01-13-2008, 06:38 PM
I was playing around with a copy of Herodotus and taking some notes when this leaped out and I had to write it up. Comments and criticism would be appreciated.
Readers of Herodotus' account of Xerxes' invasion of Greece are struck by a contradiction. On one hand he mentions the many races in the Persian army, including numerous half-armed skirmishers, but on the other hand his battle descriptions focus on troops from a few peoples. Most of these troops are sparabara, men armed with bows, spears, and sidearms and protected by tall wicker shields and some armour. Sparabara fought in formation and stood up to attacks rather than evading them, so they must be considered heavy infantry. The best-informed scholars have generally assumed that sparabara were the mainstay of the Persian army. But generally the balance between heavy and light troops is hard to measure, as is the balance between Medes and Persians and other troops. However, Herodotus gives us information that lets us estimate the proportions of different troops in the Persian army at Plataea in 479 BCE.
After his naval defeat at Salamis Xerxes King of Kings had left Greece in charge of Mardonius, with the best of the invading troops and those of his new Greek subjects. We do not know how strong this force was. We can throw out Herodotus' claim that there were 300,000 barbarian troops and perhaps 50,000 Medized Greeks in the imperial army. Among other reasons, the stockaded camp they built would fit no more than 120,000 men, some of whom would be noncombatants, and Herodotus gives no breakdown of these troops into individual contingents. However, Herodotus is better informed about the opposing Greek forces. Herodotus tells us that there were 38,700 free Greek hoplites, and 69,500 light armed. The second figure looks inflated, and the Greek light troops did not form part of their main battle line. However, the figures for hoplites in the coalition army is precise and plausable and based on the total strengths of twenty individual contingents. It may be somewhat optimistic, but each city had several neighbours ready to denounce it if it sent less men than it had agreed. We get the impression that the Persian line was not significantly longer than the Greek, and are told explicitly that the main Greek and Persian lines consisted of infantry only.
During the campaign of Plataeae both armies spent many days lined up opposite each other trying to lure their opponents to advance and fight on unfavourable ground. Herodotus tells us the strengths of the independent Greek contingents, and which units on each side faced each other. I have summed up these strengths. The Persians faced 11,500 independent Greek hoplites, the Medes 8,900 hoplites, the Bactrians 3,400 hoplites, the Indians 1,300 hoplites, the Saca 2,000 hoplites, and the Medized Greeks 11,600 hoplites. This is confirmed by Herodotus' statement (8.113) that the Persians were the most numerous contingent, with the Medes about as strong in numbers. He mentions that a few troops from other peoples are included in the above totals, but apparently their numbers were much smaller than any of the 'big five' contingents and some must have fought in front of the main line. These numbers need to be multiplied by some factor depending on the relative strengths of the Greek and Persian armies, but they tell us clearly that most of the non-Greek troops were Medes and Persians. The Bactrian, Saca, and Indian infantry fought as unshielded archers and should be considered light infantry. I see no reason to believe that the mix of troop types was much different in the original invading army, since many Persians went home along with most of the troops from the smaller contingents.
Unfortunately, we have no evidence for the strengths of different cavalry contingents. Herodotus does suggest that the only ethnic Persian cavalry present were the elite regiment of 1,000 horse. He also mentions a substantial force of Boeotian and Thessalian cavalry. I expect that Bactrian and Saca cavalry formed a larger propotion of the cavalry force than they did of the infantry since these regions produced many excellent horsemen. Based on other ancient armies, I would estimate that the Persian cavalry strength was about 10-20% of their infantry force. But we don't know how many infantry were in either army.
These numbers explain the emphasis on sparabara in Herodotus' accounts of battles in the Persian War. The unshielded archers and skirmishers who fill out his lists of peoples were only a small proportion of this army. And two thirds of the invading infantry were heavy infantry. The idea is not new (eg. Pierre Briant suggests that most of the satrapal contingents were very small or left behind in Asia), but I believe this argument is. This evidence also confirms that Persis could support several tens of thousands of soldiers.
Incidentally, Herodotus also says (8.113) that this was all the Medes, Saca, Indians, and Bactrians from the original invading army. People playing the game of guessing the strength of Xerxes' invasion force may want to consider this.
This essay is, of course, copyright Sean Manning 2008
Readers of Herodotus' account of Xerxes' invasion of Greece are struck by a contradiction. On one hand he mentions the many races in the Persian army, including numerous half-armed skirmishers, but on the other hand his battle descriptions focus on troops from a few peoples. Most of these troops are sparabara, men armed with bows, spears, and sidearms and protected by tall wicker shields and some armour. Sparabara fought in formation and stood up to attacks rather than evading them, so they must be considered heavy infantry. The best-informed scholars have generally assumed that sparabara were the mainstay of the Persian army. But generally the balance between heavy and light troops is hard to measure, as is the balance between Medes and Persians and other troops. However, Herodotus gives us information that lets us estimate the proportions of different troops in the Persian army at Plataea in 479 BCE.
After his naval defeat at Salamis Xerxes King of Kings had left Greece in charge of Mardonius, with the best of the invading troops and those of his new Greek subjects. We do not know how strong this force was. We can throw out Herodotus' claim that there were 300,000 barbarian troops and perhaps 50,000 Medized Greeks in the imperial army. Among other reasons, the stockaded camp they built would fit no more than 120,000 men, some of whom would be noncombatants, and Herodotus gives no breakdown of these troops into individual contingents. However, Herodotus is better informed about the opposing Greek forces. Herodotus tells us that there were 38,700 free Greek hoplites, and 69,500 light armed. The second figure looks inflated, and the Greek light troops did not form part of their main battle line. However, the figures for hoplites in the coalition army is precise and plausable and based on the total strengths of twenty individual contingents. It may be somewhat optimistic, but each city had several neighbours ready to denounce it if it sent less men than it had agreed. We get the impression that the Persian line was not significantly longer than the Greek, and are told explicitly that the main Greek and Persian lines consisted of infantry only.
During the campaign of Plataeae both armies spent many days lined up opposite each other trying to lure their opponents to advance and fight on unfavourable ground. Herodotus tells us the strengths of the independent Greek contingents, and which units on each side faced each other. I have summed up these strengths. The Persians faced 11,500 independent Greek hoplites, the Medes 8,900 hoplites, the Bactrians 3,400 hoplites, the Indians 1,300 hoplites, the Saca 2,000 hoplites, and the Medized Greeks 11,600 hoplites. This is confirmed by Herodotus' statement (8.113) that the Persians were the most numerous contingent, with the Medes about as strong in numbers. He mentions that a few troops from other peoples are included in the above totals, but apparently their numbers were much smaller than any of the 'big five' contingents and some must have fought in front of the main line. These numbers need to be multiplied by some factor depending on the relative strengths of the Greek and Persian armies, but they tell us clearly that most of the non-Greek troops were Medes and Persians. The Bactrian, Saca, and Indian infantry fought as unshielded archers and should be considered light infantry. I see no reason to believe that the mix of troop types was much different in the original invading army, since many Persians went home along with most of the troops from the smaller contingents.
Unfortunately, we have no evidence for the strengths of different cavalry contingents. Herodotus does suggest that the only ethnic Persian cavalry present were the elite regiment of 1,000 horse. He also mentions a substantial force of Boeotian and Thessalian cavalry. I expect that Bactrian and Saca cavalry formed a larger propotion of the cavalry force than they did of the infantry since these regions produced many excellent horsemen. Based on other ancient armies, I would estimate that the Persian cavalry strength was about 10-20% of their infantry force. But we don't know how many infantry were in either army.
These numbers explain the emphasis on sparabara in Herodotus' accounts of battles in the Persian War. The unshielded archers and skirmishers who fill out his lists of peoples were only a small proportion of this army. And two thirds of the invading infantry were heavy infantry. The idea is not new (eg. Pierre Briant suggests that most of the satrapal contingents were very small or left behind in Asia), but I believe this argument is. This evidence also confirms that Persis could support several tens of thousands of soldiers.
Incidentally, Herodotus also says (8.113) that this was all the Medes, Saca, Indians, and Bactrians from the original invading army. People playing the game of guessing the strength of Xerxes' invasion force may want to consider this.
This essay is, of course, copyright Sean Manning 2008
Nullis in verba
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
