Slitherine

Comments about Early Achaemenid Persian army list.

After reading Herodotus and Xenophon several timpes, I found some detais that can add some flavour, in my opinion. I hope you find these comments interesting. I´ll try to refer each comment to these historical sources, so, at least, they will be “rear-supported”.


Sparabara. Well, I must confess its behaviour during the game did not matched with my expectations. They´re actually archers with light spear POA. That is, they get POA only during the impact phase. My vision is that this does not fit with historical descriptions, and I´ll try to show out some evidences.

The spara was a kind of big rectangular shield, carried by the leader of each row of ten archers. This organization is described by Xenophon. Well, the leader carried the shield and a spear, and also bow, since sometimes the whole row shot. Before the invasion of Greece, the Persians had fought against several enemies in Asia. These battles were often fought by archers on both sides, who shot until they ran out of arrows, and then they charge against each other, as we can see in these two examples:
“Tomiris, now that Cirus ignored her, after raising all her troops, sent them against Cirus. This battle, among all the ones fought between barbarians, was the toughtest one, and was like this: first they, being separated, shot arrows to each others until they ran out of them, but, after, coming close quarters, with spears had daggers they attacked each other…” Herodotus, I, 214. Battle against Massagetae.
“-[…] And so, don´t you think, Cirus, that the Persians you bring with you are few?.- asked Ciaxares.
-Wether they´re few or not, we´ll find out later. But, tell me, in which way all our enemies fight.- answered Cirus.
- Nearly all of them fight in the same way, for both their and our ranks include archers and spearmen.
- And so it´s obvious that we have to shoot them with such weapons…- said Cirus” Xenophon. Ciropaedia, II, 7.

Well, considering the trajectory of an arrow shot, it´s obvious that the spara was not designed for protection against arrows, but to protect the archers from close combat. In fact, considering that Persians had to encounter enemy cavalry several times in open terrain, I think we all agree that horses are not eager to throw themselves against a compact and steady wall of big shields. A charging horse would rather stop before the spara, and by the time the rider could control the animal, there would be at last nine Persians aiming at him, for he would have become a good target, standing over the spara due to the horse height.
Against infantry, the spara wall may not have been such effective against charges (as we have read in Herodotus´description of Marathon), but after the initial charge, the spara wall must have been quite a good protection, and here´s my point. My hypothesis is that a steady sparabara rank was quite a good advantage during melees.
Evidence 1.- Mind that Persians had successfully encountered lidian and asian hoplites. Though not showing offensive tactics, the Persians had to fight in close combat with them (see Herodotus I, 80, battle of Cirus against the lidians).
Evidence 2.- During the deployment of Platea, we can read this: “[…] and once they arrived, they formed in the following way: in front of the spartans, Marodonius deployed the persians. Since they were more, their ranks were deeper and its front wider, standing also in front of Tegean soldiers. And, having he chosen the toughest among the persians, he placed them just in front of the Spartans” Herodotus, IX, 31. Well, after Marathon and Termopilae, the Persians may have expected to come close quarters with Spartans, and knowing it, Mardonius places the Persians in front of them. Why? Because he expected to fight at last with the same chances than Spartans. That is, the Persians did not refuse close combat that much, being confident, even after their previous experience against greek hoplites, in their steady spara walls.
Evidence 3.- Herodotus´s description of Platea: “ […] The tegeans were the first to initiate the offensive, advancing against the barbarians, followed by Spartans, and the Persians encountered them, having dropped their bows[…] First, there was a combat around the spara wall, and once it fragmented, there came a violent combat around the sanctuary.[…] The Persians were not less strong nor brave, but lacked then the big shields and were not so skilled”. Herodotus IX, 62. That is, while the spara wall does not fragment, Persians stand still, but once it opens, the better equipment and skill of Spartans unbalance the fight.
Evidence 4.- Battle of Micalae “ Well, as long as the Persians held the spara wall, they defended themselves and suffered no disadvantage during the battle.[…] But once the Athenians made it fall, they engaged the Persians, who, after holding and defending during a long time, finally ran to their fort”. Herodotus, XI, 102.

