Topic starter.
I like Parthians, but they get a raw deal on the tabletop because they tend to be conceived as Cataphracts and rather light horse with bow only . Adding variety with some rather poor ex Seleucids is fine and icing them so not too effective infantry , possibly the equivalent of Daylami in Sasanid lists is also fine, but they lack a light cavalry type with punch.
There is reasonable evidence that Parthian light cavalry could use contuse as well as bow so I will be offering up an Armati based list with some of these punchier horse bows in it.
Roy
There are next to no 28mm figures, for some reason:
- Magister Militum
- Stafford Games had a (very small) range, not quite sure what has happened to it
- Old Glory apparently have them; I'm always in the position with Old Glory of I don't know what they look like so wouldn't buy them
- A&A, as something of an afterthought on their Sasanian line
Out of the above, I'd go with A&A.
Caliban has been painting 28mm Parthians for another club member of mine and blogging it.
http://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.co.uk/
He has mentioned Navigator (via Magister) and Warrior Miniatures
Also Bearsden, which I didn't mention earlier as I'm not sure they are currently operating.
They are not.
I can ask Chris if he has any stock available, but officially they have ceased.
An interesting article on Parthian cataphracts by Ilkka Syvanne at http://www.ihism.uph.edu.pl/images/PDFs/DRUK_HIS_6/DRUK-SYVNNE.pdf
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.
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 03, 2018, 10:32:38 AM
An interesting article on Parthian cataphracts by Ilkka Syvanne at http://www.ihism.uph.edu.pl/images/PDFs/DRUK_HIS_6/DRUK-SYVNNE.pdf
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.
I confess I've always seen the Parthian army as an evolving institution, and with the Sassanid Army just a continuation. After all men who fought in the Sassanid Armyin 230AD could well have fought in the Parthian Army in 220AD :D
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 03, 2018, 10:32:38 AM
An interesting article on Parthian cataphracts by Ilkka Syvanne at http://www.ihism.uph.edu.pl/images/PDFs/DRUK_HIS_6/DRUK-SYVNNE.pdf
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.
Thanks for this - albeit I will read with a bit of trepidation ;)
A quick look at the introduction and I see this statement - "The Parthians had had a long string of successes against the Macedonian combined arms forces before they came face-to-face with the Romans in the first century BC."
Is that actually true? Whilst they certainly conquered much of the declining Seleukid empire I have the distinct impression that they didn't win that many battles against royal Seleukid armies - even as late as Antiochos VII the Seleukids defeated the Parthians in battle, only winning that war by catching Antiochos when he had few troops with him and killing him.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 03, 2018, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 03, 2018, 10:32:38 AM
An interesting article on Parthian cataphracts by Ilkka Syvanne at http://www.ihism.uph.edu.pl/images/PDFs/DRUK_HIS_6/DRUK-SYVNNE.pdf
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.
Thanks for this - albeit I will read with a bit of trepidation ;)
A quick look at the introduction and I see this statement - "The Parthians had had a long string of successes against the Macedonian combined arms forces before they came face-to-face with the Romans in the first century BC."
Is that actually true? Whilst they certainly conquered much of the declining Seleukid empire I have the distinct impression that they didn't win that many battles against royal Seleukid armies - even as late as Antiochos VII the Seleukids defeated the Parthians in battle, only winning that war by catching Antiochos when he had few troops with him and killing him.
Certainly they seem to have been good at not losing wars rather than winning battles.
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 03, 2018, 10:44:40 AM
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 03, 2018, 10:32:38 AM
An interesting article on Parthian cataphracts by Ilkka Syvanne at http://www.ihism.uph.edu.pl/images/PDFs/DRUK_HIS_6/DRUK-SYVNNE.pdf
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.
I confess I've always seen the Parthian army as an evolving institution, and with the Sassanid Army just a continuation. After all men who fought in the Sassanid Armyin 230AD could well have fought in the Parthian Army in 220AD :D
Indeed. Especially as a number of the Parthian great families continued as great families all the way through the Sasanid era.
