armed force
- Related Topics:
- military law
- war college
- navy
- conscription
- knight
News •
armed force, constituent element of a country’s combined military services. Modern armed forces are commonly divided into specialized branches dealing with land, naval, and air warfare.
Armed forces in the ancient world
The oldest battle accounts show the Egyptian king Thutmose III (1479–26 bce) using specialized infantry, chariot, engineer, and transport units in distant Syria. Later Assyrian conquerors left countless bas-reliefs of military specialization. In a pattern often repeated, they solved some logistical problems by moving only their elite units and supplemented them with impressed allies and local mercenaries. A century after Nineveh’s destruction in 612 bce, the earliest surviving military textbook, Bingfa (The Art of War), reputedly by Sunzi, showed an equally developed military professionalism in China. For Sunzi, warfare was governed by moral law, weather and terrain, the skill of the commander, and the methods and discipline of the troops.
Sparta was famous for its professional soldiers. Every male citizen was trained for war and supported by a land allotment worked by several Messenian helot families. Athens, the other major power in Greece, boasted a formidable navy whose foundation rested on the skilled rowers of its trireme fleet. After the Greeks turned back the Persians and ruined themselves in their internecine wars (most notably the Peloponnesian War), they exported mercenary soldiers. Xenophon’s Anabasis is the story of the march (401–400 bce) of 10,000 Greek mercenary soldiers from near Babylon to the Black Sea. Alexander the Great (reigned 336–323 bce) conquered the Middle East and marched to India with a professional army of Macedonians, Greeks, and impressed allies.
Chandragupta founded the Mauryan empire in India, and Alexander’s Hellenistic successors fought each other with similar forces, which now included fighting Indian elephants and their professional handlers. Alexander’s grandnephew Pyrrhus of Epirus helped to spread his methods in the West by fighting both Rome and Carthage (280–275 bce), and the Spartan mercenary Xanthippus saved Carthage at one point in the First Punic War (264–241 bce). The armies that Hannibal led from Spain across the Alps to Italy in the Second Punic War (218–201 bce) were composed of Carthaginian elite units and Berber, Celtiberian, Celtic, and Greek allies and mercenaries.
Long foreign wars gradually professionalized the Roman citizen armies. Their peasant legionaries were paid in conquered land. The medium landholding officers got more land and colonial administrative positions. After the legionary commander Gaius Marius became consul in 107 bce, the property qualification for service was abolished and its term set at 20 years, still the minimum for voluntary retirement with a pension from many modern armed services. The Marian cohort legions fought the civil wars. Their victor, Augustus Caesar (reigned 31 bce–14 ce), settled his men in the frontier belt, which became the empire’s equivalent of China’s contemporary Great Wall. When non-Romans were recruited for citizenship and land, the legions became an even more effective Romanizing instrument. After noting the naval disasters that had plagued the inexperienced Romans in the First Punic War, the Greek historian Polybius (c. 200–after 118 bce) also noted how quickly they had developed a professional navy.
The Byzantine Empire and Islam
The best account of the legions, Vegetius’s Military Institutions of the Romans, came after they had been beaten by Gothic heavy cavalry at Adrianople in 378 ce. The Greek-speaking East Roman, or Byzantine, Empire kept up its navy and developed the armoured horse archers (cataphracts) with which Justinian I (reigned 527–565) recovered most of the western lands Rome had won in the First Punic War. These archers were too few to prevent the rise of Islam a century later (Carthage was recovered from the Vandals by 6,000 cataphracts), but they held their main recruiting base in Asia Minor until their defeat by the Seljuq Turks at Manzikert in 1071.
Like the later Mongols, the Arabs were good political organizers. Islam provided a common faith and a brotherhood, which was constantly renewed by pilgrimage to Mecca. Arabic, the language of the Qurʾān, gave them a common tongue as the Islamic world expanded. Muslim armies were defeated by the Franks at Poitiers in 732 but overran Sindh (where Alexander had turned back) in 712 and Turkistan in 751. They were hit by a plague that had spread west from China about that time, but they had already been checked in the Mediterranean by the Byzantine navy, its secret Greek fire, and Constantinople’s walls in 674–678 and 717–718.
Political generals had often taken power in Rome, China, and Byzantium, but their professional soldiers had kept the peace for long periods and had protected enduring civil institutions. None of these empires was wholly militaristic, unless the expansion and defense of tillage is a kind of peasant militarism. The example of the Roman dictator Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus returning to his farm after defeating the Aequi (458 bce) had many sequels, and these systems of military-peasant and merchant-sailor colonization survived as long as such colonists could be supported from the centre. After Poitiers, local landholders were the base for the abortive revival by Charlemagne (reigned 768–814 ce) of the empire in France, Germany, and north and central Italy. Byzantium’s soldiers were more successful, partly because they had a better grasp of strategy. Maps are tools of military and administrative strategy, and Byzantine and Arab maps were long superior to those of the isolated western Europeans.
The East’s professionals were also better tacticians. A Byzantine description of Gothic knights who could not use their infantry matches an Arab one of the Crusaders as “animals gifted only with courage.” European tales of Eastern “stratagems” in the First Crusade (1096–99) were tributes to more-sophisticated soldiers. The Crusaders were amazed and temporarily deterred by the fortified cities that awaited them in the Holy Land, but, before they were expelled in the late 13th century, these isolated Franks had adopted the techniques of their foes. The castles that dotted the Crusader states were more advanced than anything seen in the West since Roman times.
Medieval armed forces and the rise of mercenary armies
The medieval “fighting animal” was an armoured lancer who held land in return for military service. He lived by and for war and trained for it from boyhood. His gear cost as much as a farming village. A castle represented the labour of a whole district. Charlemagne united lands where the Roman fiscal-administrative systems had vanished and whose Roman landlords and Christianized Germanic war chiefs had long defended themselves. He could only reward his men with land and bind them with a Christianized Germanic oath of personal loyalty. His vassals, who again had to defend themselves against the 9th-century Norse and Hungarian invaders, naturally stressed their rights rather than their obligations. When these invaders had been subjugated, the personal rights and obligations of feudalism were full grown. Militarily and economically, this extremely localized system also favoured local innovation and the destructiveness of limited war and turned traders to seaways which could not be blocked by tollmen, bandits, and robber barons.
The knight’s Christian duty was to aid the weak and to fight only in just causes. Fellow knights were treated better than commoners, but chivalry’s code was gradually extended to include even some non-Christians. The realities of medieval, as of modern, war often conflicted with its ideals, especially when knights fought townsmen, peasant heretics, or pagan guerrillas. In 1176 the Holy Roman emperor Frederick I was beaten by Italian townsmen of the Lombard League at Legnano; Flemish, Swiss, and Hussite rebels won later battles. The outlawing of such weapons as the armour-piercing infantry crossbow—again condemned three years after Legnano—and its armour- and castle-smashing gunpowder successors failed for lack of an enforcing political authority.
Mercenaries dominated the turbulent period from the Black Death of the mid-14th century to the end of the Wars of Religion three centuries later. The bands that devastated France—whose population may have risen only 10 percent from 1328 to 1789—in the Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453) were like those that ruined Germany in the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48). They were owned by their captains or joint “free companies.” The wealthy cities of Renaissance Italy gave them long-term contracts, or condotte, and were sometimes taken over by them. Though the condottieri were accused of fixing fights to save their working capital, only professional infantry—with longbow or crossbow, gun, or pike—could face increasingly mercenary knights in the open. These bands combined local innovation with increased professional mobility.
Western Europe’s metal and war-materials trades were increasingly international. Mongol toleration of Western traders and missionaries increased the West’s geographical and technical knowledge. Although the small mercenary units were better adapted to the conquest of isolated Muslim outposts than to a frontal attack on the Ottoman Turks who had conquered the Middle East and were to besiege Vienna as late as 1683, they could cope with many climates, soils, and diseases. Their gunned sailing ships could carry cargoes for long distances. By the late 15th century, Portugal was exploiting an Atlantic route to fortune, and Castile had just found another.
