Service and Supply in the Achaemenid Army

[Sean Manning]

As of 29 April, all the requirements of my MA in Greek and Roman Studies are complete. My final thesis topic was the revolt of Cyrus the Younger as an example of an Achaemenid land campaign. A copy is available at http://ucalgary.academia.edu/SeanManning but let me know if you want a separate PDF.

I chose this topic for a simple reason: Achaemenid army studies are neglected, and it is more useful to write about an important but neglected topic than to add another volume to the scholarship on a trendy one. In my humble opinion, it is unbalanced that there is more English and German scholarship on the mechanics of combat between two Classical Greek hoplite phalanxes than on the whole of Achaemenid army studies.

In my thesis I sought to do two things: to be specific and precise where writers not mainly interested in military history are vague, and to treat the Achaemenid army just like any other. After all, Xenophon sees Persian gentlemen as his professional peers, whose problems were moral not technical. I am especially proud of the discussion of exactly what territories Cyrus controlled in 401, and the discussion of Cyrus' courtiers. I do not talk about kit at all, since it isn't very important for army studies and since there are already books which discuss that.

The thesis consists of an introduction, a chapter on Darius II's Yauna war, an analysis of what peoples and revenues Cyrus controlled and how Cyrus raised his army, a chapter about how Cyrus' army moved and changed, and a brief conclusion. I hope that a thesis on Persian army studies will be of interest to some of the experts on Roman army studies here!

[Eleatic Guest]

It is only a technological detail but did you also treat the subject of the lead slingers in the Greek corps? AFAIK, Xenophon's Anabasis contains the oldest literary reference to lead bullets being used. And, IIRC, he made a point that the Greeks had a military advantage by using them. I wonder if they ever unearthed older examples or if the Anabasis still constitutes the terminus ante quem for their introduction.

[Sean Manning]

It is only a technological detail but did you also treat the subject of the lead slingers in the Greek corps? AFAIK, Xenophon's Anabasis contains the oldest literary reference to lead bullets being used. And, IIRC, he made a point that the Greeks had a military advantage by using them. I wonder if they ever unearthed older examples or if the Anabasis still constitutes the terminus ante quem for their introduction.

That is controversial. Clive Foss (“A Bullet of Tissaphernes,” Jnl of Hellenic Studies Vol. 95 (1975) pp. 25-30) suggests based on the find of a sling bullet labeled “Tissaphernes,” and Xenophon's claim that Rhodian slingers could out-range Persian ones because the Rhodians used lead shot and the Persian large stone shot, that soldiers from western Anatolia did not use lead shot in 401 BCE. But Briant (note to chapter 17/3 p. 1037/1038 of the English translation) points out that the stockpile of gut for bowstrings and lead for shot of An. 3.4.17 was probably meant for soldiers, and I think this view is correct. One of the problems with Achaemenid army studies is that people are too ready to see Greek influence on the Persians, and too reluctant to see Persian influence on the Greeks.

Foss cites Minoan lead bullets from a known stratigraphic context, ones "said to have been found on the battlefield at Marathon," and ones of unknown date at Olympia. Briant notes that many lead bullets have been found at Dascylium, and until they are published we will not know their date.

[Eleatic Guest]

But Briant (note to chapter 17/3 p. 1037/1038 of the English translation) points out that the stockpile of gut for bowstrings and lead for shot of An. 3.4.17 was probably meant for soldiers, and I think this view is correct.

Xenophon writes: In the villages, furthermore, the Greeks found gut in abundance and lead for the use of their slingers.

Well, deducing from this that the Persians knew lead bullets too seems guesswork to me. Not even the shape of the lead can be determined from the brief passage. Given that lead has a melting point of only around 300 degrees Celsius, so that bullets can be easily produced over any camping fire on the march, the only thing we know for sure is that Greek slingers would have made good use of lead irrespective of the shape they encountered it - and that consequently Xenophon would have reason to mention the lead in whatever form the Greeks acquired it.

One of the problems with Achaemenid army studies is that people are too ready to see Greek influence on the Persians, and too reluctant to see Persian influence on the Greeks.

