I decided that my Achaemenid Persian Satrap would have to have some Assyrian infantry. Now I picked up some Lancashire Games Later Sargonid Assyrian infantry (It seemed rude to shun his Easter sale) who seemed the appropriate figures.
But the battle pack is half archers. And that started me thinking.
As far as I know, Xenophon talks about 'Assyrian heavy infantry from Comania' (I've not got the Greek so am not sure what word is actually used for heavy infantry)
Is there any mention of Assyrian archers used by the Persians. We know they raised archers from other peoples.
I suppose, in terms of evidence, it may depend on how far north in Mesopotamia the "bowland" colonists were distributed. Of course, that also raises the question of whether "bowland" colonists necessarily fought as actual archers. However, if you are talking about having these chaps as Satrap forces, the inherited Babylonian colonist structure might be misleading anyway, as satrapal garrisons may have been more consciously developed to meet actual needs rather than preserve a semi-useful inherited system of owed service.
My Persian satrap of the mid-western region of the Empire just has some Assyrian spearmen and no archers (apart from those guarding the Assyrian subject king in his chariot). The lack of Assyrian archers in Persian service is a common theme in most of the books I've read. There is mention - in the Richard Nelson book I think - that the Persians brigaded the Chaldean archers with the Assyrian archers, but that doesn't sound like combining into mixed weapon units.
Quote from: dwkay57 on Apr 17, 2026, 07:20 AMThere is mention - in the Richard Nelson book I think - that the Persians brigaded the Chaldean archers with the Assyrian archers, but that doesn't sound like combining into mixed weapon units.
Presumably relatedly, the DBMM Early Achaemenid list allows Chaldaean archers to support Assyrian spearmen. I've vaguely assumed it's based on something in Herodotos.
Herodotos 7.63 suggests that the Assyrian contingent included some Chaldaians:
"The Assyrians in the army wore on their heads helmets of twisted bronze made in an outlandish fashion not easy to describe. They carried shields and spears and daggers of Egyptian fashion, and also wooden clubs studded with iron, and they wore linen breastplates. They are called by the Greeks Syrians, but the foreigners called them Assyrians. With them were the Chaldeans. Their commander was Otaspes son of Artachaees."
If these Chaldaeans were the Babylonian bowmen mentioned by Aischylos -
"And Babylon, awash with gold, sends out
huge columns of men of different kinds,
sailors on ships and other troops whose strength
relies on skill in fighting with the bow"
- that gives us a possible mixed unit.
It has to be admitted that it is an interesting pairing.
The Assyrians, broken by an alliance including the Chaldeans, brigaded with the remnants of the Chaldeans. I wonder if it was being used as a generic term for Babylonians? Given the last dynasty was Chaldean?
Of course it's "Assyrian" that is normally used by the Greeks as a generic term for Babylonians - though I am not convinced that's what Herodotos always means by the word. The Persians levied troops from some of the Chaldaean tribes in Babylonia, apparently separately from the general Babylonian levy, the temple troops, etc. Of course there is no reason to assume that Herodotos knew that.
Quote from: Duncan Head on Apr 17, 2026, 07:51 PMOf course it's "Assyrian" that is normally used by the Greeks as a generic term for Babylonians - though I am not convinced that's what Herodotos always means by the word. The Persians levied troops from some of the Chaldaean tribes in Babylonia, apparently separately from the general Babylonian levy, the temple troops, etc. Of course there is no reason to assume that Herodotos knew that.
I must admit I did wonder about the 'Assyrians' as well. I did wonder if there is any evidence for Assyrians being settled as military settlers in Babylonia (whether by Babylonians, Assyrians, or Persians). Just one of the things I keep meaning to dig into.
Some of the reading I've done seems to think that the Persians levied troops from some of the tribes of the Zagros mountains and raising men from the Chaldean tribes would sort of fit in with this sort of thing
But does "with them" imply mixed units or they that were in the same command for rations etc. and hanging about in the same area? I always assume that mixed spear/bow formations require some form of training and practice if they are to avoid slapstick style results. That they are identified as different tribes/races (by whoever told Herodotos (or the last copyist)) might suggest that they weren't "regularised" as a combined force.
Quote from: dwkay57 on Apr 19, 2026, 07:22 AM...I always assume that mixed spear/bow formations require some form of training and practice if they are to avoid slapstick style results. That they are identified as different tribes/races (by whoever told Herodotos (or the last copyist)) might suggest that they weren't "regularised" as a combined force.
What seemed to me to come through very clearly from the video of the hoplite experiment that Orc posted up for us the other day is that even with a fair amount of training and practice the hoplite formations start behaving more like an amoeba than a disciplined block. Given that only the Spartans were getting any formation training at all, the reality of hoplite battle lines, let alone those of Assyrian/Persian formations is likely to have been very different from the neatly ordered blocks of figures we move around the tabletop.
I think there area couple of different questions coming out in Kim and David's comments. The first is the direct one, about whether just brigading two contingents of different ethnicities together is enough to believe they could operate as a single entity. The second is how familiar these troops would be with what we would call a formation.
On the latter, I think we may need to think less about drilled precision and more about some general guidelines, perhaps enforced more by experience that training. On hoplites, I am reminded that there is somewhere a metaphor for a hoplite formation of a house. It has a strong roof and strong foundations but a pile of generic building material in between i.e. it is built around capable front and back ranks. I'm more used to medieval formations, where armies also tended to have no formal formation training but had enough people who knew how to put men together in some form of order.
Quote from: dwkay57 on Apr 19, 2026, 07:22 AMBut does "with them" imply mixed units ...
The Assyrians seem to have often mixed archers and spearmen of different origins, and it is generally thought that they worked together at a fairly low tactical level.
It's one of those irritating details that was so obvious to people at the time they never bothered mentioning it, or considered it worth including in the literature :-[
I think Anthony's metaphor about the house built of hoplites is appropriate. Providing you have men who know what they are doing in key positions and the rest having a rough idea of what should be happening then it all works (as based on my experience doing marching drill in the Boys' Brigade) and with practice things generally got better. Which makes me wonder whether different formation and fighting styles require more training and practice to be effective? And then whether such practice needs to be at a "groups of units" level to be really effective.
Of course, at high levels of abstraction this may not matter as we are not modelling the operation of low level tactical units but higher level near-strategic bodies and their overall outcomes.
This comment of David links into something I've been wondering about. Sparabara seem 'simple'. It's just massed archery (done however massed archery is done) with a think screen of spearmen with big shields in the front rank. No complications, just have the file leaders with shields and they lead off etc.
Solid blocks of infantry with a fourth rank of archers who fire overhead and probably skirmish on the flanks or even pass through and skirmish out in front.
But it's these units with equal numbers of spear and archers. Did the spears form up four ranks (or thereabouts) deep and the archers fill up the files making them eight ranks (or thereabouts deep) so that in combat you had the back ranks of archers supporting the men in front (by pushing if that was what happened) or could they actually fire (which seems doubtful.)
Also did the archers pass through the spears to fire, falling back when the enemy got close, or did they remain forever behind the spears and fire less effectively overhead?
And at what level was it organised. As the army was drawn up did the general command 'archers to the front' and let them shoot up the enemy, so that when the exasperated enemy finally attacked, somebody shouted 'archers to the rear'