Romans vs Persians

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

OK guys, I have a question that I was hoping you can help me to answer: How was a battle between Roman and Persian (Sassanian) forces fought? Obviously the strategies utilized would change from battle to battle, depending on structures of armies, geographical surroundings and any other factors. So let me simplify the scenario: The battle takes place in a dessert (just a flat terrain, some dunes but nothing else to provide any advantages to either army), they both have a mixture of archers, heavy infantry and cavalry, with the Romans having more foot soldiers while the Persians heavy cavalry, and both armies are now face to face. Who would make the first move? How will the battle unfold? If necessary, hypothesize on what is historically known about this. Just imagine you’re an observer of this battle, what would you see happening in front of your eyes?
I know there is a bunch of people very well versed on this kind of topics around here, and I’d really appreciate any input about this. It’s for something I’m working on. Thank you in advance.

[Valentinian Victor]

OK guys, I have a question that I was hoping you can help me to answer: How was a battle between Roman and Persian (Sassanian) forces fought? Obviously the strategies utilized would change from battle to battle, depending on structures of armies, geographical surroundings and any other factors. So let me simplify the scenario: The battle takes place in a dessert (just a flat terrain, some dunes but nothing else to provide any advantages to either army), they both have a mixture of archers, heavy infantry and cavalry, with the Romans having more foot soldiers while the Persians heavy cavalry, and both armies are now face to face. Who would make the first move? How will the battle unfold? If necessary, hypothesize on what is historically known about this. Just imagine you’re an observer of this battle, what would you see happening in front of your eyes?
I know there is a bunch of people very well versed on this kind of topics around here, and I’d really appreciate any input about this. It’s for something I’m working on. Thank you in advance.

You will get some idea if you download a copy of Vegetius, lots of versions on-line for free.
Basically, the Romans tended to form up as follows-

In the center there was at least two lines, the main battle line and a second of reserves. These lines would be made up of infantry. The front line would be generally of legionarii backed up with auxilia units on their flanks. However, there were occasions when the front line was made up entirely of legionarii, or entirely of auxilia, or, during Julians campaign against the Sasanids, and from the reigns of Theodosius I onwards, a mixture of 'Romans' and Gothic infantry. On the right and left sides of the main battle line would be stationed the cavalry/clibanarii mounted units. The Romans army would advance upto dart/javelin range and start 'intimidating by their gestures' and 'raising their war cry, the barritus'. The Romans would then begin a missile barrage before either bracing themselves for a cavalry or infantry charge, or charge in themselves.

The Sasanids would generally have the heaviest mounted, the Catafracts, in the center with the other cavalry on the wings, the elephants would be in the rear behind the catafracts, although at times they were stationed in the front to disrupt the Roman lines. Sasanid infantry would tend to be behind the Sasanid mounted as they were not considered to be able to fight the Romans in a stand up fight.

It would depend on the nature of the terrain the battle was fought on, but generally both sides would march towards each other until they were at the optimum range of their missiles. The Sasanids would begin showering the Romans with arrows until the Roman infantry rushed forward, backed up by their mounted wings, in an attempt to drive off the Sasanids. Most Roman/Sasanid encounters during Contantius II and Julian's campaigns were mostly inconclusive affairs.

You get an idea of Roman vs Sasanid battles from reading Ammianus, again you can down load various versions for free from the internet.

[avesta]

I've always wondered about the persian cataphracts - are there any accounts of them charging into the legions head on? Surely the romans would have prepared for this scenario and even probably had formations or maneuvers against it, knowing it was the persians' primary weapon. The romans even had throwing weapons that could probably hurt a retreating cataphract.

So how would the persians react? We all know they are famous for deploying their cavalry in the front but would they actually charge the legions?

[Valentinian Victor]

I've always wondered about the persian cataphracts - are there any accounts of them charging into the legions head on? Surely the romans would have prepared for this scenario and even probably had formations or maneuvers against it, knowing it was the persians' primary weapon. The romans even had throwing weapons that could probably hurt a retreating cataphract.

So how would the persians react? We all know they are famous for deploying their cavalry in the front but would they actually charge the legions?

No real accounts in either Julian or Ammianus where we can say for certain that the Sasanid Cataphracts charged into the Roman infantry. The description of the Battle of Maranga could imply that the Sasanids Cataphracts dismounted to bolster the Sasanid bowmen, but that is just one interpretation.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Thank you so much for the information and tips. I really appreciate it

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

The latest issue of 'Ancient Warfare' explores this in some detail with the Parthian and Sassanid armies against Roman expeditionary forces. I would qualify your original statement that the terrain is flat with no advantage to either side by adding that was precisely an ideal Parthian or Sassanid fighting ground which suited large mounted armies. Roman forces fared better in broken ground which nulled the advantage Horse Archers and Cataphracts had. More succesful Roman operations against both empires tended to involve the Armenian highlands for precisely this reason!

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

The latest issue of 'Ancient Warfare' explores this in some detail with the Parthian and Sassanid armies against Roman expeditionary forces. I would qualify your original statement that the terrain is flat with no advantage to either side by adding that was precisely an ideal Parthian or Sassanid fighting ground which suited large mounted armies. Roman forces fared better in broken ground which nulled the advantage Horse Archers and Cataphracts had. More succesful Roman operations against both empires tended to involve the Armenian highlands for precisely this reason!

Thank you. BTW, 'Ancient Warfare' by Harry Sidebottom?

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Thanks again, my friend.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Anytime!

[Gäiten]

The Battle of Nisibis is hardly something you could use for describing how Romans and Sassanians fought each other.

Sassanian battle tactics were far more advanced than Parthians.
Will write something about that, but you will have to wait a little longer.

[Valentinian Victor]

The Battle of Nisibis is hardly something you could use for describing how Romans and Sassanians fought each other.

Sassanian battle tactics were far more advanced than Parthians.
Will write something about that, but you will have to wait a little longer.

Nisibis and Amida were seige battles. The Battle of Muranga (I think that is the spelling) is an 'open' battle that Ammianus describes where the Romans and Sasanids fought. It's the one where the Sasanid army broke when the Roman infantry line rushed forward causing the Sasanids to 'flee as if their armour was red hot...'. Unfortunately, although Festus recounts that Constantius II fought quite a few battles against the Sasanids, his history was a 'brevarium', therefore a very brief overview of Roman history and the battles are not described in detail.

Do not treat 6th Century AD and later battle descriptions as indicative of what was likely to happen during the reigns of Diocletian to the end of the Empire in the West. The armies of this period were vastly different to 6th Century armies and the military manuals show this. Compare Vegetius with Maurikos, Leo, John etc and you will see why.

[Gäiten]

Sorry, I meant the Battle of Nisibis 217 AD between Parthians and Romans, that battle is mentioned in the last Ancient Warfare magazine (see SeniorBatavianHorse).

[Valentinian Victor]

Sorry, I meant the Battle of Nisibis 217 AD between Parthians and Romans, that battle is mentioned in the last Ancient Warfare magazine (see SeniorBatavianHorse).

I guessed as much. Mind you, Ammianus descriptions of Nisibis and Amida are very good accounts of siege battles, as well as giving a good account of how well prepared the Sasanids were with siege warfare.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I wasn't referring to the battle of Nisibis in particular - in fact I don't think I mentioned it as such - but how the magazine as a whole reveals the broader strategic issues which affected warfare in general in that region. The flat desert terrain quoted in the original post always favors Parthian AND Sassanian armies over Roman ones whereas the more northern route down through Armenin presents hilly and broken terrain where an infantry-heavy army could potentially nullify advantages which mounted archers and cataphracts might have. The issue in question addresses both Parthian and Sassanian period Roman operations.