That is because
A. the winner writes history and Hellenism is widely perceived as the eventual victor in the Greek-Persian conflicts (even though the rivalry continued until right up the Islamic period).
B. the Persians were so unfortunate to clash with the first people in history who indulged in historiography, while they did not bother to write down their view of events for another thousand years (not before the 9th-10th century did - Islamic - Persians seriously took to the pen).
C. the Greeks were technologically superior and the Persians acknowledged this by entrusting Greek engineers their entire army, like Dareios did who used the Hellespont bridge Mandrocles of Samos constructed in 513 BC

[Sean Manning]

EG, your post requires a response on a number of levels.

Well, deducing from this that the Persians knew lead bullets too seems guesswork to me. Not even the shape of the lead can be determined from the brief passage. Given that lead has a melting point of only around 300 degrees Celsius, so that bullets can be easily produced over any camping fire on the march, the only thing we know for sure is that Greek slingers would have made good use of lead irrespective of the shape they encountered it - and that consequently Xenophon would have reason to mention the lead in whatever form the Greeks acquired it.

But just a few pages later, at An. 3.4.31, we encounter a stockpile of flour, wine, and barley for horses collected by a satrap. It is reasonable to assume that in both cases we are dealing with supplies for soldiers, so the lead could have been intended for bullets. We don't know where Tissaphernes' slingers came from, as he fled to the King with "about five hundred horsemen" not "his army" (Xen. An. 1.2.4), and Xenophon An. 3.3.17 is explicit that the comparison is between “Persians” shooting stones the size of a fist and Rhodians shooting both those and lead bullets. Large, heavy stone shot (a limestone ball 5 cm in diameter would weigh 150-200 g) clearly have a shorter range than small, light shot (Foss' bullet weighs 40 g). Xenophon very specifically compares Rhodian slingers using one type of ammunition to unidentified Persian slingers using another type, and generalizing this to all Greeks and all Persians would be dangerous.

It seems best to say that lead bullets are attested in Rhodes in 401 BCE, and in western Anatolia at about that date.

That is because
A. the winner writes history and Hellenism is widely perceived as the eventual victor in the Greek-Persian conflicts (even though the rivalry continued until right up the Islamic period).

If you think of Greek history from the Archidamian War to the King's Peace, I think you will see why that is untrue. Our story of the Archidamian and Ionian Wars was written by Thucydides, an exile from defeated Athens who was no friend of the victors. Alcibiades, a man who was shot down fleeing half-naked from a burning hut after offending all his allies, also strongly influenced the stories we tell about the Persian side of things. Then we have Xenophon, who was on the Athenian side of the Ionian war when they lost, was with Cyrus when he was defeated, joined the Spartan army which tried and failed to liberate Ionia, and settled in the Peloponnese only to see his Spartan friends trounced by the Thebans. Xenophon is a very strong influence on the stories we tell about most of these wars, so which one did his friends win?

If the losers survive, they can often be more effective at spreading their story than the winners are. They have a strong excuse to defend themselves, noble defeats make good stories, and the winners often cannot or will not reach an important audience.

B. the Persians were so unfortunate to clash with the first people in history who indulged in historiography, while they did not bother to write down their view of events for another thousand years (not before the 9th-10th century did - Islamic - Persians seriously took to the pen).

But most ideas such as “kardakes must have been imitations of Greek hoplites” or “scythed chariots must have been invented to counter Greek hoplites” are the creations of 20th century historians, not ancient ones. They are therefore our fault, not the fault of the ancients.

C. the Greeks were technologically superior and the Persians acknowledged this by entrusting Greek engineers their entire army, like Dareios did who used the Hellespont bridge Mandrocles of Samos constructed in 513 BC

That is an interesting statement. If you think about it, in the political sense a Samian was a Persian at that date. So when Persians employed Egyptian, Phoenician, or Yauna experts for nautical projects, they were using the specialties of different nations in their empire, not importing a technology in the way that Kenya might import airliners from Brazil today.

You then start talking about “technological superiority.” As it happens, most of the things which the Persians taught the Greeks and Macedonians about war were practices not artisanal skills. But could you give some examples of specific technologies which you think gave Greeks a specific military advantage over the King's other subjects, friends, and enemies?