Rome's troubles in the East
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mediterranean and Europe
Forum Discription: Greece, Macedon, Rome and other cultures such as Celtic and Germanic tribes
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30486
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 04:32
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Rome's troubles in the East
Posted By: okamido
Subject: Rome's troubles in the East
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2011 at 20:01
| Historically, Rome had great difficulties in the East..Ventidius and Trajan notwithstanding. Why were they never able to effectively complete the same feat that Alexander had accomplished, that of combining the East and West under a single banner (even if momentarily)? |
Replies:
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2011 at 20:52
 It has a lot to do with the Parthians' tactics. This new incarnation of Persia relied on horse archers who could give devastating parting shots while retreating ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: okamido
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2011 at 22:51
|
Two things on that however. Alexander's army would have faced this tactic, especially while dealing with Spitamenes and the Bactrian campaign, and Ventidius, while in the service of Marc Antony, overwhelmingly defeated the Parthian forces...twice. ------------- |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 19:37
|
Perhaps the Romans were unable to adapt to the terrain? Persia is a mountainous country, ideal for ambushes
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Baal Melqart
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 22:04
I don't really know much about Mark Anthony and Venditius' victories over the Parthians but the way I see it the Romans were very badly adapted to fight the Parthians. The parthians depended mainly on horse archer hit and run tactics. They would do this until they ran out of arrows, whitled the enemy down and then charge with their elite cataphracts. The Macedonians who used phalanx troops were somewhat immune to heavy cataphracts and other cavalry due to their long sarissas. The massed sarissas are also said to give partial protection against arrows. In any case, Romans used a very little variation in their troop composition (cavalry or spearmen) and relied mainly on heavy infantry armed with short stabbing weapons. The Parthians could easily let the legionaries pursue them until they are tired whilst they comfortably shoot them down with their bows. If the Romans chose to defend against the parthian shots then they would have slow down and adopt a compact testudo formation. This would in turn allow the cataphracts to charge them which would result in big losses for the clumped up Roman soldiers. ------------- Timidi mater non flet |
Posted By: okamido
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 00:47
|
Antony had zero success with the Parthians and was actually closer to the same defeat that struck Crassus, than some might believe. With Ventidius however, an innovation on sling missles was created and he stuffed his army full of these cost-effective forces, as well as an inordinate amount of archers, thus gaining a decisive victory over the Parthians at Mount Gindarus.
For the question in my original post however, I am thinking more along the lines of the conquests of Trajan, who bit off a huge chunk of the Parthian Empire, capturing Babylon, Seleucia and Ctesiphon, making his way to the Persian Gulf. Overstreched however, Rome gave it all back.
So, were they overstretched in the West, a problem that Alexander did not have to face....was the overall population of the Empire to great as to properly manage the conquests.....or was Rome, as the fist welfare State, financially incapable of properly fortifying its conquest? ------------- |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 19:05
|
Slingers or archers would definitely keep enemy cavalry at bay. However, as in Afghanistan or South Africa, a fast mounted insurgency can run rings around the regular army and lure them to their doom ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 20:13
|
yes, romans were using heavy armours which has negative effect in mountains or desert lands and also horse factor I think, it wasn't just about millitary power. Historically, Alexander and all Macedonia&Greece were harassed by Persians so they had a wish to defend them, but Roman? Roman had already reached a great empire and also Alexander was alone king, however Romans had strong nobles,political figures. That's why causeless wars shouldn't be easy options, if you don't have enough political power even you are roman emperor. ------------- Ellerin Kabe'si var, Benim Kabem İnsandır |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 19:17
|
As an Iranian, Cyrus might be able to help with this topic
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: andy4675
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2012 at 21:01
|
Alexander the Great in fact changed his tactic to win Spitamenes. After Spitamenes destroyed a Greek army of 5.000 soldiers at the river Polytimetus, Alexander used his cavalry (and don't forget the strenghth of the loyal hetaeri cavalry) to destroy Spitamenes - trembling Massagetae troops send the head of Spitamenes to the great Macedonian king.
Why Romans had problems? Well... To 64 BC they had not problems at all. Pompeius made the great armenian king Tigranus, who previously made parthians recognize his as the great king, to recognize Roman power. Roman troubls began after Crassus defeat at Carrhae - a battle which also led to a war inside Roman state between the other ex-members of the First Triumvirate, Caesar and Pompeius. Meanwhile Parthians strnghthened their place at the Roman eastern borders. For Marcus Antonius the war versus Parthians was of lesser matter. He had to show his strenghth within his territories and not loosing a war. He managed it. This was his minimum demand, and he did it. After while they tried to play role in Judaea when Herod took the throne.
To Trajanus Parthia and Roman empire lived almost always in peace (Parthia always knew how to use it's connections with Germans and Dacians, like Decebalus). Trajanus completely destroyed Parthians. But then started the plague, and Romans fled from Mesopotamia loosing all they gain. Trajanus died from the illness, and the new emperor Adrianus made peace leaving the border at the previous place.
Marcus Aurelius could not manage to win Parthia because of Marcomanni revolt (agait mystical coincident? or, as always, well organized action made by Parthian politics?).
Septimius Severus put the end to the Parthian empire. but he didn't conquer it. So, after while on the Roman eastern borders we meet the new stron empire - Sasanids. This is a new story of continuous triumphs of Persians over the Romans... ------------- If Parmenion is a trator, then whom to believe? But if he is not, then what to do? - Antipatros |