Where would the real disadvantage be...

[Spartan198]

...in a conflict between a western army with superior infantry but inferior cavalry and a steppe army with inferior infantry but superior cavalry?

This is something that's been bugging me for quite a while.

[Maion Maroneios]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae
Somehting like this, maybe?

[Spartan198]

I kinda...forgot about that battle.

Though I think that maybe one disadvantage the Romans had was the fact that they were dedicated swordsmen, rather than spearmen.

And horse archers just...well, counter everything.

[Maion Maroneios]

That's why, after all, Legionaries changed to spearmen after the Empire split into East and West.

[Disciple of Tacitus]

There are more factors involved then the composition of the armies involved. Supply lines, command structures, communications. And of course, Location, location, location.

[beatoangelico]

That's why, after all, Legionaries changed to spearmen after the Empire split into East and West.

not exactly, the spatha continued to be the main weapon for all the IV century at least, but many carried also a short anti cavalry spear

[Africanvs]

At Carrhae the horse archers were resupplied with arrows by camel trains. The Romans were just in a hollow square formation completely surrounded. I believe the biggest problem for the Romans at Carrhae was Crassus. He was no general, just a guy with tons of illgotten money trying to make a name for himself against a strong enemy. Too strong it proved. The happiest day of Caesar's life was probably when Crassus went to Parthia to meet his death. That and knocking boots with Cleopatra. The key to horse archers, as discussed in the horse archer thread is stand off distance. If you have it such as at Carrhae and can just rain arrows on the infantry, they're doomed.
Check this out, great source going into detail about horse archer and swarming tactics used by steppe armies.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RTq...hl=en#PPA20,M1

According to this source the legionary was slowly replaced over time by the heavily armored cataphract.

[The Persian Cataphract]

I think that is an over-simplified abstraction of attempting to identify weaknesses between two polar opposite paradigms. A simple answer is that more or less it's an issue about harnessing weakness into a greater strength and to conceal intention or tactics. Let me briefly compare two devastating Roman losses: Cannae and Carrhae.

At Carrhae, we have a fundamental flaw in Surena's general strategy; He succeeds in concealing many things, amongst them his main force, and to basically lead the Romans into a false sense of security, and the fact that his force came out almost unscratched baffled Roman sensibilities. But from the details given from the battle, we see certain patterns, and from these we learn many ways to counter the effects of Parthian archery and cavalry, and the importance of protecting the logistics and prevention of ending up in the wilderness. Surena concealed his tactics in the beginning, but not his intentions. The Romans were massacred by repeated sessions of archery and cavalry charges. Surena made excellent use of a working model.

At Cannae we see Hannibal's forces, no bullshit, it's really all there was to it, and it looked like the Romans were up for a simple victory if they just kept pressing the front hard enough. The staggered "retreat" of Hannibal's forces slowly but certainly drew the Roman lines into a shapeless lump, serving itself for double envelopment. The Romans had almost brought their own defeat to themselves. Hannibal did not conceal his troops, but he concealed his intentions. There was not much for the Romans to learn here, not like Carrhae. Hannibal suffered serious casualties, but his victory was completely novel.

Both descriptions are abstracted, and not really meant to be detailed, but rather complementary to how these different paradigms actually manage to achieve victory.

[Jaume]

Another important question related to this is... how many arrows could carry a horse archer? There must be a moment in which they must attack... and there will be a lot of Triarii ready to massacre.

[Parallel Pain]

would carry a horse archer?

[Megas Methuselah]

Another important question related to this is... how many arrows could carry a horse archer? There must be a moment in which they must attack... and there will be a lot of Triarii ready to massacre.

I remember reading somewhere that at Carrhae, the Parthians brought wagonloads of arrows. Anyone's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

[artaxerxes]

I remember reading somewhere that at Carrhae, the Parthians brought wagonloads of arrows. Anyone's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

It's so fun, cos' in Cambridge Ancient History, it is described as "it had occured to him [Surena], that archers were no good without arrows. This does not appear to have occured to anybody else."

actually its true, since he revolutionized horse archer tactics by carrying extra arrows. But the way its formulated, its just HILARIOUS!!!!!!

[Jaume]

would carry a horse archer?

?

Forgive me for my bad English language. I'm sorry if I wasn't very clear...

[AqD]

Another important question related to this is... how many arrows could carry a horse archer? There must be a moment in which they must attack... and there will be a lot of Triarii ready to massacre.

A standard sassanid cataphtact carries a quiver with 30 arrows, but nomads like sarmatians have quivers that can hold up to more than 100, and each of mongolian horse archer usually carry 30-150 or 200 arrows, not including those in supply wagons. In addition, they always bring remounts to battle and carry different bows and arrows for different tasks; In reality they're far more terrible than what you can get in EB.

[Jaume]

A standard sassanid cataphtact carries a quiver with 30 arrows, but nomads like sarmatians have quivers that can hold up to more than 100, and each of mongolian horse archer usually carry 30-150 or 200 arrows, not including those in supply wagons. In addition, they always bring remounts to battle and carry different bows and arrows for different tasks; In reality they're far more terrible than what you can get in EB.

Thank you, it is very interesting. But how long all these arrows last? I mean, 150 arrows (for example), mean 20 minutes of shooting approximately?

[Korlon]

I would bet those nomads could've shot those arrows even faster. Years of usage of the bow probably could've gotten their rates faster than an arrow per five seconds.