PARTHIANS

(247 BCE - 228 CE)

Parthaw (Parthian), Parthava (Old Persian), Pahlaw (Middle Persian),

Parthii (Latin), Parni (Greek)

PARTHIAN KINGDOM (247 - 139 BCE)

PARTHIAN EMPIRE (138 BCE - 228 CE)

 

The Parthians were a sub-group of the ancient ethnic group known as the Aryans. Since the name “Aryan” is liable to raise a few eyebrows (or hackles), I have taken the time to write an essay specifically addressing the history of this ethnic group and my use of the terms associated with its use—please use the button at the bottom of this page to view that essay. Suffice it to say here, the Aryans were a legitimate historical ethnic group that first emerged on the steppes of what is today eastern Russia (the Samara Bend region) during the late Neolithic period. They were the first humans to develop a lifestyle that can be characterized as horse-based nomadism, and largely due to the mobility this provided them—and the military prowess they achieved as cavalrymen—the Aryans were able to expand throughout the Eurasian steppes from Moldavia and eastern Romania in the west to western China in the east, as well as southern Central Asia (modern Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Afghanistan), Caucasia (i.e., the Caucasus Mountains and adjacent regions), Pakistan, northern India, and the Iranian Plateau by the end of the Bronze Age. Their cultural influence was felt over an even more extensive geographical area, including Mongolia and Manchuria in the east and central, southern, and western Europe in the west. On this website, I distinguish between the Western Aryan Nomads (i.e., those that inhabited Moldavia, eastern Romania, Ukraine, and Russia), the Northern Aryan Nomads (i.e., those that lived in Kazakhstan and southern Siberia), the Eastern Aryan Nomads (i.e., those that lived in western China), the Indo-Aryans (i.e., those that inhabited India), and the Iranians (i.e., those that lived in southern Central Asia, the Iranian Plateau, and parts of the southern Caucasus). The Parthians were part of the Iranian subgroup, originating from Aryan groups that had settled in the northwestern regions of the Iranian Plateau (the Semnan region of modern Iran).

 

