43 replies to this topic

[Wujiang]

I have always wondered why people loves so much to compare Rome with Han yet never Parthia with Han. Strictly speaking, both of these mighty empires had more or less the same duration (200ish BC - 200ish CE).

So, anyone want to take a shot at it ?

[HaSY]

Hmmm....That would be cool...
I think the Parthian shot would be nothing but the same tactic employed by the Xiongnu,the enemy of Han.....

[Wujiang]

Hey, why did this move to the Han section ? I was asking the question of what would happen if the two empires went to war with each other. The difference here is, it was entirely POSSIBLE. because Ben Chao did reach the outskirts of Iran. What if rather than just setting up a little garrison, Han launched a full scale invasion so they could control the whole of the silk road ?

[shurite7]

I have read (I forget the source) where the Han were in contact with the Parthians. Supposably this is one of the 2 way's the Han gained knowledge of the Roman empire. The one mentioned above and the other being envoy's from Rome. Anyway, it was said the Parthian's informed the Han that Antioch was the capital of Rome.

As to Han versus Parthian...Han were better equipped to deal with cavalry army's compared to the Romans plus the Han had numbers. I would say it would be very difficult for the Han due to the lack of cavalry and the distance they would have had to cover from China to Persia/Khorasan. The Parthians used primarily 2 types of troops, light cavalry with bow and the heavily armoured cataphract. A very lethal combination.

Cheers

[Yun]

I have read (I forget the source) where the Han were in contact with the Parthians. Supposably this is one of the 2 way's the Han gained knowledge of the Roman empire.

Yes, Parthia was known to the Han as Anxi.

I moved the thread here because I would prefer a wider comparison between military, political and economic systems, rather than just armies.

[Wujiang]

What ? Will no one contribute ?

ok, I will start.

In terms of overal political system, Parthia and Pre-Han Wudi era China are generally comparible. Both of them carves up their own empire into various minor kingdoms that are ruled by kings. During times of war, the emperor of China or the king of kings in Parthia would give orders to these kings to assemble and march off. What should be interesting is that in both cases, there are always a delicate politcal balancing act as the threat of rebellion by the subordinate kings to the imperial command are always present and prevents them from doing anything that stretches resources too much.

[shurite7]

I don't believe that it's not wanting to contribute but more along the lines of lack of knowledge about the Parthians. Many people do not realize that not only did the Han and the Romans have large empires so did the Parthians. 3 great powers existed at one time yet none of them conquered the other. I don't know of any battles between the Parthians and Han, yet I've read about the one between the Romans and Parthians.

Cheers

[Yun]

Something I'd like to ask about: just how big was the role of cataphracts in the Parthian army, as compared to light horse-archers? I have heard that it was overstated by historians. If so, then there would not a big disadvantage for a Han army that lacked heavy cavalry (Chinese cataphracts only emerged in the Age of Fragmentation).

[shurite7]

Something I'd like to ask about: just how big was the role of cataphracts in the Parthian army, as compared to light horse-archers? I have heard that it was overstated by historians. If so, then there would not a big disadvantage for a Han army that lacked heavy cavalry (Chinese cataphracts only emerged in the Age of Fragmentation).

The horse archer was a much more important (for lack of better term) than the cataphract. In fact the famous battle with the Romans there were only 1000 cataphracts and several thousand (8000 or 9000 if my memory serves me correct). From what I've read there are no details as to the cataphracts closing with the Romans, just the light cavalry engaging in their wedge formation shooting.

Although the cataphract was equipped with a lot of armour and barding it didn't quite have the punch as later armies with heavily armoured mounted troops, primarily due to lack of stirups. Most cataphracts troops tended to be bunched close together and slowly (trott or slow loaping action) approach the enemy using a long kontos/lance. Kind of like a mounted phalanx. This kind of tactic will only work if the enemy is dwindled down...hence the horse archer.

Cheers

[DuncanHead]

Something I'd like to ask about: just how big was the role of cataphracts in the Parthian army, as compared to light horse-archers? I have heard that it was overstated by historians. If so, then there would not a big disadvantage for a Han army that lacked heavy cavalry (Chinese cataphracts only emerged in the Age of Fragmentation).

It's very hard to tell how important the cataphracts were. Almost the only figures available on proportions are for Carrhae, where there were 1,000 cataphracts and 9-10,000 horse-archers (depending whether Plutarch's "10,000 cavalry from his slaves and retainers" includes the 1,000 cataphracts or is additional to them). The problem is that this may not have been typical: the main Parthian royal army was elsewhere at the time, and the army that won Carrhae was mainly drawn from the Surena's private forces. It is generally thought that the base of the Suren family's power was Seistan, where a lot of the population was descended from the Saka nomads who invaded in the 2nd century BC and threatened the whole Parthian empire until they were subdued (hence the name, Sakastan - Seistan). If a large proportion of the Surena's force was of Saka nomad ancestry, they might well have had a higher proportion of horse-archers than in other Parthian armies. (True the Parthians themselves were also of nomad Saka origin, but less recently, and they may also have drawn on the existing settled aristocracy for military manpower.)

