Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Immortals
#1
The Achaemenid infantry is mostly said to be a light force, equipped for missile attacks, which was also the reason why it lost against the Hellenic heavy infantry.

Because of that impression I have made an illustration displaying a Persian heavy infantryman. That image was mainly because of Marathon, where the Greek hoplites encountered an Achaemenid light infantry force. But this force was neither Persian nor the main force of the expedition army of Darius.
At that period Persian infantryman were only present in the Royal body guards regiment and were the core troops of garrisons across the empire, all other Persians were already cavalryman in that period. This is exactly what Xenophon reports and had seen with his own eyes, Herodotus on the other hand could only tell what the Greek soldiers saw.
The Greek soldiers could not tell about Persian core troops during the Persian wars, because they never had to fight with them, except for the Spartans and others at Thermopylae which didn't survive to tell about them. After Athens was taken and the Greek victory at sea, the Persian heavy infantry went back to Sardis with the King, leaving behind non-Persian light and heavy infantry. From that point the Immortals only reappear at Gaugamela if at all.

The infantry forces we see on the vases telling about Marathon, only show the ordinary Achaemenid infantry force, a force of mainly non-Persian, or even non-Iranic people (the largest part of Iranic people were cavalryman). In fact there would have been no Iranic infantry force worth to mention if the Persians didn't migrate into the Persis were no horses could be breed. Xenophon tells us that the Persians were the infantry force of their Mede cousins because their ruggedness gained due to the harsh life in the Zagros mountains. But once they had won their empire they switched to be a cavalry force like their ancestors, except for the Immortals.
The ordinary light infantry force of the Achaemenids was a force designed to attack the opponent with missiles and protect themselves against enemy missiles with large wickerwork shields. Once it came to close combat, these light infantry force would try to stop the enemy with their large shields and spears until the main force, namely the cavalry could outflank the enemy. This tactic worked against most people inside the empire, but it was of course less effective against the Hellenic heavy infantry. However to think that Darius encountered Phalanx warfare and hoplites just at Marathon, being totally surprised by it is wrong. This light infantry was effective if combined with the main force of the cavalry, however combine-arms tactics are also prone to errors.
Something went wrong at Marathon with this, at the time of Darius, standard warfare method. The problem is that Marathon became an example for the "light missile infantry force only" of the Achaemenids and the impression came into being that the whole Achaemenid military was based on the light infantry.

The Hellenic infantry force was of course stronger than the Persian since the Immortals were only a force of 10.000 man, but they were very well equipped, trained and had legacy of Cyrus' heavy Persian infantry force above them.


For that reason my illustration is as far as I know the first example of an Immortal heavy infantryman. Its based on Xenophons descriptions, Herodotus and several archaeological findings.



1: A Kyrbasia/Medo-Persian Hood is worn over an iron spangenhelm similar in design to the Scythian Kuban-type helmet. I have combined the spangenhelm technologie of two spangenhelms found around Sardis with the "Aryan" Kuban style. Such an, for it’s time, advanced helmet was chosen by me because of the high rank of the soldier; however the helmet is of course based on speculation. An iron-mask as described worn by the Achaemenid elite cavalry is possible for this high ranking infantry but nowhere reported.

2: A throat and neck protection is also used. A scale and leather variant made of iron. Examples for Persian infantry wearing such throat/neck protectors are shown on seals and also Xenophon reports of throat protection used already by the early Persians and Medians.

3: The cuirass is an corselet with scale armour made of iron. This type was used widely among Indo-Aryan groups. The side protection is made of leather, but scales are also possible.

4: As main weapon the spear and the large and heavy shield is used. Xenophon apparently said that this shield was the old and common shield of the Persian close combat troops. This type should have been the shield of the Immortals of the 6th and 5th century BC and is made of bronze and most likely a leather/wood combination. The spear is especially designed for the use with this shield type and has a counter weight mounted at its end to be used one handed inside the battle line while still being of a relatively large size. Its spearhead is made of iron and the "hooks" at its end seem to have been used only by the Immortals, or maybe only by the Golden Pomegranate-bearers which gives the form of the counterweight of the spear.

5: An Elamo-Persian long bow is also used, carried between the gap of the shoulder armour and the throat/neck protection. A Persian quiver is carried at the back. This weapon might have been put aside when it came to close combat, however the quick use of it by the rear lines would be possible and was common among Persians. As heavy armoured troops, the Immortals could also effectively fight battles at distance.


6: As very close combat weapons the battleaxe is used as the main weapon. Its blunt rear is useful against heavy armoured opponents. The battleaxe was a prestigious weapon for the Persians with its origin in their pre-migration cavalry past. As secondary weapon an akenakes short sword is worn, the typical weapon of Scytho-Iranics.

7: Extra protection is provided by leather forearm and shin/knee protectors. There is no evidence for this kind of protection; however it’s very likely for such a heavy armoured infantry. The Persians always wore trousers and tunics with sleeves; this would of course hide any of those protections.


