there was still a whole, very large easten portion of enemy land (holding manpower and resources) yet to be subdued ("You mean we still have to conquer twice as much land and to march twice as far to *really* win this?"). Btw, that seems to have also been the major reason for the Seleukids failing to reconquer the lands they lost to Parthia. They (like the Romans) managed to defeat the Parthians in the field with reasonable regularity, but were never able to deal them the definitive "blow".

One additional consideration that may also play a role is that, when a heavy-infantry army and a cavalry army clash, it would seem that the consequences of defeat tend to (or at least, can) be quite different for each one. If the infantry army routs it's awful news, because they just have a whole army very well suited for pursuit (for days of pursuit, if need be) on their heels. If the cavalry army breaks and runs, it will often be able to save significant amounts of their strength to fight another day. Now add to that the infantry army being far away from home with lots and lots of hostile land to traverse before reaching a safe base. Therefore, strings of Roman (or Seleukid) victories in pitched battles proved inconclusive, but one defeat could be catastrophic.

---

I really like the parallel with the Russian campaign and totally agree with the infantry/cavalry diference in front of a retreat, but I think you underestimate political influence on Roman drawbacks. I did also forget to mention the relative "youth" (read dynamism) of the Parthian and Sassanid peoples. I mean they are more like Roman early/mid republic or Alexander's Macedon than Severi's schlerosed empire.... they are hungry and enthousiast... The Empire at this time is all the contrary...

Quote:

---

First, "A few dozen arrows" would look like a whole lot to the poor chaps at who they are being shot, IMO

---

yes, of course they did... lol
But it also have to be remembered that not every arrow shot did touch/wound/kill (hopefully... or the whole would now be speaking some eastern dialect.... lol)

Quote:

---

Of course, no "6 hours uninterrupted" riding. But a) not every HA has to be fighting at the same time and b) the nomads used remounts

---

Indeed, but that also means it was not a constant harrassing for the troops confronting them....(or at least, not for all confronting troops simultaneously....)

Just a clearing here: all this is, of course, only my own analysis of this historical point. I definitely do not intend to deny other's right to have a different interpretation. History is a somewhat "political" thing, and therefore is deeply influenced by one's sensibility, culture and the like... Mine is just posing politics as having quite always the most utmost effects on history... (yeah, I know, I am something like a crypto-marxist jacobine.... lol)

We're forgetting one of the key reasons the Romans in Trajan's time did not hold onto their newly won possessions in the East: the plague. True, logistics were difficult; true, the Parthians were not decisively defeated (though the king did flee from his throne, leaving much of his court to be captured by the Roman armies, rebellions began almost immediately...if only we had more of the Parthian Wars!).

Besides, Galicus, you speak of the Parthians as if they were a fresh power, ruling with the consent of the tribes underneath them, when in fact they suffered from more (and more frequent) rebellions than the Romans did. There was at least as much (maybe more) inter-state warfare and intrigue as existed at the Roman court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

We're forgetting one of the key reasons the Romans in Trajan's time did not hold onto their newly won possessions in the East: the plague. True, logistics were difficult; true, the Parthians were not decisively defeated (though the king did flee from his throne, leaving much of his court to be captured by the Roman armies, rebellions began almost immediately...if only we had more of the Parthian Wars!).

Besides, Galicus, you speak of the Parthians as if they were a fresh power, ruling with the consent of the tribes underneath them, when in fact they suffered from more (and more frequent) rebellions than the Romans did. There was at least as much (maybe more) inter-state warfare and intrigue as existed at the Roman court.

---

Very good points and I generally agree though, obviously, the plague did not affect every Roman expedition into those lands. I was trying to point out very general mechanisms that would have been relevant for pretty much all Roman invasions of Parthian/Sassanian land. Trajan's was probably the one coming closest to total victory. I'm no Roman expert, but I'd be tempted to consider that army one of the best fighting corps Rome ever fielded? And that, very particularly for the Parthian theatre, would include very well-honed logistics after the Dacian Wars.

Indeed, Paullus, a few centuries nation is young. Although, you have to think of it in terms of intrinseque (sorry for spelling) dynamism, a thing a quite millennar empire don't have anymore. Think about Marian-period Rome... though facing a major "earthquake", it was still conquerant...compare with post-antoninian Empire.... Think about nowadays United States, compared to European nations... facing same kind of problems, but not evenly successful at managing them.... (and take a good note of this, because I won't make compliments to the US very often... :laugh4: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Tollus Galicus

Ok, I think i di not express myself correctly about that point... :embarassed:
I was not arguing that nomadic people could not fight pitched battles but that this kind of battle did not represent the same thing for them it did for western settled people.
Roman or Macedonian strategy is fully directed at provoking the battle (preferably in the best conditions). Roman land conquest were consequences of their victory, not a way to victory (wich indeed it could be, according to Clausewitz...).

---

That would equally apply to steppe nomads. For example, in the Mongol campaigns you have abundant examples of nomad armies whose immediate objective was seeking and destroying the enemy's army to thus gain control of the land. The same thing happened in conflicts among nomads. They built empires *in* the steppes as much as by conquering settled peoples (probably more often, actually). If you read the Chinese accounts of Maodun leading the Xiongnu to become a powerful empire you will notice how he achieved that by, among other things, implementing recruitment policies and training programmes to build an army designed to fight (and win) pitched battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Tollus Galicus

In the case of the eastern peoples, the thing are more a matter of: "we go there to take their gold/women/land and if they try to stop us then we wil do this and that..." (and the last point being more a matter of try, see and keep the good things than scholarly theoric thinking...).

---

A raid, or, generally, appropriating for yourself or destroying the resources of an enemy can be a very effective way to bring it to battle. Let's not forget that.