The Immortals

[Sean Manning]

It can be, following some iranists, simply a mistranslation of Herodotus or more likely, of his informer;
the old persian word for "Immortal" would be "anausha", and the word for "follower", "anushiya", so, the informant mixed the two words, and the elite unit would be simply the "followers (of the King)", the "loyal", most probably the iranian people in contrast with the other nations and peoples in persian army.
So it is posible that there would be no "immortals" at all never, and the tale of replacing men after they fell was a folktale-like history created after the greek name of "athanatoi". It makes sense, however, other iranists have also reservations about this theory.

So the original name could have been 'Anushiya', which could then mean 'Companion'? Well, that's a name that is a normal one for the elite troops around any king, right? Makes sense.

And we know that Persian nobles had large groups of household troops who travelled with them and ate nearby. I'd forgotten about that theory, but it makes sense.

Jona agrees with that theory: http://www.livius.org/ia-in/immortals/immortals.html

[hoplite14gr]

Hmmm... Xenophon called Cyrus the younger heavy horse his omotrapzoi meaning those who shared his table.

I am inclined to agree Inyigo Robert and Sean here.

Kind regards

[Vishtaspa]

Hmmm... Xenophon called Cyrus the younger heavy horse his omotrapzoi meaning those who shared his table.

Kind regards

Yes, a good point!. But in this case I think this refers a close and little loyal cavalry bodyguards, and not an army or great unit of 10.000. But the idea is the same; in Cyrus' times the infantry were mostly mercenary; in Darius' and Xerxes' times there were iranian infantry among subjects and mercenaries.

By the way, as far as I have read Jona's excellent site, I have found well documented texts about persian matters, and this is not common in ancient graeco-roman studies.

Khaire!

[hoplite14gr]

I agree that omotrpezoi would probably be satrapal units or the High Kings household cavalry and not his whole infantry Guard unit.
10000 loyal troops in an elite guard unit are not impropable historically.

But I belive that they were held usually in reserve in case a sudden enmy horse or chariot charge threatens the king. You need not phalanx troops to resist cavalry just steady infantry. Horsemen never beat steady infantry.

And at Cunaxa it was the steadfast contact of the infantry that probably stoped Cyrus charge and save the king.
Plutarch "Artaxerxes" probably quoting Ctesias mentions a spearman that later incured lady Parisatis wrath as a slayer of Cyrus.
It must have been stady armored infantry that stopped Cyrus troopers after they made short work of Artagerses horsemen.

Kind regards

[Vishtaspa]

And at Cunaxa it was the steadfast contact of the infantry that probably stoped Cyrus charge and save the king.

It must have been stady armored infantry that stopped Cyrus troopers after they made short work of Artagerses horsemen.

Kind regards

In fact Xenophon mentions a column or troops around the king;
(An I, 8.26) sun toutois de on, kathora basilea kai to amph' ekeinov stiphos"
(Being (Cyrus) with these (his companions), sees the King and the column around )
Stiphos is something compact, and in close array. Aeschilos refers to ships, but in this conyext of Cunaxa can be an elite infantry unit.

Best regards!

[Aryaman2]

Well, I think that once the "Inmortals" name is discarded, the 10.000 goes equally away, as the number was made up to "explain" the name. In persian sources only units 1.000 strength are recorded and I think that is a more reasonable number for a Royal body guard.

[Artabanos]

The "Immortals" were not really literally “body guardsâ€

[Sean Manning]

In fact Xenophon mentions a column or troops around the king;
(An I, 8.26) sun toutois de on, kathora basilea kai to amph' ekeinov stiphos"
(Being (Cyrus) with these (his companions), sees the King and the column around )
Stiphos is something compact, and in close array. Aeschilos refers to ships, but in this conyext of Cunaxa can be an elite infantry unit.

I'm pretty sure that the bodyguards around both kings at Cunaxa were infantry. Still, some infantry could well have been involved in that fight (I'd have to review Plutarch to know and I don't have the time).

Artabanos\\n[quote]The "Immortals" were not really literally “body guardsâ€

[Artabanos]

@Sean Manning

I think that this is a great misinterpretation. I trust Xenophon and his Persian sources on the report of the relatively small number on actual Persians.

There were and handful Persian tribes and some other further away from the Persis like Mardians these tribes seems to have had a Persian ruling elite.

The diadochi would have most likely get rid of any dangerous Iranic contingents, archers and slingers were regarded as not dangerous in the case of a revolt, therefore these weapons were given to the subdued people.

Alexander on the other hand didn't fear revolts with his Persian infantry. At that period it was still difficult to have a large cavalry force stationed in the Persis due to its geography and climate. Therefore the Persians in the Persis, especially the young ones who had not entered the age of military service would be useful for infantry reinforcements.
Persians were said to be rugged because they were mainly herdsman in a mountainous country, although they learned how to ride at a young age.

