Would Caesar have defeated the Parthians or would he have fricked up like Crassus?

Would Caesar have defeated the Parthians or would he have fricked up like Crassus?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The latter.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I think so too, can't imagine how he would've dealt with their cavalry
      considering that I think Caesar might be a little overrated

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Considering that Caesar had over a decade of expirence on constant campign without failing to scout or get reliable guides, he was in a better position. Of course some moron might say something about horse archers not knowing that they had been defeated by men on foot since Alexander and they as a whole were effectively useless against any sort of well trained infantry.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Low IQ post

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Not an argument

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Bow Legs typed this post.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          I trample european farmoids beneath the hooves of my horse

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I think ceasar would have used field fortifications and plenty of missile units to counteract the parthians

      The parthians got btfod multiple times later; it was one of the reasons the sassanids supplanted them

      The Parthians weren't somehow more well organised than any other Kingdom in the Near East. Not to mention the Parthians were on the backfoot against the Romans since Pompey came into the region where he defeated them and destroyed their Armenian ally and stopped their developing hegemony in the Near East.

      simply having a large contingent of auxiliary designated as skirmishers would have destroyed the horse archers. i am surprised that he only used standard legions.
      the heavy cav would have would been more difficult to defeat but even then they only numbered about 1000
      a group of slingers would outrange any horse archer and most horse archers would have probably fired from very close range.

      These moronic cretins think it's a game and Caesar would've fielded Balearic slingers against the Parthians kek.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Balearic?
        probably Rhodian since Rhodes is just a stones throw away.
        and skirmishers don't have to be slingers.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Caesar did have slingers though, he mad a large amount of them in Gaul. Not that it matters because the Parthians largely fought with heavy cavalry and on foot, which were usually fought with other men on foot. There are no hecking cheat codes like your epic le video games where Parthians just automatically win in every scenario, when we know in real life they lost frequently. They weren't exactly the Sassanids.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Caesar did have slingers though,
          Point missed your tiny brain.
          >Not that it matters because the Parthians largely fought with heavy cavalry and on foot,
          Yeah you're even dumber than

          Balearic?
          probably Rhodian since Rhodes is just a stones throw away.
          and skirmishers don't have to be slingers.

          is.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I think ceasar would have used field fortifications and plenty of missile units to counteract the parthians

      Parthians did not use traditional horse archer tactics at Carrhae so it's not simple.

      The parthians got btfod multiple times later; it was one of the reasons the sassanids supplanted them

      How is this relevant to Caesar's supposed campaign?. I agree that the morons shittalking rome are morons but no need to sink to their level.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The romeaboos are always moronic and shit up discussions.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Of course some moron might say something about horse archers not knowing that they had been defeated by men on foot since Alexander and they as a whole were effectively useless against any sort of well trained infant-ACK

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        They did defeat the Parthians though?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >They did defeat the Parthians though?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            300 years of Parthian and Roman relations and the only two examples somehow exist of Parthians getting the edge on the Romans, funny isn't it.

            >Of course some moron might say something about horse archers not knowing that they had been defeated by men on foot since Alexander
            Alexander conquered Greece and than Persia with his Companions Cavalry. You are making opposite argument.

            The majority of the Macedonian army was based off of their infantry. Philip defeated the Scythians with them, Alexander did the same with the Bactrians.

            Pro tip: everyone in Greece used phalanx but no one had such glaring advantage over each other and we're able just roll over.
            Untill from the North came barbarian horseriders. And good cavalry was cryptonite to phalanx. It is vulnerable on flanks and rear. Tactics were to defend them with auxiliary skirmishers who can fight in lose formation, it was ok when they faced same shit auxiliary. But when they faced Macedonian proto knights calvary it was over. They couldn't hip their attack, they failed and thei cavalry attacked phalanx flanks and read and this is slaughter.
            Alexander put phalanx to good use too, in Greece and Persia but phalanx alone was too vulnerable on phalanx and lacked flexibility. Companions Cavalry fixed that. Without his knights Alexander wouldn't have his success.

