I fully support the request for an Assyrian UU. However, I disagree with the choice of a cavalry unit for this purpose.
When I think horse archers, I think of the Scythians who (together with the Medes) destroyed the Assyrian empire in 612 B.C.
Sure, the Assyrians used cavalry instead of chariots, but horsemanship doesn't seem to me the great, defining achievement of the Assyrian empire. I think of the creation of a standing army, the invention of the boot, lamellar armour, widespread use of iron weapons, incredible logistical range, perfection of siege warfare, etc.
This quote never ceases to kick me in the behind:
From Richard A. Gabriel and Karen S. Metz. "From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies." New York: Greenwood Press, 1991. Excerpts available online here
The "strategic mobility" of the Assyrian army, or their ability to project their military force over a given area, was 375,000 square miles. After Rome fell, no army exceeded this area until the American Civil War, when the use of railroads made troop movements easier. In terms of efficiency of organization, no military staff (i.e. administrators, logistic officers and engineers) would reach the proficiency of the Assyrian or Roman military staffs until the German general staff of the 1870's. The prototype of a modern soldier's equipment (helmet, body armor, boots [a particular Assyrian innovation], and backpack) was invented by ancient armies and disappeared for almost 1,000 years after the fall of the Roman Empire. The killing power of an ancient composite bow (i.e. the accuracy, force, distance, and speed of deployment) was not matched until the introduction of the Prussian needle gun in 1871. According to modern tests, the body armor, helmet, and shield of the Assyrians would have provided excellent protection against firearms until Napoleon. If the dispersion of field formations, inaccuracy of early firearms, and rates of fire are considered, the Assyrian soldier would have been safer on a battlefield in the 18th century than on an Ancient Near Eastern one.
So sure, yeah, the Assyrians had cavalry shooting the composite bow: "The Assyrians were the first to invent large cavalry squadrons" (ibid). But lets think of it this way: The Scythians were tribal pastoralists, riding down from the steppes into the Ancient Near East like fricking demons on horseback.
These horsemen burned themselves into the collective consciousness of the river-valley civilizations, so much so that Darius the Persian decided to invade Scythia to make them pay for their invasions a hundred years earlier.
From E. V. Cernenko, "The Scythians: 700-300BC" (Oxford: Osprey, 1983), p. 20
Cavalry was the principle arm of the Scythians, as was typically the case among nomadic societies. Herodotus and Theucydides put it in a clear-cut way, stating that each Scythian warrior was a mounted archer. ... Throughout early Scythian history [i.e., up until they became sedentary] the overwhelming majority of the men were mounted; infantry consisted of the poorer Scythians, and levies from those settled tribes whose territory was now dominated by the Scythians.
Now
these guys are the ones that should have a horse archer UU, not the Assyrians!
I propose, rather, that the Assyrian UU be an infantry unit (a bombard UU wouldn't work well gameplay-wise). I suggest calling it the
kisir sharruti, which translates as "standing army." If that scale is too broad for one's taste, then may I suggest the
sha shepe, which translates as the "king's personal bodyguard, composed of cavalry, chariotry and infantry" (Mark Healy,
The Ancient Assyrians [Oxford: Osprey, 1991], p. 19). Why an infantry unit for the in-game representation? Because that was the bulk of forces, arrayed so securely in boots, lamellar armour etc., these guys are the ones who marched over the Fertile Crescent putting the fear of Ashur into the minds of everyone.
I'll go to school tomorrow and scan all the Angus McBride colour plates, and post those here...unless I get mercilessly shot-down in the meantime.
Cheers,
Mithadan
