@lotus253 Good research tools are so expensive and research credit for archeology so small (I can only talk about France laboratories)… What a shame 
You’re telling me! But I did get a chance to help out a college professor who needed to find out if a Roman coin was solid lead or contained something else. My EDXRF spectrometer is sensitive enough for that lol it’s not All Out Of Reach, just most of the fun Parts LOL
I know that the english didn’t use bows in 19th century, they had the superlative Martini-Henry at their side 
For military caste I speak about a role into a society that is inherited directly by their fathers. The roman legionaries, or the athenians hoplites didn’t inherit that role, they were conscripts or volunteers and they were paid by the state to do that job. It was different for the spartan hoplite, a spartan inherit his role of warrior into the society, he was a warrior by right of birth as his father was a warrior too, he can never be demoted to be an helot (a slave) or an artisan and he can’t never be something different than a warrior, his social status can’t change, plus he isn’t paid to go to war that’s because going to war was seen as a social duty to the Spartan’s warrior caste.
These are the differences between a standing army made up of commoners conscripted for war and a standing army composed by a caste of warriors, infact when Sparta had lost too many of his warriors against Athens in the peloponnesian wars, the helots, the spartans slaves, rised up in rebellion against their overlords. That’s why the other greek power didn’t have a caste system anymore, it cause problems if you loose too many of your warriors, plus you need a massive amount of slaves to sustain the warrior caste itself and a massive amount of slaves will lead to rebellions.
Ps: I almost forgot, a roman legionary wasn’t ever idle doing just training, when not at war he build roads, he build forts, he build acqueducts, he build bridges, he was the bringer of roman civilization in the pacified territories, it was his duty to show the world the greatness of Rome.
A spartan hoplite, well, he does nothing than train himself for war, as every caste warrior has done before him.
1 Like
Actually I was thinking of the campaigns of Arthur Wellesley, long before the Martini Henry was even a thought, but yeah, you get the point.
Slight correction though: Athenian Hoplites 100% inherited the role from their fathers. The citizenship and property requirements that came with the role of Hoplite (and Legionary) effectively meant that very few people would serve whose parents hadn’t been in the army before them. Even when, in Rome, the military became professionalized a lot of soldiers where the sons, and grandsons of soldiers, although it wasn’t a requirement, it was still quite common (same is true for a lot of soldiers today).
You shouldn’t think of Hellenic and Roman armies as “commoners conscripted for war,” because that’s a misleading way of looking at it. Serving in the military was seen as a privilege, not a burden, and you had to meet certain social and property requirements to do so (except in times of the utmost need, like during the second Punic war, when the standard was relaxed). This is even more the case with Hoplites since part of the system requires them to be able to pay for their own equipment (Hoplite equipment is expensive and does little for you outside of war, so you need to be able to spend a small fortune on what, a lot of the time, will be a wall decoration).
Sparta is slightly different though: You don’t need a huge amount of slaves to support a warrior caste, you just need a society where some people are farmers. The thing with Sparta was the entire city was a warrior caste. Helots and Slaves where from the cities around Sparta, but the actual city was just a martial caste. Which creates its somewhat unique situation. In other places (for example look at the Theban Sacred Band, which is a warrior caste minus possibly your fatherhood requirement, it does not take a lot of slaves to sustain a 300 man warrior elite).
Slight misconception on the (Professional Imperial) legionary front as well. When not at war they did sometimes build roads, aqueducts etc. However they where not constantly doing this, they build infrastructure in their immediate vicinity and then settled into their forts. If you read up on some of the legions in the east they became so settled and the postings so cushty that some legionaries and officers where running businesses out of their camps. Long periods of time where spent idle and, (as long as their officers where good) training because there was nothing else for them to do [especially since a lot of the day to day work of securing the borders was being done by the auxiliary soldiers rather than the legionaries].
@kelte I think it is a bit too much to say that Sparta had a military caste, because the spartan hoplite had also political/cultural activities and I think it is a bit weird to talk about military caste when there is only one caste of citizen hence not reduce to their military role (the other two were not citizen).
Like all greek at that time they were more citizen-soldier. They had a form of military service (agoge) : young spartan had to train from 7 to 30 yo (30 was the age of full citizenship). Moreover you can loss your citizenship if you were coward in battle or if you did not pay the annual fee.
After the age of 30 they still fight when needed but they also manage politic and cultural life in the city.
-
the Agoge was training and was more than just martial arts. It also trained young men to be orators, politicians, culturalists, and philosophers in the lacadimion style of terse witticisms and fearlessness. Look up Lycurgus’s reforms if you’re interested in early Spartan society.
-
there was only one class of citizen in Sparta… However, the Perioeci were free men, able to do whatever they pleased without the ability to vote, but that’s about it. In all other respects, they were the secondary backbone to the spartan society other than the Helots and slaves.
-
when part of your training in the Agoge was to be a member of the Krypteia and kill random slaves and helots, terrorize and burn their huts and houses, and generally become a militarized secret police… It seems to me that you are a member of a society in which there are distinct castes and you are a member of the military caste.
@Sargon Your point 1 is a bit contradictory with your point 3 
The way I see it : Spartan was more a ruling cast than a pure military cast. I did not say they do not perform military activities but they are more than that. Labelling them as military cast is a bit reductive don’t you think ?
However, I am well aware that the border is not clear and most of the time spartan are define as a military caste.
For me, a pure military caste are the jaguar warrior of the aztec or the knight order in europe.
