| # | Polity | Military Level | Tags | Year(s) | Edit | Desc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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.
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 |
||||||
|
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. |
||||||
|
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. |
||||||
|
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) |
||||||
|
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.
(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.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
(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. 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) |
||||||
|
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.
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) |
||||||
|
: 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. 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. 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 |
||||||
|
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.
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
Warrior society implies at least 2 levels of military hierarchy. |
||||||
|
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. 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.
(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. 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."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) |
||||||
|
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. "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. "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. 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. |
||||||
|
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.
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.
Based on data for preceding polities at least 5 levels. |
||||||
|
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.
|
||||||
|
"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) |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
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.
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from discussion of military organization during this period
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
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.
|
||||||
|
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.
|
||||||
|
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 |
||||||
|
"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. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Ruler 2.3.4. |
||||||
|
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) |
||||||
|
"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) |
||||||
|
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.
[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.
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.
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. |
||||||
|
--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. 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. ?? 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) |
||||||
|
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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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. 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. |
||||||
|
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.
(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 |
||||||
|
levels. Estimated. Competent and organized enough to take conquer.
At the least something like: 1. Ruler 2. Army commanders(3. Captains)4. Individual soldiers |
||||||
|
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 |
||||||
|
unknown
|
||||||
|
unknown
|
||||||
|
Likely had at the least king - commander - officer - individual soldier.
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels.
Some kind of military society at this time. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
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 |
||||||
|
[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.
"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) |
||||||
|
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) |
||||||
|
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.
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.
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) |
||||||
|
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.
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) |
||||||
|
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. |
||||||
|
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. |
||||||
|
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.
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) |
||||||
|
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. 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.
"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.
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 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. 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. |
||||||
|
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) |
||||||
|
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. |
||||||
|
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.
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) |
||||||
|
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) |
||||||
|
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.
(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.
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. |
||||||
|
Likely had at the least king - commander - officer - individual soldier.
|
||||||
|
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. 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.
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 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 |
||||||
|
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 |
||||||
|
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) |
||||||
|
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) |
||||||
|
[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) |
||||||
|
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.
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.
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) |
||||||
|
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.
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.
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. |
||||||
|
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. |
||||||
|
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.
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. |
||||||
|
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. |
||||||
|
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) |
||||||
|
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) |
||||||
|
"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. 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 |
||||||
|
"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.
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. |
||||||
|
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. 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 |
||||||
|
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) |
||||||
|
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.
1 or 2. More comfortable at 1 level at this point. Not until Mississippian evidence of warrior specialists. |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
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) |
||||||
|
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.
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 |
||||||
|
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. 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.
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) |
||||||
|
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. |
||||||
|
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 |
||||||
|
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.
|
||||||
|
levels.
More comfortable at 1 level at this point. Not until Mississippian is there any evidence of a warrior society. |
||||||
|
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) |
||||||
|
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 |
||||||
|
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. 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. 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 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. 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" | ||||||