[Preview] Pre-reform Parthian units!

[Kylan271]

I got no errors on filefront as I downloaded the Mod today. I have had errors if internet gets chopped part way through downloading..mine 1 1/2 hours today.aghhh. Or browser probs..sometimes Firefox does that????

[Quinn Inuit]

There is no concrete evidence, just my guess:

They wouldn't send large numbers of untrusted greek POWs to fight, unless they believe they do need heavy infantry and the greeks are far superior to their own.

No argument here.

From the Seleucid records (or lack of) against Parthians: Seleucid army was able to beat them repeatedly with ease, 2) Seleucid army during parthian campaigns wasn't modified to counter an army of all horse archers and heavy cavalry.

Interesting point. You're right, of course, AFAIK. However, if the Parthians were related to a Scythian tribe, wouldn't they have been primarily cavalry from time immemorial? I'm confused.

Parthians obviously have large and fortificated cities. The garrion troops have to be infantry.

That's true. The garrisoning seems to have happened on a sub-national level. In other words, local lords were probably responsible for what garrisons there were.

The armies they sent against Roman invasion are pathetically small: no more than 50,000 (just compare that with what Armenians or Persians had used). Those "armies" are more like large raiding parties.

Small, but expensive. A lot of all-cavalry armies seem to have been fairly small, yet quite effective. Look at Euthydemos's Bactrian cav army. The Parthians seem to have gone for quality and speed over quantity, using speed as a substitute for needing to maintain an army on each side of the empire. They also seem to have used all-cav armies in the Pacorus vs. Bassus match (2 rounds, Bassus wins by knockout).

The ordinary levies as Armenians had shown are completely useless against well-equipped and well-trained legionaries. I think the Medians that Antony faced and the greeks who Trajan captured are both similar to the sparabara or kardakes in persian empire - as semi-professionals or househeld troops. Besides it'd be quite difficult to actually "recruit" any greek thureophoroi/cavalry (there were aspis-armed cavalry) if these soldiers are not specially kept - there were few greeks and those who are would have no reason to keep themselves armed in the "traditional" way for hundreds of years, especiall since that they lived mainly in cities and it's under peaceful Parthian rule.

I think your household troops interpretation makes sense, but, if that's the case, why did they need the Greek infantry we discussed above? I'm wondering if the mountain troops Antony faced were mostly skirmishers and ranged troops, good for raids but not so good at fighting off the Saka due to lack of armour.

There were aspis-armed cavalry? And what Greeks did Trajan capture?

I think you're also probably onto something about the presence of Greek troops in Mesopotamia. It would make sense that they made up the garrison forces there, since the Greeks seem to have been given a considerable degree of autonomy.

I have no information about them except for the Assyrian period. Do you have any text or pics of them during Seleucid rules?

As a matter of fact: http://tinyurl.com/elamitearchers

[Quinn Inuit]

PS: secondary HP is not counted for cavalry in battle, so you must give the horse barding value to rider's defense points.

Sorry for the double-post, but are you sure about that? I just ran some tests and it appears to have an impact.

[AqD]

No argument here.



Interesting point. You're right, of course, AFAIK. However, if the Parthians were related to a Scythian tribe, wouldn't they have been primarily cavalry from time immemorial? I'm confused.

The cavalry is the primary offensive force. But it's very different from all-cavalry armies used by Mongolians, where people get the image of typical steppe warriors. From the battles happened on pontic steppe and Massagetae, and depictions of Saka warriors, they clearly brought a lot of infantry, probably to boost the numbers - also means they cannot afford 5 horses per every cavalrymen. With a lot of infantry they cannot possibly make maneuvers on the degree as parthians or mongolians did later, ex: completely avoid close combat against roman legionaries.

They have been proven useless against the Macedonian army used since Phillipi. There is no battle detail for early parthians, but Macedonains did foguht scythians once (not the trap Alexander set), and later the Pontic conquest of Bosporan kingdom, where the local forces were very easily defeated despite of the numerical strength.

