- Welcome to SoA Forum.
Recent posts
#51
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by Jim Webster - Apr 21, 2026, 03:06 PMA very high proportion of 'regulars' were rarely drilled citizen militia so regular can have a low bar. And barbarians merely didn't speak Greek 
But at the Elephant battle our account has Galatians opening ranks to allow their chariots to move through their ranks as a tactical surprise.
So yes I think we have to be wary of labels.
When I did my rules I thought I'd nicely avoided 'mixed units' other than Sparabara who I felt I'd done justice to.
Where there is a small number of archers, in proportion to the 'heavy infantry' I think just having them as being a 'sub-unit' of skirmishers who can screen the front, but if needed fall back to be a back rank where they may still be able to contribute a little.
But it's when you get the situation where a unit is effectively half and half, then it's a case of getting the balance.
If the archers are in the front, then they'll fire as archers, but less effectively than a unit composed entirely of archers as there are fewer of them on the frontage.
When they're behind the spearmen, then there would be some ability to fire but much reduced, I'd probably rate it as the same as a similar frontage of skirmishers.
When the spearmen are in combat, I can see the archers being able to add to the depth of the unit. The fact that the archers weren't as well equipped for close combat probably wouldn't matter too much as by the time the other side has got through to them, the unit should be in deep trouble anyway.
The amount of drill needed to allow archers to move forward and back through their spearmen is probably not negligible, but we know that Persian armies often spent a lot of time drilling, and we know Roman Consuls often took time at the start of a campaign to drill their legions.
But at the Elephant battle our account has Galatians opening ranks to allow their chariots to move through their ranks as a tactical surprise.
So yes I think we have to be wary of labels.
When I did my rules I thought I'd nicely avoided 'mixed units' other than Sparabara who I felt I'd done justice to.
Where there is a small number of archers, in proportion to the 'heavy infantry' I think just having them as being a 'sub-unit' of skirmishers who can screen the front, but if needed fall back to be a back rank where they may still be able to contribute a little.
But it's when you get the situation where a unit is effectively half and half, then it's a case of getting the balance.
If the archers are in the front, then they'll fire as archers, but less effectively than a unit composed entirely of archers as there are fewer of them on the frontage.
When they're behind the spearmen, then there would be some ability to fire but much reduced, I'd probably rate it as the same as a similar frontage of skirmishers.
When the spearmen are in combat, I can see the archers being able to add to the depth of the unit. The fact that the archers weren't as well equipped for close combat probably wouldn't matter too much as by the time the other side has got through to them, the unit should be in deep trouble anyway.
The amount of drill needed to allow archers to move forward and back through their spearmen is probably not negligible, but we know that Persian armies often spent a lot of time drilling, and we know Roman Consuls often took time at the start of a campaign to drill their legions.
#52
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by Keraunos - Apr 21, 2026, 11:17 AMJust a thought, but are not most of the troops encountered in ancient warfare irregulars? And as for who the barbarians are is this not purely subjective?
#53
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by dwkay57 - Apr 21, 2026, 09:55 AMYes, I've been pondering the same Young Jim. Surprising what meanders into the minds of old men...
Even with sparabara there is still an issue with the back ranks knowing that "range 100 paces, fire!" means they've really have to arc and pull (or whatever it is that archers do) to a range of 110 paces.
On the basis that with any overhead shooting there has to be a move away from near straight-line trajectory and a target you can see to some level of shooting "blindly" on command into the air, there is an implication of some sort of "would it be a good idea to practice first" creeping in.
I need to go back and review my rules to see if I've made rear support and skirmishing too efficient for Irregulars and Barbarians.
Even with sparabara there is still an issue with the back ranks knowing that "range 100 paces, fire!" means they've really have to arc and pull (or whatever it is that archers do) to a range of 110 paces.
On the basis that with any overhead shooting there has to be a move away from near straight-line trajectory and a target you can see to some level of shooting "blindly" on command into the air, there is an implication of some sort of "would it be a good idea to practice first" creeping in.
I need to go back and review my rules to see if I've made rear support and skirmishing too efficient for Irregulars and Barbarians.
#54
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by Jim Webster - Apr 20, 2026, 07:10 PMThis 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'
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'
#55
Army Research / Re: Assyrian Infantry in Acha...
Last post by dwkay57 - Apr 20, 2026, 06:44 PMI 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.
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.
#56
Selling / Re: Lost Battles Sabin on eBay
Last post by Imperial Dave - Apr 20, 2026, 02:42 PMThat was my understanding too
#57
Selling / Re: Lost Battles Sabin on eBay
Last post by Erpingham - Apr 20, 2026, 08:22 AMQuote from: Ian61 on Apr 20, 2026, 06:28 AMAt one point the book was being posted for silly amounts in excess of £100 but then came down to something sensible. This I suspect has some genuine rarity value, I did not know that the game existed in this form
Unlike the book, which I think had several printings and is, therefore, not uncommon secondhand, the game was a limited release and more rarely seen.
#58
Selling / Re: Lost Battles Sabin on eBay
Last post by Jon Freitag - Apr 20, 2026, 07:04 AMQuote from: Ian61 on Apr 20, 2026, 06:28 AMAt one point the book was being posted for silly amounts in excess of £100 but then came down to something sensible. This I suspect has some genuine rarity value, I did not know that the game existed in this form (I wasn't ancient wargaming when it was published).The game does hold collector value. I have seen copies bring big prices but recent sales on Boardgame Geek have been sparse and those prices have softened. Still have an unpunched copy that I have yet to punch and play.
#59
Selling / Re: Lost Battles Sabin on eBay
Last post by Ian61 - Apr 20, 2026, 06:28 AMAt one point the book was being posted for silly amounts in excess of £100 but then came down to something sensible. This I suspect has some genuine rarity value, I did not know that the game existed in this form (I wasn't ancient wargaming when it was published).
#60
Selling / Re: Lost Battles Sabin on eBay
Last post by Imperial Dave - Apr 20, 2026, 05:50 AMVery tempting...