This gallery and these notes cover the Parthians from the time of the rise to power of the Arsakid Dynasty (ca. 238 BCE-228 CE), including the period of the Parthian Kingdom (238-139 BCE) and the Parthian Empire (138 BCE-228 CE)(a.k.a., the Arsakid Dynasty of Persia). The Parthians are not historically attested until after the collapse of the Median Empire (678-549 BCE)—the Medes were an Iranian people from southwestern Iran (modern Hamadan and Markazi provinces) who first united the Iranian peoples into an historically attested state that encompassed most of Iran, Afghanistan, eastern Turkmenistan, western Uzbekistan, much of the southern Caucasus, northern Mesopotamia, and Cappadocia in Anatolia (eastern Turkey). When the Persians—an Iranian people also from southwestern Iran (modern Khuzistan and Fars provinces)—took over and expanded this empire under the Achaemenid Dynasty (550-330 BCE), several Iranian and non-Iranian groups emerge in the historical record for the first time. Achaemenid government records and monuments recognize various leaders of these peoples as satrapes (a Latinization that means “protectors of provinces”). It is during the Achaemenid period that the Parthians first appear in the historical record—the Behistun Inscription (ca. 520 BCE) of the Achaemenid “King-of-Kings” (Latinized Old Persian, Shahe Shahan), Darius I (550-486 BCE), lists Parthia (Parthava) among the satrapies/provinces of the Persian Empire. Contemporary Greek historians also mention the Parthians—noting a rebellion against the Persians (ca. 522-521 BCE) and admiring the performance of Parthian cavalry units in the army of Darius III (380-330 BCE). Alexander of Macedon (a.k.a., Alexander the Great) toppled the Achaemenids and took over their empire (ca. 334-323 BCE), and he and his Seleukid Dynasty (312-63 BCE) successors confirmed the rule of the Parthian satraps (ca. 330-247 BCE). In 247 BCE, following the death of the Seleukid king, Antiokhos II Theos (286-247 BCE), which was followed by an invasion of the Seleukid Empire by the Ptolemaic Dynasty of Egypt, the Parthian satrap—Narisanka (a.k.a., Andragoras)—declared independence. But a chief of the Parni tribe of the Dahae federation named Ashk (a.k.a., Arsakes/Arsaces) took this opportunity to invade Parthia (the territories of the Dahae were to the north of Parthia, on the steppes of western Turkmenistan and southwestern Kazakhstan, and although they had been vassals of the Achaemenids, they were independent of the Seleukids). Without Seleukid support, Narisanka/Andragoras lacked the resources to repel this attack, and Arsakes was able to conquer Parthia and Hyrcania (a mountainous region to the west of Parthia and south of the Caspian Sea). Thus, Arsakes’ Parthian Kingdom (247-139 BCE) straddled both sides of the former imperial border, encompassing the ancient provinces of Hyrcania and Parthia within the borders of the empire, and the southwestern region of what is today Turkmenistan beyond the borders of the empire. There were two other tribal groups that, in addition to the Parni, made up the Dahae federation—the Xanthii and Pissuri—who inhabited the rest of Turkmenistan (known to the Iranian peoples as Dahistan, “Land of the Dahae”). We know very little about the Dahae, before or after the Parni conquest of Parthia, although they are frequently mentioned as alternating between alliance with the dynasties to the south (Medes, Achaemenids, Arsakids, and Sassanids) and raiding them, until about 450 CE (it is believed they may have contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Hephthalite Huns; see my Huns gallery for more information). Ironically, after Arsakes’ invasion of Parthia, the name “Parni” virtually disappears from the historical record, and the peoples of the Arsakid kingdom are always referred to as “Parthians,” while the tribes that continued to inhabit Dahistan continued to be called Dahae. The archeological and historical record for the Dahae is sparse, but most modern scholars point out that the archeological record indicates the Dahae and the Parthians had very similar material cultures even before Arsakes’ conquest of Parthia, and it is likely that Arsakes’ conquest merely effected a change of leadership over the Parthians, and that the invaders (i.e., the Parni) were probably greatly outnumbered by their subjects (i.e., the Parthians). Thus, the conquerers were likely assimilated by the conquered, although this does not seem to have resulted in an immediate shift in material culture—later, the Parthians do seem to have adopted much of the Hellenism that had characterized Persian imperial culture during the Seleukid Dynasty, but despite later Sassanid Persian propaganda to the contrary, the Parthians actually seem to have reintroduced Iranian social, political, and military norms to the ruling elite of the empire.

 

