The Ancients - Crassus and the Battle of Carrhae: The Defeat of Rome

Episode Date: October 11, 2020

Gareth Sampson, author of Defeat of Rome in the East: Crassus, the Parthians, and the Disastrous Battle of Carrhae, 53 BC came on the podcast to provide an in depth account of Marcus Crassus’ disastrous campaign east of the Euphrates River in 53 BC. Gareth sorted the fact from the fiction. He dispelled the idea that Crassus was this incompetent general, highlighting the questionable impartiality of our surviving sources that are at pains to suggest the campaign was plagued by disastrous omens from start to finish. In fact it was quite the opposite.Gareth is also the author of Rome and Parthia: Empires at War, his most recent book.Quick note:The Seleukid Empire: A Hellenistic Kingdom that once ruled much of the ancient Near-East. One of its key kings was Antiochus III, also known as Antiochus 'the Great'.

Hi, I'm Tristan Hughes, and if you would like the Ancient ad-free, get early access and bonus episodes, sign up to History Hit. With a History Hit subscription, you can also watch hundreds of hours of original documentaries, including my recent documentary all about Petra and the Nabataeans, and enjoy a new release every week. Sign up now by visiting historyhit.com slash subscribe. by visiting historyhit.com slash subscribe. Marcus Crassus, richest man in Rome, one of the original triumvirate with Pompey and Caesar.

And of course, the man who met his end in the Near East whilst fighting the Parthians in the aftermath of the Battle of Cari. And this podcast, we're going to be talking all about this famous battle of the first century BC. And joining me today is Gareth Sampson. Gareth is the author of a new book all about Crassus and the Parthian campaign, his ill-fated Parthian campaign. And we talk about why it happened, the course of the campaign, how it progressed and what drove Crassus to fight the Parthians and lose so spectacularly at Carai. Here's Gareth. Gareth, it's great to have you on the show to talk about one of the most interesting, most significant clashes of the first century BC, but not one you might initially have

thought of. No, it's often overlooked. It's only ever studied from the Roman side as Crassus disappears to the east, always killed, let's move on to the Roman civil war. It's always viewed through that prism and not the prism of the actual war itself. Not actually viewed through the correct prism you might say. And of course we are talking about the Battle of Carai and Crassus' campaign in the east, one of disaster, famed for its disaster at Carai. But to start off, if we start off talking about the man himself, Marcus Crassus, how powerful was Marcus Crassus back in Rome on the eve of this campaign? He was one of the two most powerful men in Rome. People often refer to the triumvirate. I always

call it a duumvirate, not a triumvirate, because the two most powerful men in Rome were Crassus and Pompey. They dominated, they actually reshaped the late Republic. When they seized power in 70 BC, they changed the Roman constitution and effectively created a new republic. And from that point onwards, for the next 20 years, they dominated the republic. Not unchallenged, of course, because no Roman was ever unchallenged, and the two of them often were maneuvering against each other. But they were the two most powerful men. And by 53 BC, Pompey and Crassus had reformed the Duomvirate in 55 and effectively seized control of the Republic. This certainly seized control of all the Republican armed forces, because you had Caesar

as their sort of third man controlling all of Gaul. Pompey controlled all the Roman military in the Mediterranean and Crassus had awarded the East. So Caesar at this time, in your view, he's actually not that powerful, at least not that powerful in the capital he's certainly not powerful in rome he's done fairly well in gaul but he's got bogged down in it so and actually by being in gaul for so long he is out the loop it's crassus and pompey who sees power in rome again in 55 for the second time caesar is fighting these barbarians you know long haired gauls and he's doing well and he's famed for it in the end, but he's making a right hash of it and he's not in the centre of power, therefore he is out the loop. And actually if you look at Caesar's career, Caesar's career is not that glorious until this point. He's actually not a world-class politician, he's certainly not in the calibre of Crassus and

Pompey. He only gets the consulship in 59 as the third or fourth sort of political agent of Crassus and Pompey in a row. So you mentioned the achievements of Crassus and Pompey being in a league of their own. So what are Crassus's? It's a big question. But if you could list the big main achievements that Crassus has gained up to this point. Yeah, of course. I mean, his and Pompey's career are parallel, but everyone knows about Pompey. As a young man, he raised an army and fought for silver. Well, so did Crassus. Crassus's career was defined by the First Civil War. In 87 BC, when Romans stormed in the Civil War, his father and elder brother are butchered, which suddenly makes him head of the family.

And there's an interesting parallel that he and his eldest son are then killed 20 years later. So, you know, history repeats itself. But in the Civil War, he takes himself off, raises his own army as Pompey does, goes and joins Sulla, and Pompey and Crassus are the two main generals who march up Italy and subdue it for Sulla in 8382. And in fact, his greatest achievement in that war is the Battle of Collingate, the defining battle of the war in Italy, is actually won by Crassus. Sulla's fighting in the centre and Sulla is losing quite heavily. Crassus wins on the wing and then

arcs round and traps the opposition, mostly the Kinnan side in the Civil War. He traps them and destroys them. That battle gives Sulla control of Italy and effectively control of the Republic, and it's Crassus who wins it. He then gets a terrible reputation at the time and ever since for making a profit out of prescriptions when all of Sulla's enemies are butchered and Crassus buys up their property at a decent rate and becomes one of Rome's richest men if not Rome's richest man. And then during the 70s again when a lot of the focus is on Pompey in Spain the Spartacan slave revolt now everyone's seen the film everyone's seen I can't oh it's Laurence Olivier who plays it with some actually plays it with some decent relish and some menace but Crassus is the one who comes to the fore it's

Crassus who saves the republic again when he defeats Spartacus because that slave army defeated at least two consuls something like three four praetorian armies and was marching up and down Italy at will Crassus rebuilds the Roman army puts it in the field and comprehensively defeats Spartacus thus making himself saviour of Rome. Wow but the sources tend to overlook that because of Pompey's intervening at the end. tend to overlook that because of Pompey's intervening at the end Pompey gets the glory Pompey the new Roman Alexander as everyone called him he he had a superb press you know he he played to the image whereas Crassus is your more Machiavellian backroom man and whereas Pompey goes to the headline campaigns Crassus barely leaves Italy he's building up his power base in Rome he's the ultimate politician.

And you can't really glorify that. And at the time, he only gets an ovation, not a triumph, because he defeated slaves. Yet he saves the Republic from Spartacus. Sulla gets the glory for Colling Gate when it's Crassus that wins it. Yes, he defeats Spartacus, but it's only slaves, despite the fact that we're doing a good effort overthrowing the Republic. And Pompey gets all the glory. Wow. So his early career definitely deserved more glory when you look at it in deeper detail. Complete. And then Pompey and Crassus both seize power as consuls in 70 and completely reshape the Republic. You know, the late Republic is their beast. It is what they created. And for the next 20 years, they dominate that

republic. If we remember Crassus mainly in a military perspective, if we remember him mainly for the Parthian campaign in the 50s BC, it sounds like his previous martial experience, you said the Colleen Gate, Spartacus in the 80s and 70s. It sounds like that was 20 years earlier. It was, but he was still one of Rome's finest commanders. He spent the 60s and the majority of the 50s in Rome. You can't separate military from political in the Republic. He had the military background, but he chose to stay in Rome and convert it into real power. He was a powerful politician. Everyone says Crassus was dispatched and he was out of his depth. He wasn't out of his depth. He was a world-class military leader who knew how to marshal a Roman army. Unfortunately

for him he came up against an even better leader in the Parthian general Serenus. So we're mentioning Parthia now. What leads Crassus to decide then that he's going to leave Rome, he's going to leave Italy and go on this great campaign in the east? Parthia is unfinished business. When the Romans went to war in the east in the 70s and 60s in what is generally known as the third Mithridatic war, but that really downplays it, Rome takes care of Mithridates very on and then goes on to destroy the mighty Armenian empire and basically Pompey then carves up the east. At the time Pompey humiliates the Parthians who were recovering from a civil war themselves and there is always the temptation that Pompey would love to go one further. By the end of 63 the Sleucid Empire has been annexed, the Armenian

Empire has been destroyed and the Parthian Empire has been humbled and the Ptolemaic Empire is only surviving. Actually Crassus tried to annex the Ptolemaic Empire by remote. In 65 Crassus' censor proposes the annexation of the Ptolemaic Empire, i.e. Egypt, remotely from Rome. It was almost he wanted to conquer Egypt by remote but his enemies actually managed to block that one. But by the end of 63, the only opposition left in the East is the Parthian Empire, and the Romans believe it's on its last legs. So Roman politics take the floor around the late 60s, early 50s, but by 55, Pompey and Crassus have seized control of the Republic, and certainly its military. Caesar is extending the Roman Empire up to the

Channel and conquering all of Gaul and it's almost like the three of them between them have this blueprint for what they want the Roman Empire to look like. Therefore Caesar's taking the north, Pompey has actually had enough of campaigning and wants to sit in Rome and control Rome, therefore Crassus takes the eastern campaign. Crassus wasn't the first commander of that war alias Gabinius was the first commander the Triumvirs in 55 sent Gabinius because Parthia had collapsed into yet another civil war and one of the candidates had fled to Rome the elder brother of the king Orodes the elder brother was Mithridates Mithridates is the third of Parthia he went to Rome and the Triumvirs thought this is the perfect time we will put a puppet ruler on the Parthian throne and probably annex Mesopotamia and just leave Parthia as a sort

of rump state between Mesopotamia and India. So they've been buoyed by these past triumphs in the east and so they're expecting that Parthia will keel over pretty quickly. Well yes because Parthia was seemingly unstoppable certainly until the 90s when they collapsed into a civil war, details of which aren't really clear, but it looks like a dynastic feud. But from that point on, they're weak. Chunks of the Parthian Empire are actually annexed by Tigranes the Great of Armenia. And it's actually Tigranes who forms the first great eastern empire because he builds an empire. He defeats the Parthians. He annexes the Sleucid empire which the Parthians have been trying to do for the best part of a century and Tigranes creates this empire that runs from the Caspian to the Mediterranean and the Romans defeat Tigranes in two battles but

they overrule them every time so it's in the Roman mind the Armenians the greatest power in the east have easily humbled the Parthians the Romans Romans have humbled the Armenians, ergo, if Tigranes can beat the Parthians, then we're going to have no problem. Added to which, they'd collapsed into yet another civil war and were looking absolutely weak. So on logic, in 55, there should be no problems with the Romans ruling over the Parthian empire. It is a glory campaign. It's not a difficult one. You can annex the cities of Mesopotamia, which are greek there's also opening up the trade routes and we should never forget the trade routes everyone

says it's crass but even pompey was up there on you know securing trade routes you're securing the overland caravans that come from china through what became known as the silk road and you're securing the cataclysm route down to the persian gulf which trades with india so it sounds like the economic fruits of conquest are there, and they're buoyed up by their past successes. And from what you're saying, it doesn't sound like they had any precedence for a just war or anything, as it were. It was just one of conquest and profit. The Romans always liked to say every war was a just war. The ones they won were just wars. The ones they won were just wars.

The ones they lost were suddenly unjust wars. And, you know, once Crassus loses, everyone and his dog is suddenly finding bad omens, irreligious things to happen. You know, I personally do not believe the Romans had a concept of a just war. They considered every war to be just. If you look at them from when they started, they were the ultimate in

defensive imperialism. They were paranoid, you know, their neighbours are plotting against them, fine, we'll conquer them. Then when they've got Italy, you know, we've got the Carthaginians and we've got the Greeks, well, once we've secured a bit of space round us, we'll be fine, but then, no, then it's the Seleucids. No, now we've got Asia, oh, it's Pontus and Mithridates, ah, now it's Armenia, ah, now it's Parthia. They can always find an enemy. So in the Roman mind, it is always just because a power that rivals their own or even has the vaguest potential of attacking their territory and their interests, it's just. And the gods will smile on it. If, of course, you lose, it was your fault, you were unjust, and they'll usually field another commander who wins it.

was your fault, you were unjust, and they'll usually field another commander who wins it. I mean, in that frame of mind, the military side of it, do you think, although he wasn't as influential as Pompey or Crassus himself, do you think Crassus was influenced by Caesar's victories, his successes in Gaul, to go and gain military glory on the field? There is always this argument that Pompey and Crassus were being overshadowed by Caesar. Now, the trouble is, Caesar ultimately won that conflict, and he wrote his own histories of it. So I think he overplays that. If you look at it, in Rome, Caesar has absented himself for five years on a very odd, what they see as a very odd quest, and he's getting totally enmeshed in Gaul. It's meant to be a short campaign. By the time Crassus is in the east in 53, Caesar's been going at it

for six years, and seems to be getting more enmeshed. You know, he went to subdue a few tribes on the border, because Rome already controlled the south of France, and he got drawn further in. The Swiss are involved, the German tribes are involved, and you know, it's almost like no one's expecting Caesar to come back. And whilst he's conquering territory, I don't think it's seen as a glorious war in Rome. You don't really get much glory from defeating barbarians, unless of course they're rampaging like Marius a generation before, they're rampaging through Italy. The whole Gallic threat is only a threat when they're on the Roman side of the Alps. Whereas a war in the East, everyone wants to emulate Alexander.

There's a great book being published last couple of years called Emulating Alexander. And Alexander the Great runs through. The Romans lapped it up. They all wanted to emulate in the footsteps of Alexander. Pompey did it when he conquered the East. Parthia was seen as a glorious war. It was also seen as unfinished business. And I think the triumvirs saw it as an easy touch. Bring it in the empire, make themselves richer, make the empire richer, while Caesar's bogged down in gall. So it is this, as you said,

this emulating Alexander idea following in his footsteps to Babylon and the Persian Gulf. Do you think Crassus and Pompey had an idea of going as far as Alexander did into the east, if that was possible? No, I don't see why not. I think in this particular war, they were going to put their puppet ruler, who'd been overthrown, back on the throne of a rump state and annex Mesopotamia. Because Mesopotamia by then, all the cities were Greek. It had been the heartland of the Seleucid empire for three centuries it was part of the Greek world everyone says Euphrates is a dividing line it wasn't both sides of the Euphrates were Hellenistic culture they shared the same culture there is no dividing line on the Euphrates if anything it's the opposite river

after you go out of Mesopotamia then you you're into the Iranian heartlands, and that is old Persia. So I think they would have annexed Mesopotamia, left a rump state of the old Persian heartlands for now. But sooner or later, they would have then gone, and done as Alexander did, go to India, and quite frankly, Pompey and Crassus, probably Caesar, because Caesar had a Parthian campaign in mind and was preparing for it when he was assassinated. It actually contributed to his assassination because everyone thought he was going to win. Caesar's beginning of 44 is a massive retaliatory Parthian campaign to conquer Parthia. Everyone's talking about India. He'll come back via Europe. He won't be in Rome for five or ten years. He'll come back even more powerful than before. Actually, it bumps up the assassination date. It forces the conspirators' hand to assassinate Caesar because they think he's going to go all

the way and do an Alexander. But there is no reason, if Alexander, with the limited resources of Macedon, could conquer all the way up to India, there is no reason why the Romans, with the entire Mediterranean under their control, could not have got India and beyond. So it sounds like the East is where the glory and where the riches and where the fame really was, so you can really understand it. It is. North of Italy is, you know, it's here be dragons. It's barbarian Europe. There is, you know, all right, there's a few tin and gold mines, but it's not really worth the effort. The only time the Romans fight the barbarians of the North is to find a secure border.

Now, while the Alps is a secure border for Italy, by conquering Macedon, they left themselves open to the whole of tribal Europe. So if you actually look, Rome is fighting a Macedonian war virtually every year of its existence. From when they conquer Macedon to the end, to Augustus makes the Danube, they're fighting the Macedonian tribes and the Thracian tribes every year. But it's inglorious. There's no money to be had. All you're going to get is slaves and wood, but it's inglorious there's no money to be had all you're going to get is slaves and wood and there's no glory whereas the east you've got the great parthian empire the selucid empire you've got the ptolemaic empire you've got this great civilization of india which everyone's heard of because you've got the trading routes you've got the vague rumors of a power in china

dude as you were saying earlier just before before we started recording, you feel sorry for the Seleucid Empire as these two powers were converging in on each other. It gets sandwiched as Rome takes advantage. Yeah, Rome's eating them away from the west, Parthia's eating them away from the east. They are ultimately sandwiched. I mean, Antiochus managed to do well to restore the empire, but then fell to Rome and that just gave the Parthians a free hand in the east. Rome actually didn't go any further, Rome defeated Antiochus the Great and kicked him out of Asia Minor but didn't take Asia Minor themselves so he left the empire. Whereas Parthia, by the 140s they had stolen Mesopotamia.

The capital of the Seleucid Empire was Seleucia on the Euphrates, that fell to the Parthians in the 140s. By the 120s all that's left of the Seleucid Empire is Euphrates. That fell to the Parthians in the 140s. By the 120s, all that's left of the Seleucid empire is a rump state of Syria. Now the Parthians were trying for that. The Parthians were actually trying to get to the Mediterranean before the Romans were. Mithridates II, Mithridates the Great of Parthia, his ambition was to take the Parthian empire, recreate the Persian empire. It's funny, as Rome has this idea of Alexander, the Parthians have this idea of Darius. They want to recreate the great Persian Empire. They see themselves as the

inheritors of the Persian Empire. So they want to take everything Persia had, which means get into the Mediterranean coastline, Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece. That would recreate their great empire. So both empires are being stalked by the past it sounds like they had colliding ideologies then as well they were going to be on a collision course which erupts with crassus's arrival in the east yeah i mean the first contact was in the 90s um rome was getting worried about mithridates and so was parthia so they both send envoys and actually sulla's there before he became famous so actually referees the first meeting between rome so they both send envoys, and actually Sulla's there before he became famous. Sulla actually referees the first meeting between Rome and Parthia and envoys, because by that time,

they're getting really close. Rome has the former kingdom of Pergamum, Asia, on the Asia Minor coast. Parthia, by that point, has annexed Armenia. So there is a small sandwich, half a dozen buffer states between the two empires by the 90s. They are really close to touching, and in the 90s, when they look like they will probably go to war within a decade, both sides collapse into a civil war. And actually, by both sides collapsing, it allows Mithridates of Pontus and Tigranes of Armenia to actually take territory from both sides. If you look at a map of the Middle East in about 86, it's ridiculous. Tigranes has an empire that stretches from the Caspians to the Mediterranean and has annexed the Seleucid Empire.

