Greatest Conqueror Ever

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


I doubt it. The reason the Macedonians succeeded where Rome failed was they had very good cavalry. Roman legions were infantry heavy. Legion after legion left their bones in Parthia.

Infantry can defeat cavalry if it can put itself in the right situation. But the Parthians had a good mix of heavy (shock) and light (missle) cavalry against the Romans heavy (shock only) infantry formations. The Roman heavy infantry couldn't contend with the Parthian light cavalry, and the Romans didn't have enough light (missle) infantry to stave them off.

Note the difference when Richard Lionheart used crossbowmen and heavy infantry in close association to keep the Arab light cavalry from destroying his forces while they were on the march. The same sort of coordination between heavy and light infantry was the basis for success of Spain's infantru squares, and was only made obsolete when the bayonet turned infantrymen into both heavy and light infantry simultaneously.

The ancient rock-paper-scissors game was:

Light Infantry beats Light Cavalry (due to greater density and more stable firing platorm)

Heavy Infantry beats Heavy Cavalry due to greater density and longer weapons (pikemen)

Heavy Cavalry beats Light infantry because it can close quickly enough to not do much damage and has enough mass to cut through the thin and well-spaced lines of archers etc. easily.

Light Cavalry beats Heavy Infantry because all the Heavy Infantry can do is get shot with arrows.

Light Cavalry and Light Infantry beat Heavy Cavalry and Heavy Infantry in open terrain because they are faster and can strike from a distance.

These aren't 100% true, they are generalities. Terrain and combinations of weapons systems in mutual support can change the equations, as can brilliance or more often stupidity / lack of discipline.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think the Alexandrian Macedonian army was uniquely well balanced.

It had phalanxes of pike which held the centre, excellent medium infantry similar to legionaries in the hydaspes or foot companions plus mercenary hoplites, a formidable skirmish and shock force in the Thracian irregulars, expert missile troops in the Cretan archers and slingers, veteran light cavalry in the Thessalians and the legendary shock companion heavy cavalry formations.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I really object to this view that Persia was a broken down empire - the major battles, Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela were close run affairs. They could have gone either way.

The Persian army was no pushover even with poor leadership - they had superb light and heavy cavalry and excellent infantry who were well suited to the terrain and fighting conditions. There was a reason why they were called "the Immortals".

Yeah, the Persians might have been good; but wasn't a good portion of the army composed of -- IRAQIs?

[Ned]

Sik, I somewhat agree that Caesar would have found a way to deal with Parthian cavalry and with supply problems if he invaded Parthia. Look how Scipio dealt with Hannibal's elephants: Flaming pigs?

[Saras]

Originally posted by Sikander


Infantry can defeat cavalry if it can put itself in the right situation. But the Parthians had a good mix of heavy (shock) and light (missle) cavalry against the Romans heavy (shock only) infantry formations. The Roman heavy infantry couldn't contend with the Parthian light cavalry, and the Romans didn't have enough light (missle) infantry to stave them off.

Note the difference when Richard Lionheart used crossbowmen and heavy infantry in close association to keep the Arab light cavalry from destroying his forces while they were on the march. The same sort of coordination between heavy and light infantry was the basis for success of Spain's infantru squares, and was only made obsolete when the bayonet turned infantrymen into both heavy and light infantry simultaneously.

The ancient rock-paper-scissors game was:

Light Infantry beats Light Cavalry (due to greater density and more stable firing platorm)

Heavy Infantry beats Heavy Cavalry due to greater density and longer weapons (pikemen)

Heavy Cavalry beats Light infantry because it can close quickly enough to not do much damage and has enough mass to cut through the thin and well-spaced lines of archers etc. easily.

Light Cavalry beats Heavy Infantry because all the Heavy Infantry can do is get shot with arrows.

Light Cavalry and Light Infantry beat Heavy Cavalry and Heavy Infantry in open terrain because they are faster and can strike from a distance.

These aren't 100% true, they are generalities. Terrain and combinations of weapons systems in mutual support can change the equations, as can brilliance or more often stupidity / lack of discipline.

You obviousely have read "The Art of War in the Western World" by Archer Jones. Sounds like a quote

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ned
Sik, I somewhat agree that Caesar would have found a way to deal with Parthian cavalry and with supply problems if he invaded Parthia. Look how Scipio dealt with Hannibal's elephants: Flaming pigs?

Caesar was a specialist at tribal warfare. His partner Crassus went to Parthia and got killed.

Caesar would have done better but the problem was the Roman legion was simply not designed to fight in those conditions - lots of open ground, long distances, heat. Roman legions had lousy cavalry and were designed to fight against Celtic and German tribes on small battlefields in the hilly geography of Western Europe.

It was only in the later Roman empire after the split that the Eastern empire started to develop cavalry heavy legions which could take on the Parthians.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


It was only in the later Roman empire after the split that the Eastern empire started to develop cavalry heavy legions which could take on the Parthians.

I was just going to say that.

In the later years the relied almost exclusively on German cavalry to do all the work.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Saras


You obviousely have read "The Art of War in the Western World" by Archer Jones. Sounds like a quote

Yep, the best one volume book on the techniques of western warfare through the ages.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I think the Alexandrian Macedonian army was uniquely well balanced.

It had phalanxes of pike which held the centre, excellent medium infantry similar to legionaries in the hydaspes or foot companions plus mercenary hoplites, a formidable skirmish and shock force in the Thracian irregulars, expert missile troops in the Cretan archers and slingers, veteran light cavalry in the Thessalians and the legendary shock companion heavy cavalry formations.

Having all four of the ancient world's weapon systems made his army very adaptable to the situation at hand. And he made good use of that adaptability.

[Heresson]

If \Romans conquered Seleukid empire a bit earlier, when it still held Mesopotamia and part of Persia, I believe they\d keep them

[Ned]

Well, it appears that the consensus here is that Parthia would have been Caesar's Russia. Imagine what history would have been like if Caesar had actually gone to Parthia and lost his army, the army that put and kept Augustus in power.

[Heresson]

Parthia wasn't all that strong

[Ted Striker]

So how come the Romans couldn't beat them?

[Lonestar]

Same reason we didn't defeat Vietnam.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Same reason we didn't defeat Vietnam.

Reluctance to call the Chinese nuclear bluff?