Mykale, a naval battle?

[PMBardunias]

If you jump around threads, you'll see there is a discussion of the late Roman "fulcum" going on. It has struck me how similar this is conceptually to the sparabara. In the fulcum, at least one incarnation, 2 or three ranks stack thier shields to form a single high shield-wall. Behind this missile troops shelter and shoot. The wall was mobile enough to advance .

[Sean Manning]

If you jump around threads, you'll see there is a discussion of the late Roman "fulcum" going on. It has struck me how similar this is conceptually to the sparabara. In the fulcum, at least one incarnation, 2 or three ranks stack thier shields to form a single high shield-wall. Behind this missile troops shelter and shoot. The wall was mobile enough to advance .

The mechanics may have been a fair bit different with the spara though. At least the rawhide-and-sticks design is lighter and less durable than a scutum. Based on those experiments I mentioned, a lot of their protection against arrows depends on an air gap between the shield and your body. Possibly the spara was specialized as a defense against arrows, although the Persians did fine against spearmen until the invasion of Greece.

Which men in a formation of sparabara carried bows, which spears, and which both to a major battle is fun to speculate about. I would expect that every man had both available, but beyond that who knows. If only we had a second source describing battles between sparabara and (Greek or non-Greek) hoplites ...

[Paullus Scipio]

Old Husker wrote:

I believe that this must have been the mode in which the front line or two in a normal Persian battle array fought most of the time, holding the shield with one hand (even if it's bottom were resting on the ground or even shallowly entrenched) and striking overhead with a spear.

That this was not the usual case is clearly shown by Herodotus (IX.103) words in regard to mykale:
"The Persians, so long as their line of shields/spara remained intact, successfully repelled all attacks..... ( the Spartans)....they burst through the line of shields, and then fell upon the enemy in a mass assault...".

c.f Plataea Herodotus (IX.61)" First there was a struggle at the barricade of shields; then, the barricade down, there was a bitter and protracted fight, hand to hand...."

This idea of fighting from behind a line/barrier of shields is also shown on a number of vase paintings such as the (now lost) 'bassegio cup', where a hoplite slays a fallen warrior behind whom is a propped-up spara/shield. (illustrated on p.19"The Persian Army" (Osprey) N. Sekunda.

I suspect that Paul B.'s illustration shows what happened after the line of shields was penetrated - individual 'spara' were snatched up as the fighting disintegrated into individual combat.....

[immortal]

Ive been away for a while, it’s nice to see some more posts on this.
It think, based on the Greek accounts it is clear that the Spara was not normally held while in combat. If you look at the Persian depictions of them, you will notice that the shield bearers all have very long spears, which were probably used with both hands. This can be seen on a few Persian cylider seals.
Also, bear in mind that the Persians were well aware of how Hoplites fought, they had been in contact with each other for hundreds of years. As Paul has pointed out, Hoplites did have trouble facing the Spara wall.

Every man would carry a bow. How many carried a spear? we cannot say. I would think it highly unlikely that every man would carry one. The Akinakes was all they had for personal defence.

It is also worth noting that that spears in the near east are usually thrown, not used in combat. Cavalry and archers made up the majority of near eastern armies. We know that the Median Kara raised units of spearmen, but what the term 'spearman' means in a near eastern context is not clear.

The Elamite army was the basis of the Persian army, not the Assyrian or Babylonian. The reliefs in the British museum are Assyrian, not Babylonian. The Assyrians record that the Elamites raised vast numbers of archers for their armies. There are tantalising references to 'shielded archers' and heavily armed and armoured archers.

[Old Husker]

I (and my fuzzy memory) stand corrected on the displays at the British museum being Assyrian rather than Babylonian, though I suspect that the Assyrian way of war was so dominant in its day that it did indeed color all later Middle Eastern systems including that of Babylon and Media/Persia. Indeed, Nick Sekunda explicitly made the Assyrian archer-pair to Persian sparabara connection in his piece in Hackett's Warfare in the Ancient World, p. 82), where he proposes that the Persians adjusted their ratio of shield-bearers to bowmen as needed to best match a given tactical situation. As for Herodotus' various references to shield walls/barricades, I believe that these are consistant with a barrier being held in place by hand. Frankly, a 'free-standing' row of propped spara would seem to make no sense at all once 'shock' fighting began. Given the hard data that Paul Bardunias has published on the great force applied by othismos from crowds, it seems clear that a shield wall not being actively held up by 'sparabara' would surely have fallen like a house of cards at its very first contact with Greek heavy infantry.

As for the Persian spear, it looks on displays from Susa (see the aforementioned Hackett text for a nice illustration of Arstibara or 'King's Spearbearers' on p. 83) to be slightly shorter than the Greek dory at perhaps 6-7 feet. Thus, it was almost certainly designed for use with one hand like the dory (of course, an unshielded man could have used two if desired, though undoubtedly a suicidal technique against a hoplite). Also, one of the Persian spear's most notable features is a round counter-weight opposite the 'business' end. These famously took the form of fruit cast from precious metals for the Immortals or Amrtaka, thus their nickname of 'apple-bearers'). While the equivalent Greek sauroter had potential as a back-up weapon in addition to its weight value, this Persian device seems to have been exclusively used to counter-balance the spear for a longer thrust, thus indicating that the spear was not primarily used as a missile.

[immortal]

I (and my fuzzy memory) stand corrected on the displays at the British museum being Assyrian rather than Babylonian, though I suspect that the Assyrian way of war was so dominant in its day that it did indeed colour all later Middle Eastern systems including that of Babylon and Media/Persia. Indeed, Nick Sekunda explicitly made the Assyrian archer-pair to Persian sparabara connection in his piece in Hackett's Warfare in the Ancient World, p. 82), where he proposes that the Persians adjusted their ratio of shield-bearers to bowmen as needed to best match a given tactical situation.

This is all speculation, there is no evidence that the Assyrian army did this, or that the Persian army did this. As I have said, the Persian army is based on the Elamite model. The Median army is based on the Skythian and Assyrian one. The Achaemenid force was based on a combination of the three, with its own styles mixed in.

As for Herodotus' various references to shield walls/barricades, I believe that these are consistent with a barrier being held in place by hand. Frankly, a 'free-standing' row of propped Spara would seem to make no sense at all once 'shock' fighting began. Given the hard data that Paul Bardunias has published on the great force applied by othismos from crowds, it seems clear that a shield wall not being actively held up by 'sparabara' would surely have fallen like a house of cards at its very first contact with Greek heavy infantry.

It’s quite clear from the language Herodotus is using that they were not held in place. A Spara with a prop, possibly rammed into the ground would be very sturdy. Also, Persian infantry was not intended for close combat, they were a ranged force primarily. Not wishing to get into it on this thread, but I don’t believe a word of the othismos theory, so this is not a factor.

As for the Persian spear, it looks on displays from Susa (see the aforementioned Hackett text for a nice illustration of Arstibara or 'King's Spear bearers' on p. 83) to be slightly shorter than the Greek dory at perhaps 6-7 feet. Thus, it was almost certainly designed for use with one hand like the dory (of course, an unshielded man could have used two if desired, though undoubtedly a suicidal technique against a hoplite). Also, one of the Persian spear's most notable features is a round counter-weight opposite the 'business' end. These famously took the form of fruit cast from precious metals for the Immortals or Amrtaka, thus their nickname of 'apple-bearers'). While the equivalent Greek sauroter had potential as a back-up weapon in addition to its weight value, this Persian device seems to have been exclusively used to counter-balance the spear for a longer thrust, thus indicating that the spear was not primarily used as a missile.

Look at Persepolis, not Susa (even better look at the picture I have posted in this thread!). There are no Sparabara at Susa. Also, look at the many Persian cylinders that have been found which depict combat. Long spears were used two handed on occasion.
First, not all Persian spears would have the 'Apples'. These are only mentioned as being used by the "Immortals" of dubious existence. Assyrian spears had a counter weight, but we know for a fact that they were thrown.

[Old Husker]

Sorry for the harsh reply. I retract it and humbly offer my apologies. - Fred

[PMBardunias]

Here is the Bassegio cup. It can be easily overlooked because its flat and we see it edge-on, but above the fallen Persian is the propped shield. Note the angle at which the shield is pitched.

