Hail Caesar - Sassanid List Infantry Limits?

[Wellington]

Hello!

I noticed that in the Sassanid list in the "Army Lists - Late Antiquity to Early Medieval" both the limits for Cavalry and Intantry are 50%+ Are there any errata?

Cheers

Wellington

[Wiegraf]

I believe it is an error. There are a number of them in the biblical - classical army lists as well. As for an errata I don't think any were released. Hope I'm wrong as I'd like one too.

You could simply say, that 50% / 50% cav and infantry are the rules

[williamb]

The 50% cavalry limit isn't correct.   Although there is no official errata.   At the battle of Maranga 363 AD the first line was cataphracts with heavily armored horse archers on their flanks and elephants in the second line.  No mention of infantry.    The 50% infantry limit is probably close as infantry formed the second of their three lines at the preceding battle of Tigris

[Johnp4000]

The only errata , I have seen for the lists, was for a corrected Han Chinese list. I assume that is a misprint and should read Cavalry 50% + and up to 50% for the Infantry?

[williamb]

The only errata , I have seen for the lists, was for a corrected Han Chinese list. I assume that is a misprint and should read Cavalry 50% + and up to 50% for the Infantry?

Agree 100%.  What I meant to say in my post.

[Shahbahraz]

Yep, some later forces were clearly all mounted. And there is often confusion between peasants brought along to dig at sieges and actual infantry.

[Wellington]

thanks for your input.

After comparing the list with other sassanid lists from other systems and with other HC list, my theory is that it should be 50%+ of infantry should be non skirmischer infantry.

No real proof, but makes most sense to me.

[jaytee]

As nobody knows, and the list is pure guesswork, why worry about the list at all?

[Shahbahraz]

As nobody knows, and the list is pure guesswork, why worry about the list at all?

It isn't. There's a lot of work been done since the 1960's when only Roman sources were used. We now have access to Armenian, Syriac and other accounts usefully collected in source books. There's been a lot of work also done by Iranian historians.   

[delbruck]

I asked about this many years ago either on TMP or the Warlord forum. There was a response from the author, but I don't recall the answer - other than acknowledging the lack of errata. Personally, overall l suspect the Sassanid army was 2/3 infantry 1/3 cavalry, but that in some battles (based on Byzantine sources) armies could be 100% cavalry.

[Shahbahraz]

I asked about this many years ago either on TMP or the Warlord forum. There was a response from the author, but I don't recall the answer - other than acknowledging the lack of errata. Personally, overall l suspect the Sassanid army was 2/3 infantry 1/3 cavalry, but that in some battles (based on Byzantine sources) armies could be 100% cavalry.

It's confusing because the primary sources often reference archers without specifying foot or mounted. We do know there were centrally raised foot archers (and other infantry) posted to fortifications. It's also complicated by the organisation into quarters. Most wargamers views of the Sasanians are coloured by the WRG lists that are now very dated and superseded by later scholarship, such as the misinterpretation of the globe hats, the chained infantry and the over trousers for example.

[Wellington]

Indeed there are new books about the Sasssanids with a Iranian view instead of the Roman one.

I have a good feeling about the FOG Lists and use them a a reference if I have doubts with list from WAB or Hail Caesar.

The view that Sassanid infantry are only levies and worthless in combat is now completly outdated! 

[Codsticker]

Indeed there are new books about the Sasssanids with a Iranian view instead of the Roman one.

That sounds interesting- I'd like to know more! All I have is the Osprey book...

[Shahbahraz]

That sounds interesting- I'd like to know more! All I have is the Osprey book...

Just Google 'books by kaveh farrokh'  - although my personal view is that without access to his sources it's very difficult to evaluate the conclusions he draws. Unfortunately, the whole question of 'how large was the Sasanian Empire' or 'how effective and sophisticated were Sasanian troops' has become a bit of a political hot potato.

My own view is that in some respects the Sasanians were more advanced than the Romano-Byzantines, (Glassware, quality steel etc), but in others less so, and that innovation in military technologies flowed across the border, largely from Persia to Rome. What's also significant militarily is the very different population pools that could be drawn on. 

[Jericho]

You can always look on Academia.

I use it a lot for researching. Though it can be difficult to navigate on with the specific tags
and you might need to register on the site (for free).

A quick search brought this to light, by aforementioned Kaveh Farrokh:

A Synopsis of Sasanian Military Organization and Combat Units

I do want to say I have some reservations with Farrokh himself. Being an Iranian and proud of the Persian heritage he seems to be a tad biased in its favour (like they could do no wrong). And when a fellow researcher is more critical on Persian matters he gets rather defensive about it.
You can find some examples of this on his own site under the 'historical revisionism' tag.
In all, his work is of course valuable but you do need to take it with a pinch of salt, in my opinion.