How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

[JaM]

problem is more with horses refusing to run into closely packed men, while impaling more men through the shields and armors would be quite problematic with lance held in both arms... most likely such cavalerist would end up dehorsed by own lance, or with lance getting out of his hands.. Cavalry is great force to chase down running enemy, but if enemy stays firm, there is just not much cavalry can do.. entering the gaps is the worst thing, as cavalerist will get surrounded by superior force, infantry can simply drag him down from the saddle and kill him.

One of problems discussing cavalry behavior with people is usually in the fact they approach the topic from game perspective instead of real life - human grip is limited by the muscles and bones, while base rule of physics apply - for every action there is same opposite reaction - so to deal certain amount of energy, you have to be able to withstand the same amount of energy against you... which in this case means that your grip has to be able to withstand same amount of energy you are delivering on target, otherwise delivered energy is reduced to the amount you can support... And of course, there is material durability, which could break if delivered energy would be too high.

Ancient cavalry didnt had stirrups, their position is saddle was quite unstable, and they had to keep balance with both legs. Keeping balance also meant they couldnt put way too much force into attack otherwise they would lose the balance and would fall from the saddle. And while saddles were made to give better stability, it was never that good compared to saddle with stirrups that were unknown in ancient times.

[Ariamanesh]

All you said is true but not totally about cataphracts.
There is huge differences between a cataphract unit and a regular cavalry unit
1)cataphracts had a special type of war horse called nissean chargers.
They were strong and trained to be the best war horses of the ancient times also the parthians used some kind of eye protector which closed the eye of the horse and made it completely blind and he only obeyed what the rider commanded him even if the rider lead him to wall of pikes.
So the hesitation of a cataphract horse is pointless because he couldn't see anything.
2)The cataphracts of the parthians used a unique type of saddles called four horned saddles.
That horns could grip the rider's legs and keep him up on his steed and prevent him from falling which could tolerate even the opposition forces mostly and the rider could perform his works with no fear of falling.
3)The rider himself(i just talk about parthian and later sassanian version not the other type of catas)was not an ordinary soldier he was among the most powerful men of army and trained in a special way of training that called Pahlavani Wrestling which was a combination of wrestling and a professional body building sport.
These kind of training made these men super powerful something that an ordinary soldier couldn't compare with them.They at least 1.3-1.5x more powerful than normal men so they could wore such heavy armor and swing such heavy maces at the battle field.
Also their strong hands help them to keep their lances firm at the moment of impact.
4)The horse itself was a powerful creature who was about 4-5x more powerful than a normal human so if you want to stop him at full gallop with your blocks of men you need 4-5 raw of men to stop such a tremendous charge

So we have a squad of very powerful men armed with a very long thick lances and heavy maces(who could crush a head below an iron helmet)who ride the strongest horses available and wore the heavier armors which could withstand most of the blows and adding the speed and acceleration of the charger at full gallop and everyone can calculate what would be the outcome.
About holding the lance with two hand i should say that these never reduced the impact force because 99% of the impact energy made by the horse not by the rider and the only thing the rider needed to do was to hold his lance with all of his power and absorb the opposition energy.
If you study about cataphracts you will find out that they were a different matter from other types of cavalries.

[JaM]

About holding the lance with two hand i should say that these never reduced the impact force because 99% of the impact energy made by the horse not by the rider and the only thing the rider needed to do was to hold his lance with all of his power and absorb the opposition energy.

you hold the lance in your arms, therefore impact energy will go against your grip.. It is beyond human power to be able to fixate a lance with the momentum energy from a running heavy horse.. your grip would give away, and your impact energy would be reduced drastically..

Blinding the horse would prevent him from seeing the danger, true. Yet getting into formation of infantry would still be problematic, hitting packed men with a horse might end up with horse getting killed in the process, or horse panic after impact and dropping the rider, or simply by infantry surrounding the cavalrymen and dragging him down from saddle.


Cataphracts were very heavy, yet, their main advantage was from their improved protection. Yet they were relatively slow, and would be quite vulnerable against javelin throws against them. charging prepared heavy infantry equipped with such weapons would be quite costly. At Carrhae, Cataphracts attempted to charge the infantry(expecting they would rout before they hit them), but then they stopped the charge (romans didnt ran away) in the process without making contact with infantry. Instead, horse archers were called.

[Ariamanesh]

you hold the lance in your arms, therefore impact energy will go against your grip.. It is beyond human power to be able to fixate a lance with the momentum energy from a running heavy horse.. your grip would give away, and your impact energy would be reduced drastically..

