Sartar Militia Numbers

[MagikarpHunter]

I'm trying to make sense of a few numbers concerning tribe militia. The GM Screen Pack puts the Colymar militia at about 2500 people, with the tribe's population being 12,300. Meanwhile the Starter Set says Jonstown and its local tribes (Malani, Culbrea, Cinsina, Torkani) make a militia at 3000 (500 from Jonstown, 2500 from the tribes) with the population from that area being at around 30,000.

So what I'm wondering is why there is significantly less contribution towards the Jonstown militia when compared to the Colymar. They've got over double the population but aren't making that much larger of a force. The two things I'm thinking might be causing it is that either the Colymar (being more independent from the rest of Sartar) have to make up a bigger individual force to protect themselves, or that the Jonstown Confederation militia isn't reflective of what the tribes would muster if they were left on their own, but there isn't anything to suggest that is the case in the Starter Set.

Any thoughts?

Edited January 29 by MagikarpHunter

[metcalph]

Possibilities:

• The Colymar being wealthy can afford to raise more troops than poorer tribes.
• The Jonstown Tribes have additional troops that do not make up part of the City Militia.  The Culbrea for example have the Headhunters and the Malani Tworidge.
• The Jonstown Treasurer is pilfering monies given to him by the tribes to raise troops for the City Militia.

 

[David Scott]

You might find this helpful: https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/the-average-sartarite-clan/

 

[Ynneadwraith]

Some potential learning from history:

It seems like Rome consistently dedicated a greater proportion of its manpower to military means than most other cultures around them, so 'being more martially minded' is an option. This necessarily meant losing out on the other things those folks would be doing, but the spoils of successful military conquest worked out more lucrative. The reasons for this are likely complex, but seem to be significantly influenced by the traumatic sack of Rome by Brennus' Cisalpine Gauls. So you might be onto something with the Colymar needing to protect themselves more than other tribes, leading to greater emphasis on militarism.

There's also an interesting influence of (relative) egalitarianism on the numbers of different troops cultures can muster. There's a bit of a military sliding scale between 'having a really good citizen militia' and 'having really good heavy cavalry' that depends on concentration of wealth. It's a lot more complex than that, but basically the more wealth that is widely distributed among smallholding farmers, the more likely the sorts of militaries they produce (usually militia/fyrd/pre-professional legion type things) will be well equipped and well motivated. The more it's concentrated into a wealthy elite (who are usually the ones who can afford horses), the better the cavalry arm will be.

So, perhaps the Colymar are a little more egalitarian than other tribes, and thus more of their membership can afford to fight in the militia. 'Egalitarian' in these terms means things like 'each plot of farming land is closer in size/productivity, and you don't so many big estates' and/or 'spoils of war are more evenly distributed'. Things like that.

This sort of leads into the next point, which is the emphasis which different cultures place on different military arms. If your infantry levy is well equipped and well motivated it's more likely to gain prestige for itself in battle. Thus, you're more likely to find a bigger proportion of that culture's warfare expressed as an infantry levy. This is one of the ways you end up with different military traditions between different cultures. So, perhaps the Colymar militia are particularly successful, and thus the Colymar express themselves militarily in a high proportion of militia compared to other tribes, with those tribes providing different troops other than militia (e.g. mounted elites, or some of the stranger troops Gloranthans can muster).

All a bit of a long-winded way of explaining the three bullet points @metcalph put down, but it's useful to build some of the societal context we can infer from the information we get on troops. Helps add depth to some of the cultures we're encountering 🙂 

[The Prettiest Parrot]

I'd definitely also lean towards economics. Another angle is to look at who moves to cities. I've gotten the impression that the Colymar are less urbanized than the Jonstown confederation. That's a rough understanding that could be wrong, but I think it's a thing worth considering. It's generally not the guy who inherits the family farm! You're likely to see a constant stream of people who don't have many resources or urban-applicable skills. They're going to struggle to equip themselves, unless some local authority starts handing out weapons.

[MagikarpHunter]

8 hours ago, David Scott said:

You might find this helpful: https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/the-average-sartarite-clan/

 

These numbers are interesting, but they don't exactly reflect either the Colymar militia or the Jonstown tribes, which may be indicative of both groups being slight outliers. 

The average clan post would posit that around a third of a clan's adult population are able to fight, with 90% of those being militia rather than dedicated warriors. So about 30% of a clan is militia, and lets assume that these numbers scale up reasonably well to the tribal level. The GM Screen Pack actually differentiates between dedicated warriors and militia for its army. 2200 militia and 300 warriors. It also helpfully tells us that its adult population is 5300. So that's about 47% of the tribe being able to be called upon to fight, with 41% of the population being militia, which is a significant margin more than the clan average. It also has a slightly higher percentage of full time warriors making up its army than the average; 12% compared to the average of 10%. So the Colymar does look to fight more often. 

We also shouldn't ignore that the Colymar has a massive difference in its adult:children ratio compared to the average clan numbers. Two thirds of a clan are adults, whereas the Colymar adult population is only about 43% of the population. The book does draw attention to the large number of children and young adults, also mentioning population damage done by the Great Winter that has since recovered. Considering the Colymar can't be supplied by a city like the other tribes, the Great Winter probably hit them harder, but I could also imagine it may have inspired them to resort to banditry or leaving to rebel against the Lunars, which may explain why they have more warriors than the average,

Now the Starter Set is less explicit about what's going on with the Jonstown tribes' population of adults, but we can suss out that the total population of the tribes is 26,200 I'll ignore Jonstown itself for this analysis since it will be a bit different and we can separate its militia handily as the direct Jonstown contribution is given). Assuming the Jonstown tribes follow the clan average, that's about 17,500 adults, which going by the average gives a number around 5800 for the army. Now that is vastly smaller than the 2500 that is being stated in the Starter Set. The book does admittedly refer to them explicitly as militia so there might be some full time warriors being excluded from these numbers, although I'm inclined to think they are included but are just not named explicitly for the sake of simplicity since those numbers are definitely important to understanding the area. But that's a lot of numbers to make up when using the average clan numbers, and using the average clan post to say that the 5800 includes the full time warriors would still make the militia total at 5220 or so. So the conclusion I'm drawing here is that either that the average clan numbers can't be used at a tribal level (which I feel they probably can to some degree) or that the Jonstown tribes are very atypical tribes, like the Colymar are but in the other direction, either having a much smaller fighting force than normal or having an as of now unmentioned in RQG force that exists outside of the militia.

[Squaredeal Sten]

So far this thread makes ne wonder how the Sartarite militia works.  From all I have read until recently, it appeared to be:

All free and semi free adult males who are not too old to keep up physically. Plus any adult women who choose To be in the field (especially Vinga and Babester Gor cultists). 

The only difference for the half free is they have  light weapons and no armor, so deploy in open order as skirmishers.

Chiefs' bodyguards / "martial thanes"  will turn out when the militia turns out, because the chief leads the militia,  so although they may be spoken of as a more elite group, they will be part of the total military strength.

If that were accurate then the militia would be the same percentage of. all adult populations, except as they may have more elderly or fewer males survived the last war, or more females participate.

So is that not the current understanding?  If not then how am I wrong?

 

 

Edited January 31 by Squaredeal Sten
Spelling / typing

[radmonger]

1 hour ago, MagikarpHunter said:

having an as of now unmentioned in RQG force that exists outside of the militia.

Martin Helsdon's Armies and Enemies of Dragon Pass lists the following professional/mercenary regiments from  that area:

• Cinsina: Eleven Lights (Magical heavy cavalry)
• Culbrea: Headhunters (Heavy Cavalry)
• Malani: Tworidge Farms (Heavy Cavalry)

The Colymar nobility can field the equivalent of such a regiment of heavy cavalry. But I think the implication is that they actually not permanently in that form, and generally fight alongside the militia of their clan, rather than as a single detached force with its own patron deity or wyter.

The Colymar are at once the most traditional and most warlike of the clans. But they don't, even in the Argrath era, really have their own elite regiment. They just have the biggest and best militia.

