Achaemenid Persian Army

[Patrick Waterson]

From Cyrus to Darius Codomannus.

[dwkay57]

Is there any further information about the troop types in an early(ish) period Achaemid Persian Army beyond the old WRG Armies and Enemies book of the period?

[Patrick Waterson]

Well, there is Xenophon's Cyropaedia and - much more informative - Herodotus' useful listing of types in Book VII of his Histories.

[Duncan Head]

I shouldn't really, but:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/1874101000/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

Or - as I've just seen on ancmed - http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/The-Persian-Achaemenid-Army-Duncan-Head-Richard-Scollins-Montvert-Pub-/140915803403?pt=UK_Toys_Wargames_RL&hash=item20cf3c850b with bids currently standing at a lower level than the amazon offerings.

And there's Nick Sekunda's Persian Army Osprey, though that has more on the later period. And the Osprey Campaign titles on Marathon, Thermopylae, and Plataea.

The complete fragments of Ctesias' Persica are at http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0022521/nichols_a.pdf

[aligern]

Duncan's Montvert is a brilliant book and worth almost whatever you have to pay for it.
I am trying to recall if much has occurred since to change any of the conclusions therein.

Roy

[dwkay57]

Thanks. I have read the Osprey Persians and Plataea book but they both seem very light on the detail of the non-elite troops.
I guess I'll have to save up for Duncan's book!

David

[Patrick Waterson]

If you can bid for one of these copies today (17th Feb) you could probably get it for £31-32 - but bids close at about 5pm this afternoon.

I shouldn't really, but:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/1874101000/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

Or - as I've just seen on ancmed - http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/The-Persian-Achaemenid-Army-Duncan-Head-Richard-Scollins-Montvert-Pub-/140915803403?pt=UK_Toys_Wargames_RL&hash=item20cf3c850b with bids currently standing at a lower level than the amazon offerings.

[dwkay57]

Do we know how good the Immortals were?

Apart from Plataea do we have any knowledge of how they and other Persian line infantry of that period performed in battle?

My query really relates to gaining an understanding of what their level of training and morale was. With such a big empire and the complex big-shield and bowman formation, it seems odd that they weren't trained and organised in some manner. Despite this the army lists generally treat most Persians as irregular low quality apart from the Immortals and nobles on horse who are elite.

[Justin Taylor]

It seems not that good,

At last Xerxes, seeing that the entire area about the passes was strewn with dead bodies and that the barbarians were not holding out against the valour of the Greeks, sent forward the picked Persians known as the "Immortals," who were reputed to be pre-eminent among the entire host for their deeds of courage. But when these also fled after only a brief resistance, then at last, as night fell, they ceased from battle, the barbarians having lost many dead and the Greeks a small number.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0084%3Abook%3D11%3Achapter%3D7%3Asection%3D4

But of course the Persian style of equipment was just not geared up to beating Greeks in a toe-to-toe engagement. 10,000 is probably too big for a true elite fighting force (although there may have been a smaller true elite within the Immortals). So really a standing infantry force for the Persian empire, ready to go into action as need. Best of equipment (money is not a problem), perhaps they think of themselves a little bit better than ordinary troops (so classify them as steady rather than average), fighting ability, well really the same as most troops, if you wanted be generous and call them veterans.

I have just done an Early Achaemenid Persian army list for TIDC and I think it looks rather tasty. Huge numbers of cheap archers, a few subject race troops and of course lots of cavalry, quite cheap in points because they don't have shields. Tricky to use but if you can get it right, should be very effective.

[Patrick Waterson]

As Justin says, they were trained - and equipped - for the wrong kind of fight, at least with regard to taking on Greeks in general and Spartans in particular.  There was nothing wrong with their morale, as attested by their performance at Plataea in 479 BC:

While he was still in the act of praying, the men of Tegea leapt out before the rest and charged the barbarians, and immediately after Pausanias' prayer the sacrifices of the Lacedaemonians became favorable. Now they too charged the Persians, and the Persians met them, throwing away their bows. [2] First they fought by the fence of shields, and when that was down, there was a fierce and long fight around the temple of Demeter itself, until they came to blows at close quarters. For the barbarians laid hold of the spears and broke them short. [3] Now the Persians were neither less valorous nor weaker, but they had no shields [anoploi]; moreover, since they were unskilled and no match for their adversaries in craft [sophien = skill, cleverness, understanding of an art], they would rush out singly and in tens or in groups great or small, hurling themselves on the Spartans and so perishing.

Where Mardonius was himself, riding a white horse in the battle and surrounded by a thousand picked men who were the flower of the Persians, there they pressed their adversaries hardest. So long as Mardonius was alive the Persians stood their ground and defended themselves, overthrowing many Lacedaemonians. [2] When, however, Mardonius was killed and his guards, who were the strongest part of the army, had also fallen, then the rest too yielded and gave ground before the men of Lacedaemon. For what harmed them the most was the fact that they were running in unshielded [esthes eremos eousa hoplon = 'clothes they were without protection' or 'running up they were without shields'] and fought, as it were, naked against men fully armed.  - Herodotus IX.62-63

The Persians (Immortals) are assessed thus: brave almost to a fault, lacking in individual and collective combat skill compared to Spartans and at a grave disadvantage in melee once their shield fence was down.

[Mark G]

I hadn't noticed the reference to lacking skill before.

Is that repeated anywhere else, or challenged elsewhere?

[Erpingham]

[2] First they fought by the fence of shields, and when that was down, there was a fierce and long fight around the temple of Demeter itself, until they came to blows at close quarters. For the barbarians laid hold of the spears and broke them short. [3] Now the Persians were neither less valorous nor weaker, but they had no shields[/i] [anoploi]; moreover, since they were unskilled and no match for their adversaries in craft [sophien = skill, cleverness, understanding of an art], they would rush out singly and in tens or in groups great or small, hurling themselves on the Spartans and so perishing.

Patrick, is this passage one of the ones which mention othismos in a fight which isn't hoplite v. hoplite ?

[Patrick Waterson]

I hadn't noticed the reference to lacking skill before.

Is that repeated anywhere else, or challenged elsewhere?

Thermopylae.

When the Medes had been roughly handled, they retired, and the Persians whom the king called Immortals, led by Hydarnes, attacked in turn. It was thought that they would easily accomplish the task. [2] When they joined battle with the Hellenes, they fared neither better nor worse than the Median army, since they used shorter spears than the Hellenes and could not use their numbers fighting in a narrow space. [3] The Lacedaemonians fought memorably, showing themselves skilled fighters amidst unskilled on many occasions, as when they would turn their backs and feign flight. The barbarians would see them fleeing and give chase with shouting and noise, but when the Lacedaemonians were overtaken, they would turn to face the barbarians and overthrow innumerable Persians. A few of the Spartans themselves were also slain. When the Persians could gain no inch of the pass, attacking by companies and in every other fashion, they withdrew. - Herodotus VII.211

[2] First they fought by the fence of shields, and when that was down, there was a fierce and long fight around the temple of Demeter itself, until they came to blows at close quarters. For the barbarians laid hold of the spears and broke them short. [3] Now the Persians were neither less valorous nor weaker, but they had no shields[/i] [anoploi]; moreover, since they were unskilled and no match for their adversaries in craft [sophien = skill, cleverness, understanding of an art], they would rush out singly and in tens or in groups great or small, hurling themselves on the Spartans and so perishing.

Patrick, is this passage one of the ones which mention othismos in a fight which isn't hoplite v. hoplite ?

It does indeed (and well surmised): 'until they came to blows at close quarters' is es ho apikonto es ōthismon = 'until it came to othismos'.

[aligern]

My question about the Achaemenid Persians is why their cavalry are so useless?
On a wargames table the Persians are deadly because they have lots of foot and lights that can bombar the enemy and then the cavalry can get round their flanks and hit weakened units. How come I can do this and the Great King cannot>?/

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

My question about the Achaemenid Persians is why their cavalry are so useless?
On a wargames table the Persians are deadly because they have lots of foot and lights that can bombard the enemy and then the cavalry can get round their flanks and hit weakened units. How come I can do this and the Great King cannot>?/

Roy

Because you are not fighting Leonidas or Pausanias.    The Greeks seem to have been well aware of the problems they faced against a full Persian army, which is why the battle of Plataea was so long delayed: not only were the Spartans edgy about facing an unknown opponent (Persians), there was also the matter of Persian cavalry, which they did not like - although following the death of its leader, Masistus, it proved less troublesome than hitherto.

There are two instances when Greeks faced Persian cavalry in open battle: one was during the Ionian Revolt (c.497-494 BC) prior to the Persian invasion of Greece, and is not detailed, Herodotus (V.116) simply noting that "Daurises [the Persian general] ... after pursuing the Ionians who had fought at Sardis, defeating them, and driving them to their ships ..." then took their cities.  The Carians, who had joined the revolt, were 'overpowered by numbers' when a Persian army came their way.  Unlike the Greeks in Greece, the Ionians of Asia and the Carians seem to have fought where the Persians could make full use of their cavalry and numbers.

The other occasion was at Cunaxa, where Tissaphernes and his satrapal cavalry charged through a gap in the centre of the Greek peltasts, who showered them with javelins as they went through.  The Persians did not return for another try, but galloped off toward Cyrus' camp.  By this time (401 BC) there were few Persian empire troops, cavalry or otherwise, who were prepared to face Greeks in open battle.

Someone is bound to mention Marathon: this battle actually had no cavalry present; they were still on Euboea while Datis and Artaphernes were still collecting the pick of the spoils, having put Hippias in charge of the force sent to Marathon (Herodotus V.102, 107).

So the essential answer is that the Greeks would not put themselves in a situation where the Persians could use their advantages effectively.