3 ms·

This would be an interesting debate, but it is after midnight here, so I will be going to sleep shortly. Basically, yes, but also no. There is a huge differenc

This would be an interesting debate, but it is after midnight here, so I will be going to sleep shortly. Basically, yes, but also no. There is a huge difference between being able to mobilize a large portion of your population for a short time vs. keeping the standing army indefinitely. With the latter, various intrinsic economic limitations will bite. Rome started with the "big temporary armies" model, but slowly transitioned into "big permanent armies" model, which required a lot of support from civilians. Professional soldiers are economically unproductive; they have to be fed, clothed and provided with weapons. Just the necessary smelting of iron in order to equip a single legion would be a lot of work for blacksmiths, miners and lumberjacks who produced the necessary wood for charcoal. If a premodern empire can field tens of thousands of iron-clad professional soldiers indefinitely, it must have a lot of civilian workers supporting that army. Literally millions. The precipitous drop in the size of field armies in the Early Middle Ages is a good indication of the precipitous drop of the entire economy which would prop them up.

hermitcrab 1y ago
>If a premodern empire can field tens of thousands of iron-clad professional soldiers indefinitely, it must have a lot of civilian workers supporting that army. Or it must continually conquer new territories to plunder and tax. And that was the Roman model. But finally the empire got too big to manage with the technology of the day. They weren't able to conquer new territories and that meant they could not afford the huge professiomal army. Which led to the collapse of the empire in the west. Or you could argue that it just morphed into the Roman catholic church. (Not a historian, just been reading a bit about this recently)
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  With two exceptions (Britain and Dacia), the Roman empire mostly ran out of interesting neighbours to conquer by 1 AD. Britain was considered Claudius' vanity project and probably was, on the net, an economic loss. Dacia was abandoned quite early precisely because it wasn't interesting enough to defend. The legions remained pretty big long (centuries) after the expansion phase ceased.
  - hermitcrab 1y ago
    >With two exceptions (Britain and Dacia), the Roman empire mostly ran out of interesting neighbours to conquer by 1 AD. The Romans spent centuries after that trying to conquer the Persians (Parthians/Sassanids). > Britain was considered Claudius' vanity project and probably was, on the net, an economic loss. Apparently there were 3 legions in Britain, which was (per conquered person) more than any other Roman territory. Certainly a lot for a damp island with some tin. ;0)
    - inglor_cz 1y ago
      "trying" That is the point, though. An interesting neighbour to conquer is one which looks wealthy enough (no sense in conquering cold northern marshes full of mosquitos), and is weak enough so that you may actually conquer him and hold the territory without overextending yourself. Most Roman neighbours by 1 AD would not pass the first test. The Persians would absolutely ace the first test, but they were equals to the Romans when it came to military prowess, and a danger to be reckoned with. As a result, the Eastern border was, overall, a source of weakness rather than profit. Modern MBAs would probably call the Roman-Persian border a "cost center".
tim333 1y ago
Or maybe a drop in military spending? Germany under Hitler had a big army, it now has a small one. It's not because they population or economy collapsed. See also modern Russia where they are cranking up the army in spite of declining population and an iffy economy. It seems more about having a dictator who wants to do wars.
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  You can't really compare premodern and modern societies in this regard. Totally different contexts. In ancient Europe, if you had some lucrative territory and not enough military force to defend it, you would be raided and invaded by your neighbours with absolute certainty. Maybe not the same summer, but quite soon. People had different understanding of morality and wars of conquest were glorified. Plus, quite a lot of the pre-state societies didn't have any centralization of power and a hot-headed noble could absolutely start a war just with his retinue, dragging his entire tribe into it. This is just not the model on which the current EU works, although the Russo-Ukrainian war was a rude awakening in this regard.
thaumasiotes 1y ago
> Rome started with the "big temporary armies" model, but slowly transitioned into "big permanent armies" model, which required a lot of support from civilians. What does that have to do with what they were doing in the 3rd century BC?

hermitcrab 1y ago

>If a premodern empire can field tens of thousands of iron-clad professional soldiers indefinitely, it must have a lot of civilian workers supporting that army. Or it must continually conquer new territories to plunder and tax. And that was the Roman model. But finally the empire got too big to manage with the technology of the day. They weren't able to conquer new territories and that meant they could not afford the huge professiomal army. Which led to the collapse of the empire in the west. Or you could argue that it just morphed into the Roman catholic church. (Not a historian, just been reading a bit about this recently)

inglor_cz 1y ago
With two exceptions (Britain and Dacia), the Roman empire mostly ran out of interesting neighbours to conquer by 1 AD. Britain was considered Claudius' vanity project and probably was, on the net, an economic loss. Dacia was abandoned quite early precisely because it wasn't interesting enough to defend. The legions remained pretty big long (centuries) after the expansion phase ceased.
- hermitcrab 1y ago
  >With two exceptions (Britain and Dacia), the Roman empire mostly ran out of interesting neighbours to conquer by 1 AD. The Romans spent centuries after that trying to conquer the Persians (Parthians/Sassanids). > Britain was considered Claudius' vanity project and probably was, on the net, an economic loss. Apparently there were 3 legions in Britain, which was (per conquered person) more than any other Roman territory. Certainly a lot for a damp island with some tin. ;0)
  - inglor_cz 1y ago
    "trying" That is the point, though. An interesting neighbour to conquer is one which looks wealthy enough (no sense in conquering cold northern marshes full of mosquitos), and is weak enough so that you may actually conquer him and hold the territory without overextending yourself. Most Roman neighbours by 1 AD would not pass the first test. The Persians would absolutely ace the first test, but they were equals to the Romans when it came to military prowess, and a danger to be reckoned with. As a result, the Eastern border was, overall, a source of weakness rather than profit. Modern MBAs would probably call the Roman-Persian border a "cost center".

tim333 1y ago

Or maybe a drop in military spending? Germany under Hitler had a big army, it now has a small one. It's not because they population or economy collapsed. See also modern Russia where they are cranking up the army in spite of declining population and an iffy economy. It seems more about having a dictator who wants to do wars.

inglor_cz 1y ago
You can't really compare premodern and modern societies in this regard. Totally different contexts. In ancient Europe, if you had some lucrative territory and not enough military force to defend it, you would be raided and invaded by your neighbours with absolute certainty. Maybe not the same summer, but quite soon. People had different understanding of morality and wars of conquest were glorified. Plus, quite a lot of the pre-state societies didn't have any centralization of power and a hot-headed noble could absolutely start a war just with his retinue, dragging his entire tribe into it. This is just not the model on which the current EU works, although the Russo-Ukrainian war was a rude awakening in this regard.

thaumasiotes 1y ago

> Rome started with the "big temporary armies" model, but slowly transitioned into "big permanent armies" model, which required a lot of support from civilians. What does that have to do with what they were doing in the 3rd century BC?