 

 

Edited January 29 by radmonger

[Sir_Godspeed]

4 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

If that were accurate then the militia would be the same percentage of. all adult populations, except as they may have more elderly or fewer males survived the last war, or more females participate.

Not really, there will always be people who'll need to stay behind to care for said elderly, or care for young children, etc. Now, granted, some of those will themselves will be the older kids and the comparatively more able-bodied and clear-minded elderly, but there'll always be a minimum of "regular" adults. 

Then there's the the need to care for the animals. There's just no avoiding that. Older kids can do a lot, but you'll still need some adults. 

Lastly, I presume some potentially-armed adults need to stay behind just to guard the stead. At least attempt to prevent counter-raids, or keep watch, and so forth. 

There's also maintenance. Things still need fixing, producing, collection, etc. 

There's also food. A mustered militia can hunt and forage, but they'll probably have non-combatants helping out with cooking and the like. If it's anything like medieval armies, that number of people might be equal to the actual militia, but I'm not sure how comparable that is. An area will quickly become drained of edible stuff, so some food will always have to be transported, so that requires manpower too, and unless it can be gotten by looting the enemy, then that also means draining the foodstores back home.

I could be wrong, but as I understand it, the actual potential number is probably closer to 30-50%(??) of all adults (a larger percentage for the males, lower for the women), and that's for a *short* period, admittedly. After a relatively short time, this becomes unsustainable.

[Ynneadwraith]

3 hours ago, radmonger said:

But they don't, even in the Argrath era, really have their own elite regiment. They just have the biggest and best militia.

It's worth noting, though as a side-note really, that the association we have of a militia being a bit of a sub-par mob compared to 'proper soldiers' doesn't really do most of them justice. Militia were often 'elite regiments'. It's only really when the world became wedded to professional soldiers that the idea of a militia became something 'second rate'.

Greek hoplites were militia. Alexander's phalangites were militia, as were those of his successors. Republican Roman legions were militia.

It's sort of the long-winded point I was making earlier. If the Colymar militia are viewed with high prestige, there's no reason that militia can't be the 'elite' of Colymar warfare.

[Squaredeal Sten]

2 hours ago, Sir_Godspeed said:

Not really, there will always be people who'll need to stay behind to care for....  

Lastly, I presume some potentially-armed adults need to stay behind just to guard the stead. At least attempt to prevent counter-raids, or keep watch, and so 

There's also food. A mustered militia can hunt and forage, but they'll ........An area will quickly become drained of edible stuff, so some food will always have to be transported, ..

The stay'behihd- for-security percentage does not affect the size of the force, it is merely a choice about where they are deployed. 

It does imply a defensive advantage: If you are defending your own homes you will deploy 100% of the force there, while as invaders invade they will probably leave someone home, and will also garrison invaded territory behind themselves.

Supply trains are a very different issue:  Re. a wagon train full of food, read Van Creveld's book Supplying War.  It makes a convincing argument that in the Real World. away from ocean transport, no army lived off of its supply lines and supply train  for more than a few days, until after railroads were invented.  They lived by foraging, or starved.  Yes areas became eaten out, and that kept armies on the move and was what besieged cities counted on.  Dealing with it and planning to campaign through areas where sufficient food remained was a vital part of generalship. 

So what was in their wagons?  Yes, Food for men and much more food for  the  animals, but they couldn't carry enough for more than a few days.  Tents and cooking gear.  And arrows, lots of arrows, crossbow bolts, etc..  Incidentally for us Mostali lovers, matchlock muskets meant that in unsecure areas. the early modern armies of the 1500s and 1600s had a constant consumption of match cord which is not something you could forage for.

Edited January 30 by Squaredeal Sten
Spelling / typing

[Shiningbrow]

Frankly, I think the difference is fairly obvious... Jonstown.

It's got the largest library outside of Nochet, and one of the largest healing temples anywhere... putting those two together gives you a social culture that is vastly less inclined to going to war (ie, finding peaceful resolutions). Less war, less need for warriors.

It's also been mentioned above, that with having a large city like Jonstown, you have a larger emerging middle class based around crafts & trade, rather than around agriculture. So, having a higher proportion of crafters and traders (as well as administration) is going to have a lower rate of militia (although, also more likely to have a better trained and equipped militia/military).

