Paighan-i-Sassani

[juvenus]

If the English is accurate then Ammianus is clearly linking the subject of the previous section to the subject of the latter section as being distinct from the Sassanian heavy cavalry known as cataphracts. Ammianus clearly indicates heavily-armoured infantry as being 'iron-clad' whereas the cavalry are clad in specific armour which defines them as cataphracts.

i strongly tend to agree with this. very good observation SBH though we'll never be 100% certain, when u read the text it does sound as if Ammianus is linking the subjects. in fact, ur observation is so correct that anyone daring to disapprove it will have to explain why would have Ammianus used two different terms for an armoured body of men.

6. At length, after we had considered many plans, we determined on one which the rapidity with which it could be executed made the safest—to oppose four scorpions to the four balista

i just wonder if this means (bold and underlined part) that 4 Roman scorpions intended to target 4 Persian balistas?

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Thanks, Juvenus!

VV raises the interesting question of further verification and cites Libanius and also Julian's own writings. I want to ask everyone a favour here to see if they have a copy of Libanius' Oratio LIX. I would appreciate if they have a copy and could read about the battle of Singara during the reign of Constantius and tell me what if anything they find regarding any possible reference by Libanius to heavy Sassanian infantry? Call it a hunch if you will!

[wulfgar610]

I want to outline in some detail the case for a heavy infantry presence in Sassanian armies in the Later Roman period, using sources with some contextual comments and my own interpretations. Firstly though I want to lay out the ground of my debate. What I am not doing is arguing that Sassanian armies could field equivalent numbers of heavy infantry on a par with Roman legionaries. I am going to illustrate that evidence suggests it is reasonable to assume that a portion of native ‘Phaigan’ soldiers were equipped with mail and were able to both conduct siege operations and also hold the line against Roman regulars on occasion – not that this was a regular Sassanian practice to the extent that Sassanian infantry armies toiled across the land in regular columns all clad in mail like Roman infantry. I want to argue this solely to confirm the presence in the IB mods of the unit Cocroach the great commented on at the beginning of this thread. Nothing more. My aim here is not to prove or disprove anything except that it is reasonable on the basis of current evidence that such a unit remain in the game. I will hope to show that these troops are distinct from dismounted cataphracts or other such Sassanian cavalry and also distinct from allied or mercenary contingents in the Sassanian armies. livre

As regards Sassanian dedicated heavy infantry that could take a stab at fighting on par with the Romans.

I can believe Mercenaries.

I can believe a full time royal corps.

I can believe Sassinid petty nobility or gentry.

I can't believe the grand Paighan who would be the waste of a good suit of mail.

As Robert Graves said, "give them flutes and call them snake-charmers".

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

As regards Sassanian dedicated heavy infantry that could take a stab at fighting on par with the Romans.

I can believe Mercenaries.

I can believe a full time royal corps.

I can believe Sassinid petty nobility or gentry.

I can't believe the grand Paighan who would be the waste of a good suit of mail.

As Robert Graves said, "give them flutes and call them snake-charmers".

Fair enough, Wulfgar610.

[Pompeius Magnus]

when the tone in the thread becomes a little bit more reduced in volume, then I would continue with my elaboration about Ammianus. But before I post those results I want start with a text from Patryk Skupniewicz

"There is no doubt that the infantry were found to be the inferiour formation. However, foot soldiers were used in large numbers as both archers and shield bearers for hand-to-hand combat.
The infantry`s role was a crucial for successful siege warfare, and the Sassanids were skilld in the art of taking fortresses throughout the dynasty`s existence.
One can hardly believe that noblemen were excluded from that sort of warfare, but there must have beed specialized troops who were responsible for the siege engines and tunnel warfare.
Field fortification were widely used as well, Sassanid eningeers were talented craftsmen, and no western source claims their inferiority. "

concerning the siege operation he say:
"...(the sasanians) prove that truly elite worriors were employed (in terms of morale, skill and training); however, it cannot be stated weather they belonged to cavalry or infantry units. Even if they were nobles, the very nature of the act (sieges) forced them to act on foot.
The same is true for the warriors in glittering armor who were on the walls of the fortresses besieged by Julian the Apostate`s armies described by Ammianus. They might have been the fort`s garrison, but they might equally have been aristocrats who fought from horseback when in the field. After all, it is not uncommon to see European knights defending the walls of besieged castles in medieval iconography."