The irony being everyone thought it would be Rome or Parthia. It was actually the Armenians got there first. And next to him, Mithridates of Pontus has the whole of Asia Minor and the whole of Greece. So in 86, it looks like Rome and Parthia are both going to be footnotes in history. And the two superpowers are going to be Pontus and Armenia, both of which, you know, no one's ever heard of these days. But ultimately, that doesn't happen. Rome starts seizing the eastern Mediterranean's coastline.

And upon Crassus' arrival in Syria, what are the first steps of his campaign against the Parthians? How does he prepare? He raises fresh legions in Italy. He levies the locals and he actually gets a contingent of cavalry led by his son, who's actually fighting with Caesar and Gaul. So he builds and then spends the first year campaigning locally, nothing serious, just to plug them in.

So it's not like he rushes in. Crassus is over there in 54. He doesn't rush at it. Crassus is a very patient general, as he did with Spartacus. He didn't rush against Spartacus. He rebuilt a Roman army. He trained them so he was happy they would have full discipline. And he does that. He bloods them with some local campaigns, a bit of fighting around the fringes, around Armenia and that area. And only when he's ready does he then go for the proper invasion. He actually delays long enough that the Parthian puppet they were hoping to put on the throne had actually very rashly attacked his brother, as it was, on his own,

without waiting for him to back up and been killed. So by 53, Rome has no puppet to put on the throne but you can see that was just a well it was a nice to have we got a puppet we put on the throne Crassus will not be rushed Mithridates III rushes off and attacks his brother is killed and Rome goes yep but I'm not rushing this only when he's ready and he's got the route sorted properly planned he's got native guides he's got a he's got the routes sorted, properly planned, he's got native guides, he's got a supply train ready, the army is up to what he believes will be perfect to fight the Parthians, only then does he invade. This doesn't sound like the inexperienced Crassus. Well, not inexperienced, but the man who was placed at fault for the ultimate failure of this campaign. This sounds like a man who is really preparing and has thought things through. He is. If you actually delve into the sources and away from he's a millionaire,

he's money grabbing, you actually look at sources and look at his early career and you can see in his later career, he's a very careful general. He's not rash. He only moves when he's ready. And he only moves to his plan. He's never pushed into a fight until this point. He is cautious. He is methodical. He's not glorious like Pompey. He's probably more methodical. But he is an ultimately sound Roman commander.

He's one of the best they had, one of the best of his generation. Ultimately, however, of course, because he lost, then it must have been him. Rome would never admit they lost because someone was better they would never admit someone is superior certainly not a bunch of what they saw as a fake hellenistics from the east they would never admit that so the sources immediately go oh it's crass it's his fault it was inauspicious i mean the bad omens start appearing in the sources you know we warned him of that. There was this flock of seagulls when he left Rome. No.

And then everyone goes out to Crassus. He was a money-grabbing gen. And the later generations go, he was a money-grabbing gen. He was clearly no Pompey. Because, of course, Pompey makes great hay of his great rival being killed. It was inevitable. So Crassus suffers a terrible press from that point onwards. And this is danger of reading events from when we've only got later sources everyone knows Crassus is going to be defeated therefore it's inevitable so so Crassus has done all this forward preparation he's got

the logistics in place he's doing all the forward thinking he's not going to be rushed so when does he start making his first advance into Parthia? It's beginning of 53 BC he waits for the winter gets his troops bed down and then beginning of the campaigning season in the east he then moves and invades Parthia by then Rome already has an ally the north of Mesopotamia is a king called Osroene. And that's a Roman ally and has been since Pompey's day. So he bases himself in a Roman ally and then takes the obvious route to invade Parthia, which is down the Euphrates. Well, until my book came out,

you saw a lot of Crassus went through this barrenless desert. He marched. It makes it sound like he's marching through the Sahara. This is the most fertile bit of Mesopotamia. He sticks to the river, there is a string of Hellenistic cities, it is the main trading route of the region. He just marches down, so he's got backup, he's got a good supply line, he marches down, he's going for the old Seleucid capitals of Seleucia and the Parthian summer capital of Ctesiphon. Rip the heart out the Parthian empire, secure Mesopotamia, hopefully defeat the Parthians, but likely as not he's expecting them to retreat and abandon Mesopotamia.

Then he can secure Mesopotamia, leave a few legions there, and Parthia is suddenly an Iranian rump state. And how big is Crassus's army when he starts marching down the Euphrates? He's got seven full legions so he's got over 30,000 troops of his own as always an unknown number of local levies. He's brought natives from the various allied kingdoms in the east with him but yeah he's got 30,000 plus Roman legionaries which he's been training for a year so seven full legions it's one of the largest Roman armies in the east if not the largest to date. Wow I mean that sounds very sizable compared to Caesar's at that time in Gaul. It is it is he didn't rush it he the only

thing he didn't have enough of he didn't have enough cavalry which is why he sent for his son to bring a cavalry contingent from Caesar in Gaul but he's not expecting a cavalry battle so he's got seven full legions this is an army of conquest this is not I'm here briefly this is I am going to hit them hard knock them out the war and annex them probably leave a couple of legions in the new Roman province of Mesopotamia and take the rest home. So an army of conquest ripping the head off the Parthian snake by marching on the capitals he seems to have a good logistics route going down the fertile Euphrates with all these wealthy cities so why does it start going wrong it's one of the things of history everyone focuses on the

Roman side no one focuses on the Parthian side while Crassus is making these careful preparations the Parthians well the Parthian king might be panicking, but he appoints a general. Now Parthian monarchs in the previous centuries have been warrior rulers. They led from the front. What you've got since the civil war is a series of more oriental despots who barely leave the court. However, the Parthian king, Orodes, is very paranoid, but that's hardly a surprise because he's already overthrown his brother and his father to seize the throne. What he does is appoint a Parthian nobleman known as Serenus, though that's probably just an alias because he was head of the Surin family.

We probably don't even know his name anymore. He appoints him as head. He's the most powerful noble in Parthia. And you're beginning to wonder whether Orodes is actually expecting Serenus to defeat Crassus or slow him down and get killed and if he slows him down and get killed it's a double win. Erodes seems as he's already overthrown his brother and father is paranoid about losing the throne he's paranoid about a palace coup so he sends his most powerful nobleman over to stop Crassus. Now to Serenus is a double-edged sword because Serenus

probably realizes he's being thrown into the wolves here. However Serenus turns out to be one of the finest military generals in history and no one writes about Serenus. He realizes if he fights Crassus with the traditional Parthian method of fighting which is charge up then launch a few arrows retreat and then go in with what is a poor version of a hoplite army, he will get slaughtered. So he comes up with a world-class strategy for beating the Romans. He completely throws out the Parthian way of fighting and develops a new army specifically for this one battle. It won't sustain a campaign, he has limited infantry, he realises that he can't fight

the Romans toe-to-toe, so he's got to use speed and manoeuvrability. So he creates an army of almost entire cavalry. He uses the heavy lances, the cataphracts, which are equivalent to medieval men at war. They wear a full suit of armour and charge with a lance, but even that, you've got one charge and you're done. To give you the the numbers he has something like a 10 000 camel train carrying nothing but arrows the Parthians had never fought like this before and actually never fought like this again he creates a horse an army of pure cavalry so while the Romans are expecting to fight a traditional battle he creates something completely different which plays to their strengths of speed, maneuverability and hitting the Romans from distance with an endless

barrage of arrows. That's the difference. While Crassus is creating his army, Serenus is creating his. So you've got two military geniuses heading towards each other. And how do these two military geniuses, I mean it's just fascinating listening to that, because, as you said, not many people talk about Serenus when you compare him to people like Arminius or Spartacus, these legendary figures that defied Rome, and yet Serenus seems to be slightly, as you said, forgotten. Completely. I mean, the man destroyed seven legions in a day. No one in history has done that. Never mind Attila the Hun. No one in history has destroyed seven legions in a day and stopped Rome completely in one day. A hundred years of eastern expansion is stopped in a day and they're thrown back. But again, the trouble with the Parthian Empire fell

250 years later and all their written sources went with them. So all you've got is a handful of sources written by the opposition. You have no native sources to big him up. And again, the Romans had no reason to big him up at that time because it was an embarrassment. Whereas in later days by the late empire, you know, Attila, scourge of God, everyone's scared of him. But Serenus never moved on Italy and the Romans, again, the Republican Romans are not willing to admit they ran into a great leader. It's Crassus. Crassus' fault being a weak general, money-grabbing, inauspicious, but not the fact they faced a military genius in former Serenus.

So he's almost lost to history. Like I say, we don't even know his real name. I mean, that's remarkable. History is really written by the winners. It really reinforces that home. And Serenus, if he's got this new model Parthian army, if we can call it that, how does he lure Crassus to the place that he wants to fight him? He gets him on an open plain and this is where Crassus starts falling down. It's not an ambush, but Crassus doesn't realise he's being drawn into fighting on the ground he doesn't want to fight on.

It's not an ambush, but Crassus doesn't realise he's being drawn onto fighting on the ground he doesn't want to fight on. Crassus knows what he's going to expect, or Crassus obviously thinks he knows what he's going to expect. Yet, they're going to have cavalry. Not a problem, I've got cavalry. But the cavalry will be a swift clash, and away they go. And then I bring in my seven legions, infantry on infantry, they will break. So he's fine fighting on that ground. Near the town of Cowry, open plains, but again, it's not a dust bowl. It's flat.

Crassus thinks, perfect, I can deploy seven legions of flat. What he doesn't realise is he's facing an almost entire cavalry army. The equivalent, there hasn't been an army like that until the Mongol hordes. Some, you know, over a thousand years later. And it's almost the equivalent. You've got a western army of foot soldiers facing a horde of horseback. So Crassus gets lured in, even though he doesn't, he's fine with the choice of ground. He's almost happy, probably not expecting the Parthians to stand and fight. He's expecting them to drop back, drop back, give up Mesopotamia, and try and draw the Romans in to Iranian heartland, which is all mountainous territory. And, you know, Western armies always had

hell in mountainous territory. Even Alexander suffered. So he's expecting that when the Partians actually stand up and fight. Crassus probably can't believe his luck. So Crassus is thinking he's got this pitch battle. Fantastic. This is what we're trained to do. And how do Serena's tactics start to wear away the Romans? Well, these accounts, and they're probably written by the survivors, several thousand survivors made it back to Rome, including a very notable chap called Cassius, who was one of the lead conspirators against Caesar.

The accounts come that the Parthians open with a barrage of arrows, which is what the Romans are expecting. So shields up, testudo, no problem. However, A, the arrows start piercing the shields, which is surprising. So Serena seems to be using some sort of special armoured piercing arrow. And the Romans are a bit worried about this, because their shields are not proven up to it. There's always the testudo stops everything.

Well, the testudo was doing nothing here. The arrows are coming through and the Romans are taking casualties. But that's not a problem. And you get the sense that they're expecting a barrage of arrows. They'll go away. But the arrows keep coming. The reason the arrows keep coming, this becomes an endless barrage, is because Serenus has moved his baggage train to the front of the battle. So the Parthian archers are charging in, firing, wheeling around, picking up a fresh quiver from these 10,000 camels, and then wheeling back. So what you've got is a perpetual endless barrage of arrows. There is no infantry being deployed, and suddenly the Romans,

the legions, are losing their coherence. They're all hunkering down. I mean, the equivalent would be Waterloo when they're forming squares, the french cavalry running around them and this is what's happening the roman battle order is breaking down because they're expecting a short barrage of arrows they form square arrows are coming all right they're piercing through that's unusual but no prob it'll be over in a minute and then you get the sense that it isn't over and this barrage of arrows is still coming and still coming and at that point you get the sense that it isn't over and this barrage of arrows is still coming and still coming and at that point you get the sense the Roman commanders are beginning to panic. What is this? We've never seen this before, we've never even heard of it. Nothing has prepared them for this. So how do they

react to this unprecedented attack? Crassus deploys his cavalry under the command of his son Publius and this is where Crassus ultimately fell down he didn't have sufficient cavalry but in his defense he wasn't expecting to need it he had enough for the campaign he thought but not enough to need Publius Crassus leads a very brave full-blown attack of Roman cavalry from Gaul to try and drive off the archers, covering the archers are the Parthian heavy cavalry, the Cataphracts. And you get into this clash, and it's a very close-run thing, but the heavy armour of the Cataphracts is far superior to the Roman cavalry, and it becomes a heroic failure.

And Crassus can see this cavalry clash, and actually both sides are almost waiting to see who comes out of it. Because you've got the main Roman army and the Parthian arch archers hitting them but then the two cavalry are almost about a mile away and you can see this massive dust storm and it's almost like everyone's waiting to see who emerges and it's the cataphracts who emerge with the head of publius crassus and at that point crassus they say stoically held his grief in check but at that point they realized the game was up so as soon as they're devoid of cavalry, as soon as they've lost that, the infantry, I don't want to say they stand little chance but they're basically bogged down for good. They're bogged down, they can't engage. Every time they

advance it's a hail of arrows from archers on horses. You can even attack archers on foot. You know, every time they advance the Parthians just retreat and still hitting them with arrows. And when the Roman cavalry are destroyed that's the point they realise the game is up. And if we've got to save this campaign, we have to retreat and regroup. So the Romans start retreating. They start retreating. And as always, it's a fighting retreat, but effectively it's a rout. They try and have some order, but, you know, foot soldiers trying to escape a cavalry army. And by then the cataphracts have come back with no opposition, so they're harrying them. So it becomes one of these classic heroic retreats. The Romans know the only chance they've got

is to get off the plane and get into the hills. And they do that. They don't say, but you get the feeling the battle is around before midday. So they've got until the evening, being harried by horse archers and heavy cavalry, to reach cover of darkness or cover of mountains. So they reach this cover after this fighting retreat slash rout. And Crassus is still alive at this point. Crassus is still alive. He is almost in the rear guard leading them out. Trying to make it a fighting retreat, not a complete rout. But by then the roman

army has obviously split up there are chunks going left right and center he is in charge of probably the largest chunk and he is trying to get them into the mountains regroup give up campaigning for the year pull back to that friendly territory rebuild have a go the next year so they've still got this hope of being able to retreat to friendly territory. But when does that also start to ebb away? Well, this goes on for several days with the Parthians harrying them in charge. I mean, the Parthians can't get too close because a Roman infantryman in decent numbers can still form a decent shield wall. But the Romans are retreating. They're're in disarray i think it's two or three days later they're in the mountains but they're still being harried at that point the party in general serenus calls for a parley and crassus doesn't want to go he knows if he survives with

all his power with all his influence the war is still going he knows if he dies that's it it's game over the war is run by him and the triumvirate Pompey is sat in Rome he's not going to come east he's controlling everything in Rome Caesar's in Gaul Pompey might dispatch another general but it's not the war's not going to have as much impetus if Rome is going to keep this war going he has to be in charge so he knows he's a target but his officers convince him he's got to go seek Seek terms. It's almost treachery. So him and his officers rock up. Whether it's an ambush, it probably was, there is certainly a scuffle. Swords are drawn, Crassus is killed. And famously, his head's chopped off. Do you think

if he had not gone to that meeting, could he have guided his army back to the Euphrates and to friendly territory? I would have said yes, because there were several groups of them. The Parthians by then were running into mountains, foothills and mountains. Heavy cavalry, completely out. Horse archers to a certain extent, but not with the volume. On an open plain, 10,000 archers, yes. But in the foothills, in the mountain passes, it's less of an issue. Crassus could have escaped. I mean, famously, Gaius Cassius

escaped with a large chunk of the army. Crassus could have escaped, got back to territory, pulled back to Syria. He would have been humiliated, but he still had enough resources. He could have rebuilt the army and gone again next year, changed his tactics. That's amazing. It sounds like a what-if moment, and it sounds possible, doesn't it? horses he could have rebuilt the army and gone again next year changed his tactics that's that's amazing it sounds like a what-if moment and it sounds possible doesn't it he faced every chance of making it out there he you know they'd survived two or three days the orman army was fractured the parthian army was fractured chasing them but as you say it seems almost near treachery that he's forced to go into this trap and you say famously he's decapitated yes

and then used as a prop in a play it's brilliant it's the story goes and you can believe this because Parthian king very seldom left the Parthian court they're holding a Greek play I forget which one in one of the famous plays which shows their level of culture and he's entertaining one of the Roman client kings who should be on Rome's side but he's actually at the Parthian court which shows certain level of treachery and there's a part of a play where a dummy head is brought on by the actors as part of the play and you've got to love this story and I believe it because there is a direct line that the allied king was there and he reported to Cicero so as part of this play the sort of magic denouement like with Shakespeare and you know the last Poor Horatio,

the head is brought on and it's Crassus' head to announce that the Romans have been completely defeated and here's Crassus' head, at which point Herodes probably had two emotions. His first emotion was elation, then his second was serious worry. That is quite a way to announce a victory. And I think it was Euripides' Bacchae, if I'm not mistaken, which play it was. Yes. But the thing is, when you first hear that, it sounds like it's just this story

that the Romans would make up to make the Parthians look even more barbaric. But you think it actually could be true? I think it could actually be true because the Parthian king was entertaining one of the client kings. Could have been Armenia, could have been Media, I can't remember which,

who was meant to be on the Roman side. And later he defected back to the Romans, and Cicero opens correspondence with him. So I'm sure he would have told Cicero, and Cicero would have brought it back to Rome, the story. The other one is, of course, they poured gold in his mouth. Again, that sounds fantastic because of his wealth, unless you realise that Mithridates 30 years earlier did the same to a roman commander he captured so it's not the first time a roman general had had gold poured into the mouth of his severed head it had been done before so yeah i believe it did actually

happen yes you think they want to do something more original wouldn't you um humiliating defeat does it pave the way for the future great conflicts between the two superpowers yes because i mean parthia actually they were expecting to fight a defensive war a roadies was not expecting i mean roadies has got this classic problem he's not expecting to win the battle he's certainly not expecting serenus to destroy seven legions and leave the way open because what is erodi's claim to power he murders his brother and his father he is descended by some very thin blood now from the great parthian arsaces therefore he's a ruling family what has he done absolutely nothing his most powerful nobleman however has just destroyed seven roman legions and turned over at least 50 years of Parthian humiliation. So, Orodes has got this stick or twist.

