Sogdian infantry, a Total War myth?

[Rostam_e_Iran]

I just want to say that White Bucellarius started this thread over in Total War forums and I thought i would be a good idea to have it here also, I hope he doesn't mind

"Hi guys,

I am a fan of ancient Iranian warfare since I read Plutarch's Life of Crassus when I was twelve. I have learned much both from English and Iranian books, and my complaint here is about the insertion of Sogdian infantry in the Sasanian army. Arguably this is a revival of the excellent infantry unit of Barbarian Invasion, although historical evindence does not suggest the existence of this kind of infantry.

I think that everything began with a colour plate in the Osprey volume called "Attila and the Nomad Hordes", where you have a "Sogdian warrior" mounting guard besides a White Hun prince.

Now, the fact that he is on foot does not mean that he belongs to a regular infantry unit. Much of our evidence for the Sogdian warrior aristocracy comes indeed from the Penjikent frescos, where the Sogdians are depicted as lance-armed cavalrymen.

A logic result, if we remember that they lived on a great plateau surrounded by steppes... The mountainers of Transoxiana/Sogdiana could certainly fournish a good quality light infantry, but not such heavy armoured knights. These were first and foremost heavy cavalry in my opinion. No doubt they will dismount to fight on foot if necessary, but I am quite sure they were not a regularly an exclusively trained infantry corps.

Therefore, is it not more correct to make them an auxiliary cavalry unit the Sasanians could recruit in their eastern satrapies?"

My own input:

The OP has a point to a certain extent. The fact that both Parthians and then Sassaninds deployed heavy infantry is unquestionable. The Medes supplied the the Parthian and early Sassanid era military (sepah) with heavy infantry, high-quality slingers and javeline-throwers. These infantry were used in the highly ignored defeat of Mar Antony in 36bc when he lost 40000 men at the hands of the Parthians.

During the early Sassanind era infantry were most like dressed and armed in the manner seen at Dura Europos with 2 piece ridge helmet, long coat of mail and the Achaemanean style leather-osier shield. During Julian invasion Persian infantry were described by Ammianus Marcellinus as highly disciplined and "armed like gladiators".

Then came the Dailamites in later stage of the Sassanids. They were a new bree of heavy infantry from the northern part of Persia. These became the finest Persian infantry, even Roman sources spoke highly of this men. They used battle and and heavy sword with brightly coloured shields whjich survived into the islamic era.

Anyway as far as Soghdian infantry goes i'm yet to see a references to them, but I would like to see these Dailamites in the Sassanind army.

Just to say Sassanid Heavy infantry were excellent, but could never fully match the Roman and later ERE. The Hellenic and Roman traditions were more extensive than the Sassanids; the Iranians excelled at cavalery and archery.

[Ariamanesh]

but could never fully match the Roman and later ERE. The Hellenic and Roman traditions were more extensive than the Sassanids; the Iranians excelled at cavalery and archery.

Can you explain what is your matter for comparing them(body strength,armor quality,weapon quality,fighting skills...etc)?
In my opinion the roman infantries were edge at tactical flexibility and formation fighting quality compare to the Persians but in the most important matters there was no differences between roman infantries and the persian ones!

[Rostam_e_Iran]

Can you explain what is your matter for comparing them(body strength,armor quality,weapon quality,fighting skills...etc)?
In my opinion the roman infantries were edge at tactical flexibility and formation fighting quality compare to the Persians but in the most important matters there was no differences between roman infantries and the persian ones!

You're right in that body strength, armor quality, weapon quality was not the factor in who had the upper hand, if anything men from the Iranian plateau (northern Persian lands) were bigger built. I think it came down to tradition and where the focus went to. Romans always had a more professional tradition when it came to infantry and the majority of their military was made up of infantry men, whereas in Iran it was always the otherway around. Naturally they both excelled in their traditional field. There are accounts where Dialamites often went face to face against the best of Rome's legionaries.

Also there's another reason why overall the Romans had the upper hand in the infantry area. The majority of the Sassanid infantry was made of Paighans, specifically during sieges where they were used for storming fortifications, entrenchment projects, excavate mines, guard baggage trains etc..

Sassanind armies would usually be comprised 25% heavy infantry, 15% cavalry, 10% foot archers and the rest would be Paighans/skirmishers. Compare that to the make up of Roman and ERE armies and when it came to pure hvy inf vs hvy inf they had the upper hand in terms of number and not necessarily quality.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Can you explain what is your matter for comparing them(body strength,armor quality,weapon quality,fighting skills...etc)?
In my opinion the roman infantries were edge at tactical flexibility and formation fighting quality compare to the Persians but in the most important matters there was no differences between roman infantries and the persian ones!

You are quite right that there was not that much of a diffrence from the equipment. That was even the case in the late republic when the Legionaries were almost unmatched. Equipment was almost never the reason why they were so succesfull. In the Rome 2 timeframe, the soldiers in the mediterranean world were almost all equiped with the same standard gear. It might have looked diffrent due the stuff they decorated it, but the Legionaryequipment was less unique than we often think. The diffrence was logistics and experience. No other realm at the time in europe and the near east was able to keep his armies deployed as long as the romans and therefore they had a larger number of veteran soldiers which were deciding. Alexanders Silvershield in the Diadochy wars which were according to some sources between 60 and 70 years old, were the deciding factors in the early battles. Or take Antonius against the Octavians Senate army, my favorite example. He had less than half the man, but his Vets beat the crap out of Octavians Legions with far less experience, despite better gear and supplies.

At the Attila timeframe there wouldn't be a huge gape between the gear as well. Once one side gained an advantage, the other side usually took over these ideas as well. That is why the most of the Roman Cavalry equipment is based on central Asian and Sassanid designs. I have to research it again, but i read that especially the late roman cavalry helmets are often Sassanid designs.

edit: looking further but so far i read that the crested helms which were used since the Tetrachy or Constantin I through the entire army, are a originally Sassanid design which was adapted and slightly changed by the Romans.

source: Fischer, Thomas: Die Armee der Caesaren. Archäologie und Geschichte, p 349.

[Ahiga]

The Sughdians and heavy infantry are an enigma I've honestly never found any valid evidence towards. Bearing in mind with a precursory note that I would want it to be true - I'm a big opponent of the false notion of the slavish oriental hordes. However when it comes to Sughdia I haven't encountered any evidence that speaks to the territory being noteworthy for the use of infantry, let alone heavy infantry. This is an area and a period that was of the Sassanianized sedentary city-states and the nomadic tribes that were slowly being turkified.

What threadbare evidence there is seems to be the depiction of dueling warriors on foot on I think a Khurasani plate and then a Sughdian wall painting. However I feel like they clearly depict dismounted cavalry as the possibility of such extremely heavily armored infantry would be utterly remarkable and unique in the annals of history.

When it comes to the claim of Media providing heavy infantry, while I do believe they did I haven't had the ideal textual reference to back that up yet - there's accounts of Strabo and others about how Albania fought in heavy and light armor on foot and horseback "like the Armenians", and that in the area of Media/Media Atropatene it was the custom to fight as infantry among the woods and crags, but nothing really definitive.

Judging from a screenshot where we saw the Sassanians had two heavy spearmen (one with long sleeve mail - probably from the faction preview, one with helmet and what seemed likely to be mail), the sughdian looking fellow, a light swordsman, two heavy archers (one mail hauberk'd, one long sleeved with mail veil/coif), they seem to clearly not lack in the department of heavy infantry. Which is good to see.

[Rostam_e_Iran]

This is why the Dailimites infantry would have been a much better choice.

[Ariamanesh]

Let be clear!
Some may think that a warrior on horseback is cavalryman and he just can fight on the horse back but when he is on the foot he is worthless!This is what i am up against!
Every body should know that a fighter who wanted to fight on horseback nicely should first learn to fight on foot!
I am not against this fact that romans could fight better in mass numbers than the persians
In fact the differences in the fighting quality of the Persians and Romans infantries came from different views and perspectives of the war they had!
While persians heavily focused on 1 on 1 close combat and body strength(body buildings) and personal fighting skills(archery and swordsmanship) in their trainings the romans were at the opposite side whom focused mostly on the formation and discipline and teamwork(the keys to be a perfect legioner) at their trainings!
So if the battle goes on the 1on1 the persians should have the upper hand but when the numbers grow to a greater value such as 1000 vs 1000 the favor will be with the romans!
That was my point

[Rostam_e_Iran]

Let be clear!
Some may think that a warrior on horseback is cavalryman and he just can fight on the horse back but when he is on the foot he is worthless!This is what i am up against!
Every body should know that a fighter who wanted to fight on horseback nicely should first learn to fight on foot!
I am not against this fact that romans could fight better in mass numbers than the Persians
In fact the differences in the fighting quality of the Persians and Romans infantries came from different views and perspectives of the war they had!
While persians heavily focused on 1 on 1 close combat and body strength(body buildings) and personal fighting skills(archery and swordsmanship) in their trainings the romans were at the opposite side whom focused mostly on the formation and discipline and teamwork(the keys to be a perfect legioner) at their trainings!
So if the battle goes on the 1on1 the persians should have the upper hand but when the numbers grow to a greater value such as 1000 vs 1000 the favor will be with the romans!
That was my point

Just to add they they also trained in 'Koshti' a type of wrestling (It would be their from of martial arts, aka hand to hand combat), club training, plank lifting (I'm not sure what this was for, something to do with balancing) and something else, but I can't remember.

Anyway, I see what what you're saying, but the Elite of the Sassanids cavalrymen were extremely armored (the grivpanvars) and if they were dismounted I can't imagen them lasting long before exhaustion. And you're right in a 1 vs 1 I would bet my life on the Sassanid winning.
And this is one of the major problems that Iranians face from the beginning, lack of manpower to draw from. Kuroush e bozorg started with this problem (he also had a lack of fund to pay for a larger army) so it had to be small and professional and he was successful against larger armies. Same with Sassaninds, small numbers, but extremely well trained and equipped. Areason why arab conquest was so successful, because of military exhaustion due to Persian-Byzantine wars, not much of an army left to defend Iran.

So my point here is that most of the time we were outnumbered, especially on foot. But why fight on foot when you can beat more than 1 man on horse back than if you were on foot beating just 1 man and tiring fast? They had good steeds and an acceptional equestrian history, why fight on foot? Ofc there is no doubt that an Elite Sassanid, w/e he was, could fight 1 vs 1 exceptionally well, but they hardly did and the ones that did (Dailamites) are praised even by the Romans.

Unless we go back in time and actually spectate a battle between the two we'll never know. Personally i'm skeptical and I think that Romans have always been overrated and Persians underrated. We have the arabs to thank for for burning almost everything we had to argue our side of the arguement, alas we must rely on what sources remain which were writtern by Persian enemies.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Anyway, I see what what you're saying, but the Elite of the Sassanids cavalrymen were extremely armored (the grivpanvars) and if they were dismounted I can't imagen them lasting long before exhaustion.

Agree. The ancient sources, i think especially Amm. Marcellinus, mention that it took several man to get an Catapract Knight on its horse, that the horses often broke together under the weight and that those "Knights" on foot were almost usesless due the weight. Still they might have developed solutions, hence these guyes wouldn't used as an Elite Unite.

And this is one of the major problems that Iranians face from the beginning, lack of manpower to draw from. Kuroush e bozorg started with this problem (he also had a lack of fund to pay for a larger army) so it had to be small and professional and he was successful against larger armies. Same with Sassaninds, small numbers, but extremely well trained and equipped. Areason why arab conquest was so successful, because of military exhaustion due to Persian-Byzantine wars, not much of an army left to defend Iran.

That i would put under debate. In fact in the Byzantine-Persian Wars the Sassanids had quite the manpower, while the Romans had a tiny army, only able to fight in guerrillia style. If only looked at the find situation at the Wall of Gurgan, you have approximatly place for garrisons 30k Soldiers at the Wall and there are also structures of encampments for not permant armies reaching over 100k man, not all of them soldiers ofcourse. That to be said just for one border region. In the most recent publications, especially from England, the scholars tend to argue that the fall of the Sassanian Empire was rather a series of bad developmends than the exhaustion the scholars of past decades used as explanation. After those argumentations Heraclius had the luck that the Parthian Nobles, especially the family of Chosroes II mother, decided to overturn him, which resulted in the lost battle in North Mesopotamia and his murder. This was the main reason for the peace settlement, rather than a real military defeat or exhaustion. When the Arabs defeated the Romans in Syria, it was a deciding victory because the actually had no more manpower, it was something diffrent when the Arabs defeated the Persian Armies, which took a lot longer. Once of the deciding explanations for the victory in the first battle are for example the ruthlesness of the Arabs Warriors. Despite the fact that they had extrem losses they kept advancing, with the result that the Persian Warriors, despite the fact that they had a higher killrate, decided to retreat or route. Sadly for the Persians the 2 defeats in the first years of the Conquest destroyed the central government and in the lack of an ruler the last Persians Princes retreated in their fortresses on the Iranian Plateu, where in fact they were able to resist for some decades. Eventually they and the invaders found arrangements to live with each other, also because the Persian Culture was quite impressive for the Arabs. In the end the Persian culture had a huge inpact on the early Islam, which is one reason why we have today more versions that are diffrent from the more rural Islam coming from the desert.