Even after the creation of the Parthian Kingdom, the Seleukids struggled on and managed to temporarily restore their former power during the reign of Antiokhos III the Great (222-187 BCE), who again reduced the status of the Parthian king—Arsakes/Arsaces II (211-185 BCE)—to that of satrap (ca. 209 BCE), although the Parthians were eventually able to regain their independence (this time for good) under Phraates I (168-165 BCE). Thereafter, the Seleukid Empire gradually shrank as various regions declared independence, leaving the Seleukids in control of a rump state in western Syria (ca. 165-63 BCE). Most important among these breakaway states were the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom in Bactria and Arachosia (Afghanistan), Transoxania (Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan), Chorasmia (Uzbekistan), and Gandhara (northwestern Pakistan); the city-states of Elymais (southwestern Iran) and Charakene (Lower Mesopotamia) that controlled the littoral of the western end of the Persian Gulf; the Persian kingdoms of Susiana and Pars in southwestern Iran; the kingdoms of Adiabene and Osrohene in Upper Mesopotamia; the city-state of Hatra in Upper Mesopotamia; the city-state of Palmyra in eastern Syria; the Armenian kingdom of Gordyene in the southwestern Caucasus; the Kingdom of Media Atropatene in the southeastern Caucasus; and the kingdoms of Commagene, Sophene, and Cappadocia in eastern Anatolia. Mithridates I of Parthia (165-132 BCE)(a.k.a., Mihrdat) embarked on a series of campaigns to extend Parthian dominion across the Iranian Plateau and into Chorasmia and Arachosia (ca. 165-145 BCE), as well as conquering Media Atropatene in the southeastern Caucasus (ca. 148-147 BCE). The Seleukid breakaway kingdoms of Elymais and Charakene/Characene/Mesene were made vassals of Parthia (ca. 147 BCE), as were the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom (ca. 145 BCE)(now reduced to ruling only northern Afghanistan/Bactria) and the Persian kingdoms in southern Iran (ca. 139 BCE). Mithridates I is the first Parthian ruler to style himself Shahan Shah (“King-of-kings”), and thus his reign marks the end of the Parthian Kingdom and the beginning of the Parthian Empire (ca. 139 BCE). The last undisputed Seleukid king, Antiokhos VII Sidetes (138-129 BCE), was defeated, captured, and executed by Phraates II of Parthia (132-126 BCE), although the Seleukids held on in western Syria with a series of contested claimants to the throne (ca. 129-63 BCE). However, both Phraates II and his successor, Artabanus II (126-122 BCE), were killed fighting the Yuezhi/Kushans (an eastern Aryan nomad group) in Chorasmia and Bactria, which led to the conquest of these regions by the Yuezhi/Kushans. The Charakenes took this opportunity to rebel, and they managed to temporarily conquer much of Lower Mesopotamia (ca. 127-121 BCE). However, Mithridates II (121-91 BCE) put the Parthians back on the offensive, re-conquering most of Lower Mesopotamia and receiving the submission of Charakene (ca. 121-113 BCE), forcing the kingdoms of Armenia and Gordyene to become vassals of Parthia (ca. 105 BCE), and conquering the Syrian kingdoms of Adiabene and Osrohene (ca. 95 BCE).

 