Rules-wise I am playing ADLG which allows some of the light horse to be classed as MC with bow allowing them to shoot effectively, evade but not melee particularly well.
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 03, 2018, 10:32:38 AM
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 ;) )
As an alternative it could, I would think, be suggested that if the army at Carrhae was the personal retinue of one of the great houses (Suren in this case), then a large Parthian army could be made up of a number of such and may be a better way of estimating composition.
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!
Also, I wish manufacturers would sell the rear shooters in separate packs - some players don't want them as they're awkward to integrate with forward shooters on a base.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 03, 2018, 01:29:58 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 03, 2018, 10:32:38 AM
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.
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
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 03, 2018, 07:27:32 PM
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".
Quote from: T13A on January 03, 2018, 07:38:11 PM
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.
One of Mark Anthony's lieutenants fought a series of pitched battles against them (although they lost those battles)
Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 03, 2018, 08:28:11 PM
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 (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2554), that battle happening to be the apparently only (and somewhat dubious) attestation.
Quote from: eques on January 03, 2018, 03:25:31 PM
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
Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 03, 2018, 08:26:05 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 03, 2018, 07:27:32 PM
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).
Quote from: RichT on January 04, 2018, 09:22:53 AM
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 ;D
Quote from: RichT on January 04, 2018, 09:22:53 AM
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.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on January 04, 2018, 09:36:27 AM
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.
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.
"Javelins" in that Tacitus passage is "telis", incidentally, so need not be taken literally as "javelins": "missiles" or maybe even just "weapons".
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 04, 2018, 10:05:46 AM
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.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 04, 2018, 10:05:46 AM
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.
Looking at Dio 40:15 again:
QuoteThe Parthians make no use of a shield, but their forces consist of mounted archers and pikesmen, mostly in full armour. Their infantry is small, made up of the weaker men; but even these are all archers. They practise from boyhood, and the climate and the land combine to aid both horsemanship and archery.
(my emphasis)
If "even" the infantry are all archers, presumably the more prestigious cavalry are also all archers, or at least Dio thought so.
The Greek is πεζοί τε ὀλίγοι μὲν καὶ οἱ ἀσθενέστεροι, τοξόται δ᾽ οὖν καὶ ἐκεῖνοι πάντες εἰσίν, if it helps.
("Pikesmen" for
kontophoroi is in passing yet another instance of classical scholars' thoughtless disregard for well-established wargamer terminology.)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on January 04, 2018, 11:40:39 AM
Looking at Dio 40:15 again:
QuoteThe Parthians make no use of a shield, but their forces consist of mounted archers and pikesmen, mostly in full armour. Their infantry is small, made up of the weaker men; but even these are all archers. They practise from boyhood, and the climate and the land combine to aid both horsemanship and archery.
(my emphasis)
If "even" the infantry are all archers, presumably the more prestigious cavalry are also all archers, or at least Dio thought so.
The Greek is πεζοί τε ὀλίγοι μὲν καὶ οἱ ἀσθενέστεροι, τοξόται δ᾽ οὖν καὶ ἐκεῖνοι πάντες εἰσίν, if it helps.
The '
men' here would appear to be 'indeed' rather than 'even' (first usage in the Perseus lexicon (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=me%5Cn&la=greek&can=me%5Cn1&prior=o)li/goi&d=Perseus:text:2008.01.0593:book=40:chapter=15:section=2&i=2#lexicon)) which may or may not reflect upon the prestigious part of the cavalry, i.e. it may simply be the wondering comment of a classical author that any power of note could hope to get by or even exist without a meaningful contingent of heavy infantry.
Quote
("Pikesmen" for kontophoroi is in passing yet another instance of classical scholars' thoughtless disregard for well-established wargamer terminology.)
