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.

[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.

[Jaume]

would carry a horse archer?

?

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

[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.

[Aper]

Ok, horse archers are real badasses, but remember that after Charrae the Roman Empire got the initiative on the Parthians in all the war they fought... and the legions never lost a field battle against cavalry-based armies again until the collapse of the political system in the III century... that means strategies and tactics against the HA+Kats combination actually existed, and that the Romans adopted them (even if some cavalry-fans think different...).
Arrian vs. the Alans, Belisarius in the battle of Sura-Callinico and others Imperial commanders resisted or won using a defensive tactic and a "fortress-like" formation: armored infantry make a shield/spear wall to protect lots of good missile troops.
The problem for a western army is exactly to find lots of good missile troops..

[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?

[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!!!!!!

[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.

[artaxerxes]

and the legions never lost a battle against cavalry-based armies again...

I seem to recall a certain Mark Anthony's unsuccesfull invasion of Parthia - which was so disastrouous that it actually sorta decided the coming war between Octavian and Mark Anthony as well, since his casulties were irreparable. And it did include battles, such as two Roman legions left with the siege weapons while Anthony moved ahead, whereafter Parthians crushed the legions and siege weapons. Except for that battle however, I'll prolly have to admit that the remainder of the Roman losses mostly came from being unable to take cities (having no siege weapons) and then having to retreat.

What of the Sassanid-Roman wars - the Shapurs defeated tons of Roman emperors, they must have won a battle now and then ;)

[beatoangelico]

at Adrianople too the gothic heavy cavalry did contribute quite a lot to valens' defeat...

[craziii]

don't get why you guys are talking about how fast the arrows are spend. if 120 arrows can kill just 5 of the enemy soldiers, the HA has done it's job. that is 5 deaths for the enemy vs non for the HA army.

did romans ever get any foreign archers in their army that matched or out ranged the parthian HA composite bows?

[artaxerxes]

[QUOTE=craziii]don't get why you guys are talking about how fast the arrows are spend. if 120 arrows can kill just 5 of the enemy soldiers, the HA has done it's job. that is 5 deaths for the enemy vs non for the HA army.
QUOTE]

well, if you don't have anything BESIDES HA's, it might be a problem if you're unable to kill more than 5 out of an enemy army of 8,000... ;) Of course, in a desert where you can retreat for weeks in all directions, guerilla warfare killing 5 out of 8,000 each day might work. But if the 8,000 are beseiging Ctesiphon and all you can do is kill 5 of them, you might wish you'd bothered to bring a few more arrows? :P ;)
Since nobody's questioned my Cambridge Ancient History-based assumption that Surena revolutionized HA warfare by making it possible for them to bring extra arrows along, I think the HA's will have been far less impressibe before that - fx Alexander thought none too highly of them, as the ones he encountered always ran out of arrows before making any serious impact (again I'm more or less quoting Cambridge Ancient History). I myself haven't been able to use HA's in EB properly - I seem to find they run out of arrows VERY early, whereas my Persian Archer/Spearmen shoot for thrice as long and seem to fight better in melee as well (this may however be due to my mishandling and lack of experience with light cavalry). Besides I'm Seleucid, so I'm not even MEANT to be able to use HA's properly

[beatoangelico]

actually HAs in EB are extremely strong...40 arrows while a standard persian archer has 25

[Korlon]

Yep, they rain destruction on all they touch! They're disastrous in the hands of a green commander and utterly devastating to an experienced one.

[bovi]

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.

Yes, as can be seen here an experienced archer can shoot every 3 seconds if he doesn't need to aim very carefully.

Edit: Go to about 2:00.

[craziii]

arta: that is 1 single HA, what in the world makes you think 1 entire HA army will only have 120 arrows? geez. that is 1 single HA killing 5. read AQD's post, it's #14.

[Nirvanish]

I wish I could remember the name of the show but within the last few months I watched a show on the history channel which described the style of hun horse archers. There was a professional archer who on horseback shot much in the same way as on the video Bovi presented but he carried extra arrows in such a way that after he would fire he simply grabbed the end of an arrow pulled back and fired another. If I find a link I will surely post it on here.

[Korlon]

I wish I could remember the name of the show but within the last few months I watched a show on the history channel which described the style of hun horse archers. There was a professional archer who on horseback shot much in the same way as on the video Bovi presented but he carried extra arrows in such a way that after he would fire he simply grabbed the end of an arrow pulled back and fired another. If I find a link I will surely post it on here.

I believe I saw that as well. That guy was crazy accurate and fast at the same time.

[artaxerxes]

arta: that is 1 single HA, what in the world makes you think 1 entire HA army will only have 120 arrows? geez. that is 1 single HA killing 5. read AQD's post, it's #14.

ok sorry. I read HA, didn't realize it meant a single one. But still the point's the same: thinking you asked why the number of arrows mattered, I answered: because it is a problem running out of arrows before the enemy has been weakened or vanquished. Obviously I realized that an entire HA army having 120 arrows would be completely stupid, but the number's not important - the number of arrows having to be larger than the number of enemies IS. If you have 2 million arrows and 2 million and one enemies, that's a problem as well. I'm not trying to argue for the weakness of HA's, having admitted that I have little experience with them and merely remarking that they are weak in MY hands. I merely tried to answer why the abundance of arrows or lack thereof could be of critical importance in a battle, as it turned out to be, to the HA's advantage, at the battle of Carrhae. Sorry. I mentioned the Cambridge Ancient History (can' t remember the number of the volume, but it's the one with Carrhae, and it's the chapter about Carrhae) as a source for Alexander being unimpressed by HA's because of their running out of arrows. Unless this source is made invalid by newer research, I don't see the problem in stating that HA's before Surena had that weakness - one must presume that Crassus still thought they had it, or he was just... well...


EDIT: I've FINALLY understood your post, and apologize for the misunderstanding. When you asked "how fast they were spent", I thought you meant "how quickly they run out of arrows" i.e. "how many they have" - and therfore ensued the entire debate between us. I now see that you meant "how fast they shoot them" and this of course is an entirely different matter. I can now fully understand the relevance of your question and must even agree to it: what does it matter how quickly they shoot if they can stay out of range of melee anyway :)
I apologize for the misunderstanding and hope you can see that it was entirely accidental

[Nirvanish]

I believe I saw that as well. That guy was crazy accurate and fast at the same time.

Lately I've been quite frustrated because I cannot find the names of many shows that I have seen on the history/discovery channel. I looked for atleast 2 hours last night for the video mentioned and the host but could not find either. I remember watching it and empathizing with legionaries who had to fight horse archers, thats one fight I would not want to be in.

[Aper]

@ artaxerxes

50000 HA in their own territory vs : 2 legions with the impediment of massive siege weapons (300 wagons) and the supplies of the entire army, without their commander.. this was a brilliant move of the parthian general, who lead the attack personally, but tactically this battle means nothing, IMHO.

Against the Sassanids.. well, I don't know every battle, but in most of the wars of the ERE age the romans had to fight at the same time germans, persians and usurpers: no surprise they lost sometime, more surprising they won all this enemies in the end..

Again, most of the defeats of the Romans was caused by the stubborness of Belisarius and other "cavalry-general" who refused to use infantry in battle, even if , when employed properly, often perfomed well. Persians were masters in cavalry-based war, it's quite natural roman mounted (when not supported) suffered defeats against them..

cheers

And please, PLEASE, stop quoting the battle of Adrianople as a proof of the superiority of the cavalry: it's simply a legend. Period.
The roman defeat was caused by: idiocy of the general. troops exhausted. hasty attack of some stupids who started the battle before the army was in a proper formation. numerical inferiority of the romans, because the emperor didn't wait for the reinforcements: he didn't want to divide the glory with his fellow of the west. gothic cavalry simply arrived on the battlefield later, and saw a tempting flank to charge: romans didn't have reserves (read before why), and they lose. Add some dumb historians searching for a simbolic battle to start middle-ages and... Voilà! The Legend of Adrianople!