Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Craig Scott]

Hi Dave et al,

You are quite kind and very courteous. I thank you for that (o:

It is actually a quite a stretch calling them irregulars:

(1) "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 maneuvers". From
the third century the Romans also formed units of heavy cavalry of
the Oriental type; they called such horsemen Clibanarii "mail clad
[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 skillfully 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".
(2) The statement by the great Muslim - Persian chronicler al-Tabari
of being "silsilah (chained)" was a local Arabic colloquialism.
There was an error in an earlier translation. It actually referred to
a body or unit moving as one. This term was used to describe Persian
and Byzantine cavalry also. (This was the in/famous chained infantry
translation)
(3) It was the Roman and Byzantine armies that "orientalized" not the
other way around. The army structure and tactics were copied by
Romano-Byzantine forces as laid out by the Maurice's and other
Byzantine emperors' (Please read the Persia section carefully, "the
last reserve wins") Strategikons. Army manuals were copied from the
Shah-nama and other regulatory instructional guides from the central
government.
(4) In open field battle no Roman or Byzantine cavalry ever out-
maneuvered Asravan cavalry in four and one half centuries of
fighting. Yes, both sides ambushed, but not in "parade ground" open
battle maneuvers.
(5) Gunds are a divisional structure with a signal of three tipped
pennants, Spahbahs with two tipped pennants made up of 1 to 6 Asravan
formations, of a single point pennant. The army or corps staff would
carry the 4 point pennant or signal flag(s) This in addition to
formational (invented by the Sassanids) heraldry and traditional
standards.
(6) In a proto-industrial society equipment and drill were attempted
to be standardized starting with Adashir I himself. Apparel was
standardized by Asravan formation or regiment with regional and
heraldry requirements in mind, fighting in central Asian is very
different than fighting in the jungles of India…
(7) The ruling seven (families) houses needs to be severely addressed
at a later time. Suffice it to say the Shan-nama and other
regulations were followed by raised formations enforced by the
inspector general's office who answered only to the Shah and Vurzurg-
Framadar (Grand Vizier). The inspector general on regulation was
supreme even over the Shah when it came to his equipment and his
escort or bodyguard.
( For Warrior; the way the Asravan should fight and cost as
Irregular B, but maneuver as Regulars. This will never happen as the
list is very strong now and we weakened it in other areas such as; no
elephant escort infantry and no Dailami!

I hope you find this helpful, informative and thought provoking. This
was done on "the fly" and I will put together a more detailed article
later this year.

Sincerely,

Craig Scott

****

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Lauerman" <Dlauerman@a...>
wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > **********
> >
> Craig-
> Great article. Thanks.
> I think you are making a bit of a leap calling the
> Gunds "standing regiments", thus implying that they were
permanently
> embodied and organised. I read the same source to say that they
were
> more traditional, tribal, and clan-based than professional
soldiers.
> I agree that the feudal model is not exactly correct here. and that
> the level of organisation was a good deal higher than in feudal
> Europe. OTOH, to imply from this that arms and equipment was
uniform
> and standarised was a bit of a stretch. Individual troopers were
> noblemen in their own right and provided their own horses and
> equipment, varying it according to their own lights. It is
certainly
> true that many attempts were made to enforce minimum requirements
> for equipment, surely a superfluous requiremnet in a professional
> unit permanently embodied?
> Anyway, Sassanids are not cheesy. They are lovely fellows,
> mighty warriors finally getting their just due under the rules.
Fear
> the Sassanids! dave lauerman
>