Absolutely - albeit perhaps marginally less of a crime than 'pikemen' for
lonchophoroi (peltasts) in Hannibal's army. And do we ever see the term used for
sarissophoroi?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 04, 2018, 07:32:23 PM
The 'men' here would appear to be 'indeed' rather than 'even' (first usage in the Perseus lexicon (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=me%5Cn&la=greek&can=me%5Cn1&prior=o)li/goi&d=Perseus:text:2008.01.0593:book=40:chapter=15:section=2&i=2#lexicon)) which may or may not reflect upon the prestigious part of the cavalry, i.e. it may simply be the wondering comment of a classical author that any power of note could hope to get by or even exist without a meaningful contingent of heavy infantry.
Thanks. So probably no implication either way about cataphracts bows here.
The illustrations in Syvänne's paper include several men with bows on armoured (or at least covered) horses. Some might be your hypothesized intermediate cavalry (e.g. the Dura Europus mounted archer), but the one from Tang-e Sarvak, said to probably depict a king of Elymais, surely shows a full cataphract - armoured man on an armoured horse, wielding a long lance, and with a quiver hanging from his belt. Now, royal equipment doesn't necessarily represent that of lesser men, and the king of Elymais may not be a Parthian
stricto sensu*, but it shows that bow-armed cataphracts at least existed.
* The Elymaean king-list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elymais#Kings_of_Elymais) at WP includes royal Parthian names like Orodes and and Phraates, suggesting the kings might have represented a branch, or branches, of the Arsacids, but also a bunch of kings with the less Parthian-sounding name Kamnaskires, perhaps suggesting an indigenous dynasty. Presumably significantly, most kings before
c. AD 25 are called Kamnaskires, while most afterwards bear Arsacid-sounding ones.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 04, 2018, 07:32:23 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on January 04, 2018, 11:40:39 AM
Looking at Dio 40:15 again:
...
The Greek is πεζοί τε ὀλίγοι μὲν καὶ οἱ ἀσθενέστεροι, τοξόται δ᾽ οὖν καὶ ἐκεῖνοι πάντες εἰσίν, if it helps.
The 'men' here would appear to be 'indeed' rather than 'even' (first usage in the Perseus lexicon (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=me%5Cn&la=greek&can=me%5Cn1&prior=o)li/goi&d=Perseus:text:2008.01.0593:book=40:chapter=15:section=2&i=2#lexicon)) which may or may not reflect upon the prestigious part of the cavalry, i.e. it may simply be the wondering comment of a classical author that any power of note could hope to get by or even exist without a meaningful contingent of heavy infantry.
Not quite - men is part of another men...de (the de comes after 'toxotai') - "but even these" translates οὖν καὶ ἐκεῖνοι oun kai ekeinoi .
"on the one hand their infantry is small and the weaker; on the other in fact also these are all archers."
But I don't think this says anything conclusive about which of the cavalry is or isn't an archer.
For what it's worth, the Tacticians (Asclepiodotus, Aelian, Arrian) identify hippotoxotai among the acrobolistai ('sharpshooters'), which are part of the aphraktoi and so distinct from the kataphraktoi. Arrian (
Tactica 4) gives Parthians as a specific example - "acrobolistai make use of shooting from a distance, like Armenians and Parthians, those which are not kontophoroi.... Those [of the acrobolistai] using javelins for shooting are called Tarentines, the others are hippotoxotai."
Quote from: RichT on January 04, 2018, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 04, 2018, 07:32:23 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on January 04, 2018, 11:40:39 AM
Looking at Dio 40:15 again:
...
The Greek is πεζοί τε ὀλίγοι μὲν καὶ οἱ ἀσθενέστεροι, τοξόται δ᾽ οὖν καὶ ἐκεῖνοι πάντες εἰσίν, if it helps.