Also, it is important to remeber when attampting to assign an immediate ancestor for the spara that spearmen with rectangular shields, close to man high have been known since Sumer.

[Paullus Scipio]

Fred/Old Husker wrote:

As for Herodotus' various references to shield walls/barricades, I believe that these are consistant with a barrier being held in place by hand.

I certainly don't think you can read Herodotus' very explicit descriptions as 'hand held', though it is certainly possible that if a close enough 'hoplite' was pushing or pulling at the 'spara/shield' barricade, then the Persian would seek to counter that.

Frankly, a 'free-standing' row of propped spara would seem to make no sense at all once 'shock' fighting began.

Don't forget that the Persian army, unlike the Greek Hoplites, was optimised to fight other 'missile' armies rather than for 'shock' fighting. Just consider how many of the 'allies/conquered peoples' that Herodotus describes were predominately bowmen. The most dangerous of Persia's foes were the steppe nomads - horse archers; and foot archers fighting from behind cover ( the barricade of 'spara/pavises')allowed the Persians to dominate an enemy that would have left Greek Hoplites helpless....consider the early days of the retreat of "The Ten Thousand". That such an army was vulnerable to 'shock action' was the lesson Xerxes took from his campaign in Greece.....though it should be remembered too that the Persians had met and overcome Hoplites of the Asian Greek city-states when conquering Anatolia.

Given the hard data that Paul Bardunias has published on the great force applied by othismos from crowds, it seems clear that a shield wall not being actively held up by 'sparabara' would surely have fallen like a house of cards at its very first contact with Greek heavy infantry

.
We are on dangerous ground here! I for one one would not like to see this thread 'hijacked' into yet another 'othismos' debate ( which is artificial anyway). Suffice to say that Paul B's theories on othismos may be seen as one end of a 'bell-shaped' curve of theories, with his crowd crushing extreme form of shoving, and Van Wees, with his loose order spear duelling, at the other. Personally I don't believe 'crowd mechanics' applies to normal 'hoplite' combat on the open battlefield, though it might in an unusual or extreme situation, such as street fighting, or fighting between walls. Your own work ( e.g. Table 4; Land Battles in 5 C BC Greece), despite the caution with which the data must be approached, demonstrates that othismos/shoving, whatever form it took was only a factor in a minority of battles between Hoplites.
It is clear from Herodotus' accounts that the 'spara/pavise' barricades did not collapse"like a house of cards" at first contact, and the reason is not hard to envisage.
Charging men, like charging horses, are not suicidal when faced with a solid obstacle, and charging Hoplites will generally have 'pulled up' at spear-thrust distance from the barricade, and an exchange of vicious spear thrusting taken place across it. Before the Hoplites could get close enough to either drag at the 'spara' ( which would involve temporarily abandoning spear), or could get close enough to hack through it with swords, or try to push it down with their 'aspides', they had to get past the the Persian spears, and maybe too once in close, Persian 'battle-axes/sagaris'. Not to mention arrows shot from point-blank range. The defenders had to be driven back, and that is what took the time Herodotus refers to.("First there was a struggle at the barricade of shields..." "so long as their as their line of spara remained intact, successfully repelled all attacks..." )

[PMBardunias]

Personally I don't believe 'crowd mechanics' applies to normal 'hoplite' combat on the open battlefield, though it might in an unusual or extreme situation, such as street fighting, or fighting between walls.

This is because you do not understand how crowds generate force and are "othismotic" in your resistance in my attempts educate you! :wink: But...

