Use of Cataphracts

[Steppe Merc]

That was only one battle, against an enemy that used heavy infantry. Rember, they also had to fight against nomads who used primarily horse archers but also had heavier horse. So while Carhae is helpful, it isn't the deffinetive definition of cataphracts, IMO.

[jerby]

i think EB should make its own: art of war book/manual/script. it'll really help/be interesting

[Angadil]

IMO, Carrhae shows skillful use of catphracts by the Parthians, or, more generally, skilled generalship on Surena's part. It was not always so, though.

In 39 BCE; the Parthians invaded Roman territory, and at the Cilician Gates their cataphracts charged uphill against a Roman camp with predictably disastrous results. One wonders if the Parthians had grown contemptuous of the Romans ater Carrhae. A year later at Gindarus the Parthians charged again straight against another Roman camp. This time, however, an astute Roman general might have fooled them into thinking the camp was undefended. It turned out it wasn't and the Parthian defeat was total, including the killing of a Royal Prince.

Those frontal charges are not that different from what Seleucid cataphracts did at Magnesia. If anything, the Seleucids were somewhat more successful. Antiochos III led 3000 cataphracts and the cavalry Agema (1000) on his right wing in a charge that managed to break one of the four legions opposing him. In Livy's account of the battle it was actually the Latin Ala (not really a Roman legion) in the extreme left of the Roman battle line that Antiochos cavalry outflanked and routed. That would have required the Seleucid cavalry moving diagonally across the whole frontage of both the Roman legion and the Latin Ala (they were not posted in the extreme right as was typical) However, the battle's account in Justin says explicitly that it was the Roman legion right in front the Seleucid cavalry that was routed and that the event was considered a great disgrace, even if the Romans were the eventual victors of the battle. A third account by Appian speaks of the Seleucid king "breaking through the Roman phalanx" which is not very detailed, but seems to agree better with Justin than with Livy. And we know that Livy was not above masking anything that migh reflect poorly on anything Roman....

If we accept Justin's version (which, IMO, given the disposition of the troops and Appian's wording, does not seem unlikely) the Seleucid cataphracts could boast of being one of the very few bodies of ancient cavalry (if not the only) that managed to break a Roman legion by a frontal charge. However, and just to add some more perspective, at the other end of the battlefield another 3000 Seleucid cataphracts were thrown into disorder by fleeing scythed chariots and then Pergamene and Roman cavalry made short work of them.

[Steppe Merc]

I'm not saying that the cataphracts were used poorly in Carhae, but they could have a more impoartant use. Sometimes they shouldn't have been used as the main component, but if they needed to out heavy horse an enemy, they would be perfect.
But by the time the Romans started to fight the Parthians, weren't they already in decline? Perhaps the generals were losing their touch...
Because if the cataphracts were always used so poorly, I doubt that they would have stuck as long as they did.

[Angadil]

Well, the Parthians would still hang around for some 250 years after those battles and Mark Anthony's invasion of Parthia which followed shortly after those Roman victories was defeated and just barely avoided ending up in another disaster like Carrhae... I just think those two were examples of particulary bad use of cataphracts (well, in the 2nd one the Parthians might have been tricked). I just brought them up to show that even the Parthians could ocassionally make major mistakes with their cataphracts, not that they typically misused them. Those were the first major Roman-Parthian clashes after Carrhae and I can't help wondering if the Parthians might have grown overconfident after their victory.