Unless we go back in time and actually spectate a battle between the two we'll never know. Personally i'm skeptical and I think that Romans have always been overrated and Persians underrated. We have the arabs to thank for for burning almost everything we had to argue our side of the arguement, alas we must rely on what sources remain which were writtern by Persian enemies.

Ofcourse the Arabs destroyed a lot, but the Iconoclastic Front within Christianity did the same. As i wrote before, the impact of Persian culture on Islam was still quite enormous.

[Rostam_e_Iran]

@

Marcus Aemilius Lepidus

"In the most recent publications, especially from England"
Could you tell me this source? I'm quite interested in finding out their point of view.

"Eventually they and the invaders found arrangements to live with each other"
This is debatable however, there is a book called 'Two centuries of silence" written by a Persian which talks about the first 2 centuries after the arab invasion, and from what i gather it wasn't a pleasant time.

[juanplay]

Rostam if you state that the Sassanid had more manpower than the romans in the aftermath of their last war why did they surrender? even with overthrown of Khosrau II, surely the new ruler would have been able to assemble an army and crush Heraclius.However that did not happen, also as i understand the romans were able to field a huge army in the battle of Yarmouk, maybe up to 80.000 men so that would eliminate the argument that the romans had no manpower avaliable.

[Ariamanesh]

Rostam if you state that the Sassanid had more manpower than the romans in the aftermath of their last war why did they surrender? even with overthrown of Khosrau II, surely the new ruler would have been able to assemble an army and crush Heraclius.However that did not happen, also as i understand the romans were able to field a huge army in the battle of Yarmouk, maybe up to 80.000 men so that would eliminate the argument that the romans had no manpower avaliable.

You probably joke!!!Aren't you?
Man if you count all of the Byzantines manpower of all the legions maybe you arrive at your number(about 80k man) but you claim they could field an army of 80k man in a single battle?
It's not an acceptable number for those who know more about the history!
This number just came from the exaggerations of the arabs historians like alwaqedy who also claimed that the 60 muslims defeated the 60000 christians in the prebattle of yarmouk!

[Rostam_e_Iran]

Rostam if you state that the Sassanid had more manpower than the romans in the aftermath of their last war why did they surrender? even with overthrown of Khosrau II, surely the new ruler would have been able to assemble an army and crush Heraclius.However that did not happen, also as i understand the romans were able to field a huge army in the battle of Yarmouk, maybe up to 80.000 men so that would eliminate the argument that the romans had no manpower avaliable.

I didn't say "Sassanid had more manpower than the Romans in their last war", where did you get that from?

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

I didn't say "Sassanid had more manpower than the Romans in their last war", where did you get that from?