Charging men, like charging horses, are not suicidal when faced with a solid obstacle, and charging Hoplites will generally have 'pulled up' at spear-thrust distance from the barricade, and an exchange of vicious spear thrusting taken place across it. Before the Hoplites could get close enough to either drag at the 'spara' ( which would involve temporarily abandoning spear), or could get close enough to hack through it with swords, or try to push it down with their 'aspides', they had to get past the the Persian spears, and maybe too once in close, Persian 'battle-axes/sagaris'. Not to mention arrows shot from point-blank range. The defenders had to be driven back, and that is what took the time Herodotus refers to.("First there was a struggle at the barricade of shields..." "so long as their as their line of spara remained intact, successfully repelled all attacks..." )

This is exactly correct, and, incidentally, what my othismos model predicts. Because there is no running charge into othismos, there is an extended period of spear-fencing. This then transitions into othismos as front rankers come shield to shield and men crowd forward. It is important to note, for those who find it impossible that hoplites could not get past their enemy's array of spears that they obviously can. This battle is in fact an excellent example of such a progression. In Fred's defense, surely the Persian front rank did not just stand there while the hoplites pushed their shields over, but braced them from behind with their bodies.

Also, if that depiction above is accurate and the shield wall was set up at something like a 35-45 degree angle from vertical, this aids in stopping missiles, then pushing against it would be no easy task for a hoplite- more like falling onto it.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote:

In Fred's defense, surely the Persian front rank did not just stand there while the hoplites pushed their shields over, but braced them from behind with their bodies, probably more than one rank.

Yes, we are agreed here, and I said as much -
1. A spear-fight between the Hoplites and the Persians fighting from behind their spara/barricade at "spearlength distance"
2. If the Hoplites dominate the "spearfight" they close up to the barricade, and try to pull/push/hack it down, resisted by the Persians.
3. if the Hoplites succeeded in driving back the Persians, even a few feet, the barricade would be pushed/pulled down in some sections while elsewhere Persians would succeed in retaining the spara and picking them up, as in the vase illustration.

Obviously the essentially/mostly shieldless Persians ( see e.g. vases of Hoplites v shieldless Persians ) - even pelta equpped Takabara were then at a severe disadvantage....and their courage and fighting spirit at Mykale and Plataea and Marathon speaks volumes.....

[MeinPanzer]

Actually the size and shape of them is comletely different to the Persian Spara. The Sassainid ones are much smaller and have a pointed end. I cannot find a Achaemenid representation that has the same decoration?
This is a photo I took at Persepolis. Notice the lack of handle or any rawhide patterns (although it is possible this was painted on). The construction is much more simular to earlier Assyrian shields.
Persians did not wear chitons and we are told by Herodotus that they wore Egyptian style cuirasses, which again would have been Assyrian in style. We know that scaled skthian armour was worn though.

I would be interested if you could show me the handles depicted on Greek vases, and also the correct tiara.
Herodotus' mention that when the sheilds were knocked down suggests to me that they were propped up at this point in the battle.

Stephen, do you know of depictions of spara in Achaemenid Persian art other than this Persepolis relief? I ask because I cannot find any which come from Persian art. I only know of three other depictions from Greek vases.

Also, the clothing most Persians are shown wearing on Greek vases fits in quite well with Persian depictions of costume. The tiara, for instance, looks quite similar to examples shown on coins of the satraps of western Anatolia, on a silver statue of a high-ranking Persian (perhaps an officer), several representations of individuals from the Oxus hoard, and depictions from Achaemenid engraved gems. The long-sleeved tunics and slimmer trousers fit in quite well with these and other representations as well (e.g. the king's bow bearer from the audience chamber at Persepolis). All in all, the depiction of Persian costume, though oftentimes distorted or mixed up with the costume of other peoples, are usually quite similar to depictions of costume in Achaemenid art.

Ive had a look through Sekunda's Marathon book and I cant see a depiction of a handle on the Persian Spara. Just so you know, I am not saying it didn't exist.. I am just curious why it is not shown.
Ive finally found some colour photos of the Pazyryk shields.
These are 5th or 4th century BC in date and come from tombs that were rich in Iranian goods. It is interesting that the first shields decoration is Mesopotamian in Style.
Note that these to not have handles, but rawhide straps.

Yes, these are made the same way. No one is quite sure how they were used, but that is the common thought. The Dura ones are not much bigger...

