Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShoe
Perhaps we should first determine which was the more effective cavalry, the Parthian or the Mongol. Would the Romans have learned the lessons of Carrhae, or would the legions have been once again overwhelmed by heavy sustained arrow fire from skilled disiplined horse archers?
|
Can't emphasis this enough- they did learn the lessons of Carrhae. Cassias Longinus defeated a Parthian army with the remnants of the army at Carrhae...did you know that?
Publius Ventidius defeated three Parthian armies and killed their three best generals, including the crowned prince. In his losing campaign, Antonius defeated the Parthians in 16 battles. The Parthians were beaten by Corbulo, Advidius Cassius, Trajan and Septimus Severus. Under Trajan, provinces were carved out of Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria which were handed back by Hadrian.
The Romans sacked and burned the Ctesiphon 3 times, and 2 more in the Byzantine era, and could have taken it another three times except for being paid off. The number of times the Persians, Parthian or Sassanid, took Rome or Constantinople...0. They were rarely even able to threaten Constantinople and certainly not Rome.
It is debatable whether there were even "lessons" to learn. Crassus, and experienced military man, took with him thousands of Arab cavalry that deserted him at the last minute in a set up. It was indeed a mistake to go on without them, but being overconfident is different than being tactically deficient.
As for which cavalry was better- the Mongols, but they are comparable in tactics and ability and it was the Persian ability to field tough INFANTRY that often saved them, such as against Antonius. The Mongols had no such ability and when they had to fight as infantry, as in Croatia, Viet Nam or the coasts of Japan, they basically were sub-par and lost or won due to numbers.