Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 3.4/2016
10
Craig Morley
University of Liverpool,
craig.morley@outlook.com
BEYOND THE DIGRESSION:
AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS
ON THE PERSIANS
Abstract: Ammianus Marcellinus’ information and knowledge of the Sasanian
Persians is often criticised for being stereotypical and reliant on traditional
tropes and ideas. is is a result of a scholarly focus on the historian’s long
Persian digression, which is based predominantly on ethnographic traditions
and older writers. When the focus is switched instead to the wider narrative
of the Res Gestae the information Ammianus Marcellinus presents of
the Persians and their empire is usually accurate and reliable, and can be
corroborated by Roman and Sasanian sources. Beyond the digression we can
nd useful knowledge on the Persian army, kingship, ideology, frontiers and
cultural permeability can be found.
Keywords: Ammianus Marcellinus, Persia, Sasanian, Persian, Res
Gestae
A
mmianus Marcellinus’ knowledge of the Persian Empire, its people,
politics, history and geography has been much discussed by scholars,
who have traditionally been critical of its stereotypical nature.
1
It is
arguably because of this criticism that recent works on the Persians in the Res
Gestae have concentrated on the image Ammianus presents of the Persians
rather than the veracity of his information. For example, in “Ammianus
Marcellinus’ Image of Sasanian Society” Drijvers states that ‘I will not so
much focus on the historical veracity of Ammianus’ account of the Sasanian-
Roman conicts and the information he presents about the Persians, but
on the image which Ammianus gives of the Persians and Sasanian society’.
2
Likewise, in his study of the nal part of Ammianus Marcellinus’ description
of Julian’s Persian campaign in 363, in which lots of useful and important
information on the Persians can be found, Smith specically states ‘My
concern here, though, is not with the historical accuracy of Ammianus’
account; and the signicance of his personal experiences and observations
as a participant will gure only tangentially’.
3
In these works it is generally
accepted that the image of the Sasanian Persians in the Res Gestae is ‘complex
and nuanced’.
4
It is the aim of this paper, therefore, to take a systematic
approach to Ammianus’ information on the Sasanian Persians and their
empire to analyse how factually reliable his complex and nuanced image of
the Persians is.
Although Ammianus is generally viewed as reliable and trustworthy
on Roman-Sasanian relations this trust has not extended to his knowledge
1
Perhaps the most severe critic in this regard, and the instigator of much of this criticism, was
Mommsen’s inuential article ‘Ammians Geographica’ (1881).
2
(2006) 45.
3
SMITH 1999 89.
4
DRIJVERS, 2006: 65.
DOI: 10.14795/j.v3i4.199
ISSN 2360 – 266X
ISSN–L 2360 – 266X
Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 3.4/2016
Studies
11
of the Persians.
5
is is despite the fact he had vast personal
experience of the Persians and their empire which granted
his writing a degree of authority. e history of this ‘former
soldier and a Greek’
6
covers the period from A.D 358-378;
as such, his narrative includes some of the most important
events in Roman-Persian relations during this era. Namely,
Shapur II’s invasion of the Roman Empire in 359
7
and
Julian’s Persian campaign of 363.
8
Even more importantly,
Ammianus was an eye-witness to many of the events he
describes. For instance, he was trapped in Amida during
Shapur II’s siege of the city in 359
9
and he served under
Julian during the emperor’s ill-fated invasion of the Persian
Empire in 363. He experienced and witnessed many dierent
aspects of the Persian Empire; its customs, traditions, lands
and cities. us, phrases such as ‘I, myself have crossed’ and
‘I, myself have seen’ are common throughout his narrative.
10
Despite the entrenched sense of authority and
veracity these personal experiences give his work,
Ammianus’ inclination to describe his own activities in
his narrative has been criticised as showing a preference
for personal reminiscences and tall-tales rather than sober
historical analysis.
11
However, being an eye-witness to the
events described was regarded as an essential qualication
of history-writing by the Romans.
12
Ammianus himself
certainly believed the fact he observed these events himself
was an important aspect of his qualication as a historian.
13
Yet, Ammianus does not overtly or over-enthusiastically
enforce himself as a deciding gure in how these events
developed. Indeed, it has even been claimed that despite
his personal involvement in many of the events described
Ammianus rarely includes his own personal experiences in
the wider narrative.