The 'men' here would appear to be 'indeed' rather than 'even' (first usage in the Perseus lexicon (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=me%5Cn&la=greek&can=me%5Cn1&prior=o)li/goi&d=Perseus:text:2008.01.0593:book=40:chapter=15:section=2&i=2#lexicon)) which may or may not reflect upon the prestigious part of the cavalry, i.e. it may simply be the wondering comment of a classical author that any power of note could hope to get by or even exist without a meaningful contingent of heavy infantry.
Not quite - men is part of another men...de (the de comes after 'toxotai') - "but even these" translates οὖν καὶ ἐκεῖνοι oun kai ekeinoi .
"on the one hand their infantry is small and the weaker; on the other in fact also these are all archers."
But I don't think this says anything conclusive about which of the cavalry is or isn't an archer.
For what it's worth, the Tacticians (Asclepiodotus, Aelian, Arrian) identify hippotoxotai among the acrobolistai ('sharpshooters'), which are part of the aphraktoi and so distinct from the kataphraktoi. Arrian (Tactica 4) gives Parthians as a specific example - "acrobolistai make use of shooting from a distance, like Armenians and Parthians, those which are not kontophoroi.... Those [of the acrobolistai] using javelins for shooting are called Tarentines, the others are hippotoxotai."
Strikes me that we have a distinction between 'horse archers' and 'cavalry who have bows in their equipment list.'
We have evidence that Parthian armoured cavalry carried bows. But looking at the armour, with banded armour on the arms etc, I somehow cannot imagine that these are the horseman who did the Parthian shot.
I'd suggest the heavier cavalry with bows were somewhat more sedate and perhaps practiced 'shower shooting' in a Sassanid manner (if indeed that's what the Sassanids did)
Quote from: RichT on January 04, 2018, 10:03:53 PM
For what it's worth, the Tacticians (Asclepiodotus, Aelian, Arrian) identify hippotoxotai among the acrobolistai ('sharpshooters'), which are part of the aphraktoi and so distinct from the kataphraktoi. Arrian (Tactica 4) gives Parthians as a specific example - "acrobolistai make use of shooting from a distance, like Armenians and Parthians, those which are not kontophoroi.... Those [of the acrobolistai] using javelins for shooting are called Tarentines, the others are hippotoxotai."
That in itself is useful for establishing that the
hippotoxotai are distinct from
kontophoroi. The next question is whether some of the
kontophoroi carried bows.
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 05, 2018, 07:12:40 AM
Strikes me that we have a distinction between 'horse archers' and 'cavalry who have bows in their equipment list.'
This does seem to be the way things are pointing.
Quote
We have evidence that Parthian armoured cavalry carried bows. But looking at the armour, with banded armour on the arms etc, I somehow cannot imagine that these are the horseman who did the Parthian shot.
I'd suggest the heavier cavalry with bows were somewhat more sedate and perhaps practiced 'shower shooting' in a Sassanid manner (if indeed that's what the Sassanids did)
We might even have an intermediate semi-armoured lance-and-bow category who did this shooting, with the 'pure' (fully armoured) cataphracts using just the lance.
Looking at Plutarch's description of Surena's household:
"He used to travel on private business with a baggage train of a thousand camels, and was followed by two hundred waggons for his concubines, while a thousand mail-clad horsemen and a still greater number of light-armed cavalry served as his escort; and he had altogether, as horsemen, vassals, and slaves, no fewer than ten thousand men." - Plutarch,
Crassus 21.6
'Light-armed cavalry' are
kouphon ('light-armed') as opposed to the
hippotoxotai we might expect for pure horse archers. Incidentally, there are not ten thousand of them, just 'a still greater number' than the 1,000 cataphracts, i.e. 1,000+. The 'vassals' (
pelatas) and 'slaves' (
doulous) who make up the rest of the household are distinguished from the cavalry (
hippeis), so are either unarmed men or foot archers.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 05, 2018, 09:41:31 AM
'Light-armed cavalry' are kouphon ('light-armed') as opposed to the hippotoxotai we might expect for pure horse archers. Incidentally, there are not ten thousand of them, just 'a still greater number' than the 1,000 cataphracts, i.e. 1,000+. The 'vassals' (pelatas) and 'slaves' (doulous) who make up the rest of the household are distinguished from the cavalry (hippeis), so are either unarmed men or foot archers.