The Kardakes, could have been Persians, but we can't know for sure. What we can know for sure is that for Persians it was noble to always ride on horseback. The same was reported for the Parthians, but it is commonly agreed on that the Parthians were more or less a cavalry-only military, but imo there is no evidence that the Achaemenids were much different in this regard. Scholars generally claim that it was the weak Persian infantry that doomed the Achaemenid empire, but many evidences tell us that the Achaemenid military was very similar to that of the Parthians and Sasanians. Therefore even low ranked Persians were more likely to get horse archers rather than infantry, the "Immortals" were an exception as the kings chosen infantry. Maybe demographic changes made it possible to set up another large regiment like that of the Kardakes, something needed for the lands west of the Zagros mountains. I Personally think that the Kardakes were Elamites, the only people close/trusted by the Persian while not being horseman originally.

As for Herodoteus, he could not make the difference nor was he present during the Persian wars. He and Greeks in general called the "babarians" simply generally Persians and made no differences between Persians and Medians, Persians were sometimes generally called Medians and Medians Persians.

Regards.

[hoplite14gr]

Stiphos in Greek has the sense on an unordered military formation rather than an ordered phalanx of hoplites.

In English "regulars" are almost identical to "professional" troops while "irregulars" are though as part time troops.

But in Greek "Taktikos Stratos" (regular troops) are trained troops full time or part time with rank stracture while "Ataktos Stratos" (irregular troops ) are full time or part time troops with no rank stracture. Stiphos describes the "irregulrars" and it is also used to describe warbands.

Kind regards

[Vishtaspa]

"stifos" is very interesting.
In some passages refers to a marching army, a column (I suspect, array in order) for example, in greco-persian contexts:

Aeschilus, Persians 19-20: "pezoi te baden/polemou stiphos parekhontes" "infantrymen marching, forming battle column"

Herodotus. IX, 57: "analabonta ton lokhon ta hopla ege baden to allo stiphos"
"taking the lokhos the arms, he (Pausanias) led (the lokhos) marching to the whole (greek) army"

In the battle, again referred to persians:

Herodotus IX, 70. "hoi de barbaroi ouden eti stiphos epoienanto" "but the barbarians did'nt make a column (i.e. a battle order, they were disbanded) "


Sorry for the rude greek transcription, I put it in latin letters in order to help people who can't read greek, so they can recognize the words. Sorry too for the English translations, I can understand the greek text, but my english is no so good.

Best regards

[hoplite14gr]

Aeschylos used the term in the meaning of crowd and so is Herodotus in IX, 57, but in IX, 70 he means a group-a warband.
If the "barbarians were using a "regular" formation he could use the terms taxis or phalanx.

Spearmen in a group though even an "irregular" group can form strong defence and even resist cavalry.

Allo means other olon is whole.

Kind regards

[Vishtaspa]

Allo means other olon is whole.

I know that, I translated thus because the passage context (Pausanias' army in contrast to the whole greek army in Plataia)
In Herod IX 57, however, stiphos refers to a greek army, I thik it is unlikely that it means "warband or crowd" but a marching army (not arranged in taxeis)
In persian contexts perhaps "stiphos" is a little despective, and taxis or phalanx more greek and "civilizated".

Best regards!

[Duncan Head]

Well, I think that once the "Inmortals" name is discarded, the 10.000 goes equally away, as the number was made up to "explain" the name. In persian sources only units 1.000 strength are recorded and I think that is a more reasonable number for a Royal body guard.

I don't see that. If you reject Herodotos, it's not the number that goes away, it's simply the idea that they were always kept up to that exact strength: they're not called Immortals (in his version) because there were 10,000 of them but because there were always 10,000. The story would work just as well if they were always 5,000, or 1,000.

Besides, Xenophon (Kyropaidia VII.5.68) says Cyrus the Great "selected ten thousand spearmen from among them [the Persians], to keep guard round the palace, night and day, whenever he was at home, and to march beside him whenever he went abroad" - note the same number for the royal guard, but not called Immortals suggesting he may not be drawing on Herodotos.

And 10,000 is, I am informed, a common nominal strength for an army corps in earlier Near Eastern armies.

[Vishtaspa]

I don't see that. If you reject Herodotos, it's not the number that goes away, it's simply the idea that they were always kept up to that exact strength: they're not called Immortals (in his version) because there were 10,000 of them but because there were always 10,000. The story would work just as well if they were always 5,000, or 1,000.

.

Always a pleasure to read you. I agree, the name can be a mistranslation, but originated from the actual number. 10.000 appears associated to the "doruphoroi" and "melophoroi" aroun the King in many greco-latin passages.

For example, this text from the lost Persica from Heraclides of Cyme (I take Pierre Briant's translation):

"These formed his bodyguard (doruphoroi), and all of them were persians by birth, having on the butt of their spears golden apples, and numbering a thousand, selected because of their rank from the 10.000 persians who are called Immortals" (in Athenaeus, XII 514c)

Sadly, we haven't the term 10.000 attested in the Elamite foundation tablets (Sekunda's *baivarabam is speculative), but we have records for 10 and 100... it shows a decimal organisation.

regards