Blinding the horse would prevent him from seeing the danger, true. Yet getting into formation of infantry would still be problematic, hitting packed men with a horse might end up with horse getting killed in the process, or horse panic after impact and dropping the rider, or simply by infantry surrounding the cavalrymen and dragging him down from saddle.


Cataphracts were very heavy, yet, their main advantage was from their improved protection. Yet they were relatively slow, and would be quite vulnerable against javelin throws against them. charging prepared heavy infantry equipped with such weapons would be quite costly. At Carrhae, Cataphracts attempted to charge the infantry(expecting they would rout before they hit them), but then they stopped the charge (romans didnt ran away) in the process without making contact with infantry. Instead, horse archers were called.

Yes they stopped the charge and again yes the legionaries stand firm but the reason of canceling the charge was another matter not only seeing they stand firm.
The fact was surena was up to charge head on the center of the square and penetrate the heart of the army and engage crasuss himself and kill him and break the morale of the entire army(he thought that a roman army is just like another armies who flee when their commander getting killed).
He thought that when he began his charge then the legions will not dare to stand before him and he will easily getting inside the hollow square formation and easily killing the crasuss but when he saw the situation he canceled because if he would have charge through them even if he could break that cohort the others will join the fight and soon he will be trapped in the middle of 35k heavy infantries.
The fact was the number of romans was the real reason behind it.
After that surena changed his tactic and decide to destroy all of the cohorts one by one.
The plan was easy making entire army busy with horse archers while he taking care of the legions one by one.In fact he divided the Romans from one army to about 40 smaller army and engaged them one by one and destroyed them with an unbelievable success.He almost destroyed Half of the romans at the process and the other half when they routed.
During the battle After poblius sent with two full cohort to pursuing the fleeing parthians he and his two cohorts engaged directly with those 1000 cataphracts and they firstly killed the cavalries while the horse archers were busy with killing their pursuing skirmishers and then the cataphracts charged directly through legions lines after publius death.
At this moment the legions were at the higher height on top of a hill but even that hill couldn't protect them from the final charges who completely shattered them.
This phase of war described clearly by the historians and clears the fact that if a legion was alone without the support of another units the cataphracts could crush them with ease.
As i said before you only need to divide your force and attack from multiple directions so you will extend the line of impact and increase the casualties.And do get me wrong hitting a rider on top of his galloping horse by a heavy pillum is as impossible as hitting a flying jet fighter with a tank cannon from the ground.
They could launch a blinded barrage of javelins but how many would hit the target?!

[JaM]

Not how i read it.. Romans took just about 500 casualties and about 2000 wounded during battle (not counting Publius forces they had no idea of what happened to them). they broke camp early in the morning, left all wounded (that couldnt march) and moved towards Carrhae town. they arrived there just to find out town cannot sustain entire army for long, therefore they decided to break off divided into smaller groups which were then engaged by Parthians. about 1/3 of them got out, remaining was either killed or captured.

But actual battle was not decissive from Parthina side... they didnt defeated them in battle, but wiped them out on the retreat.

[Ariamanesh]

From the bulk of the army yes they were engaged only horse archers why surena almost were busy fighting poblius and his 7-8k followers.
The battle was fought on only a half of the day and ended at the dusk when sun gone down and romans decide to retreat.
With the man power surena had the mission was not to engage all of them but harass them and drove them to disorder and then kill them as more as possible.
The main mission was to not get themselves(parthians)killed cause the romans could easily replace their destroyed legions while parthians could not.
So he brought horse archers to aid him at this mission.Horse archers were there not to snipe the romans but to keep them tight and divided and busy at all to gain time and opportunity for the cataphracts to destroy them one by one.
They should deny detached parts to attach each other again or aiding another troops.And they did it brilliantly and kept main corps busy and didn't allow them to join poblius party.
At this moment you should consider the number of the parthian cataphracts and the number of the troops they engaged.
It was a 1 to 35 battle and of course it was not an easy task yet the cataphracts managed to destroy 7-8k of them who accompanied poblius onto the onslaught!
And the main yes they were engaged horse archers who couldn't inflict heavy damage to those heavy infantries rather than some small wounds.
So you are right my sources tells this too.The entire dead on the roman side was something around 9-10k and 3/4 of them were alive at the end(wounded soldiers counted as alive).
But i think it was a deceive win for the cataphracts on the other hand.
While they were heavily outnumbered at the command of a brilliant general they accomplished a great victory over a great army.
They won almost every 1 on 1 battles and that prove their value.
I hope i was clear about my point at this moment

[JaM]

i just wanted to make a point that Cataphracts defeated retreating Romans, they didnt broke them while they were formed in battle. They did exactly what Heavy cavalry is supposed to do.. change enemy withdrawal into rout. Surenna was intelligent general who knew his weaknesses, and his strong points. and he used them to his advantage. Crassus was overconfident, he completely underestimated his opponent which caused him his life.

