Where would the real disadvantage be...

[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!