Research Thread: Parthia
I would say they need more armored catarpahts. More importantly their visual experience must be changed; they had colored armored scale horses, and they wore different types of armor, but mostly they were covered up.
More importantly, they need different types of horse archers, more steppe archers, as reading from their history they did receive support from their allies and they made the bulk of their armies( I might be wrong in this) So like Carthage recruits mercenaries, so should the Parthians be able to recruit steppe archers and so on . And I'd remain their infantry to be as it is, there is some evidence of a royal strong infantry unit; but apart from that there wasn't much for infantry to do. This is a cavalry faction, and it needs more variation within its armored cavalry and so on. If they have archer spear men; that again would be awesome. And more individualizes in their rosters.
http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/i...c=17662&page=2
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/.../Texts/Ammian/
Some pics:
And some info from this book by Kieth Hunt; it talks about '' ten tribes of Iseral'' stuff; however the stuff on Parthia is quite awesome, I would model their roster to resemble what is written here:
The Parthian and Roman armies, both headed by their
emperors, clashed in what must have been one of the fiercest (and
bloodiest) battles ever fought in the ancient world. What
occurred was not merely a battle, but the death struggle of two
mighty empires. Citing the classical writers, Rawlinson states:
"The battle of Nisibis ... was the fiercest and best contested
which was ever fought between the rival powers. It lasted ...
three days. The army of Artabanus was numerous and
well-appointed: like almost every Parthian force, it was strong
in cavalry and archers; and it had ... a novel addition of ...
soldiers, clad in complete armour, and carrying long spears or
lances, who were mounted on camels ... The Romans suffered
greatly from the bows of the horse-archers, and from the lances
of the corps mounted on camels; and ... as they retired, they
strewed the ground with spiked balls and other contrivances for
injuring the feet of animals." 85
Ctesiphon, the "western capital" known to the Romans, was
nowhere near the actual homeland of the Parthians. It is possible
that Ctesiphon was an administrative center for governing their
western provinces, but that other "capitals" existed eastward in
their empire. The Scythian nature of the Parthians is well-known,
and Scythian reverence for the dead was an historic trait. When
Darius attacked the Scythians many centuries earlier near the
Black Sea, he was warned that retribution would be most dire if
he desecrated Scythian cemeteries. 84 Given the historic
relationship between Parthia and the Sacae tribes of Scythia, it
is possible that Scythian tribes furnished troops for this battle
as well.
The invading Romans met the Parthian defenders at the battle
of Carrhae in 53 B.C. (near the modern border of Syria and
Turkey). The Romans suffered one of the worst defeats in the
history of the Roman Empire; half the 40,000 man army perished, a
quarter fled, and 10,000 Romans were captured. Crassus, a member
of the triumvirate ruling the Roman Empire, was slain. Parthia's
treatment of the captured Romans was unusually magnanimous,
especially considering that the Romans were the aggressors. The
10,000 captured Romans were resettled east of the Caspian Sea,
given wives, and later even served as Parthian soldiers. 44
Rawlinson comments that the Parthians:
"... acquired by their use of the bow a fame like that [of] the
English archers ... at Crecy and Agincourt. They forced the
arrogant Romans to ... allow that there was at least one nation
in the world which could meet them on equal terms ... They
henceforth obtained recognition from the Graeco-Roman writers ...
as the second Power in the world." 45
Richard Frye's "Heritage of Persia" also notes that, after
the battle of Carrhae: "the world was divided between Rome and
Parthia according to Greek and Latin authors." 46
This was no wild
mob from the steppes, but a disciplined and prepared military
force. The Parthians maintained both a heavy cavalry and a light
cavalry. The light cavalry was composed of fleet horses with
riders armed with bows and arrows. These horsemen could rain down
upon an enemy a fairly continuous barrage of arrows as they could
ride in shifts, with each troop resupplying itself from
camel-borne arrow carriers when their supply became exhausted in
battle. 41
The heavy cavalry must have been truly frightening to the
Roman footsoldier. Rawlinson describes them in the following
manner:
"The strong horses selected for this service were clad almost
wholly in mail. Their head, neck, chest, even their sides and
flanks, were protected by scale-armour of brass or iron ... Their
riders had cuirasses and cuisses [breastplates and leg armor] of
the same materials, and helmets of burnished iron. For an
offensive weapon they carried a long ... spear or pike. They
formed a serried line in battle, bearing down with great weight
on the enemy whom they charged, and standing firm as an iron wall
against the charges that were made against them." 42
In other words, the Romans were opposed by a superior
phalanx of armored Parthian cavalry. With their armored mounts,
body armor, and long spears, the Parthian heavy cavalry must have
looked like mounted European Lancers from the middle ages! Again
we see another parallel between the ancient Parthians and the
Europeans of the feudal period. The Parthian heavy cavalry sounds
like a huge formation of feudal knights armed for combat instead
of jousts. Indeed, the Encyclopaedia Britannica openly called the
Parthian heavy cavalry "knights."
The Parthian and Roman armies, both headed by their
emperors, clashed in what must have been one of the fiercest (and
bloodiest) battles ever fought in the ancient world. What
occurred was not merely a battle, but the death struggle of two
mighty empires. Citing the classical writers, Rawlinson states:
"The battle of Nisibis ... was the fiercest and best contested
which was ever fought between the rival powers. It lasted ...
three days. The army of Artabanus was numerous and
well-appointed: like almost every Parthian force, it was strong
in cavalry and archers; and it had ... a novel addition of ...
soldiers, clad in complete armour, and carrying long spears or
lances, who were mounted on camels ... The Romans suffered
greatly from the bows of the horse-archers, and from the lances
of the corps mounted on camels; and ... as they retired, they
strewed the ground with spiked balls and other contrivances for
injuring the feet of animals." 85
This kind of fighting went on for three full days. The
armor-clad Parthians must have looked like medieval knights as
they charged the Romans with levelled lances. The Romans,
however, were ingenious in countering these assaults by maiming
the Parthian animals. The killing was awesome. It is recorded
that the bodies of the dead were:
"piled to such a height that the manoeuvres of the troops were
impeded by them, and at last the two contending hosts could
scarcely see one another!" 86
Arilou_skiff
Senior MemberSergeant-MajorJoin DateOct 2013Posts380
If we're talking mods...
Then I'd add:
For infantry:
-An archer-spearman unit (more expensive than eastern spearmen, but with pretty similar stats, and the ability to shoot arrows)
For Shock Cav:
-A lighter, "steppe style" early-game shock cavalry, light or no armour, about 40-50 charge bonus, etc.
For Melee Cav.:
-A "Cataphract-style" heavily armored melee cav, armed with maces or swords.
For Missile Cav:
-One superior unit of Medium Horse Archers (better than Noble Horse Archers) for all-round role (some armour, good archery characteristics)
-Cataphract Horse archers, like the Saka (oddly enough the Parthians do get a bonus to fire rate for Heavy Missile Cavalry... but they have no such unit)
-Similarily, Cataphract javelinmen. Both of which should also have decent melee stats.
Basically this would give you the option of a heavy cataphract "core" of slow, but powerful (and easily exhausted) Cataphracts, or lighter, more mobile cavalry, as well as some supportive infantry elements. (they really don't need anything more on that front)
Reply With Quote
