Structure of the Sassanian Army (3rd century AD)

[Type 052D]

Armies of the Roman-Persian Wars, 253 – 260 AD


J.M. aka "Salah ad-Din", Saturday, January 3rd, 2009

In 224 AD, the Roman Empire was at the peak of its power, but was about to enter a half-century period of nearly terminal decline. Seven years before they had defeated their most powerful enemies – the Parthians in what is now Iraq. The Parthian Empire, already weakened by this war, were in no condition to face the Persian revolt that sprung up in several of their Iranian provinces. By 226, the leader of the Persians had annihilated the Parthians, and declared himself Ardashir (‘Artaxerxes’) the First of a new dynasty of Persian rulers, called the Sassanid after his grandfather. The Romans did not have long to rejoice at the destruction of their most terrible eastern foes, however, for the Persians would prove to be far more troublesome neighbors than the Parthians ever were.

The second Sassanid Emperor, Shapur the First, was an energetic man and a brutally efficient general. He used both treachery and raw brute force to humble the Romans time and again. Though he was defeated by the Roman general Furius Timesitheus at the Battle of Rhessaina in 243, he managed to build the strength of the Persian army up again. In 251 he attempted to blackmail the Roman Emperor Trebonianus Gallus. When the latter refused to pay tribute to what he arrogantly saw as a barbarian chieftain, the Persians invaded Roman-held Syria. What followed was one of the costliest military disasters in the history of Rome.

Between 253 and 260, Shapur and his army defeated several Roman armies in battle. The war culminated with the treacherous capture of the Roman Emperor Valerianus in 260 – this was the first and only time that a Roman emperor was captured in battle, and it was said by the historian Libianus that after this ‘Romans were prepared to suffer any fate rather than look a Persian in the face’.

With Rome’s defeat in 260 there was relative peace between the respective empires until the 290’s, when the young Roman Caesar Galerius waged a fairly successful campaign against Persia. Over the course of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Centuries the Sassanid and Roman/Byzantine empires fought a succession of costly wars that drained their manpower and resources, but that also left a permanent mark on human history – the destruction of Roman Emperor Julian’s army by the Persians at Ctesiphon prevented a final, terrible persecution of Christianity and helped secure the Christian hold on Europe for good. At the beginning of the 7th Century AD, however, both armies were too weak from fighting each other to face a new enemy – like the Arab warlord Muhammad, and the first Islamic armies, which conquered Sassanid Persia in the 640’s AD.



Major Battles

Barbalissos, 253
A Roman army of c. 60,000, mustering here is destroyed by Sassanids

Siege of Antioch, c. 255 – 256
Antioch is taken by Shapur

Siege of Dura Europos, c. 255 – 256
Dura Europos is taken by Shapur

Antioch, 256
Valerian recaptures Antioch with an army of c. 70,000

Sieges of Edessa and Carrhae, 256
Shapur sieges Edessa and Carrhae to draw Valerian’s attention

Battle of Edessa/Carrhae, 260
Valerian is captured and his army destroyed by Shapur, end of Valerian’s War with Persia






The Roman Army, 253 – 260 AD

The mid-point of the 3rd Century AD, often called the ‘Crisis of the Third Century’, was a dark one for the Roman Empire. Anarchy reigned throughout the provinces, and indeed often in Rome herself as the emperor had to ride out to deal with a multitude of disturbances both within and outside of the Empire. Persian and Germanic invasions, as well as pesky incursions by smaller tribes were no longer the only threats – Roman generals and governors would secure the allegiance of legions and declare themselves emperor. Thanks to these selfish and short-sighted men, the Roman Empire was effectively locked in some fifty years of civil war between 235 and 284. The usurpation problem reached its peak in the reign of Valerian’s son Gallienus, 260 – 268, during which time no less than thirty men and at least one woman declared themselves Caesar – and all of them except for the Syrian empress Zenobia died violent deaths. Most were fittingly murdered by subordinates.

Because of the anarchic state of the Empire in the middle of the 3rd Century, the Roman Army of this period has tended to be viewed in a negative light by recent historians. This is unfair, however; the army cannot be judged by the stupid ambitions and antics of its leaders. The common fighting men of Rome proved themselves in this period as well as they had under Caesar, Trajan, and Marcus Aurelius in centuries past. The organization and tactics of the Imperial army had also been further improved in the 3rd Century – with an increase in specialist troops and in highly mobile cavalry forces used for rapid deployment to trouble spots. In the east, Rome involved herself in Arab politics and was often able to enlist in these tribes to slow down the invading Sassanids.

