Comments on: What We Learned... from the Battle of Carrhae http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-battle-of-carrhae.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Fri, 24 May 2013 15:55:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Hans K http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-battle-of-carrhae.htm#comment-817149 Hans K Wed, 05 Sep 2012 03:54:32 +0000 #comment-817149 Hmm, I would say that the Romans halting their expansion at the Rhine has more to do with logic and logistics rather than any moral effect of their great defeat. After the disaster of Teotoburg Wald the Romans under Germanicus launched a succesful punitive campaign against the Germans, in fact decisively defeating Arminius and forcing him into exile while installing their own client kings amongst the tribes. Despite these military sucesses, the Romans probably realized that there were little to gain from a permanent occupation of Germania, given the small food surplus and lack of exploitable wealth in the area (which was the reason Germanic tribes were forever raiding Roman territories in the first place). Besides, the Rhine made more sense as a frontier of the Empire rather than the Elbe, given that troops stationed along the former river could be supplied through reliable water routes rather than land ones. The Romans' failure to conquer Persia probably also has something to do with logistical limitation, after Carrhae they in fact repeatedly invaded (sacking Ctesiphon five times, three times during the 2nd century alone) but could never make much headway beyond there. This could be explained by the lack of water routes to supply troop advances beyond the Euphrates, plus the Persian overall superiority in cavalry which would make life hard for Roman legions as they went further into the Iranian pleatau. While competently handled Roman armies was essentially immune to cavalry attacks, their supply line would be much more vulnerable, especially combined with Persian scorched earth policy. Hmm, I would say that the Romans halting their expansion at the Rhine has more to do with logic and logistics rather than any moral effect of their great defeat. After the disaster of Teotoburg Wald the Romans under Germanicus launched a succesful punitive campaign against the Germans, in fact decisively defeating Arminius and forcing him into exile while installing their own client kings amongst the tribes. Despite these military sucesses, the Romans probably realized that there were little to gain from a permanent occupation of Germania, given the small food surplus and lack of exploitable wealth in the area (which was the reason Germanic tribes were forever raiding Roman territories in the first place). Besides, the Rhine made more sense as a frontier of the Empire rather than the Elbe, given that troops stationed along the former river could be supplied through reliable water routes rather than land ones.

The Romans' failure to conquer Persia probably also has something to do with logistical limitation, after Carrhae they in fact repeatedly invaded (sacking Ctesiphon five times, three times during the 2nd century alone) but could never make much headway beyond there. This could be explained by the lack of water routes to supply troop advances beyond the Euphrates, plus the Persian overall superiority in cavalry which would make life hard for Roman legions as they went further into the Iranian pleatau. While competently handled Roman armies was essentially immune to cavalry attacks, their supply line would be much more vulnerable, especially combined with Persian scorched earth policy.

]]> By: Nick http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-battle-of-carrhae.htm#comment-804918 Nick Sat, 26 May 2012 01:56:56 +0000 #comment-804918 As a non military person I found this article and the subsequent comments very interesting. I was under the impression that cavalry need infantry support to be successful, clearly not. The Romans were so static and had such poor horse that they presented an easy target. It was a masterstroke (albeit an unintentional one) to send cavalry against such static targets. As a non military person I found this article and the subsequent comments very interesting. I was under the impression that cavalry need infantry support to be successful, clearly not. The Romans were so static and had such poor horse that they presented an easy target.

It was a masterstroke (albeit an unintentional one) to send cavalry against such static targets.

]]> By: Dennis Beeson http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-battle-of-carrhae.htm#comment-309731 Dennis Beeson Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:20:41 +0000 #comment-309731 Very well said, John Manov. Ventidius was even allowed to celebrate a triumph in Rome after his victories over Parthia. Of course, Mark Antony grew jealous and ensured that Ventidius was forcibly retired, so he could complete the conquest of Parthia, which, of course, Antony mismanaged and was ultimately forced into a humiliating (career-ending) retreat. Very well said, John Manov. Ventidius was even allowed to celebrate a triumph in Rome after his victories over Parthia. Of course, Mark Antony grew jealous and ensured that Ventidius was forcibly retired, so he could complete the conquest of Parthia, which, of course, Antony mismanaged and was ultimately forced into a humiliating (career-ending) retreat.

