Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Scott,

Not that the Sassanid list _needs_ to get any better, but I've been pondering it
trying to make sense of the various EHC/SHC options, and I've come to the
conclusion that there must be a typo in the list.

I believe that the line that says:
"Guard Cavalry Reg A EHC L,B,Sh @48.... 0-1/general"

is actually meant to say:
"Bodyguard Cavalry Reg A EHC L,B,Sh @48.... 0-1/general"

My rationale for this is three-fold:
(1) These are the only cav other than generals who can be A class
(2) Unless meant to be part of a general's body, why would the quantity be
0-1/general?
(3) Predominantly on other Warrior lists this pattern -- better morale and a
quantity linked to number of generals -- is for troops who will be part of a
general's body.

Could you check with the person responsible for the Sassanid list and clarify
this? I believe there are some other oddities about the Sassanid list that we
are also waiting for clarification on (something about Daylami, as I recall).


-Mark Stone

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Thanks Mark,
I thought I was a lone voice in the wilderness about that issue. It seems
to me that there is a preponderence of evidence showing that the Daylam was
smack dab in the middle of Persia on the southern tip of the Caspian Sea. David
Nicole and Chris Cornuelle both mention their presence as do many sites
concerning Iranian history. To be honest, I think that FHE and for that matter,
most of the free world is having trouble getting in touch with the list writer,
Craig Scott which may be a reason why this issue has not been answered. Adding
the Daylamites who certainly were present in Sassanian armies would certainly go
a long way to solve the problem of a lack of terrain troops.

kelly
wilkinson

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
Scott,

Not that the Sassanid list _needs_ to get any better, but I've been pondering it
trying to make sense of the various EHC/SHC options, and I've come to the
conclusion that there must be a typo in the list.

I believe that the line that says:
"Guard Cavalry Reg A EHC L,B,Sh @48.... 0-1/general"

is actually meant to say:
"Bodyguard Cavalry Reg A EHC L,B,Sh @48.... 0-1/general"

My rationale for this is three-fold:
(1) These are the only cav other than generals who can be A class
(2) Unless meant to be part of a general's body, why would the quantity be
0-1/general?
(3) Predominantly on other Warrior lists this pattern -- better morale and a
quantity linked to number of generals -- is for troops who will be part of a
general's body.

Could you check with the person responsible for the Sassanid list and clarify
this? I believe there are some other oddities about the Sassanid list that we
are also waiting for clarification on (something about Daylami, as I recall).


-Mark Stone


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Greg Regets]

I wish they would have divided this list into sections.

I really can't say that this army didn't have Daylami, but they
didn't seem to have them when fighting the Byzantines. Ditto
elephants.

Hunnic allies were enlisted by Khusrau to fight against the
Byzantines, but I can't find any evidence that they ever participated
in any battles. The primary reason they were hired in the first
place, seemed to be to keep Justinian from hiring them. Their
participation seems to be limited to riding into Byzantine territory
with a Persian army, which sent envoys to Belisarius, were
intimidated, and rode away with gold and a five year peace treaty.

I like this list quite a bit, but whats not to like? I do think
though that it would benefit historically from a review of what troop
types can be used with each other.

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Thanks Mark,
> I thought I was a lone voice in the wilderness about that
issue. It seems to me that there is a preponderence of evidence
showing that the Daylam was smack dab in the middle of Persia on the
southern tip of the Caspian Sea. David Nicole and Chris Cornuelle
both mention their presence as do many sites concerning Iranian
history. To be honest, I think that FHE and for that matter, most of
the free world is having trouble getting in touch with the list
writer, Craig Scott which may be a reason why this issue has not been
answered. Adding the Daylamites who certainly were present in
Sassanian armies would certainly go a long way to solve the problem
of a lack of terrain troops.
>
>
kelly wilkinson
>
> Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Not that the Sassanid list _needs_ to get any better, but I've been
pondering it
> trying to make sense of the various EHC/SHC options, and I've come
to the
> conclusion that there must be a typo in the list.
>
> I believe that the line that says:
> "Guard Cavalry Reg A EHC L,B,Sh @48.... 0-1/general"
>
> is actually meant to say:
> "Bodyguard Cavalry Reg A EHC L,B,Sh @48.... 0-1/general"
>
> My rationale for this is three-fold:
> (1) These are the only cav other than generals who can be A class
> (2) Unless meant to be part of a general's body, why would the
quantity be
> 0-1/general?
> (3) Predominantly on other Warrior lists this pattern -- better
morale and a
> quantity linked to number of generals -- is for troops who will be
part of a
> general's body.
>
> Could you check with the person responsible for the Sassanid list
and clarify
> this? I believe there are some other oddities about the Sassanid
list that we
> are also waiting for clarification on (something about Daylami, as
I recall).
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:
I wish they would have divided this list into sections.

I really can't say that this army didn't have Daylami, but they
didn't seem to have them when fighting the Byzantines. Ditto
elephants.