For example, the forces led by Pacorus that invaded Roman Syria a few years after Carrhae may have had more cataphracts, since they were vulnerable to defeat at close quarters. Similarly in the battle at Nisibis in the early 3rd century AD, where we have more of a battle-description than in many other cases, the fighting seems mostly to have been a question of charges (including the only documented use of Parthian cataphract camels), not Parthian archery.

That said, horse-archers were undoubtedly in the majority even if the proportion of cataphracts might often have been higher than the 10% or so at Carrhae, and horse-archery was the basis of Parthian tactics. But cataphracts were an essential part of the tactical system; at Carrhae they slaughtered the Romans' Gallic cavalry, and the threat of their charge can be used to pin infantry in place in close order, where they can be shot at safely by the archers.

Against the Han, I would expect that the Parthian combination of cataphracts and horse-archers would have been almost as successful against Han cavalry as against Roman cavalry. However the Han infantry, because of their crossbows, would have been able to put up a much better show against horse-archer attacks; Roman legionaries had no way to reply to these, although their slingers and other light infantry (as in Marc Antony's Parthian war) sometimes put up a good defence. The Han infantry might have been more vulnerable to a cataphract charge than Roman infantry, but might not - it depends as much on training and discipline as weaponry, and my impression is that Han infantry were of quite variable quality, some armies were very well trained and others were quite poor.

The Parthian empire couldn't ever field particularly big armies, but any conflict with the Han would have been in Central Asia at the extreme end of the Han empire's reach, so the Han might not have been able to deploy large forces either. Parthian logistics don't seem to have been particularly well organised, and their reputation for siegecraft was poor as well; the Han probably have the advantage on both those grounds.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I don't believe that it's not wanting to contribute but more along the lines of lack of knowledge about the Parthians. Many people do not realize that not only did the Han and the Romans have large empires so did the Parthians. 3 great powers existed at one time yet none of them conquered the other. I don't know of any battles between the Parthians and Han, yet I've read about the one between the Romans and Parthians.

There are much more than 3, The xiongnu empire and the Yue Shi empire were both great powers. The former been an equal or even superior of the Han on many occasions.
In the Han description of the western regions, the Kang Gu, WuSun, Yue zhi, An Xi, Yen chi were all listed as great nations capable of fielding at least 100,000 soldiers, in the the Yue Zhi's case, they have 300,000.

btw, cataphracts only make up about 1/10 of the Parthian army, and they are bronze armoured, nor was it close to the weight of the Later age of fragmentation cataphracts. Nor was the Han cavalry of inferior quality to western region, the Han defeated the whole army of Loulan and captured its king with only 800 men. Huo Qu Bing's cavalry constantly defeated superior Qiang and Xiongnu cavalries, and Huo Qu Bing's army in extensive campagins were completely cavalry based.

[Yun]

I have been trying to find information on the earliest origin of the cataphract recently, to try and establish if there was a common origin point for the Sarmatian-Persian-Byzantine cataphract and the Chinese Age of Fragmentation cataphract. Since the first use of heavy cataphracts in the Chinese area seems to be by Wuhuan and Xianbei cavalry in the northeast (Manchuria) region, that would make it unusual for the technology or tactic to have been spread there from the Middle East or even Central Asia. Leather horse armour was already used in the Spring-Autumn and Warring States, but fell out of use thereafter - was the Xianbei cataphract a new improvement of this instead?

Dr Kaveh Farrokh, author of "Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642" (Osprey Elite No. 110), states a widely-held scholarly view that bronze cataphract armour for the front of the horse was first developed by the Iranian peoples of Chorasmia in Central Asia (corresponding to Uzbekistan today). The armoured horse concept was brought from Chorasmia to Persia by the Achaemenids, and then became common among the Sarmatians, Parthians and Sassanians before later being adopted by the Byzantines. The interesting thing about this is that Chorasmia was the area that in the Han corresponded to the kingdom of Kangju (which Warhead calls Kang Gu). The Chorasmians were not nomads but rather agriculturalists - it has been suggested that the cataphract was developed by them to counter steppe light cavalry (e.g. the Xiongnu?).