The entire east is now open. There is barely a Roman legion left between the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia. And he's got this classic stick or twist. Do I order a full-blown invasion and make Serenus look like the new Darius, and then I will get knifed in the back, or do I call him back? In the end, there is a Parthian raid on Syria in 52, but it's no more than a raid. So the war then peters out into a very odd stalemate. It's a total anticlimax. Rome has suffered this major defeat. They will not allow that to stand. You know they won't allow that to stand. You've got Pompey, you've got Caesar. None of those two will allow this to stand. The trouble is, Rome then collapses into a civil war,

partly because Crassus has been killed, well, mostly because Crassus has been killed. And Rome then collapses into yet another civil war, and the first Romanoparthian war, as I call it, then petered out, and by 51 it's done. The Parthian invasion force was probably probing to see whether they could take Syria. Now, the Roman defenders are rallied around by Gaius Cassius, and again, Cassius is more known for assassinating seas than he is for his military commander, but it's Cassius who holds the Roman presence in the east together, because not only does Rome have its own territory, all the allied kings, and the allied kings are now beginning to peel off and go to the Parthians which will undo the entire Roman settlement but it's Cassius who holds together forges together the remnants

of various it's almost war bands have come back with a leader he forges them back into a legion and he then ambushes and destroys the Parthian general, which isn't Serenus. Very interestingly, Serenus does not lead the attacks on Syria. It's another Parthian general. He then defeats him and destroys him in battle, which is Rome's first victory over the Parthians, but it's no more than a glorious raiding party. And the war peters out. Herodes is almost scared to launch a war on Rome

because it won't be him leading it. And Caesar and Pompey then collapse into a civil war because there's no Crassus and it's only a decade later that the two sides then have another go and Rome actually makes a definitive effort to finish the war once and for all. So it sounds like the Parthians, if we stick with the Parthians for just a moment, they make a half-hearted attempt into Syria, but the internal political issues, I'm guessing Arodes and Serenus, that's not a match that lasts much longer. Not at all. Serenus disappears. One of those famous disappears from history.

There's sources saying he's put to death soon after. It's almost Serenus became the greatest threat to Arodes and the Romans. The enemy of my enemy, but it's the danger was within. Herodes' grip on the throne was weak. Serenus' victory made it even weaker. We'd love to know what the backlash was for eliminating the head, not only a victorious general, but the head of one of the greatest noble houses in Parthia, because Parthia is formed of noble houses. It's feudal like that. There is no sort of centralization. The Arsacid dynasty is the biggest noble house, but there's at least half a dozen other noble houses. And it's almost the Parthian whole system is feudal with the noble barons. So at some point soon after, Orodes has to kill Serenus. There's nothing else he could do, otherwise he'll be overthrown. But then by killing him, we must assume that he couldn't start major campaigns because he had to secure his own throne. And we think with the Parthians, the idea we think of the Parthian military, we think of the

horse archers, we think of the cataphracts and the heavy cavalry, we think horsemen. Is Serena's influence on the new model Parthian army, is that long lasting? Is that a legacy that he leaves? I'm afraid not. That is almost a one-off. They'd always had horse archers, they'd always had cataphracts, but that was like the western armies. It was an aside. It wasn't the bulk of their army. The bulk of their army was infantry to infantry and you can see this in some of the early accounts of Parthian warfare, when they fought the Seleucids, when they fought the Armenians. And you go 10 years later, the Second War, led by Rody's son, Pecorus, who is probably the last greatest Parthian military leader.

His army is back to traditional. He's got elements of cavalry, he's got elements of archery, but it's still mostly infantry to infantry so serenus's influence is lost and the lessons the romans actually learn the lessons very well the partians don't learn them as well because the next time they fight in the second war the roman army has native archers slingers are mentioned heavily they've got a lot of ranged weapons and have masses of cavalry. Caesar in his expedition was getting tens of thousands of cavalry. And the Romans learnt the

lesson, the Parthians didn't. The Parthians reverted the tide, which is why they do very well in the next war. Again, mostly because they catch the Romans unaware, but when they actually get down to toe-to-toe fighting, the Parthians keep losing. Wow. Characteristic of the Romans adapting, isn't it? Exactly. But the Parthians had a clear lesson and didn't learn it. It cost them. They lost the next four or five battles. It's only through some very bad Roman generalship and, again, Roman civil wars that the Parthians were left intact. That's remarkable. You mentioned the civil war. How big was Crassus's death in influencing the civil war between Pompey and Caesar that followed? It was fundamental. Without that death, there wouldn't have been a civil war. It's that big.

Again, one of the great what-ifs. If you go back to the first civil war, the first civil war ends in 71 BC, when Crassus and Pompey have both got large armies parked outside Rome. Pompey's come back from winning in Spain, finishing the civil war in Spain. Crassus has defeated Spartacus. Now, for the last 20 years, whenever you get two large armies marched outside Rome, the two commanders go at it. So in 71, everyone in Rome is going, oh my god, the Civil War is carrying on. Pompey and Crassus have both grown up in the Civil War.

Pompey and Crassus both lost their fathers in the Civil War. Their fathers were the generals who started in the Civil War and were both killed in the first couple of years. So they have both suffered. So both men actually realize the threat of civil war is far more powerful natural civil war so in 71 Pompey and Crassus form this unique partnership I say I call it a duumvirate because it is it is two powerful men and they realize Rome is big enough for them both to rule and again they did that in 55 they brought in Caesar as a junior partner it's mostly thanks to Cicero you get the triple-headed beast and a triumvirate but Cicero is projecting back because

he knows what's going to happen with Caesar but in 53 before the battle you've got two leading men of Rome Crassus and Pompey and Caesar's off fighting in Gaul their former agent by 51 Crassus is dead Pompey has no equals Caesar is a former junior yes he, he's conquered Gaul. He might hold on to it. He's got no power base in Rome. He's actually not a very good politician. If you look at Caesar during his praetorship, he completely fouls it up. Caesar's greatest claim to fame, he is the last surviving nephew of the great General Marius. Marius, the hero of Rome, the only man who died of natural causes in the Civil War. Marius's son, who should have inherited the family name, he was killed in the Civil War. There are no more Mariae left. Caesar

is Marius's great-nephew. Caesar makes a lot of play in Roman politics of being the heir to Marius, and he builds on that. But apart from that, he's got nothing. He's got no power base. He almost has a general's touch when it comes to political matters. He's incredibly ham-fisted and completely rubs people the wrong way. So by 51, Pompey is unchallenged. Pompey has effectively been appointed dictator of Rome. Pompey's smart enough not to use the post of dictator. He's appointed sole consul and becomes the master of Rome. He even marries the widow of Crassus's dead son. So he sucks up all of Crassus's, not the wealth because there's still one son left, but he sucks up all of Crassus's political power. Crassus's death makes Pompey even more powerful. He is now unchallenged. He is the ruler of Rome,

benign ruler. And then you've got Caesar, his former deputy, who's spent 10 years by now fighting long-haired people of Gaul. It's a complete imbalance. If Crassus was around, Caesar would not have gone for Pompey. They would have held together. But because you've got these two men left and the power balance is so thrown out, Caesar is such Pompey's inferior, both in terms of military might and in terms of political power, that Pompey will not, Pompey would always come to an accommodation with Crassus.

