Evolution of the Modern Army (18 Pics)

In today’s post we are going to examine the evolution of the modern, western style army. This post will trace the development of western military thinking from the fall of Rome to the 20th century. Why the focus on western systems? Well mainly because due to western dominance and colonization in the 19th and early 20th century every modern nation state has organized its military on a western model. This post covers roughly 1,500 years of history. It is an extremely broad survey and as such there is a lot left out. My aim is to cover as much ground as possible. If you are interested in more details check my post history, I have scores of history posts with more details on almost all these periods,

The ancient world saw several professional armies. The Assyrians created the first professional army - but their empire disintegrated. The Macedonians created the next professional national army under their king Philip II. However the Macedonian would fall victim to the levy armies of republican Rome. The drafted citizen armies of the Roman republic, under the strain of maintaining imperial possessions, would give way to an all professional force. However with the decline and fall of the western empire so too did the professional standing army disappear from Western Europe. The Germanic groups that replaced Roman rule in Western Europe had a very different military system. Starting around the 2nd century AD, the Germanic rulers started gathering around them small bodies of professional warriors- the comitatus. These were a small corps of veteran warriors dependent on a powerful lord as a “ring giver”. He supplied them with food, honor, and wealth. In return warriors pledged their blades. Powerful and generous lords attracted swords from all over. Warriors were eager to fight for lords who would bring them reputation and wealth. The ancient Germanic culture had a strong warrior tradition. It was the right of free men to carry arms, and manhood was won on the battlefield. As well as this driving cultural force, wealth in the ancient world was primarily gained through conquest. Financial options were much more limited in those times than today.

The comitatus system was not only utilized by the Germanic peoples, but its usage even spread to the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire. Generals maintained their own elite corps of troops - their “hard biscuit eaters”. The problem with this system was it was fundamentally unstable. Troops were loyal to their general not the emperor or state. The Byzantines would replace this comitatus system with the thematic system. The thematic system was based around many military districts - each with their own general and troops. The Emperor had his own personal forces as well. These themes could respond to incursions, however individually they were too weak to threaten the emperor.

What differentiates a knight from any other mounted warrior? The concept of the knight evolved very gradually over the centuries following the fall of Rome. Even during the late western empire cavalry had been the dominant force on the battlefield. The strength of the still existing Eastern Empire was in its cavalry and would remain so. The Germanic elite warriors, some faster then others, adopted mounted warfare. The Goths and Langobards were earlier adopters, the Franks were slow, the East Franks (or Saxons) even slower. Through the 6th-11th centuries the armored proto-knights developed. These were known as Milites (soldiers) or Loricati (armored ones). So again what differentiated knights from simply armored horsemen? In many ways the concept of Knighthood was born from the desire to reconcile the latent pagan warrior culture of these elite warriors with their newer Christian beliefs. These fellows where savage and ferocious warriors, and in many cases the scourge of the peasant class. However they were equally afraid of the fires of hell. The idea of the knight is many ways intertwined with Christianity, a way for these warriors to fit into the Christian world view- a world view that condemned bloodshed. By buying into a social contract they could save their souls from hell. The comitatus system naturally evolved into feudalism as the tribal groups grew into more cohesive political units. The lord’s position as “ring-giver” continued- he provided lands to his retainers, in return the knight offered his sword. The need for heavily armored and mounted warriors also meant the knight needed rents from the land to pay for his extremely expensive military equipment. Over these formative centuries these mounted fighting men evolved a sense of class consciousness as knights, members of an exclusive social order.

However the feudal systems had weaknesses, weaknesses revealed during the 100 years war. Warfare for much of the earlier and high Middle Ages was limited. Battles were actually very rare. Most warfare revolved around pillaging territory or besieging castles. Lords and knights spent part of the year on campaign. However they also needed to maintain their estates. Over time they became more reluctant to fight, they wanted to manage their interests - impossible during extended periods of warfare. In many areas this gave rise to the concept of scutage. Instead of serving in person, knights would simply pay for a mercenary knight to fight in their place. This essentially became an organized system of taxation enabling the first wave of professional armies.

