Some Questions about Military History

[Redistribute the Rep]

I'm just having a hard time understanding the class element of military history. It seems like in feudalism the armies were made up of somewhat higher class people compared to the peasant class or sometimes even just from the aristocracy itself (George Washington, etc). Is that correct? And if so how has it evolved into what we have today where lower class people are in the military, like in Vietnam in which 80% of the military was from the lower class? And also why were women never allowed to fight?

[#FF0000]

I'm just having a hard time understanding the class element of military history. It seems like in feudalism the armies were made up of somewhat higher class people compared to the peasant class or sometimes even just from the aristocracy itself (George Washington, etc). Is that correct? And if so how has it evolved into what we have today where lower class people are in the military, like in Vietnam in which 80% of the military was from the lower class? And also why were women never allowed to fight?

Armies were usually made up of levied peasants who generally had to provide their own weapons and armor. Wealthier fighters had better weapons and armor, and the wealthiest generally made up cavalry units, who often just chased down fleeing enemies.

Difference is that today, poor folks are given training and weapons to fight with.

As for why women rarely fought -- that's to do with gender roles and ideas of what women were capable of. They believed that men were simply more suited for combat. That's a generalization though -- female warriors called onna-bugeisha weren't uncommon in Japan before the samurai class was a thing.

[exeexe]

Napoleon is an exception here since he was the topguy in the system but he was also very close to the frontline in times of war but other than that it was usual the case that a well positioned guy would command the army from the rear.

in 1st world war the aristocracy had the privilege to take positions in the army which would take you far away from the frontline and thus you wouldnt get killed.

This had the implications that not the best decisions were made but on the other hand it was the exploited class people that would die.

Then in 2nd world war this had changed. Maybe the demand for good decision making had been so demanding that you now needed people with good military understand to command the army or something.
And we also see how Stalin killed almost the whole bunch of officers in his army when Hitler invaded USSR. Thats because Stalin realized he need men that could make good decisions and not men that would use their rank as a poor excuse for cowardly hiding from the frontline.

Now a days the military is used by the system to recruit people randomly but those who are recruited from bad living conditions will be giving an opportunity to increase their living conditions, perhaps they will get a driving license or an education etc.

So today it kind of like work as a bribe. The state bribe people who are poor and now they will work and kill for the state, even when its not in their class-interest.

[Alexios]

The Hundred Years War changed the class character of armies quite a bit, with the cavalry becoming less important and thus allowing for non-nobles to serve more extensively.

[o well this is ok I guess]

armed peasants and such were present, and of extreme importance (they were the only soldiers capable of occupying territory, as infantry still is) but they're of course passed over by history in the same way they were passed over by their superiors, for the same reason commanders are more well known than their regiments. Individually they were far inferior to the aristocratic soldiers, who had the leisure to train themselves with arms as well as the money to buy them, as well as having no military culture to speak of (which is the point of historical interest for aristocratic soldiers, or even for simple bandits). They were, you know, farmers with spears and chain mail, amateurs-in-arms, bodies filling space.

And that aside, training underclasses in the military arts is inherently dangerous to any state where class conflict might occur. Peasant revolts and slave uprisings weren't uncommon, and therefore to make the poor infantry a military match for cavalry (especially ones own) meant a potential loss of political control. This is has actually remained constant for the whole history of warfare right up to modern times (The spartan and its spartans, the tsarist regime and its cossacks, the french army of WWI and its artillery divisions, the modern infantry and the modern airforce).

[ComradeOm]

In medieval Europe cavalry was generally the be all and end all. In terms of very rough dates, Adrianople (378) to Crécy (1346) was generally the era of heavy cavalry supremacy. An armoured horsemen simply had immense advantages over an infantryman and in this period it was uncommon for a mounted force to lose to footmen.

This had immense implications for European history for the simple reason that horses were expensive to maintain. Those who controlled the land could field the largest number of horsemen (and vice versa). The result was that the feudal elite was predominately a military elite - the nobility was essentially a caste of highly trained and professional warriors who used force to control the land.

In this scheme of things the role of infantry was generally supportive and defensive. It was important to have them for pitched battles or garrisons (particularly professionals such as archers and engineers) but they were rarely decisive on the battlefield. Of course, most medieval generals preferred to avoid battle at all - they were inherently expensive and risky gambles.

The role of the infantry increased considerably in the late medieval and early modern period, as technology transformed the battlefield. This has little impact on the continent's class structure though - the feudal state was well established and the new armies were largely professional/mercenary in nature. While the officer class and cavalry continued to be dominated by the nobility, feudal service was increasingly tendered in cash terms and so the nobility slowly lost its inherently military nature.

Armies still tended to be relatively small and professional - with the expectation that they were as likely to be used against domestic rebels as foreign enemies. The big change came with the French Revolutionary Wars when the new revolutionary government initiated the levée en masse in 1793, thus creating the first modern mass army. The 'nation in arms' gave Revolutionary France massive armies (about 1m soldiers in 1795 versus 150k pre-revolution) and basically saw them trample over the rest of Europe for the next two decades.

Post-Waterloo, there was a temporary reversion to small professional armies but by now the genie was out of the bottle. Large infantry armies, supported by artillery, were clearly the way forward and within a few decades every Great Power was making use of conscript armies. These were only possible when the state was sufficiently developed to muster them and when there was a sense of national identity that could be tapped into.

Today there is still a class element to the officer class, partly from design (the US Army requires its officers have a bachelor's degree) and partly from tradition (in the UK it's common for upper class children to do a stint in the army).