He probably read it wrong, but i said that. The reason is that technically the Sassanid Empire was not exhausted, their ressources would have been enough to continue the war much longer than the Romans ever could. However the Kings had to rely on the Parthian Noblehouses which still played an important role. While Chosrau II was probably the most capable king after Shapur the Great, he was nothing without the baking of his mothers family. His two uncles helped Chosrau II to overturn his father and became king in the first place and together with the aid of Maurikios he had to surpress the coup d'etat of Bahram Chobin (from the Mihranid Dynasty, another Parthian Noblehouse). The later one was a military legend and actually not really the evil ursurper material, which indicates a lot of late Sassanid politics.
After Chosrau tried to emanzipate himself from his uncles, the problematic relationship between kings and nobles house ended in an open revolt when his uncle Vistahm claimed to be better fitted to rule Persia as a scion of the Arsacid (Parthian) Dynasty. In this civil war the royal army was actually quite challenged and even after Vistahms death and with the help of the Armenians the rebel army quite succesfull defended themself in the moutains of northern iran, where several fortresses were located, almost impossible to penetrate (like Alamut hundreds of years later).
In the final days of the war with Heraclious several Members of the two most important Parthian Noble Houses decided to turn against Chosrau II, because he became to powerfull and threated the power of the former strong Noble Houses. The truth was that Chosrau II was incredible powerfull within a united Persian Realm, but once the Nobles decided to stop their support he was quite powerless and effectivly his army melted down in to tiny numbers, which resulted in to the defeat at Nineveh. From a battle were the Persian Army probably would have been superior in numbers, but also the quality of its professionell soldiers, they were now only half of the Byzantine forces and ultimatly lost.
In the context of this, Chosrau was first imprisoned and later killed, while the Noble Houses and his family fought a bloody civil war for the thron. They would have still the manpower to raise new armies and continue the war, but with the treasury and the troops devided there was no other solution than to agree on the status quo peace. The Arab conquest was only possible because in the final years there was never a king who could really rebuilt a central government, but they still had enough power to resist with the tiny bit of the realm they had. That is why the Arabs didn't rushed through the Iran, like they did with the Levante and Egypt.
As for the ressources, if we alone look in to the reports about the spoils of war from the Persian Empire, the Arabs made, i think we can see the diffrence to the Roman Provinces and how much Persia was actually capable after this "exhausting" war.

As an apetizer for this thematic i can only suggest everyone to listen to this nice BBC podcast: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008g2x5
They also state their opinion about the relevance of the war in context of the Islamic Conquest later. The guests in this show are acutally experts in this matter and represent the state of the argumentation of the last decade. (From Minute 33 ongoing they talk about the War).

As for the more recent publications you asked for i will need a few more time because i don't have an ongoing bibliography for that paticular theme

[Ariamanesh]

He probably read it wrong, but i said that. The reason is that technically the Sassanid Empire was not exhausted, their ressources would have been enough to continue the war much longer than the Romans ever could. However the Kings had to rely on the Parthian Noblehouses which still played an important role. While Chosrau II was probably the most capable king after Shapur the Great, he was nothing without the baking of his mothers family. His two uncles helped Chosrau II to overturn his father and became king in the first place and together with the aid of Maurikios he had to surpress the coup d'etat of Bahram Chobin (from the Mihranid Dynasty, another Parthian Noblehouse). The later one was a military legend and actually not really the evil ursurper material, which indicates a lot of late Sassanid politics.
After Chosrau tried to emanzipate himself from his uncles, the problematic relationship between kings and nobles house ended in an open revolt when his uncle Vistahm claimed to be better fitted to rule Persia as a scion of the Arsacid (Parthian) Dynasty. In this civil war the royal army was actually quite challenged and even after Vistahms death and with the help of the Armenians the rebel army quite succesfull defended themself in the moutains of northern iran, where several fortresses were located, almost impossible to penetrate (like Alamut hundreds of years later).
In the final days of the war with Heraclious several Members of the two most important Parthian Noble Houses decided to turn against Chosrau II, because he became to powerfull and threated the power of the former strong Noble Houses. The truth was that Chosrau II was incredible powerfull within a united Persian Realm, but once the Nobles decided to stop their support he was quite powerless and effectivly his army melted down in to tiny numbers, which resulted in to the defeat at Nineveh. From a battle were the Persian Army probably would have been superior in numbers, but also the quality of its professionell soldiers, they were now only half of the Byzantine forces and ultimatly lost.
In the context of this, Chosrau was first imprisoned and later killed, while the Noble Houses and his family fought a bloody civil war for the thron. They would have still the manpower to raise new armies and continue the war, but with the treasury and the troops devided there was no other solution than to agree on the status quo peace. The Arab conquest was only possible because in the final years there was never a king who could really rebuilt a central government, but they still had enough power to resist with the tiny bit of the realm they had. That is why the Arabs didn't rushed through the Iran, like they did with the Levante and Egypt.
As for the ressources, if we alone look in to the reports about the spoils of war from the Persian Empire, the Arabs made, i think we can see the diffrence to the Roman Provinces and how much Persia was actually capable after this "exhausting" war.

As an apetizer for this thematic i can only suggest everyone to listen to this nice BBC podcast: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008g2x5
They also state their opinion about the relevance of the war in context of the Islamic Conquest later. The guests in this show are acutally experts in this matter and represent the state of the argumentation of the last decade. (From Minute 33 ongoing they talk about the War).

