What Was Crassus Thinking? - The "fool" of Carrhae
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 тра 2024
- Today I wanted to take a closer look at the common narrative that Crassus was a bumbling idiot who caused the disaster of Carrhae. What was he thinking! Today we will attempt to reconstruct his chain of decisions to determine if they really were misguided.
As a reference for this rehabilitation of Crassus, I recommend the book "Defeat of Rome in the East: Crassus, the Parthians, and the Disastrous Battle of Carrhae, 53 BC" by Gareth C Sampson
I made this video in response to a very thoughtful comment left by ArsacesofConcodor which made me take a closer at the typical narrative of Crassus as a fool. Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments! If you are interested in learning more about this rehabilitation of Crassus I second the recommendation of the book "Defeat of Rome in the East: Crassus, the Parthians, and the Disastrous Battle of Carrhae, 53 BC" by Gareth C Sampson
Time to replace it with another over-simplified generalizing explanation I guess. How about thermopylae in reverse? Here you have mobile troops beating heavy infantry on mobile troops-friendly terrain whereas at thermopylae it was heavy infantry beating highly mobile troops on heavy infantry-friendly terrain. Or just simply: horse archers are OP?
Hey can you please make videos on the Ottoman empire system etc
It was messy as hell and only created problems.
I still think Crassus was rather foolish and not nearly as adept as his contemporary Julius Caesar or even Pompey for that matter, but your video does provide a better balance to things. It is easy to see how Crassus bungled the mission, made these mistakes, and fell into these traps logistically. He should have put a lot more thought into the situation he was getting himself into, though. You don't just march into a desert without a plan, especially against an incredibly mobile army compared to his mostly infantry-based army lacking horse archers to effectively combat against the other side. If he wasn't knowledgeable about Parthian battle tactics then that is still his fault, because the Romans weren't incapable of gathering intelligence about their foes. Overall, as outlined in your previous video, Mark Antony's officer Publius Ventidius Bassus was a much better commander and tactician, who wisely used the local terrain to his advantage against the Parthians at Mount Gindarus. Later Roman armies beginning with Trajan also invaded Parthia and sacked major cities like Ctesiphon without allowing themselves to be slaughtered and forced to flee, although the 3rd-century emperor Valerian was later captured by the Sasanians (who succeeded the Parthians).
@James Lourenco: actually, ironically, you have chosen to define "begging the question" by using the colloquial and modern vernacular meaning of the term. Using a stricter, more traditional definition, it is actually used to describe a specific logical fallacy, a type of circular reasoning in which the premise doesn't exactly support the conclusion. It stems from Latin "petitio principii" and ancient Greek "τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖσθαι".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Crassus was way ahead of his time, he was thinking about the oil. He invaded Iraq before it was cool.
Caesar was the fool, what the hell did Gaul have? Cheese? Wine? Does the economy run on cheese and wine? No. Crassus could have been one of the oil majors two millennia ahead of any competition! Eat that John D. Rockefeller!
Anakin Skywalker crassus was looking for WMDs
The Raff and Lo! He found them not!
He was Bush's unnamed source!
At least Rome will have Wmd's
Played Rome II and I don't blame Crassus. Missile cavalry is the most annoying unit.
He made a noob box
Except helicopters with miniguns. They're REALLY annoying if you're a Roman infantry unit.
he should have just auto resolved it.
@@AJoe-ze6go Gate?
Mongols agree
“Yes he did catch flak in the short term...” 2070 years later
*Crassus the “fool” of carrhae*
Imagine dying and being called a fool by plebians for over 2000 years
Ethan K. A seasoned war veteran, Roman noble, leader of a legion the most legendary military in history so much it’s influence even exists in most modern military’s. Gets called a fool by fat obese disgusting Cheeto covered finger arm chair generals.
@@stevenrodriguez763 Where can i buy a finger arm chair
sounds dirty
asking for a friend
But died while begging for mercy. Almost nothing you did matters before the the word but..
True legends die old men with a belly full of wine with a woman's mouth around their cock!
He should have secured an alliance with one of Parthia's enemies who also were also skilled horse archers. Fight fire with fire. Roman pride probably got in the way. Alexander and Darius both used soldiers with different skill sets.
I suffered the same defeat as Crassus in Rome 2 total war... expecting an easy victory only to see my troops melt away to enemy missile cavalry.
Then I googled it and found out about this battle. I can't blame Crassus
Tactical Crassus
You weren't trained as a Roman general all your life though.
I had the same issue as playing Eastern Rome in atilla and my friend was playing as the huns. My armies stood no chance in open field, I had to form testudo in corner of the map. I had to rinse and repeat until I had substantial enough missle troops (not those shit javelins). After this I realized that 60 missile cavalry gets murdered by 120 archers (60 for each unit)
@@ozgurpeynirci4586
Skill issue
Imagine setting off for an ''easy'' conquest only to be remembered 2000 years later as a fool.
imagine not having tried, but making UA-cam comments about it
@@Dadecorban imagine going against an enemy that is known to use mostly cavalry , and relying on heavy infantry to defeat them, therefore losing despite having greater number, suffering the loss of your son, retreating and then attempting to negotiate only to be killed and remembered as an idiot for all time,with even some phrases originating from it.
@@mr.verygood6186 Nonsense. The Parthians also used infantry. The force they assembled in composition and size was not typical. They brought a ridiculous number of arrows which was not typical. The Romans brought a lot more cavalry and archers than typical. The Roman problem was not obviously being hard countered because Crassus was a fool, it was making repeated bad decisions of hubris by someone without sufficient operational art and a lot of bad luck. Marc Antony wasn't a military genius and with some better decisions although the way, and more luck, was far more successful with the same kind of force.
@@Dadecorban i didnt say they only used it, i said mostly and relied on. Crassus had much bigger numbers and yet he lost because the Parthian cavalry showered them with arrows without having to come in contact. They had to wait until nighttime to retreat, it wasn't a battle it was a stalemate. Brute force works sometimes but clearly not in this case, because despite having lower chances the Parthians were victorious thanks to strategy and tactics.
@@mr.verygood6186 I've addressed all this and it's complicated. What a pointless conversation.
In portuguese we have the expression "erro crasso" (Crasso being the "portuguesement" of Crassus), which means "severe mistake" due to the actions of, guess it, Crassus
In Spanish too as well!
Craso error en español
We also have 'Crass mistake' in English, although I have no idea if that originates from Crassus (as in the person) or something else entirely different.
FOOTHIS
Crasso error
"The sinews of war are infinite money. Except if you're Crassus."
-Marcus Tullius Cicero
Sacha Daenens 😂😂😂
More like
-Marcus Trollius Cicero
... or the Mongols.
@@Moepowerplant lol...the statement above means that more money makes you more effective in war.
Except if you're Crassus. Then more money does not make you more effective. According to Cicero.
You're saying to he Mongols were like Crassus? An exception to this rule?
