Assyria

[aligern]

If you have 80 regulars to 800 'militia' that could look a lot like 80 ranks wide and, effectively ten ranks deep, irvan officervand nco component of 80 in a unit of 900?
R

[Andreas Johansson]

The Itu'eans and Gurreans are, in name at least, tribal auxiliaries. They seem to have been "regulars" in the sense of professionals - often used as garrison troops, frex - not part-time militia.

Note that in Dezso's usage, the "regular" infantry is simply the more lightly equipped class of ethnically (or at least sartorially) Assyrian infantry.

[Patrick Waterson]

Although if one adds the 80 to the 360, one gets 440 men (archers?) to accompany 440 Itu'eans, a nice 1:1 ratio ...

The Itu'eans were noted as bowmen and the Gurreans as spearmen, so to get a 1:1 ratio the kallāpu should presumably be spearmen.

And the chance of the scribe getting it the wrong way round is slender, as presumably someone would be checking.

If you have 80 regulars to 800 'militia' that could look a lot like 80 ranks wide and, effectively ten ranks deep, i.e. an officer and nco component of 80 in a unit of 900?

Interesting thought, as it presumably places the kallāpu with the spearmen, perhaps as front-rankers.  If so, it suggests status rather than armament as the primary lexical weight of the designation.  It also makes us wonder why there is no similar distinction of designation for officers of chariots and cavalry.  Perhaps these were sufficiently elite and/or staffed with integral officers as not to require an inserted 'cadre' to command them.

We may incidentally note that the ratio of approximately 1 chariot to 3 cavalry to 8 infantry is a rather higher ratio of mounted troops than we would usually expect.  Does Dezso give any context for this particular inscription?

[Andreas Johansson]

Does Dezso give any context for this particular inscription?

It is from "[t]he famous letter of Adad-issīa to Sargon II" that "lists the royal troops (king's men) stationed in Māzamua."

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks, Anders.  Interesting that the Gurreans and Itu'eans are considered kisir sharruti.

Unfortunately this leaves me no wiser (though perhaps better informed ).  106 chariotry (men or vehicles? - if men, 106/3 = 33.3333 vehicles and 106/4 = 26.5 vehicles, so I suppose it must be vehicles unless one crew has had a serious accident) and 343 cavalry is not exactly the sort of round number one would associate with unit size in a predominantly decimally-organised army.  The chariot:cavalry proportion is also much higher then the 1:10 ratio one would expect in this period.  Still, odd postings happen, and some of the cavalry may have been on detachment elsewhere.

On a distantly related topic, it does demonstrate that chariots as a military arm were alive and well during the reign of Sargon II.

The best fit for the kallāpu appears to remain the likelihood that they were being used as infantry officers in this case.  However this could be a red herring, as the Gurreans and Itu'eans are listed in the fifth section of the tablet and the fourth section consists of

8 scholars, 23 donkey drivers, 1 information officer, and 80 kallāpu

as if these constituted a single organisation.  This would leave the kallāpu as escorts for the scholarly expedition (or whatever it was), with the likelihood they were archers.  (If they were crack spearmen, one might expect quradu.)

If this is the correct interpretation, or close to it, then the 80 kallāpu could well be a company or half-company of archers escorting an academic expedition from (say) the capital and would not have any direct relationship to the remainder of the garrison.  Archers might well be the troops of choice for dealing with local brigands, who would not close to contact with regular soldiers, and this would explain the low numbers - too many for ambassadors and too few for soldiers, but enough to look after a collection of scholars.

Depending upon the exact meaning of 'scholar' and 'information officer', we might even be looking at an administrative staff for the garrison, plus their guards/escort.

[Andreas Johansson]

Unfortunately this leaves me no wiser (though perhaps better informed ).  106 chariotry (men or vehicles? - if men, 106/3 = 33.3333 vehicles and 106/4 = 26.5 vehicles, so I suppose it must be vehicles unless one crew has had a serious accident) and 343 cavalry is not exactly the sort of round number one would associate with unit size in a predominantly decimally-organised army.

Given that Dezso's paraphrase speaks of chariotry/cavalry personnel rather than simply chariot crew and cavalrymen, it seems likely the numbers include grooms or similar noncombatants. (It still won't break down to a multiple of a reasonable number of men per vehicle, as the only divisors of 106 are 2 and 53, but a few vacancies or supernumeraries seem plausible enough. Perhaps squadron leaders rated an extra servant or something.)

This would leave the kallāpu as escorts for the scholarly expedition (or whatever it was)

I sort of assumed that the "scholars" were administrative personnel.

[Patrick Waterson]

If all associated personnel including grooms are included, we can make guesses about the teeth-to-tail ratios of these particular contingents.

This is pure guesswork, but 106 chariot personnel including noncombatants would suggest 25 crews of four and six supernumeraries, or 20 crews of four and 26 supernumeraries.  This would also bring the chariot:cavalry ratio closer to 1:10, suggesting either 200 cavalry with 143 supernumeraries (which is perhaps too many of the latter) or 250 cavalry and 93 supernumeraries.

I would be inclined to assume 25 chariots with 100 combat personnel and six artificers for maintenance and repairs and 250 cavalry with 93 personnel involved in horse management and culinary and general noncombatant duties.  These persons could look after both sets of horses and men.  This is of course conjectural and does not explain why noncombatants in section 2 of the list are not associated with section 1.

I sort of assumed that the "scholars" were administrative personnel.

They may well be; I was just surprised that administrative personnel in barracks would have their own escort, if that is indeed why the 80 kallāpu are grouped with them.  If they got out and about (for collecting information or even taxes) independently of the garrison, having their own escort becomes understandable.

[Andreas Johansson]

*bump*

I just noted that the DBMM Urartian list refers to their cavalry as kallapu. I guess it could be an Urartian word that just happens to sound like Akkadian kallāpu, but I figure more likely it's the same word, applied by the Assyrians to an Urartian troop-type they considered equivalent to their own kallāpu. Anyone - Duncan? - know anything about the background for its appearance in the list?

It's use in itself is not necessary helpful: obviously, one can imagine cavalry archers, and equally well cavalry of some particular sociopolitical status, or recruited in some particular way.

[Patrick Waterson]

How about mounted infantry, most probably archers?

[Andreas Johansson]

How about mounted infantry, most probably archers?

All I can say is that whoever write the list - Nigel? - evidently thought they were proper cavalry fighting from horseback.