Parthian disaster Mark Licinius Crass

52
Mark Licinius Crassus was born around 115 BC in a very famous and rather rich plebeian family. To lead oneself from the plebeian kind in Rome in those years did not mean to be poor or, moreover, to be a “proletarian”. At the beginning of the III. BC. a new class emerged - the nobility, in which, along with the patricians, the richest and most influential plebeian families entered. Less wealthy plebeians formed the estate of horsemen. And even the poorest plebeians already had civil rights in the period described. The most famous representative of the Licinia clan was Guy Licinius Stolon (who lived in the 4th century BC), who became famous for the struggle for the rights of plebeians, which ended with the adoption of the so-called "Licinius laws." Plebeian origin did not prevent Mark Crass's father from becoming a consul, and then - a Roman governor in Spain, and even deserve the triumph for the suppression of the uprising in this country. But everything changed during the First Civil War, when Guy Marius (also a plebeian) came to power in Rome.

Parthian disaster Mark Licinius Crass

Guy Mari, bust, Vatican Museums




The plebeian clan Litsiniev, oddly enough, supported the aristocratic party, and in 87 BC Marc Crass's father, who at the time was performing the duties of a censor, and his elder brother died during the repressions unleashed by Marie. Mark himself was forced to flee to Spain, and then to Africa. It is not surprising that in 83 BC he ended up in Sulla’s army, and even at his own expense armed a squad of 2500 men. Crassus did not remain in the loser: after winning, buying up the property of repressed childbirth, he repeatedly increased his fortune, so that one day he could even afford to “invite” the Romans for lunch, setting up 10 000 tables for them. It was after this incident that he got his nickname - “Rich”. However, in Rome, he was not loved, not without reason considering it a greedy nouveau riche and dishonest usurer, ready to prey even on fires.


Lawrence Olivier as Crassus, Spartak, 1960


The nature of Crassus and his methods are well illustrated by the curious 73 trial of BC. Crassus was accused of attempting to seduce the messengers, which was considered a serious state crime, but he was acquitted after he proved that he was courting her only in order to buy the land belonging to her favorably. Even the undoubted merit of Crassus in suppressing the revolt of Spartacus practically did not change the attitude of the Romans. A significant part of the "laurels" for this victory he had to give the eternal rival - Pompey, who after the decisive battle managed to break one of the rebel detachments (as Pompey put it in a letter to the Senate, "pulled out the roots of the war"). Twice (in 70 and 55 BC) Crassus was elected consul, but in the end he had to share power over Rome with Pompey and Caesar. So in 60 g. BC. there was the first Triumvirate. A career for a lost father and a plebeian who barely escaped Marians was more than a good one, but Mark Crass passionately dreamed of Roman love, universal popularity, and military glory. It was this thirst for glory that pushed him into the fatal Parthian campaign, in which Republican Rome suffered one of the most painful defeats.

As already mentioned, in 55 BC Marc Crassus became consul the second time (the other consul that year was Gnei Pompey). According to custom, at the expiration of the consular powers, he was to receive in control one of the Roman provinces. Crassus chose Syria, and achieved for himself the "right of peace and war." He did not even wait for the expiration of his consulate, went to the East earlier: so great was his desire to become on a par with the great commanders of antiquity and even surpass them. For this it was necessary to conquer the Parthian kingdom - a state whose territory stretched from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea, almost reaching out to the Black and Mediterranean Seas. But, if, with a small army, the Macedonian Alexander managed to crush Persia, why not repeat his march to the Roman plebeian Mark Crassus?


Parthia on the map


About the possibility of defeat Crassus did not even think, however, very few people then in Rome doubted that Parthia would fall under the blows of the legions of the Republic. The war with the Gauls, which led Caesar, was considered more serious and dangerous. Meanwhile, back in 69 BC Parthia helped Rome in the war against Armenia, but the Romans saw this country, not as a strategic ally in the region, but as an object of their future aggression. In 64 BC Pompey invaded Northern Mesopotamia, and in Parthia, in Parthia, a civil war broke out between the claimants to the throne - brothers Orod and Mithridates. The latter, in 58, recklessly turned to the former proconsul of Syria, Gabini, for help, so the moment for the commencement of the Roman invasion seemed ideal.

Together with the post Crassus got two selected legions of veterans who served under Pompeii, under his command they fought not only in Mesopotamia, but also in Judea and Egypt. Another two or three legions scored Gabinius especially for the war with Parthia. Crassus brought two legions to Syria from Italy. In addition, he scored a certain number of soldiers in other areas - on the way.

