Ardashir I (224-241 CE) receives the crown of divine glory from Ahura Mazda in Nagsheh-e Rostam An early example of Sassanian horse archery can be seen at the Battle of Ctesiphon in 233 CE, where the Roman forces of Emperor Alexander Severus (r. 222-235 CE) were defeated by the Savvaran Ardashir I. According to Herodian: The Persian king [Ardashir] attacked the [Roman] army with all his might, took them by surprise and trapped them. Under fire from all sides, the Roman soldiers were destroyed... In the end, they were all driven into a single mass... They were bombarded from every direction... The Persians surrounded the Romans like fish in a net; They fired their arrows from all sides at the besieged soldiers, and the Persians slaughtered the entire army... and everyone was destroyed... This terrible disaster, which no one cares to remember, was a setback for the Romans, as a huge army was destroyed... The Battle of Ctesiphon in 233 AD raises the question of whether the early Sassanid armies had "Parthian" characteristics, despite their general military distinction from their Parthian predecessors whom they had defeated nine years earlier at Firuzabad. One common characteristic may have been the combination of heavy cavalry and horse archery. The Parthians would launch attacks with heavily armored cavalry followed by horse archers firing missiles. The cavalry would charge their opponents with javelins. They would either break through the enemy lines or force their opponents (i.e. the Roman infantry) into tighter formations to prevent the cavalry from breaking through. The cavalry would then withdraw to allow the horse archers to unleash a barrage of missiles against the enemy. These tactics were employed with overwhelming success against Roman forces under Marcus Lucinius Crassus at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC, where a Parthian force of 10,000 soldiers (including 1,000 cavalry; the rest horse archers) defeated a Roman force three to four times its size. However, the Romans succeeded in preventing further defeats of this magnitude by adopting countermeasures (such as the recruitment of horse archers). In addition, Parthian military effectiveness was compromised by dynastic conflicts and rebellions in northern Persia, Persia, and Media, as well as conflicts to the northeast along the porous borders of Central Asia. Nevertheless, despite military challenges from the Romans, Central Asian invaders, and internal challengers, the Parthian system of armored horse archers remained formidable. The question, however, is what types of “horse archers” were employed at the Battle of Ctesiphon. Were Ardashir's tactics at Ctesiphon based on the classical Iranian practice of using armoured cavalry in pack attacks in concert with mounted archery? It seems that in this battle (as at Carrhae in 53 BC) the final blow was delivered by the cavalry's horse archers, who, as Herod noted, were firing their arrows from all sides at the besieged soldiers. But the Sassanids and later Parthians do not seem to have made a strict distinction between armoured cavalry and (unarmoured) mounted archers: Sassanid and Parthian cavalry are seen carrying terdans (arrow boxes) at Firuzabad, suggesting that they may have been able to function as both spearmen and mounted archers. It is also possible that Ardashir's cavalry at Ctesiphon (spearmen and mounted archers) also used a refined version of the Central Asian 'scattering' technique. Jalali points out that the common military tactic employed by the sepahs was to (1) first spread out in an orderly fashion (as when one army confronts another), then (2) “scatter” in a number of different directions, and (3) for all the “scattered” elements to converge at a predetermined point facing the enemy army. The “massed” elements would then suddenly arrive simultaneously to attack the enemy. This would certainly have happened differently when the svarans and horse archers engaged in a feigned retreat, luring their enemies into pursuing them, and then dispersing and converging at predetermined points on the battlefield. Ardashir I probably defeated the Roman forces at Ctesiphon using the tactic of dispersion and convergence.

