Persian Armies up to 1900

[troung]

Start with the Persian Napoleon (despite being a Turkmen)/the Last Great Asian Conquer...

Nadir Shah formed a powerful army out of the remains of the Saffavid state. He succeeded in throwing out the Afghans while creating his new model army which grew in numbers and capability after each victory. His use of disciplined firearm equipped infantry routed the larger Afghan cavalry in battle after battle. Each battle saw him use his infantry more aggressively, initially they fought form behind cover while the cavalry smashed the Afghan flanks, while later his infantry fought more aggressively as their skills and confidence grew. This was a few years removed from the dismemberment of the poorly trained and internally divided Saffavid army at the hands of the same Afghans.

His army in time was drawn from the peoples he conquered; Persians, Qilibashi, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Pasthuns, Hazaras, Kurds and Arabs. His units were mostly horse mounted and made heavy use of firearms. Nadir Shah regularly drilled his infantry, who in time fought much like dragoons; moving on horseback but fighting on foot. Young men were levied and given considerable training in shooting, after first being trained to handle the heavy weight muskets. Men were given live ammunition to train in shooting, and were rewarded for being good shots in training. The elite of his army were the Jazayechis who were armed with Jazayer muskets (big, heavy caliber, smooth bore muskets) and served as sharpshooters and as shock troops (such as Yerevan where they captured the Ottoman artillery in a surprise assault). They also fought in skirmishing and conducted major scale ambushes. At Karnal it was horse mounted Jazayechis who lured in Khan Dowran. There were other musketeers as well. eventually the bulk of the Jazayerchis and musketeers rode into battle on horseback. They were also capable of fighting on horseback as well.

His cavalry was a mix of light and heavy and was itself regularly drilled, and also made use of pistols/muskets along with traditional weapons (lances/sabers/bows). Heavier cavalry wore armor, while lighter units did not. Lost horses were replaced at state expense, which helped units be more aggressive. The cavalry served in the traditional roles, scouting, raiding and shock action.

He had horse towed wheeled artillery and camel mounted Zamburaks.. Camel guns are sort of special, they were available in large numbers and fired 1-2lb cannon balls. They were deployed for massed fire. They were however vulnerable to other artillery (Camel's are huge). At Yerevan they crushed the Ottoman center after the Ottoman artillery had been captured by Nadir's infantry. They had the edge over larger guns in that they could be moved over places with poor/no real roads.

As for logistics he made use of forward depots to provision his army which were set up ahead of time.

He loved to make use of smaller units to draw the enemy into prepared kill zones, raid positions, or distract the enemy.

Much of his army was a refinement of the old traditional Saffavid style, but on a larger scale with more manpower, regular training, and disciplined infantry. At the end some sources state he may have had around 200k men in his army. He did have weakness regarding siege warfare and the weak finances of Iran.

====================
====================
In the history of Persia different dynasties rivalled for supreme power, killing off their opponents. After the violent deaths of his father and elder brother, 12-year-old Ismail assembled an army, defeated the Khan of the Aq Qoyunlu and became Shah Ismail I of Persia (1487-1524). Near the end of his life, Ismail I became a melancholic alcoholic and lost interest in affairs of state. His son, Tamasp I (1513-1576), is described as "a mean, treacherous and melancholy man". Gradually, he turned into a recluse and no longer left his palace. His son, Ismail II (1533-1577), had been imprisoned for the last 20 years of his father's reign. This Shah mercilessly killed off possible rivals to the throne, including many of his own brothers, until he died of an opium overdose. Shah Safi II (±1647-1694), a drunkard and recluse, was said to have shut himself up for 7 years in the harem without emerging once. Shah Husayn (±1668-1726) was known for his uxoriousness and married many wives before he was deposed, imprisoned and beheaded. In 1736, Nadir Shah ascended the Persian throne. He was a great conqueror, who invaded India, but he was also a supsicious tyrant with an increasing lust for blood.

Nadir (1688-1747) was the son of a poor peasant, who lived in Khurasan and died while Nadir was still a child. Nadir and his mother were carried off as slaves by the Özbegs, but Nadir managed to escape and became a soldier. Soon he attracted the attention of a chieftain of the Afshar1, in whose service Nadir rapidly advanced. Eventually, the ambitious Nadir fell out of favour. He became a rebel and gathered a substantial army.
In 1719 the Afghans had invaded Persia. They deposed the reigning Shah of the Safavid dynasty in 1722. Their ruler, Mahmud Ghilzai (±1699-1725), murdered a large number of Safavid Princes, hacking many of them to death by his own hand. After he had invited the leading citizens of Isfahan to a feast and massacred them there, his own supporters assassinated Mahmud in 1725. His cousin, Ashraf (±1700-1730), took over and married a Safavid princess.

At first, Nadir fought with the Afghans against the Özbegs until they withheld him further payment. In 1727 Nadir offered his services to Tamasp II (±1704-1740), heir to the Safavid dynasty. Nadir started the reconquest of Persia and drove the Afghans out of Khurasan. The Afghans suffered heavy losses, but before they fled Ashraf massacred an additional 3000 citizens of Isfahan. Most of the fleeing Afghans were soon overtaken and killed by Nadir's men, while others died in the desert. Ashraf himself was hunted down and murdered.
Nadir Shah
By 1729, Nadir (to the right) had freed Persia from the Afghans. Tamasp II was crowned Shah, although he was little more than a figurehead. While Nadir was putting down a revolt in Khurasan, Tamasp moved against the Turks, losing Georgia and Armenia. Enraged, Nadir deposed Tamasp in 1732 and installed Tamasp's infant son, Abbas III (1732-1740), on the throne, naming himself regent. Within two years Nadir recaptured the lost territory and extended the Empire at the expense of the Turks and the Russians.