[Dragases]

Spot on Pompeius!

It's so obvious that I had not even thought about it, but you need a large number of good quality infantry to capture cities and fortifications. And in that matter the Sassanids easily excelled all enemies of the Roman Empire. (Except the Huns for a very brief stint under Attila).

[Valentinian Victor]

Thanks, Juvenus!

VV raises the interesting question of further verification and cites Libanius and also Julian's own writings. I want to ask everyone a favour here to see if they have a copy of Libanius' Oratio LIX. I would appreciate if they have a copy and could read about the siege of Singara during the reign of Constantius and tell me what if anything they find regarding any possible reference by Libanius to heavy Sassanian infantry? Call it a hunch if you will!

Unfortunately is Libanius' Oratio LIX one of those that does not appear anywhere in translation apart from in Dugeon & Lieu? I have often lamented that not all of Libanius', Julian's or Themistius' letters, Orations, diaries etc have appeared in a translated form, the Loeb editions are selections, as are the only two English translations of Themistius. As I can only recognise a few Greek words, and only then if they have been latinised, I am no help whatsoever in any Greek translation.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Spot on Pompeius!

It's so obvious that I had not even thought about it, but you need a large number of good quality infantry to capture cities and fortifications. And in that matter the Sassanids easily excelled all enemies of the Roman Empire. (Except the Huns for a very brief stint under Attila).

No you don't. Most Sassanid sieges were won through traitors letting them in.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Unfortunately is Libanius' Oratio LIX one of those that does not appear anywhere in translation apart from in Dugeon & Lieu? I have often lamented that not all of Libanius', Julian's or Themistius' letters, Orations, diaries etc have appeared in a translated form, the Loeb editions are selections, as are the only two English translations of Themistius. As I can only recognise a few Greek words, and only then if they have been latinised, I am no help whatsoever in any Greek translation.

Ah I did wonder to be honest. That's a shame as there is a casual mention that in his description of the Battle of Singara, Libanius mentions Sassanian heavy infantry as well as allied/mercenary infantry. I wanted to follow that up and see how valid that was.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

when the tone in the thread becomes a little bit more reduced in volume, then I would continue with my elaboration about Ammianus. But before I post those results I want start with a text from Patryk Skupniewicz

"There is no doubt that the infantry were found to be the inferiour formation. However, foot soldiers were used in large numbers as both archers and shield bearers for hand-to-hand combat.
The infantry`s role was a crucial for successful siege warfare, and the Sassanids were skilld in the art of taking fortresses throughout the dynasty`s existence.
One can hardly believe that noblemen were excluded from that sort of warfare, but there must have beed specialized troops who were responsible for the siege engines and tunnel warfare.
Field fortification were widely used as well, Sassanid eningeers were talented craftsmen, and no western source claims their inferiority. "

concerning the siege operation he say:
"...(the sasanians) prove that truly elite worriors were employed (in terms of morale, skill and training); however, it cannot be stated weather they belonged to cavalry or infantry units. Even if they were nobles, the very nature of the act (sieges) forced them to act on foot.
The same is true for the warriors in glittering armor who were on the walls of the fortresses besieged by Julian the Apostate`s armies described by Ammianus. They might have been the fort`s garrison, but they might equally have been aristocrats who fought from horseback when in the field. After all, it is not uncommon to see European knights defending the walls of besieged castles in medieval iconography."

That text wouldn't be from here would it?!

