Have Persians ever served as mercenaries for a foreign power?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

In lieu of my heated discussion with Persian Immortal I felt this is an appropriate question to ask.

I personally have never read about Persians serving as mercenaries, or even being used by foreign overlords, suggesting they had nothing to offer.

[the persian Immortal]

see that's why I'm saying that you don't do any research and write what you feel like it's true

‏Persia was mentioned for the first time in the Bible by Ezekiel, who referred to
Persian mercenaries in the Tyrian army (Ezek 27:10), as well as linking ...

www.answers.com/topic/persia-persians‏

Dec 2010 ... Iran was lost to the Seleucids not at the Syr Darya, but in Antioch, ...
Alexander began to drill an army of Iranians - and modern scholars ...

www.warandgamemsw.com/.../580781-seleucids-and-iran-ii/

Due to the lack of Graeco-Macedonians in the lands of the Seleucid kingdom the use of allied, vassal and mercenary troops was great. They were often used as light and auxiliary troops, supplementing the phalanx and cavalry. Large amounts of native contingents fought at the Battle of Raphia in 217 BC. Among them were 10,000 Arab infantry, 5,000 Dahai, Carmanians and Cilicians[25]. Certain ethnic contingents, be they vassal or mercenary were of considerable use in certain situations. For example Thracian mercenaries along with Mysian, Cilician, Lycian and Mysian troops were very efficient at fighting in rough terrain and mountainous areas. For example vassal troops from the mountainous areas of the empire were used by Antiochus III in conjunction with Thorakitai in his storming of the Elburz range in 210 BC[26]. The Persian and Iranian troops were most likely of a higher professional military standing than most of the other contingents as they are seen on garrison duty throughout the empire[27]. In the review at Daphne in 166 BC the large amounts of allied and vassal contingents are missing. They were of doubtful reliability, usefulness and efficiency. So much so that Appian blamed them for the defeat at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC[28]. The absence of auxiliaries from the army of Antiochus IV may have contributed to its strength. Making up for the loss of ethnic contingents the army was supplemented by mercenaries, who were more experienced and better trained. The Thracian and Galatian mercenaries at Daphne would have been of good use in campaigns in the rough, hilly terrain. For example the arms and equipment of the Thracian troops allowed for the individual soldier greater mobility and freer action in hand-to-hand combat that a phalangite could not take part in[29].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_army

try to do more research next time

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The first source is Ezekiel, and is about some Gog and Magog, hardly historical.

The second source also says this:

Why did the Seleucids neglect men from Persia proper (Fars), reputed to be the best soldiers in Iran, and the splendid Iranian horse which was the mainstay of the Greek kings of Bactria?

The third source?

In the review at Daphne in 166 BC the large amounts of allied and vassal contingents are missing. They were of doubtful reliability, usefulness and efficiency. So much so that Appian blamed them for the defeat at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC[28]. The absence of auxiliaries from the army of Antiochus IV may have contributed to its strength

Note they were vassal conscripts, not mercenaries, used not because they were skilled soldiers or something, but because the Greeks lacked manpower.

[the persian Immortal]

or even being used by foreign overlords

that's what you asked

the greeks use of persians weren't because they laked manpower cause they needed them to deal with revolts I think I read this some were in EB , the persians were also used in the selucid wars with potelemoi, and saying that they were ONLY used cause the greeks lacked manpower is wrong

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Historically, these troops were a late imperial Persian attempt to make a native Hoplite like infantry. These men come from the old Persian core Satraps of Persis and Media, willing to serve the Seleucids as easily as the encroaching Parthians. They are versatile in the sense of providing a reliable platform, fending off cavalry and faring decently in close combat, without being restricted by the inflexible Macedonian phalanx, making them some of the finest infantry to the disposal of the Pahlavân. Still it must be remembered that while they can give a good account of themselves as heavy infantry, they will likely turn out to be inferior to comparable Hellenic infantry, and should therefore be used a little bit differently by Eastern armies who rely more on cavalry; The Kardakâ may rather be used as an auxiliary rather than as the backbone of an Eastern army. The Kardakâ or Cardaces/Kardakes as they were called by Greek sources were subject to a wide range of different accounts regarding their combat performance, between being mediocre to full-fledged elites and equally their equipment, in particular their shields ranged from the hoplon to the more traditional wicker shields. Though it can be argued that the Kardakâ must have retained some uniformity during Achaemenid times, with the royal treasuries withdrawn and being deployed by Eastern nations who have rather turned their eyes towards cavalry, they do also inevitably represent a continuously declining unit type.

and you know that they were used by the medians.

and as for being used as mercenaries persians as you know were a small tribe not very populated they didn't had enough manpower to garrison their homeland , forming the standing army AND serve as mercenaries.

actually they population was so low that they even used reigenal troops as garrisons.