@@tylerdurden3722 Well... The Mongols are the Exception... according to John Green.
*cue mongoltage*
Nah
- Crassus, 53 BCE
Targaryen Dynasty Nah
@@JaEDLanc BCE now
What they gonna do, kill me?
-Crassus, 53 BCE
@@schnoz2372 BC anything else is a disgrace to Rome
Funniest one-word comment I've ever come across - cheers for the laughs ! 👍🍻
I remember thinking "Bruh, how could you mess up this badly?" until I played Rome II and lost my most veteran Macedonian army to a spam of thracian archers... It went pretty much exactly like the battle of Carrhae
Thinking about this, I guess I'm right in my tactics to suppress the enemy army early. Bunch them up and force them to melee. Cav circles the field to kill any archer units lucky enough to escape whilst my own ranged units either support the mainline or help wipe the enemy archers.
Note, this is on normal difficulty, but it is already annoying on its own right. What was you're difficulty if I might ask?
I'd quit the run
Horse archers has been a thing for centuries. It was no surprise. It was standard practice to form tight infantry formations and let their horse archers exhaust their arrows on shields.
The surprise was Surena's use of logistics to keep his horse archers supplied with and endless supply of arrows. This hadn't been done before and caught the Roman's totally off-guard.
Source?
@Alshamari Baha2 then all the infantry has to do is walk away
@Alshamari Baha2 right. I understand what you're saying, but if the horse archers won't get close enough out of fear of the infantry archers then what's keeping them pinned down? They could keep moving while the archers keep ready to launch a volley. Until they run out of arrows...
@Alshamari Baha2 that doesn't make any sense. If the horse archers are out of range of the Infantry bows and they are sure as hell out of range with their own bows, which are always, comparatively speaking, going to be less powerful. I guess they could ride around in circles in the desert, but that's probably not going to do them much good. The fact is, if the Romans have been better prepared, with some proper formation or equipment to counter this tactic it would have been very different. But Crassus for many different reasons simply was not, and he paid for it.
@S F i see your point. Thanks for the explanation. I think marching away in formation would still have been better than sitting there if they were unable to get the fight in the terms they wanted. Perhaps they could have found a location or terrain that would have been more to their advantage.
"Experience is a harsh teacher, but men have shown they will learn from no other."
-Unknown
One more thing. The Parthian General Surena, who defeated Crassus was a hero, and you should make a video highlighting this and the despicable treachery of the Parthian King Orodes II who betrayed him afterwards and have in executed. If there is anyone to feel sympathy for, its Surena. Had he lost to the Romans he probably would have been executed. He defeated them and King Orodes II had him executed anyway, clearly because he reasoned Surena could have potentially be in a threat. Either way, when I read the history I thought to myself, it really sucked to be Surena. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory....
Surena shoulda killed that a-hole king then, after beating Crassus.
Orodes lost his son, A heroic prince.
Stephen Ellis its not clearly that parthian king killed surena some said he died to saved orodes2 life
If Surena allows Crassus to live after he won the battle, i think the king would not kill him, because he would not overshadow your lord. In Antiquity, we often see generals executed or flogged when their king/emperor begins to suspect them. Why? Because they have more fame and more support of the army than the lord himself.
Roman Empire, Parthian Empire, Han Dynasty... Everyone is the same, or do you forget about Justinian and what he did to his "most trusted general" Belisarius? Its a method to assert autority over all.
Vinicius Ribeiro To be fair Bellisarius became so much famous and loved that it scared the living hell out of justinian. He was scared that Belissarius might turn against him with all the power and fame he acquired. Remember Caesar?
he heard the Parthians were keeping some rare pepe memes to themselves. and this cant be let to stand.
They insulted Crasuss' waifu.
I remember reading once that Carrhe was where a competent Roman General met an Excellent Parthian General. Thanks very much for showing this in your video as well as your level and unbiased views.
1:56
In other words, he had no Crassus Belli
Reported for punning.
Ba dum tss
We love simple, sensible narratives of "heroes" and "fools". The reality is actually always grey, and remember that the winners tend to write the stories.
Derek Bates No. It meant that history, written and made sense by human, is heavily riddled with our flaws and cognitive biases. History is also heavily tied into power. To really learn from it, we need critical thinking.
History IS written by the winner, but that doesn't mean that these schmucks' "version" is automatically more valid. The examples you've written, for example, fail because they cannot stand up to the same notion of critical thinking.
Derek Bates I don't get why you get so triggered. Why did you imply that critical thinking = believing in conspiracy theories? That's a poor strawman. Almost all conspiracy theories fail to stand up to critical thinking, it's pseudo-critical at best. The notion of "critical thinking" is often hijacked by conspiracy theorists (those who say that global warming is a hoax, etc). With intellectually disciplined analysis (CRITICAL thinking), we can safely and easily say now that Holocaust happened, slavery was an issue, etc2. So, good for you to know that.
But the reality is more nuanced than the simple, black and white reality that you believe. History needs to be continuously questioned, like all science. Especially, since history is uniquely prone to be influenced by power.
+firman
It's funny that your critical thinking would lead you to assume that I called it a "conspiracy theory"; I may have gotten a bit preachy, but I don't remember saying or alluding to it. Where are you getting conspiracy theory? And, why are certain moments in History above your "continuous questioning"? "The reality is more nuanced than the simple, black and white reality that you believe"; well, by that logic someone could just as easily refute the Holocaust and our view of Nazism, because THEIR intellectually disciplined analysis says so.
Why do you assume everyone is going to reach the same conclusions as you; as you said, history is uniquely prone to be influenced by power, and since the allies won WW2, that would make us the "power" wouldn't it? Thus, by intellectually disciplined analysis implied by your statement, it would stand to reason that we doctored up the actual account, right?
1d4chan.org/wiki/Skub
+firman
So, rather than provide any kind of reasonable examples to support your argument, thereby confirming some validity, you instead compare me and any examples I provided to support my argument to wikipedia play-doh? You must win a lot of arguments that way; "I am rubber and you are goo!"
Parthian commander was simply brilliant, and he paid with his life after this famous victory
Sad. More sad than Julius Caesar being stabbed 23 times by Brutus
@@a_l7515 Brutus stabbed him twice, IIRC?
In his defense, I think the pressure was just getting to him. With the fracture of the first triumvirate leaving him as the one with the least achievements garnered, he was thinking it was high time he got his own laurels to flaunt in rome.
Maybe we'd have a different history if his conquest of the east played differently. Alas, he wasn't as great as his ambitions.
Dominic Monceda Have you seen how hard it is to hold Persia if you're an external conqueror. Alexander did it for what 25years that's how long it lasted before collapsing in to the selucid empire which then got defeated by the Parthians and Persia became Persian again or Iran which is what Persia called themselves
Alexander's empire fractured but the greeks ruled Persia in the form of the successor kingdoms for generations. So it isn't too hard to hold Persia.
