PERSIAN CAVALRY
The Persians rose as a power as several Persian and Iranian groups, in what is today south central Iran, were united under Cyrus II—also known as Cyrus the Great. Cyrus began a series of conquests that ultimately established the kings of Persia as uncontested rulers of what is today the greater Middle East. In 550 BC he conquered the Medes and displaced them as the heirs of the Assyrians. Babylonia, Lydia, and Egypt all fell to Cyrus and his son, Cambyses. A general, Darius I, replaced Cambyses who died while traveling from Egypt to Persia in 522 BC. After consolidating his rule in 516 BC, Darius launched an expedition against the Scythians as part of an overall strategy to deny grain to the Greek city-states that were supporting revolt in Anatolia. Though Darius’s expedition failed, the Persians retained the bridgehead in Europe for future operations against the Greeks.1
Cavalry was the center of the Persian army, a tradition inherited from the Assyrians and the steppe horsemen from across the Caucasus Mountains. The proportion and numbers of cavalry in the army clearly reflected that it was the dominant arm within the Persian military system. At the battle of Plataea the Persian army, under Mardonius, numbered 50,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry.2 Later Persian armies fighting Alexander also fielded large cavalry formations: At Issus, the Persians fielded 30,000 cavalry; at Guagamela, the Persian cavalry numbered over 40,000.3 In its battles with the Greeks and Macedonians, the Persian cavalry showed itself to be a competent and dangerous foe.
The Persian cavalry was a major factor in the army’s ability to rapidly conquer its adversaries in the Middle East. All-purpose cavalry—equipped with bow, javelin, and light armor—were ideally suited not only for campaigning across the vast open spaces of the Middle East but also for maintaining control over the various cities, lands, and peoples once conquered. Relatively small cavalry detachments were capable of controlling large swathes of ground. They were an ideal garrison and police force for the empire. They were fast, allowing them to concentrate rapidly at hot spots within the empire’s interior, and they were capable of fighting with some effect dismounted. However, as the Persians attempted to expand into Europe to gain control of the Greek city-states, the Persian military system and its cavalry failed.
Two factors stymied Persian bow- and spear-armed cavalry as the Persians advanced into Greece. The first was the terrain. The rocky, mountainous lands of Greece diminished the ability of cavalry to maneuver at the operational and at the tactical level. At the operational level, the terrain limited the avenues of advance for the large cavalry forces of the Persian army toward any particular Greek city. The Greeks could accurately predict the approach route of the Persians and position an army to intercept. At the lower tactical levels of war, the rough terrain allowed the Greek armies to fight at locations where their flanks were tied in to natural obstacles—typically rivers or steep mountain sides. By completely covering these vulnerable areas, the Greeks eliminated the possibility of cavalry flanking maneuvers that were lethal to infantry battling in more open terrain.
The other factor that frustrated the Persian cavalry was the Greek foot soldier. The hoplite, a disciplined, heavily armored, infantryman, wore a full, face-covering helmet, body armor, greaves on his legs, and carried a large shield. They fought in a phalanx: soldiers stood shoulder to shoulder in deep ranks, each man’s shielded left arm protecting not only him but also the right side of the man to his left. The two areas of vulnerability to the phalanx were its rear and flanks, but an experienced commander would ensure that the battle terrain minimized attack from these angles. One shortcoming of the hoplite phalanx was that it was not very maneuverable— especially over rough or broken terrain—and it was slow. Despite this, the armor, protective formation, and discipline of the hoplites enabled the Greek infantry to withstand a prolonged attack by archers and made them virtually impervious to attack from the front by cavalry or from less well protected and disciplined infantry.4
Persian Horses
The Persians ran a relatively efficient military system. Integral to this system was their ability to mount tens of thousands of cavalry and keep them supplied in the field for months of campaigning. This required an effective remount supply network. A by-product of the Persian logistics system was the emergence of a systematic horse breeding and procurement program that established at least three identifiable horse types, two of which relate to modern-day breeds.