The relationship between Rome and Parthia was stormy, and the two empires fought a series of wars—the Roman-Parthian Wars (66 BCE-217 CE)—for control of Syria, Upper Mesopotamia, and Armenia. Despite the resounding victory of the Parthians over the Roman triumvir, Marcus Licinius Crassus (115-53 BCE), at the Battle of Carrhae (6 May 53 BCE) that resulted in the death of 20,000 Roman soldiers, the capture of 10,000, and the capture and execution of Crassus, the Romans ultimately gained the upper hand in this long twilight struggle. In 96 BCE, a diplomatic accord was reached with the Roman general (and later dictator), Lucius Cornelius Sulla (138-78 BCE), which essentially led to the partition of Syria between the Roman Republic and the Parthian Empire—the Parthians controlled Upper Mesopotamia all along the east bank of the Euphrates River, while the Romans annexed Syria and Anatolia to the west of the Euphrates (Palmyra became a client of Rome, and Hatra a vassal of Parthia). By 69 BCE Armenia and Gordyene (Corduene in Latin) had become client kingdoms of Rome. There were a number of intrigues in which the Romans and Parthians backed various claimants to the Armenian throne until Vologeses I of Parthia (51-77 CE) invaded Armenia and placed his brother, Tiridites I (52-58 and 62-88 CE), on the throne of Armenia. For the most part, Armenia would remain under the rule of the Armenian Arsakids (a.k.a., the Arshakuni Dynasty) until 428 CE, at which time Armenia was divided between Rome and Sassanid Persia. The Parthians invaded eastern Anatolia, Syria, and Palestine (ca. 42-40 BCE), but the Romans drove them back across the Euphrates. The Roman general, Marcus Antonius (83-30 BCE)(a.k.a., Mark Antony), invaded Armenia and Media Atropatene (ca. 39-36 BCE) in retaliation, but when the Parthians ambushed and destroyed his supply columns, he was forced to make an ignominious retreat. Mark Antony was later defeated and killed during the Roman civil war that brought Octavius Augustus (27 BCE-14 CE) to power as the first emperor (princeps) of Rome, and Augustus negotiated a treaty (ca. 20 BCE) with Phraates IV of Parthia (37-2 BCE) that re-affirmed the Roman-Parthian border at the Euphrates and confirmed the Arshakuni Dynasty in Armenia, while the Romans received the standards of Crassus’ army that had been captured at Carrhae. In an interesting side-note, Augustus also gave Phraates an Italian slave girl as a gift—this woman, named Musa, became Phraates’ favored wife in his harem, bore him the son that would eventually succeed him (Phraates V), and served as the boy’s queen-regent (ca. 2 BCE-4 CE) after the death of his father (Musa and Phraates V were, however, overthrown by a cabal of Parthian nobles thereafter). Peace lasted between the two empires until 58-63 CE, when another war was fought over Armenia (the War of the Armenian Succession), once again ending in a stalemate that essentially left the status quo intact (i.e., the pro-Parthian Arshakunis retained control of Armenia), although this led to a slow buildup of Roman military manpower in its eastern provinces, as well as a reorganization of those provinces (ca. 63-72 CE). The Roman emperor, Marcus Ulpius Traianus (98-117 CE)(a.k.a., Trajan), invaded Mesopotamia (ca. 115-117 CE) and stormed the Parthian capital at Ctesiphon (south of modern Baghdad), although he died of a stroke while overseeing the siege of the city-state of Hatra, and his successor—Hadrian (117-138 CE)—once again withdrew west of the Euphrates. Vologeses IV of Parthia (147-191 CE) raided Roman Syria (ca. 161 CE), but the Romans retaliated with another pair of invasions—Marcus Statius Priscus led an army into Armenia (ca. 163 CE) and Avidius Cassius led another army into Mesopotamia (ca. 164 CE). Once again, Ctesiphon was stormed and sacked, but the Roman army in Mesopotamia fell victim to smallpox and was forced to withdraw from Lower Mesopotamia (parts of Upper Mesopotamia remained in Roman hands, while Armenia remained contested). The Roman emperor, Septimius Severus (193-211 CE), also invaded Lower Mesopotamia and sacked Ctesiphon, although like Trajan he was unable to take Hatra and so withdrew (parts of Upper Mesopotamia once again remained in Roman hands, and Armenia continued to be disputed).

 

In the east, a series of migrations also destabilized the eastern frontier of the Parthian Empire. The Saka were a northern Aryan nomad group that inhabited the Zhetysu region of southeastern Kazakhstan, and the Ferghana Valley in eastern Uzbekistan. Between 162 and 155 BCE, the eastern Aryan Yuezhi/Kushans migrated from western China into the Zhetysu region and Ferghana, driving the Saka before them. The bulk of the Saka migrated south into Afghanistan, where they destabilized the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom (ca. 150-140 BCE)—some settled in the Greco-Bactrian province of Zaranka in eastern Iran (in sufficient numbers that the region was known thereafter as Sakastan, “Land of the Saka”), while others continued to migrate to the southeast, carving out a series of small kingdoms in northern Pakistan (ca. 110-80 BCE), northern India (60 BCE-10 CE), and western India (ca. 35-405 CE). Meanwhile, the Kushans pushed into Transoxania, Chorasmia, and northeastern Iran—as mentioned above, the Parthian emperors Phraates II and Artabanus II both lost their lives trying to repel this invasion. After the Parthian Shahan Shah, Mithridates II (126-122 BCE), decisively defeated them, the Kushans turned southward in the wake of the Saka and conquered the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom (ca. 124-20 BCE). Soon thereafter, the Parthian governor of the province of Drangiana in southern Iran, Gondophares I of House Suren (19-46 CE), declared himself independent of the Parthian Shahan Shah, Artabanus III (10-40 CE), assumed the Greek title of autokrator (“self-ruler” or “one ruled only by himself”), annexed Gedrosia (a Parthian province to the east of Drangiana), and invaded Sakastan, Arachosia (southern Afghanistan) and western Pakistan (Gandhara and Hindush). This temporarily blocked Kushan expansion in South Asia (they were driven from Arachosia by Gondophares), although the so-called Gondopharid Kingdom (19-224 CE) seems to have been divided, after the death of Gondophares I, into a number of small kingdoms—known today as the Indo-Parthian states—that only vaguely recognized the suzerainty of Gondophares’ successors (these sub-kings were a mix of Indo-Parthians, Greco-Bactrians, Indo-Greeks, and Indo-Sakas). The Kushans soon conquered the Gondopharid states in Arachosia, Gandhara, and Hindush (ca. 30-80 CE), leaving the last of the Gondopharids in control of Drangiana, Gedrosia, and Sakastan (ca. 80-224 CE), although they were forced to become vassals of the Arsakids once more. The Kushans emerged from all this tumult as the overlords of a vast realm that stretched from the western Tarim Basin in western China, through Ferghana and Afghanistan, and into Pakistan. Under the great Kushan emperor, Kanishka I (127-163 CE), the Kushan Empire (30-375 CE) grew to include most of northern and central India as well (see my Eastern Aryan Nomads gallery). The Kushans did not prove to be particularly predatory vis-à-vis the Parthian Empire once they had established themselves in India—they contented themselves with fostering the spread of Buddhism and developing the overland trade routes through Central Asia between China and India—but the destruction of the Greco-Bactrian and Gondopharid states left a power vacuum in eastern Iran into which the Persians asserted themselves, to the ultimate detriment of the Arsakid Dynasty.

