Pahlava infantry

[Watchman]

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.

[pezhetairoi]

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

[Watchman]

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

[The Persian Cataphract]

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.

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.