Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Ancient and Archaeology  permalink

Severus and Parthia

• Message 1. 

  Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 2nd May 2007

  In 198 AD, Septimius Severus, emperor of Rome led his army into Mesopotamia and captured Ctesiphon, with the {Parthian fleeing before him. Does anyon eknow how he managed to defeat the Parthians? What did he do differently to previous Roman commanders, especially Crassus who managed ot lsoe almost his entire army to the Parthian horse archers?

  Link to this forum: Severus and Parthia

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 2nd May 2007

  He didn't do anything differently. In fact he did exactly the same as the general Gaius Avidius Cassius 30 years before and took Ctesiphon after a short siege. The city, due to its water supply, was particularly vulnerable in that respect. Like Cassius before him he soon found that Ctesiphon and its environs were too sparsely cultivated to support an occupation army and holding it left his army open to disease and starvation. He was compelled eventually, like Cassius, to retreat. Like Cassius, he made a peace treaty with the Parthians before he left. Unlike Cassius he was emperor at the time and lost no time in 'beefing up' his 'achievement'. No comparison was made to Cassius' previous exploits, but instead much was made of the fact that even the great emperor Trajan had abjectly failed to subdue the Parthians in his time.
  
  For the record his 'peace' with Parthia lasted about as long as it took his son Caracalla to bump his old man off and wage a disastrous campaign against the Parthians of his own - ie. not that long at all.
  
  It should be noted that the Parthian empire was at this point in history at one of its weakest ebbs and on the way out - shortly after Caracalla's doomed campaign the Sasanian era began in Mesopotamia. Severus' overblown 'victory' should be seen in that light also.

  Link to this forum: Severus and Parthia

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Saturday, 5th May 2007

  Crassus did not lose his entire army at Carrhae - 10,000 legionaries made it back to Syria.
  In fact the subsequent Parthian attacks on Syria were all repulsed. It was Carrhae that was the exception, the Romans usually beat the Parthians.
  
  The Romans were beating the Parthians within a few years of Carrhae - one of Mark Antony's subordinates crushed them, I forget which one.
  His tactics were to deploy his troops on a hill with a large contingent of slingers, the slingers, being on a hill outranged the horse archers. Also the hill made the charge of the cataphracts less effective.
  
  One thing about horse archers, before the advent of stirrups they were much less effective than missile troops on foot.

  Link to this forum: Severus and Parthia

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 5th June 2007

  It should be noted that the Parthian empire was at this point in history at one of its weakest ebbs and on the way out - shortly after Caracalla's doomed campaign the Sasanian era began in Mesopotamia. Severus' overblown 'victory' should be seen in that light also. 
  
  Good point.
  
  It's all too easy (particularly with ancient history) to ignore the relative condition of the protagonists.

  Link to this forum: Severus and Parthia

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 13th June 2007

  this famous advent of stirrup... I wonder if it was so important to keep balance on the horse why on earth nobody thought of it before. It is just a belt and two thingies to put your feet in nothing big deaL. Perhaps it is was not that important as they might had used saddles that keep the body in position - horse archert had been an age old sport in Asia.

  Link to this forum: Severus and Parthia

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 13th June 2007

  Colquhoun,
  
  >> One thing about horse archers, before the advent of stirrups they were much less effective than missile troops on foot. <<
  
  I've always wondered what took so long for stirrups to be invented. I mean, simplest thing in the world, right ... ?

  Link to this forum: Severus and Parthia

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Wednesday, 13th June 2007

  Hi Nik!
  MM I've also long wondered about the stirrups issue - and suspect that they were - as you describe - used. It's just that we have no record of them. Like ancient ships re structure and rigging - if one went by artists' concept alone we would be misinformed.
  Of course horses may have been closer to the ground!
  Regards P.
  

  Link to this forum: Severus and Parthia

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 13th June 2007

  Everything is easy when you know how!.
  
  I understand that the Roman and presumably Greek and eastern saddles allowed cavalry to charge and fight in melee on horseback. However an arrow can be shot with more force if you are standing up in the stirrups than if your seated on the saddle.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Severus and Parthia

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 13th June 2007

  There are actually many inscriptions of Roman and other cavalrymen specifically showing them without stirrups during the classical period.
  They aren't mentioned as being used by the Roman army until the 6th century AD. The reference I have read was during Belasarus's campaigns.

  Link to this forum: Severus and Parthia

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Wednesday, 13th June 2007

  Apparently the Romans had saddles that were very high both in front and at the rear, giving them great stability and maneoverability and no need for stirrups. Don't know how this would have affected archery tho'.

  Link to this forum: Severus and Parthia

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 13th June 2007

  I can't remember where I read it but somewhere it was claimed based on late Republican texts (Caesar's commentaries perhaps?) that Roman cavalry not only knew about stirrups but experimented with them a little before deciding they weren't any great help at all.
  
  This however, the author claimed, was because the Romans hadn't twigged that they would also have to redesign their footwear. Without a raised heel their military boots had insufficient purchase.
  
  Could all be baloney however.

  Link to this forum: Severus and Parthia

  Report message11

Back to top