Well, what this comment shows is the way the spara wall worked: while it stands, the Persians are not in disadvantage in close combat, even against average hoplites. Once the front rank breaks, the Persians suffer a lot of casualties, for they are not equipped for individual close combat.

I think the current light spear POA does not reflect this behaviour, since once the charge is made. Persians count no advantage. In fact, I don´t see current POA´s able to reflect its fighting style. So I suggest you the following POA, which can be added to many other troops along History.
- Impact POA: Pavise, +, FOR NON-CHARGING STEADY pavise troops and if not against shock infantry or knightly lancers.
And thus, the following modifications:
Impact POA: Foot with light spear, +, unless charging mounted shock troops OR STEADY PAVISE.
Impact POA: Mounted (unless elephants or scythed chariots) against MF or LF in open field, +, UNLESS AGAINST STEADY PAVISE.
- Melee POA. Better armour OR STEADY PAVISE, +, keeping the same exceptions.

With this suggestions, we get the following:
During the Impact phase, Non shock troops gets no net POA´s against STEADY pavise. Pavises are specially good against non-shock cavalry.
During the melee phase, we see pavises fight more balanced with heavy infantry. Better armoured and skilled infantry get´s still net + POA (better armour and swordmen/spearmen/pikemen), but spara, while they do not disorder, have a greater staying power, which, IMO, fits better with all shown above. Once the sparabara disorders, they fight on their own, and so get no POA unless they have individual better armour. Note that, with the text I wrote, sparabara infantry cannot add the better armour POA to the one of being non-fragmented pavise. This reflects that the pavise gives protection to the whole unit, while, once they fragment, it´s the individual equipment which counts.
So Sparabara infantry would be:
MF/undrilled/protected/Bow/Pavise/- front rank,
MF/undrilled/protected/Bow/-/- rear rank.

Hi Caliban66,

Your post has drawn my attention to something we did not mention in the introduction, for which I apologise.

This list forum needs to work within the current rules and so rules changes suggestions are not appropriate here.

I have updated my intro to mention this, again my apologies for not including it in the first place.

that said, persian sparabara don't have a POA in melee other than armour.

i've been wondering about why they don't at least have sword?

the sources mentioned seem to indicate their ability to close and fight hand to hand.

I am usually against rule changes, and in particular when you add complications. Why don't you try to obtain the same result with existing rules? For example, you could classify sparabara half armoured and half protected so you could have a POA against average hoplites (protected). More, when you loose a base, since you loose front bases, the file with just 1 rank deep loose the POA for better armor because the second rank is just protected. Of corse you have some limitation on formation, because you must deploy in 2 rank at minimum, but limitations of this kind already exist on particular BG of mixed troops.

No problem, Nik. I ensure you I read carefully the previous introduction before posting this issue. Thanks, anyway. I think this subforum is a very good idea.
May my post keep open if I try to amend it under current rules?

The only way I find possible to achive this points in Marioslaz´s direction. STEADY Sparabara w/light spear may count its armour as a grade better during melee phase. Thus, Unprotected STEADY Sparabara count as PROTECTED. Protected STEADY Sparabara count as armoured, etc. Would it be considered as a rule change?

I would have thought Defensive Spear would be the normal way to represent troops who fight well until their formation starts degrading.

Unfortunately this makes them the equal of hoplites.

The current logic seems to be that you get the light spear POA at impact. If you disrupt the enemy, you still have an advantage in melee. If you don't disrupt them, the spara wall is assumed to be breached and you are disadvantaged.

Against mounted, if you finish the melee steady then with hindsight the spara wall must have been intact and the mounted break off.

There´s also another possibility: if front rank were Deffensive spearmen/Bow, but the rear not deffensive, they would be a bit tougher in melee due to enemy POA malus instead of self POA bonus. We find the royal guard like this, but without bow in the front rank, in the later achaemenid persian.

But they would be worse against Hoplite Off Sp if they became Def SP. As the Off Sp would be net + in impact and melee, instead of just in melee.

If these troops do well in the impact as it stands they don't do badly in following melee. 3 bases wide even in imact, + shooting dice. Should win impact and a decent chance of disrupting the Off Sp. If the Off Sp are disrupted they are 6 dice at minus v's 4 dice at plus from the Off Sp. Even odds still. I think it works the way they are.

My point is that Sparabara were not designed against tough infantry, but to give some protection against enemy cavalry or chariotry. So, I see no point on considering that can match Off Sp during impact phase. But in fact, during this phase, being one-rank deff Sp, are equal on averages, since they roll a 50% more dices than protected off. Sp. What they get for this is that, is steady, during melee, enemy swordman cav may loose its swordman POA. Indirectly, foot swordmen, who fight in a more individual style, may also loose their POA against a solid spara wall. So, considering both impact phase and melee phase, against cavalry they will never be worse (if steady) against enemy mounted than a POA down.
Mind that we all know their performance against greek foot by greek authors, but persian infantry had conquered great part of Asia against natural born riders and archers. In fact, one of their worst enemies were the Masagetae.
With this change, also, the evolution from sparabara to crescent shielded spearmen becomes for "tasty", since they should have then a POA in impact to face coherent enemy foot. Actually, this evolution is a bit dull. I see no point on swaping a front rank of Light Spear/ Bow for another of just Light Spear/-.

But the 4 bits of evidence you quote are against hoplites

philqw78 wrote:But the 4 bits of evidence you quote are against hoplites

Of course, since the evidences were trying to explain that current POA don´t reflect exactly the way they behave, in my opinion. Once the bounds of this forum makes those points invalid, most of the thread makes no sense. My last post answered the Deff Sp issue that laurenceg opened. In my opinion, with current rules, I think the most accurate would be the armour increase effect while steady, but it may also cross that thin line of the rules, so I´m nearly done. Only one more point. The spara wall is described by Herodotus as a protection against cavalry in the description of Darius´ campaign against the scythins. He wrote that when both cavalries encountered, the persian used to recoil and search for protection behind the persian enemy line.

caliban66 wrote:

philqw78 wrote:But the 4 bits of evidence you quote are against hoplites

Of course, since the evidences were trying to explain that current POA don´t reflect exactly the way they behave, in my opinion. Once the bounds of this forum makes those points invalid, most of the thread makes no sense. My last post answered the Deff Sp issue that laurenceg opened. In my opinion, with current rules, I think the most accurate would be the armour increase effect while steady, but it may also cross that thin line of the rules, so I´m nearly done. Only one more point. The spara wall is described by Herodotus as a protection against cavalry in the description of Darius´ campaign against the scythins. He wrote that when both cavalries encountered, the persian used to recoil and search for protection behind the persian enemy line.

We are more concerned with the effect than with the nitty gritty details of the process of achieving that effect.

In our opinion sparabara are currently correctly balanced vs hoplites - i.e. the overall spread of results corresponds to the historical evidence. No doubt we could have achieved that balance by a different classification, but the present classification also achieves the desired balance.

We are well aware that the Persian infantry used the sagaris, but classifying them as swordsmen made them too good vs hoplites.

Sparabara as currently categorized are more than capable of fending off Skythian cavalry, including the armoured ones, and of shooting them to bits.

I think FoG gets it about right. I don't think the sagaris was a potent enough weapon to get the "swordsmen" classification and in any case it was very a much a secondary hand to hand weapon after the spear.

Opponents of the sparabara would not have been met with a bristling wall of spears as would opponents of a hoplite or Macedonian phalanx, and this is exactly how the FoG appendix classifies "light spear" - troops that mainly used spears as a weapon but not in a co-ordinated hedgehog type formation.

I would perhaps have not given Sparabara the "armoured" option as this gives them equivalent armour to a hoplite which, historically, even those with padded jerkins did not have.

Eques wrote:I would perhaps have not given Sparabara the "armoured" option as this gives them equivalent armour to a hoplite which, historically, even those with padded jerkins did not have.

Except that Herodotos gives them scale armour, and also there is the effect of the pavises to take into account.

"The Persians, who wore on their heads the soft hat called the tiara, and about their bodies, tunics with sleeves of divers colours, having iron scales upon them like the scales of a fish."