Even though both cavalry and light infantry had started to steal the spotlight in the 3rd Century, the heavy infantry soldiers of the legions remained the solid backbone of the Roman Army. A Roman legion in this time period nominally consisted of 5,120 infantry with a hundred or so cavalry attached to it. The infantry were divided into ten cohorts. The first cohort consisted of 800 men, the other nine of 480. Each cohort was in turn divided into units of 80 men called centuries; these were commanded by centurions. Overall commanders of legions were usually called legates, though men of senatorial rank were allowed to command legions until the reign of Gallienus, shortly after this period.

Recent historians have overstated the number of changes that took place in the weapons and fighting styles of the Roman legionaries in the 3rd and 4th Centuries AD – in fact, the army of the 250’s did not look much different from that of two centuries before save for some different styles of armor. Armor was now a somewhat hodgepodge affair – so much Roman armor had been looted by the Persians and barbarians that the Romans had to settle with whatever they could buy, make, or themselves loot. Breastplates had not been worn since the early 1st Century, while plated loricas had declined though they were still to be seen. The most common kind of armor was chainmail; even if it was not as effective as the lorica it was lighter and more comfortable, and was also cheaper to manufacture. Scalemail, made from horse’s hooves, was to be seen amongst soldiers of the Eastern provinces also.

A trend that started in the early 3rd Century was for legionaries to fight in light marching order, with no helmets or body armor, defending themselves only with their shields. This was especially so of the lanciarii – specially trained skirmishers who were used mostly by the Eastern legions in combat with Parthians and Persians. Other soldiers wore leather or padded cotton armor – the latter could absorb blows surprisingly well, and was not a major encumbrance to wear. Helmets, when worn, had not changed as much as body armor. The conical spangenhelm, a style invented by the barbarians, was adopted by the Roman army in the late 3rd Century. It is not known if it was worn as early as the reign of Valerian.

Weapons remained largely unchanged – the typical legionary of the Persian Wars would have carried two heavy javelins (pila) with lead weights, a medium-length cut-and-thrust sword (gladius), and a fat little dagger (pugio). Specialist legionaries included those who carried several, lighter javelins (lanciarii) and those who carried thrusting spears (phalangarii). There is evidence to suggest that Roman soldiers often used pickaxes (dolabrae), officially only for digging siegeworks, as particularly nasty shock-weapons. Legionaries also received archery training, though they did not often use it in battle – archery was left to auxiliary units and local militias.

The Roman body shield (scutum) had always been rectangular in shape and concave, but in the 3rd Century an increasing preference was shown to flat oval shields. Shields were brightly painted with the name, number, and mascot of the legion, and the name of the owner was inscribed on the back. As new faiths like Mithraism and Christianity took hold in the army, some soldiers chose to display their faiths by painting sacred symbols on their shields.

The Roman army had always been supported by a number of auxiliary troop types – these included barbarian spearmen and archers, Arab camel-riders, and cavalrymen, slingers, rock-throwers, and artillerymen from diverse nations. Cavalry were especially prominent in the East; they included Armenians, Arabs, Gothic mercenaries, and probably renegade Parthians and Persians, all equipped in their native styles. Barbarian cavalry, like those of the Goths, fought with long swords, light spears, and oval shields, as did the Roman cavalry. Allied Eastern cavalry copied Persian tactics and were very heavily armored shock troops fighting with two-handed lances. Arabs and Parthians, on the other hand, fought from both horses and camels as unarmored bowmen.



The Sassanid Persian Army of 253 – 260 AD


The people of Persia/Iran have always had a strong tradition of both horsemanship and archery, as well as swordsmanship. The Persians of the Sassanid dynasty have went down in history above all else as excellent cavalrymen – arguably the finest the world has ever seen. The savaran ‘knights’ of Sassanid Persia would be the bane of the Roman legions time and again, and would successfully clash with a number of other opponents, Turks, Huns, Indians, and Islamic Arabs. When the Arab conquest of Persia was finally completed in 651 AD, many veteran Persian cavalrymen were incorporated into the Islamic armies; even into the early modern era the military traditions of Sassanid Persia would survive in Iran, and throughout the Islamic World.

The Parthians whom the Persians supplanted not only preserved but perfected the mounted archery techniques of their Scythian ancestors. It is estimated that for every spear-armed cavalryman in the Parthian army, that was at least ten horse archers. This situation was almost completely reversed by the Sassanids. Though the Sassanids did not disdain archery (like the contemporary Germanic tribes, and, to a lesser extent the Romans), they favored the use of spears and swords, especially when fighting on horseback. Even as early as the Persian rise to power and conquest of Parthia in the 220’s the Persians were fighting predominately as armored lancers. By the 5th Century most horse archers fielded by the Persians were not even blood Persians but auxiliaries recruited amongst the tribes on the eastern and northern fringes of their Empire.

The Sassanid name for a standing army was spah. The core of a spah was the savaran armored cavalry. As mentioned above the savaran were predominately armed with spears and swords, the latter of which were massive weapons like those used in late medieval Europe. Savaran are also recorded as using javelins, maces, axes, bows, and whips as weapons. The last of these weapons could be used to ensnare enemy generals or tangle up the spears of foemen. The Persian savaran were always upper-class noblemen of noble ‘Aryan’ descent. Military reforms of the 6th Century AD allowed for lower-class citizens of the Empire to become savaran, which allowed for many more of them to be recruited. The savaran were always a tiny percentage of the army in terms of numbers, but they were the most powerful and decisive element in most Persian armies.

The Romans were amazed at the massive amounts of armor worn by Persian savaran – they often wore several layers of chainmail, leather barding, and plated armor in addition to heavy spangenhelm helmets. Most also had round shields. The Romans had two names for the heavy cavalry of Persia, based on what degree they were armored – cataphractarii usually wore chainmail and rode unarmored horses, while clibanarii wore several layers of armor and rode armored horses. Considering the brutally hot conditions under which they fought, clibanarii were only recruited amongst the very toughest and most dedicated of Persians, and were not able to fight extended engagements in daylight.

The Persians also used lighter cavalry in their wars against Rome – notable amongst these in the 3rd and 4th Century were the Lakhmid Arabs, many of whom had converted to Christianity. Most of the Arab tribes fought as moderately armored lancers, like cataphractarii. Other light cavalry included auxiliaries hired from the Turks, the White Huns, and perhaps the Indians and Indo-Scythians. The White Huns, unlike their distant relatives who terrorized Europe under Attila, appear to have preferred to fight with javelins rather than bows, but they shared their skill as excellent horsemen and hardy warriors.

Like in the later Roman Army, so much is made of the Persian cavalry that their infantry were often overlooked, or even looked upon with disdain, both in ancient times and by modern historians. The Persians fielded huge amounts of infantry of diverse types, however, and some were able to go toe-to-toe with Roman legionaries.

Numerically speaking, the overwhelming majority of Persian infantry were local militias and conscripts fighting with whatever weapons their people specialized in. In Persia and Iraq these would often be archers, while in Asia Minor they would be slingers and the Kurds and Arabs were able to provide fine javelineers. The most common type of militia infantry, however, were the lower paighan – farmer warriors equipped with light thrusting spears, poorly-made rectangular shields, and small swords – overall, they were something of a cheap parody of the Roman legions, or of the fine infantry spearmen fielded by the Achaemenid Persians of Biblical and Greek fame. The fighting qualities of these men were so poor that they were often chained together or threatened with cruel tortures just to keep them upright in the battleline.

The best Persian infantry were the Medes – the Medes and Persians had a longstanding and brotherly alliance going back to Biblical times, and this relationship was honored under the Sassanid rulers. Median chieftains sent contingents of sturdy heavy infantry to back up the cavalry-strong Persians in battle. These men were equipped the same as Roman legionaries, and it is likely that they had been trained and armed by the many Roman deserters, traitors, and prisoners that were acquired in the wars of the 240’s and 250’s. Their weapons included spears, javelins, and infantry swords. They wore spangenhelm helmets and chainmail shirts. No depictions or descriptions of their shields have been found so far; they may have been wicker shields of old Persian style, or plywood shields of Roman craft. These men are described by Roman historians as ‘fighting like gladiators’ and giving crack cohorts of Roman legionaries a run for their money.