Is there then a link between the Chorasmians and Kangju? If so, then this would add a new dimension to the participation of Kangju cavalry reinforcements on the Xiongnu side during Chen Tang and Gan Yanshou's siege of Zhizhu Chanyu's fort. It would suggest that the Han armies had come into contact with cataphract cavalry in the form of Kangju armies.

[shurite7]

I have been trying to find information on the earliest origin of the cataphract recently, to try and establish if there was a common origin point for the Sarmatian-Persian-Byzantine cataphract and the Chinese Age of Fragmentation cataphract. Since the first use of heavy cataphracts in the Chinese area seems to be by Wuhuan and Xianbei cavalry in the northeast (Manchuria) region, that would make it unusual for the technology or tactic to have been spread there from the Middle East or even Central Asia. Leather horse armour was already used in the Spring-Autumn and Warring States, but fell out of use thereafter - was the Xianbei cataphract a new improvement of this instead?

Dr Kaveh Farrokh, author of "Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642" (Osprey Elite No. 110), states a widely-held scholarly view that bronze cataphract armour for the front of the horse was first developed by the Iranian peoples of Chorasmia in Central Asia (corresponding to Uzbekistan today). The armoured horse concept was brought from Chorasmia to Persia by the Achaemenids, and then became common among the Sarmatians, Parthians and Sassanians before later being adopted by the Byzantines. The interesting thing about this is that Chorasmia was the area that in the Han corresponded to the kingdom of Kangju (which Warhead calls Kang Gu). The Chorasmians were not nomads but rather agriculturalists - it has been suggested that the cataphract was developed by them to counter steppe light cavalry (e.g. the Xiongnu?).

Is there then a link between the Chorasmians and Kangju? If so, then this would add a new dimension to the participation of Kangju cavalry reinforcements on the Xiongnu side during Chen Tang and Gan Yanshou's siege of Zhizhu Chanyu's fort. It would suggest that the Han armies had come into contact with cataphract cavalry in the form of Kangju armies.

After Alexander's death his empire was broken up amongst his generals, one of them being Seleucas (246-226 BC). There is a Montvert publications that describes heavily armour cavalry as cataphracts in the Seleucid army. I'll borrow the book this weekend to obtain more info. The origin of cataphract is more of an evolution of arms and armour. I've also read (forget the source) where heavliy armoured cavalry originated in the Khorasan area. An Osprey book Romes Enemy's (3): Parthians and Sassanid Persians states an Iranian people called Massagetae developed armour for their horses, most of the armour being a thick leather and "a few pieces were of bronze scale armour". This was soon after the 8th centurey BC.

Early in the book it states a Chinese embassy went to Parthia and traded gold and silk for Ferghana horses. I wonder if anyone in the embassy noticed the cataphract type troops. One would think so.

Cheers




I meant to add this link;

http://www.iranchamb...rthian_army.php

Cheers

[Yun]

An Osprey book Romes Enemy's (3): Parthians and Sassanid Persians states an Iranian people called Massagetae developed armour for their horses, most of the armour being a thick leather and "a few pieces were of bronze scale armour". This was soon after the 8th centurey BC.

Yes, the Chorasmians and Massagetae were neighbours in the geographical texts of the Greeks. They are usually grouped together as the Iranian inventors of the cataphract.

The Seleucids would have gotten the cataphract from the Achaemenid Persians conquered by Alexander. The Parthians replaced the Seleucids, and the Sassanians the Parthians. Thus the Persian cataphract can be traced back to the Chorasmian-Massagetae heavy cavalry copied by the Achaemenids.

[DuncanHead]

btw, cataphracts only make up about 1/10 of the Parthian army, and they are bronze armoured, nor was it close to the weight of the Later age of fragmentation cataphracts.

No, this isn't true at all. Parthian cataphract armour was primarily iron, with bronze sometimes being used for the horse-armour. See Plutarch's description of the Surena's cataphracts at Carrhae: "When they had sufficiently terrified the Romans with their noise, they threw off the covering of their armour, and shone like lightning in their breastplates and helmets of polished Margianian steel, and with their horses covered with bronze and steel trappings." Cf also the Graeco-Bactrian iron cataphract armour from Ai Khanum in Afghanistan, whcih is probably close to Parthian styles.

Nor were they lighter than later Chinese types. Representations of Parthian cataphracts (at Dura, Tang-i-Sarwak and Firuzabad) indeed shows more complete armour than most Chinese 4th-6th century representations. For one thing they have complete limb armour, whereas most Chinese representations seem to be unarmoured below the elbow as in http://www.phoenixnd...Horse-Rider.htm (if not with completely unprotected limbs as in Dunhuang cave 54 - http://www.chinapage.com/dunhua54.gif )