What woudl realistic sword fighting look like ?

[lord Martiya]

Partially confirmed: under Philip II and Alexander the Great the Macedonian phalanx was used only to stop enemy attackers, as an 'anvil', while the hammer was a powerful cavalry guided from the Etharoi

Nope. The Phalanx was very much used in the attack as well. The companian and thessalian cavalry were used to exploit gaps in the enemy flank - which only opened up after prolonged combat with the phalanx. I direct you to the essay by Stevenson, battle tactics at Gaugamaela.

Without this cavalry forces the phalanx, used alone by the Hellenistic armies, was grossly vulnerable to flank attacks.

You are mixing the companion cavalry and thessalian cavalry up with the light forces like the thracians Alexander used to screen his flanks. The companians and the thessalians were the heavy hitters and not used on the flanks - at least not while Alexander could still retain his greek army.

progressively flanked by cavalry squadrons used almost exclusevely as anti-cavalry units (Parthian cavalry was indeed a problem in certain situations, as demonstrated at Carrhae, and the Roman cavalry was used exactly to correct this problem)

The Roman cavalry attached to a legion per se was of little use except for scouting/skirmishing purposes. True heavy roman cavalry was little and probably restricted to the 1000. strong alae composed of citizens. Only in the time of Gallienus the romans developed a strong indigenious cavalry force. Roman cavalry was certainly not used directly against the cataphracts, being heavily outmatched in terms of equipment as we know it. In fact, specilized foot auxillaries were created against the cavalry forces.

I read about the use of the phalanx by Philip and Alexander, they used the phalanx to stop the enemy for the cavalry attacks. Every time the phalanx was used alone to attack Roman armies, Romans slaughtered the phalanxes.
For Macedonian cavalry I spoked only about the Companions because in the war of Alexander he led their charges (and was almost killed at Granicus) and only in their charges.
For Roman cavalries, during Trajan campaign against Parthians were used heavy units in counterattacking and pursuing Parthians horse archers and trying to lure Parthian heavy hitters in doomed charges. In every campaign against Parthians after Carrhae Romans used their cavalry, even the light one, to harass Parthian horse archers (almost unarmed, because they have only bow and arrows. If Roman cavalry reached them, the result is easily predictable) and protect the infantry, hoping to lure Parthian heavy hitters in charges doomed against every Roman formation but the cohort one (century and manipular formations were too dispersed and after passing the first line the second line of legionars will slaughter the cavalry, and compact legion-level formations were too numerous: after the first hit Parthian knights will find themselves on tired horses and surrounded and in contact with an outnumbering enemy who is beginning to stab their horses. Cohort formation was the only one compact enough to be hitted with adequate force and dispersed enough to not doom the knights to a slaughter). In fact at Carrhae Romans received the final blow when Crassus, tired by the archers' harass, changed formation from legion-level testudos in the cohort one and tried to counterattack, and Surena, the Parthian commander, was waiting exactly this for his charge.
For the foot auxiliaries, they existed, but they were only one part of the Roman anti-Parthian Knights, aside the evergreen manipular formation, legion and army-level testudos, veils of footed archers and other infantry before the main corp to negate cavalry momentum (this auxiliaries were also employed here) and even cataphract units from subject peoples. I suppose that all these are the reason behind Parthian refuse of fighting during Roman post-Carrhae invasions: you could fool Romans once, but if you tried the same tactic again the second or third time Romans will fool you.

[Feil]

Does anyone know how common these kind of one-on-one duels would be in ancient barbarian cultures, such as the ancient celts? obviously their mythology focuses entirely on this kind of combat (apparently the Irish Book of Conquests describes battles as if they were hundreds of duels going on at once), but is there a historical consensus on how much it actually happened?

To my knowledge...

Constant. Until the Greeks went and fucked with a perfectly good system, warfare consisted primarily of an exchange of missile weapons, followed by individual warriors either engaging in single combat or attempting to rush forward, kill an enemy, take his stuff and run away.