 

[Masoom_Darinda]

A nicely written article

 

[BeyondHeretic]

Thanks for posting friend , obviously the author has taken a look at the pak defence forum.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

May the cheapness of the 21st century , brings back the ideals of pre-Islamic iranianhood.

 

[bozorgmehr]

A few pics of Parthian/Sassanian soldiers:

 

[bozorgmehr]

And here's the story from a minor Sassanian/Byzantine battle:

Battle of Callinicum, Persians Defeat Byzantines | The American Legion's BurnPit

Today in Military History – April 19, AD 531 As the direct successors to the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire of the eastern Mediterranean ruled the Balkans, Asia Minor, Egypt, western Asia and portions of North Africa, Italy and Spain for several centuries after the “fall” of Rome in AD 476. Though they built a military machine at least as good as their ancestors, it was not invincible. [I can hear the gasps of some of my avid readers…yes, I mean *you*, Tim…] One of the most dangerous early opponents of the Byzantines was the Sassanid Persians, a successor of the Parthian Empire. The Byzantine and Sassanid empires jousted constantly over nearby areas, including Armenia, Mesopotamia and various other kingdoms in the Caucasus Mountains. In 526, Byzantium and Persia broke a 20-year truce and again went to war, this time over the Christian kingdom of Caucasian Iberia (not to be confused with the Iberian Peninsula in western Europe). This conflict became the Iberian War. However, one of the major battles of this conflict took place on the banks of the Euphrates River, the result of which saw a Byzantine army beaten. Background of the Battle The Byzantines’ eastern borders, especially the area of Syria and along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, were under constant dispute with the Persians. One of the ways the Persians gave the Eastern Romans fits was raiding this disputed area during time of war. Generally, a substantial Sassanian military force – 10,000 to 20,000 men, usually all cavalry – would be sent into Byzantine territory to temporarily capture some forts, towns or cities, take any valuables they could carry, and beat a hasty retreat back to Sassanian territory. Usually by the time a sufficient Byzantine military response could be formed, the raiders slipped away with their loot. Early in the spring of the year 531, the Sassanid general Azarethes led an all-cavalry army of 15,000 Persians, accompanied by 5000 Lakhmid Arab light horse allies under their King Al-Mundhir, along the northern bank of the Euphrates. Crossing over to the southern side placed them squarely into the Byzantine province of Commagene (today located in southeastern Turkey). The Persians began attacking towns and cities, pointing to some obvious weaknesses in the Roman defenses in this region. However, this area of the Byzantine lands were only lightly settled, and consequently the loot seemed not be as grand as usual. The lack of substanial booty – and the fear of a Roman retaliation – pushed Azarethes to return home. Azarethes is described by the Greek historian Procopius as an “exceptionally able warrior,” and he also seems to have held the title “astabadh,” a senior minister in the Sassanid bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, the Byzantine magister militum per Orientum (the commander of all Roman forces east of Constantinople) reacted swiftly to the Persian thrust. That commander was Belisarius, and he was riding the wave of a stunning victory over the Sassanids at Dara from the previous year. [For more on General Belisarius, please consult my previous TIMH posts of January 13, 2010, “Nika Riots in Constantinople: ‘Sports Fans’ Burn the City” and December 15, 2009 “Roman Reconquest of the West Continues.”] The general gathered his forces, beginning his pursuit within days of the Persian crossing of the Euphrates. His force initially consisted of 3000 Byzantine cavalry and 5000 Ghassanid Arab light cavalry. He was expecting reinforcements as he continued shadowing the Persian raiders. After a few days, Belisarius received some reinforcements from nearby Roman provinces, as well as directly from the Byzantine capital. These men were led by Hermogenes, the Byzantine emperor’s magister officiorum – essentially the highest ranking bureaucrat in the government after the emperor. These additional troops swelled Belisarius’ force to 9000 infantry, 12,000 Byzantine cavalry and the 5000 Ghassanid light horsemen. Through a series of forced marches, Belisarius kept his men moving, barely missing contact with the fleeing Sassanid force on several occasions. It seems from the chronicles that Belisarius was not keen on actually fighting the Persians, merely giving them a reason to keep running back to their own lands. However, this strategy did not sit well with many of the commanders, especially Hermogenes, who seems to have wanted to prove his bona fides as a military man. Perhaps the senior Roman officers wanted to punish the Persians for their incursion; or, maybe they were still flushed with the glow of victory from battles in the previous year. Nonetheless, at dawn on the morning of April 19 – the day before Easter – the Roman army came upon the Sassanids still encamped on the southern bank of the Euphrates, across the river from the town of Callinicum (today the city of Al-Raqqah in northern Syria). General Belisarius again seemed unwilling to fight the fleeing Persians. He really had nothing to gain, and he also probably realized that his army was tired from the forced marches. In addition, the army was probably hungry from the enforced Holy Week fasting. Finally, the Persian camp was well fortified, with a defensive ditch as well as anti-cavalry caltrops sown around its perimeter. These facts notwithstanding, the Byzantine army let their commander know that they wanted to attack the raiders. According to Procopius: “…the army began to insult [Belisarius], not in silence nor with any concealment, but they came shouting into his presence, and called him weak and a destroyer of their zeal; and even some of the officers joined with the soldiers in this offence…” Seeing that his men were determined to fight the Sassanians, Belisarius – against his better judgment – began deploying his army for battle. By this point it was probably mid- to late morning, and Persian scouts had spotted the approaching Romans and reported their whereabouts to Azarethes. Feeling he had little real choice – and that perhaps a victory over the Byzantines would offset the paucity of spoils from his raid – the Persian commander started his own preparations for a showdown on the banks of the Euphrates…

The Battle Dispositions The site of the battle was a flat, featureless flood plain several hundred yards wide. Just to the south of this plain, the ground began to slowly slope upwards. There was a small island in the river, just opposite of the town of Callinicum. It was here that Belisarius began his preparations. Belisarius set his army’s positions in an unorthodox way, for normal Byzantine tactical dogma. He placed about 7000 of his infantry on his army’s left, with the bank of the river to the infantry’s left. Most of the infantry (between 4000 and 5000) would have been spearmen, taken from the comitatensis (the line infantry, or regulars) and the limitanei (the field army, or militia), the two main components of the Byzantine army. Most of these spearmen would have worn metallic armor – at least the front few ranks – metal helmets and carried large shields, possibly with greaves to protect their legs. They were probably arranged 5 to 10 ranks deep. The remainder of the infantry consisted of 2000-3000 bowmen, likely lined up behind the spearmen, or possibly mixed in among them. All of the infantrymen, spearmen and archers, were armed with a sword as a secondary weapon, with the bowmen probably having a small round shield for more protection.

Then Belisarius placed his Byzantine cavalry in the center, divided into three divisions. Next to the left wing he placed 4000 of his limitanei cavalry; to their right were 3000 of the comitatensis horsemen, then another 4000 of the limitanei cavalry. These units would have lined up 10 files deep in battle. The first two files would have been armed with lances and swords, the next two files with have been armed with bows and swords, and the remaining files would have had some bows, most probably were armed with javelins and swords. The lancers probably had the most metal armor, with helmets and small round shields, while the other men probably were limited to leather or padded armor. To the right of the cavalry was a 2000-man contingent of infantry, newly raised by Hermogenes as he rode to link up with Belisarius. These men were not well trained, probably not well equipped, and armed with little more than javelins. Completing the Byzantine deployment, the 5000-strong Ghassanid Arab horsemen were stationed on the upward sloping ground, guarding the army’s right flank. These men would be lightly armored, armed with light spears, javelins, swords and some bows. It is probable that lined up behind the Byzantine center was a 1000-man reserve commanded by Belisarius and Hermogenes, consisting of their bucellari, their personal retainers. These men, sworn to the personal service of the general and the bureaucrat, would have worn the best armor possible, complete with small round shields, and probably greaves. However, they probably didn’t have any protection for their horses. These men were probably mostly Goths or Thracians. The Sassanid deployment is a bit simpler, but most of the Persian sources don’t give quite as much detail. The 15,000 Persian cavalry was divided into three divisions, placed on the right and center of their battleline, with their Lakhmid Arab allies on the left facing their traditional enemies the Ghassanids. The other 5000-man Persian division was lined up behind the center as a tactical reserve.

