What do you think?
Rate this book
Defeat of Rome: Crassus, Carrhae and the Invasion of the East
In 53BC the Proconsul Marcus Crassus and 36,000 of his legionaries were crushed by the Parthians at Carrhae in what is now eastern Turkey. Crassus' defeat and death and the 20,000 casualties his army suffered were an extraordinary disaster for Rome. The event intensified the bitter, destructive struggle for power in the Roman republic, curtailed the empire's eastward expansion and had a lasting impact on the history of the Mediterranean and the Middle East. It was also the first clash between two of the greatest civilizations of the ancient world. Yet this critical episode has often been neglected by writers on the period who have concentrated on the civil war between Pompey and Caesar. Gareth Sampson, in this challenging and original study, reconstructs the Carrhae campaign in fine detail, reconsiders the policy of imperial expansion and gives a fascinating insight into the opponents the Romans confronted in the East - the Parthians.
240 pages, Paperback
First published February 21, 2008
26 people are currently reading
206 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
April 27, 2022
An informative, detailed and well-researched work.
Sampson does a good job describing the politics of the triumvirate, and how Roman politics were affected by Crassus’ wealth and ambition. The coverage of the battle is detailed, and he ably describes the battlefield and the effect of Parthian weaponry. His portrait of Crassus is good, and Sampson does a good job showing his effectiveness as a political and military leader.
The narrative is straightforward, but some readers might wish for more maps, and others may find Sampson’s style a bit wordy or stilted, and he sometimes writes in first person. The book can be repetitive, and, perhaps inevitably, often speculative. For example, he writes that Suenas was planning to annihilate Crassus’s army from the beginning (maybe),and that the Parthians could have destroyed Roman ambitions in the east if it weren’t for royal politics (also a maybe) Sampson tries to defend Crassus’ decisions at Carrhae, but he is often forced to speculate here. A few typos will likely annoy the reader.
A well-written, thoughtful and balanced work.
Sampson does a good job describing the politics of the triumvirate, and how Roman politics were affected by Crassus’ wealth and ambition. The coverage of the battle is detailed, and he ably describes the battlefield and the effect of Parthian weaponry. His portrait of Crassus is good, and Sampson does a good job showing his effectiveness as a political and military leader.
The narrative is straightforward, but some readers might wish for more maps, and others may find Sampson’s style a bit wordy or stilted, and he sometimes writes in first person. The book can be repetitive, and, perhaps inevitably, often speculative. For example, he writes that Suenas was planning to annihilate Crassus’s army from the beginning (maybe),and that the Parthians could have destroyed Roman ambitions in the east if it weren’t for royal politics (also a maybe) Sampson tries to defend Crassus’ decisions at Carrhae, but he is often forced to speculate here. A few typos will likely annoy the reader.
A well-written, thoughtful and balanced work.
April 7, 2018
Gareth Sampson sets out to redeem Crassus from the pervading myth of incompetency, and does a fine job of it. Not only is this book a valuable read for those wanting to understand the Roman-Parthian war (this book covers literally everything, and does it in an engaging and readable manner), it's a brilliant (and convincing) reappraisal of Crassus as a military leader.
Read
January 21, 2015We have so much more information about Rome than we do about Parthia that it's great that Sampson even tried to write a balanced account. He's also bending over backwards to be fair to Crassus, which was different. But this was much more a military history than what I wanted -- which isn't fair. As a military history it's pretty good, and reasonably solid.
If you don't know much about Carrhae and want to know more, this would be a terrific book, as comprehensive and modern as you're likely to get.
I wanted more about the Parthians.
There were a couple of unexamined things that made me roll my eyes -- the "Greek cities" of Mesopotamia were glad to be liberated by the Romans? Oh really? Because? There's no evidence, and this is just sloppy thinking. I'd really like something that examined identity and culture in the Hellenistic cities -- closest I have found is Kosmin's _Land of the Elephant Kings_. Also, when discussing Crassus's head being used as a prop in _The Bacchae_ Sampson says the Parthians and Armenians had absorbed some Hellenistic culture -- well, yes, but again, how much and what did that mean? Whose heirs did they think they were? They must have been Greek speaking -- or at least bilingual. I know we don't know the answers to a lot of this, but the questions should at least be raised, rather than conventionally ignored.
If you don't know much about Carrhae and want to know more, this would be a terrific book, as comprehensive and modern as you're likely to get.
I wanted more about the Parthians.
There were a couple of unexamined things that made me roll my eyes -- the "Greek cities" of Mesopotamia were glad to be liberated by the Romans? Oh really? Because? There's no evidence, and this is just sloppy thinking. I'd really like something that examined identity and culture in the Hellenistic cities -- closest I have found is Kosmin's _Land of the Elephant Kings_. Also, when discussing Crassus's head being used as a prop in _The Bacchae_ Sampson says the Parthians and Armenians had absorbed some Hellenistic culture -- well, yes, but again, how much and what did that mean? Whose heirs did they think they were? They must have been Greek speaking -- or at least bilingual. I know we don't know the answers to a lot of this, but the questions should at least be raised, rather than conventionally ignored.
August 17, 2020
Reading this book after I had read the ancient accounts of Carrhae by Dio and Plutarch, as well as most articles in the sources on Marcus Licinius Crassus, was a joy!! It's written in a way that is both accessible and entertaining for someone eager to learn more about this battle. There is equal focus on the Parthians, which are often under-explored. A detailed history of both sides is provided, giving the reader much greater comprehension of some of the decisions and situations in the battle itself.
This take on Crassus is fresh and interesting yet not a reach nor anything entirely new, just reinterpretation and reconsideration of the bias in the ancient sources - few others have also written of Crassus in this way, in the articles listed in the sources, though I was delighted to find an entire book that did not share what has become the base level view of Carrhae and the Triumvir. I was first intrigued to read The Defeat of Rome because it seemed to be everything I wanted in a book on this topic and it did not disappoint. I would gladly recommend!!
This take on Crassus is fresh and interesting yet not a reach nor anything entirely new, just reinterpretation and reconsideration of the bias in the ancient sources - few others have also written of Crassus in this way, in the articles listed in the sources, though I was delighted to find an entire book that did not share what has become the base level view of Carrhae and the Triumvir. I was first intrigued to read The Defeat of Rome because it seemed to be everything I wanted in a book on this topic and it did not disappoint. I would gladly recommend!!
November 12, 2008
The first and only book I have read (and I am very ill-read in this area) that fills in the blanks between the conquest of Italy and the emergence of Rome as a world power. I encountered this book at Historicon in Lancaster in June. It is dense, fairly scholarly written and a real challenge, but the author, in the first fifty pages, has filled in a lot of blanks for me in my understanding of the rise of Rome.
The rest of the book is as interesting as the beginning. If you wonder how Rome got to be Rome, then this book is for you.
The rest of the book is as interesting as the beginning. If you wonder how Rome got to be Rome, then this book is for you.
February 3, 2012
Gareth Sampson, PhD, is a professor of ancient history at the University of Manchester. His book jacket blurb says he is involved in the study of the power struggles and civil warfare of the late Roman Republic, and its expansionist policies in the East. This book, which is intended to be accessible for the general reader and the scholar, reflects his knowledge of those subjects. It provides many interesting details on the life of one of the most influential politicians and generals of the period, who is nevertheless not remembered as much as his powerful peers. Marcus Licinius Crassus never seems to have received the esteem he deserved. He was possibly the most wealthy Roman, who manipulated the Republic's complicated and dangerous political system with unmatched finesse while showing, during several times of severe national peril, his ability to lead an army. However, he had the bad luck of leading an army into one of the most devastating defeats Rome ever experienced; this humiliation, against a much more numerically inferior Parthian army, is one reason ancient historians have not been kind to Crassus.
Sampson begins his study of the events leading to the ultimate fate of Crassus with two book sections which trace the rise of Rome and Parthia, two civilizations on the periphery of the Graeco-Persian world who would come into conflict numerous times over hundreds of years. The section on Rome's rise encompasses much of Rome's history in a few pages, with descriptions of such city-state defining moments as the Phyrric, Ilyrian, Macedonian, Spartan, Seluecid, Achaean and Mithridatic Wars. Much easy-to-digest detail on these important earlier Roman involvements is available here, but I felt I was reading something from Ancient World 101 after a while. I found the section on Parthia's rise more easy to digest, with its depiction of the warrior race of horsemen from the steppes of central Asia who formed an empire that would stretch from China's borders to beyond the Euphrates.