The dawn of standing armed forces
In 1445 Charles VII of France gave permanent employment to his best bands, mainly his mobile cavalry and artillery, to drive out the English, defeat the Burgundians, and restore order. His town supporters—as in the Spain of Ferdinand II of Aragon (reigned 1479–1516) and Isabella I of Castile (reigned 1474–1504)—commuted their military obligations for standing taxes. Medieval mercantilists knew how to develop a state’s wealth and power, and business leaders who benefited from the king’s peace and aid for their joint overseas ventures became administrators. The coin of the realm attracted the poorer nobles. Swiss pikemen, well located at the Alpine crossroads for France’s ensuing wars with the Habsburg-Spanish-Burgundian coalition of the Holy Roman emperor Charles V (who reigned 1519–56 and routed the French at Pavia in 1525) and Philip II of Spain (reigned 1556–98), could be had without arming one’s own commoners.
The Spaniards who defeated the French and conquered the Indigenous civilizations of the New World used their colonial wealth to develop an effective pike-and-shot infantry. This type of battlefield formation balanced the strengths of the period’s dominant shock weapon (the pike) with the emerging technology of firearms. Guns were direct and indirect agents of centralization and standardization. Expendable shot and powder had to be replaced regularly from distant arsenals. Big gun ships supplemented hired merchantmen and city ships, but most of the Spanish and Turkish ships at Lepanto in 1571 and the Spanish and English ships of the Armada campaign in 1588 were not royal. Maurice of Nassau, the Dutch stadtholder (reigned 1585–1625), won his republic’s independence from Spain with a more flexible pike-and-shot infantry based on Marius’s cohort legions in the Roman civil wars. More cavalry and field guns were added by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (reigned 1611–32). Professional engineers—Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) was one of the last to have been also an artist—rebuilt old fortifications and developed mathematical methods of attacking them. While military engineering became more specialized—Simon Stevin was a poor merchant’s clerk and mathematician who became Maurice’s chief supply officer—it remained closely linked to civil engineering.
Mercenary armies were politically dangerous and economically expensive. Mutinies could be as destructive as that at the end of the First Punic War, when unpaid Carthaginian mercenaries led an African social revolt. The prince of Condé, who defeated the Spanish in 1643 at Rocroi, revolted in 1648, fought for Spain for six years, and rejoined a French army, which, as the war minister of Louis XIV (reigned 1643–1715) put it, had “as many provinces as lieutenant generals.” Both France and Spain repeatedly went bankrupt. Half of the French king’s revenues never reached him. His sale of offices and tax-farming rights was one cause of the final bankruptcy of the monarchy. Before that happened, however, Europe’s standing armed forces had been expanded and rationalized by Louis XIV, Frederick the Great of Prussia (reigned 1740–86), and the other “enlightened” mercantilist monarchs who laid down the bases of the modern profession of arms.
Modernization and specialization of armed forces
Since the best units were the best-drilled, the term of service in the French army was gradually increased to eight years. The name of its infantry inspector general Jean Martinet became a synonym for drillmaster, and the earliest drillmasters first homogenized the old bands and then trained them in the new standardized tactics. Merchantmen were dropped from ranks of similarly standardized tactical units, whose formalized clashes could be as bloody as the equally standardized legionary battles. Plunder became requisition, and everything from ammunition packing to baking was regularized. While they were not interchangeable in his armies, mutually supporting army divisions were essential to Napoleon I’s strategic combinations. He came from a royal scholarship at a military academy, the royal cadet school, and a practical artillery school. Though the first two were only secondary schools, their training in mathematics and languages was particularly useful in the technical branches. Such schools produced many of the professional officers who were to train, move, command, and defeat the French Revolution’s mass armies.
Grand strategy became more professional. Maurice treated the Dutch republic and Stevin’s water-linked fortresses as a strategic unit. Louis XIV’s chief engineer, Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban (1633–1707), covered the king’s territorial gains with the fortresses, which were to save the revolutionaries. Strategically placed garrisons, better roads, and internal peace—all Roman tools—made it possible for staff officers to translate time into distance. The British took most of the French colonial empire, and France took revenge by aiding rebels in Britain’s American colonies. Kings took lands from their weaker or less enlightened cousins. The Westernizing monarchs Peter I (reigned 1682–1725) and Catherine the Great (reigned 1762–96) staked a claim for imperial Russia at the table of Europe’s great powers.
