| # | Polity | Military Level | Tags | Year(s) | Edit | Desc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
levels. There were likely military roles in specific communities, but not on the polity level. “The Kingdom of Nri (1043–1911) was the West African medieval state of the Nri Igbo, a subgroup of the Igbo people, and is the oldest kingdom in Nigeria. The Kingdom of Nri was unusual in the history of world government in that its leader exercised no military power over his subjects. The kingdom existed as a sphere of religious and political influence over much of Igboland, and was administered by a priest-king called the eze Nri. The eze Nri managed trade and diplomacy on behalf of the Igbo people, and was the possessor of divine authority in religious matters.”
[1]
“Although bloodshed is inherent in this historical charter, for many centuries the people of Nri have had a strong commitment to peace, rooted in the belief that it is an abomination to pollute the sacred Earth. “The white men that came started by killing those who did not agree with their rules. We Nri never did so”.”
[2]
[1]: Ngara, C. A. (n.d.). An Ethnohistorical Account Of Pre-Colonial Africa, African Kingdoms And African Historical States. 25:11. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/UJG3ED8W/collection [2]: Isichei, Elizabeth. A History of African Societies to 1870. Cambridge University Press, 1997: 246. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z4GK27CI/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Kenoyer writes that there is no evidence of the existence of an army during the period 2600 BCE 1900 BCE
[1]
, although it has been argued that the absence of evidence does not mean that the Harappan people lived peacefully throughout the period: "More significantly, our knowledge of warfare in Egypt and Mesopotamia is heavily dependent on textual evidence and art; but this simply does not exist to portray any aspect of life in the Indus Civilisation. The absence of artistic or textual reference to war in the Indus is therefore no more representative of a lack of war than a lack of trade, agriculture or urbanisation - none of which are in any doubt.”
[2]
[1]: Jonathan Mark Kenoyer. ’Uncovering the keys to the Lost Indus Cities’, Scientific American, vol. 15, no. 1, 2005, p. 29. [2]: Cork, E. (2005) Peaceful Harappans? Reviewing the evidence for the absence of warfare in the Indus Civilisation of north-west India and Pakistan (c. 2500-1900 BC). Antiquity (79): 411-423. p420 |
||||||
|
levels. The following reconstruction of small communities consisting of extended families based in autonomous homesteads suggests minimal social diffrentiation. ”For the first 400 years of the settlement’s history, Kirikongo was a single economically generalized social group (Figure 6). The occupants were self-sufficient farmers who cultivated grains and herded livestock, smelted and forged iron, opportunistically hunted, lived in puddled earthen structures with pounded clay floors, and fished in the seasonal drainages. [...] Since Kirikongo did not grow (at least not significantly) for over 400 years, it is likely that extra-community fissioning continually occurred to contribute to regional population growth, and it is also likely that Kirikongo itself was the result of budding from a previous homestead. However, with the small scale of settlement, the inhabitants of individual homesteads must have interacted with a wider community for social and demographic reasons. [...] It may be that generalized single-kin homesteads like Kirikongo were the societal model for a post-LSA expansion of farming peoples along the Nakambe (White Volta) and Mouhoun (Black Volta) River basins. A homestead settlement pattern would fit well with the transitional nature of early sedentary life, where societies are shifting from generalized reciprocity to more restricted and formalized group membership, and single-kin communities like Kirikongo’s house (Mound 4) would be roughly the size of a band.”
[1]
[1]: (Dueppen 2012: 27, 32) |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from the following quote. "As demonstrated by the uniformity of their material culture and their presumed belief system, most prominently reflected by the terracotta sculptures, external contacts within their culture must have existed. However, such a larger social network apparently was not organised and maintained in a way as to infer social inequality, social hierarchies or other signs of internal demarcation traceable by available archaeological data. None of the numerous excavations brought to light architectural remains of specified buildings or the spatial organisation of housing areas that might have been occupied by high-ranking members of the community. Further, among the admittedly few features interpreted as graves there is no evidence of any heterogeneity pointing to a difference between burials of elite members or commoners. Nowhere, an accumulation of valuable objects neither of iron nor any other materials signifying inequality in terms of property or prosperity was found."
[1]
[1]: (Breunig and Ruppe 2016: 252) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/ES4TRU7R. |
||||||
|
levels. Kenoyer writes that there is no evidence of the existence of an army during the period 2600 BCE 1900 BCE
[1]
, although it has been argued that the absence of evidence does not mean that the Harappan people lived peacefully throughout the period: "More significantly, our knowledge of warfare in Egypt and Mesopotamia is heavily dependent on textual evidence and art; but this simply does not exist to portray any aspect of life in the Indus Civilisation. The absence of artistic or textual reference to war in the Indus is therefore no more representative of a lack of war than a lack of trade, agriculture or urbanisation - none of which are in any doubt.”
[2]
[1]: Jonathan Mark Kenoyer. ’Uncovering the keys to the Lost Indus Cities’, Scientific American, vol. 15, no. 1, 2005, p. 29. [2]: Cork, E. (2005) Peaceful Harappans? Reviewing the evidence for the absence of warfare in the Indus Civilisation of north-west India and Pakistan (c. 2500-1900 BC). Antiquity (79): 411-423. p420 |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from the following quote. "As demonstrated by the uniformity of their material culture and their presumed belief system, most prominently reflected by the terracotta sculptures, external contacts within their culture must have existed. However, such a larger social network apparently was not organised and maintained in a way as to infer social inequality, social hierarchies or other signs of internal demarcation traceable by available archaeological data. None of the numerous excavations brought to light architectural remains of specified buildings or the spatial organisation of housing areas that might have been occupied by high-ranking members of the community. Further, among the admittedly few features interpreted as graves there is no evidence of any heterogeneity pointing to a difference between burials of elite members or commoners. Nowhere, an accumulation of valuable objects neither of iron nor any other materials signifying inequality in terms of property or prosperity was found."
[1]
[1]: (Breunig and Ruppe 2016: 252) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/ES4TRU7R. |
||||||
|
levels.
A restricted group of individuals were cremated, instead of inhumed, and their urns were accompanied by vessels containing, among other things, weapons, suggesting that these males were warriors of some kind [1] . However, there is no indication of differences, among these warriors, in terms of rank. [1]: T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome (1995), pp. 51-53 |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels. AD: coded as range to allow for the presence of war chiefs.
1. War chiefs? 2. Individual warriors. |
||||||
|
levels. There is little direct evidence for Zapotec military organisation, but there may have been fewer levels than the previous period as the Zapotec were losing rather than gaining territory.
[1]
[1]: Balkansky, A. K. (1998). "Origin and collapse of complex societies in Oaxaca, Mexico: Evaluating the era from 1965 to the present." Journal of World Prehistory 12(4): 451-493. |
||||||
|
unknown
|
||||||
|
unknown
|
||||||
|
levels.
The following applies to the preconquest period (1450-1525 CE): 1. Mandadores (commanders) 2. Capitanes de guerra (war captains)3. Experienced warriors4. Individual soldier "Besides caciques, Spanish sources mention capitanes, principales (nobles), mandadores (commanders), and capitanes de guerra. Fray Pedro Simón (1882-92, 5: 197) also lists a pregonero (speaker or crier) who was second only to the chief. Spanish accounts do not list the duties and powers of all these officials, but it seems clear that there was a hierarchy of civil and military office- holders. One source mentions inheritance from father to son “en el oficio” (Bischof 1982- 83: 88). The texts also mention merchants, craftsmen, weavers, goldsmiths, carpenters, and farmers, and one recorded example refers to earned status. Simón (1882-92, 5: 198) describes a category of warriors “who had demonstrated their bravery on various occasions, and were allowed to wear their hair long, and tucked into their belts at the back,” a reminder that not all status symbols will be archaeologically identifiable." [1] [1]: (Bray 2003, 302) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
In the Predynastic period there is no proof of the existence of professional army. There is also no hieroglyphic sign meaning "army" by Dynastic Period. Moreover, in Ancient Egyptian unitary state, introduction of regular army took place during the New Kingdom
[1]
.
There can be military levels without an army if there is warfare. [1]: Shaw, I. 1991 Egyptian Warfare and Weapons. Buckinghamshire: Shire Publications. pg: 26. |
||||||
|
levels.
weapons "Among the material changes documented in the Iron Age archaeological record are more complex and labor-intensive settlement designs, new mortuary practices, the production and consumption of a range of new slipped and polished ceramic wares as well as iron tools, weapons, and hardware. Most notably, there was significant transformation in the organization of social relations during the Iron Age that produced tangible social differences and inequalities." [1] Initially a given polity only consisted of a single settlement "At the smallest and least complex (in terms of population, geographic scale and decision-making arrangements) end of this continuum, chiefs with limited decision-making prerogatives probably presided over single settlements. In larger examples, more powerful leaders based in larger centers likely exerted varying degrees of control over multiple and varying numbers of settlements. Finally, at the most complex end of this continuum, paramount chiefs ruling from large regional centers with lesser chiefs as political subordinates dominated even larger polities containing numerous settlements and substantial populations. In the present context it seems most likely that chiefdoms of the first type were prevalent during the earlier phases of the Iron Age, with those of the latter two types developing with increasing frequency as time passed." [2] [1]: (Johansen 2014, 1-28) Johansen, P. 2014. The politics of spatial renovation: Reconfiguring ritual practices in Iron Age and Early Historic South India. Journal of Social Archaeology. 0(0). [2]: R. Brubaker, Aspects of mortuary variability in the South Indian Iron Age, in Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute 60-61, pp. 253-302 |
||||||
|
levels.
weapons "Among the material changes documented in the Iron Age archaeological record are more complex and labor-intensive settlement designs, new mortuary practices, the production and consumption of a range of new slipped and polished ceramic wares as well as iron tools, weapons, and hardware. Most notably, there was significant transformation in the organization of social relations during the Iron Age that produced tangible social differences and inequalities." [1] Initially a given polity only consisted of a single settlement "At the smallest and least complex (in terms of population, geographic scale and decision-making arrangements) end of this continuum, chiefs with limited decision-making prerogatives probably presided over single settlements. In larger examples, more powerful leaders based in larger centers likely exerted varying degrees of control over multiple and varying numbers of settlements. Finally, at the most complex end of this continuum, paramount chiefs ruling from large regional centers with lesser chiefs as political subordinates dominated even larger polities containing numerous settlements and substantial populations. In the present context it seems most likely that chiefdoms of the first type were prevalent during the earlier phases of the Iron Age, with those of the latter two types developing with increasing frequency as time passed." [2] [1]: (Johansen 2014, 1-28) Johansen, P. 2014. The politics of spatial renovation: Reconfiguring ritual practices in Iron Age and Early Historic South India. Journal of Social Archaeology. 0(0). [2]: R. Brubaker, Aspects of mortuary variability in the South Indian Iron Age, in Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute 60-61, pp. 253-302 |
||||||
|
levels. At least one level of military organisation is inferred, based on evidence for inter-village raiding.
[1]
The raids would have been small scale, and military leadership is unlikely to have been a permanent position.
[1]: Marcus, J. and K. V. Flannery (1996). Zapotec civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley, Thames and Hudson London, p128-131 |
||||||
|
levels. Later Spanish written records describe the presence of military officers and soldiers (civilian conscripts) during the MA V period, which may also apply to the MA IIIB-IV phases.
[1]
However, it is by no means clear that the same system existed several centuries prior. Current code inferred from previous polities.
[1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383, p376 |
||||||
|
For the period of the Early Chalcolithic, we do not know of any specific conflicts between different social groups or cultures. We have no evidence of archaeological or historical warfare. However, the lack of such evidence does not mean we can exclude the potential of warfare taking place. The listed handheld weapons have been placed in the category of warfare because we have no archaeological evidence for the purposes for which they were used - whether they were used only for hunting or for hypothetical battles. PF: However, the presence of finds such as a large copper mace head from Can Hasan I, the removal and caching of plastered human skulls from Kösk Höyük suggest a socially competitive environment
[1]
[1]: Arbuckle, B. S. "Animals and inequality in Chalcolithic central Anatolia." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31.3 (2012): 303 |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
levels. "There are very few signs of status differentiation amongst the few burials known. Most settlements were simple collections of huts with no evidence for internal differentiation in architecture or material culture than might suggest clear-cut divisions in society."
[1]
[1]: G. Barker, Mediterranean Valley (1995), p. 156 |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
Suggested by Zapotec expansion during this period.
[1]
The conquest of territories outside of the Valley of Oaxaca suggests that a permanent army, with the necessary commanders, would have existed at this time.
[2]
1. War commanders 2. Individual soldiers [1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. [2]: Spencer, C. S. (1982) The Cuicatlán Cañada and Monte Albán: A study of primary state formation. Studies in Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. p243-4 |
||||||
|
level. Warriors were likely present during this period (based on the inter-polity conflict of this period and the preceding period) and so one level of military organisation is inferred, but sources do not suggest there is evidence for full-time professional military personnel.
[1]
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from discussion of military organization during this period
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels. A degree of military organisation is suggested by the presence of a defensive palisade at San José Mogote, although sources do not suggest there is evidence for a permanent military. Raiding warfare on a small scale was common during this period.
[1]
[1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2003). "The origin of war: New C-14 dates from ancient Mexico." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20): 11802 |
||||||
|
levels.
If there is possibility of a hierarchy for religion in this period than must also be possibility of military heirarchy. First real army in Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Instrumental for these kinds of activities was the creation of an army, which was divided into two groups. One group was made of full-time workers, specialised in military activities (although this remains purely hypothetical for the Uruk period). In case of war, an army was assembled through military conscription, and was supported by mandatory provisions of military supplies." [1] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels. Different groups had their own military traditions, and there are various references to mercenaries – especially Abam mercenaries, as they were instrumental in the formation of the Aro Confederacy. Though it’s there were leaders of expeditions/raids, it’s not clear how formalised those roles were, and how much the system differed throughout the confederacy. “Basden further claimed that: The chief disturbers of the peace were certain bands of raiders who either acted on their own account or, more frequently, were hired by the men of one town to help them fight against another. Such men were the dreaded Abams on the eastern side of the Niger. The way in which the Aro used warriors who were collectively called the Abam to expand in the Igbo hinterland, has engaged the attention of modern historians.”
[1]
“Warfare and military training were institutionalized among the Abam. Their young men were from childhood, drilled in guerrila warfare. They were expected when they became adolescents, to behead a man in battle and return home with his head before they were granted full rights of citizenship. The youths were then called Ufiem (heros) and permitted: To don the eagle’s plume and red tail feathers of the parrot in token of (their) prowess in battle. In life (they) enjoy special privileges, and in death (are) accorded the dignity of a warrior’s funeral with the special dance known as okerenkwa.”
[2]
[1]: Oriji, J. N. (1987). THE SLAVE TRADE, WARFARE AND ARO EXPANSION IN THE IGBO HINTERLAND. Transafrican Journal of History, 16, 151–166; 152. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/MDDKHGKD/collection [2]: Oriji, J. N. (1987). THE SLAVE TRADE, WARFARE AND ARO EXPANSION IN THE IGBO HINTERLAND. Transafrican Journal of History, 16, 151–166; 154. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/MDDKHGKD/collection |
||||||
|
levels. One level of military organisation could be inferred based on evidence for inter-village raiding, although the raids would have been small scale and military leadership is unlikely to have been a permanent position.
|
||||||
|
1. Ruler
2.3. Individual soldier Many sites of this period were well fortified. Proof of wooden palisades and stone walls was found in Karataş-Semayük, and just stone walls in for example Taurus and Demircihöyük. At Alişar Hüyük, complex fortifications were excavated - a well constructed stronghold wall, and 10 meters of fortification on the terrace. One of these walls was set behind the other, and onto it rectangular-shaped bastions were constructed. A lot of handheld weapons were also found in Central Anatolia Plateau, for example: swords, daggers, pikes, halberds, spears, battle axes and warclubs. |
||||||
|
levels.
(3) Chieftains; (2) Lieutenants; (1) Freemen and Armed Followers of Chiefs ’As there was no central government there was also no central army during the Icelandic Commonwealth. The chieftains (and sometimes the greater farmers) called up the free population on an ad hoc basis. Three levels are attested for the late Commonwealth. We have clear evidence of 13th century warlords commissioning lieutenants that commanded groups of retainers or units of conscripted warrior-farmers.’ [1] Some Icelanders joined foreign armies abroad: ’Isolated in the North Atlantic, Iceland had few external conflicts. Individual Icelanders were occasionally involved in conflict when outside the country and also sometimes served in foreign militaries. During the late tenth century, the Norwegian king was a champion of the Christian movement in Iceland and often attempted to assert his influence, although this was largely limited to Icelanders in Norway. Likewise, the ultimately successful attempts to incorporate Iceland under the Norwegian monarchy were mostly played out through alliances with individual Icelanders.’ [2] Chieftains relied on an entourage of armed followers: ’Those who had access to sufficient resources to support a household were the tax paying farmers. Each of them had to be a follower of a chieftain from his own quarter, and only the tax paying farmers could make the decision as to which he would follow. All of his dependents - tenants and renters - went with him. However they got it, chieftains were dependent on farmers for support - to feed their increasingly large personal followings or armies, to support them at assemblies, and to accompany them on raids on other chieftains or their followers. As we have seen, without such support, without the ability to mass force, claims to ownership of land, which defined the class system as well as the forms of appropriation, had no force. Farmers had to rely on some chieftain to be able to defend their claims to property, though, as we have seen, this might often lead to the loss of the property. Chieftains had to rely on farmers to enforce their followers’ claims and their own, as well as to expand their territories into others’.’ [3] Armed supporters were required to enforce legal and political claims: ’Claims of inheritance were only worth as much as the armed support behind them. This follows from the fact that claims to ownership, property, were only worth as much as the armed support behind them. This meant that to assert any claim to ownership, whether by inheritance or any other means, one had to back the claim with armed force. Chieftains were focal points for concentrating force to protect and to forward claims to property.’ [4] ’In Commonwealth Iceland there was a system of extraction based on claims to ownership of property, on concepts of the unproblematic [Page 161] differential access to resources in favour of a chieftainly class. The chieftains were unwilling to subordinate themselves to state institutions to protect their privileged positions. The consequence was stratification without a state, the contradiction of an economic system based on property relationships without a congruent institutional system to enforce them. Ownership was as sound as the force one could muster to defend it. There was a complex system of law, but it was all just so much labyrinthine rhetoric in the face of the stark reality that power decided. As slavery diminished, claimants to land enlarged their holdings by using wage labour and tenancy arrangements to work them. To support their claims, they had to increase their power by enlarging their entourages.’ [5] Chieftains also relied on farmers willing to support them economically and militarily: ’Relations between chieftains and farmers were not, however, smooth. Chieftains had their “own” estates to support their establishments, and some maintained followings of armed men, but this was a difficult proposition, since it added consumers to the household without adding production. The chieftains had to rely on their following of farmers to support them with both arms and supplies. This was one component of any farmer’s household fund, his “rent” so to speak, his expenditures for travel and support for his chieftain, without which his chieftain or another would take his land and livestock. In addition, expeditions took labor from the farm and put the farmer’s life at risk. Even so, a farmer’s claims to land were not secure, since his chieftain might abandon him, another more powerful chieftain might claim his land, or simply take it, or a farmer might lose his land in a re-alignment of alliances among chieftains, which were frequent.’ [4] The interests of chieftains and farmers were often in conflict: ’There was a basic conflict between chieftains’ increasing demands for demonstrations of force in support of claims to ownership and the subsistence demands, the economic roles, of farmers. Chieftains were not beyond using coercion to insure support as the following incident relates. [...] In spite of this contradiction, farmers had to rely on some chieftain in order to maintain their claims to land. While the inheritance customs codified in Grágás seem quite orderly in Hastrup’s (1985) analysis, inheritance of land is often hotly disputed in the Saga of the Icelanders. One who wanted another’s land could often find a third party with some inheritance claim, and acquire the claim on which to base a legitimation for taking the land.’ [6] Competition between chieftains was a major source of internal strife before the onset of the Norwegian period: ’It may be tempting to regard the Icelandic Commonwealth as a permanent structure, for, after all, it seems to be sealed in the poorly-dated or undated ‘ethnographic present’ of the sagas. But any social system is necessarily a product of history, representing a particular moment in time. We know for sure that the Commonwealth underwent important changes before it eventually ‘collapsed.’ Not only was there important ecological and demographic change and, as a result, mounting pressure on land (Gelsinger 1981; McGovern et al. 1988), access to resources was increasingly determined by the political manoeuvres and battles of competing goðar. According to the near contemporary Sturlunga saga, the battles between contesting leaders involved an ever larger number of men-no less than two thousand fought in the biggest one, at Örlygsstaðir in year 1238. To increase the number of followers, each goði had to maximize his fund of power at the cost of competitors. Feasts and gifts, a measure of the generosity of the goði, and the display of imported luxury goods, must have been an additional burden to the household, at a time of economic decline. One saga describes a large wedding feast extending through a whole week (SS 3, ch. 17:22). The only way to meet the costs involved was to collect taxes, hire additional labor, and seek further support from followers. With the Tithe Law, the tax law enacted in 1096, the ownership of churches became an important source of wealth and power. Furthermore, slavery seems to have disappeared early (see Karras, ch. 17), probably because recruiting freemen who had insufficient land was less costly than maintaining slaves. This meant that soon there was a reserve of labor; on one occasion, in 1208, a group of more than 300 unemployed people, many of whom were strong and healthy, followed a travelling bishop in the hope of some sustenance (see G. Karlsson 1975:27).’ [7] [1]: Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins [2]: Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders [3]: Durrenberger, E. Paul 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth", 256 [4]: Durrenberger, Paul E. 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth", 258 [5]: Durrenberger, E. Paul, Dorothy Durrenberger, and Ástráður Eysteinsson 1988. “Economic Representation And Narrative Structure In Hœnsa-Þóris Saga”, 160 [6]: Durrenberger, E. Paul 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth”, 256 [7]: Pálsson, Gísli 1992. “Introduction: Text, Life, And Saga”, 15 |
||||||
|
levels.
Warrior society implies at least 2 levels of military hierarchy. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. War chief"The Illinois also had war chiefs, men who planned and directed raids on other tribes. Any aspiring warrior could become a war chief, but only if he could convince his fellow warriors that his personal animal spirit (war manitou) would protect the war party and ensure victory. The authority of a war chief was strictly limited to the duration of his expedition, and he was allowed to lead new expeditions only if his previous raids were successful" [1] . 2. Warriors [1]: Illinois State Museum, The Illinois: Society: Leaders (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/post/htmls/soc_leaders.html |
||||||
|
levels. There is no direct evidence for multiple military levels, but the territorial expansion during this period and the previous period (Monte Albán Late I) suggests at least two levels (the commander and warriors), although there may have been more. The Zapotec state expanded 150km beyond Valley of Oaxaca after the conquest of Tlacolula within the Valley of Oaxaca during this period.
[1]
1. War commander 2. Individual soldier [1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2003). "The origin of war: New C-14 dates from ancient Mexico." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20): 11801-11805, p11804 |
||||||
|
levels. Following Higham’s text, it could be inferred that there was some degree of military organization that seem to imply the presence of different levels. "His son, Pan Pan, had only a brief reign, and was succeeded by a leader of military prowess known to the Chinese as Fan Shiman. He undertook raids against his neighbours, and then mounted a water-borne expedition which subdued over ten chiefs traditionally situated along the shores of the Gulf of Siam."
[1]
Sites like Angkor Borei have not yielded structures that may have been identified as indicators of violence. For example, the wall surrounding the city seems to have served as a "ring-road" and house placements rather than as a defensive structure.
[2]
It is likely then that at the earlier stages of the Funanese polity the chiefs would be in control of a somewhat large group of fighters that eventually became a stratified army as the polity gained complexity.
[1]: (Higham 1989, pp. 247) [2]: (O’Reilly 2007, p. 107) |
||||||
|
1.
2.3. Individual soldier During this time, complex fortifications also started appear. They usually had huge entrance gates, thick walls and towers. It is also clear that some buildings were connected to the walls. Those are interpreted as houses for soldiers and their families or magazines for weapons. Based on the known excavation data it is clear that the main weapons that were used in the Middle and Late Chalcolithic were slingshots, hatchets, axes, blades and maces (some of them were probably used as tools). Unfortunately, due to the limitations of archaeological data, we unable to determine the presence or absence of such phenomena as war, assaults or raids. |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
"The scene in the Late Predynastic (Gerzean) Painted Tomb in Hierakonpolis (Kantor, 1944), showing a person smiting enemies in a manner prototypical of that of the later Pharaoh (Baines, 1987), indicates that regional, paramount chiefs may have commanded warriors who were mobilized by district and community chiefs."
[1]
1. Chief 2. Warriors [1]: (Hassan 1988, 172) |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels.
Some kind of military society at this time. |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) War-Leaders (Toen, Toyon) of the Military Aristocracy; (2) Warriors (Säpi, Säpi Kisita) and Voluntary Spies Sakha warriors and spies fought for their clans and tribes: ’Yakut warriors ( säpi, säpi kisita ) were usually mounted horsemen ( minjär ), but there were also foot soldiers ( sat[unknown]ykisita ). Their weapons ( säp ) consisted of a light bent bow ( s[unknown]a ), a quiver ( käsäx, s[unknown]adax ), and arrows ( aya ) .’ [1] ’These warriors formed a chain of movable, vigilant pickets around the settlements. In case of war they formed the kernel of the fighting detachment -- sari Some of the bolder ones went to find their fortune, dzhol. They would go far into unknown territory, among foreigners, either by themselves or with companions. Such detachments would not take their cattle with them and often traveled on foot. They made their living exclusively by hunting, fishing, and looting. The Yakut kept these habits for a long time, until very recently. Khudiakov has a legend about Khaptagay-batyr and his son Khokhoe-batyr, and their three khosun: Sappy, Yngkabyl, and Batagyyan, who roamed about in the seventeen forties, during the time of Pavlutskii, in the north of the Yakutsk Oblast. In the Kolymsk Okrug (1882), I wrote down a legend about the two Yakut brothers who were the first to make their way into the kolymsk Krai. Their names have been forgotten. In the Namsk Ulus I was told a legend about the Vilyuysk Yakut Tangas-Boltongo who also wandered by himself somewhere in the little-known, remote regions of the Vilyuysk Okrug. He was called a bagatyr, just as the old epic heroes. Apparently he lived in the beginning of the present century; this is indicated by the name of a Yakut hunter of the Namsk Ulus, Betyunsk Nasleg, Chaky clan, whom he encountered: his name was Soldat. Soldiers appeared in the Yakutsk Oblast only in the last century, at the time of the Kamchatka campaigns of Pavlutskii. Then Middendorf mentions solitary Yakut hunters whom he encountered far from their native tribes in the mountains of the Amur Basin. Such bold fellows served their clans as a sort of voluntary spies, searching out new pastures suitable for settlement in case some sort of unpleasantness or inconvenience should arise in the homeland. They brought back word of new lands, of the peoples they had encountered, the details of the route, and the obstacles involved. Sometimes the clan would choose such people out of their own number and deliberately send them out on a searching party. The tales The Golden Eagle and the Teal, and The Flying Winged Creatures hint at this. These were chosen people and were also called bagatyr, baatyr, batyr, or batur; strictly speaking in the Yakut language this word means valorous, exceptionally manly, bold, strong, and clever. But these people did not have any special rights in the clan besides the usual rights gained through personal superiority.’ [2] Military operations were lead by war-leaders, who formed a military aristocracy based on heredity and personal military success: ’Just as now, common matters were managed by the clan assembly. Matters of war and minor legal cases, which demanded quick settlement without any delays, were managed by a war leader -- toen -- acknowledged by the rest of the people. According to the Yakut this service was hereditary, on the strength of their belief that an eaglet is always an eagle; a young crow is always a crow. But this hereditary right was not strictly followed. Thus, the heir of the Borogon toen, Legey, was not his son, but a foreign adopted son who had been bought for money. Another saga relates, with full consciousness of the legality of such a matter, that the Tungus chose as their toen a Yakut, Khaptagay-batyr, because of his valor. The sago says: No Lamut (Tungus), no matter who, will kill you. Now you be our lord (toen). If a Lamut will not obey your word, let there be a sin upon him. The toen always had in addition the title of bagatyr (valorous) and in the popular conception his traits of character had to correspond with those demanded of a hero. But he would not wander by himself, nor look for adventures, but would always live where the clan was and only leave in time of war, at the head of the mounted and armed detachment.’ [3] ’We can judge how large these unions sometimes were by the fact that in 1634 600 Yakut warriors under the leadership of prince Mymak took part in a battle on the right bank of the Lena, in which the army of ataman Galkin was crushed and all his horses were lost.’ [4] ’At this period, however, the clan-tribal structure was already in a state of decomposition. The tribes and clans were headed by the military aristocracy-the toyons. These possessed large herds of cattle and employed the labor of slaves and dependent fellow clansmen on their farms; they were also the military leaders. Heading detachments of armed servants and junior fellow clansmen, the toyons raided each other’s territory, and frequently looted the farms of the free members of the community, seizing their cattle and destroying their economic independence. These toyon wars and raids were one of the factors which speeded up the decomposition of the clan commune. The ruined members of the commune were reduced to the status of “balyksyts” (poor people without cattle, or fishermen), or else became the indentured slaves of the toyons. Most of the slaves (kuluts or bokans) originated in this way.’ [5] We need to confirm whether any Sakha warriors joined the Russian military at the time. Accordingly the code may be in need of re-evaluation. [1]: Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut", 172 [2]: Sieroszewski, Wacław 1993. “Yakut: An Experiment In Ethnographic Research”, 717 [3]: Sieroszewski, Wacław 1993. “Yakut: An Experiment In Ethnographic Research”, 718 [4]: Sieroszewski, Wacław 1993. “Yakut: An Experiment In Ethnographic Research”, 760 [5]: Tokarev, S. A., and Gurvich I. S. 1964. “Yakuts”, 270 |
||||||
|
2. warrior leader.
1. Soldier. The discovery of bronze weapons in the tombs of people, which likely belonging to the local elite, suggests the presence of war leaders. The Yayoi period was characterized by heated competition and conflict among different communities. |
||||||
|
This is more than two levels but at present the information required has not been found in the sources consulted. “The organisation of the Porfirian army remained basically unchanged throughout the era. Diaz began a reorganisation of the military in 1877 and in December of 1878 received from congress special powers to reform the army.”
[1]
“Federal forces within a state were distinct and apart from stae forces and other elements of order and security. The regular army, rurales, and reserves which found themselves at the service of the Republic made up the federal forces.”
[2]
“The Republic of Mexico is divided into eighteen Conumdancias Centrales or districts, each under the orders of a Military Commandant, who receives his instructions, not from the government of the State in which he resides, but from the Minister of War.”
[3]
: 1. Minister of War :: 2. District Commander
[1]: (Alexius 1976: 3) [2]: (Alexius 1976: 6) [3]: (Ward 1827: 228) Ward, Henry George. 1900. Mexico in 1827. London : H. Colburn. http://archive.org/details/mexicoin04wardgoog. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/IY7FJEM7 |
||||||
|
levels.
[(4) Provincial Military Authorities; (3) Senior Chinese Officers;] (2) Chinese and Hmong Petty Officers; (1) Chinese and Hmong Soldiers The Chinese administration had established military units, including Hmong petty officers, before the onset of the republican period: ’When the Miao rebellion was put down in the first year of Chia Ch’ing /1796/, it was found that the policy of governing the Miao with Chinese was wrong. The then governor-general of Hunan and Kwangtung, Pi Yüan, submitted a plan to govern the Miao with Miao. The ministry’s response to the memorial setting up regulations for Miao officials, Miao Chiang Chin- Yao Shan-Hou Shih I /Important Remedial Measures for the Miao Frontier Region/, has a passage, “Miao Chiang Pe Hu Chai Ch’ang Ming-Mu Ying Cho Liang Keng Ting /The Names of the Village Leaders of 100 Families Should be Decided after Due Deliberation/,” stating: “According to the memorial, in the three provinces of Szechwan, Kweichow, and Hupeh, such areas as Yu-yang and T’ung-jen were all previously governed by headmen, but following their application to be put under government officials, the administrative areas of chou, hsien, and ying were established, subject to the jurisdiction of civil and military authorities. In the Miao villages, there were established only village chiefs to govern a unit of 100 families. However, since Chinese were also permitted to fill these posts, gradually there were rapacious, unscrupulous rogues, whose mistreatment caused disturbances. It is requested that from among the Miao who have submitted, and on whom were conferred the peacock feather decoration /for merit, in early Ch’ing times/, there be selected some intelligent, aware persons, to be appointed at each ying /military station/ as native second captain /shoupei/, lieutenant /ch’ien-tsung/, and sergeant or corporal /wai-wei/, such positions to be filled through the governor-general and governor’s /tu-wu/ yamen /tu-wu ya-men/ and to be subject to the control of the civil and military authorities. When the various t’ang hsin in the Miao area have official despatches to send, they can order the said native petty officers to select Miao to question and send, and also to give them some cash and rations. When officials traveling on official business require servants, they may also recruit them from the Miao, and pay them wages according to the Chinese scales. It would appear that the 100-families village chief was originally inaugurated to discipline the Miao, but these men were unimportant and their powers limited, as that the Miao did not heed them. Moreover, among the Chinese holding such positions there were rapacious, unscrupulous rogues, whose mistreatment led to disturbances. This should naturally be explained, deliberated, and changed, so as to fix responsibility. During the recent campaign those submissive Miao who accompanied the army and won peacock feather awards are numerous, therefore from these select those who are intelligent and aware, and who have the support of the rest, and according to the customary set-up of t’u-kuan /officials governing aboriginal tribes in West China/, every Ying should have one or two men to be native second captains, under whom there should be native lieutenants and sergeants, for better control of the Miao. Their number will depend upon the number of villages put under control, and they shall be appointed by the governor-general and governor’s yamen and also be under the control of regional officials. If there are fights, robberies and thefts among the Miao these native officers will be asked to make the arrests. On their inspection tours, the governor-general and governor and military officials should examine the merits and demerits of these officers and reward or punish them accordingly to demonstrate justice, following the recommendations memorialized by Governor-general Ho Lin. When the t’ang-hsin system of communication in the Miao area has been abolished, official communications should be despatched according to old methods so as to avoid delay. In the regions where the t’ang-hsin system exists as before, the local officials /t’u kuan/ should be asked to pick out honest Miao to be given the responsibility of delivering messages after being questioned, to be paid wages and rations from unallotted funds, according to the scale for t’un soldiers. When officials traveling on official business need servants, then order the said Miao to serve, and pay them wages according to recommendations memorialized.”’ [1] The Chinese military administration was highly formalized, as evidenced in clerical documents outlining the organizational structure of Chinese army divisions: ’2. Regulations for the organization and administration of the T’un Bureau from the headquarters of the newly organized Thirty-Fourth Division of the Army. Article 1. The said Bureau is to be organized on the order of Divisional Commander Ch’en of the newly organized Thirty-Fourth Division. Article 2. The said Bureau shall set up, according to the temporary organization regulations of the Division, a chief and a deputy chief, three department heads, a number of departmental staff, clerks, and copyists. Article 3. The chief of the Bureau will receive orders from the Commander of the Division, and will have general superintendence over the t’un army west of the Hsiang River, and Miao defense officials and soldiers, t’un grain supplies, and the keeping in order of t’un properties, and coordinate everything, with the authority to direct and supervise all the Bureau’s personnel. Article 4. The said Bureau shall have three departments, Departments One, Two, and Three. Each department head shall receive his orders from the chief of the Bureau, to assist him by dividing control over military matters, t’un matters, and general matters, with the responsibility to direct and manage his particular department’s responsibilities.’ [2] Senior t’un leaders and Hmong petty officials fulfilled multiple administrative and security-related tasks in the area, while receiving state salaries, produce, or arable land: ’The t’un fields in the Miao frontier were divided into people’s /i.e. Chinese/ t’uns and Miao t’uns, the two being entirely different in nature. The t’un males working on the Chinese t’uns were also divided into t’un men and fighting men. The t’un men received fields to cultivate, and guarded the t’un guard houses. The fighting men, also called home guards, were solely trained for military operations, and did not farm. In the five sub-prefectures and hsiens of the Miao frontier there are 7,000 t’un men, from among whom are appointed hsiao-ch’i, tsung-ch’i, and pe-tsung to facilitate control. The distribution of fields was as follows: the men /san ting/ are each given 4.5 mu; the hsiao-ch’i, 5.5 mu; the tsung-ch’i, 6.5 mu; and the pe-tsung, 7.5 mu. There are 1,000 fighting men, each being given 3 shih, 6 tou of rice per year. The non-fighting men are also each given annually 10.8 liang of silver for salt and vegetables. The hsiao-ch’i receives each year 12 liang of silver; the tsung-ch’i, 13.2 liang of silver; the pe-tsung, 16.8 liang of silver. Therefore, in the Chinese t’un, the fields and land left over after the t’un men have received their fields to plant and care for are leased out for the collection of rent. Granaries (Illus. 57) have been built to store the grain, and general t’un leaders are set up to manage these matters. There are no t’un men in the Miao t’uns, and the t’un fields are allotted to people to cultivate /Illus. 57 and 58 on pages 124 and 125/ for the collection of rent, in order to feed the Miao soldiers, under the control of the Miao officials. The t’un fields in the Miao frontier region, at the inception of the system, totaled 150,000 mu of arable land, of which barely a third was directly cultivated by t’un personnel, the rest being allotted out as rented fields. Today, the t’un army in the Miao frontier region is about 1,000 strong. The maintainance of the Black Flag Battalion of the Miao troops (Illus. 58) largely comes from the rented fields. T’un fields were set up to support troops on the spot as a defense against the Miao. Today, the Miao have been largely acculturated by the Chinese and the boundary line between the Miao and the Chinese is gradually becoming obliterated. There is no longer the need for this kind of system of t’un defense against the Miao. In fact, unrest in the Miao area today is often due to the maladministration of the t’un fields system. The Miao petty officers and the t’un leaders often are oppressive in collecting rent and sometimes are corrupt in their methods, thus causing dissatisfaction and disturbances. In the twenty-sixth year of the Republic /1937/ the Miao rebellion in western Hunan arose because of the t’un land system. It resulted in the burning of t’un granaries and killing of t’un officers. Although the rebellion was pacified only after bloody and expensive campaigns, it is imperative to change the t’un and enter the newly opened or reclaimed land as available for taxation, so as to reach a fundamental solution.’ [3] We have assumed that these observations are true for the A-Hmao as well, despite of historical differences. [The A-Hmao group doesn’t appear to have been directly involved in the more eastern Hmong rebellions, but it appears to have been increasingly subsumed by the Late Qing/Early Chinese in the aftermath of these rebellions.] [1]: Ling, Shun-sheng, Yifu Ruey, and Lien-en Tsao 1947. “Report On An Investigation Of The Miao Of Western Hunan”, 152 [2]: Ling, Shun-sheng, Yifu Ruey, and Lien-en Tsao 1947. “Report On An Investigation Of The Miao Of Western Hunan”, 177 [3]: Ling, Shun-sheng, Yifu Ruey, and Lien-en Tsao 1947. “Report On An Investigation Of The Miao Of Western Hunan”, 182 |
||||||
|
"The scene in the Late Predynastic (Gerzean) Painted Tomb in Hierakonpolis (Kantor, 1944), showing a person smiting enemies in a manner prototypical of that of the later Pharaoh (Baines, 1987), indicates that regional, paramount chiefs may have commanded warriors who were mobilized by district and community chiefs."
[1]
1. Chief 2. Warriors [1]: (Hassan 1988, 172) |
||||||
|
levels.
weapons "Among the material changes documented in the Iron Age archaeological record are more complex and labor-intensive settlement designs, new mortuary practices, the production and consumption of a range of new slipped and polished ceramic wares as well as iron tools, weapons, and hardware. Most notably, there was significant transformation in the organization of social relations during the Iron Age that produced tangible social differences and inequalities." [1] Initially a given polity only consisted of a single settlement "At the smallest and least complex (in terms of population, geographic scale and decision-making arrangements) end of this continuum, chiefs with limited decision-making prerogatives probably presided over single settlements. In larger examples, more powerful leaders based in larger centers likely exerted varying degrees of control over multiple and varying numbers of settlements. Finally, at the most complex end of this continuum, paramount chiefs ruling from large regional centers with lesser chiefs as political subordinates dominated even larger polities containing numerous settlements and substantial populations. In the present context it seems most likely that chiefdoms of the first type were prevalent during the earlier phases of the Iron Age, with those of the latter two types developing with increasing frequency as time passed." [2] [1]: (Johansen 2014, 1-28) Johansen, P. 2014. The politics of spatial renovation: Reconfiguring ritual practices in Iron Age and Early Historic South India. Journal of Social Archaeology. 0(0). [2]: R. Brubaker, Aspects of mortuary variability in the South Indian Iron Age, in Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute 60-61, pp. 253-302 |
||||||
|
levels.
Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE "monopoly of defence forces to protect internal cohesion. The wealth and technical knowledge accumulated in cities had to be defended against foreign attacks, both from other city-states and other enemies (for instance, nomadic tribes). This defence system then turned into an offensive tactic. ... Instrumental for these kinds of activities was the creation of an army, which was divided into two groups. One group was made of full-time workers, specialised in military activities (although this remains purely hypothetical for the Uruk period). In case of war, an army was assembled through military conscription, and was supported by mandatory provisions of military supplies." [1] Liverani notes that in Uruk phase "Urban Revolution therefore led to the formation of the Early State, not just in its decisional function, which already existed in pre-urban communities, but in the fullest sense of the term. The latter is to be understood as an organisation that solidly controls and defends a given territory (and its many communities) and manages the exploitation of resources to ensure and develop the survival of its population." [2] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
Warrior society implies at least 2 levels of military hierarchy. |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) War-Leaders (Toen, Toyon) of the Military Aristocracy; (2) Warriors (Säpi, Säpi Kisita) and Voluntary Spies Sakha warriors and spies fought for their clans and tribes: ’Yakut warriors ( säpi, säpi kisita ) were usually mounted horsemen ( minjär ), but there were also foot soldiers ( sat[unknown]ykisita ). Their weapons ( säp ) consisted of a light bent bow ( s[unknown]a ), a quiver ( käsäx, s[unknown]adax ), and arrows ( aya ) .’ [1] ’These warriors formed a chain of movable, vigilant pickets around the settlements. In case of war they formed the kernel of the fighting detachment -- sari Some of the bolder ones went to find their fortune, dzhol. They would go far into unknown territory, among foreigners, either by themselves or with companions. Such detachments would not take their cattle with them and often traveled on foot. They made their living exclusively by hunting, fishing, and looting. The Yakut kept these habits for a long time, until very recently. Khudiakov has a legend about Khaptagay-batyr and his son Khokhoe-batyr, and their three khosun: Sappy, Yngkabyl, and Batagyyan, who roamed about in the seventeen forties, during the time of Pavlutskii, in the north of the Yakutsk Oblast. In the Kolymsk Okrug (1882), I wrote down a legend about the two Yakut brothers who were the first to make their way into the kolymsk Krai. Their names have been forgotten. In the Namsk Ulus I was told a legend about the Vilyuysk Yakut Tangas-Boltongo who also wandered by himself somewhere in the little-known, remote regions of the Vilyuysk Okrug. He was called a bagatyr, just as the old epic heroes. Apparently he lived in the beginning of the present century; this is indicated by the name of a Yakut hunter of the Namsk Ulus, Betyunsk Nasleg, Chaky clan, whom he encountered: his name was Soldat. Soldiers appeared in the Yakutsk Oblast only in the last century, at the time of the Kamchatka campaigns of Pavlutskii. Then Middendorf mentions solitary Yakut hunters whom he encountered far from their native tribes in the mountains of the Amur Basin. Such bold fellows served their clans as a sort of voluntary spies, searching out new pastures suitable for settlement in case some sort of unpleasantness or inconvenience should arise in the homeland. They brought back word of new lands, of the peoples they had encountered, the details of the route, and the obstacles involved. Sometimes the clan would choose such people out of their own number and deliberately send them out on a searching party. The tales The Golden Eagle and the Teal, and The Flying Winged Creatures hint at this. These were chosen people and were also called bagatyr, baatyr, batyr, or batur; strictly speaking in the Yakut language this word means valorous, exceptionallymanly, bold, strong, and clever. But these people did not have any special rights in the clan besides the usual rights gained through personal superiority.’ [2] Military operations were led by war-leaders, who formed a military aristocracy based on heredity and personal military success: ’Just as now, common matters were managed by the clan assembly. Matters of war and minor legal cases, which demanded quick settlement without any delays, were managed by a war leader -- toen -- acknowledged by the rest of the people. According to the Yakut this service was hereditary, on the strength of their belief that an eaglet is always an eagle; a young crow is always a crow. But this hereditary right was not strictly followed. Thus, the heir of the Borogon toen, Legey, was not his son, but a foreign adopted son who had been bought for money. Another saga relates, with full consciousness of the legality of such a matter, that the Tungus chose as their toen a Yakut, Khaptagay-batyr, because of his valor. The sago says: No Lamut (Tungus), no matter who, will kill you. Now you be our lord (toen). If a Lamut will not obey your word, let there be a sin upon him. The toen always had in addition the title of bagatyr (valorous) and in the popular conception his traits of character had to correspond with those demanded of a hero. But he would not wander by himself, nor look for adventures, but would always live where the clan was and only leave in time of war, at the head of the mounted and armed detachment.’ [3] ’We can judge how large these unions sometimes were by the fact that in 1634 600 Yakut warriors under the leadership of prince Mymak took part in a battle on the right bank of the Lena, in which the army of ataman Galkin was crushed and all his horses were lost.’ [4] ’At this period, however, the clan-tribal structure was already in a state of decomposition. The tribes and clans were headed by the military aristocracy-the toyons. These possessed large herds of cattle and employed the labor of slaves and dependent fellow clansmen on their farms; they were also the military leaders. Heading detachments of armed servants and junior fellow clansmen, the toyons raided each other’s territory, and frequently looted the farms of the free members of the community, seizing their cattle and destroying their economic independence. These toyon wars and raids were one of the factors which speeded up the decomposition of the clan commune. The ruined members of the commune were reduced to the status of “balyksyts” (poor people without cattle, or fishermen), or else became the indentured slaves of the toyons. Most of the slaves (kuluts or bokans) originated in this way.’ [5] [1]: Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut", 172 [2]: Sieroszewski, Wacław 1993. “Yakut: An Experiment In Ethnographic Research”, 717 [3]: Sieroszewski, Wacław 1993. “Yakut: An Experiment In Ethnographic Research”, 718 [4]: Sieroszewski, Wacław 1993. “Yakut: An Experiment In Ethnographic Research”, 760 [5]: Tokarev, S. A., and Gurvich I. S. 1964. “Yakuts”, 270 |
||||||
|
levels.
(2) Village Headmen and local war leaders; (1) Citizen-Soldiers; When head-taking and piracy were practiced, war parties were staffed with male community members: ’The taking of enemy heads then, was the prescriptive act for Iban males an act through which an individual could win for himself prestige and status within the longhouse community, while at the same time enhancing his desirability as a potential suitor and husband in the eyes of the opposite sex. But, as we have indicated, headhunting also had a ritual dimension which was of the utmost significance. It is the latter aspect which chiefly concerns us here, being to do with Iban conceptions of male and female gender roles and relations of production and reproduction within Iban society.’ [1] War parties were led by local war-leaders or village headmen: ’According to Sea Dayak custom, this feast, the fifth of the nine stages of the gawai burong , should be held only by an experienced war-leader. Linggir was undoubtedly a very brave man, but he was young, and certainly far less experienced than Uyut, his father. Linggir had already made a statue of the hornbill in preparation for his festival when the older people of the house warned him that it would be presumptuous for him to hold the feast while Uyut still lived. They said that such a rash action might anger Sengalang Burong.’ [2] ’Before the gawai diri may be held, the patron of the feast must lead his warriors against some enemy. So Uyut and his men set off to raid the Kantu Dayaks of Merakai, in what is now Indonesian Borneo, in order to get some fresh heads. But before they came back, all the food which had been gathered for the feast, including tuak wine and many different delicacies, began to go bad. So a brother-in-law of Uyut named Malang (Pengarah) decided to go ahead and hold the feast anyway, without the war-leader and his men. No sooner was it over than Uyut and his party returned from a victorious expedition. They were naturally outraged. Uyut and the others expelled Pengarah from the Anyut, and he retreated down river to live in the Serudit stream.’ [2] Head-hunting persisted well into the 20th century: ’The persistence of headhunting as a living tradition, up until at least the Second World War, and even beyond (albeit in a drastically curtailed form), has meant that many of the details connected with the taking of heads are well documented. Moreover, the ritual significance of headhunting, and its attendant ceremonies, continue to play an important role in contemporary Iban society. We have already spoken of headhunting festivals ( gawai amat ) held as celebrations of male prestige and achievement, but the traditional role of the Iban warrior continues to survive elsewhere in Iban culture, most notably in connection with mortuary rites. A visit to a Saribas Iban festival for the dead ( Gawai Antu ), for instance, reveals a more than sufficient number of candidates to drink the sacred wine ( ai’ garong ) dedicated to those who have passed away. Previously, only those who had distinguished themselves as headhunters could partake in this sacred symposium with the dead; today the taking of a life - usually when on active service in the Sarawak Field Force - suffices. In this instance, and others of a similar nature, the warrior tradition of Iban society is maintained, and the ritual significance of headhunting preserved, as a major component in the Iban value system.’ [3] [1]: Davison, Julian, and Vinson H. Sutlive 1991. “Children Of Nising: Images Of Headhunting And Male Sexuality In Iban Ritual And Oral Literature”, 157 [2]: Sandin, Benedict 1967. “Sea Dayaks Of Borneo: Before White Rajah Rule”, 39 [3]: Davison, Julian, and Vinson H. Sutlive 1991. “Children Of Nising: Images Of Headhunting And Male Sexuality In Iban Ritual And Oral Literature”, 169 |
||||||
|
levels.
(2) local war leaders; (1) Citizen-Soldiers; When head-taking and piracy were practiced, war parties were staffed with male community members: ’The taking of enemy heads then, was the prescriptive act for Iban males an act through which an individual could win for himself prestige and status within the longhouse community, while at the same time enhancing his desirability as a potential suitor and husband in the eyes of the opposite sex. But, as we have indicated, headhunting also had a ritual dimension which was of the utmost significance. It is the latter aspect which chiefly concerns us here, being to do with Iban conceptions of male and female gender roles and relations of production and reproduction within Iban society.’ [1] War parties were led by local war-leaders or village headmen: ’According to Sea Dayak custom, this feast, the fifth of the nine stages of the gawai burong , should be held only by an experienced war-leader. Linggir was undoubtedly a very brave man, but he was young, and certainly far less experienced than Uyut, his father. Linggir had already made a statue of the hornbill in preparation for his festival when the older people of the house warned him that it would be presumptuous for him to hold the feast while Uyut still lived. They said that such a rash action might anger Sengalang Burong.’ [2] ’Before the gawai diri may be held, the patron of the feast must lead his warriors against some enemy. So Uyut and his men set off to raid the Kantu Dayaks of Merakai, in what is now Indonesian Borneo, in order to get some fresh heads. But before they came back, all the food which had been gathered for the feast, including tuak wine and many different delicacies, began to go bad. So a brother-in-law of Uyut named Malang (Pengarah) decided to go ahead and hold the feast anyway, without the war-leader and his men. No sooner was it over than Uyut and his party returned from a victorious expedition. They were naturally outraged. Uyut and the others expelled Pengarah from the Anyut, and he retreated down river to live in the Serudit stream.’ [2] Head-hunting persisted well into the 20th century: ’The persistence of headhunting as a living tradition, up until at least the Second World War, and even beyond (albeit in a drastically curtailed form), has meant that many of the details connected with the taking of heads are well documented. Moreover, the ritual significance of headhunting, and its attendant ceremonies, continue to play an important role in contemporary Iban society. We have already spoken of headhunting festivals ( gawai amat ) held as celebrations of male prestige and achievement, but the traditional role of the Iban warrior continues to survive elsewhere in Iban culture, most notably in connection with mortuary rites. A visit to a Saribas Iban festival for the dead ( Gawai Antu ), for instance, reveals a more than sufficient number of candidates to drink the sacred wine ( ai’ garong ) dedicated to those who have passed away. Previously, only those who had distinguished themselves as headhunters could partake in this sacred symposium with the dead; today the taking of a life - usually when on active service in the Sarawak Field Force - suffices. In this instance, and others of a similar nature, the warrior tradition of Iban society is maintained, and the ritual significance of headhunting preserved, as a major component in the Iban value system.’ [3] Some Iban may have joined the civil and military administration early on, but expert feedback is needed on the matter. [1]: Davison, Julian, and Vinson H. Sutlive 1991. “Children Of Nising: Images Of Headhunting And Male Sexuality In Iban Ritual And Oral Literature”, 157 [2]: Sandin, Benedict 1967. “Sea Dayaks Of Borneo: Before White Rajah Rule”, 39 [3]: Davison, Julian, and Vinson H. Sutlive 1991. “Children Of Nising: Images Of Headhunting And Male Sexuality In Iban Ritual And Oral Literature”, 169 |
||||||
|
levels.
(2) Village Headman (Nokma) and Lineage Elders or temporary leaders of village clusters; (1) ’Citizen-soldiers’; The British colonial structure did not organize an indigenous armed corps for the A’chik population: ‘When the Britishers took over the administration of this district, one witnessed an imposition of hierarchy of new political and administrative units in the district over the traditional democratic village set-up. The British Government, being actuated with the desire to have effective control over the villages and to facilitate the collection of revenues and house tax introduced the office of laskar with limited police, civil and criminal powers. Accordingly there was a laskar over a circle of villages; each having jurisdiction covering ten or twelve of villages. Although, the villagers were left to settle all disputes through the nokma and the village courts, they had right to appeal to the court of laskars against the decisions of the village councils.’ [1] Given the absence of a standing Garo army, the village headmanship should be taken as the primary institution for ad-hoc, improvised military organization: ‘There was a move for retention of the old institution of nokmaship which could not function with authority since the British administration had appointed the laskars and sardars for the smooth running of their administration from 1824 onwards. The nokmas became only the clan chief and custodian of the clan land a’king. The nokma could not administer effectively as he used to do prior to the British administration in the district. The nokmas were supposed to be well versed with their functions and duties in the villages. The British administration enforced the Rules of Administration of Justice in the Garo Hills both Civil and Police in 1937. These rules have been renewed again and again. They are in use till the present day. The head of the district administration was the Deputy Commissioner and his Assistants and it has never been changed.’ [2] During the early colonial period, male villagers probably acted as war parties under the leadership of a nokma: ‘In the early days, the Garos used to wage many wars. Such an occasion arose once (perhaps the first of such warfare) when people of one village living under a certain Nokma went to work for their hadang (field for cultivation) beyond their area and entered another Nokma’s jurisdiction. This was a cause of conflict, and they started fighting. There were heavy casualties on both sides. Finally, both the parties ran away to their own area. Thus neither party gained or lost any land.’ [3] The code is provisional and does not reflect the presence of British colonial forces, as more information on their organizaton is still needed. [1]: Marak, Kumie R. 1997. “Traditions And Modernity In Matrilineal Tribal Society”, 52 [2]: Marak, Kumie R. 1997. “Traditions And Modernity In Matrilineal Tribal Society”, 170 [3]: Sinha, Tarunchandra 1966. “Psyche Of The Garos”, 65 |
||||||
|
levels. Following Higham’s text, it could be inferred that there was some degree of military organization that seem to imply the presence of different levels. "His son, Pan Pan, had only a brief reign, and was succeeded by a leader of military prowess known to the Chinese as Fan Shiman. He undertook raids against his neighbours, and then mounted a water-borne expedition which subdued over ten chiefs traditionally situated along the shores of the Gulf of Siam."
[1]
Sites like Angkor Borei have not yielded structures that may have been identified as indicators of violence. For example, the wall surrounding the city seems to have served as a "ring-road" and house placements rather than as a defensive structure.
[2]
It is likely then that at the earlier stages of the Funanese polity the chiefs would be in control of a somewhat large group of fighters that eventually became a stratified army as the polity gained complexity. (RA’s guess).
[1]: (Higham 1989, pp. 247) [2]: (O’Reilly 2007, p. 107) |
||||||
|
levels. "Following the Nyoro invasion, Ntare also began to engage in military innovation, organizing the first regiments (emitwe) of trained warriors rather than relying upon a hasty call-up of able-bodied men. [...] The system of standing regiments (emitwe) under the command of royal appointees begun by Ntare IV was revived by his successors and became fully operational under the command of royal appointees begun by Ntare IV was revived by his successors and became fully operational under Mugabe Mutambuka (1839-67) a century later."
[1]
1. Royally appointed officers :2. Intermediate level (inferred) ::3. Trained warriors
[1]: (Steinhart 1978: 138, 144) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. |
||||||
|
1) officers eg Kinda-Acio, 2) soldiers. The Wukari Federation’s power was ritual/religious rather than militaristic: “Kwararafa under the Jukun ceased to be a warrior state; extant accounts portray the new state as a pacifist and religious one, made up of a collection of unwarlike people solely and strictly devoted to the maintenance of their innumerable religious cults and the veneration of their sacred kings, a people whose prestige and continuing legitimacy depended on their successful performance of their main ritual function, which was to guarantee good harvest and good health for the people.”
[1]
“The next in the hierarchy was the kinda-Acio who was in charge of the administration of the palace and cared for the welfare of Aku’s premises. It was noted that this official was in the close counsels of the king, attended the royal rite each day, took a prominent share in judicial work, in keeping the walls of city and the fencing of the royal enclosure in repair, and could also be put in charge of military operation.”
[2]
[1]: Shillington, K., ed. (2005). Encyclopedia of African History (1st Ed., Vol. 1–3). Fitzroy Dearborn: 248. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AWA9ZT5B/collection [2]: Zhema, S. (2017). A History of the Social and Political Organization of the Jukun of Wukari Division, c.1596–1960 [Benue State University]: 126. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/U667CC36/collection |
||||||
|
levels.
(2) Village Headman (Nokma) and Lineage Elders or temporary leaders of village clusters; (1) ’Citizen-soldiers’; Given the absence of a standing A’chik army, the village headmanship should be taken as the primary institution for ad-hoc, improvised military organization. Male villagers probably acted as war parties under the leadership of a nokma: ‘In the early days, the Garos used to wage many wars. Such an occasion arose once (perhaps the first of such warfare) when people of one village living under a certain Nokma went to work for their hadang (field for cultivation) beyond their area and entered another Nokma’s jurisdiction. This was a cause of conflict, and they started fighting. There were heavy casualties on both sides. Finally, both the parties ran away to their own area. Thus neither party gained or lost any land.’ [1] The potential role of Zamindars remains to be confirmed (see also above). [1]: Sinha, Tarunchandra 1966. “Psyche Of The Garos”, 65 |
||||||
|
levels.
Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE "monopoly of defence forces to protect internal cohesion. The wealth and technical knowledge accumulated in cities had to be defended against foreign attacks, both from other city-states and other enemies (for instance, nomadic tribes). This defence system then turned into an offensive tactic. ... Instrumental for these kinds of activities was the creation of an army, which was divided into two groups. One group was made of full-time workers, specialised in military activities (although this remains purely hypothetical for the Uruk period). In case of war, an army was assembled through military conscription, and was supported by mandatory provisions of military supplies." [1] Liverani notes of previous Uruk phase "Urban Revolution therefore led to the formation of the Early State, not just in its decisional function, which already existed in pre-urban communities, but in the fullest sense of the term. The latter is to be understood as an organisation that solidly controls and defends a given territory (and its many communities) and manages the exploitation of resources to ensure and develop the survival of its population." [2] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
1) Chiefs/governors; 2) Soldiers. There is no clear description of the formation or size of the army in Whydah in the literature consulted, though clearly they had a military presence. “The governors exercised an independent local judicial authority in minor cases, acted as spokesmen before the king on behalf of those under their government, and transmitted their tribute to him. They also raised contingents of soldiers for the national army, and commanded them in battle.”
[1]
“Whydah was probably already in rebellion against Allada by the mid- seventeenth century, when a contemporary source reports that the coastal village of "Foulaen" (as noted earlier, probably Glehue, the port of Whydah), although subject to the king of Allada, defied his authority, and even sent brigands by night to raid the coastal villages of his kingdom.”
[2]
[1]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 209. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection [2]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 213. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection |
||||||
|
levels.
Warrior society implies at least 2 levels of military hierarchy. |
||||||
|
The earliest evidence for a “bureaucratic machinery” appears to date to the late fifth century CE
[1]
"The Kofun period is commonly regarded as the state formation phase." [2] Later-era documents "describe the Kofun-period elites as horse-riding, armored, sword- and bow-wielding warriors who organized themselves into military clans. They quickly dominated the Yayoi cultures and laid the foundation of the latter-day rise of the samurai." [3] Early in period? 3. warrior leader 2. ?1. soldier Later in period? 4. Warrior leader 3. Commander2. Officer -- more than one level?1. soldier The discovery of bronze weapons in the tombs of people, which likely belonging to the local elite, suggests the presence of war leaders. The Kofun period was characterized by heated competition and conlict among different chiefdoms [4] [5] . [1]: (Steenstrup 2011, 11) [2]: (Mizoguchi 2013, 26) Mizoguchi, Koji. 2013. The Archaeology of Japan: From the Earliest Rice Farming Villages to the Rise of the State. Cambridge University Press. [3]: (Jones 2015, 87-88) Jones, David. 2015. Martial Arts Training in Japan: A Guide for Westerners. Tuttle Publishing. [4]: G. Barnes, 2007. State formation in Japan: Emergence of a 4th-century ruling elite. Routledge, 136. [5]: K. Mizoguchi, 2013. The Archaeology of Japan. From the Earliest Rice Farming Villages to the Rise of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 286,297. |
||||||
|
Inferred.
1. Emir 2. Landed elite 3. Common soldiers The ruling Arab elite had access to both a transplanted Arab military hierarchy and local structures for military ranking. However, in terms of actual structures the evidence is very slim. It can be tentatively posited that the ruling power in Masura had a degree of permanent command as the state was involved in endemic military conflicts with bordering non-Muslim peoples as well as the Muslim Jat and non Muslim Med tribes in the Indus delta. There is also evidence of the presence the state possessing 80 elephants and around 40,000 soldiers during the Habari period. The Soomras did not seem to have had access to elephants, but did have access to large numbers of cavalry. [1] [1]: Panhwar, M. H. "Chronological Dictionary of Sind, (Karachi, 1983) pp. 192-3, 196-197 |
||||||
|
inferred, there is very little evidence to demonstrate command structures.
1. Emir 2. Landed Elite 3. Common Soldiers The Samma, like the Soomras did not seem to have had access to Elephants, but did have access to Calvary. [1] [1]: Panhwar, M. H. "Chronological Dictionary of Sind, (Karachi, 1983) pp. 192-3, 196-197 |
||||||
|
levels.
The Assyrians in 836 BCE found the local settlements fortified "so it is likely that fortifications were built in response to local conditions, rather than foreign invasion." [1] [2] The armed forces, likewise, might equally have been well-organized, albeit on a small scale. 1. King 2. Chief officer, general, or head retainer3. Another level of command?4. Individual soldier [1]: (Melville 2010, 87-109) Melville, Sarah. "Kings of Tabal: Politics [2]: Competition, and Conflict in a Contested Periphery." in Richardson, Seth. ed. 2010. Rebellions and Peripheries in the Mesopotamian World. American Oriental Series 91. Eisenbrauns. Winona Lake. |
||||||
|
levels. 1) Attah; 2) chiefs; 3) troops. “The Igala kingdom had no standing army but there was initiation preparedness where adults were initiated and weapons were amassed awaiting any eventuality. Weapons such as arrows, bows, cutlasses, spears, shields and charms were abundantly stored in the armory. In the absence of standing army, servants, attendants, slaves and a large number of local farmers were mobilized and deployed for operation during wars. In the Igala political kingdom, Attah’s chief were at the head of those local armies but in serious wars such as the one between the Igalas and Jukuns, Attah himself would lead the battle.”
[1]
[1]: Jacob, Audu. “Pre-Colonial Political Administration in the North Central Nigeria: a Study of the Igala Political Kingdom.” European Scientific Journal, vol. 10, no. 19, 2014, pp. 392–402: 399. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5AN8R7UW/collection |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Prominent War-Leaders; (2) Local Headmen and Leaders (Kakaram; Kuraka); (3) Citizen-soldiers or Warriors Shuar military organization was informal, given the political autonomy of local groups: ’The Jivaro lack any formal political organization, although an informal form of leadership is found in the role of individuals referred to as UNYÄ ("big" or "old" men) or KAKARAM ("powerful" or "powerful ones") who are renown as killers in feuds or war, or exercise important shamanistic powers in the community. These individuals acquire their reputation in the community by being old enough to have grandchildren, and are friendly, honest, and generous in dealing with others in the society. Because of these characteristics the UNYÄ or KAKARAM are believed to possess great ARUTAM soul power and the ability to curse to death anyone who incurs their anger. Generally most neighborhoods have at least one or two UNYÄ as well as a few superior shamans who provide protection for their relatives or other individuals with whom they are on friendly terms.’ [1] ’Each community is politically independent with its own headman. Each is also located four or more kilometers from their nearest neighboring community. The community is made up of patrilineally and affinally related individuals, traditionally consisting of from 80 to 300 people (30 to 40 people in the twentieth century), living in one house called a JIVARIA. For defensive purposes, this house is built on a steep hill usually at the upper end of a stream. The house itself is approximately 13 meters by 26 meters in size, elliptical in shape, and has a thatched roof. In times of war, two or more communities united to fight a common enemy, as was the case when the Spanish attempted to conquer them.’ [1] ’Their society is thus based on the family and the blood tie. Only such sub-tribes as recognize some sort of consanguinity display a feeling of solidarity: the rest, although they speak the same language, are looked upon, not only as outsiders, but as downright natural enemies, a feature which will be further illustrated in the part dealing with their wars. It is as a rule between the different sub-tribes that the wars of extermination have occurred.’ [2] Warriors were accordingly male members of feuding communities: ’The terrible custom demands ever new, ever more victims, all security must disappear, every individual constantly lives in danger of being ambushed; there is a general and permanent state of war. Hence the arrangement of the houses, one door of which can be used for flight, while the battle rages at the other; hence the customs mentioned at the beginning in connection with approaching a dwelling, for the protection of which, in addition, a pack of half-wild dogs are kept. A quarrel between two families must lead to battles between whole tribes; larger groups of tribes become hostile to one another; war and battle become customary, a man’s lifework. A longer period of quiet, of peace, must be unbearable for such a nation of warriors. Ambitious, bold leaders will easily find companions for joint war expeditions; the neighboring nations are attacked and plundered. Thus, these Indians are carrying on among themselves a war of annihilation which must gradually bring about their own downfall. Severe depopulation is already noticeable in the region of the Jívaros, and it is being accelerated by epidemics, of the diseases introduced by the Europeans, which appear with great violence at times.’ [3] Warfare was deeply connected to headhunting: ’The primary motivation for warfare is to secure as many human heads as possible from an alien tribe, and secondarily to capture women. The acquisition of territory had never been a motive for engaging in warfare. The war party, consisting of approximately thirty or forty men, is recruited from the community itself or from friendly neighborhoods nearby, and is usually led by the or as war leader or chief. Actual warfare consists of preliminary ceremonies involving ritualized chanting, surprise attacks against one or two enemy houses, the killing and decapitation of the inhabitants or the occasional capture of a girl or woman as an extra wife, and the preparation of the on the return to the home village. Unlike many of the warlike Amazon tribes captives are not tortured or sacrificed, nor is cannibalism practiced.’ [1] Local leaders and chiefs often combined ’political’ and ’military’ duties rather than separating them: ’“The dignity of a chieftain is hereditary in a relative sense, in so far that the son of a chief is generally elected chief in time of war after his father has died or grown decrepit. This, however, can only take place if he has proved a valiant and skilled warrior and has killed enemies. No Jibaro is selected as a chief if he has not killed at least one enemy. The Jibaros have absolute faith in the heritability of prominent qualities, and ascribe extraordinary importance to education and the power of example. The son of a great chief, they say, must necessarily also become an able warrior because he is, as it were, a direct continuation of his father, has received a careful education for the deeds of war, and has always had the good example of his great father before his eyes.”’ [4] In times of war against external colonial enemies or larger tribal groups, different communities combined to attach themselves to a common war-leader, although even those arrangements were fluid and often of an ad hoc character. [Family and local leadership can extend beyond a single community; even in recent times (ie, in the 1970’s) some particularly strong men could aggregate several local groups in conflict situations and lead quite large war parties; however, such positions were unstable and rarely lasted more than a few years, if that. The definition of ‘community’ is highly relative; ‘my people’ can include a single nuclear family, or a collection of communities temporarily coalesced around a powerful war leader.] ’Still, as appears from their history, there have been occasions when they have been able to overcome the natural antipathy separating them from one another, and to unite against a common enemy. This common enemy has been the white man, who has so often threatened [184] the liberty of the people; but the alliances, such as that for instance in 1599, have been exceptional and wholly due to the influence of a single, eminent personality.”’ [5] ’ ’When a whole tribe, or perhaps several tribes together, prepare a war against one or more other tribes, the first thing done is to elect a common chief. He should be an elderly, experienced man, who has taken part in several wars, killed many enemies, and celebrated at least one victory feast. The rest of the warriors, who are generally younger men, swear him unlimited obedience. During the time the expedition is planned and the preparations are made, the warriors, and especially the chief, repeatedly drink maikoa or natéma to consult the spirits. They pay great attention to their dreams, even to those not produced under the direct influence of the narcotic drinks, tell them to each other, and discuss their possible significance. Only if they believe that they have received favourable answers and all omens are good are measures taken to carry out the war plan conceived. Meanwhile they try, through spies, to acquire as accurate a knowledge as possible about everything concerning the enemy: how many houses there are in the tract, how many fighting men in each house, if the houses are fortified, if the [283] men are well armed, and especially if they have firearms. All these and similar details the spies investigate by making trips into the country of the enemy and by stealing at night to the houses. Everything is prepared with the greatest secrecy possible, so that the enemy is caught unprepared, for otherwise he will have time to take measures of defence that may defeat the whole undertaking.”’ [6] ’“The authority of the chief elected for a war is very great. It is he alone who arranges everything for the expedition planned, who decides [268] about the time for and the mode of making the attack, and the younger warriors oblige themselves to obey him in everything. But as soon as a war has been carried to a successful end the power of the chief ceases, and he has, in spite of the great repute he always enjoys, no more authority or right to decide about the doings of his tribesmen than any other family-father among the Jibaros.”’ [7] Ecuador later recognized some of those leaders as regional head-chiefs: ’Four or five years ago there was a strong chief on the Upano River named Tuki, known to the Ecuadoreans as José Grande. In the manner previously described, all of the curakas from Macas on the Upano River to Mendez on the Paute River became subchiefs under him until he was generally recognized as the strongest of all of the Jivaro curakas. However, he was beginning to grow old by this time and some of his subcurakas were strong men in their own right. About 2 years ago, Ambusha, who had been gradually gaining in power and becoming famous for his head-hunting activities, split off with his own group, taking several curakas and their men with him. A little later Utita did the same thing. At the time of the writer’s visit (1931), although Tuki was recognized by the Government of Ecuador as being head chief of the Macas-Mendez region, actually he had lost all power excepting that over his own family group and was in reality no more than a capito. These divisions of the organization, if it may be termed such, took place apparently without any ill-feeling or formal announcements.’ [8] This may be true even for the Spanish colonial period, given the temporary ’peace pacts’ concluded between settlers and natives (see General Variables for context). [1]: Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Jivaro [2]: Karsten, Rafael 1935. “Head-Hunters Of Western Amazonas: The Life And Culture Of The Jibaro Indians Of Eastern Ecuador And Peru”, 183p [3]: Reiss, W. (Wilhelm) 1880. “Visit Among The Jivaro Indians”, 13 [4]: Karsten, Rafael 1935. “Head-Hunters Of Western Amazonas: The Life And Culture Of The Jibaro Indians Of Eastern Ecuador And Peru”, 267 [5]: Karsten, Rafael 1935. “Head-Hunters Of Western Amazonas: The Life And Culture Of The Jibaro Indians Of Eastern Ecuador And Peru", 183p [6]: Karsten, Rafael 1935. “Head-Hunters Of Western Amazonas: The Life And Culture Of The Jibaro Indians Of Eastern Ecuador And Peru", 282p [7]: Karsten, Rafael 1935. “Head-Hunters Of Western Amazonas: The Life And Culture Of The Jibaro Indians Of Eastern Ecuador And Peru”, 267p [8]: Stirling, Matthew Williams 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians”, 40 |
||||||
|
levels. Might have paralleled the administrative level (AD inference).
1. Khan (Khung Taiji) 2. Appanages (ulus or anggi) controlled by a noyod or taiji noble. - Military chief?3. Otog (a camp district composed of several clans and usually with 3,000 to 6,000 households) governed by zaisang officials. Otog military chief?4. Groups of 40 households governed by demchi officials. military chief?5. Groups of 20 households governed by shülengge officials. military chief?6. Individual soldier |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Sultan 1. The rank that Qutab-ud-din Albak had -- same rank? When Muhammad Ghori was fighting the Turks in Central Asia c1200 CE, the expansion in India was continued by Qutab-ud-din Albak. [1] 2. CommanderThere was a commander under Qutab-ud-din Albak who attacked Bihar in 1197 CE. [1] 3. Officer?4. Officer5. Individual soldier [1]: (Nayak ????) Nayak, Ganeswar. ????. Political and Administrative History of Medieval India (1526-1707). SKCG College Paralakhemundi. |
||||||
|
levels."Drawing on the distinctions between depicted warriors in face paint, arms, dress, and shield motifs, Ochatoma and Cabrera (1999:234-5; 2002:240-243) posit that Wari had professional warriors with a military hierarchy."
[1]
From this we can infer there were at least three or four levels:
1. Leader 2. Generals3. Officers (possibly recruited from the elite [2] )4. Professional soldiers [1]: (Arkush 2006, 502) [2]: (Tung 2014) |
||||||
|
levels.: 1. King :: 2. Comitatus (pledged warriors) :: (later called Thegns) “In a society where the success of a ruler and the people dependent upon him derived from effectiveness in war, the relationship of the king with his military followers was of vital importance. Tacitus saw the relationship of king and warband (comitatus) as central to the success and failure of the Germanic provinces he describes. The interaction between the king and his warriors is also a major concern of Old English heroic poetry. Poems like Beowulf stress the reciprocal nature of the relationship of king and comitatus. The followers fought loyally for their lord, but the loyalty had been purchased beforehand by the upkeep the king provided for his warriors and by the giving of gifts; conspicuous acts of loyalty in battle would be rewarded by further gifts-appropriate generosity was what made a ‘good king’. When not in battle, the king’s hall was the place where the necessary bonding of lord and follower occurred. The comitatus ate and slept in the hall at the king’s expense.”
[1]
::: 3. Fryd (standing army)::: The fryd were a standing army always in service. They were divided up to protect the burghs and shires of the kingdom.
[2]
[1]: (Yorke 1990: 17) York, Barbara. 1990. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203447307. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YXTNCWJN [2]: (Baker and Brooks 2015: 229) Baker, John and Brookes, Stuart. “Explaining Anglo-Saxon Military Efficiency: The Landscape of Mobilization”, Anglo-Saxon England 44 (December 2015): 221–58, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263675100080121. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/5LN4TEJV |
||||||
|
levels.
(31) Prominent War-Leaders; (2) Local Headmen and Leaders (Kakaram; Kuraka); (3) Citizen-soldiers or Warriors Shuar military organization was informal, given the political autonomy of local groups: ’The Jivaro lack any formal political organization, although an informal form of leadership is found in the role of individuals referred to as UNYÄ ("big" or "old" men) or KAKARAM ("powerful" or "powerful ones") who are renown as killers in feuds or war, or exercise important shamanistic powers in the community. These individuals acquire their reputation in the community by being old enough to have grandchildren, and are friendly, honest, and generous in dealing with others in the society. Because of these characteristics the UNYÄ or KAKARAM are believed to possess great ARUTAM soul power and the ability to curse to death anyone who incurs their anger. Generally most neighborhoods have at least one or two UNYÄ as well as a few superior shamans who provide protection for their relatives or other individuals with whom they are on friendly terms.’ [1] ’Each community is politically independent with its own headman. Each is also located four or more kilometers from their nearest neighboring community. The community is made up of patrilineally and affinally related individuals, traditionally consisting of from 80 to 300 people (30 to 40 people in the twentieth century), living in one house called a JIVARIA. For defensive purposes, this house is built on a steep hill usually at the upper end of a stream. The house itself is approximately 13 meters by 26 meters in size, elliptical in shape, and has a thatched roof. In times of war, two or more communities united to fight a common enemy, as was the case when the Spanish attempted to conquer them.’ [1] ’Their society is thus based on the family and the blood tie. Only such sub-tribes as recognize some sort of consanguinity display a feeling of solidarity: the rest, although they speak the same language, are looked upon, not only as outsiders, but as downright natural enemies, a feature which will be further illustrated in the part dealing with their wars. It is as a rule between the different sub-tribes that the wars of extermination have occurred.’ [2] Warriors were accordingly male members of feuding communities: ’The terrible custom demands ever new, ever more victims, all security must disappear, every individual constantly lives in danger of being ambushed; there is a general and permanent state of war. Hence the arrangement of the houses, one door of which can be used for flight, while the battle rages at the other; hence the customs mentioned at the beginning in connection with approaching a dwelling, for the protection of which, in addition, a pack of half-wild dogs are kept. A quarrel between two families must lead to battles between whole tribes; larger groups of tribes become hostile to one another; war and battle become customary, a man’s lifework. A longer period of quiet, of peace, must be unbearable for such a nation of warriors. Ambitious, bold leaders will easily find companions for joint war expeditions; the neighboring nations are attacked and plundered. Thus, these Indians are carrying on among themselves a war of annihilation which must gradually bring about their own downfall. Severe depopulation is already noticeable in the region of the Jívaros, and it is being accelerated by epidemics, of the diseases introduced by the Europeans, which appear with great violence at times.’ [3] Warfare was deeply connected to headhunting: ’The primary motivation for warfare is to secure as many human heads as possible from an alien tribe, and secondarily to capture women. The acquisition of territory had never been a motive for engaging in warfare. The war party, consisting of approximately thirty or forty men, is recruited from the community itself or from friendly neighborhoods nearby, and is usually led by the or as war leader or chief. Actual warfare consists of preliminary ceremonies involving ritualized chanting, surprise attacks against one or two enemy houses, the killing and decapitation of the inhabitants or the occasional capture of a girl or woman as an extra wife, and the preparation of the on the return to the home village. Unlike many of the warlike Amazon tribes captives are not tortured or sacrificed, nor is cannibalism practiced.’ [1] Local leaders and chiefs often combined ’political’ and ’military’ duties rather than separating them: ’“The dignity of a chieftain is hereditary in a relative sense, in so far that the son of a chief is generally elected chief in time of war after his father has died or grown decrepit. This, however, can only take place if he has proved a valiant and skilled warrior and has killed enemies. No Jibaro is selected as a chief if he has not killed at least one enemy. The Jibaros have absolute faith in the heritability of prominent qualities, and ascribe extraordinary importance to education and the power of example. The son of a great chief, they say, must necessarily also become an able warrior because he is, as it were, a direct continuation of his father, has received a careful education for the deeds of war, and has always had the good example of his great father before his eyes.”’ [4] In times of war against external colonial enemies or larger tribal groups, different communities combined to attach themselves to a common war-leader, although even those arrangements were fluid and often of an ad hoc character. [Family and local leadership can extend beyond a single community; even in recent times (ie, in the 1970’s) some particularly strong men could aggregate several local groups in conflict situations and lead quite large war parties; however, such positions were unstable and rarely lasted more than a few years, if that. The definition of ‘community’ is highly relative; ‘my people’ can include a single nuclear family, or a collection of communities temporarily coalesced around a powerful war leader.] ’Still, as appears from their history, there have been occasions when they have been able to overcome the natural antipathy separating them from one another, and to unite against a common enemy. This common enemy has been the white man, who has so often threatened [184] the liberty of the people; but the alliances, such as that for instance in 1599, have been exceptional and wholly due to the influence of a single, eminent personality.”’ [5] ’ ’When a whole tribe, or perhaps several tribes together, prepare a war against one or more other tribes, the first thing done is to elect a common chief. He should be an elderly, experienced man, who has taken part in several wars, killed many enemies, and celebrated at least one victory feast. The rest of the warriors, who are generally younger men, swear him unlimited obedience. During the time the expedition is planned and the preparations are made, the warriors, and especially the chief, repeatedly drink maikoa or natéma to consult the spirits. They pay great attention to their dreams, even to those not produced under the direct influence of the narcotic drinks, tell them to each other, and discuss their possible significance. Only if they believe that they have received favourable answers and all omens are good are measures taken to carry out the war plan conceived. Meanwhile they try, through spies, to acquire as accurate a knowledge as possible about everything concerning the enemy: how many houses there are in the tract, how many fighting men in each house, if the houses are fortified, if the [283] men are well armed, and especially if they have firearms. All these and similar details the spies investigate by making trips into the country of the enemy and by stealing at night to the houses. Everything is prepared with the greatest secrecy possible, so that the enemy is caught unprepared, for otherwise he will have time to take measures of defence that may defeat the whole undertaking.”’ [6] ’“The authority of the chief elected for a war is very great. It is he alone who arranges everything for the expedition planned, who decides [268] about the time for and the mode of making the attack, and the younger warriors oblige themselves to obey him in everything. But as soon as a war has been carried to a successful end the power of the chief ceases, and he has, in spite of the great repute he always enjoys, no more authority or right to decide about the doings of his tribesmen than any other family-father among the Jibaros.”’ [7] Ecuador recognized some of those leaders as regional head-chiefs: ’Four or five years ago there was a strong chief on the Upano River named Tuki, known to the Ecuadoreans as José Grande. In the manner previously described, all of the curakas from Macas on the Upano River to Mendez on the Paute River became subchiefs under him until he was generally recognized as the strongest of all of the Jivaro curakas. However, he was beginning to grow old by this time and some of his subcurakas were strong men in their own right. About 2 years ago, Ambusha, who had been gradually gaining in power and becoming famous for his head-hunting activities, split off with his own group, taking several curakas and their men with him. A little later Utita did the same thing. At the time of the writer’s visit (1931), although Tuki was recognized by the Government of Ecuador as being head chief of the Macas-Mendez region, actually he had lost all power excepting that over his own family group and was in reality no more than a capito. These divisions of the organization, if it may be termed such, took place apparently without any ill-feeling or formal announcements.’ [8] [1]: Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Jivaro [2]: Karsten, Rafael 1935. “Head-Hunters Of Western Amazonas: The Life And Culture Of The Jibaro Indians Of Eastern Ecuador And Peru”, 183p [3]: Reiss, W. (Wilhelm) 1880. “Visit Among The Jivaro Indians”, 13 [4]: Karsten, Rafael 1935. “Head-Hunters Of Western Amazonas: The Life And Culture Of The Jibaro Indians Of Eastern Ecuador And Peru”, 267 [5]: Karsten, Rafael 1935. “Head-Hunters Of Western Amazonas: The Life And Culture Of The Jibaro Indians Of Eastern Ecuador And Peru", 183p [6]: Karsten, Rafael 1935. “Head-Hunters Of Western Amazonas: The Life And Culture Of The Jibaro Indians Of Eastern Ecuador And Peru", 282p [7]: Karsten, Rafael 1935. “Head-Hunters Of Western Amazonas: The Life And Culture Of The Jibaro Indians Of Eastern Ecuador And Peru”, 267p [8]: Stirling, Matthew Williams 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians”, 40 |
||||||
|
There does not seem to have been a separate military hierarchy, so this estimate is based on a modified version of the administrative hierarchy, in which the kalaimoku is given greater weight because of his role as adviser in times of war.
1. Ali’i nui"At the apex of the polity sat the king, the ali’i nui or ’great ali’i,’ [...]. The al’i nui ruled over the entire mokupuni [island], assisted by various administrative aides." [1] 2. Kalaimoku"The kālaimoku was charged with advising the king on all secular affairs, including war. Among his chief duties was to oversee the royal storehouses ’in which to collect food, fish, tapa [barkcloth], malo [loincloths], pa-u [female skirts], and all sorts of goods’ (Malo 1951:195). Only the kālaimoku had the regular privilege of holding secret meetings with the king, and he controlled the access of other al’i to royal audiences." [2] 3. Governors inferred ??? 3. Ali’i-’ai-moku"The districts (moku) into which the kingdom was divided were each under the control of a major chief of high rank, called the ali’i-’ai-moku. The operative term ’ai in this compound term has the core meaning of both ’food’ and ’eat’ but with metaphoric extensions connoting to ’consume,’ ’grasp,’ or ’hold onto’ (Pukui and Elbert 1986:9). Thus the figurative extension of ’ai includes ’to rule, reign, or enjoy the privileges and exercise the responsibilities of rule.’ The term ali’i-’ai-moku might thus be simply translated ’ruler of the moku,’ but as in many Hawaiian expressions there are layers of kaona, ’hidden meanings’, folded in. He is as well the chief who ’eats’ the district (recall the metaphor of the chief as land shark), and literally ’eats from’ its productions." [1] 4. Ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a"[T]he more numerous ahupua’a territories were apportioned to chiefs who were called the ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a, the chiefs who “ate” the ahupua’a. Low-ranked chiefs might hold just a single, marginal land unit, but more powerful and higher-ranked ali’i frequently held more than one ahupua’a." [1] [1]: (Kirch 2010, 48) [2]: (Kirch 2010, 50) |
||||||
|
levels.
Only reference to professional and standing army in early West Africa is Askia Muhammed Toure (r.1493-1529 CE) of the Songhai Empire who "created a professional full-time army" [1] and "standing army" [2] 1. King 2. Loyal clan leaders inferred3. intermediate level? inferred4. Individual soldier "The kingdoms which began to emerge in the Sudan about the end of the first millennium and the great ’empires’ - Ghana, Mali, Songhai - which played so large a part in the medieval history of West Africa differed in many ways from the modern nation-state. One must not think of them as compact and homogenous units. ’The Sudanese Empire’, Trimingham has pointed out, ’was an amorphous agglomeration of kin-groups having little in common except mythical recognition of a far-off suzerain.’ Such empires had no precise boundaries, for ’the ruler was not interested in dominating territory as such, but in relationship with social groups upon whom he could draw to provide levies in time of war, servants for his courts and cultivators to keep his granaries full.’" [3] [1]: (Conrad 2010, 66) [2]: (Lapidus 2012, 593) [3]: (Bovill 1958, 55) |
||||||
|
levels.: 1. King :: 2. Comitatus (pledged warriors) :: (later called Thegns) “In a society where the success of a ruler and the people dependent upon him derived from effectiveness in war, the relationship of the king with his military followers was of vital importance. Tacitus saw the relationship of king and warband (comitatus) as central to the success and failure of the Germanic provinces he describes. The interaction between the king and his warriors is also a major concern of Old English heroic poetry. Poems like Beowulf stress the reciprocal nature of the relationship of king and comitatus. The followers fought loyally for their lord, but the loyalty had been purchased beforehand by the upkeep the king provided for his warriors and by the giving of gifts; conspicuous acts of loyalty in battle would be rewarded by further gifts-appropriate generosity was what made a ‘good king’. When not in battle, the king’s hall was the place where the necessary bonding of lord and follower occurred. The comitatus ate and slept in the hall at the king’s expense.”
[1]
::: 3. Fryd (standing army)::: The fryd were a standing army always in service. They were divided up to protect the burghs and shires of the kingdom.
[2]
[1]: (Yorke 1990: 17) York, Barbara. 1990. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203447307. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YXTNCWJN [2]: (Baker and Brooks 2015: 229) Baker, John and Brookes, Stuart. “Explaining Anglo-Saxon Military Efficiency: The Landscape of Mobilization”, Anglo-Saxon England 44 (December 2015): 221–58, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263675100080121. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/5LN4TEJV |
||||||
|
levels.
1. District Chiefs 2. Local Headmen and Sub-Chiefs 3. Groups of Armed Men or Citizen-Soldiers There were no troops or police forces in the native system: ’There were no police. A chief’s brothers or sons might act on his behalf to intimidate or attack someone who had offended him. But it was control of magical power, either by the chief or one his brothers or sons, that made improper conduct liable to punishment. Major craft specialists could also make ill those who violated the taboos of their craft. Finally, members of chiefly lineages and their close associates were likely to have knowledge of sorcery. All such knowledge gave punitive power to chiefs and important specialists. People stressed maintaining the appearance of propriety in behavior so as not to give just cause for offense.’ [1] Prior to ’pacification’, violent conflict played out in raids and battles between rival groups of armed men: ’Within districts, conflict arose over land, succession to chiefship, theft, adultery, and avenging homicide. Between districts, it arose over attentions to local women by outside men, the status of one district as subordinate to another, and rights of access to fishing areas. Formal procedures for terminating conflict between districts involved payments of valuables and land by the loosing to the winning side. Fighting involved surprise raids and prearranged meetings on a field of battle. Principle weapons were slings, spears, and clubs. Firearms, introduced late in the nineteenth century, were confiscated by German authorities in 1903. Martial arts included an elaborate system of throws and holds by which an unarmed man could kill, maim or disarm an armed opponent.’ [1] Competition between rival chiefs over the control of land and people was a major factor: ’Traditional Micronesian life was characterized by a belief in the stability of society and culture. People suffered occasional natural disasters, such as cyclones or droughts, but their goal after encountering one of these was to reconstitute the previous state of affairs. Wars occurred in most areas from time to time, mainly at the instigation of competing chiefs. At stake was the control of land—a limited resource—and followers, but there were usually few casualties. Living in small communities on small territories, Micronesians learned to adjust to their neighbours, to remain on good terms with most of them most of the time, and to develop techniques of reconciliation when fights did break out. Micronesians traditionally depended on the cultivation of plant crops and on fishing in shallow reef waters. Because arable land was in short supply for the relatively dense population, Micronesians had a strong practical basis for their attachment to locality and lands. Land rights were usually held through lineages or extended family groups, often backed up by traditions of ancestral origins on the land.’ [2] Conflict among chiefs and their followers did not terminate entirely with ’pacification’, although the population was disarmed in the early 20th century: ’In 1904 the disarming of the Truk people was undertaken by the “Kondor.” There were 436 guns and 2,531 cartridges confiscated. For better control the government appointed six head-chiefs, banished some swashbucklers who did not want to submit, and turned out the Japanese. With this a peaceful development was initiated. The missions (Protestant mission since 1879, Catholic mission since 1912) were able to work undisturbed. Unfortunately, the German government took little notice of Truk, since it was too preoccupied with the other islands. Yet many things were accomplished. Under the last director of the station, A. Überhorst, the lagoon was given new impetus in every respect. The relationship between officials and the population was usually a good one, under Mr. Überhorst even a cordial one. Anyone who was on Truk in those years certainly did not see any bad treatment of the natives. Much was done also with regard to health; in particular Dr. Mayer and his wife traveled from island to island without rest in order to take care of the sick. If during the Japanese occupation a young naval officer was not ashamed to assert that the Germans had done nothing for the islands, anyone who lived on the islands during the Japanese period can only say from the heart: “God protect the poor Truk people under the Japanese.”’ [3] ’On the main islands the German government introduced head chiefs (somol lap) who carried the flag. There were six of them, one each on Poloas, Uman, Fefan, Wöla, Udot, and Pol /Pul/. The smaller islands likewise belonged to the sphere of power of the head chiefs. But even this institution could not link the tribes together within themselves or with one another. Some of the lower chiefs sympathize with the head chief for egotistical reasons; others fight against him violently for the same reasons. One who is with him today might be against him tomorrow because he somehow stepped on his toes. It is often enough for the subchief to fight the head chief if his neighboring chief supports him. Thus the picture is constantly changing. [Page 125] There is a continuous, sometimes quiet, sometimes open, warfare of the subchiefs against the head chiefs, the lower chiefs among themselves, the common people against the chiefs. The main reason for this disagreeable phenomenon is the limitless egotism of the Truk people. Everyone strives more or less to be something of a chief also. Strong families who do not like the chief attempt to isolate themselves and choose one from their midst. In addition to this, there are also old family enmities and disputes about land. It is obvious that the islands will never be able to achieve peaceful development in this manner. It is difficult to say who is most to blame for it. In any case the chiefs are not to be pitied, because they behave themselves accordingly. They are to be blamed mostly for the exploitation of the people, their corruptibility, and partiality. Many of them unhesitatingly accept money and objects and help the giver, no matter how many times he is in the wrong.’ [4] We have assumed that the institution of district chief predates the colonial period. [1]: Goodenough, Ward and Skoggard 1999) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/5IETI75E. [2]: (Kahn, Fischer and Kiste 2017) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XHZTEDKE. [3]: Bollig, Laurentius 1927. “Inhabitants Of The Truk Islands: Religion, Life And A Short Grammar Of A Micronesian People”, 253 [4]: Bollig, Laurentius 1927. “Inhabitants Of The Truk Islands: Religion, Life And A Short Grammar Of A Micronesian People”, 124 |
||||||
|
levels.
Only reference to professional and standing army in early West Africa is Askia Muhammed Toure (r.1493-1529 CE) of the Songhai Empire who "created a professional full-time army" [1] and "standing army" [2] 1. King 2. Loyal clan leaders inferred3. intermediate level? inferred4. Individual soldier "The kingdoms which began to emerge in the Sudan about the end of the first millennium and the great ’empires’ - Ghana, Mali, Songhai - which played so large a part in the medieval history of West Africa differed in many ways from the modern nation-state. One must not think of them as compact and homogenous units. ’The Sudanese Empire’, Trimingham has pointed out, ’was an amorphous agglomeration of kin-groups having little in common except mythical recognition of a far-off suzerain.’ Such empires had no precise boundaries, for ’the ruler was not interested in dominating territory as such, but in relationship with social groups upon whom he could draw to provide levies in time of war, servants for his courts and cultivators to keep his granaries full.’" [3] [1]: (Conrad 2010, 66) [2]: (Lapidus 2012, 593) [3]: (Bovill 1958, 55) |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from similarity in military organization with otehr poilities from the region during this period
|
||||||
|
levels.
No data. Given the administrative complexity a range of [3-6] should cover most possibilities. |
||||||
|
levels. In the Neo-Elamite 2 period, there were 4 levels:
[1] 1. General 2. ’tashlishu-official’3. Commanders4. Individual Soldiers (predominantly bowmen) [1]: Brinkman, J. A. 1986. The Elamite-Babylonian frontier in the Neo-Elamite Period, 750-625 BC. In DeMeyer, Gasche and Vallat (eds.) Fragmenta Historia Elamica, Festschrift, p199-207 |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred that military organization would be roughly similar to that of the Akkadian Empire for which we have data.
|
||||||
|
levels. Inferred that military organization would be roughly similar to that of the Akkadian Empire for which we have data.
|
||||||
|
The earliest evidence for a “bureaucratic machinery” appears to date to the late fifth century CE
[1]
"The Kofun period is commonly regarded as the state formation phase." [2] Later-era documents "describe the Kofun-period elites as horse-riding, armored, sword- and bow-wielding warriors who organized themselves into military clans. They quickly dominated the Yayoi cultures and laid the foundation of the latter-day rise of the samurai." [3] Early in period? 3. warrior leader 2. ?1. soldier Later in period? 4. Warrior leader 3. Commander2. Officer -- more than one level?1. soldier The discovery of bronze weapons in the tombs of people, which likely belonging to the local elite, suggests the presence of war leaders. The Kofun period was characterized by heated competition and conlict among different chiefdoms [4] [5] . [1]: (Steenstrup 2011, 11) [2]: (Mizoguchi 2013, 26) Mizoguchi, Koji. 2013. The Archaeology of Japan: From the Earliest Rice Farming Villages to the Rise of the State. Cambridge University Press. [3]: (Jones 2015, 87-88) Jones, David. 2015. Martial Arts Training in Japan: A Guide for Westerners. Tuttle Publishing. [4]: G. Barnes, 2007. State formation in Japan: Emergence of a 4th-century ruling elite. Routledge, 136. [5]: K. Mizoguchi, 2013. The Archaeology of Japan. From the Earliest Rice Farming Villages to the Rise of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 286,297. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Ruler 2.3.4. |
||||||
|
1. Chief
2.3.4. Individual soldier The same situation as in the case of priests - cuneiform tablets do not inform about military hierarchy in Anatolian kingdoms. The only thing we have is a position of ’chief of man’ called rabi şabim, who is thought to have been responsible for workforce in harvesting and building, and it is assumed also in military force. [1] [1]: Dercksen J. G. 2004. Some Elements of Old Anatolian Sofiety in Kaniš. [in:] J. G. Dercksen (ed.) Assyria and beyond: studies presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen. Leiden: NINO, pg. 151-153 |
||||||
|
levels.
(3) Former Chieftains, Bishops and Royal Officials; (2) Lieutenants; (1) Retainers ’For the late Commonwealth there should be 3 levels but it is uncertain whether this continued after the end of the Commonwealth. Warfare became much more constricted after about 1250 and the powerful men of the Late Middle Ages probably relied on relatively small bands of retainers (sveinar). However these bands may have been commanded by professional officers (other than the lords themselves) and this is virtually certain in the case of bishops’ retainers.’ [1] We have retined three levels for the time being, but this is open to review. The system of former chieftains and other prominent figures supported by a group of armed followers rather than military forces continued during the Norwegian period: ’During the first years following the establishment of the union conditions in Iceland remained quite unchanged. The godords were still in the hands of the leading chieftains. Gizur, who was to exercise the highest authority as jarl, was unpopular, and his power was very limited. Royal commissioners were sent to Iceland to exercise control with or without his consent, and and he had to share his nominal authority with the powerful Oddaverjar chieftains of southern Iceland, Hrafn Oddsson of the Borgarfjord district, and Orm Ormsson of eastern Iceland. The king regarded him with suspicion; the chieftains hated him because of his rank and title; opposition and difficulties confronted him everywhere. Even his own character and previous record rendered him unfit to maintain peace and order, which was his principal official duty. He was unable to see the need of any change in the general régime, and the last chapter of his stormy life formed a fitting close to the drama of bloody feuds in which he had played so conspicuous a part. Shortly after the meeting of the Althing of 1264, while visiting in southern Iceland, he was suddenly attacked by Thord Andrisson, the head of the Oddaverjar family. With great difficulty he escaped from his assailants, and after gathering an army of 750 men he cruelly ravged the Rangarvalla district, where the Oddaverjar chieftains were dwelling.’ [2] ’After Gizur’s death no new jarl was appointed, and for a time there was no real head of Icelandic affairs. In 1267 Orm Ormsson and Thorvard Thorarinsson went to Norway, Hrafn Oddsson following in 1268. Both Hrafn and Orm seem to have aspired to succeed Gizur, but the king found it advisable not to elevate another chieftain to the rank of jarl, as the title had been very unpopular. After some delay, and probably with the advice of Sturla Thordsson, he gave both ranks as hirdmenn and placed them in charge of Icelandic affairs with no other title than that of valdsmadr, or royal magistrate. Hrafs was to govern the western and Orm the eastern districts. Hrafn assumed the duties of his office, but Orm was drowned shortly after his appointment, probably on the homeward voyage.’ [3] ’The leading writer in Iceland at this time was Sturla Thordsson, second only to Snorri himself as a historian. Hrafn Oddsson’s appointment as governor of the Borgarfjord district had made him so dissatisfied that against his better judgment he was presuaded by his son Snorri, a violent youth, to join him in an expedition against Hrafn. This proved a failure, as he had predicted. Snorri was captured, and Sturla himself was forced to leave Iceland, 1263.’ [4] ’He invited Thord and his brothers to a peace conference, but when they came, he pursued his usual tactics and made them prisoners. They were disarmed and condemned to death, but the pleadings of his own men finally moved him to spare the lives of all except Thord, who was executed.’ [5] Despite of occasional armed conflict between prominent leaders, the practice of feuding was largely discontinued under Norwegian rule: ’The royal executive authority and the new efficiency of the courts of law created through the union with Norway terminated the bloody feuds which had hitherto raged between the Icelandic chieftains. An uneventful era of peace followed the turmoils of the Sturlung period. Even the struggle between church and state was now adjusted so that economic life and the pursuits of peace could receive the undivided attention of the people. But the few sources which deal with the political conditions in Iceland during the years following the death of Bishop Arni show that conditions created by the union were causing dissatisfaction and unrest. The chief cause of public discontent was the unsatisfactory arrangement with regard to commerce, the insufficient Norwegian exports to Iceland, together with the policy pursued by the Norwegian government of bringing Icelanders to Norway for trial, and of appointing Norwegians for sýslumenn and lawmen, contrary to the spirit of the union agreement. The chieftains undoubtedly had thought that their political and social organization would be left undisturbed under the union; that they would only be required to pledge their allegiance to the king, pay him taxes, and receive a jarl as his personal representative, as the union agreement expressly stated. But the most far-reaching changes had been wrought. The godors had been abolished, the Althing had been reorganized, Norwegian jurisprudence had been introduced, Norwegians had been appointed to the leading public offices, and Icelanders had been summoned abroad for trial. The Norwegian government had shown an unmistakable disposition to treat Iceland as a dependency.’ [6] Royal officials employed coercive measures for the purpose of the maintenance of law and order: ’The willingness of the king to grant privileges to the church hitherto denied reveals a growing indifference of the Norwegian government to the real welfare of Iceland. An administration by royal officials had been established as a result of the union. Two lawmen were appointed by the king, one for the southern and eastern, and one for the western and northern quarters; sýslumenn were appointed as administrative officials for larger districts, as in Norway, and hirdstjórar were placed as royal governors over the island. But Iceland was now treated so much like other dependencies that the chief interest of the government was to secure from its inhabitants revenues for the royal purse. Víseyrir, or taxes payable to the king, were levied upon the whole country, and became a definite income payable to the king’s purse, like the taxes from the Norwegian colonies. This system of taxation gave rise to a royal monopoly on trade with the colonies which proved disastrous to their economic well-being, and hindered their progress. The royal officials usually asserted the authority of the government with stern harshness, and severe punishments for crimes were introduced. In some cases criminals were even buried alive; but law and order were but imperfectly maintained. Even the higher officials themselves would engage in quarrels which sometimes resembled the bloody feuds of earlier periods.’ [7] But no standing armies were stationed on the island, and royal efforts to secure armed support from Icelanders were unsuccessful: ’Nor did Iceland become a part of Norway’s system of national defence. No measures for defence of the country were taken, and it was only on rare occasions that the king attempted to induce the Icelanders to contribute forces or money for the defence of the kingdom, generally with little success.’ [8] ’Strained relations with Denmark and the Hanseatic cities also gave cause for uneasiness and inclined them to favor an adjustment of domestic difficulties. Jarl Alf Erlingsson of Thornberg, who was now the most influential member of the Council, even turned to Iceland to secure military aid for the realm. It was decided that for the defense of the kingdom 240 men should be sent from Iceland, together with those who were otherwise bound to the king’s service. [...] The plan was soon abandoned by the Council, but Arni had earned the king’s good-will by his loyal attitude.’ [9] [1]: Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins [2]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 211p [3]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 213 [4]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 210 [5]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 212 [6]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 227 [7]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 239p [8]: Karlsson, Gunnar 2000. "A Brief History of Iceland", 19 [9]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 222p |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Leaders of Village Clusters; (2) Local War-Leaders or Strategists;(3) Citizen-Soldiers from local communities The Orokaiva did not employ professional military officers in interclan warfare, relying on residential and kin ties as well as informal leadership: ’In interclan warfare, the Binandere organised a division of fighting labour. The first group, the scouts, were sent ahead to kill the scouts of the enemy’s main body. Then there were the front-line fighters, experienced men armed with clubs/spears and shields, forming the vanguard. Then there was a group of young people and men who had not killed. They beat drums, blew conch shells, sang war songs and generally used sound to frighten the enemy. Full-scale tribal warfare required the addition of two more groups. Firstly, sorcerers were carried on roofed litters from which they attempted to ward off enemy spirits. Being ritually pure they could have no contact with water. They ate only baked taro or bananas with coconut juice as well as much ginger. The second additional group were the strategists who were vital for long-drawn-out battles. This small group planned tactics, directed the front line and organised ambush killings and so on (1972:13-25).’ [1] ’Kinship and local affiliation together were the basic principles by which subgroups of the raiding party seem to have been drawn up during attack and on which leaders within the party based their rights to command specific combatants.’ [2] ’Waiko (1972) describes in detail the warfare of the Binandere, a society which like the ancient Spartans was reputed to practise infanticide on weak or deformed sons (Monckton 1922:130). Training for warfare began at an early age for boys. At about 12 years old they began living together in a men’s house and learning to dodge spears and to hold shields. Eventually they were required to prove themselves by killing a person in a raid (Waiko 1972:21). Part of the education imparted to the youths in the house was their primary duty to take revenge for the death of a clan member. A clan victim represented the clan and failure to avenge his death badly weakened their prestige and status. Killings had up to two generations delayed payback (1972:24-5).’ [3] There was no supralocal tribal leadership: ’There were ordinarily no persons who could command the allegiance of the tribe as a whole, nor was there any status with authority to effect the settlement of disputes between different subgroups or their individual members. Sometimes persistent intratribal conflicts led to short-term migration or to a splinter-group’s secession from the tribe. However, these disturbances were very minor in comparison with the ‘flight, dispersal and migration’ in general resulting from incessant intertribal feuds (see p. 35).’ [2] Some sources report the formation of ad hoc confederacies for the purpose of combat, but these seem to relate to geographical area rather than tribal institutions: ’Williams ascribes the formation of ‘somewhat loose’ and temporary ‘confederacies of clans’, which conducted raids upon the tribe’s kitoho, to a local spirit. But it is not clear whether by this he means the identification of members of a tribe with one territory or the unity of the ‘locality group’ which usually takes in a number of ‘clan-village units’ (see p.34) and which he describes as a more restricted ‘sympathy-group’ than the tribe (1930:107, 157, 163, 309-12). When he states (1925:407) that ‘over and above clan patriarchs there are recognised leaders of small clan confederacies and even - in war-time - of tribes’, he seems to equate the tribe with the district among the mountain Orokaiva (in particular Wasida and Isivita; see W.23, 124).’ [4] During the colonial period, a constabulary was formed: ’Thus, in the initial contact period, there were two major influences on the Orokaivan social order. First, the narrow moral universe of pre-contact days was widened. Orokaivans united in attempts to repulse the European intruders and also began to modify their traditional magic to improve taro. New spiritual rationale and ritual for these taro cults quickly spread through the Division after pacification. Some Orokaivans united with Europeans as armed constabulary or as friends and defenders of the missionaries.’ [5] [Janice Newton (pers. comm.): After official British annexation in 1884 and Crown colony status in 1888, in 1890 a police force was formed and a Resident Magistrate appointed for each administrative division. It seems there was not much training. The early constabulary were taught a little English and some of the rules for living like the white man (latrines, cleanliness etc). The British administration appointed village officials, village constables and armed constabulary. Often the Orokaivans were captured, taken back to stations taught some English and some of the English ways and laws. Imprisonment of villagers for offences was another way of imparting British principles of law. By 1924 many adult males had passed through the Armed Constabulary and hardly an adult male had not worked for Europeans (Cyndi Banks Women in Transition: Social Control in PNG Australian Institute of Criminology 1993).] In this case, a clear-cut distinction between law enforcement and military is hard to establish. In World War II, Orokaiva men were drafted into the Australian colonial army: ’The war of 1939-1945 affected the Yega in several important ways. Their territory became one of the major battlefields of the Pacific War. Every person migrated from the area with the exception of one old crippled woman who somehow managed to survive for eighteen months in the bush. Almost all able-bodied men served in the army or labour corps and the women and children lived at another Anglican mission about thirty miles to the north. When they returned, they found all buildings, and any belongings that they had left behind, destroyed and most of their coconut palms cut down or damaged by gunfire. There were some compensations. The Australian Government paid thousands of dollars in war-damage compensation for all trees and property but, more important, the stimulus of travel, and meeting and working with Australian and American soldiers, gave the younger men in particular a broader view of life which triggered off changes in their traditional economy. In addition, the transfer of the Administrative headquarters from Buna to Higaturu resulted in the construction of a major road to the port of Cape Killerton and brought the Yega into closer touch with the outside world than ever before. As a result, between 1945 and 1950, about twenty families left their re-built villages and moved east to found the new village of Surilai at Cape Killerton (Fig. 9).’ [6] Orokaiva men also worked as carriers, although their loyalties as a group were at times ambiguous: ’Those in the Northern Division saw the Japanese invasion, bloody fighting and occupation by Allied forces. This led to the peculiar position where the Orokaivans were seen as ‘fuzzy wuzzy angels’ as well as traitors and murderers. ‘Fuzzy wuzzy angel’ was a nickname given to conscripted carriers who demonstrated remarkable solicitude for the wounded whom they carried during the battle on the Kokoda Trail, and who showed considerable endurance in carrying both men and supplies for the Allies over the four months from July until October 1942. The Japanese presence in Northern Division did, however, lead to a reassessment of loyalties on the part of the Orokaivans and the consequent betrayal of some Allied personnel.’ [7] Orokaivas were conscripted into many non-combat roles as well: ’During the heavy fighting, most villagers had fled to garden houses where they could hide safely. However, in June 1942, there was an order made that ‘any native might be conscripted to serve anywhere in the Territories or Papua or New Guinea, more or less on any conditions imposed by the District Officers’. Carriers had worked so well during the Kokoda campaign that officials of the Australian New Guinea Army Unit (ANGAU) were keen to recruit more (Army File 285/1/680A; Benson 1957:18; Ryan 1969). Those men who were able to avoid the physical confrontations of the war by hiding in rough garden shelters for the duration could not avoid the consequences of the war. They became subject to conscription for work on plantations, for carrying, for malaria control and for clearing and construction work until the war was over (Army File 5/3/147).’ [8] The code reflects intertribal warfare rather than the Constabulary and colonial armed forces or the World War situation (and may therefore be somewhat dated). Both were realities of the colonial period. Some information on the Constabulary was included under ’Professions’. [Jonathan Ritchie (pers. comm.): On the military, I think pre-War this means the Police… and during the War, we’re looking at the Papuan Infantry Battalion - perhaps either Jim Sinclair’s To Find a Path - The Life and Times of the Royal Pacific Islands Regiment or G.M. Byrnes’ Green Shadows will help? The first recruits for the PIB were 70 from the Buna area - who I think were all drawn from the Royal Papuan Constabulary - who came in July 1940, supplemented by another 62 in May 1941. ’Military training was carried out until August 28, 1940 when everybody was put on road construction. During November, 24-hour guard duty was ordered at key points in the Port area [of Port Moresby]…. Until the end of August 1941 the guarding of vulnerable points, together with working parties on roads and wharves and training were the duties of the battalion. During September the battalion was allotted the defence area from Napa Napa to Jolers Bay. Recce (Reconnaissance) parties covered this area and the two companies moved out to positions in the allotted areas and began constructing tactical roads and defence positions. Working parties were practically discontinued as guard duties and intensive training were the order of the day.’ (from Byrnes, pp. 5-6).] [1]: Newton, Janice 1983. “Orokaiva Warfare And Production”, 490 [2]: Rimoldi, Max, Cromwell Burau, and Robert Ferraris 1966. “Land Tenure And Land Use Among The Mount Lamington Orokaiva”, 30 [3]: Newton, Janice 1983. “Orokaiva Warfare And Production”, 489 [4]: Rimoldi, Max, Cromwell Burau, and Robert Ferraris 1966. “Land Tenure And Land Use Among The Mount Lamington Orokaiva”, 36 [5]: Newton, Janice 1985. “Orokaiva Production And Change”, 34 [6]: Dakeyne, R. B. 1969. “Village And Town In New Guinea”, 13 [7]: Newton, Janice 1985. “Orokaiva Production And Change”, 43 [8]: Newton, Janice 1985. “Orokaiva Production And Change”, 46 |
||||||
|
There does not seem to have been a separate military hierarchy, so this estimate is based on a modified version of the administrative hierarchy, in which the kalaimoku is given greater weight because of his role as adviser in times of war.
1. Ali’i nui"At the apex of the polity sat the king, the ali’i nui or ’great ali’i,’ [...]. The al’i nui ruled over the entire mokupuni [island], assisted by various administrative aides." [1] 2. Kalaimoku"The kālaimoku was charged with advising the king on all secular affairs, including war. Among his chief duties was to oversee the royal storehouses ’in which to collect food, fish, tapa [barkcloth], malo [loincloths], pa-u [female skirts], and all sorts of goods’ (Malo 1951:195). Only the kālaimoku had the regular privilege of holding secret meetings with the king, and he controlled the access of other al’i to royal audiences." [2] 3. Ali’i-’ai-moku"The districts (moku) into which the kingdom was divided were each under the control of a major chief of high rank, called the ali’i-’ai-moku. The operative term ’ai in this compound term has the core meaning of both ’food’ and ’eat’ but with metaphoric extensions connoting to ’consume,’ ’grasp,’ or ’hold onto’ (Pukui and Elbert 1986:9). Thus the figurative extension of ’ai includes ’to rule, reign, or enjoy the privileges and exercise the responsibilities of rule.’ The term ali’i-’ai-moku might thus be simply translated ’ruler of the moku,’ but as in many Hawaiian expressions there are layers of kaona, ’hidden meanings’, folded in. He is as well the chief who ’eats’ the district (recall the metaphor of the chief as land shark), and literally ’eats from’ its productions." [1] 3. Ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a"[T]he more numerous ahupua’a territories were apportioned to chiefs who were called the ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a, the chiefs who “ate” the ahupua’a. Low-ranked chiefs might hold just a single, marginal land unit, but more powerful and higher-ranked ali’i frequently held more than one ahupua’a." [1] [1]: (Kirch 2010, 48) [2]: (Kirch 2010, 50) |
||||||
|
1.King
2. nobles3. officers. Throughout Egyptian history, the army was a multi-purpose organization which was engaged for civil works labour projects, defence and campaigns. Soldiers were responsible for transportation of monuments and quarried stone, large irrigation works and land reclamation. The dual purpose of the army was reflected in the hierarchy with the high "brass" as likely to be administrators as fighters. [1] [1]: (Gnirs 2001) |
||||||
|
levels.
Nomarch, top military officer (such as Djary under Intef II) and inferred ranks below. |
||||||
|
levels.
"The Halstatt Princedoms of continental Europe were brought down during the 5th century BC by the rise of groups of Celtic peoples whose social structure was dominated by a warrior aristocracy." [1] Lead into battle by chieftains such as Brennas at the Battle of the Allia (390 BCE) against Rome. [2] Military: "Deployment would probably have been by tribal contingents. Within these contingents, clans would deploy as separate bodies ... To identify each grouping in the battle line and to act as rallying points, the guardian deities of tribe and clan were carried into battle as standards topped with carved or cast figures of their animal forms." [3] [1]: (Allen 2007, 61) [2]: (Kruta 2004, 66) [3]: (Allen 2007, 123) |
||||||
|
levels.
(3) the Warrior Council; (2) War-Leaders (non-hereditary); (1) Warrior Volunteers or Citizen-Soldiers; The political organization distinguished between villages, tribes, and the common confederate level: ’THE POLITICAL ORGANIZATION of the Iroquois--the system by which decisions were made about problems affecting village, tribe, or confederacy --had three levels. The town or village itself decided local issues like the use of nearby hunting lands, the relocation of houses and cornfields, movement to another site, the acceptance or rejection of visitors, and the raising of war parties. There was a village chiefs’ council, numbering up to twenty men, formally organized with a chairman and one or more representatives for each clan. These chiefs were influential men and women, who might be League sachems, warcaptains, warriors, or simply old men who were looked up to and consulted. The council generally met in the presence of the warriors and the women, and rarely diverged in its decisions from the popular consensus, or at least the majority view. This council met in the village’s ceremonial longhouse, which usually was merely a large dwelling.’ [1] Distinguished war-leaders were eligible for non-hereditary chieftainships: ’The powers and duties of the sachems and chiefs were entirely of a civil character, and confined, by their organic laws, to the affairs of peace. No sachem could go out to war in his official capacity, as a civil ruler. If disposed to take the war-path, he laid aside his civil office, for the time being, and became a common warrior. It becomes an important inquiry, therefore, to ascertain in whom the military power, was vested. The Iroquois had no distinct class of war-chiefs, raised up and set apart to command in time of war; neither do the sachems or chiefs appear to have possessed the power of appointing such persons as they considered suitable to the post of command. All military operations were left entirely to private enterprise, and to the system of voluntary service, the sachems seeking rather to repress and restrain, than to encourage the martial ardor of the people. Their principal war-captains were to be found among he class called chiefs, many of whom were elected to this office in reward for their military achievements. The singular method of warfare among the Iroquois renders it extremely difficult to obtain a complete and satisfactory explanation of the manner in which their varlike operations were conducted. Their whole civil policy was averse to the concentration of power in the hands of any single individual, but inclined to the opposite principle of division among a number of equals; and this policy they carried into their military as well as through their civil organization. Small bands were, in the first instance, organized by individual leaders, each of which, if they were afterwards united upon the same enterprise, continued under its own captain, and the whole force, as well as the conduct of the expedition, was under their joint management. They appointed no one of their number to absolute command, but the general direction was left open to the strongest will, or the most persuasive voice.’ [2] ’When the power of the Ho-de[unknown] -no-sau-nee began to develop, under the new system of oligarchies within an oligarchy, there sprang up around the sachems a class of warriors, distinguished for enterprise upon the war-path, and eloquence in council, who demanded some participation in the administration of public affairs. The serious objections to the enlargement of the number of rulers, involving, as it did, changes in the framework of the government, for a long period enabled the sachems to resist the encroachment. In the progress of events, this class became too powerful to be withstood, and the sachems were compelled to raise them up in the subordinate station of chiefs. The title was purely elective, and the reward of merit. Unlike the sachemships, the name was not hereditary in the tribe or family of the individual, but terminated with the chief himself; unless subsequently bestowed by the tribe upon some other person, to preserve it as one of their illustrious names. These chiefs were originally invested with very limited powers, their principal office being that of advisers and counsellors of the sachems. Having thus obtained a foothold in the government, this class, to the number of which there was no limit, gradually enlarged their influence, and from generation to generation drew nearer to an equality with the sachems themselves. By this innovation the government was liberalized, to the sensible diminution of the power of the sachems, which, at the institution of the League, was extremely arbitrary.’ [3] Warriors were represented in their own councils: ’Closely allied with the Council of Elders was the women’s council who brought the matters up before the council. Lafitau maintained: Separate from both the women’s and elder’s councils was the warriors’ council which sought to influence authority decisions of the council of elders because they were the soldiers or ‘police’ of the village. Their internal affairs idsally were limited to military raids, games, and carrying out the military policy of the council of elders or League Council. In addition to the various councils, asseciations of men and women possibly existed for curing. Lafitau noted “I have been told that they have several sorts of private associations like fraternities” (Ibdd.:476). Fenton speculated that these associations were procursers of the “medicine societies” (Lafitau, 1724, 1:476). However, these associations seem to be the actual medicine societies and as such would have been village groups that criss-cross lineage, clan and moiety statuses.’ [4] [1]: Wallace, Anthony F. C., and Sheila K. Steen 1969. “Death And Rebirth Of The Seneca”, 39 [2]: Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Herbert M. Lloyd 1901. “League Of The Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee Or Iroquois. Vol. I”, 67 [3]: Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Herbert M. Lloyd 1901. “League Of The Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee Or Iroquois. Vol. I”, 94 [4]: Foley, Denis 1994. “Ethnohistoric And Ethnographic Analysis Of The Iroquois From The Aboriginal Era To The Present Suburban Era”, 24 |
||||||
|
levels.
(3) the Warrior Council; (2) War-Leaders (non-hereditary); (1) Warrior Volunteers or Citizen-Soldiers; The political organization distinguished between villages, tribes, and the common confederate level: ’THE POLITICAL ORGANIZATION of the Iroquois--the system by which decisions were made about problems affecting village, tribe, or confederacy --had three levels. The town or village itself decided local issues like the use of nearby hunting lands, the relocation of houses and cornfields, movement to another site, the acceptance or rejection of visitors, and the raising of war parties. There was a village chiefs’ council, numbering up to twenty men, formally organized with a chairman and one or more representatives for each clan. These chiefs were influential men and women, who might be League sachems, warcaptains, warriors, or simply old men who were looked up to and consulted. The council generally met in the presence of the warriors and the women, and rarely diverged in its decisions from the popular consensus, or at least the majority view. This council met in the village’s ceremonial longhouse, which usually was merely a large dwelling.’ [1] Distinguished war-leaders were eligible for non-hereditary chieftainships: ’The powers and duties of the sachems and chiefs were entirely of a civil character, and confined, by their organic laws, to the affairs of peace. No sachem could go out to war in his official capacity, as a civil ruler. If disposed to take the war-path, he laid aside his civil office, for the time being, and became a common warrior. It becomes an important inquiry, therefore, to ascertain in whom the military power, was vested. The Iroquois had no distinct class of war-chiefs, raised up and set apart to command in time of war; neither do the sachems or chiefs appear to have possessed the power of appointing such persons as they considered suitable to the post of command. All military operations were left entirely to private enterprise, and to the system of voluntary service, the sachems seeking rather to repress and restrain, than to encourage the martial ardor of the people. Their principal war-captains were to be found among he class called chiefs, many of whom were elected to this office in reward for their military achievements. The singular method of warfare among the Iroquois renders it extremely difficult to obtain a complete and satisfactory explanation of the manner in which their varlike operations were conducted. Their whole civil policy was averse to the concentration of power in the hands of any single individual, but inclined to the opposite principle of division among a number of equals; and this policy they carried into their military as well as through their civil organization. Small bands were, in the first instance, organized by individual leaders, each of which, if they were afterwards united upon the same enterprise, continued under its own captain, and the whole force, as well as the conduct of the expedition, was under their joint management. They appointed no one of their number to absolute command, but the general direction was left open to the strongest will, or the most persuasive voice.’ [2] ’When the power of the Ho-de[unknown] -no-sau-nee began to develop, under the new system of oligarchies within an oligarchy, there sprang up around the sachems a class of warriors, distinguished for enterprise upon the war-path, and eloquence in council, who demanded some participation in the administration of public affairs. The serious objections to the enlargement of the number of rulers, involving, as it did, changes in the framework of the government, for a long period enabled the sachems to resist the encroachment. In the progress of events, this class became too powerful to be withstood, and the sachems were compelled to raise them up in the subordinate station of chiefs. The title was purely elective, and the reward of merit. Unlike the sachemships, the name was not hereditary in the tribe or family of the individual, but terminated with the chief himself; unless subsequently bestowed by the tribe upon some other person, to preserve it as one of their illustrious names. These chiefs were originally invested with very limited powers, their principal office being that of advisers and counsellors of the sachems. Having thus obtained a foothold in the government, this class, to the number of which there was no limit, gradually enlarged their influence, and from generation to generation drew nearer to an equality with the sachems themselves. By this innovation the government was liberalized, to the sensible diminution of the power of the sachems, which, at the institution of the League, was extremely arbitrary.’ [3] Warriors were represented in their own councils: ’Closely allied with the Council of Elders was the women’s council who brought the matters up before the council. Lafitau maintained: Separate from both the women’s and elder’s councils was the warriors’ council which sought to influence authority decisions of the council of elders because they were the soldiers or ‘police’ of the village. Their internal affairs idsally were limited to military raids, games, and carrying out the military policy of the council of elders or League Council. In addition to the various councils, asseciations of men and women possibly existed for curing. Lafitau noted “I have been told that they have several sorts of private associations like fraternities” (Ibdd.:476). Fenton speculated that these associations were procursers of the “medicine societies” (Lafitau, 1724, 1:476). However, these associations seem to be the actual medicine societies and as such would have been village groups that criss-cross lineage, clan and moiety statuses.’ [4] The code may more accurately reflect the pre-reservation period. [1]: Wallace, Anthony F. C., and Sheila K. Steen 1969. “Death And Rebirth Of The Seneca”, 39 [2]: Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Herbert M. Lloyd 1901. “League Of The Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee Or Iroquois. Vol. I”, 67 [3]: Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Herbert M. Lloyd 1901. “League Of The Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee Or Iroquois. Vol. I”, 94 [4]: Foley, Denis 1994. “Ethnohistoric And Ethnographic Analysis Of The Iroquois From The Aboriginal Era To The Present Suburban Era”, 24 |
||||||
|
EWA: There was no permanently established military in the Old Kingdom. War was more or less part of the overall bureaucratic system.
Not a professional military but there was military activity. We cannot code zero for levels. There were officers and individuals equivalent to generals in charge of campaigns, wars and battles. Coding 7 which is currently the administrative levels code. Coded as a range [3-7] to take various possibilities into account (from king- officer-priest to something more complex). |
||||||
|
In the beginning of the Umayyad Caliphate the Army was effectively a tribal institution supported by local auxiliaries and foreign military units that had deserted from the Caliph’s enemies. Demarcating a distinct command is effectively impossible as it was non existent. Tribal loyalty determined who men would follow over a title. Following a period of Civil war, the military was reformed under the reign of ’Abd al-Malik (685 CE-705 CE)to a more permanent system. This was not the case with the guards of the provincial cities and the Caliph, as indicated below.
Domestic Guardsmen The Shurta (police) and the Haras (guards) were responsible for the securing the capital and maintaining the security of the Caliph and his family. [1] 1. Caliph 2. Sahid-al-Shurta (provincial commander) 3. Common guardsman (661 CE-705 CE) Military The layout below is an oversimplification. In the earlier period of the Umayyad Caliphate the Caliphs had relied on the service of Arab tribes originally from Arabia, and subsequently settled in garrison cities in newly conquered lands. As the empire expanded this system changed to an increasingly professional army paid for in cash rather than a tribal nation in arms. The was also geographic variation. In Syria, Permanent garrisons differed from the temporary Arabic cohorts used for Jihad campaigns. [2] 661-705 CE 1. Caliph 2. Amir 3. Muqualtila (fighting men) [3] 705-750 CE 1. Amir al-mu’ minin (official title of the Caliph) 2. Amir (commander or governor of a province or army) 3. Qa-id (military officer) 4. Arif (leader of a militay unit of ten to fifteen soldiers) 5. Muquatila (Muslim soldiers paid a salary) [1]: (Kennedy 2004, 49) [2]: (Kennedy ????, 12-51) [3]: (Kennedy ????, 5-6, 18-19) |
||||||
|
EWA changed to 4
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
The army became professionalized in the Middle Kingdom. [5] EWA: 4 King, 3 chief of the army/general (leads the expedition or the building project) ,2 officers ,1 soldiers Spalinger [6] 1. King 2. Crown Prince3. Chief of Army4. Provincial Governors (brought own troops with them)5. Town regiments6. Division Commander7. individual soldiers 1. King 2. Chief of the leaders of the town militia 3. Soldier of the town militia 2.Crew of the ruler 2. Chief of the leaders of the dog patrols There were also "scribe of the army." [7] Alternative: 1. King 2. Chief of the army. 3. Provincial governors. 4. Generals (Overseers of the host). 5. Commanders of town militia. [1] 6. individual soldiers. [1]: (Garcia ed. 2013, 422-425) [2]: (Manning 2012, 76) [3]: (http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/history12-17.htm#amenemheti) [4]: (Fields 2007, 9) [5]: (Van De Mieroop 2011, 105) Van De Mieroop, Marc. 2011. A History of Ancient Egypt. Wiley-Backwell. Chichester. [6]: (Spalinger 2013, 422-4) [7]: (Fields 2007, 5) |
||||||
|
1. King
2. nobles(3. officers.)4. Individual soldiers Throughout Egyptian history, the army was a multi-purpose organization which was engaged for civil works labour projects, defence and campaigns. Soldiers were responsible for transportation of monuments and quarried stone, large irrigation works and land reclamation. The dual purpose of the army was reflected in the hierarchy with the high "brass" as likely to be administrators as fighters. [1] [1]: (Gnirs 2001) |
||||||
|
levels.
"Every male was an er, “man” and implicitly “warrior”; every young man had to earn his “warrior name” (er ati) through prowess in battle or the hunt; and an elite male, too, was an er bashi, or commander of so many men.82" [1] 1. Khagan 2. Er Bashi. Commander3. officer?4. Er. Individual warrior [1]: (Findley 2005, 45) |
||||||
|
levels. "Elam was a worthy rival of the Akkadian empire."
[1]
We have coded 5-6 levels for the Akkadian Empire so will use a large range to code this period.
Four-wheeled chariot in burial at Susa. [2] This might suggest a reasonable degree of military organization. Earlier Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE "monopoly of defence forces to protect internal cohesion. The wealth and technical knowledge accumulated in cities had to be defended against foreign attacks, both from other city-states and other enemies (for instance, nomadic tribes). This defence system then turned into an offensive tactic. ... Instrumental for these kinds of activities was the creation of an army, which was divided into two groups. One group was made of full-time workers, specialised in military activities (although this remains purely hypothetical for the Uruk period). In case of war, an army was assembled through military conscription, and was supported by mandatory provisions of military supplies." [3] Liverani notes of earlier Uruk phase "Urban Revolution therefore led to the formation of the Early State, not just in its decisional function, which already existed in pre-urban communities, but in the fullest sense of the term. The latter is to be understood as an organisation that solidly controls and defends a given territory (and its many communities) and manages the exploitation of resources to ensure and develop the survival of its population." [4] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 135) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Potts 2016, 89) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels
"Even though most military historians confidently assert that the Hsia did not maintain a standing army, it would be highly unlikely for the ruler not to have been protected by a body of men with pronounced martial abilities who would form the core of any broader combat effort." [1] 1. King 2. leader of king’s guard"Warriors were probably dressed in the finest of silk clothing." [2] 3. ?Regiments of 100-125 men. [3] 4. individual soldier more conservative view "While the Erlitou ceramic tradition was widespread, the mechanisms of this expansion are probably only indirectly related to political activity (if pots don’t equal people, they are even less representative of conquering armies or “state” administrators). The degree of centralization, mechanisms of political control, and social organization can only be guessed at or extrapolated through comparison with Zhengzhou and Anyang." [4] [1]: (Sawyer 2011, 149) [2]: (Otterbein 2004, 165) Otterbein, Keith. 2004. How War Began. University of Texas A&M Press. [3]: (Sawyer 2011, 151) [4]: (Campbell 2014, 62) |
||||||
|
Throughout Ancient Egyptian history, the Army was a multi-purpose organization which was engaged for civil works labour projects, defence and campaigns.
[1]
Not a professional military but there was military activity. We cannot code zero for levels. There were officers and individuals equivalent to generals in charge of campaigns, wars and battles. Coding 7 which is currently the administrative levels code.Coded as a range [3-7] to take various possibilities into account. [1]: (Gnirs 2001) |
||||||
|
levels.
(3) Chieftains; (2) Lieutenants; (1) Freemen and Armed Followers of Chiefs ’As there was no central government there was also no central army during the Icelandic Commonwealth. The chieftains (and sometimes the greater farmers) called up the free population on an ad hoc basis. Three levels are attested for the late Commonwealth. We have clear evidence of 13th century warlords commissioning lieutenants that commanded groups of retainers or units of conscripted warrior-farmers.’ [1] Some Icelanders joined foreign armies abroad: ’Isolated in the North Atlantic, Iceland had few external conflicts. Individual Icelanders were occasionally involved in conflict when outside the country and also sometimes served in foreign militaries. During the late tenth century, the Norwegian king was a champion of the Christian movement in Iceland and often attempted to assert his influence, although this was largely limited to Icelanders in Norway. Likewise, the ultimately successful attempts to incorporate Iceland under the Norwegian monarchy were mostly played out through alliances with individual Icelanders.’ [2] Chieftains relied on an entourage of armed followers: ’Those who had access to sufficient resources to support a household were the tax paying farmers. Each of them had to be a follower of a chieftain from his own quarter, and only the tax paying farmers could make the decision as to which he would follow. All of his dependents - tenants and renters - went with him. However they got it, chieftains were dependent on farmers for support - to feed their increasingly large personal followings or armies, to support them at assemblies, and to accompany them on raids on other chieftains or their followers. As we have seen, without such support, without the ability to mass force, claims to ownership of land, which defined the class system as well as the forms of appropriation, had no force. Farmers had to rely on some chieftain to be able to defend their claims to property, though, as we have seen, this might often lead to the loss of the property. Chieftains had to rely on farmers to enforce their followers’ claims and their own, as well as to expand their territories into others’.’ [3] Armed supporters were required to enforce legal and political claims: ’Claims of inheritance were only worth as much as the armed support behind them. This follows from the fact that claims to ownership, property, were only worth as much as the armed support behind them. This meant that to assert any claim to ownership, whether by inheritance or any other means, one had to back the claim with armed force. Chieftains were focal points for concentrating force to protect and to forward claims to property.’ [4] ’In Commonwealth Iceland there was a system of extraction based on claims to ownership of property, on concepts of the unproblematic [Page 161] differential access to resources in favour of a chieftainly class. The chieftains were unwilling to subordinate themselves to state institutions to protect their privileged positions. The consequence was stratification without a state, the contradiction of an economic system based on property relationships without a congruent institutional system to enforce them. Ownership was as sound as the force one could muster to defend it. There was a complex system of law, but it was all just so much labyrinthine rhetoric in the face of the stark reality that power decided. As slavery diminished, claimants to land enlarged their holdings by using wage labour and tenancy arrangements to work them. To support their claims, they had to increase their power by enlarging their entourages.’ [5] Chieftains also relied on farmers willing to support them economically and militarily: ’Relations between chieftains and farmers were not, however, smooth. Chieftains had their “own” estates to support their establishments, and some maintained followings of armed men, but this was a difficult proposition, since it added consumers to the household without adding production. The chieftains had to rely on their following of farmers to support them with both arms and supplies. This was one component of any farmer’s household fund, his “rent” so to speak, his expenditures for travel and support for his chieftain, without which his chieftain or another would take his land and livestock. In addition, expeditions took labor from the farm and put the farmer’s life at risk. Even so, a farmer’s claims to land were not secure, since his chieftain might abandon him, another more powerful chieftain might claim his land, or simply take it, or a farmer might lose his land in a re-alignment of alliances among chieftains, which were frequent.’ [4] The interests of chieftains and farmers were often in conflict: ’There was a basic conflict between chieftains’ increasing demands for demonstrations of force in support of claims to ownership and the subsistence demands, the economic roles, of farmers. Chieftains were not beyond using coercion to insure support as the following incident relates. [...] In spite of this contradiction, farmers had to rely on some chieftain in order to maintain their claims to land. While the inheritance customs codified in Grágás seem quite orderly in Hastrup’s (1985) analysis, inheritance of land is often hotly disputed in the Saga of the Icelanders. One who wanted another’s land could often find a third party with some inheritance claim, and acquire the claim on which to base a legitimation for taking the land.’ [6] Competition between chieftains was a major source of internal strife before the onset of the Norwegian period: ’It may be tempting to regard the Icelandic Commonwealth as a permanent structure, for, after all, it seems to be sealed in the poorly-dated or undated ‘ethnographic present’ of the sagas. But any social system is necessarily a product of history, representing a particular moment in time. We know for sure that the Commonwealth underwent important changes before it eventually ‘collapsed.’ Not only was there important ecological and demographic change and, as a result, mounting pressure on land (Gelsinger 1981; McGovern et al. 1988), access to resources was increasingly determined by the political manoeuvres and battles of competing goðar. According to the near contemporary Sturlunga saga, the battles between contesting leaders involved an ever larger number of men-no less than two thousand fought in the biggest one, at Örlygsstaðir in year 1238. To increase the number of followers, each goði had to maximize his fund of power at the cost of competitors. Feasts and gifts, a measure of the generosity of the goði, and the display of imported luxury goods, must have been an additional burden to the household, at a time of economic decline. One saga describes a large wedding feast extending through a whole week (SS 3, ch. 17:22). The only way to meet the costs involved was to collect taxes, hire additional labor, and seek further support from followers. With the Tithe Law, the tax law enacted in 1096, the ownership of churches became an important source of wealth and power. Furthermore, slavery seems to have disappeared early (see Karras, ch. 17), probably because recruiting freemen who had insufficient land was less costly than maintaining slaves. This meant that soon there was a reserve of labor; on one occasion, in 1208, a group of more than 300 unemployed people, many of whom were strong and healthy, followed a travelling bishop in the hope of some sustenance (see G. Karlsson 1975:27).’ [7] [1]: Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins [2]: Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders [3]: Durrenberger, E. Paul 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth", 256 [4]: Durrenberger, Paul E. 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth", 258 [5]: Durrenberger, E. Paul, Dorothy Durrenberger, and Ástráður Eysteinsson 1988. “Economic Representation And Narrative Structure In Hœnsa-Þóris Saga”, 160 [6]: Durrenberger, E. Paul 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth”, 256 [7]: Pálsson, Gísli 1992. “Introduction: Text, Life, And Saga”, 15 |
||||||
|
levels. Three levels specifically mentioned in the consulted sources. It is likely that there were various tiers of officers giving orders to infantry therefore, officers are inferred. Possible that more levels were present. :1. Nayaks : “In return for this, they were to pay tribute to the Nayak of one-third of their income from land, and maintain, with another third part, the troops which their master would require in case of war.”
[1]
::2. Polegar (military governor or administrator) :: “The status and power of the various polegars could not have been the same; it is extremely unlikely that all of the had equally good record of past service and equal possessions. In course of time at least, there would have been changes in their attitude and position. Consequently, their obligations would have been different. Vico’s letter of 1611 says that ‘Hermecatte’ (Erumaikatti), a powerful polegar, very influential at court, has domains enough to be obliged to maintain for the Nayak’s service three thousand infantry, two hundred horses and fifty elephants.”
[1]
:::3 Officers (inferred) ::::4. Infantry :::: “Vico’s letter of 1611 says that ‘Hermecatte’ (Erumaikatti), a powerful polegar, very influential at court, has domains enough to be obliged to maintain for the Nayak’s service three thousand infantry, two hundred horses and fifty elephants.”
[1]
[1]: (Sathyanatha Aiyar 1991, 74) Sathyanatha Aiyar, R. 1991. History of the Nayaks of Madura. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databak/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/E2S7TSI5/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Three levels mentioned within the consulted sources. Officers inferred as it is likely that someone was directly supervising the soldiers. Probably multiple tiers of officers, but this should be confirmed by an expert. :1. Nawab (king) : “From the 1770s the British systematically tried to control the nawab’s armies by extending him loans to pay the soldiers’ wages.”
[1]
::2. Subadhar (Chief of military) :: “The Navaiyat dynasty came to power when Saadutullah Khan was appointed subadhar, or chief of military and revenue officer of the newly established Mughal subah of Arcot in 1710. The Navaiyats, wanting to take advantage of the relative weakness of the links to the Mughal centre, and wanting to carve out an independent dynastic rule for themselves, quickly fell into the traditional pattern of empire-building. They extended existing citadels like Vellore and Gingee by ‘importing’ North Indian traders, artisans and soldiers; they established a number of new market centres; they founded and endowed mosques; and they invited poets, artists and scholars and Sufi holy men to the new capital of Arcot.”
[1]
:::3. Officers (inferred) ::::4. Soldiers
[1]: (Bugge, 2020) Bugge, Henriette. 2020. Mission and Tamil Society: Social and Religious Change in South India (1840-1900). London: Routledge Curzon. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/9SKWNUF4/collection |
||||||
|
levels.
1. District and Head-Chiefs; 2. Local Headmen and Sub-Chiefs;3. Groups of Armed Men or Citizen-Soldiers There were no troops or police forces : ’There were no police. A chief’s brothers or sons might act on his behalf to intimidate or attack someone who had offended him. But it was control of magical power, either by the chief or one his brothers or sons, that made improper conduct liable to punishment. Major craft specialists could also make ill those who violated the taboos of their craft. Finally, members of chiefly lineages and their close associates were likely to have knowledge of sorcery. All such knowledge gave punitive power to chiefs and important specialists. People stressed maintaining the appearance of propriety in behavior so as not to give just cause for offense.’ [1] Prior to ’pacification’, violent conflict played out in raids and battles between rival groups of armed men: ’Within districts, conflict arose over land, succession to chiefship, theft, adultery, and avenging homicide. Between districts, it arose over attentions to local women by outside men, the status of one district as subordinate to another, and rights of access to fishing areas. Formal procedures for terminating conflict between districts involved payments of valuables and land by the loosing to the winning side. Fighting involved surprise raids and prearranged meetings on a field of battle. Principle weapons were slings, spears, and clubs. Firearms, introduced late in the nineteenth century, were confiscated by German authorities in 1903. Martial arts included an elaborate system of throws and holds by which an unarmed man could kill, maim or disarm an armed opponent.’ [1] Competition between rival chiefs over the control of land and people was a major factor: ’Traditional Micronesian life was characterized by a belief in the stability of society and culture. People suffered occasional natural disasters, such as cyclones or droughts, but their goal after encountering one of these was to reconstitute the previous state of affairs. Wars occurred in most areas from time to time, mainly at the instigation of competing chiefs. At stake was the control of land—a limited resource—and followers, but there were usually few casualties. Living in small communities on small territories, Micronesians learned to adjust to their neighbours, to remain on good terms with most of them most of the time, and to develop techniques of reconciliation when fights did break out. Micronesians traditionally depended on the cultivation of plant crops and on fishing in shallow reef waters. Because arable land was in short supply for the relatively dense population, Micronesians had a strong practical basis for their attachment to locality and lands. Land rights were usually held through lineages or extended family groups, often backed up by traditions of ancestral origins on the land.’ [2] Conflict among chiefs and their followers did not terminate entirely with ’pacification’, although the population was disarmed in the early 20th century: ’In 1904 the disarming of the Truk people was undertaken by the “Kondor.” There were 436 guns and 2,531 cartridges confiscated. For better control the government appointed six head-chiefs, banished some swashbucklers who did not want to submit, and turned out the Japanese. With this a peaceful development was initiated. The missions (Protestant mission since 1879, Catholic mission since 1912) were able to work undisturbed. Unfortunately, the German government took little notice of Truk, since it was too preoccupied with the other islands. Yet many things were accomplished. Under the last director of the station, A. Überhorst, the lagoon was given new impetus in every respect. The relationship between officials and the population was usually a good one, under Mr. Überhorst even a cordial one. Anyone who was on Truk in those years certainly did not see any bad treatment of the natives. Much was done also with regard to health; in particular Dr. Mayer and his wife traveled from island to island without rest in order to take care of the sick. If during the Japanese occupation a young naval officer was not ashamed to assert that the Germans had done nothing for the islands, anyone who lived on the islands during the Japanese period can only say from the heart: “God protect the poor Truk people under the Japanese.”’ [3] ’On the main islands the German government introduced head chiefs (somol lap) who carried the flag. There were six of them, one each on Poloas, Uman, Fefan, Wöla, Udot, and Pol /Pul/. The smaller islands likewise belonged to the sphere of power of the head chiefs. But even this institution could not link the tribes together within themselves or with one another. Some of the lower chiefs sympathize with the head chief for egotistical reasons; others fight against him violently for the same reasons. One who is with him today might be against him tomorrow because he somehow stepped on his toes. It is often enough for the subchief to fight the head chief if his neighboring chief supports him. Thus the picture is constantly changing. [Page 125] There is a continuous, sometimes quiet, sometimes open, warfare of the subchiefs against the head chiefs, the lower chiefs among themselves, the common people against the chiefs. The main reason for this disagreeable phenomenon is the limitless egotism of the Truk people. Everyone strives more or less to be something of a chief also. Strong families who do not like the chief attempt to isolate themselves and choose one from their midst. In addition to this, there are also old family enmities and disputes about land. It is obvious that the islands will never be able to achieve peaceful development in this manner. It is difficult to say who is most to blame for it. In any case the chiefs are not to be pitied, because they behave themselves accordingly. They are to be blamed mostly for the exploitation of the people, their corruptibility, and partiality. Many of them unhesitatingly accept money and objects and help the giver, no matter how many times he is in the wrong.’ [4] The colonial governments stationed troops on the island, but it appears that natives were not recruited into the Japanese military: ’Despite the large immigration of Okinawan fishermen under the Japanese, all of whom have been repatriated, and despite the presence of 35,000 troops and laborers during the war, the native social structure remains fundamentally unchanged from aboriginal times. This is probably due in no small part to the fact that Truk has been spared the ravages of depopulation. It has also been helped by the Japanese prohibition, continued by the United States, against purchase of land from natives by foreigners. Aside from the small area on which the administrative garrison is presently housed, the Trukese continue to use all the lands which they traditionally exploited. Every native community that existed in 1900 appears still to be intact. Despite the discontinuance of warfare, an almost complete conversion to Christianity, a high proportion of literacy, and considerable modification in technology, Trukese society is still a vigorously going concern, its pattern of organization little changed by the events of the past 50 years.’ [5] ’During World War II, many Micronesian islands were heavily contested; major military engagements took place between Japanese and American forces in Palau, Guam, the northern Marianas, Chuuk (then known as Truk), the Marshalls, and parts of the Gilberts. The war inflicted great suffering and left the regional economy in shambles. Infrastructure and property had been destroyed, food shortages were widespread, and many people had been displaced. As recently as the early 21st century, reminders of the war remained omnipresent. Chuuk’s lagoon, for instance, holds an entire Japanese fleet that sank in 1944. Complete with human skeletons, dishes, and even fighter planes and tanks that had been tied on deck, the fleet has been declared an underwater museum and has become a popular tourist destination.’ [2] This remains in need of further confirmation. We have provisionally coded for ’native’ military organization rather than colonial troops. [1]: Goodenough, Ward H. and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Chuuk [2]: (Kahn, Fischer and Kiste 2017) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XHZTEDKE. [3]: Bollig, Laurentius 1927. “Inhabitants Of The Truk Islands: Religion, Life And A Short Grammar Of A Micronesian People”, 253 [4]: Bollig, Laurentius 1927. “Inhabitants Of The Truk Islands: Religion, Life And A Short Grammar Of A Micronesian People”, 124 [5]: Goodenough, Ward Hunt 1951. “Property, Kin, And Community On Truk”, 26 |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred that military organization would be roughly similar to that of the Akkadian Empire for which we have data.
’Shuruhtuh raised an army of 12,000 as contribution to coalition with Assyria, Eshnunna and perhaps Turukkeans (of the Zagros) versus the Guti. [1] [1]: (Potts 2016, 156-157) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
levels.: 1. Khan :: 2. Supreme military commander
[1]
:::3 . Warriors
[1]: (Jamsran 2010: 499) Jamsran, L. 2010. “The Crisis of the Forty and the Four,” in The History of Mongolia: Volume II, Yuan and Late Medieval Period, ed. David Sneath, vol. 2, 3 vols. Kent: Global Oriental. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/D8IE2XAD |
||||||
|
levels. Three levels mentioned in the consulted sources. Highly likely there were more specific levels.:1. King : “The military administration was efficiently organized and a regular army was associated with each ruler.”
[1]
::2. Military Commanders :: “During the Sangam period, hereditary monarchy was the form of government. The king was assisted by a wide body of officials who were categorized into five councils. They were ministers (amaichar), priests (anthanar), envoys (thuthar), military commanders (senapathi), and spies (orrar).”
[1]
:::3. Army soldiers ::: “The military administration was efficiently organized and a regular army was associated with each ruler.”
[1]
[1]: (Jankiraman, 2020) Jankiraman, M. 2020. Perspectives in Indian History: From the Origins to AD 1857. Chennai: Notion Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/N3D88RXF/collection |
||||||
|
levels.1. King :2. Umugaba (general) ::"Moreover, Ndori increased the social distance between his warriors and himself by placing his army under the command of a general (umugaba)."
[1]
::3. Soldiers
[1]: (Vansina 2004: 61) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. Leader of royal guard3. Member of royal guard "Several members of the ton djon, a royal guard created by Biton Coulibaly, ruled from 1755 until 1766." [1] [1]: (Keil 2012, 108) Sarah Keil. Bambara. Andrea L Stanton. ed. 2012. Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia. Sage. Los Angeles. |
||||||
|
levels.
"Every male was an er, “man” and implicitly “warrior”; every young man had to earn his “warrior name” (er ati) through prowess in battle or the hunt; and an elite male, too, was an er bashi, or commander of so many men.82" [1] 1. Khagan 2. Er Bashi. Commander3. Officer level (inferred)4. Er. Individual warrior [1]: (Findley 2005, 45) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Ruler 2. Head guard officer3. Member of the Guard4. 2. Dihqan"class of dihqans, aristocratic landholders who lived in fortified castles." [1] 3. Head retainer of Dihqan4. Member of Dihqan’s guard “The rulers and great merchants also maintained personal retinues or guards called Cakirs (Chin. Che-chieh, Arab. sâ.kariyya). In these guards, who, perhaps, were drawn from the sons of the aristocracy, one may see a possible source for the later gulam/mamluk system of the lslamic world (see below).4 [2] [1]: (Golden 1992, 189) [2]: (Golden 1992, 190) |
||||||
|
levels.
No data. Lydia was a neo-Hittite state and the New Kingdom Hittites had [6-7] levels including at the lowest levels Officers of 10, Officers of 100 and leaders of brigades of 1000. If Lydia inherited a similar system then there would be at least 5 levels King100010010Individual soldier |
||||||
|
Likely had at the least king - commander - officer - individual soldier.
|
||||||
|
levels. No data. However, minimum of four levels, probably more, likely as they representated a capable fighting force against the Sasanid and Gupta Empires.
1. King 2.3.4. Individual soldier. Clan and tribal organizations traditional to nomadic peoples were likely "reflected in the administrative structure of the state and in the organization of the army". [1] [1]: (Zeimal 1996, 136) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf |
||||||
|
The ranks below are based on the organization of the Seleucid army. These ranks were not permanent and command of individual units shifted with the campaign or battle. Civic volunteers and mercenaries would also have operated outside the structure indicated below.
[1]
1. King 2. Senior officers of the army: Strategoi 3. Officers: Hipparchoi/Hegemones 4. Common soldiers [1]: Bar-Kochva, Bezalel. The Seleucid army: Organization and tactics in the great campaigns. Vol. 28. Cambridge University Press, 1976. pp. 91-93 |
||||||
|
levels.
Military structure: "Beneath the exarch ... were dukes, who possessed military and civil authority in the duchies... and tribunes or counts, who led individual detachments of troops called numeri and who also had important civil functions in particular localities." [1] 1. Exarch The Exarch was the commander-in-chief [2] 2. Dukes 3. Tribunes / counts [1]: (Noble 1984, 5-6) Noble, Thomas F. X. 1984. The Republic of St. Peter. The Birth of the Papal State, 680-825. University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia. [2]: (Hutton 1926) |
||||||
|
levels.
A rough hierarchy may have been as follows: 1. Emperor [1] 2. Mahasenapati [2] 3. Direct subordinates of the mahasenapati - more than one level?4. Soldiers [1]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 32 [2]: S. Kamath, A Concise History of Karnataka (1980), p. 25 |
||||||
|
levels.
"The Heian period (794-1185) saw the rise of the professional warrior class, the bushi, as the main military service providers of the imperial court. This marked a shift of the court away from reliance on conscript peasant soldiers, toward, or more precisely, back to, the militarized provincial gentry." [1] A standing army, inspired by the Chinese-style army, was introduced in Japan in the 7th century CE by the emperor Tenmu. The bulk of the army conscripted was composed of peasants who served in infantry regiments. Each province provided a regiment, which could have a size from several hundred to over a thousand of soldiers [2] . 1. Emperor 2. Commander-in-Chief?3. Regiment (several hundred to over a thousand soldiers)4. Officer?5. Individual soldier [1]: (Lorge 2011, 47) [2]: Kuehn, John T. 2014. A Military History of Japan: From the Age of the Samurai to the 21st Century. Praeger,pp.17-18. |
||||||
|
"the military organization of the thirty curiae and three archaic tribes can perhaps best be dated to the period of Rome’s early unification, during the second half of the seventh century B.C".
[1]
"while the urban community at Rome may have begun to develop a distinct, community-based identity from the eighth century onwards, the gentilicial elite of Rome, even as late as the early sixth century, would probably be best characterized as simply ’Latin,’ or possibily even ’central Italian’. The presence of this pan-central Italian gentilicial aristocracy would have had a dramatic impact on how Rome interracted with other Latin settlements as it may have blurred man of the assumed settlement-based divisions, particularly with regard to military matters, which seem to have been almost entirely under the purview of the more mobile gentilicial elite."
[2]
"The reforms of Servius Tullius, as presented in the literary sources, represented a seismic shift in the organization of Roman society, changing not only how the early Roman army was recruited and equipped, but also the social, politicial, and possibly religious divisions of early Roman society."
[3]
1. King 2. Leaders of the three tribesThree tribes: Tities, Ramnes, Luceres, each subdivided into 10 curiae, formed the basis of military organization. [4] 3. Leaders of a curiaeThree tribes: Tities, Ramnes, Luceres, each subdivided into 10 curiae, formed the basis of military organization. [4] 4. Individual soldier 1. King 2. Leaders of a centuryThe Centuriate organisation of Servius Tullius (578-534 BCE) had five categories based on wealth. Century was the basic unit. Each curia had 100 men. [5] 3. Leaders of a curiae 4. Individual soldier [1]: (Forsythe 2006, 115) Forsythe, Gary. 2006. A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War. University of California Press. [2]: (Armstrong 2016, 73) Armstrong, Jeremy. 2016. War and Society in Early Rome. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [3]: (Armstrong 2016, 75) Armstrong, Jeremy. 2016. War and Society in Early Rome. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [4]: (Cornell 1995, 114) [5]: (Cornell 1995, 183) |
||||||
|
levels.
The following applies to the preconquest period (1450-1525 CE): 1. Mandadores (commanders) 2. Capitanes de guerra (war captains)3. Experienced warriors4. Individual soldier "Besides caciques, Spanish sources mention capitanes, principales (nobles), mandadores (commanders), and capitanes de guerra. Fray Pedro Simón (1882-92, 5: 197) also lists a pregonero (speaker or crier) who was second only to the chief. Spanish accounts do not list the duties and powers of all these officials, but it seems clear that there was a hierarchy of civil and military office- holders. One source mentions inheritance from father to son “en el oficio” (Bischof 1982- 83: 88). The texts also mention merchants, craftsmen, weavers, goldsmiths, carpenters, and farmers, and one recorded example refers to earned status. Simón (1882-92, 5: 198) describes a category of warriors “who had demonstrated their bravery on various occasions, and were allowed to wear their hair long, and tucked into their belts at the back,” a reminder that not all status symbols will be archaeologically identifiable." [1] [1]: (Bray 2003, 302) |
||||||
|
levels. Four levels specifically mentioned in the consulted sources. Officers and soldiers inferred due to the presence of defence minister, general, and the Gajaadhyaksha (overseer of elephants) whose exact place in the hierarchy seems unclear. Possible that more levels were present. King seems likely to have been at the top of the hierarchy, based on comparison with other South Asian polities. :1. King “The first two rulers of the early medieval line were Kadungon (560-90) and his son Maravarman Avanishulamani (590-620). The latter is credited with ending Kalabhra rule in the area and reviving Pandya power.”
[1]
::2 Defence Minister :: “The Sivakasi copper plate inscription mentions the name of a minister who was also the secretary in charge of defence and foreign affairs.”
[2]
:::3.Gajaadhyaksha (overseer of elephants) ::: “Similarly, Srivaramanangalam copper plate grant of King Nedunjadiayan also mentions an official known as Gajaadhyaksha (overseer of elephants). Navy was an essential part of the military might of the Pandyas. Pandya kings made several naval campaigns against the kings of Ceylon.”
[2]
::::4. General :::: “His son Rajasimha formed an alliance with the Chalukyas and challenged the Pallava king Nandi Varman II. The later was under siege when one of the Pallava generals rescued him by killing the Pandya generals.”
[3]
:::::5. Officers (inferred) ::::::6. Soldiers (inferred)
[1]: (Singh 2008, 558) Singh, Upinder. 2008. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Delhi: Pearson Longman. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UJG2G6MJ/collection [2]: (Kamlesh 2010, 599) Kamlesh, Kapur. 2010. ‘Pandya Dynasty’ In Portraits of a Nation: History of Ancient India. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/3TS5DCT6/collection [3]: (Kamlesh 2010, 598) Kamlesh, Kapur. 2010. ‘Pandya Dynasty’ In Portraits of a Nation: History of Ancient India. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/3TS5DCT6/collection |
||||||
|
levels. "The Wei shu reports that early in the 5th century, Shelun introduced the so-called decimal system: "For the first time, military laws were established according to which 1000 people formed a detachment (run), and at the head of a detachment a military leader was placed. 100 people formed a banner (zhuang) and a chief stood at the head of a banner" (WS 103: 3a; Taskin 1984, p. 269). A term run can be translated as ’military head’, while shawu as ’leader or commander’."
[1]
1. Khagan 2. Head of detachment (1000 men)3. Chief of a banner (100 men)4. Soldier [1]: (Kradin 2005, 155) |
||||||
|
levels.
Early Carolingian Here too the two structures of the kingdom result in a different military hierarchy. For the area under direct rule, the structure is: King, vassals (dukes, marquises, lords, barons), sub-vassals (notables/nobles, lords, knights), infantrymen/cavalry For the area under indirect rule, the structure is: King, Counts/sub-kings, vassals, sub-vassals, infantrymen/cavalry Marches established by Charlemagne [1] organised along military lines [1] commanded by "count of the march" who was also head of the March government [1] garrisoned [1] [1]: (Chazelle 1995, 1107) |
||||||
|
levels. The decimal system might still have been in use.
1. Khan 2. General of 10,000 soldiers 3. (General of 1,000 soldiers?) 4. 100 5. 10 6. Individual soldier |
||||||
|
levels.“The formation of a black army and the building of the empire were costly. To minimize the costs, Mawlay Isma‘il kept his government simple and made it more palace-centered than Makhzan civil serviceoriented. The palace has always been central to the Makhzan in “traditional” Morocco and, as contemporary Moroccan historian Mohamed El Mansour wrote, “the so-called ‘Makhzan service’ was basically made up of the palace domestic organization, the administrative hierarchy and the army.” According to Windus, the sultan’s administrative staff at the court was made up of five standing officers: ‘the Grand Mufti for Affairs of Religion; the chief Eunuch to take Care of the Seraglio; a Treasurer for his Revenue; the Superintendant of his Buildings and the Basha of Mekness, who is the first Minister, or the supreme Akcayde, of which there are three forts; the first and chief are those who, in the nature of Vice-Roys, are sent to govern the Provinces; to whom, for their greater Honour, is sometimes given the Title of Bashas [. . .]. Another fort are the Generals of his Armies, and Commanders over small Parties of Horse of Foot. The Third fort are Governours of Cities, or Towns, and are either made by the Emperor himself, as are the Alcaydes of Morocco [Marrakesh], Fez, Sally, and other great Cities; or by the Governours of the Provinces, over small Towns and Cities; a fourth fort may be added, which are titular only, and therefore called Alcaydes of their Heads’.”
[1]
: 1. Sultan :: 2. Generals ::: 3. Commanders :::: 4. Soldiers
[1]: (El Hamel 2014: 202) El Hamel, Chouki. 2014. Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race, and Islam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/T9JFH8AS |
||||||
|
[1]
1. Kushana king 2. Chiang (military general), Dandanayaka, Mahadandanayaka 3. Baladhika (commander of an army) 4. 5. 6. Common soldiers likely to have been at least one level between the commander of the army and the ordinary soldier, especially as the organization was complex enough to warrant a general above a commander of an army. changing code to range of 4-6 NOTE: Dandanayaka and Mahadandanayaka may have referred to a judge, magistrate, head police-officer or an army general. They may have have been used to perform judicial, civil and military duties at different times or as the occasions demanded. [1]: B. N. Mukherjee, ’The Rise and Fall of the Kushana Empire’ (Calcutta, 1988), p. 338 |
||||||
|
levels. "The absence of a ‘permanent’ army also meant that there was no title denoting overall military command. Instead, chefs, often prominent territorial governors, were appointed on merit to lead campaigns, based on their reputations as soldiers and leaders of men. The basic mechanism of recruitment through regional chiefs probably dates back to the kingdom’s foundation and indeed earlier. It seems logical, then, that as the kabaka assumed ever greater political control, the concept of a ‘supraregional’ army, marching under the colours of regional chiefs but with the kabaka at its head, developed accordingly. Regions within the ssaza (or province) system remained the basic units of military organisation, but the increasing authority of the kabaka ensured growing coherence and unity of purpose. This system had reached a peak of efficiency by the first half of the nineteenth century. Stanley’s detailed description of the war against Buvuma in 1875 indicates that most major provincial chiefs held positions of command, according to merit and experience. Just as there was differentiation within command structures, there was also a distinction within the rank and file between peasant-soldiers of renown - with well-kept weaponry and perhaps a family or clan tradition of military glory - and those who supported the military machine through scouting, looting and provision of supplies. As we shall see, however, by the 1880s the ‘peasant-warrior’ had been to a large degree supplanted by the ambitious musketeer at the capital."
[1]
1. Kabaka :2. Regional chiefs ::3. "peasant-soldiers of renown" :::4. "those [soldiers?] who supported the military through scouting, looting and provision of supplies"
[1]: (Reid 2010: 51) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2H64W34U/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. "The absence of a ‘permanent’ army also meant that there was no title denoting overall military command. Instead, chefs, often prominent territorial governors, were appointed on merit to lead campaigns, based on their reputations as soldiers and leaders of men. The basic mechanism of recruitment through regional chiefs probably dates back to the kingdom’s foundation and indeed earlier. It seems logical, then, that as the kabaka assumed ever greater political control, the concept of a ‘supraregional’ army, marching under the colours of regional chiefs but with the kabaka at its head, developed accordingly. Regions within the ssaza (or province) system remained the basic units of military organisation, but the increasing authority of the kabaka ensured growing coherence and unity of purpose. This system had reached a peak of efficiency by the first half of the nineteenth century. Stanley’s detailed description of the war against Buvuma in 1875 indicates that most major provincial chiefs held positions of command, according to merit and experience. Just as there was differentiation within command structures, there was also a distinction within the rank and file between peasant-soldiers of renown - with well-kept weaponry and perhaps a family or clan tradition of military glory - and those who supported the military machine through scouting, looting and provision of supplies. As we shall see, however, by the 1880s the ‘peasant-warrior’ had been to a large degree supplanted by the ambitious musketeer at the capital."
[1]
1. Kabaka :2. Regional chiefs ::3. "peasant-soldiers of renown" :::4. "those [soldiers?] who supported the military through scouting, looting and provision of supplies"
[1]: (Reid 2010: 51) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2H64W34U/collection. |
||||||
|
The Army of the Durrani was organized under a hierarchical tribal confederacy. One third were regular troops largely made up of cavalry and some supporting artillery, with the remaining two thirds made up of irregular seasonal troops serving for a campaign. The standing army hierarchy is reflected below. They were paid in cash or with military fiefs in the rich provinces in India. Irregular troops were raised via a coercive levy imposed on subjected tribes, districts and chieftains, and these areas were required to equip the troops themselves.
[1]
1. Shah 2. Tribal commanders 3. Permanent soldiers (cavalry and artillery) 4. Irregular seasonal levies (calvary and infantry) The Army of the Durrani was organized under a hierarchical tribal confederacy. one third were regular troops largely made up of cavalry and some supporting artillery, with the remaining two thirds made up of seasonal irregulars serving for a campaign. [1] [1]: Barfield, Thomas, Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History p. 100 |
||||||
|
: 1. King
:: 2. Officers ::: 3. Knights :::: 4. Foot soldiers “As the agent of divine will and natural law, the king’s primary functions remained as they had been in the Middle Ages: to provide justice and to lead the country in war. As warlord, he enjoyed broad, and largely unquestioned, discretionary powers.”(Maltby 2009: 88) Maltby, William S. 2009. The Rise and Fall of the Spanish Empire. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/SUSVXWVH “The knights and foot-soldiers who comprised the bulk of the crusading armies were rewarded with variable amounts of land, based on the ‘ox-gang’ (yugada), which was the field that a pair of oxen could plough in a day and which ranged in size from 3 to 22 hectares, according to the lie of the terrain and the depth of the soil.”(Casey 2002: 87) Casey, James. 2002. Early Modern Spain: A Social History. New York: Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2SNTRSWT There will undoubtedly be more military levels but at present they have not been found in the sources consulted. |
||||||
|
levels.1.King :2. Jagarafs (captain-generals) ::3. Jagodims :::“The Portuguese trader, Andre Alvares d’Almada, was particularly stuck by the efficiency of its military organization. Two captains-general, the jagarafs (or jaraf), were set over all the village chiefs, or jagodims: ‘When the King wishes to raise an army he has only to tell the two jagarafs, who transmit his orders to the jagodims, and each of these assembles his men; so that in a short time he has raised a large army, including many horsemen on mounts purchased from the Fulani and Moors.”
[1]
4. individual soldiers
[1]: (Ly-Tall 1984, 183) Ly-Tall, M. 1984. ‘The Decline of the Mali Empire’. In Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/6NWXJD94/collection |
||||||
|
levels.
1. The Inca 2. The Inca’s relatives 3. Military captains 4. Individual soldiers. Military hierarchy began to increase from these times. [1] "Cabello Valboa (1951, p. 290 [1586 Book 3, Chapter 13]) says that Qhapaq Yupanki was able to send his sons to conquer neighboring areas, while Inka Roq’a had at his disposal not only his sons, but military captains and a large number of soldiers." [2] "In other words, the delegation of military authority extended to more distant relatives as the Inka state formed and began to engage in more distant and sustained campaigns." [2] [1]: (Covey 2006a, 112) [2]: (Covey 2003, 347) |
||||||
|
"Chariots allowed commanders to supervise their troops efficiently and across great distances."
[1]
1. King2. General inferred level3. Commander inferred level4. Officer inferred level5. Individual soldier Chariot and infantry corps. [2] [1]: (The Shang Dynasty, 1600 to 1050 BCE. Spice Digest, Fall 2007. http://iis-db.stanford.edu/docs/117/ShangDynasty.pdf) [2]: (Roberts 2003, 10) |
||||||
|
levels.
We can infer the presence of a well-organized military. There is evidence for armour [1] and noble cavalry [2] which suggest specialization, and a military campaign was launched against Srivijaya. [3] Elephants were used in warfare [2] and their riders were called maliman. [4] 1. King 2. General inferreda military campaign was launched against Srivijaya. [3] 3. Officers inferred - could be more than one levelThere is evidence for armour [1] and noble cavalry [2] which suggest specialization 4. Individual soldierElephants were used in warfare [2] and their riders were called maliman. [4] [1]: (Draeger 1972, 23) [2]: (Gaukroger and Scott 2009, 134) [3]: (Muljana 2006, 246) [4]: Hall 2000, 65) |
||||||
|
levels. typically decimal system used.
1. Khan 2. General of 10,000 soldiers3. (General of 1,000 soldiers?)4. 1005. 106. Individual soldier "In accordance with Mongol tradition, Kebek Khan divided Transoxania into military-administrative districts, or tümens (in Per- sian orthography, tu ̄ma ̄n), that is, ‘10,000’ (the original meaning being a group of 10,000 fighting men or a territory providing that number of warriors). The holdings of many local landowners became tümens, and the landowners themselves hereditary governors." [1] "Along with this land Chaghadai was given a portion of the army,including four regiments of a thousand, each led by an important tribal commander.2" [2] "The early Chaghadayid khans and their followers lived out in the steppe, but in the early fourteenth century the Chaghadayid Khan Kebeg (1318-1326) took up his residence in Transoxiana and began to take a more direct interest in the settled population. Kebeg undertook a number of reforms and is credited with organizing Transoxiana into tümens, regions supporting ten-thousand soldiers, of which seven were in the Samarqand region and nine in Ferghana.3" [2] [1]: (Ashrafyan 1998, 324) [2]: (Forbes Manz 1983, 81) |
||||||
|
1) Military commanders in Sokoto administration; 2) General (in each emirate); 3) Military commanders (in each emirate); 4) Soldiers. As noted below, the Sokoto Caliphate did not have a standing or professional army, even though military commanders were a set part of the administration. Individual emirates enjoyed considerable autonomy and appear to have raised their own armies as and when the occasion demanded. The Caliph would, in theory, have had overall control of these disparate military forces, but this does not seem to have been the case in any practical sense. It is therefore difficult to settle firmly on levels within the caliphate as a whole. “The armies of the Caliphate and its emirates were organised in a completely different fashion. There was no single army and no commander-in-chief who enjoyed respect on the basis of his seniority, experience and expertise. The armies of the emirates were also far from being neatly structured and lacked the cohesion of their enemies. Each emirate had its general and a more or less numerous corps of military commanders, but the commanders did not co-ordinate their movements and never had as much control over their troops as did their British counterparts. Lack of co-ordination and a clear chain of command was a crucial reason for the extremely poor performance of most emirate troops against the British. Differences in training were equally important.”
[1]
“The same could not be said for the troops of the Caliphate. The emirates had no standing armies, and the troops they raised were not professional soldiers. Although some emirates had troops armed with guns, their numbers were too small and their expertise in handling their weapons too low to have any significant effect on the outcome of the engagements in which they were used. Smaldone is quite right to point out that the firearms found in the arsenals of some emirates such as Nupe and Ilorin, which did not make much use of guns in their resistance to the British invasion, probably indicated that they did not have men trained in their use. Even when firearms were used, they were not employed to good effect. The British officers who led the assaults on Nupe, Ilorin, Kano and Sokoto all reported that the defenders were poor marksmen and lacked fire discipline. Accurate fire and the efficient use of firearms required skills which could only be acquired through regular training, and this the defenders did not have.”
[1]
[1]: Ubah, Chinedu N. “The British Occupation of the Sokoto Caliphate: The Military Dimension, 1897-1906.” Paideuma, vol. 40, 1994, pp. 81–97: 85. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SQX8BRCP/collection |
||||||
|
levels.
1. EmperorBased on analogy with preceding and subsequent polities in the region (e.g. [1] ). 2. Minister of warBased on analogy with preceding and subsequent polities in the region (e.g. [1] ). 3. OfficersContemporary texts refer to several different kinds of officers, such as jagadala, dandanayka, and sendhipati, but without providing any clear description of the military hierarchy [2] -- coding a range to express uncertainty here 4. SoldiersLike preceding and subsequent polities, the Kadamba army was made up of infantry, cavalry, elephants and chariots [2] . [1]: Suryanatha Kamath, A Concise History of Karnataka (1980), p. 70 [2]: Suryanatha Kamath, A Concise History of Karnataka (1980), p. 39 |
||||||
|
[1]
This is a tentative estimate as the sources are not clear as to what the actual structure of the Hepthalite military was, although some terms for ranks are preserved. The ranks below are based on Bactrian seals found at several archaeological sites.
1. King 2. Asbarobido ’Chief of cavalry’ 3. Oazarko fromalaro ’Great Commander’ 4. Military serving tribesman [1]: encyclopedia iranica Vol. III, Fasc. 4, pp. 344-349 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King In battle, confederations of tribes. [1] 2. Celtic generalsbecame mercenaries for Carthage, Rome, Greece. [2] Urban aristocrats formed and maintained a standing cavalry corps. [3] This would have had a leader. 3. Chieftainspaid in gold staters or silver pieces. [4] Are these people the same as the "generals"? 4. Individual soldier Military: "Deployment would probably have been by tribal contingents. Within these contingents, clans would deploy as separate bodies ... To identify each grouping in the battle line and to act as rallying points, the guardian deities of tribe and clan were carried into battle as standards topped with carved or cast figures of their animal forms." [5] [1]: (Kruta 2004, 105) [2]: (Kruta 2004, 85) [3]: (Kruta 2004, 110) [4]: (Kruta 2004, 100) [5]: (Allen 2007, 123) |
||||||
|
levels.
Military in era of Clovis’s grandsons "confusing mosaic of heterogeneous elements" [1] 1. King Kings usually lead the army at least until Sigibert III. After this Mayor of the Palace always involved. [2] Forces usually lead by a commander. Sometimes by a king. [3] 2. DukeArmies commanded by duces (dukes) [4] At times of war Merovingian kings were supported by their leudes and aristocrats. [5] Leudes: "military followers apparently of considerable social status and influence, though probably to be distinguished from the greatest magnates of the realm, many of whom had military followings of their own, and might be expected to fight for the king both inside and outside his kingdom." [6] 3. ComesLocal levy usually commanded by count of civitas [7] Garrisons in cities not the same source as the local levy. [8] Garrison commander and local levy commander were two different people. [8] There are "indications of city-based system of military service" similar to Roman one. For example, in 578 CE Chilperic took the men of Tours, Poitiers, Bayeux, Le Mans and Angers to war in Brittany. [5] 4. Individual Solider 1. Tribunus Garrison commander Milites at Tours served under a tribunus, not a count [9] Milites - garrisoned fortifications [10] Laeti - protected fortresses and served as antrustiones in centenae [10] 640s CE and onwards the main forces were personal armed followings (bodyguards). Mayors of the Palace dominate the court. Kings lost control to mayors and magnates. [11] Bodyguard was the core military force. [12] Kingsantrustiones - Merovingian royal body guards puer regis - lower lever bodyguardssent to punish people of Limoges for revolting against tax collectors. March 579 CE. [9] leudes - soldiers in attendance intermittently spathani - ? Dukes / Magnatesalso had bodyguards Countsalso had bodyguards Troops raised from city Bishopsalso had bodyguards [1]: (Bachrach 1972, 73) [2]: (Halsall 2003, 28-29) [3]: (Bachrach 1972, 54) [4]: (Halsall 2003, 45) [5]: (Loseby in Wood ed. 1998, 245-249) [6]: (Wood 1994, 64) [7]: (Bachrach 1972, 67) [8]: (Bachrach 1972, 127) [9]: (Bachrach 1972, 51) [10]: (Bachrach 1972, 33) [11]: (Bachrach 1972, 109-112) [12]: (Halsall 2003, 48) |
||||||
|
Likely had at the least king - commander - officer - individual soldier.
|
||||||
|
From the following references there seems to be at least four levels, general, chief, officer, soldier, but there may be more: officer of the royal guard, chief of rowers, military chief, and chief of elephants. "Bhavavarman II is also a fleeting figure, but the inscriptions of his great grandson, Jayavarman I (c. AD 635-680), reflect significant consolidation of central authority. Their distribution centres on the lowlands on either side of the Mekong, with extensions into the rich rice lands of Battambang and on to the coast of Chantaburi. Their contents inform us on two vital issues. The first is the use of official titles, such as President of the ROyal Court, which was located at a centre call Purandapura. Another prescribed punishment for those who disobey a royal order. Two brothers of high social standing were appointed to a variety of posts: officer of the royal guard, chief of rowers, military chief, and governor of Dhruvapura. Another highly-ranked courtier became chief of elephants, reminding us of the traditional role of elephants in warfare. A further text mentions a chief of the royal grain store. These high officials were regarded with honorific symbols, such as a parasol embellished with gold. The trends already evident under Ishanavarman were greatly strengthen under his great grand son: with Jayavarman I, we can identify the establishment of a state. It was, however, ephemeral.
[1]
"Its authors state that in the time of Jayavarman II they had three ancestors on their mother’s and her mother’s side - two females and a male, presumably siblings, though this is not stated. The male was a general (senapati).
[2]
[1]: (Higham 2002, 250-251) [2]: (Vickery 1986, 104) |
||||||
|
levels.
Decimal system - as with nomads generally? 1. Ruler 2. 10,0003. 1,0004. 1005. 106. Individual soldier |
||||||
|
levels. AD: was left uncoded, coded as a range to allow for flexibility.
1. Ruler 2. Provincial governors/ army commanders(3. Captains)4. Individual soldiers |
||||||
|
levels.
Here too the two structures of the kingdom result in a different military hierarchy. For the area under direct rule, the structure is: King, vassals (dukes, marquises, lords, barons), sub-vassals (notables/nobles, lords, knights), infantrymen/cavalry For the area under indirect rule, the structure is: King, Counts/sub-kings, vassals, sub-vassals, infantrymen/cavalry |
||||||
|
levels. Confused picture. Coded as previous polity in the chronology.
640s CE and onwards the main forces were personal armed followings (bodyguards). Mayors of the Palace dominate the court. [1] Bodyguard was the core military force. [2] King / Mayor of the Palaceantrustiones - Merovingian royal body guards puer regis - lower lever bodyguardssent to punish people of Limoges for revolting against tax collectors. March 579 CE. [3] leudes - soldiers in attendance intermittently spathani - ? Dukes / Magnatesalso had bodyguards Countsalso had bodyguards Troops raised from city Bishopsalso had bodyguards Not in this period? 4. King ("Like Constantine, the Merovingian King was considered the reflection of God on Earth. The succession to the kingship could never been anything but the expression of a higher will" [4] Kings usually lead the army at least until Sigibert III. After this Mayor of the Palace always involved. [5] Forces usually lead by a commander. Sometimes by a king. [6] 3. Duke Armies commanded by duces (dukes) [7] At times of war Merovingian kings were supported by their leudes and aristocrats. [8] Leudes: "military followers apparently of considerable social status and influence, though probably to be distinguished from the greatest magnates of the realm, many of whom had military followings of their own, and might be expected to fight for the king both inside and outside his kingdom." [9] 2. Comes Local levy usually commanded by count of civitas [10] Garrisons in cities not the same source as the local levy. [11] Garrison commander and local levy commander were two different people. [11] There are "indications of city-based system of military service" similar to Roman one. For example, in 578 CE Chilperic took the men of Tours, Poitiers, Bayeux, Le Mans and Angers to war in Brittany. [8] 1. Tribunus Garrison commander Milites at Tours served under a tribunus, not a count [3] Milites - garrisoned fortifications [12] Laeti - protected fortresses and served as antrustiones in centenae [12] [1]: (Bachrach 1972, 109-112) [2]: (Halsall 2003, 48) [3]: (Bachrach 1972, 51) [4]: (Schutz 2004, 18) Schutz, H. 2004. The Carolingians in Central Europe, Their History, Arts, and Architecture: A Cultural History of Central Europe, 750-900. BRILL [5]: (Halsall 2003, 28-29) [6]: (Bachrach 1972, 54) [7]: (Halsall 2003, 45) [8]: (Loseby in Wood ed. 1998, 245-249) [9]: (Wood 1994, 64) [10]: (Bachrach 1972, 67) [11]: (Bachrach 1972, 127) [12]: (Bachrach 1972, 33) |
||||||
|
levels.
Later Songhay Empire: Askia Muhammad had a full time general called dyini-koy or balama. [1] 1. King In Mali and Songhai "the king appinted the generals was himself commander-in-chief of the army and personally directed military operations" [2] 2. Generals King of Mali had two generals, one responsible for the Mossi border, other northern desert border." [2] 2. Imperial councilthere was an "imperial council" [3] late 14th century government characterised by rule of powerful government officials and a sidelined monarch [3] 3. Vassal kings / Mande ChiefsIbn Battuta witnessed a ceremony in which both the Mansa and the lesser king had their own personal guards of honor. [4] Oral tradition "Sunjata Epic" says Mali Empire founded by Sunjata Keita. Initially there was a Mande Chiefdom in Farakoro. The chief had the title maghan. There were diviners "whose job it was to predict the future." The chiefdom was conquered by Susu. Sunjata "organized the soldiers of all the Mande chiefdoms into a powerful army. They went to war against Susu." The unified Mande chiefdoms formed the basis of the Mali Empire. [5] "In each kingdom, each nation, the army was divided into several corps assigned to the defense of different provinces, although under the command of the civil authority. Thus, each provincial governor had at his disposal a part of this army which he could assign tasks under the orders of a general whose powers were purely military." [2] 4. Individual soldier [1]: (Davidson 1998, 168) Davidson, Basil. 1998. West Africa Before the Colonial Era. Routledge. London. [2]: (Diop 1987, 115) Diop, Cheikh Anta. Salemson, Harold trans. 1987. Precolonial Black Africa. Lawrence Hill Books. Chicago. [3]: (Conrad 2010, 56) [4]: (Conrad 2010, 52-54) [5]: (Conrad 2010, 42-44) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King In battle, confederations of tribes. [1] 2. Celtic generalsbecame mercenaries for Carthage, Rome, Greece. [2] Urban aristocrats formed and maintained a standing cavalry corps. [3] This would have had a leader. 3. Chieftainspaid in gold staters or silver pieces. [4] Are these people the same as the "generals"? 4. Individual soldier Military: "Deployment would probably have been by tribal contingents. Within these contingents, clans would deploy as separate bodies ... To identify each grouping in the battle line and to act as rallying points, the guardian deities of tribe and clan were carried into battle as standards topped with carved or cast figures of their animal forms." [5] [1]: (Kruta 2004, 105) [2]: (Kruta 2004, 85) [3]: (Kruta 2004, 110) [4]: (Kruta 2004, 100) [5]: (Allen 2007, 123) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King Kings usually lead the army at least until Sigibert III. After this Mayor of the Palace always involved. [1] Forces usually lead by a commander. Sometimes by a king. [2] 2. DukeArmies commanded by duces (dukes) [3] At times of war Merovingian kings were supported by their leudes and aristocrats. [4] Leudes: "military followers apparently of considerable social status and influence, though probably to be distinguished from the greatest magnates of the realm, many of whom had military followings of their own, and might be expected to fight for the king both inside and outside his kingdom." [5] 2. ComesLocal levy usually commanded by count of civitas [6] Garrisons in cities not the same source as the local levy. [7] Garrison commander and local levy commander were two different people. [7] There are "indications of city-based system of military service" similar to Roman one. For example, in 578 CE Chilperic took the men of Tours, Poitiers, Bayeux, Le Mans and Angers to war in Brittany. [4] 3. officer level? inferred4. Individual Soldier 1. Tribunus Garrison commander Milites at Tours served under a tribunus, not a count [8] Milites - garrisoned fortifications [9] Laeti - protected fortresses and served as antrustiones in centenae [9] Bodyguard was the core military force. [10] Kingsantrustiones - Merovingian royal body guards puer regis - lower lever bodyguards leudes - soldiers in attendance intermittently spathani - ? Dukes / Magnatesalso had bodyguards Countsalso had bodyguards Troops raised from city Bishopsalso had bodyguards [1]: (Halsall 2003, 28-29) [2]: (Bachrach 1972, 54) [3]: (Halsall 2003, 45) [4]: (Loseby in Wood ed. 1998, 245-249) [5]: (Wood 1994, 64) [6]: (Bachrach 1972, 67) [7]: (Bachrach 1972, 127) [8]: (Bachrach 1972, 51) [9]: (Bachrach 1972, 33) [10]: (Halsall 2003, 48) |
||||||
|
levels.
(4) Imams and their advisers; (3) retainers; (2) Shaykhs and other tribal leaders; (1) Armed tribesmen Political and military authority was loose and fluid. Accordingly, it is difficult to establish precise hierarchies and the code provided is only a rought approximation. Dresch describes the emergence of the Qasimid court, including the establishment of a retainer army: ’Besides the wealth to be extracted from the southern peasantry, the Imams of the period also had available, if they could retain control, taxes from a burgeoning coffee trade. The rise and fall of the Yemeni coffee trade with Europe matches almost exactly the trajectory of the Imamate’s wealth (see Boxhall 1974; Niebuhr 1792). The English and Dutch established factories at Mocha in 1618; the trade was probably at its height around 1730; and the world price of coffee finally crashed at the start of the nineteenth century, at which point one gets mention of Imams debasing the currency (al-’Amri 1985: 59). This wealth, however, had always to be fought for; the rulers became wealthier and more powerful than hitherto, but still were liable to dispute among themselves.’ [1] ’The state the Qasimis formed in the midst of this was none the less impressive (for the rulers’ genealogy see Fig. 6.1). Al-Qasim himself, who early in his fight against the Turks had wept over his children starving at Barat, was wealthy when the truce was signed. He built the mosque at Shaharah, then built houses for himself and his followers, planted coffee in al-Ahnum, and amassed more land than the public treasury (Nubdhah: 258, 334-6). The court expanded with the southern conquests. Al-Mutawakkil received an embassy from Ethiopia and exchanged gifts of fine horses with Aurangzib of India (Serjeant 1983: 80-1), while his relatives expressed concern about his monthly demands for funds from Lower Yemen. Further criticism of his taxation policy came from Muhammad al-Ghurbani at Barat, but in 1675 the levies on Lower Yemen were redoubled (ibid. 82). Under Muhammad Ahmad, ’He of al-Mawahib’" (1687-1718), the exactions became more severe still, in support of a grandiose court and a large standing army complete with slave soldiers (ibid., Zabarah 1958: 451, 457; alShawkani 1929: ii. 98).’ [1] Leading shaykhly families rose to prominence in this period, partly due to the military support they had provided to the Qasimids in their anti-Ottoman campaigns: ’At precisely this period, and in the space of a decade, the names of several great shaykhly families important nowadays all appear for the first time: al-Ahmar of Hashid, for instance, juzaylan of Dhu Muhammad, ani Hubaysh of Sufyan, Some of the lesser shaykhly houses, such as al-Ziyadi, al-Rarnmah, ’Irnran, ~lGhashrni, and al-Barawi, are attested as much as a century earlier (see e.g, Nubdhah: III, 121, 123, 175, 453). Many of the tribal divisions familiar nowadays had been present far longer, as readers will have gathered from Chapter 5, but the leading families now identified with them appear only at this later date. They were associated with the state and with events elsewhere than in tribal territory.’ [2] The relationship between imams and tribal leaders could be supportive as well as hostile, in both political and military terms: ’Sali1}. Hubaysh of Sufyan is first mentioned in 1698 as putting down a revolt of Raymah and Wa~ab (south-west of San’a’) against al-Mawahib’s governor: women’s earrings taken by his men were sold in San’a’ with fragments of ear still attached, provoking certain ’ulama’s» preach against Hubaysh’s cruelty (Zabarah 195 8: 670). Then, after a disastrous attempt on Yafi’ (in what is nowadays South Yemen), which resulted in Ibb being lost to the tribes of the eastern desert, al-Mawahib called to account the northern tribes who had failed him. In 1702 he sent his nephew to deal with ’Hamdan and their chief Ibn Hubaysh’, but a truce was made instead (ibid. 428; Zabarah 1941: 297). Five years later, after another failure in Yafi’, al-Mawahib sent al-Qasim b. al-Husayn and Sali1}. Hubaysh to Khamir to deal with Hashid, where the two fell out. In 1709 Hubaysh was again sent to Khamir by alMawahib, this time to deal with al-Qasim, but Hubaysh was finally tricked and killed there (ibid. 778-80; Zabarah 1958: 357)·’ [2] ’In the intervening period he had been placed in charge of an army to fight the tribes of the east and Yafi’. Al-Mawahib had ordered his minister to strike a balance between Hubaysh and Bin juzaylan of Dhii Muhammad (again, this is the earliest clear reference to this famous family), but the governor’s own aim was to balance the pair of them with the eastern tribes whom the Imam wanted conquered. The result of his intrigue was that the two Bakil chiefs opposed each other and the easterners won (ibid. 875; Zabarah 1941: 773). Soon after this Hubaysh was sent with al-Qasim b. al-Husayn to Hiith, and the Imam’s men razed a house nearby which belonged to Muhammad ’Ali al-Gharibi of Hashid (ibid. 778-80; id. 1958: 684; al-Shawkani 1929: ii. 46), who, as we shall see, is probably Bayt al-Ahmar’s immediate forebear.’ [3] Conflict between rival imams also occurred and tribal military support could be decisive for the outcome: ’A few years later, in 1713, al-Husayn b. al-Qasim declared himself Imam in opposition to al-Mawahib, and ’Ali Hadi Hubaysh (probably Sali1}.’s brother) supported him (Zabarah 1941: 601-9). ’Ali al-Ahmar of al-Usayrnat was sent by al-Mawahib to oppose him (again, this is the first mention of the family by name), but the tribes preferred the new claimant (ibid. 356,607). The country was at one point divided among several of these rival Imams-although, significantly, none of them claimed control of the major tribes (ibid. 616)-and the struggle between.the different Qasimis dragged on, with the shaykhs holding the balance, until al-Mawahib died in 1718.’ [4] ’Al-Mutawakkil al-Qasim then took the Imamate (Serjeant 1983: 84), and at this stage al-Ahmar was apparently on good terms with al-Husayn, the new Imam’s son (Zabarah 1941: 539); but when alNasir Muhammad made a rival claim in 1723 al-Ahrnar and many other shaykhs went over to him. The leading sayyids were meanwhile divided among themselves over the perennial problem of taxation (ibid. 289). In 1726 the Dhayban section of Arhab cut the roads, and a group of them made trouble in San’a’ itself (Zabarah 1958: 359). The Imam had them hunted through the streets, in response to which "Arhab tribesmen invited Hashid and Bakil to join them in taking revenge and wiping out the dishonour they had sustained. The tribes responded. ’All b. Qasim al-Ahmar, Paramount Shaykh of Hashid, and Nasir b. juzaylan, Paramount Shaykh of Bakil, proceeded to ’Amran where they met al-Husayn, the Imam’s son, whom they persuaded to join them ... (al]iriifi 1951: 181, trans. Stookey 1978: 151-2).’ [4] ’As Stookey points out, al-Husayn’s combination with the tribes against his father availed him little since when his father died, in the following year, and he claimed the Imamate himself under the title al-Mansiir, they supported his cousin, al-Nasir Muhammad.’ [4] ’But al-jirafi goes on, more importantly, to relate that al-Ahmar wrote al-Mansur al-Husayn a brusque letter demanding a meeting. The Imam feared an attempt at assassination; so he’assassinated alAhmar first, stuck his head on a lance, and galloped off with it through a hail of bullets from the shaykh’s enraged tribesmen (aljirafi 1951: 182). In fact, al-Ahrnar, accompanied by Bin juzaylan of DhU Muhammad and by Ahmad Muhammad Hubaysh of Sufyan, seems to have come to ’Asir, just outside San’a’, to seek a settlement (Zabarah 1941: 539 and 1958: 486). The details are probably lost forever, and we are told only that al-Ahmar ’had wished to make independent his own rule of part of the country’ (ibid.), which he very well may have done; but al-Mansur alHusayn’s view of the matter, as recorded in the histories, has all the vigorous clarity of the Zaydi tradition. The taunt to the tribesmen at the time was, typically, that they were no better than polytheists: he brandished al-Ahmar’s head on his spear and cried ’this is the head of your idol’.’ [5] Dresch also mentions millenarian militant movements: ’In 175I, however, a millenarian rising broke out in the western mountains, led by Abu ’AIamah, a black ’magician’ who preached a puritanical renewal of Islam. Accounts of the rising mention several forts in the west being taken from Bayt al-Ahmar: al-Qahirah at alMahabishah was lost, then Qaradah and al-Gharnuq at Najrah, just south of Hajjah, then Sabrah, and finally the fort near alMadayir that al-Mansur had bought several years earlier (Zabarah 1941: 53-5). During the forty years since al-Mansur al-Husayn b. al-Qasim (a rival of al-Mawahib) came to power in 1712, says a contemporary witness, the state had counted for little: "The rule of ’All al-Ahmar and his sons after him and of other tribesmen from Hashid remained over-great and excessive until God destroyed what they had built and extinguished their flame, proclaiming their weakness and perdition by the appearance of this dervish. (Quoted ibid. 54)’ [6] Tribal leaders held lands, collected taxes, and defended forts, enabling them to form a power base in their own right: ’Whatever setbacks they suffered, however, Bayt al-Ahmar were not displaced permanently. In the year after Abu ’Alamah’s rising, when the Sharif of Abu ’Arish and a rival claimant to the Imamate were active in the north-west, they were again a power to be reckoned with." Certainly they collected taxes as well as rents in the nineteenth century, and local memory credits them with taking revenue even from coastal towns in the north Tihamah, They retain considerable lands in the west to the present day.’ [6] ’Nor were Bayt al-Ahrnar of Hashid the only shaykhly family in the area: Nasir juzaylan of Dhu Muhammad lost forts to Abu ’Alamah at al-Masiih, and a garrison from Dhii Husayn were chased out of al-Sha’iq in Bani ’Awam (again near Hajjah), but the shaykhly families of Barat retained or re-established a hold there. Al al-Shayif of Dhfi Husayn, for example, still own land in Hajjah province, and Bayt Hubaysh of Sufyan have considerable holdings near al-Mahwit (Tutwiler 1987). The picture which emerges between the lines of eighteenth-century histories and tariijim is of myriad forts in the western mountains, each garrisoned by twenty or thirty tribal soldiers and controlling an area for some shaykh of the northern plateau. As the eighteenth century wears on, so the same pattern comes more clearly to light in Lower Yemen too: in his entry for 1752, for example, al-jirafi records for the first time what will punctuate his history thereafter, Barat tribesmen at odds with the Imam south of San’a’ (al-jirafi 195I: 183). They continued to appear there into the present century, leaving behind great numbers of tribal families and large shaykhly holdings of land outside tribal territory.’ [7] However, written records are often silent on these matters: ’These shaykhs are not the subject of Imamic history. Although the Imamate could not have functioned as it did without them, and although the granting of ’fiefs’ to them went on for centuries, the details of their financial and administrative position are nowhere written up. Nor has local documentation come to light. Until it does, we must form what estimate we can by looking at the great shaykhly houses nowadays.’ [8] In addition, sayyids also quarreled amongst themselves: ’AI-Mahdi al-iAbbas (1748-75) was very much a Sanani Imam, being based on the city throughout his reign. Among learned San’anis he retained a high reputation (al-Shawkani 19 29: 310-12; Serjeant 1983: 85 ff.), but it is plain that all was not well elsewhere. Abu ’Alamah’s 175I rising in the north-west has already been mentioned. Two years earlier a campaign had been fought in Lower Yemen against a ’sorcerer’ who promised his followers immunity against sword wounds and gun shots.V In the year before that, Hasan al-Tlkarn, of the qadi family from Barat and the north-east, was leading tribesmen at odds with the new Imam in Lower Yemen (Zabarah 1958: 684)Y In both the west and the south, the incursion of tribesmen over the preceding generation had not been quietly absorbed, and the affairs of the Barat tribes in particular (Dhii Muhammad and Dhu Husayn) became involved with those of the Imam’s capital at San’a’.’ [9] ’The connections of learning which were often important in an Imam’s rise to power (Ch. 5) could also readily generalize a threat to that power if one emerged; and the language of equality, justice, and religious probity linked the learned with the tribesmen also. In 17 68, for instance, the ’ulamd’ of Barat (particularly Bayt al-’Ansi) wrote to Zaydi centres such as Huth and Dhamar, calling for the expulsion of al-Mahdi al-Abbas and his Qasimi relatives on doctrinal grounds (al-jirafi 1951: 187; Zabarah 1958: 521-2; al-Shawkani 1929: ii. 134-5), though the Barat tribes’ incursions in preceding years suggest that doctrinal detail was not the main motive force (see e.g. Zabarah 1958: 13).’ [10] ’The Qasimis were accused of ’innovations’ (bida’). Zaydism had always recognized ijtihad (the formation of new law by extrapolation from scripture), but in the mid-eighteenth century a pronounced movement of criticism was under way. Ibn al-Amir, for instance, a Zaydi scholar who kept his political distance from the Imamate, blurred the distinction between his own school and the Shafi’i,14 with the result that conspicuous details, such as postures of prayer, became matters of contention among those less learned than he. The Barat qadis blamed the Qasimis for supporting him. On at least one occasion, an intestine squabble among San’ani ’ulamd’ over mosque appointments, phrased in these terms, led one faction to demand arbitration from al-’Ansi, ’the qadi of Hashid and Bakil’ (Zabarah 1941: 617), rather than from their Qasimi rulers.’ [11] Imams were often reduced to negotiate protection money with tribes under the threat of military incursions: ’Hasan al-’Ansi and the Barat tribes appeared outside San’a’ in 1770. They were successfully driven off, which provoked some vainglorious poetry from the victors (Serjeant 1983: 86; d. alShawkani 1929: i. 459), but elsewhere al-Shawkani suggests (ibid. ii. 136) how this was achieved: an addition to the tribesmen’s stipend of 20,000 riyals per annum, the implication being that they already received regular payment. These incursions and payments continued for several decades.P and the Barat tribes remained active in Lower Yemen until the Turks took the area in the late nineteenth century.’ [11] ’Al-Mansiir ’All b. al-Mahdi (1775-1809) was, like his father, a San’ani Imam, and from the city’s point of view was at first a considerable success (Serjeant 1983: 86-7; al-Shawkani 1929: i. 359 ff.). But at the state’s periphery, Sharif Harniid of Abu Arish was forced south by the Nejd Wahhabis into territory the Imamate had held or at least had part access to. The resulting loss of port revenue was almost certainly serious. I? From now on, the Imams’ ability to buy off the tribes declined sharply.’ [12] ’At the centre, al-Mansur’s grip on affairs failed when his sons fell out with each other, and the qadis of Bayt al-’Ulufi fell out with those of Bayt al-’Ansi, in part over stipends to the tribes (al-jirafi 1951: 192; al-tAmri 1985: 52-64; al-Hibshi 1980: 4; Zabarah 1929: i, 343-4). In 1818, in the time of the Imam al-Mahdi, a large body of tribesmen from Barat arrived at the capital in search of pay to fight in the Tiharnah (al-Hibshi 1980: 18). The Imam, having collected support of his own from Khawlan and Nihm, had ’All ’Abdullah al-Shayif of Dhii Husayn beheaded and the body strung up for three days, then thrown in the rubbish ditch outside Bab Sha’ub (ibid. 20-1; Zabarah 1929: ii. 66). But Bayt al-Shayif’s call for support to avenge this was answered by Wa’ilah, Hashid, al’ Amalisah, Sufyan, and Arhab, among others; in short, by tribes from as far away as what is now the Saudi border. They looted the city’s outskirts and carried off enough plunder ’to suffice the son’s son’ (ibid. 23-4; al-Arnri 1985: 88-91).’ [13] This lead to a gradual break-down of imamic authority: ’In 1823 a severe drought in the east forced a meeting of tribes at Jabal Barat, where they decided to seek aid from the Imam. When he refused and they turned on Lower Yemen, he seems to have been able to do nothing but warn others they were coming. ’When they reached Sarnarah [the pass that is sometimes taken to define Lower Yemen’s border; see Chapter I], each put down his pledge on a place, and they divided it all up as if their father had left them the land as inheritance’ (al-Hibshi 1980: 34). It is quite possible, of course, that many had indeed been left inheritance there, either property or presumed rights to ’fiefs’ (quta’): they had been involved with the area for the best part of a century. From 1823 onwards, though, they are said to have held the area unopposed: ’they took control of it by force and coercion, then settled there, married there, and forgot the east until the Faqih Sa’Id threw them out in [1840]’ (ibid.i.l" Even that was not sufficient, and when a further drought struck in 1835, Dhii Husayn, under Muhsin ’Ali alShayif, began raiding the north-west, while their women and children moved westwards by themselves in great numbers (ibid. 60-2). The Tiharnah had meanwhile fallen to the Egyptians.’ [14] ’At the centre, in San’a’, the Imamate under al-Mansiir ’All b. alMahdi ’Abdullah lost not only its resources but its ~oral vigour: ’drunkenness was the prevailing vice among the higher orders, and ... the corpses of men, women and children lay about the streets, no one taking the trouble to bury them .. .’ (Playfair 1859: 145)· Al-Mansiir squabbled with one of his relatives, who fled to Ta’izz and handed it over to the Egyptians. Al-Nasir ’Abdullah Ahsan was then raised to the Imamate by the soldiers in San’a’, only to be assassinated at Wadi Dahr in 1840.19 Al-Hadi Muhammad took the throne and succeeded briefly in regaining Mocha and Ta’izz, but when the Egyptians withdrew-under indirect pressure from Britain (Baldry 1976: I6I)-the Tiharnah fell under the control of Sharif Husayn.’ [14] ’The geographical pattern of power had now changed beyond recognition. Hashid (led in part by the qadis of Bayt Hanash), were in Raymah, as well as further north in the western mountains, Dhii Muhammad and Dhii Husayn were in the south, as well as in the Tihamah, and all were involved with Yam, whose homeland in Najran had usually been outside the field of Yemeni events but whose presence in Haraz and the Tiharnah was nothing new. The land of Hashid and Bakil, on the northern plateau, was itself a dead centre to the whirl of events involving tribesmen elsewhere. Sharif Husayn’s movements in 1845 make the point: starting from the north-west, in the Tihamah, he moved to the south, around Ta’izz, then to Barat, in the extreme north-east (al-Hibshi 1980: 120-31). The Imamate, at San’a’, retained a mere rump of territory.’ [15] ’There was -violence enough in the north itself, particularly in times of drought (see e.g. ibid. 306); but the tribal divisions, one should note, changed very little, and then rather in a longue duree than in the order of events recorded year by year. As we shall see in Chapter 9, the geographical detail even of sections within tribes changes hardly at all from al-Qasim’s time (early seventeenth century) to our own, and where change occurs it does so by recognizable quanta. Inequality and movement alike are registered in other terms. The prominence of major shaykhs, for instance, whom the tribesmen followed much as they did Imams, derived from wealth in the west and in Lower Yemen, and this is also where the great non-quantum shifts in territorial control resulted from tribesmen fighting each other. Inequality, power, and geographical change all attach, not to tribal self-definition, but to the history of successive Imams, to the history of a tradition or of a dynasty; and the dynasty had, by this point, collapsed because it had lost control of non-tribal land.’ [16] ’The Imams’ attempts to regain the south met with little success. Ahmad Salih Thawabah of Dhu Muhammad, who had controlled a large ;wa~he of Lower Yemen, was defeated by al-Mutawakkil Muhammad and finally executed in 1848, to the delight of the Imam’s supporters (Dresch 1987b). Within three years, however, his sons were formally granted land in much the same area (al-Hibshi 1980: 166). In the interim the Imam had been forced to send Dhii Muhammad horses as slaughter-beasts (’aqa’ir), which they took but did not have killed, and then pay them to fight again in the south (ibid. 146).20 Dhu Muhammad, Dhii Husayn, Arhab, Khawlan, and Hashid were also all fighting in the west, on the Imam’s side, the Sharif’s, or both; but the Ottoman Turks now seized the Tihamah. Hufash, near al-Mahwit, and al-Haymah were both contested, and several rival claimants to the Imamate appeared at once.’ [17] This enabled the eventual Ottoman re-conquest: ’In despair al-Mutawakkil asked the Turks to intervene in the highlands. They arrived at San’a’ in 1849 with 1,200 foot and 500 horse, but a riot ensued and they withdrew after only three weeks (Zabarah 1929: ii, 346 ff.; al-Sayaghi 1978: 25-7). AlMutawakkil was killed by his rivals. One of the Ashraf of the northern Tihamah, supported by ’a large following from Hashid, was then bought off with a gift of 2,000 riyals, robes of honour, and a horse (al-Sayaghi 1978: 31). The combination of a Tihamah Sharif and Hashid at the gates of San’a’ is symptomatic enough of the Imamate’s weakness.’ [18] ’From the summary histories one forms an impression of steadily increasing disorder through the next twenty years, until ’the people of San’a’ and others’ invited the Turks again to take the city ’after they had tired of the chaos which prevailed there, the dominion of men from the tribes, the cutting of the roads, and the lack of any ordered security’ (al-jirafi 1951: 205-6). A more recently available, and more detailed, source gives a different impression (al-Hibshi 19 80: 29 6 ff.). But the Turks seem in any case to have had designs on the highlands: they had increased their forces on the coast ’until stores were coming ashore with San’a’ printed on every load’ (ibid. 315), and when they finally arrived, in 1872, they demanded the tax registers which would reveal to them the administration and resources of the whole country (al-Wasi’I 1928: IIO). They were to remain in highland Yemen until 19 18.’ [18] ’For much of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, then, Yemen had been plagued by disputes between rival Imams and by tribal disorder. The Imamate had taken the form of an elaborate dynastic state, yet failed to secure the means to support itself or to transmit authority without dispute. Al-Shamahi credits the Qasimi dawlah with surviving until the middle of the nineteenth century. In name it did. He rationalizes the great decline of its power by saying that al-Mu’ayyad Muhammad (d. 1686) was the last of the Qasimis to possess all the qualities needed of an Imam, and that the rulers after him were more like kings (al-Shamahi 1972: 144-6). Similarly, al-Wazir (1971: 50) attributes the collapse of the state to the appearance of ’evil Imams’. Authors writing nearer the time each choose some point at which the real decline starts, always simply by reference to the actions or fate of a particular Imam (e.g. al-Hibshi 1980: 193).’ [19] [1]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 200 [2]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 202 [3]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 202p [4]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 203 [5]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 203p [6]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 206 [7]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 206p [8]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 209 [9]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 212 [10]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 212p [11]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 213 [12]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 214 [13]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 214p [14]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 215 [15]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 215p [16]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 216 [17]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 216p [18]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 217 [19]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 217p |
||||||
|
levels. The Phoenician command structure is unknown, particularly given their reliance on mercenaries; however, it is known that neighboring Israel had up to 8 levels of hierarchy, ranging from the king serving as field commander all the way down to commanders of thousands, hundreds, and tens.
[1]
[1]: Kelle (2007:42-44, 71, 140). |
||||||
|
levels. Four levels mentioned in the consulted sources. Highly likely there were more specific levels such as various types of officers, but this should be checked by an expert.:1. King : “The military administration was efficiently organized and a regular army was associated with each ruler.”
[1]
::2. Enperaym (officials who were responsible to the king only) :: “There was another institution called Enperayam which consisted of (1) Karanattiyalavar (accountants); (2) Karumakarar (executive officials); (3) Kanakasurram (treasury officials); (4) Kadaikappalar (palace guards); (5) Nagarmandar (important elderly persons in the city); (6) Padaittalaivar (chiefs of the infantry); (7) Yanai Virar (Chief of the elephantry); and (8) Irulai Maravar (chiefs of the cavalry) these were categories of officials who had no collective status but only individual responsibility to the king.”
[2]
:::3. Military Commanders ::: “During the Sangam period, hereditary monarchy was the form of government. The king was assisted by a wide body of officials who were categorized into five councils. They were ministers (amaichar), priests (anthanar), envoys (thuthar), military commanders (senapathi), and spies (orrar).”
[1]
::::4. Army soldiers :::: “The military administration was efficiently organized and a regular army was associated with each ruler.”
[1]
[1]: (Jankiraman, 2020) Jankiraman, M. 2020. Perspectives in Indian History: From the Origins to AD 1857. Chennai: Notion Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/N3D88RXF/collection [2]: (Agnihotri 1988, 352) Agnihotri, V.K. 1988. Indian History. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Pvt. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/PNX9XBJQ/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Estimated. Competent and organized enough to take conquer.
At the least something like: 1. Ruler 2. Army commanders(3. Captains)4. Individual soldiers |
||||||
|
Levels: 1) Kaigama (in charge of the armies of Kanem-Bornu); 2) Members of the court/chima kura (heads of vast households, which also operated as military units); 3) Ummal (officers); 4) Fursan (horsemen/warriors), which may be distinct from ordinary soldiers. “Even though it is difficult to generalize the nature of political power for more than 1000 years of history, some features seem to have been present throughout the history of Bornu. The royal family was at the heart of the political system meaning that the head of the Sayfawa family was also the mai. […] However, political power was not solely in the hands of the ruling family as members of the council were also in charge of political affairs. It appears that there were around twelve members in this council and that apart from the descendants of the close advisors of the first Sayfawas, their office was not hereditary. It would be difficult to attribute a specific role to each of the members of the council over the centuries but some office-holders seem to exert the same roles. For example, the mainin kenandi was the Islamic advisor of the mai whereas the kaigama was in charge of the armies of Kanem-Bornu.”
[1]
“Each member of the court was himself the head of a household, often vast in its dimensions. These households might include hundreds of slaves and clients, and they not only operated as military units in the Borno army, but also as the fundamental administrative cadres in the state government. In their capacities as administrators, members of the court were called chima kura, literally, big tax collector. Chima kura were responsible for the administration of their own districts, units of which were usually scattered geographically throughout the kingdom. They appointed slaves or clients as resident administrators for these smaller sub-units or fiefs, who were called chima gana (small tax collector).”
[2]
“The categories of officials which the inscriptio mentions are the umara (amirs), shurta (guards), hukama (governors), "ulama (scholars), ummal (officers), qudat (judges), wuzara (viziers), fursan (horsemen, warriors), ra’aya (subjects) and ma’shar al-muslimln (the generality of Muslims).”
[3]
[1]: Hiribarren, V. (2016). Kanem-Bornu Empire. In N. Dalziel & J. M. MacKenzie (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Empire (pp. 1–6). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: 4. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/KNHK5ANQ/collection [2]: Brenner, Louis. “SOURCES OF CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHT IN BORNO.” Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, vol. 7, no. 1, 1973, pp. 49–65: 52. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/BGCV72TB/collection [3]: Bobboyi, H. (1993). RELATIONS OF THE BORNO ʿULAMĀʾ WITH THE SAYFAWA RULERS: THE ROLE OF THE MAḤRAMS. Sudanic Africa, 4, 175–204: 189–190. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/JE5VQ8NI/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred continuity with previous polity.
Hoysalas had a professional military. [1] and likely the there would have been at least four levels thus: 1. King 2. General3. Officer/s"several scholars have suggested that the reputed founders of Vijayanagara, the Sangama brothers, had been officers in the Kampili military." [2] 4. Individual soldier [1]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 105 [2]: (Sinopoli 2003, 74-75) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. senapati (commander-in-chief) [1] 3. General?4. Officer/s?Leader of a army unit. "The suffix gulma in the name Vatsagulma is also interesting. Manu regards gulma as a station where an army unit was posted for protection of the kingdom (Misra 1987: 645-647)." [1] 5.6. Individual soldier According to the Mahabharata: ’A file is made up of five footmen, three horses, one chariot, and one elephant ... Three files form one troop-head; three troop-heads, one cluster; three clusters, one troop; three troops make one convoy. Three convoys ... make a column, three columns, a brigade; and three brigades, a division. And ten such divisions constitute ... one army.’" [2] 1. King inferred 2. Division3. Brigade4. Column5. Convoy6. Troop7. Cluster8. Troop-head9. File10. Soldier According to Kautilya’s Arthasastra (after 200 BCE): "a squad of ten soldiers, a platoon of ten squads, and a regiment of ten platoons. ’For every ten members of each of the constituents of the army, there should be one commander called padika ... ten padikas should be placed under a senapati, and ten senaptis under a nayaka.’ [2] 1. King inferred 2. Nayaka of a regiment3. Senapati of a platoon4. Padika of a squad [1]: (Sawant 2009) Reshma Sawant. 2008. ‘State Formation Process In The Vidarbha During The Vakataka Period’. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 68-69: 137-162.< [2]: (Eraly 2011, 171) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
--Early Kamakura Military Structure--
[1]
4. Shogun 3. Battle commanders 2. Gokenin 1. Provincial warriors See chart in Friday 2004.p.50.‘The organization of early Kamakura armies is manifest in Azuma kagami’s description of the forces deployed at the battle of Ichinotani, in the second month of 1184. Command of the main host was entrusted to Yoritomo’s brother Noriyori, whose “accompanying troops” consisted of thirty-two named vassals and “more than 56,000 horsemen under them,” while a second division,commanded by Yoshitsune, included seventeen named vassals and “more than 20,000 horsemen under them.” Three points stand out from this account. First, the text assigns no formal titles to Noriyori and Yoshitsune, describing them only as the “commanding officer for the main force” (ōte no taishōgun) and “commanding officer for the flanking force” (karamete no taishō gun). Second, the identification of only three levels of warriors - divisional commanders, named vassals and “horsemen under them” - and the ratio of officers to other warriors (the improbable overall numbers notwithstanding) testifies to the lack of articulation in the army. And third, the assignment of vassals to the divisions betrays no logical pattern, beyond grouping warriors of the same surname together. Both forces included men of Taira, Minamoto and Fujiwara descent; both included men from various provinces;and men from the same provinces were split between the divisions. [1] below are two alternate and concurrent command chains --Chains of command in the late Kamakura military 1 — 5. Council of State 4. Shogunate 3. Shugo 2. Gokenin 1. Provincial warriors --Chains of command in the late Kamakura military 2— 4. Council of State 3. Provincial government 2. non-gokenin warrior leaders 1. Provincial warriors ‘Kamakura continued, on occasion, to make use of the older provincial government mechanisms for mustering warriors, or to mobilize important vassals directly. ... Gokenin and their followers, moreover, made up but a small percentage of the total warrior population of the time; substantial numbers of bushi remained under the jurisdiction of estate proprietors or provincial governors. Thus the organizational structure under which late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century warriors served looked something like the system depicted in Figure 2.3. The command structures of the Kemmu regime and the Muromachi shogunate (during the Nambokuchō era) remained essentially the same, at least in theory. [2] ‘Warrior allegiances were further circumscribed by the multi-tiered, hierarchical structure of the military networks to which they belonged. Most of the provincial warriors in the organizations of prominent bushi had vassals of their own, and many of the members of these, in turn, had followers.’ [3] [1]: Friday, Karl F. 2004. Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan. Psychology Press.p.50 [2]: Friday, Karl F. 2004. Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan. Psychology Press.p.52-53 [3]: Friday, Karl F. 2004. Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan. Psychology Press.p.59 |
||||||
|
levels.
A standing army, inspired by the Chinese-style army, was introduced in Japan in the 7th century CE by the emperor Tenmu. The bulk of the army conscripted was composed of peasants who served in infantry regiments. Each province provided a regiment, which could have a size from several hundred to over a thousand of soldiers [1] . 5. Emperor 4. Commander-in-Chief?3. Regiment (several hundred to over a thousand soldiers)2. Officer?1. Individual soldier [1]: Kuehn, John T. 2014. A Military History of Japan: From the Age of the Samurai to the 21st Century. Praeger,pp.17-18. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Shah 2.3. 2. Local governor 3.4. "Iran had not had a national military force since the days of Naser al Din Shah. In 1878, on his second trip abroad, Naser al Din Shah had seen a parade by Cossack soldiers in Russia. Greatly impressed, he asked the Czar whether a similar force could be established in Iran. in 1879 under a 40-year agreement the Russians established a Cossack Brigaded manned by Iranians and commanded by Russian officiers. The brigade thereafter was always a tool of Russian imperialist designs and Persian autocracy, serving primarily as a bodyguard for the Shah." [1] Another attribute of the local governors was that they had their own militia, with which they were supposed to crush opposition and lawlessness in the provinces. ... the shah had only a small military force, as little as a few thousand ... this force was also irregularly clothed, paid and armed." [2] [1]: (Ghani 2000, 15) Cyrus Ghani. 2000. Iran and the Rise of Reza Shah. From Qajar Collapse to Pahlavi Power. I B Tauris. London. [2]: (Martin 2005, 14) Vanessa Martin. 2005. The Qajar Pact: Bargaining, Protest and the State in Nineteenth-Century Persia. I. B. Tauris. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
Based on data for preceding polities at least 5 levels. |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Omanhene; (2) his Bodyguard (Gyasi) and Generals (Tufuhene); (3) Wing chiefs; (4) Local Chiefs acting as captains of companies; (5) commoners fulfilling the role of infantry Political and military leadership often coincided: ’The long, complex history of the Akan peoples is one of internecine conflicts and, since the eighteenth century, of opposition to the encroachment of various colonial powers: the Dutch, Portuguese, Danish, French, and English. In addition, there have been continual threats from the Islamic peoples of the southern Saharan fringe. Essentially all these conflicts have been over monopolies in trade, first across the Sahara with northern Africa and, in later centuries, across the Atlantic with the countries of Europe and the Americas. Warfare has historically been a central institution, a means of extending territory and controlling external trade. The Akan state was typically divided into five or six military formations or "wings," each under the authority of a wing chief. Beneath the wing chiefs, who are chosen by the king, are the chiefs of the main towns of a kingdom. The latter are from the town’s ruling line.’ [1] ’It must be admitted that the origin of our State government and the principles on which it was founded, being solely military in character, one should feel content to accept the fact that the whole structure of the civil government we enjoy to-day is the result of martial adventures. This being so, it is only natural that people whose powers are clearly labelled as “military commanders”, etc., should exercise civil powers when the fruit of their labours bring peace. In almost all the Akan institutions, from the lowest servant to the highest officer, there is scarcely any whose civil powers are not based on military appointments. It is, therefore, most natural to fall into the habit of merging a civil into a military power.’ [2] ’The Ohene of every district is the supreme commander of the fighting men. His orders are communicated through the captains (Asafuhenefu), or the Tufuhene, as the case may be. Whenever a council of war is convened he presides, and it is his duty to provide them with some powder and shot. Every male person able to bear arms is bound to serve his country, and each fighting man [Page 28] provides himself with arms and ammunitions, as well as provisions, at his own expense.’ [3] According to Sarbah, imperial Ashanti military organization was more ’developed’ than that of smaller Akan predecessors: ’The common origin of the inhabitants of the Fanti districts, Asanti, and wherever the Akan language is spoken, has been already shown. † The Customary Laws of the inhabitants of these places are in the main identical, and the national constitutions resemble each other in many points, although Asanti military organization had been [Page 3] developed in a greater degree. In fact, while the Fanti communities were gradually bringing under their sway smaller states, the Asanti king by conquests was extending his power over many lands. At one time all countries from Cape Mount in Liberia to the western boundary of Dahomey were, with few exceptions, under Asanti jurisdiction.’ [4] But the Omanhene was supported by a bodyguard even before Ashanti imperial expansion: ’Omanhene is the head of the national life, and naturally president of the rulers of the people assembled either as a court for deciding cases or for legislation. The district, taken as a whole, is likewise considered as a body, whereof the Omanhene supports the head, and the next man in authority to him carries the foot. By virtue of his office, Omanhene has the right to be carried by four men or more, and uses three or more canopy umbrellas. At his installation a small sword, the insignia of his office, is handed to him, and he enjoys several other privileges. He is the commander-in-chief of all the fighting men of the district. His bodyguard and the immediate fighting men are called Gyasi. He is almost invariably a member of the Domtsifu or Intsin Company. Tufuhene is the man whose duty it is to command the fighting-men (from tuu, “to throw, e.g., arrows, etc.;” hence etuo, itur, “a gun”); a fighting leader, or commander. In some districts, and especially in the coast towns, Tufuhene is the next man in authority after Ohene.’ [5] ’An Ohene is entitled to ride in a palanquin carried by two men and attended by two canopy umbrellas. An Odzikuro is the headman of a village. Penin is an elder, generally an old man of experience. Sahene is a man appointed to conduct war. A Safuhene is a captain of a company, and in some instances is a stoolholder. In fact, among the Akanfu, that is Asanti, Wassaw, Assin, Akim, and such like, each Ohene of the several towns and districts is referred to as the Safuhene of his Omanhene. The Gyasi are the bodyguard of an Ohene or Omanhene. They comprise, first, the blood relatives, especially the children and grandsons of the Ohene, and are called Bogyadom ( bogya, “blood”; dom, “troop”), who have the immediate custody of the stool; secondly, certain Asafuhenefu, with their men; thirdly, personal servants and domestic attendants (Gyasifu). The Gyasi perform the rites of the stool custom each year.’ [5] ’The immediate retinue and body-guard of the Omanhene are called Gyasi, and consist of three groups of persons. (1) His male blood relatives, e.g. brothers, uncles, nephews; also his sons, whether by free or bond women. These persons usually are captains of the other fighting men. (2) Servants, slaves, and pawns, and their descendants. (3) Those originally attached to him by commendation or adoption; and captains, with their forces, appointed by the community as such.’ [6] Akan troops were organized in companies under the leadership of captains, but even on this level civil and military leadership were often united in one person: ’Supi is a company captain, who keeps the company’s flags, and especially their ammunition. The spokesman of an Ohene or village community is selected by the Ohene or Odzikuro. On his appointment it is usual in some districts for his family to give to the Ohene or councillors sua duma,that is, £2 9 s. 6 d. The councillors (Begwafu) are sometimes selected by the people on account of personal character and intelligence. Every councillor is not a stoolholder, nor is every stoolholder a councillor; but a great number of the councillors, however, are stoolholders. A stoolholder may be appointed a councillor, and his successor, when deemed a fit and proper person, follows him in his office. When a person becomes a councillor he is considered as promoted, therefore he severs his connection with his company, and must not take an active part in the management of the affairs of the company. A councillor must not be a partisan. Councillors who have not attained that position by right of inheritance are practically, and in truth, the direct representatives of the people, and voice public opinion. It is somewhat difficult to define the qualifications of such public men.’ [7] ’The male persons of each ward originally formed a [Page 27] company, having its distinctive flags, drums, and other equipments. The honour of the flag is the first consideration, and his service to his company is the most indispensable duty of the citizen. The organization of the town companies has been already described. * In some towns there are as many as seven companies, members of which reside not only in the town, but also in the neighbouring villages. Lands cleared by the companies belong to them. The lands of the companies do not belong to the Ohene, for there are town lands, family lands, and stool lands. The Ohene has no right to ordinary tribute, and the public-stool income is derived from fines, penalties, and court fees. In this also the jurisdiction is personal. The Tufuhene, the councillors, and captains of the companies take part in the election and installation of a new Ohene. Before them he takes his oath of office, and if any lands are attached to the town stool, he holds them in trust for the public. The succession generally follows the common rule, but in some places it is the son who succeeds, not the brother or nephew. The townspeople can pass over the person nominated by the family and elect some other suitable person instead. They may also remove the Ohene, if found unfit to rule them any longer; in either of which events the town sword and stool, with all the public property thereunto appurtenant, are vested in the town council, whose duty it is to take them from the deposed ruler or his family and give them to the person appointed as new ruler or manager during the interval.’ [8] ’Each subordinate ruler, correctly the captain-chief (Safuhene), of the Omanhene, owns a stool of his office, commands the fighting men of, and rules, his district. The lands of the district are attached to his stool. Like the Omanhene, he also has officers and captains under him, and with his linguist, councillors, and elders he sits as a magistrate, before whose tribunal his subjects and people in his district are bound to appear.’ [9] [1]: Gilbert, Michelle, Lagacé, Robert O. and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Akan [2]: Danquah, J. B. (Joseph Boakye) 1928. “Gold Coast: Akan Laws And Customs And The Akim Abuakwa Constitution”, 17 [3]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 27p [4]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 2p [5]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 9 [6]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 23 [7]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 10 [8]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 26p [9]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 22 |
||||||
|
levels. Military control was exercised by the Kosmoi, a board of 3 to 10 annually elected nobles -their number varies from 3 to 10- elected by the Ecclesia, the body of free male citizens.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Willetts, R. F. 1965. Ancient Crete. A Social History, London and Toronto, 56-75 [2]: Lembesi, A. 1987. "Η Κρητών Πολιτεία," in Panagiotakis, N. (ed.), Κρήτη: Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός, Heraklion, 166-72. |
||||||
|
levels. "Ranks and titles were conferred on the bureaucratic and military nobility until the end of the absolute monarchy in 1932, a rank and title usually being associated with an office. The chaophraya were highest on the list, the equivalents of cabinet ministers, generals, and the governors of the most important provincial cities. On a descending scale came phraya, phra, luang, and khun."
[1]
1. Chaophraya 2. Phraya 3. Phra 4. Luang 5. Khun [1]: (Wyatt 1984, p. xviii) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. Sandhivigrahika (minister of war and peace) [1] 3. Mahabaladhikrta [2] 4. Mahadandanayaka [2] 5. Senapati [2] [1]: (Devahuti 1970: 173) Deva Devahuti. 1970. Harsha: A Political Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [2]: (Higham 2004, 121) Charles Higham. 2004. Encyclopedia of Ancient Asian Civilizations. New York: Facts on File. |
||||||
|
levels. According to our current understanding, there was no decimal system.(1) Khan (leader of the ulus = in thhis case, the complex chiefdom)
(2) Chief of ulus (subordinate chiefdom; ’ulus’ can refer to both a simple and complex chiefdoms)(3) Leader of irgen (’tribe’)(4) Leader of the obok (clan)(5) Ordinary nomad warrior. (Rachewiltz 2004, Kradin and Skrynnikova 2006) |
||||||
|
levels. Military control was was exercised by the Kosmoi (Κόσμοι), a board of 3 to 10 nobles, annually elected by the Ecclesia (Εκκλησία), the body of free male citizens.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Willetts, M. A. 1955. Ancient Crete. A Social History, London and Toronto, 56-75 [2]: Chaniotis, A. 1897. "Κλασική και Ελληνιστική Κρήτη," in Panagiotakis, N. (ed.), Κρήτη: Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός, Heraklion, 192-203. |
||||||
|
"by 1623, Ieyasu’s force consisted of 12 companies. The companies were headed by a single captain, four lieutenants, and 50 guards. There was extensive variation in the ways troops were structured for battle and the hierarchy of command that directed the troops."
[1]
1. Shogun 2. Captain3. Lieutenant4. Guards5. Individual soldier [1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.174. |
||||||
|
"The population of Italy was divided into two societies with distinct public functions: the Goths served the state as its soldiers; the Romans, as taxpayers. In essence, in Theodoric’s Italy the Roman regular army had been completely replaced by a Gothic federate force. The Goths, moreover, was not ’professional’ soldiers in the sense that Roman legionaries had been. Most Goths were farmers who fought when called upon to do so."
[1]
"The strengths and weaknesses of barbarian armies were well known already to Tacitus and had become common fare in Byzantine military manuals by A.D. 600. In essence, the barbarians were seen to lack cohesive command, technological elements such as effective siege craft, and the patience required for utilizing a tactical reserve. The German "plan of attack" usually consisted of a human-wave assault with much yelling and throwing of stones, spears, and arrows. ... After all, since manliness was synonymous with military prowess as proven on the battlefield, who wanted to wait in reserve and perhaps miss priceless opportunities? Obviously, no one. Nor did any leader have the power so to order another free man, even in his warband. Thus it is hardly surprising that Germanic tactics varied so little regardless of the particular tribe or location." [2] "The Ostrogothic military achieved a reputation of strength against other barbarians primarily though building upon their own traditions, but they also accepted certain Roman organizational and support systems. The Gothic offices of comes and dux were tied more closely to the central authority, which at least under Theodoric appointed them, and evolved in conjunction with the surviving aspects of Roman government." [3] 1. King "Theoderic, like earlier generalissimos (e.g. Aetius or Ricimer), independently controlled his army, comprised mainly of non-Roman troops personally loyal to him, and delegated significant non-military administrative posts to local Roman elites." [4] 2. DucesGothic Generals [5] "The duces were the highest military leaders in Ostrogothic society, and their very presence in a frontier zone attested to the gravity of the situation. Their functions were primarily but not exclusively military." "The duces’ power over their men was virtually unchallengeable and the subject of abuse." [6] 2. comes Gothorum"The cases of appeal from the general settlement areas in which there were large numbers of Gothic communities required the regionalized comes Gothorum, i.e., one of provincial scope, comites provinciarum. Along the frontiers and outlying provinces they also commanded the Gothic troops. The government at Ravenna extended this structure to include the frontier areas as well. Everywhere the provincial comites were the supreme governmental officials whenever present. In the frontier areas, the comes had legal jurisdiction and probably held overall command unless, as was sometimes the case, a dux was present specifically as commander." [7] 3. Count of the GothsGoths of each province had a military chief "Count of the Goths" [8] "Gothic nobility with their loyal bands of warriors" [7] 4."Garrisons were probably comprised largely of warrior groups personally tied to their commanders." [9] 5. Gothic soldierNo soldiers except Goths - native Italians not allowed into army. [10] [2]: (Burns 1991, 185-187) [3]: (Burns 1991, 200) [4]: (Arnold, Bjornlie and Sessa 2016, 6-7) Arnold, Jonathan J. Bjornlie, Shane M. Sessa, Kristina. eds. 2016. A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy. BRILL. Leiden. [5]: (Bradley 2005, 158) [6]: (Burns 1991, 199) [7]: (Burns 1991, 174) [8]: (Bradley 2005, 169 ) [9]: (Burns 1991, 176) [10]: (Bradley 2005, 169) |
||||||
|
The ranks below are based on the organization of the Seleucid army. These ranks were not permanent, and command of individual units shifted with the campaign or battle. Civic volunteers and mercenaries would have also operated outside the structure indicated below.
[1]
1. King 2. Senior officers of the army: Strategoi3. Officers: Hipparchoi/Hegemones4. lower level?5. Individual soldier [1]: Bar-Kochva, Bezalel. The Seleucid army: Organization and tactics in the great campaigns. Vol. 28. Cambridge University Press, 1976. pp. 91-93 |
||||||
|
levels.
At least 5. Possibly fewer levels than Early Tang? 1. Emperor 2. Generals3. Military governors4. Officers5. Individual solider Mercenary regular army replaced militia system in 722 CE. [1] Military governors established by Hsuan-tsung (712-756 CE) in frontier areas. [2] "In the 9th century the Shen-ts’e, or Divine Strategy army, was set up under the command of court eunuchs, and in 885 a new army 54,000 strong was established, composed largely of young men from Ch’ang-an. None of these forces was able to stand up to the battle-hardened veterans of the provincial armies." [3] [1]: (Rodzinski 1979, 127) [2]: (Rodzinski 1979, 129) [3]: (Peers 2002, 15) |
||||||
|
levels. Military control was was exercised by the Kosmoi (Κόσμοι), a board of 3 to 10 nobles, annually elected by the Ecclesia (Εκκλησία), the body of free male citizens.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Willetts, R. F. 1965. Ancient Crete. A Social History, London and Toronto, 56-75 [2]: Chaniotis, A. 1897. "Κλασική και Ελληνιστική Κρήτη," in Panagiotakis, N. (ed.), Κρήτη: Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός, Heraklion, 196-99. |
||||||
|
levels. 1-5 The lawagetas was the supreme military leader. Officers, called hequetai (followers) accompanied military continents.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Shelmerdine, C. W. and Bennet, J. 2008. "12: Mycenaean states. 12A: Economy and administration," in Shelmerdine, C. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge, 292-95. [2]: Nikoloudis, S. 2008. "The role of the ra-wa-ke-ta: insights from PY Un718," in Sacconi, A, del Freo, M., Godart, L., and Negri, M. (eds), Colloquium Romanum: Atti del XII Colloquio Internazionale de Micenologia. Roma 20-15 febbraio 2006, vol. 2, Rome, 587-94. |
||||||
|
levels.
Songhay Empire: Askia Muhammad had a full time general called dyini-koy or balama. [1] 1. King In Mali and Songhai "the king appinted the generals was himself commander-in-chief of the army and personally directed military operations" [2] 2. General of the armies (Djima koi)3. Corps"In each kingdom, each nation, the army was divided into several corps assigned to the defense of different provinces, although under the command of the civil authority. Thus, each provincial governor had at his disposal a part of this army which he could assign tasks under the orders of a general whose powers were purely military."In Mali and Songhai "the king appinted the generals was himself commander-in-chief of the army and personally directed military operations" [2] 4. officer ranks5. officer ranks6. Individual soldier Divisions of army: "knights, cavalry, footsoldiers, auxiliary bodies of Tuaregs, elite infantry regiments, the royal guard, and an armed flotilla." [3] Tunkoi, kuran, soira: subaltern military positions in city such as Djenne. [4] Djenne-koi, Bani-koi, Kora-koi: "administrative and military chiefs of cities and regions; they thus had under their command a territorial guard." [4] Wars of Muhammad Toure (1493-1528 CE), according to himself, "were undertaken to distract the Songhay-speaking element in his armies from meddling in the Mande-speaking western half of his empire where his own interests were strongest, and where he preferred to rule through slave armies recruited from his own war captives." [5] "Under Askia Muhammad, the Songhai Empire established lands in which the kings paid tribute." [6] divided the army into two parts: "one for the western provinces based in Timbuktu and one for the eastern provinces based in Gao." [6] Askia Daud (r.1549-1582 CE). reorganized Songhay army [7] "Askia was a rank in the Songhai army with origins dating from at least the first half of the 13th century." [8] General of the armies: Djima koï Head of cavalry in the event of conflict: governor of Dirma (one of his many duties) [9] [1]: (Davidson 1998, 168) Davidson, Basil. 1998. West Africa Before the Colonial Era. Routledge. London. [2]: (Diop 1987, 115) Diop, Cheikh Anta. Salemson, Harold trans. 1987. Precolonial Black Africa. Lawrence Hill Books. Chicago. [3]: (Diop 1987, 116) Diop, Cheikh Anta. Salemson, Harold trans. 1987. Precolonial Black Africa. Lawrence Hill Books. Chicago. [4]: (Diop 1987, 112) Diop, Cheikh Anta. Salemson, Harold trans. 1987. Precolonial Black Africa. Lawrence Hill Books. Chicago. [5]: (Roland and Atmore 2001, 70) [6]: (Conrad 2010, 66) [7]: (Conrad 2010, 69) [8]: (Conrad 2010, 65) [9]: (Niane 1975, 105) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. General inferred 3. Officer of higher group? 4. Unit leader"Every unit had a leader and a certain symbol put on its flag. Most symbols used a figure of an animal." [1] 5. Individual soldier "Aside from territorial administration, the Kadiri period also saw developments in military organization and mobilization. Troops were divided according to the mastery of different kinds of weapons, such as the club, the arrow, the battle-ax, and the lance, or according to mastery over different serving animals, such as the elephant and the horse." [1] [1]: (Sedwayati in Ooi 2004 (b), 707) |
||||||
|
levels. Commander-in-chief; Subcommanders; Noble cavalry; Troops (composed of swordsman, archers and skirmishers).
[1]
Slaves used as auxiliaries.
[2]
Mataram often adopted fighting formations inspired by Indian astrological signs, including a huge crayfish. The feelers represented special troops of amok fighters, the body of the crayfish was the sovereign, preceded by sons and relatives, the commander and ministers, and other numbers represented troops of different nobles and officials.
[3]
1. King 2. Commander-in-chief3. Sub-commander4. Officers?5. Individual soldiers [1]: (Gaukroger and Scott 2009, 134) [2]: (Schrieke 1957, 128) [3]: (Reid 1988, 126) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Emperor [1] 2. Sandhivigrahika (minister of war and peace) [1] 3. Mahabaladihktra or mahasandhivigrahikaMost likely the chief general, perhaps assigned the duty of assisting the minister of war and peace and/or supervising ten other generals [1] 4. Officials supervised by the mahabaladihktra or mahasandhivigrahika [1] - presumably more than one level5. Soldiers [1] [1]: D.P. Dikshit, Political History of the Chalukyas (1980), p. 267 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. Chief of the army3. Head of cavalry 3. Head of elephantry 3. Head of infantry inferred4. Other officers inferred5. Other officers inferred6. Individual soldier Chief of the army: camupati, senapati, mahadandanayaka. [1] Head of cavalry: mahasvapati. Head of elephantry: mahapilupati. [2] "Other military officers are not referred to in our records." [2] [1]: (Mishra 1977, 149) Shyam Manohar Mishra. 1977. Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of Yaśovarman. Abhinav Publications. [2]: (Mishra 1977, 150) Shyam Manohar Mishra. 1977. Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of Yaśovarman. Abhinav Publications. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Emperor NOTE: Could not find source that explicitly stated that the Emperor was head of the army, but it seems likely, based on analogy with preceding and succeeding polities, e.g. the Chalukyas [1] . 2. Dandanayaka or Mahadandanayaka [2] 3. Subordinate officers to the Dandanayaka or Mahadandanayaka [2] 4. Subordinate officers to the subordinates to the Dandanayaka or Mahadandanayaka [2] - presumably more than one level5. SoldiersThe bulk of the Rashtrakuta army was made up infantry, cavalry, and elephants [2] . [1]: D.P. Dikshit, Political History of the Chalukyas (1980), p. 267 [2]: N.S. Ramachandra Murthy, Military Administration of the Rashtrakutas in the Telugu Country, in B.R. Gopal, The Rashtrakutas of Malkhed (1994), p. 116 |
||||||
|
levels.
The rulers of Vijayanagara had a carefully organized military department, called Kandachara: 1. King 2. Commander-in-ChiefThe military was under the control of the Dandanayaka or Nannayaka (Commander-in-Chief) [1] 3. Staff of minor officials -- same level is generals? are these the generals?The Commander-in-Chief was assisted by a staff of minor officials [1] . 3. Generals inferred4. Officers inferred -- more than one level?5. Individual soldierThe lowest level of the military was a soldier [1] [2] . [1]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 376 [2]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 70 |
||||||
|
In the beginning of the Umayyad Caliphate the Army was effectively a tribal institution supported by local auxiliaries and foreign military units that had deserted from the Caliph’s enemies. Demarcating a distinct command is effectively impossible as it was non existent. Tribal loyalty determined who men would follow over a title. Following a period of Civil war, the military was reformed under the reign of ’Abd al-Malik (685 CE-705 CE)to a more permanent system. This was not the case with the guards of the provincial cities and the Caliph, as indicated below.
Domestic Guardsmen The Shurta (police) and the Haras (guards) were responsible for the securing the capital and maintaining the security of the Caliph and his family. [1] 1. Caliph 2. Sahid-al-Shurta (provincial commander) 3. Common guardsman (661 CE-705 CE) Military The layout below is an oversimplification. In the earlier period of the Umayyad Caliphate the Caliphs had relied on the service of Arab tribes originally from Arabia, and subsequently settled in garrison cities in newly conquered lands. As the empire expanded this system changed to an increasingly professional army paid for in cash rather than a tribal nation in arms. The was also geographic variation. In Syria, Permanent garrisons differed from the temporary Arabic cohorts used for Jihad campaigns. [2] 661-705 CE 1. Caliph 2. Amir 3. Muqualtila (fighting men) [3] 705-750 CE 1. Amir al-mu’ minin (official title of the Caliph) 2. Amir (commander or governor of a province or army) 3. Qa-id (military officer) 4. Arif (leader of a militay unit of ten to fifteen soldiers) 5. Muquatila (Muslim soldiers paid a salary) [1]: (Kennedy 2004, 49) [2]: (Kennedy ????, 12-51) [3]: (Kennedy ????, 5-6, 18-19) |
||||||
|
levels.
Nomadic polities of the Steppe usually employed a decimal system. Can we infer the Xianbi at their most highly effective must have used this system too? 1. Ruler 2. Commander of 10,0003. Commander of 1,0004. Commander of 1005. Commander of 106. individual soldier Bu (a sub-tribe of the Xianbi who had 5,000 people [1] "The chiefs of bu, tribes or simple chiefdoms, fulfilled the following functions: 1. Military: organization of the battle-worthy portion of the population for raiding, and to repulse neighboring tribes’ raids (see, for example: Taskin 1984: 76, 80, 325). It is not accidental that “boldest” occupied the first place among the important qualities ascribed to the most outstanding Xianbei chiefs, such as Tanshihuai or Kebineng (fl. early third century) (Taskin 1984: 75, 324, 330). One can remember that the rise of Tanshihuai began after he had dispersed the robbers attacking his nomadic camp." [2] [1]: (Kradin 2011, 201) [2]: (Kradin 2014, 144-145) |
||||||
|
The military levels provided here are an outline of the Seleucid army. There were many other titles and subsets of command within the army, different provinces and over time which are discussed by Bar-Kochva.
[1]
1. King - the king often took command of the storm troops (mainly cavalry) in campaign battles, or commanded from behind the front lines with other groups of troops. [2] 2. strategoi- the senior commanders of the army. [3] 3. hipparchoi- the officers of the cavalry and infantry of the army. [3] 4. hegemones5. and soldiers- the rank and file soldiers of the army. [3] [1]: Bar-Kochva, B. 1976. The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p85-93. [2]: Bar-Kochva, B. 1976. The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p85. [3]: Bar-Kochva, B. 1976. The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p92. |
||||||
|
1. Pope.
Armies were small-scale, when forces directly responsible to the Pope (rather than the Pope’s allies who were fighting for the Papacy) the Papal State employed mercenary officers. Provincial Rectors were able to call up troops and could do this without authorisation from the Pope. Cavalry troops were lead by a Marshal. [1] 2. General? 3. Provincial Rector.Accounts for Tuscan Patrimony 1304-2306 CE: Provincial Rector at HQ has 4-10 cavalry at any time, under the command of a marshal. Permanent garrisons in two fortresses each contained about 12 troops (mostly infantry). [1] 4. Marshal. 5. Mercenary soldier or individual soldier. [1]: (Waley 1957) |
||||||
|
levels. Pope; cardinals and other officials appointed by the popes to command armies; unit commanders; rank and file troops
1. Pope: The pope was still the overall commander of papal armies, and Julius II (1503-1513) was notorious for taking the field with his troops like a secular military leader. 2. Cardinals and other appointees: Papal troops were often part of wider coalitions during this period (such as the Holy League of 1570-71), and so were under the command of Spanish or Austrian Habsburg commanders. 3. Mercenary commanders: The great age of the condottieri was over, and so this level should, perhaps, be bracketed as equivalent to "other appointees." 4. Unit commanders: commanders of infantry regiments, artillery units, and so fort. 5. Rank and file troops: The papacy maintained garrisons in the Papal State, especially in fortress towns such as Loreto (a fortified shrine on the Adriatic, and often threatened by Turkish squadrons). In addition, Spanish troops often supported the Papacy or did the fighting for the popes. |
||||||
|
6. Emperor
5. Council of state4. Shogunate?3. Shugo?2. Gokenin?1. Individual soldier below are two alternate and concurrent command chains --Chains of command in the late Kamakura military 1 — 5. Council of State 4. Shogunate 3. Shugo 2. Gokenin 1. Provincial warriors --Chains of command in the late Kamakura military 2— 4. Council of State 3. Provincial government 2. non-gokenin warrior leaders 1. Provincial warriors ‘Thus the organizational structure under which late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century warriors served looked something like the system depicted in Figure 2.3. The command structures of the Kemmu regime and the Muromachi shogunate (during the Nambokuchō era) remained essentially the same, at least in theory. [1] ‘Warrior allegiances were further circumscribed by the multi-tiered, hierarchical structure of the military networks to which they belonged. Most of the provincial warriors in the organizations of prominent bushi had vassals of their own, and many of the members of these, in turn, had followers.’ [2] [1]: Friday, Karl F. 2004. Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan. Psychology Press.p.52-53 [2]: Friday, Karl F. 2004. Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan. Psychology Press.p.59 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Tacticians 2. Shamans3. Front-liners4. Scouts5. Boys and men who had not killed "In interclan warfare, the Binandere organised a division of fighting labour. The first group, the scouts, were sent ahead to kill the scouts of the enemy’s main body. Then there were the front-line fighters, experienced men armed with clubs/spears and shields, forming the vanguard. Then there was a group of young people and men who had not killed. They beat drums, blew conch shells, sang war songs and generally used sound to frighten the enemy. Full-scale tribal warfare required the addition of two more groups. Firstly, sorcerers were carried on roofed litters from which they attempted to ward off enemy spirits. Being ritually pure they could have no contact with water. They ate only baked taro or bananas with coconut juice as well as much ginger. The second additional group were the strategists who were vital for long-drawn-out battles. This small group planned tactics, directed the front line and organised ambush killings and so on." [1] [1]: Newton, Janice 1983. “Orokaiva Warfare And Production”, 490 |
||||||
|
levels. The military levels have been inferred, based on the military organisation of the Pontic kingdom.
[1]
1. King 2. Supreme military commander (epi tōn dunameōn)/ chief bodyguard (?epi tou egcheiridiou)3. General4. Cavalry5. Infantry [1]: McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill. p91-3 |
||||||
|
levels. The quote below denotes a very hierarchical system without detailing the types of military ranks. Therefore, they have been coded as a range.
1. Khan 2. General 3. Captains 4. 5. Individual soldiers "Individuals belonging to the official hierarchy also participated actively in military campaigns. At government meetings and receptions, each official occupied a set place, according to his rank. Some sat and others stood; some were permitted to leave the palace on horseback, while others had to leave on foot. [1] [1]: (Mukminova 2003, 53) |
||||||
|
levels. 1.King :“The armed forces of the kingdom were under the direct control of the king and his military leaders.”
[1]
:2. Minister of War ::“Before the turn of the century, Abba Roro’s son, Abba Digga, became Abba Jifar’s war minister and one of his closest confidants.”
[2]
::3. General :::“Abba Gojam Babella, a leading general and governor who fought in the wars at the turn of the century, and whom many legends are told, was from Gera.”
[3]
:::4. Lesser officers (it seems reasonable to infer the existence of at least one intermediary level between generals and soldiers) ::::5. Soldiers, e.g. Abba k’oro k’awe (governor’s rifles) and foreign mercenaries :::::“Two of these groups, the abba k’oro k’awe (governor’s rifles) and the Jeberti were made of local men who served for only one week out of four and who were repaid with exemption from taxation and corvee service.”
[4]
Jeberti- “Two of these groups, the abba k’oro k’awe (governor’s rifles) and the Jeberti were made of local men who served for only one week out of four and who were repaid with exemption from taxation and corvee service.”
[4]
Foreign Mercenaries- “The third group was made up of 1,500 mercenaries from such northern regions as Shoa, Wollo, Gojam, and Gondar.”
[5]
[1]: (Lewis 2001, 101) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [2]: (Lewis 2001, 83) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [3]: (Lewis 2001, 85) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [4]: (Lewis 2001, 102) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [5]: (Lewis 2001, 103) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Five known levels, but might be more. Needs confirmation by an expert King - “It appears that at that stage there were two contending political factions in Adal, with different views about relations with Christian Ethiopia. The Walasma king Muhammad (c. 1488-1518) led the moderate party, which apparently favoured a policy of coexistence. This was strongly opposed by the militant group led by his general, Mahfūz, who preferred to continue the old tradition of conflict, and who actually aimed at the effective restoration of Muslim control over the eastern frontier provinces of Ifat, Fetegar, Dawaro, and Bali.”
[1]
General/imām/amīr/garad - “ Precisely at the time when the Ethiopian throne was occupied by a series of under-aged princes, Adal was in the most capable hands of a powerful general called Mahfūz, who had dominated the political scene in Adal since the 1480s and who is variously given the title of imām, amīr, and garad.”
[2]
Cavalry - “Reference has already been made to the campaigns of Fanu’el in Adal which ended up in the Christian army’s being routed by the followers of Garad Abun, among whom Ahmad was still a junior cavalry officer.”
[3]
Knights - “Among the defiant troops who fought against Abū Bakr, there was a young man, Ahmad Ibrāhīm al Ghāzī, who was originally a knight in the service of Garad Abun.”
[4]
Army Soldiers - “There seems to be no doubt now that the new Walasma rulers of the Harar plateau began to annex extensive Somali tribal areas to the east and south-east. The Somali interior of the Horn was used by them as an inexhaustible source of manpower for their growing army, which was always kept active in the perennial frontier clashes with the Christian empire.”
[5]
[1]: (Tamrat 2008, 166) Tamrat, Taddesse.2008. ‘Ethiopia, the Red Sea and the Horn’ In the Cambridge History of Africa: c. 1050 – c.1600 vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 98-182. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Tamrat/titleCreatorYear/items/A68FCWWI/item-list [2]: (Tamrat 2008, 166) Tamrat, Taddesse. 2008. ‘Ethiopia, the Red Sea and the Horn’ In the Cambridge History of Africa: c. 1050 – c.1600 vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 98-182. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Tamrat/titleCreatorYear/items/A68FCWWI/item-list [3]: (Tamrat 2008, 176) Tamrat, Taddesse. 2008. ‘Ethiopia, the Red Sea and the Horn’ In the Cambridge History of Africa: c. 1050 – c.1600 vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 98-182. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Tamrat/titleCreatorYear/items/A68FCWWI/item-list [4]: (Tamrat 2008, 168) Tamrat, Taddesse. 2008. ‘Ethiopia, the Red Sea and the Horn’ In the Cambridge History of Africa: c. 1050 – c.1600 vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 98-182. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Tamrat/titleCreatorYear/items/A68FCWWI/item-list [5]: (Tamrat 2008, 153) Tamrat, Taddesse. 2008. ‘Ethiopia, the Red Sea and the Horn’ In the Cambridge History of Africa: c. 1050 – c.1600 vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 98-182. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Tamrat/titleCreatorYear/items/A68FCWWI/item-list |
||||||
|
levels. The following quote suggest that the military hierarchy of the Kingdom of Gumma was similar to that of the Kingdom of Jimma. “Little has been said about the neighboring Galla states of Limmu, Gomma, Guma, and Gera. There is not enough evidence available about these monarchies to be able to compare them with Jimma structurally. It is possible to say, on the basis of Cecchi’s account primarily, that these kingdoms shared a number of features with Jimma. [...] All had similar border guards, customs gates, alarm drums, and war organization. In these respects they shared a common political culture with Jimma.”
[1]
Hierarchy for the Kingdom of Jimma: 1.King :“The armed forces of the kingdom were under the direct control of the king and his military leaders.”
[2]
:2. Minister of War ::“Before the turn of the century, Abba Roro’s son, Abba Digga, became Abba Jifar’s war minister and one of his closest confidants.”
[3]
::3. General :::“Abba Gojam Babella, a leading general and governor who fought in the wars at the turn of the century, and whom many legends are told, was from Gera.”
[4]
:::4. Lesser officers (it seems reasonable to infer the existence of at least one intermediary level between generals and soldiers) ::::5. Soldiers, e.g. Abba k’oro k’awe (governor’s rifles) and foreign mercenaries :::::“Two of these groups, the abba k’oro k’awe (governor’s rifles) and the Jeberti were made of local men who served for only one week out of four and who were repaid with exemption from taxation and corvee service.”
[5]
Jeberti- “Two of these groups, the abba k’oro k’awe (governor’s rifles) and the Jeberti were made of local men who served for only one week out of four and who were repaid with exemption from taxation and corvee service.”
[5]
Foreign Mercenaries- “The third group was made up of 1,500 mercenaries from such northern regions as Shoa, Wollo, Gojam, and Gondar.”
[6]
[1]: (Lewis 2001, 124-125) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [2]: (Lewis 2001, 101) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [3]: (Lewis 2001, 83) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [4]: (Lewis 2001, 85) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [5]: (Lewis 2001, 102) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [6]: (Lewis 2001, 103) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection |
||||||
|
levels. The following quote suggest that the military hierarchy of the Kingdom of Gumma was similar to that of the Kingdom of Jimma. “Little has been said about the neighboring Galla states of Limmu, Gomma, Guma, and Gera. There is not enough evidence available about these monarchies to be able to compare them with Jimma structurally. It is possible to say, on the basis of Cecchi’s account primarily, that these kingdoms shared a number of features with Jimma. [...] All had similar border guards, customs gates, alarm drums, and war organization. In these respects they shared a common political culture with Jimma.”
[1]
Hierarchy for the Kingdom of Jimma: 1.King :“The armed forces of the kingdom were under the direct control of the king and his military leaders.”
[2]
:2. Minister of War ::“Before the turn of the century, Abba Roro’s son, Abba Digga, became Abba Jifar’s war minister and one of his closest confidants.”
[3]
::3. General :::“Abba Gojam Babella, a leading general and governor who fought in the wars at the turn of the century, and whom many legends are told, was from Gera.”
[4]
:::4. Lesser officers (it seems reasonable to infer the existence of at least one intermediary level between generals and soldiers) ::::5. Soldiers, e.g. Abba k’oro k’awe (governor’s rifles) and foreign mercenaries :::::“Two of these groups, the abba k’oro k’awe (governor’s rifles) and the Jeberti were made of local men who served for only one week out of four and who were repaid with exemption from taxation and corvee service.”
[5]
Jeberti- “Two of these groups, the abba k’oro k’awe (governor’s rifles) and the Jeberti were made of local men who served for only one week out of four and who were repaid with exemption from taxation and corvee service.”
[5]
Foreign Mercenaries- “The third group was made up of 1,500 mercenaries from such northern regions as Shoa, Wollo, Gojam, and Gondar.”
[6]
[1]: (Lewis 2001, 124-125) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [2]: (Lewis 2001, 101) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [3]: (Lewis 2001, 83) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [4]: (Lewis 2001, 85) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [5]: (Lewis 2001, 102) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [6]: (Lewis 2001, 103) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1. Tapsoba and Widi-Naba :"The army consisted of two divisions: the infantry under the Tapsoba (master of the bow) and the cavalry under the Widi-Naba."
[1]
:2. Tapsobanamba "The tapsoba of Oula became commander-in-chief of the entire army in the field and was assisted by three other tapsobanamba."
[2]
:2. Adjutant to the Widi-Naba ::"The cavalry under the Widi-Naba and his adjutant, the chief of the royal stables, was placed on the two wings of the infantry."
[2]
::3. Samade-naba "In action the infantry were placed in the centre of the combined forces under the Samade-Naba."
[2]
:::4. Section chiefs ::::"In Yatenga there were eleven sections: the gunbearers’ section was commanded by the Bugure-Naba (chief of the powder) ; the ten other sections were commanded by the two Kom-Naba (chiefs of young men), the two Soba-Naba (chiefs of Bobo), the Kom-Naba and the Samade-Naba of Ziga, the Kom-Naba and Samade-Naba of Binsigay, and the Kom-Naba and Samade-Naba of Sissimba. The se last three towns were former capitals of the kingdom."
[2]
::::5. Soldiers
[1]: (Zahan 1967: 171) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TVIRPGXD/collection. [2]: (Zahan 1967: 172) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TVIRPGXD/collection. |
||||||
|
The following inferred from what has been inferred from contemporary polities:
1. Ruler 2. Minister of War3. GeneralsElite families in charge of chariot forces 4. Officer level5. Individual soldier |
||||||
|
levels.
Multiple levels of hierarchy: "In addition to the headquarters fortress, each garrison controlled a network of lesser outposts (shu) and might also have military authority over surrendered tribal groups occupying the nearby grazing lands." [1] 1. King 2. Qibing (Board of War) [2] lead by a president (shangshu) [3] 3. Generals? 4. Officers? 5. Zhen (territorial garrison) lead by a zhenjiang (commander) [4] "often set up at prefectural, commandery or county level, where the commander (zhenjiang) concurrently held the position of prefect, commandery governor, or county magistrate. It was also set up as an independent garrison." [4] 6. Individual soldier [1]: (Graff 2002, 99) [2]: (Xiong 2009, 405) [3]: (Xiong 2009, 182) [4]: (Xiong 2009, 675) |
||||||
|
1. King
2. Dukes and Princes3. Generals for each of the Six Armies and Eight Yin Armies: Under the Western Zhou (about 1027-770 BC), the feudal lords each had armies of one to three jun, while the kings had at least 14, the Six Armies and the Eight Yin Armies. The strength of a jun is not certain, but a later commentator put it at 12,500 men." [1] 4. level for c1000 men? inferred level: Western Zhou had a military aristocracy and a ritual code of honour (like chivalry). [2] 5. level for c100 men? inferred level: Lesser military officer called shi (captain). [3] 6. level for c10 men? inferred level7. Individual soldier [1]: (Bennett 1998, 171) Bennett, Matthew. 1998. The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ancient & Medieval Warfare. Taylor & Francis. [2]: (Roberts 2003, 16) [3]: (Shaughnessy 1999, 326) Shaughnessy "Western Zhou History" in Loewe, Michael. Shaughnessy, Edward L. 2009. The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. General (Greek) "Another development is the extensive use of Greek mercenaries to prevent another Persian invasion, notably with the help of the Athenian general Chabrias..." [1] 3. "high commander" [2] This is the hierarchy below "General" or strategoi during the Ptolemaic period from about 294 BCE. The mercenary forces at time numbered 10,000-20,000 [3] and if they had their own general we could suggest it is likely they had their own command structure below him. 3. Chiliarchies 1024 men commanded by chillarchoi [4] 4. Pentakosiarchos c.512 men [4] 5. Syntagma c. 256 men commmanded by Syntagmatarches [4] 6. Taxeis commanded by taxiarchoi c.128 men [4] 7. hekatontarchiai c.50 men [5] 8. "16 units of 50 men, that is 2 per hekatontarchia" [4] 9. Individual soldier Another possible code: 3. Mercenary captain4. Individual mercenary 3. Captain of the machimoi (militia)4. Militia men 3. Foreign general (ally) Spartan, Phoenician or Libyan.4. Cavalry or infantry captains5. Cavalry or infantry: individual soldiers. Moved additional text to general description There were also Egyptian, and Libyan forces in addition to those of the Greeks. "We therefore find Hakor putting together a large force of such troops in the 385 BC and Teos employing 10,000 picked mercenaries in 361/0 BC, while Nectanebo II is said to have had 20,000 when Artaxerxes III invaded the country in 343/2 BC." [3] 343 BCE 20,000 Greek mercenaries, 20,000 Libyans, 60,000 Egyptians under Nectanebo II fought Persians [6] [1]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 17) [2]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 26) [3]: (Lloyd 2000, 380) [4]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 134) [5]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 144) [6]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 25) |
||||||
|
levels.
King Ezana (after 320 CE) is known to have built an army that could control the regions [1] which suggests that before King Ezana the army found it difficult to control the regions - perhaps because it was less professional, or had a smaller number of professional troops, and did not have they capability to garrison troops far from the capital. However, a polity that could make conquests in south Arabia in the early 3rd century CE likely had a well developed military if not a highly centralized one. It would have been very hyperbolic for Mani (216-276 CE) in the Kephalaia to have called Aksum "one of the four greatest empires of the world" [2] if by his time there was not a well-organized military. The introduction of coinage in the mid-3rd century may have coincided with a shift to a more professional armed forces as the indigenous coinage could be used to pay the army, but the armed forces of the king and his vassals, who many have contributed much to the numbers, were growing in effectiveness before this time (earlier armies could have been paid in foreign coinage, which was imported, as well as loot). 1. King? 2. Relative of the kingMilitary expeditions lead by the king’s brother or other kinsmen. [3] 3. NegusNeguses lead armies in war and commanded building operations. [4] Aksumite term for ruler was ’negus’, and "Each ’people’, kingdom, principality, city and tribe had its own negus. Mention is made of army neguses ..." [5] 4. Another officer level?5. Individual soldier [1]: (Falola 2002, 58) Toyin Falola. 2002. Key Events in African History: A Reference Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group. Westport. [2]: (Kobishanov 1981, 383) Y M. Kobishanov. Aksum: political system, economics and culture, first to fourth century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [3]: (Kobishanov 1981, 385) Y M. Kobishanov. Aksum: political system, economics and culture, first to fourth century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [4]: (Kobishanov 1981, 385) Y M. Kobishanov. Aksum: political system, economics and culture, first to fourth century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [5]: (Kobishanov 1981, 384) Y M. Kobishanov. Aksum: political system, economics and culture, first to fourth century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. SeneschalSenechal was the senior royal official, and senior military commander [1] Only until 1091 CE [2] - job taken over by Constable 3. Constableoriginated 9th-10th centuries as "count of the stable". [2] during the reign of Philip I (1060-1108), the constable was one of the four "great officers" of the crown [2] 11th and 12th centuries drawn from the nobility of the Île de-France [2] 4. Knighthad a squire 5. Sergeant"In the military context, sergeants were lightly armed fighting men who served and supported knights." [3] Also had civilian "enforcer" role. Mid-12th century professional sergeants equipped by nobles [4] 6.Was Sergeant the lowest level? Militia leader (this level also called constable?) - from mid-12th century? Lead a milita, paid slightly less than a sergeant [5] Captains [6] - from mid-12th century? Each city parish had its own captain [1]: (Henneman 1995, 1645) [2]: (Henneman 1995, 486-487) [3]: (Henneman 1995, 1658) [4]: (Nicolle and McBridge 1991, 6) [5]: (Nicolle and McBridge 1991, 10) [6]: (Nicolle and McBridge 2000, 4) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. SeneschalSenechal was the senior royal official, and senior military commander [1] Only until 1091 CE [2] - job taken over by Constable 3. Constableoriginated 9th-10th centuries as "count of the stable". [2] during the reign of Philip I (1060-1108), the constable was one of the four "great officers" of the crown [2] 11th and 12th centuries drawn from the nobility of the Île de-France [2] 4. Knighthad a squire 5. Sergeant"In the military context, sergeants were lightly armed fighting men who served and supported knights." [3] Also had civilian "enforcer" role. Mid-12th century professional sergeants equipped by nobles [4] 6.Was Sergeant the lowest level? Militia leader (this level also called constable?) - from mid-12th century? Lead a milita, paid slightly less than a sergeant [5] Captains [6] - from mid-12th century? Each city parish had its own captain [1]: (Henneman 1995, 1645) [2]: (Henneman 1995, 486-487) [3]: (Henneman 1995, 1658) [4]: (Nicolle and McBridge 1991, 6) [5]: (Nicolle and McBridge 1991, 10) [6]: (Nicolle and McBridge 2000, 4) |
||||||
|
levels. 6: 1150-1314 CE; 6-7: 1314-1328 CE
1. King 2. Constable (from 1091 CE)regional armies usually commanded by relatives of king [1] senechal was the senior royal official, and senior military commander [2] - only until 1091 CE [3] 3. Marshal (sometime after 1226 CE - 14th century, by 1314 CE)Without responsibilities under Philip II and Louis VIII. [4] gained military command duties in 14th century. Philip VI "appointed two marshals as second in command of the French army below the constable." [4] "Helped by a provost and some lieutenants, they were responsible for recruiting captains, inspecting the troops, and organizing the pay for the army." [4] 4. KnightDuring a crisis the garrison at Bordeaux had 4 bannerets, 23 knights, 227 squires and 192 sergeants" and local militia. [1] Grand Master of the Crossbowmen (from 1200 CE) - additional level? 5. Sergeant"In the military context, sergeants were lightly armed fighting men who served and supported knights." [5] Also had civilian "enforcer" role. Mid-12th century professional sergeants equipped by nobles [6] Infantry sergeants paid 9 deniers a day [7] Also mounted sergeants [7] 6. Individual soldierlower level below Sergeant? Militia leader (this level also called constable?) Lead a milita, paid slightly less than a sergeant [7] Captains [8] Each city parish had its own captain [1]: (Nicolle and McBridge 1991, 35) [2]: (Henneman 1995, 1645) [3]: (Henneman 1995, 486-487) [4]: (De Vries 1995, 1122) [5]: (Henneman 1995, 1658) [6]: (Nicolle and McBridge 1991, 6) [7]: (Nicolle and McBridge 1991, 10) [8]: (Nicolle and McBridge 2000, 4) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. Constable (from 1091 CE)regional armies usually commanded by relatives of king [1] senechal was the senior royal official, and senior military commander [2] - only until 1091 CE [3] 3. Marshal (sometime after 1226 CE - 14th century, by 1314 CE)Without responsibilities under Philip II and Louis VIII. [4] gained military command duties in 14th century. Philip VI "appointed two marshals as second in command of the French army below the constable." [4] "Helped by a provost and some lieutenants, they were responsible for recruiting captains, inspecting the troops, and organizing the pay for the army." [4] 4. KnightDuring a crisis the garrison at Bordeaux had 4 bannerets, 23 knights, 227 squires and 192 sergeants" and local militia. [1] Grand Master of the Crossbowmen (from 1200 CE) - additional level? 5. Sergeant"In the military context, sergeants were lightly armed fighting men who served and supported knights." [5] Also had civilian "enforcer" role. Mid-12th century professional sergeants equipped by nobles [6] Infantry sergeants paid 9 deniers a day [7] Also mounted sergeants [7] 6. Individual soldierlower level below Sergeant? Militia leader (this level also called constable?) Lead a milita, paid slightly less than a sergeant [7] Captains [8] Each city parish had its own captain [1]: (Nicolle and McBridge 1991, 35) [2]: (Henneman 1995, 1645) [3]: (Henneman 1995, 486-487) [4]: (De Vries 1995, 1122) [5]: (Henneman 1995, 1658) [6]: (Nicolle and McBridge 1991, 6) [7]: (Nicolle and McBridge 1991, 10) [8]: (Nicolle and McBridge 2000, 4) |
||||||
|
levels.
The "military administration of the Chalukyas resembled [that] of their ancestors" [1] : Here, then, is the likely military hierarchy of the Chalukyas of Badami: 1. Emperor [2] 2. Sandhivigrahika (minister of war and peace) [2] 3. Mahabaladihktra or mahasandhivigrahikaMost likely the chief general, perhaps assigned the duty of assisting the minister of war and peace and/or supervising ten other generals [2] .4. Officials supervised by the mahabaladihktra or mahasandhivigrahika [2] -likely more than one level5. Soldiers [2] NOTE: In an admittedly older source, there is mention of four different kinds of military officers: the senadhipati, the maha (pracanda) dandanayaka, the dandanayaka, and the kari-turaga (patta-)sahini. No explanation is given as to the role or hierarchical position of these officers, except that the last one was probably in charge of cavalry and elephants [3] . [1]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 91 [2]: D.P. Dikshit, Political History of the Chalukyas (1980), p. 267 [3]: K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, The Chalukyas of Kalyani, in G. Yazdan (ed), The Early History of the Deccan (1960), p. 391 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King "The king was supreme commander, the general the top field officer." [1] 2. ShakkanakkumGeneral - shakkanakkum. [2] 3. General in charge of smaller army divisions (shagina) [3] -- not mentioned by Foster (2016)> Ensi governor [3] -- not mentioned by Foster (2016); note below> Captain of local detachment -- when not in the field are governors part of the chain of command?> Individual soldier 4. Nu-bandanu-banda. [3] "The next command in rank was the nu-banda." Battalion, probably had 600 men. [1] Colonel or major - nubanda. [2] 5. UgalaUgala lead smaller unit of about 60. [1] Captain - ugala. [2] 6. Individual soldier At Mugdan was "the seat of a manor that dominated the local countryside. ... This manor belong to members of the royal faily or royal household ... managed by a governor (ensi). Other local officials included the shaperum (majordomi) and a captain in command of a detachment of soldiers stationed there." [4] Records from Umma "booty officer(?), the son of a governor in Syria (in training?), equerry, royal commissioner, door attendant, recruiter, courier, cupbearer, minister, quartermaster(?), saperum wuth his clerk, quartermaster of garments(?), physician, porters, constable, an officer in charge of putting identification marks on (captured?) goods (? saper ZAG.SUS), an ass herder, and an assortment of foreigners." [1] [1]: (Foster 2016, 168) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [2]: (Foster 2016, 167) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [3]: Hamblin 2006, 97 [4]: (Foster 2016, 59) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
1. King.
[1]
Commanded the "Royal Cohort"
[2]
2. Commander-in-chiefCommander-in-chief called turtanu. [1] 3. Leaders of the KisruMain unit group of kisru (knots) of 200-1,000 men. [1] 4. CaptainsNext level had 50 men lead by a captain (rab hanshe). [1] The basic command unit numbered 50 men. [2] Captains raised troops from towns and villages within province designated to him. Governors of province set troop quota for captains to raise. [1] 5. Officers"Army organised into units based on the decimal system (10, 50, 100)" [2] implies another level below the command unit of 50. The different bodies of the army were structured into smaller contingents led by officers, at least some promoted from the ordinary ranks. [2] "The Assyrian army of the first millennium BC was really many armies, termed poetically the “Hosts of the God Aššur” in the royal inscriptions. The different contingents were allowed to preserve and develop their own customs and idiosyncrasies." [2] Militia organization abolished by Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 BCE). [3] Governors responsible for collection of taxes and civil and military conscription. [4] [1]: (Chadwick 2005, 76-77) [2]: (Radler 2014) [3]: (Dupuy and Dupuy 2007, 10) [4]: (Westbrook et al. 2003, 889) |
||||||
|
Pope; cardinals and other ecclesiastical officials appointed to command armies; mercenary commanders and corps commander; unit commanders; rank and file troops
1. Pope 2. Cardinals and other ecclesiastical officials appointed to command armies 3. mercenary commanders and corps commander 4. Unit commanders 5. Rank and file troops. |
||||||
|
Pope; legates and rectors; counts and signori; mercenary leaders; rank and file.
1. Pope. The pope was the nominally supreme leader of all military efforts in the Papal States. Usually military campaigns were carried out by papally-appointed vicars or rectors such as Cardinal Albornoz, who was brutally effective in subduing le Marche and the Romagna in the 1350s and 1360s. [1] 2. Legates, rectors:: These were usually the leaders of papal levies and conducted sieges, planned battles, and so forth. Functionally there was little difference between them and mercenary leaders employed by the papacy, although the legates were usually more loyal to the Church. 3. counts, signori: There’s a bit of fuzziness between this level and the "mercenary leader" level, since many ex-mercenaries set themselves up as petty lords within the Papal State. [2] 4. Mercenary leaders: The condottieri-men such as John Hawkwood-were notoriously unreliable. The Florentines were able to buy Hawkwood away from the Papacy in 1375 for 130,000 florins. [3] Although standing armies were emerging by the mid-15th century, [4] mercenary bands were the most frequent military units in Italian warfare. The papacy, in fact, was the main employer of these mercenaries. [5] 5. Individual soldiers. Rank and file: These usually consisted of mercenaries with, perhaps, additions from local levies such as the Roman militia. [1]: On Albornoz’s reign of terror in the Patrimony, see Partner, [CITATION PAGES], and Najemy, 194-95 [2]: Partner, 393 [3]: Najemy, 199 [4]: Najemy, 200 [5]: Caferro, 30 |
||||||
|
1. Pope
Pope was commander of the army. [1] Army of Rome. [2] Army of Rome consisted of: inhabitants; small landowners in surrounding region; the magnates; the domuscultae, that is, military colonies on papal lands. 2. Superista of a DomuscultaeDomuscultae first known in Pontificate of Zacharias. Four of five domuscultae mentioned. Large agrarian estates where farmer-soldiers were responsible to a superista, a Papal official. [3] Transformation in army structure in eighth century. (Do not have access to pages which explain what happened) [4] but presumably it changed from Byzantine structure. 2. Dukes/Post-Byzantine equivalentItalian manpower in imperial Byzantine army "raised up a new aristocracy with increasingly assertive local interests." There was secular support for the popes’ efficient administration. [5] Within the Byzantine exarchate, dukes in theory had political and military authority in the dutchies. [6] 3. Tribunes/Counts of a numeriTribunes/Counts lead troop detachments called numeri. In practice, the armies of the separate dutchies within the exarch were autonomous. [6] 4. Militia leaders?Major cities had an urban militia of adult male citizens, who would volunteer or be pressed into service. [6] 5. Individual soldier [1]: (Trevor 1869, 115) [2]: (Noble 2011, 17) [3]: (Barach 2013, 173) [4]: (Richards 1979, 203) [5]: (Daly 1986) [6]: (Noble 2011, 6-7) |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1. Fama The polity leader. 2. Kèlè tigiGeneral, appointed by the Fama to lead the army when he could not lead it himself. 3. Tònjòn KuntigiOne for each of the army’s two "arms". 3. Other TònjònThe army’s elite, which formed its "chest" and "feet" (the latter being a special reserve).4. Other Tònjòn The army’s elite, which formed its "chest" and "feet" (the latter being a special reserve). 5. KèlèbolowThe army’s "arms", apparently made up entirely of simple soldiers. [1]: S.A. Djata, The Bamana kingdom by the Niger (1997), pp. 16-17 |
||||||
|
levels.
1) Khan. Both the personal guard and the tribal soldiers owed allegiance to the Khan. [1] [2] 2) Khan’s personal guard, or kesigten. The were appointed initially from the Khan’s retinue. Chingis raised their strength to 10,000 men. made up of kebte’ul (night guards), qorchin (day guards) and turgha’ud (bodyguards). [3] "it was also a sort of military school which allowed the Khan personally to test the future leaders of his military forces." [3] 3) Commander - regular army, larger unit [3] “Chinggis adopted the decimal system of organization … creating military units whose notional size ranged from ten to 10, 000 although the larger units were never fully up to strength.” [4] 4) Commander - regular army, smaller unit [3] “Chinggis adopted the decimal system of organization … creating military units whose notional size ranged from ten to 10, 000 although the larger units were never fully up to strength.” [4] 5) Soldier. Those men who had to serve through tribal obligations [all males under 60 had to serve in the army if mobilised] or local auxiliary troop employed in particular campaigns. [5] [1]: Bira, Sh. “THE MONGOLS AND THEIR STATE IN THE TWELFTH TO THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.” In History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. IV: The Age of Achievement A.D. 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century. Part I The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, edited by C. E. Bosworth, Muhammad S. Asimov, and Yar Muhammad Khan, Paris: Unesco, 1998. pp.255-256 [2]: Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. p.75. [3]: Bira, Sh. “THE MONGOLS AND THEIR STATE IN THE TWELFTH TO THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.” In History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. IV: The Age of Achievement A.D. 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century. Part I The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, edited by C. E. Bosworth, Muhammad S. Asimov, and Yar Muhammad Khan, Paris: Unesco, 1998. pp.255-256. [4]: Findley, Carter V., The Turks in World History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp.81-83. [5]: Morgan, David. The Mongols. 2nd ed. The Peoples of Europe. Malden, MA ; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. pp.75, 79. |
||||||
|
levels.
Decimal system likely used - up to commander of 10,000? 1. Kaghan 2. Commander of 10003. Commander of 1004. Commander of ten5. Individual soldier. "According to one report, this decision was greeted with great joy by the people, who "gathered in crowds of thousands and tens of thousands [...] and gave themselves over to joy until morning."2 5 Yet despite these signs of popular approval, Mou-yu kaghan was apparently unconvinced that the zeal of the ordinary man would prove durable. He divided his people into groups of ten, in each of which one person was made responsible for the religious instruction and good works of the other nine. We see here echoes of an ancient military system, practised in Mongolia since the time of the Hsiung-nu, whereby one soldier was placed in charge of a unit of ten." [1] [1]: (Mackerras 1990, 330-331) |
||||||
|
This is the code for the preceding Macedonian Empire -
1. King Supreme commander [1] 2. BodyguardsCalled somatophylakes. An honor, not literal bodyguards, as they commanded units. [1] 2. Companion Corpshetairoi Companions [2] pezhetairoi Foot Companions (phalanx) [2] 3. asthetairoiCalled asthetairoi. Under Phillip II had 800 officers. [3] 4. Lochoi (100)- Lochoi (100) - Dekades (10) (probable organization) [2] 5. Dekades (10)6. Individual soldier 2. SquadronCalled Ilai (eight of them), commanded by Ilarches [2] 3. Lochoi, commanded by LochagosCalled Lochoi, commanded by Lochagos. In 331 CE there were 2 lochoi to an Ilai. [2] 4. Dekades?5. Individual soldier Hypaspistani were elite infantry. [2] Alternative: [4] 1. King Alexander 2. Army SecretariatEumenes of Cardia. 2. Royal SecretariesOne for each section of the empire. Not active in field. 3. Secretary of GroupsSecretary of Cavalry Secretary of Mercenaries. 4. Divisions called moirai5. taxiarches commanded taxisforce of 1,536 5? Chiliarchyforce of 1,024 5? Pentakosiarchyforce of 512 6. Lochosforce of 256 7. Dekasforce of 10 8. Individual soldier [1]: (King 2010, 373-391) [2]: (Sekunda 2010, 446-471) [3]: (Gabriel 2010, 11) [4]: (Sheppard 2008) |
||||||
|
levels.
Military units, like civilian administration, organized with decimal system. [1] 1. Sapa Inca King was commander in chief and occasional field general. [2] Alan Covey: Most military commanders were sons or brothers of the ruler. [3] (2. aucacunakapu (chief of soldiers)came from Hanan Cuzco [1] 2. aucata yachachik aup (chief in charge of organizing soldiers)came from Hurin Cuzco [1] 2. hinantin aucata suyuchak apu (chief who assigns troops to their proper place)Equivalent to European sergeant major of period [4] 2. apusquipay (commander in the field)Usually a relative of the Sapa Inca [1] the apusquiprantin was an assistant of the apusquipay [1] ) Alan Covey: Concerning these ranks from aucacunakapu to apusquipay) This all comes from a really spurious late 18th century source (Juan de Velasco), and is not corroborated by any early chronicler [3] AD: number of ranks corrected to 6 (see hierarchy below). 3. hunu kuraka10,000 men were lead by a hunu kuraka - not known how often 10,000 men were fielded [5] 4. Waranqa kuraka"One thousand men were commanded by a waranqa kuraka" [5] 5. PihcachuncacamayocsPosition held by local leaders [1] The second lowest order was 100 soldiers, under a pachaka kuraka. [5] Alan Covey: Pichka chunka is 50. Pachaka is 100. [3] 6. Chuncacamayocs (50 soldiers) [3] Position held by local leaders [1] "The smallest unit contained ten heads of household (hatun runa), under the command of a chunka kamayuq." [5] 7. Individual soldier aucapussak Huaminca: veteran units from Hanan Cuzco and Hurin Cuzco [1] had captains called aucapussak [1] Alan Covey: Again, I wouldn’t use information from this source. [3] "Each division contained two halves, each with its own leader." [5] [1]: (Kaufmann and Kaufmann 2012) [2]: (D’Altroy 2014, 332) [3]: (Covey 2015, personal communication) [4]: (Kaufmann and Kaufmann 2012; cite Ian Heath) [5]: (D’Altroy 2014, 334) |
||||||
|
levels. ?? King (level 6), leaders of military divisions and mercenary chief (level 5), captains of militia (level 4), member of elephant corps (level 3), member of calvary (level 2), units farmer-builder-soldier class (level 1). According to David Chandler, ’Though the king, who led his country into battle, sometimes engaged his chief enemy in single combat, Khmer military strength rested on the junior officers, the captains of militia. These men commanded the loyalty of peasant groups in their particular locality. If the king conquered a region, a new captain of militia would be enrolled and put under an oath of allegiance. The captains were simply headmen of the outlying regions, but their connection with the king enhanced their status. In time of war they were expected to conscript the peasants in their district and to lead them to Angkor to join the Khmer army. If the captains disobeyed the king they were put to death. The vast majority of the Khmer population were of the farmer-builder-soldier class.’
[1]
’One major feature of the ’imperial state’ was its maintenance of a large court and a corps of officials. Angkor has a sizeable bureaucracy staffed by officials of many sorts. Like so much about the Khmer kingdom in ancient times, the structure of government and the categories of the civil service are known to us through temple inscriptions, which frequently name various types of official or local dignitary in listing those present to witness the formal demarcation of land bestowed upon religious foundations; they mention a variety of grades and titles, some of them obscure. The khlon rajakarya was responsible for the administration of ’royal work’, probably corvee among other things. The tamrvac was an inspector; the officials who swore allegiance to Suryavarman I had this title, for example. The gunadosadarsin (assessor of virtues and defects) was concerned with temple property. A variety of functionaries were called khlon (inspector) and had responsibilities in various areas such as grain, temple dues, management of religious foundations and several aspects of court proceedings. Revenue was usually in kind, being paid in grain, but some special districts paid in other commodities such as honey and wax. There is evidence that some of the categories in which officials were placed were not types of professional specialisation but divisions of the government service placed under the patronage of particular chiefs belonging to the royal family, a system that was indeed known in later centuries. Some of the groups of dignitaries named in named in the inscriptions, again, appear to have been the bearers of hereditary privileges in the royal household; the term varna, for example, designates any of a number of orders of dignity, which have such official functions as religious teachers, performers of rites, door guardians, garden keepers, palace servants, bearers of flywhisks, and artists.’
[2]
’At Angkor Wat at the head of the "historic" march past, appears a foreign contingent identified by an epigraphic inscription as the chief of the Siamese and his troops. Is this mercenary chief in the service of Suryavarman II, part of the king’s own Siamese guard, similar to the Japanese and even Portuguese guards which some post-Angkorean rulers possessed, or a military contingent from a Siamese principality then a vassal of Cambodia, as S. Shai suggests? We cannot decide.’
[3]
[1]: (Ross 1990) [2]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, pp.166-167) [3]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 98) |
||||||
|
1. Amir al-mu’ minin (official title of the Caliph)
2. Amir (commander or governor of a province or army) 3. Qa-id (military officer) 4. Arif (leader of a militay unit of ten to fifteen soldiers) 5. Muquatila(Muslim soldiers paid a salary); Malwa(rank and file Turkish soldier) 6. Arrarun (irregular volunteers) [1] The above estimate is an oversimplification. The Shurta (police) and the Haras (guards) were responsible for the securing the capital and the security of the Caliph. [2] In the earlier period the Caliphate relied on the service of Arab tribes from Arabia. As the empire expanded this system changed to a professional standing army paid for in cash. Given the fractured nature of the military structure this ranking system is not fully representative. By 833 CE, two totally separate military establishments existed under the caliphs. Shakiriya were entire tribal groups serving under their chiefs, and the second were Ghilman, slave soldiers serving in regiments. Each of these had separate hierarchies. Each of these also their own internal structures with soldiers recruited from Syria using older Byzantine ranks, whereas mercenary tribes recruited from North Africa or Central Asia served under their clan leaders. There were also differences depending of where the individuals were serving. Permanent garrisons differed from temporary soldiers used for a campaign. From 833 CE, Turkic tribesmen became increasingly integral to the military of the Caliphate. By 936 CE, the Caliph lost even the pretext of military authority. [3] [1]: Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphate pp. 209-210 [2]: Kennedy, Hugh N. The Court of the Caliphs,(London, 2004) p.49 [3]: Kennedy, Armies of the Caliphs pp. 118-147 |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) King (Asantehene), chief executive and primary commander-in-chief of the Ashanti Union;(2) Captain-General (Tufu Hin) of the forces, or secondary commander-in-chief (Adontenhene);(3) generals, or commanders of particular armies and campaigns;(4) the standing body of armed men, or Department of War;(5) Chiefs acting as captains of companies;(6) farmers and other commoners fulfilling the role of infantry ’The King is the Chief Military Officer of his forces. In time of war, he directs the operations; and if he is a man of capacity, he has the leading place in the councils of war. There is generally a Tufu Hin, or Captain-General, of the forces; but his authority is subordinate to that of the King, and he is, in every essential, an officer of the King.’ [1] According to Mensa-Bonsu, and in the early period at least, the Bantamahene filled this role, as described in the story of his oath: ’This account begins with the Ntam of the Bantamahene who is the Adontenhene (Commander-in-Chief) of Asante. The Ntam dates from the time of Osei Tutu. When Osei Tutu returned from his travels to succeed to the stool, his uncle Obiri Yeboa had just died. He felt he had to offer a sacrifice to his dead uncle to show his affection. He therefore chose his trusted friend Baafour Amankwatia, Chief of Bantama. Amankwatia had already been besmeared with redclay ready to be executed. Okomfo Anokye would not allow him to be killed and ordered his release. This occasion on which he nearly lost his life became a very serious event for the Bantamahene. It thus became his Ntam. Amankwatia lived to become one of Osei Tutu’s greatest generals and won many wars for Asante.’ [2] The head executives were assisted by a cadre of commanders and generals, who carried ceremonial swords as a sign of their special status and commanded particular armies and campaigns: ’A second class of sword, domfena, was carried by generals: ‘… a general is appointed to the command of an army, by receiving a gold-handled sword of the King’s from his hand [...] The captains used these to swear before the King’ [3] There was a nucleus of armed professionals based in the capital: ’The local government of Kumasi was in the hands of the Kwaintsirs, a body of men who were the keepers of the golden stool. They formed the Department of War, and the great General Amankwatsia was formerly their Chief. The fact that the Department of War held in its keeping the royal stool illustrates vividly the origin of the kingly office in the Native State, which will be explained later on.’ [4] Most of the time, political and military hierarchies coincided, with leaders fulfilling a dual role: ’It has already been noted that among the Akan the military organisation was given in the political organisation. Political status determined military status. The commanders of the Asante army and its subdivisions were first elected as heads of territorial divisions or appointed as heads of palace associations and then assumed corresponding military positions: European visitors to the Akan states in the nineteenth century referred to the heads of the subdivisions as ‘captains’.’ [5] Finally, major and minor chiefs commanded their communities of citizen-soldiers in battle:’A chief is generally a captain of a company. In fact, every male member of the community is liable to military service in time of war, and during peace he has to drill every year with his company. A fortiori, a chief is the natural leader of the men of his company. There are cases known, however, where civil chiefs hold no military command in their companies.’ [6] [1]: Hayford, J. E. Casely (Joseph Ephraim Casely) 1970. “Gold Coast Native Institutions With Thoughts Upon A Healthy Imperial Policy For The Gold Coast And Ashanti”, 42p [2]: Mensa-Bonsu, Henrietta J. 1989. “The Place Of ‘Oaths’ In The Constitutional Set-Up Of Asante”, 267 [3]: McLeod, M. D. (Malcolm D.) 1981. “Asante”, 90 [4]: Hayford, J. E. Casely (Joseph Ephraim Casely) 1970. “Gold Coast Native Institutions With Thoughts Upon A Healthy Imperial Policy For The Gold Coast And Ashanti”, 26p [5]: Arhin, Kwame 1983. “Peasants In 19Th-Century Asante”, 96 [6]: Hayford, J. E. Casely (Joseph Ephraim Casely) 1970. “Gold Coast Native Institutions With Thoughts Upon A Healthy Imperial Policy For The Gold Coast And Ashanti”, 64 |
||||||
|
levels. King (level 1), leaders of military divisions and mercenary chief (level 2), captains of militia (level 3), member of elephant corps (level 4), member of calvary (level 5), units farmer-builder-soldier class (level 6). According to David Chandler, ’Though the king, who led his country into battle, sometimes engaged his chief enemy in single combat, Khmer military strength rested on the junior officers, the captains of militia. These men commanded the loyalty of peasant groups in their particular locality. If the king conquered a region, a new captain of militia would be enrolled and put under an oath of allegiance. The captains were simply headmen of the outlying regions, but their connection with the king enhanced their status. In time of war they were expected to conscript the peasants in their district and to lead them to Angkor to join the Khmer army. If the captains disobeyed the king they were put to death. The vast majority of the Khmer population were of the farmer-builder-soldier class.’
[1]
’One major feature of the ’imperial state’ was its maintenance of a large court and a corps of officials. Angkor has a sizeable bureaucracy staffed by officials of many sorts. Like so much about the Khmer kingdom in ancient times, the structure of government and the categories of the civil service are known to us through temple inscriptions, which frequently name various types of official or local dignitary in listing those present to witness the formal demarcation of land bestowed upon religious foundations; they mention a variety of grades and titles, some of them obscure. The khlon rajakarya was responsible for the administration of ’royal work’, probably corvee among other things. The tamrvac was an inspector; the officials who swore allegiance to Suryavarman I had this title, for example. The gunadosadarsin (assessor of virtues and defects) was concerned with temple property. A variety of functionaries were called khlon (inspector) and had responsibilities in various areas such as grain, temple dues, management of religious foundations and several aspects of court proceedings. Revenue was usually in kind, being paid in grain, but some special districts paid in other commodities such as honey and wax. There is evidence that some of the categories in which officials were placed were not types of professional specialisation but divisions of the government service placed under the patronage of particular chiefs belonging to the royal family, a system that was indeed known in later centuries. Some of the groups of dignitaries named in named in the inscriptions, again, appear to have been the bearers of hereditary privileges in the royal household; the term varna, for example, designates any of a number of orders of dignity, which have such official functions as religious teachers, performers of rites, door guardians, garden keepers, palace servants, bearers of flywhisks, and artists.’
[2]
’At Angkor Wat at the head of the "historic" march past, appears a foreign contingent identified by an epigraphic inscription as the chief of the Siamese and his troops. Is this mercenary chief in the service of Suryavarman II, part of the king’s own Siamese guard, similar to the Japanese and even Portuguese guards which some post-Angkorean rulers possessed, or a military contingent from a Siamese principality then a vassal of Cambodia, as S. Shai suggests? We cannot decide.’
[3]
[1]: (Ross 1990) [2]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, pp.166-167) [3]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 98) |
||||||
|
1. King, commmander-in-chief
[1]
king could "delegate military command to a subordinate, probably a member of his own family." [2] 2. High Military Command / Chief of the Bodyguards"The king’s brothers often seem to have been appointed to high military commands immediately below the king and the crown prince, particularly if they held the highly prestigious post of GAL MESHEDI (chief of the Bodyguards). [2] 2. ’Chief of the Wine (Stewards)’ Commander-in-chief"an unpretentious-sounding but in fact highly prestigious title. Its holder was assigned important military commands either under the general command of the king or as commander-in-chief in his own right. The use of such a term, which goes back to the early days of the Old Kingdom, no doubt reflects a time in early Hittite history when the king’s most trusted confidants and advisers were those who attended him in a range of capacities, some quite humble, on a daily basis." [3] 3. Chief of the Chariot-Warriors of the Right / Chief of the Chariot-Warriors of the Left"usually of princely status" [2] "Each of these officers apparently commanded a brigade of 1000 men." [4] 3. Chief of the Standing Army-Troops of the Right / Chief of the Standing Army-Troops of the Left"Each of these officers apparently commanded a brigade of 1000 men." [4] 3. Chief of the ’Shepherds’ of the Right / Chief of the ’Shepherds’ of the Left."Each of these officers apparently commanded a brigade of 1000 men." [4] 4. ???"The lower-ranking officers included, in descending order of importance, ’overseers of military heralds’, ’dignitaries’, and ’gentlemen’. There was a gradation of rank within the dignitaries category, raging (in modern equivalents) from captain to sergeant. The gentlemen were the lowest-ranking officers. Each officer’s importance was determined by the number of men he led. At the lower levels, some were in charge of 100 men, some of just 10." [4] 5. Officer of 100 men"The lower-ranking officers included, in descending order of importance, ’overseers of military heralds’, ’dignitaries’, and ’gentlemen’. There was a gradation of rank within the dignitaries category, raging (in modern equivalents) from captain to sergeant. The gentlemen were the lowest-ranking officers. Each officer’s importance was determined by the number of men he led. At the lower levels, some were in charge of 100 men, some of just 10." [4] 6. Officer of 10 ("Gentlemen"?)"The lower-ranking officers included, in descending order of importance, ’overseers of military heralds’, ’dignitaries’, and ’gentlemen’. There was a gradation of rank within the dignitaries category, raging (in modern equivalents) from captain to sergeant. The gentlemen were the lowest-ranking officers. Each officer’s importance was determined by the number of men he led. At the lower levels, some were in charge of 100 men, some of just 10." [4] 7. Individual soldier [1]: (Bryce 2002, 109) [2]: Bryce T. and A. Hook (2007). Hittite Warrior. Warrior. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. pp. 8-9 [3]: (Bryce 2002, 23) [4]: (Bryce 2007, 7) |
||||||
|
levels.
"Turkish slave soldiers were the most important body of troops in the Samanid army". [1] "The organization of the Samanid state was modelled after the caliph’s court in Baghdad with its central and provincial divisions." [2] Abbasid forces had slave soldiers 1. Amir 2. sipah-salarThe governor of Khurasan province "was usually the sipah-salar (Arabic: sahib al-juyush) or commander of the principal army." [2] [the following infer continuity with Abbasid hierarchy) 3. Qa-id (military officer) 4. Arif (leader of a militay unit of ten to fifteen soldiers) 5. Muquatila(Muslim soldiers paid a salary); Malwa(rank and file Turkish soldier) 6. Arrarun (irregular volunteers) [3] [1]: (Darling) Darling, Linda T. 2013. A History of Social Justice and Political Power in the Middle East: The Circle of Justice from Mesopotamia to Globalization. Routledge. [2]: (Frye 1975, 143) Frye, Richard Nelson. 1975. The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [3]: Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphate pp. 209-210 |
||||||
|
"The earliest contemporary description of a Roman legion was written by the Greek writer Polybius in c.150-120 BC. He describes a military organization that is distinctively Roman, and specifically refers to it as a ’legion’. It consisted of 4,200 infantry (5,000 in times of emergency), subdivided into units of 120 or 60 men called maniples (’handfuls’), and so modern scholars often refer to it as the ’manipular’ legion, to distinguish it from later legions organized in larger subunits called cohorts." "It perhaps emerged in the 4th century BC (as Livy suggests), due to problems the Romans encountered fighting against enemies who fought in looser formations than the phalanx and in rougher terrain, to which the phalanx was unsuited."
[1]
1. Two Consuls, field commanders. [2] 2. Quaestors, senior officers. [2] 3. Legion (4,200 men) lead by six Tribunes"Polybius (6.22-23; 25) describes how the legion in this period was divided into four types of infantry. There were three different groups of heavy infantry: 1,200 hastati (’spearmen’), 1,200 principes (’leading men’) and 600 triarii (’third line men’)." [1] Legion "headed by six officers called tribunes, who had to have completed a minimum of five or ten years’ military service before appointment." [3] 4. Maniple (120 or 60 men) commanded by two Centurions"The hastati and principes were divided into ten maniples of 120 men, the triarii into ten of 60 men. The velites were also organized into ten subunits, and assigned to the heavy infantry. "The officers who commanded the maniples, two for each, were centurions, elected by the soldiers themselves." [3] 5. Two OptioPage 16 Pollard and Berry (2012): an "optio" is present in graphic but not described in text. [4] 6. Individual soldiers [1]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 14) [2]: (Dupuy and Dupuy 2007) [3]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 15) [4]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 16) |
||||||
|
levels. Copied from IqUrIII.
1. Ruler2. Shagina (generals)3. Nu-banda (higher officers)4. Ugula gešda (officers commanding 60 soldiers)5. šeš-gal-nam (officers commanding 10 soldiers)6. Erin (soldiers) [1] [2] Worth noting that the sukkal-mah (vizier) might have played important role during the war as well. [3] [1]: Hamlin 2006, 114 [2]: Rutkowski 2007, 18 [3]: Lafont 2009, 14 |
||||||
|
levels.
Likely used decimal hierarchy. 1. King 2. of 10,0003. of 1,10004. of 1005. of 106. Individual soldier Decimal system organization. "In accordance with the hierarchical principle of the steppe society organization, the nomads were divided into subdivisions by the decimal principle (Taskin 1979: 511-513). In this case, only a part of nomads has taken part in acts of war while the remaining warriors have always stayed put as the basis of a tribe (ibid: 426). The tribes being autonomous and independent formations before the Apao-chi accession to the throne have become main administrative units for a period of empire. Their duties included the following functions:First, it is military function. The tribal home guard has formed a part of the military organization side by side with the professional army divisions of emperor and a number of eminent aristocrats and armed forces of vassal people. It is not accidental that in Laio shi it is mentioned that a banner is a distinctive attribute of a tribe (LS 49: 1b-2a)." [1] [1]: (Kradin 2014, 156) |
||||||
|
levels.
The force was divided into units for a campaign after it had assembled. [1] "The ancient Yemeni military structure consisted of four different elements: 1) the national troops called the Khamis under the king, or one of his generals; 2) levied troops from the highland communities; 3) cavalry (light and heavy); and 4) Bedouin allies/mercenaries." [2] "By Roman standards the sizes of the Sabaean and Himyarite armies were modest ... thousands of men at its disposal. Most of the evidence (mainly inscriptions with some scattered literary evidence) suggests that the typical size for the army in Yemen was less than one thousand men. The inscriptions mention raiding forces or armies of 40, 50, 203, 250, 270, 670 .... 1026, and 2500, but there is also evidence for the use of larger armies. ... From later evidence, including the military treatise, we know that the Muslim military organization (16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16284) was based on Hellenistic Greek practices and it is therefore quite possible that the 16,000 men in question consisted of the Himyar tribal levy/phalanx." [2] "the combined army consisting of the three Khamis (Saba, Himyar, Hadramawt) would have had about 9,000-12,000 men in addition to which came the feudal forces, levies and Bedouins. The full potential of the Himyarite forces in Yemen alone cannot have been much lower than 30,000-40,000 men in addition to which came the forces of the various client kingdoms (60,000?)." [3] A khamis was an organizational unit. Sabaean Khamis may have had about 3,000-4,000 men. [3] 1. King 2. General3. Tribal or Khamis leader"the combined army consisting of the three Khamis (Saba, Himyar, Hadramawt) would have had about 9,000-12,000 men in addition to which came the feudal forces, levies and Bedouins." [3] 4. Leader of 1000?"From later evidence, including the military treatise, we know that the Muslim military organization (16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16284) was based on Hellenistic Greek practices" [2] 5. Leader of ?6. Individual soldier [1]: (Syvanne 2015, 136) Ilkka Syvanne. 2015. Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen and Sword. Barnsley. [2]: (Syvanne 2015, 134) Ilkka Syvanne. 2015. Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen and Sword. Barnsley. [3]: (Syvanne 2015, 135) Ilkka Syvanne. 2015. Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen and Sword. Barnsley. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Sultan 2. Sultan’s personal guardMostly made up of Renegades [1] 2. WazirAlso known as the viceroy, governor of Fez, crown prince, or vizir [2] . 3. Vice-wazirDirectly supervised higher officers [2] . 4. Higher officersThe sultan’s other sons, brothers and relatives with command over the cavalry, firearm forces and the Sultan’s personal guard [2] . 5. Lesser officersNot mentioned by sources but implied by the sources’ mention of "higher officers" [2] . 6. Regular soldiers [1]: M. García-Arenal, Ahmad Al-Mansur: The beginnings of modern Morocco (2009), pp. 55-57 [2]: M. García-Arenal, Ahmad Al-Mansur: The beginnings of modern Morocco (2009), pp. 57-58 |
||||||
|
1400-1590 CE: timar holders and their retainers number about 50,000 and "formed the most important element in the Ottoman army."
[1]
Emir Orhan: "A regularly paid force of Muslim and Christian cavalry and infantry was created by his vizier, Allah al Din. The horsemen were known as müsellems (tax-free men) and were organised under the overall command of sancak beys into hundreds, under subaşis, and thousands, under binbaşis. The foot-soldiers, or yaya, were comparably divided into tens, hundreds and thousands. These infantry archers occasionally fought for Byzantium, where they were known as mourtatoi. Müsellems and yayas were at first paid wages, but by the time of Murat I (1359) they were normally given lands or fiefs in return for military service, the yayas also having special responsibility for the protection of roads and bridges." [2] 1. Sultan 2. sancak beys3. Thousands4. Hundreds5. Tens6. Individual soldier (yaya or müsellems) "Both [yaya] and the müsellems were gradually relegated to second-line duties late in the 14th century, and by 1600 such units had either been abolished or reduced to non-military functions." [2] "On mobilization, one of every ten sipahis remained at home to maintain law and order. The rest formed into alay regiments under their çeribaşi, subaşi and alay bey officers. These led them to theş local sancak bey’s two-horse-tail standard. The men of each sancak then assembled around a provincial governor or beylerbeyi before riding to the Sultan’s camp." [3] 1. Sultan 2. Commander in chief3. Beylerbeyi4. Sancak bey5. çeribaşi, subaşi and alay bey officers of the alay (regiment)6.7.8. Individual sipahissipahis (timar holders). 9. cebeluslarger timar holders of zeamets could equip mounted retainers (cebelus). [3] Version based on Shaw (the following structure was the same for the administration and military) [4] implies that the çeribaşi and subaşi Nicolle mentions are below the alay beys. 1. Sultan 2. Commander in chief3. eyalets lead by beylerbeyis or "beys of beys", ruled provinces4. sancak or liva commanded by sancek bays (who ruled local administration. They appointed police chiefs. Religious judges - kadis - oversaw justice).5. alay regiment, commanded by alay beys6. sipahitimar or fief holder (mounted soldier). Siphai had no rights of ownership, he was the Sultan’s representative, whose job was to maintain order, over-see agriculture and collect taxes from the peasants. Distribution most concentrated in Balkans and Anatolia. 7. Man-at-armsAccording to an Albanian register of 1431-1432 CE one timar holder had to be present on campaign together with one man-at-arms. [5] [1]: (Imber 2002, 256-257) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [2]: (Nicolle 1983, 9) [3]: (Nicolle 1983, 12) [4]: (Shaw 1976, 24) [5]: (Imber 2002, 198) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. |
||||||
|
Crisis of the third century broke army structure. What was reconstituted after 293 CE was very different, although heavy legion infantry remained its core.
"Military command structure of the late Roman Empire" [1] 1. Senate "wholly nominal role" 1. Emperor in the West 2. Master of the Troops (Magister militum) how distinct are these levels 2-4? are these ranks really at different levels of command or at the same level? - need to check with expertEastern empire had two field armies commanded by general called magister militum. Below there were three regional field armies. Legion units had different status: 24 Palatine, 69 Comitatenses, 37 Pseudocomitatenses. Field armies also had auxiliary and cavalry vexillations of Palatine level. [2] Western empire field army commanded by magister peditum, who commanded legions and auxilia Palatina. Cavalry in western empire had separate commander, magister equitum. [2] 3. Master of foot / Master of horse 4. General in charge of 2 or more legions (Dux)"The limitanei were to watch the frontiers only. They protected the borders, never moving from their area unless specifically ordered to do so in support of some other limitanei body that was threatened by attack. While the limitanei did not move, the comitatenses, the main field army near the emperor or under the command of his prefects, was always on the march. Each comitatensis was composed of legiones palatinae (the PALATINI) and the vexillationes palatinae. The legions, as they had been known, were replaced by the 1,000-1,500-man legiones palatinae, grouped five at a time into a comitatenses. Joining them was the cavalry, now called the vexillationes, probably numbering the same." [3] Notitia Dignitatum compiled c420 CE. Data for east empire c395 CE, western empire c400-420 CE. Frontier garrisons (limitanei or ripenses, 50 legionary units) and regional/field armies (comitatus, 120 legionary units). Commanded by senior generals, soldiers called comitatenses. The distinction apparent by 325 CE from the Theodosian Code, but possibly back as far as Diocletian. New cavalry units called vexillations (same name as legionary detachment from earlier period), same privileges as legions. [4] 5. Legionary commander (Legate) 6. Individual soldier [2]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 216) [3]: (Bunson 2009, 310) [4]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 215-216) |
||||||
|
levels.
"...men called magister militum or superista are attested off and on throughout the century; the papal militia had both military and ceremonial importance (see below, p.333), and these were its leaders. There were clearly several such leaders at anyone time, as the Liber Pontificalis makes clear in, for example, its account of the contested papal election of 855, and other senior military figures sometimes appear, such as Cesario (son of Sergio magister militum), ordinatus super exercitum in 849. A hierarchy of rank appears earlier in 855, when Daniele magister equitum accused Graziano, eminentissimus magistro militum et Romani palatii (or Romanae urbis) superista, clearly his superior, of disloyalty to the Carolingians, a charge he could not sustain. Apart from this, however, the structure of the military side of Rome’s aristocratic hierarchies is obscure to us. A set of military offices appear in a wide array of heterogeneous texts, but we cannot put them into a credible ordering. We can say, however, that it was normal to call senior military men nobiles, and Cesario di Sergio’s case shows that they had hereditary elements; we shall see in a moment how complex links between families were by 876. The terminology just outlined becomes much less common after the beginning of the tenth century, perhaps because the supreme military leaders were by now Tefilatto and his heirs; but two people are called superista under Alberico, and Otto III briefly revived the office of magister militiae. Formal military offices cease to be documented at all after that. All the same, military leadership, with or without titles, remained an important role for Rome’s aristocrats." [1] 1. The Pope Popes during this period often accompanied troops on campaigns; for example, John X bragged that he entered the battle several times during the 915 Christian expedition against the Arabs of the Garigliano river [2] . Later popes (Leo IX, for example) were captured following their armies’ defeat on the field at the hands of the Normans, and Lucius II may have died of wounds sustained in his failed assault on the Capitoline Hill in 1144. [3] 2. Cardinals, papal legatesVarious officials in the papal curia led armies and held castles and fortresses for the papacy during this period. The cardinals were in many ways the most important officials in the Patrimony from the late eleventh century onward; in the later Middle Ages, they are found leading armies and serving as what we would consider to be secular administrators. 3. Castellans, chamberlains, papal chaplains 2. superista 3. magister militum 4. Captain or commander 5. Captain or sergeants 6. rank and file.Typically, papal armies were composed of mercenary bands (a masnada) headed by a captain or a papally-appointed commander. 1. Mercenary leaders: Leaders of a masnada, or mercenary band. These captains would have led their contingents in papal armies. 2. Captains and sergeants: These would have served as liasons between the captain and his soldiers. 3. Foot soldiers [1]: (Wickham 2015, 187) Wickham, C. 2015. Medieval Rome: Stability and Crisis of a City, 900-1150. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: Kreutz, 78 [3]: Partner, 181 |
||||||
|
levels. "The Shiji text describes a great many offices that supported rulership as well as a military-administrative decimal system of positions based on the number of horse- men a leader was responsible to mobilize, e.g., 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000, although there is some debate over the specificity of these actual counts (Kradin 2001: 208)."
[1]
"All of the adult men were members of the military-hierarchical organization of the Xiongnu society." [2] "The most highly titled relatives of the chanyu were ten superior commanders of ten thousand warriors which were comprised of four and six horns respectively20. The first four of them were called “wang” (king) by the Chinese chroniclers. Besides the chanyu’s relatives there were other noble families (clans): Huyan, Lan, Xubu, and Qiulin were among the highest Xiongnu aristocracy (Fan Ye 1965, ch. 91, 7b; Zhong- yang 1958, 680-681).The next level in the Xiongnu hierarchy was occupied by the tribal chiefs and elders. In the annals, they are mentioned, as a rule, as ‘subordinate kings’, ‘chief commandants’, ‘household administrators’, “juqu” officials21. Probably, a part of the ‘chiefs of a thousand’ were tribal chiefs. The ‘chiefs of a hundred’ and ‘chiefs of ten’ were, most likely, clan leaders of different ranks. The economic, judicial, cultic, fiscal, and military functions were considered to be responsibilities of chiefs and elders (Taskin 1973, 9-11)." [3] 1. Ruler ’chanyu’ 2. 10 commanders of 10,000 people ’wang’ - or kings3. tribal chiefs and elders - subordinate kings - commanding 1000 people4. Commander of 1005. Commander of 106. individual soldier [1]: (Honeychurch 2015, 224) [2]: (Kradin 2011, 82) [3]: (Kradin 2011, 89) |
||||||
|
levels. Code for earlier Xiongnu Imperial Confederation is 6. In this period the polity was split between northern and southern Xiongnu. Is there any reason to believe the basic decimal system of command would not still have been in use?
1. Ruler 2. 10 commanders of 10,000 people ’wang’ - or kings3. tribal chiefs and elders - subordinate kings - commanding 1000 people4. Commander of 1005. Commander of 106. individual soldier "The Shiji text describes a great many offices that supported rulership as well as a military-administrative decimal system of positions based on the number of horse- men a leader was responsible to mobilize, e.g., 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000, although there is some debate over the specificity of these actual counts (Kradin 2001: 208)." [1] "All of the adult men were members of the military-hierarchical organization of the Xiongnu society." [2] "The most highly titled relatives of the chanyu were ten superior commanders of ten thousand warriors which were comprised of four and six horns respectively20. The first four of them were called “wang” (king) by the Chinese chroniclers. Besides the chanyu’s relatives there were other noble families (clans): Huyan, Lan, Xubu, and Qiulin were among the highest Xiongnu aristocracy (Fan Ye 1965, ch. 91, 7b; Zhong- yang 1958, 680-681).The next level in the Xiongnu hierarchy was occupied by the tribal chiefs and elders. In the annals, they are mentioned, as a rule, as ‘subordinate kings’, ‘chief commandants’, ‘household administrators’, “juqu” officials21. Probably, a part of the ‘chiefs of a thousand’ were tribal chiefs. The ‘chiefs of a hundred’ and ‘chiefs of ten’ were, most likely, clan leaders of different ranks. The economic, judicial, cultic, fiscal, and military functions were considered to be responsibilities of chiefs and elders (Taskin 1973, 9-11)." [3] [1]: (Honeychurch 2015, 224) [2]: (Kradin 2011, 82) [3]: (Kradin 2011, 89) |
||||||
|
levels. 1) supreme military commander [Are Ona Kakanfo/basorun], 2 & 3) commanders/war chiefs [Eso, junior and senior], 4) lesser war chiefs [Balogun], 5) cavalry/archers, 6) ground troops called up from tributary states when needed – but there may have been other subdivisions. The Oyo Empire expanded throughout the 17th and 18th centuries due to its military power, notably cavalry and archers. Three main sections: Metropolitan Army, Eso and Tributary Army. The 70 Eso (junior war chiefs), split into senior and junior titles, were appointed by Oga Mesi and approved by alaafin, and headed up (after the Nupe) by the Are Ona Kakanfo, a supreme military commander/Field Marshal who was based in an important frontier province. The Metropolitan Army was for Oyo Ile’s six provinces, and headed up by the basorun. There were lesser war chiefs in this section of the military called the Balogun. Tributary states were required to provide local troops under local generals when required. “The absolute power theoretically given to the Alafin by the constitution was, by the same constitution, shared among the Alafin, the Oyo Mesi headed by the Basorun and the standing officers [the Eso] of the army headed by the Are Ona Kakanfo. Care was also taken to see that in normal circumstances, neither the Basorun nor the Are Ona Kankafo had a right to what was denied the Alafin, namely, to become an absolute ruler and a tyrant. Thus, the powers given to the Basorun could only be rightly exercised with the concurrence of his colleagues in the Oyo Mesi. And since other members of the Oyo Mesi were not just the creations of the Basorun, but appointed by the Alafin, we need not assume that they would, under normal circumstance, allow the Basorun to use his powers against the Alafin without cause. Similarly, the Are Ona Kakanfo could not unilaterally use the army. He was resident outside the capital. But the other standing Officers of the army, namely, the seventy Eso, were resident in the capital and were under the control of the Oyo Mesi. Besides, general mobilization to provide rank and file of the army could only be ordered by the Alafin, acting in consultation with the Oyo Mesi Thus, the army was jointly controlled by the Are Ona Kakanfo, the Oyo Mesi and the Alafin. In the circumstance, it is difficult to see how, under normal condition, the Are could use the army to stage a coup ďetat. This was more difficult since, apart from the officers, the army was not a standing one but always raised ad hoc. Worse still for the Are, he was not, except on the battle field, in control of the standing office.”
[1]
“The principal war-chiefs of the capital were the seventy Eso, divided into sixteen senior and fifty-four junior titles. The Eso titles were not hereditary, but were conferred individually on merit: this was no doubt a concession to the demands of military efficiency. […] Each of the Eso brought to the army his own band of troops, recruited from his personal retainers. The Eso and their retainers provided a core of specialist soldiers, and it was probably they who served as the cavalry and archers, highly trained soldiers in whom the power of the Oyo army primarily rested.”
[2]
Command structures of the metropolitan troops aren’t entirely clear, but Law suggests that throughout the Late Oyo Empire period the Eso were under the Oyo Mesi, though this changed after 1835: “…it is less clear under whose authority the Eso served. Johnson describes them as being subordinates of the Oyo Msei, each of whom commanded ten of the Eso, and Morton-Williams adds that the Oyo Mesi were responsible for nominating candidates for Eso titles, to be approved by the Alafin. However, Simpson asserts that only thirty of the Eso came under the Oyo Mesi, the other forty being subordinate to the Alafin’s palace eunuchs. Probably Johnson and Morton-Williams record the arrangement which held during the imperial period, while Simpson describes the new arrangement after the reorganization at New Oyo.”
[3]
[1]: Atanda, J. A. ‘The Fall of the Old Ọyọ Empire: A Re-Consideration of its Cause’. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria vol.5, no.4 (June 1971): 479. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NR9MAEAE/collection [2]: Law, R. (1977). The Oyo Empire c. 1600 – c. 1836: A West African Imperialism in the Era of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Oxford University Press: 189. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB32ZPCF/collection [3]: Law, R. (1977). The Oyo Empire c. 1600 – c. 1836: A West African Imperialism in the Era of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Oxford University Press: 190. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB32ZPCF/collection |
||||||
|
levels. "Ranks and titles were conferred on the bureaucratic and military nobility until the end of the absolute monarchy in 1932, a rank and title usually being associated with an office. The chaophraya were highest on the list, the equivalents of cabinet ministers, generals, and the governors of the most important provincial cities. On a descending scale came phraya, phra, luang, and khun."
[1]
1. Chaophraya 2. Phraya 3. Phra 4. Luang 5. Khun [1]: (Wyatt 1984, p. xviii) |
||||||
|
[1]
[2]
: 1. Amir :: 2. Commander-in-chief ::: 3. Commanders :::: 4. Officer/Leader (sarhangs) ::::: 5. Cavalrymen :::::: 6. Infantrymen
[1]: Frye 2007: 110, 118. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/7XE9P8HB [2]: Bosworth 1968: 540, 549. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/BPCWEZBH |
||||||
|
levels.“Characteristic of the Jochid Ulus army was the designation of a military service class chosen primarily from among the Horde’s social elite. The Jochids formed its upper crust, followed by ulus begs and darugh begs, then emirs in command of thousands, hundreds, and dozens, to whom the title beg also applied.. Commanders from the Jochi clan were known as oghlans on the army’s right and Left wings… Therefore, most scholars agree that the organizational structure of the military consisted of a rigid hierarchy based on the decimal system, in which tens were the smallest units and a tumen of ten thousand warriors—the largest unit.”
[1]
: 1. Khan :: 2. ulus begs and darugh begs ::: 3. Emirs :::: 4. Military Governor (Voevoda) ::::: 5. Commander (Noyan) :::::: 6. Soldiers and horsemen.
[1]: Khakimov and Favereau 2017: 259-260. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/QL8H3FN8 |
||||||
|
"Noteworthy was the decimal chain of command, the grouping of soldiers in tens, hundreds, and thousands, up to an army division of 10,000 men (Mongolian tümän, Pers. tūmān), which was to have an enduring impact on the military organization of succeeding eastern Islamic powers, being adopted by, e.g., the Mughals in India."
[1]
Decimal: 1, 10s, 100s, 1000s, 10000s, Emperor = 6 1. Emperor 2. Bakhshi (Adjutant-General). Bakhshi-titles were given to those with administrative duties, the Adjutant-General commanded the army in the Emperor’s absence.3. Mir Bakhshi4. Other Bakhshi (such as Bakhshi-i-tan)5. Officer.Mansabdars were also chiefs and leaders, ranked based on the number of men they recruited, the mansab rank was further divided into zat and suwar, where zat referred to foot-soldiers and suwar to horsemen. [2] 6. Soldier. [1]: (Bosworth 2011) Bosworth, C E. 2011. ARMY ii. Islamic, to the Mongol period. www.iranicaonline.org/articles/army-ii [2]: Shreya Acharya, Short Essay on the Mansabdari System of Akbar, Link |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Caliph. Malik-Shah waited for "for news for the caliphs endorsement" before attacking the Karakhanids and Ghaznavids. [1] 2. Sultan. Examples of sultans deferring to Caliph’s authority, but they appointed the amirs.3. Commander (amir) of military forces.“It was said to have been divided into twenty-four military zones, each under a regional commander. These commanders had to raise, train and equip a specified number of troops every year, who would muster at a pre-arranged spot to spend the summer either training or on campaign.” [2] 4. Tribal leaders- they continued to owe allegiances to the sultan in times of war and provided troops. 5. Professional soldiers- "these professionals comprised heavily armed and armoured cavalrymen and infantrymen with swords and spears. For them a system of land grants grew up, on whose revenues the warriors, their mounts and weapons could be supported." [3] 6. Soldiers- the ordinary mamluk soldiers equipped by those holding land grants. [4] "The armies of the first Seljuks bore little relation to the famed Turkish military of the classical Abbasid era." [5] “It was said to have been divided into twenty-four military zones, each under a regional commander. These commanders had to raise, train and equip a specified number of troops every year, who would muster at a pre-arranged spot to spend the summer either training or on campaign.” [2] "There was a cursus honorum through which the mamluks rose, lasting seven years. A freshly recruited mamluk would start at the rank of foot-groom, and could rise by the age of thirty-five to become a fully-fledged amir." [6] Three armies: Turkmen, mamluks (standing army), and the sultan’s personal guard. [7] Mamluk forces did not have the same "ecological limitations" as the nomadic Turkmen. [8] [1]: Başan, Aziz. The Great Seljuqs: A History. Routledge Studies in the History of Iran and Turkey. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2010, p.30. [2]: Nicolle, David. Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era, 1050-1350: Islam, Eastern Europe and Asia. Rev. and updated ed. London : Mechanicsburg, Pa: Greenhill Books ; Stackpole Books, 1999. p.220. [3]: Holmes, Richard, ed., ‘Turks, Seljuk and Ottoman’, The Oxford companion to military history (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) [4]: ‘Turks, Seljuk and Ottoman’, Holmes, Richard, ed., The Oxford companion to military history (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). [5]: (Peacock 2015, 217) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [6]: (Peacock 2015, 226) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [7]: (Peacock 2015, 218) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [8]: (Peacock 2015, 225) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Emperor 2. Privy Council"Of the six ministries, the Ministry of War was the least significant, as the real military authority in Yuan times resided in the Privy Council (Shu-mi yuan). The Privy Council, established in 1263, was at the pinnacle of a separate military bureaucracy, whereas the Ministry of War was subordinate to the Central Secretariat within the civilian bureaucracy. The insignificance of the Ministry of War is demonstrated by the fact that the Ping chih (Monograph on the military) in the Yuan shih (Official history of the Yuan) does not even mention the Ministry of War in its description of the structure of the Yuan military, instead stating that ’the Privy Council was set up to take 7 overall charge.’ All military offices, including the imperial guard (su-wei), were ultimately responsible to the Privy Council in the military chain of command." [1] 2. Branch Secretariat"The [Privy Council] did not, however, exert direct control over garrison troops stationed in the Branch Secretariats outside the metropolitan province. The myriarchies (wan-hufu, M: ttimeri) from which the garrison troops were drawn were answerable to the Branch Secretariats, which of course were territorial administrations in the civilian bureaucracy. This meshing of civil and military authority at the regional level was apparently aimed at facilitating cooperation between the two. Nevertheless, as we mentioned earlier, in dire military emergencies, as in the case of insurrections against the dynasty, a temporary Branch Privy Council would be established until the emergency had passed." [2] 3. Imperial guard"In regard to administrative organization, the units of the imperial guard were under the jurisdiction of the Privy Council (Shu-mi yuan), which was at the apex of the separate military bureaucracy." [2] 3. Military officers in charge of provincial garrisons 4. Other officers inferred 5. Other officers inferred 6. Individual soldier [1]: (Endicott-West 1994, 589) [2]: (Endicott-West 1994, 601) |
||||||
|
levels. King (level 1), leaders of military divisions and mercenary chief (level 2), captains of militia (level 3), member of elephant corps (level 4), member of calvary (level 5), units farmer-builder-soldier class (level 6). According to David Chandler, ’Though the king, who led his country into battle, sometimes engaged his chief enemy in single combat, Khmer military strength rested on the junior officers, the captains of militia. These men commanded the loyalty of peasant groups in their particular locality. If the king conquered a region, a new captain of militia would be enrolled and put under an oath of allegiance. The captains were simply headmen of the outlying regions, but their connection with the king enhanced their status. In time of war they were expected to conscript the peasants in their district and to lead them to Angkor to join the Khmer army. If the captains disobeyed the king they were put to death. The vast majority of the Khmer population were of the farmer-builder-soldier class.’
[1]
’One major feature of the ’imperial state’ was its maintenance of a large court and a corps of officials. Angkor has a sizeable bureaucracy staffed by officials of many sorts. Like so much about the Khmer kingdom in ancient times, the structure of government and the categories of the civil service are known to us through temple inscriptions, which frequently name various types of official or local dignitary in listing those present to witness the formal demarcation of land bestowed upon religious foundations; they mention a variety of grades and titles, some of them obscure. The khlon rajakarya was responsible for the administration of ’royal work’, probably corvee among other things. The tamrvac was an inspector; the officials who swore allegiance to Suryavarman I had this title, for example. The gunadosadarsin (assessor of virtues and defects) was concerned with temple property. A variety of functionaries were called khlon (inspector) and had responsibilities in various areas such as grain, temple dues, management of religious foundations and several aspects of court proceedings. Revenue was usually in kind, being paid in grain, but some special districts paid in other commodities such as honey and wax. There is evidence that some of the categories in which officials were placed were not types of professional specialisation but divisions of the government service placed under the patronage of particular chiefs belonging to the royal family, a system that was indeed known in later centuries. Some of the groups of dignitaries named in named in the inscriptions, again, appear to have been the bearers of hereditary privileges in the royal household; the term varna, for example, designates any of a number of orders of dignity, which have such official functions as religious teachers, performers of rites, door guardians, garden keepers, palace servants, bearers of flywhisks, and artists.’
[2]
’At Angkor Wat at the head of the "historic" march past, appears a foreign contingent identified by an epigraphic inscription as the chief of the Siamese and his troops. Is this mercenary chief in the service of Suryavarman II, part of the king’s own Siamese guard, similar to the Japanese and even Portuguese guards which some post-Angkorean rulers possessed, or a military contingent from a Siamese principality then a vassal of Cambodia, as S. Shai suggests? We cannot decide.’
[3]
[1]: (Ross 1990) [2]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, pp.166-167) [3]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 98) |
||||||
|
levels.
"Rank was achieved primarily by the taking of captives." [1] 1. Huey Tlatoani (Great Speaker/Paramount ruler)2. Commanding General (has taken a difficult captive) [2] 3. General (inferred lower than Commanding General, has taken a difficult captive) [2] 4. Veteran Warriors (have taken more than four captives) [1] 5. Leader of Youth (three captives) [1] 6. Leading Youth (when a youth takes a captive without any help) [1] 7. Soldier without accomplishments (inferred) A more meta look at the rankings in terms of groups of knights:"There were two orders of a quasi-noble rank (Eagle and Jaguar knights), lesser orders who could still wear fine battle gear, and simple foot soldiers." [3] 1. Huey Tlatoani (Great Speaker/Paramount ruler)2. Eagle Knights 2. Jaguar Knights3. Lesser orders of knights. Cuauhpipltin: "Commoners who had achieved noble status by virtue of their deeds in war." [4] 4. Simple foot soldiers: yaoquizqueh [1]: (Hassig 1988: 37) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/8U993JEU) [2]: (Hassig 1988: 40) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/8U993JEU) [3]: Carballo, David. Personal Communication to Jill Levine and Peter Turchin. Email. April 23, 2020) [4]: (Hassig 1988: 29) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/8U993JEU) |
||||||
|
"Parthia was the only state that rivaled Rome at the same level of sophisticated political and military organization".
[1]
1. King 2. Commanders (aristocracy)"The aristocracy provided the cataphracts and trained their retainers - not their slaves - as mounted bowmen. Parthian army was small, as in most feudal states, never more than 6,000 cataphracts and 34,000 bowmen..." [2] 3. Cataphract level senior officer inferred - leader of 1000?4. Cataphract level junior officer inferred - leader of 100?5. Leader of 10 horsemen inferredAt Carrhae, a Parthian general named Surenas brought with him "a train of camels, one for every ten horsemen, loaded with spare arrows." [3] This reference to the supplying of groups of 10 horsemen is interesting because the Sassanids, the Parthian successors, inherited their military structure (division between heavy and light cavalry). It is noted of the Sassanids that they "Like the Achaemenids ... likely used the decimal system to organize the Spah (army). The title Hazarmard/Hazarbad means "chief of a thousand"." [4] 6. Individual soldier [1]: (Southern 2007, 46) Southern, Pat. 2007. The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History. Oxford University Press. [2]: (Naval Intelligence Division 2014, 231) Naval Intelligence Division. 2014. Iraq & The Persian Gulf. Routledge. [3]: (Ellis 2004, 37) Ellis, John. 2004. Cavalry: History of Mounted Warfare. Pen and Sword. [4]: (Farrokh 2005, 3-27) |
||||||
|
levels. King (level 1), leaders of military divisions and mercenary chief (level 2), captains of militia (level 3), member of elephant corps (level 4), member of calvary (level 5), units farmer-builder-soldier class (level 6). According to David Chandler, ’Though the king, who led his country into battle, sometimes engaged his chief enemy in single combat, Khmer military strength rested on the junior officers, the captains of militia. These men commanded the loyalty of peasant groups in their particular locality. If the king conquered a region, a new captain of militia would be enrolled and put under an oath of allegiance. The captains were simply headmen of the outlying regions, but their connection with the king enhanced their status. In time of war they were expected to conscript the peasants in their district and to lead them to Angkor to join the Khmer army. If the captains disobeyed the king they were put to death. The vast majority of the Khmer population were of the farmer-builder-soldier class.’
[1]
’One major feature of the ’imperial state’ was its maintenance of a large court and a corps of officials. Angkor has a sizeable bureaucracy staffed by officials of many sorts. Like so much about the Khmer kingdom in ancient times, the structure of government and the categories of the civil service are known to us through temple inscriptions, which frequently name various types of official or local dignitary in listing those present to witness the formal demarcation of land bestowed upon religious foundations; they mention a variety of grades and titles, some of them obscure. The khlon rajakarya was responsible for the administration of ’royal work’, probably corvee among other things. The tamrvac was an inspector; the officials who swore allegiance to Suryavarman I had this title, for example. The gunadosadarsin (assessor of virtues and defects) was concerned with temple property. A variety of functionaries were called khlon (inspector) and had responsibilities in various areas such as grain, temple dues, management of religious foundations and several aspects of court proceedings. Revenue was usually in kind, being paid in grain, but some special districts paid in other commodities such as honey and wax. There is evidence that some of the categories in which officials were placed were not types of professional specialisation but divisions of the government service placed under the patronage of particular chiefs belonging to the royal family, a system that was indeed known in later centuries. Some of the groups of dignitaries named in named in the inscriptions, again, appear to have been the bearers of hereditary privileges in the royal household; the term varna, for example, designates any of a number of orders of dignity, which have such official functions as religious teachers, performers of rites, door guardians, garden keepers, palace servants, bearers of flywhisks, and artists.’
[2]
’At Angkor Wat at the head of the "historic" march past, appears a foreign contingent identified by an epigraphic inscription as the chief of the Siamese and his troops. Is this mercenary chief in the service of Suryavarman II, part of the king’s own Siamese guard, similar to the Japanese and even Portuguese guards which some post-Angkorean rulers possessed, or a military contingent from a Siamese principality then a vassal of Cambodia, as S. Shai suggests? We cannot decide.’
[3]
[1]: (Ross 1990) [2]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, pp.166-167) [3]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 98) |
||||||
|
"Parthia was the only state that rivaled Rome at the same level of sophisticated political and military organization".
[1]
1. King 2. Commanders (aristocracy)"The aristocracy provided the cataphracts and trained their retainers - not their slaves - as mounted bowmen. Parthian army was small, as in most feudal states, never more than 6,000 cataphracts and 34,000 bowmen..." [2] 3. Cataphract level senior officer inferred - leader of 1000?4. Cataphract level junior officer inferred - leader of 100?5. Leader of 10 horsemen inferredAt Carrhae, a Parthian general named Surenas brought with him "a train of camels, one for every ten horsemen, loaded with spare arrows." [3] This reference to the supplying of groups of 10 horsemen is interesting because the Sassanids, the Parthian successors, inherited their military structure (division between heavy and light cavalry). It is noted of the Sassanids that they "Like the Achaemenids ... likely used the decimal system to organize the Spah (army). The title Hazarmard/Hazarbad means "chief of a thousand"." [4] 6. Individual soldier [1]: (Southern 2007, 46) Southern, Pat. 2007. The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History. Oxford University Press. [2]: (Naval Intelligence Division 2014, 231) Naval Intelligence Division. 2014. Iraq & The Persian Gulf. Routledge. [3]: (Ellis 2004, 37) Ellis, John. 2004. Cavalry: History of Mounted Warfare. Pen and Sword. [4]: (Farrokh 2005, 3-27) |
||||||
|
levels.
"On parade, the Aq Qoyunlu Turkman troops were drawn up in the Turco-Mongol fashion of right wing, left wing, and center (sag wa sol wa manqalay)." [1] Does this suggest, also like the Mongols, they used the decimal chain-of-command? 1. Sultan 2. Chief of Personal Guard (kawass) inferred"the sultan maintained a force of paid personal guards (ḵawāṣṣ) who were recruited from several different nomadic and semi-nomadic groups." [2] 3. Soldier in Personal Guard 2. amīr-e noʾīn (commander) 10,000s?The top commanders were called amīr-e noʾīn (Mongolian noyan “master, lord”), 3. 1,000s?"one group of the rank-and-file was called nowkars (Mongolian nökär “companion”)" [1] 4. 100s?"the term for smaller, component units of the army (in the Timurid army, for a mere company of 50 to 100 men) was qošūn (Mongolian k/qošiḡun)" [1] 5. 10s? 6. Soldier [1]: (Bosworth 2011) Bosworth, C E. 2011. ARMY ii. Islamic, to the Mongol period. www.iranicaonline.org/articles/army-ii [2]: (Quiring-Zoche 2011) Quiring-Zoche, R. 2011. Aq Qoyunlu. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aq-qoyunlu-confederation |
||||||
|
1. King
king could "delegate military command to a subordinate, probably a member of his own family." [1] 2. High Military Command / Chief of the Bodyguards"The king’s brothers often seem to have been appointed to high military commands immediately below the king and the crown prince, particularly if they held the highly prestigious post of GAL MESHEDI (chief of the Bodyguards). [1] 2. ’Chief of the Wine (Stewards)’ Commander-in-chief"an unpretentious-sounding but in fact highly prestigious title. Its holder was assigned important military commands either under the general command of the king or as commander-in-chief in his own right. The use of such a term, which goes back to the early days of the Old Kingdom, no doubt reflects a time in early Hittite history when the king’s most trusted confidants and advisers were those who attended him in a range of capacities, some quite humble, on a daily basis." [2] 3. Chief of the Chariot-Warriors of the Right / Chief of the Chariot-Warriors of the Left"usually of princely status" [1] "Each of these officers apparently commanded a brigade of 1000 men." [3] 3. Chief of the Standing Army-Troops of the Right / Chief of the Standing Army-Troops of the Left"Each of these officers apparently commanded a brigade of 1000 men." [3] 3. Chief of the ’Shepherds’ of the Right / Chief of the ’Shepherds’ of the Left."Each of these officers apparently commanded a brigade of 1000 men." [3] 4. ???"The lower-ranking officers included, in descending order of importance, ’overseers of military heralds’, ’dignitaries’, and ’gentlemen’. There was a gradation of rank within the dignitaries category, raging (in modern equivalents) from captain to sergeant. The gentlemen were the lowest-ranking officers. Each officer’s importance was determined by the number of men he led. At the lower levels, some were in charge of 100 men, some of just 10." [3] 5. Officer of 100 men"The lower-ranking officers included, in descending order of importance, ’overseers of military heralds’, ’dignitaries’, and ’gentlemen’. There was a gradation of rank within the dignitaries category, raging (in modern equivalents) from captain to sergeant. The gentlemen were the lowest-ranking officers. Each officer’s importance was determined by the number of men he led. At the lower levels, some were in charge of 100 men, some of just 10." [3] 6. Officer of 10 ("Gentlemen"?)"The lower-ranking officers included, in descending order of importance, ’overseers of military heralds’, ’dignitaries’, and ’gentlemen’. There was a gradation of rank within the dignitaries category, raging (in modern equivalents) from captain to sergeant. The gentlemen were the lowest-ranking officers. Each officer’s importance was determined by the number of men he led. At the lower levels, some were in charge of 100 men, some of just 10." [3] 7. Individual soldier [1]: Bryce T. and A. Hook (2007). Hittite Warrior. Warrior. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. pp. 8-9 [2]: (Bryce 2002, 23) [3]: (Bryce 2007, 7) |
||||||
|
levels.
The force was divided into units for a campaign after it had assembled. [1] "The ancient Yemeni military structure consisted of four different elements: 1) the national troops called the Khamis under the king, or one of his generals; 2) levied troops from the highland communities; 3) cavalry (light and heavy); and 4) Bedouin allies/mercenaries." [2] "By Roman standards the sizes of the Sabaean and Himyarite armies were modest ... thousands of men at its disposal. Most of the evidence (mainly inscriptions with some scattered literary evidence) suggests that the typical size for the army in Yemen was less than one thousand men. The inscriptions mention raiding forces or armies of 40, 50, 203, 250, 270, 670 .... 1026, and 2500, but there is also evidence for the use of larger armies. ... From later evidence, including the military treatise, we know that the Muslim military organization (16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16284) was based on Hellenistic Greek practices and it is therefore quite possible that the 16,000 men in question consisted of the Himyar tribal levy/phalanx." [2] "the combined army consisting of the three Khamis (Saba, Himyar, Hadramawt) would have had about 9,000-12,000 men in addition to which came the feudal forces, levies and Bedouins. The full potential of the Himyarite forces in Yemen alone cannot have been much lower than 30,000-40,000 men in addition to which came the forces of the various client kingdoms (60,000?)." [3] A khamis was an organizational unit. Sabaean Khamis may have had about 3,000-4,000 men. [3] 1. King 2. General3. Tribal or Khamis leader"the combined army consisting of the three Khamis (Saba, Himyar, Hadramawt) would have had about 9,000-12,000 men in addition to which came the feudal forces, levies and Bedouins." [3] 4. Leader of 1000?"From later evidence, including the military treatise, we know that the Muslim military organization (16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16284) was based on Hellenistic Greek practices" [2] 5. Leader of ?6. Individual soldier [1]: (Syvanne 2015, 136) Ilkka Syvanne. 2015. Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen and Sword. Barnsley. [2]: (Syvanne 2015, 134) Ilkka Syvanne. 2015. Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen and Sword. Barnsley. [3]: (Syvanne 2015, 135) Ilkka Syvanne. 2015. Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen and Sword. Barnsley. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Sultan 2. Diwan-i tovachi"dealt with military affairs and was controlled by the Barlas tribe" [1] 2. Tarkhan"The most senior officers were granted the ultimate title of tarkhan, a position harking back to the days of Genghis Khan. This conferred on them a number of important privileges, among which the most valuable was the permanent exemption from taxes. Unlike any other soldier in Temur’s armies, the tarkhan was entitled to keep everything he plundered. Everyone else had to make over a share of the spoils to the emperor. The Tarkhan was also immune from criminal prosecution. Only after he had committed the same crime nine times was he answerable to justice. Perhaps the ultimate prize was his access to Temur at all times." [2] 2. Amir of a tumanTuman was 10,000 men. [3] 3. Binbashi of a binlik1000 troops. [3] 4. Yuzbashi of a yuzlikTen onliks in a yuzlik. [3] 5. Onbashi of an onlik"The smallest unit of men was ten soldiers, an onlik, led by an onbashi." [3] 6. Individual soldier [1]: (Subtelny 2007, 68) Subtelny, Maria. 2007. Timurids in Transition: Turko-Persian Politics and Acculturation in Medieval Iran. BRILL. [2]: (Marozzi 2004, 100) Marozzi, J. 2004. Tamerlane. HarperCollinsPublishers. London. [3]: (Marozzi 2004, 99) Marozzi, J. 2004. Tamerlane. HarperCollinsPublishers. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
This hierarchy is for the Qizilbish army. How many levels in the Georgian/Caucasian corps (ghulam or qullar corps) created by Abbas I? [1] 1. Shah 2 qurchibashi chief of royal guard or mounted cavalry [1] 2. amir al-umara (commander-in-chief) of Qizilbash forces [1] Amir al-omard (commander in chief of the army, which later titled Sepdhsdldr-e koll-e lasgar-e Iran). [2] He "had extensive influence over the Shah on military issues. He was responsible for the well being of the army, employment of personnel, support and ammunitions, and superintendent of the royal military workshops (boyutdt)." [2] 3. Military governors/tribal chiefsthe Ustajlu and Shamlu tribes provided most of the commanders-in-chief. Other tribes in the Qizilbash confederation were the Rumlu, Dhul-Qadr and Takkalu. [1] 4. Officers of 1000e.g. The tribal corps were organised into groups of a thousand with a chief appointed to lead them. Each group of royal archers had a centurion in command of them. [3] 5. Officers of 100? 6. Officers of 10? 6 or 7. Individual soldiers [1]: (Newman 2009) Newman, Andrew J. 2009. Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire. I.B. Tauris. New York. [2]: Mousavi, Mohammad A. “The Autonomous State in Iran: Mobility and Prosperity in the Reign of Shah ’Abbas the Great (1587-1629).” Iran & the Caucasus 12, no. 1 (January 1, 2008):23-24 doi:10.2307/25597352. [3]: M. Haneda ’ARMY iii. Safavid Period’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/army-iii |
||||||
|
levels.
Originally the Seljuks in Anatolia had been tribal warriors. After establishing the sultanate they adopted some of the military organisation of other Middle Eastern polities. By the mid 13th century their force consisted of: Turcoman tribes; “the elite of ghulam slave-soldiers (many of whom were freed on the completion of their military training); cavalrymen performing military service in return for lands or fiefs known as iqta; local mercenaries; Western European or ‘Frankish’ mercenaries; and assorted allied contingents” [1] The professional warriors were supported by a system of land grants "on whose revenues the warriors, their mounts and weapons could be supported." [2] 1. Sultan. The Sultan appointed the military governors, tribal leaders owed allegiances to him in times of war. [1] 2. Sultan’s retinues.Seljuks, Ottomans and Mongols all had a version of ‘military retinue’ system, “a group of armed, mainly free men (the majority of them foreigners), who served on a voluntary basis and were attached personally to the leader. They were his closet companions, friends and servants; they commanded the troops in wars, while a select group of them served as his bodyguard." [3] They would have numbered a few thousand. 3, Subasibay or zaim- military governor of large city and commander of cavalry and fortress garrison. [4] As the state established itself, land was given to members of the retinue who then ruled it as regional governors. [3] The governors ruled "a territorial unit called avilayet, or larger city, and was the commander (zaimu’l-cuyus) of the ikta-holder cavalry (sipahi) and the fortress garrisons (mustahfiz) under his authority.” [4] 4. Tribal leaders.They owed allegiances to the Sultan and would provide troops. [1] 5. Officers and cavalrymen.Professional warriors performing military service in return for land holding. [1] 6. Soldiers.Ghulam slave-soldiers and mercenaries employed during war. [1] [1]: David Nicolle, Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era, 1050-1350: Islam, Eastern Europe and Asia, rev. and updated ed (London : Mechanicsburg, Pa: Greenhill Books ; Stackpole Books, 1999). p.208 [2]: ‘Turks, Seljuk and Ottoman’, Holmes, Richard, ed., The Oxford companion to military history (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). [3]: Fodor, Pal. “Ottoman Warfare, 1300-1453.” In The Cambridge History of Turkey, edited by Kate Fleet, Suraiya Faroqhi, and Reşat Kasaba, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. P.193. [4]: Fodor, Pal. “Ottoman Warfare, 1300-1453.” In The Cambridge History of Turkey, edited by Kate Fleet, Suraiya Faroqhi, and Reşat Kasaba, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. P.197. |
||||||
|
levels.
Central (Capital Army or Inner army of 100,000) and provincial armies "The military was constituted from a Capital Army that was garrisoned in and around the capital, the armies of the princedoms and imperial clansmen, and private armies (buqu) of the magnates that were scattered throughout the empire and often represented a challenge for the central government in cases of rebellion." [1] "The basic organizational structure of the Jin military was inherited from Wei. There were two major components: an "inner" army of some one hundred thousand based at the capital city of Luoyang, and a much larger "outer" army made up of garrisons stationed in the provinces. The inner army was under the direct control of the imperial court and included both a palace guard and a powerful mobile striking force, while the outer units were subordinate to regional military commanders (dudu) appointed by the court. In addition to these forces, there were also local troop raised by the various provincial governors (cishi)." However, local troops were abolished in an edict in 282 CE and with that change provincial governors lost authority over military forces, although there were some exceptions on the frontier. [2] Princes were made dudu and they commanded private armies and outer armies "Another Jin policy was to place substantial military power in the hands of princes of the imperial palace. The Jin founder, Sima Yan ... granted territorial fiefs to members of his own large and highly ramified lineage. Twenty-seven princes were enfeoffed soon after the founding of the dynasty in 265... most of the princes received commanderies as their fiefs ... In 277 the princes were allowed to raise their own armies, ranging in size from 1500 men for the smallest princely fief to 5000 for the largest. They were very far from being independent rulers, however. The central government in Luoyang appointed their chief ministers, and the princes had to turn two-thirds of their tax revenues over to the center. The real power of the princes ... lay in their appointments as regional military commanders. By 290 six of the princes were serving as dudu. They held more than half of the regional commands in the empire, and these included the most important provincial centers..." [2] = i.e. the princes who were dudu commanded both their own army and the garrison forces of the "outer" army. 1. Emperor 2. Generals inferredCentralized command and control. "The Ts’in inherited the Wei system after AD 265, until Ssu-ma Yen deliberately abandoned the centralised system of command and placed members of his family in control of private armies." [3] relatives only commanded small units of bodyguards [3] 3. Local commander [4] of outer army called dudu [5] from 290 CE "dudu were once again allowed to hold provincial governorships concurrently with their military offices, giving them full control of both civil and military affairs in their assigned regions" [5] 4. Officers - commanders, captains etc. inferred5. inferred6. inferred7. Individual soldier 3. Leader of division of inner army inferredConquered southern state of Wu. Final campaign 279 CE. "200,000 Jin troops marching against Wu in six columns" [6] = six columns suggest something about army structure 4. Officers - commanders, captains etc. inferred5. inferred6. inferred7. Individual soldier [1]: (Theobald, U. 2015. CHINAKNOWLEDGE - a universal guide for China studies. http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Division/jin-admin.html) [2]: (Graff 2002, 43) [3]: (Peers 1995, 21) [4]: (De Crespigny 1991, 26) [5]: (Graff 2002, 44) [6]: (Graff 2002, 35) |
||||||
|
levels. 1) King, 2) Commander-in-chief, 3) Second in command, 4) regimental officers, 5) general and specialist corps, 6) individual soldiery. “Every Dahomean was a potential soldier. Burton states that the "nation" was synonymous with the army (Burton 1846:II:220ff).”
[1]
“Dahomey developed a revolutionary political system in which power was based on centralized military might rather than traditional rules of royal descent. Military power allowed Dahomey to construct a centralized bureaucratic apparatus that broke radically with the kin-based institutions of the past and was thus better able to resist collapse.”
[2]
“The regular army consisted of fourteen regiments of about eight hundred men strong, and three brigades of Amazons amounting altogether to three thousand. Two officers, ranked as councillors, commanded the army. The Gau, the commander-in-chief, led the right wing. During the campaign he shared the prerogatives of the king. The Kposu, second-in-command, led the left wing. In peace-time the Gau came under the Migan, on the king’s right; the Kposu came under the Meu, on the king’s left.Regular soldiers wore blue-and-white tunics and were organized into regiments and companies, under the command of an officer, each with its own drums and standard. Veterans wore indigo tunics and were called atchi. Among the others, the more numerous were the fusiliers, who fought with bayonets, and the blunderbussmen, or agbaraya. The Ashanti company was the élite corps, formed of the king’s hunters. Lastly, there were companies of archers, armed with poisoned arrows, a cavalry company, and a few artillerymen.//"The Amazons were organized into two separate corps: a permanent army and a reserve. The reserve company guarded the capital, and especially the palace, in war-time. In the nineteenth century the Amazons were highly organized. They wore uniforms similar to the men’s: sleeveless tunics, with blue-and-white stripes, reached to the knees; baggy breeches were held in at the waist by a cartridge belt. Members of the king’s bodyguard wore a band of white ribbon about the forehead, embroidered with a blue crocodile. Amazons lived at the palace and belonged to the king, who recruited them from free Dahomeans and captives. They were celibate and were forbidden to marry until they reached middle age, when they still needed the king’s consent. In peace-time they saw to their own needs by manufacturing pots or carving calabashes; both crafts were their exclusive monopoly.//"During the campaign the Amazon army was organized into three groups: the Fanti company - royal bodyguard - constituted the main body, and the left and right wings came under female officers who corresponded to the Gau and Kposu of the male army. Individual companies were distinguished by the arms they carried: bayonets, muskets (each musketeer was accompanied by a carrier), and bows and arrows (borne by the youngest recruits). The élite corps, the Fanti company, consisted of the famed elephant huntresses, the boldest and toughest of the Amazons.”
[3]
[1]: Diamond, S. (1996). DAHOMEY: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROTO-STATE: An Essay in Historical Reconstruction. Dialectical Anthropology, 21(2), 121–216: 29. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/MW2G58RP/collection [2]: Monroe, J. C. (2007). Continuity, Revolution or Evolution on the Slave Coast of West Africa? Royal Architecture and Political Order in Precolonial Dahomey. The Journal of African History, 48(3), 349–373: 351. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ASTPFKNP/collection [3]: Lombard, J. (1976). The Kingdom of Dahomey. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 70–92). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 86–88. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/T6WTVSHZ/collection |
||||||
|
In Theban Egypt:
"The continuing military ethos of the time is illustrated by the popularity of military titles such as "commander of the crew of the ruler" and "commander of the town regiment." They show a defensive grouping of military resources around the king and confirm the importance of local militias based on towns." [1] Garrison commander at Abydos "no later - though probably also earlier - than soon after Rahotep’s reign." "The same man was also the "mayor", that is, the highest local administrator" [2] At the rank of "royal sealer" there was an "overseer of troops." [3] 1. King 2. King’s Sons - military officials "presumably" responsible directly to the king. Often garrison commanders, but also other military officials. [4] 2. Vizier3. Overseer of troops [5] 4. Commander of the garrison crew of the ruler [6] 5. soldier/officer of the ruler’s crew [6] 6. soldier/officer of a town regiment [6] [1]: (Bourriau 2003, 192) [2]: (Maree 2010, 266) [3]: (Grajetzki 2010, 305) [4]: (Shirley 2013, 553) [5]: (Shirley 2013, 566) [6]: (Shirley 2013, 530) |
||||||
|
levels.
Militia units: "While the Sui had subordinated these units to the local civil administration, the T’ang controlled them centrally, via a bureaucracy answerable to the ping-pu or Ministry of the Army. [1] 1. Emperor "These figures attest the overwhelming influence of the Northern Chou military elite on the Sui establishment." [2] 2. Military agricultural colonies (t’un-t’ien) under a GeneralWen-ti ordered these to deal with supply problems. [3] 2. Central command: four guards (wei) and eight army headquarters offices (fu)Troops of the Northern Chou reorganized "into twelve units - four guards (wei) and eight army headquarters offices (fu)." [2] 3. Regional commands (tsung-kuan fu)Wen-ti’s reforms: "In addition to his central command structure, regional military commands (tsung-kuan fu), which had overall control of an area, sometimes of a few prefectures (chou) and in other cases more than ten, were established in areas of major strategic importance. These districts were officered by ranked military officials appointed from the capital; in some cases the generals appointed were made concurrently civil governors of the regions in which they were to serve." [2] After 605 CE Yang-ti reform "all units under the regional military commands (tsung-kuan fu) were henceforth to come under the direct control of the twelve guards and army commands in the capital. After the pacification of the south, the number of these regional military commands had already been reduced, but in 604 approximately thirty-six remained, with the most heavily-garrisoned of these concentrated along the northern and north-western frontiers." [3] 4. Regiment (tuan) of 1000?"No records on Sui fubing organization have survived. It seems that its basic unit was probably similar to the tuan (regiment) at one thousand in strength, under which was the dui (company) of about one hundred." [4] 5. Company (dui) of 100?"No records on Sui fubing organization have survived. It seems that its basic unit was probably similar to the tuan (regiment) at one thousand in strength, under which was the dui (company) of about one hundred." [4] 6. Individual soldier [1]: (Peers 2002, 12) [2]: (Wright 1979, 100) [3]: (Wright 1979, 102) [4]: (Xiong 2006, 114) |
||||||
|
levels.
"Noteworthy was the decimal chain of command, the grouping of soldiers in tens, hundreds, and thousands, up to an army division of 10,000 men (Mongolian tümän, Pers. tūmān), which was to have an enduring impact on the military organization of succeeding eastern Islamic powers, being adopted by, e.g., the Mughals in India." [1] 1. Khan. The military retinue, governors, warriors holding iqtas and the tribes all owed military obligations to the Khan. [2] 2. Military retinue.Like the Seljuks and the Ottomans, the Khans had “a group of armed, mainly free men (the majority of them foreigners), who served on a voluntary basis and were attached personally to the leader. They were his closet companions, friends and servants; they commanded the troops in wars, while a select group of them served as his bodyguard. Their livelihood was secured by their masters, predominantly from the booty acquired during incursions and wars. The strength of these retinues ranged from a few dozen to 3,000 men. When the founders of the new states began to transform their personal might into territorial power, they relied heavily on their military retinues, delegating them to and settling them on the territories they controlled. In this Gefolgschaft-type of state, it is the military retinue to which the origins of the formal institutions of power can be traced back.” [3] 2. Chief hajeb or espahsalar (commander) (10,000s?)"For all these dynasties—whose administrative infrastructures tended in any case to be derived from, or at least strongly influenced by, those of the ʿAbbasid Caliphate ... The commander-in-chief of the actual troops was normally a Turk, and held the title of “chief ḥāǰeb” (ḥāǰeb-e bozorg, ḥāǰeb al-ḥoǰǰāb, etc.) or espahsālār, lesser commanders having the unqualified title of ḥāǰeb." [1] 3. hajeb (lesser commander) (1,000s?) 4. intermediate officer (100s?) inferred 5. iqta holders (10s?)Warriors holding iqtas. [4] 6. Soldiers- those men who had to fight through tribal obligations or recruited locally. [4] [1]: (Bosworth 2011) Bosworth, C E. 2011. ARMY ii. Islamic, to the Mongol period. www.iranicaonline.org/articles/army-ii [2]: Fodor, Pal. “Ottoman Warfare, 1300-1453.” In The Cambridge History of Turkey, edited by Kate Fleet, Suraiya Faroqhi, and Reşat Kasaba, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. P.193; Reuven Amitai, ‘Armies and Their Economic Basis in Iran and the Surrounding Lands, c.1000-1500’, in David O. Morgan and Anthony Reid (eds), The New Cambridge History of Islam: Volume 3. The Eastern Islamic World, Eleventh to Eighteenth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp.555, 557. [3]: Fodor, Pal. “Ottoman Warfare, 1300-1453.” In The Cambridge History of Turkey, edited by Kate Fleet, Suraiya Faroqhi, and Reşat Kasaba, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. P.193. [4]: Reuven Amitai, ‘Armies and Their Economic Basis in Iran and the Surrounding Lands, c.1000-1500’, in David O. Morgan and Anthony Reid (eds), The New Cambridge History of Islam: Volume 3. The Eastern Islamic World, Eleventh to Eighteenth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp.555, 557. |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
[2]
1. Ruler2. Shagina (generals)3. Nu-banda (higher officers)4. Ugula gešda (officers commanding 60 soldiers)5. šeš-gal-nam (officers commanding 10 soldiers)6. Erin (soldiers) [1] [2] Worth noting that the sukkal-mah (vizier) might have played important role during the war as well. [3] [1]: Hamlin 2006, 114 [2]: Rutkowski 2007, 18 [3]: Lafont 2009, 14 |
||||||
|
levels. Coding same as Abbasid Caliphate as a "placeholder" although since the Abbasid Caliphate is a part of this period (Tulunids-Abbasids-Ikshidids) we could simply use the Abbasid code.
Abbasid hierarchy (note: may be oversimplified: 1. Amir al-mu’ minin (official title of the Caliph) 2. Amir (commander or governor of a province or army) 3. Qa-id (military officer) 4. Arif (leader of a militay unit of ten to fifteen soldiers) 5. Muquatila(Muslim soldiers paid a salary); Malwa(rank and file Turkish soldier) 6. Arrarun (irregular volunteers) [1] [1]: Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphate pp. 209-210 |
||||||
|
levels. Based on likely Abbasid or Samanid structure - about six levels. If structure nomadic, based on cavalry, then could be decimal 10, 100, 1000, 10000 which would be six levels including individual soldier.
"A common image of Islamic armies consisting almost entirely of cavalry is very misleading. In reality these forces reflected their places of origin, patterns of recruitment and the military heritage of their ruling elite. None relied soley on horse-archers..." [1] However, the military heritage of the Kara-Khanids was nomadic so one might suspect that cavalry was the main force. Did the Karakhanids maintain a standing army of slave forces? There was some continuity with the Samanids: "Certain leading representatives of the military and bureaucratic class assisted the Karakhanids, and the dihqans (major landowners) also took their side." [2] {the following infers continuity with Abbasid hierarchy): 1. Amir al-mu’ minin (official title of the Caliph) 2. Amir (commander or governor of a province or army) 3. Qa-id (military officer) 4. Arif (leader of a militay unit of ten to fifteen soldiers) 5. Muquatila(Muslim soldiers paid a salary); Malwa(rank and file Turkish soldier) 6. Arrarun (irregular volunteers) [3] [1]: (Nicolle 2001, 51) Nicolle, David. 2001. The Crusades. Osprey Publishing. [2]: (Davidovich 1997, 129) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [3]: Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphate pp. 209-210 |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1. Shogun 2. Captains of the Great Guard (Obangashira)"responsible for security at the three castles—at Edo, Kyoto, and Osaka—associated with the shogunate." [2] 2. Keepers of Edo Castle"supervised and when necessary, defended Edo Castle." [2] 2. Marshal (sotaisho)3. Officers (usually mounted)- divided into spear group magistrate (yari bugyo) and army magistrate (gun bugyo) 4. Lower ranking officers (usually not mounted) e.g. Division commander (monogashir)- e.g. division commander (monogashir) and group commander (kumigashira). 5. Group commander (kumigashira) 6. Foot soldiers (ashigaru)- archers (yumigumi), spearmen (yarigumi) and harquebusiers (teppogumi). "by 1623, Ieyasu’s force consisted of 12 companies. The companies were headed by a single captain, four lieutenants, and 50 guards. There was extensive variation in the ways troops were structured for battle and the hierarchy of command that directed the troops." [3] 1. Shogun 2. Captain3. Lieutenant4. Guards5. Individual soldier [1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.175. [2]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.98. [3]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.174. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Daimyo the daimyo was the sōtaishō (commander-in-chief) [1] "The taishō, bugyō and metsuke came under the direct command of the daimyō himself as members of his hatamoto (‘those who stand beneath the flag’)" [1] 2. ikusa bugyo"The various bugyō (military administrators) act as the general staff under the overall direction of the ikusa bugyō, who may take the daimyō’s place on the field of battle." [1] 3. bugyo 2. Taisho (of a division)"The taishō (generals) command the fighting divisions ‘of the line’ in the form of samurai (mounted and on foot) and the three specialized ashigaru divisions of bow, spear and arquebus." [1] 3. Samuraitaishō of a ???"command of the ‘troops of the line’ is delegated through the subordinate generals who may be named samuraitaishō or ashigaru-taishō according to their particular command." [1] 3. Ashigaru-taishō of a Samurai unit"commanders of purely samurai units" [1] 4. Samurai"Every samurai would also be accompanied by a number of personal followers, ranging from a sizeable ‘platoon’ down to a single spear bearer." [1] 5. 6. Individual footsoldier 4. Mounted Samurai (same as above?) 5. Kogashira of a footsoldier squad"The footsoldier squads, under the control of an individual kogashira, come under the overall command of the mounted samurai." [1] 6. Individual footsoldier [1]: (Turnbull 2008) |
||||||
|
1. King
2. "Sar haTzava" (commander of the army)3. "Shalish" (captain? deputy?), possibly descended from earlier position "Nose’ Keilim" (equipment-bearer, attendant) “Only scant references exist concerning the leadership of the Israelite and Judean military. The king was the head of the army. Offices like “captain” (Hebrew, shalish) and “commander” (Hebrew, sar) were important for the army and chariotry, yet the precise nature of these offices and how one achieved them remains uncertain.” [1] “At times, the rank of shalish designated a personal assistant to the king, but Pekah’s experience as a “captain” was more likely as a member of a group of commanding officers or elite warriors within the military organization. The office shared some of the functions of and perhaps developed out of the older position of the nose’ kelim (“armor-bearer”), which had been prominent in Israel during the early stages of military development before the 9th century.” [2] (Compare with II Samuel 11:3-9.)4. Commander ("sar") of the thousand. (It is difficult to know whether this position was distinct from that of Shalish.)5. Commander of the hundred.6. Commander of the fifty.7. Commander of the ten. “The infantry had units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10, and may have lived in garrisons in key cities.” [3] Compare II Kings 1:9.8. Common soldier. [1]: Kelle (2007:44) [2]: Kelle (2007:140) [3]: Kelle (2007:71) |
||||||
|
C. IMBER, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power. Basingstoke 2009, and Rh. Murphey, Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700. New Brunswick, New Jersey 1999 (esp. for the classical period).
[1]
Emir Orhan: "A regularly paid force of Muslim and Christian cavalry and infantry was created by his vizier, Allah al Din. The horsemen were known as müsellems (tax-free men) and were organised under the overall command of sancak beys into hundreds, under subaşis, and thousands, under binbaşis. The foot-soldiers, or yaya, were comparably divided into tens, hundreds and thousands. These infantry archers occasionally fought for Byzantium, where they were known as mourtatoi. Müsellems and yayas were at first paid wages, but by the time of Murat I (1359) they were normally given lands or fiefs in return for military service, the yayas also having special responsibility for the protection of roads and bridges." [2] 1. Sultan 2. sancak beys3. Thousands4. Hundreds5. Tens6. Individual soldier (yaya or müsellems) [1]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. [2]: (Nicolle 1983, 9) |
||||||
|
levels. Expressed as a range due to the lack of evidence for levels between commanders and individual soldiers. 8 would make sense, but there might have been fewer. AD.
"Overall, our knowledge of the organization of the army is limited: troops were grouped according to the soldiers’ origins, with officers belonging to the same ethnic groups; the high command was often but not exclusively Egyptian; and over time the military hierarchy became top-heavy." [1] Saqqara stele Cairo SR 241 has written "every commander of every military unit of the hnw." [2] 1. Supreme chief of the expedition [3] Psamtek II (king) 2. Commander in chief of the Nubian expedition [3] same as "General in chief" and "Chief of the troops"? [4] 3. General of the Egyptian infantry troops on the ships [3] "the famous Greek inscription on the leg of one of the colossi at Abu Simbel, as well as later practice, indicates that the mercenaries, under Egyptian command, formed one of the two corps in the army whose supreme commander was also Egyptian."< [5] 3. General of the "foreign" (alloglosoi) infantry troops on the ships [3] Foreign Legions lead by Chief/leader of foreigners [6] "the famous Greek inscription on the leg of one of the colossi at Abu Simbel, as well as later practice, indicates that the mercenaries, under Egyptian command, formed one of the two corps in the army whose supreme commander was also Egyptian." [5] 4. Commander of Aegean foreign troops [7] 5. Chief of Aegean foreign troops [8] 4. Commander of some infantry troops [3] 4. Commander of the corps of archers [9] Organized groups of archers commanded by a specific officer 5. Chief of Horses [9] in early period more common than Chief of Teams (i.e. chariots). 5. Chief of Asian foreigners. [9] 5. ??? ??? 6. ??? ??? 7. ??? ??? 8. Individual soldier ??? [1]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 40) [2]: (Pagliari 2012, 199) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [3]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 29: "Table 2.1. Commanders under Psamtek II after Hauben" ) [4]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 987) [5]: (Lloyd 2000, 367) [6]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 989) [7]: (Agut-Labordere 2013 [8]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 992) [9]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 988) |
||||||
|
1. King"The earliest contemporary description of a Roman legion was written by the Greek writer Polybius in c.150-120 BC. He describes a military organization that is distinctively Roman, and specifically refers to it as a ’legion’. It consisted of 4,200 infantry (5,000 in times of emergency), subdivided into units of 120 or 60 men called maniples (’handfuls’), and so modern scholars often refer to it as the ’manipular’ legion, to distinguish it from later legions organized in larger subunits called cohorts." "It perhaps emerged in the 4th century BC (as Livy suggests), due to problems the Romans encountered fighting against enemies who fought in looser formations than the phalanx and in rougher terrain, to which the phalanx was unsuited."
[1]
1. Two Consuls, field commanders. [2] 2. Quaestors, senior officers. [2] "446 BC Creation of office of quaestor (two annually elected)." In 421 BCE quaestors increased to four. [3] 3. Legion (4,200 men) lead by six Tribunes"Polybius (6.22-23; 25) describes how the legion in this period was divided into four types of infantry. There were three different groups of heavy infantry: 1,200 hastati (’spearmen’), 1,200 principes (’leading men’) and 600 triarii (’third line men’)." [1] 362 BCE "Henceforth Romans annually elect six military tribunes to serve under consuls." [3] Legion "headed by six officers called tribunes, who had to have completed a minimum of five or ten years’ military service before appointment." [4] 4. Maniple (120 or 60 men) commanded by two Centurions"The hastati and principes were divided into ten maniples of 120 men, the triarii into ten of 60 men. The velites were also organized into ten subunits, and assigned to the heavy infantry. "The officers who commanded the maniples, two for each, were centurions, elected by the soldiers themselves." [4] 5. Two OptioPage 16 Pollard and Berry (2012): an "optio" is present in graphic but not described in text. [5] 6. Individual soldiers [1]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 14) [2]: (Dupuy and Dupuy 2007) [3]: (Fields 2011) [4]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 15) [5]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 16) |
||||||
|
1. King
king could "delegate military command to a subordinate, probably a member of his own family." [1] 2. High Military Command / Chief of the Bodyguards"The king’s brothers often seem to have been appointed to high military commands immediately below the king and the crown prince, particularly if they held the highly prestigious post of GAL MESHEDI (chief of the Bodyguards). [1] 2. ’Chief of the Wine (Stewards)’ Commander-in-chief"an unpretentious-sounding but in fact highly prestigious title. Its holder was assigned important military commands either under the general command of the king or as commander-in-chief in his own right. The use of such a term, which goes back to the early days of the Old Kingdom, no doubt reflects a time in early Hittite history when the king’s most trusted confidants and advisers were those who attended him in a range of capacities, some quite humble, on a daily basis." [2] 3. Chief of the Chariot-Warriors of the Right / Chief of the Chariot-Warriors of the Left"usually of princely status" [1] "Each of these officers apparently commanded a brigade of 1000 men." [3] 3. Chief of the Standing Army-Troops of the Right / Chief of the Standing Army-Troops of the Left"Each of these officers apparently commanded a brigade of 1000 men." [3] 3. Chief of the ’Shepherds’ of the Right / Chief of the ’Shepherds’ of the Left."Each of these officers apparently commanded a brigade of 1000 men." [3] 4."The lower-ranking officers included, in descending order of importance, ’overseers of military heralds’, ’dignitaries’, and ’gentlemen’. There was a gradation of rank within the dignitaries category, raging (in modern equivalents) from captain to sergeant. The gentlemen were the lowest-ranking officers. Each officer’s importance was determined by the number of men he led. At the lower levels, some were in charge of 100 men, some of just 10." [3] 5. Officer of 100 men"The lower-ranking officers included, in descending order of importance, ’overseers of military heralds’, ’dignitaries’, and ’gentlemen’. There was a gradation of rank within the dignitaries category, raging (in modern equivalents) from captain to sergeant. The gentlemen were the lowest-ranking officers. Each officer’s importance was determined by the number of men he led. At the lower levels, some were in charge of 100 men, some of just 10." [3] 6. Officer of 10 ("Gentlemen"?)"The lower-ranking officers included, in descending order of importance, ’overseers of military heralds’, ’dignitaries’, and ’gentlemen’. There was a gradation of rank within the dignitaries category, raging (in modern equivalents) from captain to sergeant. The gentlemen were the lowest-ranking officers. Each officer’s importance was determined by the number of men he led. At the lower levels, some were in charge of 100 men, some of just 10." [3] 7. Individual soldier [1]: Bryce T. and A. Hook (2007). Hittite Warrior. Warrior. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. pp. 8-9 [2]: (Bryce 2002, 23) [3]: (Bryce 2007, 7) |
||||||
|
This (from 2.) was the hierarchy used on field campaigns. After the campaign the militia was demobilized.
[1]
1. Emperor "After AD 89 the title of Ta Chiang-chun or ’Commander-in-Chief’ was a political appointment which carried the responsibilities of a regent." [2] 2. ying (division under a chiang-chun, or general) [1] "Records from the north-western garrison give an outline of unit organization at lower levels... Above the hou kuan were the sector headquarters or tu-wei fu for garrison troops, and the division or ying, under a chiang-chun or general, the highest permanent position." [3] Generals could lead campaigns on their own without the presence of the Emperor. e.g. 121-119 BCE campaigns which overthrew "five sub-ordinate Hsiung-nu kingdoms" [4] "A field command was usually an ad hoc appointment for a specific purpose, often reflected in the title given to the recipient - such as ’General Charged With Crossing the Liao’ for a campaign in Korea." [3] 3. pu (regiment under a hsiao-wei, or colonel) [1] "... often translated as ’colonel’, was a lower rank used for temporary appointments 3. tu-wei fu (sector headquarters)"Records from the north-western garrison give an outline of unit organization at lower levels... Above the hou kuan were the sector headquarters or tu-wei fu for garrison troops, and the division or ying, under a chiang-chun or general, the highest permanent position." [3] 4. hou kuan [3] or ch’u(company under a captain, chun-hou) [1] "Records from the north-western garrison give an outline of unit organization at lower levels: a hou kuan or company usually consisted of five hou (platoons), each with several sui or sections of an officer and four to ten men." [3] 5. hou [3] or t’un(platoon under a commander, t’un-chang) [1] "Records from the north-western garrison give an outline of unit organization at lower levels: a hou kuan or company usually consisted of five hou (platoons), each with several sui or sections of an officer and four to ten men." [3] 6. sui (section, lead by an officer)"Records from the north-western garrison give an outline of unit organization at lower levels: a hou kuan or company usually consisted of five hou (platoons), each with several sui or sections of an officer and four to ten men." [3] 7. Individual soldier"Conscripts served mainly as infantry; cavalry was provided by volunteers from noble families or by non-Chinese auxiliaries." [5] [1]: (Bielenstein 1986, 514) [2]: (Peers 1995, 16) [3]: (Peers 1995, 15) [4]: (Peers 1995, 7) [5]: (Peers 1995, 13) |
||||||
|
1. Sultan
2. Commander of Army 3. Naib al-Saltana (Viceroys of Egypt, Damascus etc.) 4. Emirs of a thousand 5. Emirs of a hundred 6. Emirs of forty 7. Emirs of ten 8. Junior officer _ Nicolle (1996)_ Sultan Commander of Army Mamluk I: Naib al-Saltana (Viceroys of Egypt, Damascus etc.) Mamluk II: Atabak al-asakir (Father of the Leader of Soldiers) Mamluk III: Other titles with largely non-military status functions Mamluk IV: Regular Mamluks Mamluk V: Junior officer. Rajjala I: Janib unit infantry leader Rajjala II: Tulb unit infantry leader Rajjala III: Jarida unit infantry leader Mamluk army "essentially the same" as Ayyubid. Professional haqa with an elite of slave-recruited Mamluks, called Royal Mamluks. Under Ayyubids, infantry was organized within the Rajjala. There was a military unit called a janib. The tulb was a smaller unit. A jarida was a small unit. A sariya was used in ambushes. [1] _ Oliver (1977) describes the army structure this way _ Royal Mamluks Of the Former Sultan Of the Reigning Sultan Of the Bodyguard and Pages Of the Amirs Mamluks of the Amirs Of 100 Of 40 Of 10 Sons of Amirs and local population: Halqa. Initially knights of non-slave origin but eventually disappeared as military became a force of purely slave origin soldiers. [2] _ Army structure according to Raymond [3] _ Sultan’s Mamluks (elite corps) The troops of the emirs emirs ranked in a hierarchy rank determined how many men under thememirs of a thousand [4] emirs of a hundred emirs of forty emirs of ten The halqa [1]: (Nicolle 1996, 135-181) [2]: (Oliver 1977, 39-67) [3]: (Raymond 2000, 113) [4]: (Raymond 2000, 187) |
||||||
|
levels.
"When Zhu Yuanzhang regularized his army, he formed it into units derived from Yuan practice. The weisuo system established Guards (wei) of 5,600 hereditary soldiers, named after its garrison location. The five battalions (qianhusuo) of 1,120 men were further divided into ten companies (bohusuo) of 112 men. These smaller units were often detached from their Guard unit for service outside of the large formation’s theater of operation." [1] 1. Emperor2. "Zhu’s personal bodyguard, the Embroidered Uniform Guard, functioned as a secret police force acting outside of the established legal system." [2] 2. Bureaucratic controlZhu’s reorganization of army in 1364 CE placed general’s "under bureaucratic control for the first time, with units of regular size commanded by officer of specific, appropriate rank." [3] Following the Great Purge of 1380 CE "the Chief Military Commission was split into five regional military commissions and the positions of censor-in-chief and vice censor-in-chief were similarly done away with." [4] 2. CommandersZhu Yuanzhang enfeoffed "his sons in important defence commands along the northern border." [5] 3. wei (Guards)5,600 hereditary soldiers 4. qianhusuo (battalions)1,120 men 5. bohusuo (companies)112 men 6. Lower level unit? 7. Individual soldier [1]: (Lorge 2005, 111) [2]: (Lorge 2005, 110) [3]: (Lorge 2005, 104) [4]: (Lorge 2005, 109) [5]: (Lorge 2005, 112) |
||||||
|
1. King
2. Mantrin or Mahamatra [1] 3. Council of Ministers (Mantri parishad) [1] 4. Infantry board of the War Office with 5 chiefs 4. Commissariat board of the War Office with 5 chiefs 4. Transport board of the War Office with 5 chiefs 4. Elephant board of the War Office with 5 chiefsWar Office: comprised of 6 boards (each with 5 members or chiefs), heading elephants, chariots, cavalry and infantry and commissariat and transport. [2] 4. Chariot board of the War Office with 5 chiefs 4. Cavalry board of the War Office with 5 chiefs 3? Antaravamshika (chief of the palace guard) [3] 3. Committee of 30"According to Megasthenes, the Seleucid Ambassador to Ashoka’s court, the imperial army itself was run by a committee of thirty of these superintendents while each branch or department - infantry, cavalry, elephants, chariots, navy, commissariat, etc. - was run by a committee of five men." [4] 3. Senapati (Chief of the army) [2] - aksauhini (army)"The general of the army was also a Mantri of equal status..." [1] 4. gulma (three senamukha)5. senamukha (three patti)6. patti (15 man mixed unit)"Indian armies of this period had within them a basic unit called the patti, a mixed platoon comprised of one elephant carrying three archers or spearman and a mahout, three horse cavalrymen armed with javelins, round buckler and a spear, and five infantry soldiers armed with shield, broadsword or bow. This fifteen-man unit when assembled in three units formed a senamukha or company. Three of these formed together comprised a gulma or battalion. Units were added in multiples of three, forming an aksauhini or army comprised of 21,870 patti." [5] 7. Individual soldier "Sources also speak of military units formed around multiples of ten"" [5] [1]: (Subramaniam 2001, 80) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press. [2]: Abraham Eraly, Gem in the Lotus (2005), p. 410-11 [3]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India, pp. 345-348 [4]: (Gabriel 2002, 217) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group. [5]: (Gabriel 2002, 218) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group. |
||||||
|
Follow-up reference
EWA: The ref is Christelle Fischer-Bovet has the standard book (Army and society in Ptolemaic Egypt) which is just published. 2014. Cambridge University Press. Infantry II/I BCE [1] reformed by mid 2nd BCE [2] (Pentakosiarchos and Taxeis drop out). 1. King "The highest-ranking individuals [of the royal guard elite unit] were somatophylakes or ’bodyguards,’ who were also in charge of the upper-level military administration, perhaps like the seven or eight chiefs of the army of Alexander the Great." [3] 2. Military strategoi?"Traditionally, the highest command in a Greek army belonged to one or more strategoi, ’generals,’ or to the king. The common view is that in Hellenistic armies, the strategos commanded four chiliarchies ... It is more difficult to define the position of the military strategoi in the Ptolemaic army, as they too appear at more than one level and no source specifies how many men they have under their command." [4] 3. 1,000 men lead by a chilarchos 4. syntagma or semeion - 250 men lead by a hegemon (also: 5. herald of the army and 6. a standard bearer) 5. hekatontarchia of 100 men led by a hekatontarches, 50-man rear unit lead by an ouragos (same level) 6. 50-man unit lead by a pentekontarches 7. Another level below 50-man unit leader that is not mentioned? 7-8. Individual soldier It is very difficult to provide one set of data for this variable. First of all there is a crucial difference between the standing army and the cleruchs. The core of the standing army was formed by the cavalry, although there was also an important navy component. The cleruchs counted both cavalry and infantry. Do we need to code for all these components separately? Secondly, we need to take into account the Egyptians within the army. The Egyptians were at the same time separated from the Greeks as integrated within the same army. Thirdly, the Ptolemaic army was subjected to important changes over the course of the period. We therefore need time sensitive data. Joe will get back to us about these questions after having consulted with his former postgraduate student. Cavalry- Hipparchies c.400-500 men commanded by hipparchoi [5] - Hipparchia divided into two ilai. Ile c.200-250 men headed by an ilarchoi [5] - Ile divided into two lochoi. Lochos c.100-125 men headed by epilochagos or lochagos [5] - Dekanikos c10-15 men? [5] - Individual soldier Elite troops- Cavalry of the guard. Wore "composite cuirass, and probably a Boeotian helmet", and later a muscle cuirass perhaps made of bronze and a so-called Thracian helmet. Their offensive and defensive weapons were a long spear, a sword slung on a baldric and a round shield." [3] - Royal guard.- agema. [1]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 134, 144-145) [2]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 146) [3]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 150) [4]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 156) [5]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 125) |
||||||
|
Brier and Hobbs (2008, 72)- Diagram "Government organization at the time of the New Kingdom."
[1]
1. Pharaoh (not included in diagram) 2. Great Overseer of the Army3. Overseer of the North Armies4. General officers 3. Overseer of the South Armies4. General officers EWA: This is based upon the cavalry as this is better known and represents likely the longest chain of command: 7 Pharaoh (Commander-in-Chief), 6 South and North Chief deputy, 5 Chief of army/general (leads expedition or building work), 4 Intermediate officer (equivalent of batalion) , 3 Commander of Company, 2 Commander of Platoon, 1 Soldiers 1. Pharaoh 2. South and North Chief Deputy3. Chief of army/General4. Intermediate officer5. Commander of company6. Commander of platoon7. Individual soldier Schulman’s New Kingdom hierarchy - does not include scribal ranks [2] 1. General (Commander of a host) 2. Chief of troops 3. Troop commanders 4. Adjutants4a. Standard bearers 4b. Chariot warriors were supervised by chiefs who had the rank of standard bearers. (18th Dynasty). [3] Became Charioteer and Shieldbearer. Shieldbearer commanders. Chariotry commanders. 5. Adjutants of a company 6. Platoon leaders Infantrymen Pharaoh. Commander-in-chief. Chief deputy of the northern corps/Chief deputy of the southern corps. Division general/Military commander (5000 men). Host (? men). Company (250 men). Platoon (50 men). Squad (?). Noncommissioned officer headed the smallest army unit (50 men). Troop commander had authority over five of these units (250 men), which amounted to a company. A division of 20 companies (5,000 men) was headed by a military commander. There were 4 divisions - named after the royal gods Amun, Re, Ptah, and Seth and the four bases Thebes, Heliopolis, Memphis, and Piramesse - in the entire army (20,000 men). [4] Fortresses had commanders. [5] In New Kingdom the King became a more active military leader. Most military men were soldier-farmers, in a “kleruchic” system, where they could be mobilized when needed. Foreign mercenaries also used. [6] [1]: (Brier and Hobbs 2008, 72) Brier, Bob. Hobbs, H A. 2008. Daily Life of the Ancient Egyptians. Greenwood Publishing Group. [2]: (Spalinger 2013, 400) [3]: (Spalinger 2013, 401) [4]: (Gnirs 2001) [5]: (Van Dijk 2000, 285-286) [6]: (Manning 2012, 76) |
||||||
|
Brier and Hobbs (2008, 72)- Diagram "Government organization at the time of the New Kingdom."
[1]
1. Pharaoh (not included in diagram) 2. Great Overseer of the Army3. Overseer of the North Armies4. General officers 3. Overseer of the South Armies4. General officers EWA: This is based upon the cavalry as this is better known and represents likely the longest chain of command: 6 Pharaoh (Commander-in-Chief), 5 Chief of army/general (leads expedition or building work), 4 Intermediate officer (equivalent of batalion) , 3 Commander of Company, 2 Commander of Platoon, 1 Soldiers 1. Pharaoh 2. South and North Chief Deputy3. Chief of army/General4. Intermediate officer5. Commander of company6. Commander of platoon7. Individual soldier Schulman’s New Kingdom hierarchy - does not include scribal ranks [2] 1. General (Commander of a host)2. Chief of troops3. Troop commanders4. Adjutants 4a. Standard bearers 4b. Chariot warriors were supervised by chiefs who had the rank of standard bearers. (18th Dynasty). [3] Became Charioteer and Shieldbearer. Shieldbearer commanders. Chariotry commanders.5. Adjutants of a company6. Platoon leaders7. Infantrymen Pharaoh. Commander-in-chief. Chief deputy of the northern corps/Chief deputy of the southern corps. Division general/Military commander (5000 men). Host (? men). Company (250 men). Platoon (50 men). Squad (?). Noncommissioned officer headed the smallest army unit (50 men). Troop commander had authority over five of these units (250 men), which amounted to a company. A division of 20 companies (5,000 men) was headed by a military commander. There were 4 divisions - named after the royal gods Amun, Re, Ptah, and Seth and the four bases Thebes, Heliopolis, Memphis, and Piramesse - in the entire army (20,000 men). [4] Fortresses had commanders. [5] In New Kingdom the King became a more active military leader. Most military men were soldier-farmers, in a “kleruchic” system, where they could be mobilized when needed. Foreign mercenaries also used. [6] [1]: (Brier and Hobbs 2008, 72) Brier, Bob. Hobbs, H A. 2008. Daily Life of the Ancient Egyptians. Greenwood Publishing Group. [2]: (Spalinger 2013, 400) [3]: (Spalinger 2013, 401) [4]: (Gnirs 2001) [5]: (Van Dijk 2000, 285-286) [6]: (Manning 2012, 76) |
||||||
|
[1]
Note that in 1073 CE Badr al-Jamali "transformed the army" and thereafter the Fatimid Caliphate was dominated by "military wazirs". [2] 1. Caliph 2. Wazir3. Commander of commanders ("amir al-umara")4. Commander5. Assistant commander6. Khassa (grade I)7. Khassa (grade II)8. Khassa (grade III)* "three grades of Khassa"9. QaidLowest unit = groups of 10 men. [3] "the Kutama were organized in cohorts (’irdfa) under their respective commanders (Curafta). The question whether the cohorts were organized along tribal lines or in terms of military needs remains unanswered." [4] [1]: (Nicolle 1996) [2]: (Hamblin 2005, 749) Shillington, K. ed. 2005. Encyclopedia of African History: A - G.. 1. Taylor & Francis. [3]: (Nicolle 1996, 65) [4]: (Lev 1987, 353) |
||||||
|
1. Emperor / Commander-in-chief
2. ying (division under a chiang-chun, or general)"Records from the north-western garrison give an outline of unit organization at lower levels... Above the hou kuan were the sector headquarters or tu-wei fu for garrison troops, and the division or ying, under a chiang-chun or general, the highest permanent position." [1] Generals could lead campaigns on their own without the presence of the Emperor. e.g. 121-119 BCE campaigns which overthrew "five sub-ordinate Hsiung-nu kingdoms" [2] "A field command was usually an ad hoc appointment for a specific purpose, often reflected in the title given to the recipient - such as ’General Charged With Crossing the Liao’ for a campaign in Korea." [1] 3. Hsiao-wei"... often translated as ’colonel’, was a lower rank used for temporary appointments 3. Official in charge of tu-wei fu (sector headquarters)"Records from the north-western garrison give an outline of unit organization at lower levels... Above the hou kuan were the sector headquarters or tu-wei fu for garrison troops, and the division or ying, under a chiang-chun or general, the highest permanent position." [1] 4. Official in charge of hou kuan (company)"Records from the north-western garrison give an outline of unit organization at lower levels: a hou kuan or company usually consisted of five hou (platoons), each with several sui or sections of an officer and four to ten men." [1] 5. Official in charge of hou (platoon)"Records from the north-western garrison give an outline of unit organization at lower levels: a hou kuan or company usually consisted of five hou (platoons), each with several sui or sections of an officer and four to ten men." [1] 6. Official in charge of sui (section)"Records from the north-western garrison give an outline of unit organization at lower levels: a hou kuan or company usually consisted of five hou (platoons), each with several sui or sections of an officer and four to ten men." [1] 7. Individual soldier"Conscripts served mainly as infantry; cavalry was provided by volunteers from noble families or by non-Chinese auxiliaries." [3] [1]: (Peers 1995, 15) [2]: (Peers 1995, 7) [3]: (Peers 1995, 13) |
||||||
|
Like the Achaemenids, the Sasanids likely used the decimal system to organize the Spah (army). The title Hazarmard/Hazarbad means "chief of a thousand."
The reforms of Khosrau I removed the Commander-in-Chief (Eran-Spahbad) and divided the empire into four regions, each under the control of a regional field marshal (Spahbads). [1] Khusrau I (later Sassanid period) changed the command structure. "Previously the entire army had been under the command of an officer known as the spahbad. Now, four commanders were appointed, each in charge of the troops of one-quarter of the country. Each of these newly created commanders had a deputy called a marzban." [2] 1. King 2. Royal Guard (1,000, commanded by a Pushtighban-Salar) 2. Great commander (Vuzurg-Framander. Managed state affairs whilst monarch on military expedition). 2. Four regional Spahbads (field marshals)3. Marzban4. Gund (large regular division, lead by Gund-Salar, a general) - Marzban is another term for a general who took orders from a Spahbad5. Immortals (10,000, commanded by a Varthragh-Nighan Khuadhay)6. Drafsh (known to be a unit of 1,000 soldiers) - Is this the level of the Framandar, battlefield commander?7. Vasht (small company)(8. Unit of 10 soldiers?)9. Individual soldier Other units: [1] Saravan (Commanded by an Aspbad and a Sadar) [1]: (Farrokh 2005, 3-27) Farrokh, Kevah. 2005. Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642. Osprey Publishing. [2]: (Chegini 1996, 57) Chegini, N. N. Political History, Economy and Society. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.40-58. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf |
||||||
|
Decimal system.
[1]
1. King 2. General3. myriad (10 hazaraba)4. hazaraba (1000 men)5. sataba (100 men)6. dathaba (10 men)7. Individual soldier Supreme Commander of the spāda. Baivarapati of the Corps. Hazārapati of the division. θatapati of the battalion. Daθapati of the company. [2] Top position in the army was the commander of the royal guards, the hazārapati or chiliarch. Reputed to be second in power only to the king, this position may have functioned as a prime minister but little evidence supports this idea. [3] In Egypt "Garrison commanders were usually Persian, but the garrison commander of the Hermopolite nome during the fifteenth year of Darius’ reign was Egyptian." [4] [1]: (Carey, Allfree and Cairns 2006, 34) [4]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 17) |
||||||
|
"The Ayyubid ranking system was quite a simple three tier system of amirs, amir kabirs and amir al isfahsalar. Above these field ranks were five or so specialist senior posts from garrison commander to army chief."
[1]
EWA: 1. Sultan 2. Army Commander/Amir3. Amir al-Alf (commands 1000 men)4. Amir al-Mia (commands 100 men) or Amir tablahana (commands 40-80 men)5. Amir al-Ishrim (commands 20 men)6. Amir al-Ashara (commands 10 men)7. Amir al-Hamsa (commands 5 men)8. Individual soldier Janib unit infantry leader Tulb unit infantry leader Jarida unit infantry leader Professional haqa with an elite of slave-recruited Mamluks. Another cavalry unit called the qaraghulam. Infantry organized within the Rajjala. Military unit called a janib. The tulb was a smaller unit. A jarida was a small unit. A sariya was used in ambushes. [2] Saladin’s reformed army of 1183 CE had 111 amirs and 8640 regular cavalry. One amir for 78 troops, the basic army unit. [3] [1]: (Nicolle 1986, 20-21) Nicolle, D. 1986. Saladin and the Saracens. Osprey Publishing Ltd. Oxford. [2]: (Nicolle 1996,135-181) [3]: (Humphreys 1977, 23) |
||||||
|
levels.
10 in Eastern Roman Empire Population peaked with Augustus, declined from 3rd century. "By the time the Western Empire collapsed in 476 AD, the army was primarily a mercenary barbarian force." [1] "In the West, as time passed the command of the army moved away from the emperor and devolved upon the newly created magister peditum (’master of the infantry’) and magister equitum (’master of the cavalry’). In the course of time the magister peditum became the more senior of the two posts." [2] [1]: (Morgan 2012) Morgan, James F. 2012. The Roman Empire. Fall of the West; Survival of the East. AuthorHouse. Bloomington. [2]: (Hughes 2012) Hughes, Iran. 2012. Aetius: Attila’s Nemesis. Casemate Publishers. |
||||||
|
Like the Achaemenids, the Sasanids likely used the decimal system to organize the Spah (army). The title Hazarmard/Hazarbad means "chief of a thousand."
[1]
Khusrau I (later Sassanid period) changed the command structure. "Previously the entire army had been under the command of an officer known as the spahbad. Now, four commanders were appointed, each in charge of the troops of one-quarter of the country. Each of these newly created commanders had a deputy called a marzban." [2] 1. King 2. Great commander (Vuzurg-Framander. Managed state affairs whilst monarch on military expedition).3. Commander-in-Chief (Eran-Spahbad, also an Andarzbad, Counsel to King).4. Spah (lead by a Spahbad, army general)Padgospan (his assistant) Padan (his officers) 5. Gund (large regular division, lead by Gund-Salar) 5 or 6?. Immortals (10,000, commanded by a Varthragh-Nighan Khuadhay)6. Drafsh (known to be a unit of 1,000 soldiers) - Is this the level of the Framandar, battlefield commander? 6. Royal Guard (1,000, commanded by a Pushtighban-Salar)7. Vasht (small company)(8. Unit of 10 soldiers?)9. Individual soldier Other units: [1] Saravan (Commanded by an Aspbad and a Sadar) [1]: (Farrokh 2005, 3-27) Farrokh, Kevah. 2005. Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642. Osprey Publishing. [2]: (Chegini 1996, 57) Chegini, N. N. Political History, Economy and Society. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.40-58. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf |
||||||
|
[1]
1. General (Imperator) 2. comites praetoris and cohortes praetorioWithin the army structure there were comites praetoris (young aristocrats) and cohortes praetorio (to guard the general’s tent, the praetorium; these later formed the basis of the later Imperial-era Praetorian Guard). This unit was first created by Scipio Aemilianus. 2. QuaestorsLogistical and administrative support 2. Legion commander (Legate)There were ten cohorts (400-500 men each) within a legion which makes the legion 4000-5000 men. 3. Cohort/Task group leader (Tribunes)Six. Floating role, for detached cohorts and task groups. Under Marius the cohort became the main tactical unit in the Roman army while the maniple endured as an administrative element within it. There were ten cohorts (400-500 men each) within a legion. At some time in the first century BCE the first cohort was doubled in size (800 men). "The maniples of 120 or 60 men that formed the primary tactical subunits of the manipular legion were subsequently replaced by larger subunits called cohorts. In the imperial period, these cohorts each had a nominal strength of 480 men, divided into six centuries of 80, and this is likely to have been true of late Republican cohorts too. There were ten cohorts in each legion, so a full-strength late Republican legion had 5,000 or so men, all equipped as heavy infantry. We do not know exactly when the cohort became the principal subdivision of the legion, except that it was normal by the time of Caesar’s Gallic wars. From this time onwards the maniples only appeared in the titles of the centurions within each legion." [2] 4. Senior Centurion (Primus Pilus)"In the imperial period, these cohorts each had a nominal strength of 480 men, divided into six centuries of 80, and this is likely to have been true of late Republican cohorts too. There were ten cohorts in each legion, so a full-strength late Republican legion had 5,000 or so men, all equipped as heavy infantry." [3] 5. Centurion"While the distinction between hastati, principes and triarii was preserved in centurions’ titles, by Marius’ day it ceased to have any significance in how legionaries were equipped and fought. ... Henceforth Roman legions were composed entirely of heavy infantry." [4] 6. Optio (?) There were 32 troopers (turma) under a decurion (sergeant). Twelve turma formed an ala (squadron), which was commanded by officer of tribune rank [1] 7. Individual soldier [1]: (Dupuy and Dupuy 2007) [2]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 22) [3]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 22-23) [4]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 20-21) |
||||||
|
levels. 1440CE–1600CE: 1) Oba, 2) Iyase (General Commander), 3) Ezomo, Edogun and Enogie (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 4) Okakuo I (Metropolitan and Village regiments) and Ekegbian (Royal Regiment), 5) Okakuo II (Azukpogieva) (Metropolitan and Village regiments) and Iyoba Queen Mother’s Own Regiment (Royal Regiment), 6) Olotu Ivbiyokuo (Metropolitan and Village regiments), 7) Platoon commanders, 8) Iyokuo (The Warriors).
[1]
1600CE–1800CE: 1) Iyase (Commander-in-Chief, 2) Ezomo, 3) Ologbosere, Edogun and Enigie (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 4) Imaran, Ekegbian and Okakuo I (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 5) Okakuo, Queen Mother’s own regiment and Okakuo II (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 6) Olotu (Metropolitan Regiment) and Olotu Iyokuo (Village Regiment), 7) Platoon commanders, 8) Ivbiyokuo (The Warriors).
[2]
1801CE–1897CE: 1) The War Council, 2) Iyase and Ezomo, 3) Edogun and Ologbosere, 4) Imaran, Ekegbian and Enigie (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 5)Okakuo, Wueen Mother’s own regiment and Okakuo I (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 6) Olotu Iyokuo (Metropolitan Regiment) and Okakuo II (Village Regiment), 7) Olotu Iyokuo (Village Regiment), 8) Platoon commanders, 9) Ivbiyokuo (The Warriors).
[3]
“The Ezɔmɔ’s position was unique. Though third in rank in its order, this was one of the great offices of state, and its holder most nearly approached kingly status. The wealth and prestige of successive Ezɔmɔ, remarked by many European visitors in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, was derived from their function as war captains, in which respect only the Iyasɛ equalled them. It was the Ezɔmɔ who took charge of most national campaigns, and their military activities enabled them to accumulate many slaves, subjects, and fiefs. However, this role had little to do with their Uzama status. They were directly responsible to the Oba, and there is no evidence that they regularly used their power in the interests of their order.”
[4]
[1]: Osadolor, O. B. (2001). The Military System of Benin Kingdom, c.1440–1897. University of Hamburg, Germany: 105. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4RZF5H5/collection [2]: Osadolor, O. B. (2001). The Military System of Benin Kingdom, c.1440–1897. University of Hamburg, Germany: 154. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4RZF5H5/collection [3]: Osadolor, O. B. (2001). The Military System of Benin Kingdom, c.1440–1897. University of Hamburg, Germany: 192. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4RZF5H5/collection [4]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 17. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection |
||||||
|
levels.
Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015 [1] 1. Emperor (6)2. Domestikos of the Scholai (5)3. Strategoi of the themata (4)4. Commanders of single units (3)5. Commanders of subunits (100, 10, 5 men) (2)6. of 10 inferred by Ed7. of 5 inferred by Ed8. Soldier (1) After introduction of themes: "The difference between mobile field units and stationary frontier forces vanished." [2] Based on imperial administration c.700-1050 CE [3] 1. Emperor 2. Provincial military and navy3. Thematic generals (strategos) 2. Independent commands3. doukes katepans Doux and katepan common only in the following period [4] 4. tagamata seconded to thematic duty 2. Imperial household3. Elite and household units (military) 2. droungarios of the imperial fleet 2. domestikoi of the Scholoi3. scholai, exkoubita, etc. 3. tagamata seconded to thematic duty "The military units also used Germanic designations. Thus a small military unit was called Foulkon which was how the German word Folk (Volk) was written. The subdivision of a nmerus was called by the German word Band (field banner), which became bandus. This process even went so far as to adopt part of the military organization of the German army. In the ninth century the Byzantine army still had the troops of the Optimates; this was originally the designation of a crack corps of the Gothic army. In the territory of the lower Danube the racial characteristics of the soldiers in the frontier zones were entirely respected. The tribal chieftains were even granted the position of Roan officers and in this capacity continued to rule over their people." [5] Regular guards had four divisions called tagmata: "The command of these troops stationed in Constantinople in the immediate neighbourhood of the imperial palace and the Hippodrome was in the hands of officers with the title of domesticus." The candidati (cavalry); excubiti (police duties); arithmus (marines); hikanatoi (crowd control). [6] Old guard troops, reorganised as tagmata by Emperor Constantine V (741-775 CE) [4] 1. Emperor 2. domesticus 3. candidati 4. 3. excubiti 4. 3. drungarius 4. 3. hikanatoi 4. [1]: (Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences) [2]: (Haldon 2008, 555) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [3]: (Haldon 2008, 549) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [4]: (Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Personal Communication [5]: (Haussig 1971, 92) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [6]: (Haussig 1971, 181-182) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Commander-in-chief (Emperor) 2. Provincial governor/Governor-general3. Provincial military commander/Provincial commander-in-chief/General-in-chief4. Fu jiang, Deputy General5. Can jiang6. Youji7. Dusi8. Shoubei9. Qianzong10. Bazong, Low-level officer11. Soldier _1868 CE: Yung-ying (Brave Battalions)_ [1] 4. Army Commanders (t’ung-ling)5. Battalion Commander (ying-kuan)6. Company Officer (Shao-kuan)7. Platoon Officers (Shih-chang)8. Soldiers _1904 CE: New Army_"The thirty-six divisions of the New Army, each with 12,500 men including officers and soldiers, would total 450,000 men and compose the Regular Army. Besides this, Reserves for the First Call (Hsu-pei chiin) and Reserves for the Second Call (Hou-pei chiin) were to be organized. The term of service in the Regular Army (Ch’ang-pei chiin) was three years, after which men would return home and receive occasional drill and a small stipend for another three years. These men would be the Reserves for the First Call. As Reserves for the Second Call they would then serve another four years, receiving less drill and less salary. On completion of this term, men would return to civilian status released from further military duty." [2] [1]: (Ichiko 1980, 202) Chuzo Ichiko. 1980. "Political and Institutional Reform, 1901-11". In The Cambridge History of China, vol. 2: Late Ch’ing, 1800-1911, pt. 2, edited by John K. Fairbank and Kwang-Ching Liu, 375-415. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2]: (Ichiko 1980, 384-5) Chuzo Ichiko. 1980. "Political and Institutional Reform, 1901-11". In The Cambridge History of China, vol. 2: Late Ch’ing, 1800-1911, pt. 2, edited by John K. Fairbank and Kwang-Ching Liu, 375-415. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Emperor 2. Ministry of Army 3. Highest ranks 4. Unit level rank (800-1,200 men) 5. t’uan (200 men) 6. tui (50 men) 7. huo (10 men) 8. Individual soldier Mercenary regular army replaced militia system in 722 CE. [1] Military governors established by Hsuan-tsung (712-756 CE) in frontier areas. [2] Maintained about 600 militia units of between 800-1,200 men. "While the Sui had subordinated these units to the local civil administration, the T’ang controlled them centrally, via a bureaucracy answerable to the ping-pu or Ministry of the Army. Units contained both cavalry and infantry, and were subdivided into t’uan of 200 men, tui of 50, and huo of 10." [3] "Many of the peasants in areas of strategic importance were also obliged to serve in militia units for a specified period of time - usually one month in five. There were approximately 630 militia units, each of them theoretically composed of 1000 men. This system prevailed until almost the middle of the 8th century when it disintegrated, for a number of reasons, and was replaced by a standing army." [4] [1]: (Rodzinski 1979, 127) [2]: (Rodzinski 1979, 129) [3]: (Peers 2002, 12) [4]: (Rodzinski 1979, 121) |
||||||
|
1. Sultan.
Sultan "was the commander-in-chief of the army, but the ariz-i-mumalik was its captain for all practical reasons, and exercised a lot of influence on the state." [1] "The institution of slavery provided the basis for well-trained and loyal martial slaves (the mamluks) to the sultans." [2] 2 Ariz-i mamalik.The Ariz-i-mamalik was the head of the army department (diwan-i-arz). He kept the iqtadar’s (military assignee) muster-roll, recruited new troops and looked after the equipment and efficiency of fighting forces. He was, besides, the paymaster-general of army. [3] 3. Khan.A khan’s force contained at least ten maliks. [4] 4. Malik.A malik had authority over ten amirs. [4] 5. Amir.An amir commanded ten sipah-salars. [4] 6. Sipah-salar.A sipah-salar directed ten sar khels. [4] 7. Sar Khel.A sar khel had ten horsemen under him. [4] 8. Horsemen. [1]: (Ahmed 2011, 98) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. [2]: (Ahmed 2011, 104) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. [3]: Habibullah, A. B. M. (1961). The foundation of Muslim rule in India. Central Book Depot, pp 197. (original source: Barani, Ziauddin : Tarikh-i Firozshahi. Calcutta, 1890). [4]: Qureshi, I. H. (1971). The administration of the Sultanate of Delhi (p. 93). Oriental Books Reprint Corporation; exclusively distributed by Munshiram Manoharlal, pp. 153. |
||||||
|
levels.The army that the Buyid Dynasty controlled was comprised of two parts: the Dailamite infantry, of which the Buyid’s were the original leaders of a force of less than one hundred men, and the Turkish cavalry. They operated their own military systems and hierarchies. In charge of them all was the Amir, protected by his own personal bodyguards, the palace retainers. The Dailamite system provides the greatest number of military levels which is the value coded. There is also documentation of another system of levels, which are thought to be the levels of development of slaves in the military.
[1]
1. amir _Dailamite infantry_ 2. commander-in-chief,3. commander4. chief sergeant5. sergeant6. upper grade7. middle grade8. lower grade Turkish cavalry: chief chamberlain, chamberlain, commander, sergeant, retainer Slave training system?: chief of stables, equerry, chief messenger, procession leader, groom, cup bearer, shield bearer, stirrup holders "The Buyid wazirs did not confine themselves to purely administrative functions. They advised on, and sometimes decided, policy and in some cases they commanded armies in their own right. The distinction between the civil and military administration which is apparent in the later phases of Abbasid government had largely disappeared." [2] [1]: Donohue, J. J. 2003. The Buwayhid Dynasty in Iraq 334H./945 to 403H./1012: Shaping Institutions for the Future. Leiden: Brill. p.196-7 [2]: (Kennedy 2004, 222) Kennedy, Hugh N. 2004. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. Second edition. Pearson Longman. Harlow. |
||||||
|
levels.
11th CE + ? "the strategos, commander of the thematic armies, essentially disappeared, replaced by the provincial governor (normally the kritis) who had previously been his subordinate." [1] Cheynet "The reign of Basil II marked a real turning point in the transformation of the Byzantine administrative system and ruling classes, for it confirmed earlier developments and served as an obligatory point of reference for his successors. He sanctioned in a definitive manner the changeover to the professional army of the tagmata, thus ensuring the eventual disappearance of the thematic armies and the formation of a new hierarchy within the themes." [2] Preiser-Kapeller [3] 1. Emperor 2. Domestikos of the Scholai3. Commanders of larger frontier commands (Dux, Katepanos)4. Strategoi of the themata5. Comanders of single units6. Commanders of subunits 100 6. Banda of 200 men each ’Leo never divided the banda of two hundred men each, but he ceased to use drungi of a thousand men, creasing more turmae instead. Within each bandum he increased the number of cavalry from forty to fifty’. [4] 7. Leaders of cavalry and leader of infantry within Banda8. another level of infantry command? inferred by Ed9. Soldier Haldon After introduction of themes: "The difference between mobile field units and stationary frontier forces vanished." [5] Based on imperial administration c.700-1050 CE [6] Mixture of actual levels of command and of specific ranks [7] 1. Emperor 2. Provincial military and navy3. Thematic generals (strategos) 2. Independent commands3. doukes katepans4. tagamata seconded to thematic duty 2. Imperial household3. Elite and household units (military) 2. droungarios of the imperial fleet 2. domestikoi of the Scholoi3. scholai, exkoubita, etc. 3. tagamata seconded to thematic duty Haussig "The military units also used Germanic designations. Thus a small military unit was called Foulkon which was how the German word Folk (Volk) was written. The subdivision of a nmerus was called by the German word Band (field banner), which became bandus. This process even went so far as to adopt part of the military organization of the German army. In the ninth century the Byzantine army still had the troops of the Optimates; this was originally the designation of a crack corps of the Gothic army. In the territory of the lower Danube the racial characteristics of the soldiers in the frontier zones were entirely respected. The tribal chieftains were even granted the position of Roan officers and in this capacity continued to rule over their people." [8] Regular guards had four divisions called tagmata: "The command of these troops stationed in Constantinople in the immediate neighbourhood of the imperial palace and the Hippodrome was in the hands of officers with the title of domesticus." The candidati (cavalry); excubiti (police duties); arithmus (marines); hikanatoi (crowd control). [9] 1. Emperor 2. domesticus 3. candidati 4. 3. excubiti 4. 3. drungarius 4. 3. hikanatoi 4. [1]: (Gregory 2010, 281) Gregory, Timothy E. 2010. A History of Byzantium. Wiley-Blackweel. Chichester. [2]: (Cheynet 2008, 521) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [3]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences [4]: (Treadgold 1997, 467) Warren Treadgold. 1997. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press. California. [5]: (Haldon 2008, 555) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [6]: (Haldon 2008, 549) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [7]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Personal Communication. [8]: (Haussig 1971, 92) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [9]: (Haussig 1971, 181-182) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. |
||||||
|
levels.
"Several innovations in the Song army during the Tangut war transformed the army’s structure, armament and tactics. The most important change was in the creation of "legions" (jiang) of from 2,500 to 4,000 men (on rare occasions as high as 10,000 men) as permanent maneuver elements. The success of the legions in the latter stages of the war not only discredited the older system, in which armies were created by drawing disparate battalions of 500 men from large garrisons, but also created a distinction between field or border forces and the garrison forces in the capital. The legion was more formally introduced throughout the army during the New Policies reforms of Wang Anshi during the reign of Song Shenzong (1067-1085)." [1] 1. Emperor Commander-in-chief. "T’ai-tsu and T’ai-tsung were actual warriors who fought personally in combat. Although subsequent emperors rarely took the field against opponents, they created bureaucratic structures that severely restricted the independent authority of military commanders." [2] ?. Chief Councilors (tsai-hsiang) "during the reign of Chen-tsung, the chief councilors could sometimes participate in deliberation on military affairs, and this fact constituted interference in the military administration of the Bureau of Military Affairs." [3] 2. Bureau of Military Affairs (Shu-mi-yuan)"T’ai-tsu continued the Five Dynasties system of making the Bureau of Military Affairs (Shu-mi-yuan) the highest military organ and having it take charge of military administration; he did not directly lead the military. The senior officials of the Bureau of Military Affairs were executive officials (chih-cheng kuan), and their positions were second only to those of the chief councilors (tsai-hsiang). The position of the Bureau of Military Affairs was higher than that of the Three Capital guards, but the military authority of these two organs served as a mutual check or restraint each on the other. Although the senior officials of the Three Capital Guards and the military districts had charge of the armed forces, they could not engage in military actions unless they had orders from the Bureau of Military Affairs." [4] Civilian overseer Chao K’uang-yin made his generals "subject to on-the-spot control by civilian overseers." [5] 3. Palace Bureau of the Commander-in-Chief (Tien-ch’ien tu chih-hui shih ssu) - one of the Three Capital GuardsThe founder Chao "downgraded the Palace Inspectorate-General (Tien-ch’ien tu tien-chien ssu), which commanded the imperial guardsmen (chin-ping) to the Palace Bureau of the Commander-in-Chief (Tien-ch’ien tu chih-hui shih ssu). [6] "three main divisions or ranks can be distinguished: upper imperial armies, middle imperial armies, and lower imperial armies (shang, chung, and hsia ch’in-chun). The upper imperial armies included four armies: P’eng-jih and T’ien-wu (both under the Palace Command), Lung-wei (under the Metropolitan Cavalry Command), and Shen-wei (under the Metropolitan Infantry Command). Together these four armies were called the Four Elite Armies (Shang ssu chun)." [3] 3. Imperial Bodyguard (Shih-wei ch’in-chun) Bureau of the Commander-in-Chief >>> Imperial Bodyguard Cavalry Bureau of the Commander-in-Chief (Shih-wei ch’in-chun ma-chun tu-chih-hui shih ssu) / Imperial Bodyguard Infantry Bureau of the Commander-in-Chief (Shih-wei ch’in-chun pu-chun tu-chih-hui shih ssu) (by Emperor Chen-tsung r. 997-1022) - the other of the Three Capital GuardsThe founder Chao "set up two separate officials of equal rank below another Bureau of the Commander-in-Chief which commanded imperial guardsmen - the Imperial Bodyguard (Shih-wei ch’in-chun) Bureau of the Commander-in-Chief - and they commanded the cavalrymen and infantrymen separately." [4] "three main divisions or ranks can be distinguished: upper imperial armies, middle imperial armies, and lower imperial armies (shang, chung, and hsia ch’in-chun). The upper imperial armies included four armies: P’eng-jih and T’ien-wu (both under the Palace Command), Lung-wei (under the Metropolitan Cavalry Command), and Shen-wei (under the Metropolitan Infantry Command). Together these four armies were called the Four Elite Armies (Shang ssu chun)." [3] 4. Wing (hsiang) left and right - 25,000"The organization hierarchy of the imperial armies was as follows ... " [3] 5. Army (chun) 2,500 soldiers"The organization hierarchy of the imperial armies was as follows ... " [3] 6. Commandery (chih-hui) or reginment (ying) 500 soldiers"The organization hierarchy of the imperial armies was as follows ... " [3] "because the military power of the army and wing organizational units was relatively large, the commanders of these units could easily create a threat to the imperial authority. The Northern Sung proceeded to createdisorder among the wing and army organizational units. Some imperial armies had no wings or armies, while in other imperial armies the manpower of these two units was below the established quotas. For the most part, after the beginning of T’ai-tsung’s reign, the commander was usually the basic organizational unit of the imperial armies during troop movements, fortifications, and battles." [7] 7. troop (tu) 100 soldiers"The organization hierarchy of the imperial armies was as follows ... " [3] 8. Platoon (50 soldiers)"Chang Yu, a military writer of the late Sung period, describes a system of organisation based on a squad of five, which implies that the traditional five-deep deployment was still in use. There were 50 men in a platoon, two platoons in a company, two companies in the next unit up, and so on up to an ’army’ of 3,200. Chang Yu remarks: ’Each is subordinate to the superior and controls the inferior. ..." [8] "Emperor Shen-tsung also promoted the Company System (Chieh-tui fa), in which companies (tui), the basic unit of military organization during the Sung, were organized and divided into various sub-company units, the smallest of which contained only three men." [9] 9. Squad (5 soldiers)"Chang Yu, a military writer of the late Sung period, describes a system of organisation based on a squad of five, which implies that the traditional five-deep deployment was still in use. There were 50 men in a platoon, two platoons in a company, two companies in the next unit up, and so on up to an ’army’ of 3,200. Chang Yu remarks: ’Each is subordinate to the superior and controls the inferior. ..." [8] "Emperor Shen-tsung also promoted the Company System (Chieh-tui fa), in which companies (tui), the basic unit of military organization during the Sung, were organized and divided into various sub-company units, the smallest of which contained only three men." [9] 10. Individual soldier 5. Area Generalships (chiang)"Emperor Shen-tsung implemented the Area Generalship System (Chiang-ping fa), in which various commanderies of the imperial armies were combined to form area generalships (chiang). ... The designation of area generalships had begun in four circuits of Shen-hsi during the reign of Jen-tsung. ... organized by combining the variously designated commanderies of the imperial armies. For example, the Second Area Generalship of the K’ai-feng area encompassed the stationed armies of five of the sixteen counties of K’ai-feng prefecture." [10] 6. Regiments (pu) 7. Company - 50 troops 8.9. Individual soldier"The ranks of military officers in the area generalship system included general (cheng-chiang) and vice general. Fifty troops formed a company and above the companies and below the area generalships were the regiments (pu). This led to the three-tiered organization structure of area generalship, regiment, and company." [10] [1]: (Lorge 2005, 48) [2]: (Hartman 2015, 85) [3]: (Tseng-yü and Wright 2009, 216) [4]: (Tseng-yü and Wright 2009, 215) [5]: (Peers 2002, 33) [6]: (Tseng-yü and Wright 2009, 214) [7]: (Tseng-yü and Wright 2009, 216-217) [8]: (Peers 2002, 35) [9]: (Tseng-yü and Wright 2009, 226-227 [10]: (Tseng-yü and Wright 2009, 227 |
||||||
|
"On mobilization, one of every ten sipahis remained at home to maintain law and order. The rest formed into alay regiments under their çeribaşi, subaşi and alay bey officers. These led them to theş local sancak bey’s two-horse-tail standard. The men of each sancak then assembled around a provincial governor or beylerbeyi before riding to the Sultan’s camp."
[1]
Janissaries were organized into ortas (regiments) of 100 - 3,000 men. [2] 1. Sultan 2. Commander in chief3. Beylerbeyi4. Sancak bey5. çeribaşi, subaşi and alay bey officers of the alay (regiment)6.7.8. Individual sipahissipahis (timar holders). 9. cebeluslarger timar holders of zeamets could equip mounted retainers (cebelus). [1] Version based on Shaw (the following structure was the same for the administration and military) [3] implies that the çeribaşi and subaşi Nicolle mentions are below the alay beys. 1. Sultan 2. Commander in chief3. eyalets lead by beylerbeyis or "beys of beys", ruled provinces4. sancak or liva commanded by sancek bays (who ruled local administration. They appointed police chiefs. Religious judges - kadis - oversaw justice).5. alay regiment, commanded by alay beys6. sipahitimar or fief holder (mounted soldier). Siphai had no rights of ownership, he was the Sultan’s representative, whose job was to maintain order, over-see agriculture and collect taxes from the peasants. Distribution most concentrated in Balkans and Anatolia. [1]: (Nicolle 1983, 12) [2]: (Nicolle 1983, 10) [3]: (Shaw 1976, 24) |
||||||
|
1. Sultan 2. Commander of Army 3. Naib al-Saltana (Viceroys of Egypt, Damascus etc.) 4. Emirs of a thousand 5. Emirs of a hundred 6. Emirs of forty 7. Emirs of ten 8. Junior officer 9. Individual soldier _ Nicolle (1996)_ Sultan Commander of Army Mamluk I: Naib al-Saltana (Viceroys of Egypt, Damascus etc.) Mamluk II: Atabak al-asakir (Father of the Leader of Soldiers) Mamluk III: Other titles with largely non-military status functions Mamluk IV: Regular Mamluks Mamluk V: Junior officer. Rajjala I: Janib unit infantry leader Rajjala II: Tulb unit infantry leader Rajjala III: Jarida unit infantry leader Mamluk army "essentially the same" as Ayyubid. Professional haqa with an elite of slave-recruited Mamluks, called Royal Mamluks. Under Ayyubids, infantry was organized within the Rajjala. There was a military unit called a janib. The tulb was a smaller unit. A jarida was a small unit. A sariya was used in ambushes. [1] _ Oliver (1977) describes the army structure this way _ Royal Mamluks Of the Former Sultan Of the Reigning Sultan Of the Bodyguard and Pages Of the Amirs Mamluks of the Amirs Of 100 Of 40 Of 10 Sons of Amirs and local population: Halqa. Initially knights of non-slave origin but eventually disappeared as military became a force of purely slave origin soldiers. [2] _ Army structure according to Raymond [3] _ Sultan’s Mamluks (elite corps) The troops of the emirs emirs ranked in a hierarchy rank determined how many men under thememirs of a thousand [4] emirs of a hundred emirs of forty emirs of ten The halqa [1]: (Nicolle 1996, 135-181) [2]: (Oliver 1977, 39-67) [3]: (Raymond 2000, 113) [4]: (Raymond 2000, 187) |
||||||
|
Follow-up reference
EWA: The ref is Christelle Fischer-Bovet has the standard book (Army and society in Ptolemaic Egypt) which is just published. 2014. Cambridge University Press. Infantry III BCE before the reforms of the II/I BCE [1] 1. King "The highest-ranking individuals [of the royal guard elite unit] were somatophylakes or ’bodyguards,’ who were also in charge of the upper-level military administration, perhaps like the seven or eight chiefs of the army of Alexander the Great." [2] 2. Military strategoi?"Traditionally, the highest command in a Greek army belonged to one or more strategoi, ’generals,’ or to the king. The common view is that in Hellenistic armies, the strategos commanded four chiliarchies ... It is more difficult to define the position of the military strategoi in the Ptolemaic army, as they too appear at more than one level and no source specifies how many men they have under their command." [3] 3. Chiliarchies 1024 men commanded by chillarchoi [4] 4. Pentakosiarchos c.512 men [4] 5. Syntagma c. 256 men commmanded by Syntagmatarches [4] 6. Taxeis commanded by taxiarchoi c.128 men [4] 7. hekatontarchiai c.50 men [5] 8. "16 units of 50 men, that is 2 per hekatontarchia" [4] 9. Individual soldier It is very difficult to provide one set of data for this variable. First of all there is a crucial difference between the standing army and the cleruchs. The core of the standing army was formed by the cavalry, although there was also an important navy component. The cleruchs counted both cavalry and infantry. Do we need to code for all these components separately? Secondly, we need to take into account the Egyptians within the army. The Egyptians were at the same time separated from the Greeks as integrated within the same army. Thirdly, the Ptolemaic army was subjected to important changes over the course of the period. We therefore need time sensitive data. Joe will get back to us about these questions after having consulted with his former postgraduate student. Cavalry- Hipparchies c.400-500 men commanded by hipparchoi [6] - Hipparchia divided into two ilai. Ile c.200-250 men headed by an ilarchoi [6] - Ile divided into two lochoi. Lochos c.100-125 men headed by epilochagos or lochagos [6] - Dekanikos c10-15 men? [6] - Individual soldier Elite troops- Cavalry of the guard. Wore "composite cuirass, and probably a Boeotian helmet", and later a muscle cuirass perhaps made of bronze and a so-called Thracian helmet. Their offensive and defensive weapons were a long spear, a sword slung on a baldric and a round shield." [2] - Royal guard.- agema. [1]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 134, 144) [2]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 150) [3]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 156) [4]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 134) [5]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 144) [6]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 125) |
||||||
|
levels. 1440CE–1600CE: 1) Oba, 2) Iyase (General Commander), 3) Ezomo, Edogun and Enogie (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 4) Okakuo I (Metropolitan and Village regiments) and Ekegbian (Royal Regiment), 5) Okakuo II (Azukpogieva) (Metropolitan and Village regiments) and Iyoba Queen Mother’s Own Regiment (Royal Regiment), 6) Olotu Ivbiyokuo (Metropolitan and Village regiments), 7) Platoon commanders, 8) Iyokuo (The Warriors).
[1]
1600CE–1800CE: 1) Iyase (Commander-in-Chief, 2) Ezomo, 3) Ologbosere, Edogun and Enigie (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 4) Imaran, Ekegbian and Okakuo I (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 5) Okakuo, Queen Mother’s own regiment and Okakuo II (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 6) Olotu (Metropolitan Regiment) and Olotu Iyokuo (Village Regiment), 7) Platoon commanders, 8) Ivbiyokuo (The Warriors).
[2]
1801CE–1897CE: 1) The War Council, 2) Iyase and Ezomo, 3) Edogun and Ologbosere, 4) Imaran, Ekegbian and Enigie (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 5)Okakuo, Wueen Mother’s own regiment and Okakuo I (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 6) Olotu Iyokuo (Metropolitan Regiment) and Okakuo II (Village Regiment), 7) Olotu Iyokuo (Village Regiment), 8) Platoon commanders, 9) Ivbiyokuo (The Warriors).
[3]
“The Ezɔmɔ’s position was unique. Though third in rank in its order, this was one of the great offices of state, and its holder most nearly approached kingly status. The wealth and prestige of successive Ezɔmɔ, remarked by many European visitors in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, was derived from their function as war captains, in which respect only the Iyasɛ equalled them. It was the Ezɔmɔ who took charge of most national campaigns, and their military activities enabled them to accumulate many slaves, subjects, and fiefs. However, this role had little to do with their Uzama status. They were directly responsible to the Oba, and there is no evidence that they regularly used their power in the interests of their order.”
[4]
[1]: Osadolor, O. B. (2001). The Military System of Benin Kingdom, c.1440–1897. University of Hamburg, Germany: 105. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4RZF5H5/collection [2]: Osadolor, O. B. (2001). The Military System of Benin Kingdom, c.1440–1897. University of Hamburg, Germany: 154. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4RZF5H5/collection [3]: Osadolor, O. B. (2001). The Military System of Benin Kingdom, c.1440–1897. University of Hamburg, Germany: 192. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4RZF5H5/collection [4]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 17. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection |
||||||
|
"On mobilization, one of every ten sipahis remained at home to maintain law and order. The rest formed into alay regiments under their çeribaşi, subaşi and alay bey officers. These led them to theş local sancak bey’s two-horse-tail standard. The men of each sancak then assembled around a provincial governor or beylerbeyi before riding to the Sultan’s camp."
[1]
Janissaries were organized into ortas (regiments) of 100 - 3,000 men. [2] 1. Sultan 2. Commander in chief3. Beylerbeyi4. Sancak bey5. çeribaşi, subaşi and alay bey officers of the alay (regiment)6.7.8. Individual sipahissipahis (timar holders). 9. cebeluslarger timar holders of zeamets could equip mounted retainers (cebelus). [1] Version based on Shaw (the following structure was the same for the administration and military) [3] implies that the çeribaşi and subaşi Nicolle mentions are below the alay beys. 1. Sultan 2. Commander in chief3. eyalets lead by beylerbeyis or "beys of beys", ruled provinces4. sancak or liva commanded by sancek bays (who ruled local administration. They appointed police chiefs. Religious judges - kadis - oversaw justice).5. alay regiment, commanded by alay beys6. sipahitimar or fief holder (mounted soldier). Siphai had no rights of ownership, he was the Sultan’s representative, whose job was to maintain order, over-see agriculture and collect taxes from the peasants. Distribution most concentrated in Balkans and Anatolia. 7. Man-at-armsAccording to an Albanian register of 1431-1432 CE one timar holder had to be present on campaign together with one man-at-arms. [4] [1]: (Nicolle 1983, 12) [2]: (Nicolle 1983, 10) [3]: (Shaw 1976, 24) [4]: (Imber 2002, 198) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. |
||||||
|
Based on imperial military administration c.560.
[1]
1. Emperor 2. Master of soldiers (magistri militum)3. candidati 3. Division based around Constantinople (praesentales)4. Units attached to comitatus5. Detached units in regions - also supervised by praesentales 5. duces (of the stationary frontier units known as limitanei) [2] 4. Divisions based in the provinces (per Orientem, per Armeniam, per Thracias, per Illyricum, per Italian, per Africam) under regional magistri militumthe areas of command of the regional magistri militum [3] Magistri militum regional commander of a division of mobile forces, called comitatenses [2] "The mobile forces were grouped into divisions under regional commanders or magistri militum (’masters of the soldiers’), each covering a major defensive hinterland, with the limitanei placed under their overall authority. In about 600 CE there were eight such major divisions, including two near Constantinople. The limitanei were placed under duces, and in the 560s there were some twenty-five such commands covering the frontiers and their hinterlands." [2] 5. Unit commander with a division (tribuni, praefecti) - needs reference6. Commander of 100 - needs reference7. Commander of 10 - needs reference8. Commander of 5 - needs reference9. Individual soldier (Miles) - needs reference 5. Frontier commanders and divisions (limitanei) - also supervised by magister officiorum 2. Magister officiorum3. comes domesticorum4. protectores et domestici5. praepositi labarum (colour guards) [1]: (Haldon "after Delmaire 1995" 2008, 548) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: (Haldon 2008, 554) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [3]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015, Personal Communication) |
||||||
|
1. Emperor (commander-in-chief) / Imperator
Augustus: "To ensure that he could not be overthrown in another round of civil war, he established himself as commander-in-chief of the army, with imperium (the power to raise and command armies) greater than that of the senators who typically governed the provinces and commanded armies in the field. [1] "At the top of the hierarchy was the emperor himself, commander-in-chief of the Roman army by virtue of his possession of imperium maius, a power to raise and command armies that out-ranked that of anyone else." [2] 2. legatus Augusti (controlled a military province)"provinces with a legionary garrison were governed by a legatus Augusti pro praetore, or ’imperial legate with praetor’s powers’. He was drawn from the Senate as a personal appointee of the emperor, governing and commanding in the name of the emperor." [3] "The governors of a few provinces (notably Egypt, but also Mesopotamia) were equites (’knights’), members of the next wealthiest group in Roman society after the senators, the equestrian order." [3] 3. legatus legionis (commanded a legion)"If there were multiple legions in a province, they were commanded by men with powers delegated to them by the provincial governors, and each legionary commander was known as a legatus legionis (’legionary legate’)." [3] "Broadly speaking, paper organization of imperial legions was very similar to that of the late Republican period and remained so until the 3rd century AD. A legion was still organized in ten cohorts, each typically made up of six centuries of 80 men each." [4] 4. tribunus militum (lead a cohort)"Cohorts, centuries and contubernia were the regular subunits of the legion". [5] "Tribunes, like the legionary legate (commander), were drawn from Rome’s social and political elite, the senatorial and equestrian orders, and were not professional soldiers." [6] "Josephus (Jewish War 6.131) mentions 1,000 men assigned to each tribune during combat in Jerusalem in AD 70." [6] 4. dux, praepositus or legate (lead a vexillation)"Cohorts, centuries and contubernia were the regular subunits of the legion, but it could also be broken down into vexillations, temporary (in theory, at least) detachments named after the vexillum (flag) standard they carried in place of the legion’s eagle. Using vexillations, typically 1,000 or 2,000 men drawn from a particular legion, was common practice to avoid moving the whole legion far from its post when troops were needed to deal with a crisis or mount a campaign in another province. This was particularly common from the 2nd century AD, when legions tended to settle into long-term locations and permanent fortresses, but we find evidence of their vexillations across the empire, for example in the Jewish Revolt of AD 66-70." [5] "Large legionary vexillations, with attached auxiliaries, were typically commanded by senatorial commanders with titles such as dux, praepositus or legate, or sometimes by very senior centurions. Smaller detachments for policing or construction duties might be commanded by centurions." [5] 5. praefectus castrorum (prefect of the camp)"The praefectus castrorum (’prefect of the camp’) was effectively third-in-command of the legion (after the senatorial legate and senatorial tribune) and had special responsibility for fortifications, sieges and artillery." [6] 6. primus pilus"... the five centurions of the first cohort, the primi ordines (’men of the first rank’) were of higher rank than any other centurion and there was progression within that cohort." "The primus pilus was the highest-ranking centurion in the legion, followed by the princeps prior, hastatus prior, princeps posterior and finally hastatus posterior." [6] 7. princeps prior are some of these ranks at same level of command. could a spearman at the front really give orders to an officer at the back?8. hastatus prior possibly more likely order: 6. primus pilus; 7. pilus prior & other higher-ranking centuriones; 8. ordinary centuriones; 9. milites9. princeps posterior10. hastatus posterior11. Uncommissioned legionary 6. Centurio"Each of the ten cohorts in a legion, except for the first, had six centurions ... Most scholars believe that the titles of centurions in the second to tenth cohorts did not denote any particular rank or seniority. [6] "The centuries were subdivided into contubernia (singular, contubernium) of eight men. This much is relatively clear, and implies a legion of 4,800 at full strength." [4] 7. Contubernia (e.g. Optio)Among ranked men of a legion there was a distinction between principales and immunes. principales: "the title optio (’orderly’, typically assisting a centurion), tesserarius (bearer of the password), standard-bearers (aquilifer, signifer, imaginifer) and senior clerical officials." Activity of the immunes "includes medical orderlies, surveyors, metalworkers, clerks, musicians and others." [7] 8. legionary (noncommissioned)"The ordinary soldiers of the legions were known as milites (’soldiers’, singular miles)" [8] [1]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 34) [2]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 37-38) [3]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 38) [4]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 36) [5]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 37) [6]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 39) [7]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 40-41) [8]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 40) |
||||||
|
levels.
Preiser-Kapeller [1] 1. Emperor 2. Domestikos of the Scholai3. Commanders of larger frontier commands (Dux, Katepanos)4. Strategoi of the themata5. Comanders of single units6. Commanders of subunits 1007. of 10 inferred by Ed8. of 5 inferred by Ed9. Soldier Haldon Court and administration c.1081-1204 CE [2] 1. Emperor 2. Megas doux (Supreme Naval Commander)3. Imperial fleet 2. Megas domestikos (east and west)3. Provincial tagmata 2. Household units (Military) 2. doukes (provincial governors)"By the end of the reign of Manuel I (1143-80), the restored themata of Asia Minor stretched from Trebizond on the south-eastern stretch of the Black Sea coast westwards through Paphlagonia and around the western edges of the central plateau down to Cilicia. The armies based in these regions were under doukes who usually held both military and civil authority; while the fortresses and towns were administered by imperial officers called prokathemenoi aided or supported by a kastrophylax, or ’fortress warden’." [3] 3. Provincial tagmata [1]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences) [2]: (Haldon 2008, 550) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [3]: (Haldon 2008, 557) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. |
||||||
|
1. Sultan 2. Commander of Army 3. Naib al-Saltana (Viceroys of Egypt, Damascus etc.) 4. Emirs of a thousand 5. Emirs of a hundred 6. Emirs of forty 7. Emirs of ten 8. Junior officer 9. Individual soldier _ Nicolle (1996)_ Sultan Commander of Army Mamluk I: Naib al-Saltana (Viceroys of Egypt, Damascus etc.) Mamluk II: Atabak al-asakir (Father of the Leader of Soldiers) Mamluk III: Other titles with largely non-military status functions Mamluk IV: Regular Mamluks Mamluk V: Junior officer. Rajjala I: Janib unit infantry leader Rajjala II: Tulb unit infantry leader Rajjala III: Jarida unit infantry leader Mamluk army "essentially the same" as Ayyubid. Professional haqa with an elite of slave-recruited Mamluks, called Royal Mamluks. Under Ayyubids, infantry was organized within the Rajjala. There was a military unit called a janib. The tulb was a smaller unit. A jarida was a small unit. A sariya was used in ambushes. [1] _ Oliver (1977) describes the army structure this way _ Royal Mamluks Of the Former Sultan Of the Reigning Sultan Of the Bodyguard and Pages Of the Amirs Mamluks of the Amirs Of 100 Of 40 Of 10 Sons of Amirs and local population: Halqa. Initially knights of non-slave origin but eventually disappeared as military became a force of purely slave origin soldiers. [2] _ Army structure according to Raymond [3] _ Sultan’s Mamluks (elite corps) The troops of the emirs emirs ranked in a hierarchy rank determined how many men under thememirs of a thousand [4] emirs of a hundred emirs of forty emirs of ten The halqa [1]: (Nicolle 1996, 135-181) [2]: (Oliver 1977, 39-67) [3]: (Raymond 2000, 113) [4]: (Raymond 2000, 187) |
||||||
|
levels.
Lieutenant-General [1] possibly 10-12 levels in 1450-1589 CE period (below): 1. King Commander-in-chief 2. Secretaires des guerres / senior councillor 2. ConstableConstable of France [2] 3?. Marshall3-5 marshals [3] 4. CaptainCaptains of heavy cavalry important role among in the staff command structure [3] 5. Lieutenant-general"A deep pocket was a crucial advantage to a commander." Expected to lavish gifts on army. [4] "successful commanders had to navigate the labyrinth of politics and patronage in order to obtain funds for their armies." [5] 6?. Marechal de camp / Maitre de camp (cavalry / infantry) [6] 6?. Marechal de logis / maitre l’artilerie [6] 7. Sergent de bataille [6] 8. Colonel [7] 9. CaptainCaptain of a company. [8] 10. LieutenantCould be promoted to captain. [8] 11. Sergeant [9] 12. Individual soldier [1]: (Ladurie 1991, 119) [2]: (Potter 2008, 45) [3]: (Potter 2008, 44) [4]: (Potter 2008, 47) [5]: (Potter 2008, 49) [6]: (Potter 2008, 50) [7]: (Potter 2008, 59) [8]: (Potter 2008, 72) [9]: (Potter 2008, 113) |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1. Shah : 2. diwan al-‘ard (supreme commanding body – in charge of military enfeoffments, salaries, control and registration of the army and its people.) : 2.2 sahib diwan al-‘ard (head of the commanding body) :: 3. nazir al-jaysh (army superintendent) ::: 4. qadi-yi hasham wa lashkar-i hadrat (the army’s spiritual leader and judge) :::: 5. qa’id or muqaddam (Commander – if a commander had more than 10,000 cavalry he held the rank of malik) ::::: 6. chawush (senior officer) :::::: 7. jasusiya (special unit of scouts) ::::::: 8. Haras (personal guard) :::::::: 9. Cavalry ::::::::: 10. Foot soldiers
[1]: Buniyatov 2015: 50, 71-73. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/SAEVEJFH |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King Commander-in-chief 2. Secretaires des guerres / senior councillor 2. ConstableConstable of France [1] 3?. Marshall3-5 marshals [2] 4. CaptainCaptains of heavy cavalry important role among in the staff command structure [2] 5. Lieutenant-general"A deep pocket was a crucial advantage to a commander." Expected to lavish gifts on army. [3] "successful commanders had to navigate the labyrinth of politics and patronage in order to obtain funds for their armies." [4] 6?. Marechal de camp / Maitre de camp (cavalry / infantry) [5] 6?. Marechal de logis / maitre l’artilerie [5] 7. Sergent de bataille [5] 8. Colonel [6] 9. CaptainCaptain of a company. [7] 10. LieutenantCould be promoted to captain. [7] 11. Sergeant [8] 12. Individual soldier Louis XI wanted new permanent army with: 4 royal lieutenants over 10 vicaires each commanding 10 captains who each lead 10 dizainiers who each took charge of 10 soldiers. However reforms abandoned 1483 CE. [9] By 1562 CE companies were formed into larger groups called regiments. [10] [1]: (Potter 2008, 45) [2]: (Potter 2008, 44) [3]: (Potter 2008, 47) [4]: (Potter 2008, 49) [5]: (Potter 2008, 50) [6]: (Potter 2008, 59) [7]: (Potter 2008, 72) [8]: (Potter 2008, 113) [9]: (Potter 2008, 105-106) [10]: (Potter 2008, 78-79) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Commander-in-chief (Emperor)2. Provincial governor/Governor-general3. Provincial military commander/Provincial commander-in-chief/General-in-chief4. 副將5. 參將6. 游擊7. 都司8. 守備9.千總10. 把總 "Most Chinese troops were incorporated into Green Standard armies that restored order in the countryside. These forces were under the command of provincial governors and tightly constrained in the ambit of their activities. After peace was restored most of these ad hoc measures solidified into regular practice." [1] One army unit 35,000 men? 1695 CE at Kerulen and Tula rivers. "The Kangxi emperor seized the opportunity to pounce upon Galdan’s 20,000 men, sending three armies of 35,000 men each some 700 miles into the steppe. Just as before, he was lucky that as Galdan fled one army he ran into another. Galdan’s army was decisively crushed at Jaomodo on 12 June 1696, though he escaped." [2] [1]: (Lorge 2005, 151) [2]: (Lorge 2005, 161) |
||||||
|
levels.
Military Administration 1509-1617 [1] 1. Doge (inferred) 2. Heads of the Council of Ten 3. Council of Ten 3. Senate 4. Proveditor of Artillery (until 1588) 4. Proveditor of Fortifications 4. Collateral (inferred) 5. Savi 5. Camerlenghi 5. Arsenal Rector of Brescia 6. Rector, Proveditor, Military Governor, Senior Officer, Spies, Captain, Commissaries, Castellans 6. Paymaster 6. Engineers, Commander in Chief, Rector 7. Condottieri: 8. Men-at-arms (Lancers) 9. Militia officers 10. Lower level officers 11. Infantry Troops Navy: "Venetian overseas colonies depended to a great extent on the defensive shield provided by Venice’s fleet, and the role of the Provveditore General dell’Armata, who acted not only as a navy commander but also as supreme authority over the colonies in peacetime as well as during wars, was another idiosyncratic feature of the overseas colonies. [2] . [1]: (Mallett and Hale 1984: 250; 466. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YFGBTMAH) [2]: (Arbel 2013: 129) Benjamin Arbel. Venice’s Maritime Empire in the Early Modern Period. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2013. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. |
||||||
|
levels.: 1. King :: 2. General
[1]
::: 3. Commanders
[1]
:::: 4. Captains
[2]
:::::: 5. Knight Banneret
[3]
:::::: 6. Knights
[4]
:::::: 7. Knight Bachelor
[5]
::::::: 8. Esquire
[4]
:::::::: 9. Cavalry
[1]
::::::::: 10. Archers
[2]
:::::::::: 11. Infantry Soldiers
[6]
ref>
[1]: (Ormrod 2000: 290) Ormrod, W. ‘England: Edward II and Edward III’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 6: C.1300–c.1415, ed. Michael Jones, vol. 6, The New Cambridge Medieval History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 271–96, https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521362900.014. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/Y46E5QCH [2]: (Coss 2019: 41) Coss, Peter. ‘Andrew Ayton, the Military Community and the Evolution of the Gentry in Fourteenth-Century England’, in Military Communities in Late Medieval England: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ayton, ed. Craig L. Lambert, David Simpkin, and Gary P. Baker, vol. 44 (Boydell & Brewer, 2018), 31–50, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781787442221.007. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/WIE6TS8M [3]: (Simpkin 2018: 50-53) Simpkin, David. 2018. ‘Knights Banneret, Military Recruitment and Social Status, c. 1270–c. 1420: A View from the Reign of Edward I’, in Military Communities in Late Medieval England: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ayton, ed. Craig L. Lambert, David Simpkin, and Gary P. Baker, vol. 44 (Boydell & Brewer, 2018), 51–76, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781787442221.008. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/4V56P62M [4]: (Coss 2019: 37) Coss, Peter. ‘Andrew Ayton, the Military Community and the Evolution of the Gentry in Fourteenth-Century England’, in Military Communities in Late Medieval England: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ayton, ed. Craig L. Lambert, David Simpkin, and Gary P. Baker, vol. 44 (Boydell & Brewer, 2018), 31–50, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781787442221.007. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/WIE6TS8M [5]: (Simpkin 2018: 56) Simpkin, David. 2018. ‘Knights Banneret, Military Recruitment and Social Status, c. 1270–c. 1420: A View from the Reign of Edward I’, in Military Communities in Late Medieval England: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ayton, ed. Craig L. Lambert, David Simpkin, and Gary P. Baker, vol. 44 (Boydell & Brewer, 2018), 51–76, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781787442221.008. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/4V56P62M [6]: (Coss 2019: 40-42) Coss, Peter. ‘Andrew Ayton, the Military Community and the Evolution of the Gentry in Fourteenth-Century England’, in Military Communities in Late Medieval England: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ayton, ed. Craig L. Lambert, David Simpkin, and Gary P. Baker, vol. 44 (Boydell & Brewer, 2018), 31–50, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781787442221.007. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/WIE6TS8M |
||||||
|
levels.: 1. King :: 2. General
[1]
::: 3. Commanders
[1]
:::: 4. Captains
[2]
:::::: 5. Knight Banneret
[3]
:::::: 6. Knights
[4]
:::::: 7. Knight Bachelor
[5]
::::::: 8. Esquire
[6]
:::::::: 9. Cavalry
[1]
::::::::: 10. Archers
[2]
:::::::::: 11. Infantry Soldiers
[7]
[1]: (Ormrod 2000: 290. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/Y46E5QCH [2]: (Coss 2019: 41) Coss, Peter. 2018. ‘Andrew Ayton, the Military Community and the Evolution of the Gentry in Fourteenth-Century England’, in Military Communities in Late Medieval England: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ayton, ed. Craig L. Lambert, David Simpkin, and Gary P. Baker, vol. 44 (Boydell & Brewer, 2018), 31–50, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781787442221.007. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/WIE6TS8M [3]: (Simpkin 2018: 50-53. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/4V56P62M [4]: (Coss 2019: 37) Coss, Peter. 2018. ‘Andrew Ayton, the Military Community and the Evolution of the Gentry in Fourteenth-Century England’, in Military Communities in Late Medieval England: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ayton, ed. Craig L. Lambert, David Simpkin, and Gary P. Baker, vol. 44 (Boydell & Brewer, 2018), 31–50, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781787442221.007. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/WIE6TS8M [5]: (Simpkin 2018: 56. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/4V56P62M [6]: (Coss 2019: 37. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/WIE6TS8M. [7]: (Coss 2019: 40-42) Coss, Peter. 2018. ‘Andrew Ayton, the Military Community and the Evolution of the Gentry in Fourteenth-Century England’, in Military Communities in Late Medieval England: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ayton, ed. Craig L. Lambert, David Simpkin, and Gary P. Baker, vol. 44 (Boydell & Brewer, 2018), 31–50, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781787442221.007. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/WIE6TS8M |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Commander-in-Chief (revived 1793) [1] 2. Secretary at War (combined with Secretary of State for War in 1855, abolished in 1863) [1] 2. Secretary of State for War. ("In 1870 the Commander in Chief became a subordinate officer." [1] ) 3. Heads of specialist functions (inferred to be at similar levels) 4. High-ranking members of specialist functions (inferred to be at similar levels)
4. Colonel 5. Lieutenant Colonel 5. Paymaster (inferred about equal to Lt. Colonel because pay level is appox. the same) 6. Major 7. Captain 7. Surgeon (inferred about equal or slightly higher than Captain because pay level is similar) 8. Adjutant (based on pay levels) 8. Assistant Surgeon (based on pay levels) 8. Lieutenant 8. Quartermaster (inferred equal to Lieutenant based on pay levels) 8-9. Quartermaster Sergeant, Sergeant Major, Paymaster Sergeant, Armourer as Sergeant, Schoolmaster Sergeant (new post as of Dec. 1811) 9. Sergeant 10. Corporal 11. Private
2. First Lord of the Admiralty 3. Heads of specialist functions (inferred to be at similar levels) (ie. Admiralty and Marine Affairs Office, Navy Board, Transport Board) 3. High-ranking members of specialist functions (inferred to be at similar levels) 4. Admiral 5. Vice-Admiral 6. Rear Admiral (also First Captain) 7. Captain 7-8. Secretaries to the different ranks of Admirals 7-8. Master (inferred similar to higher-ranking secretaries because of pay rate) 8. Lieutenant (inferred similar to higher-ranking secretaries because of pay rate) 8. Surgeon 9. Boatswain, Gunner, Carpenter, Purse, Second Masters and Pilot 10. Master’s Mates, Surgeon’s First Mates 10. Midshipmen, Master at Arms, Schoolmaster, Captain’s Clerk, Carpenter’s Mates 11. Ordinary Seamen [1]: (National Archives of the UK 2007. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/BW7Q7AXM) [2]: (MacArthur 2009: 154. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/3NY37PHG) [3]: (MacArthur 2009: 165. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/3NY37PHG) [4]: (MacArthur 2009: 169. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/3NY37PHG) [5]: (Rodger 2005: 622-627. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/CIJFYY9I) |
||||||
|
levels.The US continental army was formed in 1775 to fight in the American Revolutionary War. In 1780 the ranks were reassigned as follows
[1]
: :Officer Ranks : 1. Commander-in-chief :: 2. Major General ::: 3. Brigadier General :::: Field Officers :::: 4. Colonel ::::: 5. Lieutenant Colonel :::::: 6. Major ::::::: Junior Officers ::::::: 7. Captain :::::::: 8. Subaltern ::::::::: Non-commissioned officers ::::::::: 9. Sergeant Major :::::::::: 10. Sergeant ::::::::::: 11. Corporal :::::::::::: Enlisted :::::::::::: 12. Private By the twentieth century, the ranks had changed little, but had expanded:
[2]
:Officer Ranks : 1. General of the Army :: 2. General ::: 3. Lieutenant General :::: 4. Major General ::::: 5. Brigadier General :::::: 6. Colonel ::::::: 7. Lieutenant Colonel :::::::: 8. Major ::::::::: 9. Captain :::::::::: 10. First Lieutenant ::::::::::: 11. Second Lieutenant :::::::::::: 12. Chief Warrant Officers 1-5 ::::::::::::: Enlisted Ranks ::::::::::::: 13. Sergeant Major of the Army :::::::::::::: 14. Command Sergeant Major ::::::::::::::: 15. Sergeant Major :::::::::::::::: 16. First Sergeant ::::::::::::::::: 17. Master Sergeant :::::::::::::::::: 18. Sergeant First Class ::::::::::::::::::: 19. Staff Sergeant :::::::::::::::::::: 20. Sergeant ::::::::::::::::::::: 21. Corporal :::::::::::::::::::::: 22. Specialist ::::::::::::::::::::::: 23. Private First Class :::::::::::::::::::::::: 24. Private
[1]: ’Continental Army’. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/VXB8B3A7 [2]: US Army Ranks. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/A2KG9JYI. |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Not entirely sure of the chain of command at the top 1. King 2. War minister3. Marshal 3. [General - cavalry honorific] 3. Colonel (Infantry) / Mestre de Camp (Cavalry)4. Sergeant-major5. Lieutenant-colonel6. Major7. Aide-major8. Captain9. Lieutenant10. Second-lieutenant (Grenadiers)11. Sergeant12. Corporal13. Anspessade or Lance-corporal14. Private 1693 CE Louis IX "created a contingent of marshals of France." [5] High officer to men ratio. In 1740s 1 in 11 French army were officers compared to 1 in 29 in Prussia. [6] Louis XIV introduced uniforms (Maison Bleue or Maison Rouge). Major reforms to army from 1763 CE which lead to reduction in size and state played greater role in covering costs and provided the uniforms (rather than issue guidelines). The listed personnel below might also include ensigns, kettle drummers, trumpet players, hautbois (oboe), cornet, pipers, surgeons, chaplains and other staff. Royal Guard Infantry Guards de la Porte (oldest Guard formation)5 officers, 50 foot. Swords, carbines. Guards Francaises (founded 1563 CE)in 18th Century had 32 companies of 200 men each [wartime], divided into 6 battalions. Sergeants: halberds and swords. Officers: sword and spontoon (musket and bayonets for Genadier officers). Guards de la Porte de Monsieur (founded 1772 CE; disbanded 1788 CE).4 officiers, 25 men. Halberds and swords) Line Infantry1740 CE: 98 regiments, 155 battalions. 6,300 officers, 79,050 NCOs. 1747 CE: 98 regiments, 227 battalions. 9,323 officers, 164,318 NCOs. 1750 CE: 84 regiments, 172 battalions. 5,200 officers, 88,695 NCOs. 1762 CE: 88 regiments, 187 battalions. 7,737 officers, 110,000 NCOs. 1763 CE: 66 regiments, 165 battalions. 5,788 officers, 89,516 NCOs. until 1718 CE over half the regiments contained 1 battalion, and each battalion contained 15 companies (14 fusiliers, 1 grenadiers). After 1718 CE there were 9 companies until 1734 CE when it went back to 15, then 13 from 1749 CE and 17 from 1756 CE. infantry companies usually contained 40-45 soldiers. Company titles: Captain, lieutenant, (second-lieutenant), 2 sergeants, 3 corporals, 3 anspessades (lance-corporals), privates. Battalion titles: Lieutenant-colonel, major, aide-major. Regiment titles: Colonel, sergeant-major. battalion: from 1757 CE horse-drawn cannon introduced. privates and corporates: 16.7mm flint-lock musket and bayonet, sword. Sergeants: swords and halberds. Officers: sword and spontoon (from 1758 CE sergeants and officers dropped the polearms and carry bayonet muskets instead). Foreign Infantry Cent-Suisse (founded 1480 CE)Palace Guards Gardes-Suisse (founded 16th century, royal guard from 1616 CE)18th century, 12 companies 200 men each. Sergeants had halberds and swords, officers sword and spontoon. Garde Suisse de Monsieur and Garde Suisse du Comte d’Artois (founded 1771 CE and 1773 CE; disbanded 1792 CE)47 officers and men. Swords and muskets. German infantryGerman regiments drawn from German, Walloon, Lorraine, Barrois regions. Company had [40; 80-85] men [peacetime; wartime]. Grenadiers formed a 6 man squad in a company. Royal-ItalienMostly French or Corsicans Royal-Corse (founded 1739 CE)Battalion had 12 companies of [50; 90] men [peacetime; wartime]. Irish and Scottish regiments.Composition of companies and battalions the same as for the French regiments, except for inclusion of a grenadier company Totals: 1716-1733 CE: 20,000. 1734-1735 CE: 34,000. 1736-1740 CE: 22,600. 1741-1748 CE: 58,000. 1749-1753 CE: 31,000. 1754-1763 CE: 48,000. 1764 CE: 28,000. Dragoons Regiments, [3; 5] squadrons, 4 companies, [25-35; 40-50] troopers. [peacetime; wartime]. Regiment titles: mestre de camp, lieutenant colonel, major and aide-major. Company titles: 2 Brigadiers, 1 marachel des logis, 1 lieutenant and the captain. Regiments had 13,600: 1740-48 CE, 10,700: 1740-48 CE. Sabre, pistol, musket with bayonet, (tools: axes, picks, shovels). Brass helmets confirmed from regulations of 1767 CE. Heavy Cavalry 60 regiments (lead by Mestre de Camp) reduced to 33 in 1761 CE. 4 squadrons, which contained 2 companies with [25; 50] maitres (troopers) [peacetime; wartime]. Senior officers (mestre de camp) reported to the Minister of War or influential Marshals. Regiment titles: mestre de camp, lieutenant-colonel, major and aide-major. Company titles: 4 elite carabiniers, 2 brigadiers (sergeants), a lieutenant and a captain. General, mestre de camp General, Commissaire General: honorific appointments purchased/given to high nobility. Each had their own regiment.18,300: 1740 CE; 38,500: 1747 CE; 23,200 1760 CE; 14,400: 1763 CE. Leather waistcoat, steel skull cap, steel breast-plate (not often worn), cuirasses (in the Cuirassiers du Roi). Sword, pair of pistols, carbine, rifled carbines. 1748 CE the state investigated dress, equipment and weapons and issued regulations in 1750 CE. Until 1762 CE, when the state took over the costs, "Gentlemen’s regiments" were financed by their mestre de camp and captains who were profit-seeking. Royal Guard Cavalry Gendarmerie de France (founded 1422 CE; disbanded 1788 CE)16 companies by 1690 CE (only 1 company until 1647 CE) with captains usually recruited from King’s family. Answered directly to the king. 5 officers, 8 NCOs, [40; 75] troopers [peacetime; wartime]. Pistols, heavy cavalry sword, rifled carbine. Garde du dedans du LouvreGardes du Corps (founded 15th century)4 companies, divided into two squadrons which had three brigades. Pistols, swords, flint-lock carbines, rifled carbines. Breastplate. 21 officers and 330-400 NCOs. Garde du Corps de Monsieur (1771-1792 CE)2 companies, 50 men each, swords, pistols, carbines. Garde du Corps du Comte d’Artois (1773-1792 CE)2 companies, 60 men each, swords, pistols, carbines. Garde du Corps du Roi de Pologne (1737-1766 CE)1 squadron with 2 companies, each with 75 officers and men Other units (Constabulary units armed with halberds and partisans?) Garde du dehors du LouvreChevau-legers de la Garde (founded 1593 CE)1 company. 19 officers, 200 NCOs and men. Pistols, swords. Muskets from 1746 CE. Gendarmes de la Garde (founded 1611 CE)1 company. 19 officers, 200 NCOs and men. Pistols, swords. Muskets from 1746 CE. Mousquetaires de la Garde (King’s Musketeers) (founded 1622 CE; refounded 1657 CE; disbanded 1775 CE)2 companies, (grey and black), 1 squadron, 4 brigades. 17 officers and 200 NCOs. Swords, pistols, flint-lock muskets. Brigadiers on foot carried halberds. Steel breast and back plates. Captain (the king), Captain-lieutenant, Second lieutenant, Captain, Unit member. Grenadiers a Cheval de la Garde (founded 1676 CE; disbanded 1776 CE)1 company. 10 officers, 130 NCOs and troopers. Pistols. Carbines. Curved sabres. Grenades. Axes. Dragoons. Artillery Corps Royal de l’Artillerie (founded 1720 CE, merged Royal-Artillerie, Royal Bombardiers, Cannoniers des cotes de l’Ocean and other bodies)5 battalions, 8 companies. Companies contained squads of gunners, bombardiers, miners and artisans. Composed only of native Frenchmen. Commanded by Inspector of the Artillery. Artillery officers had to be technically qualified and took examinations (merit promotion). Milice Garde CoteCoast guard milita organized into parish companies comprising able-bodied men 18-60 years old living near the coast who had to provided own musket and bayonet and watch the coast. Detached companies from 1716 CE were to defend coast. Were paid when on service and could be called up to defend coastal positions in wartime. Arms, equipment and uniforms provided by state. c1750 CE there were 36,000 in these detached companies. [1]: (Chartrand 2013) [2]: (Chartrand and Leliepvre 1996) [3]: (Chartrand and Leliepvre 1997a) [4]: (Chartrand and Leliepvre 1997b) [5]: (Ladurie 1991 205) [6]: (Chartrand 1996) |
||||||
|
levels.The continental army was formed in 1775 to fight in the American Revolutionary War. In 1780 the ranks were reassigned as follows
[1]
: :General Officers : 1. Commander-in-chief :: 2. Major General ::: 3. Brigadier General :::: Field Officers :::: 4. Colonel ::::: 5. Lieutenant Colonel :::::: 6. Major ::::::: Junior Officers ::::::: 7. Captain :::::::: 8. Subaltern ::::::::: Non-commissioned officers ::::::::: 9. Sergeant Major :::::::::: 10. Sergeant ::::::::::: 11. Corporal :::::::::::: Enlisted :::::::::::: 12. Private
[1]: ’Continental Army’. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/VXB8B3A7 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. Chief Secretary of Council of War (inferred) 3. Council of War (Consejo de Guerra) [1] _Tercios_ (“Tercios were not, as a rule, employed within Spain, unless other forces could not be raised. Though well organized they were not numerous, and formed only a small proportion of the total forces available to the crown.”) [2] 4. Captain-General [3] 5. Maestre del Campo (Field Marshal): “Chosen by the Crown to command a new Tercio, or by the captain-general of a field army to fill a vacancy. He was to pass on the orders given by the captain-general, and to take command in the latter’s absence.” [3] 6. Sergento Mayor (Sergeant-Major): “The second-in-command of the Tercio, he was responsible for passing on the field marshal’s orders to the captains.” [4] 7. Capitán (Captain) [5] 8. Alférez (Ensign, Lieutenant) [6] 9. Sargento (Sergeant) [7] 10. Cabo (Corporal) [7] 11. Specialist: Arquebusier, Musketeer [7] 12. Coselete: soldier with armor [7] 13. Pica Seca: soldier without armor [7] Headquarters positions:
[1]: (Núñez 2006, 41) Nunez, Alfredo Jiménez. 2006. El Gran Norte de México: Une frontera imperial en la Nueva España (1540-1820). Madrid: Editorial Tebar, S.L. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/N28BC89X [2]: (Kamen 2002, 359) Kamen, Henry. 2002. Spain’s Road to Empire: The Making of a World Power, 1492-1763. London: Penguin Books. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/5IIFB6KQ [3]: (López 2012, 38) López, Ignacio J.N. 2012. The Spanish Tercios 1536-1704. Osprey Publishing. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4EWFWHCQ [4]: (López 2012, 42) López, Ignacio J.N. 2012. The Spanish Tercios 1536-1704. Osprey Publishing. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4EWFWHCQ [5]: (López 2012, 44) López, Ignacio J.N. 2012. The Spanish Tercios 1536-1704. Osprey Publishing. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4EWFWHCQ [6]: (López 2012, 45) López, Ignacio J.N. 2012. The Spanish Tercios 1536-1704. Osprey Publishing. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4EWFWHCQ [7]: (López 2012, 47) López, Ignacio J.N. 2012. The Spanish Tercios 1536-1704. Osprey Publishing. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4EWFWHCQ [8]: (López 2012, 51) López, Ignacio J.N. 2012. The Spanish Tercios 1536-1704. Osprey Publishing. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4EWFWHCQ |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Doge [1] 2. Council of Ten [1] 3. Captain-General [1] 4. Collateral- became more powerful in the 1420s [2] 4-5. Nobles and Military Advisors, Noble Collateral 5-6. Vice Collateral [3] 6. Gubernatores ("Their task was camp organization, the supervision of provisioning services, the maintenance of discipline and occasionally military command) [2] 6. Proveditor: Civilian Advisor to the Army Commander [2] 6. Executores- Noble with administrative roles [2] 7. Subordinate officials: Paymaster (reduced to subordinate in the 1420s), Supply Officer [4] 8. Lesser officials in charge of billeting the troops [5] 9. Captain 9. Calvary Commander [6] 10-11. Lower level officers (inferred) 10. Doctor, Barber-Surgeon [7] 11. Condottieri- responsible for training soldiers. [7] 12. Calvary Lance [8] 13. Musicians [9] 14. Infantry Soldier [8] 15. Garrison Troops- did not interact with public, often "poor quality." [10]
[1]: (Mallett and Hale 1984: 105. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YFGBTMAH) [2]: (Mallett and Hale 1984: 101. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YFGBTMAH) [3]: (Mallett and Hale 1984: 106. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YFGBTMAH) [4]: (Mallett and Hale 1984: 104. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YFGBTMAH) [5]: (Mallett and Hale 1984: 136. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YFGBTMAH) [6]: (Mallett and Hale 1984: 117. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YFGBTMAH) [7]: (Mallett and Hale 1984: 142. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YFGBTMAH) [8]: (Mallett and Hale 1984: 126. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YFGBTMAH) [9]: (Mallett and Hale 1984: 118. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YFGBTMAH) [10]: (Mallett and Hale 1984: 147. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YFGBTMAH) |
||||||
|
levels. "In January 1668 the States-General therefore asked the Council of State to formulate an opinion ’on the subject of [military] rank. [...] The Council of state recommended that the order of rank should be established as follows: 1. general or chief of the army; 2. field-marshal; 3. general of the cavalry and infantry; 4. general of the artillery; 5. lieutenant-generals of the cavalry and infantry; 6. sergeant-majors of he army; 7. commissaries-general of horse; 8. colonels of foot and of horse; 9. lieutenant-colonels of foot and of horse; 10. majors of foot and of horse; 11. rittmasters and captains; 12. captain-lieutenants (i.e. a lieutenant who takes charge of a company in the absence of the commander); 13. lieutenants; and 14. cornets and ensigns. [...] The States-General failed to heed the advice of the Council of State until almost three years later, when on 23 March 1761 the recommendations were adopted almost unamended. A transitional arrangement was struck to lessen the pain somewhat for the majors, rittmasters, lieutenants and cornets of the cavalry."
[1]
NB Additional level corresponds to soldiers.
[1]: (Nimwengen 2010: 316-317) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/P4FWE8NE/collection. |
||||||
|
1. Tsar (Царь)
- The supreme ruler and commander-in-chief of the Russian Empire’s armed forces. 2. General-Feldmarshal (Генерал-фельдмаршал) / General-Admiral (Генерал-адмирал) - The highest military rank in the army and navy. 3. General of the Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery, Engineers (Генерал от инфантерии, генерал от кавалерии, генерал от артиллерии, инженер-генерал) / Admiral (Адмирал) - Senior generals commanding specific military branches. 4. Lieutenant General (Генерал-лейтенант) / Vice-Admiral (Вице-адмирал) - A high-ranking officer in the army and navy. 5. Major General (Генерал-майор) / Schoutbynacht (Шаутбенахт) (before 1732/33), Counter-Admiral (Контр-адмирал) (from 1732/33) - Officers commanding a division in the army and navy. 6. Brigadier (Бригадир) (before 1797) / Captain-Commander (Капитан-командор) (various periods) - Army rank before 1797 and corresponding navy rank. 7. Colonel (Полковник) / Captain 1st Rank (Капитан 1 ранга) (various periods) - Commanders of regiments in the army and captains in the navy. 8. Lieutenant Colonel (Подполковник) / Captain 2nd Rank (Капитан 2 ранга) (various periods) - A high-ranking officer below the rank of colonel. 9. Major (Майор) / Captain 3rd Rank (Капитан 3 ранга) (various periods) - Commanders of battalions in the army and equivalent naval rank. 10. Captain, Rotmistr (Капитан, ротмистр) / Senior Lieutenant (Старший лейтенант) (from 1911) - Company commanders in the army and a senior naval rank. 11. Staff-Captain, Staff-Rotmistr (Штабс-капитан, штабс-ротмистр) / Lieutenant (Лейтенант) (various periods) - Intermediate officer ranks in the army and navy. 12. Fendrik (Фендрик) (before 1730), Cornet (Корнет) (1725–1884), Praporshik (Прапорщик) (1730–1884), Chorunzhiy (Хорунжий) (1798–1884) / Gardemarin (Гардемарин) (1860–82; depending on the examination) - Junior officer or non-commissioned officer ranks in the army and navy. Non-Officer (Enlisted) Ranks 13. Sergeant Major (Старшина) 14. Sergeant (Сержант) 15. Corporal (Ефрейтор) 16. Private (Рядовой) [1] [1]: Леонид Ефимович Шепелев, Титулы, Мундиры, Ордена в Российской Империи (Центрполиграф, 2005). Zotero link: 8VTCGAIQ |
||||||
|
levels. The following military levels are taken from Rothenburg’s work on the Austrian army during the reign of Franz Joseph I (r.1848-1916).
[1]
: 1. The Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary (dual title) :: General/flag Officers : 1. Feldmarschall :: 2. Generaloberst ::: 3. General der Waffengattung ::::4. Feldmarschall-Leutnant :::::5. Generalmajor :::::: Field/senior Officers :::::: 6. Oberst ::::::: 7. Oberstleutnant :::::::: 8. Major ::::::::: Junior Officers ::::::::: 9. Hauptmann / Rittmeister :::::::::: 10. Oberleutnant ::::::::::: 11. Leutnant :::::::::::: Senior NCO :::::::::::: 12. Stabsfeldwebel ::::::::::::: 13. Feldwebel :::::::::::::: Junior NCO :::::::::::::: 14. Zugsführer ::::::::::::::: 15. Korporal :::::::::::::::: 16. Gefreiter ::::::::::::::::: Private ::::::::::::::::: 17. Infanterist
[1]: (Rothenberg 1976: 80-90) Rothenberg, Gunther Erich. 1976. The Army of Francis Joseph. Purdue University Press. http://archive.org/details/armyoffrancisjos00gunt. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/7KIJ2E3J |
||||||
|
The following military levels are taken from Rothenburg’s work on the Austrian army during the reign of Franz Joseph I (r.1848-1916).
[1]
: 1. The Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary (dual title) :: General/flag Officers : 1. Feldmarschall :: 2. Generaloberst ::: 3. General der Waffengattung ::::4. Feldmarschall-Leutnant :::::5. Generalmajor :::::: Field/senior Officers :::::: 6. Oberst ::::::: 7. Oberstleutnant :::::::: 8. Major ::::::::: Junior Officers ::::::::: 9. Hauptmann / Rittmeister :::::::::: 10. Oberleutnant ::::::::::: 11. Leutnant :::::::::::: Senior NCO :::::::::::: 12. Stabsfeldwebel ::::::::::::: 13. Feldwebel :::::::::::::: Junior NCO :::::::::::::: 14. Zugsführer ::::::::::::::: 15. Korporal :::::::::::::::: 16. Gefreiter ::::::::::::::::: Private ::::::::::::::::: 17. Infanterist
[1]: (Rothenberg 1976: 80-90) Rothenberg, Gunther Erich. 1976. The Army of Francis Joseph. Purdue University Press. http://archive.org/details/armyoffrancisjos00gunt. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/7KIJ2E3J |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
_British Army_
[2]
Officers : 1. Field Marshall :: 2. General ::: 3. Lieutenant General :::: 4. Major General ::::: 5. Brigadier :::::: 6.Colonel ::::::: 7. Lieutenant Colonel :::::::: 8. Major :::::::: 8.1 Warrant Officers ::::::::: 9. Captain :::::::::: 10. Lieutenant ::::::::::: 11. Second Lieutenant :::::::::::: 12. Officer Cadet Soldiers ::::::::::::: 13. Soldiers :::::::::::::: 14. Staff Sergeant :::::::::::::::: 15. Sergeant ::::::::::::::::: 16. Corporal :::::::::::::::::: 17. Lance Corporal ::::::::::::::::::: 18. Private _British Raj_ : 1. Commander-in-Chief
[3]
:: 2. Lieutenant-General
[3]
::: 3. Lower Officers (as above) ::::: 4. Soldiers (as above)
[1]: (Smith 1882: 8) Smith, George. 1882. The Geography of British India, Political & Physical. London: J. Murray. http://archive.org/details/geographybritis00smitgoog. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/AW5H8NPI [2]: (https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/GUZSL7S2 [3]: (Smith 1881: 4, 9) Smith, George. 1882. The Geography of British India, Political & Physical. London: J. Murray. http://archive.org/details/geographybritis00smitgoog. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/AW5H8NPI |
||||||
|
1. Generalissimus of the Soviet Union (Генералиссимус Советского Союза)
2. Marshal of the Soviet Union (Маршал Советского Союза) / Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union (Адмирал Флота Советского Союза) 3. Chief Marshal of the Branch (Главный маршал рода войск) 4. Marshal of the Branch (Маршал рода войск) 5. General of the Army (Генерал армии) / Admiral (Адмирал) 6. Colonel General (Генерал-полковник) 7. Lieutenant General (Генерал-лейтенант) / Vice-Admiral (Вице-адмирал) 8. Major General (Генерал-майор) / Rear Admiral (Контр-адмирал) 9. Colonel (Полковник) / Captain 1st Rank (Капитан 1 ранга) 10. Lieutenant Colonel (Подполковник) / Captain 2nd Rank (Капитан 2 ранга) 11. Major (Майор) / Captain 3rd Rank (Капитан 3 ранга) 12. Captain (Капитан) / Captain-Lieutenant (Капитан-лейтенант) 13. Senior Lieutenant (Старший лейтенант) 14. Lieutenant (Лейтенант) 15. Junior Lieutenant (Младший лейтенант) 16. Warrant Officer (Прапорщик) / Midshipman (Мичман) 17. Master Sergeant (Старшина) / Senior Chief Petty Officer (Главный корабельный старшина) 18. Senior Sergeant (Старший сержант) / Chief Petty Officer (Главный старшина) 19. Sergeant (Сержант) / Petty Officer First Class (Старшина 1 статьи) 20. Junior Sergeant (Младший сержант) / Petty Officer Second Class (Старшина 2 статьи) 21. Corporal (Ефрейтор) / Senior Sailor (Старший матрос) 22. Private (Рядовой) / Sailor (Матрос) [1] [1]: John Erickson, ed., The Soviet High Command: A Military-Political History, 1918-1941, 0 ed. (Routledge, 2013) Zotero link: E6QJB2QF |
||||||
|
levels.
1 or 2. More comfortable at 1 level at this point. Not until Mississippian evidence of warrior specialists. |
||||||
|
levels. No hard information is available from Canaanite examples, but we have considerable (albeit incomplete) information from Ugarit,
[1]
as well as surrounding areas. It seems clear that the kings were expected to take the field, and often in the front lines. There would be a "commander of the chariots," and potentially subordinate commanders as well, above the actual charioteers and their shield-bearers. The infantry would be made up of elite soldiers, as well as peasant levies; the command structure is unknown. From the evidence of the Amarna Letters, we might infer that units of 100 men were extant—potentially as subdivisions of larger units of 400 men. Ugaritic sources also reference "commanders of a thousand," though Ugarit’s army was relatively large.
Additionally, in Ugarit there were several specialized units outside of the normal command structure, such as "friends of the king." [1]: Rainey (1965). |
||||||
|
The lawagetas was the supreme military leader. Officers, called hequetai (followers) accompanied military continents. he lawagetas was the supreme military leader. Officers, called hequetai (followers) accompanied military continents.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Shelmerdine, C. W. and Bennet, J. 2008. "12: Mycenaean states. 12A: Economy and administration," in Shelmerdine, C. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge, 292-95. [2]: Nikoloudis, S. 2008. "The role of the ra-wa-ke-ta: insights from PY Un718," in Sacconi, A, del Freo, M., Godart, L., and Negri, M. (eds), Colloquium Romanum: Atti del XII Colloquio Internazionale de Micenologia. Roma 20-15 febbraio 2006, vol. 2, Rome, 587-94. |
||||||
|
levels. There is no evidence for the military organization of Cretan communities. Members of local elite families might controlled the military sector of the large settlements that arose in Crete during the period. During the Archaic period (710-500 BCE), religious control was exercised by the Kosmoi, a board of 3 to 10 nobles annually elected by the Ecclesia, the body of free male citizens. It is very likely that some aspects of this organization existed since the 8th century BCE.
[1]
[1]: Chaniotis, A. 1897. "Κλασική και Ελληνιστική Κρήτη," in Panagiotakis, N. (ed.), Κρήτη: Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός, Heraklion, 192-207. |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels.
More comfortable at 1 level at this point. Not until Mississippian is there any evidence of a warrior society. |
||||||
|
levels.
1 or 2. More comfortable at 1 level at this point. Not until Mississippian evidence of warrior specialists. |
||||||
|
levels. There was no central military in the HRE, rather, the nation states within its borders would raise their own armies when needed.
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
No information found in sources.
|
||||||
|
levels.
Beyond differences in mortuary treatment between adults and sub-adults, "there is no evidence for Neolithic social differences or ranking in the archaeological record" [1] . [1]: P. Johansen, The politics of of spatial renovation: Reconfiguring ritual practices in Iron Age and Early Historic South India (2014), Journal of Social Archaeology 0:0, pp. 1-28 |
||||||
|
levels. 1440CE–1600CE: 1) Oba, 2) Iyase (General Commander), 3) Ezomo, Edogun and Enogie (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 4) Okakuo I (Metropolitan and Village regiments) and Ekegbian (Royal Regiment), 5) Okakuo II (Azukpogieva) (Metropolitan and Village regiments) and Iyoba Queen Mother’s Own Regiment (Royal Regiment), 6) Olotu Ivbiyokuo (Metropolitan and Village regiments), 7) Platoon commanders, 8) Iyokuo (The Warriors).
[1]
1600CE–1800CE: 1) Iyase (Commander-in-Chief, 2) Ezomo, 3) Ologbosere, Edogun and Enigie (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 4) Imaran, Ekegbian and Okakuo I (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 5) Okakuo, Queen Mother’s own regiment and Okakuo II (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 6) Olotu (Metropolitan Regiment) and Olotu Iyokuo (Village Regiment), 7) Platoon commanders, 8) Ivbiyokuo (The Warriors).
[2]
1801CE–1897CE: 1) The War Council, 2) Iyase and Ezomo, 3) Edogun and Ologbosere, 4) Imaran, Ekegbian and Enigie (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 5)Okakuo, Wueen Mother’s own regiment and Okakuo I (Metropolitan, Royal and Village regiments respectively), 6) Olotu Iyokuo (Metropolitan Regiment) and Okakuo II (Village Regiment), 7) Olotu Iyokuo (Village Regiment), 8) Platoon commanders, 9) Ivbiyokuo (The Warriors).
[3]
“The Ezɔmɔ’s position was unique. Though third in rank in its order, this was one of the great offices of state, and its holder most nearly approached kingly status. The wealth and prestige of successive Ezɔmɔ, remarked by many European visitors in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, was derived from their function as war captains, in which respect only the Iyasɛ equalled them. It was the Ezɔmɔ who took charge of most national campaigns, and their military activities enabled them to accumulate many slaves, subjects, and fiefs. However, this role had little to do with their Uzama status. They were directly responsible to the Oba, and there is no evidence that they regularly used their power in the interests of their order.”
[4]
[1]: Osadolor, O. B. (2001). The Military System of Benin Kingdom, c.1440–1897. University of Hamburg, Germany: 105. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4RZF5H5/collection [2]: Osadolor, O. B. (2001). The Military System of Benin Kingdom, c.1440–1897. University of Hamburg, Germany: 154. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4RZF5H5/collection [3]: Osadolor, O. B. (2001). The Military System of Benin Kingdom, c.1440–1897. University of Hamburg, Germany: 192. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4RZF5H5/collection [4]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 17. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels. The following quote suggests the emergence of social differentiation in this period, but little appears to be understood about this phenomenon apart from the appearance of specialised smiths and the formation of senior and cadet social segments. "During Yellow II, the inhabitants of Mound 4 began a process that eventually led to centralization of iron production, as described in detail above. Iron ore extraction involves profound digging in the earth, the realm of spirits, and historically in Bwa society the practice is reserved solely for specialized smiths, who also excavate burials (see discussions below). The mid first millennium A.D. therefore witnessed a transformation from redundant social and economic roles for houses to specialization in at least one craft activity. While houses were still highly independent, even producing their own pottery, a formalized village structure was likely present with both cadet and senior social segments, founded upon common descent with a common ancestor."
[1]
[1]: (Dueppen 2012: 28) |
||||||
|
levels. 1. Tapsoba and Widi-Naba :"The army consisted of two divisions: the infantry under the Tapsoba (master of the bow) and the cavalry under the Widi-Naba."
[1]
:2. Tapsobanamba "The tapsoba of Oula became commander-in-chief of the entire army in the field and was assisted by three other tapsobanamba."
[2]
:2. Adjutant to the Widi-Naba ::"The cavalry under the Widi-Naba and his adjutant, the chief of the royal stables, was placed on the two wings of the infantry."
[2]
::3. Samade-naba "In action the infantry were placed in the centre of the combined forces under the Samade-Naba."
[2]
:::4. Section chiefs ::::"In Yatenga there were eleven sections: the gunbearers’ section was commanded by the Bugure-Naba (chief of the powder) ; the ten other sections were commanded by the two Kom-Naba (chiefs of young men), the two Soba-Naba (chiefs of Bobo), the Kom-Naba and the Samade-Naba of Ziga, the Kom-Naba and Samade-Naba of Binsigay, and the Kom-Naba and Samade-Naba of Sissimba. The se last three towns were former capitals of the kingdom."
[2]
::::5. Soldiers
[1]: (Zahan 1967: 171) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TVIRPGXD/collection. [2]: (Zahan 1967: 172) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TVIRPGXD/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. "Contexts that could shed light on the dynamics of social structure and hierarchies in the metropolis, such as the royal burial site of Oyo monarchs and the residences of the elite population, have not been investigated. The mapping of the palace structures has not been followed by systematic excavations (Soper, 1992); and questions of the economy, military system, and ideology of the empire have not been addressed archaeologically, although their general patterns are known from historical studies (e.g, Johnson, 1921; Law, 1977)."
[1]
Regarding this period, however, one of the historical studies mentioned in this quote also notes: "Of the earliestperiod of Oyo history, before the sixteenth century, very little is known."
[2]
Law does not then go on to provide specific information directly relevant to this variable.
[1]: (Ogundiran 2005: 151-152) [2]: (Law 1977: 33) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||