"Honourable" occupations like healer or scribe are greatly revered and preferred, and so the local tribes and clans will be more likely to produce such people (improve social standing, and possibly wealth - especially since those sons and daughters are more likely to survive than those out on the farms, and thus would be required to send money back home), and such attitudes in general. Compared to the warlike Coiymar, who are far more likely to want their people to be more aggressive. Also, if Colymar lands are more rural/agriculture, there's going to be more to have to fight off, and so more people just generally capable of fighting.

And then, don't forget that Delecti is just around the corner, and every so often the undead wander out and need fighting off.

 

Although the RQG occupations are more directed towards creating better than average citizens, I still think some aspects relate to the rest of the people in a meaningful way. And, in that respect, I'm looking at the base incomes. Rural occupations are only bringing in 40-80L per year, whereas the lowest of the urban occupations (not including bandits/thieves) is 60, and goes up to over 100L (not including occupations such as nobles and priests - although, assistant priests are obviously going to be paid well no matter where they are). Also, urban occupations are far less susceptible to the vicissitudes of nature (because they can source materials from other regions if necessary). So, for the average rural worker, the smart thing to do is to invest in their children's education - not their ability to fight of wolves (or trolls, or broo) - nor have to pay for the upkeep of weapons and armour. If you can't afford to have your kids learn to read and write, then you try your damnedest to get them apprenticed to some crafter, or a hanger-on to a merchant (starting as the gopher), or even a Donander troupe. And, from there, earn enough money to move the family to the city. This logic reflects the real world...

 

[Joerg]

There is trained militia (the infantry and cavalry units of WBRM's City Militia, which is fairly professional) and the pool of ablebodied people who experienced a short bout of militia training or two.

Trained militia will be able to form a line in a battle situation, and receive an enemy attack for long enough to have more professional forces sort things out on another section of the front. They will be able to man fortifications and fend off disadvantaged attackers almost regardless how professional the attackers are.

The mounted militia is well-equipped and has decent abilities with their weapons. They havebeen driled to coordinate the individuals. They can ride a frontal charge against another mounted force or against light infantry, they are trained to attack flanks and rears, they can give chase, and well trained militia will also break off chases or attacks when ordered.

 

Untrained militia will be able to man fortifications (palisades, earth ramparts, doors) and resist attackers for long enough to call in better trained forces. They may finish off or capture downed foes, or guard captives sworn to ransom.

Forces like these will (almost reliably) break under a cavalry charge and won't hold position when faced with skirmishing forces. They may deliver a skirmishing attack to annoy or weaken enemy lines or flanks.

As a rule, these forces fight on their home turf and have that as a tactical or terrain advantage - they know where to hide, what wetlands to avoid, etc., and that means they can still trouble or slow down regulars they are facing.

They may dig ditches and ramparts, latrines, and other such field jobs. (Participation in the road building projects will have left the Princes of Sartar with quite competent pioneers in the militia. Minaryth's dam ambush at the Hill of Orlanth Victorious was possible in part because his forces were used to do earthworks.)

[radmonger]

7 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Rural occupations are only bringing in 40-80L per year, whereas the lowest of the urban occupations (not including bandits/thieves) is 60, and goes up to over 100L

Also, the actual RQ:G 'warrior' occupation is going to be almost entirely urban. A classic rural clan has ~20 nobles (thanes) and almost everyone else who fights as militia (farmers and other occupations which get weapon-skill training)  Sometimes there might be one or two actual full-time warriors employed to drill the militia, or as someone's bodyguard. Plus of course there will be retired warriors turned to farming. So the militia can be pretty formidable, even though it is not professional in the modern sense.

Note that the RQ:G noble profession gets a higher weapon skill than warrior, but less variety of weapons. They are specialists in small-scale fights, not battlefields.

Some tribes, like the Malanni, do build a full-time centralised military force. This is based on the core of the thanes (who in that tribe mostly worship Humakt) but supplemented with warriors paid in coin. I suppose this is mostly because they are more or less permanently at war with the inhabitants of the Upland March.