In 1736, Nadir evidently felt that his own position had been established so firmly that he no longer needed to hide behind a nominal Safavid Shah and ascended the throne himself. In 1738 he invaded Qandahar, captured Kabul and marched on to India. He seized and sacked Delhi and, after some disturbances, he killed 30000 of its citizens. He plundered the Indian treasures of the Mughal Emperors, taking with him the famous jewel-encrusted Peacock Throne and the Koh-i Noor diamond2. In 1740 Nadir had Tamasp II and his two infant sons put to death. Then he invaded Transoxania. He resumed war with Turkey in 1743. In addition, he built a navy and conquered Oman.

Gradually Nadir's greedy and intolerant nature became more pronounced. The financial burden of his standing armies was more than the Persians could bear and Nadir imposed the death penalty on those who failed to pay his taxes. He stored most of his loot for his own use and showed little if any concern for the general welfare of the country. Nadir concentrated all power in his own hands. He was a brilliant soldier and the founder of the Persian navy, but he was entirely lacking any interest in art and literature. Once, when Nadir was told that there was no war in paradise, he was reported to have asked: "How can there be any delights there?". He moved the capital to Mashhad in Khurasan, close to his favourite mountain fortress. He tried to reconcile Sunnism with Shi'itism, because he needed people of both faiths in his army, but the reconciliation failed.

In the evening Nadir would retire to his private apartment, where he usually supped with three or four favourites. He drank wine with moderation, but was very fond of women. In his later days, Nadir had 33 women in his harem. Nadir preferred to speak in Turki (Eastern Turkish), but he could converse in Persian, too. His contemporaries mentioned his remarkably loud voice, which enabled him to make his commands easily heard. From 1739 onwards, Nadir used to dye his beard and moustache black, thus keeping a youthful appearance. Duting the 1740s he lost several of his front teeth.

In his later years, revolts began to break out against Nadir's oppressive rule and his increasing lust for blood and money. He suffered from dropsy, and as a result he was troubled at times by severe melancholia and outbursts of rage. In 1743 Nadir was treated for a liver complaint. In the summer of 1745 he was seriously ill and had to be carried in a litter. He suffered from constipation and had frequent attacks of vomiting.

Nadir Shah Following an assination attempt, Nadir (to the right) began exhibited signs of mental derangement. He suspected his own son, Reza Quli Mirza (1719-1747), of plotting against him and had him blinded. Soon he started executing the nobles who had witnessed his son's blinding. Gradually Nadir's attacks of frenzy became periods of actual insanity which recurred with increasing frequency. In January 1747 he left Isfahan for Kirman. Wherever he halted, Nadir had many people tortured and put to death. He had towers of their heads erected. In March he crossed the terrible Dasht-i-Lut desert, where many of his men perished of hunger and thirst. By then, even his own tribesmen felt that he was too dangerous a man to be near. A group of Afshar and Qajar chiefs decided "to breakfast off him ere he should sup off them". His own commanders surprised him in his sleep, but Nadir managed to kill two of them before the assassins cut off his head.

Nadir was Persia's most gifted military genius and is known as "The Second Alexander" and "The Napoleon of Persia". He raised his country from the lowest depths of degradation to the proud position of the foremost military power in Asia. Unfortunately, his triumphs were at the expense of incalculable suffering and terrible loss of life. His grandiosity, his insatiable desire for more conquests and his egocentric behaviour suggest a narcissistic personality disorder and in his last years he seems to have developed some paranoid tendencies. Nadir was married four times and had 5 sons and 15 grandsons. Their deaths were ordered by Nadir's successor.

Copyright © 1997-2002, 2008 by J.N.W. Bos. All rights reserved.

Special thanks to Enver Kitorasange.
Footnotes

1 The Afshar were a Turcoman tribe.
2 The Koh-i Noor diamond is now in the possession of the British Royal Family.
Bibliography

* Morgan, D.: Medieval Persia (1040-1797), A history of the Near East, Longman, 1994
* Humphreys, E.: The Royal Road (A popular history of Iran), Scorpion Publishing Ltd, 1991
* Axelrod, A. & Philips, Ch.: Dictators & tyrants (Absolute rulers and would-be rulers in world history), FactsOnFile, 1995
* Hoek, K.A. van den (ed.): De Groten der Aarde, Universum, Lekturama, 1979
* Burke's Royal Families of the World
* Lockhart, L.: Nadir Shah (A critical study based mainly upon contemporary sources), Al-Irfan, Historical Reprints, 1976
* Diba, L.S. (ed.): Royal Persian Paintings (The Quajar Epoch 1785-1925), I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1998

[troung]

In 1514 the Safavids suffered a major defeat at the hands of the Ottomans under Selim the Grim, due to in large part Ottoman muskets and artillery. At the time the Safavid army was a cavalry force, reliant on bows and arrows. While the Ottomans also used bow armed cavalry, they had large numbers of firearm equipped infantry and artillery and made use of tabor tactics. The Safavids actually allowed the Ottomans the time to set up their tabor...

