Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Craig Scott]

Sassanian Army
By: Professor A. Sh. Shahbazi

The Iranian society under the Sasanians was divided-allegedly by
Ardašir I, into four groups: priests, warriors (arteštdar), state
officials, and artisans and peasants. The second category embraced
princes, lords, and landed aristocracy, and one of the three great
fires of the empire, Adur Gušnasp at Šiz (Takt-e Solayman in
Azerbaijan) belonged to them. With a clear military plan aimed at the
revival of the Iranian Empire, Ardašir I, formed a standing army
which was under his personal command and its officers were separate
from satraps and local princes and nobility. Ardešir had started as
the military commander of Darabgerd, and was knowledgeable in older
and contemporary military history, from which he benefited, as
history shows, substantially. For he restored Achaemenid military
organizations, retained Parthian cavalry, and employed new-style
armour and siege-engines, thereby creating a standing army (Mid.
Pers. spah) which served his successors for over four centuries, and
defended Iran against Central Asiatic nomads and Roman armies.

The backbone of the spah was its heavy cavalry "in which all the
nobles and men of rank" underwent "hard service" and became
professional soldiers "through military training and discipline,
through constant exercise in warfare and military manoeuvres". From
the third century the Romans also formed units of heavy cavalry of
the Oriental type; they called such horsemen clibanarii "mailclad
[riders]", a term thought to have derived from an Iranian *griwbanar
< *griwbanwar < *griva-pana-bara "neck-guard wearer". The heavy
cavalry of Shapur II is described by an eye-witness historian as
follows:

"all the companies were clad in iron, and all parts of their bodies
were covered with thick plates, so fitted that the stiff-joints
conformed with those of their limbs; and the forms of human faces
were so skilfully fitted to their heads, that since their entire body
was covered with metal, arrows that fell upon them could lodge only
where they could see a little through tiny openings opposite the
pupil of the eye, or where through the tip of their nose they were
able to get a little breath. Of these some who were armed with pikes,
stood so motionless that you would have thought them held fast by
clamps of bronze".

The described horsemen are represented by the seventh-century knight
depicting Emperor Khosrow Parvez on his steed Šabdiz on a rock relief
at Taq-e Bostan in Kermanšah. Since the Sassanian horseman lacked the
stirrup, he used a war saddle which, like the medieval type, had a
cantle at the back and two guard clamps curving across the top of the
rider's thighs enabling him thereby to stay in the saddle especially
during violent contact in battle. The inventory of weapons ascribed
to Sassanian horsemen at the time of Khosrow Anoširavan, resembles
the twelve items of war mentioned in Vendidad 14.9, thus showing that
this part of the text had been revised in the later Sassanian period.


Heavy Armoured Sassanian Cavalry
More interestingly, the most important Byzantine treatise on the art
of war, the Strategicon, also written at this period, requires the
same equipments from a heavily-armed horseman. This was due to the
gradual orientalisation of the Roman army to the extent that in the
sixth century "the military usages of the Romans and the Persians
become more and more assimilated, so that the armies of Justinian and
Khosrow are already very much like each other;" and, indeed, the
military literatures of the two sides show strong affinities and
interrelations. According to the Iranian sources mentioned above, the
martial equipments of a heavily-armed Sassanian horseman were as
follows: helmet, hauberk (Pahlavi griwban), breastplate, mail,
gauntlet (Pahlavi abdast), girdle, thigh-guards (Pahlavi ran-ban),
lance, sword, battle-axe, mace, bowcase with two bows and two
bowstrings, quiver with 30 arrows, two extra bowstrings, spear, and
horse armour (zen-abzar); to these some have added a lasso (kamand),
or a sling with slingstones. The elite corps of the cavalry was
called "the Immortals," evidently numbering-like their Achaemenid
namesakes 10,000 men. On one occasion (under emperor Bahram V) the
force attacked a Roman army but outnumbered, it stood firm and was
cut down to a man. Another elite cavalry group was the Armenian one,
whom the Persians accorded particular honour. In due course the
importance of the heavy cavalry increased and the distinguished
horseman assumed the meaning of "knight" as in European chivalry; if
not of royal blood, he ranked next to the members of the ruling
families and was among the king's boon companions.

The Sassanians did not form light-armed cavalry but extensively
employed-as allies or mercenaries-troops from warlike tribes who
fought under their own chiefs. "The Sagestani were the bravest of
all"; the Gelani, Albani and the Hephthalites, the Kushans and the
Khazars were the main suppliers of light-armed cavalry. The skill of
the Dailamites in the use of sword and dagger made them valuable
troopers in close combat, while Arabs were efficient in desert
warfare.

The infantry (paygan) consisted of the archers and ordinary footmen.
The former were protected "by an oblong curved shield, covered with
wickerwork and rawhide". Advancing in close order, they showered the
enemy with storms of arrows. The ordinary footmen were recruited from
peasants and received no pay, serving mainly as pages to the mounted
warriors; they also attacked walls, excavated mines and looked after
the baggage train, their weapons being a spear and a shield. The
cavalry was better supported by war elephants "looking like walking
towers", which could cause disorder and damage in enemy ranks in open
and level fields. War chariots were not used by the Sassanians.
Unlike the Parthians, however, the Iranians organised an efficient
siege machine for reducing enemy forts and walled towns. They learned
this system of defence from the Romans but soon came to match them
not only in the use of offensive siege engines-such as scorpions,
balistae, battering rams, and moving towers-but also in the methods
of defending their own fortifications against such devices by
catapults, by throwing stones or pouring boiling liquid on the
attackers or hurling fire brands and blazing missiles.


Heavy Armoured Sassanian Cavalry
The organisation of the Sassanian army is not quite clear, and it is
not even certain that a decimal scale prevailed, although such titles
as hazarmard might indicate such a system. Yet the proverbial
strength of an army was 12,000 men. The total strength of the
registered warriors in 578 was 70,000. The army was divided, as in
the Parthian times, into several gunds, each consisting of a number
of drafšs (units with particular banners), each made up of some
Wašts. The imperial banner was the Drafš-a Kavian, a talismanic
emblem accompanying the King of Kings or the commander-in-chief of
the army who was stationed in the centre of his forces and managed
the affairs of the combat from the elevation of a throne. At least
from the time of Khosrow Anoširavan a seven-grade hierarchical system
seems to have been favoured in the organisation of the army. The
highest military title was arghed which was a prerogative of the
Sassanian family. Until Khosrow Andoširavan's military reforms, the
whole of the Iranian army was under a supreme commander, Eran-
spahbed, who acted as the minister of defence, empowered to conduct
peace negotiations; he usually came from one of the great noble
families and was counted as a counselor of the Great King.

Along with the revival of "heroic" names in the middle of the
Sassanian period, an anachronistic title, arteštaran salar was coined
to designate a generalissimo with extraordinary authority, but this
was soon abandoned when Anoširavan abolished the office of Eran-
spahbed and replaced it with those of the four marshals (spahhed) of
the empire, each of whom was the military authority in one quarter of
the realm. Other senior officials connected with the army were: Eran-
ambaragbed "minister of the magazines of empire," responsible for the
arms and armaments of warriors; the marzbans "margraves"-rulers of
important border provinces; kanarang-evidently a hereditary title of
the ruler of Tus; gund-salar "general"; paygan-salar "commander of
the infantry"; and pushtigban-salar "commander of the royal guard".

A good deal of what is known of the Sassanian army dates from the
sixth and seventh centuries when, as the results of Anoširavan's
reforms, four main corps were established; soldiers were enrolled as
state officials receiving pay and subsidies as well as arms and
horses; and many vulnerable border areas were garrisoned by resettled
warlike tribes. The sources are particularly rich in accounts of the
Sassanian art of warfare because there existed a substantial military
literature, traces of which are found in the Šah-nama, Denkard 8.26-
an abstract of a chapter of the Sassanian Avesta entitled
Arteštarestan "warrior code"-and in the extracts from the A'in-nama
which Ebn Qotayba has preserved in his Oyun al-akhbar and
Inostrantsev has explained in detail. The Arteštarestan was a
complete manual for the military: it described in detail the
regulations on recruitments, arms and armour, horses and their
equipments, trainings, ranks, and pay of the soldiers and provisions
for them, gathering military intelligence and taking precaution
against surprise attack, qualifications of commanders and their
duties in arraying the lines, preserving the lives of their men,
safeguarding Iran, rewarding the brave and treating the vanquished.
The A'in-nama furnished valuable instructions on tactics, strategy
and logistics. It enjoined, for instance, that the cavalry should be
placed in front, left-handed archers capable of shooting to both
sides be positioned on the left wing, which was to remain defensive
and be used as support in case of enemy advance, the centre be
stationed in an elevated place so that its two main parts (i. e., the
chief line of cavalry, and the lesser line of infantry behind them)
could resist enemy charges more efficiently, and that the men should
be so lined up as to have the sun and wind to their back.


A Sassanian helmet from the siege mines beneath Tower 19, Dura-
Europos, in today Syria. It is a rare find of Sasanian military
archaeology, and also clearly a prototype for Roman helmets of the
4th century CE.
Battles were usually decided by the shock cavalry of the front line
charging the opposite ranks with heavy lances while archers gave
support by discharging storms of arrows. The centre, where the
commander-in-chief took his position on a throne under the Drafš-a
Kavian, was defended by the strongest units. Since the carrying of
the shield on the left made a soldier inefficient in using his
weapons leftwards, the right was considered the line of attack, each
side trying to outflank the enemy from that direction, i.e., at the
respective opponent's left; hence, the left wing was made stronger
but assigned a defensive role. The chief weakness of the Iranian army
was its lack of endurance in close combat. Another fault was the
Iranian's too great a reliance on the presence of their leader: the
moment the commander fell or fled his men gave way regardless of the
course of action.

During the Sassanian period the ancient tradition of single combat
(maid-o-maid) developed to a firm code. In 421 CE Emperor Bahram V
opposed a Roman army but accepted the war as lost when his champion
in a single contest was slain by a Goth from the Roman side. Such
duels are represented on several Sassanian rock-reliefs at Naqsh-a
Rostam, and on a famous cameo in Paris depicting Emperor Shapur I
capturing Valerian.

Sassanian Emperors were conscious of their role as military leaders:
many took part in battle, and some were killed; the Picture Book of
Sassanian Kings showed them as warriors with lance or sword. Some are
credited with writing manuals on archery, and they are known to have
kept accounts of their campaigns ("When Kosrow Parvez concluded his
wars with Bahram-e Choubina and consolidated his rule over the
empire, he ordered his secretary to write down an account of those
wars and related events in full, from the beginning to the end").

While heavy cavalry proved efficient against Roman armies, it was too
slow and regimentalised to act with full force against agile and
unpredictable light-armed cavalry and rapid foot archers; the
Persians who in the early seventh century conquered Egypt and Asia
Minor lost decisive battles a generation later when nimble, lightly
armed Arabs accustomed to skirmishes and desert warfare attacked
them. Hired light-armed Arab or East Iranian mercenaries could have
served them much better...
*******
European medieval "battles", I think not! These standing regiments
were organized into divisions called gunds. Capable of sustaining
campaigns over hundreds of miles, if not thousands...

Sincerely,

Craig

**********

> > armored cavalry in this army?
> >
> Hello- I have no specific reference for you, but it DOES make
sense.
> The Persian Asavaran were basically a bunch of feudal nobles. They
> would NOT have been organised by equipment, but by clan. Each great
> noble would show up with his followers, and groups of these would
> clump together into groups sort of like medieval "battles". In the
> nature of things, richer and more important nobles would have
better
> and more extensive armor, and would tend to ride up front in the
> position of honor. In a typically heterogenous lot, this would
result
> in fully armored horsemen (SHC) grouped in front of men with
partial
> horse-armor, of horse armor made of felt instead of horn of metal.
> The SHC/EHC distinction is a bit artificial.Essential for game
> play, of course, but the men themselves would have seen no
distinction
> between the two; just noble horsemen with more or less armor, and
> better or less good armor, riding in the same body. dave lauerman
>