 

[Jeff]

On 1/29/2024 at 12:53 AM, MagikarpHunter said:

I'm trying to make sense of a few numbers concerning tribe militia. The GM Screen Pack puts the Colymar militia at about 2500 people, with the tribe's population being 12,300. Meanwhile the Starter Set says Jonstown and its local tribes (Malani, Culbrea, Cinsina, Torkani) make a militia at 3000 (500 from Jonstown, 2500 from the tribes) with the population from that area being at around 30,000.

So what I'm wondering is why there is significantly less contribution towards the Jonstown militia when compared to the Colymar. They've got over double the population but aren't making that much larger of a force. The two things I'm thinking might be causing it is that either the Colymar (being more independent from the rest of Sartar) have to make up a bigger individual force to protect themselves, or that the Jonstown Confederation militia isn't reflective of what the tribes would muster if they were left on their own, but there isn't anything to suggest that is the case in the Starter Set.

Any thoughts?

This is really pretty easy. The Colymar are a pretty autonomous group. When they muster the militia for assembly in Fire Season, everyone qualified shows up, especially during the rebellious years of 1625-1626. But when it goes off to war outside its tribal borders, I suspect it is much smaller - probably around 1000 or so. This is the Colymar unit in WBRM.

The Jonstown militia is also both an assembly and a military unit, but it weighted towards the wealthier famers and crafters. In WBRM, they can muster two units under the direction of the city leaders - Foot Militia and Mounted Militia. And to add to that, the Malani tribe have their own separate tribal force that is kept autonomous - the so-called Two Ridge Farm. 

[David Scott]

25 minutes ago, Jeff said:

In WBRM

I love how WRBM is still so relevant today: 

 (Colymar, Foot Militia, Mounted Militia and Two Ridge Farm)

Do you think the Mounted City Militia has a better combat factor and Move due to better resources? I can also imagine the Malani unit is smaller, but packs the same punch.

 

Edited January 30 by David Scott

[Ynneadwraith]

Well this turned into an essay! tl;dr at the bottom...

3 hours ago, Joerg said:

Trained militia will be able to form a line in a battle situation, and receive an enemy attack for long enough to have more professional forces sort things out on another section of the front. They will be able to man fortifications and fend off disadvantaged attackers almost regardless how professional the attackers are.

This might get a little too real-world for the magical world of Glorantha, but I wouldn't underestimate militia in this way, especially in a culture like the Orlanthi. Historically, most pre-modern militia did not receive training, because they did not need to receive training. Their culture and lifestyle provides that training for them. Collective activities like cattle-raiding, group activities like sports and athletics, and general exposure to martial traditions like swordfighting are how cultures ended up with a body of war-capable fighters. This is true of pre-professional Roman legions, Macedonian phalanxes, Greek Hoplites, Gallic warriors etc. etc. These were all very effective bodies of troops.

5 hours ago, Joerg said:

form a line in a battle situation

receive an enemy attack

man fortifications and fend off disadvantaged attackers

has decent abilities with their weapons

coordinate the individuals

[conduct] a frontal charge

give chase

break off chases or attacks

None of these things require additional training for people to reliably do. In a martial culture like the Orlanthi, these things will be drilled into you through cultural experience (and very nearly all pre-modern cultures would be considered 'martial' to these standards). You will have grown up your whole life learning how warfare is conducted. You will have heard multiple precautionary tales about over-stretching while pursuing a fleeing enemy. You will have been play-fighting with stick-swords/spears and shields from an early age. You will have been co-ordinating yourself alongside your fellow warriors-to-be in group activities (sports, construction, harvests etc.).

5 hours ago, Joerg said:

they are trained to attack flanks and rears

Men who have been steeped in a cavalry tradition will know this too.

6 hours ago, Joerg said:

break off chases or attacks when ordered.

The failure to break off chases to routs is an interesting one, as everyone knows 100% this is a really bad thing to do. The difficulty comes in recognising when is the right time to stop chasing. Stop chasing too early and they could reform and attack you again. Stop chasing too late and you could get attacked while out of formation. This is made more difficult by the fact that you individually cannot really see the information you need to to assess when the time comes.