Wrong. Crassus' strategy was perfectly viable. Hold out in turtle formation until Parthian cavalry ran out of arrows. Also important to note is that Crassus was misled into the trap by his lying Syrian guide. However it just happened that in this fight the Parthians had brought along caravans full of arrows and supplies. Both sides gambled and Crassus lost. Crassus was a great man but luck was against him. Meanwhile even Caesar admitted he would've never made it to the top without being so lucky.
Dominic Moncenda
You could say "his eyes were too big for his stomach" in a way...
No he schould stay out Truimpirath or do just bussnes but greed sometimes in bigger so he learn that in hard way. You are richest man in Rome stay out politics give some money to new Emperior money buys everthing except dead.
cataphracts are beautiful
Leng man yep they are
Especially when they're charging at you... So beautiful ... ^^
That's what the slingers of Publius Ventidius Bassus's Roman army must have said as they bombarded them with lead missiles, or what Publius Ventidius Bassus's heavy infantry said when they cut down the cataphracts to pieces.
Anything Persian is beautiful*
@@fis3746 No stirrups tho
It would seem, from the several videos and my understanding of Ancient tactics that the problem for Crassus was that he didn't have enough missile troops. Or enough cavalry.
A balanced ancient army had 3 elements.
1) Heavy Infantry to hold the line, be the main source of power and provide a basis for the other branches to operate from. If you don't have heavy infantry you don't have troops to hold ground or to occupy the ground of the enemy.
2) Cavalry to get around the enemies flanks - and to prevent the enemy from getting around your flanks. It was cavalry that decided the battles of Canne and Zama - this is what happens if you don't have enough cavalry.
3) Light troops to missile the enemy and to screen your forces from the enemy light troops. If you don't have enough light missile troops to deal with the enemy's light missile troops they can just sit back and missile you to death.
You have to have all three elements or you will pay the price. In the video on revenge for Crassus - subsequent Romans had plenty of light troops to missile the Parthian's.
As to the Roman Cavalry Charge - I attribute this to frustration on the part of the Romans. They're sitting there getting missiled by light cavalry and wanted to strike back at them. They just didn't have enough cavalry and it was of the wrong type. It would seem they had Medium Cavalry that was to slow to catch the horse archers and not able to stand up to the Parthian Heavy Cavalry - not to mention being badly out numbered.
The other thing is that if Crassus did raise this army himself - then it may well have broken down and fallen apart because of it's inexperience. More seasoned troops might have just stood there and let the Parthians fill their shields with arrows until they did run out however many they had brought. Or at least held together while they pulled back.
As to the betrayal of Crassus - IIRC - the same thing happened with the 10,000 and Xenophon but they being more experienced troops held together despite losing their leadership.
So, the reasons for Crassus defeat would be:
1) Not enough missile troops
2) Not enough Cavalry
3) Betrayal - possibly by his advisor and by his opponent.
4) Not enough veteran troops to hold together.
And of course the terrain. Infantry does better on rough terrain. Cavalry does better on smooth terrain.
Lastly - yes - the Romans tended to learn via disaster. They'd make a mistake - lose an army and then learn from their mistake and come back. The thing with fighting the Romans was they just ... kept .... coming ... back. Hannibal defeated them a number of times but they didn't quit as - "Carthago delenda est".
.
In the future you should probably remove some of the artificial lakes in Iraq on your map as most of them were created in the 20th century. You know, for historical accuracy.
i see you are a Total War Full Modded Game as well.
Its actually quite hard to reconstruct the landscape of that time in that areas, because we know that there was once large somewhat fertile steppe between the euphrates and the levante, that had been over grazed and degraded to the desert we know today, nevertheless it was probably for the most part a desert like today, but actually we don't really know. Therefore the distances that the armies were by our standards in deserts cant be determined by modern maps. I hope you can see what kind of problems and questions arise when you take the change of landscapes into account
This map doesn't really show fertile land though. It does however show several large lakes that weren't there only one hundred years ago. My super power is geography and it bothers me.
Since your superpower is geography. Were Euphrates and Tigris already connected around that time? I remember reading that Shatt al-Arab appeared relatively recently in geologic terms, but I cannot find a good estimation when exactly that happened.
Adam Czerwinski 6000 years ago the Persian golf went further northeast than today all the way up about where the city of Ur was located.
In spanish we have this expresion, "craso error" (crassus error), to describe some incredibly big fail
In Portuguese too. “Um erro crasso”.
When I said on the last video; "Think you glossed over the Retreat of Crassus. It sounds absolutely brutal being pursued like that.' This was not what I was expecting as a rebuttal... 10/10 :D
Love it how you use Crassus' images from Spartacus series. With those, this video really gives a conclusion how he ended up after the series.
I studied Ancient History as a Minor with an Influence in Military, when I was going to College, not that I am an Expert or anything. I will say, had Crassus used his Cavalry properly, by keeping them out of the square and used to harassing, flanking and drawing off troops and attacking the supply lines (which if I remember correctly, Rome normally did this and would ensure after Crassus' defeat) the outcome could have swayed into Rome's hands. Again, I like how you put it though with hindsight 20/20 and especially the FOG of war (Which is still a huge factor, today, even with all the tech we have).
I did a 20,000 word research paper about how today's modern Army and all of the Armies before now still used tactics developed during this Age. I am quite confident some of the tactics are even older however, that would be pre-historic and we only have second hand accounts of these battles from poets and not Tacticians.
I am a new subscriber so I don't know if you have done this but one major battle in the Bible about Jerricho and the walls come crumbling down is actually a unique use of a mixed Military Unit using very Unique Tactics to cause a walled city's walls to crumble. All they did was use the concept that took almost 2000 years to figure out by architects and that is the liquefaction effect. When you cause micro-casims to the earth the buildings not built on hard fondations like bedrock etc... The sand or earth will liquify causing the structure to fail. They used this by marching day and night around the walls singing, taunting and chanting to cause as much vibration as they could. I say mixed unit cause they actually used the entire unit and camp followers. This story along with a lot of others in the Bible made me who I am today: a Soldier of God, a U.S. Paratrooper (Desert Storm Vet) and a Christian.
To go back to my Original statement, about how the Modern Armies use Ancient Tactics, all one has to do is look at Blitzkrieg by the Germans, U.S., British, Australian, Canadian, almost all NATO units Tactics employed Today. Those who used "New" tactics or ones that don't work well with today's tech, look at the Soviet Tactics used by Iraq during Desert Storm. They used the "Coiled Snake" for Armor which has been proven many times it doesn't work with Tanks as they have to move out of it quickly. The U.S. uses the Roman Square even today when at a "soft camp" or Rest Camp (these are less than a day, and only for the driver's to sleep) We used them a lot during Desert Storm as it still gave us flexibility and time to move if we were attacked. Our Armor still uses the Phalanx or Spear (Cav's word for a fast moving Phalanx). As for Blitzkrieg this was based upon Genghis Khan's use of Cavalry to overwhelm and envelope entire Armies before they had time to react. When I did my research around 2000 A.D. I could not find a single Tactic that did not either use completely old Tactics and called new or were so heavily influenced that only the tech used was different yet again they were called "New" and "Revolutionizing".