Except we have a very interesting Parthian find showing a shielded infantry spearman. I referenced it in my Slingshot series on the Sasanians I believe.
Quote from: DougM on January 05, 2018, 05:26:28 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 05, 2018, 09:41:31 AM
'Light-armed cavalry' are kouphon ('light-armed') as opposed to the hippotoxotai we might expect for pure horse archers. Incidentally, there are not ten thousand of them, just 'a still greater number' than the 1,000 cataphracts, i.e. 1,000+. The 'vassals' (pelatas) and 'slaves' (doulous) who make up the rest of the household are distinguished from the cavalry (hippeis), so are either unarmed men or foot archers.
Except we have a very interesting Parthian find showing a shielded infantry spearman. I referenced it in my Slingshot series on the Sasanians I believe.
Not only that but some translations vary slightly
. Nor was this Surena an ordinary person, but in wealth, family, and reputation, the second man in the kingdom, and in courage and prowess the first, and for bodily stature and beauty no man like him. Whenever he traveled privately, he had one thousand camels to carry his baggage, two hundred chariots for his concubines, one thousand completely armed men for his life-guards, and a great many more light-armed; and he had at least ten thousand horsemen altogether, of his servants and retinue.
A lot of the miscellaneous servants might have been to look after the concubines. Think how many hairdressers you'd need for that number of concubines
Jim
That is why I took a peek at the Greek, which reads:
hippeis de kataphraktoi khilioi, pleiones de tōn kouphōn parepempon, eikhe de tous sumpantas hippeis homou pelatas te kai doulous muriōn ouk apodeontas
Richard can doubtless help with the details of this (his Greek is better than mine) but the essence is:
1)
kataphraktoi khilioi = 1,000 horsemen
2)
pleiones de tōn kouphōn parepempon = more than that in light-armed escorts (number not specified)
3)
eikhe de tous sumpantas -
eikhe = he had charge/possession of;
de tous = the following;
sumpantas = all together
4)
hippeis homou pelatas te kai doulous = horsemen, together [
homou] with vassals/dependents [
pelatas] and slaves [
te kai dolous]
5)
muriōn ouk apodeontas = no fewer than 10,000
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 05, 2018, 05:46:04 PM
A lot of the miscellaneous servants might have been to look after the concubines. Think how many hairdressers you'd need for that number of concubines
A daunting prospect indeed, although few if any of them would add to the cavalry total. :)
Quote from: DougM on January 05, 2018, 05:26:28 PM
Except we have a very interesting Parthian find showing a shielded infantry spearman. I referenced it in my Slingshot series on the Sasanians I believe.
Cassius Dio presumably did not see it, hence his description of Parthian infantry as archers, a description we might perhaps take
cum grano salis. My essential point is that Plutarch adds, or seems to add, Surena's horsemen to his dependents and slaves to get his 10,000, so those not noted as
hippeis would perforce be foot - and, according to Dio, any armed foot would be archers. (I would be surprised if in reality the Parthians never, ever fielded shielded foot of some description, if only in garrisons.)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 05, 2018, 07:46:42 PM
Cassius Dio presumably did not see it, hence his description of Parthian infantry as archers, a description we might perhaps take cum grano salis. My essential point is that Plutarch adds, or seems to add, Surena's horsemen to his dependents and slaves to get his 10,000, so those not noted as hippeis would perforce be foot - and, according to Dio, any armed foot would be archers. (I would be surprised if in reality the Parthians never, ever fielded shielded foot of some description, if only in garrisons.)