Your right, it does look like his other arm is going behind the shield. I had not noticed that before to be honest.
Im starting to think that the decoration we see on the surviving shields may have been painted onto the relief. The Persepolis Spara has a curios band running across the top and bottom. This may be a horizontal stick like the ones on the other bigger Pazyryk shields (I am frustrated I cannot find photos of these!). These other shields also had a curved upper edge. I will concede that there is definitely evidence of this method being in use for 1000 years, I was hasty in saying you could not use the Dura ones as evidence.
I stand by my statement regarding Greek depictions though!

The Pazyryk burials, and by extension the shields found within them, are in general now considered later, probably later 4th or even 3rd c. BC, based on new assessments of Pazyryk chronology, and they can hardly be said to be "rich in Iranian goods" - a handful items show Achaemenid influence, and the only item that can actually be identified as an Achaemenid import is the famous pile carpet. Dozens of sparae have by now been found in the Pazyryk region, ranging quite a bit in size and from square to rectangular to rectagular with a rounded top edge in shape. It is known from a 5th-3rd c. BC depiction from Mongolia and a 3rd c. AD Gandharan relief that these were normally held in the hand by cavalrymen, though we can speculate that they may have been employed by being strapped to the arm as well. Two other depictions, one, ambiguous in date but probably dating to the last centuries BC, from the Caucasus, and the other a Palmyran relief, show infantrymen carrying small shields of this type in their hands, so it seems likely that they were carried. However, these are all much smaller than the Achaemenid sparae, and we still must rely on the one depiction of an individual carrying one, from the "Oxford Brygos cup" battle scene already posted in this thread.

[immortal]

Hello Ruben,

Some of the metal wear (as far as I am aware) and at least one of the saddle cloths is either Iranian, or at least is decorated in Iranian style. The saddle cloth in particular actually has Persian's in Elamite robes on it! I am aware of the date of the Pazyryk burials. Was the Achaemenid empire still not in power in the 4th century? Im not trying to say that the shields are of Iranian manufacture, but that the construction methods are the same.
We have already talked about them being different sizes and being used in a different manner to the Persian spara, this is not what I am interested in, it is the construction that is relevant.
I only know of the apparent Sparabara at Persepolis. Unfortunately the Achaemenids did not celebrate war in art in the same was as their predecessors. I think the Greek depiction of the propped up Spara is by far the most interesting.

Also, the clothing most Persians are shown wearing on Greek vases fits in quite well with Persian depictions of costume. The tiara, for instance, looks quite similar to examples shown on coins of the satraps of western Anatolia, on a silver statue of a high-ranking Persian (perhaps an officer), several representations of individuals from the Oxus hoard, and depictions from Achaemenid engraved gems. The long-sleeved tunics and slimmer trousers fit in quite well with these and other representations as well (e.g. the king's bow bearer from the audience chamber at Persepolis). All in all, the depiction of Persian costume, though oftentimes distorted or mixed up with the costume of other peoples, are usually quite similar to depictions of costume in Achaemenid art.

This is the problem, Western Anatolians are not Persian. There are a few in Greek art that look similar, but none look exact. Use the Persepolis and other actual Iranian depictions as a guide. The Oxus hoard depicts many different styles of dress, a few of which are thought to be Persian.
Long sleeves on the tunics, yes they match. But where is the actual tunic? this should extend to the knee. Which is doesn't on a single Greek depiction.
Leggings are the right tightness, but as I have discussed extensively in another thread, they did not wear trousers. They wore hoes, or long socks.
The thing I am trying to get at is, how do we know they are even trying to depict a Persian? they may be Anatolian, Skythian or some other nationality.

[MeinPanzer]

Hello Ruben,

Some of the metal wear (as far as I am aware) and at least one of the saddle cloths is either Iranian, or at least is decorated in Iranian style. The saddle cloth in particular actually has Persian's in Elamite robes on it!

Next to no metal objects were found in the Pazyryk burials, and nothing Iranian - the only non-textile objects which reflect Achaemenid influence are a few carved heads which look a lot like Bes, and are thought to have been transmitted from Egypt through the empire to the east. Other than that, there is the pile carpet and one shabraque with depictions of Iranians, and then a wall hanging and a few bits of textile which were resewn into shabraques which show signs of Achaemenid influence.