So, the brothers Mithridates and Orod didn’t live, but to death they clashed with each other, and the anticipating triumph (which was denied to him after the victory over Spartak’s army) Crassus hurried with all his might. His ally Mithridates in the summer of AD 55. He captured Seleucia and Babylon, but in the following year he began to suffer defeat after defeat. In 54 BC Crassus finally reached Parfia, and with little or no resistance occupied a number of cities in Northern Mesopotamia. After an insignificant battle near the city of Ihna and the storming of Zenodotiya, rejoicing at such a successful and easy for them campaign, the soldiers even proclaimed their commander as emperor. Until Seleucia, in which Mithridates was now, remained to go about 200 km, but the Parthian commander Suren was ahead of Crassus. Seleucia was taken by storm, the rebellious prince was captured and sentenced to death, his army went over to the side of Oroda who remained the only king.


Drachma Oroda II


Nadezhda Crassus on the post-war weakness and instability of the authorities did not materialize, and he had to cancel the march to the south, and then completely withdraw his army to Syria, leaving garrisons in large cities (7 of thousands of legionnaires and a thousand cavalry warriors). The fact is that the plan of the military campaign of this year was based on joint actions with the army of the Parthian ally Mithridates. Now it became clear that the war with Parthia would be longer and more difficult than expected (in fact, these wars will last several centuries), the army should be replenished, first of all, with cavalry units, and also try to find allies. Krass tried to solve the question of financing the military campaign by robbing the temples of other nations: the Hittite-Aramaic goddess Derketo and the famous temple in Jerusalem - in it he confiscated temple treasures and 2000 talents, untouched by Pompey. They claim that they did not manage to spend the loot Crassus.

The new Parthian king tried to make peace with the Romans.

"What is the business of the Roman people to distant Mesopotamia"? The ambassadors asked him.

"Wherever the offended people are, Rome will come and protect them," Crassus replied.

(Bill Clinton, both Bush, Barack Obama and other democracy advocates standing ovation, but smiling condescendingly - after all, they know that Crassus has neither aviation, no cruise missiles.)

The strength of the Romans seemed ample. According to modern calculations, Mark Crass was under the control of 7 legions, and the Gallic cavalry (about 1000 riders), headed by Krass’s son Publius, who had previously served with Julius Caesar. At the disposal of Crassus were the auxiliary troops of the Asian allies: 4 000 lightly armed soldiers, about 3 thousands of horsemen, including soldiers of the king Osroena and Edessa Abgar II, who also singled out guides. Crassus also found another ally, the king of Armenia, Artavazd, who proposed joint actions in the northeast of the Parthian possessions. However, Crassus did not want to climb into the highlands, leaving Syria entrusted to him without a cover. And therefore he ordered Artavazd to act independently, demanding to transfer to his disposal the Armenian heavy cavalry, which the Romans lacked.


Silver drachma of Artavazd II


The situation in the spring of 53 seemed to be successful for him: the main forces of the Parthians (including almost all infantry formations) led by Orod II went to the border with Armenia, and Crassus was opposed by a relatively small army of the Parthian commander Surena (the hero of the recently ended civil war in which his role was decisive). Parthia, in fact, was not a kingdom, but an empire, on the territory of which many nations lived, sending their military units to the monarch as required. It seemed that the heterogeneity of military units should have caused the weakness of the Parthian army, but in the course of further wars, it turned out that a good commander could, as a designer, assemble an army for war in any terrain and with any adversary for all occasions. However, the infantry units of Rome were far superior to the Parthian infantry, and in the right battle had every chance of success. But the Parthians were superior to the Romans in the cavalry. It was the cavalry units in the main and were now at Surena: 10 thousands of horse archers and 1 thousand cataphracts - heavily armed cavalry soldiers.


The head of the Parthian warrior found during excavations in Nisa



Roman legionaries and Parthian horsemen at the Battle of Carr


Unable to come to an agreement with Crassus, Artavazd entered into negotiations with the king Orod, who proposed marrying his son to the daughter of the Armenian king. Rome was far away, Parthia was near, and therefore Artavazd did not dare to refuse him.

And Crassus, relying on Artavazd, lost time: he was expecting the promised Armenian cavalry for the month of 2, and without waiting for her, he set off on a campaign not in the early spring, as planned, but in the hot season.