Wikipedia's account is quite accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_warfare

I don't know about any "historical consensus", but I've never heard a dissenting view from a reliable source.

[Wanderer]

In movies it's common to see named characters engaging in long dramatic sword duels. Is this realistic ? How long would two well trained fighters of the ancient world (from before the middle ages) take to kill the other in a one on one duel ? What if the fighters were from the middle ages and wore fully body knight armor ?

Assuming you mean battle, no this was not realistic.

It was very rare for mass battles to be fought. Usually one side got psyched out by the other and ran for their lives before contact was made.

If battle did happen, both sides would advance slowly at each other shooting missile weapons on the way, they did not smash into each other like Braveheart shows, that was a good way to lose your balance and get killed, not mention lose the protection of your buddy.

Upon contact the opponents aimed for unprotected body parts such as hands, face, legs, and feet while sticking close to their buddy and tried to pysch the other side out in order to get them to run in terror so they had shots at their unprotected backs. Victory went to whoever could field more disciplined troops or who had a very brilliant General (Hannibal comes to mind).

[Sarevok]

Thanks for the response everyone. But when I meant one on one I meant gladiator sort of situation where two guys enter and one guy leaves. How long two skilled swordsman would need to finish the other is what I wanted to know.

[lord Martiya]

Mere seconds, if they have no shields and fight seriously. Few minutes if both of them have shields and are of similar ability.

[Thanas]

I read about the use of the phalanx by Philip and Alexander, they used the phalanx to stop the enemy for the cavalry attacks.

Nope. Good heavens, what kind of books did you read? Certainly not any primary sources.

Let's talk about Granicus, one of your examples:

While the horse were thus dangerously engaged, the Macedonian phalanx passed the river, and the foot on each side advanced to fight. But the enemy hardly sustaining the first onset
soon gave ground and fled

After the rout of the cavalry, the foot soldiers engaged one another in a contest that was soon ended, for the persians...were quick to flee.

But according to you, the phalanx was only used in a defensive role, right?
But the sources show that even at Granicus, which was more of a brawl than a setpiece battle, the phalanx went on the attack. Now, lets look at Issos:

Hereupon the regiments on the right wing, perceiving that the Persians opposed to them had already been put to rout, wheeled round towards the Grecian mercenaries of Darius and their own hard-pressed detachment. Having driven the Greeks away from the river, they extended their phalanx beyond the Persian army on the side which had been broken, and attacking the Greeks on the flank, were already beginning to cut them up.

Note that a few paragraphs above that he talks about the victorious advance of the phalanx against the Persians. Now, do I need to pull the quotes from Gaugamaela as well or will you acknowledge that the phalanx in the time of Alexander was used in the attack role as much as in the defending role?

Every time the phalanx was used alone to attack Roman armies, Romans slaughtered the phalanxes.

Which was a failure on the part of the Macedonian flanks. Your point being?

For Macedonian cavalry I spoked only about the Companions because in the war of Alexander he led their charges (and was almost killed at Granicus) and only in their charges.

And your point was what? Note that Alexander - after the near disaster at Granicus - used his heavy cavalry (and calling them all companions is not really correct terminology - (the more efficient) half of them were thessalian noble cavalry) to exploit holes in the persian front - after the phalanx had opened up those holes.

For Roman cavalries, during Trajan campaign against Parthians were used heavy units in counterattacking and pursuing Parthians horse archers and trying to lure Parthian heavy hitters in doomed charges.
In every campaign against Parthians after Carrhae Romans used their cavalry, even the light one, to harass Parthian horse archers

Yes, and most of that cavalry was either mercenary cavalry or the specially formed alae militariae. Which is exactly what I said. Also note that cavalry was at best an auxillary to the legionnaires.

In fact, I have several sources stating that the most effective weapon against persian cavalry was the roman artillery.

