Takabarâ in O.P.

[Dan D'Silva]

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to write an appraisal of the takabarâ as an Achaemenid troop type. Many seem to take it for granted that there were troops called by this name in the Persian military. Wikipedia claims (sans citations) that the Greeks wrote about them, while others (the Rome: Total War mod Rise of Persia, for example) claim that they were a particular Iranian tribe.

Based on our previous discussions and searching the Old Persian inscriptions at Livius.org, it's my understanding that the term takabarâ appears only as a modifier of Yaunâ, never by itself. I have yet to find any counterexamples. Does anyone know of any?

Thanks in advance.

Ed.: Sorry, I appear to have posted this without checking which sub-forum I was posting to.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

You should ask the modders for their sources, most Rome: Total War modders take pride in Historical Accuracy and I'm sure they would be happy to share their sources with you.

Also, I'm moving it now.

[Sean Manning]

Dan, I have not heard of any other uses. I am not an expert, and there is a lot of scholarship on these matters which few people interested in ancient warfare seem to read, but I would not take the claim seriously without evidence.

The modder's description of the Persian army is not in perfect English, so perhaps he is being misunderstood.

[Lyceum]

Dan, I have not heard of any other uses. I am not an expert, and there is a lot of scholarship on these matters which few people interested in ancient warfare seem to read, but I would not take the claim seriously without evidence.

The modder's description of the Persian army is not in perfect English, so perhaps he is being misunderstood.

Yes but where else are they getting it from? Seriously that thread is mental along with others I've seen online. Now I haven't read every bit of old Persian, but I don't think I've seen takabara in a military context like that. But it's been a while. To be fair it does kind of make sense in that taka here is probably alluding to a crescent shape reminiscent of Macedonian kausia hence yauna takabara. Though from what I remember there is some issue in modern scholarship offer how this equation works. I know, Skjærvø literally glosses it as petasos-bearing.

Regardless of whether or not it works linguistically, it's all moot without proof. I've seen a lot of bad etymologies posited online, in that thread and others, often based on later Iranian languages like Farsi. Not only is this nonsensical but many of these don't even make grammatical (abara is an athematic strong stem! Stop messing with it) let alone etymological sense (Stop reading modern permutations and loans back into the past!). In fact part of its popularity may be due to similar sounding words in Farsi, I think takavar or takabar is a commando, tak is attack/strike.

In fact a lot of words one sees bandied about, online, for old Persian armies are clearly moderns attempting to make ancient words, often calqued on Greek sources! so I've seen "immortals" referred to as amrtyan (a calque) when the old Persian was anusyian (companions) and, anyway, if an Old Persianwanted to say "immortal" he wouldn''t say something like that which would actually mean "un-man" but something like anausan...

And why is we don't see genuine old Persian words bandied about? like arshtikan for spearmen? huh?

I'd be very, very, wary and consider the sources used, e.g often none. This is without even brooching the myriad problems in the evidence for those of us who pick up some Old Iranian languages...so yeah...Maybe it's mentioned in the sources, I don't know, I haven't read all of them and have less time for Persian than I do Avestan. If you do find something I'd be happy to see it though since I am interested in it.

Also, Sean!, have you seen Llewellyn-Jone's book on King and Court in Ancient Persia? Still haven't got to it myself, it looks interesting but the best of the Edinburgh readings in Persia group is yet to come so I'm not too fussed. Still, this is more your kind of thing.

[Sean Manning]

Yes but where else are they getting it from? Seriously that thread is mental along with others I've seen online. Now I haven't read every bit of old Persian, but I don't think I've seen takabara in a military context like that. But it's been a while. To be fair it does kind of make sense in that taka here is probably alluding to a crescent shape reminiscent of Macedonian kausia hence yauna takabara. Though from what I remember there is some issue in modern scholarship offer how this equation works. I know, Skjærvø literally glosses it as petasos-bearing.

Hi Lyceum,

Yes, I would emphasize that philology is an area where one needs an expert, and most opinions online are not worth the time to read. There is a lot of folk-linguistics and third-hand versions of what Sekunda discusses in “Achaemenid Military Terminology” which in turn summarizes a lot of scholarship, mostly in German. I just have not read widely enough in this area to be sure that there are no other theories by respectable linguists.

Sekunda's theory was that the Yauna Takabara (OP) or “Second Ionia with shields on their heads” (Babylonian) of Achaemnid lists of peoples referred to Macedonians wearing the petasos or kausia and imply that a taka is some sort of shield. He then notes that Mayrhofer suggests that -taka- in Persian names comes from *taka “skin, hide,” that Greek authors sometimes speak of peltophoroi, and that Greek -phoroi soldiers often translate OP -bara soldiers. This lets him speculate that OP takabara meant “soldiers with small leather shields.” Sekunda was quite confident of this etymology; I am more dubious. But he cites actual philologists, and published his theory in a peer-reviewed journal not a gaming forum.

Jones' book was good ... the second half is a sourcebook. I wish I had seen it while I was finishing my MA.

Sean

[Dan D'Silva]

You should ask the modders for their sources, most Rome: Total War modders take pride in Historical Accuracy and I'm sure they would be happy to share their sources with you.

Good idea. I'll try to do that.

Also, I'm moving it now.

Thanks.

The modder's description of the Persian army is not in perfect English, so perhaps he is being misunderstood.

Interesting...

The fellow at the bottom talking about tabar makes me wonder if there might be a missing link somewhere. If it's the case Sekunda, rather than any period source, is the origin of the "type of soldier" definition of takabara, then maybe what happened next is that someone, unaware of the actual origin and Sekunda's etymological work, saw the word being used in this sense and connected it with the name of Tabarestan.

Of course the problem is that most of what people have to say about the subject is completely free of citations, so it's really hard to get at the evidence. Actually the current Wikipedia article does cite Sekunda's The Persian Army for its claim that takabara were peltasts. I can check out Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran if I visit my aunt in Princeton in the near future but the nearest copy of The Persian Army is in Bryn Mawr and I just can't find an excuse to visit there, so maybe I will have to order a copy.