The failure point comes in the communication chain between the chasers who can't assess the situation well and the folks who can. That's a lot to do with the number of officers an army uses, and its available communication methods (which are miniscule in real life, though may be a little better in Glorantha).

There's other failure points which apply to threat identification (especially with cavalry). Cavalry tend to see other cavalry as the most important thing for them to defeat on the battlefield (generally a product of upper-class snobbery). So when they defeat their other halves, they often see it as more important to make extra certain they're defeated and chase them off the battlefield than to do what they're supposed to and support their infantry.

5 hours ago, Joerg said:

Forces like these will (almost reliably) break under a cavalry charge and won't hold position when faced with skirmishing forces.)

This isn't really true. Mainly because breaking under assault (from cavalry, infantry, ranged combat, scary spirits etc.) has very little to do with training. This is a culture steeped in warfare. They know what they'll be facing.

What it does have to do with is cohesion. The will of a body of people to keep fighting. This is the decisive factor in warfare, not your individual martial prowess. Cohesion in cultures like the Orlanthi is built through shared community, and is generally enforced by shame. You are fighting side-by-side with everyone you know, and everyone who knows you. If you run away, they are likely to die. If you are the first to run away, everyone you know will know you left them to die. This is a powerful, powerful motivator. And it's something that occurs naturally from living (and fighting) as part of a tight-knit community.

I think the confusion around the importance of training comes from a deracinated modern perspective where training is used to build cohesion. In the absence of strong community ties, our armies put people through gruelling shared experiences to forge a new community between unrelated individuals. There's also an element of building military skills that are absent in our civilian life in a way that didn't exist for pre-modern societies, rendering the skills part of that training more necessary.

This is why the Romans only start training regimes when they move to a professional army. They understand that they need to build cohesion between unrelated people to make an effective fighting force. That cohesion isn't particularly stronger than 'natural' cohesion, but the professionalisation offers other benefits that in the long run proved effective, though on any given day are far from decisive.

6 hours ago, Joerg said:

They may dig ditches and ramparts, latrines, and other such field jobs.

Interestingly, this is one of the few places that additional training does seem to make a difference. The Romans got a hell of a lot better at their engineering works after they professionalised their armies.

tl;dr I suppose what I'm getting at is that in a culture like the Orlanthi, there is no such thing as an untrained militia.

• You will have militiamen who are unbloodied and thus less exposed to rigours of combat, but they won't be formed up in a single weaker formation to fend for themselves. They will be fighting side-by-side with the more experienced members of their militia, who can lead by example, show them what to do, and prop up their morale if it wavers.
• You will have militia that are more experienced than others, which will potentially show in greater cohesion (though it's not a given, seeing as motivation to fight is the key factor).
• You will have formations of professional soldiers (royal guards etc.) deployed alongside militia. Their role will be to face off against dangerous elements of the other force, and prop up the morale of others. Unless they number a significant proportion of the army (say at least 10% if cavalry, more if infantry), they're unlikely to be the battle-winning military arm (though they're going to tell you they were).
• It is willingness to keep fighting, not individual skill at arms that is the decisive factor in winning battles. Part of the way you erode that willingness to keep fighting is by killing people, or looking tough an scary, so individual skill at arms isn't a non-factor, but it's nowhere near the primary one.
• Militia are fully capable of producing stunning amounts of cohesion naturally through their peacetime communal structures. Professional armies need to use training to artificially produce a strong community without that peacetime structure. This is hard, and many professional forces proved to be less cohesive than their unprofessional adversaries (and thus performed poorly).

[Ynneadwraith]

7 hours ago, Joerg said:

They may deliver a skirmishing attack to annoy or weaken enemy lines or flanks.

Skirmishers are an interesting one in that they can often buck the trend for not lumping together inexperienced fighters. Depending on the cultural attitude towards skirmishing (i.e. whether it's seen as a decisive arm of an army), you might get differing results.

The pre-professional Romans did value skirmishers, but they weren't seen as decisive. They did put their more unbloodied newer recruits into the Velites, which is less of an issue than in the main line because if they break they can fall back to the safety of the more experienced fighters behind them (indeed this is an expected part of their battlefield role). This exposes them to warfare from the relative safety of skirmishing, all the while being overlooked by all of their social superiors in the main line which maintains the social pressure in cohesion.

Edited January 30 by Ynneadwraith

[French Desperate WindChild]

22 hours ago, Sir_Godspeed said:

Not really, there will always be people who'll need to stay behind to care for said elderly, or care for young children, etc. Now, granted, some of those will themselves will be the older kids and the comparatively more able-bodied and clear-minded elderly, but there'll always be a minimum of "regular" adults. 

Then there's the the need to care for the animals. There's just no avoiding that. Older kids can do a lot, but you'll still need some adults. 

Lastly, I presume some potentially-armed adults need to stay behind just to guard the stead. At least attempt to prevent counter-raids, or keep watch, and so forth. 

There's also maintenance. Things still need fixing, producing, collection, etc

I agree with you for all these roles / activities  but what I see is most of them are managed by Ernaldan, old Orlanthi (people too old for war, but "young" enough to manage it), disabled people (regrow limbs is not for everyone), and peaceful/oath/ any "passion" blocking the call of war. Probably some real militiamen to guard the stead but not so much (retired veteran can do that too)

 

Now all of that is based on "milicia" mean fighting people. If "milicia" mean fighting people + non-fighting supports (heal, supply, etc...), it may be different

 

about food, I believe (i may be wrong) that if you use militia for a long time it is for defensive purpose, so they are in their lands, they know their wild, they have access to their supplies, etc. You will not send your militia too far and too long just because you need too much support (and you need arms for earth season activities. One raid for your feud yes, a big campaign no.

 

 

[Ynneadwraith]

9 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

You will not send your militia too far and too long just because you need too much support (and you need arms for earth season activities. One raid for your feud yes, a big campaign no.

And there we get to the actual benefit of professional armies 😉

You can get quite far and back again in the agricultural off-season, but it does put a finite limit on activities.

[Jeff]

2 hours ago, Ynneadwraith said:

Well this turned into an essay! tl;dr at the bottom...

This might get a little too real-world for the magical world of Glorantha, but I wouldn't underestimate militia in this way, especially in a culture like the Orlanthi. Historically, most pre-modern militia did not receive training, because they did not need to receive training. Their culture and lifestyle provides that training for them. Collective activities like cattle-raiding, group activities like sports and athletics, and general exposure to martial traditions like swordfighting are how cultures ended up with a body of war-capable fighters. This is true of pre-professional Roman legions, Macedonian phalanxes, Greek Hoplites, Gallic warriors etc. etc. These were all very effective bodies of troops.

For what it is worth, that's not quite true. Or more precisely, it relies on an overly narrow definition of training. In Greece, this was done as part of the Ephebos - those 18-20 year old men were given military training, patrolled, etc. They learned the skills of fighting in a phalanx, etc. This was likely also tied into assemblies (such as of the Macedonian tribes), religious festivals (such as the Pyrrhic dances), and so on.

The Sartarites do the same. Traditionally, new adults in Orlanthi cultures go through a period of cult training or apprenticeship, often called the “Ordeal Years”. The newly initiated young men (which include those women chosen by Vinga) are brought to Orlanth Adventurous and given weapons, a cloak, and a broad hat. This is sometimes done by the clan, more often by the tribe; in some cities, the young men live in the temple or guild house; in other traditional clans, they live in the wilderness. For the next two years, they learn to fight alone and as part of the militia. They raid and hunt, learn to run long distances, how to climb cliffs, and other physical training. Most importantly, they learn the songs and dances of the Orlanthi gods and heroes, how to speak with spirits, and of sex, the bonds of friendship, and the duties of men.

Now during the Lunar Occupation of places like Boldhome, New Pavis, or the other Sartarite cities, this had to be more circumspect. Young men were often sent to relatives in the countryside to learn how to be Orlanthi - for example, many went to Garhound in Pavis County, where they were under the protection of the clan chieftain. In Boldhome, many had kin among the tribes.

