Recent posts

#51

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

Last post by Duncan Head - Apr 17, 2026, 07:51 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.

#52

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

Last post by Jim Webster - Apr 17, 2026, 07:26 PM

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?

#53

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

Last post by Duncan Head - Apr 17, 2026, 10:36 AM

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.

#54

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

Last post by Andreas Johansson - Apr 17, 2026, 07:34 AM

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.

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.

#55

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

Last post by dwkay57 - Apr 17, 2026, 07:20 AM

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.

#56

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

Last post by DBS - Apr 16, 2026, 08:06 PM

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.

#57

Army Research / Assyrian Infantry in Achaemen...

Last post by Jim Webster - Apr 16, 2026, 07:31 PM

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.

#58

Ships and Navies / Re: 134 shipwrecks identified ...

Last post by Ian61 - Apr 16, 2026, 01:23 PM

I am sure there were many more wrecks, just the odds of survival and detection lengthen the further one goes back in time.  Also, I would note that said wreck is described as Punic-era, rather than Punic, so may not necessarily have been Phoenician or Carthaginian, as opposed to a cheeky Greek or Etruscan nipping into the Punic co-prosperity sphere...

Good points.

#59

Ships and Navies / Re: 134 shipwrecks identified ...

Last post by DBS - Apr 16, 2026, 09:35 AM

I am sure there were many more wrecks, just the odds of survival and detection lengthen the further one goes back in time.  Also, I would note that said wreck is described as Punic-era, rather than Punic, so may not necessarily have been Phoenician or Carthaginian, as opposed to a cheeky Greek or Etruscan nipping into the Punic co-prosperity sphere...

#60

Ships and Navies / Re: 134 shipwrecks identified ...

Last post by Ian61 - Apr 16, 2026, 07:18 AM

Actually surprised only the one Punic era wreck, the Phoecians were regularly going through the straights on the way to Cadiz from the 8th century BCE. There again they were good sailors and perhaps kept the the southern side.