As for the more recent publications you asked for i will need a few more time because i don't have an ongoing bibliography for that paticular theme

Indeed!!!
Completely agreed!
In addition if you look at the time of the islamic conquest of persia you will notice that the army was quite the same army that defeats and pushed Byzantines back to the europe and conquered syria,egypt and anatolia a few years before!
The men was the same as well as the equipment!
Nothing has been changed except the most important thing that was unity of the empire!
So that was not the Arabs who wiped out the Sassanids and destroyed the last persian dynasty in iran at the 7th century AD but persians themselves did this!
That was the deep internal conflicts between parthians and persians who did this!
In fact the pray that Arabs hunted in the 7th cent AD was not a fresh kill but a ruined corpse who died years before that Arabs even convert to islam!

[Rostam_e_Iran]

He probably read it wrong, but i said that. The reason is that technically the Sassanid Empire was not exhausted, their ressources would have been enough to continue the war much longer than the Romans ever could. However the Kings had to rely on the Parthian Noblehouses which still played an important role. While Chosrau II was probably the most capable king after Shapur the Great, he was nothing without the baking of his mothers family. His two uncles helped Chosrau II to overturn his father and became king in the first place and together with the aid of Maurikios he had to surpress the coup d'etat of Bahram Chobin (from the Mihranid Dynasty, another Parthian Noblehouse). The later one was a military legend and actually not really the evil ursurper material, which indicates a lot of late Sassanid politics.
After Chosrau tried to emanzipate himself from his uncles, the problematic relationship between kings and nobles house ended in an open revolt when his uncle Vistahm claimed to be better fitted to rule Persia as a scion of the Arsacid (Parthian) Dynasty. In this civil war the royal army was actually quite challenged and even after Vistahms death and with the help of the Armenians the rebel army quite succesfull defended themself in the moutains of northern iran, where several fortresses were located, almost impossible to penetrate (like Alamut hundreds of years later).
In the final days of the war with Heraclious several Members of the two most important Parthian Noble Houses decided to turn against Chosrau II, because he became to powerfull and threated the power of the former strong Noble Houses. The truth was that Chosrau II was incredible powerfull within a united Persian Realm, but once the Nobles decided to stop their support he was quite powerless and effectivly his army melted down in to tiny numbers, which resulted in to the defeat at Nineveh. From a battle were the Persian Army probably would have been superior in numbers, but also the quality of its professionell soldiers, they were now only half of the Byzantine forces and ultimatly lost.
In the context of this, Chosrau was first imprisoned and later killed, while the Noble Houses and his family fought a bloody civil war for the thron. They would have still the manpower to raise new armies and continue the war, but with the treasury and the troops devided there was no other solution than to agree on the status quo peace. The Arab conquest was only possible because in the final years there was never a king who could really rebuilt a central government, but they still had enough power to resist with the tiny bit of the realm they had. That is why the Arabs didn't rushed through the Iran, like they did with the Levante and Egypt.
As for the ressources, if we alone look in to the reports about the spoils of war from the Persian Empire, the Arabs made, i think we can see the diffrence to the Roman Provinces and how much Persia was actually capable after this "exhausting" war.

As an apetizer for this thematic i can only suggest everyone to listen to this nice BBC podcast: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008g2x5
They also state their opinion about the relevance of the war in context of the Islamic Conquest later. The guests in this show are acutally experts in this matter and represent the state of the argumentation of the last decade. (From Minute 33 ongoing they talk about the War).

As for the more recent publications you asked for i will need a few more time because i don't have an ongoing bibliography for that paticular theme

I have actually listened to that program twice, but might listen again a third time . In all I've listened to all their 'History', 'MB's picks' and most of the culture shows. I could listen to those for ever hehe. I wish we had school lessons like.

I would like to go back in time and slap a few of those greedy bastads in the face and tell them "your actions will plague the world!!".

[Iulian Bashir]

I think these may help, but i can't find any information about Sogdian infantry at all.

(3) Effective Infantry

248: ‘The cream of the Persian army now made its appearance and occupied the bank, shields glittering, horses neighing, with bows trained and huge elephants that could burst through a phalanx as easily as through a field of corn.’