(almost unarmed, because they have only bow and arrows. If Roman cavalry reached them, the result is easily predictable)

Nope. In fact, I advise you to read up on the Klibanophoroi - a significant portion of the parthian archers were very well armoured, and in fact they were the heavy hitters of the parthian army.

and protect the infantry, hoping to lure Parthian heavy hitters in charges doomed against every Roman formation but the cohort one (century and manipular formations were too dispersed and after passing the first line the second line of legionars will slaughter the cavalry, and compact legion-level formations were too numerous: after the first hit Parthian knights will find themselves on tired horses and surrounded and in contact with an outnumbering enemy who is beginning to stab their horses. Cohort formation was the only one compact enough to be hitted with adequate force and dispersed enough to not doom the knights to a slaughter).

I would like to see some primary sources for your claims. Furthermore, I advise you to read up on roman anti-cavalry tactics. Which were very succesful even on the cohort level. Furthermore, your focus on the centurian level disregards the fact that the romans did employ very succesful anti-cavalry tactics on a small unit basis.

In fact at Carrhae Romans received the final blow when Crassus, tired by the archers' harass, changed formation from legion-level testudos in the cohort one and tried to counterattack, and Surena, the Parthian commander, was waiting exactly this for his charge.

Carrhae, where an outmatched roman force was led by an idiot is somewhat supposed to deliver a general statement on roman cavalry tactics which evolved over 500 years since Carrhae?

For the foot auxiliaries, they existed, but they were only one part of the Roman anti-Parthian Knights

Knights? WTF? Are you trying to translate "equites" into english? Equites were actually at best medium cavalry. Furthermore, the foot auxillaries were not only part of "anti Parthian units" (Golly, I sure would like to know their unit designations because there were no real anti Parthian units per se)

aside the evergreen manipular formation

WHich was abandoned during the reforms of Marius. WTF are you talking about?

legion and army-level testudos

WTF? Show me how those were supposed to operate? Testudos were formed on the level of centuries. And they were definitely not an anti-cavalry formation (unless mixed with auxillaries, but that is very doubtful because then you do not have a testudo) , they were anti-archer formations.

, veils of footed archers and other infantry before the main corp to negate cavalry momentum (this auxiliaries were also employed here)

No shit. Those were all auxillary units. And how is this supposed to prove your point regarding the roman cavalry?

and even cataphract units from subject peoples.

Of which only the Palmyrenians were of any use, and even they were only available for a short period of time - certainly not during the times of Trajan.

I suppose that all these are the reason behind Parthian refuse of fighting during Roman post-Carrhae invasions: you could fool Romans once, but if you tried the same tactic again the second or third time Romans will fool you.

You sir are an idiot. In fact the Parthians fought the romans in open battle numerous times, and managed to defeat several roman legionary armies with all their supports - the latest triumph being the invasion of Armenia in the defeat of the Kappadokian legions in 162. I can at least recall seven open field battles between the two states post Carrhae of the top of my head.

God, I hope you do not study ancient history.

[Thanas]

Thanks for the response everyone. But when I meant one on one I meant gladiator sort of situation where two guys enter and one guy leaves. How long two skilled swordsman would need to finish the other is what I wanted to know.

There is a legend of Alexander engaging a barbarian chieftain in single combat. While the Barbarian was showing off to his troops and facing away from Alexander, Alexander attacked, cut his foot and after that stabbed the fallen man to death.

So as you can see, even in glorified legends fairness was seldom considered necessary in single combat.

[Thanas]

I can't help but say that must have been an incredibly rare event.

Yes....and I quite imagine the romans would have attacked no matter the outcome.

Also, your view of "Barbarians charging each other" is completely outdated.

How outdated? Gibbon outdated? Or Syme outdated?

I would say nineteenth century.

Certainly Roman armies were vastly more disciplined, particularly post-Marius

Quite true that they were more disciplined in general. However, Barbarian armies were no hordes of people charging each other.
Many Roman army formations were actually adapted from "Barbarians".
For example, the cantabrian circle, which was heavily used by the romans, requires enormous discipline and skill - and was a tactic being in employ since the time of the carthaginian wars, with the cantabrians eventually being subjugated under Agricola.