I was looking at the continuity of tradition, as has been noted before, a lot of those blokes in the Parthian army on Sunday woke up in the Sasanian army on Monday. Traditionally, 'every man was an archer' - but it's not clear whether this was just a trope or whether it was 100% accurate. Without seeking to put words in his mouth, Nigel Tallis was (I believe) reasonably confident that there were non- archer native infantry in both the Parthian and Sasanian forces that were not just farmers brought along to dig siege works.
Quote from: DougM on January 05, 2018, 08:54:20 PM
Without seeking to put words in his mouth, Nigel Tallis was (I believe) reasonably confident that there were non- archer native infantry in both the Parthian and Sasanian forces that were not just farmers brought along to dig siege works.
It's perhaps pertinent to point out this bit from Syvänne's article:
QuoteIn addition to this [sc. cavalry of various kinds], the Parthian realm included large numbers of different types of infantry even if Dio claimed that they used only small numbers of lightly-equipped archers. It is quite probable that Dio is correct as far as the Parthians proper are concerned, but it is still clear that their subjects and allies included units equipped in the traditional Persian, Median and Middle Eastern styles ranging from the light to medium infantry (slingers, archers and spearmen with large shields), and also Greek style hoplites and pikemen in those areas which had Greek/Macedonian settlers. In addition to this, the Parthians got some Roman style infantry units that had been formed out of the prisoners and deserters. The greatest boost to their strength took place when, a result of the defeat of Niger by Septimius Severus, the former's followers fled to Parthia. The medium to heavy infantry units employed the close order and phalanx formation when fighting in the open terrain, but in difficult it naturally adopted the open order.
Unfortunately, he doesn't cite any sources for this. I confess to finding the existence of hoplites in Parthian armies a bit hard to swallow, at least if hoplites in the wargamer sense are meant.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on January 05, 2018, 09:10:20 PM
Quote from: DougM on January 05, 2018, 08:54:20 PM
Without seeking to put words in his mouth, Nigel Tallis was (I believe) reasonably confident that there were non- archer native infantry in both the Parthian and Sasanian forces that were not just farmers brought along to dig siege works.
It's perhaps pertinent to point out this bit from Syvänne's article:
QuoteIn addition to this [sc. cavalry of various kinds], the Parthian realm included large numbers of different types of infantry even if Dio claimed that they used only small numbers of lightly-equipped archers. It is quite probable that Dio is correct as far as the Parthians proper are concerned, but it is still clear that their subjects and allies included units equipped in the traditional Persian, Median and Middle Eastern styles ranging from the light to medium infantry (slingers, archers and spearmen with large shields), and also Greek style hoplites and pikemen in those areas which had Greek/Macedonian settlers. In addition to this, the Parthians got some Roman style infantry units that had been formed out of the prisoners and deserters. The greatest boost to their strength took place when, a result of the defeat of Niger by Septimius Severus, the former's followers fled to Parthia. The medium to heavy infantry units employed the close order and phalanx formation when fighting in the open terrain, but in difficult it naturally adopted the open order.
Unfortunately, he doesn't cite any sources for this. I confess to finding the existence of hoplites in Parthian armies a bit hard to swallow, at least if hoplites in the wargamer sense are meant.
Personally I find Syvanne, shall we say, "problematic" ... and this is a good example.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 05, 2018, 09:23:24 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on January 05, 2018, 09:10:20 PM
Quote from: DougM on January 05, 2018, 08:54:20 PM
Without seeking to put words in his mouth, Nigel Tallis was (I believe) reasonably confident that there were non- archer native infantry in both the Parthian and Sasanian forces that were not just farmers brought along to dig siege works.
It's perhaps pertinent to point out this bit from Syvänne's article:
QuoteIn addition to this [sc. cavalry of various kinds], the Parthian realm included large numbers of different types of infantry even if Dio claimed that they used only small numbers of lightly-equipped archers. It is quite probable that Dio is correct as far as the Parthians proper are concerned, but it is still clear that their subjects and allies included units equipped in the traditional Persian, Median and Middle Eastern styles ranging from the light to medium infantry (slingers, archers and spearmen with large shields), and also Greek style hoplites and pikemen in those areas which had Greek/Macedonian settlers. In addition to this, the Parthians got some Roman style infantry units that had been formed out of the prisoners and deserters. The greatest boost to their strength took place when, a result of the defeat of Niger by Septimius Severus, the former's followers fled to Parthia. The medium to heavy infantry units employed the close order and phalanx formation when fighting in the open terrain, but in difficult it naturally adopted the open order.
