Five questions about the sarmatians

[Havok.]

Hi all;

First question i'd like to ask is: How would a sarmatian war party be like? which units i chose to build in order to be somewhat historically accurate?

Second question is: What would be a good sarmatian territorial development that could be consideraded partially historically plausible?

Third question: How to manage armies? how many war parties would the sarmatians have around their territory?i was thinking they would have one main army for conquering and plundering purposes and the other groups, smaller ones with purposes like defending borders and insurgents, any other ideas?

Fourth question regards allies, how to treat them, and which factions would the sarmatians favour to be allies? the seleukids? the saka? or would the sarmatians be a rock in the shoe of everyone else, plundering everyone? if you have any ideas and their why's i'd like very much hearing them;

Fifth question: To those who RP playing the Sauromatae, do you RP? if so, how?

I know this is just a game, and the enemy is just an AI, but for me, i would like to keep things historically plausible, hence i ask this questions. Any additional ideas not related to this ones about this faction i find so fun to play with, the Sauromatae, are welcome.

[Blxz]

1: Majority of light horse archers with a 1 nobles unit and a Family Member. Probably not a very large stack either, majority of their military activity would have been raids and counter raids.

2: I'm not sure about their territorial development. But unless you want to convert into weak settled farmers its wise to stay away from any towns. Take and raze them then leave...sure. but don't hold them. A noble goal fit for true Samaritan kings would be to eventually unite all nomads under the banner of the tribe. So go east and take all the nomad lands, then raze your way south to the rich persian cities.

3: Defending borders? They were nomads, I realise that you can't run your towns away from the enemy but in reality that is what they did. You can feel free to use the move character cheat to move attacking armies away or fight them with your main army or even with your garrision stacks. But I doubt they had an army specially for defense that was any different from a standard war army. (did they even have standing armies at all?)

4: Sounds worthwhile to have nomadic allies and possibly 'non-aggression pact' alliances with the settled peoples. Although always keep a target open for raids. World peace is not a goal of the samaritans.

5: Essentially I act out my answer to question 2. Raid nearby neighbours, take and control nomadic lands as my own and eventually build the terror of the north, a great nomadic russian bear that sweeps down and kills factions and abandons the land (when i get bored of the game) until I am the only one left on the map. Haven't succeeded yet but I did get about halfway once before I needed reinforcements. Didn't get a chance to kill the romans or the Carthies or anyone west of that.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Good post above.

I'll only add to it that as a nomad faction, I garrison my unwalled towns as lightly as possible, and only with expendable foot troops like archers. I know that if my town is attacked by an enemy stack, I'm going to lose that town temporarily. I don't worry about this, I just gather an army together to take it back. When I'm ready, I beseige the town, and wait for the enemy garrison to sally out. When they do, I'll have the tactical advantage, I can just shoot them down as they run about outside the town.

So basically, don't try and defend your towns. Instead let the enemy take them, and then take them back afterwards.

[bobbin]

I can't answer all of you questions but I'll do the two I can.



First question i'd like to ask is: How would a sarmatian war party be like? which units i chose to build in order to be somewhat historically accurate?
Light horse archers and lots of them, about 5-10% of the army as heavy cavalry.


Second question is: What would be a good sarmatian territorial development that could be consideraded partially historically plausible?

Consolidation of the western steppe then heading south to the black sea shore and west into eastern europe and the lands of the Getai. I think heading towards central asia might also be a possibility but I'm not too sure about that one.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Horse archers are the Sarmatians favorite troop type - but HA's don't like mountains and they don't like dense forests. The Sarmatians might penetrate into those areas, but with an army composed of mostly infantry and foot archers who can cope with the terrain.

[Ludens]

Light horse archers and lots of them, about 5-10% of the army as heavy cavalry.


Consolidation of the western steppe then heading south to the black sea shore and west into eastern europe and the lands of the Getai. I think heading towards central asia might also be a possibility but I'm not too sure about that one.

I agree on both counts. IIRC pure Mongolian armies had 10% "heavy" (melee) cavalry and the rest horse archers. The dividing line could be a bit fuzzy, by the way. The Mongolian nobles that made up the heaviest cavalry would also have used bows; and while I am not sure if the Mongols employed light lancers, these would have counted as melee cavalry.

Going into central Asia brings you into conflict with the Seleucids, and if you attack them it´s likely that everybody else stops doing so, so you get to face the Grey Death alone. Going east also brings you into contact with other nomads and their lands are just not as profitable.

As for the third question: I don't know much about the Sarmatians, but nomads in general do not have a concept of an organized military. Every man is a warrior, so having a standing force does not make sense. Obviously, you can have a concentration of warriors at a disputed border, but these would be local tribesmen defending their own land.

For that matter, nomads don't have much in the way of government. They don't need to, because population density is low and every tribe can and has to look after its own survival. The steppe is a harsh environment and nomads pretty much spend the entire year preparing for the winter. This breeds hard people that are mostly concerned with their own survival. They do not have any sympathy for those who cannot defend what they own. For the same reason they are very fierce about protecting their own territory and possessions: they cannot spare anything, and any sign of weakness may induce neighbouring tribes to take your land and your goods. These neighbours too live on a knife's edge.

The only reason for the tribes to accept a King of the Tribes is the threat of force (either from the King's tribe or an outside power) or because banding together allows them to extort or plunder neighbouring cities. Even then, the tribes would mostly look after their own affairs, and it would be an unwise monarch who tried to take a tribe's supplies from them without compensation. Taxation is not appreciated by people who believe they can look after themselves.

That should also answer your fourth and fifth question. Out of necessity, nomads are opportunists. They don't go to war to prove their masculinity or superiority, since survival on the steppe is the only measure of worth. They do not want land, other than as pasture for their herds, since they cannot spare people to colonize it. They don't care about freedom: on the steppe, everyone is a slave to the environment.

This also means the tribes cannot afford to lose many men; nor are the individual warriors going to risk their lives more than they have to. Nomads go for targets of opportunity. They want the wealth (or supplies) to survive the winter, and they'll happily take protection money over plunder if attacking would be risky.

Role-playing is going to get tricky once you control many settled areas, as this usually is the point where the nomads realize taxation is more profitable than looting. This means taking over the administration of the previous rulers (since nomads don't possess such a thing) and settling down as the new aristocracy. It will also result in the confederacy falling apart, since the original conqueror is usually dead and there is no concept of hereditary monarchy. Every ambitious chieftain fancies himself a king.

[cultist]

That was beautiful.

[Havok.]

I read the replies so far and i appreciate everyone's comments, thanks;


1: Majority of light horse archers with a 1 nobles unit and a Family Member. Probably not a very large stack either, majority of their military activity would have been raids and counter raids.

About the army, i've also thought the army would be like you guys said, one or two nobles in the stack and the rest of the men being horse achers;


I'll only add to it that as a nomad faction, I garrison my unwalled towns as lightly as possible, and only with expendable foot troops like archers. I know that if my town is attacked by an enemy stack, I'm going to lose that town temporarily. I don't worry about this, I just gather an army together to take it back. When I'm ready, I beseige the town, and wait for the enemy garrison to sally out. When they do, I'll have the tactical advantage, I can just shoot them down as they run about outside the town.

So basically, don't try and defend your towns. Instead let the enemy take them, and then take them back afterwards.

This is quite an interesting idea there, plundering a certain town and then leaving it to the previous ruler to again, in a nearby future, plunder them again. I will surely be using this in my campaign;


Consolidation of the western steppe then heading south to the black sea shore and west into eastern europe and the lands of the Getai. I think heading towards central asia might also be a possibility but I'm not too sure about that one.

Entering Central Asia would prove quite an adventure to the sarmatians, some RP histories and ideas come to mind when i think of this. Even though i wasn't actually considering entering there at first place, i can imagine a part of the sarmatians being the 'settled branch of the faction' in central asia. Perhaps;


I agree on both counts. IIRC pure Mongolian armies had 10% "heavy" (melee) cavalry and the rest horse archers. The dividing line could be a bit fuzzy, by the way. The Mongolian nobles that made up the heaviest cavalry would also have used bows; and while I am not sure if the Mongols employed light lancers, these would have counted as melee cavalry.

Going into central Asia brings you into conflict with the Seleucids, and if you attack them it´s likely that everybody else stops doing so, so you get to face the Grey Death alone. Going east also brings you into contact with other nomads and their lands are just not as profitable.

As for the third question: I don't know much about the Sarmatians, but nomads in general do not have a concept of an organized military. Every man is a warrior, so having a standing force does not make sense. Obviously, you can have a concentration of warriors at a disputed border, but these would be local tribesmen defending their own land.

For that matter, nomads don't have much in the way of government. They don't need to, because population density is low and every tribe can and has to look after its own survival. The steppe is a harsh environment and nomads pretty much spend the entire year preparing for the winter. This breeds hard people that are mostly concerned with their own survival. They do not have any sympathy for those who cannot defend what they own. For the same reason they are very fierce about protecting their own territory and possessions: they cannot spare anything, and any sign of weakness may induce neighbouring tribes to take your land and your goods. These neighbours too live on a knife's edge.

The only reason for the tribes to accept a King of the Tribes is the threat of force (either from the King's tribe or an outside power) or because banding together allows them to extort or plunder neighbouring cities. Even then, the tribes would mostly look after their own affairs, and it would be an unwise monarch who tried to take a tribe's supplies from them without compensation. Taxation is not appreciated by people who believe they can look after themselves.

That should also answer your fourth and fifth question. Out of necessity, nomads are opportunists. They don't go to war to prove their masculinity or superiority, since survival on the steppe is the only measure of worth. They do not want land, other than as pasture for their herds, since they cannot spare people to colonize it. They don't care about freedom: on the steppe, everyone is a slave to the environment.

This also means the tribes cannot afford to lose many men; nor are the individual warriors going to risk their lives more than they have to. Nomads go for targets of opportunity. They want the wealth (or supplies) to survive the winter, and they'll happily take protection money over plunder if attacking would be risky.

Role-playing is going to get tricky once you control many settled areas, as this usually is the point where the nomads realize taxation is more profitable than looting. This means taking over the administration of the previous rulers (since nomads don't possess such a thing) and settling down as the new aristocracy. It will also result in the confederacy falling apart, since the original conqueror is usually dead and there is no concept of hereditary monarchy. Every ambitious chieftain fancies himself a king.

And this asnwers perfectly my question about the RP, the picture you provided to me about the nomads is beatiful, RP now is a must in my upcoming sarmatian campaign, and i will be undoubtly be using this information you posted, i appreciate you greatly for this :idea2:


Also, all this nomad talk bursted in me a desire to get to know them better(not just the sarmatians) i would ask for books and websites providing historical information about them you guys might be aware, thanks in advance;


Thanks again for those who participated in this topic.
:beam:

[Havok.]

Last thing

I dont feel its necessary to create another topic for this, but i have one quick question here, in the EB wikipedia there is this diagram showing the government development of nomad factions

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/EB_Nomadic_government_diagram.jpg

where i can find all the others diagrams like these regarding other factions?

[Folgore]

They're in "\Rome - Total War\EB\documentation\JMRC Building Trees\".

At least, I think that comes closest to what you're looking for. Non-nomadic factions don'e have such complicated government setups.