Parthian Army

[Patrick Waterson]

Topic starter.

[aligern]

 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

[Mark]

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.

[Mark G]

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

[Mark]

Also Bearsden, which I didn't mention earlier as I'm not sure they are currently operating.

[Mark G]

They are not.

I can ask Chris if he has any stock available, but officially they have ceased.

[Duncan Head]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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   

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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   

Indeed. Especially as a number of the Parthian great families continued as great families all the way through the Sasanid era.

[Ade G]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[eques]

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!

[eques]

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.