Jmho.
Major Hawker okay, now you’ve got me really interested. Can you please send a link to your paper?
I'd really like to read it too.
@array s Actually no. War is a period of time where one group fights another group and doesn't have to engage in a single battle. Flanking is not as old as Battles.
Great video, I’m glad you took this approach of analyzing what truly happened. It is so easy to say we could have done better by watching squares move around on a computer screen and not think about what was going on at the time.
Great video man, make more like that one.
My compliments to you on how informative this video has been. Nice job.
You should take Crassus's trackrecord into account too. He did some pretty stupid things during the Spartacus uprising aswell. I.E. raise legions and train them for 2 weeks instead of the normal 6 months, then had them decimated when they turned and ran. Now thats a poor excuse of a general, punishing his men so harshly for his own mistake.
The Spartacus crisis left him little time to properly train his legions, he did what he could to meet the exigencies of the situation, and while shocking to our modern sensibilities the decimation of the legion ensured they never ran away from battle again which is why the won. They feared their own commanders more than the enemy.
There is no way around it, all officers do this. If they err, soldiers die. Still well known to the enlisted.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he decimate them because he commanded them NOT to attack and to head for the enimies flank to wait for his order?
They charged in without orders, failed and ruined the plan. So a strict punishment was kind of needed to establish control and stop others from acting without his orders. Not saying decimation is a good thing but it sure as shit worked to get everybody in order.
Maybe he simply didn't have time. And decimation was a fitting punishment for desertion. They should be thankful, they were not all slaughtered.
There's a way to scare them without decimating them. That's just a waste of the realms troops.
The memory of Alexander the Great haunted the souls of all the ambitious men in the ancient world.
Nolan Mundi Seleucus and Demetrius were ambitious and were probably just as great as Alexander.
I'm not disagreeing with you, they may have been greater. All I meant to say was that all ambitious men in the ancient world who lived after Alexander wanted to become or outdo Alexander, including Seleucus and Demetrius. Alexander was the tangible myth, not Seleucus.
Joey Kevorkian Seleuces was a total imbecile. How can you have the greatest general alive on your side (Hannibal) and not use him? What an idiot.
Alexander wasn't a tangible anything. Sorry, I stand corrected. He was a tangible failure. Invading and murdering doesn't build a(n) [stable] empire. The Persians won their land mostly by cultural influence. This is why Darius III had the last laugh against Alexander. His ancestors went to become the Sassanids. We Persians tend to lose the battles, but fuckin A do we win the wars!
Eumenes, who was not even general when Alexander was alive, gave most of the Successor generals ass whippings...Demetrius was only famous for the sieges he took on and the two biggest ones were still failures.
Seleucus lost against an Indian dude and got 500 Indian Elephants in exchange for the territory he was forced to give up. Those 500 elephants changed his life lol. Though, how quickly he moved those elephants to back east was brilliance.
Excellent presentation. Incredibly thorough for a 13m video. Love the choice and timing of images, too. Thank you for putting this out. I got just the info I was looking for, and an interesting take on Crassus' situation. (Had he conquered Parthia, the Empire to follow would have no doubt pressed into India and possibly further East. What a different world it would have been.)
Excellent video.
You use animation and maps sparingly, but effectively to illustrate the narrative. Your concise, well written commentary is easy to follow.
I have listened to Mike Duncan’s entire HoR podcast as well as Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History miniseries on the death of the Roman republic. I will start to consume your work with similar appetite. I’d love to see some content on the period covered in Duncan’s The Storm Before the Storm, the era of Scipio Emelianus, the Grachi brothers, Marius, and Sulla. The generation that wrote the playbook for Crassus and his contemporaries.
And thanks for the book recommendation.
Roses are red
Rome has many regions
Marcus Licinius Crassus give me back my legions!
Lol
Lmao , iykyk
The Romans were slaughtered three times by Hannibal because they overestimated their own forces and underestimated his strategic genius. Only after Cannae did they switch tactics and not seek out an all-decisive battle, risking the loss of another army.
I really like your videos. Well made, well narrated, and mostly you put maps that makes it so easy to understand....not all do the same.
Subscribed for this nuanced counter to the story I've previously heard and for your extremely mature embrace of feedback.
IMO the biggest mistake of Crassus was his lack of missile troops.
Horse archers were very effective due to their mobility, but did have one flaw. No matter how strong your bow is, you can never pull as much weight on horseback as on solid ground.
Slingers or archers would have been the perfect complement to the Legions, and every success against the Parthians saw their deployment.
At that time every legionary had a slingshot (it was cheap and light to carry). They had been very effective vs cavalry and chariots other times, and they could have been very effective this time too, but probably they had not trained enough.
Could you give me a source on that?
IE Vegetius "It is universally known the ancients employed slingers in all their engagements. There is the greater reason for instructing all troops, without exception, in this exercise, as the sling cannot be reckoned any incumbrance, and often is of the greatest service, especially when they are obliged to engage in stony places, to defend a mountain or an eminence, or to repulse an enemy at the attack of a castle or city" "Let them be exercised in the use of the bow, in throwing missile weapons and stones, both with the hand and sling, and with the wooden sword at the post; let all this be continually repeated and let them be often kept under arms till they are tired." In several ancient battles the use of slings by the Romans had been reported to be decisive (IE at Magnesia) and in ancient Roman encampments and battle sites sling bolts are often found.
you need loosed formation for the slingers to operate
Not quite. Horse Archers usually aren't peasant class, so they use much more complex and hard to maintain but advanced re-curve composite bow which allows riders to draw as much weight as foot archers with longbows without the need to use the muscles of the leg. There had been many sources and experiments proves it. Yes. The large natural curve longbow needs leg muscle to perform optimally, but a recurve composite bow doesn't and can be used to its full potential on the move on foot or on horseback. However, a good recurve bow is an expensive and high maintenance piece of gear like a high quality long sword to a knight and a high end katana to an Edo period samurai, so it was impractical for peasantry to own and keep it. Again, even though, generally, horse archers aren't as rich as knights, but they are not peasantry either as they tend to own some land and/or herds of animals and horses in Asian Steppe to finance his gears which in turn protects his investments. In fact, the fact that Western Europe had little horse archers is mostly likely because there is little practical way to draw powerful enough longbow on horse back, and for cultural reasons, European knights doesn't practice mounted archery.
I think the two biggest reason for Crassus’ defeat were that he was completely unfamiliar to the Parthian way of fighting and he was just out-generaled. Also please do a video explaining how Parthia created such a formidable army of horsemen.
Loving your historical videos, keep it up!
You make a really good point, and one that I don't hear often enough when talking about Crassus. He just didn't bother with the pretexts that everyone else used to _hide_ their greedy action.
As a future officer myself it’s actually more disconcerting that it was small mistakes and not huge ones that got him and his army killed. Humans are the most dangerous prey to hunt.
Crassus invaded Persia because he heard of their huge olive oil reserves, of which the growing population of rome was in desperate need of. But it was faulty intel. It was some other kind of oil.
How can one not like this narration. Great job.
I like this.... what an awesome way of throwing a spin on "what the history" teaches and putting in a different perspective. Nicely done Invicta. Could you possibly do this same type of video and discuss other failures in history?
the Defenders to Attackers kill-to-loss ratio is amazing. the Parthians only lost 38 cataphracts (strange how it doesn't get mentioned). If that's not the most epic rolfstomp in the history of military warfare, i don't know what is.
Iron Warrior of course, the fact that an eastern army could thrash the mighty romans so badly might hurt the West's self esteem and tarnish their reputation as peerless warriors.
@@zarakdurrani7584 It's well-known to those who've read about the battle, though these same Westerners would've also read that the Romans would continue on to win battles against the Parthians, though the situation strategically turned into a stalemate. The lack of interest in holding on to gains in these wars would've also been understandable to said readers due to logistics.
@@zarakdurrani7584 Publius Ventidius Bassus would like to have a word with you.
@Zarak Durani Zalmaye Anyone that knows Roman history but isn't a Rome fanboy will say that Carrhae was one of the worst defeats and the proof that Parthian's tactics were too hard to counter by the Romans. You either care too much about what some mindless fanboys say on the internet (which is understandable) or you have some... "problems" with Roman's success in history. Maybe it's just a wrong feeling, though.
MrColuber and Shapur the first would like to school bassus.
Crassus did violate several principles of sound military practice like having no real intelligence of his enemy or the terrain. His grand strategy seems to just kick ass and eventually conquer. He ignored the good military advice he was given and foolishly marched his army into ideal cavalry terrain. He was "fighting the last war" of the Romans stomping the Seleucids, the surviving Greek autocrats after Alexander. They proved NO match for Rome. Rome had never fought so many well trained horse archers or cataphracts (proto knights). They had never had to deal with horse archers this proficient or heavy cavalry in the Persian style (that was way ahead of its time). Both the archery and horsemanship of the Parthians was of the highest level for it's day. Cyrus the great had used all cavalry strike forces like this 500 years previously. The Romans had no experience of this.
In the West, the primacy of the mounted warrior over infantry is stated to be from 500 AD to 1500 AD. However, the Parthians/Persians had already perfected mounted warfare. They were the elite warriors of Iran. They were so damn good that the Romans had to copy their equipment and tactics. "Better to copy than to envy", as the saying goes.
It is so strange that the next general to fight the Parthians, Vintidius, learned these lessons and soundly beat the Parthians. He planned his battles to focus on the strength of heavy infantry by keeping to the hills or high ground. In the 3rd Century Crisis, the Romans forget these lessons and were smashed by brilliant Persian generals like Shapor many times. Roman generals fought the Persians the same way Crassus did .........................with the same results.
Best comment so far!
Agree with this.The Romans had never encountered an enemy who utilized cavalry so much (and so efficiently) ,in a favorable terrain, until Crassus' campaign.
However as much as I agree with the video that Crassus' incompetence was overblown, his greatest mistake was not taking Artavazdes' (the Armenian king's) offer.
Even if his promise of 10.000 cataphracts was a lie, the safe passage into Parthia (without having to travel through the Syrian desert) was still a good deal.
1. Roman generals were notorious for placing battlefield intelligence extremely low on the list of priorities.
2. Roman scouting was almost always terrible.
3. The Romans were always fighting the last war and it almost always worked. (in fact most people until WWI could plan for the last war and not be too surprised)
4. There is no military principle that states "Don't march into cavalry country" and I would like you to provide me with what military advice you think he received.
5. The Romans have fought cavalry powers before and trudged through it. As the video stated, it was unusual for a Parthian army at this time to be entirely composed of cavalry which means in most cases the Romans could be expected to smash a portion of the enemy army, the horse archers eventually run out of arrows, and then the Romans camp and then move on.Instead there happened to be no infantry for them to smash and the Parthians didn't run out of arrows (which is the norm).
6. The Romans had good reason to believe their manipular formations of heavy infantry were flexible enough to adapt to most situations and few Roman generals at the outset of a new campaign would recreate the wheel just in case. Scipio Africanus might have trained and drilled his army to near perfection before (and during) the campaign. He might have added a significant cavalry and cavalry recon force to the army that was way out of line with Roman doctrine. He might have done something with skirmish doctrine to mitigate horse archers. He may have been able to maneuver his legions under arrow fire and constant movement of enemy horse in such away as to consistently trap parts of the Parthian forces in order to eventually wear them down. But Crassus wasn't Scipio. In fact if you read "The Ghosts of Cannae" you'll find that Crassus' level of competence and desire to ride out and meet an enemy force based on faith in the Roman manipular system was fairly standard. The typical general during the 2nd Punic war wanted to march his army out to fight Hannible, changing nothing after multiple armies were destroyed because that's how a man does things. Crassus easily was an average Roman general.
@@Dadecorban No, no, this is the best comment by far, the anothers are only fanboys playing videogames. Roma eventually would beat parthians on his own land, and only the bubonic pest could prevent the roman conquest of Persia.
Lloyd Chappell The Romans had faced plenty of cavalry-centric factions. Numidian’s and Cantabari to say the least. Crassus was just outplayed. And there was nothing magical about the way the Parthains fought, Crassus just wasn’t expecting and entire army composed of cavalry. The Parthians weren’t step people, they had good cavalry but their armies usually comprised of infantry aswell.
I always praise your videos, but i really did love this one! I hope to see more videos like it.
Good one. I totally agree with your point. It's easy to judge or suggest the best ways in the aftermath of a defeat because like you said, all the information is available. In a fog of war and lot of misinformation, decision-making can be painful.
Caesar would have built a fortified camp in the middle of the battlefield and then laughed at those arrows. ;)
How but? Crassus was fighting in desert where wasn't any means to construct a fortified camp. Ceasar mostly made it from wood which is near impossible to find in an open desert. Apply common sense 👍🏾
@@monsieur1936 sand castles would be cool 😎
@@attilaseyfullah8522 but where water would come from? 🤣
@@monsieur1936 legionaire urine ;)
@@attilaseyfullah8522 🤣🤣 but making sand castle from urine in middle of a battle isn't possible 🤔.
Crassus rushes ahead to press a retreating enemy. Then at first sight of the opposing force, he immediately takes an extreme defensive formation.
Your level of detailed research and logical reasoning in history should be recognized by scholars. Thanks to you, I learn shit all the time. Keep up the good work bro!
An excellent video, as always. Please keep up the good work (Y).
Here before the youtube 16 yo rome total war armchair generals.