Just in a few passages from the border with Syria, there was the Parthian city of Carra (Harran), in which the Greek population prevailed, and from 54, the Roman garrison stood. At the beginning of June, the main forces of Mark Crass approached him, but, trying to find the enemy as quickly as possible, they moved further - into the desert. Around 40 km from Carr, by the River Ballis, Roman troops met with Surena’s army. Faced with the Parthians, the Romans did not “reinvent the wheel” and acted quite traditionally, one might even say, in a pattern: the legionaries lined up in a square in which the soldiers alternately replaced each other on the front line, allowing the “barbarians” to tire and exhaust themselves in constant attacks. Lightly armed warriors and cavalry were hiding in the center of the square. The flanks of the Roman army were commanded by the son of Crassus Publius and quaestor Guy Cassius Longin - the person who subsequently changes Pompey and Caesar in turn will become an ally of Brutus and will “substitute” him very much by committing suicide at the most inopportune moment - after the almost won Phillip battle. Yes, and with Crass he, in the end, will come out not very beautiful. In the Divine Comedy, Dante placed Cassius in the 9 circle of Hell - along with Brutus and Judas Iscariot, he is named there as the greatest traitor in stories humanity, all three are always tormented by the mouth of the three-headed beast - Satan.


"Lucifer devours Judas Iscariot" (as well as Brutus and Cassius). Bernardino Stagnino, Italy, 1512 year


So, a huge Roman square moved forward, showered with arrows of the Parthian archers - they did not cause much damage to the Romans, but among them appeared quite a lot of lightly wounded. Roman arrows from the center of the square answered the Parthians, not allowing them to come too close. Suren tried several times to attack the Roman system with heavy cavalry, and the first attack was accompanied by a truly impressive demonstration of Parthian power. Plutarch writes:
“Having frightened the Romans with these sounds (drums hung with rattles), the Parthians suddenly dropped covers and appeared before the enemy, the flames were like themselves in helmets and armor made of Margian, dazzling steel, and their horses in copper and iron. Suren himself appeared, enormously tall and the most beautiful of all. ”



Parthian archers and catapractic


But the Roman square resisted - the catapractic could not break through it. Crassus, in turn, several times threw his cavalry units to the counterattack — also without much success. The situation was stalemate. The Parthians could not stop the movement of the Roman square, and the Romans slowly moved forward, but so they could go for a week without any benefit to themselves, and without the slightest harm to the Parthians.

And then Suren imitated the retreat of part of his forces on the flank, commanded by Publius. Deciding that the Parthians finally trembled, Crassus gave his son the order to attack the retreating forces of one legion, a detachment of Gallic cavalry and 500 archers. Clouds of dust raised by the hooves of horses prevented Crassus from observing what was happening, but since the onslaught of the Parthians weakened at that moment, he, already confident of the success of the maneuver, built his army on a nearby hill and calmly awaited reports of victory. It was this moment of the battle that became fatal and determined the defeat of the Romans: Mark Crass did not recognize Surena’s military cunning, and his son was too carried away by the pursuit of the Parthians retreating before him, he came to his senses only when his forces were surrounded by superior enemy forces. Suren did not throw his warriors into battle with the Romans - by his order, they were methodically shot with bows.


Battle of Carr, illustration


Here is how Plutarch talks about this episode:
“By blowing up the plain with their hooves, the Parthian horses raised such a huge cloud of sandy dust that the Romans could neither see clearly nor speak freely. Squeezed in a small space, they collided with each other and, struck by the enemies, died not easy and did not die quickly, but writhing from unbearable pain and, rolling with arrows stuck into the body along the ground, broke them off in the wounds themselves; while trying to pull out the jagged tips that penetrated the veins and veins, they tore and tormented themselves. So many died, but the rest were not able to defend themselves. And when Publius urged them to hit armored horsemen, they showed him their hands pinned to their shields, and their legs pierced and nailed to the ground, so that they could neither escape nor defend. ”


Publius still managed to lead a desperate attempt of the Gauls to break through to the main forces, but they could not resist against cataphracts.


Parthian cataphractarium


Having lost almost all the horses, the Gauls retreated, Publius was seriously wounded, the remnants of his unit, moving away to the nearby hill, continued to die from the Parthian arrows. In this situation, Publius, "not having a hand that the arrow pierced, ordered the squire to strike him with a sword and put a side to him" (Plutarch). Many Roman officers followed suit. The fate of ordinary soldiers was sad:
"The rest, still fighting, the Parthians, climbing the slope, pierced with spears, and alive, they say, took no more than five hundred people. Then, cutting off the heads of Publius and his comrades"
(Plutarch).

The head of Publius, impaled on a spear, was taken before the Roman formation. Seeing her, Crassus shouted to his soldiers: “This is not yours, but my loss!”, But it was clear to everyone that Publius could die only with his squad, and the spectacle made a very heavy impression on the army. Seeing this, the “ally and friend of the Roman People”, King Abgar, went over to the Parthians, who in the meantime, seizing the Roman system in a semicircle, resumed shelling, occasionally throwing cataphracts into the attack. As we remember, Crassus before this positioned his army on the hill, and this was his next mistake: out of the blue the soldiers of the first rows blocked their comrades in the back rows from the arrows, while on the hill almost all the rows of the Romans were open to shelling. But the Romans held out until the evening, when the Parthians finally stopped their attacks, notifying Crass that they "would grant him one night to mourn their son."

Suren took his army, leaving the morally broken Romans to dress up the wounded and count the losses. But, nevertheless, speaking of the results of this day, the defeat of the Romans cannot be called devastating, and the losses - incredibly heavy and unacceptable. The army of Crassus did not run, was completely controlled and, as before, outnumbered the Parthians. Having lost a significant part of the cavalry, one could hardly expect further progress, but it was quite possible to retreat in an organized manner - after all, the city of Carra with the Roman garrison was located in 40 km, and then there was a well-known road to Syria, from where one could wait for reinforcements. However, Crassus, who was keeping well all that day, fell into apathy at night and in fact was eliminated from command. Questor Cassius and Legate Octavius, on their own initiative, convened a military council, at which it was decided to retreat to Carr. At the same time, the Romans left to the mercy of fate about 4 thousands of wounded who could interfere with their movement - they were all killed by the Parthians the next day. In addition, the cohorts of the legate Varguntius were surrounded and destroyed by 4. The fear of the Romans before the Parthians was already so great that, having reached the city safely, they did not move further from it - to Syria, but remained in the ghostly hope of receiving help from Artavazd and retreat with him through the mountains of Armenia. Suren invited the Roman soldiers to go home, issuing him his officers, first of all - Crassus and Cassius. This proposal was rejected, but the trust between the warriors and the commanders could no longer be remembered. In the end, the officers convinced Crassus to leave Carr - but not openly, in a ready-to-fight formation, and at night, in secret, and the completely fallen commander, allowed himself to be persuaded. Everyone in our country knows that "normal heroes always go around." Following this popular wisdom, Crassus decided to go to the northeast through Armenia, while trying to choose the worst roads, hoping that the Parthians would not be able to use their cavalry on them. Beginner traitor Cassius, meanwhile, was completely out of control, and as a result, with 500 riders, he returned to Carres, and from there he returned safely to Syria — the same way that the entire Krass army had recently entered. Another high-ranking officer of Crassus, Legate Octavius, still remained loyal to his commander, and once even saved him, already surrounded by Parthians from shameful captivity. While experiencing great hardships on the chosen path, the remnants of the Crassian army still slowly moved forward. Suren, having released part of the prisoners, again offered to discuss the terms of a truce and free access to Syria. But Syria was already close, and Crassus had already seen the end of this sad path before him. Therefore, he refused to negotiate, but here the nerves of the rank-and-file warriors who were in constant tension, who, according to Plutarch, could not stand it:
“They raised a cry, demanding negotiations with the enemy, and then began to denounce and blaspheme Crass for throwing them into battle against those with whom he did not even dare to enter into negotiations, although they were unarmed. Crassus made an attempt to convince them, saying that after spending the rest of the day in the mountainous, rugged terrain, they would be able to set off on a journey at night, showed them the way and persuaded them not to lose hope when salvation was near. But they came to a frenzy and, rattling weapons, began to threaten him. "


As a result, Crassus was forced to go to the negotiations, in which he and the legate Octavius ​​were killed. Tradition claims that the Parthians executed Crassus, pouring molten gold into his throat, which, of course, is unlikely. Crassus’s head was delivered to King Orod on the day of his son's marriage to his daughter Artabazda. A specially invited Greek troupe gave the tragedy of Euripides the “Bacchae” and the fake head that was to be used in the course of the action was replaced by the head of the hapless triumvir.

Many soldiers of Crassus surrendered, according to the Parthian custom, they were sent to carry guard and garrison service to one of the outskirts of the empire - to Merv. After 18 years, during the siege of Shishi, the Chinese saw soldiers unfamiliar before: “more than a hundred infantrymen lined up on each side of the gate and built in the form of fish scales” (or “carp scales”). In this structure, the famous Roman "turtle" is easily recognized: the warriors hide themselves with shields from all sides and above. The Chinese fired at them from crossbows, inflicting heavy losses, and then finally smashed them with an attack of heavy cavalry. After the fall of the fortress, over a thousand of these strange soldiers were captured and divided between the 15 rulers of the western border areas. And in 2010, the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported that in the north-west of China, near the border of the Gobi desert, there is the village of Litsian, whose inhabitants differ from their neighbors in blond hair, blue eyes and longer noses. Perhaps they are descendants of the very Roman soldiers who came to Mesopotamia with Crassus, were resettled in Sogdiana and were captured again, already by the Chinese.

