History questions...

[TheLand]

Hello there!

I was wondering if anyone involved in this august mod could help me with some historical questions...

1. What was the status of the troops which are normally referred to as mercenaries?
- Were they a body of men who wanted to fight wars and wandered the Mediterranean looking for anyone to pay them? Or were they farmers who would leave the land/nomads who would leave their herds if someone (e.g. their rulers) made them a good enough offer? Was there any element of obligation in mercenary service? Were mercenaries offered for service by their captains or by their cities?
- on the same theme, would 'mercenary' hoplites who ended up in one army have been available for service in a different army in different circumstances? Does the same answer hold true for mercenary Gauls, Germans or Numidians?
- are there any examples of nations which moved from a heavily-mercenary army to a regular army?

2. What were the big issues in the internal politics of nations other than Rome in the Hellenistic period? Ideally I'm looking for parallels to the "optimates" vs "populares" contest in Rome.

Any answers or directions to where I can find such information would be much appreciated. :) And apologies if these or similar questions have been answered before.

[Moros]

1) - As far as my understanding of Mercenaries goes, they usually were proffessional soldiers. They tended to travel so they could serve as soldiers for foreign armies. In most cases they would serve most armies, though there are exceptions. While a Galatian would serve Pontus, the ptolemaioi, or the seleucids without problem, certain mercenaries would only serve certain nations. For example a gaesat wouldn't serve a Roman commander. Certain areas were also known for gathering of mercenaries looking for jobs. Remember that place in in the Pelleponesos which has those 4 different province borders in it? That place was a famous spot where mercenaries from a whole lot of places came together. Certain peoples where used as mercenaries in really a lot of places and in vast numbers. For example the Kretan Archers, numidian archers, Rhodian slingers, Galatians. Bigger good organized nations tended to use them at the complete different side of their empire, so that they would help out the natives or start rebellions on their own. Romans for example would use Brittons in germany, and germans in Britanny.
- Yes It happened. Numidians have been used by the Cartagenians and later the romans as mercenaries. The Romans especially liked their archers, but their light cavalry where also used much by both sides during the punic wars.
Gauls just served as mercenaries for the highest paycheck. Though Gaesats, one of the more famous mercenaries, apparantly weren't prepared to serve romans. Germans served as mercenaries a lot, especially from Caesar onwards. They would make out the biggest part of the roman army by the time it started to crumble.
- Usually it goes the other way around. When a nation gets stronger and richer it tends to use mercenaries more. The best example of this are the Carthagenians. You could also say that the Romans started to use more mercenaries as they grew in time. Though most foreigners (Germans), in Roman armies would serve the same way as the other legionaries.

[Jolt]

I think it was called "Cape Tiberius" or sorts. The first time I heard about it was in these forums.

[QuintusSertorius]

2. What were the big issues in the internal politics of nations other than Rome in the Hellenistic period? Ideally I'm looking for parallels to the "optimates" vs "populares" contest in Rome.

There weren't any in Rome itself, even the notion of there being distinct groupings around the "best men" and populists is an oversimplification to aid the modern reader. There were no parties, no causes that united groups of senators in any kind of overarching way. Each and every politician was out for himself and himself alone, working to further his career and behave in a manner that honoured his ancestors. There were certain familial loyalties through intermarriage and relations, but they were influences not factions.

A man might vote for a particular bill at one time, then against a similar one at a later date, depending upon who had sponsored it, who he owed money or favours to, who had had a quiet word in his ear, who the bill might benefit or detriment and so on.

[Ludens]

I think it was called "Cape Tiberius" or sorts. The first time I heard about it was in these forums.

Cape Tainaron.

[Moros]

Cape Tainaron.

yes.

[Timoleon]

There is an aspect of the history of mercenaries that is rarely mentioned. States where sometimes leasing their regular soldiers-citizens as mercenaries to foreign states in order to fill their empty state coffins.
For example in 351 BC the Greek city-state of Thebes sent 1000 citizen-hoplites to the Persian king Artexerxes who was campaigning in the rebellious Egypt. Artexerxes payed 300 silver talants (a huge amount) and the Thebans used the money to continue their own war against Athens, Sparta and Fockis. Also, you may have noticed that when you start an EB campaign with KH, a spartan FM (one of the two spartan kings) is in Crete. Historically, he and his army were there not to conquer the island but as mercenaries fighting for aCretan faction to earn some money for Sparta. These kind of mercenaries where actually of sort of patriots.
There is a good book about Greek mercenaries in Classical, not Hellenistic Period "Greek Mercenaries: From the Late Archaic Period to Alexander" by Matthew Trundle. In Google Book Search the first 80 are available to preview which includes chapter 2 titled "What motivated Greek mecenary service"!

What were the big issues in the internal politics of nations other than Rome in the Hellenistic period?

The Hellenistic states where monarchies, so there weren't any politics apart from court intrigues and conspiracies. I'm sure in Carthage there were issues in internal politics but I don't know much about it. Is there anyone who can give some information about it?

[TheLand]

Thank you very much for the answers....

- Usually it goes the other way around. When a nation gets stronger and richer it tends to use mercenaries more. The best example of this are the Carthagenians. You could also say that the Romans started to use more mercenaries as they grew in time. Though most foreigners (Germans), in Roman armies would serve the same way as the other legionaries.

I wonder whether the tendency to use mercenaries is driven by pressures which mean that the citizen manpower is no longer enough, or whether the citizens are no longer willing to serve (e.g. the Roman equites giving up their cavalry role because they were too rich to fight!)

Thinking about the Carthaginians - I hear a lot about mercenaries from Hispania. Did these troops account for the bulk of the increase in Carthaginian mercenary use; and do you think there would have been Iberian mercenaries on the market if there were no Carthaginian colonies in the area?

And the Romans - did they start using mercenaries more after the Marian reforms took place, or before?

There weren't any in Rome itself, even the notion of there being distinct groupings around the "best men" and populists is an oversimplification to aid the modern reader. There were no parties, no causes that united groups of senators in any kind of overarching way. Each and every politician was out for himself and himself alone, working to further his career and behave in a manner that honoured his ancestors. There were certain familial loyalties through intermarriage and relations, but they were influences not factions.

Indeed, it is an oversimplification.

I don't think it's too Marxist to say that there were pressures between the senators and the plebians, and that this produced a series of controversial issues (which individual politicians arranged themselves around in the manner you describe).

I am mainly wondering what the equivalent fundamental pressures and issues in other nations were (well I mainly care about Macedon, Egypt, Carthage and the Seleucids but ideas about others would be useful too :) )

[QuintusSertorius]

In Egypt, not a lot changed from the time of the pharoahs, since the Macedonian aristocracy was grafted on top of the existing structures. The native people were an irrelevance, they did as they were told. There were revolts and such, which were put down ruthlessly, and business as usual for the elite continued. The elite being the upper echelons of the priesthood, along with Macedonians (first) and other Hellenes.

[divulse123]

I don't think it's too Marxist to say that there were pressures between the senators and the plebians, and that this produced a series of controversial issues (which individual politicians arranged themselves around in the manner you describe).

Quick point: Plebes could be senators. Saying there were pressures between the two groups does not yield sense.

[Jolt]

(e.g. the Roman equites giving up their cavalry role because they were too rich to fight!)

That's a modern way of looking at the subject. In this period, the said rich people would fight because it rendered them, not only honor, prestige and a different social status, but also it enhanced them their own political career. Normally only rich people (Rich-enough to buy equipment, horses, etc, that is) would make the bulk of the armies. A state financed army only came with later Roman reforms.

[TheLand]

Quick point: Plebes could be senators. Saying there were pressures between the two groups does not yield sense.

Well, indeed. How would you phrase it?

[Moros]

Thank you very much for the answers....



I wonder whether the tendency to use mercenaries is driven by pressures which mean that the citizen manpower is no longer enough, or whether the citizens are no longer willing to serve (e.g. the Roman equites giving up their cavalry role because they were too rich to fight!)

Thinking about the Carthaginians - I hear a lot about mercenaries from Hispania. Did these troops account for the bulk of the increase in Carthaginian mercenary use; and do you think there would have been Iberian mercenaries on the market if there were no Carthaginian colonies in the area?

And the Romans - did they start using mercenaries more after the Marian reforms took place, or before?

1) In the case of Carthage it probably was mostly the second. The phoenicians weren't that big in number, but they could relay on Libyans (Natives). However a certain amount of Phoenicians did serve, but only in elite troops (lower chances of risking death,...) For example the Sacred bands,...). They were rich, traders in nature. Not much warriors. Of course citizen miltia could be raised in time of emergancy.
The obvious solution, if you have a lot of money but don't feel like fighting, is hiring someone else.
Romans: see point N° 3

2)Now Iberian mercenaries were used extensively by the Carthagenians. Mostly because of one reason. They had good contacts with them, and you didn't need to travel much outside you're empire borders to get to them. They also had something the native lybians, corsicans, sicilians, sardinians,...didn't have heavier and medium infantry, that could hold lines. Now while lybians armed by the Carthagenians didn't differ much from the greeks, mercenaries using typical lybian armament, well weren't suited to fighting melee and holding lines. Of course they also had acces to greeks and celts at certain times. Though I could imagine (a guess) that greeks might have been more expensive.
If Iberia wasn't occupied by Carthage, or had almost no contact, there probably would still have been mercenaries. Fighting for certain tribes or (petty) chiefs. However they would probably smaller in number. I bet the romans would have used them too afterwards. Though I think that it were mainly the Carthagenians who showed the Romans their use as Mercenaries.
However the Romans did notice Iberian fierceness not only because of Carthage. I took them 2 centuries to finally really control Iberia. Certain great mercenaries might not have been notice by the romans otherwise though.

3)Well from a bit after the start of our EB game, they would rely on their legionaries (Hastati,...) and to a force of the same size composed by ally troops. So about 50% usually weren't really Romans, however you can't call them mercenaries. Of course in time of need Romans could use mercenaries. From about the first century BC the usage of auxilia rose. This was due to the fact that you had to have Roman Citizenship to serve the legions. However because of exapansion, and the amount of borders and conflicts, this wasn't enough. As time went by these levies also became standarized by the end of the first century AD. When the Western Roman empire came to an end foreingers started to make part more and more of the roman Empire. Mostly Germans. There was a decline of population, and the empire had to many borders to protect. However Germans there were plenty, and were happily to serve another commander, if they got something in turn. When we come really close one of the actions the romans took was allowing certain tribes to settle and cultivate in roman territory. As long as they helped protecting the borders. (The first were IIRC the Salian Franks.) Some were easy listeners, others caused more problems. Most did have quite a bit of independance though. Most of these germans didn't have any problems with fighting other german tribes were really loyal and and protecting their territory. They had to do the same thing in Germany, but now they had better land and better (trade,...) relations with the Romans, they just had to serve the roman army.

note this a quick/short and a simplified awnser. If you want a real good idea of it all, you really need a book. Check the EB bilbiography for books about this subject. I can't really recommend an English one on this topic. It shouldn't be to hard to find a good book about the Roman empire and it's soldiers. The other two questions might be harder.

[Cambyses]

It seems to me that you cannot look at this subject without an understanding of how any troops came into an army. Obviously this varied from place to place, but aside from emergencies or short local campaigns within the regualr campaigning season, my understanding is that the majority of soldiers at that time would have received some kind of "wage". Certainly this is true in the more civilied nations.

I know its out of EB's time frame, but certainly during the Peloponnesian War (for example) the Athenians recruited a lot of people to serve in their navy. Some were Athenian citizens, some werent. All of them were paid (at least when on campaign). Quite often they used this money to buy food from the same people who had paid them in the first place...

However, the point is, hardly anyone fights for nothing. So at what point does a foreign recruit actually become a mercenary? Several people have used the example of Germans in the late Roman Empire. But what was the real difference between these men and "proper" Roman legionnaries?

Were the Spanish that deserted the Scipio brothers before their defeat by Hasdrubal mercenaries or allies? What status would we assign Massinissa's Numbidians in the same war?

My view is that ancient armies were formed in complex ways. Some peoples were famous for hiring out their sword/spears/slings to the highest bidder. But many more fought as paid allies. And lastly even some citizen soldiers needed paying at times, but not at others.

[konny]

Well, indeed. How would you phrase it?

There was the old struggle between Patricians and Plebeians, what was more or less solved in our time frame by admitting Plebeians to all offices and the Senate. More recent was the struggle between Senators and Eques, or if you like, between the established nobility (including noble plebeian families) and the upstarts. This one is often refered to as "Populars vs. Optimats". This developed into the struggle between "Marians" and "Sullans". But these two factions were purley formed on personal linakge ending with, for example, the provincial upstarts Pompeius and Cicero on the side of the "Post-Sullan Optimates" and a member of the august house of Iulii, Caesar, as leader of the "Post-Marian Popular" faction.

[Moros]

It seems to me that you cannot look at this subject without an understanding of how any troops came into an army. Obviously this varied from place to place, but aside from emergencies or short local campaigns within the regualr campaigning season, my understanding is that the majority of soldiers at that time would have received some kind of "wage". Certainly this is true in the more civilied nations.

I know its out of EB's time frame, but certainly during the Peloponnesian War (for example) the Athenians recruited a lot of people to serve in their navy. Some were Athenian citizens, some werent. All of them were paid (at least when on campaign). Quite often they used this money to buy food from the same people who had paid them in the first place...

However, the point is, hardly anyone fights for nothing. So at what point does a foreign recruit actually become a mercenary? Several people have used the example of Germans in the late Roman Empire. But what was the real difference between these men and "proper" Roman legionnaries?

Were the Spanish that deserted the Scipio brothers before their defeat by Hasdrubal mercenaries or allies? What status would we assign Massinissa's Numbidians in the same war?

My view is that ancient armies were formed in complex ways. Some peoples were famous for hiring out their sword/spears/slings to the highest bidder. But many more fought as paid allies. And lastly even some citizen soldiers needed paying at times, but not at others.

You're right. You can't really say that it's always mercenary and non mercenary. The world and history isn't black and white. And most cases are in the grey.

[Irishmafia2020]

Carthage had a Senate, and when Hannibal fell out of favor with the majority faction, they refused to send him reinforcements in Italy. He therefore had to live off of the land and hire whatever mercenaries were available to continue the fight against Rome by himself. Try to roleplay that in a game....