I prefer to be addressed as the bedroom general.
senpi, call me daddy
Even 16 year olds get that Crassus was unprepared against the Parthians and should have listened to Armenia's advice, not abandon his only ally in the region and go blindfolded.
Just like the death star was a flawed design and should have a fleet to support it. Stupidity kills, always.
Crassus forgot he was playing Arcade mode against Archers. What a noob
Mayer Just shut up and don't make it worse, you are the perfect example of what I was talking about. Any 16 yo would have done better hur on my games I'm an omniscient god with an army of robotic soldiers and I only have to deploy for battle with perfect information and everything is fine hur duhr, hannibal wasn't that good I mean isn't it obvious you have to surround the enemy? I do that every week hur duhr.
What happened in Crrae is a nice example for understanding why romans never tried to conquer Scythia, it had armies of pure cavalry that would never surrender, and unless the romans where willing to open burows there was nothing to gain.
Caesar(the Julius kind) had plans on them, right?
@@user-ez9ng2rw9c I dont know.
Tho by is actions in Britain and Gaul he did show that, he ignored kinship and would be willing to wage such a war even on the royal scythians.
As always, thanks for the interesting content!
Hey! Thanks for noting my input about the pronunciation of "Carrhae" from the previous video! Great new video, by the way. The second pronunciation you offer, the one I suggested, is more in line with Classical Latin pronunciation and ancient Greek (Κάρραι).
Invicta you rock! I hope that one day you'd be able to cover history in the Near East and South Asia!
Crassus's utilization of his money was largely investment, particularly in land, of which he owned enormous amounts of.
Wow. Your channel is growing like a weed! Congratulations, and thank you for this EXCELLENT and well-researched information.
I like your videos so I sit through every commercial and don't hit Skip Ad. Sacrifices!
The main reason behind Crassus's defeat might not be its incompetence, but rather his failure to acknowledge the strength of his army and his emotions. While his troops were still fresh and lack any real experience, they still have the advanced heavy armors and shields to protect themselves from horse archers and shock cavalry forces. Their mental stability however could only be strengthened by engaging and winning battles. The psycological terror caused by force marching and seeing their friends killed by seemingly infinite amount of arrows was probably the reason they send Crassus to surrender to the Parthican. Crassus sending his son to a suicide charge might be his last straw of effort to secure his men's confident and prevent them from collapsing. Had his son succeed, the tide of this war might change as even if they ultimately loses this battle, Crassus's men would not hand him over to surrender and continue fighting, winning this war with more careful planning and cunning after learning from the defeat like how later Roman generals did.
Sun Tzu mention in the art of war that the outcome of a war is not decided by arms alone, but knowing yourself and the enemy, knowing neither would result in defeat most of the time. If you are using fresh troops like you are using ceasar's legionaries, you are probably going to lose
Crassus made bad decisions BC he couldn't think straight, he was being haunted by Spartacus ghost
another fantastic video. keep up the good work!
Awesome video! More of these please.
He watched Caesar and his legions dancing in Gaul and Britian and thought I can do the same
Apparently he learned nothing from Caesar's campaign's.
Caesar was fighting tribes yet he thought he could do the same to an ancient civilization
@@poki580 Djengis Khan is offended by your message.
@@Olebull93 why, if anything i made his conquest seem more grandiose
@@poki580 Julius Caesar would send envoys with letters, diplomats if you will. To all the tribes in the areas he was moving into before hand. Asking who do you support who are you against , will you work with Rome against them etc. And thru their responds one gets an inside look into how the region works etc.
Licinius Crassus ignored all of these things, and didn't familiarize himself with who hates who. And above all else how their Calvary fought. His fat life in Rome, had made him arrogant. And he would pay the prize for it.
[Posca prepares to shave Caesar]
Caesar: Try to avoid bloodshed this time.
Posca: Wait a while, and Pompey can shave you instead.
You know you could've appreciated the genius of Surena instead of explaining the Crassus's point of view, as you concluded Crassus didn't do anything extremely out of ordinary, it was Surena who showed up with a cavalry only army
I mean, would have the Parthians won if they had deployed a "typical" army? I'm not trying to diminish anyone's achievement but having a cavalry only army is a big plus when you're against an infantry mostly (or only) army. There are many examples of this in history and the Mongols pushed it to the extreme 1300 years later.
@@reporterid Probably. Parthia's infantry was no match for Roman infantry, but their cavalry was some of the best in the world. It wouldn't have worked though had they attack in an environment poorly suited to cavalry though.
@@jeffbenton6183 Good point, I would also say that the reverse is true as well. In all fairness, on a battlefield poorly suited to Rome's infantry, the Romans would have done even worse.
chaar
It does appear that Crassus was simply unlucky in encountering a military genius. Though the Persians were always Rome's most formidable opponents.
Alan Pennie Parthians aren’t, or i should say weren’t, Persians, they were Parni. Though they ruled over territory that was once Persia, for first half of their empires existence, they maintained a lot of the same Hellenistic court practices of their former Seleucid overlords, before adopting certain Persian customs as well. They spoke a different language to to the dominant language of Achaemenids and their religious practices were slightly different. They also ruled from Ctesiphon, not Babylon, which was a practice that would be continued by the Sassanids, who WERE truly Persians.
Thank you for this thoughtful analysis. It was irritating me to no end to read the comments on the Decisive Battles - Carrhae video. There was no end to armchair generals saying Crassus was some rich guy who knew nothing about battle tactics. I was like, this was the guy who took out my hero, Spartacus.
Great video. It's always good to have a look at the other side of the coin.
I was at Carrhae 10 years ago as a lieutenant. The area is a fertile plain (not a desert as some sources says) and only a few hill exists. A panicked infantry army have no chance against horse archers there, on the other hand, if Romans kept their head, they could get out. The charge made by Publius was a wrong decision but the greatest mistake was Crassus accepting a peace meeting at the enemy camp. When he is killed, Roman army was doomed.
Name a more iconic duo than Persians and betrayals at negotiations. I''ll wait. ;)
In Xenephon's 'Anabasis' they too wipe out basically the entirety of the Greeks' command structure by inviting them over for negotiations.
Deserts are measured by rainfall, not vegetation
Odenat so carhae ia modern day harran
The Parthian arrows were penetrating Roman shields and maiming the men. If you had to listen to that for hours and hours, you'd start to think of ways to strike back.
The area is now a fertile plain due to artificial irrigation. Move a little south east where the battle had been really fought, and it's still a barren land.
Crassus was at least less able to wage war vs Parthia than other future Roman generals, Marcus Antonius made the same mistake as Crassus showing his true colors as a B tier general as well. Romans more capable would eventually nearly destroy Parthia, sacking their capital multiple times. Supply lines were neglected in both invasions and Romans suffered for it. Julian had a relatively successful campaign against the Parthians but the Romans had to retreat due too supply issues again.
One thing to say is that Crassus and Antonius both invaded in the late republican era, rather than imperial. They would not have the same support as say Trajan did as emperor during his much more successful invasion of Parthia. Something to think about.