...this was the most habitual form to appear in combat of Cantabri, and Rome adopted it after Cantabrian Wars.A group of horse archers or mounted javelin throwers would form a single-file rotating circle. As the archers came around to face the enemy formation they would let their missile fly. The effect was a continual stream of arrows or javelins onto an enemy formation...This was commonly used against enemy infantry, especially heavily armed and slow legions such as the Romans.

Also, in the third century, the Alemanni were known for their infantry formations, especially their anti-cavalry formations against the roman heavy cavalry.

[Sam Or I]

Seven Samurai, the dual at the beginning of the film is a good example, but maybe a bit more blood.

[The Dark]

Nope. In fact, I advise you to read up on the Klibanophoroi - a significant portion of the parthian archers were very well armoured, and in fact they were the heavy hitters of the parthian army.

If using older sources, he may want to look for Kataphraktoi instead - I know at least some earlier writers use cataphract and clibinarius interchangeably, and there are still some writers unclear on the differences (probably because the terms had various meanings over various time periods, similar to how catapult and ballista reversed meanings).

[lord Martiya]

Let's talk about Granicus, one of your examples:

While the horse were thus dangerously engaged, the Macedonian phalanx passed the river, and the foot on each side advanced to fight. But the enemy hardly sustaining the first onset
soon gave ground and fled

After the rout of the cavalry, the foot soldiers engaged one another in a contest that was soon ended, for the persians...were quick to flee.

But according to you, the phalanx was only used in a defensive role, right?

According to me, the phalanx was used to stop the enemy and blocking his attacks where Alexander wanted. If Alexander wanted to block an enemy troop to cover himself, he ordered the advance of a phalanx, then he charged with his cavalry. While he engaged part of the enemy, the rest cannot engage him at back because this would expose them to a sort of mobile wall.

Now, lets look at Issos:

Hereupon the regiments on the right wing, perceiving that the Persians opposed to them had already been put to rout, wheeled round towards the Grecian mercenaries of Darius and their own hard-pressed detachment. Having driven the Greeks away from the river, they extended their phalanx beyond the Persian army on the side which had been broken, and attacking the Greeks on the flank, were already beginning to cut them up.

Note that a few paragraphs above that he talks about the victorious advance of the phalanx against the Persians. Now, do I need to pull the quotes from Gaugamaela as well or will you acknowledge that the phalanx in the time of Alexander was used in the attack role as much as in the defending role?

I'll aknowledge that the phalanx was used to block the enemy and cover the main attack, the cavalry one, led from Alexander himself.

Every time the phalanx was used alone to attack Roman armies, Romans slaughtered the phalanxes.

Which was a failure on the part of the Macedonian flanks. Your point being?

My point is that Macedonian flanks didn't exist in no engagement but the First Pidna (casually, it was the only one in who Macedonians could actually win, but lost after the phalanx was lured on uneven ground and lost coesion and before that Macedonian cavalry engaged), and that after the Second Punic War Romans had just defeated too phalanx-like formations (Hannibalic army fought in phalanx) to don't know how morph an engagement with a phalanx alone in a one-sided slaughter.

For Macedonian cavalry I spoked only about the Companions because in the war of Alexander he led their charges (and was almost killed at Granicus) and only in their charges.

And your point was what? Note that Alexander - after the near disaster at Granicus - used his heavy cavalry (and calling them all companions is not really correct terminology - (the more efficient) half of them were thessalian noble cavalry) to exploit holes in the persian front - after the phalanx had opened up those holes.

You're right, I overused the term Companions. I'm too lazy to search all the correct name.
For my point, it's that when the phalanx blocked the enemy attacks Alexander led heavy cavalry charges in that holes before Darius (or perhaps the Immortals' commander) could close them. And then won.

For Roman cavalries, during Trajan campaign against Parthians were used heavy units in counterattacking and pursuing Parthians horse archers and trying to lure Parthian heavy hitters in doomed charges.
In every campaign against Parthians after Carrhae Romans used their cavalry, even the light one, to harass Parthian horse archers

Yes, and most of that cavalry was either mercenary cavalry or the specially formed alae militariae. Which is exactly what I said. Also note that cavalry was at best an auxillary to the legionnaires.

In fact, I have several sources stating that the most effective weapon against persian cavalry was the roman artillery.

State sources, please. I'm curious to know how a ballista battery was supposed to be effective against cavalry. It wasn't infantry who marched and charged slowly and at man height that you can counterattack killing four or five men at once or besieged Gauls that you can snipe with ballistas on wooden towers when they patrolled the walls of Alesia (Caesar did this), but charging or running cavalry.

(almost unarmed, because they have only bow and arrows. If Roman cavalry reached them, the result is easily predictable)

Nope. In fact, I advise you to read up on the Klibanophoroi - a significant portion of the parthian archers were very well armoured, and in fact they were the heavy hitters of the parthian army.

In fact, Cataphract is the term that I used for Parthian armoured cavalry (your Klibanophoroi are of Sasanid origins), and here I was talking about the mass of the army, the light-armed no-armoured skirmishers with only bow and arrows, not the elite of heavy hitting knights.

and protect the infantry, hoping to lure Parthian heavy hitters in charges doomed against every Roman formation but the cohort one (century and manipular formations were too dispersed and after passing the first line the second line of legionars will slaughter the cavalry, and compact legion-level formations were too numerous: after the first hit Parthian knights will find themselves on tired horses and surrounded and in contact with an outnumbering enemy who is beginning to stab their horses. Cohort formation was the only one compact enough to be hitted with adequate force and dispersed enough to not doom the knights to a slaughter).

I would like to see some primary sources for your claims. Furthermore, I advise you to read up on roman anti-cavalry tactics. Which were very succesful even on the cohort level. Furthermore, your focus on the centurian level disregards the fact that the romans did employ very succesful anti-cavalry tactics on a small unit basis.

Thanks, you confirmed part of my point: century was the smaller operative unit, consisting originally of 100 men and then from 60 to 80 men (120 to 160 in the double centuries of the first cohort). For the rest, read about Carrhae.

In fact at Carrhae Romans received the final blow when Crassus, tired by the archers' harass, changed formation from legion-level testudos in the cohort one and tried to counterattack, and Surena, the Parthian commander, was waiting exactly this for his charge.

Carrhae, where an outmatched roman force was led by an idiot is somewhat supposed to deliver a general statement on roman cavalry tactics which evolved over 500 years since Carrhae?

Carrhae, where 35000 legionaries plus 4000 light infantry and 4000 cavalry led by the man who beated Spartacus and his army, that before this loss beated TWO Roman consular armies and various praetor forces, but didn't know exactly how Parthians fought were beated by 10000 Parthians led by a man smart enought to understand that the standard tactic of a light barrage of arrows followed by the charge of Cataphracts was suicidal against Roman standard tactics. Carrhae is the first encounter and the perfect example of how not use cavalry against Parthians, on this you're right, but if you look WHEN Surena ordered the charge you'll have to admit that Carrhae it's also a good example on counter-knight defence.

For the foot auxiliaries, they existed, but they were only one part of the Roman anti-Parthian Knights

Knights? WTF? Are you trying to translate "equites" into english? Equites were actually at best medium cavalry. Furthermore, the foot auxillaries were not only part of "anti Parthian units" (Golly, I sure would like to know their unit designations because there were no real anti Parthian units per se)

Sorry, my STUPID error: I wanted to write 'anti-Parthian Knights tactics', but I forgot a word. Thanks fir point it. For the auxiliaries, I was referring only on their anti-Parthian use, supposing obvious that against different enemies they were used in the appropriate fashion.

aside the evergreen manipular formation

WHich was abandoned during the reforms of Marius. WTF are you talking about?

I just controlled, on this you're right.

legion and army-level testudos

WTF? Show me how those were supposed to operate? Testudos were formed on the level of centuries. And they were definitely not an anti-cavalry formation (unless mixed with auxillaries, but that is very doubtful because then you do not have a testudo) , they were anti-archer formations.