264 – 265: ‘Then for the first time the Persians were seen in battle array, a well-disciplined force with the glitter of gold in their armament. One of our forward infantry fell, whereupon our men charged en masse, and neither horse nor foot (hoplites) withstood our infantry’s shields’
Libanius ‘Oration ‘ XVIII

II. 62. 12: (following the failure of the cavalry assault) ‘In fact, the phalanx of the Parthians (sic) resembled a wall, with the elephants carrying the towers and hoplites filling up the spaces in between.’
Julian ‘Orationes’ (ref. to 3^rd siege of Singara, 350 AD)

XIX.2.2: ‘then the city was surrounded by a fivefold line of shields, and on the morning of the third day gleaming bands of horsemen filled all places which the eye could reach, and the ranks, advancing at a quiet pace, took the places assigned to them by lot.’

XIX.7.2 – 4: ..mail-clad soldiers underspread the entire heaven, and the dense forces moved forward, not as before in disorder, but led by the slow notes of the trumpets and with no-one running forward, protected too by penthouses and holding before them wicker hurdles. But when their approach brought them within bowshot, though holding their shields before them the Persian infantry (‘pedites’) found it hard to avoid the arrows shot from the walls by the artillery, and took open order, and almost no kind of dart (‘iaculi’) failed to find its mark; even the mail-clad horsemen (‘cataphractarii’) were checked and gave ground…’
Ammianus Marcellinus ‘History’ Bk XIX


XXIV:2.10: (defenders of Pirisabora) ‘Then the defenders…..protected by shields firmly woven of osier and covered with thick layers of rawhide, resisted most resolutely. They looked as if they were entirely of iron; for the plates exactly fitted the various parts of their bodies and fully protecting them, covered them from head to foot.’




XXIV.6.8: ‘… The cavalry was backed up by companies of infantry (‘pedites’), who, protected by oblong curved shields (‘scutis’) covered with wickerwork and raw hides, advanced in very close order.

Ammianus Marcellinus ‘History’ Bk XXIV


I.14.37: ‘After both sides had exhausted all their missiles, they began to use their spears against each other, and the battle had come still more to close quarters.’

I.14.52: ‘In this part of the conflict all the foot-soldiers who were in the Persian army threw down their shields and were caught & wantonly killed by their enemy’
Procopius ‘Persian Wars’, c.530AD, the battle of Daras.

(AM 6115, AD 622/3); 312: ‘They took the arms of Sarbaros, namely his golden shield, his sword, lance, gold belt, set with precious stones and boots’

(AM 6117, AD 624/5) 315: ‘In this year Chosroes, emperor of the Persians, made a new levy by conscripting strangers, citizens and slaves whom he selected from every nation. He placed this picked body under the command of Sain (Shahin) and gave him, in addition,another 50,000 men chosen from the phalanx of Sarbaros. He called them the Golden Spearmen and sent them against the Emperor.’
The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor Historika (fragments)

Bk 5.10.5 … After this action, the rest of Baram’s forces faltered, while with victorious strength Narses cast the cavalry from their mounts and felled the infantry with the spear….(13)
Theophylact Simocatta ‘History’,

XXIII.6.83: ‘Through military training and discipline, through constant exercise in warfare ans military manoevres…they cause dread even to great armies; they rely especially on the valour of their cavalry, in which all the nobles and men of rank undergo hard service; for the infantry are armed like the ‘murmillones’, and they obey orders like so many horse-boys. The whole throng of them always follows in the rear, as if doomed to perpetual slavery, without ever being supported by pay or gifts.’

Ammianus Marcellinus ‘History’ Bk XXIV

[Rostam_e_Iran]

I think these may help, but i can't find any information about Sogdian infantry at all.

(3) Effective Infantry


248: ‘The cream of the Persian army now made its appearance and occupied the bank, shields glittering, horses neighing, with bows trained and huge elephants that could burst through a phalanx as easily as through a field of corn.’

264 – 265: ‘Then for the first time the Persians were seen in battle array, a well-disciplined force with the glitter of gold in their armament. One of our forward infantry fell, whereupon our men charged en masse, and neither horse nor foot (hoplites) withstood our infantry’s shields’
Libanius ‘Oration ‘ XVIII

II. 62. 12: (following the failure of the cavalry assault) ‘In fact, the phalanx of the Parthians (sic) resembled a wall, with the elephants carrying the towers and hoplites filling up the spaces in between.’
Julian ‘Orationes’ (ref. to 3^rd siege of Singara, 350 AD)

XIX.2.2: ‘then the city was surrounded by a fivefold line of shields, and on the morning of the third day gleaming bands of horsemen filled all places which the eye could reach, and the ranks, advancing at a quiet pace, took the places assigned to them by lot.’