BTW: I just found evidanse that they also served in parthian armys

25 Jun 2009 ... The backbone of Parthian army is horse archers and persian cavalry ... the right
types to serve in Parthia army) -Eastern Mercenaries: This units

www.gamefaqs.com/pc/589390-rome-total.../56872



note that Mokhtars rebelion army against the arabs (ale-ziar and umayyeh) was almost all persians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mukhtar
and the book mukhtar nameh

BTW : I apologize if my english bothers you but I can't really change that I can only promiss to take some english lessons in the feature
.but till then I hope you don't mind if I make some wierd language errors . again sorry if that bothers you

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

that's what you asked

the greeks use of persians weren't because they laked manpower cause they needed them to deal with revolts I think I read this some were in EB , the persians were also used in the selucid wars with potelemoi, and saying that they were ONLY used cause the greeks lacked manpower is wrong

Ask any historian - they will agree with me that Persians were only conscripted to bolster numbers by the Seleucids, and that they performed very badly.

and you know that they were used by the medians.

Source?

and as for being used as mercenaries persians as you know were a small tribe not very populated they didn't had enough manpower to garrison their homeland , forming the standing army AND serve as mercenaries.

Small tribe? Seriously? They could form armies hundreds of thousands strong, so I disagree.

actually they population was so low that they even used reigenal troops as garrisons.

BTW: I just found evidanse that they also served in parthian armys

Most empires use local conscripts as garrison, since they are cheaper and can be somewhat reliable when it comes to defending their homes.

www.gamefaqs.com/pc/589390-rome-total.../56872

That is about RTW Parthian army composition, not the historical Parthians.

note that Mokhtars rebelion army against the arabs (ale-ziar and umayyeh) was almost all persians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mukhtar
and the book mukhtar nameh

Source?

BTW : I apologize if my english bothers you but I can't really change that I can only promiss to take some english lessons in the feature
.but till then I hope you don't mind if I make some wierd language errors . again sorry if that bothers you

It does not bother me, it prevents you from discussing properly.

[the persian Immortal]

[QUOTE]

Ask any historian - they will agree with me that Persians were only conscripted to bolster numbers by the Seleucids, and that they performed very badly.

source ask a historian isn't good enough , yes they maybe didn't performed as well as high qualaty soldiars of macedon but still was very usefull as a medium rank soldiars execpt their archers their infantry and cavelary wasn't as good as the macedonians .

BTW : I have posted a source from the EB historians about this did you open the spoiler???

Source?

now your trolling, right?

Small tribe? Seriously? They could form armies hundreds of thousands strong, so I disagree.

no the persians them self weren't that much most of thouse hundereds of thousands soldiars were mercenaries or not native persians .

Most empires use local conscripts as garrison, since they are cheaper and can be somewhat reliable when it comes to defending their homes.

emmmm no! the egyptions (potelies) didn't use much natives, the romans did but that's a different story you know the romans train every one to become legionaries and axiliry and form other roman armys ranks they didn't used the conquered peoples fight style like persians niether did the egyptions , but the selucids did the persiasn pretty much served the empire with their own style of warfare.

That is about RTW Parthian army composition, not the historical Parthians.

true I will try to find a better source in the feature ... maybe in this week

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mukhtar

It does not bother me, it prevents you from discussing properly.

yeah your right and i'm sorry for that I know it can be very annoying some times

[Rinan]

In lieu of my heated discussion with Persian Immortal I felt this is an appropriate question to ask.

I personally have never read about Persians serving as mercenaries, or even being used by foreign overlords, suggesting they had nothing to offer.

I don't know if there were many Persians serving as mercenaries or not, but it is a logical fallacy to assume that the Persians were weak soldiers just because you've never heard of them serving as mercenaries. There could be a multitude of reasons for them not to serve as mercenaries abroad. They could've preferred staying in their homeland, perhaps their hands were needed for farming, etc.