I am aware of the date of the Pazyryk burials. Was the Achaemenid empire still not in power in the 4th century? Im not trying to say that the shields are of Iranian manufacture, but that the construction methods are the same.

If the newer assessment of the burials' dates are correct, then the Achaemenid empire wasn't still in power when they were filled, as they likely date to the late 4th or early 3rd c. BC. Construction methods clearly are very similar, however.

We have already talked about them being different sizes and being used in a different manner to the Persian spara, this is not what I am interested in, it is the construction that is relevant.

I am only pointing out that there are a few sources which attest to this type of shield being carried, while you stated before that we don't know how such shields were employed.

This is the problem, Western Anatolians are not Persian. There are a few in Greek art that look similar, but none look exact. Use the Persepolis and other actual Iranian depictions as a guide. The Oxus hoard depicts many different styles of dress, a few of which are thought to be Persian.
Long sleeves on the tunics, yes they match. But where is the actual tunic? this should extend to the knee. Which is doesn't on a single Greek depiction.
Leggings are the right tightness, but as I have discussed extensively in another thread, they did not wear trousers. They wore hoes, or long socks.
The thing I am trying to get at is, how do we know they are even trying to depict a Persian? they may be Anatolian, Skythian or some other nationality.

One source I mentioned was Anatolian, and those coins only show the tiara, which is clearly shown elsewhere as well - and they are relevant anyway, since they clearly show the satraps wearing Persian tiara to assert their legitimacy. But again, you point to Iranian depictions, but how many Iranian depictions of Persian infantry do we have which give a good idea of the costume worn in combat? There is actually a source I forgot about which is helpful, though: the Munich painted battle scenes. These show numerous horsemen who are quite clearly shown wearing short tunics (reaching only to the waist) and tight trousers (not leggings, since shoes are painted in a different colour), as well as tiaras, all of which match the Greek depictions of Achaemenid cavalry and infantry exactly. And there are several depictions of Persians wearing knee-length long-sleeved tunics on Greek vases: I can find one from a Tanagra lecythus dating to c. 460 BC; two on a red figure oinochoe, c. 450 BC; one on an oinochoe from Bologna, 5th c. BC; and two on an Attic pelice, early 4th c. BC.

You're right that sometimes it can be unclear which nationality in particular Greeks are trying to depict, but when, for instance, the scene can be linked to a historical event - such as the Eurymedon vase - there can be no doubt that many of these figures were intended to be Persians. And we know that only high-ranking officials like satraps wore the tiara in Anatolia, and so the rank-and-file troops depicted are almost certainly not Anatolians. While it's clear that Greek artists could distort details and did not create photographic reproductions of the peoples they encountered in their art, I see no reason to doubt many of the depictions, especially with regards to unusual pieces of military equipment, like the gorytus, which was quite carefully reproduced in Greek art, and the spara.

[immortal]

Ive obviously been misinformed about the Pazyryk burials, thanks for correcting me.
There are quite a few Iranian depictions of combat, although they mainly depict the king or cavalry. These are usually on wax seals, so they are open to interpretation.
Many of the Medes at Persepolis are carrying weapons and shields, so it is reasonable to assume they probably reflect combat clothing (armour was often worn under the tunic).

Im friends with the publisher of the Munich scenes. They don’t depict Persians, again, they are Anatolians. The reason that they match 'Persians' in Greek art is that Anatolians would be familiar to many Greeks and would look sufficiently 'foreign' or Persian to use as a guide. They may be wearing trousers or leggings, shoes were worn with each so the fact that they are a different colour doesn't really prove anything. Trousers were more common in this area though as there is more of a Skythian influence in the dress (which is why the tunics are not so long).
I don't think that it is proven that the tiara was only worn by nobility in Anatolia? What about Persian garrison troops or Phrygians and Bythinians?

The gorytus would not be unusual to many Greek artists, Skythians worked in Greece and there were even Skythian artists in Greece. Again, Spara are very likely to have been taken as trophies, so it is not unlikely that a Greek artist would have seen one. Im sure if an artist was asked to paint a Persian, it was possible for him to check out what Persian items were dedicated at the local temple that he could use as reference?