The sources stated that the Sassanid army was marching under a “royal standard,” probably meaning that these were the closest thing to “regulars” that the Persians had to offer. It can be further assumed that the majority of the army consisted of the elite riders of the Persians, the cataphracts: heavily armored, well-trained horsemen armed with lances, bows, and swords or maces. Their horses were also well-protected, and could logically be referred to as the “tanks” of the sixth century battlefield. These warriors probably comprised the front two or three ranks of each Persian division, with the remainder consisting of light Parthian or Hunnic horsemen armed with bows. The Persians usually fired their bows to disrupt their enemy’s formations, then sent the heavy horsemen in deep wedges to pound them into submission. The Battle When the two armies came within bow range, each side let loose with several volleys, each intended to disrupt the other side’s formations. According to Procopius, the Romans were at a disadvantage, as the wind was blowing into their faces. In addition, several individual challenges are described as taking place in front of the two forces. Finally, the Persians began a series of attacks along the Byzantine line, using the treasured tactic of attacking and feigning retreat in hopes of drawing out the Romans to pursue them. Apparently, the Romans’ discipline held fast. After several hours, probably now late afternoon, the Persians gathered their heavy cavalry into a single unit. Under a hail of arrows and javelins from their Lakhmid allies, the heavy horsemen slammed into the Ghassanid cavalrymen, chasing them from the field. This, unfortunately, exposed the flank of the newly-raised Byzantine infantry. The Persian cataphracts then unleashed their attacks on these men, breaking their formations and forcing them to retreat. The center-right Byzantine cavalrymen, under their commander Ascan, then turned ninety degrees to face this Sassanid onslaught. Although they fought hard to preserve the army’s position, Ascan eventually was killed and the horsemen under his command driven back. By this point, the entire Byzantine line was being pressured by the Persian host, and the Romans were forced back against the Euphrates River. The historian Malalas states that, at this crucial point in the battle, Belisarius and his bodyguards took the army standard, found some boats and fled the battlefield to the other side of the river, leaving his army to fend for itself. In contrast, Procopius says that the general ordered his retainers to dismount and join the remains of his left wing to resist further Persian attacks. The remaining Byzantine cavalry also dismounted and joined their fellow foot soldiers. Procopius describes the Byzantines forming a shieldwall and fighting savagely against the Sassanians seeking to wipe them out. As nightfall approached, both sides were fairly well exhausted, and the Persians returned to their camp to regroup. With that, the remaining Romans crossed the Euphrates to safety, either by the few boats found or by swimming. Exact casualty figures are not given for either side, but all the chroniclers state that each army sustained heavy losses. Despite the Persians voluntarily leaving the battlefield and returning to their camp, there is no way this fight can be characterized other than a decisive victory for them. When Belisarius returned to Constantinople, he was brought before a review board and dismissed from his position. The Persian general suffered a similar fate. With no significant cities taken – as well as small amounts of booty – the Persian king dismissed Azarethes, using the words of Procopius, he "rebuked Azarethes for the victory and thereafter ranked him among the most unworthy." Footnote #1: The Lakhmid and Ghassanid Arabs were Christians who had re-located from the southwestern Arabian peninsula (in what is today the nation of Yemen) to lands that today would include southern and western Iraq and northern Saudi Arabia. The Lakhmids were conquered by the Persians in the early fourth century. Showing great tolerance for the time, the Sassanids allowed the Lakhmids to keep their Christian faith, so long as they paid tribute and provided soldiers to the Persians when required. By contrast, the Ghassanids retained their independence, and allied themselves with the East Romans when the Lakhmids were conquered by the Persians. Footnote #2: Despite being made the scapegoat for his loss at Callinicum, Belisarius was soon recalled to duty. Being one of the empire’s more competent generals, the emperor knew that Belisarius was a valuable asset and was needed for the empire’s future plans. On the map below, showing the extent of the Byzantine Empire by the end of the reign of Justininian in 565, the areas in orange were added to the empire between 527 and 565; it was because of the military skills of Belisarius that nearly all of these areas were returned to Roman rule.

 

[Type 052D]

Great post! If the Sassanids were placed under an staple ruler like Shapur the I and competent generals like Surenas (Parthian Leader who defeated the Republican Romans in Cannae) led the Sassanian Army then the Rashidun Caliphate would have an hard time fighting the Persians.

 

[Aegis DDG]

 

[Scythian]

I heard the sassanids were the first knights. Is that true?

It's time to bring back Persian. We'e been hibernating for too long.