Available via license: CC BY-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Page | 153
HISTORIA I ŚWIAT, nr 12 (2023)
ISSN 2299-2464
e-ISSN 2956-6436
Kaveh FARROKH (Langara College, Vancouver, Canada)
Katarzyna MAKSYMIUK (Siedlce University, Poland)
Patryk SKUPNIEWICZ (Siedlce University, Poland)
Early Iranian Riders and Cavarly
https://doi.org/10.34739/his.2023.12.09
Abstract: The expansion of the Iranian peoples in first centuries of the 1st millennium BCE coincides with
the creation and further development of the cavalry warfare in western Eurasia, as well as with
the creation of the pastoral nomadic life-style which dominated the Great Steppe for millennia to come.
The mounted warriors replaced the light chariots which dominated the Bronze Age battlefields which
required perfect horsemanship however application of the recurved, double reflex. composite bow for
mounted combat seemed another important factor in development of the cavalry force. Mounted archery
which doubled the fire power of the mobile troops, earlier dominated by the chariots triggered
the evolution of the various forms of cavalry, both as a response to a threat of the horse archers and
independent forces used by the sedentary societies. Iranian contribution in spreading (and most likely
invention) of the new technology is undeniable. Although horse riding and recurved composite bows were
known earlier they could not overcome the power of the chariot force separately. Only the combination
of the factors allowed fielding large and efficient cavalry troops as was practiced by the Scythians and
became the success factor for the Achaemenid Empire. Survival of the chariots as late as the Seleucid
times was possible because of changing their tactical function from the highly mobile shooting platform
to heavy, at least partially, armored terror and shock weapon.
Key words: History, Iran, Military History, Scythians, Achaemenid Empire, Iranian Riders, Cavarly
The times when the first identifiable states of the Iranian speaking peoples
entered the political stage coincides with the development of the cavalry force in mili-
tary history. The first ages of the 1st millenium BCE, marking also introduction of
iron, were pivotal in the course of history, in several ways. The institutions, techno-
logies and skills developed at that time defined the directions of evolution for further
millenia, with the radical, truly revolutionary change coming with the introduction of
the gunpowder. The development of the Scythian cultural horizon changed the shape of
Corresponding Author. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5732-2447. manuvera@aol.com
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8709-0333. katarzyna.maksymiuk@uph.edu.pl; This work was
supported by the Siedlce University under Grant 188/23/B.
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8119-5449. patryk.skupniewicz@gmail.com
Page | 154
steppe economies and pastoral nomadism and further the modes of sustaining cultures
in Central Eurasia which survived their Iranian-speaking creators and were adopted
and developed further by the waves subsequent waves of the Altaic-speaking ethnici-
ties. Although Eurasian Great Steppe saw a number of great migrations and ethnic
changes, the nomadic way of life, developed by the Iranian Scythians became
a condition of survival in this demanding ecological zone. The way of life based on
employment wagons, felt tents and requiring entire male (and often female as well)
becoming skilled horse archers, who practiced their skill since childhood and were
capable of creating all-cavalry armies able to pose a threat to even the strongest seden-
tary civilisations, from the Cimmerians and Scythians until the Mongols and Kazakhs.
The ‘Scythian’ paradigm became the source of strategic arrangements which late
Eduard Alofs defined as “Iranian” and “Turanian”.1 Some ethnic-cultural aspects of
the changes associated with the early 1st millenium BCE also proved long-lasting.
Some of the territories acquired by the Iranian tribes remain in their possessions until
now and became home of great Iranian civilisation. Naturally, the history of the Iranian
and Persianate states was full of rapid changes, twists and turns, however cultural
continuity of the Iranian civilisation may only be challenged by China.
It does not seem possible at the current stage of knowledge to determine when
actual horse riding appeared and it seems even more difficult to find when horse riding
gained value in combat. It must be emphasised that the advantages of employment
horses in warfare are clear from modern perspective, after three millenia of the evo-
lution of the cavalry force in various ecological conditions and mirroring developing
technologies.2 It must be remembered that the idea to mount and control an animal
which, might follow its instinct rather than orders, which provided some velocity and
mass but was difficult to train into being as nimble as a warrior on two legs carried
great amount of risk. The difficulty must have been even greater considering that
the weapons were all designed for use on foot, so not mounted wielder had an advan-
tage. Possibly the initial function of horse-riding in warfare was communication and
transport while the combat was carried on foot. Such practice did not require high level
horsemanship skill and is represented throughout history with notable example of early
modern dragoons and the cavalry forces of both world wars or American intervention
in Afghanistan. This allowed quick delivering of the troops to the place of combat
but did not allow using the advantages of the horse during the fight, as these come at
the cost of perfected riding expertise. The discussions about the time of domestication
of the equines must be left aside as domestication does not imply riding and riding
does not imply combat function.3
1 Alofs, 2014; 2015.
2 Anthony, Telegin & Brown, 1991; Drews, 2002; Kelekina, 2009.
3 In general, Central Asia had been traditionally proposed as the birthplace of horse-riding technology
in approximately 1500 BCE, however the origins of this invention have been traced to regions in
Page | 155
It must be stated though that the Late Bronze Age battlefields were dominated
by the chariots and the levies of infantry.4 Had the horse riding been perfected
sufficiently to allow participation in fighting while sitting astride the mount, the simple
economy of the battle-field would enforce cavalry forces into the clashes. Chariot
allows shooting a bow from fast moving platform thus being a difficult target which
can manoeuvre rapidly, thus pose a threat even on spread ranks of infantry with limited
possibility of counterstrike, or enables delivery of the combatants to the required places
with possibility of immediate and speed escape in case things go wrong. In this way it
could be compared to a combination of a fighter-plane and helicopter of the modern
battle field, rather than tank or any other vehicle. It is true that the first known war
vehicles were introduced by the Sumerians in the 3rd milenium BCE. The Summerian
battle wagons were essentially constructed of planks fastened together with mortices,
with the platform itself mounted onto four wheels (round discs with no swiveling axles
or spokes). The wagon however was not pulled by the horse, but was propelled by
another species of Equidae, the onager. The heavy mass and modest pace of the wild
onagers made the Sumerian wagon a slow vehicle, capable of a maximum speed of just
12-15 kilometers an hour.5 This made the Summerian battle carts comparable to
the modern tanks, however their employment was short-lived and they appear only
seldom which allows hypothesis of their limited popularity.
A far more effective military vehicle, the combat chariot appeared sometime
in the 2000s BCE (during the latter part of the 3rd millennium BCE). Propelled by
the spoked wheel the lightweight combat chariot weighed in at a maximum of 25 kg
(60 lbs).6 Like the Sumerian battle wagon, the chariot had a dedicated driver
(for controlling the horse) and a warrior. Unlike the Sumerian war wagon, the origins
of the combat chariot are less clear. One trend of scholarship accredits the war
chariot’s origins to the ancient Near/Middle East7 with another tracing its origins to
Eurasia/the steppes8 notably the Sintasha-Petrovka region on the Eurasian steppe
(bordering Eastern Europe and Central Asia). The latter paradigm has led into a school
of thought suggesting that it was the Mittani (arriving from Central Asia) who first
the contemporary Ukraine. Archeological Studies by Anthony, Telegin and Brown (1991) indicate that
the invention of equestrian technology originated in the Ukraine in approximately 4000 BCE, two and half
millennia earlier than previously proposed with respect to Central Asia further to the east. Seminal to these
discoveries was the archaeological find of a 6000-year old horse-tooth from the Dereivka region in
the Ukraine. This tooth shows clear evidence of having been bitted as it displays chamfering, fractures
and breaking. See also Gat, 2008: 184; Trimm, 2017: 231.
4 Littauer & Crouwel, 1979; 1996; Moorey, 1986; Crouwel, 2002; Crouwel & Tatton-Brown, 2002; Fields
& Delf, 2006; Gökce, Isik & Degirmencioglu, 2013; Mazzu, et al., 2016; Amelirad, 2019.
5 Littauer & Crouwel, 1979: 33.
6 Littauer & Crouwel, 1979; 1996; Moorey, 1986; Crouwel, 2002; Crouwel & Tatton-Brown, 2002; Fields
& Delf, 2006; Gökce, Isik & Degirmencioglu, 2013; Mazzu, et al., 2016; Amelirad, 2019.
7 Littauer & Crouwel, 1979: 24-5, 67, 95; 1996: 934-9.
8 Anthony, Telegin & Brown, 1991: 98, 100; Gening, Zdanovic, & Gening, 1992; Di Cosmo, 1999: 903;
Jones-Bley, 2000.
Page | 156
introduced this war vehicle into the ancient Near/Middle East9 however another factor
to be considered is the role of the Hittites (arriving into Anatolia from the Aegean
region) as another ancient people introducing this technology to the region.10 It is just
as likely however that the evolution of chariot warfare technology was the result of
contacts and mutual influences between the Steppes/Eurasia and the Near/Middle East
that have been in place for millennia.11
Naturally, with growing role of actual cavalry the heavier, chariots designed to
protect their crew were developed, making them closed in function tanks, however
original function of chariot was providing velocity and manoeuvrability. Over mille-
nium of chariot warfare and the survival of the chariots well into actual cavalry era, is
clear evidence of their efficiency and deep cultural appreciation. It must be pointed,
however, that the chariot, being expensive device in itself, required at least two horses
and two men, of whom only one was an actual combatant. Had the skill of horse riding
been mastered sufficiently each horse would carry a combatant and device was idle,
which means that similar efficiency could be achieved at the much lower expenditure.12
The killing capacity could be doubled with the twice as low assets. Naturally, such
mechanistic, purely transactional economy might seem anachronistic when applied to
the Bronze Age when social differentiation played much more important role, however
battlefield reality was perennially about defeating the enemy and a matter of life and
death, so even among the most rigid social prejudices, efficiency must have remained
valid temptation. The problem here might be the simple fact that mounted combat
requires far greater skill than mere ability to stay mounted. The difficulty in coordi-
nation of operating weapons, especially bows, from horseback may be easily illustrated
by the relief of Neo-Assyrian Ashurbanipal, where the mounted archers operate in
pairs, where one of the riders holds the reigns of the horse of the shooter. Such solution
still reminded the chariot where one of the crew was the driver while the other could
shoot, with economically positive effect being resignation from the cart and possibility
that both riders would participate in close combat but the shooting took place from
stationary, unlike on chariots, position.13 The fact that in 9th century BC Assyria,
the world’s most efficient army, shooting from horseback could not be carried while
moving proves that developing the necessary skill was far more difficult than it seems
from reversed perspective. Appearance of the galloping horse archers on Assyrian
reliefs only few decades later show that the new technique was keenly adopted and
should be associated with greater ability of horse riding. It must be also pointed out
that the Assyrians developed large chariots manned by crew of four, which provided