There were several sources of remounts for the Persian army, and the remount system of the Persians was a model for all armies of the ancient world. The vassal and allied lands were the first source of horses. These kingdoms and domains, Media (Iraq and Iran), Egypt, Bactria (Afghanistan), and Urartu (Armenia), not only provided mounted contingents to the Persian army but also provided an allocation of remount horses. They inherited this traditional tribute relationship from the Assyrians. Horses, particularly well bred and broken ones, were an extremely valuable commodity in the ancient world; the subject territory paid a portion of its annual tribute, or tax, in the medium of horseflesh. This levy was particularly important when the territory could produce horses of equal or finer quality than the Persians.5
A second, although less reliable, source for horses was the battlefield. The victorious side in most ancient battles retained control of the field, holding dominion over discarded weapons and loose mounts. Given that the cavalrymen rode without saddles it was common for riders to become unhorsed during combat. Thus the winning side stood to gain a significant bounty in trained cavalry horses. The lure of this type of valuable plunder was a major incentive for the individual warrior. Rounding up, sorting, and distributing captured horses was a regular task after a battle.
Another means of obtaining horses was through trade. Horse traders often worked as middlemen between kingdoms that had, at least temporarily, good relations. Officials would specify their horse requirements and negotiate a price. The horse trader, with his assistants, would travel to an area such as Scythia or Bactria and procure the animals. This system was, by its nature, relatively small scale and could in no way meet the needs of the large horse armies of the Persians.6
A final and important source of horses was indigenous breeding—specifically for military purposes. Stud farms could operate either as private enterprises or as royal farms operated by the kingdom. A private stud farm owned by the satrap of Babylon contained 16,000 mares and 800 stallions. A private stud farm was a large business which essentially produced war material for the army. The stud farms of the satrap of Armenia annually sent 20,000 foals to the Persian king, as well as equipping his own cavalry force.7
The Persian army, drawing on the resources of the entire empire to equip its forces, included several distinct horse types within its cavalry. These types included a light Armenian horse, a general purpose medium horse from Scythia, and a heavy battle horse from the central Persian Empire.
The Armenian horse was the smallest of the three types and by modern standards was a very small horse. It is the type 4 of the ancient types that are the root of all modern breeds. Xenophon described it as “smaller than the Persian horses, but much more finely bred.” It appears on the famous Persian palace of Persepolis’s stair-case frieze pulling Darius’s hunting chariot. This horse may be the ancestor of the modern, extremely rare, Caspian horse. The modern Caspian was discovered in the wild along the southern shores of the Caspian Sea in northern Iran in 1965. A survey revealed that only 50 of the horses existed. Since then, the horses have been the subject of a carefully managed and controlled breeding program that appears to have successfully saved the breed from extinction. Although the Caspian is quite small—10 to 13 hands—it is not a pony. Physically, the Caspian is attractive and very athletic.8 By modern standards the size of the Caspian horse would disqualify it for military service, but in the ancient world this was not necessarily so. Mongol horses fall into a similar size range, and they have a well-documented history of military use. Adult male riders in the ancient world were significantly smaller an
d lighter than modern riders. A modern Caspian horse has no problem managing a rider weighing around 140 pounds and has phenomenal endurance. When rediscovered the local rural population used it as a beast of burden.9 In the Persian army light cavalry scouts and horse archers with minimal armor and little in the way of equipment used the small Caspian type.
A second important horse found in the Persian army was the Scythian horse. This horse would have come into Persian possession through levies in the satraps of Bactria and Urartu and in battle and trading with the Scythians. The horse is the type 3—the central Asian horse originating on the Turan Flats (located between the Caspian Sea and the Arial Sea encompassing parts of modern-day Iran, Russia, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan). Well-preserved remains of these horses dating from about 300 BC have been found in Scythian burial tombs in Pazyryk, approximately where China, Mongolia, Russia, and Kazakhstan meet on the western edge of the Sayan mountains— the easternmost border of the Turan Flats.