14
As Blockley has pointed out, Ammianus’
narrative of the 359 invasion, in which he was personally
and directly involved, only mentions his own activities four
times, while during the siege of Amida Ammianus changes ‘I’
to ‘we’ for the duration of the battle.
15
Indeed, the fact that
Ammianus regularly describes himself hiding or running
away from danger underlines his propensity not exaggerate
his own role.
16
erefore, these personal accounts should
not be considered a weakness or aw in Ammianus’ history-
5
DRIJVERS 1998, 269: ‘Ammianus’ information on the historical events of
his time is trustworthy’. JONES 1964, 116 likewise nds him reliable. While
Austin (1979) nds Ammianus both reliable and knowledgeable on military
matters. However, there are historians who counter this view and instead
highlight his inconsistency and unreliability. SEECK 1906 was arguably one
of the earliest to voice criticism of Ammianus, but more recent studies by
PASCHOUD 1992, BLECKMANN/WEISWEILER 2014 have criticised the
historian. BARNES 1998 took this even further by stating that Ammianus’
literary technique was more suited to historical misrepresentation than truth.
Likewise, ROSEN 1970, 10-66 believed the historian’s aims were more literary
than historical.
6
31.16.8.
7
18.4-19.9, 20.2.
8
23-25.
9
Ibid. 19.1-8.
10
23.6.20, 27
11
MATTHEWS 1983, 32; ROSEN 1970.
12
KELSO 1998, 37. DRIJVERS 2006, 45, states that Ammianus is traditionally
believed to be well informed due to his personal involvement in major events.
13
23.6, 15.1.1.
14
DRIJVERS 2006, 65.
15
1988, 245.
16
18.6.10, 19.8.7.
writing but a strength.
17
As shall be shown below, it was from
his own personal eye-witness accounts that Ammianus’ most
reliable and credible information about the Persians can be
found.
Indeed, that Spectatus, an ambassador who had
likewise travelled the Persian Empire, was said to have seen
‘much [Persian] land and mountains and rivers… [to have
witnessed] the way of life of the Persians, the customs and
laws by which they live [and] to have seen the king himself
and the jewels with which he was adorned’ in his travels
reinforces the benets of similar experiences to Ammianus.
18
Related to his personal experiences, Ammianus’ position
as a protector in the Roman army ensured he was in an
invaluable position to gain information from his contacts
in the military, such as Ursicinus, as well as access to the
reports of scouts, spies and deserters.
19
Additionally, the
fact that he was from the eastern provinces, and a native of
Antioch, the habitual battle-ground of Roman and Persian
armies, would likely have resulted in Ammianus obtaining
some general knowledge, at least of the military capabilities,
of the Persians.
20
Nevertheless, Ammianus’ digression on the Persians
(23.6) has quite rightly received criticism from scholars for
its stereotypical presentation of the Persians, their empire
and way of life.
21
Matthews has highlighted the similarities
found in Ammianus’ Persian digression and the works of his
predecessors, noting that: ‘e digression, like others, bears
more traces of what Ammianus had read than of what he had
seen’.
22
In this regard, Feraco has listed Justin, Solinus, Pliny
the Elder, Herodotus, Strabo, Eratosthenes, Cassius Dio and
Ptolemy as earlier historians whose inuences can be found
throughout Ammianus’ digression.
23
It is certainly true that
Ammianus’ description of the Persians in his digression is
often indistinguishable from the way much earlier historians
described the Medes, Achaemenids and Parthians that came
before them.
24
Indeed, Ammianus uses the term ‘Parthians’
interchangeably with ‘Persians’ when talking about the
17
KELLY 2008, 65-66 also agrees that Ammianus’ personal accounts
strengthen his work. In his article ‘In Support of Ammianus; Veracity’
AUSTIN 1973, 331-332 uses the example of the historian’s exploits in
Corduene to defend the information in his personal accounts. MATTHEWS
1989, 48, also supports Ammianus’ account in this example. Although it has
been criticised by WEISWEILER 2014, 24-39.
18
Libanius Ep. 331.1. Although, it must be noted that travelling Persian
lands in a time of peace likely granted Spectatus the chance to view more
normalised Persian ways of life and customs.
19
CHAUMONT 1989. For the responsibilities of a Roman soldier of this rank
see MATTHEWS 1989, 74-80; AUSTIN 1979, 74-80; TROMBLEY 1999, 17-28.
20
On his Antioch origins see: THOMPSON 1947, 1; WALLACE-HADRILL
2004, 14. For more information on Ammianus’ background see MATTHEWS
1994.
21
The Persian digression can be found at 23.6.
22
1989: 14. Of this statement TEITLER 1999, 217 says he agrees
wholeheartedly.
23
2004: 9-21. DRIJVERS 1999, 202 cautions against overcondence when
trying to identify exactly what sources Ammianus used and where exactly
they inuenced his work.
24
Although TEITLER 1999 acknowledges this trend, especially in relation to
Herodotus, he also highlights that the relationship between the two historians
was more complex, by noting and explaining instances where Ammianus
directly contradicts information given by Herodotus. For example, TEITLER
1999, 220 notes that whereas Herodotus states the Persians were fond of
drinking wine and never made any major decisions without it Ammianus says
they only drank in moderation.
Studies
Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 3.4/2016
12
Sasanian Persians.
25
Alongside utilising these terms it has
been noted that Ammianus never refers to the Persians of
the third century onwards as Sasanians, which has caused
some scholars to question if he was aware of the change
in power between the Parthian Arsacids and Sasanians
in 224.
26
Such similarities with earlier works should be no
surprise, however. Ammianus himself specically references
the ‘writers of old’.
27
e historian evidently intended his
digression to emulate his predecessors to some degree, as a
way of displaying his knowledge of these earlier historians.
28
Indeed, the wider narrative of the Res Gestae is replete with
references to earlier Greek writers and historical works.
29
In
a bid to show his audience how knowledgeable he was of the
Persians, or at least of their literary stereotype, the digression
was split into distinct sections, each focused on a dierent
aspect of the Persian Empire; a historical introduction, a
geographical introduction, description of the provinces
of the empire and nally a description of the Persians’
customs.
30
Despite the limitations of this digression, the fact
that it was longest ethnographic and geographic digression
in Ammianus’ work and that, unlike the others, it was much
more distinct and self-contained can be suggested to show
Ammianus was aware that the Persian Empire was Rome’s
most important neighbour at this time.
31
Although Ammianus overtly displays the traditional
negative Roman view of the Persians, describing them as
savage, treacherous and deceptive.
32
However, alongside this
traditional hostility Ammianus also presents a complex and
nuanced picture of the Sasanian Persian. is less openly
hostile view is evident in comparisons with the majority
of Ammianus’ contemporaries, and in comparison to the
way he describes Rome’s other neighbours.
33
Ammianus’
belief that the Roman deceiving, betrayal and slaughter
25
25.8.9-10.
26
CHAUVOT 1992, 115-25 poses this question about Ammianus’ knowledge
of the Sasanian take-over. is lack of detail is highly surprising, and highly
damaging to Ammianus’ reputation as a reliable source on the Sasanian
Persians, given that the change of power from the Parthians to the Sasanians
is mentioned by Herodian (6.2), Cassius Dio (80.3.4) and Zosimus (1.18.1).
Although, as DRIJVERS 1999, 195 has stated ‘as a historian Ammianus
probably knew about the takeover by the Sassanids, he omits referring to it
because the Romans usually do not distinguish between a Persia ruled by the
Arsacids and a Persia ruled by the Sassanid dynasty’.
27
23.6.30.
28
BARNES 1990 has likewise argued Ammianus’ predecessors played an
important role in the composition of his work. Ammianus’ desire to show his
familiarity with earlier writers and historians is also evident in his frequent
imitation of Juvenal, author of the Satires, in his digressions on the city of
Rome (REES 1999; SMITH, 1994). ese Roman digressions can be found at
14.6.1-26 and 28.4.1-35.
29
During the siege of Amida Ammianus twice recalls events from Homer’s
Iliad. First, he likens the death of the Chionitae prince and the subsequent
battle over his body to battle over Procolus’s body during the Trojan War and,
secondly, compares the feats of the Gallic legion’s sally against the Persian
besiegers to the killing of ‘Rhesus and his racians in their sleep before the
walls of Troy’ (19.17-9, 19.6.10-11). Likewise, he recalls ucydides’ account
of the plague which struck Athens during the Peloponnesian War (19.4).
30
DRIJVERS 1999, 194.
31
is is a point ROHRBACHER 2002, 208 concurs with. e Res Gestae
also has ethnographic digressions on the Arabs (14.4.1-7), the Huns and
Alans (31.2.1.-25), as well as geographic digressions on Gaul (15.9-12), Egypt
(22.15-6), the Black Sea (22.8) and race (27.4.1-4).
32
For example, he has Julian call the Persians goats (24.8.1). Comparing
barbarian peoples to animals was a regular trope of Roman historians: Goths
(31.15.2). Scythians (22.8.42).
33
TEITLER 1999, 216.
of a group of Saxons was acceptable as barbarians deserve
such treatment simply because they are barbarians does not
have a corresponding Persian example.
34
Ammianus’ more
nuanced presentation of the Persians is also evident in his
account of the invasion of 359, where Shapur II is given a
prominent role, and his good planning and strong leadership
is contrasted with Roman inertia and corrupt incompetence.
35
Likewise, earlier in his work the historian indicates that
Julian regarded the Persians as a ‘worthier’ enemy then any
of Rome’s other neighbours.
36
It is necessary to explain why a historian with vast
rst-hand experience and a more nuanced view of the Persians
chose to represent them in such a stereotypical manner in his
digression. at Ammianus was a classicising historian who
desired to emulate the likes of Herodotus and ucydides,
and to full the expectations of his Roman audience arguably
played the underlying role in the development and nature of
his digression.
37
Ethnographic digressions were a traditional
aspect of Roman historiography, and had been an integral
part of Greco-Roman history since Herodotus. ey were
fully expected by Roman audiences, whom Ammianus would
not have wanted to disappoint.
38
Indeed, when talking of the
various digressions in Ammianus’ work it has been stated
that ‘[a]s an historian writing in the classical tradition,
Ammianus was obliged to include in his work digressions of
various sorts’.
39
Similarly, during the fourth century, when Ammianus
was writing, the Roman idea of the Persian Empire as an
alter orbis, a world that was completely dierent and alien
to the Roman Empire, was well-entrenched.
40
In this regard,
Agathias’ comment that anything opposite to one’s own
culture ‘is deemed deplorable, contemptible, and unworthy
of serious consideration’ is pertinent.
41
From this statement,
it can be inferred that the Romans believed anything that
was considered completely dierent to their own way of life
and culture was unworthy of true study and understanding.
42
34
28.5.1-7. For this interpretation of this passage see HEATHER 1999, 234.
35
18.4-19.9. Blockley 1988, 248 also argues this contrast as the underlying
reason for the development of the invasion. However, it is possible, and must
be acknowledged, that this contrast between the energy of Shapur and the
inertia of the Roman army may have been a way to attack Constantius due
to the perceived slights and slanders Ammianus believed that were targeted
against his patron Ursinicus by the corrupt ocials within Constantius court
(21.16.16).
36
22.7.8.
37
On Ammianus as a classicising historian see: TREADGOLD 2007,
51
-78; WILSHERE 1973; KALDELLIS 2004, 3-19. Although, it is widely
acknowledged that Ammianus’ work was a continuation of Tacitus’ history,
it has been argued that the Ammianus did not actively seek to emulate his
famous Roman predecessor, but was more inuenced by Greek historical
traditions, such as those found in Herodotus and ucydides: BARNES
1998, 65-70; 1990, 63-65; MATTHEWS 1989, 32; DRIJVERS 1998, 269. In
contrast, FORNARA 1992 and KELLY 2008, 66 argue that Ammmianus did
not have rst-hand knowledge of the Greek historians himself but got his
information from Latin compilations and intermediaries of the original works
of Herodotus and ucydides.
38
DRIJVERS 1999, 193. On the function and importance of Ammianus’
digressions see RICHTER 1989. at the Res Gestae includes 31 digressions
shows the historians’ eagerness not to disappoint his audience in this regard.
39
DRIJVERS 2006, 59. Other digressions in Ammianus’ work focus on
earthquakes (17.7.9-14), eclipses (20.3.2-12) and the plague (19.4.2-8), as well
as the ethnographic and geographic digressions mentioned above.
40
On the Roman understanding of the Sasanian Persians as the heirs to the
Achaemenid Persians see: Cassius Dio (80.4.1) and Herodian (6.2.1-2).
41
2.23.8.
42
is also certainly links with ISAAC’s 2004 and WALBANK’s 1983, 66
Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 3.4/2016
Studies
13
is is even more relevant when emphasis is placed upon the
Roman perception of the Sasanian Persians as heirs to the
Achaemenid Empire, which Ammianus Marcellinus himself
explicitly mentions,
43
and is contrasted with the Roman
view of themselves as the heirs of Alexander the Great, the
conqueror of the Achaemenid Empire.
44
Indeed, during this
period the ideal of Alexander-emulation, imitatio Alexandri,
was increasingly prevalent and important to Roman
emperors.
45
In this regard, nothing could be more dierent
to those who regarded themselves as the heirs of Alexander
than a people who expressed themselves as the heirs of the
Achaemenids, Alexander’s arch-enemies.
us, due to the circumstances and the conditions
under which he wrote, Ammianus likely felt compelled
to present the Sasanian Persians in his digression in a
stereotypical manner, to recall the entrenched traditions
and ideas of the Persians that his audience would have been
familiar with and would have expected.
46
He was simply
trying to conduct his ethnographical digression in a style
that would be most pleasing and most expected by his Roman
audience, by highlighting and emphasising the traditional
dierences between the Romans and Persians.
47
As a result, most of Ammianus Marcellinus’ more
nuanced information on the Persians does not come from
this digression but from other sections of his narrative,
where it can be found almost inconspicuously amongst
tales of Persian armies, shahs and cities. Scholarship on
Ammianus’ knowledge of the Persians has thus far focused
argument that Roman racism was based on culture rather than race. Scipio’s
discussion with Laelius about the barbarity of Romulus in Cicero’s Republic
(1.37.58) is evidence of this.
43
17.5.2.
44
is Achaemenid heritage has been much discussed and debated by
scholars, more information of this debated can be found on P.22.
45
For this oppositional ideology see: DIGNAS/WINTER 2007, 1; SPENCER
2002. e connection between the resurgence of imitatio Alexandri as a
response to the rise of the Persian Empire is evident in the evocations of
Alexander’s legends by Roman emperors, or at least Roman writers writing
about Roman emperors, from 224 onwards (Diocletian: Malalas 12.39;
Constantine: Euseb. VC. 4.15.1; Julian: Amm. Marc. 24.4.26-7; Honorius:
Claud. IV Cons. Hon. 257-8, 379). is connection has also been acknowledged
by SMITH 2011, 50. Trajan (Dio 68.29.1); Caracalla (Dio. 77.7.1); Alexander
Severus (SHA Sev. Alex. 5.1-2, 25.9) were all compared to Alexander aer
launching eastern campaigns. On the overall importance of the memory and
legend of Alexander to the Romans see SPENCER 2002. However, the most
famous, and debated, example of this drive to emulate Alexander was Julian,
whose 363 campaign was presented by many contemporary and later Roman
writers as an attempt to emulate Alexander’s conquest of the Achaemenid
Empire (Soc. HE 3.21; Greg. Naz. Orat. 5.14; Eunap. fr. 28.3). ose who
support the idea that Julian actively sought to emulate Alexander include
ATHANASSIADI-FOWDEN 1981, 192; 224-5 and WIRTH 1978, 455-68.
ose who argue this idea was more likely the result of Christian attacks on
Julian, who tried to malign the pagan emperor as a means of showing his
arrogance and folly include LANE FOX 1997 and SMITH 2011.
46
is trend has also been recognised in Ammianus’ stereotypical
presentation of the Huns in his ethnographic digression of this more nomadic
group, which focuses on traditional ideas of their savagery and barbarity, as
this is what his audience both wanted and expected, KING 1987 [1995].
47
is view is also supported by DRIJVERS 2006, 66; 2011a, 71-72 and
WIEDEMANN 1986, 201, who argue that audience expectations aected
Ammianus presentation of Rome’s other neighbours. Once again, this is also
evident in the stereotypical presentation of the Huns in Ammianus’ digression
on them, KING 1987 [1995]. ROSEN 1982, 85 and RICHTER 1989, 218 argue
a slightly dierent angle, by stating that Ammianus’ Persian digression was
designed to highlight to his Roman audience their own faults and in contrast
with the virtues of their Persian enemies. However, this still agrees with the
general belief that the digression was not designed for full veracity but rather
for another specic purpose.
on the digression, and this may account for his mixed
reputation for accurate and reliable information on the
Persians. For example, Drijvers states that ‘A large part
of this paper will be dedicated to the long excursus on the
Persian Empire, including its ethnographic description of
the Persians’.
48
Although Drijvers does include analysis on
the image of the Persians found throughout the Res Gestae’s
narrative alongside his focus on the digression it is the aim of
this paper to expand on this by taking a systematic approach
to the information found in the wider narrative.
When Ammianus states that he would improve
upon the information about the Persians presented by his
predecessors, it is in these passages, not the digression
itself, which we must look for this improved information.
