Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sassanid Infantry
#1
Did Sassanid field regular infantry from Persians or they have none but levies and mercenaries?
Reply
#2
First of all, my first post, although I have been lurking here for quite a while as a guest, so hi all. Big Grin

Now the topic (which, I hope, is not considered dead yet). It seems that most modern historians agree the Sassanids did have some form of native heavy infantry, based on Ammianus Marcellinus' description of Persian infantry and Maurice's Strategikon.

The first described armored infantry advancing in serried ranks, and implies them holding their own against legionaries themselves at Ctesiphon. The second notes that Persians relied on their infantry enough to place them in the center, a crucial position, as well as describing their tactics of advancing towards the Romans with cavalry in front, suddenly sending the cavalry out to the flanks and letting the infantry charge the perplexed foe.

Then we have fragmentary evidence from the Sassanid version of the strategikon, the Ayin-namak. It claims that infantry can sometimes be enough to deal with the enemy armies without cavalry support.

Arab sources are more focused on morals and individual great deeds, but from them too we get a picture of Persians fielding a heavy infantry force. Tabari's frequently quoted passage that the Sassanid foot were "advancing chained together" is today accepted to mean that they advanced in serried ranks, since Tabari uses the same words when describing cavalry - which could not have possibly been physically chained together.




So we get a picture of the Sassanids fielding a capable infantry force. What about Procopius and Belisarius' speech? We can be fairly certain they are referring to the conscripted paighan peasants, who, appears, were mainly used for siege works such as
mining and entrenchment, as well as storming the walls.
Reply
#3
Welcome to RAT, Peter.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#4
Thanks.
Reply
#5
Thanks very much for your input Peter and welcome to RAT.

I see you've listed the Ayin-Namag as a source of information. Do you know where I might be able to read a copy (English or Persian, either is fine)?

Thanks!
Nadeem Ahmad

Eran ud Turan - reconstructing the Iranian and Indian world between Alexander and Islam
https://www.facebook.com/eranudturan
Reply
#6
Unfortunately, no. I have so far only encountered references to it in secondary sources. TBH I am looking for it myself too, and finding it is really hard - I guess it is very rare.
Reply
#7
Sasanian army was a conscript army, so it would be nigh impossible for us to find a regular infantry except for mercenaries like the Daylamites who fought under a certain commander with the promise of profit.

Basically, all Sasanian infantry (except for mercenary) are conscript so it would be the training, discipline, armament, combat pay and loot distribution that determine the effectiveness of the infantry.
Reply
#8
If you say all Sassanid infantry were conscripts, where is your evidence? How can loot distribution effect their fighting capabilities? That sounds more like you are talking about Rome Total War than real Sassanids. Also, how do you explain Cataphracts if all Sassanid fighters are levies? Sassanids had heavy infantry, and were a powerful nation. A group of levy soldiers would not defeat the Roman empire, or pose a threat to them. Sassanids were not just a huge group of poor peasants!
Regards, Jason
Reply
#9
Iulian, do you have any evidence to prove your statement?
Regards, Jason
Reply
#10
Quote:Iulian, do you have any evidence to prove your statement?

By the way what's your evidence that the Sasanian have regular infantry?
Reply
#11
The Sassanids fielded heavy infantry and cavalry. It is in texts, including Ammianus, and there is no doubt that an army as organized and large as theirs had an adequate field army. Though the infantry were looked down on by the cavalry, they still were the backbone of the Sassanid army, like any standing army has ever been. Now, show your evidence AND your source that MUST be a credible one ( Wikipedia and Rome Total war Barbarian Invasion do not count! )
Regards, Jason
Reply
#12
Iulian, the idea that Sassanids were just a whole bunch of unarmored, unskilled infantry is WRONG. They fielded many typed of infantry, including heavy infantry, that fought. They did field light infantry ( conscripts ) but their front line was good troops. The light troops without ranged weapons acted as a reserve, for when the mail battle line was too hard pressed.

I am still waiting for evidence, if you have a credible source :whistle:
Regards, Jason
Reply
#13
Quote:If you say all Sassanid infantry were conscripts, where is your evidence? How can loot distribution effect their fighting capabilities? That sounds more like you are talking about Rome Total War than real Sassanids. Also, how do you explain Cataphracts if all Sassanid fighters are levies? Sassanids had heavy infantry, and were a powerful nation. A group of levy soldiers would not defeat the Roman empire, or pose a threat to them. Sassanids were not just a huge group of poor peasants!

Regular army was a modern term if you know why because in the antiquity conscripts, militia and warrior is the only way for some nation to defend themselves.

Do you think a Parthian or Sasanian noble could refuse the King of Kings demand? Of course Sasanian army have warrior and the nobles are the warriors and the defender of the realm! But the only thing they do not have was regular infantry except for mercenaries, and don't forget the Romans too draft their subject into the army too.

Don't you even read the post at all? What i wish to say conscription is the only way Sasanian recruit their infantry, but whether these are temporary or permanent conscript then it is a different matter. Roman auxilia was conscript right? Then how do they defend the Roman frontier for centuries?

What we did not know about the Sasanian infantry is their how do the Sasanian select, train and arm these conscripts, because training and arming is the only way to ensure the quality of the conscript in battle.

Since temporary conscript will never defend the Empire from warlike adversaries, then we will have to guess the service length of the Sasanian infantry but the problem is no one could tell how long an infantry should serve the army, 2 years? 10 years? 20 years? or 25 years?

Ammianus Marcellinus did mention that Sasanian infantry was an unpaid and unworthy fighting force but i doubt the author's writing because it sounds like propaganda than truth.

What i believe there's a certain period of development in the begining until the late period of the Sasanian Empire, in the beginning conscription was temporary due to the length of the campaign was short, as the territory expands so does the military campaign needs which lead to longer service length plus combat pay for those who serve in distant land but still they are not fully develop compare to the later Sasanian army. Kosrow Reform however ensure all conscript who went in active military service have salary thus creating an army capable to embark for a military campaign further from their traditional border which means they are now a regular army.

I hope my friend some day someone could enlighten me with an answer because for now no one could really answer me how the Sasanian military works.
Reply
#14
Quote: and don't forget the Romans too draft their subject into the army too.

1. The Roman subject peoples were separate from the professional army, as Auxilia and later Foederati. While the Foederati were an allied militia, the Auxilia were professional soldiers.

2. The Romans had a truly professional army, just like a modern army. The soldier had a full-time job of being a soldier, was paid by the state, and supplied his equipment by the state. The Sassanids did do this as well, but not nearly to the degree the Romans did.

3. Conscription is a method of recruitment, it means being ordered to join the army. It does not mean what kind of army it is. Militia are conscripts just as much as the professionals we drafted to fight in WWII and Vietnam were. The Romans still retained a mostly volunteer army well into the 4th century AD.

4. Nadeem Ahmad, who posts here on occasion, could explain to you how the Sassanid army worked in quite extensive detail.
Reply
#15
Iulian,

Your idea of the Sassanid army is wrong. Your view of the Roman army is wrong as well. You are making it sound like both armies are just a whole bunch of poor peasants like in the Old Persian army. Also, you have no sources. You should read more about the Romans, and you will find that the Auxilia were professionals too! Read more on the Sassinids too and you will find that they di field heavy infantry. Where did you get this idea of the Sassanid army not being a good fighting force? They were a perfectly capable army with all types of infantry and cavalry. Where is your information from besides from your own opinions?

Ask Nadeem for more info. He will tell you that the Sassanids had heavy infantry and were not just conscripts.
Regards, Jason
Reply


Forum Jump: