Why are there no Sarmatian invasions during EB's period?

From my EB playing experiences so far, and by reading some books I observed that among the factions, the Sarmatians have the deadliest units.

It is very difficult to counter nomadic armies using the usual tactics employed by the Romans, Greeks (and especially the barbarians with their typically lower quality body armor). Their swift horses allow them to flank and harrass enemy from afar and then run away before any light cavalry can chase them down. Their recurve bow can shoot very far and pierce many types of armor. And lets not forget about their heavy cavalry/cataphracts used as the killing blow after the armies have been severely weakened from arrows and skirmishing attacks. :thumbsdown:

They have what it takes to easily conquer much of the EB world within a few generations. And yet in history the Sarmatians keep to themselves most of the time, and later they even got subjugated by the Romans who used them as auxilliary horse archers and heavy cavalry.

Does anyone here know the reason why the Sarmatians aren't as much as a threat as they potentially should be?

Lack of economy and population?

Gameplay mechanics and stats doesn't apply to reality? :clown:

Seriously though, I dont have the answer. But I'd dare say that reality is different from EB-gameplay (No offence to anything in EB, greatest mod ever, just a neutral statement) and thus there are a myriad of reasons that prevented them from doing so in reality as opposed to in EB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slim_Ghost

From my EB playing experiences so far, and by reading some books I observed that among the factions, the Sarmatians have the deadliest units.

It is very difficult to counter nomadic armies using the usual tactics employed by the Romans, Greeks (and especially the barbarians with their typically lower quality body armor). Their swift horses allow them to flank and harrass enemy from afar and then run away before any light cavalry can chase them down. Their recurve bow can shoot very far and pierce many types of armor. And lets not forget about their heavy cavalry/cataphracts used as the killing blow after the armies have been severely weakened from arrows and skirmishing attacks. :thumbsdown:

They have what it takes to easily conquer much of the EB world within a few generations. And yet in history the Sarmatians keep to themselves most of the time, and later they even got subjugated by the Romans who used them as auxilliary horse archers and heavy cavalry.

Does anyone here know the reason why the Sarmatians aren't as much as a threat as they potentially should be?

---

1) They were not an unified kingdom and have no intention to launch a large-scale invasion.
2) Their preferred tactics is not very useful against forts or walled cities.
3) Even if they're unified and beat settled people, they cannot maintain the army & combat style once they settle and become farmers and merchants. This would limit their further expansion.
4) They were hired as mercenaries by various factions, even oppositing ones. They're not one kingdom or one people so the word "subjugated" is not really accurate.
5) Their bows are certainly superior to western hunting bows, but not really better than other eastern ones. Since nobody would seriously consider western bows as a real weapon, this "advantage" doesn't matter. (BTW roman auxilia archers were using Scythian bows)

Well in my campaign they did a small scale invasion, tacking control of the western banks of the Black sea, eventually entering a war against the Getai. Now they are suffering from the Hay and Pahlava, their own homeland is at risk.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

1) They were not an unified kingdom and have no intention to launch a large-scale invasion.

---

They did launch a large scale invasion, though. At the end of the fourth or beginning of the third century the Sarmatians moved from the Kuban region across the Don and into the region between the Dnieper and the Don. Within a century or two they reached almost to the Danube and had a strong foothold on all the land between the Don and the Dniester, with the exemption of most of the Crimea, of course.

Quote:

---

2) Their preferred tactics is not very useful against forts or walled cities.
3) Even if they're unified and beat settled people, they cannot maintain the army & combat style once they settle and become farmers and merchants. This would limit their further expansion.

---

These points are largely irrelevant. The Sarmatians, and many other nomadic peoples, managed to defeat and subjugate major cities despite not employing siege tactics. The Sarmatians did intermingle and settle with the Greeks of the Bosporan kingdom, but they largely employed the standard nomadic method of maintaining a subjugated empire: they forced cities to be aligned with them and to pay tribute.

Quote:

---

4) They were hired as mercenaries by various factions, even oppositing ones. They're not one kingdom or one people so the word "subjugated" is not really accurate.

---

They were separate tribes, but they certainly worked in unison, or at least we do not hear of major conflicts between Sarmatian groups. Whatever the political situation within the Sarmatians themselves, the result was clearly a migration of Sarmatian tribes moving in unison that appeared to be a tribal confederacy to outsiders.

