Parthian Army

[Patrick Waterson]

He suggests all Parthian cavalry proper may have been cataphracts, the light horse-archers being auxiliaries. If correct, it would mean the transition to the Sasanian style of army reliant on armoured cavalry was not such a drastic change at all.

Seems to base it pretty much on Dio 40.15 from a quick read through over lunch - a check on his translation of the Greek would be useful to check this (hint, hint  )

The passage reads:

aspidi men ouden nomizousin, hippotoxotai de kai kontophoroi, ta polla kataphraktoi, strateuontai

aspidi men ouden nomizousin = they do not use shields

hippotoxotai de kai kontophoroi = horse-archers and lancers

ta polla kataphraktoi = many fully armoured

strateuontai = they bring when going to war (literally: take into the army)

This is ambiguous: the question seems to be whether 'many fully armoured' refers to the lancers and horse-archers or just the lancers.  Best guess: it refers to just the lancers.  Had the order been kontophoroi de kai hippotoxotai then there would be no real doubt, as if the archers are armoured the lancers would be, too.

[T13A]

A timely post as my next ancient army (15mm) will be Parthians for 'Impetus' and 'To the Strongest!'.

However I do wonder how well this army should do (assuming the rules used recreate ancient battles reasonably well) on a standard/normal war games table. The impression I get is that for historical Parthian tactics to work they need plenty of space and they were probably not suited to the normal stand up fight in a restricted space that most rules are designed for. Is that a reasonable assumption or have I got that wrong?

Cheers Paul

[nikgaukroger]

This is ambiguous: the question seems to be whether 'many fully armoured' refers to the lancers and horse-archers or just the lancers.  Best guess: it refers to just the lancers.  Had the order been kontophoroi de kai hippotoxotai then there would be no real doubt, as if the archers are armoured the lancers would be, too.

The English as presented is indeed ambiguous (and I have no way of commenting whether the Greek grammar is less so), and I think the point of the article is that the usual interpretation (your best guess) is actually based on a single, possibly, atypical case. There is anther case (Plutarch?) which if it were the only one may lead to a different "best guess".

[nikgaukroger]

A timely post as my next ancient army (15mm) will be Parthians for 'Impetus' and 'To the Strongest!'.

However I do wonder how well this army should do (assuming the rules used recreate ancient battles reasonably well) on a standard/normal war games table. The impression I get is that for historical Parthian tactics to work they need plenty of space and they were probably not suited to the normal stand up fight in a restricted space that most rules are designed for. Is that a reasonable assumption or have I got that wrong?

Cheers Paul

One could point to Nisibis in 217 which was a stand up fight and which was a bloody draw which lasted 3 days.

[eques]

One of Mark Anthony's lieutenants fought a series of pitched battles against them (although they lost those battles)

[Andreas Johansson]

One could point to Nisibis in 217 which was a stand up fight and which was a bloody draw which lasted 3 days.

Nisibis is discussed in this thread about cataphract camels, that battle happening to be the apparently only (and somewhat dubious) attestation.

[Jim Webster]

My first 6mm army (a little visually disappointing in that scale as you don't get any massed infantry, though the cataphracts look impressive if you put them all together)

This is an army that can give rule writers headaches, consisting as it does of practically all skirmishers. Make the horse archers too difficult to catch and it's unfair on their opponents, make them too easy to catch and it's unfair on the Parthians. Ditto the strength of their shooting.

Is that article above (which I haven't read) over complicating.things?  Surely the cataphracts were nobles and the Horse Archers their tenants?

With regard to the switch to Sassanids my.understanding was that at the time it would have been seen as a change of ruling family rather than the arrival of a new epoch!

I suspect that you had various 'grades' of 'cataphract' as well to be honest. Following the Noble and tenant idea, I'd think the front rank would be nobles with all the kit and full horse armour, and as you worked your way back through the rank, you'd have men with mail shirts and horses with some quilting

[RichT]

This is ambiguous: the question seems to be whether 'many fully armoured' refers to the lancers and horse-archers or just the lancers.  Best guess: it refers to just the lancers.  Had the order been kontophoroi de kai hippotoxotai then there would be no real doubt, as if the archers are armoured the lancers would be, too.

The English as presented is indeed ambiguous (and I have no way of commenting whether the Greek grammar is less so), and I think the point of the article is that the usual interpretation (your best guess) is actually based on a single, possibly, atypical case. There is anther case (Plutarch?) which if it were the only one may lead to a different "best guess".

The Greek grammar is (more or less) just as ambiguous as the English - there is a tiny smidgen less ambiguity from the 'men...de' construction which is sometimes formally translated as 'on the one hand... on the other hand' and slightly implies that the second phrase should be taken as a whole:

"on the one hand they do not use shields, on the other hand they marshal horse-archers-and-lancers-many-fully-armoured"

But really there's nothing in it so far as I can see and either guess is possible from the passage alone (and our usual inclination would be to think of hippotoxotai as not being kataphraktoi).

[nikgaukroger]

The Greek grammar is (more or less) just as ambiguous as the English - there is a tiny smidgen less ambiguity from the 'men...de' construction which is sometimes formally translated as 'on the one hand... on the other hand' and slightly implies that the second phrase should be taken as a whole:

"on the one hand they do not use shields, on the other hand they marshal horse-archers-and-lancers-many-fully-armoured"

But really there's nothing in it so far as I can see and either guess is possible from the passage alone (and our usual inclination would be to think of hippotoxotai as not being kataphraktoi).

Cheers 

[Andreas Johansson]

But really there's nothing in it so far as I can see and either guess is possible from the passage alone (and our usual inclination would be to think of hippotoxotai as not being kataphraktoi).

Does hippotoxotai get used elsewhere for horse archers we know or suspect on other grounds to be armoured? There's no etymological grounds it should mean only light horse archers - but of course usage often diverges.

[Patrick Waterson]

Does hippotoxotai get used elsewhere for horse archers we know or suspect on other grounds to be armoured? There's no etymological grounds it should mean only light horse archers - but of course usage often diverges.

Cassius Dio uses it only one further time: in L.16, with Marcus Antonius describing his forces before Actium.

horate de pou kai autoi hoson men kai hoion nautikon ekhomen, hosous de kai hoious hoplitas hippeas sphendonētas peltastas toxotas hippotoxotas

(Again, you yourselves surely see how large and how fine a fleet we have, and how many fine hoplites [= legionaries], cavalry, slingers, peltasts, archers, and mounted archers.)

No prima facie indication that the hippotoxotai were cataphracted or otherwise armoured, but equally no clear indication of lightness unless one counts them being listed after the lighter troop types.

Next is the question of whether some or all of the Parthian cavalry used both bow and lance, Sassanid-style.  At Carrhae, and from Plutarch's description of Surena's retinue, we get the impression that the Parthian cataphracts and horse-archers were separate troop types, differently armoured.  Yet when Antony took the field against them, some were distinctly double-armed.

Plutarch, Life of Antony 45.2-3
However, as the Romans were descending some steep hills, the Parthians attacked them and shot at them as they slowly moved along. Then the shield-bearers wheeled about, enclosing the lighter armed troops within their ranks, while they themselves dropped on one knee and held their shields out before them. The second rank held their shields out over the heads of the first, and the next rank likewise. The resulting appearance is very like that of a roof, affords a striking spectacle, and is the most effective of protections against arrows, which glide off from it. [3] The Parthians, however, thinking that the Romans dropping on one knee was a sign of fatigue and exhaustion, laid aside their bows, grasped their spears by the middle and came to close quarters. But the Romans, with a full battle cry, suddenly sprang up, and thrusting with their javelins slew the foremost of the Parthians and put all the rest to rout.

Do we conclude from this that the Parthians fielded the following types:

1) Cataphract lancers
2) Armoured lancer-archers
3) Horse-archers

If we can infer anything from other cataphract armies, notably Sassanids and Tibetans, these had an intermediate double-armed category between the full cataphracts and the mounted archers (less sure about Palmyrans).  Hence I am increasingly wondering if instead of either-or we should be thinking both-and when it comes to cataphracts and armoured lancer-archers in addition to typical light horse-archers.

[Jim Webster]

With have Tacitus, Annals, Book 6 describing Parthian tactics

35. Among the Sarmatae the general's voice was not alone to be heard. They encouraged one another not to begin the battle with volleys of arrows; they must, they said, anticipate attack by a hand to hand charge. Then followed every variety of conflict. The Parthians, accustomed to pursue or fly with equal science, deployed their squadrons, and sought scope for their missiles. The Sarmatae, throwing aside their bows, which at a shorter range are effective, rushed on with pikes and swords. Sometimes, as in a cavalry-action, there would be alternate advances and retreats, then, again, close fighting, in which, breast to breast, with the clash of arms, they repulsed the foe or were themselves repulsed. And now the Albanians and Iberians seized, and hurled the Parthians from their steeds, and embarrassed their enemy with a double attack, pressed as they were by the cavalry on the heights and by the nearer blows of the infantry. Meanwhile Pharasmanes and Orodes, who, as they cheered on the brave and supported the wavering, were conspicuous to all, and so recognised each other, rushed to the combat with a shout, with javelins, and galloping chargers, Pharasmanes with the greater impetuosity, for he pierced his enemy's helmet at a stroke. But he could not repeat the blow, as he was hurried onwards by his horse, and the wounded man was protected by the bravest of his guards. A rumour that he was slain, which was believed by mistake, struck panic into the Parthians, and they yielded the victory.

[Duncan Head]

"Javelins" in that Tacitus passage is "telis", incidentally, so need not be taken literally as "javelins": "missiles" or maybe even just "weapons".

[Andreas Johansson]

If we can infer anything from other cataphract armies, notably Sassanids and Tibetans, these had an intermediate double-armed category between the full cataphracts and the mounted archers (less sure about Palmyrans).  Hence I am increasingly wondering if instead of either-or we should be thinking both-and when it comes to cataphracts and armoured lancer-archers in addition to typical light horse-archers.

Tangential, but I'm curious about the evidence for "intermediate" Tibetan cavalry?

Back to Parthia, while Plutarch depicts the cataphracts as distinct from the horse archers, he doesn't say whether they themselves carried bows, and the references to "the Parthians" shooting might most naturally be read as meaning all Parthians shot, so an alternative interpretation would be that all had bows, and that the men with bows and spears in Life of Anthony are simply the cataphracts.

Jim's Tacitus' quote too makes it sound like all Parthians shot.

[nikgaukroger]

The Parthians, however, thinking that the Romans dropping on one knee was a sign of fatigue and exhaustion, laid aside their bows, grasped their spears by the middle and came to close quarters.

Sounds somewhat like the Turks described in the Strategikon.