Napoleon is an exception here since he was the topguy in the system but he was also very close to the frontline in times of war but other than that it was usual the case that a well positioned guy would command the army from the rearNo, it was common in Napoleon's days that the general would take up a position relatively close to the frontlines (preferably on a hill) to direct the battle in person. It wasn't until later that the generals would seclude themselves in a headquarters and direct an entire front by telephone/telegraph.

And obviously generals in medieval times often led directly from the front, commanding the cavalry in person.


And we also see how Stalin killed almost the whole bunch of officers in his army when Hitler invaded USSR. Thats because Stalin realized he need men that could make good decisions and not men that would use their rank as a poor excuse for cowardly hiding from the frontline. No, that's because Stalin claimed that all his generals were secret Trotskyists and White Guards who were conspiring with Nazi Germany to overthrow him. That and he didn't realise the disastrous impact that gutting the Red Army's officer corps a few years before a war.


armed peasants and such were present, and of extreme importance (they were the only soldiers capable of occupying territory, as infantry still is)Garrison soldiers would have been professional mercenaries, commanded by a knight. It would be very unusual for a commander to entrust a castle, which were typically of immense strategic importance, to conscripted peasants.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Garrison soldiers would have been professional mercenaries, commanded by a knight. It would be very unusual for a commander to entrust a castle, which were typically of immense strategic importance, to conscripted peasants. I'll cede the direct point, but nonetheless territory refers not to any specific strategic objective. Territory is merely land for which one exerts control over.

[ComradeOm]

I'll cede the direct point, but nonetheless territory refers not to any specific strategic objective. Territory is merely land for which one exerts control over.Which was the specific purpose of the castle. If there was no local castle/citadel, or it couldn't be occupied, then punitive cavalry raids were the preferred way of terrorising the local population into submission. But from the high middle ages through to the early modern period, armies would throw up even temporary castles if they wanted to occupy a region.

Remember that medieval warfare was largely discrete - two compact armies manoeuvring against each other. There was no frontline in the modern sense and nor was there the requirement to garrison every village. A medieval army largely travelled and fought as one unit, ie it wasn't spread out over several square kilometres like its modern successors.

Hence the massive importance of fortifications - they provided solid safe points in what was a very fluid form of warfare. An army could travel from castle to castle in relative safety and the immediate surrounding countryside would be largely protected from the enemy's raiding. To control the castle was to control the land.

[Zoroaster]

To Russian Red:

Due to both the small amount of rich people and their influence over the working class, almost every army in history has been made up of a large majority of poor, working-class people. The bourgeois is able to use their influence to justify their wars, causing thousands of patriotic workers to arm themselves and fight for the privileges of the minority. This model has been replicated for most of history, including even the Soviet Union and North Korea, with powerful politicians directing the uneducated workers to their deaths. Women have been excluded due to the normal conservative bullshit about women being inferior.

However, a few armies, like the Ukranian Insurrectionary Army, the Left-Wing militia's in the Spanish Civil War, and the Zapatista's have rejected this model and replaced it with a democratic model. Soldiers, whether man or woman, would elect their officers, and everything was handled democratically, leading to an increase in efficiency.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well thanks for your responses regarding the relationships between classes with regard to military history. However, I'm still looking for more information on the roles of women and why they were generally excluded from the military. Does it have something to do with them not owning property, and therefore they wouldn't have land to protect? It was also noted in this thread that the peasant soldiers often provided their own weapons and such, so that could also be a reason women weren't able to join. Anyone have some insight on this topic?

[exeexe]

If there is a war and both men and woman participate in the war and everyone on the front line dies then who should make the next generation? I think thats the main reason why woman are normally/historically not seen on the front line.

If you are in a position where you are being asked to have an army of 1 million humans in 20 years would you then prefer to have 1 male and 1 million females or 1 female and 1 million males to realize that goal?

[Redistribute the Rep]

If there is a war and both men and woman participate in the war and everyone on the front line dies then who should make the next generation? I think thats the main reason why woman are normally/historically not seen on the front line.

If you are in a position where you are being asked to have an army of 1 million humans in 20 years would you then prefer to have 1 male and 1 million females or 1 female and 1 million males to realize that goal?

Well the armies weren't that large back then the first national army was created in the French Revolution. And I'm trying to look at it from a materialist perspective, like with regards to women's relationship with property

[exeexe]

The population was also not large

[Hrafn]

Well the armies weren't that large back then the first national army was created in the French Revolution. And I'm trying to look at it from a materialist perspective, like with regards to women's relationship with property

Hardly correct.

[ComradeOm]

However, I'm still looking for more information on the roles of women and why they were generally excluded from the military. Does it have something to do with them not owning property, and therefore they wouldn't have land to protect?The property requirement is relevant in that in a patriarchal society the role women was quite limited and traditionally did not extend to he military. Fighting was a male prerogative with the female relegated to maintaining the household in the absence of its nominal head.

This is more complex than them 'having a stake to protect' (even in medieval times there were occasionally female rulers) but I'd suggest that the primary reason is pretty straightforward: for much of history warfare has required a relatively high measure of physical strength. Particularly so during antiquity and the medieval period when much of modern European society took shape. In late medieval times an armoured knight would have been built like a modern professional rugby player. (There were always female exceptions of course - Sichelgaita of Salerno was renowned for fighting alongside her husband in battle - but I can't think of any pre-modern culture in which women fought in large numbers.)

It's only really in the last two centuries or so that that minimum physical requirement has lapsed. That it's since taken so long to become acceptable for women to serve is more a testament to established gender roles in society.