You mean the nawak? It's an arrow guide, like a tong-ah.
You mean the nawak? It's an arrow guide, like a tong-ah.
Eran ud Turan - recreating the Iranian, Indian, and Central Asian worlds of late antiquity:
https://www.facebook.com/eranudturan
The Manubalistarri 'hand ballista' where invented by the Romans at the turn of the fourth century AD. Even if in the Notitia there are units listed as Manuballisterii, the weapon was not used in such numbers. Even if more powerful than a normal bow, it took longer to load. It would be very difficult for horse to use and load in a gallop, so I very much doubt their use by thrm. Cheers.
You should read Pourshariati's Decline and fall of the Sassanian Empire: the Sassanian-Parthian confederacy and the Arab conquest of Iran, and don't forget how thw White Huns defeat the Persians with a lighter cavalry forces instead of heavily armored lancers which means during the IBFD's time frame a large number of Iranian Armored Cavalry have abandoned their archery tradition in favor of shock cavalry action due to their military campaign against the Romans.
How about this:
Asavaran-i Dihqanan - medium cavalry with lance and bow
Nizagbaran-i Dihqanan - medium Dihqan cavalry with lance and sword
Asavaran-i Azadan (Azadan Lancers) - mailed Azadan cavalry with lance and bow
Asavaran-i Zrehbaran (Armored Lancers) - mailed cavalry with lance and sword or mace
So i was a little bit curious, Ammianus Marcellinus did mentioned Persian and Parthian Grandees fought and fallen in the Siege of Amida, but why would you believe they served only courtly duty but not militarily? If they are exempted from military career or service then how did the Grandees earn their wealth and land?
Tanurig? You mean oven? Nizagan-i Tanurig (Oven Bearing Lancer) would sound awful especially when it was translated into English.
Pourshariati's work is on civics and not the military. Can you give me a primary source for the majority of Sasanian cavalry not using bows in the 5th Century, despite quivers being ubiquitous in Sasanian art including military jousting scenes?
Tanurig is the middle Persian for "cuirass" - and yes, much like "klivanon / clibinarius" it is similar to the word for oven.
The grandees fought, but there is no evidence of a separate "wuzurgan" detachment. It is more likely they were commanders or generals of their own feudalistic armies rather than a military unit. What I mean is there is no separate "wuzurgan" unit in Sasanian history. The "wuzurgan" is a courtly title, although they would have fought in the army also. Likewise, there are no units of "shahrabs," for example.
Eran ud Turan - recreating the Iranian, Indian, and Central Asian worlds of late antiquity:
https://www.facebook.com/eranudturan
Here's the link that proves Tanurig is cuirass:
http://books.google.com.my/books?id=...anurig&f=false
Honestly, i wouldn't choose that name especially it sounds terrible on a shock cavalry that defend Iransahr from the enemies from the four corners of the known world.
You don't even bother to look over those little insignificant things, do you? or you don't even read it at all?
Do you have a Middle Persian dictionary? go look for it and there one in the internet. By the way, the only source that have Tanurig was a book called Sassanid Soldiers in Early Muslim Society: The Origins of Ayyaran and Futuwwa and i have the book too but calling them Nezagan Tanurig still sound stupid and i prefer Nizagbaran-i Zrebaran (Armored Lancers).
By the way, why would Grandees refused to fight when they have a chance to expand their land and wealth?
Feudalism didn't really appears in Sassanid Persia, if they do Sassanid will never achieved centralization that equals to China and Rome and you should read this book then you will know why i strongly oppose that feudalism appears in Sassanid Persia:
Here's the link:
http://books.google.com.my/books?id=...avalry&f=false
Last edited by The Crooked Philosopher; November 02, 2014 at 12:41 AM.
I have make some minor error in the previous post especially in the Asavaran-i Zrebaran (It should be Armored Cavalry) and i'm sorry but then i'm a bit curious why would you choose such an awful name instead of calling them Nizagbaran-i Zrehbaran? I mean its plain and simple and most of all no bombastic words that player don't even know about it.
Last edited by The Crooked Philosopher; November 02, 2014 at 03:59 AM.
This is debatable, I will post an article that discusses the possibility that the Manuballista was a loose arrow guide while the Arcuballista was a fixed arrow guide. Give me a bit to find it, my internet has been out and I've got a ton of crap to do today.
The Notitia lists "Ballistarii" which could be artillerymen but also could be crossbowmen. Again this is debatable as the primary sources usually call the men who man Onagers and Ballistae "Tragularii".
Three archaeological finds of Roman and Romano-British crossbows have been found: The Wiltshire Farm example dates to the 5th century, while the other two date to the 6th century. I've inquired about these pieces several times but the British Museum has never responded back.
Thanks Philosopher for providing evidence for my own points on the use of "tanurig" (and then curiously disregarding it). Also, we should go back in time and tell them that it sounds stupid. While we're there, let's tell the Romans that "clibinarius" sounds stupid and they should rename their cavalry as well.