***********************************************************

Greg,

Check out this website as it is quite enlightening in this regard. Keep in
mind that this is a translation from Turkish(I think).

http://www.radiozaza.de/ENGLISH/Minorsky.htm

this is fairly pertinent to your point...

Already Polybius in the second century before our era speaks of Delymaïoï and
the geographer Ptolemy in the eleventh century after Christ knew their country
Delymaïs.

Their country appears not to have been conquered, at least in a solid manner, by
the ancient kings of Persia: Archemenids, Parthians and Sasanids. But the
Dailamites enlisted voluntarily as mercenaries and it is as thus that the
Byzantines, who were constantly at war with the Persians from the fourth up to
the seventh century, mentioned the Dailamite contingents among the Persian
troops. The Dailamites also arranged their own account of early expeditions: and
the geographer Yaqut (711) indicated the existence to the right of Shahrazur of
Dailamistan - which under the ancient kings of Persia had served the purpose of
a base of operations when they descended towards the Mesopotamian plain, and of
a storehouse for the booty that they brought back from their raids.

David Nicole in the Montvert Publication (book) Sassanian Armies , 1996, states,

"Among other warrior peoples serving the Sassanians as auxiliary troops were
Dailamite infantry from the Elburz mountains, and Gels from south-west of the
Caspian Sea who fought as cavalry."

And to further back up the fact that many of these were in fact real, some of
whom converted to islam Nicole states. . .

"During the last decades of the Sassanian Empire, the King of Kings had little
control over Herat in the east or Daylam in the North. Elsewhere frontier
provinces adopted royal titles of Persian or Turkish origin. After the Iraqi
frontier had been overrun and the armies of the court defeated, other provincial
military leaders like the Marzban of Khurasan seemed unwilling to unite against
the common foe. Even so, Sassanian troops clearly put up a fierce fight; so much
so that they were immediately welcomed into the conquering Muslim Arab army as
soon as they converted to Islam. A great many did so and, known as Hamra or the
'red faced ones', often got higher than ordinary. They included dihqhans of the
local minor aristocracy as well as Dailamite infantry from the Northern
Mountains. In fact it seems that Ex-Sassanian troops were entrusted with the
defence of the expanding Muslim frontier in central Iran while the main Arab
army remained in the newly created garrison town of Kufa in
Iraq, only being used for major expeditions.

Whew! That was a mouthful. The Chris Corneulle article also mentions Daylami
infantry present and if you like, I can dig this out of the internet as well as
some stuff from Phil Barker. This last quote pretty much backs up the presence
of the Ex-Sassanid Daylami noted in the Arab Conquest that FHE chose to include
in that list. Hopefully, Scott and Bill will consider this and allow the use of
this troop type in the Sassanian list as it only serves to show continuity
within their lists and for that matter they historically existed.

Kelly Wilkinson

********************************************************************************\n*******************





Hunnic allies were enlisted by Khusrau to fight against the
Byzantines, but I can't find any evidence that they ever participated
in any battles. The primary reason they were hired in the first
place, seemed to be to keep Justinian from hiring them. Their
participation seems to be limited to riding into Byzantine territory
with a Persian army, which sent envoys to Belisarius, were
intimidated, and rode away with gold and a five year peace treaty.

I like this list quite a bit, but whats not to like? I do think
though that it would benefit historically from a review of what troop
types can be used with each other.

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Thanks Mark,
> I thought I was a lone voice in the wilderness about that
issue. It seems to me that there is a preponderence of evidence
showing that the Daylam was smack dab in the middle of Persia on the
southern tip of the Caspian Sea. David Nicole and Chris Cornuelle
both mention their presence as do many sites concerning Iranian
history. To be honest, I think that FHE and for that matter, most of
the free world is having trouble getting in touch with the list
writer, Craig Scott which may be a reason why this issue has not been
answered. Adding the Daylamites who certainly were present in
Sassanian armies would certainly go a long way to solve the problem
of a lack of terrain troops.
>
>
kelly wilkinson
>
> Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Not that the Sassanid list _needs_ to get any better, but I've been
pondering it
> trying to make sense of the various EHC/SHC options, and I've come
to the
> conclusion that there must be a typo in the list.
>
> I believe that the line that says:
> "Guard Cavalry Reg A EHC L,B,Sh @48.... 0-1/general"
>
> is actually meant to say:
> "Bodyguard Cavalry Reg A EHC L,B,Sh @48.... 0-1/general"
>
> My rationale for this is three-fold:
> (1) These are the only cav other than generals who can be A class
> (2) Unless meant to be part of a general's body, why would the
quantity be
> 0-1/general?
> (3) Predominantly on other Warrior lists this pattern -- better
morale and a
> quantity linked to number of generals -- is for troops who will be
part of a
> general's body.
>
> Could you check with the person responsible for the Sassanid list
and clarify
> this? I believe there are some other oddities about the Sassanid
list that we
> are also waiting for clarification on (something about Daylami, as
I recall).
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





---------------------------------


Yahoo! Groups Links


To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Here is the link for the Chris Cornuelle article. I highly recommend it if you
are interesting in learning more about the Sassanian Army!

An Overview of the Sassanian Persian Military
by Chris Cornuelle Copyright, 1996
(This paper originally appeared in a 1996 issue of Spearpoint, and will appear
in a 1997 issue of Slingshot.)


http://pchome.grm.hia.no/~fsaljoug/SassMil.htm

*Here are the pertinent quotes in reference to the Daylami infantry presence in
the Sassanid army.

"The mountain regions of Gilan, Daylam, and Tabaristan south and west of the
Caspian Sea were home to petty kingdoms. From a campaign of Shapur I these were
nominally under Persian sway. Troops from these areas were armed with sword,
spear, and bow. Some Daylami converted to Islam after al-Qadisiyyah, yet
maintained their feisty ways as mainly javelin- and sword-armed infantry."

"From 572, Persian aswaran, Daylami troops, and their native "Homerite" allies
in Yemen fought and defeated other Yemeni, their Abyssinian overlords, and
Byzantine supporters. This struggle between Zoroastrian and Christian eventually
made Yemen a client state of Iran, reduced in about 600 to a province."

*Again more proof of Daylami Infantry and evidently they served a fairly
prominent role.

kelly wilkinson

The mountain regions of Gilan, Daylam, and Tabaristan south and west of the
Caspian Sea were home to petty kingdoms. From a campaign of Shapur I these were
nominally under Persian sway. Troops from these areas were armed with sword,
spear, and bow. Some Daylami converted to Islam after al-Qadisiyyah, yet
maintained their feisty ways as mainly javelin- and sword-armed infantry.

The mountain regions of Gilan, Daylam, and Tabaristan south and west of the
Caspian Sea were home to petty kingdoms. From a campaign of Shapur I these were
nominally under Persian sway. Troops from these areas were armed with sword,
spear, and bow. Some Daylami converted to Islam after al-Qadisiyyah, yet
maintained their feisty ways as mainly javelin- and sword-armed infantry.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Greg Regets]

Thanks Kelly, that is a great article.

While I enjoy reading this stuff, my personal opinion is that when we
have period writers of great quality, that counts for much more than
the works of modern writers, which might be more interesting than
evidenciary. It's not that I discount modern writers, just that I
frame them in the context that when you are selling a book or writing
a paper, you are not going to sell books or get a good grade for
restating what has already been said. Success there, is measured by
causing controvercy. A history prof. friend of mine, calls
that, "manufactured history."

Thanks for the link though ... good reading ... g

P.S. In my last post, the Hun comments referred to non-participation
in battles vs. Byzantines, not all battles. I should make posts after
drinking large quantities of beer. ;-)




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Here is the link for the Chris Cornuelle article. I highly
recommend it if you are interesting in learning more about the
Sassanian Army!
>
> An Overview of the Sassanian Persian Military
> by Chris Cornuelle Copyright, 1996
> (This paper originally appeared in a 1996 issue of Spearpoint, and
will appear in a 1997 issue of Slingshot.)
>
>
> http://pchome.grm.hia.no/~fsaljoug/SassMil.htm
>
> *Here are the pertinent quotes in reference to the Daylami infantry
presence in the Sassanid army.
>
> "The mountain regions of Gilan, Daylam, and Tabaristan south and
west of the Caspian Sea were home to petty kingdoms. From a campaign
of Shapur I these were nominally under Persian sway. Troops from
these areas were armed with sword, spear, and bow. Some Daylami
converted to Islam after al-Qadisiyyah, yet maintained their feisty
ways as mainly javelin- and sword-armed infantry."
>
> "From 572, Persian aswaran, Daylami troops, and their
native "Homerite" allies in Yemen fought and defeated other Yemeni,
their Abyssinian overlords, and Byzantine supporters. This struggle
between Zoroastrian and Christian eventually made Yemen a client
state of Iran, reduced in about 600 to a province."
>
> *Again more proof of Daylami Infantry and evidently they served a
fairly prominent role.
>
> kelly
wilkinson
>
> The mountain regions of Gilan, Daylam, and Tabaristan south and
west of the Caspian Sea were home to petty kingdoms. From a campaign
of Shapur I these were nominally under Persian sway. Troops from
these areas were armed with sword, spear, and bow. Some Daylami
converted to Islam after al-Qadisiyyah, yet maintained their feisty
ways as mainly javelin- and sword-armed infantry.
>
> The mountain regions of Gilan, Daylam, and Tabaristan south and
west of the Caspian Sea were home to petty kingdoms. From a campaign
of Shapur I these were nominally under Persian sway. Troops from
these areas were armed with sword, spear, and bow. Some Daylami
converted to Islam after al-Qadisiyyah, yet maintained their feisty
ways as mainly javelin- and sword-armed infantry.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]