- Welcome to SoA Forum.
Recent posts
#11
Weapons and Tactics / The Use of Polybolos (multiple...
Last post by Adrian Nayler - Apr 26, 2026, 06:52 PMRossi, A., Bertacchi, S. and Casadei, V. (2026) 'From Pompeii to Rhodes, from Survey to Sources: The Use of Polybolos,' Heritage, Vol. 9, No. 3, p. 96.
This new open access article considers whether impact marks on the walls of Pompeii dating from the Sullan siege in 89 BCE may represent indirect evidence of the as yet archaeologically unattested polybolos – a multiple shot repeating bolt shooter described by Philo of Byzantium in the 3rd century BCE.
You can find it here: https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9030096
This new open access article considers whether impact marks on the walls of Pompeii dating from the Sullan siege in 89 BCE may represent indirect evidence of the as yet archaeologically unattested polybolos – a multiple shot repeating bolt shooter described by Philo of Byzantium in the 3rd century BCE.
You can find it here: https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9030096
#12
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by Keraunos - Apr 24, 2026, 03:04 PMIn my Cunaxa refight I had mixed spear & archer units facing the Greek phalanx with a single block of Assyrian spears outflanking the left of the Greek line. This was not due to any historical assumptions but a result of play testing where I found that the hoplites would probably beat archer supported spearmen in a head to head conflict but if there were extra archers out on the flanks then, under the rules I was using, the hoplites at the end of the line would be stopped too easily. The supporting spearmen on the flanks would give the mixed unit facing the hoplites a slightly better chance of standing up to the hoplites, adding an interesting touch of uncertainty to the scenario.
#13
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by Jon Freitag - Apr 24, 2026, 02:17 PMInteresting discussion. Following up on Steven's lead, I pulled the same book off the shelf. On page 108, Tamas states that a regular and auxiliary spearman was always under the cover from an auxiliary archer. If Xenophon mentions Assyrian heavy infantry, I suggest he is referencing the combined spear/bow formation and not only spearmen.
#14
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by Jim Webster - Apr 24, 2026, 12:51 PMI cannot claim to be an expert on the evolution of Assyrian infantry, but your comments do seem reasonable Steven
It does mean I am also adding another unit to the apparently infinite number of archers I'm half way through painting
It does mean I am also adding another unit to the apparently infinite number of archers I'm half way through painting
#15
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by stevenneate - Apr 24, 2026, 09:57 AMHave been looking at what Tamás Dezső (THE ASSYRIAN ARMY I. THE STRUCTURE OF THE NEO-ASSYRIAN ARMY 1. INFANTRY) says about Assyrian heavy infantry (as opposed to auxiliary infantry). He says (p.83)
"As has been mentioned above the regular archer – an archer wearing a pointed helmet and no scale armour – disappeared from the sculptures of Sennacherib (704—681 B.C.) and Assurbanipal (668—631 B.C.). The role of the regular archers was probably taken over by the different types of auxiliary archers distinguished in the previous chapter by their garments." (p.83)
and
"Further fragmentary Babylonian documents mention smaller or larger numbers of archers, even from the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods as well, but the Neo-Assyrian system of recruiting vassal or auxiliary troops from the Babylonian cities seems clear: the conquered Babylonian cities, for example Nippur, Borsippa or Uruk – as allied partners of Assyria – equipped units of archers for the campaigns of the Assyrian army, for local police duties, for the defence of the cities, and above all for the border guard duties discussed above." (p.86)
He summarises that whist Assyrians were providing the spearmen and can be identified right down to Ashurbanipal (r.669-631 BC), readily identifiable Assyrian archers can't be seen supporting them but auxiliary archers are seen. Perhaps this equates with the original question and some answers above that the Persian's Assyrians were spearmen and any supporting archers (if the Assyrians were deployed as such) were ethnically different. My conclusion that when "...Xenophon talks about 'Assyrian heavy infantry from Comania...", they are heavy infantry spearmen only.
So, deploy the archers as a separate contingent of Babylonians or Aramaeans.
"As has been mentioned above the regular archer – an archer wearing a pointed helmet and no scale armour – disappeared from the sculptures of Sennacherib (704—681 B.C.) and Assurbanipal (668—631 B.C.). The role of the regular archers was probably taken over by the different types of auxiliary archers distinguished in the previous chapter by their garments." (p.83)
and
"Further fragmentary Babylonian documents mention smaller or larger numbers of archers, even from the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods as well, but the Neo-Assyrian system of recruiting vassal or auxiliary troops from the Babylonian cities seems clear: the conquered Babylonian cities, for example Nippur, Borsippa or Uruk – as allied partners of Assyria – equipped units of archers for the campaigns of the Assyrian army, for local police duties, for the defence of the cities, and above all for the border guard duties discussed above." (p.86)
He summarises that whist Assyrians were providing the spearmen and can be identified right down to Ashurbanipal (r.669-631 BC), readily identifiable Assyrian archers can't be seen supporting them but auxiliary archers are seen. Perhaps this equates with the original question and some answers above that the Persian's Assyrians were spearmen and any supporting archers (if the Assyrians were deployed as such) were ethnically different. My conclusion that when "...Xenophon talks about 'Assyrian heavy infantry from Comania...", they are heavy infantry spearmen only.
So, deploy the archers as a separate contingent of Babylonians or Aramaeans.
#16
Battle Reports / Re: Not So Little Battles 2026
Last post by Jim Webster - Apr 22, 2026, 05:27 PMDoes look an intriguing game. I always feel battles where both sides are pretty poor can be more interesting that armies of competent troops 
#17
Battle Reports / Re: Not So Little Battles 2026
Last post by Imperial Dave - Apr 22, 2026, 05:09 PMAlways enjoy your reports David 
#18
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.
#19
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.
#20
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?