            And if you can spamm good cavalry like Parthians you don't really need anything else on plains.

            >Pro tip: everyone in Greece used phalanx but no one had such glaring advantage over each other and we're able just roll over.
            The Macedonian Phalanx was nothing like what the Greek states used. Nor does it make any sense to ascribe some superior cavalry to the Macedonians because they sourced a large amount of their cavalry from their Lordship of Thessaly, which were Greek city states.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >300 years of Parthian and Roman relations and the only two examples somehow exist of Parthians getting the edge on the Romans, funny isn't it.
            Memes but also IQfy has a problem of nationalist Persian's who'll show up in any thread about it

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >The majority of the Macedonian army was based off of their infantry. Philip defeated the Scythians with them, Alexander did the same with the Bactri-ACK.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >this is what fersian culture does to a Black person

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Of course some moron might say something about horse archers not knowing that they had been defeated by men on foot since Alexander
      Alexander conquered Greece and than Persia with his Companions Cavalry. You are making opposite argument.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Companian cavalry alone is mostly useless. The phalanx is what makes the companian cavalry effective.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Pro tip: everyone in Greece used phalanx but no one had such glaring advantage over each other and we're able just roll over.
          Untill from the North came barbarian horseriders. And good cavalry was cryptonite to phalanx. It is vulnerable on flanks and rear. Tactics were to defend them with auxiliary skirmishers who can fight in lose formation, it was ok when they faced same shit auxiliary. But when they faced Macedonian proto knights calvary it was over. They couldn't hip their attack, they failed and thei cavalry attacked phalanx flanks and read and this is slaughter.
          Alexander put phalanx to good use too, in Greece and Persia but phalanx alone was too vulnerable on phalanx and lacked flexibility. Companions Cavalry fixed that. Without his knights Alexander wouldn't have his success.

          And if you can spamm good cavalry like Parthians you don't really need anything else on plains.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Phalanx didn't exist until macedonians you moron. Everyone in Greece used Hoplites before phillip of macedone reformed greek warfare.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Phalanx didn't exist until macedonians you moron. Everyone in Greece used Hoplites before phillip of macedone reformed greek wa-ACK
            What is next? Movie "300" is docudrama?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You what? Hoplite fought in the phalanx formation.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Hoplites do not use sarrissa (pikes). It's a very big difference, HUGE DIFFERENCE. They are not the same at all.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You what? Hoplite fought in the phalanx formation.

            A persian seeing a phalanx walk onto the battlefield for the first time would have been the ancient worlds equivalent of seeing a tank for the first time, thats how intimidating seeing a giant porcupine wall walk towards you when you have no weapons at your disposal that have anywhere near the reach required to get past it would have been.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >A persian seeing a phalanx walk onto the battlefield for the first time would have been the ancient worlds equivalent of seeing a tank for the first time, thats how intimidating seeing a giant porcupine wall walk towards you when you have no weapons at your disposal that have anywhere near the reach required to get past it would have be-ACK
            >who are Greek mercernaries in Persian service?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Hoplites do not use sarrissa (pikes). It's a very big difference, HUGE DIFFERENCE. They are not the same at al-ACK

            Can shills read? No, they can't.
            "The word phalanx means ‘rows’ or ‘stacks’ of men."
            https://raf.heavengames.com/history/military/history-of-the-phalanx-hoplite/

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Companion cavalry and phalax were both part of a 2 punch combo, you cannot take either piece out of the picture and say Alexanders success is because of only that piece. However i would always say controlling the centre of the field is more important than having cavalry superiorty. Without the centre its 10 times harder to exploit cavalry advantage, whereas losing the centre is always dangerous.