The Ottomans had the military ability to seize any Safavid city they could reach, but had a hard time holding onto them. There was a sort of king of the mountain over Tabriz and other cities. Under Tashmap the Safavids adopted firearms and artillery in robust numbers, putting them to use in the battle of Jam against the Uzbeks; forming a Tabor with infantry and artillery and posting Qizilbash cavalry on the wings. The tabor was hardly unbreakable and in fact the Safavids at times were able to smash them with cavalry charges; though if the men inside had good moral and were well supplied they could withstand cavalry.

Under Shah Abbas the army grew to; 15,000 Ghulam cavalry armed traditional arms; 12,000 Persian infantry armed with muskets; a 12000 men division of artillery; a 3000 man imperial guard for the Shah; the regular army numbered between 40.000 and 50,000 and was supplemented by the around Qizilbash cavalry in time of war. The Ghulams and Persian's both eventually fought as sort of dragoons, with both forces using firearms and riding on horseback. The use of slave/Persian units allowed Abbas to centralize control but the reliance on slaves created an praetorian situation.

Artillery was used for sieges and during several major battles but has not commonly used for battles in the field. The Safavids when fighting the Ottomans relied on guerrilla attacks and raids, where artillery could play little role. On the east it was hard to bring the Uzbeks to battle. On both fronts the Safavids relied on cavalry; bow and firearm equipped. There does not seem to be much usage of artillery to crack Tabors.

In time they relied more on peoples from the Caucasus Mountains not as much for military effectiveness but because of politics; the Harem was full of women from the Caucasus Mountains and the army/court was full of slaves from the same place.

[troung]

Sassanian Army
By: Professor A. Sh. Shahbazi



Derafsh Kavian
The Iranian society under the Sasanians was divided-allegedly by Ardašir I, into four groups: priests, warriors (arteštdar), state officials, and artisans and peasants. The second category embraced princes, lords, and landed aristocracy, and one of the three great fires of the empire, Adur Gušnasp at Šiz (Takt-e Solayman in Azerbaijan) belonged to them. With a clear military plan aimed at the revival of the Iranian Empire, Ardašir I, formed a standing army which was under his personal command and its officers were separate from satraps and local princes and nobility. Ardešir had started as the military commander of Darabgerd, and was knowledgeable in older and contemporary military history, from which he benefited, as history shows, substantially. For he restored Achaemenid military organizations, retained Parthian cavalry, and employed new-style armour and siege-engines, thereby creating a standing army (Mid. Pers. spah) which served his successors for over four centuries, and defended Iran against Central Asiatic nomads and Roman armies.

The backbone of the spah was its heavy cavalry "in which all the nobles and men of rank" underwent "hard service" and became professional soldiers "through military training and discipline, through constant exercise in warfare and military manoeuvres". From the third century the Romans also formed units of heavy cavalry of the Oriental type; they called such horsemen clibanarii "mailclad [riders]", a term thought to have derived from an Iranian *griwbanar < *griwbanwar < *griva-pana-bara "neck-guard wearer". The heavy cavalry of Shapur II is described by an eye-witness historian as follows:

"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 skilfully fitted to their heads, that since their entire body was covered with metal, arrows that fell upon them could lodge only where they could see a little through tiny openings opposite the pupil of the eye, or where through the tip of their nose they were able to get a little breath. Of these some who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would have thought them held fast by clamps of bronze".

The described horsemen are represented by the seventh-century knight depicting Emperor Khosrow Parvez on his steed Šabdiz on a rock relief at Taq-e Bostan in Kermanšah. Since the Sassanian horseman lacked the stirrup, he used a war saddle which, like the medieval type, had a cantle at the back and two guard clamps curving across the top of the rider's thighs enabling him thereby to stay in the saddle especially during violent contact in battle. The inventory of weapons ascribed to Sassanian horsemen at the time of Khosrow Anoširavan, resembles the twelve items of war mentioned in Vendidad 14.9, thus showing that this part of the text had been revised in the later Sassanian period.


Heavy Armoured Sassanian Cavalry
More interestingly, the most important Byzantine treatise on the art of war, the Strategicon, also written at this period, requires the same equipments from a heavily-armed horseman. This was due to the gradual orientalisation of the Roman army to the extent that in the sixth century "the military usages of the Romans and the Persians become more and more assimilated, so that the armies of Justinian and Khosrow are already very much like each other;" and, indeed, the military literatures of the two sides show strong affinities and interrelations. According to the Iranian sources mentioned above, the martial equipments of a heavily-armed Sassanian horseman were as follows: helmet, hauberk (Pahlavi griwban), breastplate, mail, gauntlet (Pahlavi abdast), girdle, thigh-guards (Pahlavi ran-ban), lance, sword, battle-axe, mace, bowcase with two bows and two bowstrings, quiver with 30 arrows, two extra bowstrings, spear, and horse armour (zen-abzar); to these some have added a lasso (kamand), or a sling with slingstones. The elite corps of the cavalry was called "the Immortals," evidently numbering-like their Achaemenid namesakes 10,000 men. On one occasion (under emperor Bahram V) the force attacked a Roman army but outnumbered, it stood firm and was cut down to a man. Another elite cavalry group was the Armenian one, whom the Persians accorded particular honour. In due course the importance of the heavy cavalry increased and the distinguished horseman assumed the meaning of "knight" as in European chivalry; if not of royal blood, he ranked next to the members of the ruling families and was among the king's boon companions.

The Sassanians did not form light-armed cavalry but extensively employed-as allies or mercenaries-troops from warlike tribes who fought under their own chiefs. "The Sagestani were the bravest of all"; the Gelani, Albani and the Hephthalites, the Kushans and the Khazars were the main suppliers of light-armed cavalry. The skill of the Dailamites in the use of sword and dagger made them valuable troopers in close combat, while Arabs were efficient in desert warfare.

The infantry (paygan) consisted of the archers and ordinary footmen. The former were protected "by an oblong curved shield, covered with wickerwork and rawhide". Advancing in close order, they showered the enemy with storms of arrows. The ordinary footmen were recruited from peasants and received no pay, serving mainly as pages to the mounted warriors; they also attacked walls, excavated mines and looked after the baggage train, their weapons being a spear and a shield. The cavalry was better supported by war elephants "looking like walking towers", which could cause disorder and damage in enemy ranks in open and level fields. War chariots were not used by the Sassanians. Unlike the Parthians, however, the Iranians organised an efficient siege machine for reducing enemy forts and walled towns. They learned this system of defence from the Romans but soon came to match them not only in the use of offensive siege engines-such as scorpions, balistae, battering rams, and moving towers-but also in the methods of defending their own fortifications against such devices by catapults, by throwing stones or pouring boiling liquid on the attackers or hurling fire brands and blazing missiles.


Heavy Armoured Sassanian Cavalry
The organisation of the Sassanian army is not quite clear, and it is not even certain that a decimal scale prevailed, although such titles as hazarmard might indicate such a system. Yet the proverbial strength of an army was 12,000 men. The total strength of the registered warriors in 578 was 70,000. The army was divided, as in the Parthian times, into several gunds, each consisting of a number of drafšs (units with particular banners), each made up of some Wašts. The imperial banner was the Drafš-a Kavian, a talismanic emblem accompanying the King of Kings or the commander-in-chief of the army who was stationed in the centre of his forces and managed the affairs of the combat from the elevation of a throne. At least from the time of Khosrow Anoširavan a seven-grade hierarchical system seems to have been favoured in the organisation of the army. The highest military title was arghed which was a prerogative of the Sassanian family. Until Khosrow Andoširavan's military reforms, the whole of the Iranian army was under a supreme commander, Eran-spahbed, who acted as the minister of defence, empowered to conduct peace negotiations; he usually came from one of the great noble families and was counted as a counselor of the Great King.

Along with the revival of "heroic" names in the middle of the Sassanian period, an anachronistic title, arteštaran salar was coined to designate a generalissimo with extraordinary authority, but this was soon abandoned when Anoširavan abolished the office of Eran-spahbed and replaced it with those of the four marshals (spahhed) of the empire, each of whom was the military authority in one quarter of the realm. Other senior officials connected with the army were: Eran-ambaragbed "minister of the magazines of empire," responsible for the arms and armaments of warriors; the marzbans "margraves"-rulers of important border provinces; kanarang-evidently a hereditary title of the ruler of Tus; gund-salar "general"; paygan-salar "commander of the infantry"; and pushtigban-salar "commander of the royal guard".

A good deal of what is known of the Sassanian army dates from the sixth and seventh centuries when, as the results of Anoširavan's reforms, four main corps were established; soldiers were enrolled as state officials receiving pay and subsidies as well as arms and horses; and many vulnerable border areas were garrisoned by resettled warlike tribes. The sources are particularly rich in accounts of the Sassanian art of warfare because there existed a substantial military literature, traces of which are found in the Šah-nama, Denkard 8.26-an abstract of a chapter of the Sassanian Avesta entitled Arteštarestan "warrior code"-and in the extracts from the A'in-nama which Ebn Qotayba has preserved in his Oyun al-akhbar and Inostrantsev has explained in detail. The Arteštarestan was a complete manual for the military: it described in detail the regulations on recruitments, arms and armour, horses and their equipments, trainings, ranks, and pay of the soldiers and provisions for them, gathering military intelligence and taking precaution against surprise attack, qualifications of commanders and their duties in arraying the lines, preserving the lives of their men, safeguarding Iran, rewarding the brave and treating the vanquished. The A'in-nama furnished valuable instructions on tactics, strategy and logistics. It enjoined, for instance, that the cavalry should be placed in front, left-handed archers capable of shooting to both sides be positioned on the left wing, which was to remain defensive and be used as support in case of enemy advance, the centre be stationed in an elevated place so that its two main parts (i. e., the chief line of cavalry, and the lesser line of infantry behind them) could resist enemy charges more efficiently, and that the men should be so lined up as to have the sun and wind to their back.


A Sassanian helmet from the siege mines beneath Tower 19, Dura-Europos, in today Syria. It is a rare find of Sasanian military archaeology, and also clearly a prototype for Roman helmets of the 4th century CE.
Battles were usually decided by the shock cavalry of the front line charging the opposite ranks with heavy lances while archers gave support by discharging storms of arrows. The centre, where the commander-in-chief took his position on a throne under the Drafš-a Kavian, was defended by the strongest units. Since the carrying of the shield on the left made a soldier inefficient in using his weapons leftwards, the right was considered the line of attack, each side trying to outflank the enemy from that direction, i.e., at the respective opponent's left; hence, the left wing was made stronger but assigned a defensive role. The chief weakness of the Iranian army was its lack of endurance in close combat. Another fault was the Iranian's too great a reliance on the presence of their leader: the moment the commander fell or fled his men gave way regardless of the course of action.