Of those soldiers of Crassus who scattered around the neighborhood, most were killed, and only a few returned to Syria. The horrors they told about the Parthian army made a big impression in Rome. Since then, the expression “to launch the Parthian arrow” has come to mean an unexpected and harsh answer, capable of confusing and puzzling the interlocutor. The lost "Eagles" of the legions of Crassus were returned to Rome only under Octavian Augustus - in 19 BC, this was achieved not diplomatically, but by military means. In honor of this event, a temple was built and a coin minted. The slogan of "revenge for Crassus and his army" for many years was very popular in Rome, but the campaigns against the Parthians did not have much success, and the border between Rome and Parthia, and then between the New Persian kingdom and Byzantium remained unbreakable for several centuries.
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    24 March 2019 16: 40
    I immediately remember the film Devil's Advocate and the final phrase - Vanity is my favorite of sins!
    Thanks to the author! Refreshed. Comparative biographies of Plutarch long read.
  2. +30
    24 March 2019 16: 50
    Parthian operation Crassus is in the treasury of military art as an example of how not to act. More precisely, even to say - the operation under Carrah. After all, the Parthian campaign lasted several years and consisted of several stages.
    The pace is lost, communications are torn, security and intelligence are lame. Finally, the vanguard, led by his son, is isolated and dies - which inflicts a blow on the fighting spirit of both the commander and soldiers. The advantages of Parthian tactics and the specifics of the Parthian military system are not taken into account.
    In short, it is a pity for the people, the Romans, the lost eagles and the prestige of the Republic shaken in the east of Oikumena.
    This is an illustration of how politics affects military decisions and that a successful entrepreneur (Crassus) is not always an equal sign to a good commander, even if he had had military success before, because the fight against an internal adversary (Spartak) is not the same as an external one .
    For some reason, it seems to me that Caesar’s upcoming Parthian campaign had a much greater chance of success: there is careful preparation, allies, a brilliant commander (and tactician, cameraman and strategist in the person of one of the best generals in the world Caesar). Yes Guy Julius died.
    In principle, Trayan then got even for everything. If the Roman war machine is aiming for it, it will.
    1. +3
      24 March 2019 18: 54
      Some kind of analogy with the Wehrmacht suggests itself ...
      After all, any car breaks something. What Carra and indicator.
      In the end, where is the Roman car now and where is the Wehrmacht ...
    2. +1
      24 March 2019 22: 13
      The Parthian campaign of Trajan was quite successful, although even then the Parthian kingdom survived, even having lost Armenia and Mesopotamia.
    3. 0
      14 May 2019 18: 21
      Well, we can also say that the Parthians under Nisibis recouped for the successes of Trajan. The Romans lost all territories at once, which they depressed in two centuries of war. And Shapur even repaid Rome in all respects. And to crush neither the Parthians, nor the Sassanids, the Roman military machine failed.
  3. +2
    24 March 2019 16: 52
    Thank! Interestingly, I always read and look about the Roman Empire and the army.
  4. +5
    24 March 2019 18: 58
    Selected troops were at Crassus, selected. Which once again proves how important the qualities of a commander are.
    1. +1
      25 March 2019 08: 57
      And that poor organization cannot be replaced by any heroism.
    2. 0
      30 March 2019 10: 04
      Quote: lucul
      Selected troops were at Crassus, selected. Which once again proves how important the qualities of a commander are.

      Well, there was infantry. And you won’t get much against cavalry and arrows. Yes, and the climate was unusual
  5. +4
    24 March 2019 19: 00
    An example of unsuccessful ,, export ,, DEMOCRACY ... angry
  6. +2
    24 March 2019 19: 42
    Incidentally, a vivid example of how you can win a battle from an experienced opponent remotely - with arrows - without passing into close combat and hand-to-hand combat.
    1. +5
      24 March 2019 22: 15
      You cannot win an arrow battle against an experienced adversary; Sanya the Great will not let you lie.
      1. +1
        25 March 2019 05: 28
        without going into melee and melee stop the Persians did not maneuver
      2. 0
        30 March 2019 10: 07
        Quote: Kola Lapp
        Sanya the Great will not let you lie.