 

From 213 to 226 CE, there was a civil war between two Arsakid claimants to the throne—Vologeses VI (208-228 CE)(a.k.a., Walagash VI) and Artabanus IV (213-224 CE)(a.k.a., Artavan IV). Neither claimant had strong support from the other noble houses, but Artabanus had gained the upper hand by 220 CE, leaving Vologeses in control of little more than the city of Seleucia/Seleukia (Seleucia/Seleukia had been the capital during the Seleukid Dynasty, and lay across the River Tigris from Ctesiphon). The Romans took advantage of this Parthian civil war by invading the Parthian vassal kingdom of Armenia, yet again (ca. 216 CE). Seeing the disunity of the Parthians and the growing impotence of the Parthian Shahan Shah, a series of Persian kings of Pars (modern Fars province, southern Iran) began to consolidate their control over the neighboring provinces in southern Iran (Susiana, Karmania, Drangiana, and Sakastan), as well as the Kingdom of Charakene in Lower Mesopotamia. Artabanus eventually called together an army and marched on Pars, but he was soundly defeated and killed by Ardashir of House Sassan at the Battle of Hormozdgan/Samangan (28 April 224 CE). Several of the Parthian lords that had accompanied Artabanus switched sides on the eve of battle, helping Ardashir defeat Artabanus, and Ardashir received the submission of most of the great noble houses of Parthia soon thereafter (he was crowned as Shahanshah in Ctesiphon in 226 CE). Vologeses seems to have survived until about 228 CE, when it appears that Ardashir stormed Seleukia as he prepared for the great Sassanid push against the Romans in Upper Mesopotamia. Ardashir’s reign ushered in a long period of Persian ascendancy under the Sassanid Dynasty (224-651 CE)(see my Sassanid Persia gallery), bringing to a close the Arsakid period.

 

