- Welcome to SoA Forum.
Recent posts
#21
Battle Reports / Re: Not So Little Battles 2026
Last post by Imperial Dave - Apr 22, 2026, 05:09 PMAlways enjoy your reports David 
#22
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by Jim Webster - Apr 22, 2026, 04:23 PMIf, as Duncan commented, to the Greeks, Assyrians were more Babylonians and if we assume the Chaldeans were recruited from the south of that area then they could be brigaded together at a pretty low level from recruitment.
Even if the Assyrians were from Assyria, they, along with the Chaldeans, would both speak Aramaic at this period so there should be no language barriers (dialects on the other hand?)
Often Persian armies spent a long time training once they were gathered together. Also, for example, Xerxes mustered his army in Cappadocia, then wintered in Sardis before marching onwards. So there was plenty of time for troops to be trained and get to know the units they would work with.
Even if the Assyrians were from Assyria, they, along with the Chaldeans, would both speak Aramaic at this period so there should be no language barriers (dialects on the other hand?)
Often Persian armies spent a long time training once they were gathered together. Also, for example, Xerxes mustered his army in Cappadocia, then wintered in Sardis before marching onwards. So there was plenty of time for troops to be trained and get to know the units they would work with.
#23
Battle Reports / Re: Not So Little Battles 2026
Last post by dwkay57 - Apr 22, 2026, 03:16 PMMy second solo battle of the year - the Battle of Five Pigs Plains - was a bit smaller than my first and featured an invasion by one of my Persian satraps against my Armenian army of Tigranes the Lesser. So, lots of historical accuracy, especially as the Persian satrapy is supposed to be from the north east part of the empire!
In the photograph, the cavalry of the Persian satrap are in melee with the cavalry of the Hiberian and Albanian allies of Tigranes, with the infantry of the allies rushing to provide support from the right. Further up on the right, the Armenian infantry move forward to face the Bactrian and Persian satrapal infantry waiting on the left.
Battle reports for those with time on their hands and coffee in their mugs available on my website.
In the photograph, the cavalry of the Persian satrap are in melee with the cavalry of the Hiberian and Albanian allies of Tigranes, with the infantry of the allies rushing to provide support from the right. Further up on the right, the Armenian infantry move forward to face the Bactrian and Persian satrapal infantry waiting on the left.
Battle reports for those with time on their hands and coffee in their mugs available on my website.
#24
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by Erpingham - Apr 22, 2026, 12:53 PMAs David says, I'm sure we have discussed some of this before. I think for me, if we are speculating, we need to be comparing like with like. One factor would be the number of archers to number of close combat types. As I understand sparabara, archers heavily outnumbered spear and shield types. This led to deep formations which consequently meant that indirect shooting would need to be the norm. We brought in Arrian's Romans, who are nine deep but only the back rank are bow armed. The sparabara could be intended to blanket an area with lots of arrows, whereas Arrian's archers probably just gave the close fighters some longer range potential if the enemy stood off or skirmished at a distance. Which sort of thing do we think the Assyrian/Chaldean combo had?
#25
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by dwkay57 - Apr 22, 2026, 12:14 PMWe seem to have wandered quite far off Jim's original topic, but we have hit upon our usual series of "not absolutely sure but possibly..." points, which are interesting (and probably repeatable i.e. we've discussed them in the past and will do so in the future) topics in their own right.
Training and a common language / drill book seem to be the key requirements for the efficient operation of mixed units. So, how you choose to combine the Assyrian spearmen and Chaldean archers is probably bound up in a mix of elements (bad pun not intended) with the level of abstraction probably being the key influencer as to which gain prominence.
Training and a common language / drill book seem to be the key requirements for the efficient operation of mixed units. So, how you choose to combine the Assyrian spearmen and Chaldean archers is probably bound up in a mix of elements (bad pun not intended) with the level of abstraction probably being the key influencer as to which gain prominence.
#26
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by DBS - Apr 22, 2026, 07:40 AMIt also depends on what effect one is trying to have. Are you primarily trying to kill/wound the enemy, or primarily trying to disrupt the enemy? Of course, the first is highly desirable, but the second may be more essential. It is the logic behind the medieval arrow storm; perhaps only a small proportion of arrows find their mark, but it is a damned unnerving thing to experience, even if armoured, more so if not, and lots of sticks stuck in the ground may impede movement according to troop type.
The early Persian armies were fighting against enemies probably not that dissimilar in type to themselves. Victory therefore depends on training/experience, morale, leadership, numbers, perhaps quality of kit to some extent. Greeks are different. They are almost certainly (stand fast Spartans) not better trained or more experienced: those at Plataea may well have been much less so than, say, the Immortals. They have a different style of fighting. Now, the Ionians have not, it seems, overly troubled the Persians tactically, but that may be a question of numbers. Marathon may be more an example of a failed, over-confident amphibious landing (the old where-are-the-cavalry question) than inherent superiority of the Athenians. Plataea sees a decent sized Greek muster facing up to an expeditionary corps rather than the full Great Army.
Now, the Persians are clearly impressed by the Greeks, and start hiring hoplites as mercenaries. Satrapal armies continue to have run-ins with Greek armies. But how often do we have really large confrontations? The problem is that we tend to think of hoplites as superior to Persians, because of 490-479. But the Greek hoplite armies are one trick ponies; few cavalry, few light infantry. The Persians are employing hoplite mercenaries as a tough heavy infantry element within a more heterogenous force. The Ten Thousand are forced to improvise slingers and so on to survive once the rest of the mixed arms force has been stripped away. Is this why we see the apparent disappearance of the sparabara? Not that they are a bad idea, just that you now have mercenaries who can do the heavy infantry bit and one need not now worry too often about the great armies of the initial conquest period?
The early Persian armies were fighting against enemies probably not that dissimilar in type to themselves. Victory therefore depends on training/experience, morale, leadership, numbers, perhaps quality of kit to some extent. Greeks are different. They are almost certainly (stand fast Spartans) not better trained or more experienced: those at Plataea may well have been much less so than, say, the Immortals. They have a different style of fighting. Now, the Ionians have not, it seems, overly troubled the Persians tactically, but that may be a question of numbers. Marathon may be more an example of a failed, over-confident amphibious landing (the old where-are-the-cavalry question) than inherent superiority of the Athenians. Plataea sees a decent sized Greek muster facing up to an expeditionary corps rather than the full Great Army.
Now, the Persians are clearly impressed by the Greeks, and start hiring hoplites as mercenaries. Satrapal armies continue to have run-ins with Greek armies. But how often do we have really large confrontations? The problem is that we tend to think of hoplites as superior to Persians, because of 490-479. But the Greek hoplite armies are one trick ponies; few cavalry, few light infantry. The Persians are employing hoplite mercenaries as a tough heavy infantry element within a more heterogenous force. The Ten Thousand are forced to improvise slingers and so on to survive once the rest of the mixed arms force has been stripped away. Is this why we see the apparent disappearance of the sparabara? Not that they are a bad idea, just that you now have mercenaries who can do the heavy infantry bit and one need not now worry too often about the great armies of the initial conquest period?
#27
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by Jim Webster - Apr 21, 2026, 09:37 PMAny archer unit that drew up more than a couple of ranks deep, in reasonably close formation, is going to know about overhead fire.
So the sort of methods they used for getting people to fire at the correct range etc were probably reasonably well known. Certainly in areas like the Achaemenid Empire, it would be comparatively common knowledge amongst those 'in the military'.
It's just we haven't needed anything like that since 1500 (in round numbers) and we've forgotten
So the sort of methods they used for getting people to fire at the correct range etc were probably reasonably well known. Certainly in areas like the Achaemenid Empire, it would be comparatively common knowledge amongst those 'in the military'.
It's just we haven't needed anything like that since 1500 (in round numbers) and we've forgotten
#28
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by DBS - Apr 21, 2026, 06:04 PMAbsolutely, I nearly said as much. Now one can argue that they are all Roman regulars - legions and auxiliaries - but the very fact that Arrian is showing off his breadth of supposed tactical flexibility and innovation suggests that these units might not have trained for this as a matter of course; they simply could be told, more or less, to do it and be expected to make it work. Is that testament to their excellent training and professionalism, or testament to it not being that difficult a concept in the first place? (Probably both...)
#29
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by Duncan Head - Apr 21, 2026, 05:58 PMArrian may not suggest interpenetration, but note that the auxiliary archers in the ninth rank are drawn from different units to the legionaries of ranks 1-8; so arranging some degree of tactical co-operation between regiments, even of differing national origins, cannot have been that difficult.
#30
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by DBS - Apr 21, 2026, 05:38 PMMight be worth considering Arrian's Ektaxis. After all, he talks about a formation nine ranks deep. First four ranks have kontoi, here assumed to most probably mean pila, but used primarily as a thrusting weapon against the expected cavalry charge, Ranks five to eight have javelins, to throw over the first four ranks. The ninth rank is auxiliary archers firing over all eight ranks. Now, to be fair, they are drawn up on a hillside, so there is a degree of elevation for all ranks over the one(s) in front of them. But unless one dismisses Arrian's work as a complete fantasy, it does seem that there was a credible option for missile fire from the rear half of a formation that was mixed in its weaponry.
Note that even with drilled Roman regulars, Arrian is here not suggesting any tactical interpenetration. Of course, he is specifically talking about facing a potentially very fast cavalry attack, so that might make mucking about with skirmish lines falling back through close formation infantry a damned silly notion...
Note that even with drilled Roman regulars, Arrian is here not suggesting any tactical interpenetration. Of course, he is specifically talking about facing a potentially very fast cavalry attack, so that might make mucking about with skirmish lines falling back through close formation infantry a damned silly notion...