6.2 THE ARMY OF ŠĀBUHR II.
In contrast to the abundant information available for the Roman army, contemporary sources for the Sasanian army of the IV century CE are almost nonexistent; they all come from Graeco-Roman authors of whom the best source is by far Ammianus Marcellinus. Unlike the III century CE with the ŠKZ, there are no surviving Middle Persian texts from the IV century CE.
In my previous thread, The Rise of the Sasanians, I offered a detailed description of the geography and demography of the Sasanian empire (
The physical environment,
Political structure and demographics of the Iranian plateau,
The western territories,
The eastern territories) , and a review of the military of the Sasanian empire in the III century CE (
The early Sasanian army).
I can’t add much to what I wrote there due to the scarcity of sources, but I will try and do my best. Given the deplorable state of the sources, most that has been written about Šābuhr II’s army comes either from Ammianus Marcellinus and other western authors, or from educated guesses by modern historians. A point which is important to grasp about the Sasanian army though is that unlike the army of the earlier Arsacids, this was a combined arms army and not a cavalry only army (some cavalry only Sasanian armies are attested, but only when what was intended was a raid and not a conquest campaign proper). Infantry played an important part since the beginning, it included some sort of engineer corps (made clear by the proficiency in siege warfare already during the early reign of Šābuhr I) and it also had an elephant corps. Contemporary western sources agree that the Sasanian invasion armies mustered large numbers of men for extended campaign seasons, and there’s no trace in said sources about a recurrence of the old problem of the Arsacid army (armies dissolving at the end of summer due to the lack of a proper supply system), so it seems clear that the Sasanian kings managed to put up a sophisticated logistic machine since the early days of the dynasty.
The general organization of the army (
spāh in Middle Persian)remained possibly the same as during the previous century, although it’s practically impossible to reconstruct the chain of command of the Sasanian military due to the scarcity of sources and the inflation of titles and offices that was so characteristic of Sasanian society since an early stage (see this post in my previous thread:
Iran under Šābuhr I: the society of Ērānšahr, about said “inflation” applied to the civilian society). The sources give us a dizzying array of resounding offices and titles about whose exact meaning and functions modern historians and Iranologists have been bickering for decades, with little consensus to this date.
The commander in chief of the Sasanian
spāh was of course the
Šāhān Šāh himself and Šābuhr II is described both in the eastern tradition (Tabarī and the
Šāh-nāma) and by contemporary western authors as commanding the army in the field. But as for the lower command echelons immediately under the throne, the confusion begins. According to the sources (both written and epigraphical) there were several high commanders, but scholars don’t agree about which was the hierarchy amongst them and who was subordinated to whom.
The highest-ranking official listed in the ŠKZ (and in third place in the Paikuli inscription) was the
hazārbed (Middle Persian for “commander of a thousand” in Middle Persian), which now disappears from sight after the Peace of Nisibis. In the text of Peter the Patrician describing the negotiations between Diocletian’s envoy and king Narsē and his two ministers, one of them (
Burz-Šābuhr) is called “the praetorian prefect”; modern historians have assumed that the term was used by Peter the Patrician in its ancient sense of “commander of the praetorian guard” (in the VI century CE when Peter the Patrician wrote, it was merely a senior administrative post that he himself occupied for many years), and so have most modern scholars have assumed that this character was the
hazārbed. The problem is that although the title is attested under the Arsacids (Parthian
hazāruft) and even the Achaemenids (Old Persian
hazārapati), it’s completely absent from the extant Middle Persian sources (apart from the epigraphical ones) and from later Islamic sources. If the guess by modern scholars that Peter the Patrician’s “praetorian prefect” was the
hazārbed is correct, then this office could’ve been the commander of the royal guard,
and he could perhaps have had some sort of courtly role as master of ceremonies. In the V century CE, the office appears again, when confusingly both the offices of
Ērān spāhbed and
hazārbed were held by the same person,
Mehr-Narsē Sūrēn.
Mehr-Narsē Sūrēn would also hold the office of
wuzurg framādār. The
wuzurg framādār was a sort of “prime minister” (from which the Abbasids would derive the office of
wazīr, or “vizier” in English), and judging by the Armenian evidence this post could have become equivalent to that of
hazārbed, if the Armenians were copying the Sasanian administrative practices, as was usually the case. After Mehr-Narsē Sūrēn, the office of
hazārbed disappears from the records. It’s unclear again if the office of
wuzurg framādār existed yet under Šābuhr II.
It’s unclear if the old Arsacid title of
aspbed (“Master of Horse”, meaning “chief of the cavalry”) was still in existence during the IV century CE; it appears in the SKZ but not in the Paikuli inscription. Under the Arsacids, the
aspbed (who was usually a member of the Sūrēn Pahlav clan based in
Sakastān) was the second in command after the king. As we will see, during Julian invasion of the Sasanian empire in 363 CE, the force of cavalry that shadowed Julian’s advance downstream along the Euphrates was led (according to Ammianus) by “the Surena”, probably a member of the
Surēn Pahlav; and so it’s possible that the Surena of Ammianus implies that the office of
aspbed still existed and was still held by the Sūrēn Pahlav clan.
British reenactor Nadeem Ahmad from the reenactment group Eran ud Turan in the garb of a Sasanian spāhbed. Notice the broadsword typical of the early and middle Sasanian eras.
According to Ṭabarī, the three most important military Sasanian titles after the king were the
argbed (most important), followed by the
artēštārān-sālār and the
spāhbed. The literal Middle Persian translation of
argbed is “commander of a castle (or fortress)” (
arg) or “citadel chief”. This title is seen in early Sasanian times as Ardaxšīr I began his public career as the
argbed of the fortified city of
Dārābgerd in Pārs, and some scholars have suggested that the title could have some sort of dynastic significance and be mostly a ceremonial office, while Theodor Nöldeke defined the
argbed as a district commander and Josef Wiesehöfer identified it as a “supreme tax collector”. A similar sounding office is listed in the ŠKZ (
dizbed, meaning “commander of a fortress), but it is ranked as quite a lowly office in the inscription. The
artēštārān-sālār is unattested in sources other than Tabarī, and it means “Master of the Warriors” in Middle Persian. The
artēštārān formed the warrior (or aristocratic) estate in Sasanian society, so this could’ve been also a largely ceremonial office (if it indeed existed). As for the office of
spāhbed, it means simply “general” in Middle Persian, and it was the title that any commanding officer received when he was commanding an army (in the absence of the king), and in a loose sense it could’ve been used to refer to any high-ranking military official. This latter title was copied by the Armenians with the same meaning (“general”) as
sparapet.
Ahmad Taffazoli hypothesized that perhaps the title of
artēštārān-sālār was equivalent to that of
spāhbedān-spāhbed (“general of generals” in Middle Persian), and according to Shapur Shahbazi it lost most of its functions over time, becoming more and more a merely ceremonial role.