Historically, the Parthian Empire was at one time considered to be a period of departure from the centralized state of the Achaemenid Persians, and the Parthians were often treated along with the Seleukids as a kind of Hellenistic interregnum between the Achaemenid and Sassanid dynasties. Although there can be no doubt that the Seleukids were a Hellenistic dynasty that ruled most of the Persian Empire as foreign invaders (they inherited the Persian Empire from the conquests of Alexander the Great), they used much of the extant Persian administrative system to rule that empire, and although the Parthians were definitely more Hellenized than the Sassanids, I think modern historians should not be fooled by what is essentially Sassanid propaganda. All four pre-Islamic Persian dynasties (Achaemenids/Persians, Seleukids/Macedonians, Arsakids/Parthians, Sassanids/Persians) ruled over much the same territory and peoples, with some minor differences, and there is definitely an identifiable continuum of socio-political practices that runs all the way through all four dynasties. In particular, critics of the Parthians (ancient and modern) often point out that the Parthian Empire was much more decentralized than the Achaemenid and Sassanid states, and that this was an inheritance from the Seleukids. However, the division of the empire’s governors into the ranks of border commander (Parthian, marzpan), provincial governor (shahrab), and district governor (dizpat)—is virtually identical to that used by the Sassanids—border commander (Middle Persian, marzban), provincial governor (shahsab), district governor (tasugar), and subdistrict governor (rostagar)(the only tier missing from the Parthian system)—and the administrative tiers of both bureaucratic systems have analogs in those of the Seleukids—border commander (Koine Greek, phylarch), provincial governor (eparch), and district governor (hyparch). Only two of these administrative tiers can be traced back to the Achaemenids. The provincial governor (Latinized Old Persian, satrap), and the district governor (Latinized Old Persian, dahyavan, literally, “governor of a limited territory” or “governor of a small territory”)(dahya = “district”). It has been suggested that border protectorates may have started to develop by the end of the Achaemenid period (based on very slim evidence), but the only firm evidence we have for the origins of the border protectorate are in the Seleukid phylarchies, which once again seems to belie the Sassanid claim that they revived ancient Achaemenid practices (i.e., the Parthian and Sassanid border protectorates both seem to have been based on Seleukid administrative innovations, not those of the Achaemenids, and there is no evidence for subdistricts during the Achaemenid or Seleukid periods). This issue is often tied to the supposed proliferation of semi-independent vassal or tributary states during the Seleukid and Arsakid periods—Armenia (12-428 CE), Media (144 BCE-232 CE), Kartli/Caucasian Iberia (123 BCE-226 CE), Arran/Caucasian Albania (123 BCE-490 CE), Varkana/Hyrcania (170 BCE-230 CE), Persis (230 BCE-210 CE), Pars (210-225 CE), Hatra (96 BCE-241 CE), Susiana (147 BCE-224 CE), Charakene (170 BCE-224 CE), Osrohene (132 BCE-293 CE), Adiabene (63 BCE-310 CE), and Gordyene (140 BCE-230 CE)—many of which had their origins as Seleukid phylarchies and/or Parthian marzpanan. However, it is clear that the satrapies of the Achaemenid Empire were often highly independent, the satraps of provinces in which the Persians were an ethnic minority often intermarried with the local nobility, the customs and laws of indigenous peoples in the non-Persian satrapies were usually employed in their governance with minimal Persian oversight, in some cases the satraps were able to establish dynastic claims to their position (i.e., the title, its duties, and its perquisites were passed down in a patrilineal line), and the growing power of the quasi-feudal lords of the empire that dominated these positions ultimately undercut the authority of the Shahe Shahan. This was a pattern that was repeated in all three subsequent dynasties (Seleukid, Arsakid, Sassanid)—initial centralization, the accumulation of offices and power by the landed gentry, and conflict between the grandees and the imperial throne—and I don’t think one can make a strong argument that the Achaemenid satrapal bureaucracy was all that more centralized, and certainly not more stable, than the Seleukid and Arsakid systems, and the Sassanid system clearly had more in common with the Arsakid system than it did with that of the Achaemenids. Indeed, Ardashir’s victory over Artabanus did not usher in as great a change in the power structure of the empire as later Sassanid historians tried to evince.