But lets go back to the main topic which should be Celts vs Greeks

[Ariamanesh]

I am sorry friend it seems you are getting bored discussing things with me so pardon me i didn't want to brought things to this point and hell yeah we are gone too far off topic.
So the fault was mine
Sorry lads for getting this thread to an unrelated discussion
I am agree lets end this

[La Tene]

One of problems discussing cavalry behavior with people is usually in the fact they approach the topic from game perspective instead of real life - human grip is limited by the muscles and bones, while base rule of physics apply - for every action there is same opposite reaction - so to deal certain amount of energy, you have to be able to withstand the same amount of energy against you... which in this case means that your grip has to be able to withstand same amount of energy you are delivering on target, otherwise delivered energy is reduced to the amount you can support... And of course, there is material durability, which could break if delivered energy would be too high.

Sometimes too many historical examples can confuse basic knowledge. Very many factors involved in each historical case IE: were those particular cavalrymen heroic, ready to martyr themselves to defeat a hated enemy? Were those troops irritated by poor weather and sour water rations? This is why dealing with the physics should be primary - physics don't change.

I think R2TR cavalry are in a very good place even though they will be modified more with time. I love to see cavalry charging in to infantry and dying in the process because I know those infantry are covered in metal and with sharp objects in hand. I like having to be very cautious about using my cavalry because it feels more realistic and it means I can focus my attention on very specific infantry formations. But, however, Ariamanesh makes a lot of good points and maybe just a few of the best cataphract units need to be more capable of breaking heavy infantry.

The Gauls: I wonder if geography gave the Celts an advantage when invading Greek lands. The wide open space in the Pannonian plains becomes narrow and mountainous while travelling south. Greeks were a Mediterranean sea people who probably spent too much time building ships and not enough time fortifying their northern land borders. Celts had all that good land in the Balkans supporting them while they raided down the mountains in to Greek low lands.

Compare this to Italy where there is a wide open plain in the north which separates the Alps from Italy's most important cities. This area can be fortified/militarized while Balkan lands are much more complicated.

[Ariamanesh]

Sometimes too many historical examples can confuse basic knowledge. Very many factors involved in each historical case IE: were those particular cavalrymen heroic, ready to martyr themselves to defeat a hated enemy? Were those troops irritated by poor weather and sour water rations? This is why dealing with the physics should be primary - physics don't change.

I think R2TR cavalry are in a very good place even though they will be modified more with time. I love to see cavalry charging in to infantry and dying in the process because I know those infantry are covered in metal and with sharp objects in hand. I like having to be very cautious about using my cavalry because it feels more realistic and it means I can focus my attention on very specific infantry formations. But, however, Ariamanesh makes a lot of good points and maybe just a few of the best cataphract units need to be more capable of breaking heavy infantry.

The Gauls: I wonder if geography gave the Celts an advantage when invading Greek lands. The wide open space in the Pannonian plains becomes narrow and mountainous while travelling south. Greeks were a Mediterranean sea people who probably spent too much time building ships and not enough time fortifying their northern land borders. Celts had all that good land in the Balkans supporting them while they raided down the mountains in to Greek low lands.

Compare this to Italy where there is a wide open plain in the north which separates the Alps from Italy's most important cities. This area can be fortified/militarized while Balkan lands are much more complicated.

As i discussed before there should be a huge differences between cataphracts with the other types of heavy cavalries or even between cataphracts themselves.
While some of the cataphract types just wore heavy armor or horse armor the other types had special training and equipments and other unique things.
The parthianl cataphracts were among the unique versions.Not only covered both horse and rider in armor but had a unique way of training and equipments that no other types had such things.
Also as i said before nobody can say the parthian cataphracts never could charge through heavy infantries it was a complicated matter.
You should notice this fact that the parthians were out numbered at all of their wars with romans.
At carrhae they had only 1000 cataphracts so that was a madness to charge through a wall of 7 full legion so they didn't do it and choose to skirmish and engaged with the legions only when inevitable.
But bear in mind if surena had equal amount of cataphracts?!What then?!
What if he had 7 full dragoon of cataphracts?!
My point is if cataphracts were unable to defeat legions head any way then they should not be able to destroy two full stack legions with the support of 1300 Gallic cavalries.
The legionaries were not on rout when faced cataphracts at the hill were poblius committed suicide they stand firm and hold their ground but they could withstand cataphracts and historian mentioned clearly that the cataphracts butchered them with their long lances so they do a thing at all but depended on the situation.
At most of the situations they were heavily out numbered so they couldn't charge strait into a sea of men and sword but when the war came to 1 on 1(1 unit on 1 unit)they proved how they could even crush the most armored infantries(even when they were about 1000 to 4800(1to~5) outnumbered again)
So the situation should decide who can win not an ultimate fact that they shouldn't able to kill legionaries at all.

