Cunaxa and later Persian army figures

[DBS]

A couple of tangential thoughts:

1) Are we at risk of assuming too much homogeneity in the Persian army (and to be fair, most other ancient armies)?  Even regular, royal troops might struggle to switch cleanly from one pattern of equipment to another; witness the endless debates about which pattern of scutum for different phases of the late Republican through to middle Principate Roman legions...  Indeed, whilst one might suspect dear old Herodotos might have exaggerated some of the ethnic variation in his description of Xerxes' lads, nevertheless, homogeneity is very much not the point.

2) I suspect the cane shield may have been at the easier/quicker end of the scale for mass production.  If you are Artaxerxes, looking to levy the odd extra myriad as your pesky and ungrateful brother marches east, getting the ladies of the Women's Institute to redouble their raffia output may have its attractions, even if the product is all a bit dated.

[Jim Webster]

I agree with the issue of Homogeneity. Men sent as a contingent from a Babylonian temple were equipped by that temple. Then we have Gadal-Iâma who will serve as a cavalryman, but expects his family to supply the equipment, not the state.
So your regular royal troops could well have shown a fair commonality of equipment but even then, but anybody who was based and home and arrived with their kit when summoned is less likely to be 'uniform'.

[stevenneate]

This discussion looks like the basis for a Guardroom follow-up article!

Cunaxa discussion is both very interesting and very relevant at the moment. Makes me want to build a Persian army. I mean, another one...

[Duncan Head]

"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.

I recently remembered what Strabo (XV.3.19) says about Persian weaponry, which would suit here:

They arm themselves with a rhomboidal wicker shield (gerrō rhomboeidei); and as well as quivers they have axes (sagareis) and sabres (kopidas); and on their heads they wear a tower-like felt cap; and their cuirasses are made of scales of iron.

Of course this is Strabo writing centuries later, using who knows what sources, and there is no way to be sure that it says anything about late Achaemenid practice. But still, it does suggest cane-shielded archers with no mention of a front rank of spears.

[Jim Webster]

Strabo is an interesting source, apparently related to Mithridates' general Dorylaeus on his mother's side according to wiki (so it might even be true)
I have occasionally wondered whether his thoughts on Persian weaponry owed something to Pontic 'Persian' weaponry.

There are problems with this, Plutarch in his life of Sulla has this anecdote about the battle of Orchomenus

Here Diogenes, step-son to Archelaus, fighting on the right wing with much gallantry, made an honourable end.  And the archers, being hard pressed by the Romans, and wanting space for a retreat, took their arrows by handfuls, and striking with these as with swords, beat them back.

Which doesn't fit well with Strabo (XV.3.19) but then I would wonder at Mithridates' archers not being equipped with any sort of hand weapon.

Mind you I would feel happier with archers "with rhomboidal wicker shield ; and as well as quivers they have axes  and sabres ; and on their heads they wear a tower-like felt cap; and their cuirasses are made of scales of iron." beating Romans back than archers armed with handfuls of arrows.