9 Gat, 2008: 326, 344, 377.
10 Howard, 2011: 59.
11 Mallory, 1989: 41-2.
12 On the possible the Bronze Age mounted warriors see: Kelder, 2012.
13 Healy, 1991; Poisel, 2009; Nadali, 2010; 2019.
Page | 157
greater protective qualities while the speed might have remained comparable because
of increased number of horses. Development of Assyrian horse bowmen units illus-
trates that in first centuries of the 1st millennium BC, cavalry force was still a powerful
novelty and its basic tactical functions were only evolving.
First two centuries of the 1st millennium BC mark also creation of pastoral-
nomadic cultural horizon in the vast steppe zone of Eurasia.14 Such shift would not be
possible without mastering horse riding which allowed control over the flocks of cattle
and sheep. It was this horse riding that allowed creation new kind of economy related
to nomadic life-style. Riding as a crucial skill in this environment was practiced from
early childhood, so unsurprisingly, the Eurasian steppe produced fine all-cavalry
armies in next three millennia.15 This resulted in creation of the empires of unique size
which interacted with the sedentary counterparts, often conquering them. The dual
skills of horse control and weapons bearing from horseback are understood to have
appeared by the 1st millennium BCE within the regional arc encompassing eastern
Europe/Ukraine region to Central Asia.16 By this time this large swathe of territory
would have been dominated primarily by nomadic Iranian speakers such as
the Scythians17 who had expanded westwards into Eastern Europe and southeastwards
into Central Asia out of their original homelands in the Andronovo region. First, like
the chariot, warrior horsemen wielded two significant advantages against non-
equestrian opponents on the battlefield. First, the warrior on horseback had rapid
ingress or egress to or from the battlefield. Second, the warrior horseman was able to
hurl spears and discharge arrows from a relatively safe distance – and simply retire if
enemy infantry charged towards him. While contemporary Near/Middle Eastern armies
did have sophisticated forces of chariots, the equestrian warrior essentially combined
the functions of both vehicle and driver in one person. In addition, the single horseman
was more maneuverable and fluid on the battlefield than the chariot which was more
limited (than the individual horse) by the local terrain. These factors enabled nomadic
warrior horsemen to effectively raid and attack urbanized centers situated in pros-
perous territories. Initially these nomadic horsemen most likely were challenging to
counteract effectively, but this changed relatively rapidly as the (non-equestrian)
societies developed their own countermeasures, especially with respect to mounted
forces. This scenario demonstrably occurred with respect to the Neo-Assyrian army’s
military encounters against incoming Iranian peoples, particularly the Medes and
the Persians.
14 Chernenko, 1983; Kubczak, 1995; Kuzmina, 2000; Yablonsky, 2000; Baumer, 2012; Cunliffe, 2019;
Chugunov, Rjabkova & Simpson, 2019; Beckwith, 2023.
15 Chernenko, 1983; Hildinger, 1997; Karasulas, 2004; Kelekina, 2009; Alofs, 2014; 2015; Cunliffe, 2019;
Chugunov, Rjabkova & Simpson, 2019.
16 Gat, 2008: 190, 192.
17 Mallory, 1989: 48-56; Kuzmina, 2000; Yablonsky, 2000; Cunliffe, 2019.
Page | 158
The other invention which enhanced creation of the pastoral nomadism was
recurved composite bow.18 As the Assyrian and Urartian relics evidence, the mounted
archery was possible with single curved bow, however common adoption of the recur-
ved bows, whenever the shooting was to be performed from horseback, prove that
the recurved variety was better suited for mounted use.19 Another device which came
together with the recurved bow, was an integrated case for bow and arrows carried on
the left hip, in Greek named gorytos, replacing the quiver hung at the shoulder, typical
for archery on foot. As much as recurved bow could be adopted to both foot or moun-
ted use just because its greater efficiency, the gorytos was a device maximising bene-
fits in mounted use.20
9th century BC was thus, seemingly, the pivotal time in development of caval-
ry forces. Although great deal of scholarly attention was placed on nomadic cultures
and their entry onto the scene of global history where they remained important factor
until early modern times, mostly, due to their constant mastery of horsemanship and
archery, it must be emphasised that about that time cavalry was introduced to sedentary
populations and basic functions, models of armament of mounted warriors started
being developed.
Some emphasise was place above on horse archery, which seems extension of
one of the Mose efficient Bronze Age chariot tactics, but about that time close-combat
and hurled missiles cavalry was developed.
Scythian cultural horizon.
The Scythian cultural horizon is most often associated with the great wave
of the Iranian-speaking nomads who flooded the Eurasian steppes pushing out
the Tocharian speakers in Xinjang and probably Thracian/Anatolian-related speaking
Cimmerians to Anatolia. It is suggested that the Cimmerians were also Iranian spea-
kers, marking the first wave of the great Iranian migrations, however lack of any
Iranian stratum in Anatolia of the time supports the view that they would rather belong
to another group of Indo-Europeans.21 The artefacts associated with the Cimmerians
reveal elements typical for the later Scythian cultural horizon, however it must be
borne in mind that the pastoral-nomadic lifestyle could be adopted by various ethnic
groups belonging to variety of language groups. Identification of the Scythian type of
culture with specific linguistic group might be misleading as the Scythian expansion
marks the first of multi-ethnic confederacies which dominated the Great Steppe
in course of history. The common features within the culture of the early nomads are
18 Pullyblank, 1983: 451-2; Insulander, 2002: 49-73; Bersenev, Epimakhov & Zdanovich, 2011: 176, 181,
184, 185; Benjamin, 2018: 30.
19 Meljukova, 1964; Chernenko 1981; 1983; Chugunov, 2013; Loades, 2016; 2020.
20 Meljukova, 1964; Chernenko 1981; 1983; Bittner, 1987; Chugunov, 2013; Loades, 2016; 2020;
Daragan, 2020.
21 Yablonsky, 2000; Kuzmina, 2000; Cunliffe, 2019; Beckwith, 2023.
Page | 159
remarkable. The most renown is, of course, ‘Scythian triad’ i.e. (1) weapons including
archery equipment with tri-edged arrows, short re-curved bow, specific type of short-
sword or akinakes and chekan-klevets type of battle aces, (2) analogical horse harness
and (3) decorations in ‘animal style’, and it may adopt specific forms which can,
occasionally, be attributed to specific tribes, however this very wide-spread popularity
of the cultural markers makes it more reliable to consider early nomadic culture
an archaeological horizon rather than ethnic denomination.22 It needs to be emphasised
that the available onomastics concerning European/Western Scythian groups/tribes
identifies them as Iranians. In terms of military organisation, this culture type was
rather homogenous, after all two of its defining features – arms and harness are
foundations of the cavalry force. What defined Scythian culture in its tribal versions
was, first of all, cavalry warfare with domination of the long range weapons. Lethal
efficiency of Scythian arrows is well known and attested in the tracks of the Scythian
raids into Europe but it the threat of nomadic incursions terrorised Ancient Near East,
was mentioned in Assyrian sources and even ended in the Bible.23 Clear advantage of
mobility, manoeuvrability in combination with strategical opportunism which allowed
changing allies depending on current fortunes which offended sedentary sense of
loyalty, made the Scythians formidable, well remembered, force. Easy swapping sides
and loot-oriented sense of loyalty are not the only tactical/strategical differences
between the Scythians and sedentary peoples. As was evidenced in the course
of Scytho-Achaemenid wars or wars between Chinese Han empire with Xiong Nu,
the Nomads felt no objections against constant withdrawing and harassing advancing
enemy without engaging in a pitched battle, constantly inflicting losses and aiming
in leading the opponent to exhaustion and gradual destruction. The Nomads could
prove their efficiency in battle if they chose to do so.
The pastoral nomads were the expert horse-archers. Their primary, ‘default’,
opponents were, in the vast majority, their alikes. The raids into the lands occupied by
the sedentary cultures must have aimed in avoiding military confrontation and
returning with as much loot as possible. Also, peaceful exchange, structurally crucial
for nomadic life-style, was far too important for the rulers and was surely limited
unless prohibited on selected fronts. The steppe kingdoms were usually encircled
by the sedentary states/cultures, of which some were subdued and some involved
in exchange. Also, given the tactics which allowed entire tribes to escape the confron-
tation which were not found an act of cowardice and did not affect the warriors’
morale, the only truly significant wars could be waged between the nomads. Even in
case of lost battle with the sedentary army which employed unusual technological
means like Alexander’s victory at Jaxartes assured by the employment of ballistae and
22 Yablonsky, 2000; Cunliffe, 2019; Beckwith, 2023.
23 Chernenko, 1981; Chugunov, 2013; Loades, 2016; 2020.
Page | 160
cavalry, the nomads could escape, regroup and either change the tactics or set another
clash. It is noticeable that in course of history of Eurasian steppe, the nomadic king-
doms posed serious threats to the sedentary states but nomadic kingdoms fell only to
other nomadic groups, sometimes being driven to the farther regions of the steppe,
sometimes being absorbed by the victors. These were the other nomads who could not
be simply showered with arrows from the distance and escaped easily in case of
ammunition shortage or sudden counter-strike, as their ‘fire’-power, speed and agility
were next to equal. That is why the gradual increase in close combat weapons and
armour among the Scythians must be explained through need to counter the very same
tactics under protection of shields, armour and occasionally horse armour, which is
attested both in iconography of the Pontic Scythians and already mentioned by Hero-
dotus in regard of Massagetae.24 The elements of armament were manufactured locally
but also keenly imported and adopted from the sedentary infantry kit. Swift attack
under protection of shields and armour and getting to hand-to-hand combat with
unarmored and unprepared enemy, under protection of own archers provided enhanced
chance of success. It is probably the reason of increasing volume of armour in Scythian
warrior graves and probable extension of the length of the lance-shafts which allowed
further reach. The advantage of the shorter spears was that they could be hurled at
the enemy or could be used in close-quarter fighting. Longer shaft made throwing more
difficult but allowed hand-to-hand fight from further away. What can be also observed
is gradual extension of the blade length of the nomadic swords which marks significant
change in their employment which now allowed powerful cuts instead of thrust-centred
akinakai. Metallurgical limitations allowed extending length of the blade only at
the cost of thickening it and thus, increasing weight of the weapon but that obstacle
in fancier fencing, did not interrupt powerful cuts made from galloping horse, while in
really thick melee elaborated techniques were inefficient anyway.