XIX.7.2 – 4: ..mail-clad soldiers underspread the entire heaven, and the dense forces moved forward, not as before in disorder, but led by the slow notes of the trumpets and with no-one running forward, protected too by penthouses and holding before them wicker hurdles. But when their approach brought them within bowshot, though holding their shields before them the Persian infantry (‘pedites’) found it hard to avoid the arrows shot from the walls by the artillery, and took open order, and almost no kind of dart (‘iaculi’) failed to find its mark; even the mail-clad horsemen (‘cataphractarii’) were checked and gave ground…’
Ammianus Marcellinus ‘History’ Bk XIX


XXIV:2.10: (defenders of Pirisabora) ‘Then the defenders…..protected by shields firmly woven of osier and covered with thick layers of rawhide, resisted most resolutely. They looked as if they were entirely of iron; for the plates exactly fitted the various parts of their bodies and fully protecting them, covered them from head to foot.’




XXIV.6.8: ‘… The cavalry was backed up by companies of infantry (‘pedites’), who, protected by oblong curved shields (‘scutis’) covered with wickerwork and raw hides, advanced in very close order.

Ammianus Marcellinus ‘History’ Bk XXIV


I.14.37: ‘After both sides had exhausted all their missiles, they began to use their spears against each other, and the battle had come still more to close quarters.’

I.14.52: ‘In this part of the conflict all the foot-soldiers who were in the Persian army threw down their shields and were caught & wantonly killed by their enemy’
Procopius ‘Persian Wars’, c.530AD, the battle of Daras.

(AM 6115, AD 622/3); 312: ‘They took the arms of Sarbaros, namely his golden shield, his sword, lance, gold belt, set with precious stones and boots’

(AM 6117, AD 624/5) 315: ‘In this year Chosroes, emperor of the Persians, made a new levy by conscripting strangers, citizens and slaves whom he selected from every nation. He placed this picked body under the command of Sain (Shahin) and gave him, in addition,another 50,000 men chosen from the phalanx of Sarbaros. He called them the Golden Spearmen and sent them against the Emperor.’
The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor Historika (fragments)

Bk 5.10.5 … After this action, the rest of Baram’s forces faltered, while with victorious strength Narses cast the cavalry from their mounts and felled the infantry with the spear….(13)
Theophylact Simocatta ‘History’,

XXIII.6.83: ‘Through military training and discipline, through constant exercise in warfare ans military manoevres…they cause dread even to great armies; they rely especially on the valour of their cavalry, in which all the nobles and men of rank undergo hard service; for the infantry are armed like the ‘murmillones’, and they obey orders like so many horse-boys. The whole throng of them always follows in the rear, as if doomed to perpetual slavery, without ever being supported by pay or gifts.’

Ammianus Marcellinus ‘History’ Bk XXIV

This shows that the Persians were not the 'Pijama wearing' eastern stereotype CA or the west for that matter makes them out to be. It's a shame really, Sassanids are perhaps the most underrated, incorrectly and unfairly portrayed empire of all time.
Look at CA's version Persian Cavalry they look like Arabs/Bedouin cavalry, seriously

They put the effort in to make this faction, but why not make them historically accurate?? Really bugs me

[Ahiga]

It's one bloody unit. They've also given the Sassanians rather than the stereotypical "Nothing but wicker sparas" a number of oval shields and square-rectangular shields such as Marcellinus describes them using (the murmillo-esque shields). They also have at least two heavy archer units - one armored head to knee like Marcellinius describes at the siege of Pirsiabora, one armored in just a mail shirt with cloth over it. And the heavy spearmen in lamellar from the original preview. Judging from some of the previews they also have another heavy armored spearmen to boot.

Sassanids have some units of questionable aesthetics? They can join the club with the Ostrogoths who have Dacian scale armor and wield sarissas. And besides, what we've seen of the Sassanids so far is a thousand times more faithful and appealing than their usual stereotypical hogwash they are given.

It'll be easy as pie for anyone to edit units to their hearts content when the game releases.

[Yayattasa]

It'll be easy as pie for anyone to edit units to their hearts content when the game releases.

This is the kind os excuse CA loves.