Unfortunately, he doesn't cite any sources for this. I confess to finding the existence of hoplites in Parthian armies a bit hard to swallow, at least if hoplites in the wargamer sense are meant.
Personally I find Syvanne, shall we say, "problematic" ... and this is a good example.
I was left wondering where "The greatest boost to their strength took place when, a result of the defeat of Niger by Septimius Severus, the former's followers fled to Parthia" came from, because it would be significant if it happened
Jim
I wouldn't get knotted up about references to hoplites as it's just 'Heavy Infantry'. Unless you believe that the Parthians had no access to Heavy Infantry in any of their realm. Given there were remnant 'Greek' cities, it's certainly not impossible these supplied infantry contingents.
Quote from: DougM on January 05, 2018, 11:23:10 PM
I wouldn't get knotted up about references to hoplites as it's just 'Heavy Infantry'.
In ancient Greek, yes, but Syvänne is a modern author writing "Greek style hoplites". Either he means guys with argive shield, long spear, and an aggressive attitude; or he's expressing himself quite perversely.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on January 06, 2018, 06:35:09 AM
Quote from: DougM on January 05, 2018, 11:23:10 PM
I wouldn't get knotted up about references to hoplites as it's just 'Heavy Infantry'.
In ancient Greek, yes, but Syvänne is a modern author writing "Greek style hoplites". Either he means guys with argive shield, long spear, and an aggressive attitude; or he's expressing himself quite perversely.
Or do we have a 'pike man' problem here, where some modern historians tend to use sloppy translations for details wargamers regard as important?
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 06, 2018, 07:30:27 AM
Or do we have a 'pike man' problem here, where some modern historians tend to use sloppy translations for details wargamers regard as important?
I wouldn't think so - Syvänne is sufficiently interested in wargamerish detail to write an article about the proportion of cataphracts in Parthian armies, after all, and "Greek style hoplites" isn't the sort of sloppy translation you might get out of a general dictionary. It sounds like the sort of phrase you'd use if you knew
hoplitai is more general and wanted to make clear you mean hoplites as commonly understood in modern military history.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on January 06, 2018, 07:42:37 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 06, 2018, 07:30:27 AM
Or do we have a 'pike man' problem here, where some modern historians tend to use sloppy translations for details wargamers regard as important?
I wouldn't think so - Syvänne is sufficiently interested in wargamerish detail to write an article about the proportion of cataphracts in Parthian armies, after all, and "Greek style hoplites" isn't the sort of sloppy translation you might get out of a general dictionary. It sounds like the sort of phrase you'd use if you knew hoplitai is more general and wanted to make clear you mean hoplites as commonly understood in modern military history.
yes, I see what you mean
It does raise the old question, when did the Hoplite 'proper' finally fade away
Quote from: DougM on January 05, 2018, 11:23:10 PM
I wouldn't get knotted up about references to hoplites as it's just 'Heavy Infantry'. Unless you believe that the Parthians had no access to Heavy Infantry in any of their realm. Given there were remnant 'Greek' cities, it's certainly not impossible these supplied infantry contingents.
And Cassius Dio would not consider these to be 'Parthians'. How often and how extensively the Parthians might use them and with what effect is another question, unless they had learned not to mistreat them as they did the captured troops of Antiochus Sidetes (who repaid this hospitality by changing sides).
