Observation from The French

[FiscalSanity]

Trajan,

No, I'm not speaking in a strictly military context. I know that our military has done everything it was allowed to do, and in most cases it did it damn well. However, when it comes to war or the use of military force you can't ever seperate out the political aspects, especially when you're talking about the US military since WWII. The soldiers do the work, but the politicians are the ones that really decide the strategy.

 

[martybegan]

it is more like mutual trust between the enlisted and the officers, the feeling that their backs are covered, so they can move with confidence.

Esprit is something quite different, and in some ways opposite.

True. The armies we raised for WWI and WWII were citizen's armies, raised by draft, and founded with a core of professional officers and NCO's. It was far different from the conscription armies of the continent, which had established permanent organizations of some size, as well as prestige and access, even control of governments.

In the US in the time between the civil war and WWII the army was almost an afterthought, with the navy being a more modern force. Our two oceans and the almost incomplete inability to force overseas invasions at the time, unless against a colonial opponent negated our need for a strong army. Even if a force managed to land somewhere in the US, the space of our country would allow for an army to be raised to eventually kick the invader out, even if it managed to survive our navy wiping out its support fleet.

Europe had a far different situation, with nations hostile to each other all next to each other. In our case it would be like ohio having to worry about michigan and Kentucky invading. The need for standing armies created a much stronger tradition than we see in US forces. Thier military was wedded to thier governments, and in the case of prussia, actually superceded it on occasion.

 

[FiscalSanity]

Marty,

You're one of the first people I've discussed this with that's actually noticed the similarity between our military and (some of) those of the late middle ages. I've got a major interest in medieval warfare, and it's always seemed odd to me that so few people realize that we're just adding modern technology to some very old concepts.

 

[martybegan]

Marty,

You're one of the first people I've discussed this with that's actually noticed the similarity between our military and (some of) those of the late middle ages. I've got a major interest in medieval warfare, and it's always seemed odd to me that so few people realize that we're just adding modern technology to some very old concepts.

The one concept you have to had is nationalism, and the Westphalian nation state. While the professionalism is similar, the concept of nationalsim has wedded the soliders/officers to a single side. In medival times it was not uncommon for vassals to be traded among kings and barons, so in some cases they might end up fighting against the same lord they were sworn to the season before. In the case of mercenaries they could change sides depending on who offered them more money in a give campaign season.

The one concept we kept from the conscript armies of the Napoleonic to Cold war period is the concept of the nation state, and the soldiers/officers said loyalty to that state.

 

[FiscalSanity]

Baruch,

I see what you're getting at. I'm not sure that's a quality that you can really say belongs to Democratic armies, though it is one that belongs to professional armies. I know during the gulf war a common sentiment was that we were damn glad we didn't have to worry about whether or not someone else was a draftee that's only goal was to go home as fast as possible. I trusted the guys I was with because I knew they were all volunteers, and because I'd spent enough time training with them to know who i could count on for what.

 

[FiscalSanity]

Marty,

I agree completely. Nationalism is the major change in terms of the soldiers motivations, and it has allowed a nation to actually put some trust into a professional full time army. However, that doesn't mean the government doesn't have to worry about the army deciding to overthrow it themselves. The well established Democracies don't run much risk of having the army decide to take over, but the last 50 years has made it obvious that modern professional armies can be just as mercenary as their fore fathers in the middle ages were if they are dealing with a weak government or they aren't being paid as promised.