During the Sassanian period the ancient tradition of single combat (maid-o-maid) developed to a firm code. In 421 CE Emperor Bahram V opposed a Roman army but accepted the war as lost when his champion in a single contest was slain by a Goth from the Roman side. Such duels are represented on several Sassanian rock-reliefs at Naqsh-a Rostam, and on a famous cameo in Paris depicting Emperor Shapur I capturing Valerian.

Sassanian Emperors were conscious of their role as military leaders: many took part in battle, and some were killed; the Picture Book of Sassanian Kings showed them as warriors with lance or sword. Some are credited with writing manuals on archery, and they are known to have kept accounts of their campaigns ("When Kosrow Parvez concluded his wars with Bahram-e Choubina and consolidated his rule over the empire, he ordered his secretary to write down an account of those wars and related events in full, from the beginning to the end").

While heavy cavalry proved efficient against Roman armies, it was too slow and regimentalised to act with full force against agile and unpredictable light-armed cavalry and rapid foot archers; the Persians who in the early seventh century conquered Egypt and Asia Minor lost decisive battles a generation later when nimble, lightly armed Arabs accustomed to skirmishes and desert warfare attacked them. Hired light-armed Arab or East Iranian mercenaries could have served them much better.

[Ararat]

When in 428 Armenia lost its independence Armenian heavy cavalry wasn't disbanded. It was used by Armenia’s neighbor kingdoms and empires, like Byzantine Empire and Sassanid Persia.

V. Chapot wrote: “What they say about Armenia bewilders us. How could this mountain people develop such a cavalry that was able to measure itself against the horsemen of the Medes? One thing which is certain is the fact that Armenia ...was a source of excellent well bred horses. The people in this country had discovered that horses were not just an economic asset, but could also be used for military purposes.”

In Sassanid Persia, the Armenian cavalry was accorded a status similar to the elite "Savaran" of the Persian army. The equipment of the Armenian cavalry was in fact similar to that of the Savaran. Pro-Sassanian Armenian cavalry units fought under Sassanid banners and were allowed to enter the royal capital, Ctesiphon. The Armenians were in fact honored for their services. For example, general Smbat Bagratuni was accorded particular honor and attention by Khosrov II. In 619, due to his victory over the Turks who then resided in Central Asia, he was given gifts, such as lavishly decorated robes, and the command of a number of the king's royal guards. Khosrov II also raised him to third in rank among the nobles of the court. Moreover, pro-Sassanian Armenians supplied excellent light cavalry and infantry, who were notable for using slings to repel enemy cavalry, and spears for close combat.

http://www.armenian-history.com/Nyut...vy_cavalry.htm

[troung]

Parthian Army
By: Professor A. Sh. Shahbazi



Parthian Cataphracts (Fully Armoured Parthian Cavalry)
The Greco-Persian wars and Alexander's victories proved that light-armed troops could not stop heavy, well-trained, and brilliantly led infantry of the type of hoplites or phalanx. These could only be encountered with heavily armed and highly professional cavalry causing disorder in the massed ranks and then attacking them on vulnerable points with bowshots capable of piercing armour and lances effective against shields. This lesson went home with the Parthians who in ousting the Seleucids from Iran had ample opportunity to experience the effect of heavily armed professional infantry led by Macedonian kings, and soon came to learn about the armament, tactics, and strategy of the Roman empire as well. So they formed their armies on sound bases, taking into consideration what was needed and what was available to them.

In extent, the Parthian empire was smaller than that of the Achaemenids; it was also far less centralized. It lacked, for instance, a standing army. There were of course the garrisons of towns and forts as well as armed retinues of tribal chiefs, feudal lords, and of the King of Kings himself, but these were limited and disunited. The military concerns were conditioned by the feudal system: when the need arose, the Great King appealed to his subordinate kings (there were 18 of them at one time), regional, and tribal lords and garrison commanders to muster what they could and bring them to an appointed place at a given time. The feudal lords and officials brought the mustering levies (hamspah), and sometimes supplemented them with foreign mercenaries. The backbone of the army (Parth. spad) and the chief power of controlling the empire consisted of the Iranians themselves. Accustomed from an early age to the art of horsemanship and skilled in archery, the Parthian dynasty secured a reputation that is still echoed in the Persian term pahlevan (< Pahlav < Parθava) while Parthian tactic and shooting are examplary in military histories.

The nature of their state and political conditions combined with lessons of history enforced an unusual military structure in Parthia: North Iranian nomads constantly threatened eastern borders while in the west first the Seleucids and then the Romans were ever ready for full-scale invasions. Any stratagem against such a double danger required rapid mobility for going from Armenia to the Jaxartes on short notice; and the solution the Parthians found was to rely on cavalry (asbaran; 'sb'r attested in Nisa documents). It is true that Parthian armies did have foot soldiers, but their numbers were small and their function insignificant. On tactical considerations, too, only the cavalry could be useful to the Parthians, for the nomads of the east could easily break through any infantry that the Parthians were able to muster, while no Parthian infantry could have matched the Roman phalanxes on the western front. The Parthian nobles (azat, misunderstood by Greek and Roman sources as "free-men”) formed the army by bringing along their dependants (misunderstood by Greek and Roman sources as "slaves"). The example par excellence was Eran-Spahbed Suren-Pahlav who was not yet thirty years old when he vanquished Crassus: he came escorted by a thousand heavy-armed horsemen and many more of the light-armed riders, so that an army of 10,000 horsemen was formed by his bondsmen and dependants. 400 Parthian azats threw an army of 50,000 mounted warriors against Mark Antony.


