Parthian Warfare
The Parthian armies, like most others, consisted usually of both horse and foot, but in proportions which were not common elsewhere.
Note: This article has been excerpted from a larger work in the public domain and shared here due to its historical value. It may contain outdated ideas and language that do not reflect TOTA’s opinions and beliefs.
From Parthia by George Rawlinson, 1893.
The Parthian armies, like most others, consisted usually of both horse and foot, but in proportions which were not common elsewhere. The foot soldiers were comparatively few in number, and were but very little esteemed Every effort, on the contrary, was made to increase the number and improve the equipment of the horsemen who bore the brunt of every conflict, and from whose exertions alone victory was expected. Sometimes armies consisted of horsemen only, or rather of horsemen followed by a baggage train composed of camels and chariots; but this only happened under special circumstances.
The horse was of two kinds, heavy and light The heavy horsemen wore coats of mail reaching to the knee, composed of raw hide covered with plates or scales of iron or steel, very bright, and capable of resisting a strong blow. They had their heads protected by burnished helmets of Margian steel, whose glitter dazzled the spectator. A specimen in the British Museum, figured by Professor Gardner, will best convey the shape. They do not seem to have ordinarily worn greaves, but had their legs encased in a loose trouser, which hung about the ankles and embarrassed the feet, if by any chance the horseman was induced or forced to dismount.
They carried no targe or shield, being sufficiently defended by their coats of mail. Their chief offensive arms were a spear, which was of great strength and thickness, and a bow and arrows of unusual dimensions. They likewise carried in their girdle a short sword or knife which was intended to be used in close combat. Their horses were, like themselves, protected by a defence of scale-armour, which was either of steel or of bronze, polished like the armour of the men.
The light horse appears to have been armed with the same sort of bows and arrows as the heavy cavalry, but carried no spear, and was not encumbered with armour. It was carefully trained to the deft management of the horse and bow, and was unequalled in the rapidity and dexterity, of its movements. The archer delivered his arrows with as much precision and force in retreat as in advance, and was almost more feared when he retired than when he charged his foe. Besides his bow and arrows, the light horseman seems to have carried a sword, and he no doubt wore also the customary knife in his belt; but it was as an archer that he was chiefly formidable.
During the later period of the monarchy, the Parthians who had always employed camels largely in the conveyance of stores and baggage, are said to have introduced a camel corps into the army itself, and to have derived considerable advantage from the new arm. The camels could bear the weight of the mailed riders and of their own armour better than horses; and their riders were at once less accessible in their elevated position, and more capable of dealing effective blows upon the enemy. As a set-off, however, against these advantages, the spongy feet of the camel were found to be more readily injured by the tribulus or caltrop than the harder feet of the horse, and the corps was thus more easily disabled than an equal force of cavalry, if it could be tempted or forced to pass over ground on which these obstacles had previously been scattered.
We do not hear of any use of chariots by the Parthians, except for the conveyance of the females who commonly accompanied the nobles on their warlike expeditions. The wives and concubines of the chiefs followed the camp in great numbers, and women of a less reputable class—singers, dancers, and musicians—swelled the ranks of the supernumeraries. Many of these were Greeks from Seleucia, Nicephorium, and other Macedonian settlements. The commissariat and baggage departments, are said to have been badly organised, but some thousands of baggage camels always accompanied an army for the conveyance of stores and provisions. Of these a considerable portion were laden with arrows, of which the supply was in this way rendered practically inexhaustible.
The employment of the elephant in war was even more rare in Parthia than that of the chariot. Parthian coins occasionally exhibit the creature; so that it was certainly known to the people, but its actual employment in warfare is mentioned on one occasion only, and then we hear of only a single animal, which is ridden by the monarch. As both the Seleucid princes and the Sassanidse made large use of the elephant in their campaigns, its entire neglect by the Parthians is somewhat remarkable. Probably the unwieldy creature was regarded by them as too heavy and clumsy to suit the light and rapid movements of their armies, and was therefore almost wholly disused during the period of their supremacy.