            >And if you can spamm good cavalry like Parthians you don't really need anything else on plains.
            specifically the parthians had horse archers, without horse archers the parthian all cavalry style of warfare doesn't work

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >you cannot take either piece out of the picture and say Alexanders success is because of only that piece.
            You can.
            It's called European medieval armies, built around knight. If in Alexander army center was phalanx then in knight army center was replaced by knights forming the charge line.
            Thing about Alexender he may be wanted more cavalry but he had no source of it. He conquered Greece and they were spruce of his troops but Greece had no good cavalry only hoplites, so Alexander recruited what he could.
            >specifically the parthians had horse archers,
            Specifically Parhians besides light cavalry had cataphracts who were both protected horse archers (so not easy to repulse by shitty Roman ranged weapons) and shock cavalry. Parhians didn't always fight ranged but also executed shock charges with heavy cavalry when opportunity presented. It's much harder to counter dual nature attack you can't just spam skirmishers in loose formation, they would be overrun by single cavalry charge (Brits and their "medieval machine gunners" learned this hard way at Patay).

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Companian cavalry alone is mostly useless. The phalanx is what makes the companian cavalry effect-ACK

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    After the Punic wars Romans only defeated little rinky dink armies
    They lost every battle they had with capable opponents

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >After the Punic wars Romans only defeated little rinky dink armies
      The Hellenistic Kingdoms fielded large professional armies. The Romans sent roughly the same sized armies or even smaller to the East to fight them

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Either way they weren't Parthian tier
        As time went on they couldn't even beat people living in huts

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The parthians got btfod multiple times later; it was one of the reasons the sassanids supplanted them

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The Parthians weren't somehow more well organised than any other Kingdom in the Near East. Not to mention the Parthians were on the backfoot against the Romans since Pompey came into the region where he defeated them and destroyed their Armenian ally and stopped their developing hegemony in the Near East.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Either way they weren't Parthian tier
          The hell is that supposed to mean? The Parthians fielded small warbands of horse arches and cataphracts and whatever the hell sorta bullshit light infantry they could locally levy. Not a professional force at all, safe for the admittedly very potent small core of cavalry
          >As time went on they couldn't even beat people living in huts
          Germanicus would beg to differ. Romans only lost because of tactical short-sightedness and stubborn tactics from time to time. Roman forced lead by competent leaders could work wonders

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I think ceasar would have used field fortifications and plenty of missile units to counteract the parthians

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    simply having a large contingent of auxiliary designated as skirmishers would have destroyed the horse archers. i am surprised that he only used standard legions.
    the heavy cav would have would been more difficult to defeat but even then they only numbered about 1000
    a group of slingers would outrange any horse archer and most horse archers would have probably fired from very close range.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The horse archers aren't the problem, that was just Crassus' skill issue of waltzing through Mesoptamia without keeping his rear secured. Any commander with a quarter of a brain would never have been pincered like that and could retreat to safety in case harassment by horse archers becomes unbearable. The issue are the cataphracts and logistics. Slingers, as well as archers before the invention of the bodkin arrow couldn't do jack shit against heavy horse, especially at range. Effectively firing at a distance greater than 150 yards was ineffective before 1850, with any weapon, not just guns, so your plan of just raining lead on chain mail clad horsemen disintegrates into vapor. If anything, giving the legions more pila to throw at charging horsemen would have a far greater impact

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    VGH, what could have been.
    Roman Persia.
    Caesar eclipsing even Alexander.
    Islam being defeated within the first decades

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Persia > Roman

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    He would have won. Why? Armenia. Playing out the local kingdoms, pretenders and Persian dissidents against the politically weak Parthians could have enabled him to establish client states in Media Atropatene and Mesopotamia, assuming he could gather enough local auxiliaries to fight off Parthian skrimishers. I also believe, that the light Gallic cavalry, which Caesar retained from the Gallic wars could be a tactical asset against light Parthian horse archers, while cataphracts would require heavy maneuvering to be beaten on the battlefield, like cutting them off and surrounding them, which could be a rather difficult affair with a mainly heavy infantry force. The best thing he could do about Mesopotamia would probably be advancing slowly, capturing and constructing new forts and moving supply routes closer to his forces to slowly chip away at Parthian authority until he reaches Ctesiphon, making the Parthian house of cards fall apart to satraps revolting and heavy units no longer being possible to maintain for a then fractured Parthian state, as the horses, horsemen and armor were sourced from Sogdiana

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    IVPITER guided the assassins' hands to spare Rome the embarrassment of Caesar getting killed in a faraway desert. Dude was just gonna keep testing his luck in crazy, perilous situations forever.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    if you want to know how ceasar might have faired you can simply examine marc antony's campaign against the parthians. Althought marc antony is no ceasar, he still fought with him for decades and was a far more skilled and competent commander than crassus.

    The answer to this type of matchup is usually that it is a draw assuming both armies are competent. The infantry cannot catch and decisively defeat the more mobile cavalry army and the cavalry army cannot hold the field for long against the infantry army.

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Caesar would be smart and instead of going into unwinnable fight he would find way out. Like conquering Rome or something.

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The online indians question has been discussed into oblivion but something need to be said about online persian nationalists

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why the romans couldnt trained or hire archers on horses too? what is so difficult about that?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      No horse riding and archery tradition.
      No knowledge, no masters to learn from, no social recognitionro for people to aspire to these arts.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Are you telling me that the Roman Empire couldnt train archers on horses_? what is the secret knowledge about it?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          You ever tried firing a bow on a horse before?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            What are you trying to say with that stupid question?

            Was it so difficult to send some spies to see how was the parthian army and then create army units to counter it?

            I think the reason was that the romans were too arrogant and they thought they were invincible and that their legions couldnt loose against those barbarians. It was arrogance the problem. But now thinking about it, the romans were the best at adapting after loses to improve their army. I guess this time they were too arrogant and thought they would win easily.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      They did. It's just not really that much more useful than any other kind of skirmisher especially in an army made up mostly of infantry. The entire point of horse archers was to attempt to break up formations so that heavy cavalry could charge without needing to wheel. Which isn't any good to infantry. They were used in Late Antiquity when there were more cavalry contigents in the Roman army to serve that purpose. In Maurice's work he describes cavalry formations as having heavy cavalry in the front with following horse archers who would wheel back before they got to the enemy, of course if the enemy formation stayed intact the heavy cavalry had to wheel as well or they would die.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >It's just not really that much more useful than any other kind of skirmisher

        They are more formidable during the more numerous "small wars" because they can act as heavy cavalry or cross futher distances as an Immediate reaction force or as advanced scouts. Foot Skirmishers as an unit can't march for 96km-160km in one day.

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Memes but also IQfy has a problem of nationalist Persian's who'll show up in any thread about it

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >you cant have a problem with brown people posting their bullshit because others do it worse

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Considering that Caesar had over a decade of expirence on constant campign without failing to scout or get reliable guides, he was in a better position. Of course some moron might say something about horse archers not knowing that they had been defeated by men on foot since Alexander and they as a whole were effectively useless against any sort of well trained infantry.
    >Phalanx didn't exist until macedonians you moron. Everyone in Greece used Hoplites before phillip of macedone reformed greek warfare.
    >A persian seeing a phalanx walk onto the battlefield for the first time would have been the ancient worlds equivalent of seeing a tank for the first time, thats how intimidating seeing a giant porcupine wall walk towards you when you have no weapons at your disposal that have anywhere near the reach required to get past it would have been.

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    the real answer is that we don't know, this isn't a video game, this a loose ancient narrative constructed from whatever leftovers we have from the time. We don't have the full picture on most matters including the fine details of Carrhae to make a good assessment, these what-ifs are moronic as well. part of what caused Crassus to fail so hard was his overconfidence. Caesar was confident but not overconfident. He almost definitely would've also been sent packing, but probably not to the extent of the defeat Crassus suffered.

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >What are you trying to say with that stupid question?
    >Was it so difficult to send some spies to see how was the parthian army and then create army units to counter it?
    >I think the reason was that the romans were too arrogant and they thought they were invincible and that their legions couldnt loose against those barbarians. It was arrogance the problem. But now thinking about it, the romans were the best at adapting after loses to improve their army. I guess this time they were too arrogant and thought they would win easily.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      go leave moron here people debate and give arguments not do this stupid shit

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >go leave moron here people debate and give arguments not do this stupid sh-ACK

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    live mental breakdown in this thread

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, romaboos are losing it.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *