>>In very broad strokes, the Persian Empire was spread so wide through >>threat of arms, mitigated by their preparedness to accept peaceful >>submission followed by inclusion and conditional autonomy i.e >>Satrapies. By offering order they created a largely voluntary Empire. >>However they were fully intent on expansion as the invasion of Greece >>demonstrates. However the vast nature of the Empire created massive >>logistical problems for the military. The troops were ethnically >>diverse and Persian Generals had to know how to use troops who were >>massively diverse in tactics, language and loadout.
> I don't think there were that many completely different troop types.
> Infantry were mostly armed with spears and/or bows trained to fight
> in close order. Then there were others trained to skirmish with
> either javlins or bows. Cavalry were usually armed with bows and
> some had spears as well.
Most of the Persian infantry was skirmishers rather than hoplites, and an amazing array of different skirmishing techniques. The Persian strength was their mounted aristocracy, when they needed phalanxes they hired Greeks (both from across the Aegaeis and from the Ionian cities).
>>What I have always understood about the romans is that they tried as >>far as possible to Romanize everything and make it conform to a model. >>Citizenship was the prize and had its privileges. The Roman army, >>epitomized by the Legions were like the French Foreign Legion in >>mentality. You become a Legionaire, absorb and embrace its values and >>culture and tactics and are gifted with French citizenship at the end >>of your service. It's like extreme citizenship training.
> Depends on which period you are talking about. Under the republic
> service in the legions was a duty of citizenship and no one else
> was allowed to join. So when people like Julius Caeser brought
> the legions that supported him to Rome each of them was a thousand
> votes.
Not really, any more. The Punic Wars had introduced a professional military that was at the core of the veteran legions, and the Marian and Sullan reforms solidified that trend.
Already under the Julian Caesars, Germanic tribesfolk (and other likely neighbors on other borders) were invited into the Empire to crew the legions. The Limes troops became pure garrison forces, then rather farming militia than regular soldiers. What mobile forces there were got drawn into the ascension wars of the multiple imperators, as in the case of Magnus Maximus which depopulated Britain of Roman soldiers.
> When military duty became too onerous for many citizens you could
> opt out by paying a tax. That money was used to recruit auxillia
> - non-roman citizens who might fight in Roman style but might not.
> To save money on wages there was a promise that after completing
> their service they would get a land grant which would entitle them
> to citizenship. Their sons or grandsons would then be obliged to
> join a legion or pay the tax.
More often, veterans from earlier campaigns joined up to get a chance at booty again, even in the Republican legions of the time after the Punic Wars. The Macedonian expedition created expectations which the imperators up to Trajan's Dacian genocide usually kept. Episodes like Varus occurred, but optimism carried through.
> Remember nation states like Spain did not exist at that time.
Tribes existed, then city allegiances.
>>This to me seems to suggest that the Lunars have elements of both >>rome and persia in there, but surely the model for the Lunar army >>is the Roman army? Use of spear and scimitar doesn't make them >>un-roman, it makes them Lunar.
> Certainly there are elements of both but the Roman army of
> standardized legions didn't survive in the real world very long.
> The lists that exist of units in Britain show a preponderance of
> auxillia including cataphracts and horse archers. By the time
> the Empire was established they probably had more different troop
> types within the army than the Persians.
The Roman cavalry had almost always been auxilia since they left Italy. Their skirmishers were part followers of the more wealthy legionaires, part allies. (According to Delbr�ck...)
The backbone of the Romans were their hoplites organized by legions and later smaller tactical bodies. Apart from switching from lances to gladii, they didn't make much difference from the Greek precursors.
By the second century, the common Roman legionaire had become a tribal weaponthane (both by recruitment and equipment - Germanic warrior nobility). The garrison forces were militia rather than regulars.
The later part of the Germanic migration was mostly into Roman military service. Some assimilation into becoming Romans, and some assimilation of the Romans into a Germanic early feudal force.
Powered by hypermail