Many of these details were only possible because this forum and certain members, thanks.


[Image: immortalcuirassierpublito5.jpg]
Bahram Ardavan-Dorood
Reply
#2
Having done a little gladiator exhibition as a retarius, those hooks can be used to pull an opponent's shield away from the body, and then quickly thrust inward between the shield and the body. The square part of the trident works that way, and the hooks would, too. They would also prevent the spear point from going deeper than the hook, so the spear would be less likely to bind up in the wounded enemy.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#3
You mean the Immortals didn't wear ugly silver masks and a pair of Japanese-looking swords across their backs? Have I been misled?
Pecunia non olet
Reply
#4
Quote:You mean the Immortals didn't wear ugly silver masks and a pair of Japanese-looking swords across their backs? Have I been misled?

No, John. THIS IS SPARTA!!!!
Virilis / Jyrki Halme
PHILODOX
Moderator
[Image: fectio.png]
Reply
#5
Persians did have hevy infantry.
Their tactisc were not developed arround it though.
An propably it was a slower evolution than in Greece.

They could maintain formation but they could not easily execute othismos. In Marathon it seems that spear armed Persians ans Sakas were at least 4 ranks deep like their oposing Atheninans and had initial success.

It seems that there was a lack of proficient spearfighting infantry in the Persian Army as the Thrmopylae showed in the 2 day fighting.
Carians, Lykians and Ionian Greeks who fought hoplite style were in the fleet fighting in Artemisium and did not fight the defenders of Thermopylae.

The weapon that Greeks dreaded was the "saggaris" the axe with the spike. It probaly caused the heavier casualties in the woods of Marathon where the hoplites could not fight as a Phalanx. It also aided the defnece of the ships. Kynageiros was probably killed when the spike of a saggaris was driven throuhg his helmet. Helmes with saggris marks exist in Olympia museum

Greek writers say tht Persians did not lack courage but they did not have the propr tactics. Perhaps because if you are the Persian king na have 25000 talents pe year you could hire ready trained hoplites.

It was not a question of having heavy infantry but if it was employed correctly which more often it was not
Plus it is very questionable if you use the shield with the scalops in othismos

Kind regards
Reply
#6
The drawing is great, but AFAIK the "Inmortals" did not exist but they were the product of a mistaken translation given to Herodotus. So, the related story that they were called so because their number was always kept at 10.000 is also fancy.
AKA Inaki
Reply
#7
@Comerus Gallus Romus

Thanks, this here is a prototype, so if there are suggestions for changes, everything is still possible Wink

@M. Demetrius

That idea with the shield is interesting! It might was designed to give the charge a stopping point in order not to lose it during the attack.

@john m roberts

Yeah, someone misunderstood the meaning of “Asiansâ€
Bahram Ardavan-Dorood
Reply
#8
That's a very interesting depiction and as far as I can tell seems more on the money than most or any other reconstruction I've seen of the anushiya soldier. The placement of the akinakes (with the cloth covering the handle) doesn't seem too convenient though, and perhaps in an updated version the white clothes can be replaced with a more flamboyant colour. Smile
[Image: parsiaqj0.png]
[size=92:7tw9zbc0]- Bonnie Lawson: proudly Manx.[/size]
Reply
#9
Quote:@Aryaman2

Yes I know that. However I think there was such a unit for some reasons. The number 10.000 was a fix one for the Royal bodyguards.
-They were indeed always held at full strength
-Immortality is an important component of Iranian mythology a common motive.
-Herodotus sources on this kind of information were pretty reliable.
I have to disagree with you, while there are titles that read "Commander of 10.000" that is basically an honourary title, while there is no Persian source that I know that talks about a Royal Guard of 10.000, nor that they were kept at that size of course, and certainly Herodotus is pretty unreliable on that kind of information.
AKA Inaki
Reply
#10
@Zenodoros

I might let the Akinakes free with the "skirt" pulled around it for a "battle configuration". I will also improve the quiver which now looks like as if it was drawn in a wrong perspective but actually is not because those quiver had a strange top. Additional motives and colours for the clothing are of course needed for the Persian appearance, but that's work for a final version. I wanted to have the basic layout published as soon as possible (that’s why I gave no attention to the quiver Wink ).

@Aryaman2

Xenophon reports the same and he had direct Persian sources or even documents for his works besides having been among Persians.

The Royal Guard was the last large infantry regiment made up by Persians (most likely together with Medians and Elamites). Persians switched to cavalry already at Cyrus the Grate’s regin.

