Pahlava infantry

From what I know Pahlavans never used any infantry, they relyed entirely on cavalry. Their priority was mobility of army (just like other nomads). Therefore I'm not sure about their unit roster which contains Nizag Gund or even Pandodaphoi Phalangtidai (it required some time and experienced officers to train a phalangtide - and I doubt Pahlavans had them). Can anyone give me some historical evidence on pahlavan infantry? And I'm also curious about the description of Nizag Gund, which says "Parthian spearmen".
If Parthians (Pahlavans) start somewhere north of Parthia why are their spearmen avaible as far as Babylonia? Wouldn't be description "Persian spearmen" better?

Actually there is proof. They used mostly conquered Hellenes as a "ready to use" infantry, and left them in place as garisson forces. When the Romani faced them later on, an historian wrote about "persian infantry armed like gladiators". Most of the time Pahlavan used cavalry it is true, and attested. But that doesn't mean they didn't use infantry.

Cavalry isn't exactly the bee's knees for fortress garrison and assult though. Footsloggers may not have had much more role in Pahlava field armies than baggage guards (except, naturally, in obstructed terrain no sane commander sends horses into), if even that, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a lot of other campaign applications.

Maybe they used infantry as garisson forces but is it enough? Parthians weren't able to siege cities properly because of lack of infantry. If they had greek soldiers or mercenaries it wouldn't have been a problem.

Best way to see it for roleplaying is probably to have field armies consist mainly of cavalry, and training local infantry for garrison duty or just for use inside one province.

Wiesehofer says, "In comparison, the infantry was evidently of secondary importance, although according to the Christian-Syrian 'Chronicle of Arbela', Vologeses III was said to have sent 20,000 footsoldiers against the Alans in 136 AD." [Ancient Persia, p148]

It must be remembered that the main enemies for much of Parthia's history were the greeks and then the romans, both of whom had powerful heavy infantry. We know of Parthian armies through the eyes of the western authors, whose armies would have met the cavalry rather than any infantry; the infantry of the parthians could not have stood against the heavy infantry of the west. But the Chronicle of Arbela, as noted above, suggests that did the need arise the Parthians could call upon a vast reserve infantry (probably mostly archer/spearmen).

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Wiesehofer says, "In comparison, the infantry was evidently of secondary importance, although according to the Christian-Syrian 'Chronicle of Arbela', Vologeses III was said to have sent 20,000 footsoldiers against the Alans in 136 AD." [Ancient Persia, p148]

It must be remembered that the main enemies for much of Parthia's history were the greeks and then the romans, both of whom had powerful heavy infantry. We know of Parthian armies through the eyes of the western authors, whose armies would have met the cavalry rather than any infantry; the infantry of the parthians could not have stood against the heavy infantry of the west. But the Chronicle of Arbela, as noted above, suggests that did the need arise the Parthians could call upon a vast reserve infantry (probably mostly archer/spearmen).

Foot

---

That's interesting but did actually Parthians have same army compositions in 136 AD and 272 BC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Son of Perun

That's interesting but did actually Parthians use the same i

---

I assume you got cut off there, but I'll answer as best I can.

If we presume that the majority of their infantry was used in engagements with nomadic tribes, then anti-arrow/anti-cav would be the name of the game. In other words spear, and large wicker shield. Not to mention a multitude of archers to rein death upon the enemy. Sounds like the basic infantry for the parthians to me. Nizag Gund, Eransahr Artshbara, and Thanvare Payahdag.

Foot

Which sounds like it was more or less directly copied off earlier Achaemenid patterns - which the Hellenic rulers of the land in between had presumably used as well for the same purpose, for the rather simple reason it worked. About as well as you now could manage with infantry against excessively mobile cavalry armies. The Crusaders used a variation of the theme to keep the Turks at bay, and the Chinese had similar tactical schemes (although they apparently often had the archers and crossbowmen in the front ranks - talk about a redshirt job...).

'Course, as pretty much everyone in the East uses these guys in EB, too many references to the Parthians specifically would seem somewhat misplaced.

Sorry, that was mistake.:oops: I've corrected it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

I assume you got cut off there, but I'll answer as best I can.

If we presume that the majority of their infantry was used in engagements with nomadic tribes, then anti-arrow/anti-cav would be the name of the game. In other words spear, and large wicker shield. Not to mention a multitude of archers to rein death upon the enemy. Sounds like the basic infantry for the parthians to me. Nizag Gund, Eransahr Artshbara, and Thanvare Payahdag.

