Armaments of Persian cavalry

[Kitsunegari]

I understand that mostly they would have used javelins as in the game, but IIRC, doesn't Herodotus say that some of the Persian horse were bowmen at Plataea, making them hard to come to grips with?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Well, most Persian cavalry were unarmored, carrying two long javelins and a dagger. From what I gather they were irregular feudal troops though, thus it is not inconceivable some had bows.

[Anakarsis]

I think that a bit more HAs would not harm...however, apart from the Steppe guys, HAs of this era could shot on the run?

[Kitsunegari]

Judging from Herodotus, it doesn't seem they were the agile HA's of later times, able to fire then wheel around at full gallop. But of course we know he's not always the most reliable source.

[Anakarsis]

Well, sources suggests that early HAs, and the type that fielded Assyrians and Babylonians, could not shot on the run, or at least not with the flexibility of RTW horse archers. The shot to the rear is known as "Parthian shot" suggesting that was a technique mostly known by full-steppe people like the parthians. But still Persian HAs could probably at least shot to the front while moving, i think...althought yes, Plataea description says that the archers "awaited the charge" of the Hoplites

[Kitsunegari]

The Assyrian (and presumably Babylonian) HA's actually had a fellow horseman riding alongside with a shield for protection while reloading, as goofy as that seems to us being used to the super talented Parthians/Sarmatians of later times.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I think that a bit more HAs would not harm...however, apart from the Steppe guys, HAs of this era could shot on the run?

That is an age old tactic.

Judging from Herodotus, it doesn't seem they were the agile HA's of later times, able to fire then wheel around at full gallop. But of course we know he's not always the most reliable source.

We have reliable sources - Assyrian reliefs, which show archers shooting arrows from every possible position.



Regarding the second horseman, that isn't true. Horse archers in general are always shown as one cavalryman and the lancers as another, one must not take Assyrian reliefs literally - since each trooper there usually represents a unit or troop type that was present at the battle in question.

[Kitsunegari]

I was under the impression that the Assyrian horse archer would always have a "squire" also on horseback (at least in the early period of the empire)? I know by later times the bridles had improved so maybe by the Sargonid era this wasn't the case.

[Anakarsis]

No. Apparently in early times, when cavalry equipment was not fully developed, these "horsed squires" accompained the rider, to help keep the horse in position and under control while the other man fired. HOWEVER, this feature seems exclusive of the first century of the Assyrian cavalry (1000-900 BCE). After that, the mounted companion is not shown again anymore, as the Assyrians probably finished to design the full mount gear and did not need that man anymore .

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I was under the impression that the Assyrian horse archer would always have a "squire" also on horseback (at least in the early period of the empire)? I know by later times the bridles had improved so maybe by the Sargonid era this wasn't the case.

That might have been the case in the very early days. However, the Assyrian cavalry became divided into lancers with long spears and archers with bows, based on their nomadic Scythian and Mede neighbors'.


All this, however, is irrelevant. The average Persian cavalryman looked something like this:



Later, some wealthier men could also afford armor. This is what a late Persian noble might have looked like:

Note the Greek-made helmet and cuirass, suggesting this man was from the western satrapies. The shown scene is the 400 Greek peltasts defeating Tissaphernes' entire cavalry force at Cunaxa, which suggests that Achaemenid cavalry was less than efficient by that time.








P.S. The Greek cavalry of the era was no heavier in armor, though:

They did, however, use lances instead of javelins, thus making them heavier in the tactical sense.

[Kitsunegari]

The Assyrians used lancers with helmets and lamellar cuirasses, odd that the Persians didn't adopt that quickly i guess, but they also didn't have the level of organization that the Assyrians did.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

What do you mean by "that quickly"? Oddly enough they used cavalry from Babylon armored with scale armor (which was included in the list of equipment a poor Babylonian Jew named Gadal-Iama borrowed from the state). Although I doubt their infantry was any less organized than the Assyrians' (after all, each satabam had 21 officers/NCO's), their cavalry was an ad hoc mob of feudal retinues and tribal nomads. And only the richest of the rich could afford Greek armor and weapons.