]]> By: John Manov http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-battle-of-carrhae.htm#comment-260837 John Manov Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:44:57 +0000 #comment-260837 Rob York, the Persians did counter attack after Carrhae. It started out with raids and grew into a full invasion of Syria, Palestine and even Asia Minor. Ventidius was given command of the Roman army and decisively defeated the Persians at the Battle of Cicilcian Gates and Amanus Pass. Parthia tried to renew the invasion but were slaughtered at the Battle of Mount Gindarus. Rob York, the Persians did counter attack after Carrhae. It started out with raids and grew into a full invasion of Syria, Palestine and even Asia Minor. Ventidius was given command of the Roman army and decisively defeated the Persians at the Battle of Cicilcian Gates and Amanus Pass. Parthia tried to renew the invasion but were slaughtered at the Battle of Mount Gindarus.

]]> By: Rob York http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-battle-of-carrhae.htm#comment-132354 Rob York Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:29:29 +0000 #comment-132354 The Roman legion was a buzzsaw made to shred enemy formations but really had no answer to horse archers other than the small auxiliary cavalry units they conscripted from regions under their yoke. It would have been nice to see the Gauls, Britons and Germanic tribes make more use of horse archers to fight off Roman domination, though they most probably lacked composite bow technology. It would have been interesting to see a Parthian counterattack into Roman controlled territory following the massacre of Crassus and his army. The Roman legion was a buzzsaw made to shred enemy formations but really had no answer to horse archers other than the small auxiliary cavalry units they conscripted from regions under their yoke. It would have been nice to see the Gauls, Britons and Germanic tribes make more use of horse archers to fight off Roman domination, though they most probably lacked composite bow technology. It would have been interesting to see a Parthian counterattack into Roman controlled territory following the massacre of Crassus and his army.

]]> By: Gregory Garduno http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-battle-of-carrhae.htm#comment-118655 Gregory Garduno Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:42:15 +0000 #comment-118655 We more often hear of the Roman defeat at the Teutoburg Forest which took place a bit later on, but Carrhae had a similar effect in the East. Both had consequences for proposed Roman expansion, though it is said the Romans did have established outposts beyond the Rhine after the Teutoburg defeat. The disaster at Carrhae more or less put an end to Roman dreams of conquering Parthia. In hindsight it is clear that Crassus did not have the skills that Pompey and Caesar so clearly displayed on the battlefield. We more often hear of the Roman defeat at the Teutoburg Forest which took place a bit later on, but Carrhae had a similar effect in the East. Both had consequences for proposed Roman expansion, though it is said the Romans did have established outposts beyond the Rhine after the Teutoburg defeat. The disaster at Carrhae more or less put an end to Roman dreams of conquering Parthia. In hindsight it is clear that Crassus did not have the skills that Pompey and Caesar so clearly displayed on the battlefield.

]]> By: brenda von bvargen http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-battle-of-carrhae.htm#comment-61955 brenda von bvargen Mon, 18 May 2009 15:02:16 +0000 #comment-61955 Crassus should have advanced along the river which would have offered a shield against the Parthian cavalry. Forming the army into squares was also not too bright. It merely consolidated his forces and made it an easier target for the archers. His only chance was to try to drive his forces into the center of the enemy and divide them into smaller forces. At least half of the enemy forces would have been cut off from the resupply of arrows. Crassus should have advanced along the river which would have offered a shield against the Parthian cavalry. Forming the army into squares was also not too bright. It merely consolidated his forces and made it an easier target for the archers. His only chance was to try to drive his forces into the center of the enemy and divide them into smaller forces. At least half of the enemy forces would have been cut off from the resupply of arrows.

]]> By: Xavier Bowie http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-battle-of-carrhae.htm#comment-14335 Xavier Bowie Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:41:36 +0000 #comment-14335 This article was beautifully written and very informative. This article was beautifully written and very informative.

]]>