They were equals. He will not come to an accommodation with Caesar. Wow. And none of the Senate will come to an accommodation because they see Caesar as the old jumped up Bohemian corporal. It's that imbalance and that causes the breakdown. Roman, late Republic, the Romans only didn't have a civil war when the leading people didn't want a civil war. But there was nothing outside the attitudes of the leading men to stop a civil war. And this is the danger of the Republic.

All the machinery that should have held them together had gone. You had a civil war when people wanted a civil war. And likewise, the only reason there wasn't a civil war is people didn't want one pompey didn't want a civil war crassus didn't want a civil war caesar did so crassus i mean that's amazing so he really was the keystone in this triumvirate and serenus he brutally removes this yes do you think and this may be a bit far-fetched do you think serenus knew when he was organising the trap that would ultimately kill Crassus, that by doing that he would cause there to be this high possibility of civil war in Rome to the west? I don't think so.

To Serenus, he's a Parthian nobleman. They would not understand the pseudo-democratic elements. He would have seen Crassus as a warlord similar to himself. Serenus would have realised if he can kill Crassus, the war's over. Well, for now. Sooner or later, everyone would have heard of Pompey. Actually, very few would have probably heard of Caesar. No one in the Parthian court would have heard of Caesar. They would have all heard of Pompey.

So they were probably expecting Pompey to come after them. Okay, that's fair enough. So it was more crushing the head off the snake with Crassus. Exactly. You take Crassus out, that's it, the war's over. Yes, Pompey's going to come after us, but it'd probably be a few years, because they know Pompey's in Rome. They don't know the state attention of the Roman politics. Of course, in the second war, then you've got Roman exiles at the Parthian court who are keeping them bang up to date with all the latest politics going on in Rome. So, in a weird twist of fate, Caesar, his actions, you could argue, may well have saved the Parthians and caused them to rise to where they did in the future. Yes, but he probably realised it himself, which is why once he'd finished fighting the Civil War,

the major battles of Pharsalus, Thapsus and Munda, once he'd finally got control of the Roman Republic, he only had one goal in his mind. Parthia. Staying on Roman honour, and Caesar, of course, was as big an Alexander the Great fan as anyone. In his view, he'd given them a reprieve. No more than a reprieve, and it was time for Romans to stop fighting Romans, and Romans to fight the

real enemy. And in 44, there is only one enemy. It is Parthia, and Caesar is going to go after them, never mind seven legions. They reckon his army was going to be 100,000 plus. He was going to go after them with 20 legions. He had the entire force control of the Roman Republic, and he was going to go after them with 20 legions he had the entire force control of the Roman Republic and he was marshalling the lot and ironically again this is what spurred those who are opposed to Caesar to assassinate him when they did they realized they had to assassinate him before he went off on campaign because a you can't get him when he's on campaign and b he's going to win he's going to win large and if he comes back he is gonna be the new alexander and your chance is gone so there's this lovely interplay throughout this period of civil

war and parthian war but no to caesar's mind he's going after them and caesar would have probably never mind carving off mesopotamia and leaving a rump caesar probably had in his mind i'll take this to india and i'm guessing it's that Alexander the Great's link, this idea, this animosity between Rome and Parthia, stemming from Karai and after that. It lasts for hundreds of years. Yeah, I mean, effectively, they're still going on until the rise of Islam in the 630s. Karai was one of them. Then there's the second war with Antony and Ventidius. It's more Augustus. Augustus is the first Roman who is willing to live with Parthia. Augustus was famously no general.

He was an atrocious general. Anytime he got near commanding troops, he was in danger. Fortunately, he had a gripper to command all his forces for him. But it's Augustus that ossifies the divide between the two. And that divide then lasts for another, effectively, it lasts for nearly 700 years. Whereas throughout history, the whole region was unified. From the Persians to Alexander to the Seleucids, it's a unified region. There is no Euphrates dividing line. The Euphrates is not the natural boundary between East and West. It's the Hellespont. That's the natural boundary. But the Euphrates then becomes, for 700 years,

and yet the war outlasts Parthia and the Republic. The Arsacid dynasty is overthrown by the Sassanians to recreate the Persian Empire, but effectively it's the same Parthian Empire, just with a new ruling dynasty. The Romans collapse from a republic into what becomes a principate and then an empire and then a Byzantine or an eastern empire.

So in 630 AD, they're still fighting the same battles nearly 700 years later. The ramifications are spectacular. Effectively, it's a 700 year war. It makes England and France look minor. That's amazing when you put it into perspective, isn't it? And it is that. It's this period, the First War and the Second War, overthrow all of history before then, and say the barrier between East and West is the Euphrates.

And they set it in stone for 700 years, and it's only the rise of Islam that overthrows it. Wow. And again, the rise of Islam is, in military terms, is because of this war. Aside from religion, the Byzantines and the Persians had had a spectacular war, probably the biggest war in 700 years since the first war, whereas the Persians had driven the Romans out of the Middle East completely, and then the Romans counter-attacked

and drove the Persians out of Mesopotamia. For 30 years, they exhausted themselves so much that when this band of people came from Arabia, they were too exhausted I did say in the book you know if you're if you're looking for cause and effect this 700 year war led to the rise of Islam and complete change of history that is amazing I mean seven centuries long buddy we could talk about this for hours I'm sure it's absolutely insane this history but that was amazing Crassus and Cari your book you did on this is called? The Defeat of Rome. The Defeat of Rome. And you've got a new

book coming out soon as well. New book come out at the end of March is the sequel. It's called Empires at War and it's the second war. So the two of them between them cover the whole period. Fantastic. I'll be sure to put that on my shopping list. Thank you. Gareth Sampson, thank you so much for coming on the show. Pleasure to cover the whole period. Fantastic. I'll be sure to put that on my shopping list. Thank you.

Gareth Sampson, thank you so much for coming on the show. Pleasure to have you on. Pleasure. Thank you very much.