[Pompeius Magnus]

No you don't. Most Sassanid sieges were won through traitors letting them in.

beside the traitor-theory. You need of course a good proportion of foot-soldiers, where ever they come from.
A task which was completely outsourced by the huns and given to Gepids, Skythians, Ostrogoths and probably 5 tribes more.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

beside the traitor-theory. You need of course a good proportion of foot-soldiers, where ever they come from.
A task which was completely outsourced by the huns and given to Gepids, Skythians, Ostrogoths and probably 5 tribes more.

1. Traitor lets in;
2. Paighan swarm the massively outnumbered defenders;
3. *human-wave-bloodbath*
4. ...
5. PROFIT!!!

[Dragases]

No you don't. Most Sassanid sieges were won through traitors letting them in.

Then you have to prove that statement by citing source references.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I have been reading the LIX oration by Libanius in praise of Constantius and in particular the Battle of Singara (Montserrat and Lieu, Routledge ’96) and it raises some interesting questions. In the section where Libanius outlines the lead up to war with Shapur II he stresses that the Sassanian king made every effort to first delay the war to allow him time to prepare and also sought to buy as much iron as he could from the Roman Empire in order to equip his forces as well as he could. Libanius stresses this last point and argues that Shapur II was developing new troops and armours for them. He goes on at length in describing the newly-raised ‘iron-clads’ (my phrase!), that is, his elite heavy cavalry (the ‘curassiers’). It is clear from Libanius that Shapur II was keen to learn from and develop new troops and tactics for the coming war. Two things emerge from this: those massive amounts of iron were purchased with a view to arming his newly-raised force and that Shapur II was developing and changing the traditional fighting capabilities of the levied and retained troops under his standards.

The Battle of Singara deserves special mention as Libanius describes in some detail the course of events. Now the battle is open to interpretation of course and I don’t want to dwell too much on that - only on a single passage where Libanius describes the assembling Sassanian forces:

‘Every type of military contingent furnished their (Shapur’s) army: archers, mounted archers, slingers, heavy infantry, cavalry and armed men from every quarter . . .’ (page 188, para 2)

I note here, as with Ammianus, the order of the troops and the delimitation of native troops from allied or mercenary troops. I do not have the original translation but as this is a modern one I am reasonably confident in the accuracy of the translation.

This raises an interesting development in regards this thread. If Sassanian troops in this period were fielding native heavy Phaigan at least in short durations and for specific campaigns/sieges then not only do we have a Roman witness underlining why they were now appearing (due to Shapur II’s innovations), this Roman also underlines that it was specifically Roman iron which contributed to the vast increase in Sassanian armour throughout this period.

[Valentinian Victor]

I have been reading the LIX oration by Libanius in praise of Constantius and in particular the Battle of Singara (Montserrat and Lieu, Routledge ’96) and it raises some interesting questions. In the section where Libanius outlines the lead up to war with Shapur II he stresses that the Sassanian king made every effort to first delay the war to allow him time to prepare and also sought to buy as much iron as he could from the Roman Empire in order to equip his forces as well as he could. Libanius stresses this last point and argues that Shapur II was developing new troops and armours for them. He goes on at length in describing the newly-raised ‘iron-clads’ (my phrase!), that is, his elite heavy cavalry (the ‘curassiers’). It is clear from Libanius that Shapur II was keen to learn from and develop new troops and tactics for the coming war. Two things emerge from this: those massive amounts of iron were purchased with a view to arming his newly-raised force and that Shapur II was developing and changing the traditional fighting capabilities of the levied and retained troops under his standards.

The Battle of Singara deserves special mention as Libanius describes in some detail the course of events. Now the battle is open to interpretation of course and I don’t want to dwell too much on that - only on a single passage where Libanius describes the assembling Sassanian forces:

‘Every type of military contingent furnished their (Shapur’s) army: archers, mounted archers, slingers, heavy infantry, cavalry and armed men from every quarter . . .’ (page 188, para 2)

I note here, as with Ammianus, the order of the troops and the delimitation of native troops from allied or mercenary troops. I do not have the original translation but as this is a modern one I am reasonably confident in the accuracy of the translation.

