- Welcome to SoA Forum.
Recent posts
#21
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
#22
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.
#23
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 
#24
Battle Reports / Re: Not So Little Battles 2026
Last post by Imperial Dave - Apr 22, 2026, 05:09 PMAlways enjoy your reports David 
#25
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.
#26
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.
#27
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?
#28
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.
#29
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?
#30
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