[Kitsunegari]

The Persians were quick to adopt other cultures' equipment and such (but not always their tactics i guess). Being feudal in nature, I'm guessing they didn't have the organizational capability to outfit large numbers of cavalry with relatively standardized equipment.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Changes in the composition of military forces also added to the logistics burden. The development of the chariot, for example, required Egyptian forces to maintain repair depots and special mobile repair battalions to ensure that the machines remained functional on the march. The Assyrian invention of large cavalry squadrons brought into existence a special branch of the logistics train to ensure that the army could secure, breed, train, and deploy large numbers of horses to support these new forces. This special logistics branch, the musarkisus, was able to obtain and process 3,000 horses a month for the Assyrian army. It was not until the time of Napoleon that Western armies could once again equal this logistical feat. The integration of chariots with cavalry also forced the Assyrian army to become the first to learn how to sustain two types of transport. Advances in siegecraft required that armies transport siege towers and engines within their baggage trains, and artillery, introduced under the Greeks and brought to perfection under the Romans, added yet another requirement to transport catapults and shot. The need to manufacture, issue, and repair new iron weapons in unprecedented numbers required yet more innovations in logistics. In the Assyrian army the production and storage of weapons became a central feature of the army's logistical structure. A single weapons room in Sargon II's palace at Dur-Sharrukin contained 200 tons of iron weapons, and similar weapons warehouses were scattered throughout the empire. Of all the achievements of the ancient armies, those in the area of logistics often remain the most unappreciated by modern military planners.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Indeed, the Assyrians were great innovators in the field of logistics. They managed to field a large cavalry force despite lacking "horse culture" or feudalism. The Persians adopted Assyrian style organization in infantry, but they failed to do the same with cavalry for whatever reason. Their doom was spelled by the appearance of professional heavy cavalry, the companions.

But I wonder what the actual force of Cyrus was like? I recall reading it was the "citizen"* levy of Persia.



*There was no such thing as a citizen in Persia, since a free man with the ability to influence politics and free will is a Greek invention. Persian commoners were still legally slaves to the nobles and the king.

[Kitsunegari]

It must have been a kind of feudal levy, this seems to be an Iranian tradition; eg in Parthian times the King of Kings called on his subsidiary kings, who in turned call on their nobles who fought in cataphract equipment would bring along a retinue of horse archers. It was something like 1k heavy cavalry to 10k horse archers. That said, the Achaemenids were somewhat different from other Iranian states in maintaining a standing army so it seems.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

WTF, there is no such thing as tradition when it comes to military developments over hundreds or thousands of years. Do we see the Italian army fighting in legionary uniform? Did the medieval French fight as a mob of swordsmen breaking their enemies with a wild charge on foot?

[Sertorio]

I have read somewhere ( probably here) that persian went on a "quantity over quality" regarding the Assyrian army and that might justify the reduction of armour in the cavalry. However a search for catraphact in the web reveals evidences of heavy armoured cavalry since 600 B.C.
The acounts of Alexander battles also reveal that Persian Cavalry with superior armour over the Companions existed, though not widespread.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I have read somewhere ( probably here) that persian went on a "quantity over quality"

Yeah, go watch 300 some more.

[Sertorio]

Put this on the right context i am just saying that they didnt copy the former Assyrian warfare style.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Put this on the right context i am just saying that they didnt copy the former Assyrian warfare style.

Except that they did, and how! Their entire logistical system was merely an improved Assyrian one. Their troop equipment and tactics did differ a bit. For example, the Assyrians didn't have composite units of spearmen and archers, they had archers accompanied by a pavise bearer each, and infantry were a seperate contingent. The Assyrians also lacked nomadic or feudal cavalry culture, so they had to use civilized methods to acquire such a force - through centralized conscription and training.