Beyond the digression Ammianus provides useful and
frequently overlooked information on various political and
administrative aspects of the Persian Empire, which feature
alongside genuine attempts to understand its history and
institutions: it is these passage that this study will focus.
Yet, before evaluating this knowledge it is important to
remember that ‘Ammianus wrote the history of his own
time’.
49
erefore, his work must only be judged on the
conditions that existed in the Persian Empire during the
time he was writing and not to cast doubt on any claims or
information presented in the Res Gestae that do not match
up with later periods of Persian history, of which Ammianus
could not possibly have been aware.
AMMIANUS ON THE PERSIAN ARMY
e army (spāh) was the Persian institution with
which Ammianus was most familiar, having fought against
it rst under Ursinicus in 359 and then again under Julian
in 363. It is therefore no surprise that information about the
Persian army features frequently throughout the Res Gestae.
It is for this reason, as well as Ammianus’ own experience in
the Roman army, that his information on the Persian military
is largely believed to be reliable by modern historians.
50
On
the Persian army, Ammianus states:
ey rely especially on their cavalry, in which all their
nobility and men of mark serve. eir infantry are armed
like gladiators and obey orders like soldiers’ servants.
51
e Persians opposed us with squadrons of cuirasses
drawn up in such serried ranks that their movements in
their close-tting coats of exible mail dazzled our eyes,
while their horses were protected by housings of leather.
ey were supported by detachments of infantry who moved
in compact formation carrying long, curved shields of wicker
covered in raw hide. Behind them came elephants looking
like moving hills. eir huge bodies threatened destruction
to all who approached, and past experience had taught us to
dread them.
52
Ammianus’ description of the heavily armoured
Persian cavalry in these two passages certainly aligns with
the later Arabic writer Tabarī’s similar description of them as
48
2006, 45.
49
DRIJVERS 1998, 268.
50
We have already seen how AUSTIN 1979 believed Ammianus to be reliable
on military matters.
51
23.6.83.
52
24.6.7.
Studies
Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 3.4/2016
14
armed and armoured to the teeth.
53
e Phoenician novelist
Heliodorus, author of the Aethiopica, writing in either the
third century or second half of the fourth century, also
describes the Persian cavalry as heavily armoured.
54
Even
more telling, the rock relief of Khusro II at Taq-ī Bustan
shows the shah astride his armoured horse wearing full mail,
an image which clearly recalls the heavily armoured Persian
cavalry described by Ammianus above.
55
Likewise, the
historian’s comment that the nobility served in the cavalry
can be substantiated by the fact that only the wealthiest
individuals would likely have been able to aord the amount
of armour and arms that was needed to serve in this elite
unit.
56
e focus on the cavalry in the above descriptions
of the Persian army creates the impression that it was
these elite units which formed the core of the spāh and that
Persian battles were decided by the success or failure of their
mailed cavalry. Modern historians such as Wiesehöfer and
McDonough certainly agree with this, stating that, ‘combats
were mainly decided by a concentrated attack of the cavalry’
and that the ‘aristocratic cavalry formed the backbone of the
Sasanian armies’.
57
In the second passage quoted above, Ammianus
mentions the use of elephants in Persian armies, stating
that they were used by Shapur II in the defence of Ctesiphon
in 363.
58
Elsewhere in his narrative Ammianus informs us
that the Persians made use of elephants during the siege of
Amida,
59
in another battle with Julian,
60
and in a surprise
attack against Jovian, an account that is supported by
Zosimus.
61
e use of elephants in the Persian army is
corroborated by Persian and other eastern sources. Tabarī
informs us that elephants were used by the Persians as early
as the reign of Shapur I, who used them to capture Hatra.
62
Likewise, Persian rock reliefs, such as that at Taq-ī Bustan,
which depicts the use of elephants in the army of Khusro
II, conrm the use of elephants in Persian armies.
63
Persian
use of elephants can also be found in other Roman sources.
For example, Procopius, himself a veteran of Roman-
Persian conicts, also mentions the Persian army deploying
elephants, especially in siege-warfare: a fact that would
corroborate Ammianus’ statement that they were used
during the siege of Amida.
64
Ammianus’ information on how
elephants were used in battle, being ‘loaded with men’, is
also validated by similar accounts in the works of Procopius
53
964. Tabarī is describing the army of Khusro I (531-579) here.
54
Aethiopica 9.15.1-6.
