Consensus on early Sassanid cavalry?

[Ade G]

Is there a general consensus on how the early Sassanid heavy cavalry fought?

There seems to be a spectrum ranging from "they were like Arsacid catafracts" through "they were a mix of armoured and unarmoured horse archers" to "they were charging heavy cavalry but not catafracts"

I am aware that early images show charging heavy cavalry with lances and bows (and horseback wrestling!) but of course this may just be the heroic ethos being illustrated.

Where is the research/opinion at this moment?

[nikgaukroger]

What period do you define as early?

[Ade G]

What period do you define as early?

The revolt against the Arsacid dynasty - basically the first recognisably Sassanian armies

[nikgaukroger]

I would suggest that there would be little to no real difference between the the last Arsacid armies and the first Sasanid armies - we're really just looking at a change of the royal house; the main families within the empire remained the same for example.

Of course, we have little idea of what late Parthian armies were like ...

[DBS]

My view is that there was at least a core of "cataphracts" - ie heavy armoured cavalry with kontos as primary weapon, and, at least some, with barding, whether fabric or metallic.  The early royal rock reliefs are our best evidence; yes, one can argue that they only show the royal elites on both sides, but there are some subtle differences between the depiction of the Parthians (seem to be in lamellar or similar corselets) and the Sasanians (seem to have more mail) that possibly indicate a certain concern with accurate depiction.  Furthermore, the Sasanians emerge from a client kingdom of the Parthians, and seem to have the support of at least a couple of the supposed Parthian clans, especially the Surens, so any differences between their cavalry and those of Ardavan would seem likely to be in detail and degree, not wholesale.  So, unless one thinks the late Parthians were not "cataphracts"...

Personally, I depict the early royal household with barded cataphracts, though fabric barding, and regional cavalry as largely unbarded kontophoroi, for want of a better term.  I allow a few lighter horse archers for regional forces in the eastern provinces, where Parthian traditions may have lasted longer and they were also adjacent to the likes of the Kushans and western Saka.

I do wonder about the supposed later shift in emphasis to armoured horse archers, given that dear old Khosrau II is again depicted with kontos (albeit frontal metallic barding).  I do not want to accuse Maurice of getting it wrong, but it does underline the fragility of firm evidence available to us.

[Andreas Johansson]

So, unless one thinks the late Parthians were not "cataphracts"...

Herodian describes Parthian cavalrymen (and camel-riders!) at Nisibis a few years earlier as "cataphracts". Of course, there's no law saying that his understanding of "cataphracts" has to be the same as that of a modern-day wargamer.

[nikgaukroger]

I do wonder about the supposed later shift in emphasis to armoured horse archers, given that dear old Khosrau II is again depicted with kontos (albeit frontal metallic barding).  I do not want to accuse Maurice of getting it wrong, but it does underline the fragility of firm evidence available to us.

Khusrau is, interestingly, depicted as Maurikios describes the front rank(s) of his Roman cavalry formations, including the holding of the spear at shoulder height (in the manner of the "fair haired races" IIRC). I susepct we are (again) seeing the convergence of Persian and Roman cavalry here.

FWIW there is a C6th depiction of a Sasanid cavalryman that is pretty much as Maurikios described in his section on the Persians in the Strategikon.

[Ade G]

My view is that there was at least a core of "cataphracts" - ie heavy armoured cavalry with kontos as primary weapon, and, at least some, with barding, whether fabric or metallic.  The early royal rock reliefs are our best evidence; yes, one can argue that they only show the royal elites on both sides, but there are some subtle differences between the depiction of the Parthians (seem to be in lamellar or similar corselets) and the Sasanians (seem to have more mail) that possibly indicate a certain concern with accurate depiction.  Furthermore, the Sasanians emerge from a client kingdom of the Parthians, and seem to have the support of at least a couple of the supposed Parthian clans, especially the Surens, so any differences between their cavalry and those of Ardavan would seem likely to be in detail and degree, not wholesale.  So, unless one thinks the late Parthians were not "cataphracts"...

Personally, I depict the early royal household with barded cataphracts, though fabric barding, and regional cavalry as largely unbarded kontophoroi, for want of a better term.  I allow a few lighter horse archers for regional forces in the eastern provinces, where Parthian traditions may have lasted longer and they were also adjacent to the likes of the Kushans and western Saka.

I do wonder about the supposed later shift in emphasis to armoured horse archers, given that dear old Khosrau II is again depicted with kontos (albeit frontal metallic barding).  I do not want to accuse Maurice of getting it wrong, but it does underline the fragility of firm evidence available to us.

This sounds worryingly plausible - thanks David

[DBS]

One can even throw in the theory that is gaining increasing favour in some academic circles that the Sasan dynasty was of Indo-Parthian origin, married or adopted into a Persian family. Whether this would have any influence whatsoever on cavalry gear is of course another matter...

[Jim Webster]

I always wondered whether we were too hung up on the kit people carried. Could the front ranks have been 'cataphracts' with armoured horses and good body armour, and as you went back through the ranks, the 'lesser retainers' or 'lesser nobility' were less well armoured. Perhaps more leather and fabric barding and less metal.
But they still fought in exactly the same way.

Then we get that bit in Tacitus where he has Parthians spreading out to shoot and being hit by troops who just charged them. So by the end of the empire, did most Parthian cavalry carry bow, something that continued into the Sassanid era?

[DBS]

Exactly.  I also suspect depended on whom one was fighting, and availability of "lesser" horse archers.

I have always assumed that, unless you are the Romans, "cataphracts" had the heaviest chaps in the front rank, possibly less heavy chaps in the rear, just as 15th C gendarmes were backed up by their lightly armed coustilliers.  Still a very heavy cavalry formation.  And even the Romans may have been less uniform within an ala, given the suspicions of Speidel and others that some elements, say a turma or so, may have had the contus even in the early-mid Principate.

If you are the Surena, then no need for your cataphracts to muck around with their bows if you have plenty of horse archers to shoot up Crassus' beleagured legions; keep the heavy boys for the coup de grace with the kontos.  Similarly, if Parthians versus Sasanians, in a decisive battle for control of the empire and what seems a heightened level of personal animosity, lance vs lance, mano a mano, seems plausible.

However, if up against pesky nomads who are not daft enough to hang around in charge range of a cataphract, maybe archery is the best answer; your bow vs their bow, with you having superior protection?

We get hung up not just on kit, but also fights vs Romans, but for both the Parthians and the Sasanians, they probably spent more time fighting against Armenians, Kushans, eastern pretenders, western Saka, Chionites, Hepthalites, Alkhans, Gokturks, etc, etc.  We have some ideas about the Armenians, some assumptions about the Kushans, and massive assumptions about everyone else...

[nikgaukroger]

When looking at early Sasanids don't forget these: