Thracians

[Erpingham]

Bringing this back to Thracians, is there any reason to suppose the Thracians held back any significant fraction of militarily-capable manpower when they went to war?  They were essentially tribal and rural, although in Xenophon's testimony their rural settlements appear to have been well-provisioned .

To put it another way, is there any reason to believe that Thrace usually operated on the mass mobilisation of all available manpower?  How was mobilisation structured?  How did a tribe raise its forces?  Was it based on who fancied turning up on the day or was there some kind of expectation that tribal nobility would turn up when called with a following of sorts?  As Roy has said, we are in danger of falling into a topos of massed hordes of barbarians again, without trying to understand the nature of the society from which they came.

[aligern]

We must not forget that Caesar has motive for exaggerating the effective numbers of the Gauls, because he is justifying his attack upon them. If the Helvetii really have only 20,000 decently equipped and trained warriors tgen the threat level is far less and can probably be coped with by building fortifications as Caesar did,mand there being no need for an advance into Gaul. ( Thus no need for Caesar to build an army that could enthrone him in Rome.)
I suggest that schokars have done a poor job of extracting the social construction of societies and armies from the Greek, Roman and archeological information.
For example , if we were to assume that all free males took oart in warfare then what evidence is there of regular mustering and annual attacks on neighbours?  Interestinly there is some for the Helvetii contesting against the Germans,though, of course they decide to move away to a less challenging environment. Whilst there is evidence of fighting in the rest of Gaul, how frequent and how involving is it. If we have tribes of 100,000 individuals producing armies of 20,000 then it is very different from conflict  being a matter of a couple of thousand warriors or less, because the first is a war, the second a raid. I would be interested to hear the Irish experience of how such a society worked, how militarised it was and what proportion of males took part. How does a society survive when in mst years tgerebis major conflict?
Migration, as we all agree, is a different model, because there is no agricultural demand, little carpentry, no stonework , restricted smithing, little administration, so more manpower is liberated for fighting ( and wagon moving) There you would have the potential to deliver most men to the armed force. 
Roy

[Erpingham]

I think the model of tribal society in which every man is a free man and every free man a warrior is probably simplistic generally.  We do have survivals of tribal societies into a more literate age and these tend to be more complex structures (the Irish, the Welsh, the Frisians for example).  If we took the Welsh, we would see a core of household troops (teulu) round the king who would be the standing military force.  Then there were the uchelwyr, the upper class freemen, the more important of whom might have their own teulu, who were the usual military resource.  Then there were the aillt/eilltion, the peasant class, who could be called on in emergencies.  Then there were the unfree (kaeog/kaeth), who could be called up in a non-fighting capacity as servants and animal wranglers.   

[Patrick Waterson]

For the Thracians, we are largely dependent upon notes by Herodotus, obiter dictu by Xenophon and the occasional mention  in Greek and Roman authors.  The Wikipedia Odrysian article is worth reading for general orientation.

Strabo (VII.47) notes:

"Thrace as a whole consists of twenty-two tribes. But although it has been devastated to an exceptional degree, it can send into the field fifteen thousand cavalry and also two hundred thousand infantry."

I would be wary of labelling a model 'simplistic' just because it is simple - if it provides the right overall results, it is a good model.

[Erpingham]

I would be wary of labelling a model 'simplistic' just because it is simple - if it provides the right overall results, it is a good model.

I am a bit of a loss how a "simple" model which produces the right result but misrepresents the facts could be seen as "good" let alone useful.  Also, just a reminder there is more to the Thracians than their occassional mention in classical texts.  Quite a bit of archaeology, for example.  However, I think we've abandoned the Thracians to open a new front in the ancient numbers debate, so time to quit.

[Flaminpig0]

Roy's reckoning of perhaps 1,000 sword smiths in Gaul is interesting in that it demonstrates how (assuming a 30-year lifespan for a sword, which may be on the low side) this small number of smiths can keep a million Gallic warriors or would-be warrors in swords.

Are the swords issued by the tribe or does each individual Gaul have to buy his own sword?

[Patrick Waterson]

Are the swords issued by the tribe or does each individual Gaul have to buy his own sword?

Good question.  As far as I can determine it was more a matter of a warrior going to the smith and demanding a sword when he needed one (i.e. did not have a hand-me-down from his antecedents).  The smith would produce the sword and the warrior would accept it.  Exactly what else changed hands depended upon the relationship between the smith and the warrior aristocracy, i.e. were the smiths commercial entities or were they in effect retainers who operated on demand?  I suspect the latter but would welcome clarification from anyone who does know.

[Patrick Waterson]

I am a bit of a loss how a "simple" model which produces the right result but misrepresents the facts could be seen as "good" let alone useful.

Because it produces the right result.  If dumping 'the facts' on it leads it to produce the wrong result, then perhaps one needs to look more closely at 'the facts'.

Also, just a reminder there is more to the Thracians than their occassional mention in classical texts.  Quite a bit of archaeology, for example.

Yes, quite true and a good observation, albeit I am not sure how much archaeology contributes to our understanding of Thracian mobilisation potential and patterns.

[Erpingham]

If dumping 'the facts' on it leads it to produce the wrong result, then perhaps one needs to look more closely at 'the facts'.

Have you considered a career in tabloid journalism

I am not sure how much archaeology contributes to our understanding of Thracian mobilisation potential and patterns.

You will recall social organisation and how we are agreed it affects military potential?  Archaeologists spend a lot of time trying to work out social structures from ruins and rubbish.  Burials are quite important too, especially if they demonstrate patterns of grave goods.  Settlement archaeology is important for looking at the economy too and surveys of settlement distribution can help with population estimates.  And, of course, it produces examples of actual weaponry for us to base our reconstructions on. 

[aligern]

I do worry about the apparent certainty of archaeology. For example, the weapon depositions in A/S cemeteries do not appear to be nicely systematic. For example, we do not know the detailed dates and so depositions tend to be by century. Secondly we don't know how representative the kit tgat is buried is , so does this tell us that two spears and a shield are basic kit and that better off warriors had a heftier spear and sword, or do we see an approach where you were kitted for the afterlife in what was appropriate to your rank, so you might have a sword in life, but you are not buried with it unless sumptuary tradition allowed for this? Perhaps there were many free men who did not fight  ( say because they followed a  five hide like system for selective recruitment) but were byried with the symbols of free status. Whatnif burial was a fashion choice and some nen who actually were buried without weapons were fighters, because of incipient Christian conversion or just a change in fashion. A lot of the confidence with which we could read the analysis of grave goods has been shattered.

Increasingly I doubt whether tribal societies that had  theoretical right to muster all males actually did so,mthough there were very lijely special circumstances such as;
Migration a la Cimbri, Teutones, Helvetii.
Colonisation such as the Goths in Dacia where previous provincials might have provided a class of non militarised food priducers,
Mercenary service where avtribe moves to serving as warriors abd obtaining food through pay such as the sixth century Heruls.
Roy

[Erpingham]

Burial archaeology is certainly complicated and interpretative.  We must also always note that grave goods perform roles both for the dead and the living.  Placing spears in a grave as a symbol of status restated your family's claim to that status.  Burying a load of luxury products demonstrated your family's wealth and position.

Personally, I'm more inclined as a generalisation to see European tribes as having differing degrees of free status, with differing levels of obligation, like the Welsh (or the Frisians, or the Kentish Jutes).  All freemen might have a defensive obligation and be expected to own basic weapons, but a smaller (richer? selected?) group were properly equipped and had a greater degree of experience from regular call ups.  Top these off with an elite group of nobles and their households, who were primarily fighters and hierarchy officials/enforcers.  So, your migrating tribe would have access to a horde of untrained, basically equipped men who would normally just be used for local defence, whereas a raiding army would be smaller but contain men with proper kit who had some idea of what they were doing.

[Patrick Waterson]

Increasingly I doubt whether tribal societies that had  theoretical right to muster all males actually did so ...

It would probably depend to a great extent on how much of a threat was perceived.  For example, a typical Chatti raid on the Sugambrii would probably involve a fraction of the warrior total and perhaps only the keenest and most impecunious warrior types - the one looking to add to reputation, the other to wealth.  However if someone like Drusus Germanicus turns up with a third of the Empire's legions, then probably every male warm body in the tribe is going to be mustered and only the palpably unfit excluded.  Emergencies of this nature would understandably be comparatively rare, and the potential for a full mobilisation would help to keep neighbours' raids short and sharp in order to be in and out before the main strength of the tribe could be mustered against them.

So I would suggest the extent of tribal mobilisation would tend to be governed by the situation.  The special situations Roy outlines would lead to a tribe tapping its mobilisation potential quite thoroughly.  For 'business as usual' (i.e. just endemic hostility with neighbouring tribes) I would tend to agree that something less than a full mobilisation would be the norm.  This would also seem to agree with Anthony's thinking.

If dumping 'the facts' on it leads it to produce the wrong result, then perhaps one needs to look more closely at 'the facts'.

Have you considered a career in tabloid journalism

Low blow, sir!!  But they do appear to need someone to straighten them out.

I am not sure how much archaeology contributes to our understanding of Thracian mobilisation potential and patterns.

You will recall social organisation and how we are agreed it affects military potential?  Archaeologists spend a lot of time trying to work out social structures from ruins and rubbish.  Burials are quite important too, especially if they demonstrate patterns of grave goods.  Settlement archaeology is important for looking at the economy too and surveys of settlement distribution can help with population estimates.  And, of course, it produces examples of actual weaponry for us to base our reconstructions on. 

Roy has covered this point; I shall simply add that while archaeology can provide some information, it faces great challenges trying to provide understanding or anything like a useful, let alone complete, overall picture..  Exactly how it helps us to determine what percentage of men were of military age and how many were fielded and in what circumstances is, I suspect, rather beyond its powers.  It can provide analysis of grave sites and estimate age distribution, true; it can examine mass burials containing damaged male skeletons and help us to understand the effects of weaponry; it can of course make (varying) estimates of population, but I am not sure it can answer the question of whether Strabo's figures for Thrace are accurate.

[Chuck the Grey]

During World War II, the US mobilized about 8.5% of its total population for military service in an all out effort. That was about the limit we could mobilize without harming war production, food supplies, etc. That percentage doesn't include members of the Merchant Marine who were a vital part of the war effort.

I realize that comparing a modern, highly organized society to an ancient society may seem to be an apples to oranges comparison, but I think it illustrates the maximum percentage of a population group that can be called up for military service without harming the support available from the home front.

Of course, if an invasion is imminent that percentage can skyrocket dramatically and probably exceed the 20% mentioned previously. An examination of the preparations by the Imperial Japanese Military and their mobilization of the home islands' population will probably produce a percentage far north of 20%. you have to consider the desparation or fanaticism of the society in that case.

The US experience in WW II demonstrates that a mobilization of 10% of the total population is probably the maximum that a society can endure without harming the home front.

[Dangun]

During World War II, the US mobilized about 8.5% of its total population for military service in an all out effort.
The US experience in WW II demonstrates that a mobilization of 10% of the total population is probably the maximum that a society can endure without harming the home front.

Its interesting if you look at the data for Japan or Germany, because they didn't mobilize much more, and distinctly damaged the home front.

Just a quick example, but Japan's mobilization peaked at about 6mn (excluding the factory and agriculture jobs which were classified as draftees to eliminate the employees ability to leave.) which is 8.3% of a 1939 72mn home island population.

[Erpingham]

For those who wish to see the numbers debate fought out with passion and determination, I advise reading the epic thread on the mobilisation potential of Achaemenid Persian - all 75 pages    There is some dispute whether the mobilisation potential of all societies was the same, or whether social organisation and  technology play a part. So, for example, if Germany in WWI could mobilise an army in 1914 of 10% of the population, based on industrial technology and sophisticated laws on universal military service, could ancient Thrace do the same?  We have not yet (in this thread at least) demonstrated enough knowledge of Thracian social structures to answer the question.  Truly, I'd prefer to know more about Thracians than argue hypothetical mobilisation rates.