I think your household troops interpretation makes sense, but, if that's the case, why did they need the Greek infantry we discussed above?

Because greek infantry are superior to their own? If the greeks are willing to serve, why not?

I'm wondering if the mountain troops Antony faced were mostly skirmishers and ranged troops, good for raids but not so good at fighting off the Saka due to lack of armour.

I think the major difficulty Antony faced is the tall walls, which he cannot take without the siege engines which had been lost.

By Saka do you mean the Alan invasion into Armenian later? I cannot find enoguh information on it though.

There were aspis-armed cavalry? And what Greeks did Trajan capture?

greek thureophoroi and aspis-armed cavalry were both painted I guess. It's told by EB guys - I don't remember who did, and never confirmed the sources myself

As a matter of fact: http://tinyurl.com/elamitearchers

thanks!

[Kylan271]

The Elam data is very informative,my god I would never have at the Elamites before,now I am rapt!!! Can't recall them before,except I think biblical???

[Quinn Inuit]

The cavalry is the primary offensive force. But it's very different from all-cavalry armies used by Mongolians, where people get the image of typical steppe warriors. From the battles happened on pontic steppe and Massagetae, and depictions of Saka warriors, they clearly brought a lot of infantry, probably to boost the numbers - also means they cannot afford 5 horses per every cavalrymen. With a lot of infantry they cannot possibly make maneuvers on the degree as parthians or mongolians did later, ex: completely avoid close combat against roman legionaries.

They have been proven useless against the Macedonian army used since Phillipi. There is no battle detail for early parthians, but Macedonains did foguht scythians once (not the trap Alexander set), and later the Pontic conquest of Bosporan kingdom, where the local forces were very easily defeated despite of the numerical strength.

That's really interesting. Good point.

The only thing that troubles me about that argument (which, again, I think is very strong) is that all of the Parthian battles of which we have decent records seem to involve only horsemen. Do you think that's just a later development, once the kingdom became rich enough to field that many?

Going back to your comment about the lack of evidence of the Seleucids modifying their army to fight the Parthians, I think part of the problem there may be that they weren't really modifying their western armies, the ones that would have met the Romans. Luke Ueda-Sarson has a really interesting article on that: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Tarantines.html

Because greek infantry are superior to their own? If the greeks are willing to serve, why not?

They clearly didn't use them on any of their other major campaigns, though. I can't find any reference at all to Greek-style troops working with the Parthians, and when I have found reference to this incident it's characterized as unusual. For whatever reason, the Parthians much preferred to use their own troops.

I think the major difficulty Antony faced is the tall walls, which he cannot take without the siege engines which had been lost.

Well, yes, later on. _Somebody_ took out his siege train, though, and from the sounds of it that somebody was probably not cavalry.

By Saka do you mean the Alan invasion into Armenian later? I cannot find enoguh information on it though.

I thought it was one from the east, but I honestly don't know that much about it.

greek thureophoroi and aspis-armed cavalry were both painted I guess. It's told by EB guys - I don't remember who did, and never confirmed the sources myself

Interesting. This, plus that article on Tarentines, gave me a brainstorm. What if the aspis-armed cavalry were the civic militia that Ueda-Sarson is talking about above? It would make sense that those units would remain in existence during the period of relative autonomy that Babylonia had under the Parthians as garrison forces. If so, that means we know what the cavalry are: unarmoured light horse with big shields and 2-4 javelins that are also stout enough for stabbing.

Did the Seleucids use many thureophoroi, though?

thanks!

No problem! I'm going to try hard to fit them into the ExRM.

btw, I think your characterization of Median longchophoroi is mistaken. It looks like yours are carrying at least a doru, if not a xyston. As I understand it, "longchophoroi" usually refers to troops who carry spears that can be thrown or used in melee (very stout javelins). This fits with how Medians were characterized in Seleucid sources (i.e., with the Tarentines), and also how pre-Seleucid Persian cavalry fought. My guess it that these guys should look like the Pontic thoraskiminoi hippakontistai from RTR.