Quote:

---

5) Their bows are certainly superior to western hunting bows, but not really better than other eastern ones. Since nobody would seriously consider western bows as a real weapon, this "advantage" doesn't matter. (BTW roman auxilia archers were using Scythian bows)

---

Their bows were basically the same kind as used by all eastern peoples in this time until the introduction of the "Sassanian" bow, but this can be brought back to the general state of nomadic warfare at this time.

I think the real reason that the Sarmatians did not invade Europe and wreak havoc is because, like the 'Royal' Scythians before them, they were content to control the northern Black Sea littoral and had much to deal with there anyway.

When you ask why they didn't continue their movement into Europe, you're also forgetting the reason that the Sarmatians moved westward in the first place - they were pushed out in one of the great steppe "domino effects" of history. They basically seem to have been pressured into moving west from the Urals to the Kuban region and then finally into the northern Black Sea littoral rather than invading westward of their own initiative.

The most important reason is that they probably didnt want to take over the world. They were happy living on the steppes, and most likely had no reason to trek thousands of miles in foreign lands to risk their lives building an empire.

-- deleted --

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the Bean

The most important reason is that they probably didnt want to take over the world. They were happy living on the steppes, and most likely had no reason to trek thousands of miles in foreign lands to risk their lives building an empire.

---

That pretty much sums it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

3) Even if they're unified and beat settled people, they cannot maintain the army & combat style once they settle and become farmers and merchants. This would limit their further expansion.

---

Isn't this contradictary to what the Pahlava did, as they conquered a settled empire but still managed to maintain their army and combat style?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methuselah

Isn't this contradictary to what the Pahlava did, as they conquered a settled empire but still managed to maintain their army and combat style?

---

But how expensive it is, to maintain an army of nearly entire cavalry? Besides it's not as effective as nomadic ones, who have no cities/towns to defend (and HA is useless for that). I don't think there is any other settled nomads who did this like Parthians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

But how expensive it is, to maintain an army of nearly entire cavalry? Besides it's not as effective as nomadic ones, who have no cities/towns to defend (and HA is useless for that). I don't think there is any other settled nomads who did this like Parthians.

---

you might want to delete that one too, as TPC will be on you rear in no time. and since the fact is that the Pahlavan (and later the Saassanids), were able to deflect nomads and hold their own, I see no reason to assume they were in any way inferior to other steppe poeple.

Apart from the Parthians, I'd dare say the Turks are another good example. And the Saka & the Yuezhi (Kushans) to a lesser extent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

But how expensive it is, to maintain an army of nearly entire cavalry? Besides it's not as effective as nomadic ones, who have no cities/towns to defend (and HA is useless for that). I don't think there is any other settled nomads who did this like Parthians.

---

The thing is (And TPC might correct me, should he spring up on this thread), that since the Pahlava society was a feudal one (comparable to Medieval Feudalism), each noble and his clan were sufficiently rich and powerful enough, to each field a considerable amount of cavalry soldiers. The central government (e.g. The Parthian king), had little to pay, as probably, even his clan members who accompanied him to battle (Kinsmen or sorts in EB), had to afford their own equipment. So the entire army you speak of, the Parthian one, was maintained by each and everyone, and not by one (The King) and his administration. And what do you mean by effectiveness? The primary problem for maintain a large contingents of horses, and thus, cavalry armies, wasn't the cost, but a sufficient availability of herding grounds to feed the many horses the army had. That's why you see the Sarmatians and other Steppe people, who weren't particularly rich, having the said cavalry-based armies? I don't know exactly the specifics of countering Horse Archers per se, but since the Parthians had merged both Nomadic style warfare and "Standard" style warfare, and since they were pretty clever fellows, I'm sure they knew ways to defeat other Nomadic armies.

I am not here for any sort of witch-hunt, Ibrahim. I am here to inform, and most of it is usually opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

But how expensive it is, to maintain an army of nearly entire cavalry?

---

Very expensive. In fact, there is a gigantic point to this. Maybe some people will think more thoroughly about proportion and its relationship with macro-economical factors and demographics and eventually learn to challenge lacking theory.