Then you have military-ruling hybrid caste like spartan and samurai (samurai start as a pure military caste then reach ruling power with the Tokugawa Shogunate).
not really. a part of any knight’s training was to learn Latin, read the classics, have an education in the arts and mathematics as well as music and courtly manners; not to mention politics, strategy, and diplomacy. The point I was making was that pretty much every military caste in history does more than just martial endeavors. They also have to be useful in peace time, meaning that they had to learn to govern - look at any warrior caste and notice that they hold most of if not all of the power in their given societies - thus, driving them to need to learn things other than warfare.
As I am not familiar with the Jaguars, I can’t comment on them. So, I am only talking about knights.
in fact, I challenge you to find a single military caste in a society that only eats, drinks, sleep, and fights… If they do a single parade, dig a single canal, build a single road, or grow a single crop then they don’t count in your eyes as a martial caste? You will never find such devoted castes as there is always some ritual to perform, some feast to be had, or some crops to be grown. In fact, the Spartans had gardens in their estates and even the shared barracks had communal theater and games.
@Sargon I think that jaguar warrior are actually really close to your definition 
In peace time (which nearly never happen) They escort the marchands. And they perform gladiatorial sacrifice (ritual). I think parade is a part of military caste activities by the way (display of your strenght).
I did not say that they not do other activities not related to military as long as there are not the only one to do it. If you remove the spartans caste there is no city anymore but if you remove knight in europe for exemple you still have a ruling caste and clergy. In Sparta all these roles were merge in one caste.
no. if you removed the Spartan hoplites, you would still have the Gerusia and the dual kingship and therefore a state, however, the slaves and helots would likely rebel. Same as in Europe, if the knights went away, then the serfs and peasants would likely rebel.
I do not agree, the gerusia was elected among the Spartan hoplites so part of the same caste.
For the knight you are a bit picky 
. I did not say that the society will work without them (if they were there it was because they were needed). Just that the none military roles could be fill without them.
older, not fit for combat Spartans, yes. These guys are the elders of society and unfit for combat. Without knights, military roles were easily filled with mercenaries and citizen soldiers as is evident in the Italian Renaissance city states. (Though, I’d argue that the citizen soldier of Machiavelli’s description was fairly useless). Regardless, Knights ruled just as much as the other societies you’re describing. They had manors and subjects just as samurai did. The only major difference is that there was no Knight warlord to rule all knight warlords.
@Thank but I already know this chart 
. Moreover you can see that this hierachy is all closer to the athens one :
Than the aztec one :
Or the medieval europe one :
Again I did not say that military roles could not be filled by others that knight… I admit that the knight exemple is not the best one (I hesitate to put it in the first place). In this end a military caste always has some power (for abvious reasons) but when you have no other caste to share the power with then it is call an elite/ruling caste. Moreover spartan hoplites performe all the religious activities of their city (never heard a knight leading the church office, outside the religious order like tempar of course ).
Anyway I think we are drifting too much. I don’t think either of us could change the view of the other so we can agreed to close the argument here don’t you think ?
well, I find your view to be problematic because it literally has no meaning. I don’t mind stopping, but I still don’t quite understand how a military caste can’t be composed of the ruling elite… or how a ruling elite can’t be composed of the military caste… And, yes… you did say that [quote=“louis.mervoyer, post:72, topic:1095”]
For the knight you are a bit picky . I did not say that the society will work without them (if they were there it was because they were needed). Just that the no military roles could be fill without them.
[/quote]
@Sargon Ah this a vocabury mistake, I meam none military role like clergy ruling etc not that knight were absolutly needed for military. Sorry for the misunderstanding, english is not my native language. I will change it for better unterstanding.
As for military caste ruling you can have dual ruling like ancient egypt (military and priest caste), priest caste for aztec. China had a noble caste of legist which was very powerful.
In the end there is several center of power : religious, military, administrative, merchant, etc. And elite caste do not alway fight. It is true that military caste and elite caste merge into one role is more common but it is not alway the case. I would not dare to challenge you regarding sumer but there were a important priest caste and literate/script caste.
If you want to have a good exemple you can look the history of Japan. At first there were a ruling caste with administrative/literate capabilities (Fujiwara clan) and they use a military caste (Taira and Minamoto, it was more like specialized clan but you get the idea). Then the military caste take more and more importance and take the power. Then they fight each other (Genpei war). The winner Minamoto creat the shogunate where the military caste is the ruling caste.
In the end it is not very polite to say that someone view has no meaning . There is as many view as individual and even if you do not see the meaning it don’t mean it has not.
I apologize for your English errors but I am not responsible for the fact that what you said did actually make very little sense. I am not a polite person. When someone is wrong I tend to speak my mind and am fully ready to change my opinion if they have a convincing argument.
Secondarily, you literally said: [quote=“louis.mervoyer, post:72, topic:1095”]
Just that the none military roles could be fill without them.
[/quote]
“them” referring to knights.
Then you said: [quote=“louis.mervoyer, post:76, topic:1095”]
Again I did not say that military roles could not be filled by others that knight
[/quote]
That, to me, is no simple vocabulary error. That is either a very bold lie or a very strange form of self-contradiction.
Thirdly, I said: [quote=“Sargon, post:77, topic:1095”]
I don’t mind stopping, but I still don’t quite understand how a military caste can’t be composed of the ruling elite… or how a ruling elite can’t be composed of the military caste
[/quote]
I apologize if you thought I meant that I think all ruling elites are the military caste, but that isn’t the meaning of what I said. In light of your claim that the Spartan’s are a ruling elite and not a military caste, I responded by questioning why can’t they be both a military caste and a ruling elite? Why do they have to be separate in your eyes?
@Sargon I admit that spartan are both military/ruling and priest caste that why I call them “elite” caste. They are most of the time reduce to military only and they were more than that.
The mistake no/none change all the meaning of the sentence and I apologize for it. What I mean was : roles which were not military that knight something do could be done without them. Agreed ?