Left: East Parthian Cataphract; Middle: Parthian Horse-Archer; Right: Parthian Cataphract from Hatra

Experience had shown that light cavalry-armed with a bow and arrows and probably also a sword was suitable for skirmishes, hit-and-run tactics, and flank attacks, but could rot sustain close combat. For the latter task, heavy cavalry (cataphraoti) was formed, which wore steel helmets, a coat of mail reaching to the knees and made of rawhide covered with scales of iron or steel that enabled it to resist strong blows. This was akin to the lamellar armour of the Sacians of the Jaxartes who in 130 BCE overthrew the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. The charger too was covered from head to knees by armour made of scale armour said to have been of steel or bronze. An actual example of this horse-armour was found at Dura-Europos, while a famous graffito of the Parthian cataphract from the same site clearly demonstrates his full panoply.


A Parthian Horse-archer
For offensive weapons the cataphract had a lance and a bow. The spear was of unusual thickness and length, and was used with such skill relying on its weight and power that it "often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once". The bow was of the powerful and large compound type which outranged Roman weapons and its arrows, shot with swiftness, strength, and precision, penetrated the armor of the legionaries. The cataphract was probably equipped with a knife as well. So armed and thus skilled, he was one of the ablest and most feared soldiers of antiquity. The Parthian army was at times additionally supported by camel-borne troops. The animal could bear the weight of the warrior and his armour better and endure harshness longer than the horse; also, the archer could discharge his arrows from an elevated position. These would have made the division very desirable had it not been greatly hampered by Roman caltrop (tribulus) which, scattered on the battlefield, injured the spongy feet of the animal.

The Parthian tactic was that of harassing the enemy by the hit-and-run action, dividing his forces by pretending retreat and enticing pursuit but then turning unexpectedly back and showering the foe with deadly arrows, and, finally when he was reduced in number and courage, to surround him, and destroy him with volleys of missiles. The tactic was thus unfavourable to close combat operation, and inefficient in laying siege to forts and walled towns; nor could the Parthians sustain long campaigns, especially in the winter months. Since they lacked siege-engines, the Iranians under the Parthian dynasty made no use of Roman machines whenever they captured them. And since the army was composed mainly of the dependants of the azats, it had to disband sooner or later and go back to the land and the crops. The Parthian general desired to bring to a close a campaign as soon as possible and return home. When the King of Kings led the army this haste was doubled by the fear of insurrection at home, the frequency of which was the greatest weakness of the Parthian empire. The battle was furious: war cries and kettledrums resounded from all sides, setting fear in enemy ranks; mounted on the light horse the archers showered the enemy with volley after volley, and then retreated but again turned back to shoot while the charger was at full gallop-an ancient art which came to be known as "the Parthian shot". Then the shock cavalry (cataphracts) moved in, still avoiding hand-to-hand combat but picking up the enemy with their missiles and piercing them with the heavy lance. Charging on large and trained war horses (see under Ash), of which some were brought as reserves, the Parthians avoided the deficiency of the Achaemenid cavalry by carrying camel-loads of arrows for use in the field as soon as their archers ran out of their own; this enabled sustained and effective long-range engagements and reduced the number of the enemy rapidly.


Parthian & Sasanian Cataphracts
1. Top: Sasanian Standard-Bearer
2. Middle: Parthian Cataphract, CE 3rd C.
3. Bottom: Early Sasanian Cataphract, CE 3rd C.
The organization of the Parthian army is not clear, and lacking a standing force, a strict and complicated organization was unnecessary in any case. The small company was called washt; a large unit was drafsh, and a division evidently a gund. The strength of a drafsh was 1,000 men, and that of a corps 10,000 (cf. Suren's army). It seems, therefore, that a decimal grade was observed in the organization of the army.

The whole spad was under a supreme commander (the King of Kings, his son, or a spadpat, chosen from the great noble families). The largest army the Parthians organized was that brought against Mark Antony (50,000). At Carrhae the proportion of the lancers to the light horse was about one to ten, but in the first and second centuries the number and importance of the lancers as the major actors of the battle-field increased substantially. The Parthians carried various banners, often ornamented with the figures of dragons, but the famous national emblem of Iran, the Drafsh-e Kavian, appears to have served as the imperial banner. The Iranians marched swiftly but very seldom at dark. They used no war chariots, and confined the use of the wagon to transporting females accompanying commanders on expeditions.

The Parthian period holds an important place in military history. Several Parthian King of Kings, including the first and the last-fell in action, and their three century long conflicts with Rome had profound effects on Roman military organization. For they not only succeeded in repulsing repeated Roman attempts at the conquest of Iran, but they inflicted severe defeat seven in their last days-upon the Roman invaders; and to face the long-range fighting tactics of the Parthian armoured cavalry and mounted archers, the Romans started to supplement their armies of heavy and drilled infantry with auxiliary forces of riders and bowmen, thereby increasingly modifying traditional Roman arms and tactics. The Parthians finally submitted to another Iranian dynasty which had close links with them and retained the power of their nobility, one reason for their defeat being that while they still wore the old style lamellar armour, the Sasanians went to battle with the Roman type mail shirt, i.e., armour of chain links, which was more flexible and afforded better protection.

[1980s]

Start with the Persian Napoleon (despite being a Turkmen)/the Last Great Asian Conquer...

Thanks for making this thread. Not to nitpick too much but there is difference between the Turkmen and the Turcoman’s. Nader Shah was an Iranian Turcoman from the Afshar tribe and belonged to the northeastern Iranian province of Khorasan. On the other hand the Turkmen were (are) a separate Turkic peoples that lived immediately to the north of Iran and differed in ethnicity, culture and way-of-life to that of the Iranian Turcoman’s.

[troung]

Thanks for making this thread. Not to nitpick too much but there is difference between the Turkmen and the Turcoman’s. Nader Shah was an Iranian Turcoman from the Afshar tribe and belonged to the northeastern Iranian province of Khorasan. On the other hand the Turkmen were (are) a separate Turkic peoples that lived immediately to the north of Iran and differed in ethnicity, culture and way-of-life to that of the Iranian Turcoman’s.

My mistake for the typo old boy

Try and write something off the top of your head :P

More Nadir Shah

[Ararat]

Thanks for making this thread. Not to nitpick too much but there is difference between the Turkmen and the Turcoman’s. Nader Shah was an Iranian Turcoman from the Afshar tribe and belonged to the northeastern Iranian province of Khorasan. On the other hand the Turkmen were (are) a separate Turkic peoples that lived immediately to the north of Iran and differed in ethnicity, culture and way-of-life to that of the Iranian Turcoman’s.

I am glad an Iranian poster corrected this and not me. There was a huge difference between them and even today the Iranian Turks are nothing like the Turks from Turkey.

[troung]

Nadir Shah (c.1688-1747), King of Persia, was probably the last great Asiatic conqueror in the tradition of Genghis Khan and Timur, and consciously imitated the latter. He started life as a shepherd boy, rising through domestic service to high household office and then state leadership, though like Genghis, and unlike Timur, he remained illiterate. He has also been compared with his near-contemporary Frederick ‘the Great’ as the master strategist of his state, for his extensive recruiting beyond the frontiers of his country, the careful training of his men, and all-pervading belief in the importance of mobility. Like other great captains of Asia, his forces covered great distances with ‘supernatural speed’, and excelled at the swift cavalry attack from an unexpected quarter. His heavy artillery was weak but his light artillery was the best in Asia, although this owed much to French and Russian experts whom he employed.

Nadir was sometimes impetuous. On 19 July 1733 he attacked a Turkish position on the Tigris, losing 30, 000 dead and all his artillery and baggage. He proved himself a great leader, rebuilding his army from nothing in two months. From 1736-8 he reconquered Kandahar, from 1738-40 conducted his Indian campaign, reaching Delhi, and from 1740-1 invaded Turkestan, reaching Khiva. His capture of the Khyber Pass on the way to India in 1738 was masterful, and Russian military analysts later studied it as part of their own plans for the invasion of India. On 17 November Nadir sent engineer detachments to improve the approaches to it and give the impression he planned a frontal attack. But on the night of the 18th a force of cavalry set out through narrow gorges to the south of the pass. They covered 50 miles (80 km) in eighteen hours, probably without maps and, being mid-November in the Himalayas, in bitter cold. The next day his cavalry appeared behind the opposing army, cutting them off from their base at Peshawar.

Nadir Shah also appreciated the value of infantry and the precise application of firepower. He had a corps of specially trained marksmen called jazayirchis. Like all great commanders he was renowned for his ability to size up a situation quickly. He also restored the morale that the Persians had lost under a series of incompetent commanders. Under Nadir, the Persians were able to fight and beat ferocious and martial races like the Afghans and Turks. Like Frederick, Nadir brought many foreigners into the army's ranks, notably Afghans and Uzbeks. By rigid discipline and drill, like Frederick again, he turned the Persian army into a formidable fighting machine. His charisma as a leader was enhanced by his ability to recall all the principal officers in his numerous army by their names.

Although brought up far from the sea, Nadir also had an instinctive understanding of the value of naval power. With help from European advisers, he built up a navy in the Gulf and a small fleet in the Caspian Sea. His army then crossed the Gulf and campaigned in Oman. However, his dependence on western gunners and sailors was an indication of how Europe was now pulling ahead in the sphere of military technology.
Bibliography
• Bellamy, Christopher, ‘Land War in Asia’, in The Evolution of Modern Land Warfare: Theory and Practice (London, 1990).
• Lockhart, Laurence, Nadir Shah: A Critical Study (London, 1938)

===============
Mohammad Shah: Invasion Of Nadir Shah


Invasion Of Nadir Shah
In 1739, the Napoleon of Persia, Nadir Shah invaded Delhi and looted it. It is an event of macro importance in Indian History as it resulted the fall of the Mughal Empire, the most richest and famous of all Indian Imperial Dynasties.


Causes
1. Nadir Shah wanted to empty Kandahar from the Afghans. Therefore he asked the Mughal Emperor to close the Mughal frontiers around Kabul so that the Afghan rebels may not seek refuge in Kabul. The Emperor gave a confirming reply to Nadir Shah but didn't do any thing practically. At this Nadir Shah sent an ambassador to the Mughal Emperor. The Emperor delayed in meeting him and kept him at Delhi for an entire year. Thus Nadir Shah became furious with the Mughal Emperor.
2. Looking at the weak position of the Mughal Empire, Nadir Shah wanted to gain the rich treasures of India.


