Parthian Army composition

[anubis88]

I've been reading this page for the last few days, which greatly increased my understanding about the Parthian empire, especially with their rise to power, about which i had very little knowledge before... I knew the basics, but this page has some really nice portreyals bi Justin and such historians + much more, and it's a really nice reade for anyone that's interested.

But then i came to this chapter http://www.persianempire.info/parthia9.htm , describing the events before the battle of Carrhae, and to my surpirse there is a statement that says that giving Surena a full cavalry army was more of a matter of case than standard practice, since king Orodes II couldn't use it in Armenia where he went to wage war.

It is said that the Parthian army usually had about 1:5 ratio in terms of cavalry vs infantry, and that got me really confused.
I always thought that the Parthian army was mostly horse, with a few infantry units here and there...

Can anyone shed some light to this subject? In EB i read that Parthia used mostly cavalry army, and since EB is kinda of a bible to me ( I even proved my professors wrong a few times becouse of the knowledge i got from EB), i tend to believe what EB says, but any other info would be awesome...

Thanks

[Vedmedik]

1:5 is quite a good ratio. Roman legions at some point had it like 1:10 or 1:15.

Horse army is more expensive than infantry-based one, and to be honest, except some closer raids of the cavalry, it's not really that much faster or actually horse-only force. Horse armies still need supplies, they need camps, replacements, garrison units, wagons and additional personel.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

One would assume that like most conquering peoples, the Parthians were forced to draft members of conquered societies and cultures into their armies. The majority of these assimilated soldiers would probably be foot soldiers of some sort. Remember the majority of Persians were foot soldiers, not mounted and I would think that Persians made up a large portion of Parthian forces.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Depends on the enemy the Parthians were fighting too. An all-cavalry army makes sense when you're fighting Scythian steppe nomads, all of them mounted. This can be done because steppe nomads rarely assembled really big armies, raids were far more common.

Against the Baktrians, Seleucids, or Armenians, however, infantry can be the main bulk of the army (although cavalry remain the arm of decision.)

[anubis88]

Depends on the enemy the Parthians were fighting too. An all-cavalry army makes sense when you're fighting Scythian steppe nomads, all of them mounted. This can be done because steppe nomads rarely assembled really big armies, raids were far more common.

Against the Baktrians, Seleucids, or Armenians, however, infantry can be the main bulk of the army (although cavalry remain the arm of decision.)

Do you know this for a fact? Or is it just speculation?

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Do you know this for a fact? Or is it just speculation?

Speculation, but it's common sense. A Parthian spearman on foot can't possibly catch and kill a Scythian nomad raider on horseback. The horseman can just fall back and stay out of range, while shooting arrows! A Parthian foot archer can at least shoot back, but still can't catch the enemy if he doesn't want to be caught.

Defending a walled town, however, is another matter - spearmen and foot archers can do that. But then we're talking about a Parthian garrison, not a Parthian field army.

[Intranetusa]

Do you know this for a fact? Or is it just speculation?

I've read somewhere that during some point, the Han Dynasty was 1/3 cavalry, and during their wars against the Xiongnu Confederation, some of their armies were comprised of almost entirely cavalry (although a lot of the soldiers were 'mobile infantry' - infantry that rode on horseback but dismounted to fight, instead of pure cavalry)...