Kieran McCormick nearly destroy and sacking their capital multiple times? No way.
Ctisphon was capital of Parthia and Sassanid both, it was these Iranian empires tactic to build their one of their capital on the border unless the Roman capital was in heart of their land. the second capital for the Parthian was in "Nisa" and for Sassanids in "Estakhr"
This channel is amazing!!
Very insightful, great video
Thinking of Crassus as some rich boy, inexperienced in war as well as in military matters in general, exploiting his wealth to play soldier is way off. Like the other great "bad" generals of Roman history(Sempronius, Flaminius, Varro, Antonius, Varus, etc.) Crassus wasn't some inexperienced pup. He simply couldn't have gained army command if that had been the case. He knew what he was about. But he found himself in disadvantageous terrain, he was fighting a formidable enemy army, his enemy fought in an unfamiliar way, and he was outgeneraled by the opposing general. With those odds against him, of course he lost. Each of the other "bad" Roman generals faced one or more of the same problems that Crassus did. There are times where how good you are at your job simply doesn't matter. You are not going to succeed. Because you simply can't overcome the obstacles you face because they are too big and/or too many.
Damn you made me miss Spartacus tv show.
xxx
I have to say I absolutely loved this video because it weighed both sides and took source tendency and critism into account. It might be hard to cater to a wide audience with a 'on the one hand... On the other' approach but I feel like it gave some nuance that can help the sometimes set in stone types of videos that can be seen on youtube. I think it gave some food for thought and could make someone think more like a historian to see this video. 🙂
Using Crassus from Spartacus as your portrayal of Spartacus for a rough image of who he was is AWESOME
This is so weird, was talking about Crassus and his defeat at Carrhae in my classics class at school just a few hours ago
I'd say Crassus was doomed as soon as he entered Mesopotamia. How does an army comprised almost exclusively of infantry stand any chance against an all-cavalry army that is being supplied with a near-infinite amount of arrows? I'm guessing this dominance of horse archers was pretty revolutionary for the time, because there's no way Crassus would've marched so boldly if he knew that he would fight an enemy that:
1. He could not force to battle.
2. Could force battle upon him at any time.
3. Could infinitely whittle his forces down from an untouchable distance.
#intelligencegathering
Sationary infantry against a army of bow fighting horsemen with plenty of arrows is a guaranteed defeat. Phrase Parthian shot comes from this battle.
john leber The Romans did have experience against horse archers though, the cantabari in particular
he was doomed the second he refused armenian advice and assistance
loving the vids!
Thank you for giving the book proposal.
Anyone found the comment he is referencing at the end? Can't seem to find the bloody thing.
have you found it yet?
The research on the Parthians is marred by inaccuracies and as reflective in the comments, marred by tropes from video games. Gareth C. Sampson provides a far more complete and authoritative analysis of the battle of Carrhae and furthermore, displays a far more consummate understanding of the Arsacid political structure as opposed to the caricaturized "decentralized feudal monarchy". Also, several chapters were simply ignored and glossed over and the extrapolated campaign of 40 BC is both cartographically misportrayed but also does nothing to explain why the Parthians were successful in claiming such a vast swathe of land in such a quick time and why the Romans ceded so much land and so quickly. In fact, reading the letters of Cicero during his governorship in Cilicia would have been instructive for the failed Parthian campaign of Pacorus and Osaces.
Unfortunately, the framing of this as "retribution" clouds a lot of judgments from soberly analyzing the history and its innate fickleness. Also, your researcher is not up to date with the latest research on the Arsacids. Orodes II didn't "abdicate". This is flatly made up. And the source describing how Orodes was poisoned by Phraates IV is more written along the tropes of dynastic squabbling and more as a fictional vehicle that sets the tone for the next "Oriental tyrant". It falls into a line of devices I'd like to call "Pontic poison king antics" whenever authors fail to explain succession in countries far too remote to accurately report.
In regard to the battle of Carrhae itself, your researcher again resorts to the myth of the "Armenian option". G. Sampson again illustrates why Crassus, on correct grounds, rejected Armenian overtures as a costly detour, an exploit by Artavasdes who in all likelihood had no troops, were in the crosshairs of a preemptive Parthian invasion led by Orodes and was in immediate need of military relief, or simply that if was all a potential trap with Armenians colluding with the Parthians and how the "Armenian path" subsequently became a mistaken idea in the Roman military doctrine, particularly during the campaign of Corbulo and Paetus when they were outwitted by Monasses and Vologases. The problem lay in that the researcher has not read A. D. H. Bivar's research behind Crassus inheriting Aulus Gabinius' gambit of restoring Mithradates III to the throne and launching the campaign to relieve Surenas' siege of Babylon and Seleucia. And this part of the problem, because this video does not even portray Surenas properly nor how he was injected into this conflict. In fact, in this video he is an indescript and completely anonymous commander, which is in stark contrast to how Plutarch describes him. And his execution is itself subject to the trope of an "over-successful noble". This is not the case. Orodes got rid of his kingmaker. And this sets the tone for the upcoming political realities in the Arsacid empire. As for Crassus, the insistence of portraying him as inept has been thoroughly debunked. Again, reading "The Defeat of Rome" by Gareth C. Sampson is a sobering and, to date, the most complete and authoritative study of the battle of Carrhae, it's precursory causality and its aftermath.
The list of references is particularly telling. Apart from the glaring lack of that particular book, which is essential for understanding the origins of the Iranian-Roman conflict, not a single paper from Iranian Studies has been cited. If you are doing any sort of research that involves warfare with the Parthians, then this lack of balance hurts your credibility. It begs the question if you are honest in wishing to enlighten the public in recommunicating history or if you want to regurgitate video game history and soothe the fictional ego of armchair generals who only possess meme-sized knowledge on a 700-year historical conflict between two great rivals?
Please treat the matter with more respect. You have a large viewership and clearly there is good technical skill behind the making of these videos. Unfortunately, the research behind it is incomplete, based on outmoded presumptions both about the Parthians as well as on Crassus and the origins of the war as a "grandiose Alexandrian undertaking", but ultimately opts for a pissing contest.
Also, no scholar worth his salt would agree with the idea that Marc Anthony's Atropatenian campaign saw a "withdrawal with his forces intact". Flatly made up. Literally no source, ancient nor modern agrees with this. It was a disaster worse than that of Carrhae, potentially saw an even greater loss of Roman manpower and worse, set the tone for the loss of Artaxiad dynasty of Armenia and the expansion of Arsacid power in Armenia and the south Caucasus. Consolidation of Arsacid power in the region is what happened.
More than anything else, in regards to Carrhae and its aftermath, the collapse of the Triumvirate (or rather the Crassus-Pompey Duumvirate) and how it sets the pace for the collapse of the Roman republic is completely overlooked. This stems from the intention of incorrectly downplaying the immediate consequences of the battle of Carrhae because it does not fit the pathos of a "Roman revenge" of the researcher - in fact, the battle echoes far into the era of Byzantine literature where greedy Crassus is transformed into a panegyric martyresque figure. Publius Ventidius Bassus was never seen as an avenger. He was seen as one of Marc Antony's henchmen and hardly someone who gave redemption to the failures of Crassus. Bassus accomplished the reversal of a very brisk and effective Parthian campaign that had effectively spirited away the Roman East and with it, a network of client states and kingdoms, revealing deeply rooted weaknesses in the Roman political structures and chronic weaknesses in upholding the scaffolding of Lucullus' and Pompey's conquests. This lasted for a full year, which is more than Trajan's often quoted 6-month possession of Parthian Mesopotamia, often featured in amateurish cartography portraying "maximum extent". This too was glossed over and obscured by the less-than-honest "piss-contest framing".
In fact, as a whole, the video suffers from too many extrapolations. It wants to say "Carrhae wasn't all that", but in fact, Carrhae is possibly one of the biggest deals in all of military history because it is the starting flash of a 700 year military conflict. Possibly the longest continuous simmering military conflict in all of recorded history and one that continued into later iterations until this very day.
Friendly tip, for a less biased and a more nuanced coverage you should consult people in groups like Eran ud Turan who gladly provide consultation to a less well-understood culture like the Arsacid dynasty and the Parthian empire. They are well-read and quite up to date with the latest research. I recommend checking them out and getting in touch with them.
The feedback may be harsh, but I think ultimately it's fair and it is my hope that you take time to read it through because it's in everyone's interest to see an improvement in methodology and a more critical and nuanced treatment of source material. The fact that not a single book or article on the Parthians has been cited is a major, major red flag. And any recent video on Carrhae and its ramifications without mentioning Gareth C. Sampson's study, cannot be taken seriously.
~
arsacesofconcobar
FuNot FuMe man you are quite knowledgeable about this.
Basically the Parthian empire eventually prevailed & survived not because of superior fighting power or because the Parthian empire was huge; but because internal political strife & squabbling on the Roman side prevented them from mounting a serious lasting campaign & establishing a long lasting hold on that part of the world.
Imagine that an entire phrase meaning "big mistke" in various languages such as "erro crasso" or "Craso error" , is named after YOU because you messed up so badly.
It isn’t, it derives from a Latin word. The word was around before him.
@@Leotv19 really !! thanks
Good video. Well done on realizing hindsight is 20/20.
This should become a series! Famous loses & how the lossing commander was planning & trying to win, as well as how it went wrong.
I’m soooo glad you’re pronouncing it Carrhae “car-high” now. It’s more correct and Carrie just isn’t a great name for a massively important battle.
The Battle of Karren
@@veejayroth I pronounce neitehr of those but as Carhææ
@@ottomanpapyrus9365 So essentially "curry-yay"?
@@veejayroth not even close. Kaer-hææ
@@ottomanpapyrus9365 No worries, I know my linguistics, I'm just making fun of attempts to explain the pronounciations in YT comments. ;o)
Crassus died a very deserving death. Because of his greed, he was made to drink melted gold. Spartacus was avenged in such karmatic fashion.
He was already dead before it was rumoured that gold was poured down his throat. Yes, there is not proof of they actually did pour any gold down his throat. Rumours were very common things at those times.
Crassus was killed or committed suicide at the parley, after fighting broke out.
Thank y for this comment lady .. my exact thoughts 😼
The Parthians were one of the few nations that rejected Slavery. Molten gold and Justice were served well.
@@SorceressWitch that seems more realistic lol
This is a legend but it’s widely accepted it’s just a story and not true, due to lack of any evidence. What did happen is that his head was cut off and used as a prop in a play.
That’s an excellent video, looking at the flip side of what is generally accepted as the one true version of history!
Man I ve been always thinking about Crassus mindset during the the entire process of the battle...why he did this and that... thanks for the video very clear objective...
Funny how every empires in History who have had a lot of Horse archers have been super srong
John Smith, lol
Crassus didn't scout properly, didn't prepare a fortified encampment, forced marched his men refused help from the Armenians
he met with the Armenians did he never think to consult them on their military tactics?
I'm also curious is it not simple to train your legions to have a simple understanding of the bow and just fire in the general direction of the enemy?
I'm loving these videos on Rome. If I may make a suggestion, subtitles would help those of us who don't know all the names (or who, like me, can't always decipher the English pronunciation because we learned Latin with the old one, rolled Rs and all ^^). UA-cam's automatic subtitles do a decent job with English, but not so much with proper names.
Such a quality channel.
Most people remember Crassus as a fool. But anyone knows who he really was: Crassus was a brilliant plutocrat, a incredible banker who raised himself and scaped from poverty. He was a good friend of Caesar, and saved him lots of times from poverty, when Caesar's enemies wanted him death. But bad actions are always remebered, more than the good ones
"hindsight is 2020" Oh the hindsight we all gonna have about 2020 once it's over
Great job once again bro, I wonder if Caesar would've been successful on his Parthian campaign
Another excellent video. Its always too easy in hindsight to look at this roman defeat and to believe Crassus was a fool. He amounted a huge wealth through business and political savi and had had a military career previously. Its also interesting that the parthian general who defeated him never gets the cudos he deserves. To beat the roman legions was no easy matter. Keep up the great work, looking forward to the next video. Regards, Scott
Can you make a video about the gladiators in ancient rome, their gladiator types, and the colosseum? ☺
RichieRich25 i would love that
its definitely on my list of things to get to eventually
Invicta i can't wait to see that. My favorite gladiator types are the murmillo and the threx.
M.R. Khan me too
The horse archers were the Rome’s doom, the cataphracts/heavy cav could not have broken the Roman lines
Despite Romans defeating the Parthians in the aftermath, this was but a small victory compare to the coming centuries. Even as Parthia had a strong terrain advantage on their side, we cannot ignore the strong feudal like system they had, allowing for the noble class to field such expensive powerful horsemen that formed their empire in the first place. That, along with Nomadic horse men who are masters of bow and horse, makes the Parthians, and later the Sassanids a formidable foe.
Lord Alehandro and this finest machine gets wrecked over and over by Sassanids super heavy Cataphracts. Sassanids didn't even use horse archers after romans copied them
Romans defeated them several times. It was enough to not fight in the terrain most favourable to them and use ranged weapons as well and/or ambush them. The horses of the mounted archers were not armoured, and so were vulnerable not only to the various balistas, but to simple slingshots too. Mind that war horses were valuable items. It required a lot of time to breed and train them, so the losses of a single battle were hard to replenish.
What everyone is forgetting is that these two nations are Empires. They both have all strengths and hardly any weaknesses. That is why none manage to get the upper hand, and both won/lost battles.
Nodosa would be better if you don’t call them nations, at least not in today’s sense
That is a very good question. I have just begun to watch this video.
That is a different take on this topic. I appreachiate that very much. Thanks for sharing your thoughts :)