Course Of The War
On the basis of the above reasons, Nadir Shah invaded India and decided to attack from Afghanistan. In May, 1738 he attacked Northern Afghanistan. In the same month, he captured Ghazni, in June he captured Kabul and in September Jalalabad also fell to him. In November he surrounded the fortress of Peshawar and completely razed it to the ground. Finally in January 1739, he captured Lahore, the former capital of the Mughal Empire.
Now Nadir Shah had captured territory up to Attock and Muhammad Shah and his courtiers could not close their eyes from further danger. They finally understood that Persian Emperor was not the sort of enemy that could be bought off with the loot of a province. Furthermore he had devastated the area he just conquered. The cities of Wazirabad, Emanabad and Gujrat were not only sacked but razed to the ground, its population murdered.
In February 1739, Nadir Shah captured Sirhind and moved towards the field of Karnal, a battle destined to be fateful to the Mughal rulers. On 13 February, the battle of Karnal was fought. Emperor Muhammad Shah had over a hundred thousand force against Nadir Shah's 55,000 men but was still decisively defeated. In the event, the Khan Doran died and wrote a will that the Mughal and Afsharid emperors should not meet but Nadir Shah should be turned back from there at all costs. His will was disregarded and the Emperor himself met Nadir Shah in his camp and abdicated on 26 February, thirteen days after the battle of Karnal. He handed over the keys of the Delhi gate and entered Delhi with him.
At first every thing was cordial among the two emperors. However rumours spread throughout Delhi that Nadir Shah was assassinated. The masses attacked the Persian force and slaughtered 900 Persian soldiers. At this Nadir Shah massacred the populace, and at least 30,000 people died. The Emperor, Nizam-ul-Mulk and Chief Minister Nawab Qamar-id-Din Khan Bahadur went to Nadir Shah to plead for mercy and thus he stopped the massacre and turned into looting the Mughal treasury. The famous Peacock throne, the Darya-e-Noor diamond and unimaginable wealth was looted. In addition, elephants, horses and every thing that was liked was taken. Muhammad Shah had to marry his daughter Jahan Afruz Banu Begum to Nadir Shah's smallest son.
Now Muhammad Shah was crowned as emperor by Nadir Shah himself on 12 May, and Muhammad Shah ceded the area west of river Indus to Nadir Shah. They both switched crowns according to the Persian tradition of friendship and the Koh-i-Noor diamond was also lost. Then Nadir Shah went back to Persia.


Results
After the Sayyid Brothers and the Marathas, this invasion destroyed what was left of the Mughal Empire and neared it to its end. The weakness of the Mughal army was clearly portrayed after this invasion. The Afghans began their relentless invasions of India. Everywhere there was depression and loss of hope. This invasion, in fact, brought the Mughal Empire to its fateful end.

======
Safavid troops

[RollingWave]

Hi Troung, a question, what was the Persian forces like under the Khwarezmid era? I have been able to find little reference , except that it seem to have mixed late Sassinid era like forces with more Turkish influences?

[troung]

Quick reply

Turkic tribal light cavalry made up the backbone of the army. Fighting in the same style as the Mongols, light archers with limited protective gear. There were heavier equipped Turkic cavalry under important amirs made up of sedentary/semi nomadic people. There were elite Mamluk units. Persians made up the infantry which were more local/regional units. War elephants were used in small numbers.

[troung]

Word for word from my april 8 post.... I know my writing....

Persian Army of Nadir Shah « War and Game

[Persey]

Hi Troung,

You are very well informed on Persian military history.
I was wondering if you know anything more on this story below...

Vanished Persian Army Said Found in Desert
Bones, jewelry and weapons found in Egyptian desert may be the remains of Cambyses' army that vanished 2,500 years ago.
By Rossella Lorenzi - Sun Nov 8, 2009 10:30 PM ET

The remains of a mighty Persian army said to have drowned in the sands of the western Egyptian desert 2,500 years ago might have been finally located, solving one of archaeology's biggest outstanding mysteries, according to Italian researchers.

Bronze weapons, a silver bracelet, an earring and hundreds of human bones found in the vast desolate wilderness of the Sahara desert have raised hopes of finally finding the lost army of Persian King Cambyses II. The 50,000 warriors were said to be buried by a cataclysmic sandstorm in 525 B.C.

Click link for full article, video & pics:
Vanished Persian Army Said Found in Desert : Discovery News

Thanks,
Persey

[troung]

You are very well informed on Persian military history.
I was wondering if you know anything more on this story below...

A bit before my area, but what are you wondering?

=========
Corrections to my first post,

At Karnal it was light cavalry not mounted infantry who did the feigned retreat which lured in the Mughals. Nadir Shah defeated the Ottomans at Baghavard not Yeveran as stated above.

Other types of firearms in use would be blunderbuss style firearms which saw use with the cavalry (later some Durrani Ghulam heavy cavalry used them). Uzbek light cavalrymen would be armed with traditional weapons as well as pistols. The caracole (with firearms) was a popular tactic among their forces, though they did not face disciplined ranks of European style line infantry flanked by heavy cavalry.

[Persey]

I came across the article and found it very interesting. It drew my curiosity in the Cambyses' army that vanished 2,500 years ago.

I noticed how knowledgeable you are with Persian history and I was hoping you could enlighten me. I love how detailed you are with your posts.

No big deal, I can always go hunting for the info.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. :)