Cunaxa and later Persian army figures

[martin]

I need to get on and prepare the figures for the SOA battle day.
I appreciate any help here.
I own the Montvert Persian book, Ospreys etc.

1.Would the chaps with the big rectangular shields and bowmen behind(sparabara) still be in use?
2. Persian (not allied)  cavalry. Shield?
3.Popularity of ribbon tied horse tails or cut manes?
4. Generals always on horse or chariot. Not just Darius et al.
5. Scythed chariots. 2 crew as per Zvezda?

Thanks in advance


martin

[Duncan Head]

1.Would the chaps with the big rectangular shields and bowmen behind(sparabara) still be in use?

Unknown. There were gerrhophoroi - men with cane shields - in Artaxerxes' line at Cunaxa, but whether they were the traditional barricade for archers, or something else, is not clear. Jim in the latest Slingshot thinks they probably were; I said in my Convention talk they probably weren't. Take your pick.

2. Persian (not allied)  cavalry. Shield?

No. Didn't we discuss this recently?

3.Popularity of ribbon tied horse tails or cut manes?

Pretty much standard.

4. Generals always on horse or chariot. Not just Darius et al.

Most generals on horses. Occasionally in chariots - mostly for the King, but Artaxerxes at Cunaxa was on a horse.

5. Scythed chariots. 2 crew as per Zvezda?

No, just the driver.

[Andreas Johansson]

Most generals on horses. Occasionally in chariots - mostly for the King, but Artaxerxes at Cunaxa was on a horse.

What non-Darius III examples of a Persian general in a chariot do we have?

Cyrus the Younger wore a tiara to underline his claim to be king, but apparently didn't feel anymore than his brother that a king ought ride a chariot.

[martin]

A big 15mm thank you.
I will proceed to get some packs done for March 29th


thanks


martin

[Jim Webster]

1.Would the chaps with the big rectangular shields and bowmen behind(sparabara) still be in use?

Unknown. There were gerrhophoroi - men with cane shields - in Artaxerxes' line at Cunaxa, but whether they were the traditional barricade for archers, or something else, is not clear. Jim in the latest Slingshot thinks they probably were; I said in my Convention talk they probably weren't. Take your pick.

I think I came down firmly on the fence 

To quote, "We know that the Greeks assumed there were archers there. So I would assume these were the troops with wicker shields, on the grounds that archers are not mentioned separately. Whether these were just Archers who happened to have a wicker shield, or whether we have here one of the last deployments of Sparabara? Dio Sic describes the enemy infantry as having small shields, and as the Egyptians had large ones, I suspect it's the archers he's referring to, which to me tilts the balance away from them being the last Sparabara."

My thinking was basically, that both our authors mention archers, neither mentions where they were.

Xenophon says ""There were horsemen in white cuirasses on the left wing of the enemy, under the command, it was reported, of Tissaphernes; next to them were troops with wicker shields and, farther on, hoplites with wooden shields which reached to their feet, these latter being Egyptians, people said; and then more horsemen and more bowmen."

For there to be more bowmen, some of the other troops mentioned had to be bowmen so I would assume the troops with wicker shields were bowmen.
At this point they could be Sparabara.
But Diodorus specifically says " For the barbarians were protected by small shields and their divisions were for the most part equipped with light arms"
Now this could be said to rule out Sparabara (and contradict Xenophon as well with regard to the presence of Egyptians with large wooden shields but here Xenophon was an eye witness.)

[RichT]

For there to be more bowmen, some of the other troops mentioned had to be bowmen so I would assume the troops with wicker shields were bowmen.

That implication (from 'more'), though, is stronger in the English translation than in Xenophon's Greek, which is more of a listing or enumeration, with varied vocabulary for style:

ἦσαν ἱππεῖς ... ἐχόμενοι δὲ γερροφόροι ...  ἐχόμενοι δὲ ὁπλῖται ...  ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἱππεῖς, ἄλλοι τοξόται
there were horsemen ... next gerrophoroi ... next hoplites .. and then cavalry ... and then archers

Which isn't to say that the inference from 'more' isn't correct, but it's not as strongly implied by the Greek.
 

[Duncan Head]

I suspect none of those points are as clear as appears -

- I am not convinced that "alloi toxotai" can only mean "more" archers, so I don't think there are necessarily archers among those previously mentioned (I see that as I was typing, Richard has suggested something similar),
- Diodoros says that the infantry were protected by "hoplois te mikrois", and of course hoplois (from hoplon) does not necessarily mean "shields", so not necessarily "small shields", so no real contradiction
- Listing the firewood collected, Xenophon includes arrows; but they are "the arrows, many in number, which the Greeks had compelled all who deserted from the King to throw away", not (unlike the various shields) discarded by those who fled the Greek charge.

[Jim Webster]

I feel the original authors had a pretty poor understanding of the needs of a distant generation of wargamers 

[Duncan Head]

In the Kyropaidia, Xenophon describes the Persians of Cyrus the Great equipped as a sort of gerrhophoroi:

In any case, every man will have a corselet (thorax) fitted to his breast, upon his left arm a shield (gerrhon), such as we have all been accustomed to carry, and in his right hand a machaira or sagaris with which, you see, we must strike those opposed to us at such close range that we need not fear to miss our aim when we strike.

Now, the Kyropaidia being basically fiction, I have previously dismissed this description as being of no historical value. But then I was reminded of what he says in 8.8.23:

The infantry still have their wicker shields (gerrha) and sabres (kopides) and axes (sagareis), just as those had who set the battle in array in the times of Cyrus; but not even they are willing to come into a hand-to-hand conflict.

Is there any reason why we shouldn't think that this is Xenophon talking about the gerrhon-carrying men who ran away from the Greeks at Cunaxa? In which case, are they neither bow-shielding pavise-bearers nor some sort of peltast-equivalents but cane-shielded swordsmen?

[Keraunos]

Jim has hit things on the head for me.  Painting time before the Battle Day is limited.  I am not about to start painting large numbers of wicker shielded swordsmen  .  I will make use of the figures that I have, sparabara, gerrhophoroi, archers, whatever, relying on figuring out some rules that give them a reasonable probability of behaving in the somewhat uncommitted way that many of them seem to have exhibited in the battle rather than on the performance of any particular gear they may or may not have carried  .

[Andreas Johansson]

In the Kyropaidia, Xenophon describes the Persians of Cyrus the Great equipped as a sort of gerrhophoroi:

In any case, every man will have a corselet (thorax) fitted to his breast, upon his left arm a shield (gerrhon), such as we have all been accustomed to carry, and in his right hand a machaira or sagaris with which, you see, we must strike those opposed to us at such close range that we need not fear to miss our aim when we strike.

Now, the Kyropaidia being basically fiction, I have previously dismissed this description as being of no historical value. But then I was reminded of what he says in 8.8.23:

The infantry still have their wicker shields (gerrha) and sabres (kopides) and axes (sagareis), just as those had who set the battle in array in the times of Cyrus; but not even they are willing to come into a hand-to-hand conflict.

Is there any reason why we shouldn't think that this is Xenophon talking about the gerrhon-carrying men who ran away from the Greeks at Cunaxa? In which case, are they neither bow-shielding pavise-bearers nor some sort of peltast-equivalents but cane-shielded swordsmen?

As I'm sure Duncan is aware, Greek art not too infrequently shows Persians on foot with sword and bow, e.g., here. Never, AFAIK, with gerrhon, but a gerrhon may not be too much use in the one-on-one fights shown anyway.

"Swordsmen" who are unwilling to fight hand-to-hand might make more sense if they are also equipped with bows; and explain who the Greeks expected to shoot at them.


On the subject of Cunaxa and Xenophon; Jim speculates in the Ss article that the Egyptians in the account of Thymbra are based on those he saw at Cunaxa. That there really were Egyptians in Artaxerxes' army has been doubted on the grounds that Egypt was in revolt against him at the time, and Xenophon anyway says they were said to be Egyptians; apparently he wasn't too sure about the identification. But this got me thinking; Xenophon has Cyrus the Great offer the surrendering Egyptians at Thymbra to stay with him, in which case they will be given lands, cities, wives, and servants - presumably in return for continuing to serve in his army. Might he have been thinking that the Egyptians at Cunaxa weren't fresh from Egypt but the descendants of Egyptians who had been settled somewhere in Asia in Cyrus the Great's day?

[RichT]

and Xenophon anyway says they were said to be Egyptians; apparently he wasn't too sure about the identification.

Though if we look at other things Xenophon says were 'said to be so', even just in the account of Cunaxa, it includes all sorts of things:

White armoured cavalry "under the command, it was reported, of Tissaphernes"
Hoplites, "these latter being Egyptians, people said"
"some one on the left wing was reported to have been hit by an arrow"
The royal army's stopping place, "a distance, it was said, of four parasangs"
"the Phocaean woman, Cyrus' concubine, who, by all accounts, was clever and beautiful"
"The commander of the Greek peltasts was Episthenes of Amphipolis, and it was said that he proved himself a sagacious man."
"and there were four hundred of these wagons, it was said"

I think X could reasonably know (or have his own opinion whether) Episthenes was sagacious or a concubine was clever and beautiful, and he would know as much about the number of supply wagons and march distances involved as anyone else. I get the impression he is just throwing in things like "it was said" to make his account more interesting, rather than because each case indicates something definite about his personal level of knowledge of the fact quoted; or at most because it was the general opinion even if he didn't have first hand knowledge.

Might he have been thinking that the Egyptians at Cunaxa weren't fresh from Egypt but the descendants of Egyptians who had been settled somewhere in Asia in Cyrus the Great's day?

Yes I have heard the suggested (can't remember where, maybe by Duncan) and it seems plausible.

[Jim Webster]

Certainly there are records of various nationalities of military settlers in Babylonia

[Duncan Head]

I remember another example - "It is also reported that some of them clashed their shields against their spears, thereby frightening the enemy's horses" - the horses of the scythed chariots, that is. It did make me wonder where exactly Xenophon was at this point - presumably not in the front lines? After all, he was "neither general nor captain nor soldier", as he says in 3.1.4; if he was in fact lurking behind the line somewhere, it might explain some of his vaguenesses and uncertainties.

[Duncan Head]

As I'm sure Duncan is aware, Greek art not too infrequently shows Persians on foot with sword and bow, e.g., here. Never, AFAIK, with gerrhon, but a gerrhon may not be too much use in the one-on-one fights shown anyway.

"Swordsmen" who are unwilling to fight hand-to-hand might make more sense if they are also equipped with bows; and explain who the Greeks expected to shoot at them.

The Basseggio Cup has a man with bow and sword who is at least in close proximity to a gerrhon, but that's early (c.470) and probably relates to the great Greek Wars.

In the Oikonomikos (IV.5) Xenophon suggests that each Persian province supplies 'cavalry and archers and slingers and gerrhophoroi' which certainly suggests that the gerrhophoroi are not themselves archers, though by itself it would leave open the interpretation that they are "traditional" pavise-men protecting archers.