And once again, I must reiterate - it is the overall effect that counts, don't get too hung up on the details of how it is achieved. We have allowed them Armoured but not Swordsmen capability - we could instead have not allowed them to be Armoured but given them Swordsmen capability. It all comes out in the wash.

rbodleyscott wrote: tunics with sleeves of divers colours, having iron scales upon them like the scales of a fish."

nice to see them sticking to the aquatic theme.

and now it's explained, i'm thinking armour is better versus off.sp anyhow... *and* versus bow-armed opponents

Equs, the core sparabara don´t have "Armoured" option. Only Immortals, which seems right correct historically. They wore the best equipment, according to Herodotus.

I have used the early persians quite a bit (including in open comp) and have found them very effective. I find the Sparraba foot a points effective troop type. I initially had doubts about them been classified as MF when they were apparently close enough together to form a wall of shields but have found that on balance, against a range of opponents, they are fine as MF.

Martin

I've used the early Persians a lot recently. Indeed it was a pleasant surprise to find them quite a good army - my first persian army acquired in 1974 was good under the rules of the time but struggled in DBM.

In terms of the normal Persian troops I suspect the rules system does struggle a bit with the wall of mantlets. But without inventing rules for them it's a case of compromise. They're fine against mounted. They do struggle badly against decent heavy infantry, especially armoured ones, but do have a chance of doing some damage from shooting then impact. The way I think of it is big mass of Greeks hit the mantlets which (light spear) protects the persians against the shock but the the wall doesn't survive into the melee phase.

I don't think swordsmen is right. First there's reference at Plataea to fighting with bare hands but not much to use of the axe. secondly, it doesn't get a POA againt steady spear so would not be much use.

On the whole the normal Persians are probably a bit weaker than you'd expect but then they are cheaper as well. It does drive you towards getting some medising Greeks into the army.

The Immortals on the other hand are very potent and the armoured ones are stronger than I'd expect. I think part of the problem is drilled troops who move 4MU and shoot down skirmishers are very flexible. I can't really think they'd move that quickly if they carry mantlets too.

At the risk of resurrecting/hijacking a rather old thread...

One thing that I have been wondering of late is the decision to go with Bow, Swordsmen for early Persian cavalry, rather than allowing them Light Spear. The Troop Notes makes mention of "recently discovered tomb paintings" which I take to be the Munich painted beams which Summerer associates with the Tatarli tomb. I fully accept that the beams show, on the Persian side of the battle against the apparent Scythians, horse archers sans spear. But I would observe that these cavalry appear, to my untrained eye at least, to be wearing fairly generic Iranian clothing - identical, save for their bare heads, to the pointy hatted Scythians off to the right. Are they necessarily ethnically Persian troops? The two foot archers and the heroic commander (King?), by contrast, are in full Persian/Elamite costume complete with dentate crowns. Of course, these clothing differences may simply reflect the exigencies of mounted service.

On the other hand, we do have two pieces of apparent positive evidence for early mounted use of the spear. There is the seal of Cyrus of Anshan, which shows a cavalryman spearing his foot archer opponent. I accept that this is pre-Achaemenid, but probably only by two generations. And indeed there is no sign of a gorytos, though that of course may be asking too much of a seal engraving. Secondly, we have Darius I's epitaph:

"Trained am I both with hands and feet; as a horseman I am a good horseman; as a bowman I am a good bowman, both afoot and on horseback; as a spearman I a good spearman, both afoot and on horseback."

(And whilst a privileged member of the Achaemenid family, he was not raised as a royal prince, so his martial training is perhaps reasonably representative of at least the Persian nobility.)

We have what still seems the natural reading of Herodotus - that the cavalry were armed in similar fashion to the infantry. And lastly - and admittedly very close to the transition point for the Early and Late Achaemenid lists - we have the Uruk levy document of 422 apparently stipulating two javelins, 120 or 130 arrows (I have seen differing translations), a mace, a cuirass and a shield.

I accept that in the grand scheme of things, this is probably all fairly academic - and as Richard says above, the overall effect is the important thing, not the precise detail.