Account of a Parthian Battle by Tacitus
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14003
Printed Date: 13-May-2024 at 11:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Account of a Parthian Battle by Tacitus
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Subject: Account of a Parthian Battle by Tacitus
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2006 at 21:12
In the early 1st century AD, the Parthian King Artabanus II was challenged in civil war by Tiridates in Parthia, and also by Mithridates of neighboring Armenia. A vassal of Mithridates was King Pharasmenes of Ilberia (not Spain, but an ancient region near Armenia of the same name), who fought the Parthians with an army consisting of Iberians, Sarmatians, and Albanians (similarily, not modern Albania, but an ancient state of the same name near Armenia). The battle is described in detail by the Roman historian Tacitus.
Pharasmenes of Iberia made the initial move by surrounding the Parthian camp with siege work. Unaccoustomed to being besieged, the Parthians surrounded their general, Prince Ordoes and demanded the call for battle. The Parthian army had its strength entirely in cavalry, while the Iberians and Albanians of Pharasmenes were naturally skilled infantry, being residents of woodlands. The battle commenced and the two armies lined up on the field.
The Parthian cavalry engaged in archery skirmishing against Pharasmenes, whose Sarmatian cavalry fought back in the same manner. However, it soon appeared that the Parthian bows were of greater strength than those of the Sarmatians, whose commander ordered his men to abandon the skirmish for in favor of melee. The Sarmatians fixed lances and charged the Parthians, who would then counterattack and drive back the Sarmatians in a back and forth cycle of attack, retreat, and counterattack. Each time when the cavalries of both sides were interlocked, the Albanian and Iberian infanry joined the melee. They would rush against the Parthian horsemen trying to throw them off their horse and onto the ground for hand to hand combat.
In the heat of battle, Pharasmenes and Ordoes charged each other on horseback along with their bodyguards. Pharasmenes then wounded Ordoes through the helmet, but the rest of the Parthians, mistakenly believing that their Prince was killed, withdrew from battle and conceeded the battle to Pharasmenes.
The interesting thing about this battle is that it is uniquely detailed for an event that had very little relevance to Roman History, on which Tacitus was writing. It has also been pointed out that it is interesting that Tacitus had the information to write such a relatively detailed account on an encounter without Roman forces. Because of this, this battle account may be something of a "typical" battle in the ancient world written in his Annals for the sake of entertainment. Despite this, the actual description is not inaccurate. The fact that Sarmatians preferred melee and charges is also seen in other accounts. The fact that all-cavalry armies, even with horse archers must ultimately engage in melee combat is also something that Tacticus got correct.
References:
An Exemplary Conflict: Tacitus' Parthian Battle Narrative ("Annals" 6.34-35)
Rhiannon Ash. Phoenix > Vol. 53, No. 1/2 (Spring, 1999), pp. 114-135
The above source is a 20-page journal paper analyzing this battle, which is described by Tacitus in only two paragraphs.
|
Replies:
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 00:00
The Sarmatians are unique as semi-nomads because they had strong units of heavy cavalry as well not just riders who just employed hit and run attacks.
-------------
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
|
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 02:05
|
It seems that alll Steppe armies had a centre of Heavy amoured cavalry.
The Parthians Sarmatians both had Cataphracts,whilst there light cavalry both employed Hit and Run attacks.
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 02:44
Well, as the Steppes' nations relied mostly on hit and run then the Sarmatians can't have Kataphraktos units which are mobile but are too heavy for their style. I believe it would be wiser to just call it 'a heay cavalry' unit.
-------------
|
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 03:50
|
Sarmatians due to lack of iron made horse armour and armour from there horses hooves. Like the parthians they used hit and runn attackes with their light cavalry and then charged with lance armed heavy armoured cavalry .
|
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 04:04
|
Also the Steppe nations introduced the Cataphract or horse armour to Europe.
Never can they win with just hit and run tactics
http://www.millenniumbooks.fsnet.co.uk/MAA%20373%20SARMATIANS.A.jpg - http://www.millenniumbooks.fsnet.co.uk/MAA%20373%20SARMATIANS.A.jpg
http://images.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://www.arador.com/gallery/m15.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.arador.com/gallery/met1.html&h=400&w=410&sz=11&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=FFeDwfGuGop_sM:&tbnh=122&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dturk%2Barmour%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff - http://images.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://www.arador.com/gallery/m15.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.arador.com/gallery/met1.html&h=400&w=410&sz=11&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=FFeDwfGuGop_sM:&tbnh=122&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dturk%2Barmour%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13374 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13374
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505/ - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505/
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 07:23
|
If they were some unknown Steppe peoples then indeed. Like Persians... or Macedonians.
I believe the first heavily armoured units such as cataphracts are dated to the Seleucid Era?
-------------
|
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 10:23
The Sarmatians were known to fight more with charge tactics rather than archery, as compared to their neighboring Scythians. In general, Sarmatian cavalry was not as heavily armored as Parthian heavy cavalry, with the primary difference in the amount of horse armor.
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 14:11
I have always found Tacitus' insight into battle to be most
interesting, it is reassuring to know that what he describes may well
be very accurate as he was a seasoned historian with access to the vast
Roman archives. His description of small details in such campaigns as
Corbulo's reinforces the reader's faith that Tacitus was well informed
of events in the area and drew on good information for his writings.
-------------
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 15:39
it is important to note that the battle started classically with an exchange of missiles instead of a straight lancer charge, just because the battle was ultimately won by the Sarmatians is no "proof" that Sarmatians were more prone to melee than other Steppe people. the victory can clearly be attributed to the infantry that intervened in the melee, not a Sarmatian "superiority" in melee or whatever...
-------------
|
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 18:12
|
Yes Raider the Sythian or Bactrian introduced cataphract to persians.
Anyone have details of Sarmatian battles with Romans?
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 05:08
Originally posted by BigL
Yes Raider the Sythian or Bactrian introduced cataphract to persians.
Anyone have details of Sarmatian battles with Romans? |
Name mine is RIDER, not RAIDER....
But the Seleucids were not Persians.
Is the beginning of King Arthur (the movie) correct that the Sarmatians waged war for three days and all were killed, except three of the cavalry?
-------------
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 14:38
Seleucids were the first to use the word cataphract for their heavy cavalry, they were not "real" cataphracts however. cataphracts were invented by Massagets in Chorasmia.
-------------
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 17:45
Originally posted by Temujin
Cataphracts were invented by Massagets in Chorasmia. |
Please, tell us more.
-------------
|
|