Testudo-like formations, that were supposed to operate with spear-armed auxiliaries in the wall of the formation with the scuta of the legionaires covering their head. At Carrhae on the beginning they did exactly this, and Surena didn't dare the charge until Crassus changed formation in the cohort one to try a counterattack.

, veils of footed archers and other infantry before the main corp to negate cavalry momentum (this auxiliaries were also employed here)

No shit. Those were all auxillary units. And how is this supposed to prove your point regarding the roman cavalry?

It's supposed to explain Roman anti-cavalry tactics that you forgot.

and even cataphract units from subject peoples.

Of which only the Palmyrenians were of any use, and even they were only available for a short period of time - certainly not during the times of Trajan.

Your point, I just verified that Romans first employed cataphract under Hadrian.

I suppose that all these are the reason behind Parthian refuse of fighting during Roman post-Carrhae invasions: you could fool Romans once, but if you tried the same tactic again the second or third time Romans will fool you.

You sir are an idiot. In fact the Parthians fought the romans in open battle numerous times, and managed to defeat several roman legionary armies with all their supports - the latest triumph being the invasion of Armenia in the defeat of the Kappadokian legions in 162. I can at least recall seven open field battles between the two states post Carrhae of the top of my head.

God, I hope you do not study ancient history.

I'm studing History at college, and I'm just preparing the Roman History exam. BTW, I can recall other three battles, two at Ctesiphon (165 and 198), two Roman victories with temporary occupation of the Parthian capital, and one at Nisibis where Parthians managed to avoid direct contact and forced Romans in a tactical draw with heavy losses for both armies, with tired Romans who conceded the strategical victory not knowing that Parthian feudal army was in worst conditions.

[Thanas]

Nope. In fact, I advise you to read up on the Klibanophoroi - a significant portion of the parthian archers were very well armoured, and in fact they were the heavy hitters of the parthian army.

If using older sources, he may want to look for Kataphraktoi instead - I know at least some earlier writers use cataphract and clibinarius interchangeably, and there are still some writers unclear on the differences (probably because the terms had various meanings over various time periods, similar to how catapult and ballista reversed meanings).

Ammianus does employ them almost interchangeably, however in recent time the general consensus seems to be that during the time of Ammianus Kataphraktoi seems to mean armoured men on unarmoured horses, while Klibanophoroi seems to mean armoured men on an equally heavily armoured horse.

[Thanas]

According to me, the phalanx was used to stop the enemy and blocking his attacks where Alexander wanted. If Alexander wanted to block an enemy troop to cover himself, he ordered the advance of a phalanx, then he charged with his cavalry. While he engaged part of the enemy, the rest cannot engage him at back because this would expose them to a sort of mobile wall.

You started out with:

Partially confirmed: under Philip II and Alexander the Great the Macedonian phalanx was used only to stop enemy attackers, as an 'anvil', while the hammer was a powerful cavalry guided from the Etharoi

And now, in spite of every source showing that the phalanx was used to attack the enemy as well as to serve a defensive purpose, you purposely ignore those sources to still claim that Alexander used the phalanx to only block the enemy and cover the main attack, when in fact it was the phalanx which attacked first, with the cavalry then striking at the holes, like in this post:

I'll aknowledge that the phalanx was used to block the enemy and cover the main attack, the cavalry one, led from Alexander himself.

What are you on to here? Are you ignoring the sources saying that the phalanx was used for the initial attack, and was even decisive in some engagements, like in the right wing at Issos?

You somehow have got it stuck in your head that the battle was supposed to go like the enemy attacking, phalanx defending, Alexander attacking, phalanx covering, battle won.

Which is a simplistic view at best, and reveals ignorance of the primary sources at worst. Furthermore, it ignores the existence of specific troops which used to attack in conjunction with the phalanx, like the hypaspistai.

Every time the phalanx was used alone to attack Roman armies, Romans slaughtered the phalanxes.

Which was a failure on the part of the Macedonian flanks. Your point being?

