Sassanid infantry were ranked as second in status to the savaran cavalry. Infantry did form a significant proportion of the Sassanid army.
There appear to have been three distinct types of infantry: paighan; archers and light infantry.
Paighan (essentially foot-soldiers) is not a precise defined term. It could refer to a peasant pressed into service or a professional infantryman. Paighan are however distinguished from the peasants pressed into service to handle baggage, in sieges etc.
Secondary sources describe paighan as equipped with spear and shield, although it is often unclear on what primary source or archaeology they have used to make this conclusion. Other weapons mentioned by secondary sources include swords, daggers and maces.
The remains of a Sassanid soldier excavated at Dura-Europos wore a short-sleeved mail garment, carried a rectangular shield and wore a two-piece riveted ridge helmet.
Kaveh Farrokh in his book "Armies of Ancient Persia - The Sassanians" claims Ammianus Marcellinus describes Sassanid infantry at the time of Julian's invasion in 363 CE. "Their infantry are armed like Murmillos and are as obedient as grooms." - (Unfortunately I cannot find this quote Farrokh cites Wieskopf J 1990 - a German book translated into English. Elsewhere Ammianus describes Romans as "defending themselves like Murmillos). Assuming the quote is accurate, Ammianus wrote this about 20 years after the events, so can be given credence.
The obedient as grooms suggest they were well disciplined but possibly lacking initiative. The Murmillo was a gladiator equipped with a gladius, a rectangular shield, a large leather belt, segmented or scale armour, a large helmet and shin guards. This implies a fairly heavily armoured infantryman. A sword, helmet and rectangular shield would seem to be the minimum to fit the description.
At the Battle of Ctesiphon 363 CE, Ammianus describes the Sassanid infantry drawn up behind the cavalry as "companies of infantry, protected by oblong, curved shields covered with wickerwork and raw hides,... in very close order" (24.6.
. After a days fighting, the Sassanid first line was beaten and the army, with the infantry, fled. I think this tells us little about the fighting ability of the Sassanid infantry.
As well as the term "Paighan", another term "neyze-daran" is used to describe Sassanid infantry. This apparently translates as "foot spearmen". There is no indication whether the foot threw their spears or fought with them in close combat.
The Sassanids made extensive use of walls and fortifications to defend their frontiers. These defences would have needed substantial forces. The Sassanid army was also very adept at siege warfare. Both are reasons for maintaining effective infantry forces.
In wargaming terms, Sassanid infantry has generally been classified as just levies. This dates back to early WRG army lists (remember Irregular D?) and doesn't really seem to have been challenged much.
From an army list perspective it then comes down to how the Sassanid infantry should be classified. They clearly are competent infantry but were beaten by the Romans (but who wasn't!). A Sassanid Persian army should still be primarily a cavalry army, but it could mobilise infantry as well.
I'll do a separate post on the Daylamite infantry, used from at least the time of Khosrow I (530 CE onwards).
Richard