Foot

---

Thanks for this explanation anyway.

Wouldn't a late Parthian army look alot like a Sassanid force ? Or did the Sassanids entirely redo the military organization ? Cause in IB the Sassanids have some kick ass infantry.

I understand the better Sassanid infantry was able to fight their Roman opposite numbers on equal terms, but otherwise they mainly tended to use the footsloggers as fire support - conversely the Parthians had preferred HAs for that. Or so I've read.

'Course, the Parthian army around the time the Sassanids kicked them out may have been somewhat different from the one of EB timeframe (there's a century or two inbetween after all) and similarly the Sassanid army the Muslims dismembered some centuries later wasn't the same critter that beat up the Parthians.

Well, thank you for actually stealing my show, guys... Now I've got absolutely nothing of worth to say ~:joker:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russia almighty

Wouldn't a late Parthian army look alot like a Sassanid force ?

---

This rationale may be derived from Roman sources who still designated the imperial armies of Ardashir and Shapur I "Parthian". Indeed, an early Sassanian force was merely an inherited Parthian military machine, which emphasized more infantry; Thus from this we may conclude that there must've been a previous tradition, and not merely a gap of some three to four centuries where completely equestrian armies reigned; The siege of Phraaspa during Mark Antony's must for instance have used native infantry auxiliaries, most likely Medeans.

---

In spite of the infantry selection available to the Pahlava, we have ensured that they at best are medium or semi-elite, and foremostly have their qualities as garrison personnel; For this, there are foot-archers, highlander skirmishers, highlander assault infantry, Cardaces, Iranian and Hellenic phalanx conscripts who may also be available as mercenaries, and significant Greek populations in western "Greater Iran" (Great call on the "Arbela Chronicles", Foot :bow:) which later on may have been equipped like Thureophoroi or "imitation legions" (As per Trajan's "Parthia Capta" coins). Of greater worth however, there is an equally if not a greater range of auxiliary cavalry units which may complement Pahlava invasions.

The most important aspect in matters like these is to follow the most likely axiom of principle: Do we completely exclude strong infantry traditions completely in favour of realistically expensive cavalry armies, or do we retain them to rather reflect possibilities in spite of the decline (Very pivotal to the argument; Did these infantry types completely disappear or did they merely decline and gradually evolve as the Parthians settled, to eventually fade over to the Sassanian hegemony?) and let the player decide which force may do the job best.

Understanding the structure of the Seven Great Clans, and how they interacted with each other in times of war reflect that the bondsmen were meant to be field armies, one of the two staples, lead by the landed gentry/nobility often armed as cataphracts: It was up to the mayors, client rulers, district chiefs and chief royalty to provide the garrison backbone as the nobility conducted war, not too rarely under the orders or sometimes merely recommendations by the High King. On the huge domains under Parthian sway, it would have been impossible to bind these areas together purely by the martial ardour of relatively small but highly competent equestrian armies. It doesn't work that way.

In combination with Philhellenism and support of Iranian beliefs and claims to the once Achaemenid world-order (Something bolstered by Graeco-Roman sources as well, though clearly false once Parthian genealogy has been referred to), as well as support of Greek, Aramaic and Middle-Persian languages (The former for administration and mints, the second for lingua franca and the third being brought in as the colloquial tongue of the Iranian peoples) we may quickly realize that equally under such vast areas, the regional armies would look differently, speak differently not to exclude different armaments and equipment. While not as ranged as the Achaemenid military spectrum, the Parthians were the de facto replacement of the Seleucids in their political role and to diminish their spectrum of selection, let alone possible choices would be ill-advised.

TPC is it wrong that I am imagining this scene .



Rome comes along wanting to wtf pwn the Parthians permanently . There you know near the Euphrates and at the center of the Parthian force is Greeks fighting for them who look like Legions but really are dat dur Thorakti(sp) and the Romans just going WTF at what they think are legion knock offs. While there WTFing the Parthian Catatanks have already swooped behind there rear and tag them in the ass .

I think the first time around at least it was just a lot of guys on horsebacks, a bunch of them decked out is some serious ironmongery. The supposed "imitation legionaries" seemed to be more of a Pontic and Hai thing (or that's the impression one gets anyway), which probably has something to do with the uneven nature of their homelands. The Romans and Parthians AFAIK did much of their head-butting around Mesopotamia which is reasonably flat, so the Parthians could go for broke with all cavalry if they wanted.