Although the paradigm of employment in battle of mounted archers as well as
armoured lancers is attested in Neo-Assyrian iconography, the idea might already
originated in the Great Steppe. It must be noted that the Neo-Assyrian reliefs show
the lancers chasing fleeing enemy light infantry which superficially differs from con-
fronting light horse archers, however represents the same principle of armoured cavalry
facing rather mobile enemy, using advantage of armour and high speed charge. This
way, the enemy, whose value would be possibility to escape direct engagement of hea-
vy infantry, could not avoid the lancers in armour which reduced significantly efficie-
ncy of fighting back.25
The records of Scythian, and Scythian-type tribes like Dahae and Massagetae,
infantry may refer to the contingents of the sedentary vassals of the nomadic overlords.
24 Chernenko, 1981; 1983; Gorelik, 1982; Cunliffe, 2019.
25 De Backer, 2007; Barron, 2010; Dezsö, 2012; Nadali, 2018.
Page | 161
The practice which reminds later relation between the Avars and the Slavs. It is also
possible that the view of purely nomadic existence of the steppe dwellers, especially
in its earliest forms, is over-simplified and the life models were more complicated.
Herodotean description of Scythia strongly suggests so, especially when compared
with the ecological zones it embraced. Again, in later analogies, the steppe dwellers,
occasionally, allowed construction of city-like structures as exampled by Khazars.
Also, the lands occupied by the nations known as nomadic were often capable of sus-
taining sedentary agriculture, and were in fact becoming sedentary lands in course of
later history, which allows to suspect wider variety of life-styles wherever conditions
allowed that.
The nomadic tradition lived on in its further stages, with evolved arms, armour,
horse-kit (the early forms of saddles are clearly associated with the nomadic burials so
the development of the very idea of the saddle seems deriving from the Scythian
horizon however the invention of stirrups, greatly disputed, might be of Chinese
origin), however the main principle of mounted tribe/confederacy-army consisting of
horse archers of whom small elite part was equipped to come to close combat remained
relatively unchanged well into gun-powder era. The steppe principle was defined by
Eduard Alofs as “Turanian”.26 Ability to recruit easily well trained, already equipped,
mounted warriors allowed fielding of substantial armies hard to match by any
sedentary population. This doctrine, in course of history, stemmed its ‘bastardised’
forms which aimed in preserving combat abilities of the Steppe-dwellers with functio-
ning of organised structured armies able to take fortifications and occupy territories.
Pre-Achaemanid and Achaemenid Iran
Achaemenid dynasty came to power when cavalry already well established its
important role on the battlefields.27 Already the grandfather of Cyrus the Great used
the image of the galloping lancer defeating his infantry foe. The skill of lance wielding
and shooting the bow both on horseback and on foot are the skills Darius the Great
himself boasts of. The riders are plentiful in Achaemenid iconography throughout
the era. It must be emphasised that the royal ‘guards’ in Persepolis are depicted
wearing two types of dress-long, poncho-like robe of probably Elamite origin and tunic
and trousers associated with the Medes.28 The dress code is connected with the archery
equipment – the warriors in ‘Elamite’ robes carry usually the quivers on their backs
with the older ‘Assyrian’ type of bow, while the personages in ‘Median’ dress have the
gorytoi attached to the belt on the left hip with the ‘Scythian’ recurved bow.29 Such
26 Alofs, 2014; 2015.
27 Farrokh, 2007.
28 Bittner, 1987; Head, 1992; Sekunda, 1992; Garrison, 2013.
29 Farrokh, et al., 2022.
Page | 162
distinction may mark ethnic origin or administrative function or grade.The personages
in the ‘Elamite’ robe are often depicted by themselves in victorious combat or other
noble activities which suggests that the type of dress was found more official
and associated with the royal court or displays of royal power. What is unsurprising, if
the personages in ‘Elamite’ robes are shown while shooting (and they are more
frequently depicted wielding swords or spears), they are usually shooting on foot,
sometimes standing on the chariot. The personages in ‘Median’ dress or it derivatives
are usually shown using the bows from horseback. In this sense the illustration on
the wooden beams of the tomb in Tatarli30 is of outmost significance as it shows
the combatants in ‘Elamite’ robe in the centre which marks their leading, symbolic
position, and they are followed by the ranks of galloping horse archers in tunics and
trousers. The riding dress became general Persian dress and ‘Elamite’ robe almost
disappeared by the fall of the dynasty. This illustrates how originally elite infantry
combat units dress turned to official and then was generally replaced by the dress
suitable for riding.