My point is that Macedonian flanks didn't exist in no engagement but the First Pidna

Which is related to your point...how exactly? Speak english, man (or woman).
Furthermore, are you really saying that Macedonian flanks did not exist in any engagement except for the first Pydna? WTF? Have you even read Diodor or Arrian? The notion that no Macedonian flanks existed is fucking ridiculous.

(casually, it was the only one in who Macedonians could actually win, but lost after the phalanx was lured on uneven ground and lost coesion and before that Macedonian cavalry engaged), and that after the Second Punic War Romans had just defeated too phalanx-like formations (Hannibalic army fought in phalanx) to don't know how morph an engagement with a phalanx alone in a one-sided slaughter.

How does this yabber have any relavance to the argument? Besides, what are you trying to say here? I am trying, but your english makes it really hard to understand. Are you saying that the romans gained knowledge of how to defeat a phalanx while fighting Hannibal? Doubtful considering how the battle of Zama went. And even so, how does this have any bearing on the argument at hand?

For my point, it's that when the phalanx blocked the enemy attacks Alexander led heavy cavalry charges in that holes before Darius (or perhaps the Immortals' commander) could close them. And then won.

Yes. We are in agreement on the fact that the heavy cavalry charges broke the Persian center.

However, what we are arguing about is your assertion that the phalanx was not used to attack the enemy (which you now have rephrased to "only covering an attack").

Yes, and most of that cavalry was either mercenary cavalry or the specially formed alae militariae. Which is exactly what I said. Also note that cavalry was at best an auxillary to the legionnaires. In fact, I have several sources stating that the most effective weapon against persian cavalry was the roman artillery.

State sources, please.

A curious demand from the person who has so far failed to show his sources after a direct request from me. Do ut des.

But please, I shall direct you to a quote of Cassius Dio.

As many missiles were being hurled at the men engaged in bridging, Cassius ordered missiles and catapults to be discharged. And when the first ranks of the barbarians fell, the rest gave way.

There are several other secondary sources, but they are not online so I would have to provide you a list of books.

I'm curious to know how a ballista battery was supposed to be effective against cavalry. It wasn't infantry who marched and charged slowly and (*snip you unimportant tangent about which every man knows already* but charging or running cavalry.

The Romans had ballistas that were capable of firing several shots per minute. One of those is on display in the castle Saalburg near Vetera. Also, some ballista munition was casket-like and discharged a shower of bolts upon impact.
Besides, it is not like cavalry in that time could afford to charge at high speed, because that would tire the horses rather quickly and screw up your aim. In fact, a manual states that it is best to advance at a slow trot, and retire at quick speed.

In fact, Cataphract is the term that I used for Parthian armoured cavalry (your Klibanophoroi are of Sasanid origins),

You are right that the Klibanophoroi are of Sassanid origin, but they are identical to Kataphrakts if one believes the inscriptions of Dura Europos and considering the timeframe. It is not until the time of the fourth century that the terms begin to differ. But yes, my statement was unclear.

and here I was talking about the mass of the army, the light-armed no-armoured skirmishers with only bow and arrows, not the elite of heavy hitting knights.

And your point was that roman cavalry attached to the legions was supposed to counter them? The romans used specialized auxillary cavalry for that, or foot archers/artillery. Foot archers are usually superior to light cavalry.

I would like to see some primary sources for your claims. Furthermore, I advise you to read up on roman anti-cavalry tactics. Which were very succesful even on the cohort level. Furthermore, your focus on the centurian level disregards the fact that the romans did employ very succesful anti-cavalry tactics on a small unit basis.

Thanks, you confirmed part of my point: century was the smaller operative unit, consisting originally of 100 men and then from 60 to 80 men

Hey look People, someone is not getting the point. BTW, why do you feel the need to state out facts which everyone engaged in this discussion probably knows already? You claimed that:

and protect the infantry, hoping to lure Parthian heavy hitters in charges doomed against every Roman formation but the cohort one (Cohort formation was the only one compact enough to be hitted with adequate force and dispersed enough to not doom the knights to a slaughter)

which means that the cohort formation was unable to stand up to the persian cavalry.