        Sani, as you call him, had normal cavalry, and it was she who crushed the flanks and covered the infantry
        1. 0
          6 May 2019 13: 50
          Experienced opponents have a habit of shooting back, and getting from a horse to a horse is easier than getting from a horse to a man.
          Sasha of Macedon had his archers and slingers who did not allow them to shoot hoplites with impunity.
          We can look at the interaction of spearmen and shooters with the example of a picker-musketeer duplex in the 16-17th centuries.
  7. +3
    24 March 2019 20: 02
    Thanks for the article, Valery! Very exciting! But as always.
    Question: are there any creative plans for writing material about the social structure of Ancient Rome (as it was with Sparta)?
    1. VLR
      +7
      24 March 2019 20: 14
      Good evening, Anton, no, there are no such plans. Ahead are 2 more articles about Rome similar to this one you just read. And then, probably, we will change the subject a little and "go away" to the Middle Ages.
      1. +6
        24 March 2019 20: 24
        Also good! Your materials always come in!
        Nevertheless, out of the normally read historians of this era, only you work on the site, the interests of the same Shpakovsky are somewhat older - "bronze" ...
  8. -1
    24 March 2019 20: 12
    Their plumba, plumba am
    1. +1
      25 March 2019 07: 34

      For too long, the Romans neglected throwing weapons and cavalry. for which they paid
  9. +3
    24 March 2019 20: 24
    The Parthian arrow went down in history.
  10. +1
    24 March 2019 21: 00
    Well, the author painted))
    So good - that he himself answered all the controversial questions))
    You can’t do this - even you can’t write much koment - everything is chewed ....
  11. +5
    24 March 2019 21: 29
    "The richest Roman past and present." "A man who is not able to maintain an army has no right to be called rich .." Crassus did not enjoy love in Rome? It is understandable - they did not like vultures anywhere. He profited not weakly on the property of the scribed, if other Sullans disdained to profit from the property of the executed, then this certainly did not apply to Crassus. He begged from Sulla, bought for a pittance the proscribed estates, bought the right to inherit from fake heirs or heirs with a dubious prospect of obtaining This and simply seized everything using the patronage of the Dictator. Owner of most of Rome, he was Caesar's treasurer early in his career. He played tricks with Catiline, but he himself handed him over to Cicero. Became a participant in a coup d'etat - the first triumvirate "Union of power, mind and gold" And before going to Parthia, after conducting an audit of his condition, counting showed that his condition is equal to 7100 talents (26 kg one talent) of silver, it is not clear the truth is only in the "coin" or a valuation of the entire property? It was his death that led to the collapse of the Republic, as the triumvirate turned into a duumvirate and, as a result, led to an open war between Pompey and Caesar, with all the consequences. If the 60-year-old grandfather did not imagine himself as the new Alexander the Great, and who knows, there would be no rivalry between Pompey and Caesar within the framework of the law? The Parthians poured into the Romans, Crassus miraculously escaped, got rid of the itch of the great commander, but although beaten, but thanks to his condition did not lose influence, he remained a gasket between Caesar and Pompey ...
    Caesar dissolves his legions by law, wins the Consular elections, gets the province at the consulate and ...
    And about Crassus, you can say, the frayer's greed ruined.
    1. 0
      25 March 2019 19: 01
      Quote: Oleg Kolsky 051
      The Parthians tumbled down to the Romans, Crassus miraculously escaped, got rid of the itch of the great commander, but although beaten, but thanks to his condition, he did not lose influence, remained a gasket between Caesar and Pompey ....

      What are you speaking about? Crassus was treacherously killed by the Parthians during the negotiations.
      1. 0
        25 March 2019 20: 01
        This is a review, like AI. What would happen if ...
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. +4
    24 March 2019 22: 06
    By the way, an interesting moment, in Mesopotamia left their bones and two legions of Caesar. When an army was formed to march to Parthia, the Senate ordered both Caesar and Pompey to allocate Crassus according to the legion from his troops, and since Pompey once gave one of his legions for the Gallic war, and now he was inferior to Crassus, it turns out Caesar lost two legions at once . A kind of feint with ears from Pompey.
    1. +1
      24 March 2019 22: 45
      The Senate was against this war. And not only the Senate. So no one gave him 2 legions of Caesar. Only 1000 of the mentioned Gallic horsemen under the command of his son. He recruited the legions himself at his own expense. And by no means a qualitative composition
      1. 0
        25 March 2019 07: 35
        Yes, I was mistaken, just in 53 this same legion was sent by Pompey to make up for Caesar's losses. "As a friend." The case of the weaning of these two legions happened later, but that's another story - the eve of the civil war ...
  14. +4
    24 March 2019 22: 25
    A purely commercial war in personal interests, and even with a false sense of great superiority.
    You can not do it this way.
    What we learned during the Russian-Japanese.
    And the Americans are in the process of learning in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    In light of all this, we know more or less the history of Rome, Byzantium, the Arab Caliphate, Persia. But it would be interesting to tie together the history of Armenia - how did it exist between the graters of great powers, became one of the first Christian states, what role did it play in the history of neighbors? After all, there were entire Armenian dynasties of the Byzantine Basileus, and even here the personality of this commander Suren is not from the Armenians?
    1. +1
      25 March 2019 08: 55
      As far as I know, the name Suren is not originally Armenian, but Parthian. Recently, Baghdasarov talked about it on the air with Solovyov. Although that after two millennia is considered primordial. The same name Mordechai is now perceived as absolutely Jewish, but this is also actually not the case.
  15. 0
    25 March 2019 12: 36
    This disaster is somehow illogical. How could the strongest army of that time lose to the barbarians with a 4-fold numerical superiority? What was the weakness of the Romans? It seems to me that their weakness, unlike the Greeks of Xenophon, was in excessive veneration on the verge of deification of their emperor. Crassus probably received a hypertensive crisis after the death of his son, or maybe even suffered a heart attack on his legs and he needed urgent hospitalization. He was doomed, but there was no strong deputy in the army — Cassius escaped and a mess began. A similar situation happened in the Nazi army when Guderian suffered a similar heart attack near Tula and then healed for a long time, and Reichenau and others. Generals for 60 were less able to work than the young Soviet Zhukov, Rokkosovsky and others.
  16. 0
    25 March 2019 18: 57
    ... in the north-west of China, near the border of the Gobi Desert, there is the village of Litsian, whose inhabitants differ from their neighbors in blond hair, blue eyes and longer noses. Perhaps they are the descendants of the very Roman warriors who came to Mesopotamia with Crassus