But maybe they did serve as mercenaries, don't know anything about that so I'll leave it to someone else to reply.

Also, who do you define as Persians? Only the Parsa (from Fars), or also the Medians and other Iranian people? Because maybe they served as mercenaries. And if they did, we can assume there's a possibility the Persians from Fars were just as good. Or if they weren't, the Persian (Achaemenid) Empire had plenty of Medes and other peoples to draw soldiers from, so they'd still have a succesful army.

Ask any historian - they will agree with me that Persians were only conscripted to bolster numbers by the Seleucids, and that they performed very badly.

Things could've changed by then (as compared to Achaemenid times). Or perhaps they didn't feel as stimulated to fight for the Greeks. And since the phalanx were the professional troops of the day, the native Persians weren't as trained for combat throughout their lives as under their own native dynasties? Not saying this is the case, but just some food for thought. There are always multiple ways to interpret a given fact.


Why is it that everywhere I see you posting you're trying to discredit the Persians? Give this forgotten empire some credit man

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

No matter how good the homeland is, someone will always leave it. Even Athens produced many mercenaries, and Athens was the best place to live in in the ancient world. The most logical reason the Persians (definition: people who belong to the Persian ethnic group) never served abroad is because no one wanted them.

[Rinan]

Could you clarify what you mean with the Persian ethnic group? Because I'm not sure such a group existed in ancient times. These days we use the term to refer to ethnic Iranians from Iran and people in neighbouring countries speaking the Persian of Iran or a language related to it. So, back in 500 BC, who do you see as the Persian ethnic group? The Persians, or also the Medes and other various tribes living in the area?

And indeed, there will always be individuals leaving the homeland. There might have been a few rare Persians leaving for mercenary work in other countries, but these amounts could be so small that they didn't acquire any fame. Furthermore, the comparison with Athens has a flaw. Greek history is very well attested, but Persian history not so much. So there could've been small bands of Persian mercenaries, but there was no-one writing it down. But the Greeks wrote everything down, hence we may know of some mercenaries from Athens.

Besides that, the social circumstances differ very much between Athens and Persia. In Athens, which you call the 'best place to live in the ancient world' (which is certainly very much up for debate. Not sure if I'd want to be a woman in Athens, for example) there will be a group of urban poor who see a chance to acquire more wealth through mercenary work. In Persia, we're speaking about semi-nomads, not much of an urban culture. People had their own lives to meddle in, had to support their families and communities. No masses of urban poor to try their worth elsewhere.

[the persian Immortal]

+rep to rinan I don't know why cocroach don't understand this I have tryed to tell him the same things but he don't understand it maybe I wasn't clear enough .

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Could you clarify what you mean with the Persian ethnic group? Because I'm not sure such a group existed in ancient times.

Ethnic group as in the Persian people, the Persian nation or the People who spoke Persian and lived mainly in the province of Fars. Still don't get it?

These days we use the term to refer to ethnic Iranians from Iran and people in neighbouring countries speaking the Persian of Iran or a language related to it. So, back in 500 BC, who do you see as the Persian ethnic group? The Persians, or also the Medes and other various tribes living in the area?

I said Persians, not ing Iranians.

And indeed, there will always be individuals leaving the homeland. There might have been a few rare Persians leaving for mercenary work in other countries, but these amounts could be so small that they didn't acquire any fame. Furthermore, the comparison with Athens has a flaw. Greek history is very well attested, but Persian history not so much. So there could've been small bands of Persian mercenaries, but there was no-one writing it down. But the Greeks wrote everything down, hence we may know of some mercenaries from Athens.

Athens produced large bands of mercenaries, in the thousands.

Besides that, the social circumstances differ very much between Athens and Persia. In Athens, which you call the 'best place to live in the ancient world' (which is certainly very much up for debate. Not sure if I'd want to be a woman in Athens, for example) there will be a group of urban poor who see a chance to acquire more wealth through mercenary work. In Persia, we're speaking about semi-nomads, not much of an urban culture. People had their own lives to meddle in, had to support their families and communities. No masses of urban poor to try their worth elsewhere.

Too bad those poor people could not have served as mercenary hoplites.

In case you don't know, hoplites came from the landowners and urban middle class, not the poor.

[Rinan]

Ethnic group as in the Persian people, the Persian nation or the People who spoke Persian and lived mainly in the province of Fars. Still don't get it?

Yes, now you have explained yourself well! Thank you.

I said Persians, not ing Iranians.

Would appreciate it if you remain calm

Athens produced large bands of mercenaries, in the thousands.

Too bad those poor people could not have served as mercenary hoplites.

In case you don't know, hoplites came from the landowners and urban middle class, not the poor.

Okay, I have to admit I don't know nearly as much about ancient Greek history as you do (the knowledge is pretty general, anyway)... But the point is that Athens and Persia are incomparable. One is a highly urbanised city state, the other is a vast steppe-country with semi-nomadic tribes.

I thought you hated Greco-Roman fanboys, but here and in Invasio Barbarorum I only see you trying to establish the superiority of the Roman and Greek armies over those of the Iranians... Just makes me wonder, anyway

Have to run now, so you two have to fight this out without me for a while

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I thought you hated Greco-Roman fanboys, but here and in Invasio Barbarorum I only see you trying to establish the superiority of the Roman and Greek armies over those of the Iranians... Just makes me wonder, anyway

Have to run now, so you two have to fight this out without me for a while

Please find a single patch of Steppe in Persis.


FYI, I hate all fanboys. TPI is one of the worst fanboys I've ever seen.

[the persian Immortal]

[QUOTE]

Ethnic group as in the Persian people, the Persian nation or the People who spoke Persian and lived mainly in the province of Fars. Still don't get it?

the medians also spoke what is known as the persian language so the persians language don't prefer to the fars province only.

and you just agreed with me that the persians were not so populated so as rinan said they rather was busy with sth else or their number of persians mercenaries were so few that they weren't noted by the greek historians.

I said Persians, not ing Iranians.

I suggest you be more careful when talking about Iranians .

and if you mean only the persians who lived in pars/fars (not Iranians) then you should know that there wasn't that large in numbers so as I said before there weren't many of them to both garrison persians citys form the standing army , palace guards and bodyguards AND sevre as mercenaries .

Athenians at the other hand didn't had much territories to garrison nor a large standing army so they had enough men to serve as mercenaries if they are offered a good price.

Athens produced large bands of mercenaries, in the thousands.

source!

I still think that rinan gave you the answer :

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't know if there were many Persians serving as mercenaries or not, but it is a logical fallacy to assume that the Persians were weak soldiers just because you've never heard of them serving as mercenaries. There could be a multitude of reasons for them not to serve as mercenaries abroad. They could've preferred staying in their homeland, perhaps their hands were needed for farming, etc.

But maybe they did serve as mercenaries, don't know anything about that so I'll leave it to someone else to reply.

FYI, I hate all fanboys. TPI is one of the worst fanboys I've ever seen.

I hate all trolls . CTG is the worse troll I've ever seen.

[parasa.b]

the persians used alans for horse archery

[Hesus de bodemloze]

Stay Civil! This is an official thread warning! Capiche!!

[Rinan]

Please find a single patch of Steppe in Persis.

When I think of Fars I think of this beautiful picture:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Anyway, steppeland might be the wrong word for it. However, you're really good at nitpicking me and thereby ignoring the points I make. The fact is that the Persia and Athens are not so easily comparable. And since I suppose Iran/Fars would be less populated, or at least less urbanised, it isn't that strange there would be less mercenaries. That, and there was no-one to document them. We have to remember the Greeks sort of invented historical writing, sadly not the Persians.

the medians also spoke what is known as the persian language so the persians language don't prefer to the fars province only.

Yes, but I think Cocroach is only talking about Persis, as in Fars, as in the area around Persepolis, and not the Medes.

the persians used alans for horse archery

But the other way round? That's what this thread is about after all.
And which Persians do you mean? Achaemenids, Parthians? This thread makes me understand why historians labelled the Persian empire "Achaemenid Empire" instead

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Rinan, Scythians were the archetypal nomads yet were probably the most common brand() of mercenaries in the world. Persians used tens of thousands of both their infantry and cavalry.

[knight who says nee]

the various turkic dynasties that ruled the region for hundreds of years made extensive use of the various tribes... especially the daylami, sughdians and tajiks

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

...none of whom are Persians.