[JaM]

Ariamanesh: Publius had 8 cohorts with him (8 cohorts of legionaries,with about 300 men in cohort,1300 gallic cavalry and 500 archers) not two legions... plus he rushed with his cavalry forward, leaving most of infantry behind marching... what he achieved was that he was suddenly surrounded by entire Parthian force...

[Ariamanesh]

Ariamanesh: Publius had 8 cohorts with him (8 cohorts of legionaries,with about 300 men in cohort,1300 gallic cavalry and 500 archers) not two legions... plus he rushed with his cavalry forward, leaving most of infantry behind marching... what he achieved was that he was suddenly surrounded by entire Parthian force...

Anyway you confirmed my point about poblius's fault.If he was patient and waited for his infantries to join and then attacked i think he had more chance but he was to hungry for those horse archers so he rushed forward and when he knew it was too late.
Yes i confused this battle with another one.
After i took another look on the sources i realize my fault their number was ~4000 but still i think cataphracts did their job.
As i severally said before the initial charge of the cataphracts was nothing but a fake charge just because Surena wanted to test his luck and see if he can break through the front line and reach crasuss and kill him and finish the battle off but as soon as he realized that the roman legions will stand before him he canceled the order cause the charge would lead him and his most valuable part of his army to full clash with entire 40000 army not only the front line.
That is why he canceled the charge.We do not know if there was only one legion before him he would have charge through and success or cancel the order again!This is my point
You are so sure that the cataphracts could not charge through a steady line of heavy infantries even if their numbers were equal but i am disagree with you.
It is completely true that legions faced cataphracts before but you should consider the parthian cataphracts as a different matter not an ordinary superheavy cavalry just like whatever seleucid or armenians mustered.

[Ariamanesh]

Ariamanesh: Publius had 8 cohorts with him (8 cohorts of legionaries,with about 300 men in cohort,1300 gallic cavalry and 500 archers) not two legions... plus he rushed with his cavalry forward, leaving most of infantry behind marching... what he achieved was that he was suddenly surrounded by entire Parthian force...

Anyway you confirmed my point about poblius's fault.If he was patient and waited for his infantries to join and then attacked i think he had more chance but he was to hungry for those horse archers so he rushed forward and when he knew it was too late.
Yes i confused this battle with another one.
After i took another look on the sources i realize my fault their number was ~5500 but still i think cataphracts did their job.
As i severally said before the initial charge of the cataphracts was nothing but a fake charge just because Surena wanted to test his luck and see if he can break through the front line and reach crasuss and kill him and finish the battle off but as soon as he realized that the roman legions will stand before him he canceled the order cause the charge would lead him and his most valuable part of his army to full clash with entire 40000 army not only the front line.
That is why he canceled the charge.We do not know if there was only one legion before him he would have charge through and success or cancel the order again!This is my point
You are so sure that the cataphracts could not charge through a steady line of heavy infantries even if their numbers were equal but i am disagree with you.
It is completely true that legions faced cataphracts before but you should consider the parthian cataphracts as a different matter not an ordinary superheavy cavalry just like whatever seleucid or armenians mustered.

[JaM]

8 cohorts with 300 men each (cohorts were never at full) gives you 2400 infantry, then he had 500 archers and 1300 Gallic cavalry, so together 4200 men, yet, these were not used as single force but were in several groups (as i mentioned before)


But, my point is not just about Cataphracts.. i'm saying NO HEAVY CAVALRY would charge straight on into a formed heavy infantry... its pure suicide, and such unit would end up obliterated - front row of such cavalry formation would crash into infantry, just to have second row crashing into them.. and third row would have nowhere to go...etc etc.. frontal charges never worked... instead, cavalry usually charged into rear of enemy (flanks were usually quite small to actually charge at them, so any flanking charge was practically charge into enemy backs)

Very good study about cavalry charge can be found here:

http://romanarmy.info/cavalry5_charg..._infantry.html

[Zeb77]

You are so sure that the cataphracts could not charge through a steady line of heavy infantries even if their numbers were equal but i am disagree with you.
It is completely true that legions faced cataphracts before but you should consider the parthian cataphracts as a different matter not an ordinary superheavy cavalry just like whatever seleucid or armenians mustered.

