Recent posts

#41

Army Research / Re: Khurasanian war elephants

Last post by Ade G - Apr 19, 2026, 03:01 PM

David Nicolle's Military Technology of Classical Islam thesis would suggest that there is very little evidence but a resemblance to later Ghaznavid practice is possible:

Whereas those few elephants used in the 9th century by the Saffarids of eastern Iran seemed to provide transport for the siege train, those employed by the 'Abbäsid Caliphs themselves probably had a fighting role. According to al Khatib al Baghdädi, they carried a crew of eight Sindhi warriors and were covered by caparisons of brocade or silk. These elephants were not however protected by armour. Some were probably introduced into Egypt by the Tulünids, but for parade purposes only. One may assume that the handful of war-elephants in mid-10th century Buyid Persian forces, whose actual employment in battle was nowhere recorded, were ridden by Indian or Sindi warriors. Detailed descriptions of war-elephants were next given by Firdawsi in the late 10th or early 11th centuries. Such animals might therefore have been employed by the Samanids. If so, they were then armoured and carried archers in towers on their backs. Comparable war-elephants were certainly used by the following Ghaznawids, particularly in the 11th century by which time this dynasty had, for the first time, brought large areas of Hindu northern India under Muslim rule. Such Ghaznawid war-elephants, again presumably ridden by Hindis or Sindis, were heavily armoured and carried four mailed warriors on their backs.

Thank you Duncan - I can use a nice pretty model then

#42

Army Research / Re: Khurasanian war elephants

Last post by Duncan Head - Apr 19, 2026, 02:29 PM

David Nicolle's Military Technology of Classical Islam thesis would suggest that there is very little evidence but a resemblance to later Ghaznavid practice is possible:

Whereas those few elephants used in the 9th century by the Saffarids of eastern Iran seemed to provide transport for the siege train, those employed by the 'Abbäsid Caliphs themselves probably had a fighting role. According to al Khatib al Baghdädi, they carried a crew of eight Sindhi warriors and were covered by caparisons of brocade or silk. These elephants were not however protected by armour. Some were probably introduced into Egypt by the Tulünids, but for parade purposes only. One may assume that the handful of war-elephants in mid-10th century Buyid Persian forces, whose actual employment in battle was nowhere recorded, were ridden by Indian or Sindi warriors. Detailed descriptions of war-elephants were next given by Firdawsi in the late 10th or early 11th centuries. Such animals might therefore have been employed by the Samanids. If so, they were then armoured and carried archers in towers on their backs. Comparable war-elephants were certainly used by the following Ghaznawids, particularly in the 11th century by which time this dynasty had, for the first time, brought large areas of Hindu northern India under Muslim rule. Such Ghaznawid war-elephants, again presumably ridden by Hindis or Sindis, were heavily armoured and carried four mailed warriors on their backs.

#43

Selling / Lost Battles Sabin on eBay

Last post by vexillia - Apr 19, 2026, 01:58 PM

Posting for a mate: https://ebay.us/xaEhcG

Should be of interest.

#44

Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...

Last post by Jim Webster - Apr 19, 2026, 01:17 PM

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 

#45

Army Research / Khurasanian war elephants

Last post by Ade G - Apr 19, 2026, 12:11 PM

I cannot find any solid information about the 9th Cent elephants used by Samanids. Would they be the same as Ghaznavids?

#46

Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...

Last post by Duncan Head - Apr 19, 2026, 10:50 AM

But 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.

#47

Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...

Last post by Erpingham - Apr 19, 2026, 10:44 AM

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.

#48

Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...

Last post by Keraunos - Apr 19, 2026, 09:45 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.

#49

Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...

Last post by dwkay57 - Apr 19, 2026, 07:22 AM

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.

#50

Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...

Last post by Jim Webster - Apr 17, 2026, 08:11 PM

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.

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