10-12-2011, 05:11 PM
First of all, my first post, although I have been lurking here for quite a while as a guest, so hi all. 
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.
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.