    I do not think that the real color of the hair and eyes of the ancient Romans and Greeks should be associated with the color of marble in the sculptures. It is unlikely that they differed from modern ones.
    1. VLR
      0
      25 March 2019 19: 10
      Modern Greeks, Macedonians, Italians, Bulgarians and Hellenes, Macedonians, Romans, Thracians are different peoples. In the same Greece, Italy - there was a terrible cross breeding. Therefore, blond hair among the inhabitants of ancient Greece and the Romans is not an exception, but rather a rule. Nero, for example, was red-haired. Like Pyrrhus - whose name means "Redhead". Alexander the Great is blond, and probably his diadochi too. Later, when the influx of "migrants" went (back in the days of the Roman Empire), blond hair was considered a sign of aristocratic origin. In Italy, then women, in order to look like aristocrats, poured bull's urine on their hair and sat in the sun all day - it turned out similar to the classic hair color of women of Antiquity - light with a reddish tint. Then this shade began to be called Titianovsky - many of the models of this artist have such hair, you can see.
      1. 0
        27 March 2019 11: 24
        Quote: VlR
        Alexander the Great - blond

        1. VLR
          +1
          27 March 2019 11: 54
          Plutarch: "Alexander's appearance is best conveyed by the statues of Lysippos, and he himself believed that only this sculptor was worthy to sculpt his images. This master was able to accurately reproduce what many of the Tsar's successors and friends later imitated - a slight tilt of the neck to the left and languid gaze Apelles, painting Alexander in the form of a thunderer, did not convey the color of the skin characteristic of the king, but depicted him darker than he really was.Alexander was reported to be very light, and the whiteness of his skin turned red in places, especially on the chest and on face. "

          Look, can the hair in this portrait be black? Only light or red.
          1. -1
            27 March 2019 12: 04
            Not necessary:



            1. VLR
              +2
              27 March 2019 12: 24
              And yet Alexander is described as either fair-haired or red-haired. By the way, the redhead was his mother - a native of Epirus Olympiad. Red hair in Epirus met very often. The famous Pierre, for example, was red-haired.
              1. 0
                27 March 2019 12: 34
                Pyrrhus in Greek means "fiery", "redhead". And they are relatives with Alexander - Pyrrhus was a second cousin and cousin of Alexander the Great (Pyrrhus's father, Eacidus is a cousin and nephew of Olympias, Alexander's mother). Many of Pyrrhus's contemporaries believed that Alexander the Great himself was reborn in his person.
          2. +1
            27 March 2019 15: 39
            Good afternoon. Alternatively, the mosaic from Pompeii depicts the customer, then Bish Roman patrician-owner of the house. Entered the image, so to speak, or the master decided to bend.
            Description of Plutarch is more credible. Moreover, Hellas more than once greatly thinned the population. This is the conquest by Rome, only from Epirus-150000 people sold into slavery, the Mithridates War. And after the invasion was ready, Hellas was completely depopulated. By the way, during the time of Byzantium, Greece was considered the province the least suitable for recruiting troops.
            1. 0
              27 March 2019 16: 56
              Quote: Oleg Kolsky 051
              Greece was considered the province least suitable for recruitment.

