Assyrian Infantry in Achaemenid service

[dwkay57]

Yes, 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.

[Keraunos]

Just 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?

[Jim Webster]

A 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.

[DBS]

Might be worth considering Arrian's Ektaxis.  After all, he talks about a formation nine ranks deep.  First four ranks have kontoi, here assumed to most probably mean pila, but used primarily as a thrusting weapon against the expected cavalry charge,  Ranks five to eight have javelins, to throw over the first four ranks.  The ninth rank is auxiliary archers firing over all eight ranks.  Now, to be fair, they are drawn up on a hillside, so there is a degree of elevation for all ranks over the one(s) in front of them.  But unless one dismisses Arrian's work as a complete fantasy, it does seem that there was a credible option for missile fire from the rear half of a formation that was mixed in its weaponry.

Note that even with drilled Roman regulars, Arrian is here not suggesting any tactical interpenetration.  Of course, he is specifically talking about facing a potentially very fast cavalry attack, so that might make mucking about with skirmish lines falling back through close formation infantry a damned silly notion...

[Duncan Head]

Arrian may not suggest interpenetration, but note that the auxiliary archers in the ninth rank are drawn from different units to the legionaries of ranks 1-8; so arranging some degree of tactical co-operation between regiments, even of differing national origins, cannot have been that difficult.

[DBS]

Absolutely, I nearly said as much.  Now one can argue that they are all Roman regulars - legions and auxiliaries - but the very fact that Arrian is showing off his breadth of supposed tactical flexibility and innovation suggests that these units might not have trained for this as a matter of course; they simply could be told, more or less, to do it and be expected to make it work.  Is that testament to their excellent training and professionalism, or testament to it not being that difficult a concept in the first place?  (Probably both...)