We learn that the region of Parthia situated west of the Caspian Sea and crossing the modern countries of Iran and Turkmenistan was originally populated by semi-nomadic Scythian tribes; they were conquered by the First Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great. Living on the edge of this great empire, the Parthians and other neighboring races formed a "satrapy" which pledged provincial loyalty to Persia and would supply soldiers in various Persian military expeditions, including the invasion of Greece under Xerxes about 480 BC. Parthia would eventually become a vassal state on the northern edge of the Macedonian empire after the defeat of Darius III by Alexander the Great in 330 BC. The Parthians would later find themselves living as underlords in the corners of the Seluecid empire. Dynastic Parthian internal wars would eventually lead to the foundation of the Arsacid Dynasty which would provide leaders to Parthia for centuries. Parthia would struggle for, and obtain its independence, lose it, regain it again and become a super power in events which Sampson would describe in full detail.
Crassus' rise to power was facilitated by his drive to succeed and dominate, which was ruthless even by Roman standards. He shared the bad luck of many aristocratic contemporaries who lost their lives and/or livelihoods during the First Civil War, waged between the Roman armies of Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Gaius Marius. At one point, when Marius and his ally Lucius Cornelius Cinna were in control during Sulla's foreign deployment, they stormed the City of Rome and massacred many political enemies. As Sampson states, most of Rome's leading senators, and their families, were butchered. The dead included the father and elder brother of Crassus; he survived by fleeing to Spain. Sampson lays the groundwork for his rebuttal of two thousand years of critics who blamed Crassus' defeat at Carrhae on his lack of martial ability by showing us how he personally raised an army in Spain, and entered the civil wars by joining Sulla. He was a key general of Sulla's when he sailed his army from Africa to Italy in 83 BC and his stature would be elevated by his leadership of forces which provided Sulla with his ultimate victory. Crassus' military reputation would be further enhanced by his defeat of the Spartacan slave army which threatened Rome in 73 BC.
Another general in Sulla's service who would become famous was Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great), who would become Crassus' nemesis but also his frequent ally in grasping the political spoils of Rome. Crassus' family never had the great wealth to reflect their patrician status and political influence, but his greed and avarice would make him extremely wealthy in the wake of Sulla's victory. As Sampson writes, when Crassus and Pompey combined their resources, they outstripped the rest of the Senate in its entirety. Among their accomplishments was the sharing of the Conselship on two occassions. (Reviewer's note: Two individuals would be elected to rule Rome every year by the Comitia Centuriata, under the authority of the Roman Senate {SPQR: Senatus Populusque Romanus}. In time of war, a Consul would often take control of a Roman army. After their year in office, the ex-Consuls would be granted proconsulship, i.e. governership of a Roman province).
The political history of Rome in this era was truly fascinating, as it was deadly. Crassus and Pompey competed against each other and with the Senate during the 60's BC to dominate the government at a time when the oligarchic Republic was moving to anarchy, domination by powerful manipulators, and ultimately, later, dictatorship. The two generals had succeeded in using bribery and intimidation to achieve their political ends, then joined forces with Crassus' young protege, Pompey's father-in-law and rising public hero of the Gallic wars, Gaius Julius Caesar. This powerful alliance of triumvirs was able to force the Senate to allow the three generals to effectively partition the armies and imperial possessions of the Republic. Caesar was returned to the command of the armies in Gaul, Pompey received the two provinces in Spain to rule in absentia, and Crassus was the big winner, being granted the province of Syria and seven legions with which to make war and plunder as he saw fit. A successful war against Parthia, the superpower straddling major trade routes, including the Silk Road, and barring Roman domination in the East, would make Crassus even more wealthy, give him the adulation of the people as the general who assured Roman dominance in Mesopotamia, and possibly make him much more powerful than the other two generals.
