Parthian Army

[Andreas Johansson]

Looking at Dio 40:15 again:

The 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.)

[Patrick Waterson]

Looking at Dio 40:15 again:

The 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) 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.

("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?

[Andreas Johansson]

The 'men' here would appear to be 'indeed' rather than 'even' (first usage in the Perseus 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 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.

[RichT]

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) 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."

[Jim Webster]

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) 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)

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

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.

[DougM]

'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.

[Jim Webster]

'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

[Patrick Waterson]

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

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.

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.)

[DougM]

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. 

[Andreas Johansson]

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:

In 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.

[nikgaukroger]

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:

In 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.

[Jim Webster]

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:

In 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

[DougM]

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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.