Quote:RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT!!!
They were inferior to the cavalry but not as bad as most of classical authors describe. Or at least not always they were like this.
Paighan, if I am correct means "footmen" so it does not necessarily mean "peasant militia". It means generally infantry.
IIRC in the Shahname are a late Sassanian battle order and tactics described, that ferocious infantry charges were up to break up the enemy`s formation.
In Theophanes` report of the Battle of Nineveh (626 AD) (Theoph. A.M. 6118) is described that Heraclius`s horse was wounded by footsoldiers` weapons. That Sassanian infantry were capable in breaking up the Byzantine formation and could directly attack the emperor speaks of their battle acumen.
IMHO the Sassanians could recruit excellent infantry among many of their subjects and allied people. As the Arabs, the people of Afghanistan, Sughdia, Daylam, Tabaristan, Albania, Armenia, Iberia, Khurasan, Bactria, Kurds, Medes, India, Khwarazm and Transoxania.
Maybe we have gotten somewhat confused about the true importance of Sassanian infantry because most reports (especially those of the Byzantine-Sassanian Wars) tell us that in the battles only the Sassanian cavalry fought (for example at Dara 530AD) and when the cavalry was defeated the infantry fled. However, I think most of the Sassanian infantry forces at Dara were Paighan, supposed to do the siege-working. They were not supposed to fight direct confrontations with heavy enemy infantry nor cavalry.
Due the Paighan, you are correct about the meaning of.
IMHO I call so the levy peasant infantry. However I do not believe that they were just of cannon fodder quality, I think even in peace these armed people were responsible for most of the general maintaining of civil order. Therefore I called them “militia”.
The other, more professional foot soldiers could have belonged to the warrior caste, could have not they?