Interestingly, Ueda-Sarson also assumes that the Medians were assimilated into the Macedonian shock cavalry model by our time period: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/ImpSelDBM.html

I'm not sure what impact that has on the Parthian recruitment, though, since that might have encouraged the older style.

The Elam data is very informative,my god I would never have at the Elamites before,now I am rapt!!! Can't recall them before,except I think biblical???

Can't take credit for those...I think Wien1938 or Iskandar told me about them. You are right about seeing them in the Bible, though.

[AqD]

That's really interesting. Good point.

The only thing that troubles me about that argument (which, again, I think is very strong) is that all of the Parthian battles of which we have decent records seem to involve only horsemen. Do you think that's just a later development, once the kingdom became rich enough to field that many?

Yes. All those battles were battles against Romans, not Armenias, not Kushans or Saka nomads; Also they were exclusively defensive (offensive ones happened but there is no detail).

Did the Seleucids use many thureophoroi, though?

They did in the very late Seleucid kingdom, holding only a small part of syria. I have no idea what happened to the babylonia before it's taken by parthians, perhaps they're all city militia...

No problem! I'm going to try hard to fit them into the ExRM.

btw, I think your characterization of Median longchophoroi is mistaken. It looks like yours are carrying at least a doru, if not a xyston. As I understand it, "longchophoroi" usually refers to troops who carry spears that can be thrown or used in melee (very stout javelins). This fits with how Medians were characterized in Seleucid sources (i.e., with the Tarentines), and also how pre-Seleucid Persian cavalry fought. My guess it that these guys should look like the Pontic thoraskiminoi hippakontistai from RTR.

They're equipped with xyston in game and supposed to be hellenized Median heavy cavalrymen. The name comes from some hellenistic military manual, talking about median longchophoroi being skilled at wheeling-around (could be repeated-charge or skirmishing? ).

[Quinn Inuit]

Yes. All those battles were battles against Romans, not Armenias, not Kushans or Saka nomads; Also they were exclusively defensive (offensive ones happened but there is no detail).

True, our sample is pretty skewed.

They did in the very late Seleucid kingdom, holding only a small part of syria. I have no idea what happened to the babylonia before it's taken by parthians, perhaps they're all city militia...

That would be my guess, but I'm not sure what city militia would look like if they're not thureophoroi, which they probably weren't in Babylonia. *shrugs* Eh, might as well just go with thureophoroi. The militia were probably the same troop type, at least.

They're equipped with xyston in game and supposed to be hellenized Median heavy cavalrymen. The name comes from some hellenistic military manual, talking about median longchophoroi being skilled at wheeling-around (could be repeated-charge or skirmishing? ).

Ah, I understand now. Check out that article I posted about Tarantines. He uses the same quotation to describe them as skirmisher cavalry, and apparently they're put in a maneuver group with the Tarantines in one battle.

[RoyalGuard]

what errors?? From filefront or rapidshare?


@Kylan271: thanks. They don't provide any information on early parthian army though (like all other sources I have found ).

NVM it works now. I wonder if my other mod downloads will work, too.

[AqD]

Here is the final version of post-reform Armenian Nakhararakan Aspet (Royal Knights):






With fully-barded horses, double-layered & painted scale cuirass with leather backing, and sassanian scabbard!


Credit: arm/leg bracers from ferres' Seleucid unit set, bare horse from M2TW lithuania mod.

[olivtown]

Nice.

[AqD]

update: add pics for new units

[Quinn Inuit]

Lookin' good!

[florin80]

Very good job on the bodyguards!

[Salvor Hardin]

Too bad...I was looking for something similar to this unit for some time. Excelllent looking!

[AqD]

updated with more description. The pre-reform Parthians and Bactrians/Indo-Greeks will be the first ones to receive renew for next version. I'm now trying to re-gather historical information on them, because Osprey's books completely skipped that part of history...

[Visarion]

splendid units! glad you are back aqd... back to business I mean!