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 06, 2018, 08:53:39 AM
It does raise the old question, when did the Hoplite 'proper' finally fade away
Definitely by the time Greek authors were using 'hoplites' to mean any sort of heavy infantry, even Roman. From our sources, the last clear and explicit mention (unless I have missed something) of actual dora-and-aspis traditional Greek hoplites seems to be when Cleomenes III converted the Spartans to pikemen prior to Sellasia in 222 BC.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 06, 2018, 10:10:47 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 06, 2018, 08:53:39 AM
It does raise the old question, when did the Hoplite 'proper' finally fade away
Definitely by the time Greek authors were using 'hoplites' to mean any sort of heavy infantry, even Roman. From our sources, the last clear and explicit mention (unless I have missed something) of actual dora-and-aspis traditional Greek hoplites seems to be when Cleomenes III converted the Spartans to pikemen prior to Sellasia in 222 BC.
I think you're right for mainland Greece, but I do wonder about places like Sicily, Massilia, and even the Black Sea cities. Those in the hurly burly of Hellenistic warfare, Syria, Greece, Asia Minor I can see changing pretty damned quick but on the 'fringes' I do wonder
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 06, 2018, 10:14:48 AM
I think you're right for mainland Greece, but I do wonder about places like Sicily, Massilia, and even the Black Sea cities. Those in the hurly burly of Hellenistic warfare, Syria, Greece, Asia Minor I can see changing pretty damned quick but on the 'fringes' I do wonder
There was a brief discussion (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2577.msg30080#msg30080) early last year about the Western Greeks in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. The basic takeaway is that we just don't know what sort of heavy infantry they fielded.
But the use of
hoplitai to mean any heavy infantry surely predates the eclipse of the traditional Greek hoplite: Xenophon in the
Cyropaedia uses it of Egyptian and Persian infantry.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on January 06, 2018, 06:20:32 PM
But the use of hoplitai to mean any heavy infantry surely predates the eclipse of the traditional Greek hoplite: Xenophon in the Cyropaedia uses it of Egyptian and Persian infantry.
Yes, you are right there. So that usage is really no clue at all.
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 06, 2018, 10:14:48 AM
Those in the hurly burly of Hellenistic warfare, Syria, Greece, Asia Minor I can see changing pretty damned quick but on the 'fringes' I do wonder
In the WRG 6th army lists, Bactrian mercenary hoplites appeared as a guard unit in Indian armies of 220 BC - AD 50. In the errata Phil B changed this to 'Bactrian mercenary guardsmen' without changing the troop type (heavy infantry, long thrusting spear, shield). Does anyone know what he was using as the basis for this?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 06, 2018, 07:23:03 PM
In the WRG 6th army lists, Bactrian mercenary hoplites appeared as a guard unit in Indian armies of 220 BC - AD 50. In the errata Phil B changed this to 'Bactrian mercenary guardsmen' without changing the troop type (heavy infantry, long thrusting spear, shield). Does anyone know what he was using as the basis for this?
No idea, but they're still there in the DBMM lists (now called "Bactrian Greek mercenary guardsmen"), so evidently no-one's talked him out of them!
I think that the "Bactrian Greek" guardsmen are based on some references to "Yavana", that is to say Greek, guardsmen in Tamil and possibly other Indian literary sources. References to "Roman" guardsmen in modern sources I suspect come from some of the same sources, because I am not sure that they can be dated to within a couple of centuries, and a "Greek" soldier somewhen in C1 BC - C1 AD could have been trekking south from the last Graeco-Bactrian kingdoms or crossing the Indian Ocean from Roman Egypt.
Jim once quoted (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?action=post;quote=21167;topic=137.750) a Tamil description of them as "Yavana guards whose stern looks strike terror into every beholder, wear long and loose clothes that are fastened at the waist by means of belts".
In the DBMM lists the "Greeks" can either be Reg Sp(O) or Reg Ax(S), and of course the latter could be either Hellenistic thureophoroi or Roman auxilia. And that's basically because we know next to nothing about them.
Very good; thanks, Duncan (sorry about the delayed response - my router died, and I do not mean on the tabletop!).