​

The power of the Parthian throne rested on the seven great noble houses or clans (Parthian, vaspuhran, “great ones” or “grandees”)—Aspahbadh, Varaz, Karen, Mihran, Spendiad, Zik, and Suren—that had pledged allegiance to the House of Arsakes. These were initially the chiefs of nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes that dominated the steppes of northeastern Iran, but the early Arsakids granted them additional grazing lands in adjacent territories (e.g., Varkana/Hyrcania, Uvarazmish/Chorasmia, Margush/Margiana, Suguda/Sogdiana, Haraiva/Areia, Zranka/Drangiana, and Asagarta/Sagartia), as well as dominion over other nomadic groups like the Sagartians, Drangians, and Bactrians. As the empire grew, these grandees were also given estates in the more urbanized and agrarian areas of the empire (e.g., Mada/Media, Babirus/Babylonia, and Athura/Assyria), as well as the governorship of provinces in these regions. The power of these clans and their chiefs gradually grew during the Arsakid period (ca. 105 BCE-224 CE), including the accumulation of huge landed estates throughout the empire, and as the rise of the Gondopharids (an offshoot of the Suren clan) in eastern Iran shows, these quasi-feudal lords often undercut or subsumed the bureaucratic administration with their own dynastic ambitions. There were two social strata beneath the vaspuhran—the naxwadar (“tribal chiefs”) and the aztan or azatan (“high born”). Basically, the naxwadar were the chiefs of the nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes of the Iranian Plateau (primarily Parthians, Sagartians, Drangians, and Bactrians), and the aztan/azatan were the nobles of agrarian subject peoples (primarily Syrians, Medes, Persians, and Armenians). In light of their shared ethnicity, and the importance of the horse herds and fighters of the nomads to the Parthian military system, the naxwadar had a slightly more elevated status than the aztan/azatan, and although the naxwadar had a reputation for independence, most were in some way tied to the great houses (like vassals). Common tribesmen of the nomadic and semi-nomadic groups were known as dahigan (“men of the land”).

 

