Pahlava infantry

[The Persian Cataphract]

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

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 ) 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.