There was nothing especially different with the Parthian cataphract to any other heavily armoured cavalry without stirrups. Ventidius found himself up against Parthians stupid enough to charge the Roman line without weakening it or putting it into disorder. It didn't go so well for the cataphracts.

[Ariamanesh]

There was nothing especially different with the Parthian cataphract to any other heavily armoured cavalry without stirrups. Ventidius found himself up against Parthians stupid enough to charge the Roman line without weakening it or putting it into disorder. It didn't go so well for the cataphracts.

Please care to read more of my posts here in this thread i don't want to start another pointless off topic discussion based on the same opinions that discussed already.
I made it clear what i wanted to say about cataphracts please read some posts above.
But for the last time i repeat what i wrote before some posts earlier

2)The cataphracts of the parthians used a unique type of saddles called four horned saddles.
That horns could grip the rider's legs and keep him up on his steed and prevent him from falling which could tolerate even the opposition forces mostly and the rider could perform his works with no fear of falling.

And also read this:

Also as i said before nobody can say the parthian cataphracts never could charge through heavy infantries it was a complicated matter.
You should notice this fact that the parthians were out numbered at all of their wars with romans.
At carrhae they had only 1000 cataphracts so that was a madness to charge through a wall of 7 full legion so they didn't do it and choose to skirmish and engaged with the legions only when inevitable.
But bear in mind if surena had equal amount of cataphracts?!What then?!
What if he had 7 full dragoon of cataphracts?!

And this:

The legionaries were not on rout when faced cataphracts at the hill were poblius committed suicide they stand firm and hold their ground but they couldn't withstand cataphracts and historian mentioned clearly that the cataphracts butchered them with their long lances so they do a thing at all but depended on the situation.
At most of the situations they were heavily out numbered so they couldn't charge strait into a sea of men and sword but when the war came to 1 on 1(1 unit on 1 unit)they proved how they could even crush the most armored infantries(even when they were about 1000 to 4800(1to~5) outnumbered again)
So the situation should decide who can win not an ultimate fact that they shouldn't able to kill legionaries at all.

Finally i should point it out again that nobody can be sure of what will happen if a dragoon of parthian cataphracts charging through a legion.
As i said before it is a complicated matter and can not be calculated so easily
The outcome of the battle depends on the terrain,Leadership,situation,number,....
At Carrhae parthians had better strategy and better leadership and had the favored battlefield but they were heavily outnumbered(1to35) and that was the main reason why they rarely charged through a mass amount of legions

[andrew881thebest]

In real life a charge of cataphracts would have this result on my opinion: the long lances with the kinetic energy of a horse at gallop CAN no doubt pierce a wooden shield; so first line of infantry, even if in proper stance, is in real trouble. But if you have more lines, like 10 or 12, of infantry, all in defensive position, steady, ready to receive charge, the cataphracts can do not so much even after having crushed first line. They simply are there, immobile, and easy targets for the multitude of infantry surrounding them, so they can simply retreat...and maybe, charge again. Even if in heavy armor a knight can easily be defeated when in melee against infantry. This applies to medieval knights in plate armor and to cataphracts as well. So no doubt that cataphracts thrown against a weak line would crush it; but a thick line in defensive position, they cannot crush it, even if they can do SOME harm to the poor guys in first rank.

[JaM]

again. direct charge was just not possible... unless you have single line of suicidal men on blinded heavy horses, who would run and crash into a obstacle... real cavalry unit was typically in deeper formation, therefore direct crash was not possible, otherwise horses in second and third line would collide with horses in first line... entire unit would end up in complete chaos, which is the last thing you want to be in on the battlefield...

[andrew881thebest]

again. direct charge was just not possible... unless you have single line of suicidal men on blinded heavy horses, who would run and crash into a obstacle... real cavalry unit was typically in deeper formation, therefore direct crash was not possible, otherwise horses in second and third line would collide with horses in first line... entire unit would end up in complete chaos, which is the last thing you want to be in on the battlefield...

so on your opinion what did cataphracts do? picnic? sunbath?

[JaM]

they charged diagonally so they ride sideways next to infantry line and tried to hit men in front rows with their lances... but that was the case if they couldnt flank the enemy infantry... usually cavalry charge was a drive home charge where cavalry hit the infantry from the rear. but all that is very well explained in that link i posted, so do yourself a favor and read it..