Meschis (244 AD) Gordian III (r. 238-244 AD), the first Roman emperor to fail against Shapur I. After his death, he was succeeded by Philip the Arab. (Louvre Museum, Paris)The young emperor Gordian III attacked the Sassanid Empire, first defeating Shapur I at Resaina (in modern Turkey, between Carrhae and Nisibis) in 242 or 243 AD. This victory allowed Gordian to clear Antioch, Harrar, Carrhae, and most of Nisibis of the armies. Gordian then prepared to deliver his final blow by crossing the Euphrates to advance on Ctesiphon to crush the armies. At this crucial moment, Gordian suffered a personal setback when his father-in-law Timistheus, who had accompanied him on the campaign, died of illness. This was a major blow given Timistheus's excellent military leadership skills, which had served Gordian well against the Sipahis thus far. Gordian continued to advance towards the Sassanid capital, intent on ending his campaign. Shapur I and Sipahi met Gordian in another battle at Mesiseche (near modern Anbar in Iraq) in 244 AD. There are conflicting accounts of the outcome of the battle. The traditional Western view was previously based on reports from classical sources such as Jordanes, Festus, and Ammianus Marcellinus, which generally asserted that Gordian III had a complete success against the Sipahi and defeated Shapur I, but was killed by Philip the Arab, who was governor of the province. A new generation of Western historians now strongly doubt this version of events. There are two reasons for this. First, there are other classical sources such as the Oracula Sibyllina and Zosimus, which clearly state that Gordian lost the battle and was killed fighting against Shapur I and Sipahi in 243 AD. The second reason why Western historiography is skeptical of Gordian's claims of a "victory" at Mesiseche concerns Iranian sources. The Shapur inscriptions at the Ka'b of Zoroaster (also known as Shapur's Ka'b of Zoroaster, or SKZ) indicate that the emperor Gordian took forces drawn from the entire Roman Empire and the Gothic and Germanic peoples and marched into Assyria and the Aryan Empire... A major frontal attack was made along the borders of Assyria at Meshik [Mesishi]... Gordian was killed, and the Roman army was destroyed. As scholars Dignas Winter have noted, the Shapur inscription was composed within thirty years of the events of 244.... It would have damaged Shapur's credibility to deliberately create a false narrative; this was not in the interests of the Sassanid ruler. In addition, the rock inscriptions at Bishapur depict the unfortunate figure of Gordian III lying dead and being trampled under the hooves of Shapur I's horse. In this regard, there is a hint from Cedrinus, who states that [Gordian III?] died after falling from his horse and crushing his thigh. In recognition of Shapur I and his great victory over Roman arms, the name of Mesci was changed to "Pirouz Shapur" (literally Shapur the Victorious). Scholar Loriot attributes the Roman defeat to a tactical error made by Gordian III in his choice of terrain, which maximized the effectiveness of the cavalry against the Roman forces. Gordian may have been confident in his ability to counter the cavalry with his own cavalry units. Concerning Mesci in 244 AD, the book Shapur Kabi Zartusht (SKZ) states that many of the Roman recruits were of "Gothic and Germanic peoples". Gordian appears to have used the Gothic-Germanic cavalry as a means of countering the cavalry. The SKZ report (Shapur Kabi Zartusht) may indicate that Gordian engaged his army in a "great frontal attack" at Mesci, referring to a massive spear attack by the Gothic-Germanic cavalry. Bivar notes that Gordian's decision to use the Gothic-Germanic cavalry at Mesci led to a military "disaster". The question that can be asked is why did the Roman cavalry fail against the Sassanids? The SKZ mentions Shapur I’s victory at Messeche but fails to provide precise tactical details of the battle. The Gothic-Germanic “Sarmatian” cavalry were well versed in spear warfare, having learned about portable spear warfare and the corresponding equipment through their contacts with the Iranian Sarmatians in Europe. This may explain why the Roman army chose to employ these Gothic and Germanic cavalry against the new type of armored cavalry (the Sassanids). The Roman cavalry likely outperformed their Gothic-Germanic counterparts in spear warfare at the Battle of Messeche. One reason may be that the Romans’ armor was more robust than that worn by their Gothic-Germanic counterparts. As at Firuzabad in 224 CE, the Sassanids used a combination of metal and plate armor, unlike their opponents who did not use metal armor. As Boss notes, the Gothic-Germanic knights wore scale armour, but even this was not of the same durability and quality as seen among the original Sarmatian models. It is likely that the Germanic knights carried small shields and were able to engage in hand-to-hand spear fighting in the Iranian manner. Thanks to their composite armour (a combination of metal and plate armour), contemporary Savar knights would have had no need for armour at this time, but it is difficult to be sure how much tactical advantage this had over their Germanic contemporaries.

Conclusion At first glance, the Sassanids do not seem to have achieved much. While they had a series of excellent victories, they did not attempt to hold Roman Syria permanently. Why? Because the Sassanids had their own eastern frontier to contend with and were frequently attacked by powerful nomadic groups such as the Hephthalites who prevented the Sipahi from making any permanent attempts at conquest. However, the Sassanids escaped with vast amounts of booty and prisoners and became very wealthy afterwards. The Romans were forced to tie up many of their best forces in the east, and even spent a great deal of resources building strong forts to slow the Sassanid advance. These resources and men would undoubtedly have been crucial on the Rhine and Danube frontier. Thus, while they did not pose a direct existential threat to Rome, they forced the empire to recognize the Sassanids as an equal power

The warriors who once inflicted severe defeats on the Roman army and legionaries and prevented them from controlling the Silk Road like a strong barrier. In fact, it was the Sassanian army that managed to take revenge on the attack of the European Macedonians, and since then it has emerged as a great power equal to the Romans. [95] The Sassanians were another great power in the eastern Roman Empire. In almost every war that the Persians fought with the Romans, the cavalry was also present. The Sassanian military machine and equipment were equal to the Romans, and even stronger than them in every respect; a bitter truth that the Romans finally admitted. The elite of the Sassanian cavalry and their elite were an impregnable wall in the face of the Romans so that they could not invade Iran and reach the borders of India and China. Today, few people understand the fear and terror that these riders instilled in the hearts of their rivals. To understand this matter, it is best to refer to Libbyus (the Roman historian), who wrote: “The Roman legion would rather endure any fate and fate, but not face the Persian cavalry.” [ 96 ] The influence of the Sassanian Empire continued long after its collapse. Under the rule of a number of powerful kings before its collapse, this empire achieved an Iranian renaissance that became the driving force of a civilization under the banner of the emerging religion of Islam. The Sassanian Empire in modern Iran and its environs is considered one of the most glorious and prosperous eras of Iranian civilization. In Europe The Sassanian culture and military structure had a tremendous influence on Roman civilization. The structure of the Roman army was influenced by Iranian methods of warfare. The Roman monarchy imitated the customs of the Sassanian court in Tisbon, which in turn influenced the ceremonial traditions of modern European states. The origins of modern European diplomacy can be traced back to diplomatic relations between the governments of Iran and the Roman Empire.

In addition to spear fighting, the possibility of close-quarters fighting on horseback between the Savarans and their Gothic-Germanic counterparts must be considered. The courage and bravery of the Gothic-Germanic warrior is undeniable; however, he would have faced the best of the Savarans, who were highly trained and flexible. The Gothic-Germanic warriors wore spiked "Spangenhelm" helmets, but there were clear differences in the swords of the heroes on the battlefield at Misiche. Boss describes the Gothic-Sarmatian swords as "of a cheaper construction suitable for mass production for a large cavalry force". The Sassanid swords of the time of Shapur I were of the "broadsword" type but were longer than the Kushan types, which were closely related to the Sarmatian and (older) Parthian models. More research is needed to ascertain how these differences in sword types might have affected the course of the battle at Misiche. There are undoubtedly sharp differences in archery; The Germanic cavalry did not adopt the horse-mounted archery used by the Sarmatians and fought primarily with spears and swords. The cavalry were certainly spearmen, however, as can be seen from the terdan (arrow box) depictions at Nagsheh-e Rustam (i.e. the painting of Hormizd II) and Beshapur (especially the depiction of Shapur I), the cavalry certainly did not dispense with horse-mounted archery. As a result, the cavalry probably had a distinct advantage over their Gothic counterparts in being able to fire missiles at them from a safe distance during the Battle of Messeche. Barbalsius (253 AD). Philip the Arab (244-249), the second Roman emperor defeated by the Savarans under Shapur. (State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg) Philip the Arab became emperor of Rome after the death of Gordian in 244 AD. He proceeded to make peace with the Sassanids by paying them half a million dinars as ransom to secure the return of the Roman troops captured at Messeche. Philip also agreed to cede Mesopotamia and Armenia to Shapur I. The terms of this treaty were seen as a major humiliation for the Romans, with sources such as Zosimus complaining that Philip had made a “very shameful peace” with the Sassanids. This may help explain why the Romans broke the treaty that Philip had worked so hard to secure: Roman armies invaded the Sassanid kingdom by storming Mesopotamia and Armenia in about 252 AD. The Romans timed their attack particularly well as the Sassanids were in the final stages of their campaigns in northern and northeastern Iran. Shapur I was leading a campaign to secure the loyalty of the remaining Median peoples in northern Iran (Giloi, Daylami) and northeastern Iran (Khwarazmi, Kushan). The absence of the sipah greatly aided Philip's advance into Armenia and Mesopotamia, which (according to Zonaras) caught the Sassanids by surprise. However, Shapur proved successful in northern and northeastern Iran and returned west with the sipah, now reinforced by the formidable Daylamite infantry from northern Iran and the Khwarazmian cavalry from the northeast. Shapur was ready to strike back, as the SKZ reports, Caesar has lied again and wronged Armenia and we have attacked the Roman Empire. Dignas Winter notes that the Sassanids overran large areas of Roman territory in the Near East, inflicting heavy losses on the Roman armies in 253 AD. In the same year, the Sassanids won a major victory by destroying a Roman army of 60,000 at Barbalissos. The scale of the Roman military disaster was so great that Zosimus remarked: The Persians might have conquered all Asia had they not been so overjoyed by their excessive spoils Edessa (AD 260). Valerian (253-260), the only Roman emperor in history to have been captured alive. (Courtesy of Littleton Quinn) After the victory at Barbalissus in AD 253, the Sassanids withdrew from the Roman territories. Valerian, who became emperor in AD 253, led a powerful and successful counterattack, driving the Sassanids out of Antioch (c. AD 256). Shapur and the Savvarids spread into the Carrhae-Edessa region, prompting Valerian to seek battle with him there (AD 260). The Sassanids then won an even greater victory. As stated in the SKZ: "During the third campaign, when we advanced towards Carrhae and Edessa and besieged Carrhae and Edessa, the Emperor Valerian marched against us... with a force... of 70,000 men... On the other side of Carrhae and Edessa, we fought a great battle with Valerian, and we captured the Emperor Valerian with our own hands and others, and the praetorian prefect and the senators and officials, and all those who were leaders of the force... we made them all prisoners. According to the SKZ, the Roman army included a very impressive group of continental Europeans including Germania, Dacia (roughly modern Romania), Pannonia (roughly modern Hungary), Hispania (roughly modern Spain), Moesia (in the Balkans), Raetia (roughly Switzerland, parts of southern Bavaria, Tyrol, Lombardy, etc.), Noricum (parts of modern Austria and Slovenia), and Istria (including modern Croatia, Slovenia, and Italy). Al-Tabari states The Romans lost ten thousand men in the battle, and took "thirteen hundred" prisoners. The immediate result of this defeat was the fall of Antioch, Tarsus, and Cappadocia (again), clearly indicating the Sassanid penetration of Syria and Anatolia. The effect of this defeat on the prestige of Roman arms was probably of greater long-term significance, especially since Valerian became the only emperor in the long history of the empire to be captured in battle. The military successes of Shapur and the Savarids are commemorated in the rock-cut sites of Nagsheh-e Rustam and Bishapur.