It is important to note that in heroic stylisations of the riders a preference to
show them using hand to hand weapons can be observed. This should be associated
with depictions of the armoured Achaemenid riders who are usually shown in
cuirasses, reminding the Greek linothorakoi, with extended back of the neck
protection.31 This contradicts the literary sources depicting Persian body-armour as
made of scales. The discrepancy might result from the differences between the parts of
the empire and local preferences of kind of semantic content attached to the cuirass as
similarly a meaning was earlier associated with the ‘Elamite’ robe. The exact deci-
pherment of this artistic preference does not seem possible at the time. It is clear how-
ever that in late 5th and 4th century, Achaemenid army had the units of both horse
archers, as well as impressive force of of armoured riders wielding two short palta
spears. At the same time it must be stated that a scene on the golden pectoral in Miho
Museum collection shows the Persian armoured rider with a bow which might
evidence employment of the bows by the armoured troops.32
It must be emphasised here that the bow, together with spear, was an esteemed
weapon associated with royal power and personages carrying both of them might
illustrate completeness of the military might however it was bow which, by itself,
could symbolise king’s control over institutional violence.
Achaemenid kingdom was in constant violent interaction with Eurasian
nomads who were the ‘default’ enemies in Achaemenid art, together with Greek-style
hoplites appearing in Anatolian iconography. Defeating them was a heroic deed of
30 Summerer, 2007a; 2007b; Summerer & Lukpanova, 2020.
31 Gorelik, 1982; Bittner, 1987; Benzel, 1996; Bernard & Inagaki, 2000; Boardman, 2001; Casabonne &
Gabrielli, 2006; Ma, 2008; Woźniak, 2010; Tuplin, 2020.
32 Gorelik, 1982; Benzel, 1996; Bernard & Inagaki, 2000; Casabonne & Gabrielli, 2006; Woźniak, 2010.
Page | 163
Persian warriors fixed in Iranian imagery. It is possible that the contrast was enhanced
by already Avestan polarisation between the righteous Aryans and wicked Touranians.
Persian armies suffered significant defeats from the hands of the nomads, at least
twice, in early Achaemenid period. Once under Cyrus the Great who was said to be
killed in battle with Tomyris and second time in the course of Darius’ the Great
disastrous invasion of Pontic Scythia. Another mode of interaction between Achae-
menid Persia and the Eurasian nomads was their employment in the armies of Iran
either as subdued tribes or mercenaries. Functioning of the Scythian type tribal
warriors in Near Eastern warfare had its tradition reaching Neo-Assyrian empire and
it seems that the nomads were recruited both as the war bands and tribal contingents.
As was stated above, being hired as a mercenary was an opportunity to get richer and
did not contradict the nomadic code of ethics. Quite contrary, war bands of young
warriors who only wanted to distinguish themselves in the combat, must have been
encouraged to do so outside of the tribal territory.
The army of the sedentary empire of Achaemenid Iran consisted mainly of
infantry but employed cavalry units of great tactical importance. The units consisted of
horse archers and armoured lance-armed warriors. This model derived from earlier
Mesopotamian patterns but was constantly adopting nomadic impulses, either from
the enemies or from allied tribes.
Bibliography
Alofs, E. (2014). Studies on Mounted Warfare in Asia I: Continuity and Change in Middle Eastern
Warfare, c. CE 550-1350 – What Happened to the Horse Archer? War in History, 21(4), 423–44.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/26098617
Alofs, E. (2015). Studies on Mounted Warfare in Asia II: The Iranian Tradition – The Armoured Horse
Archer in the Middle East, c. CE 550-1350. War in History, 22(1), 4–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/
26098221
Amelirad, S. (2019). A Study of Ivory and Bone Plaques from Ziwiye in the Sandjan Museum. Iraq, 81,
11–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/irq.2019.6
Anthony, D., Telegin, D.Y., Brown, D. (1991). The Origin of Horseback Riding. Scientific American,
265(6), 94–101. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24938835
Barron, A. (2010). Late Assyrian Arms and Armour: Art versus Artifact. PhD diss., University of Toronto.
Baumer, C. (2012). The History of Central Asia: The Age of the Steppe Warriors. London: I.B. Tauris.
Beckwith, C.I. (2023). The Scythian Empire. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Benjamin, C. (2018). Empires of the Ancient Eurasia: The First Silk Roads Era, 100 BCE-250 CE.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Page | 164
Benzel, K. (1996). Torque with a pectoral depicting a battle. In J.P. O’Neil (Ed.), Ancient Art from Shumei
Collection (pp. 48–9), New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Bersenev, A., Epimakhov, A., Zdanovitch, D. (2011). The Sintasha bow of the Bronze Age of the South
Trans-Urals, Russia. In M. Mödlinger. M. Uckelmann, S. Matthews (Eds.), Bronze Age Warfare:
Manufacture and Use of Weaponry (pp. 175–86). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Bernard, P., Inagaki, H. (2000). Un torque achmnide avec une inscription greque au muse Miho
(Japon). Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 4, 1371–437.
Bittner, S. (1987). Tracht und Bewaffnung des persischen Heeres zur Zeit der Achaimeniden. München:
Friedrich.
Boardman, J. (2001). Greek Gems and Finger Rings: Early Bronze Age to Late Classical. London:
Thames & Hudson.
