Later Sargonid Assyrian Cavalry

[DanMcLaughlin]

I am sorting these out to use for MEG (I have an army that was for WRG 7th and then DBM and DBMM) - and then noticed the MEG list has a really drastic change to the cavalry. First it is only the Qurubuti sha pithalli who get armoured horses and the previous armoured cavalry are retained after 668 BCE and that when upgraded they become close order! Any idea why? I haven't seen any reliefs showing cavalry without horse armour after this date - have I missed something? Secondly have we any reason to think that they started forming up in close order? This isn't the kind of detail we have available to us as far as I know. So from a historical basis I'm not sure why the list would contain such a drastic (and compulsory) change from previous lists. From a wargaming point of view I hesitate to not use all the cavalry I already have or try rebase some of them fitting 4 on a base. Any ideas?

[badhabum]

The upgraded Assyrian cavalry Qurubuti sha pithalli gain the ArmHrs characteristic. Hence they become "close" . If you compare with late medieval lists, you will find out that when knights do get the ArmHrs characteristic they all become "close" . Same for the Timurid Samarkand guards.

So you gain protection vs shooting but loose some mobility.

I do not base them by 4 but keep them by 3. Main reasons are : 25% less miniatures to buy and sometimes if your miniatures are big, they do not fit well on the bases. You just tell your opponent what they are .

My own Qurubuti sha pithalli are based by 3 and I use them ArmHrs or not. And I use the same figures I have only one such unit .

For the historical basis we will have to wait for RJC's answer

[nikgaukroger]

The Close classification is really a points fudge to sort out an issue of over-costing if they were Loose ArmHrs. As cavalry with ArmHrs move, and suffer from terrain in the same was as Close it was a nice an easy solution.

As far as I know we have no idea about the formation spacing of Assyrian cavalry.

3 to a base is perfectly acceptable for Close formation cavalry, lots of players do that (me for one) and as long as you can see which is which on table there are no problems.

As for the non- Qurubuti cavalry in the Later Sargonid list I can't really comment on whether they should also have ArmHrs - but feel free to make a list amendment suggestion if you feel the evidence shows they should 

[nikgaukroger]

I'd also add that the ArmHrs classification for the Qurubuti may be a tad generous as troops with similar horse armours usually aren't, so restricting it to the single unit may well be a reasonable compromise.

[DanMcLaughlin]

I see how it may make sense in a wargaming/rules kind of way - but surely its supposed to have some basis in history? I may just not upgrade them I guess - all my Assyrian cavalry are the same - they all have the horse armour - so working out which are supposed to armoured horse and which aren't isn't going to be obvious......

[nikgaukroger]

I see how it may make sense in a wargaming/rules kind of way - but surely its supposed to have some basis in history?

As I said, if you feel the list could be improved, please suggest away    Certainly if all the cavalry had the horse armour it suggests there is a case for reconsideration.

Suspect this could be of use to those interested - https://www.academia.edu/2195173/The_Assyrian_Army_I_The_Structure_of_the_Neo_Assyrian_Army_2_Cavalry_and_Chariotry

[DanMcLaughlin]

I have that document yes. I don't think it makes any suggestion that it was just the quarubuti sha pithalli who gained horse armour though. If you look at reliefs like Til Tuba all the cavalry have horse armour. As far as I know if some didn't they aren't depicted anywhere. Given the rather arbitrary nature of the MeG armour classifications all this tells us really is that all the cavalry should probably be classed the same and have the same formation. We have no reason to think that the guards had a different formation to the others. I would probably so they all should either be Protected or Protected/Armoured Horse without the distinction between guards and others.