The ...-patish titles were not only honour titles but fix parts of the Persian rank/command system.
It’s true that there are no Persian sources about the Immortals; however there are very few Persian sources about military left in general. Additionally to that there are also the Immortals of the Sasanians who could have been reusing that title.
Bahram Ardavan-Dorood
Reply
#11
Quote:
Artabanos:1l6c7d3s Wrote:@Aryaman2

Yes I know that. However I think there was such a unit for some reasons. The number 10.000 was a fix one for the Royal bodyguards.
-They were indeed always held at full strength
-Immortality is an important component of Iranian mythology a common motive.
-Herodotus sources on this kind of information were pretty reliable.
I have to disagree with you, while there are titles that read "Commander of 10.000" that is basically an honourary title, while there is no Persian source that I know that talks about a Royal Guard of 10.000, nor that they were kept at that size of course, and certainly Herodotus is pretty unreliable on that kind of information.
The trouble there is that we have very, very few Persian sources on the army. I think that the super-elite corps of 1,000 is well attested from Persepolis, as is an elite cavalry unit of 1,000 or 3,000 men. I think we can be quite confident that the imperial army had units with a nominal strength of 10,000 in its organization. To give just one example, when Eumenes reached Persis in the 320s BCE he called up first one myriad of light infantry and then another from the Persians.

And the Sassanids had a bodyguard unit of 10,000 'Immortals" although what they knew of the Achaemenids came through Greek history and vague oral tradition. All in all, I think an elite division of 10,000, possibly called something like "immortals" and possibly for the reason Herodotus suggests, could well have existed.

Artabanos, what is your source for the spearhead with hooks? I've never seen anything like it from the period in archaeological finds or art.

Your painting is very nice.
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.
Reply
#12
They can be seen in this thread posted by Laran:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... c&start=40

There is also a reconstruction of that but I couldn't find it quickly. Other evidences are not available but Herodotus mentions an elite unit, the direct body guards of the king carrying their spears with the tip pointed to the ground. The soldiers there must be this unit. It seems that only they carried this kind of spears and they way they carried it, seems to have been a prestige symbol, something typical for Iranics.

My Immortals is meant to represent this elite unit which seems to have been the Pomegranate-bearers.
Bahram Ardavan-Dorood
Reply
#13
Hello!

There is a problem with the sources concerning this unity (no clear iranian sources, and confusing greco-roman ones) but after all there is a problem with the traditional greek name of "Immortals" (greek, athanatoi).

It can be, following some iranists, simply a mistranslation of Herodotus or more likely, of his informer;
the old persian word for "Immortal" would be "anausha", and the word for "follower", "anushiya", so, the informant mixed the two words, and the elite unit would be simply the "followers (of the King)", the "loyal", most probably the iranian people in contrast with the other nations and peoples in persian army.
So it is posible that there would be no "immortals" at all never, and the tale of replacing men after they fell was a folktale-like history created after the greek name of "athanatoi". It makes sense, however, other iranists have also reservations about this theory.

But what is clear is that Nick Sekunda's hypothesis about the iranian name of the immortals ("amartaka") is absolutely wrong (for example, in his Osprey's book The Persian Army).

There is a nice plate of an "Immortal" in Duncan Head's Achaemenid Persian Army (montvert); he is depicted in campaign, wearing a scale cuirass (something like a linothorax), a tiara cap, troursers and sleeves with the design of one of the Susa's guardsmen. It looks great, is a mixture of greek vase-painting persians, Herodotus report and bricks from Susa.

Regards
"paraita karam hamiçiyam haya mana naiy gaubataiy avam jata"
"Go forth and crush that rebellious army, wich does not call itself mine!" King Darius at Behistun

Vishtaspa/Inyigo
Reply
#14
Quote:It can be, following some iranists, simply a mistranslation of Herodotus or more likely, of his informer;
the old persian word for "Immortal" would be "anausha", and the word for "follower", "anushiya", so, the informant mixed the two words, and the elite unit would be simply the "followers (of the King)", the "loyal", most probably the iranian people in contrast with the other nations and peoples in persian army.
So it is posible that there would be no "immortals" at all never, and the tale of replacing men after they fell was a folktale-like history created after the greek name of "athanatoi". It makes sense, however, other iranists have also reservations about this theory.

So the original name could have been 'Anushiya', which could then mean 'Companion'? Well, that's a name that is a normal one for the elite troops around any king, right? Makes sense.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#15
Yes, I think so, for me this idea of "loyal companions" makes sense.

in fact, the term "anushiya" (coming from "anu-", along, according to) is well attested in Old Persian corpus, not referring any special unit, but a loyal army.
For example, in Darius inscription at Behistun, II 95, "kara hayashay anushiya aha..." "...went forth with the army wich was faithful to him..)

anausha "immortal" is not attested directly in Old persian, but it is attested in Avestic (an old iranian dialect, very close to old persian) "anaosha". It is sure that this word can be reconstructed in Old persian, and the Herodotus mistranslation could occur.

However, iranist Ruediger Schmitt has reservations because the Herodotus's usage of the word "athanatos" is strange and not tipical greek (athanatos is often referred only to gods in greek.) But I dont see clear his argument.

Regards!
"paraita karam hamiçiyam haya mana naiy gaubataiy avam jata"
"Go forth and crush that rebellious army, wich does not call itself mine!" King Darius at Behistun

Vishtaspa/Inyigo
Reply


Forum Jump: