Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sassanid Infantry
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.

The legionaries are professionals, then what position auxiliaries held?

Militia was different from a conscript:


Enlist (someone) compulsorily, typically into the armed services


A group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers.
Quote: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:

Did you ignore the post i've posted previously or are you BLIND? What i've said that Sasanian have well armed infantry but they are no professional like the Roman does.

What's your evidence that Sasanian have professional infantry like the Roman Legionaries?
Quote: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! )

I've read Ammianus Marcellinus stuff but he didn't really said they are armored at all or to be on par against the Romans. I think i need your evidence more than you need mine.
If you people have evidence, then why don't you fellow show me the evidence and why don't you prove the traditional view are WRONG? Go edit wikipedia and try to publish a book dedicate every last knowledge about Sasanian infantry or don't try to confuse people with your misled and confused knowledge!
You are contradicting your previous posts and are confusing me. Also, your posts towards us harsh and mean. STOP TELLING US THAT WE ARE WRONG WHEN WE HAVE HISTORICAL SOURCES.

I have proved my evidence, and you are not saying what is correct. All you are doing is being insulting by telling me that, although I have provided sources, I am wrong and that I know nothing.
You can use historical sources and still be wrong Jason. There is a certain amount of interpretation to them.

Quote:The legionaries are professionals, then what position auxiliaries held?

Also Professional Soldiers. The Auxilia fought in their local styles and utilized their local strengths, but were still supplied and paid via the Roman government. This of course changed when everyone was made a citizen in the 200's.


Enlist (someone) compulsorily, typically into the armed services


A group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers.

Yes, but you keep implying that the terms are the same through your description of the Sassanid military.

And the definition of militia is a bit more pliable - the Roman army prior to the beginning of the Marian Army was a Militia. They were landed men raised and paid for the duration of the conflict and disbanded, be they rich or poor, and supplied their own equipment and horses. So yes, a Militia can be someone who is raised and trained like a soldier and placed into the country's armed forces, without being a professional soldier.

Much of this plays into the concept of having a Standing Army, which the Romans and Sassanids both kept.
I do understand that Evan, but he is outright claiming that I do not know anything on this subject and the I have " misled and confused knowledge ".

In my opinion, that is an harsh post. Also, I am saying that the Sassanids had good infantry. Iulian said that they did not. Now he claims that he has been saying that they were good soldiers all along and that all I am doing is trying to confuse people. He is calling me blind and is trying to discredit me with a thousand already answered questions, and then says I am wrong no matter what I post!
I am not currently commenting in my capacity as a moderator, but both you and Iulian are being somewhat emotionally expressive in your posts. I do recommend that you and Iulian both tone it down a bit.
I sent him a PM asking him to stop saying that I do not know anything. Was I saying anything that could be offensive? I was trying not to do anything wrong and try to make the thread calm back down. I think that Iulian violated the Principle Number One on the rules myself by calling me blind and telling me that I know nothing about this and giving negative responses to my posts.

If Iulian will not accept the evidence, THEN FINE. He can keep his views but I still am holding that the Sassanids had a standing army with paid heavy infantry and light troops as reserves. I will not argue with him anymore. If Iulian posts back, I will simply ignore it.
Both of you, from the tone of your texts, have gone to accusing each other of being wrong and somewhat using ad hominem arguments, rather than debating the subject matter at hand. Neither of you have adequately sourced any subject matter to back up either of your claims as well. As great of a Wikipedia article on Aetius I wrote, I never use it as a source, and neither should either of you (in reference to Wikipedia, not the Aetius article). Jason, you reference Ammianus without citing him, and most of us here can't be bothered to look through pages and pages of material to find that specific passage. You need to quote what book and chapter it is in at least, preferably going as far as line numbers.

I recommend both of you do some basic reading on the topic before you try and debate this any further. I am not entirely familiar with Sassanid military disciplines, although I know the basics. Osprey would at least be a semi-decent start, if outdated and inaccurate in many regards. Nadeem can advise both of you on what subject matter to read up on.
I think that the topic is done. Even if it isn't, I have do not want to continue arguing. I am leaving this thread.
Can I recommend that both Jason and Iulian read the Forum rules with reference to conduct on the Forum.

We are all entitled to our opinion, but unless it is supported by good argument and research (preferably not wikipedia but ancient sources and scholastic commentary) your basis for debate is unsound.
Moi Watson

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Thank you Vindex. I went and read the rules again.
Why don't you folks try Montvert's Sassanian Armies: The Iranian Empire Early 3rd to Mid-7th Centuries AD by David Nicolle, it is better than those Osprey series.
I haven't read that one yet.... Have you?

P.S. Can you put your name in your signature? Like the forum rules say, no one wants to talk to a faceless moniker...

Forum Jump: