|
The poor of Rome from BEFORE the Empire was founded by Julius Caesar were in BAD economic situation. Spanish Silver watered out around 220 AD. Do to lack of Silver Rome had to convert to a barter economy, people paid taxes in items not coins. Plague hit reduced the population but pay to the peasants was NOT increased (in fact peasants were restricted to keep them on the rich's man estates). By the fifth Century the Army had to be reduced to reflect what Rome could afford. Rome let in the Barbarians to replace their army, Rome could no longer afford to keep down their own peasants (Most Barbarians had invaded a much weaken Roman Empire, was defeated and then settled by the Romans in areas of Peasants Revolts, the Goths and Vandals are the biggest exceptions, but both also appear to have allied themselves with the Poor against the Rich and thus was able to hold on to the area of the Roman Empire they held).
In many ways the "Dark Ages" was a period of reduction in the amount of wealth that went to the rich and an increase in wealth among the lower classes.
A similar pattern can be seen in the decline of most empires, the poor of the Empire became poorer. This turns them against the Empire, which reverts to the use of force to keep the peasants down. Sooner or later a foreign enemy attacks and the army designed to keep peasants down falls to the new Enemy. It takes a while but the country starts to give rights to its peasants and the peasants start to fight the enemy and drives them out (Or in the case of Western Europe post 570 AD, when the peasant class merge with the new invaders and make a new country). Notice the situation is only stabilized when the peasants get rights, generally property rights.
More point it is NOT the lack of Will of a Country, it is the fact that the poor (Who generally makes up 95% of the population) no longer (or even opposes) the wars started by the ruling elites. The poor will NOT go to war if they see no benefit to themselves.
Traditional armies can fall into several categories:
1. Militia or Universal Service Armies. These are cheap to operate, the men just are NOT paid, serviced is a cost of being a member of one's society. They are effective if properly trained and motivated. Disadvantages, if the major ty of a Country opposes a war, these armies tend to reflect that opinion. THus Terrible for wars of expanding an empire where the other side is NOT a threat to the home country.
2. Army paid by loot. NOT use to much any more for lousy in defense (Basically in defense no pay so do not fight). The ancient armies of the Empire of the Middle East and the later Arab and Mongol empires were this type of armies. Can build large empires, but as soon as the expansion stops, the armies falls as does the empire.
3. Professional Armies, paid by the state. Will follow orders even if the action is unpopular, but if NOT paid will go disappear, they do NOT fight for a Country but for pay.
All counties have used variation of ALL three types of Armies. Some times a country's army shifts between all three. For example Rome's army was a Militia Army till 109 BC. It was the Roman Militia Army that Defeated Hannibal and conquered Macedonia and Greece. The Problem was after these wars, the Roman Citizen saw no advantage to himself even as the Senate demanded more Wars to be fought. Thus from the defeat of Hannibal (202 BC) to Maius's "Reform" of the Army in 109 BC, during this time period the Roman PEople and the Roman Army were almost one and the Same. The problem was the Roman Elites wanted more wars for more slaves to knock down wages of the Poor. The poor saw this and started to object to having to fight wars that did NOT benefits them, but just the Roman Elite. The Roman poor started to OBJECT to having to fight. Maius solve the problem by switching the Roman Legion to a Loot based Army. He would pay the troops based on the loot he recovered from the War. Maius's lieutenant Sulla saw this switch, built a similar Army and then set himself up as a Dictator with support from his loot based army. This continued under Pompey and Julius Caesar (For example Caesar's conquest of Gaul was paid by shipping slaves to Rome). Augustus after defeating Julius Caesar's Killers and then Mark Anthony made a further conversion, he paid his army directly from the Treasury. Thus the Roman Army went from a force of almost 100 legions at the time of the Civil Wars of Caesar (And an equal number of Supporters who retained the Militia Legionary force, a key to Caesar defeat of Pompey) to 29 legions under Augustus. This was a rapid reduction in the size of army, for Augustus and his successors wanted the Army to keep peasants down as opposed to actual conquer a new territory for Rome (Rome had minimal expansion from Augustus onward).
When Rome needed to expand its army in the 200s, Rome did not want to arm its peasants and thus preferred to raise taxes to keep the mercenary/professional army. This increase in taxes made the bad economic situation worse so by the 400s Rome could no longer pay its troops. Rome tried to use the barbarians for a while as mercenaries but then those mercenaries just set up new countries (In Eastern Europe, the Eastern Roman Empire reformed itself after the Arab Conquest by arming its peasants and survived another 600 years based on its new Militia Army).
The Fall of the Roman Empire is classic decline, a refusal to army the peasants, then someone does, that person becomes the big power for it can field the largest army at the lowest costs. This armies tend NOT to be an aggressive army (Thus Europe during the Middle Ages had some of the most stable borders in all of History). Now sooner or later a need for an aggressive army develops and either countries go to a Mercenary Army to do that aggression (Sometime the pay starts out as compensation to members of the Militia do to an inability to plant a crop but pay is introduced) or goes to a Professional Army via a looting army (Like the Arabs and Turks).
My point is the problem is WILL, but the willingness of a Country to support the war NOT the will continue to fight an unpopular war. Right now the Army of the insurgents in Iraq is a Militia/popular front type army. Iraq is NOT paying them, all that is needed is money for bombs, guns, mortars and RPGs. It is a very disperse war, with everyone attacking the US troops (or our collaborating Iraq "allies"). on the other hand the US has a Professional army, whose heart is NOT in this war, but will do so for that is what they are being paid to do. It is a classic professional army vs a people who OPPOSES that government that professional army is supporting. The cost to the US tax payers is going to be high, while the costs to the Iraqis to continue this war is much lower.
The US Army faced this is Vietnam, Somalia, even Haiti (Where the US Army was able to cut off supplies and thus defeat the insurgents in the years since we invaded under Bush II, but it should be remember Haiti did drive the US forces out in the 1930s after the US had tried to "keep the peace" in Haiti since 1916).
Political Will is the question, and at present the US does NOT have the Political will to adopt the draft to get the men we need to occupy Iraq, thus the Iraqis will drive us out, it is only a matter of time.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