First of all, let us not commit the mistake of believing that the mainstay of the Parthian armies was all equestrian. It wasn't. The battle of Carrhaë brought fame to the Parthians and their martial ardour, but the unfortunate side-effect is that some people still think of it as a proof of standardized ratio and type. All Surena's army tells us is that it abides by a decimal organization, and that's it. That it happened to be all horse is easy to explain: Surena's original holdings were as far to the east as Arachosia. This was the traditional fiefdom of the Sûrên clan. Surena had fought in a civil war with a veteran force continuously as far west as Seleucia itself. In a siege. By the news that he was appointed to deal with the Roman invasion, he needed a quick force (Subsequently, he required his allies to abide by this speed of action) in order to confront the Romans, and he needed all the time he could get his hands on. The Romans had been walking in circles in the deserts of Assyria, thanks to an excellent ploy by Orodes II and his western allies, Abgar and Ariaramnes, as he himself moved towards Armenia to deal with Artavasdes.

This is in complete contrast to the exploits of earlier Pahlavân ruler Phraates II, who brough a host of infantry perhaps as much as five times the cavalry (Which is an old Achaemenid ratio).

To the contrary of popular opinion, by the entire span of the Partho-Sassanian period, the Iranians suffered from a chronic man-power shortage, and this owed mostly to the losses of the eastern territories, and the exhaustion of fighting eastern rivals. You don't need steppes, or steppe-bred horses, or steppe-bred tribesmen to fight with a cavalry nucleus. All you needed was a mix of the Iranian feudalistic model, a viable caste-system (Which both relied on inheritance and by merit), and a satrapal organization which provided a trinity of stability under royal supervision (Historically, this wasn't exactly the most successful method... Sometimes the satraps struck their own coinage and instead turned into tributary client rulers... But the idea is nice!). This turned the estates held by nobility into huge drafting centres, and instead of tribesmen, what you got were bondsmen (Bandakâ/Bandêgân), who were trained and supplied by their masters. Instead of wild steppen breeds, established breeds for heavy horse and light horse were introduced. The big Medean horse (Nisaean) for the knights, and the lighter Turkoman (Or its ancestor) for the light horse. We have proof as early as the Âpâdânâ reliefs (Medean and Cappadocian tributaries for the heavy horse, Armenians and Sakas bring compact but bulky horses, Thracians/Skudra bring lighter horse and the Sagartians provide a very slim horse with a long back - A Turkoman) which brings some confidence to the view of point.

Quote:

---

Besides it's not as effective as nomadic ones, who have no cities/towns to defend (and HA is useless for that).

---

This is of course why the Parthians were so infatuated with big walls and castles in order to fend off hostile tribes until a counter-offensive (I kid you not. Even as early as the age of Arsaces, Graeco-Roman stories recall how he built an impenetrable fortress in Apartvarticene, and he is the earliest recorded "Arsaces"); In city, or city-state habitat, the Parthians found a chief use for infantry who did not participate in field-army activities: Garrison duty. Some of Trajan's "Parthia Capta" coins actually portray two imprisoned figures: A man dressed up as Parthian cavalry, and another who looks almost attired like a Greek infantry.

Quote:

---

I don't think there is any other settled nomads who did this like Parthians.

---

* Indo-Scythians
* Yuezhi/Kushans
* Kidarites/Xîyûn/Red Huns
* Hûnâ/Hunas/Hephtalites/White Huns

Bani Lakhm, the Muntherid clients of the Sassanians too had their nomadic roots. The Khazars turned the western steppes into more than a wasteland by giving proper foundation to cities such as Itil, Samandar, and Balanjar.

Uh-oh... I don't think you expected anything like this :smash:

But yes, in a sense the Arsacid are unique. Especially in a positive and rising popular perception. Instead of being considered as Scythic invaders, they are recalled as a proper Iranian dynasty. They started out as Dahae invaders, the rudest of all nomads, and they died out as the Sassanians took over, leaving behind them a fully-fledged Persianate power. Their achievement of transition predated that of the Great Seljuks by several centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

The thing is (And TPC might correct me, should he spring up on this thread), that since the Pahlava society was a feudal one (comparable to Medieval Feudalism), each noble and his clan were sufficiently rich and powerful enough, to each field a considerable amount of cavalry soldiers. The central government (e.g. The Parthian king), had little to pay, as probably, even his clan members who accompanied him to battle (Kinsmen or sorts in EB), had to afford their own equipment. So the entire army you speak of, the Parthian one, was maintained by each and everyone, and not by one (The King) and his administration. And what do you mean by effectiveness? The primary problem for maintain a large contingents of horses, and thus, cavalry armies, wasn't the cost, but a sufficient availability of herding grounds to feed the many horses the army had.

