04-08-2005, 04:24 AM
The primary Persian infantry type was a composite formation. There was a front line of men with large wicker shields and short spears. The shield was called a spara and the troops were sparabara. They served to defend the lines of archers behind them.
The key of Persian success seems not to have been the bow itself, but the use of massed archers. Attacking against a force with 10% archers would be harassed by the arrows. If the defenders are 90% archers, those arrows are going to cause a lot more trouble. The Persians do not seem to have relied on the infantry as the arm of decision, but rather their cavalry.
Later, it seems the Persians tried a new type, similar to a Greek peltast, called the takabara. Their shield was of moderate size, and they had several javelins / spears.
Neither type was really able to stand up to a Greek, let alone a Macedonian, phalanx. The sparabara could hold their own as long as their wall of large shields held; but once broken, they had no backup, nor armour to protect them from Greek spears and swords.
The key of Persian success seems not to have been the bow itself, but the use of massed archers. Attacking against a force with 10% archers would be harassed by the arrows. If the defenders are 90% archers, those arrows are going to cause a lot more trouble. The Persians do not seem to have relied on the infantry as the arm of decision, but rather their cavalry.
Later, it seems the Persians tried a new type, similar to a Greek peltast, called the takabara. Their shield was of moderate size, and they had several javelins / spears.
Neither type was really able to stand up to a Greek, let alone a Macedonian, phalanx. The sparabara could hold their own as long as their wall of large shields held; but once broken, they had no backup, nor armour to protect them from Greek spears and swords.
Felix Wang