The book becomes most interesting at this point, as Crassus' seven legions cross into Parthia from Syria in 53 BC. We do not know the exact name of the Parthian general who fought, and bested him. He is generally given the generic name of Surenas. While the Parthian king, Orodes II was using the main strength of the Parthian armed forces to intimidate the King of Armenia, Artavazdes II from swinging his support to the Romans, Surenas was supposed to keep the 40,000 Romans under Crassus occupied in Western Parthia with an armed force about one-fourth the size. It is entirely possible that Surenas was supposed to sacrifice himself and his soldiers while wearing down and stalling Crassus, but this brilliant Parthian general instead adapted his highly disciplined army dominated by mobile horse archers to fight a battle which minimized the Romans' strengths. After two days of hostilities, Surenas, to use modern terminology, handed Crassus his head. Actually, he literally removed Crassus' head after he defeated and killed him. The head apparently was sent to Orodes while he was still at Artavazdes's court and was used as a prop in a play being performed there. Ironies aside, the Battle of Carrhae was one of the most decisive in history. Sampson does a superb job of describing how it unfolded, and provides a valuable addition to the record of ancient history which often has overlooked or minimized this event.
Among the many consequences was the loss of Rome's reputation of invincibility, and the resulting halt of Roman annexation of Eastern civilizations. Ultimately, Rome would try to avenge its loss at Carrhae, but a subsequent war would also end in disaster. Only Augustus would have the sense, in 20 BC, to engage with the Parthians diplomatically. Later Roman generations would not heed his example, and, as Sampson shows, Rome and Parthia-Persia would battle for hegemony for the next four hundred years. These future events would occur as a new Sassanid dynasty would take over Parthia in the 220's AD. The first Sassanid emperor, Ardashir, saw his new dynasty as a restoration of the old Persian empire rather than the former Scythian-originated and Hellenised Parthian one. The resulting deliberate destruction of ties to the country's Parthian past is the main reason very little Parthian historical material exists today, including the exact name of the warrior who defeated Crassus in 53 BC. The second Persian Empire and the Romans' successor, the Byzantine Empire, would compete for dominance in the region for centuries until both were supplanted by the forces of Islam.
I liked this book very much for keeping its promise of making the sometimes complex history surrounding the events of the life and death of Crassus accessible, while maintaining scholarship standards befitting Gareth Sampson's profession. In particular, he provides insightful historiographical descriptions of the classic sources of the period, including such as Strabo, Pliny, Josephus, Plutarch, Cassius Dio, Cicero and Caesar himself. His ability to provide fresh perspective on Crassus' reputation and his in-depth research into Roman-Parthian battle tactics justify this book's inclusion into the required bibliographical material necessary for understanding this era.
The book's illustrations include knowledgable use of numismatic material as containing some of the few extant, accurate portraits of contemporary ancient rulers. A fascinating photo is included of a coin minted by Publius Crassus (Crassus' son, who also died, and had his severed head used to shake the morale of Roman soldiers at Carrhae) but the obverse contains only an allegorical portrait, possibly of a deity. There is a photo included of a possible bust of Marcus Licinius Crassus, and the publisher's art department did a neat job of making a portrait made from the bust's features, to be used to illustrate the book's slip cover. I can't give the same kudos to the publisher's editorial department. The book abounds with typos, especially with missing, or redundant connecting words and incorrect punctuation in sentences. This demonstrates the proof that you cannot edit copy just with spell-check. The one passage which still has me scratching my head is on page 63: "Under normal circumstances he would have held the tribunate in the 80's BC followed by the quaestorship (both of which were junior offices), but the war put paid to holding those." ????
Otherwise, an overall excellent book.
Sampson begins his study of the events leading to the ultimate fate of Crassus with two book sections which trace the rise of Rome and Parthia, two civilizations on the periphery of the Graeco-Persian world who would come into conflict numerous times over hundreds of years. The section on Rome's rise encompasses much of Rome's history in a few pages, with descriptions of such city-state defining moments as the Phyrric, Ilyrian, Macedonian, Spartan, Seluecid, Achaean and Mithridatic Wars. Much easy-to-digest detail on these important earlier Roman involvements is available here, but I felt I was reading something from Ancient World 101 after a while. I found the section on Parthia's rise more easy to digest, with its depiction of the warrior race of horsemen from the steppes of central Asia who formed an empire that would stretch from China's borders to beyond the Euphrates.