Princes still rented out whole units—like the Hessians who fought in the American Revolution—but mercenaries were now more likely to come and go singly. Their harsh discipline was more Roman than modern, but a legionary received citizenship and land in exchange for service. National uniforms discouraged coat turning in battle, improved recognition, and set soldiers still further apart from civilians. Desertion became endemic rather than epidemic. Frederick’s Instructions for His Generals was full of cautionary messages: his men must not camp near large woods, march at night, nor bathe unguarded. An impressed seaman might be worse off than a pressed soldier, since the former was more often a skilled labourer. When he was paid off, however, the sailor had some peacetime market for his skills.
The kings also disciplined their nobles. Captains still hired their men, but under tighter fiscal, quantitative, and qualitative controls. Officers were placed on royal lists; even the great nobles could not resign their commissions without royal leave. Albrecht von Wallenstein (1583–1634), the Holy Roman imperial commander during the Thirty Years’ War, made his fortune as a military entrepreneur. A successor, Eugene of Savoy (1663–1736), was granted his fortune by the emperor. With their landed incomes—except in Britain—still static, Western nobles increasingly tried to remonopolize the trade of war, with the notable exception of the middle-class technical branches. The navy was one of these. Shipboard life was more Spartan, naval officers had less court influence, and half-pay officers could get jobs in the merchant service.
Eastern European nobles received land and serfs in return for often compulsory state service, but under terms more like those in the Ottoman Empire than those of Western medieval feudalism. The Ottoman army—the first modern standing army in Europe—originally consisted of Christian youths who were taken from the Balkan provinces, converted to Islam, and drafted into Ottoman service. Russian nobles furnished serfs for that army, and some prospective Ottoman soldiers were captured or bought from slavers. Select boys were trained for an administration from which other Muslims were excluded. The rest became Janissary infantry—10,000 to 12,000 men for a 16th-century state of 50,000,000—or elite cavalry or artillery or commanders of the feudal Muslim cavalry. After the Janissaries became a Praetorian Guard (the politically influential household troops who made and unmade Roman emperors), Mahmud II (reigned 1808–39) wiped them out with a Western-trained force modeled on that of his powerful vassal, Muḥammad ʿAlī of Egypt.
The professional core of modern standing armed forces
Three centuries after Alexander, Augustus stabilized the Mediterranean world. The feudal and mercenary systems each lasted about as long. The 300 years from Rocroi to 1945 split in 1793, when the French Republic declared the levée en masse. Prussian military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831) characterized the dawning era of modern standing armies as “the participation of the people in this great affair of state.”
The United Kingdom and the United States
British and American professional soldiers were to help train militia and volunteers, fill the higher commands, and fight colonial wars. Volunteers might barely arrive in the theatre of war before their enlistments expired, whereas regulars played the leading roles in small wars and the Mexican-American War (1846–48). It was difficult, however, to make a career of the military. The officers’ pay was so low, promotion so slow, and free secondary education so limited that they had to have at least a middle-class background. If officers had no private income, they often left for the greater opportunities on the frontier or in business. Enlisted soldiers still came from the lowest classes, but the recruiting bases of both armies actually narrowed. Although urban populations boomed throughout the 19th century, factory conditions were so harsh that fit young men were hard to find. Recruits from the countryside were more mobile and generally healthier.
Britain was a great power but, except in Crimea (1854–56), fought no major opponent from 1815 to 1914. Neither colonials nor distant naval stations kept professionals in touch with new developments or let them handle large formations against first-class opposition. Purchase of British army commissions was abolished in the 1870s, but this and other reforms made the home army both literally and figuratively a feeder for overseas units.
West Point Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy (1845), and such state schools as the Virginia Military Institute trained a handful of American professionals. The 800 West Pointers in the Civil War were overwhelmingly outnumbered by graduates from Harvard College, but the highest commands (on both sides) went to West Pointers. Individual professionals were widely respected, but they were not used to train volunteers when this was most needed—a mistake repeated with Britain’s “New Army” in 1914. One new institution to come out of the Civil War was the Naval War College, founded by Adm. Stephen B. Luce in 1884.
