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

[Jolt]

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.

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

...Why?

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.

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.

[AqD]

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.

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.

[Justinian II]

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.

[Jolt]

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".

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.

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.

[Vorian]

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.

[Jolt]

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. :)

[Vorian]

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

Horses are mammals you know

[Havok.]

lol..

[Jolt]

Horses are mammals you know

>_>

[AqD]

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.

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 :)

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?

[Jolt]

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.

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?

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.

[Vorian]

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.

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!

[Jolt]

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.

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.