According to later Islamic sources, the second in command after the king was the
Ērān spāhbed (“general of the Iranians” in Middle Persian), an office which seems to have been always held by a member of the
wuzurgān; it’s not clear if this title existed in the IV century CE yet, because it does not appear either in the ŠKZ or in the Paikuli inscription. According to several modern Iranian scholars, the
Ērān spāhbed would have been the commander-in-chief of the entirety of the
spāh’s troops (after the king) and would have differed from the
artēštārān sālār by lacking the latter’s ceremonial-religious roles. The
Ērān spāhbed would also have been entitled to a large portion of the spoils in victorious scenarios. The specific roles of the
Ērān spāhbed would’ve been:
- To ensure (as commander of all provincial and district forces) the efficient distribution of military forces throughout Ērānšahr to maximize the empire’s defense assets against foreign attacks as well as providing internal security.
- To fulfill the role of what today we would call a war minister.
- To act as the military chief of staff when the Šāhān Šāh assumed personal command of the spāh.
- To partake in meetings with other military and civilian top officials in the war council of the empire when war was imminent.
- To negotiate peace terms with enemies when authorized by the king.
The array of high officials in the sources doesn’t stop here. Two more high officials were the
savārān sardār (Commander of the Horsemen) and the
paygān sālār (Commander of the Infantry). Notice how these two offices are the exact equivalent of the late Roman offices of
magister equitum and
magister peditum respectively which raises the question of who was copying whom, and as if like in the Roman case there could be more than one of each in existence at the same time. Another office attested is that of
framādār savārān, who could’ve been the same as the
savārān sardar.
In the Paikuli inscription of Narsē, the hierarchy of titles appears listed by order of precedence:
- Harbed (a new title, scholars know nothing about its meaning and functions).
- Bidaxš
- Hazārbed
The
bidaxš was the king’s lieutenant, and it’s unclear what were his functions. The confusion that surrounds this office is considerable, because according to the SKZ and the Paikuli inscriptions, there was just one
bidaxš, but other sources contradict this. From the Armenian and Georgian chronicles, it appears that after the annexation of Armenia Šābuhr I appointed a
bidaxš for Iberia, which was not annexed to the Sasanian empire and was allowed to keep its own king. presumably, this
bidaxš acted as Šābuhr I’s plenipotentiary in the Iberian court and made sure that the Iberian king acted according to the wishes of the
Šāhān Šāh. As for the
bidaxš who resided in the Sasanian court, modern historians speculate if his role was not that of acting as the king’s lieutenant during his absence, but if that was the case, it seems strange that it ranked only second in the court hierarchy (and keep in mind that before the
harbed,
bidaxš and
hazārbed came all the members of the Sasanian royal family).
The Latin transcription of
bidaxš is
vitaxa (nom.pl.
vitaxae) and here we get another intriguing account by Ammianus Marcellinus (
Res Gestae, Book XXIII, 6, 13-14):
And as the pens of geographers have drawn it, the whole circuit just described has this form. In the northern direction, to the Caspian Gates it borders on the Cadusii, on many tribes of the Scythians, and on the Arimaspae, wild, one-eyed men. On the west it touches Armenia, Niphates, the Asiatic Albani, the Red Sea, and the Scenitic Arabs, whom men of later times called the Saracens. Under the southern heaven it looks down on Mesopotamia. Opposite the eastern front it extends to the Ganges river, which cuts through India and empties into the Southern Ocean.
Now there are in all Persia these greater provinces, ruled by vitaxae, or commanders of cavalry, by kings, and by satraps (for to enumerate the great number of smaller districts would be difficult and superfluous) namely, Assyria, Susiana, Media, Persis, Parthia, Greater Carmania, Hyrcania, Margiana, the Bactriani, the Sogdiani, the Sacae, Scythia at the foot of Imaus, and beyond the same mountain, Serica, Aria, the Paropamisadae, Drangiana, Arachosia, and Gedrosia.
In this fragment, Ammianus says clearly that there were several
vitaxae, that they were “commanders of cavalry” and that they governed “greater provinces”. Ammianus is generally a well-informed source; he was a member of the
protectores domestici and spent many years in the East fighting in the war between Constantius II and Šābuhr II; he eventually became an officer and a member of the staff of the
magister equitum Ursicinus, and so he had direct contact with Sasanian prisoners and access to whatever intelligence the Roman command had about the Sasanian empire, so it’s quite risky to just ignore this bit of information like most historians do. The problem is that this is not supported by any eastern source. Ilkka Syvänne interprets this passage by Ammianus in quite an unconventional (and to me, unconvincing) way: that (as it happened in Armenia) the Sasanian empire was divided into four large “military regions” according to the main four cardinal points, and that each of them was under the military command of a
vitaxa, in whom he sees an equivalent of the Roman
magister equitum. In my opinion, the only thing that could render this (quite creative) reading of Ammianus’ text is the comparison with Armenia, as the Armenian military, territorial and administrative system was usually inspired (or directly copied) on the equivalent structures that existed in the Arsacid and Sasanian empires, as Armenia shared with them a very similar social system and a similar strategical situation, with potentially dangerous enemies in all the cardinal directions.
The first mention in the sources of such a system being in existence in
Ērānšahr appears in Islamic sources which attribute its creation to Xusrō I during the VI century CE; evidence recently published from the study of Sasanian clay bullae has confirmed this.
In the entry for “
bidaxš” in the Encyclopaedia Iranica, written by the German scholar Werner Sundermann, after a long discussion about the probable origins and etymology of the word, he concludes that the
bidaxš was probably a sort of “prime minister” or “grand vizier” of the empire (hence its exalted position in the Paikuli inscription) which would be later substituted by the office of
wuzurg framādār during the following century. But at the same time (confusingly) the could also be more
bidaxšes (as attested by Ammianus’ fragment) acting as military governors of military provinces within the empire; the original etymological meaning of
bidaxš as “lieutenant (of the king)” or “second after the king” would cover both functions.
It’s interesting to make a comparison with the Armenian practice: Armenian historians describe the
bidaxšes (
bdeaxškʿ in Armenian) as lords of the marches (
sahmanakał), and the “great
bidaxš” as a high position at the court, hereditary in the family of the rulers of Arzanen. These sources mention the existence around 300 CE of four
bidaxšes or
sahmanakałs and the positions of the “great” and the “other”
bidaxšes, but they are unclear about the relationship between these titles.
Again, British reenactor Nadeem Ahmad in the full regalia of a Sasanian spāhbed, this time on horseback.
The “kings” of Ammianus were the
šahrdārān (sub-kings who were members of the House of Sāsān) who ruled over parts of the empire subordinated to the
Šāhān Šāh. As time went by, the tendency was to do without them, and after Šābuhr II’s reign, no more
šahrdārān are attested, and all the empire was put under a uniform administration of administrative, military and judiciary officials appointed by the
Šāhān Šāh and his ministers. During the reign of Šābuhr II, only two
šahrdārān are attested in the sources:
- Šābuhr, king of the Sakas (Sakān Šāh) and brother of Šābuhr II.
- Pērōz 2, king of the Kušan (Kušan Šāh; 303 – 330 CE), succeeded by Bahrām Kušan Šāh (330 – 365 CE).
It’s interesting to note that although Šābuhr II had several other brothers, none of them was appointed king (at least according to the extant sources) during his reign.