The most perfectly preserved of these Scythian burial horses may be representative of the type: it was a 12- to 15-year-old mare of average height, measuring about 13 hands. She was dun, with the glow typical of today’s Turkoman strains, and saddled with highly ornamented bone, wood, leather, and felt tack—including a “stag mask” with large stylized antlers and a single long strap to tie her tail.10 Apart from her size, she was virtually identical to the modern Akhal-Teke, also known as the Turkoman horse. The modern breed is medium size and likely larger than the ancient precedent represented by the Pazyryk horses, standing on average between 14.3 and 16 hands.11 An Akhal-Teke type horse may have been the standard general cavalry horse of the Persians. Its medium size, athleticism, and endurance made it ideal for the general purpose cavalry that made up the bulk of the Persian cavalry forces.
One other significant horse in the Persian cavalry was the Nisaean type, the horse of the Persian elite, discussed by all the ancient writers. Herodotus refers to “the sacred horses called Nisaean, all daintily caparisoned. (Now these horses are called Nisaean, because they come from the Nisaean plain, a vast flat in Media, producing horses of unusual size).” He specifically identifies the breed as pulling the war chariot of Xerxes during his invasion of Greece and as the mount of Masistius, the Persian cavalry commander at Plataea: “a Nisaean charger with a golden bit, and otherwise magnificently caparisoned.”12
Historians have been unable to specifically locate the “Nisaean plain” because of the numerous ancient sites that use similar names. Alexander the Great marched through the area in 324 BC and observed 50,000 Nisaean horses in the royal stud farm located there. This number represented only a fraction of what was present during the height of the Persian Empire. The Nisaean was likely on average 15 hands tall. However, archaeologists have reported remains as large as 16 hands. Though average by modern standards, its size was notable relative to the other horses of the period. Despite challenges in identifying the actual location of the Nisaean plain, some suggest that it was located near Ecbatana, the capital of Media (west-central Iran). In modern times a species of high protein clover, known as Median grass, grows in this region. This type of diet, if it existed in the region in ancient times, would explain the unusual size of the animals. Depictions of the horse in ancient friezes also indicate a well-muscled and stout horse with a pronounced roman nose.13
The Nisaean horse was the mount of the elite of the Persian cavalry. In fact, ancient historians documented the fact that commanders typically rode this mount. None of the modern breeds appear to have a direct link to the most famous and well documented of the ancient cavalry mounts. Some claim that the Nisaean was a variation of the Akhal-Teke, but it seems, from the descriptions, that the breeding of the Nisaean emphasized characteristics quite different from those found in the modern Turkoman breed. Likely, the Nisaean was a unique horse that was a product of specific breeding in the geographic region of the Nisaean plain, and had both Caspian and Akhal-Teke influences, but its unique physical characteristics did not survive history.
For horse equipment the Persians used only reins, a bit, and a saddle blanket or pad. The bit was a variant of the snaffle bit, a single or joined bar with connections for reins on either end. The simple pad, along with a trousered uniform, allowed the rider to grip the horse directly with his legs.
THE BASICS OF HORSEMANSHIP
When riding a horse there are two broad categories of control techniques (known as the aids): natural and artificial. For the Persians, as for all horsemen and cavalrymen since ancient times, the aids were the means by which the rider communicated with the horse. They are still the basic fundamentals of horsemanship. The natural aids are the rider’s voice, legs, hands, and body. Artificial aids include spurs, whips, bits, harnesses, and reins. All the natural aids were known and used in ancient times, as confirmed by Xenophon. In fact, they were more important then because before the invention of the saddle the rider was less secure in his seat, making communication with the horse vital when riding swiftly or over dangerous terrain. The Persian cavalry, learning from the horse cultures of the steppes, were adept at applying the aids. The aids, used by a skilled horseman subtly and in sophisticated combinations, are often invisible to an untrained observer.
The aids rely on the natural sensitivity of the horse for effect. A horse is sensitive enough that it can feel a fly land on any part of its body. This sensitivity allows the horse to feel the actions of the rider’s body, hands, and legs and to discriminate between subtle differences in those actions. This ability, combined with the horse’s good memory, makes it a highly trainable animal.
The rider’s legs are used primarily to indicate forward motion. A slight squeeze of the lower legs tells the horse to move forward. Additional pressure moves the horse to the next higher speed. The horse has four speeds: walk, trot, canter, and full gallop. The legs are also used for direction. Pressure from one leg pushes the horse sideways as it is moving forward, causing the horse to move at a diagonal. This is called leg yielding. Pressure from both legs, applied in different places, can cause the horse to bend around the rider’s inside leg, in effect turning the horse.
The rider’s body is also an effective communications device. The rider can shift his center of gravity lower or higher, forward or back. The horse is very aware of these different body positions. Shifting the center of gravity forward and up tells the horse to move forward. It may also warn the horse to be prepared to jump. Shifting the center of gravity to the rear and down tells the horse to slow down. Purposely positioning the body against the motion of the horse also indicates to the horse to slow down and eventually stop.
The use of leg and body aids to communicate with the horse was essential for mounted archers. A skilled Persian archer, using a combination of body and leg aids, could bring his horse from the walk to the gallop, turn him, slow him down, and stop him, without every using his hands. An expert such as a Persian horse archer could ride in this manner without any more conscious thought than a modern individual would give to the daily mechanics of driving a car—no experienced driver actually “thinks” about stopping, turning, or accelerating. The horse and the skilled archer were a single unit, with the horse an extension of the archer’s will. This left the horse archer free to focus on fighting: to work his bow, observe the terrain, pay attention to the enemy, and listen for commands.
Audible commands were another aid for which the horse was trained to respond. In its simplest form, a voice command was associated with slowing down and another with speeding up. In the ancient world, military horns likely communicated some basic unit commands such as charge and rally. However, there is no significant discussion of this in the literature. If such commands were used—as is likely—trained cavalry horses would respond to them with little or no prompting from their riders, as they did in later centuries.
The Bit
The aid that even most nonriders are familiar with is the hands. The hands are not a purely natural aid because they communicate wi
th the horse through two pieces of equipment: the reins and the bit. The reins are leather straps that connect to rings set into the bit at one end and are held in the hand—or hands—of the rider at the other end. The rider uses them to apply pressure to the bit or to touch the sides of the horse’s neck. There are two primary types of bits: snaffle and curb. Both can be dated to at least the time of Darius’s Persian Empire and are likely much older. These are still the two main types of horse bits used today. Bitting a horse is an art in which there are literally unlimited variations of technique. The advantages and disadvantages of different bit types, and their relative effectiveness in different situations, have been a source of debate and discussion among horsemen since the origin of the concept of controlling a horse through his mouth. Regardless of the type of bit used, training horses to take the bit and to understand what actions are correct in response to different signals transmitted by the hands through the reins and bit is essential. The following discussion of bits is intentionally basic and generic.
The simplest bit is the snaffle. The snaffle bit influences both direction and speed. The main parts of the simple snaffle are joined pieces of metal, called a bar, which sits in the horse’s mouth. The bar has a cheek ring on each end to attach the reins and to prevent the bar from passing through the mouth. The snaffle sends signals to the horse through a technique called direct rein. The rider applies direct pressure from his hands to the bit. In its very simplest use, applying pressure on the left or right rein causes the bit to pull through the horse’s mouth and the cheek ring presses on the horse’s lips on the opposite side. The horse also feels pressure on the inside bars of the mouth (a sensitive gap between his back teeth). Such action causes the horse’s head to move away from the pressure. When the horse is moving, the pressure causes it to change direction. Putting pressure on both reins simultaneously forces the horse’s head down and tells the horse to slow. Easing pressure on both reins tells the horse to speed up. Even rearward pressure (applied in pulses) causes the horse to stop. In this reining technique the bit provides no mechanical advantage; the pull on the bit is exactly that applied by the rider’s hand. For this reason simple snaffle bits are comfortable for the horse. The major disadvantage of this technique is that it requires constant light contact between both of the rider’s hands and the horse’s mouth through the reins and bit. For a cavalryman, expected to wield weapons while mounted, this is often impossible. The advantage of this technique is that it allows for precise control over where and how the horse is going.
War Horse Page 4