Parthian and Sassanid Armies

Carrhae, I think. :p

The reason that the Suren was killed was of course because he won the battle. ;)

Goddamn Hannibal's gone into my head and messed up my memory.

and Yeah, that was obvious. It's always a good thing to kill uppity generals who have the arrogance to upstage your theater performance :p
 
Romans formed their cataphract unit or Equites Cataphractarii during the reign of Emperor Hadrian but they have no armored horse for the cavalrymen and they are not Parthian origin.
I thought that Nick Sekunda and others had argued that formerly Seleukid cataphract cavalry found employment with the Romans in the first century BC.
 
Did later Roman cataphracts ever copy the western knights' lances and tactics? A full-on cataphract charge with heavy couched lances would have been nearly unstoppable. It seems to me they stuck to maces, spears, and slower charges than those of knights. Then again, Manuelos Komnenos was said to have introduced jousting to the Romans. Maybe some Roman horsemen picked it up, though I don't know if the empire had any cataphracts by that point.

Also, I frequently read about cavalry from Russia to China being armed with bow and lance. Obviously, it'd be stupid to charge before emptying their quivers, but then where would they carry their lances if they were using their bows? It seems the lance would get in the way if it were slung on the back.
 
Also, I frequently read about cavalry from Russia to China being armed with bow and lance. Obviously, it'd be stupid to charge before emptying their quivers, but then where would they carry their lances if they were using their bows? It seems the lance would get in the way if it were slung on the back.

They didn't have to carry both bow & lance with them all the time. One of those weapons could be transported with the supply train. After emptying quivers, they go back to the supply train and pick up their lances from wagons. Centuries later Polish-Lithuanian armies transported lances for Hussars on wagons.
 
Parthians: mostly light, unarmoured, highly skilled horse archers with some cataphracts, heaviest cavalries of their time.

Sassanids: mostly heavy, heavily armoured, skilled cataphract archers called Savaran. according to a Roman historians Sassanids used bow more effective than lance. and their main weapon was bow. also Deylamis were elite Infantry force of Sassanids and they were very respectful warriors.
 
This topic will discuss only Parthian and Sassanid military matters, anyone wish to join the forum are welcome to discuss.

Are you persian, or just one of those over-inquiring white guys?
 
Are you persian, or just one of those over-inquiring white guys?

You're asking a person who posted well over a year ago, and you seem to be implying that "white" people ought not ask about ancient Persia. Plus, many Persians seem pretty white-ish.

Another question for anyone listening: Is there any info out there on Sassanid infantry, particularly professional and/or heavy infantry? Osprey and Farrokh don't count as sources.

And here's a nifty article which more or less debunks the idea of Sassanid Immortals:
http://archive.org/details/TheSassanianimmortals

Long story short, there's no convincing evidence that the Sassanids had an elite cavalry unit of 10,000 men called the Immortals. The sources which mention them are generally Roman, and the authors often just accept whatever Procopius said without questioning it, and then those sources get cited as proof of Immortals. This is not to say that the Sassanids lacked elite cavalry, just that there probably were no Immortals.
 
You're asking a person who posted well over a year ago, and you seem to be implying that "white" people ought not ask about ancient Persia. Plus, many Persians seem pretty white-ish.

You say these things as if I didn't know them.
 
You say these things as if I didn't know them.

Well, if you knew that Vinduu's probably not around, and that many Persians seem white-ish, why'd you write a post directed at him that implies white people shouldn't ask about Persia?:confused: Not attacking, just puzzled.
 
Because OT regulars know I'm persian myself, I'm quite vocal about it, and this is a stereotypical question for a persian to ask.
 
Because OT regulars know I'm persian myself, I'm quite vocal about it, and this is a stereotypical question for a persian to ask.

I know you consider yourself Persian, but wait- there are actually other people interested in the Sassanids and Parthians? They're some of my favorite empires, and they tend to get totally overlooked. This thread is the first time I've seen anyone other than me ask about them.
 
I know you consider yourself Persian, but wait- there are actually other people interested in the Sassanids and Parthians? They're some of my favorite empires, and they tend to get totally overlooked. This thread is the first time I've seen anyone other than me ask about them.

That's the point. T'was a joke...

I was being sarcastic.
 
Aggressive, frontal charge of heavy cavalry (lance-wielding cataphracts) was the main tactics of the Sassanid Persian army, also in battles against Rome.

The typical deployment of the Sassanid army in battle consisted of three lines.

The first line (deployed in the front of the entire army) consisted of elite heavy cavalry, cataphracts (Savaran) in the center of the line, supported by medium and light cavalry (including horse archers - who, however, were not as important in Sassanid army as in Parthian army before) on both flanks. Heavy cavalry was usually deployed in a line of between 3 to 5 ranks deep. The proportion of heavy cavalry to medium and light cavalry in Sassanid period was like 50/50 (compared to 10/90 in Suren Clan's private army at Carrhae in 53 B.C., during the Parthian period).

The second line (deployed behind cavalry) consisted of infantry, equipped with long spears, swords and large shields (soldiers in first ranks also had armour - in further ranks usually not). The second line was further supported by war elephants, deployed between infantry units.

The third line (behind infantry) consisted of foot archers.

The battle tactics of Sassanid armies was extremely offensive and aggressive.

The battle was beginned by Sassanid horse archers and light and medium cavalry, who were harassing enemy lines with arrows, javelins, conducting "hit and run" attacks.