---

I mean the cost on this entire socity, not just on governments. The government may pay little, but his people are still taxed for these professional armies and mounts.

BTW, don't more herding grounds mean fewer farmlands? Fewer farmlands = fewer income and fewer food.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

That's why you see the Sarmatians and other Steppe people, who weren't particularly rich, having the said cavalry-based armies? I don't know exactly the specifics of countering Horse Archers per se, but since the Parthians had merged both Nomadic style warfare and "Standard" style warfare, and since they were pretty clever fellows, I'm sure they knew ways to defeat other Nomadic armies.

---

Nomads are different from settled people. Their warfare is how they live. I think every able men in a nomadic socity could be a warrior. They don't need to feed their horses and their archery skill is part of daily life for hunting.

To use a nomadic horse archer, you need nothing but a few supply on campaign. But to train a farmer into a horse archer, it'd take many years of special training, which is almost useless for his daily life, therfore you'd have to pay for his weapons and horses and food and all other things he would need to live, because he does no productive work except to fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

* Indo-Scythians
* Yuezhi/Kushans
* Kidarites/Xîyûn/Red Huns
* Hûnâ/Hunas/Hephtalites/White Huns

---

Thanks! I didn't do know them at all..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

I mean the cost on this entire socity, not just on governments. The government may pay little, but his people are still taxed for these professional armies and mounts.

BTW, don't more herding grounds mean fewer farmlands? Fewer farmlands = fewer income and fewer food.

---

I'm not aware of the specifics of how the Parthian was taxed, much less regarding about maintaining an army. As for farming against herding grounds, it isn't necessarily so. Normally, it isn't necessarily so. Animals can graze in areas where farming productivity could be minimal, but they could also graze in lands where there was much pasture, lands dedicated only to grazing. I suppose in the end, it would depend to each clan/noble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

Nomads are different from settled people. Their warfare is how they live. I think every able men in a nomadic socity could be a warrior. They don't need to feed their horses and their archery skill is part of daily life for hunting.

---

...Yes. I'm glad you know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

To use a nomadic horse archer, you need nothing but a few supply on campaign. But to train a farmer into a horse archer, it'd take many years of special training, which is almost useless for his daily life, therfore you'd have to pay for his weapons and horses and food and all other things he would need to live, because he does no productive work except to fight.

---

Wait, you know the logistics on Nomadic army supply? I doubt that to feed entire invading army on Horseback, one would need only "a few supply".

Farmers weren't trained to become Horse Archers.. >_> I'd bet the noble class already practiced on Horseback Archery since children, and if they wished for large contingents of Horse Archers, they'd have to recruit nomads to do just that. That makes much more sense in every aspect, than training settled farmers to ride and shoot like one who has been doing it for a lifetime, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

I'm not aware of the specifics of how the Parthian was taxed, much less regarding about maintaining an army. As for farming against herding grounds, it isn't necessarily so. Normally, it isn't necessarily so. Animals can graze in areas where farming productivity could be minimal, but they could also graze in lands where there was much pasture, lands dedicated only to grazing. I suppose in the end, it would depend to each clan/noble.

---

Pesture lands can be changed to farms, and productivity can always be increased by various methods. In the end, lands are what we want them to be ;) Assume all lands are completely utilized, more grass lands would mean less farm lands and less food output.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Wait, you know the logistics on Nomadic army supply? I doubt that to feed entire invading army on Horseback, one would need only "a few supply".

---

Not much, but they certainly require less than an army of heavy cavalry formed by settled people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Farmers weren't trained to become Horse Archers.. >_> I'd bet the noble class already practiced on Horseback Archery since children,

---

The cost still exists, since the nobles in sedentary society could do productive things such as governing cities or operating trades. And I doubt the cost to feed those nobles would be any cheaper than to feed professional armies of humble origins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

and if they wished for large contingents of Horse Archers, they'd have to recruit nomads to do just that. That makes much more sense in every aspect, than training settled farmers to ride and shoot like one who has been doing it for a lifetime, no?

---

But you'd have to pay them - mercenary HAs can never as cheap as native HAs to the nomads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

Pesture lands can be changed to farms, and productivity can always be increased by various methods. In the end, lands are what we want them to be ;) Assume all lands are completely utilized, more grass lands would mean less farm lands and less food output.