The Parthian tactics appear to have been of a simple kind, and to have differed but little from those of other nations in the same region which have depended mainly on their cavalry. To surround their foe, to entangle him and involve him in difficulties, to cut of his supplies and his stragglers, and ultimately to bring him into a position where he might be overwhelmed by missiles, was the aim of all Parthian commanders of any military ability.
Their warfare was suited for defence rather than for attack, unless against contemptible enemies. They were particularly inefficient in sieges, and avoided engaging in them as far as possible; but when circumstances made It necessary, they did not shrink from undertaking the uncongenial operation.
Long wars were very distasteful to them; and, if they did not find victory tolerably easy they were apt to retire and allow their foe to escape, or to baffle him by withdrawing their forces into a distant and inaccessible region. After their early victories over Crassus and Antony, they never succeeded in preventing the steady advance of a Roman force Into their territory, or in repulsing a determined attack upon their principal capital. Still they generally had their revenge after a little time.
It was easy for the Romans to overrun Mesopotamia, but it was not so easy for them to hold it; and it was scarcely possible for them to retire from it after an occupation without incurring disaster. The clouds of Parthian horse hung upon their retreating columns, straitened them for provisions, galled them with missiles, and destroyed those who could not keep up with the main body. The towns, upon the line of their retreat, revolted and shut their gates, defying even such com- manders as Severus and Trajan.
Of the six great expeditions of Rome against Parthia, one only, that of Avidius Cassius, was altogether successful In every other case either the failure of the expedition was complete, or the glory of the advance was tarnished by suffering and calamity during the retreat. Other enemies they usually repulsed with but little difficulty.
When the Parthians entered into battle it was with much noise and shouting. They made no use of trumpets or horns, but employed in their place the kettledrum, which resounded from all parts of the field when they made their onset. Their attack was—for the most part—furious. The mailed horsemen charged at speed, and (we are told) often drove their spears through the bodies of two enemies at a blow. The light horse, and the foot (when any were present), delivered their arrows with precision and with extraordinary force.
But if the assailants were met with a stout and firm resistance, the first vigour of the attack was rarely long maintained. The Parthian warriors very quickly grew weary of an equal contest, and, if they could not force their enemy to give way, soon changed their tactics. Pretending panic, beating a hasty retreat, and scattering in their flight, they endeavoured to induce their foe to pursue hurriedly and in disorder, being themselves ready at any moment to turn and take advantage of the least appearance of confusion. If these tactics failed, as they generally did after they came to be known, then the simulated flight was commonly converted into a real one; further conflict was for the time avoided, and the army withdrew itself into a distant region.
If the Parthians wanted to parley with an enemy, they unstrung their bows and, advancing with the right arm outstretched, asked for a conference. They are accused by the Romans of sometimes using treachery on such occasions; but, except in the single instance of Crassus, the charge of bad faith breaks down when it is examined into.
On solemn occasions, when the intention was seriously to discuss grounds of complaint likely to lead to war, or to bring an actual war to an end by the arrangement of terms of peace, a formal meeting was ordinarily held by appointment between the representatives of either side, generally on neutral ground, as on an island in the Euphrates, or on a bridge newly constructed across it. Here the chiefs or envoys of the respective nations met, accompanied by an equal number of guards, while the remainder of their forces occupied the two opposite banks of the river. Matters were discussed in friendly fashion, some language known to both parties being employed as a means of communication; after which festivities usually took place, the two chiefs mutually entertaining each other, or accepting in common the hospitalities of a third party. The terms of peace agreed upon were reduced to writing; hands were grasped as a sign that faith was pledged; and oaths having been interchanged the conference broke up, and the chiefs with their armies set out on their return to their respective countries.
Rawlinson, George. Parthia, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893.
About TOTA
TOTA.world provides cultural information and sharing across the world to help you explore your Family’s Cultural History and create deep connections with the lives and cultures of your ancestors.