I never said the grandees refused to fight - I said they probably were leaders of their own "bandegan" or units rather than forming up into a separate unit consisting of entirely of grandees.
The Sasanians never did achieve the levels of Centralisation known in, say, China or India. Pourshariati makes this quite clear that even in the later period the state still functioned more like a federation than a centralised empire. In fact the attempts at centralisation had fairly disastrous consequences, with a major rift forming between the Pahlavig and Parsig factions and several revolts against the central authority by the noble houses. It is not feudalism in the true European sense but I am not sure what other word to use.
And as for bombastic words - how many of the players can read and understand words of Middle Persian anyhow?
Eran ud Turan - recreating the Iranian, Indian, and Central Asian worlds of late antiquity:
https://www.facebook.com/eranudturan
At least use simple Middle Persian words with plain, simple English translation so that players understand what it means. Remember the game wasn't an instrument of entertainment and fun but also served as an education platform too.
Eran ud Turan - recreating the Iranian, Indian, and Central Asian worlds of late antiquity:
https://www.facebook.com/eranudturan
You're right perhaps these Grandees did command their man-at-arms to fight instead of forming one fighting unit consists of Grandees alone.I never said the grandees refused to fight - I said they probably were leaders of their own "bandegan" or units rather than forming up into a separate unit consisting of entirely of grandees.
By the way, i intend to propose a list of dismounted cavalry unit plus several armored siege infantry unit but i don't know is it possible from your point of view although it sounds practical for a competent commander if he needs to take cities or fortified position by force or defending a stronghold when under siege.
Here's the unit list:
Dismounted Zayedan (Middle Persian name required) (dismounted cavalry with long sword, shield and bow)
Asavaran-i Payahdag (dismounted cavalry with long sword and shield)
Samsirdaran-i Zrehbaran (heavy infantry with long sword and oval shield)
Dismounted Dihqan Cavalry (Middle Persian name required) (Dismounted cavalry with long sword, shield and bow)
It's a shame that the M2 engine doesn't allow units to mount and dismount - that would have been ideal (and completely accurate also)!
What's the tactical / strategic advantage of dismounted cavalry units over units of heavy infantry in game?
"Asawaran-i-Payadag" is somewhat of an oxymoron. Perhaps we can use these as heavy infantry units and rename them appropriately. BTW, can we make the "shamshirdaran" (can I suggest "shamsheran-i-shahig") an elite armoured crack troop armed with the two-handed disk pommelled swords illustrated in Moshtagh-Khorasani's book? No evidence per se for such a unit but those swords found appear to have fairly specialised uses and would be brought to their full potential in two-handed foot fighting.
Generally speaking, with the exception of two-handed swords, throughout history swords have been a side-arm or a secondary arm because they can be put away in a scabbard and carried - unlike larger weapons like polearms. As M2 allows each unit to have a primary and secondary weapon I would say that swords (with the exception of the two-handers just described) should be a secondary weapon to either bows, slings, polearms, or javelins, so I don't generally favour the idea of dedicated sword units.
Eran ud Turan - recreating the Iranian, Indian, and Central Asian worlds of late antiquity:
https://www.facebook.com/eranudturan
Is this some kind of joke? I mean, I've seen you post the exact same thing on the IB 1 forums.
For defending cities, fortified position and most of all an alternative for players who have difficulties on raising a competent infantry capable of capturing forts and cities.
So i assume that Dismounted cavalry will the only temporary name .....
Samsirdaran-i Shahig? why don't just call them Samsirdaran-i Shahvar? and two handed sword unit sounds really strange for Sassanid army especially no real evidence support it. In my opinion single handed sword with shield sounds promising to me.
What i mean heavy sword auxiliary not cavalrymen specialized on siege warfare, capable of aiding cavalrymen on taking fortified position and defending settlements so i don't think sword only unit should be excluded from Sassanid army.
I do think Sassanid should have a hybrid archer unit capable of firing arrow and fighting with sword.
Last edited by The Crooked Philosopher; November 05, 2014 at 08:51 AM.
See "Arms and Armour from Iran" by Khorasani, page 417. Copyrighted so I can't post a scan. A similar one is in "Lexicon of Iranian arms and armour" whose blade is better preserved but I don't have the book so cannot give you a page number reference.
BTW, swords are sidearms for precisely the reasons I have described, not primary weapons.
Last edited by naddum; November 05, 2014 at 08:52 AM.
Eran ud Turan - recreating the Iranian, Indian, and Central Asian worlds of late antiquity:
https://www.facebook.com/eranudturan
To Marshall of France: i clearly agree with Reno and B257.
Little posts like your one is first, not at the good thread, second, just stupid.. :s
Merovingian-period archeology database: http://241-752.forumgratuit.fr/
Association Française d'Archéologie Mérovingienne