Although it apparently tended to rain on their parade a bit if the Romans brought a lot of archers and slingers along.

Particularly slingers. Archers of the Ancient European stereotype did neither have the same renown or equipment like the nomads or the "Eastern" peoples (Speaking in very general terms) who practically considered it a chief weapon. Slingers however proved to be a significant nuisance and were actually responsible for saving the Romans from complete disaster (Mark Antony's retreat from Medea Atropatene) to actually contributing to minor victory where the horse-archers retreated; The slingers had a double-bottomed worth to their skills; The cataphracts themselves had little to fear from archery, but with slings, the issue was very different. This made things a bit more even whereas the Parthians wielded composite bows allegedly able to puncture the shield structure (To the point of collapse) of the Roman scuta, and moreso the lorica hamata which at this point would have been the most common Roman armour form until the advent of the Flavian and Trajanid dynasties.

As for infantry, again, the Parthians considered them excessive for campaigning unless they could serve as pages and guards of the baggage train. What is important is that one should try to dismiss previous Parthian nomadism by the time of Arsaces I for several factors; By the time of Orodes II the Parthian Empire had entered a highly cosmopolitan age which had kicked off once Mithradates II The Great had consolidated all the Parthian conquests. Prior to Roman-Parthian engagements one may observe how mixed Pontic and Armenian armies failed to stand up to Roman advances. A highly interesting notion which the Parthians must certainly have been aware of. So this is why we even see the Parthians actively promote a form of warfare that maximizes the advantages of a fully equestrian army. The Assyrian plains were suitable for this. Past this frontier, the Parthians had far more need for infantry, and their usage is well attested in Graeco-Roman sources. However apart from tactical ambushes with lightly armoured assault infantry, Greek-speaking auxiliaries in the western reaches, and the client armies of Hatra, the Parthians still relied on garrisons to provide the defences while on campaign.

For a long time, the Romans really didn't know how to defeat the Parthians, but they found a way which did not include open combat; Improved logistics. The most significant Achilles heel of the Parthian military machine (Rather than a standing army, since they had none) was that it was highly dependent on seasons where factors such as the readyness of the horses, and the quality of the bows were pivotal. It may be almost absurd at first but the renowned victories of emperors Trajan and Septimius Severus were actually achieved by the fact that they reached Ctesiphon before the Parthians were even able to counter them with proper means. By the end of the Parthian hegemony, the boundaries after the victory of Artabanus IV over emperor Macrinus at Nisibis (218 CE?) were still largely the same as before the battle of Carrhae in 53 BCE. The Romans, comparatively to the Indo-Scythians and the Kushans were probably the most minor threat even in spite of capturing Ctesiphon no less than three times.

Just to point out, but the Romans recruited the backbone of their archery support specifically from the East. Syria was apparently one of the major sources.

Just a quick question, since this topic is about Pahlavan military tactics. The Zradha Shivatir seem to be cataphracts, or at least heavily armoured, and use both the kontos and the bow. However the description I've read of Carrhae seems to be of seperate horse archer and cataphract sections of the Parthian army (and from this, it should be obvious my knowledge of Parthians and their armed forces is slim). Are the Zradha Shivatir a compromise to represent this, or are there indications that the Parthians used such heavy cavalry as horse archers which would charge as cataphracts in the EB timeframe?

That's a great question; In fact the earliest documentation of cataphracts wielding bows was during the battle of Carrhae where the cataphracts retreated to support their lightly armed brethren in unleashing the hails. In other words, we have played around with the idea of making the Zradha Shivatir a late unit, like the Grivpanvar.

Sounds interesting, thanks for the quick response! Are there indications that this was a development in reaction to encountering large numbers of mobile, reasonably heavily armoured troops infantry (as opposed to cavalry, light infantry and phalanxes) for the first time in the form of the Romans? Or a more independant internal development of the Parthian military?

I like the idea of more reforms. It helps adjust the image of constant, unchanging armies which is a constant problem in RTW mods, namely illustrating the changes which took place over time and creating historically accurate triggers.

Although one would assume the upper nobility were just as keen archers as their assorted clients, in the typical fashion of warrior aristocracy with nomadic connections. Similarly one would assume the catas' arm defenses in particular might get in the way of effectively wielding a bow, so the weapon would not be the central focus of their battlefield tactics but chiefly an useful option to have along.

