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

[AqD]

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.

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.

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

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

[Jolt]

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.

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.

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?

[AqD]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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?