Ironically, this may have created a stronger and more defined Orlanth cult identity among the Sartarite communities and one often more loyal or devoted to the Orlanth cult to their own city.

This is the basis of the militia - every Orlanth initiate has trained with his peers and learned to form a cohesive fighting group. And these are the same quality of troops as make up the Lunar Provincial Army or much of the Heartland Corps cavalry. Alternatively, another way of looking at it, is that a lot of those Lunar Army units are militia as well.

[Ynneadwraith]

@Jeff You're right of course, though I suspect the more narrow definition of training is the one most people in the modern world would jump to first. The idea that you are 'untrained' and ineffective before you join the military, and are trained to be effective once you have joined. I'm not entirely sure @Joerg even suggested that, but I suppose I saw an opportunity to witter on about ye olde warfare 😄 

I'd say the broader point still stands. Cultures do not need to conduct specific military training when inducting people into the army (unlike us) because their day-to-day life has already provided that for them. Cultures that didn't provide that don't tend to last very long next to cultures that did.

Where you do find cultures who do not provide this for their people, it's usually an artificial circumstance applied to them by another group (e.g. demilitarisation of lower classes by a warrior class, or of certain groups by their conquerors). Either that or they're fortunate enough to live in a place without any endemic warfare (such as a fair chunk of the modern world).

29 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Alternatively, another way of looking at it, is that a lot of those Lunar Army units are militia as well.

This is a good point to make. In the pre-modern world you had to go a long way, and get into some really rather sophisticated state structures before you found a military that is not at least 90% militia of one sort or other. Rome unified the Italian Peninsular, beat Carthage, conquered Spain, Greece and Macedon and wrested control of Western Asia Minor from the Seleucids with their militia. There's nowt wrong with militia (provided their culture values them).

[Darius West]

In the case of Sartarites, it is important also to factor in the value of veterancy.  The fact is, that everyone of fighting age in 1626 has lived through Lunar occupation, the Long Winter, the Dragonrise, and quite possibly one or more pitched battles too.  Many Sartarites have been living rough as adventurers or something else.  Of course the Lunars have this too, but their armies are larger, and there are fewer chances for combat as a result.  The number of near-heroes and self funded Rune Lords and Rune Priests is going to make a difference, and not just in the Sartar Magical Union imo.  It is all very much like the Praxian thing about being driven into the Wastes to grow stronger.

[MagikarpHunter]

32 minutes ago, Darius West said:

Of course the Lunars have this too, but their armies are larger, and there are fewer chances for combat as a result.  

The Dragonrise also took out the vast majority of the Lunar veterans that participated in things like the Holy Country campaign and quashing tribal rebellions, which probably helps to give the Sartarites another edge in terms of skill.

[Akhôrahil]

On 1/30/2024 at 8:33 PM, Ynneadwraith said:

This might get a little too real-world for the magical world of Glorantha, but I wouldn't underestimate militia in this way, especially in a culture like the Orlanthi. Historically, most pre-modern militia did not receive training, because they did not need to receive training. Their culture and lifestyle provides that training for them. Collective activities like cattle-raiding, group activities like sports and athletics, and general exposure to martial traditions like swordfighting are how cultures ended up with a body of war-capable fighters. This is true of pre-professional Roman legions, Macedonian phalanxes, Greek Hoplites, Gallic warriors etc. etc. These were all very effective bodies of troops.

Yes and no. You don't need weapons training to stand in the hoplite line, but you do need to train in formation fighting, maneuver, and marching. In RuneQuest, this is Battle training, not Weapons training. You don't become a better hoplite by being aces at spear-to-spear combat, you become a better hoplite by holding fast in the face of slaughter and by maintaining unit cohesion.

When the clan or tribal militia trains in Fire Season, some of it might be weapons training with a weaponthane or housecarl (although I imagine a lot of that was done by your dad or by whoever happens to be the best fighter in the village), but most will be about refreshing everyone on formation fighting and understanding orders. Much like in any modern army - rifle accuracy is a small part of the infantryman's job.