We learn that the region of Parthia situated west of the Caspian Sea and crossing the modern countries of Iran and Turkmenistan was originally populated by semi-nomadic Scythian tribes; they were conquered by the First Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great. Living on the edge of this great empire, the Parthians and other neighboring races formed a "satrapy" which pledged provincial loyalty to Persia and would supply soldiers in various Persian military expeditions, including the invasion of Greece under Xerxes about 480 BC. Parthia would eventually become a vassal state on the northern edge of the Macedonian empire after the defeat of Darius III by Alexander the Great in 330 BC. The Parthians would later find themselves living as underlords in the corners of the Seluecid empire. Dynastic Parthian internal wars would eventually lead to the foundation of the Arsacid Dynasty which would provide leaders to Parthia for centuries. Parthia would struggle for, and obtain its independence, lose it, regain it again and become a super power in events which Sampson would describe in full detail.
Crassus' rise to power was facilitated by his drive to succeed and dominate, which was ruthless even by Roman standards. He shared the bad luck of many aristocratic contemporaries who lost their lives and/or livelihoods during the First Civil War, waged between the Roman armies of Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Gaius Marius. At one point, when Marius and his ally Lucius Cornelius Cinna were in control during Sulla's foreign deployment, they stormed the City of Rome and massacred many political enemies. As Sampson states, most of Rome's leading senators, and their families, were butchered. The dead included the father and elder brother of Crassus; he survived by fleeing to Spain. Sampson lays the groundwork for his rebuttal of two thousand years of critics who blamed Crassus' defeat at Carrhae on his lack of martial ability by showing us how he personally raised an army in Spain, and entered the civil wars by joining Sulla. He was a key general of Sulla's when he sailed his army from Africa to Italy in 83 BC and his stature would be elevated by his leadership of forces which provided Sulla with his ultimate victory. Crassus' military reputation would be further enhanced by his defeat of the Spartacan slave army which threatened Rome in 73 BC.
Another general in Sulla's service who would become famous was Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great), who would become Crassus' nemesis but also his frequent ally in grasping the political spoils of Rome. Crassus' family never had the great wealth to reflect their patrician status and political influence, but his greed and avarice would make him extremely wealthy in the wake of Sulla's victory. As Sampson writes, when Crassus and Pompey combined their resources, they outstripped the rest of the Senate in its entirety. Among their accomplishments was the sharing of the Conselship on two occassions. (Reviewer's note: Two individuals would be elected to rule Rome every year by the Comitia Centuriata, under the authority of the Roman Senate {SPQR: Senatus Populusque Romanus}. In time of war, a Consul would often take control of a Roman army. After their year in office, the ex-Consuls would be granted proconsulship, i.e. governership of a Roman province).
The political history of Rome in this era was truly fascinating, as it was deadly. Crassus and Pompey competed against each other and with the Senate during the 60's BC to dominate the government at a time when the oligarchic Republic was moving to anarchy, domination by powerful manipulators, and ultimately, later, dictatorship. The two generals had succeeded in using bribery and intimidation to achieve their political ends, then joined forces with Crassus' young protege, Pompey's father-in-law and rising public hero of the Gallic wars, Gaius Julius Caesar. This powerful alliance of triumvirs was able to force the Senate to allow the three generals to effectively partition the armies and imperial possessions of the Republic. Caesar was returned to the command of the armies in Gaul, Pompey received the two provinces in Spain to rule in absentia, and Crassus was the big winner, being granted the province of Syria and seven legions with which to make war and plunder as he saw fit. A successful war against Parthia, the superpower straddling major trade routes, including the Silk Road, and barring Roman domination in the East, would make Crassus even more wealthy, give him the adulation of the people as the general who assured Roman dominance in Mesopotamia, and possibly make him much more powerful than the other two generals.
The book becomes most interesting at this point, as Crassus' seven legions cross into Parthia from Syria in 53 BC. We do not know the exact name of the Parthian general who fought, and bested him. He is generally given the generic name of Surenas. While the Parthian king, Orodes II was using the main strength of the Parthian armed forces to intimidate the King of Armenia, Artavazdes II from swinging his support to the Romans, Surenas was supposed to keep the 40,000 Romans under Crassus occupied in Western Parthia with an armed force about one-fourth the size. It is entirely possible that Surenas was supposed to sacrifice himself and his soldiers while wearing down and stalling Crassus, but this brilliant Parthian general instead adapted his highly disciplined army dominated by mobile horse archers to fight a battle which minimized the Romans' strengths. After two days of hostilities, Surenas, to use modern terminology, handed Crassus his head. Actually, he literally removed Crassus' head after he defeated and killed him. The head apparently was sent to Orodes while he was still at Artavazdes's court and was used as a prop in a play being performed there. Ironies aside, the Battle of Carrhae was one of the most decisive in history. Sampson does a superb job of describing how it unfolded, and provides a valuable addition to the record of ancient history which often has overlooked or minimized this event.
Among the many consequences was the loss of Rome's reputation of invincibility, and the resulting halt of Roman annexation of Eastern civilizations. Ultimately, Rome would try to avenge its loss at Carrhae, but a subsequent war would also end in disaster. Only Augustus would have the sense, in 20 BC, to engage with the Parthians diplomatically. Later Roman generations would not heed his example, and, as Sampson shows, Rome and Parthia-Persia would battle for hegemony for the next four hundred years. These future events would occur as a new Sassanid dynasty would take over Parthia in the 220's AD. The first Sassanid emperor, Ardashir, saw his new dynasty as a restoration of the old Persian empire rather than the former Scythian-originated and Hellenised Parthian one. The resulting deliberate destruction of ties to the country's Parthian past is the main reason very little Parthian historical material exists today, including the exact name of the warrior who defeated Crassus in 53 BC. The second Persian Empire and the Romans' successor, the Byzantine Empire, would compete for dominance in the region for centuries until both were supplanted by the forces of Islam.
I liked this book very much for keeping its promise of making the sometimes complex history surrounding the events of the life and death of Crassus accessible, while maintaining scholarship standards befitting Gareth Sampson's profession. In particular, he provides insightful historiographical descriptions of the classic sources of the period, including such as Strabo, Pliny, Josephus, Plutarch, Cassius Dio, Cicero and Caesar himself. His ability to provide fresh perspective on Crassus' reputation and his in-depth research into Roman-Parthian battle tactics justify this book's inclusion into the required bibliographical material necessary for understanding this era.
The book's illustrations include knowledgable use of numismatic material as containing some of the few extant, accurate portraits of contemporary ancient rulers. A fascinating photo is included of a coin minted by Publius Crassus (Crassus' son, who also died, and had his severed head used to shake the morale of Roman soldiers at Carrhae) but the obverse contains only an allegorical portrait, possibly of a deity. There is a photo included of a possible bust of Marcus Licinius Crassus, and the publisher's art department did a neat job of making a portrait made from the bust's features, to be used to illustrate the book's slip cover. I can't give the same kudos to the publisher's editorial department. The book abounds with typos, especially with missing, or redundant connecting words and incorrect punctuation in sentences. This demonstrates the proof that you cannot edit copy just with spell-check. The one passage which still has me scratching my head is on page 63: "Under normal circumstances he would have held the tribunate in the 80's BC followed by the quaestorship (both of which were junior offices), but the war put paid to holding those." ????
Otherwise, an overall excellent book.
November 12, 2018
While this title seemed to pique my interest in the Battle of Carrhae, it only gave me a bit more insight into what I've already learned from many other books, most notably ones that are not even about Crassus in particular. There are some interesting facts regarding the Parthian troops and their tactics in the battle. However, there were some aspects of this book that bothered me throughout and made it a tough read.
1) Numerous typos that I had to submit to Amazon. The book is written in UK English and I understand some words are different: whilst, armour, and so on. Some factual words like the Parthians using compound bows is incorrect, it is composite bows.
2) The author likes to write sentences and interject an opinion or phase using the parenthesis method. For example, he would say something like: Crassus and his men would march (at a faster pace than normal) through the deserts of Parthia. This was MUCH too common throughout the book and bothered me to no end.
3) A lot of sentences ended in a preposition like in an informal conversation. This would make my head spin.
4) Lastly, The readable length of the book, not including appendices, ended at 62% in the Kindle version. The Battle of Carrhae doesn't actually start until about 42% into it: 2/3 through the book! The first two thirds of the book do a lot of history and backstory on the Parthians, quite confusing if you aren't familiar with the history of the East during that time period.