Casabonne, O., Gabrielli, M. (2006). Brèves remarques sur un torque achmnide au muse Miho (Japan).
Colloquium Anatolicum, 5, 85–90.
Chernenko, E.V. (1981). Skifskiye luchniki [Scythian archers]. Kiyev: Naukova dumka. (in Russian)
Chernenko, E.V. (1983). The Scythians 700-300 BC. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.
Chugunov, K.V. (2013). Luk i gorit u rannikh kochevnikov Tsentral'noy Azii (osobennosti konstruktsii
i nekotoryye paralleli v kul'ture plemen Kavkaza i Severnogo Prichernomor'ya) [Bow and burn among the
early nomads of Central Asia (design features and some parallels in the culture of the tribes of the Cauca-
sus and the Northern Black Sea region)]. In Shestaya Mezhdunarodnaya Kubanskaya konferentsiya
[6th International Kuban Conference], Krasnodar: Ekoinvest, 437–42. (in Russian)
Chugunov, K.V., Rjabkova, T.V., Simpson, St.J. (2019). Mounted warriors. In St.J. Simpson, S. Pankova
(Eds.), Scythians, warriors of ancient Siberia (pp. 194–201). London: Thames & Hudson.
Crouwel, J.H. (2002). Chariots in Iron Age Cyprus. In P. Raulwing (Ed.), Selected Writings on Chariots,
Other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness (pp. 141–73). Leiden: Brill.
Crouwel, J.H., Tatton-Brown, V. (2002). Ridden Horses in Iron Age Cyprus. In P. Raulwing (Ed.),
Selected Writings on Chariots, Other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness (pp. 411–29). Leiden: Brill.
Cunliffe, B. (2019). The Scythians. Nomad Warriors of the Steppe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daragan, M. (2020). Scythian archers of the 4th century BC: a new archaeological study of excavated
bows, arrows and quivers from the northern Black Sea region. In S.V. Pankova, J. Simpson (Eds.),
Masters of the Steppe: The Impact of the Scythians and Later Nomad Societies of Eurasia: Proceedings
of a conference held at the British Museum, 27-29 October 2017 (pp. 103–24). Oxford: Archaeopress.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1fcf8hh.14
De Backer, F. (2007). Some Basic Tactics of Neo-Assyrian Warfare. Ugarit-Forschungen, 39, 71–115.
Dezsö, T. (2012). The Assyrian Army I: The Structure of the Neo-Assyrian Army, 2. Cavalry and
Chariotry. Budapest: Eötvös University Press.
Di Cosmo, N. (1999). The Northern Frontier in Pre–Imperial China. In M. Loewe, E. Shaughnessy (Eds.),
The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC (pp. 885–966).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521470308.015
Drews, R. (2002). Early Riders. The Beginning of Mounted Warfare in Asia and Europe. New York
& London: Routledge.
Farrokh, K. (2007). Shadows in the Desert. Ancient Persia at War. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.
Farrokh, K., Maksymiuk, K., Skupniewicz, P., Fathi, S. (2022). An Overview of Military Confrontations
between of the Assyrian Army against the Medes in the 7th centuries BCE. Historia i Świat, 11, 125–44.
https://doi.org/10.34739/his.2022.11.07.
Fields, N.. Delf, B. (2006). Bronze Age War Chariots. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.
Garrison, M.B. (2013). Royal Achaemenid iconography. In D.T. Potts (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook
of Ancient Iran (pp. 566–95). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gat, A. (2008). War in Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Page | 165
Gening, V.F., Zdanovic, G.B., Gening, V.V. (1992). Sintashta: Arkheologicheskiye pamyatniki ariyskikh
plemen Uralo-Kazakhstanskikh Stepey [Sintashta: archaeological sites of the Aryan tribes of the Ural-
Kazakhstan steppes]. Chelyabinsk: Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. (in Russian)
Gökce, B., Isik, K., Degirmencioglu, H. (2013). On Urartian Chariots. In A.J. Veldmeijer, S. Ikram (Eds.),
Chasing Chariots. Proceedings of the first international chariot conference (Cairo 2012) (pp. 107–22).
Leiden: Sidestone Press.
Gorelik, M.V. (1982). Zashchitnoye vooruzheniye persov i midyan akhemenidskogo vremeni [Defensive
Armour of the Persians and Medes in the Achaemenid Period]. Vestnik Drevney Istorii, 3, 90–106.
(in Russian)
Head, D. (1992). The Achaemenid Persian Army. Stockport: Montvert.
Healy, M. (1991). The Ancient Assyrians. Oxford: Osprey.
Hildinger, E. (1997). Warriors of the Steppe. A Military History of Central Asia 500 B.C. to 1700 A.D.
Cambridge: Da Capo Press.
Howard, D. (2011). Bronze Age Military Equipment. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Publishers.
Insulander, R. (2002). The two-wood bow. Acta Borealia, 19(1), 49–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08003830215543
Jones-Bley, K. (2000). The Sintashta “Chariots”. In J. Kimball-Davis (Ed.), Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and
Settlements: Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age (pp. 135–40). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Karasulas, A. (2004). Mounted Archers of the Steppe: 600 BC - AD 1300. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.
Kelder, J. (2012). Horseback Riding and Cavalry in Mycenaean Greece. Ancient West and East, 11, 1–18.