This raises an interesting development in regards this thread. If Sassanian troops in this period were fielding native heavy Phaigan at least in short durations and for specific campaigns/sieges then not only do we have a Roman witness underlining why they were now appearing (due to Shapur II’s innovations), this Roman also underlines that it was specifically Roman iron which contributed to the vast increase in Sassanian armour throughout this period.

It is indeed an interesting passage, of course Libanius had a political agenda when he wrote, he was aware of Julian's up-coming invasion of Sasanid Persia and he wanted the flow of goods over the border stopped. He may have been speculating about Roman iron arming the Sasanids, but it makes good propoganda!

Also interesting to see that Sharpur was copying Late Roman Clibanarii armament, as we know from both Julian and Libanius that Constantius II not only increased the numbers of Clibanarii in the Roman army, but equiped them with even heavier armour than their Sasanid counterparts. Most discussions of Sasanid Catafract equipment tend to state that the riders wore metal armour but they rode horses protected by either felt or leather trappers, which Ammianus comments on. Od course it may be that all Sharpur was doing was upgrading the armour of as many of his Asavaran as possible by ensuring the riders all had metallic armour, rather than also ensuring the horses had metallic armour.

Does anyone out there have access to the Greek version of Oration LIX and are they able to check it out? I'll also pose the question on several other sites where I know historians such as Goldsworthy, Sabin, McDowell etc hang out and hopefully one of them might be able to help.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Yes, it adds a fascinating dimension to Roman-Sassanian relations in this period. I was wondering VV if you have a 'dropbox' account? If so, I can open mine up to allow you access to my PDFs from this period. I may have a few texts not in your own library?

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Ah, VV, you mean this wonderful extract from Libanius when he is disparaging Constantius II:

Nevertheless this prince, so abounding in resources, the possessor of innumerable and splendid cities, in receipt of those vast tributes, he that was drawing that immense amount of gold from his mines,78 he who clad the bodies of his cavalry in steel with greater care than the Persians themselves, who protected from wounds the very horses by means of armour 79

I wonder if it was Constantius II's developments which spurred Shapur II on?

[Valentinian Victor]

Yes, it adds a fascinating dimension to Roman-Sassanian relations in this period. I was wondering VV if you have a 'dropbox' account? If so, I can open mine up to allow you access to my PDFs from this period. I may have a few texts not in your own library?

SBH, not sure what a 'drop box' account is, but if you PM me I'll give you my email address and you can send them to me if thats ok?

[Valentinian Victor]

Ah, VV, you mean this wonderful extract from Libanius when he is disparaging Constantius II:

Nevertheless this prince, so abounding in resources, the possessor of innumerable and splendid cities, in receipt of those vast tributes, he that was drawing that immense amount of gold from his mines,78 he who clad the bodies of his cavalry in steel with greater care than the Persians themselves, who protected from wounds the very horses by means of armour 79

I wonder if it was Constantius II's developments which spurred Shapur II on?

That be the quote!
If I remember rightly Julian makes a similar comment. Under the Late Roman Clibanarii thread I created there is of course a much earlier reference to Late Roman clibanarii that have metallic horse armour, but it might only have been a cover for the front of the horse. But it does appear that Constantius II not only increased the size of the Clibanarii, but also equiped them more strongly than the Sasanids and that perhaps Sharpur was then attempting to do the same. However, I really do suspect that all Sharpur managed to achieve was to clad his Cataphract riders in metallic armour as comments from Ammianus in particular would indicate that the Sasanid horses were protected by textile armour, further borne out by Sasanid rock reliefs.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Yes, I wonder that. But we are straying off course a little here and should bring it back to phaigan infantry and the inclusion of the heavy infantry unit in the IB mods!