55
GHIRSHMAN 1962, g 235. For modern discussions of the Persian mailed
cavalry see BIVAR 1972; MICHALAK 1987, 73-86; CAMPBELL 1999, 339.
56
is is supported by PAYNE 2016, 527, who states that ‘Iranian elites were
expected to participate in military campaigns and even to man the most
forward, exposed anks of the cavalry.’
57
WIESEHÖFER 1996, 198; MCDONOUGH 2011, 299.
58
24.6.7. It must be noted that RANCE 2003, 365 argues the use of elephants
against Julian throughout his invasion of Persian territories was a consequence
of sheer need and desperation rather than any military norm.
59
19.2.3
60
25.1.14.
61
25.6.2-3; Zos. 3.30.2-3.
62
829. Tabarī (878) also informs us that Peroz made use of elephants in his
campaign against the Hephthalites and again during their later wars against
the Arabs (1031).
63
DARYAEE 2008a, 46.
64
Proc. BG. 3.14.10, 8.14.32-37.
and Agathias, who similarly describe Persian war-elephants
carrying soldiers on their backs.
65
Alongside cavalry-actions, siege-warfare is the most
common activity of the Persian army in the Res Gestae.
roughout his narrative Ammianus provides insights into
the siege-tactics and siege-engines utilised by the Persians
in their conquests of Roman cities, particularly during
his account of the siege of Amida in 359. For example,
Ammianus informs us that the Persians employed ‘mantlets’,
‘penthouses’, armoured towers topped with artillery and
earthwork ramps in their attempts to capture the city.
66
at
these tactics and siege-engines were reminiscent of their
Roman counterparts was not merely Ammianus forcing his
own experience of the Roman army onto the Persians but
was due to the fact the Persian army actively ‘utilised Roman
know-how when it came to the use of siege-weapons’.
67
is
idea of Persian skill in siege-warfare is certainly supported by
the later Byzantine military manual, the Strategikon, which
states that ‘[the Persians] are awesome when they lay siege’.
68
e fact that the Strategikon is attributed to Maurice, the
Byzantine ruler who aided Khusro II in winning the Persian
throne in the sixth century gives this statement considerable
credence.
69
More importantly, Ammianus’ image of strong
Persian siege-warfare is supported by the fact that the
Persians were able to successfully besiege and capture many
heavily defend and fortied cities, both Roman and non-
Roman throughout their history.
Elsewhere, Ammianus makes clear that the
Persians made use of foreign troops to boost their military
capabilities. e audience is informed that the newly cowed
Chionitae, Gelani, Albani and Segestani all provided allied
contingents for Shapur II’s invasion of the Roman Empire
and that they were all present during the siege of Amida.
70
Similarly, during Ammianus’ narration of Julian’s Persian
campaign in 363 he records that the Roman army battled
against ‘Saracens’ who fought alongside the Persian army.
71
is information is certainly supported by the fact that
Persia’s Arab allies, namely the Nasrids of al-Hira, played a
fundamentally important role in the defence of the Persian
Empire’s southern frontier.
72
Although this may seem
relatively supercial, given that the Romans and most other
ancient imperial polities utilised foreign troops in their
military endeavours in some capacity, it is true nevertheless,
and is therefore another example of Ammianus providing
veracious information on the Persians.
73
65
19.2.3. Proc. BG. 8.13.4, 8.14.35; Agathias 3.27.3. For more discussion on
Persian use of elephants in the army see RANCE 2003, CHARLES 1998; 2007
and DARYAEE 2016.
66
19.5.1, 19.6.5-6, 19.7.2.
67
DARYAEE 2008a, 46. LEE 2013 also agrees with Persian imitation of
Roman military techniques.
68
Maurice, Strategikon 11.1.
69
Although Maurice’s authorship has been the point of some the debate, the
Strategikon does indeed come from the same period as the Byzantine emperor,
between the end of the sixth century and the beginning of the seventh century.
For more discussion on this military manual, and its authorship and date of
composition see WHITBY 1988, 242.
70
18.6.22; 19.2.3.
71
24.2.4.
72
SHAHID 1989, 478; BOSWORTH 1986. e importance of Persia’s allies,
particularly the Nasrids is also conrmed by the fact that Bahrām V was sent
to be raised at their court in al-Hira (Tabarī 854-5; Shahnama 2078-80).
73
Older empires such as the Assyrians and Achaemenids made use of Arab