Tactically, the core of most Parthian armies was a type of heavy cavalry called cataphracts by most modern military historians. I discuss my use of this classification in a separate essay on this website (see button below), but suffice it to say here that cataphracts were a type of heavily armored shock cavalry that operated something like mounted pikemen—they generally operated in high-density, closed-rank formations; advanced at a walk or trot rather than a canter or gallop; and used the weight and momentum of the mount to increase the impact of their primary weapon—a long, two-handed lance that the Greeks and Romans referred to as a kontos/contus (Greek/Latin, “barge-pole”). The Middle Persian term for this lance was nyck (modern Persian, nezak). It was over thirteen feet in length and, once again according to Greek and Roman writers, was capable of skewering two men with a single thrust (probably just hyperbole, but obviously the weapon impressed the Greeks and Romans). Parthian cataphracts carried a long, double-edged sword and/or iron-bound club or mace as a sidearm (the latter doubled as a symbol of command). They were also generally armed with a bow and arrows, although this seems to have been clearly relegated to a supporting role—to be used prior to a charge or to drive off enemy skirmishers—and the ranks of the cataphracts may have been divided between lancers and bowmen (since switching back and forth between bow and lance use would have been impractical). They rode horses that could be unarmored or armored—if armored, scale seems to have been ubiquitous (hardened leather, bronze, or iron scales sewn in overlapping rows on a leather backing, the hardened leather scales often being lacquered), with pieces for the horse’s head (chamfron), neck (crinets), chest (pectoral), and flanks (cruppers). The cavalrymen themselves were also heavily armored, with a scale or lamellar cuirass, tubular segmented arm and leg defenses (unfortunately, we do not know the names of these pieces of armor), and substantial helmets with scale or lamellar aventail. As the Arsakid period progressed, a long-sleeved mail shirt was sometimes worn beneath the cuirass and arm defenses, and a mail coif or hood, sometimes with a veil that left only the eyes visible, were also added. Hardened leather seems to have been the material of choice for scale and the segmented leg and arm defenses, which is unfortunate because no examples have survived (we only know they had them because they are depicted in period art and described by period authors). Some subject peoples and vassal states also fielded cataphracts (e.g., the Armenians, Bactrians, Persians, and Mesopotamian Arabo-Syrians). Intriguingly, in 217 BCE the Parthians reportedly fielded cataphract camels, although several historians have suggested that these were probably from the vassal state of Hatra. Although Dahistan remained independent of the Parthian Empire, the Dahae remained close allies of the Parthians throughout the Arsakid period, and Dahae mercenaries are often mentioned as serving in Parthian armies—their nobles probably fought as lancers (similar to cataphracts, but with a more freewheeling style of combat), and their commoners as horse archers. The bulk of most Parthian armies (up to 80% of the fighters) consisted of horse archers recruited primarily from the nomadic and semi-nomadic Iranian tribes, although the Armenians, Persians, and Arabo-Syrians also fielded some horse archers. These were almost universally unarmored (maybe the occasional shirt of mail and/or helmet), although they had a reputation for agility and fought in a skirmishing style that eschewed close-combat in favor of hit-and-run archery tactics. Horse archers would ride at an opponent, using their bows to loose arrows as they rode, then as they approached the enemy they would veer away, turn around in their seat atop the horse, and loose more arrows at their opponents over the rump of the horse as they rode away (the Parthians were so famous for this tactic, that it became known as “the Parthian shot”). The horse archers would cycle round and round with these skirmishing attacks, causing a steady drain in casualties and steadily increasing the frustration of enemy fighters until they either broke and tried to run away or became disorganized and dispirited, at which point the horse archers would move aside to make way for a charge by the cataphracts. Opposing horse archers or massed infantry bowmen were normally the only effective counters. Parthian infantry were almost entirely unarmored bowmen (like the horse archers, there may have been the occasional mail shirt and/or helmet) recruited primarily from the empire’s urban centers—once again, several subject peoples and vassal states were particularly well-known for supplying high-quality infantry bowmen to the Parthians (e.g., the Armenians, Persians, and Medes, as well as the kingdoms of Elymais, Charakene, and the Arabo-Syrian states). Despite the overthrow of the Seleukids, a small population of Greek and Macedonian colonists remained under Parthian rule. During the period of the Parthian Kingdom (ca. 247-139 BCE), the Parthians could count on their erstwhile Seleukid overlords to occasionally provide allied contingents, usually consisting primarily of infantry spearmen (thureophoroi/thyreophoroi/thorakitai/thorakites) and infantry skirmishers (psiloi), and those Greek and Macedonian colonists that remained under Parthian rule after the fall of the Seleukids likely continued to supply these same types of troops. Indeed, the Parthian kings maintained a palace guard unit of such Greek-style thorakitai in Ctesiphon until about 205 CE (well into the imperial period). The peoples of the Zagros Mountains, Alborz Mountains, Caucasia (including the Armenian and Kartvellian peoples), eastern Anatolia, and Afghanistan sometimes supplied a variety of infantry types (mostly skirmishing javelinmen, bowmen, and/or slingers, but sometimes medium infantry spearmen). Between about 12 BCE and 130 CE, the Indo-Parthians also had access to Indian levies (see my Early Classical Indian gallery), possibly including war elephants. No historical source specifically mentions the Indo-Parthians using war elephants, but it seems highly unlikely that the peoples living in Arachosia, Gandhara, and Hindush would have abandoned use of war elephants as soon as the Gondopharids took over from the Greco-Bactrians (whom we know used war elephants), only to resume their use once the Gondopharids were ousted by the Kushans (whom we also know used war elephants after they established their dominion in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and northern India). If they did use them, the Indo-Parthians do not seem to have done so outside Gandhara and Hindush, and the practice did not spread to the empire (I discuss this more in my Sassanid gallery).

 

The figures pictured above are suitable to portray the armies of the Kingdom of Parthia (247-139 BCE), although it could be used to portray later Parthian armies with minimal anachronism. I love these figures from Peter Pig Miniatures. They’re probably the smallest figures I own (true 15mm, as opposed to 18 or 20mm), but they’ve got a lot of detail and character, as well as a nice variety of poses (things that, in my opinion, are rare in true 15s). Unfortunately, Peter Pig has a very limited number of ranges (New Kingdom Egyptian, Parthian, Roman, German), but what they have are nice.