But personally I always assumed separating the "archer catas" from the otherwise similarly equipped pure shock types was just a way of getting around the game's restriction of only two weapons per unit... Ie. the two types represented the essentially same type of warrior merely acting in a different battlefield role, as with the Hypaspistai/Pheraspidai split.

Just a question to fill a gap in my knowledge here, was the dig at Dura Europos for the Parthian or Sassanid era?

Sassanid far as I know. (Wiki is helpful for simple check-ups like this, too.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

Just a question to fill a gap in my knowledge here, was the dig at Dura Europos for the Parthian or Sassanid era?

---

Parthian, Roman and Sassanid. That is the most concise reason why the fortress also is a luxurious treasure trove for military historians; Especially the late Parthian/early Sassanian horse bardings are of interest as well as the paraphernalia of the trapped Sassanian siege infantry who had fought in the tunnels. This shows an exceptionally heavy equipment for infantry which brings a few theories to the table:

* He was a renegade Roman soldier or mercenary.
* He was possibly a drafted Greek from the Sassanian possessions in Mesopotamia.
* He was a dismounted noble who pressed the assault in the mines.
* He was an Iranian infantry equipped for siege possibly armed like the Romans.

All four of these theories have been brought up to the table. Authorities such as David Nicolle and particularly Kaveh Farrokh support the latest, while those of the more Graeco-Roman school of thought among them John Keegan propagate for a higher degree of renegade legions who were swayed by the pondus of the resurgent "Parthian" military machine lead by Ardashir and later the hugely successful Shapur.

So it is in the concise words of Watchman, that the cataphract archers merely have the option to skirmish before they sound the charge. Or perhaps first charge, to then feign retreat and halt (Static archery was sometimes deadly effective). Later Byzantine cataphracts developed a certain "anvil and hammer" tactic which revolved around two cavalry squadrons charging and firing their bows in circular order which lead to a perpetuating, but highly effective attack pattern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Sounds interesting, thanks for the quick response! Are there indications that this was a development in reaction to encountering large numbers of mobile, reasonably heavily armoured troops infantry (as opposed to cavalry, light infantry and phalanxes) for the first time in the form of the Romans? Or a more independant internal development of the Parthian military?

---

You're welcome.

I'd say it was more or less a development that intended to check the Romans by adding a skirmishing element to the cataphracts (There are understandably many tactical situations where archery could facilitate advantages) but I think it was more a result of countering the Tocharians and the Saka to the east; The cataphract itself had its origins in being heavily armoured cavalry meant to be less vulnerable to archery rather than being armed purely for melee. Then one may think "What's the point then?". Well, it could be explained that the Parthian military machine was feudal in nature, not as in being non-uniform or disorganized but far more rather a rich spectra of cavalry reflecting wealth and social status. Not all cavalry were armed for instance like the heavy cataphracts, but more like a heavy utility cavalry. These were expensive units to call upon and they were naturally more vulnerable to archery than the others. Another reason why cataphracts were crucial in support roles was because light horse were the most vulnerable to archery and in particular the battles against the Saka and the Tocharians were understandably far bloodier than the duels against the Graeco-Romans.

Ironically, later on the Parthian cataphracts assumed an extremely heavy incarnation clearly equipped for melee, just to counter Roman infantry, and at this point we also read about proliferating the cataphract concept to the dromedary as well. By this time one may assume that the Parthians were able to field more heavily armoured cataphracts. The Dura grafito of a Parthian clibanarius shows exactly how heavy they could've been. These cavalry traditions were retained by the Sassanians, who also show, more or less similar patterns: Whenever the Romano-BYzantines upgraded, the Sassanian went for the bigger and the better, while if the Kushans, White Huns, the Indo-Hepthalites and the Gök-Turks threatened the borders, the Sassanians went for a composite cavalryman able to perform well in melee and at the same time meet light horse on their own terms.

Rarely did the Partho-Sassanian military machine ever independently evolve; We speak of a highly conservative warrior society which revolved itself around nobility. Sometimes on the basis of the monarchy, the landed gentry had their say (Esp. during the reforms of Chosroes I) and sometimes the high nobility/magnates had it their way; Sometimes the mark between the priesthood and the warrior caste was less profound.