roman legionary and infantry

[Ichon]

Aren't there some ways to mod lower cohesiveness of formations etc in the MTW2 engine? So that turning or forming lines takes much longer or shorter?

[moonburn]

well if a roman soldier was undisciplined they could always loose 1 in each 9 friends people should know they can´t disobey crassus (so instead they get 10.000 friends dead and 10.000 made prisioners by the parthians)

[FinnishedBarbarian]

well if a roman soldier was undisciplined they could always loose 1 in each 9 friends people should know they can´t disobey crassus (so instead they get 10.000 friends dead and 10.000 made prisioners by the parthians)

I am detecting a bit of sarcasm here but, I'll still ask do you consider the defeat at carhae being a product of lack of discipline and not due to crassus making grave strategic blunder by trying to cross a desert and having brought inaquate cavalry support?

[Ichon]

I think he was saying that because of Roman discipline the legions marched into the desert despite the stupidity of the order. If there was any time to show undisciplined behavior that would have been a good time. Not sure if that was the only reason but it certainly had to play some role.

[Randal]

I seem to recall that Crassus' soldiers were actually quite eager because of the rumoured wealth of Parthia.

At this stage of history, both Romans and Parthians gravely underestimated one another. First Crassus thought the Parthians would be crushed as easily as the Armenians and Pontus and other eastern people had been by the likes of Sulla, Lucullus and Pompeius. Then, when the Parthians destroyed Crassus' entire army with what had been meant as a scouting and harassing force, they thought the Romans were pushovers and invaded Syria. Enter Publius Ventidius Bassus. A series of bloody Partian defeats later they each started to recognise the other's strengths and weaknesses.

[Ludens]

well if a roman soldier was undisciplined they could always loose 1 in each 9 friends people should know they can´t disobey crassus (so instead they get 10.000 friends dead and 10.000 made prisioners by the parthians)

I think you are confusing your battles here. Crassus ordered a legion to be decimated after it was defeated by Spartacus, not Surena. This was highly unusual, and I suspect Crassus only got away with it because the Romans were terrified of revolting slaves. Decimation after the disastrous defeat at Carrhae seems... pointless. I mean: how much of the army was left? More to the point: decimation is a punishment for cowardice, not defeat (or lack of discipline). The legionaries at Carrhae stood their ground all day. It's just a kind of bravery that is not effective against horse-archers.

Decimation was already an archaic practice in Crassus' time; does anybody know of other instances during the Roman Republic when it was used? Caesar threatened to decimate the tenth legion after it had grown mutinous, but I am certain it was never more than a threat.

[The Celtic Viking]

Decimation after the disastrous defeat at Carrhae seems... pointless. I mean: how much of the army was left? More to the point: decimation is a punishment for cowardice, not defeat (or lack of discipline). The legionaries at Carrhae stood their ground all day. It's just a kind of bravery that is not effective against horse-archers.

I think you misunderstand him. He seems to me to be saying that they went there because they were afraid of decimation if they didn't; i.e., the discipline created by the fear of losing 1 in every 10 soldiers resulted in 10 000 dead and 10 000 prisoners instead. The overarching point being that discipline, which everyone is praising as the Roman legionnaires' strong point, could be a double-edged sword.

[FinnishedBarbarian]

I think he was saying that because of Roman discipline the legions marched into the desert despite the stupidity of the order. If there was any time to show undisciplined behavior that would have been a good time. Not sure if that was the only reason but it certainly had to play some role.

Whole army disobeing orders is a real rarity no matter how stupid they think their commander is. Remember also that this time period none of the Roman legions had experience in dealing with mounted enemy which refused close combat preferring to haras enemy from a safe distance, if there were any breaking out of formation accidents those must have happened early in battle caused by the said eagerness and frustration.

Early Roman-Parthian wars were ineffective engaments for both sides, neither side had needed resourses to make significant conquests this was mostly caused by internal unreast. Rome had had social war, slave war and offcourse civil war between Sulla and Marius, Parthians had just 50 or so years before been ruled by dual kingship. I think that crassus's "conquest of parthia" was just large scale raid with intention to grab wealth and place few client rulers, not total conquest of assyria/babylonia.

[moonburn]

thanks you celtik viking seems it takes a kind of special warrior menthality to understand that crassus had gained a fame for himself with the decimation of a legion/s (?) so when he went to parthia most men wouldn´t dare to speak because of peer pressure by their comrads afraid of being killed by cowardice wich resulted in a total blunder

as for crassus invasion of parthia it as many reasons the least not being the fact that his 2 triumvir comrades where acomplished generals while he who had worked so hard and placed everything on the line to stop spartacus got his honours stolen by caius julius and pompeii so it was not so much about money he had alot

(altough probably pompeii with his goverment of hispania and cesar with his gaulish conquests had already surpassed him for the time being but in the long run marcus crassus would always be the richer one since he controlled many markets that could only grow as cesar´s men came back home and started spending and as pompeii wasted his money with public festivals and constructions to engrandeur his own name)

crassus needed to be recognised as a great general after cesar conquest of gaul since with the death of julia sooner or later pompeii and cesar would be at odd´s and if he had enough influence he could outdo them both but for that he needed respect not just money

[FinnishedBarbarian]

I'd like to hear some examples where troops had mutinied before a campaign against enemy they had not faced before, all the examples I managed to think of mutiny involved either men being sent against enemy who they had faced before with disastrous results like french troops on WWI or the officers/generals having disrespected troops customs/beliefs like the sepoy rebellion.

Even if Crassus had not practiced decimation before I find it highly unlikely that battles outcome whould have been any less disastrous for the Romans

[Randal]

Early Roman-Parthian wars were ineffective engaments for both sides, neither side had needed resourses to make significant conquests this was mostly caused by internal unreast. Rome had had social war, slave war and offcourse civil war between Sulla and Marius, Parthians had just 50 or so years before been ruled by dual kingship. I think that crassus's "conquest of parthia" was just large scale raid with intention to grab wealth and place few client rulers, not total conquest of assyria/babylonia.

I disagree. Crassus surely intended to conquer Parthia. Whether he understood just what he was undertaking is another question, but his objectives are perfectly clear.

Ceasar was conquering all of Gaul, to Roman ears just as huge an undertaking.

Pompeius had conquered multiple kingdoms in the east, defeated Mithridates for the final time and added several provinces and protectorates, doubling Rome's eastern possessions.

Crassus wanted to equal them so he would not be overshadowed. A large-scale raid would never have accomplished that. Besides, the Romans believed the Parthians just as weak as the eastern kingdoms Pompeius had crushed, so why couldn't it be done? Alexander had conquered far more than just Mesopotamia.

As for lack of resources, for Rome at least this did not apply. The period of the civil wars was the period that saw the greatest growth in Rome's power and possessions, as ambitious generals strove to outdo one another. See Caesar and Pompeius above.

[Ichon]

Whole army disobeing orders is a real rarity no matter how stupid they think their commander is. Remember also that this time period none of the Roman legions had experience in dealing with mounted enemy which refused close combat preferring to haras enemy from a safe distance, if there were any breaking out of formation accidents those must have happened early in battle caused by the said eagerness and frustration.

Well Roman legions had to be placated several times even before the Imperium and later legions were routinely promised things in order to get some "special" service which usually meant civil war or questionable legal actions.

Decimation was the ultimate punishment for cowardice- had nothing to do with defeat. Not saying that Crassus probably easily encouraged his legions with tales of the wealth of Parthia but most mutinies are not by the common soldiers but by the NCO and junior officers who might not have been as swayed by tales of loot. However having threats of cowardice hang over them before having even engaged the enemy as you pointed out would be enough to stop any muttering about stupidity.

So its probably not a single cause and the threat of decimation was probably minor compared to the ideas of honor and manhood versus cowardice but discipline arises from many factors and the final threat of decimation can't be totally discounted.

[Arjos]

Remember also that this time period none of the Roman legions had experience in dealing with mounted enemy which refused close combat preferring to haras enemy from a safe distance

Cassivellaunos and all mounted Keltoi fought like that, Romani were quite lucky that urbanization brought all those chiefs and power centers together so that they could get killed and controlled...

[Randal]

A small portion of a tribe fighting from chariots with javelins does not compare to 9000 mounted archers...

Romans had plenty of experience in dealing with javelin-armed cavalry and their armies habitually included plenty of their own. Caesar used Gauls, Germans and Numidians against the Gauls. (Maybe Iberians too, I forget.)

The majority of the Celtic armies still fought on foot and it was the heavy infantry clash which generally decided the battles between Romans and Gauls. Again, no real comparison to a fully mounted army like the Parthians fielded.

[Arjos]

There were like 4000 chariots iirc, also I don't know much about the Numidian Wars or previous engagements with Numidians, but few hit and run there too...
Anyway ok, Phalava was the absolute first...

[Ludens]

thanks you celtik viking seems it takes a kind of special warrior menthality to understand that crassus had gained a fame for himself with the decimation of a legion/s (?) so when he went to parthia most men wouldn´t dare to speak because of peer pressure by their comrads afraid of being killed by cowardice wich resulted in a total blunder

I stand corrected.


Still, I agree with Inchon here: mutiny is something that usually arises from the officers, not the men. And those wouldn't be cowed by threats of decimation or corporal punishments. They're citizens, many of them from influential families, so even someone as powerful as Crassus could not trample their rights. The consul may have had absolute authority, but he could not execute people at a whim.

Anyway, is there any evidence that the army was unwilling to advance into Parthia? With hindsight we know it was a disaster, but at the time Romans did not have a high opinion on the martial ability of Easterners. My guess is they would have shared their general's overconfidence.

[moonburn]

according to my readings crassus had recruited 2 many legions with too few men in each he wasn´t trusted as a great general or tactician (i mean it was the reason why he was going for it in the 1st place ) caesar said that many of his higher officers where displeased at the type of legionaires he had mustered (the best soldiers where with pompey and the younger more willing where all being recruited by cesar to replace his soldiers in gaul wich was almost a closed deal but they could still gain part of the final loot devision made by cesar before ending his duty in gaul so this "eagerness" combined with taking the scraps of what was left to recruit since the best and more prone where either with pompeii or cesar might have caused control power over the men)

furthermore crassus started to get the suspictions of his officers and centurions when he trusted an arab instead of trusting the armenian king and his choice for the higher officers where noted by both pompeii and cesar as bad (he chose his 2 sons as his lieutenents)

in the end the man who saved the campaign was his questor who rearranged what was left and protected the roman east or it could have ended far worse for the romans then the loss of just 4 legions (another interesting story that fallows up on this one was one of a bibulus(?) who had to recruit an evocata from aygyptus and lost a son to a legion of men over 60 years old)