Fatimids and mercinaries

[Brandy Blue]

I have heard that the Fatimids had a standing army which included a significant number of mercinaries. This was also true of the Byzantines. I understand that the Varangian and Bulgarian Brigand units represent the mercs in the Byzantine standing army, and the Byzantine faction can raise them like regular troops instead of hiring them inns because they were, for practical purposes, part of the standing army, not specially hired short term.

So I was wondering, are there similar Egyptian units? In other words, does the Egyptian roster include units which in real life were mercinaries but part of the standing army, not just short term hire? Can anyone help me?

[lars573]

In MTW? Hmm, been so long since I used that infirior piece of software. The only one I can think off right off is the black spear unit. I want to call them Sudanese spearmen, but I know that's the M2TW version of them. But one way to get an idea of what is a full time merc is to read the unit cards. If you see the unit described as being not of Egypt or made up of nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes they be mercinaries.

[Brandy Blue]

Sudanese spearmen? That would be Nubian spearmen in MTW. However, I do not think that non-Egyptian origin is proof that the unit is mercinary. The Islamic custom of using slaves of non-Muslim origin as soldiers clouds the issue. The Mamluks, for example, would be non-Egyptian, I believe, but not mercinary. I don't know if the Fatimids had any other slave-soldier units.

Leaving slave warriors aside, non-Egyptians subjects of the Sultan might volunteer or be recruited for the regular army. As inhabitants of the Egyptian empire, they might not necessarily be considered mercinaries.

Historically, just because a soldier was of foreign origin, it would not necessarily mean he was a mercinary. Take the Roman army. As the Empire grew in stature, more solders would be non-Roman in origin. The legionaries would have the status of Roman citizens, but many solders would not. I don't think most people would count these troops as "mercinaries."

Thanks for trying, anyway. I should take another look at those cards. I could have missed something.

[Watchman]

Modern law makes a difference between a professional full-time soldier and a mercenary, but historically they were long pretty much one and the same thing; "regular" soldiery were just usually engaged for a longer term. Eg. the post-Marian Roman army was very much a mercenary force; the men, whether citizens in the Legions proper or noncitizens in the auxilia, served for pay and other benefits. Conversely their earlier reservist system worked on basis of legal obligations of the citizenry (and client peoples and states) to serve under arms.

Similarly many of the more "regular" Medieval troops (pretty much all that didn't own land themselves really) were essentially salaried mercenaries, drawing regular pay and upkeep in return of putting their military skills at the use of their paymaster be that now a free city, feudal landlord, monarch or whatever. "Permanent" mercenaries essentially. The faris knight-equivalents of the Middle East were just such salaried standing troops.

That aside, many of the desert tribesmen serving the rulers of the region would also have been essentially mercenaries - even when they were nominally allies, that was often based on rank bribery of the chieftains making their followers mercs-by-proxy. Ditto for the Turkish nomad tribesmen, although I don't know how common they were in Egyptian armies.

[lars573]

Watchman has it. The modern distinction between a full time professional soldier and a mercenary doesn't go back much farther than Napoleon. It's a very modern idea. But in medieval era the Romans drew a distinction between full time soldiers drawn from within and without the empire. That's why I say that full time soldiers drawn from outside the Egyptian borders are mercenaries.

[Watchman]

Strictly speaking, post-Marian Romans actually had three types of soldiers - citizen Legionaries and noncitizen auxilia were the "regulars", the former for obvious reasons recruited entirely domestically, and then assorted allies and "irregular" mercenaries (foederati) gathered from wherever the Hell the commander now could find them. 'Course, the distinction between the auxilia and the allies/mercenaries could get a bit blurry.

[AntiochusIII]

Watchman has it. The modern distinction between a full time professional soldier and a mercenary doesn't go back much farther than Napoleon. It's a very modern idea.

Question: What was Machiavelli on about, then? Or was he something like the "pioneer" literature-wise when it comes to the issue?

Ah, I'm finally back!