Kelekina, P. (2009). The Horse in Human History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kubczak, J. (1995). Wizerunki Scytów w ikonografii nadczarnomorskiej. Artium Quaestiones, 7, 5–44.
Kuzmina, E. (2000). The Eurasian Steppes: The Transition from Early Urbanism to Nomadism. In
J. Kimball-Davis (Ed.), Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements: Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age (pp. 118
–25). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Littauer, M.A., Crouwel, J.H. (1979). Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in Ancient Near East.
Leiden: Brill.
Littauer, M., Crouwel, J. (1996). The origin of the true chariot. Antiquity, 70(270), 934–9. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0003598X00084192
Loades, M. (2016). The Composite Bow. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.
Loades, M. (2020). Scythian archery. In S.V. Pankova, J. Simpson (Eds.), Masters of the Steppe:
The Impact of the Scythians and Later Nomad Societies of Eurasia: Proceedings of a conference held
at the British Museum, 27-29 October 2017 (pp. 258–67). Oxford: Archaeopress. https://doi.org/10.2307/
j.ctv1fcf8hh.25
Ma, J. (2008). Mysians on the Çan Sarcophagus? Ethnicity and Domination in Achaemenid Military Art.
Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 57(3), 243–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25598433
Mallory, J. (1989). In search of the Indo-Europeans Language, archaeology and myth. London: Thames
& Hudson.
Mazzu, A., Gambari, F.M., Uberti, S., Bodini, I., Pasinetti, S., Sansoni, G. (2016). An engineering study of
a Bronze Age war chariot. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 364(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/364/1/012016
Meljukova, A.I. (1964). Vooruzhenije Skifow [Armament of the Scythians]. Moskwa: Nauka. (in Russian)
Moorey, P.R.S. (1986). The Emergence of the Light, Horse-Drawn Chariot in the Near-East c. 2000-1500
B.C. World Archaeology, 18(2), 196–215. http://www.jstor.org/stable/124615
Nadali, D. (2010). Assyrian Open Field Battles. An Attempt at Reconstruction and Analysis. In J. Vidal
(Ed.), Studies on War in the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays on Military History (pp. 117–152),
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Page | 166
Nadali, D. (2018). The Battle of Til-Tuba on the South-West Palace: Context and Iconography. In
G. Brereton (Ed.), I am Ashurbanipal King of the World, King of Assyria (pp. 234–43). London: Thames
& Hudson.
Nadali, D. (2019). Assyrian Stories of War: The Reinvention of Battles Through Visual Narratives. State
Archives of Assyria Bulletin, 25, 47–72.
Poisel, T.J. (2009). Representations of Archers in the Relief of Tiglath-Pileser III: Combined Front-and-
Back Views and Artistic Conventions. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 46, 107–16. https://doi.org/10.2143/
ANES.46.0.2040713
Pullyblank, E.G. (1983). The Chinese and their neighbours in prehistoric and early historic times. In
D.N. Keightley (Ed.), The Origins of Chinese Civilization (pp. 411–66). Berkley & Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Sekunda, N.V. (1992). The Persian Army 560-330 BC. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.
Summerer, L. (2007a). From Tatarlı to Munich. The Recovery of a Painted Wooden Tomb Chamber
in Phrygia. In I. Delemen (Ed.) The Achaemenid impact on local populations and cultures in Anatolia;
(sixth-fourth centuries B.C.); papers presented at the International Workshop, Istanbul, 20-21 May 2005
(pp. 131–58). Istanbul: Turkish Institute of Archaeology.
Summerer, L. (2007b). Picturing Persian Victory: The Painted Battle Scene on the Munich Wood. Ancient
Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, 13, 3–30.
Summerer, L., Lukpanova, Y. (2020). The wooden comb of the ‘golden lady’: a new battle image from
the Taksai-1 kurgan (western Kazakhstan). In S.V. Pankova, J. Simpson (Eds.), Masters of the Steppe:
The Impact of the Scythians and Later Nomad Societies of Eurasia: Proceedings of a conference held at
the British Museum, 27-29 October 2017 (pp. 588–604). Oxford: Archaeopress. https://doi.org/10.2307/
j.ctv1fcf8hh.48.
Tuplin, C. (2020). Sigillography and Soldiers: Cataloguing Military Activity on Achaemenid Period Seals.
In E.R.M. Dusinberre, M.B. Garrison, W.F.M. Henkelman (Eds.), The Art of Empire in Achaemenid
Persia: Studies in Honour of Margaret Cool Root (pp. 329–460). Leuven: Peeters Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1q26vzm.15
Woźniak, M. (2010). Armie starożytnej Persji. Od powstania państwa Achemenidów do upadku imperium
sasanidzkiego. Zabrze: Inforteditions.
Yablonsky, L.T. (2000). “Scythian Triad” and “Scythian World”. In J. Kimball-Davis (Ed.), Kurgans,
Ritual Sites, and Settlements: Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age (pp. 3–8). Oxford: Archaeopress.
To cite this article: Farrokh, K., Maksymiuk, K., Skupniewicz, P. (2023). Early Iranian Riders
and Cavarly. Historia i Świat, 12, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.34739/his.2023.12.09
© 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under
a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-ND) 4.0 license.