The “satraps” of Ammianus were the military and civilian governors of middle and lower grade, which according to Middle Persian, Arabic and New Persian sources were the
marzbānān. The office of
marzbān was mainly of a military nature, although they also held civilian attributions. According to the Arabic IX century CE author
Ya'qubi, a
marzbān was the military governor of a border province (a “march”), and thus the commander of the military forces stationed there as garrisons and with the faculty of mobilizing its non-permanent forces (militias, allied tribes, noble levies, etc.) in case of foreign attack. But in the ancient and medieval sources the provinces that appear as ruled by a
marzbān include also interior provinces like Spāhān, Pārs and Kirmān which were not under any foreign menace. Thus, it’s possible that a
marzbān was just a military governor and that it existed in all provinces, but that in border provinces this office was more important, because in case of a foreign invasion the
marzbān was responsible for defending the province until the king sent reinforcements. Apart from being military governors, the
marzbānān also acted as civilian governors, but in the ranks under him the civilian and military administrations became divided into separate branches, with the civilian administration (especially fiscal duties) being entrusted to the
šahrab (from Old Persian
xšaçapāvan; cognate to Sanskrit
kṣatrapa; from whence Greek
satrápēs, Latin
satrapes and English
satrap).
One of the characteristics of the Sasanian
spāh in its four centuries of existence that set it clearly apart from the Roman army was that most of higher offices in the army were the patrimonial property of the
wuzurgān. This was an inevitable consequence of the structure of the Iranian society. It would have been very problematic to appoint a
marzbān to a province if its nobility did not like him, so the post of
marzbān to any given province was usually inherited within the most powerful clan in that province, like in the case of the province of
Abaršahr (modern Khorasan in northeastern Iran) where the title of
kanārang (local equivalent to
marzbān) became hereditary within the ruling family of Tūs, which became known as the
Kanārangīyān. Thus, the
kanārang (until the military reforms of Xusrō I in the VI century CE) became responsible for the defense of the Sasanian empire against attacks from Central Asia, a threat that would become extremely acute from 350 CE until the end of the dynasty.
Another regional command was that of
pāygōsbān, who was possibly initially responsible for managing state affairs in his respective region (according to Ali Sami), but whose title was translated by Ya’qubi as “the one who drives enemies away from the homelands”. Tabarī described Xusrō II’s commander
Šāhēn Vahmanzādagān (late VI – early VII centuries CE) as
Fādhūsbān, which could be Arabic for
Pāygōsbān “of the West”. The term remains challenging to decipher, as seen in the varying interpretations by modern scholars. Josef Wiesehöfer for example defines the
pāygōsbān as the military commander of a province in contrast to Nicholas Adontz who saw it as a civilian authority in contrast to the military functions of a
spāhbed. By the late Sasanian era the
pāygōsbān office may have changed in its function, possibly resembling at times the
marzbān (i.e. the
marzbān of Spahān is referred to sometimes as
pāygōsbān).
Not many titles have survived from the lower ranks of the hierarchy. The
dezhban (Middle Persian for “guardian”) officers supervised the conduct and efficiency of the
spāh’s various combat units, a function attributed by Firdawsī to as early as the reign of Ardaxšīr I. The
dezhban was also responsible for punishing soldiers who had transgressed the rules as well as having license for slaying fleeing troops who had deserted the army in battle (again, according to Ammianus Marcellinus, such a thing would have been quite in line with Šābuhr II’s character).
The key branch of the
spāh was the cavalry, whose members (
savārān) were members of the warrior estate (
artēštārān). Modern academic consensus states that in the IV and V centuries CE (as it had been during the III century CE and during Arsacid times) the Sasanian cavalry was still mostly a seasonal “feudal” levy: when the
Šāhān Šāh summoned his subjects, the warrior estate joined the small royal army; each nobleman raised its own small army which varied according to the status and wealth of each noble, from the huge armies of the
wispuhrān (members of the House of Sāsān without a royal title) and the greatest clans of the
wuzurgān (which in some cases could muster perhaps 10,000 horsemen or more, equaling in size the permanent cavalry force of the
Šāhān Šāh himself) to the very small retinues (perhaps only the nobleman himself with his horse of the lesser nobles (
āzādān) and country esquires (
dehgān).
According to a passage of a Sasanian law book of the VI century CE (and thus a late source, 200 eyars after the period we’re covering) titles
Mādayān ī hazār dādestān, it seems that there was an official registry of professional cavalry hailing from the upper nobility known as
Asābar Nipēk (“List of Horsemen” in Middle Persian). Apparently, the
Asābar Nipēk also described specified land allotments required for “fully equipping” an elite mounted warrior. Each of the
wuzurgān also appears to have had a list of dependents known as “free members of a community” whom he armed at his own expense, so essentially every grandee had his own private army of professional warriors. During the 363 CE failed campaign of Julian, a member of the Sūrēn Pahlav house led the cavalry screen that harassed the Roman advance, and a member of the Mehrān Pahlav house led the first attack against the retreating Roman army. According to Ammianus, “the Surena” again led the peace negotiations with Jovian that resulted in the Second Peace of Nisibis that very same year, as he was “the second after the king” (
Surena potestatis secundae post regem).
According to modern historians, even after the reforms of Xusrō I in the VI century CE the permanent cavalry royal army still amounted to less than half of the total cavalry force available to the Sasanian kings. And the situation must’ve been obviously even more markedly “feudal” two centuries before under the reign of Šābuhr II. Kaveh Farrokh assumed that at this point in time the royal army (
Gund Šāhān Šāh) mustered 12,000 men (based on the probable size of this very same force under the Arsacids). This army was a permanent professional force available to the Sasanian kings at all times (although it was still formed still exclusively by member of the
artēštārān) and may have included several recognizable “elite” units.
Sasanian military organization was based on the
wašt-drafš-gund system of their Arsacid predecessors. The
wašt, commanded by the
wašt sālār was a small detachment of troops. A larger unit of possibly one thousand troops was the
drafš (meaning “banner” in Middle Persian and Parthian) with the
drafš sālār in command. Each
drafš unit displayed its own exclusive banners and heraldry consistent with their clan of origin. The largest known unit was the
gund of possibly 12,000 warriors, led by the
gund sālār (a rank also adopted by the Armenian military as
gundsałar). The term
gund originally meant “legion” or “regiment” but Pahlavi texts also refer to this as “army”. Based on Achaemenid practice, the names of the military ranks and units, and the numbers of the Sasanian armies quoted by ancient sources, it’s possible that a decimal system was used in the organization of the
spāh.
The permanent royal army (according to the numbers theorized by modern historians) certainly seems to have followed this model, organized into 10 or 12
drafšes. But it’s unclear if the armies of the magnates and princes would be also broken up and recombined into mixed
drafšes, or if each nobiliary army kept its own unity and was formed by a close number of
drafšes that were never mixed with
drafšes from other “feudal” contingents. A group of 10
drafšes formed a
gund (a division; notice again how the number fits well with the alleged size of the permanent royal army) and several
gunds formed an army. According to later Islamic authors, the seven great families of the
wuzurgān (a highly suspicious number for its symbolical recurrence in Iranian culture and tradition) were expected to provide each a
gund when the king called for their help, meaning that in theory the
Šāhān Šāh could count in case of a general levy with 80,000 well-trained heavy cavalrymen at his disposal (although assembling such a force in one place would have been logistically impossible for many reasons).
Silver head of a horse, found in Kerman (Iran) and dated to the IV century Ce; probably part of a full equestrian statue of a king, a prince or a great noble.
The Sasanian Pahlavi term for the
Šāhān Šāh’s guards was
hām harzan (singular:
hām harz; found also in Armenian) a term derived from Parthian and which implied the possibility that such elite royal units may be traced to the Parthian era. The Parthian word may variously mean “guard with spear”, “guardian” and “spear-bearer”. An early Sasanian prestige unit, the
Jāvidān (“Immortals” in Middle Persian), which was led by a commander designated as
Varhragh Nighan Xwadāy, may have been founded by Ardaxšīr I. This unit appears to have remained in service centuries after Ardaxšīr I, as reported in western sources.
Another prestige heavy cavalry unit that may be traced to early Sasanian times was the
Jan Separān. The term
Jan Separ is quoted in reference to the
savārān of Ardaxšīr I in the
Kār-Nāmag ī Ardašīr ī Pābagān and the
Mēnōg ī xrad (both late Sasanian sources though, dated to the VI century CE). The unit may have been in place as late as the VII century CE, as the
Šāh-nāmah names the
Janvespar as having been in service during the reign of Xusrō II. The unit may have recruited Greco-Roman (deserters, mercenaries or volunteers) and other non-Iranian recruits. One of the unit’s leaders for example is cited as
Jālinus (possibly Iranian for
Iulius or
Iulianus).
Šābuhr II’s “royal escort” may have been the prestige cavalry unit known as the
Puštigbān (“life guardians” in Middle Persian) led by the
Puštigbān Sardār and who was considered as one of the honored members of the
Šāhān Šāh’s immediate entourage. Clive Foss speculated that the officers of this unit received the title of
Puštigbān Sālār. The commander of this unit may have also been the
Hazārbed (commander of one thousand) quoted previously and who possibly escorted the king during battles. It is possible that Ammianus Marcellinus’ report of the “royal escort” escorting Šābuhr II during the siege of Amida in 359 CE may have been the
Puštigbān. While it is not clear however when exactly this unit had been formed, one possible time could be Šābuhr II’s Arab campaign. In reference to that campaign Ṭabarī wrote that Šābuhr II selected “one thousand cavalrymen from among the stoutest and most heroic of the troops”.
Scholars consider that in the III century CE the
savārān of Ardaxšir I and Šābuhr I had been more lightly armored than their Arsacid counterparts, and so they would have been more mobile. The rock reliefs of Ardaxšir I that portray his victory over Ardavān V show him and his retinue wearing mail armor, while his Arsacid foes wear a less technologically advanced and heavier form of armor made of metal strips (similar to the Roman so-called
lorica segmentata) and what seem to be leather vests. Both Middle Persian and Islamic sources also stress that Ardaxšir I was an accomplished bowman himself and he even invented a thumb lock/draw that allowed the archer to increase substantially the speed of his shoots. It’s thus thought that during the III century CE the Iranian heavy cavalry became less heavy and more of a medium cavalry, tending towards versatility, so that the
savārān could act both as charge lancers or as mounted archers depending of the circumstances.
Based on Ammianus’ account of the Sasanian cavalry war between the Romans and Šābuhr II and other ancient sources like the oration of Libanius of Antioch that I quoted in a previous post, it seems that Šābuhr II decided to increase again the armor of his heavy cavalry, which according to the descriptions of Roman authors became now a form of super-heavy cavalry that caused a deep impact on its Roman foes. The side effect of this increase in protection and weight was a loss of mobility and possibly a partial abandonment of archery techniques by the
savārān. In Šābuhr II’s army, archery would have been restricted to its foot bowmen (which were excellent and as we will see managed to save the Sasanian army from a complete defeat at Singara) and mounted archers recruited from subject or vassal peoples, or foreign mercenaries (steppe peoples), although that doesn’t seem so sure according to Ammianus. This is a passage in which he describes the first large Sasanian attack against Julian’s retreating army after the failed storming of Ctesiphon in 363 CE (
Res Gestae XXV, 12-13):
Moreover, all the companies were clad in iron, and all parts of their bodies were covered with thick plates, so fitted that the stiff joints conformed with those of their limbs; and the forms of human faces were so skillfully fitted to their heads, that, since their entire bodies were plated with metal, arrows that fell upon them could lodge only where they could see a little through tiny openings fitted to the circle of the eye, or where through the tips of their noses they were able to get a little breath. Of these some, who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would think them held fast by clamps of bronze. Hard by, the archers (for that nation has especially trusted in this art from the very cradle) were bending their flexible bows with such wide-stretched arms that the strings touched their right breasts, while the arrow-points were close to their left hands; and by a highly skillful stroke of the fingers the arrows flew hissing forth and brought with them deadly wounds.
Another western depiction of Sasanian heavy cavalry can be found in the novel
Aethiopica, by Heliodorus of Emessa, that has been dated either to the mid-III or mid-IV centuries CE:
For in fact it is this brigade of Persians (i.e. the heavy cavalrymen) which is always the most formidable in action; placed in the front line of battle, it serves as an unbreakable bulwark. Their fighting equipment is furnished in this way: a picked man, chosen for his bodily strength, is capped with a helmet which has been compacted and forged in one piece and skillfully fashioned like a mask into the exact shape of a man’s face; this protects him entirely from the top of the head to the neck, except where eye-holes allow him to see through it. His right hand is armed with a pike of greater length than the spear, while his left is at liberty to hold the reins. He has a sabre slung at his side, and his corselet extends, not merely over his breast, but also over the rest of his body. This corselet is constructed thus: plates of bronze and of iron are forged into a square shape measuring a span each way and are fitted one to another at the edges on each side, so that the plate above overlaps the next one to it, all forming a continuous surface; and they are held together by means of hooks and loops under the flaps. Thus, is produced a kind of scaly tunic which sits close to the body without causing discomfort, and clings all round each limb with its individual casing and allows unhindered movement to each by its contraction and extension. It has sleeves, and descends from neck to knee, with an opening only for the thighs so far as is required for mounting a horse’s back. Such a corselet is proof against any missiles and is a sure defense against all wounds. The greaves reach from above the flat of the foot to the knee and are joined on to the corselet. The horse is protected by a similar equipment: round his feet greaves are fastened, and his head is tightly bound all about with frontlets. From his back to his belly hangs on either side a housing of plaited strips of iron, serving as armor, but at the same time so pliable as not to impede his more rapid paces. The horse being thus equipped and, as it were, encased, the rider bestrides him, not vaulting of himself into the saddle, but lifted up by others because of his weight. When the moment comes to engage in battle, he gives his horse the rein, applies his spurs, and in full career charges the enemy, to all appearance some man made of iron, or a mobile statue wrought with the hammer. His pike projects with its point thrust far ahead: it is supported by a loop attached to the horse’s neck and has its butt-end suspended by a strap alongside the horse’s haunches; so that it does not recede in the clashes of conflict, but lightens the task of the rider’s hand, which only directs the blow. He braces himself and, firmly set so as to increase the gravity of the wound, by his mere impetus transfixes anyone who comes in his way and may often impale two persons at a single stroke.
In Ammianus’ text, the armored
savārān are armed partly with spears (the long and sturdy charging
kontos) and partly with bows; as we will see in a moment, this was a standard tactic of Iranian cavalry armies that they had adopted from the steppe peoples. And it’s clear that Ammianus (who was a Roman army officer and took part in person in Julian’s expedition) was deeply impressed by the armor worn by Sasanian heavy cavalrymen.
Also, as we will see in later posts, Sasanian cavalry performed much better than Roman cavalry during Julian’s invasion of Āsōristān in 363 CE, according to Ammianus’ detailed account of the campaign. During the Roman march along the Euphrates towards Ctesiphon, they were shadowed and harassed constantly by a corps of Sasanian cavalry led by “the Surena”, which defeated several Roman cavalry units who tried to oppose them and turned foraging into a very dangerous activity for the Romans, who also had to take special precautions against surprise attacks against their forces and encampments during day and night by the Sasanian horsemen. According to Ammianus’ account (and implicit admission), Sasanian cavalry seems to have been altogether much superior to the Roman one, even if Constantius II had spent decades raising new units of cataphracts and
clibanarii to oppose them. In his
Res Gestae, Ammianus considered the
savārān from Parthia and Sakastān as the best fighters of the Sasanian army.
The primary weapon of the
savārān was the
nēzak, the evolution of the ancient Arsacid
kontos 3.65-meter long heavy lance which was held in battle with both hands and had a sword-like blade of iron (23.2 to 37.5 cm) socketed onto the lance shaft. It’s probable that Sasanian heavy cavalrymen of the III and IV centuries CE carried no shields; at least the horsemen carved at Fīrūzābād and other places carry no shields, and Ammianus describes the Sasanian heavy cavalry without shields. Rock reliefs from the III century CE and late VI or early VII centuries CE at the end of the dynasty show the horsemen wearing mail armor, which seems to have been the preferred form of personal armor.
The example of Sasanian horse armor found during excavations at Dura Euroropos, III century CE.
According to the extant Iranian sources describing the martial equipment of a heavily-armed Sasanian horseman, the horse armor (
zēn-abzār in Middle Persian, also named as
tiğfāf and
bargostvān) was very important. Digs at Dura Europos revealed an example of a late Arsacid or early Sasanian
bargostvān, which covered the horse’s torso with an armor of metallic scales with an oval opening for the rider’s seat. In addition, separate sets of armor protected also the neck and head of the horse. As stirrups had not yet been invented in the IV century CE, the stability of the rider was entrusted to a four-horn saddle (two at front and two at back) to brace the cavalryman in place.
The early Sasanian sword still in use during all the IV century CE was approximately 1.00 to 1.11 m in length with the blade’s width ranging between 5.0 and 8.5 cm. These swords were slung in the traditional scabbard slide suspended from the belt resulting in the weapon standing vertical in relation to the ground when the cavalryman was at rest. The
savārān suspended their swords on the left side, a martial tradition prevalent among the Arsacids and the steppe peoples. Early to middle Sasanian era swords were built with long and broad blades, wide guards and broad pommels.
Silver plate with Šābuhr II hunting lions with bow and arrow on horseback.
Sasanian heavy cavalry was proficient in firing missiles at full gallop from either their left or right sides, enabling them to direct their arrows against enemies pursuing them and even when retreating. Archery was certainly critical to the
savārān who are reported by Ṭabarī as having had two spare bowstrings as part of their standard equipment after the military reforms of Xusrō I in the VI century CE. Like under the preceding Arsacid dynasty, horse archery was one of the
spāh’s vital military assets from the first days of the Sasanian dynasty. Herodian attributed the destruction of one of Severus Alexander’ three invasion armies in 233 CE to the effective horse archery abilities o of Ardaxšīr I’s army. The pivotal role of horse archery in the
spāh may partly explain why a large proportion of excavated Sasanian metalworks to date frequently appear to be dedicated to the manufacture of arrows and other metal parts related to archery.
Obviously, the Sasanian army also included infantry, and it’s obvious just by reading Ammianus’ account of the war that infantry had increased its importance in the Sasanian army compared to Arsacid and early Sasanian times. By this time, the Sasanian empire held a large network of fortresses and fortified cities in the west as a defensive system in depth against the Romans, as well as the defensive line that Šābuhr II built against the Arabs in central and southern Mesopotamia. This raises an important question: if the Sasanian army was a “feudal host”, how did the
Šāhān Šāh manage to garrison all these fortresses? Obviously, a feudal host is a seasonal army, and that is pretty much useless to act as fortress garrisons. Either the Sasanian kings organized some sort of territorial militias that have been lost in historical record (no such militias are recorded in either western or eastern sources), or the Sasanian empire had by this time a considerable permanent professional army. It’s clear that in the V and VI centuries CE such an army existed, but it’s unclear if this was the case already during Šābuhr II’s reign. Several modern historians like James Howard-Johnston think that it’s most probable that Šābuhr II already had a large professional army at his disposal: in Ammianus’ account of Julian’s expedition, the Roman army encounters a string of fortresses in their trip downstream the Euphrates towards Ctesiphon, and Ammianus describes all of them as being heavily garrisoned by professional forces.
Iraj Jalali divided the Sasanian infantry into three categories:
- The heavily armed and armored paygān (which means “foot soldiers” in Middle Persian), with a subdivision of nēzak-dārān (spearmen). This was the professional core of the Sasanian infantry. This is supported by Ammianus, who wrote about heavy infantry in the armies of Šābuhr II “armed like mirmillones”, which was a type of Roman gladiator. This means that in Sasanian armies of the time there was infantry provided with heavy shields, metal helmets and swords, as well as some body armor.
- Lightly armed infantry from peasant levies.
- Foot archers.
If we’re to believe the confusing accounts of the Pahlavi Books and later Islamic authors, the infantry of the
spāh was under the overall command and supervision of the
paygān sālār. The primary duty of the infantry during peacetime was to garrison the empire’s cities and fortresses and police the roads. Accounts from the late Sasanian era suggest also that at least during Xusrō II’s reign the
paygān sālār also was the warden of the king’s prisons. Notice that only nobles could serve in the cavalry, while service in the infantry was open to commoners; this translated automatically in a lower social status for the infantry, which was reflected in the official hierarchy of the army where the
paygān sālār came behind the commander of the cavalry (
savārān sardar or
framādār savārān, depending on the sources).
The term
payg (which means just “foot soldier” in Middle Persian, and which passed into Armenian as
payik) is somewhat confusing for researchers, because it’s used indiscriminately to refer to “infantryman” (including the heavy infantry) or to refer just to the peasant levies, both in the ancient sources and by modern historians. Jane Penrose for example warned that Roman sources often described professional Sasanian professional infantry and the poorly armed and trained peasant levies as one single force, when in practice they were separate services.
Modern historians also diverge with respect to the role (battlefield combat or support levies) and equipment of the
paygān. Iranologist Touraj Daryaee described the
paygān as being lightly armed with spear only and (for battlefield protection) having a shield but no armor. Contrary to Daryaee’s analysis, military historians Iraj Jalali and Ali Sami described the
paygān as having been the
spāh’s standard professional heavy infantry until the recruitment of the Deylamites in the late Sasanian era. To the, an indication of the
paygān’s professional status is provided by their registration on the state’s rolls allowing them to be paid (like the
savārān) for their military services to the empire.
British reenactor Nadeem Ahmad wearing the garb of a Sogdian infantrymen. It's simialr to that of a Sasanian professional infantryman, except for the lack of armor and the use of a war axe; war axes seem to have been rare in Iran proper, but quite extended in East Iran (Soghdia, Bactria, etc.).
The heavy infantry’s tasks on the battlefield were to support the cavalry and elephants’ corps as well as protecting the lightly armored and armed foot archers and light infantry (often peasant levies), who according to classical authors were “pitiable peasants”, poorly armed and with no training, who were only fitted to act as servants for the cavalrymen and to be used as cannon fodder in sieges and to build fortifications. They were raised by forced levies from amongst the peasant populations of the estates of the king and the nobility, and they were treated with brutality and contempt by their leaders. According to Ammianus they were armed with large wickerwork or animal hide shields, carried a spear as their single weapon, and were unarmored. Obviously, they were no match for Roman heavy infantry.
Professional Sasanian heavy infantry was evidently in the
spāh’s service from the earliest times of the empire, especially during Šābuhr I’s campaigns against Rome. Archaeological digs at Dura Europos, notably the excavations by a French-American team in the 1930s that discovered the remains of a fallen Sasanian infantryman at Tower 19 allows for a reconstruction of the equipment of early Sasanian soldiers as they would have appeared in the III century CE. The soldier’s equipment was as follows:
- A short-sleeved shirt of chain mail which reached to the soldier’s hips.
- A wickerwork shield (of Achaemenid-style construction).
- A two-piece ridge helmet which was possibly also used by cavalry.
The heavy
paygān’ typical close quarters combat gear, as described by Yahya Zoka and Ali Ashgar Hekmat as sword, dagger and mace (Middle Persian
warz). Jalil Ziapour also speculated that the heavy
paygān could have worn leg armor of the metal lamellar type that would have been worn over leather trousers.
Roman authors systematically described Sasanian infantry as inferior to its Roman counterpart, but at the battle of Ctesiphon in 363 CE, the Sasanian infantry fought for over six hours against Julian’s army before withdrawing back into the city. While these troops may not have been as well trained or armed as their Roman counterparts, no Roman historian of the IV century CE reports Sasanian infantry being routed into a disordered flight by a Roman legionary attack. And during the numerous sieges of the war between Rome and Šābuhr II, the Sasanian infantry had to endure repeatedly the gruesome and bloody task of assaulting the Roman fortifications, which it always did with great tenacity, often fighting for hours against the Roman defenders before being forced to retreat.
Silver boss of a Sasanian shield (IV century CE), British Museum.
The archers were the elite of the Sasanian infantry. The Sasanian way of war emphasized speed of delivery rather than precision archery, and so Sasanian bowmen were masters in area shooting, and their training was geared towards delivering rapid and overwhelming “saturation” fire against selected areas in the battlefield, a tactic that was probably developed specifically to hit the massed ranks of Roman infantry. In planned battles, Sasanian infantry archers usually shot their arrows protected behind large wickerwork and ox hide shields and acted in coordination with the cavalry. Battles were usually opened by them with an arrow storm against the enemy ranks to “soften” them for the oncoming cavalry charge (cavalry was always the decisive weapon). In sieges, it was their task to keep the defenders under a constant deluge of arrows when the infantry attacked the walls. Ammianus lets it be clear in his account that Sasanian archery was excellent and a real danger for the Romans.
Sasanian archery performed four main functions for the
spāh:
- Providing support for the savārān lance charges during battlefield attacks.
- To repel enemy infantry and/or cavalry assaults.
- Providing support for siege operations against enemy fortresses and cities.
- Providing support in counter-siege operations against enemy besiegers attempting capture Sasanian-held cities and fortresses.
The
tirbad (“arrow commander” in Middle Persian) was the leader of a contingent of archers, and confusingly (as usual) the term also signified a regional command term as
tirbad units often acted as government security forces in the empire’s villages. Foot archer units were integral to the Sasanian battle doctrine, often bombarding enemy formations from a static position with massed arrow salvoes in set-piece battles. Expert archers could form elite units and were probably accorded a high status in the
spāh. In set-piece battles, foot archers would deliver missile barrages against the enemy ranks to weaken them prior to the charges of the
savārān. Foot archers were also entrusted with the suppression of enemy archery as well as defending the main army against enemy cavalry and infantry attacks. Depending on the army commander’s tactical choices, foot archers could also advance forward to shower the enemy with massed missile volleys. For shielding against enemy counter-archery, foot archers often placed large palisades to their front.
Siege operations often relied heavily on foot archers and Ammianus wrote about the frightful shower of arrows that the Sasanian besiegers delivered against the Roman defenders during the siege of Amida in 359 CE. Expert archers could also be used for the infiltration of besieged fortresses and cities. This happened also at Amida when seventy royal archers infiltrated one of the city’s towers; they then directed their arrows with accurate fire into the city’s interior in coordination with Šābuhr II’s general assault outside the city walls. The besieged Roman forces however eliminated the small infiltration force once their arrow supplies were exhausted.
There were a number of different methods for shooting arrows with the most common technique apparently having been the traditional Sasanian draw whose invention is attributed to Ardaxšir I himself. This entailed pointing the index finger in the forward position parallel to the arrow with the little finger parallel to the index finger (or pointing at an angle downwards). It is possible that the thumb was placed next to the index finger on the inside of the bow. By late Sasanian times the
spāh adopted also the Mongolian draw with the thumb locked around the bowstring that is blocked by the index finger. This was most probably adopted by the Sasanians after their military encounters with the Hephthalites and Turkic peoples of Central Asia.
The foot archer suspended a buckler from his shoulder for the protection of his head and neck. Nevertheless, foot archers were very vulnerable if they were caught at close quarters after exhausting their supplies of arrows, as they lacked the countermeasures necessary to repel enemy infantry attacking their positions. For this reason, combat infantry would often be placed to the rear of the archers at the onset of the battle. Once they became arrow-less, the archers would relocate to the rear of the combat infantry, who having moved to the front, would now be engaging the attacking enemy troops. In any case, as the description of the battle of Carrhae shows and as recommended by later Islamic military treatises which were based on earlier Sasanian war manuals, an Arsacid or Sasanian army would always have carried with it abundant supplies of spare arrows and lances in camels and other pack animals (as well as spare horses for the cavalry) which were kept in a camp well behind the battle lines, so the archers would have reloaded their quivers, rested for a while and once recovered they would’ve been able to rejoin the fight if needed.
The (foot and horse) archer’s equipment consisted of the bow and bow case (Middle Persian:
kamām), a wide variety of arrows and quiver and finger guards to reduce pressure on the fingers when drawing the heavy compound bow. The bow used was the Parthian bow, a variety of compound bow of Central Asian origin which in the VI century CE changed to become more similar to the bows used by the Avars and Turks. In practice the Sasanians appear to have built different bow types to meet different battlefield) requirements, and bow construction also varied in accordance with the raw materials available from different geographical regions.
Sasanian arrows were approximately 80-85 cm long, and generally they had tanged arrowheads (according to finds at Dura Europos) as well as socketed arrowheads. Various arrows and arrowheads were designed for different battlefield tasks, and even the Avestan
Mehr Yašt reported on a variety of arrowheads (iron-bladed, lead-poisoned, etc.). There were maybe also incendiary arrows for sieges. In general, heavier arrows for penetrating the enemy armor were fired at shorter ranges and lighter arrows were discharged over longer distances to harass and disrupt enemy formations, massive barrages, etc. The total number of arrows carried in the quiver (Middle Persian:
tirdan) was thirty, a tradition already reported in the Avestan texts. Reforms implemented in the VI century CE resulted in the adoption of the Central Asian lappet system (discussed previously for sword suspension) also for bows and quivers.
In addition to the traditional compound bow and arrow, the
spāh also deployed other missile systems such as the one quoted in Libanius’ reference to dart-type weapons used by infantry. The
savārān also used a device known as
nawak for launching darts (10-40 cm in length), which as noted by David Nicolle, was probably an “arrow-guide held against the bow to form a temporary crossbow”. Advantages afforded by the
nawak-dart were greater range than regular arrows, difficultly to detect by the enemy when the
nawak-propelled dart was in flight, more effective penetration and the enemy’s inability to fire back the dart with regular bows. There was also a device described by the
Āʾīn nāmah as being capable of firing five arrows simultaneously, however its exact characteristics have been challenging to decipher by military historians. The term for this weapon in later Arabic sources such as Ṭabarī, Jāḥiẓ, and Maqdisī is derived from the Middle Persian word
panjagān. Ahmad Tafazzoli’s analysis of Middle Persian military terminology led him to conclude that the
panjagān was “a sort of arbalest” for firing five arrows, raising the possibility that this may have been a crossbow type weapon, opposed to Roy Boss’ suggestion that this was just an archery technique for firing five arrows in quick succession.
Another branch of the Sasanian army which is first attested firmly and without a doubt at this time (perhaps it existed already during Šābuhr I`s reign in the previous century, but that’s far from supported by ancient sources) is the corps of war elephants. Ammianus describes them very clearly, in the continuation of the fragment I quoted before in which he described the first large Sasanian attack against Julian’s retreating army after the failed storming of Ctesiphon in 363 CE (
Res Gestae XXV, 14-15):
Behind them the gleaming elephants, with their awful figures and savage, gaping mouths could scarcely be endured by the faint-hearted; and their trumpeting, their odor, and their strange aspect alarmed the horses still more. Seated upon these, their drivers carried knives with handles bound to their right hands, remembering the disaster suffered at Nisibis; and if the strength of the driver proved no match for the excited brute, that he might not turn upon his own people (as happened then) and crush masses of them to the ground, he would with a mighty stroke cut through the vertebra which separates the head from the neck. For long ago Hasdrubal, brother of Hannibal, discovered that in that way brutes of this kind could quickly be killed
.
It’s interesting to note than in the Sasanian way of war, the elephants were often used as an offensive weapon and as such they were always deployed alongside the
savārān; as Ammianus wrote elephants usually scare horses (and so, the Sasanians found them useful against Roman cavalry) so their deployment alongside the
savārān means that their horses must’ve been trained to become familiar with the smell, sounds and size of the elephants. In battle against the Roman infantry, elephants played two roles: as moving platforms por accurate, precision archery fire by bowmen posted on turrets on their backs, and as psychological weapons during charges against the ranks of Roman infantry. If the enemy infantry was formed by green troops, or just by troops unused to the sight of these animals, it was possible that just their approach could cause the Roman soldiers to break ranks and flee, thus facilitating the task of an oncoming heavy cavalry charge. But their employment in battle also had a risk as Ammianus noted; if the enemy stood fast and managed to injure and/or scare the elephants, these animals could panic and turn against their own lines, trampling everything under them in the flight.
Drawing by Katarzyna Maksymiuk from a silver plate in the Los Angeles County Museum, showing king Šābuhr II hunting from atop an elephant.
Julian (
Third Oration) also described “hoplites” (presumably meaning heavy infantry forces) being deployed in tandem with Sasanian battle elephants following the defeat of the
savārān’s attacks during Šābuhr II’s siege of Nisibis in 350 CE. According to Ammianus’ report, during the battle of Ctesiphon in 363 CE, Sasanian infantry was placed between the
savārān (at the front line) and the elephants (situated to the rear); this type of tactical formation failed to repel the advance of Julian’s Roman army, although it was able to keep the fight for six hours before retreating. Also, in Julian’s
Third Oration, Šābuhr II’s elephants are described as having “iron towers” manned with archers.
Alongside the royal forces and the forces of the Iranian “national” levy raised among the inhabitants of the Iranian plateau (the large and small retinues and contingents of the
wuzurgān and the highlanders and nomadic peoples that lived there and who owed military service to the
Šāhān Šāh), there were also the contingents of the sub-kings and vassal and allied peoples and kings. Of these contingents, the more important ones at the beginning of war between Šābuhr II and Rome were the armies of the
Sakān Šāh and the
Kušan Šāh. In Ammianus’ description of the Sasanian siege of Amida in 359 CE, it’s clear that such contingents preserved their own identity and integrity when they were in campaign under the overall command of the
Šāhān Šāh and were commanded by their own commanders who were answerable directly to Šābuhr II, as if they were merely allied armies. According to Ammianus’ account, during the siege of Amida Bahrām
Kušan Šāh was absent (it’s probable that by that time
Kušanšahr had ceased to exist under the onslaught of the
Chionites or
Kidarite Huns) and instead the Chionite king
Grumbates accompanied the Sasanian king as an ally or vassal, along the
Albani (probably the Caucasian Albani) and the
Gelani, another Central Asian people about whom nothing is known (Khodadad Rezakhani refuses their association with the region of Gelān in north Iran, as this name is not attested at all before the IX century CE).
As a major crossroads between Iran, China, and India Central Asia was an extremely important region with respect to developments in military technology (i.e. equestrian equipment, lappet suspension systems, etc.) and cavalry warfare tactics (especially horse archery) tactics. This made the region a valuable asset from early Sasanian times for the recruitment of high-quality cavalry auxiliaries, especially light cavalry. The primary role of auxiliary light cavalry was to support the
savārān by attacking enemy lines at their flanks and exploitation, harassment and skirmishing raids behind enemy lines. These types of light auxiliary cavalry were somewhat alike the horse archers of the previous Arsacid dynasty who were lightly armored and armed by highly proficient in horse archery, like the ones that were described in the Roman accounts of the battle of Carrhae. Auxiliary light cavalry could also be employed to disrupt and scatter the enemy’s light cavalry. Recruitment of Central Asian contingents however could also prove double-edged, as the same auxiliaries could turn against the Sasanians and invade their empire, as it happened with the Hephtalite auxiliaries employed by king Pērōz in the V century CE.
Armenian armored cavalry exhibited a significant Iranian influence with respect to equipment and fighting methods and like their Sasanian counterparts, Armenian
sparapets maintained a consistent martial tradition and training standards. Elite Armenian cavalry from the
naxarar (a word itself borrowed from the Parthian term
naxvadār) nobility and their retinues that joined the
spāh were the most highly valued allied units of the
spāh and were often reviewed by the
Šāhān Šāh in person upon their arrival to Ctesiphon. The cavalry of the
naxarars was also proficient as infantrymen in mountain warfare.
Caucasian Albania also provided high quality cavalry auxiliaries (armored cavalry and light cavalry) for the
spāh. The recruitment was made in part possible by the presence of a number of local Caucasian princes loyal to the Sasanians. Albanian cavalry was present in the armies of Ardaxšīr I and fought under Šābuhr II at Amida in 359 CE. The
spāh also recruited other warriors from across the Caucasus range such as the Alans recruited for the armies of Šābuhr II, the
Suani and
Sabirs who fought in Kawād I’s armies (late V – early VI centuries CE) and the
Sunitae.
The
spāh also sought to recruit nomadic tribes and mountain warriors from within the Iranian plateau into regular military service. When war was imminent, leaders of tribal clans such as those of the
Pārizi of the modern-day Kermān province often arrived with their respective cavalry and infantry forces to join the banner of the
spāh. Another important region in the southeast of Iran proper was Sakastān. The Sakas of the region had served in the Arsacid armies and were among the earliest contingents to join the campaigns of Ardaxšīr I. Especially esteemed by the
spāh for their proficiency as cavalrymen, the Sakas are cited by Ammianus Marcellinus as having been “the fiercest warriors of all” during Šābuhr II’s siege of Amida in 359 CE, where they formed a separate contingent.
Another important group were the
Gīls of modern-day Gīlān (or Gelān) who provided light cavalry auxiliaries for the
spāh since the III century CE. A prominent nomadic group identified by the Middle Persian term “Kurd” resided in the west to northwest regions of the Sasanian empire. Touraj Daryaee has noted that this term was used in Sasanian term loosely to refer to the nomadic populations that at that time lived in the Zagros and other mountain ranges in the northwest. This term is often (wrongly) correlated to the ethnonym for the broad category of modern-day Kurds in the Middle east who speak a western Iranian language. These “Kurds” were recruited into the
spāh, to serve as slingers and javelin throwers in light infantry tasks. Roman accounts of the battle of Singara in 343/344 CE attest to the use of slingers by the Sasanian army.
During Julian’s Mesopotamian campaign in 363 CE, the Sasanian cavalry screen that harassed Julian’s advance included also a force of allied Arabs under the command of their leader
Malechus Podosaci (whom Ammianus describes as
phylarcus Saracenorum Assanitarum, which according to some modern scholars could be perhaps a Latinization of “Ghassānid”, an Arab tribe that would later switch to the Roman side). The importance of the Arabs to the Sasanians is perhaps indicated in their depiction as allied troops in Šābuhr I’s relief IV at Bišāpūr. Arab auxiliary forces performed two important strategic functions for the Sasanians. First, they provided critical protection for the empire’s trade routes, irrigated lands and urban centers situated in the empire’s southwest which were vulnerable to Arab raiders emanating from the Arabian Peninsula and which were economically vital to the Sasanian monarchy. The second role of the Arab auxiliaries was to prevent fellow Arabs from the Arabian interior from raiding the empire’s Persian Gulf coastal trading ports (as it happened during Šābuhr II’s minority). Arab auxiliary forces also provided two militarily important assets to Sasanian armies who fought in Mesopotamia and Syria. First, there was their expert knowledge of the deserts. This made them valuable assets as guides and trackers for Sasanian armies during campaigns along or across the empire’s southwestern regions. The second military asset of Arab auxiliaries was their proficiency as light cavalry, notably in launching rapid raids and pull back just as rapidly before the enemy was able to organize effective counterstrikes. Both empires (Rome and
Ērānšahr) soon realized that the best defense against each other’s Arab raiders was to provide themselves with their own Arab auxiliaries, and through them both empires fought a constant “proxy war” that often extended deep into the Arabian Peninsula.
Discipline in the Sasanian of Šābuhr II army seems to have been strictly enforced (see the description above about the
dezhbanān). Acts of blatant indiscipline are not accounted for by western authors, and Ammianus reports that the penalty for traitors was the execution not only of the traitor, but also his whole family, which goes along well with what we know about the personality of this Sasanian king. Of course, Sasanian deserters to the Roman side are unaccounted for in Ammianus’ account (while there were a couple of high-ranking Roman deserters to the Sasanian side).
A surprising feature of Sasanian (and indeed of Iranian armies in Antiquity) of which modern readers are mostly unaware of is that female Sasanian fighters were reported by Graeco-Roman sources. Zonaras noted that, after a battle in 260 CE, women dressed and armed like men were found among the dead of Šābuhr I’s army. Libanius also wrote that, at the battle for Singara in 343 CE, women had been conscripted as sutlers into the Sasanian army. These Roman reports are reinforced by Iranian epic poetry that mentions women fighting as
savārān knights.
Gordāfarīd, daughter of
Gaždaham, is one of the heroines of the
Šāh-nāma written in the X century CE but referring to pre-Islamic events. In Ferdowsī’s epic, Gordāfarīd fights a duel in defense of the fortress of Dež-e Sapid against the warlord
Sohrāb who was leading an invading Turanian army. She fights mounted in full cataphract armor with bow,
kontos, sword, and a
rumi helmet:
But one of those within the fortress was a woman, daughter of the warrior Gaždaham, named Gordāfarīd. When she learned that their leader had allowed himself to be taken, she found his behavior so shameful that her rosy cheeks became as black as pitch with rage. With not a moment's delay she dressed herself in a knight's armor, gathered her hair beneath a Rumi helmet, and rode out from the fortress, a lion eager for battle. She roared at the enemy ranks, "Where are your heroes, your warriors, your tried and tested chieftains?”
Gošasb Bānu, daughter of the hero Rostam, was another heroine who fought as a
savārān. She is the heroine of an epic poem entitled
Bānu Gošasb-nāma, written by an anonymous poet between the XI and XII centuries CE. Sir Richard F. Burton’s translation of
The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night tells the story of princess
Al-Datma who was “accomplished…in horsemanship and martial exercises and all that behooved a cavalier”. Epic poems are difficult to pin down to a specific period; Iranian female
savārān disappear from western sources after the IV century CE but remain in the Iranian tradition. Historic and legendary female
savārān were all daughters of members of the noble class.
The duel between Gordāfarīd and Sohrāb, from a medieval copy of the Šāh-nāma.
Some authors have speculated that this could be a legacy of the nomadic East Iranian origin of the Arsacids and Sakas. The Arsacid dynasty and nobility came from the
Parni tribe, which was East Iranian “Scythian” in origin, same as with the Sakas. The Scythian tombs (
kurgans) excavated in southern Russia and Ukraine dated to the VIII to III century BCE have revealed that approximately 20% of the “warrior graves” contained females dressed in battle attire (which in turn could have been the origin of the Greek legend of the Amazons).