Neither army had a general staff until after the Spanish-American (1898) and South African (1899–1902) wars exposed the need for such a planning body. Joint service operations were made difficult by the antipathy that existed between the army and the navy. The Royal Navy feared the encroachment of a general staff into its operations at a time when it was preoccupied with the new German High Seas Fleet. For its part, the German army had opposed that fleet and almost entirely ignored it in its planning.
France
Napoleon’s capture of the revolutionary army hampered its later professional development. With two nobilities, three dynasties, a partly republican middle class, a radical proletariat, and a nonmilitary Napoleon III, France fell behind during the 19th century. Defeat in 1870–71 led to military revival on the Prussian model, but victory in World War I was achieved at enormous cost. In 1940 the collapse of the French army in just six weeks was profoundly demoralizing, but Gen. Charles de Gaulle rallied volunteers to the cause of Free France. In 1958 conscripts—first used in a colonial war in Algeria—aborted a generals’ coup. De Gaulle, who had wanted more professionals in the 1930s,added nuclear weapons and more internal security forces after World War II.
Germany
Conscription had many problems for Prussia’s conservative reformers. After the 1848 revolution, they downgraded middle-class reserve officers but kept the profession open to those who adopted their political views. Their most important new institution was the general staff. Its key features were: (1) direct access to the king; (2) a war college for training and indoctrination as well as logistic planning; (3) rotation between central and troop staff positions; and (4) assignment to commands of war college graduates who had not become permanent staff officers.
Civilian control of armed forces and the development of air power
World War I
In 1914 all the relatively standardized offensives failed, and the war on the Western Front became one of attrition. While the politicians grappled with production, manpower, and food-supply problems that the professional soldiers had not foreseen, the latter had to break the trench deadlock. To the citizen soldier, the professional was too often a “brass hat” (from the red hat bands of the British staff) or a “Colonel Blimp,” given to suicidal offensives in appalling tactical conditions. Philippe Pétain (1856–1951), who retired before the war because he doubted the French offensive doctrine, became a hero for his defense of Verdun in 1916. After some units went on a sit-down strike following a costly offensive in 1917, he restored morale by going over to the defensive and by improving the lot of both the frontline soldiers and their dependents. Nevertheless, the public generally agreed with the premier, Georges Clemenceau (1841–1929): war was now too important to be left to the generals. So too, it seemed, was politics. The German commander Paul von Hindenburg (1847–1934) and chief of staff Erich Ludendorff (1865–1937) wielded enormous political power after 1916 and then blamed their defeat on William II, Allied duplicity, politicians, Jews, and socialists. In the years leading to World War II, except possibly in Japan, civilians controlled the militaries of all the major powers.
World War II
In the interwar years, soldiers, scientists, and technicians—or teams of them—developed more and better weapons as well as the tactics to use them. Combined offensives using tanks and infantry were proposed as the future of land combat. Air power theorists suggested supplementing these actions with air support as well as bombing campaigns that targeted a nation’s economy and morale. However, some of the interwar military and civilian reformers unsparingly attacked the old guard and made wild claims for their own weapons and ideas. The most vocal advocate of air power and the proponent of a separate and primary air service, Guilio Douhet (1869–1930), was jailed for attacking Italian wartime generalship. American William Mitchell (1879–1936) was court-martialed, less for his ideas, as his followers held, than for attacking his superiors and the U.S. Navy. British tank theorist J.F.C. Fuller (1878–1966) was a visionary regarding the transformative power of armour, but he was also a petulant anti-Semitic Fascist who feuded with his superiors and dabbled in the occult. When these disputes were umpired by civilians, their impressions of these professionals might not have been too favourable. Whether such disputes were public or not, each country—for different military, political, and budgetary reasons in a weary and revolutionary Europe—began World War II with forces less standardized in weapons, training, tactics, and doctrine than those of 1914.
The Allies abolished the German general staff and conscription after World War I. The resulting reduced military force worked toward rearmament under the Weimar Republic. When Adolf Hitler promised rearmament and revenge, it stood aside, as the Italian army had done in the fascist coup of 1922. Neither Hitler nor his Italian counterpart, Benito Mussolini, took all of their professionals’ advice, and both dictators led them to military defeat. The German blitzkrieg won stunning initial victories over British forces with the right ideas but not enough weapons and over French and Russian forces with good weapons but flawed doctrines.