---

To give you an example in Iberia, most Western and Northern tribes relied on animal husbandry rather than agriculture simply because the terrain was too mountainous and on the few plains the soil was either too hard or too...bleh, don't know the word in english. Something like sandy or rocky. Those are natural pasture lands which can't be changed to productive farming because farming in those lands was unproductive, whereas autotrophic plants grew normally. The same thing can be applied to areas of Persia, I suppose. So in those days, we couldn't really terramorph lands, but I'm not aware of the specifics of Persian Geography anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

Not much, but they certainly require less than an army of heavy cavalry formed by settled people.

---

...Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

The cost still exists, since the nobles in sedentary society could do productive things such as governing cities or operating trades. And I doubt the cost to feed those nobles would be any cheaper than to feed professional armies of humble origins.

---

Who says they couldn't do both? I don't know what the first cost refers to, but the second cost would certainly be bigger, but not gigantically bigger then if they weren't nobles. Nobles didn't eat at banquets
everyday while on campaign. I'm sure they could have some more refined meals, but the cost of feeding them to any other human shouldn't be that far off. Still this "Cost of feeding armies" is a very subjective thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

But you'd have to pay them - mercenary HAs can never as cheap as native HAs to the nomads.

---

But they did hire nomads (I think), and these nomads would fight for the standing army and get payed. If so, what is the point? It certainly wasn't cheap to defeat a nomad invasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

To give you an example in Iberia, most Western and Northern tribes relied on animal husbandry rather than agriculture simply because the terrain was too mountainous and on the few plains the soil was either too hard or too...bleh, don't know the word in english. Something like sandy or rocky. Those are natural pasture lands which can't be changed to productive farming because farming in those lands was unproductive, whereas autotrophic plants grew normally. The same thing can be applied to areas of Persia, I suppose. So in those days, we couldn't really terramorph lands, but I'm not aware of the specifics of Persian Geography anyway.

---

There are many other "productive" things that can be grown in mountainous regions. I'd not consider Iberia as a good example since they're not highly developed like romans or parthians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

But they did hire nomads (I think), and these nomads would fight for the standing army and get payed. If so, what is the point? It certainly wasn't cheap to defeat a nomad invasion.

---

Yes, but there are other invasions you know ;) If parthian had the same populations, can they possibly afford like 500,000 professional horse archers (the number of full-time legionaries Roman can afford to, if not more), while maintaining the same living conditions for its citizens?

I wasn't arguing about their effectiveness against nomads, because they probably had no alternative (they had no crossbows :P). But since they're not nomads and they don't live by hunting, HAs and their horses must be very expensive to train and to maintain, compared to other types of troops - whether the government pay them or not, cost exists whenever you have someone who's not doing farming or other works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

There are many other "productive" things that can be grown in mountainous regions. I'd not consider Iberia as a good example since they're not highly developed like romans or parthians.

---

Not during this period, as far as I'm aware, the only plant that DOES do well in mountainous regions are potatoes....which were unknown here at that time.

I could be wrong, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

There are many other "productive" things that can be grown in mountainous regions. I'd not consider Iberia as a good example since they're not highly developed like romans or parthians.

---

I'd appreciate you enlight me as to what can be grown productively in mountainous terrain with the agricultural techniques of the classical times? Wheat? Vineyards? Olive Trees? Barley? I do consider it as good enough example as any other. I don't see the Romans building many latifundia in the Spanish Meseta or in the Mountainous Northernwest, despite their "high development".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

Yes, but there are other invasions you know ;) If parthian had the same populations, can they possibly afford like 500,000 professional horse archers (the number of full-time legionaries Roman can afford to, if not more), while maintaining the same living conditions for its citizens?

---

I didn't really understand the meaning of this one. Other invasions? Population the same as what? The nomads? (I suppose the Partho-Persian population was significantly bigger than the nomad population), and as I said, the cost of maintaining an army is a very subjective subject. Still, as long as they had the money, they could hire nomads, as I have said. While maintaining the same living conditions for it's citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

I wasn't arguing about their effectiveness against nomads, because they probably had no alternative (they had no crossbows :P). But since they're not nomads and they don't live by hunting, HAs and their horses must be very expensive to train and to maintain, compared to other types of troops - whether the government pay them or not, cost exists whenever you have someone who's not doing farming or other works.

---

As I said, the Horse Archers aren't farmers or merchants. They're either the noble class, who normally would practice it, or nomad mercenaries. (Heck, I'll give you an example I know. Alexander was having trouble during a rebellion in Baktria, by one Zoroastrian man named Spitomenes. Since he had no mobile force to counter the rebels, who I supposed used nomad tactics, he hired the Dahae, which are a nomad tribe, to crush the rebels. There wasn't someone being pulled out of farming or other works because of this.)

I still am trying to figure out why are non-nomad horses and their riders more expensive than nomad horses to maintain (Because there is no such thing as large contingents of settled Horse Archers, except for the said nobles). And do not be fooled by the conotation "Settled = Farming". Many settled populations practiced both farming and hunting (When able), not only in Persia, but basically everywhere.

Quote:

---

I still am trying to figure out why are non-nomad horses and their riders more expensive than nomad horses to maintain (Because there is no such thing as large contingents of settled Horse Archers, except for the said nobles). And do not be fooled by the conotation "Settled = Farming". Many settled populations practiced both farming and hunting (When able), not only in Persia, but basically everywhere.

---

Nomads first of all bred horses like settled people breed sheep. They used them for skins, for milk even meat. Since their lands are only for grazing they could raise many horses. Quantity reduced prices.
Second nomad horses were breeds that ate grass and were perfectly fine. The bigger horses of settled civilisations were domesticated breeds that won't stay in top condition only with grass, the also need hay and other kinds of food which adds to the expenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vorian

Nomads first of all bred horses like settled people breed sheep. They used them for skins, for milk even meat. Since their lands are only for grazing they could raise many horses. Quantity reduced prices.
Second nomad horses were breeds that ate grass and were perfectly fine. The bigger horses of settled civilisations were domesticated breeds that won't stay in top condition only with grass, the also need hay and other kinds of food which adds to the expenses.

---

Hm.. I see. I was unaware that horses did produce milk. Well, that explains part of the question. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Hm.. I see. I was unaware that horses did produce milk. Well, that explains part of the question. :)

---

Horses are mammals you know :sweatdrop:

lol..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vorian

Horses are mammals you know :sweatdrop:

---

>_>

I don´t know why, but last few posts has given me some very unpleasant visions of a bearded nomad sitting in the middle of the great steppe milking his horse. Thing is, it´s a male horse...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Appo

I don´t know why, but last few posts has given me some very unpleasant visions of a bearded nomad sitting in the middle of the great steppe milking his horse. Thing is, it´s a male horse...

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:



ewwww

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

I'd appreciate you enlight me as to what can be grown productively in mountainous terrain with the agricultural techniques of the classical times? Wheat? Vineyards? Olive Trees? Barley? I do consider it as good enough example as any other. I don't see the Romans building many latifundia in the Spanish Meseta or in the Mountainous Northernwest, despite their "high development".

---

Can't they grow anything in those places? Like teas in some mountainous regions in china?? I'd be surprised if there is any land on earth that can grow grass but nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

I didn't really understand the meaning of this one. Other invasions? Population the same as what? The nomads? (I suppose the Partho-Persian population was significantly bigger than the nomad population), and as I said, the cost of maintaining an army is a very subjective subject. Still, as long as they had the money, they could hire nomads, as I have said. While maintaining the same living conditions for it's citizens.

---

Like Romans, of course :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

As I said, the Horse Archers aren't farmers or merchants. They're either the noble class, who normally would practice it, or nomad mercenaries. (Heck, I'll give you an example I know. Alexander was having trouble during a rebellion in Baktria, by one Zoroastrian man named Spitomenes. Since he had no mobile force to counter the rebels, who I supposed used nomad tactics, he hired the Dahae, which are a nomad tribe, to crush the rebels. There wasn't someone being pulled out of farming or other works because of this.)

---

It's the same thing. As I wrote in previous post, anyone in a socity who is not doing productive works represents a cost to this entire socity.

You could argue that they wouldn't do anything else, well then why not just remove them and replace the army of nobles with levy or professional soldiers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

Can't they grow anything in those places? Like teas in some mountainous regions in China?? I'd be surprised if there is any land on earth that can grow grass but nothing else.

---

Growing? Yes, they can, with sufficient labour and hardwork, grow many things in hostile soils (Bad weather, rocky soil, having to dig deep and keep revolving the lands). But as I said, it takes too much time and labour, without sufficient guarantees of a successful harvest, how small it may be, if one at all. But I do recall asking for an example. Tea wasn't grown in Europe, nor was in Persia at those times. Furthermore, tea wasn't very valued in the Chinese society at the time of the game, thus was not a lucrative product, and thus wouldn't spread through commercial trade.
EDIT: As for your very first question. Lusitanians, for instance did use mountainous oaks to collect acorn. They in turn used these to make acorn bread. But they didn't grow them as far as I'm aware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

Like Romans, of course :)

---

Alexander payed for nomads in his campaign in Bactria. Did the Macedonians citizens suddenly began feeling their economic power diminished? Did they suddenly began getting greatly overtaxed? How many even knew that he hired nomads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

It's the same thing. As I wrote in previous post, anyone in a socity who is not doing productive works represents a cost to this entire socity.

You could argue that they wouldn't do anything else, well then why not just remove them and replace the army of nobles with levy or professional soldiers?

---

Did the Macedonian economy cripple down because many Macedonian noblemen left Macedonia with Alexander when he went to fight the Achaemenids? Nope. Things aren't as interconnected as in the modern world, mate.

Because levy or professional soldiers (Or 99% of them, at least. Those who would be rich to afford such things wouldn't certainly be risking their lives for someone else) can't afford good quality mount, heavy armor (Both man and horse), weapons (spear, sword, bow, quiver, arrows), shield, etc. Btw, what do you mean by professional soldiers? Mercenaries? If so, then read the first parentesis of this paragraph. The professional soldiers are the noblemen.

Quote:

---

Alexander payed for nomads in his campaign in Bactria. Did the Macedonians citizens suddenly began feeling their economic power diminished? Did they suddenly began getting greatly overtaxed? How many even knew that he hired nomads?

---

Alexander had previously seized the treasures of Persepolis which were more than enough to fund any war.

Quote:

---

Did the Macedonian economy cripple down because many Macedonian noblemen left Macedonia with Alexander when he went to fight the Achaemenids? Nope. Things aren't as interconnected as in the modern world, mate.

---

Actually yes. Macedonia was really poor and undermanned in the following years. They barely defeated the revolted Greek cities in the Lamia war and the kingdom stopped playing a big part in the Diadochoi wars quickly. Pyrrhus almost conquered the damn place!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vorian

Alexander had previously seized the treasures of Persepolis which were more than enough to fund any war.

---

The point being that treasuries normally have funds alocated for war, which do not come from taxing the people.
EDIT: Actually, most of the wealth would come from takign the Persian treasury after Issus, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vorian

Actually yes. Macedonia was really poor and undermanned in the following years. They barely defeated the revolted Greek cities in the Lamia war and the kingdom stopped playing a big part in the Diadochoi wars quickly. Pyrrhus almost conquered the damn place!

---

Actually no, in the timeline I'm speaking. Imagining that they all didn't die in Alexander's campaigns (Imagining he took Darius's offer to settle the border by the Euphrates, returning with very few casualties) and many returned home, there wouldn't be the "instant cost of productivity" he speaks about. Also, Macedonia wasn't very populous in the first place, which would explain why it went kaput in terms of manpower after Alexander.

Quote:

---

Actually, most of the wealth would come from takign the Persian treasury after Issus, I think.

---

No it's Persepolis. Can you imagine Darius carrying all these mountains of gold around? In Issus he just captured his personal buggage.

There was a series of small but ingenious battles at the Persian straits when Alexander with a small mobile force tried to force his way to Persepolis in order to be the first that gets the immense treasure it held. It's too bad that it's not famour like his major battles since it really shows his strategic abilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vorian

No it's Persepolis. Can you imagine Darius carrying all these mountains of gold around? In Issus he just captured his personal buggage.

There was a series of small but ingenious battles at the Persian straits when Alexander with a small mobile force tried to force his way to Persepolis in order to be the first that gets the immense treasure it held. It's too bad that it's not famour like his major battles since it really shows his strategic abilities.

---

Indeed, I stand corrected. Checking my sources, Alexander took around 55 tons from Issus and 2,500 from Persepolis. It also explains all the more why even if Persia would be invaded, one could afford the luxury of buying armies without overtaxing the common population.