The 100 years war saw a military revolution in Europe- the creation of the first standing French and English armies. The Englishmen fighting on the continent were generally paid professionals. Long service troops to garrison the French castles were needed. The French resorted to mercenaries in order to drive off the English. These mercenaries eventually morphed into the first French professional standing army - known as the French Ordonance. Basically the 100 years war revealed that Feudal troops who could only serve away from home for a limited amount of time per year were not suitable for sophisticated campaigns. It was more efficient to just tax these people instead and maintain standing armies. The 100 years war also helped create national identities of English and French. Identities vital for a national army.

Previously the knight had been the dominant force on the battlefield. Two troop-types of commoners challenged the knight - the English longbowman and the Swiss halberdier (and later Pikeman). English Longbowmen were not wretched peasants, but generally of the yeomenry. The longbow was used in mass volleys. Archery was a numbers game. A single arrow was unlikely to penetrate plate armor- thousands of arrows had a chance to do serious damage. Archery mainly disordered an enemy line rather than killing high numbers of knights. Archery was also deadly against horses - this lead to many knights starting to fight on foot with cut down lances. English longbowmen were also hand to hand fighters, also equipped for melee. The English famously won many battles against the French, but the French won the War. The French hired new mercenary commanders who simply did not play into the longbow’s strengths. They instead attacked quickly and unexpectedly before the English could properly set up. The Swiss were the other great foot soldiers of the Middle Ages and some of the most ferocious fighting men of all time. The Swiss fought with insane bravery, but also gave no quarter. Swiss identity was created in the Middle Ages. Previously the Swiss cantons had been a loose group called the Helvetic League. Frequent attempts at conquest created the idea of a Swiss nation and Swiss independence. The Swiss fought in massive deep columns of halberdiers, with more and more pikemen being incorporated into the mix over time. The Swiss threw back every invader and were soon highly sought after mercenaries.

Maximillian I had been one ruler who had suffered defeat in Switzerland. He realized he needed his own force of Swiss style infantry. To this end he created the Landsknechts. These were companies of pikemen raised as mercenaries from the German populace (and beyond). Maximillian wanted to create a powerful infantry ethos. He himself wore armor designed for infantry combat, and would lead his army on foot, matching with a pike over his shoulder. He commanded the nobility to join him dismounted and lead the infantry as officers.

The Italian Wars, fought for control of Italy between France and the Holy Roman Empire under Maximilian I saw the reemergence of scientific warfare. The knight was still present, but he would simply become one troop type on the battlefield rather than the troop type. Charles the Bold of Burgundy had sought to create the first combined arms force of knights, longbowmen, handgunners, pikemen, and artillery. However his polyglot force of mercenaries lacked cohesion or motivation. Charles himself was brained by a Swiss halberd trying to invade the Alpine Cantons. However this style of combined arms fighting took off in the Italian Wars. This was the age of the Renaissance, and many studied the works of classical antiquity. Nicholi Machiavelli was one who believed armies should contain units equipped in the Roman fashion. You know have publications and theories on warfare being written, studied, and debated. Gunpowder weapons start becoming more and more effective. The Swiss (with a reputation for invincibility- not entirety true) are finally defeated with firepower.

In this period firearms become more and more important. You have integrated armies of pikemen, muskets, cavalry and artillery. Each of these arms becomes more tactically and technologically developed. In these period you start to see the emergence of many characteristics of modern armies. The structure of command, the ranks of officer, the regimental structure, the slow standardization of drill and the creation of uniforms.

By this time the professional army is firmly entrenched. These armies are small, immaculately dressed, and incredibly well drilled. This is an era of rather gentlemanly warfare - as far as warfare could ever be such a thing.

However the outbreak of the French Revolution changes everything. With the adoption of a Republic, France unlocks a spirit of nationalism. No longer is the army fighting for a king, but for the nation and people itself. The surrounding monarchs, fearful of their own positions, invade seeking to crush the infant republic. France becomes a nation in arms. Previously rulers had been afraid to arm the general populace for fear of revolution. This was no longer a fear in France and the entire citizenry could effectively be mobilized. France’s army now dwarfed those of her rivals. What was realized during the Napoleonic Wars was that massive levy armies from the population could be raised, and if one nation does it, the rest have to as well.

Massive draftee armies become the norm in Europe (Britain being the exception) during the 19th century. With the advent of Industrialization these large armies could be effectively equipped, and with development of railroads speedily deployed. Nationalism gave these troops the motivation to fight. Technology started to develop at a truly astronomical pace. Weapons technology was no exception.

Europe saw previous wars of mass mobilization in the 19th century. However WW1 was unique in its scale and the rate of technological advancement. Massed heavy artillery, massed machine guns etc, had never been seen before. The scale of WW1 dwarfs anything the world had either seen before. Contrary to popular belief, this forced a massive wave of tactical innovation rather than stagnation. WWI saw the invention of the tank, the modern platoon structure, the use of combined arms at the company and platoon level, and many other innovations on every level. WW1 required a higher level of training for every level of soldier. No longer were automatons a battlefield asset. Soldiers needed to show higher degrees of initiative. Tactical scenarios demanded quick thinking junior officers. Weapons systems themselves and integrating those systems needed higher levels of individual training. Ultimately soldiers had greater responsibility than ever before. This is a trend that has continued throughout the 20th century and is more true today than ever before.

Much of the tech in development gets utilized in WW2. Combined arms are again seen in all their glory, as the aircraft, tanks, artillery, and infantry all increase in effectiveness. This is overshadowed by the development of atomic weapons. In the future war between the great powers would result in mutually assured destruction.

Mutually assured destruction meant warfare would continue through proxies rather than direct combat between world powers (namely the US and The USSR). Every nation involved in WWI and WW2 had to utilize conscription due to the need for massive amounts of manpower (although most nations had a history of permanent conscription dating to long before WW1). The Vietnam War saw the US abandon its conscript army for a fully professional force. What did Vietnam reveal? Vietnam was the absolute low point for the US army and serious reform was needed. There was a need for a higher standard of soldier. Additionally the American public would not stand to see their sons sent off on unpopular foreign wars across the globe for mysterious reasons. A levy army could not fight unending overseas wars. In Europe the threat of the Soviet menace meant most countries maintained conscription for much longer than the US. All European countries had significantly higher military spending and mobilization rates than today, even those who ended conscription earlier after WW2 like Great Britain. With the fall of the Soviet Union most European nations cut military budgets significantly. In the developing world, especially Asia, conscript militaries were a force for social policy as much as military policy. They allow large numbers of people to be educated, brought together, and utilized for civil projects.

The lightening fast success of the US military during the First Gulf War was the army’s rebound after the humiliation of Vietnam. This war was marked by the usage of highly advanced technology and a small professional army compared to the conscript Iraqis. Today only around 1-2% of the US population serve in the military, compared to the vast mobilization numbers of the 20th century. We now once again have a caste system of a military elite. Modern fighting methods are much more intellectually demanding than those of any previous time.

Unfortunately there will be no shortage of wars in the future. What shape they will take is unknown. We are still embroiled in the Afghanistan conflict, although the possibility of a peace treaty is sometimes dangled. Unfortunately a US withdrawal is unlikely to bring peace as numerous other regional entities have a stake in the region. Pakistan and Iran both have vested interests in Afghanistan and have been funneling money and arms into the region for decades. India seeks to counteract Pakistan at every turn and likewise has its own preferred players in the region. Likewise the Saudis hate the Iranians and similarly combat Iranian interests. China has significant mineral investments in Afghanistan, investments only made possible currently by the US military. A US withdrawal would mean the interruption of this vital supply of ore to Chinese industry. Such a scenario would likely draw the Chinese into the mix. What is my point with all this? Political and physical realities mean that people will always have a reason to kill each other. Afghanistan is just one example of this.