The Russian professional officers corps was decimated before the Russian Revolution. Many of the survivors opposed the Bolsheviks, but the Red Army, like the French revolutionaries before it, used what few professionals it had. The Red Army then adopted French, rather than German, models, though it had many German instructors. It also stressed the offensive instead of the French counteroffensive from fixed defenses. Many Soviet professional soldiers were purged by Joseph Stalin in the late 1930s as potential counterrevolutionaries or German collaborators. Those who survived Stalin’s show trials defeated the Germans and worked with Russia’s surviving scientists, technicians, and managers to develop nuclear weapons and take the lead in the space race.
The United States had great resources and an impressive collection of theoretical scientists. What the U.S. Army (to mention that service only) learned in World War I was suggested by its new Finance and Chemical Corps schools (1920) and Industrial College (1924). Some later schools—armour, intelligence, information, command management, civil affairs and military government, and special warfare—indicated new concerns after 1940. On the organizational side, friction between the chief of staff and the American Expeditionary Forces commander in World War I was solved in World War II by making Chief of Staff George C. Marshall (1880–1959) responsible for operations. Americans led in such long-range weapons as aircraft carriers and amphibious task forces, heavy bombers, and nuclear weapons. Trucks, cross-country vehicles, transport aircraft, and pipelines were American logistical specialties. Short-range weapons, such as torpedoes or tanks, were sometimes inferior but always plentiful. American power was projected decisively across both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, with results that changed both international military and political geography and the nature of war between developed industrial powers.
Armed forces in the nuclear age
The United States was not the only developed country to emerge from World War II with a stake in world influence. The dawn of the Cold War saw the U.S. establish itself as the leader of a bloc of Western countries under the umbrella of NATO, while the Soviet Union broadened its reach through the Warsaw Pact. The sudden change in U.S. strength and responsibilities made a return to all-professional peacetime forces—which the United States was the last great power to abandon—harder. All the major armed forces were now partly professional, some wholly so, and more gave overt or covert aid to allies or neutrals. More than two decades after the end of World War II, the professional’s task was less clear than it had been in the 19th century, and forces were even less standardized than they had been in 1939 or 1914.
When personnel and matériel balances were first being struck for peacetime mass armies, Clausewitz saw an enemy’s “powers of resistance” as “a product of two inseparable factors: the extent of the means at his disposal and the strength of his will.” The first “rests (though not entirely) on figures, but the strength of the will is...only approximately to be measured by the strength of the motive behind it.” Hardware and personnel movements could be seen by intelligence satellites, but motives were more clearly guessed in 1914 than in 1939 or in the unified world of more than 200 states in the 21st century. The major military powers also needed different force mixes for different tasks. Combat teams served as the fundamental unit of modern infantry combat. Twenty-two-year-old sergeants led patrols, called up artillery and air strikes, and distributed aid, but this was only another proof that the professional soldier had to be both specialist and generalist at every command level.
Abolition of conscription in Japan, Australia, Canada, and most of western Europe resulted in those countries deploying all-volunteer professional forces by the late 20th century. In the wake of the Vietnam War, the United States suspended conscription but maintained the Selective Service System as a mechanism for reintroducing the draft if necessary. In Scandinavia, conscription, where it existed, consisted of a relatively short basic training period followed by a lengthy term in the reserves. In the 21st century several advanced democracies were notable for their continued use of conscription for defense. The Israel Defense Forces consisted of a comparatively small core of professionals supplemented by a sizable conscript force of both men and women. Switzerland’s citizen militia required every Swiss male to remain on active duty for more than two decades (three for officers) and was the backbone of that country’s famed neutrality. South Korea, which remained in a technical state of belligerence with the North, required men to serve in the armed forces, but exemptions were not uncommon.
The world’s largest military, China’s People’s Liberation Army, was a conscript force of more than 2 million men and women. The second and third largest militaries, however, were all-volunteer active-duty forces fielded by India (nearly 1.5 million) and the United States (roughly 1.4 million). This demonstrated that it was possible to build modern professional armed services that could quantitatively rival conscript forces.