I personally won't recommend this book to anyone who is looking for information on this particular event. If I do I would tell them to start at chapter 5 and read the second half.
1) Numerous typos that I had to submit to Amazon. The book is written in UK English and I understand some words are different: whilst, armour, and so on. Some factual words like the Parthians using compound bows is incorrect, it is composite bows.
2) The author likes to write sentences and interject an opinion or phase using the parenthesis method. For example, he would say something like: Crassus and his men would march (at a faster pace than normal) through the deserts of Parthia. This was MUCH too common throughout the book and bothered me to no end.
3) A lot of sentences ended in a preposition like in an informal conversation. This would make my head spin.
4) Lastly, The readable length of the book, not including appendices, ended at 62% in the Kindle version. The Battle of Carrhae doesn't actually start until about 42% into it: 2/3 through the book! The first two thirds of the book do a lot of history and backstory on the Parthians, quite confusing if you aren't familiar with the history of the East during that time period.
I personally won't recommend this book to anyone who is looking for information on this particular event. If I do I would tell them to start at chapter 5 and read the second half.
March 19, 2021
Ironically Carhea ,near Harran, west of the Phrates river , war takes places in Syria , conflict between 2 super powers of ancient world.Rome and Parthia army was leaded by Crassus very ambitious and, rich war veteran who defeated Spartacus in Cavalry fight ironically he wounded or killed in a cavalry fight, on the contrary Surenas commander of parthia army is younger like his late 30s but great tactician who studied Rome war strategies and army he is the one of a few commander who beated a Rome Army along with Hannibal of Pontus.Consequences of this war are mainly Roman triumvirate turned republican system after Pompey also defeated at war. roman military lost approx, 50.000 -100.000 soldiers at this war . There was no winner of this war because after the war Surenas also killed by his sons after a coupt. This was the first roman-parthian war trilogy after years persian empire and east roman empire took the role of this empires until the Sunni Islam xaliphates invaded the whole territory.
Interesting thing Pompey was aware of probably defeat of Crassus. and maybe planned this war for strenghten his power in consul. By reading this I revenged Crassus in the name of Spartacus .
Interesting thing Pompey was aware of probably defeat of Crassus. and maybe planned this war for strenghten his power in consul. By reading this I revenged Crassus in the name of Spartacus .
October 15, 2020
Very Informative Read
Sampson provided an overview of the War with Parthia in which Crassus and his son were killed. Historical information is limited making it difficult to get the complete facts of what transpired. I did get a basic grasp, but would have liked more. I appreciate the author's efforts with the limitations he was faced with.
Sampson provided an overview of the War with Parthia in which Crassus and his son were killed. Historical information is limited making it difficult to get the complete facts of what transpired. I did get a basic grasp, but would have liked more. I appreciate the author's efforts with the limitations he was faced with.
June 3, 2021
Fascinating read. Riddled with typos.
September 16, 2021
A good study of Crassus and his failed campaign to conquer Parthia!
September 24, 2016
El libro va más allá del estricto relato de la batalla de Carras. Ofrece un buen análisis sobre la evolución del imperialismo parto y romano, por qué llegaron a chocar y la influencia que tuvo la situación interna de cada país en los hechos que llevaron al célebre enfrentamiento.
Tambié es interesante el enfoque de la batalla: resalta los méritos del general parto, Surenas, para preparar una estrategia muy eficaz contra la poderosa maquinaria romana. No se limita a centrarse en los errores de Craso al preparar la campaña que suele ser el relato habitual.
Tambié es interesante el enfoque de la batalla: resalta los méritos del general parto, Surenas, para preparar una estrategia muy eficaz contra la poderosa maquinaria romana. No se limita a centrarse en los errores de Craso al preparar la campaña que suele ser el relato habitual.
Read
January 21, 2016Nothing gets my adreneline flowing more than reading about a good battle. The Defeat of Rome covers all of the bases. The author provides background on the opposing sides-Rome and Parthia-strengths, weaknesses , motivations, and finally a comprehensive blow by blow account of one the most titantic battles fought between these rivals.
February 4, 2016
Good book about an often overlooked battle.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews