Sassinid Infantry VS Roman Infantry-Why are Sassinids seen as poor?

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Looking back on various threads I posted on Yahoo Answers, I found this:

 

What is your source for Sassanid heavy shock infantry infantry?The only infantry in Sassanid armies were levies' date='of poor quality,doubtful enthusiasm,and little military competence.They had to be chained together before battle to prevent them running away.The vast majority of Sassanid armies were composed of armoured cavalry.[/Quote']

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110331124033AAHrP4x

 

While common sense shows that the vast majority of troops would be of lesser quality with light equipment(come on, even among the Romans, the typical soldier was not heavily armored troops of the highest calibre), I really doubt that the Sassinid failed to adapt to the Romans and developed heavy infantry.In fact my research shows this:

 

In the case of the Sassanians they attempted to copy the Achaemenids as much as possible' date=' resulting in a very strong infantry arm. While cavalry remained the main arm the Sassanian infantry was truly formidable. As with the Achaemenids the archers were the primary force, with their skill being great enough to force the Romans to try avoiding getting into archery duels with them. However it is the spear and sword carrying troops that got the most attention. Though ridiculed by the Romans for being little more then peasants with a huge shield on a whole the Sassanian spear and swordsmen were both well-trained and well-equipped. One Roman historian did admit admiration for the ability of the Sassanian foot to pull off their maneuvers as well as their fighting spirit.[/Quote']

http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/page.php?p=11286

 

A quick search on Wikipedia

The infantry were mostly lightly armoured spearmen' date=' who, like their Achaemenid ancestors, were usually levied troops of little fighting ability. Procopius of Caesarea famously derided them as "a crowd of pitiable peasants who come into battle for no other purpose than to dig through walls and to despoil the slain and in general to serve the soldiers [i.e. the cavalrymen']".[5] In some battles however, heavy infantry was deployed. These were well-paid, heavily armoured infantry (carrying either sword or mace) . The Daylam and Sogdiana provinces of the empire in particular were famous for providing high-quality foot soldiers. Ammianus Marcellinus has several illuminating comments to make on the Iranian foot of his day. At the Siege of Amida (359), from which he narrowly escaped, his enemy used sling- and bow-armed skirmishers, while other foot in mail advanced under mantlets in "serried ranks," controlled by trumpet. He characterizes the Persian infantry by saying, "Their infantry are armed like gladiators, and obey orders like soldiers' servants". He lauds their practice of maneuver and drill.

 

The archers formed the elite of the Persian infantry. They were trained to deliver their arrows with extreme rapidity, and with an aim that was almost unerring. The huge wattled shields, adopted by the Achaemenid Persians from the Assyrians (called spara by the Achaemenids), still remained in use; and from behind a row of these, rested upon the ground and forming a sort of loop?holed wall, the Sassanid bowmen shot their weapons with great effect; nor was it until their store of arrows was exhausted that the Romans, ordinarily, felt themselves upon even terms with their enemy. Sometimes the archers, instead of thus fighting in line, were intermixed with the heavy horse, with which it was not difficult for them to keep pace. They galled the foe with their constant discharges from between the ranks of the horsemen, remaining themselves in comparative security, as the legions rarely ventured to charge the Persian mailed cavalry. If they were forced to retreat, they still shot backwards as they fled; and it was a proverbial saying with the Romans that they were then especially formidable.[6] Infantry was divided into the following types:

 

Daylami: heavy infantry

Dailamites Elite Infantry

Paighan: medium infantry armed with spears and large shields

Levy Spearmen

Kamandaran: elite foot archers

Light ranged troops, such as Kurdish javelin-throwers

[/Quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanid_army

 

This is a topic I really wish to chat about.In various forums, people have this view that Sassinid infantry was completely comprised of poorly unarmored peasants that only had one battle tactic which was to assault as "HUMAN WAVES" and that Roman Infantry easily hacked through them like butter.

 

Why is there such a misconception?

 

Overall how did Sassinid Infantry compare with Roman?Was Sassinid Infantry really as bad as people make them out to be on various forums on the internet?From what I read overall they would be even with Romans being superior in some aspects such and Sassinids being superior in others(namely archers).In fact some Roman historians even praised and admired the discipline and martial effectiveness of the Sassinid infantry up to the point they were comparable and overall evenly matched!

Edited June 11, 2011 by ParatrooperLirelou

[caldrail]

Sassanid infantry varied in quality clearly, and the majority, composed of conscripted peasants, was probably every bit as bad as described. That doesn't mean all sassanid infantry was as ineffective since we know there were higher status troops among them who were better trained.

 

You would expect this from a feudal society. A small proportion of trained and experienced troops, plus a mass of peasants dragged in to boost numbers. It's worth pointing out that the perisan society in question was extremely hard on it's peasantry and probably expected more from them than they were trained to give.

 

There must have been therefore an element of 'human waves'. If you bring barely trained peasants en masse to a battle they're good for little else. That doesn't mean this was a primary tactic, rather a situation that the persian generals must have accepted because they had little alternative.

 

In terms of direct infantry comparison we therefore see a mixed ability army fighting a one trick legion. The Romans fought in one style and always did. It worked quite well when they commanded initiative. The problem for the Romans is not therefore anything to do with legion vs feudal infantry, but the application of missile fire, something the sassanid armies excelled at.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Sassanid infantry varied in quality clearly, and the majority, composed of conscripted peasants, was probably every bit as bad as described. That doesn't mean all sassanid infantry was as ineffective since we know there were higher status troops among them who were better trained.

 

You would expect this from a feudal society. A small proportion of trained and experienced troops, plus a mass of peasants dragged in to boost numbers. It's worth pointing out that the perisan society in question was extremely hard on it's peasantry and probably expected more from them than they were trained to give.

 

There must have been therefore an element of 'human waves'. If you bring barely trained peasants en masse to a battle they're good for little else. That doesn't mean this was a primary tactic, rather a situation that the persian generals must have accepted because they had little alternative.

 

In terms of direct infantry comparison we therefore see a mixed ability army fighting a one trick legion. The Romans fought in one style and always did. It worked quite well when they commanded initiative. The problem for the Romans is not therefore anything to do with legion vs feudal infantry, but the application of missile fire, something the sassanid armies excelled at.

So were Sassinid Foot Archers capable of firing while retreating like the above quotes in the first post state?And would this mena overall Sassinid Archers were superior?

[Melvadius]

So were Sassinid Foot Archers capable of firing while retreating like the above quotes in the first post state?And would this mena overall Sassinid Archers were superior?

 

 

Without checking through the few references cited I suspect the author of this piece may have accidently mixed up foot archers with the mounted variety famous for their 'Parthian shot'. Mounted troops were trained to guide their horses away from the enemy and partially turn in the saddle so they coould loose arrows at any pursuing enemy.

 

Any missile armed foot unit could conceivably fire during a retreating manouever in the same way but would have to stop or at least pause before partially turning to fire their missiles to have any hope of accuraccy.

 

As to superiority of one side or another it really depends on the circumstances, the combinations of troops available and the availability of supplies for any campaign. The extended series of conflicts between Rome and her eastern neighbours with in reality only limited shifts in borders argues for neither side being able to gain sufficient assendency in around 5-600 years of conflict therefore the question is fairly moot.

[barca]

Overall how did Sassinid Infantry compare with Roman?Was Sassinid Infantry really as bad as people make them out to be on various forums on the internet?From what I read overall they would be even with Romans being superior in some aspects such and Sassinids being superior in others(namely archers).In fact some Roman historians even praised and admired the discipline and martial effectiveness of the Sassinid infantry up to the point they were comparable and overall evenly matched!

 

I suppose the quality of their infantry varied depending on the time period. In the book about Belisarius by Hughes, there is a good description of Sassanid infantry of the 6th century "...these troops were highly respected and could be used to form the center of the Persian battle line behind the savaran. Armed with a spear and a sword, he is protected by a Sassanid-style spangenhelm, a coat of ring mail and a shield and is capable of facing Roman infantry in prolonged battle.'