This "missile preparation" was then followed by a massive frontal charge of heavy cavalry (Savaran / cataphracts) against the very center of enemy line. At the beginning of the charge (while already advancing towards the enemy, at first slowly, then gradually increasing the speed) heavy cavalry was reforming its formation from a line (3 to 5 ranks deep) to a wedge formation (or rather a wedge-column formation) The center and the front of the wedge (wedge-column) formation consisted of heavy cavalry, while medium and light cavalry was joining that wedge and consisted both sides of the column (while cataphracts - as already mentioned - were deployed in the front - forming the wedge itself - and in center of the column, that followed the wedge).

Depending on a particular battle, this massive cavalry charge could be carried out either by center and both wings of cavalry, or by center itself (often left wing was being kept in reserve).

The goal of this charge was to destroy the center of the enemy army and / or to outflank the enemy.

If the first strike of heavy cavalry did not decisively smash the enemy center, cataphracts could detach from the enemy, withdraw, regroup / reform and then charge again (everything done under covering fire of horse archers, who were harrasing the enemy while the cataphracts were withdrawing and regrouping for another charge, as well as preventing the enemy from chasing the cataphracts while they were doing these maneuveres).

In case if several, repeated charges did not produce a desired effect, commander of the Sassanid army was sending the second line (infantry and war elephants) to charge the enemy army and to support the cavalry. Infantry and war elephants were attacking in a line formation (aka bench formation), elephants were in intervals between infantry units.

Sassanid infantry was a defence-oriented formation of spearmen equipped with long spears, swords and shields (and some of them also wore armour as I already mentioned - these were considered as "heavy infantry", while the remaining ones were "light infantry" - the only difference between them was armour, both had similar weapons). They were not designed for attacking alone - but they were trained to support cavalry in its charges. Another role of infantry was also to protect elephants from enemy attacks. Elephants were the main striking power of the 2nd attack wave of the Sassanid army (the main striking power of the 1st wave were cataphracts - in the 1st wave the support role and protective role was played by light cavalry, skirmishers and horse archers, while in the 2nd wave the support and protective role was played by infantry).

There were some - but not numerous - elite units of infantry.

Infantry was also supposed to exploit occassions created by charges of cavalry and elephants - in other words - infantry was going to charge into / penetrate into gaps in enemy lines "chopped" / "smashed" by heavy cavalry and elephants. Combined efforts of heavy cavalry, infantry and elephants were supposed to shatter enemy lines into isolated "nests of resistance".

In some battles, Sassanids used a slightly different tactics - in this modified variant, they were attacking with cavalry and infantry at the same time (instead of bringing infantry in only after cavalry proved unable to win the battle all by itself, as in the most common variant).

Third line (echelon) of the Sassanid army, as mentioned, consisted of foot archers. They were conducting fire before the hand to hand combat and also in case of covering withdrawal of their own fellow forces (be it cavalry, infantry or elephants) as well as sometimes they were also shooting to retreating enemy forces (when there was no cavalry available at hand to chase them).

During hand to hand combat of Sassanid cavalry and infantry, Sassanid foot archers were halting their fire, because there was a policy of avoiding "friendly fire" casualties.

The Sassanid king or other commander in chief, during the battle stayed in the rear area of his army and observed the battle from his command post - preferably located on top of some hill. He was entering the battle only in case of emergency situations, leading his most elite units - personal guards (Pushtigban) consisting mostly of heavy cavalry and elite foot archers (Kamandaran), as well as the elite division of Immortals (Zhayedan) who consisted mostly of heavy cavalry.

Commander of Pushtigban was at the same commander of a special division of the Sassanid army consisting of picked men from the entire army - war heroes and most distinguished veterans - called Gyanavspar, also known as Peshmerga (they were also kept in reserve and could be used to save the day and to turn the tide of battle only if absolutely necessary). They probably consisted of elite units of all kinds (heavy and light cavalry, heavy infantry, etc.).

Sassanid foot archers had heavy bows and large shields, but probably no armour (only helmets).

Apart from regular infantry (heavy and light infantry equipped with long spears, swords and shields), Sassanids also had levy infantry called Paighan. These were low-quality units drafted from peasants, equipped with shields and spears (no swords or armour). They were used for various tasks - protecting baggage train, as crews of catapults and other artillery, for transporting things, for building fortifications, camps and siege equipment. They were also used for sapping and as "cannon meat" while assaulting fortifications, which is why they often constituted even 2/3 of entire army when such an army was ordered to capture a fortified city or a fortress.

It should be noted that the Sassanid army put its reliance heavily on effectiveness of their shock cavalry charge. Heavy cavalry was the most important part of the Sassanid army - if cavalry failed, infantry was usually not able to win the battle alone, because Sassanid infantry was considerably inferior to Roman infantry. The Romans - on the other hand - usually relied more on infantry.

SOURCES (for the description of Sassanid battle tactics presented above):

Books:

T. Szeląg, "Amida 359"
K. Farrokh, "Sassanian Elite Cavalry"
M. Wozniak, "Armie starożytnej Persji" ("Armies of Ancient Persia")
P. Wilcox, "Rome's Enemies (3). Parthians and Sassanid Persians"
 
Not sure about the other sources, but Kaveh Farrokh is a nationalistic and unprofessional joke, and "Rome's Enemies" is Osprey, which while it has wonderful illustrations is not always that accurate.
 
that doesn't stop him being held up as the perfect example to watch and emulate in the re-write of the Turkish history .

though not a discernible influence yet , Turkish history changes every week , they haven't yet decided what to write .
 
But Kaveh Farrokh's book is not absurd, contrary to Gavin Menzies' book. So what's the point?
Phrossack seems to think that it is. :dunno:
 
Top Bottom