My Analysis of What Happened At Carrhae

[asianboy]

The use of this event in history has been used in frequent debates. Usually, it's to measure the piercing potentials of bows against armors/shields. As you some of you might have guessed correctly, the debates were huge causes for the misconceptions in the event. So let me clear these misinformations.

1. The bows involved in this conflict was that of the Horse Archers. Inherently, before the invention of the stirrups, the bow used on horseback would have limited power. Now, and this is still being debated, some would say that the composite-recurve bow would have made it easier to pull back on horses and allow for higher power. Still, even if we accept this, I think that it is safe to say that the Foot Archers would be using the composite-recurve bows with a higher draw-weight than that of the Horse Archers; the Parthian Horse Archers Bows weren't the strongest in the world.

2. There is no doubt that the arrows at least pierced the Roman scutum and rivetted the hands to the wooden parts.

...................................

Now here comes the more vague parts:

1. Did the projectiles pierced the armor?
Let's look at the quote below.

Crassus commanded his light-armed soldiers to charge, but they had not gone far before they were received with such a shower of arrows that they were glad to retire amongst the heavy-armed, with whom this was the first occasion of disorder and terror, when they perceived the strength and force of their darts, which pierced their arms, and passed through every kind of covering, hard and soft alike

In the other translated version (I will go look for it), it metioned "shattered armor". This could be a translation issue, but we must note that the term used was "shattered". One of the few things that I can see that could be shattered would be wood, glass, and metal - not leather or clothes. Since the text mentioned only armor, we can infer that these armors weren't glass or wood. Thus, a type of metal armor were penetrated.

2. But if armors can (probably) be penetrated, why did the Romans died so slow?
The answer was that they were in the testudo and that they were more numerous. The arrows can penetrate shield and probably armor, but not both at once.
Secondly, I have heard that the army of Crassus was divided into a square. This meant that each side of the square had about 11,250 soldiers. The Parthians had between 9,000 -10,000 Horse Archers at most. Based on the story, it seemed like the Parthians were surrounding the Legions. This meant that there were at most 2,500 Horse Archers on each side of the square.

3. "But Crassus was an idiot; this battle was not a good representative of the performance of arrows and armors"

The above statement is partially true. However, there was more to it than that. Usually, when people spoke of this, they call it a "group"; but, what Publius attacked forward with numbered as much as or even more than a legionaire. True, some of these were not really as well trained as the legions, but these soldiers weren't a mere "group". Furthermore, Publius seemed to be a brave and a good commander, for he served under Caesar. Thus, there's no "he's an idiot" excuse.
All in all, the Parthians did not outnumber Publius much (11,000 vs 6,500). This is assuming that every part of the Surena Army was there at the ambush. As we know, the result was that Publius lost. However, this is still not a good measurement for arrow vs. armor, for the Parthian Cataphracts were involved. But the Cataphracts made up only 1/10 of the Surena Army, so it could be that arrows played a more important part.

http://www.historynet.com/roman-pers...-carrhae.htm/2

<I will try to post more tomorrow>

[Xellos_Moon]

Did you also calculate the fatigue of the roman legionares as they remained in testudo? Im no gymnast expert but wearing heavy armor in the heat of day would certainly tire you out. Especially since you dont have time to say "TIME OUT, WATER PLEASE". Parthian tactics involve wearing out thier opponents with a shower of arrows then use the catapracts would pounce of the kill...

Also about morale... When you are surrounded and being shot by arrows by enemies you cant even touch, well, makes you feel hopeless, and then start praying to Jupiter to forgive you for all your sins, and while your praying suddenly a ing armored horse comes in and runs over you.

There is no doubt that the arrows at least pierced the Roman scrotum and rivetted the hands to the wooden parts.

lol

[Mangalore]

I think you overthink the used equipment in the outcome of the battle. It doesn't matter wether arrows pierce something or not, the very being of thousands of horse archers harrassing your lines means that your soldiers are in constant combat readiness and tire out. Legs and arms were also not armored at all which would allow disabling wounds equal to killing someone. Overall the Parthian success was to employ a tactic the Romans knew no immediate remedy to counter. They were used to a vicious clash of armies not so much used to enemy forces wittling one down avoiding any direct confrontation. The point was to wittle down the enemy in strength and morale till either on retreat or in advance indivdiual units would be either so strongly weakened that they couldn't stand up to a cataphract charge anymore or cracks in the formation appeared

2. But if armors can (probably) be penetrated, why did the Romans died so slow?
The answer was that they were in the testudo and that they were more numerous. The arrows can penetrate shield and probably armor, but not both at once.
Secondly, I have heard that the army of Crassus was divided into a square. This meant that each side of the square had about 11,250 soldiers. The Parthians had between 9,000 -10,000 Horse Archers at most. Based on the story, it seemed like the Parthians were surrounding the Legions. This meant that there were at most 2,500 Horse Archers on each side of the square.

The answer is similar to how men survived WW1 with millions of bullets and shells flying their way: The space they occupy and the cover they have makes them still small targets! An arrow and bow which _can_ pierce armor doesn't necessary do it every single time!! More likely is that such a piercing of armor and/or shields only occurs under optimal conditions. Many shots will fail, not hitting anything, being glancing hits, hitting shields or armor, not having maximum velocity on impact. It doesn't matter because the buildup of men wounded and under constant threat of death is what is this all about.

Similarily it's rather simplistic to sum up the number of soldiers which would be at one side at a time. Horse archers or other cavakry were so good because they could concentrate their power on any one point in an enemy line in a comparatively short amount of time.



The key to this battle seems to me that the Romans managed to withdraw into Carrhae but the soldiers so demoralized (mainly because of the felt disparity of how much harm the enemy dealt to them while they couldn't get at him) that Crassus was obliged to agree to negotiations with the Parthians or otherwise face a mutiny of his troops. When the Parthians swiftly killed him when those negotiations broke down the Roman coherent defense also broke down and overall the Parthians had an easy time picking of Roman soldiers trying to get back to Roman territory.

The greatest amount of casualties usually occurs when armies have given up coherent defense and soldiers try to save their lives on an individual basis. In those circumstances all the analysis of penetration power of compound bows becomes unnecessary. Any unit not still hold together by its commanders can be easily scattered and massacred even by lightly armed skirmishers and light cavalry is perfect to hunt down such units and cataphracts perfect to smash any group still trying to rally together.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

wasnt really that they were out classed it was Crassus' embarissingly bad battle command, i mean even after all of this it didnt really fall apart until Crassus saw his son fall and then complelety screwed his own men other commanders eg Trajan and lucius Verus both showed up the Parthian forces greatly and Tigranocerta shows how Roman infantry could beat heavy eastern infantry even when vastly outnummber.

[Mangalore]

... and Tigranocerta shows how Roman infantry could beat heavy eastern infantry even when vastly outnummber.

Causing a mass panic in an army still encamped doesn't sound like a solid strategy you can expect to work very often. Similarily Trajan's success seems to have more to do with the Parthian king being in trouble with internal affairs and thus was in no state to offer any significant resistance. Only four years latter Hadrian restored the former borders suggesting that keeping them against the Parthians was not a very easy affair.

More importantly with the quasifeudal system of the Parthians the loss of an official capital was not that tragic because the importance was in the person of the king and his army.

[G-Megas-Doux]

I found this discussion to be very informative and also well countered. I would say that all factors mentioned on balance lead to the result and the most important thing that has not been mentioned would be the unknown. At the time of the battle there were few Romans who would have dealt with horse archers, the likelihood would have been that those who served in the east such as Pompey may have dealt with them but not specifically in the manner that Crassus came across. Having limited intelligence of the area and his opponent (the major failing of Crassus as he ignored his local advisors) it is not a surprise that the events occurred in this manner. Later commanders were to have the benefit of this unfortunate experience to draw upon.

[asianboy]

Just so you know, I agree with some of you guys. There were other factors involved, but I just would like to clear the misconceptions of the Recurve- Composite Bow.

There's one more thing that I would like to point out.

4. "The Horse Archers composite bow was only effective at point blank range"

There is one major thing wrong with this: the Romans had javelins. Javelins can be thrown as far as 30 meters. The Romans had attempted to throw these once, but they had to rush significantly forward. This meant that throughout the battle, the Parthians were at least 30 meters away from the Legion, and thus not at the point blank range. Furthermore, the Roman had 3 wings (Cassius, Crassus, and Publius) of about 4,000 cavalry . Even though the Horse Archers were light, I would say that they need at least 45 meters of distance to remain safe. Now, it is plenty obvious that the range can't be above 80 meters. But we can now refute the "point blank" idea. It seemd like the Parthians were definitely 50 -60 meters away.

There is no doubt that the arrows at least pierced the Roman scrotum and rivetted the hands to the wooden parts.

lol

Ah ha ha.
+rep for you

[Thalassocrat]

Ah ha ha.
+rep for you

you are quoting and repping yourself?

[G-Megas-Doux]

you are quoting and repping yourself?

Mate, he is quoting someone mocking his quote and reping that person, read it again.

[Thalassocrat]

Mate, he is quoting someone mocking his quote and reping that person, read it again.

I wanted HIM to respond!!! He would have kept on and on until somebody asked him what made him think the Romans were fondling themselves in the middle of the desert and what's his obsession about the rigidity of Roman genitalia

[frontier-auxilia]

In the words of plutarch, those arrows was capable of pinning a roman soldier to their place. The arrows alone may not kill them but wounds, blood loss and infection will. What happaned in carrhae was that the legionaires become a really fancy pinboards for parthian arrows. Crassus contains 2 types of troops that can counter the horse archers. This includes the light infantry who sally out of the legions to skirmish with them and the cavalry to run them down. However both of these were beaten with the lighter dudes being shot to bits and the cavalry squashed by cataphracts. In age old total war HA army wisdom, an all infantry army with no support is the best meat you can buy.

[G-Megas-Doux]

That would be Plutarch born in AD 46 then. It is more complicated then you make it the Romans could have done other things before the battle and during it. Check the whole thread.

[G-Megas-Doux]

I doubt it.