It is just too bad that that is untrue, as that would make the deployment of auxillary cohorts to the persian frontier, and the later roman army organization, completely nonsensical.

(120 to 160 in the double centuries of the first cohort).

There is quite a debate on that as well, and on the meaning of century=100 fighting men as well.

For the rest, read about Carrhae.

Nice try. Post sources underlining your point. Excerpts will do.

Carrhae, where 35000 legionaries plus 4000 light infantry and 4000 cavalry led by the man who beated Spartacus and his army, that before this loss beated TWO Roman consular armies and various praetor forces, but didn't know exactly how Parthians fought were beated by 10000 Parthians

Are you trying to show that Crassus was not an idiot by appealing to Spartacus? If so, you are not doing a good job. (BTW, it is either "defeated" or "beaten", not "beated"). The credit for that job belongs as well to Lucullus and Pompey, who outmaneuvered Spartacus (after Crassus somehow managed to be duped by a tactic that was well known to any roman) and forced him to fight.
BTW, your last sentence shows exactly why Crassus was an idiot - he invaded a country without knowing their battle doctrine, the size of their forces, he failed to gain political allies - heck, he even refused the help of the armenians, who at that time were probably the only indigenous forces with a chance of defeating the Parthians in an open battle - and in general his leading of the army left much to be desired. Heck, the credit for saving the rest of the army belong to Gaius Cassius Longinus, who not only managed to extricate a significant portion of the forces, but also succesfully defended Syria. Also, he attacked Parthia with no significant provocation, and was duped by a double agent who everyone of his staff officer figured out, but he refused to listen to them. In short, yes, moron is exactly how to describe him.

led by a man smart enought to understand that the standard tactic of a light barrage of arrows followed by the charge of Cataphracts was suicidal against Roman standard tactics. Carrhae is the first encounter and the perfect example of how not use cavalry against Parthians, on this you're right, but if you look WHEN Surena ordered the charge you'll have to admit that Carrhae it's also a good example on counter-knight defence.

It is a good example on the general efficiency of anti-cavalry tactics, but nothing special in regards to the tactics used.

legion and army-level testudos

WTF? Show me how those were supposed to operate? Testudos were formed on the level of centuries. And they were definitely not an anti-cavalry formation (unless mixed with auxillaries, but that is very doubtful because then you do not have a testudo) , they were anti-archer formations.

Testudo-like formations, that were supposed to operate with spear-armed auxiliaries in the wall of the formation with the scuta of the legionaires covering their head. At Carrhae on the beginning they did exactly this, and Surena didn't dare the charge until Crassus changed formation in the cohort one to try a counterattack.

Yes, once more showing his idiocy. However, when one talks about the testudo, he means a specific roman formation, not a "testudo-like" one you described. Please be more specific in the future.
The formation you describe above is a standard anti-cavalry formation, most likely a variant of this one described by Vegetius.

No shit. Those were all auxillary units. And how is this supposed to prove your point regarding the roman cavalry?

It's supposed to explain Roman anti-cavalry tactics that you forgot.

And how is this supposed to prove your point regarding the roman cavalry? Let's see, even if I somehow managed to *forget* all about roman infantry tactics (a somewhat curious argument) how the hell is this supposed to prove your point that the romans used their cavalry so-and-so?

I'm studing History at college, and I'm just preparing the Roman History exam.

What university? I hope it is not Bologna or one of the romas...(you are Italian, right?)

BTW, I can recall other three battles, two at Ctesiphon (165 and 198), two Roman victories with temporary occupation of the Parthian capital, and one at Nisibis where Parthians managed to avoid direct contact and forced Romans in a tactical draw with heavy losses for both armies, with tired Romans who conceded the strategical victory not knowing that Parthian feudal army was in worst conditions.

Thank you for disproving your own point. If you knew about those battles, why did you make such a stupid assertion in the first place?