              Already Pierre was unable to recruit soldiers among the Tarentines, who called him for protection from Rome. Apparently, the passionary potential of the Greeks had dried up by that time.
              But, returning to the appearance of the inhabitants of the Mediterranean of those years, it is not clear what migration of peoples could change it so much. Germans, Slavs? But from their impurity, the Greeks and Romans would rather be lightened on the contrary. Celts - yes, maybe. But it is known that conquerors never made up the majority of the local population. Rather, the ruling elite. And the Celts did not gain a foothold there and were swept away by other conquerors. So basically there are natives - Latins, Etruscans, Sabines, Samnites, Achaeans, Dorians, Minoans. Brunettes. Alexander and Pierre may have been an exception to fair-haired ancestors, but this does not cancel the rule. As well as Genghis Khan.
              1. VLR
                0
                27 March 2019 17: 35
                Eastern peoples could have an impact on the gene pool - Syrians, Persians, Jews, Armenians, Copts, ancestors of Arabs, natives of North Africa. The cults of Isis, Kibela, Mitra did not just become very popular in Rome, someone brought them in and began to promote them.
                Blonde and red hair, by the way, could really be more common among aristocrats who tried to marry between the representatives of the old clans.
              2. +1
                27 March 2019 19: 42
                I want to remind you again about the conquest by Rome and the mass conversion of the locals into slavery. And also the Mithridatic wars, remember the capture of Athens and the ensuing massacre by the legions of Sulla. "Sweetness of the living for the sake of the dead." In the territory of the former Hellas and Thessaly and Macedonia there were huge possessions of Roman equestrianism. And for work, a huge number of slaves were imported from the same Asia Minor, Syria ... The same situation was in Italy - "latifundia will destroy the State", while Italians died in endless wars, and at this time their families were driven away from their plots of land and replenished the contingent of Roman slums. Wealthy latifundists bought armies of slaves to work and serve the masters. And gradually the indigenous Italians were replaced. It seems already under Octavian that it was noticed that all of Italy was not able to provide more than 50 soldiers. While during the Hannibal War, Italy put hundreds of thousands under the banner. So the offspring from the slaves remained in Italy or in the same Greece. And this situation lasted all the time of the existence of the Roman state, then the invasions during the Great Migration, and women always give birth from the winners ...
                1. 0
                  27 March 2019 21: 25
                  Indeed, an interesting theory. I didn’t even think about it.
  17. 0
    25 March 2019 20: 02
    Yes, a lie is all ..! The Vatican and the Germans composed all this ....... Gyyy
    1. 0
      27 March 2019 20: 49
      Quote: Dzungar
      Yes, a lie is all ..! The Vatican and the Germans composed all this ....... Gyyy

      You have no idea how your dashing statement becomes actualized as new comments appear. Bronze!
  18. 0
    25 March 2019 20: 06
    in the north-west of China, near the border of the Gobi Desert, there is the village of Litsian, whose inhabitants differ from their neighbors with blond hair, blue eyes and longer noses. Perhaps they are the descendants of the very Roman warriors who came to Mesopotamia with Crassus, were resettled in Sogdiana and again captured, already to the Chinese.
    Yes, no ...! What are the descendants of the Roman warriors ... ??? These are the descendants of the great Scythian Siberian Rus ....!
  19. 0
    26 March 2019 13: 53
    As far as I know (but not at 100%), the cataphracts smashed the Romans because they first used stirrups in horses, which allowed them to chop in full force with long swords. And in the drawings they sit in saddles without stirrups ...
    1. +1
      26 March 2019 22: 24
      Stirrups allowed a ram strike with a spear. But with swords and earlier, without stirrups chopped.
    2. +2
      27 March 2019 11: 03
      Stirrups were first noted among the Avars (and, therefore, among other Türks) in the 6th century AD
  20. VLR
    0
    27 March 2019 12: 41
    Quote: andj61
    Many contemporaries of Pyrrhus believed that Alexander the Great himself was reborn in his face.

    I wrote about this here in the article "The Shadow of the Great Alexander":
    https://topwar.ru/150592-ten-velikogo-aleksandra.html
    See if you missed.
    1. 0
      27 March 2019 17: 16
      Moreover, one should not forget that the Macedonians and Epiroths are ethnically not Greeks, but Hellenized northern barbarians. Outwardly cultural, but ferocious inside (terrible on the face, kind inside - this is not about them ...). They are closer to the Illyrians - the indigenous people of Europe, who lived here before the arrival of the Aryans. Now their genes remained among the inhabitants of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia. Distinctive features are huge growth, large head, arms, legs. Giants. Perhaps the descendants of the Cro-Magnons
  21. +1
    28 March 2019 18: 44
    So look

    Mari !!!
    And like this

    Taki already Sulla laughing

    And the crack under the head is the same hi

    Good to be a historian.
    "We can already see the depth of centuries
    indistinguishable in detail
    and only a historian is given
    the ability to lie documentarily. "

    I. Huberman. hi