"The Persian Army had no skirmishers."

**Garbad** · April 02, 2016, 08:23 PM

I was discussing persian/greek equipment on reddit and a historian made that statement. He supported it with evidence of their gear -- archers wore scale or linen and had axes or short swords. They didn't skirmish, they stood and fought behind their mantlets. He pointed out that the only evidence we have of skirmishing was when the persians (or more accurately, the armenians?) skirmish with the retreating 10,000 of xenophon. So while it may be true that the persian empire had mercenaries who skirmished (especially greek and thracian), I think he is correct in saying that the persians were not skirmishers, and instead were designed for set piece battles.

If this is the case, the realism mod should reflect that. IMO, it would be a welcome change. Greeks would have skirmishers, but eastern archer units should have linen base armor and scale on elites, with more capable melee fighting and perhaps no skirmisher option. Also, the utter worthlessness of linen armor in the game needs a change, it should be more like 15-20 base armor not 6. Linen was in effect composite -- strong against slashing swords, weak against penetrating arrows/spears.

What do you think?

**KAM 2150** · April 03, 2016, 01:43 AM

Linen armour is not 6, but 35 ingame. There is no Persia in the game, but faction that will be overhauled in 1.2 will have atrong Persian influence.

Also Persia had archers from their satrapies, just read the composition of armies at Gaugamela. Sure, they were from their satrapies, but core Persian warrior class was at that time rather small, 50 000 men in total according to Delbruck, since Persians just were invaders on their lands.

**papaya beast** · April 05, 2016, 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by KAM 2150

Linen armour is not 6, but 35 ingame. There is no Persia in the game, but faction that will be overhauled in 1.2 will have atrong Persian influence.

Also Persia had archers from their satrapies, just read the composition of armies at Gaugamela. Sure, they were from their satrapies, but core Persian warrior class was at that time rather small, 50 000 men in total according to Delbruck, since Persians just were invaders on their lands.

I agree with KAM based largely off my reading of Arrian, but at the same time it would be a cool mechanic for some of the high-tier units for Media Atropane (if my memory serves, Dresden or someone said they will be a throwback-ish to Achaemenid Persia). So AOR missiles, slingers, and levy bowmen could be regular Total War missile unites with skirmishing function, while the noble and elite 'Persians' don't have that option, and would rather stand and fight than retreat dishonorably.

**tivihong** · April 03, 2016, 01:55 AM

"slowly pointing at arabian hybrid unit and dat Persian elite archer"
You must see the effectiveness of those elite archers, giving the Persian such type of unit early on is not very balanced i guess.
Armenian was considered primitive nation at that time and it was common for them to fight with sling and arrow, no heavy foot soldiers or anything alike.

**Linke** · April 03, 2016, 04:12 AM

There are many references to the Persian tradition of archery from a young age, Darius I at his grave and Xenophon in the Cyripedia. Furthermore there are many archeological depictions at for example Susa and Persepolis in Persia and Tatarli in Turkey depicting archers, sometimes also as spearmen. I think it is explicitly states in Herodotus that at Marathon the greeks run to avoid the hail of Persian arrows.

from Herodotus [7:ca80] "The Persians, who ... ... their quivers hanging at their backs, and their arms being a short spear, a bow of uncommon size, and arrows of reed"

In fact as far as I have been told by academics, like John.W.I.Lee (Uni california), archers were the mainstay of the Persian army core (not neccesarily a "warrior class"), working in teams with shieldbearera, sparabara, in an ancient mesopotamian mode of fighting suited for west Asias great plains. Each sparabara is the "protector" of a bowman, his big wicker shield is to deter the other sides arrows, not greek hoplites. I believe the reasons why the Persian skirmishing is (apperantly) never mentioned is because 1) it was such an integral and obvious aspect of the Persian army, wich is why for example Median bows refered to when Herodotus tryes to explain the equipment of various peoples in the invasion of Greece, and 2) the arrows weren't always that effective against greeks, or impacted the battles much (except of course in the irregular formations the 10 000 faced in the snow of Armenia and mountains of Kurdistan).

**Dago Red** · April 03, 2016, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Linke

from Herodotus [7:ca80] "The Persians, who ... ... their quivers hanging at their backs, and their arms being a short spear, a bow of uncommon size, and arrows of reed"

Yeah, that actually doesn't much support an active skirmishing role for the men Herodotus observed. Nor does a description of the sparabara as dedicated protectors of bowmen. It's not possible to skirmish in such a complex array of men with huge bows (and their own spears) in ranks with more men with huge shields, deployed to give them cover. I'm a believer in grey areas and you also can't make definitive statements about "they did x, y, z" and that applies to all these centuries (as if nothing changes and no one ever adapts) but what you and Herodotus are both describing is a pitched battle line.