[Old_Scratch]

1. The bows involved in this conflict was that of the Horse Archers. Inherently, before the invention of the stirrups, the bow used on horseback would have limited power. Now, and this is still being debated, some would say that the composite-recurve bow would have made it easier to pull back on horses and allow for higher power. Still, even if we accept this, I think that it is safe to say that the Foot Archers would be using the composite-recurve bows with a higher draw-weight than that of the Horse Archers; the Parthian Horse Archers Bows weren't the strongest in the world.

I don't think that this is entirely accurate. Lack of stirrups wouldn't necessarily cause the archers to use a weaker bow, but it would make them less accurate when at a gallop. The stirrup allowed horse archers to stand and put some space between themselves and the galloping horse allowing for much better accuracy. Also, the just because horse archers can fire at a gallop doesn't mean that they always are. With no real threat from the infantry, the parthian archers might have just stopped, or at least slowed down really negating the need for stirrups at all. I havn't read a detailed account of the battle, but it wouldn't be uncommon for horse archers of various time periods to even dismount and shoot if they weren't in any danger.

Over all though, reguardless of what happened during the battle itself, the seeds of defeat had been sown by Crassus' poor strategic decisions earlier in the campaign ensuring his loss.

[Thalassocrat]

I havn't read a detailed account of the battle, but it wouldn't be uncommon for horse archers of various time periods to even dismount and shoot if they weren't in any danger.

Yup, one famous example is Arsuf

[G-Megas-Doux]

There is a good suspician that they likely used one formation or another to stay mostly out of range and then move in close enough for effect. Much like the shooting circle.

[G-Megas-Doux]

The way that riders deal with a horse when not using the reigns or stirrups, would be gripping with the thighs and tapping the sides of the horse to change the direction. When firing arrows all the control of the horse is in the rider’s legs and would be something practiced to ensure capability.

[Exarch]

it was a bad position for crassus but it wasnt unwinnable

i've pwned the parthians in the rome total war historical sim.
hammer and anvil technique

[ray243]

The use of this event in history has been used in frequent debates. Usually, it's to measure the piercing potentials of bows against armors/shields. As you some of you might have guessed correctly, the debates were huge causes for the misconceptions in the event. So let me clear these misinformations.

1. The bows involved in this conflict was that of the Horse Archers. Inherently, before the invention of the stirrups, the bow used on horseback would have limited power. Now, and this is still being debated, some would say that the composite-recurve bow would have made it easier to pull back on horses and allow for higher power. Still, even if we accept this, I think that it is safe to say that the Foot Archers would be using the composite-recurve bows with a higher draw-weight than that of the Horse Archers; the Parthian Horse Archers Bows weren't the strongest in the world.

2. There is no doubt that the arrows at least pierced the Roman scutum and rivetted the hands to the wooden parts.

...................................

Now here comes the more vague parts:

1. Did the projectiles pierced the armor?
Let's look at the quote below.



In the other translated version (I will go look for it), it metioned "shattered armor". This could be a translation issue, but we must note that the term used was "shattered". One of the few things that I can see that could be shattered would be wood, glass, and metal - not leather or clothes. Since the text mentioned only armor, we can infer that these armors weren't glass or wood. Thus, a type of metal armor were penetrated.

2. But if armors can (probably) be penetrated, why did the Romans died so slow?
The answer was that they were in the testudo and that they were more numerous. The arrows can penetrate shield and probably armor, but not both at once.
Secondly, I have heard that the army of Crassus was divided into a square. This meant that each side of the square had about 11,250 soldiers. The Parthians had between 9,000 -10,000 Horse Archers at most. Based on the story, it seemed like the Parthians were surrounding the Legions. This meant that there were at most 2,500 Horse Archers on each side of the square.

3. "But Crassus was an idiot; this battle was not a good representative of the performance of arrows and armors"

The above statement is partially true. However, there was more to it than that. Usually, when people spoke of this, they call it a "group"; but, what Publius attacked forward with numbered as much as or even more than a legionaire. True, some of these were not really as well trained as the legions, but these soldiers weren't a mere "group". Furthermore, Publius seemed to be a brave and a good commander, for he served under Caesar. Thus, there's no "he's an idiot" excuse.
All in all, the Parthians did not outnumber Publius much (11,000 vs 6,500). This is assuming that every part of the Surena Army was there at the ambush. As we know, the result was that Publius lost. However, this is still not a good measurement for arrow vs. armor, for the Parthian Cataphracts were involved. But the Cataphracts made up only 1/10 of the Surena Army, so it could be that arrows played a more important part.

http://www.historynet.com/roman-pers...-carrhae.htm/2

<I will try to post more tomorrow>

Can you give us the source you use that isn't coming from a online forum?

[vopohame]

My question is about the 80meter range of a parthian composite bow, is that the effective range? I just find it hard to believe since my sons bow has a range well above that and its only a 25 pound pull and would seriously injure a non-armoured person at 80 meters. My traditional native composite bow can easily cover 300 meters but have never had a field longer than that to see the total range but its 130 pound pull. I know the koreans practiced at aproximately 144 meters, just wondering. I have no knowledge of their bow technology.