If Roman Legions came to be a standing army for Rome, why is it that such a concept disappeared from Europe during the Middle Ages?
>>900986
None of the tiny Feudalcuck states had the fucking money, resources, nor political organization for the longest time.
Showed up again by the time of the Renaissance. But fully impelemented after the end of the 30 Years War and Treaty of Westphalia.
>>900986
Standing armies require a much more complex and prosperous economy than feudalism and levies.
>>900986
Standing armies are expensive as fuck as it requires you to pay your soldiers all the time instead of just when they are needed. Not even the parthians kept a standing army IIRC.
Another thing that makes having standing armies a problem is having a military aristocracy. Nobles aren't that fond of spending long amounts of times away from their lands, especially if it means hanging around some god forsaken border province.
>>900986
Not enough taxation.
The cost of England keeping an Agincourt size (9.000-12.000) army standing for a year would be 95% of the crown revenue of around 110.000 pounds. So basically lack of taxes and revenue and the high cost of soldiers compared to later times.
The medieval GDP per capita overtook peak roman levels around 1000 AD but the existing states simply didn't have the right logistical and legal infrastructure to raise armies like it.
Another thing you need to keep in mind is that necessity is the mother of invention, don't fix something if it isn't broken. Rome simply arrived at a point where their old way of raising troops didn't do the trick anymore.
>>901059
FYI
110.000 pounds was the English crown income that was expected to run all the civil services and courts.
A men-at-arms of the lowest order recieved a wage of 1 shilling a day which translates to 18.5 pounds of yearly wage for them.
The lowest paid soldier in Henry V's army was an archer who earned 3 pence a day or 4.5 pounds a year.
Now these are just wages of soldiers, many men-at-arms and archers earned more than this, there were captains to be paid, food was expected to be paid for by soldiers but in practice commanders needed to draw food supplies too the army, one had to bring siege equipment, possible transport in the form of ships, transport for all the tents and equipment, food for horses etc etc.
>>901059
>The medieval GDP per capita overtook peak roman levels around 1000 AD
Actually, if we consider the western european average, the overtaking happened in the 1500s.
If we consider roman Italy, its gdp was still twice as high as the average european's in the 1000s.
>>900986
The Empire still had standing armies. Especially during Commenian times and the rule of Michael VIII.
>>900986
Because standing armies are
A) hideously expensive
B) Politically unstable.
Both of which led to enormous problems with the Roman Republic, and later the empire. Cost for keeping 20-25 legions active at all times was the single biggest expenditure by the emperors, and damn near bankrupted the state, and you have all the fun of various legion commanders throwing their weight around.
Honestly, to me, the better question is what led to that paradigm shifting out in the 19th century, at least in Europe; even today, you see problems with strong standing forces in places like the Arab world.
Also the mamelukes could be considered a standing army. The Fatimid Caliph had his own Abyssinian Guard, kind of like a kebab praetorian.
>>901113
>comnenian army
>standing
It's literally considered the army's nadir, when pronoiars, provincial levies, and aristo retinues made up the greatest part of the army.
Viking chieftains and Rus' princes had standing armies
At the battle of the Ice Alexander Nevsky had 3000 man druzhina
Cnut the Great also had 3000 housecarls.
>My arm is sore
>my feet are cold
>I wish I was at home playing knucklebones
>>901104
>Actually, if we consider the western european average, the overtaking happened in the 1500s.
Which is kinda hilarious seeing how medieval Italy overtook China around 1200 AD.
Would that make Roman Italy richer than Song Dynasty China?
>>901104
Are you sure about that?
http://brilliantmaps.com/roman-empire-gdp/
>>901145
Actually, using Madison's Contours of the World Economy, 1–2030 AD data, roman Italy had a greater per capita gdp than China until the 1970s. Song China was 150% richer than 11th century Italy tho.
>>901154
>Are you sure about that?
I haven't read the article, but the map at the beginning has the same data as mine, so yes.
There wasn't any infrastructure to maintain a standing army during the middle ages.
>>901154
kek, 2,000 years of advancement are there are countries on this planet with a Per Capita GDP that is only marginally better than the Roman Empire
>>901176
You realize that China had vast areas of wastelands, whereas Italy is a densely populated area. A fairer comparison would be the capital province and eastern megacities.
>>901176
Expressed in 1990 dollars GDP per capita the highest overal estimate for the Roman empire I have seen is 940 dollars.
Domesday book England (1086 AD) sat around 750 dollars with Song China at that date having roughly 1200 dollars having already started declining.
Italian GDP per capita around 1300 AD was 1480 dollars. Data before that date is not mentioned in the study I am taking this data from.
>>901206
Yangtze delta was China's most developed area and that region was overtaken by the low countries/Holland around 1480.
>>901210
link it scrub
>>901201
What so weird about that? In some inland African countries there are regions where hoe farming is still practiced, saw some video in which a guy got a micro credit to buy an oxen to plough making him the first or second in his village to have that.
>>901206
So what. The question was Italy v China, not Rome v Chang'an.
>>901210
I'm actually working off a 809 estimate for 1AD Italy and 450 for 1000AD China. I don't actually have data for Song China other than that, but considering Ming China in 1500AD is given as 600, I can't imagine 1200 being realistic.
All GDP (PPP) per capita in 1990 International Dollars btw.
>>901218
Accounting for the great Divergence: Stephen Broadberry (though he works with people from all over the globe)
This is the most recent short summary with the most up to date data, he contends that Madisons estimates were way to low and that he never bothered to look at the wealth of tax records and information from the European middle ages.
http://www.voxeu.org/article/japan-and-great-divergence-725-1874
And some older work
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/events/conferences/greatdivergence14/accountinggreatdivergence4.pdf
https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/events/conferences/longrungrowth/broadberry.pdf
http://www.voxeu.org/article/accounting-great-divergence
>This new work presents quite a different picture of the development of European and Asian nations from that surmised by Angus Maddison in his widely used book, The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, where pre-1820 estimates of per capita GDP were based largely on conjecture, and provided only for a small number of benchmark years.
>As it turns out, medieval and early modern European and Asian nations were much more literate and numerate than is often thought. They left behind a wealth of data in documents such as government accounts, customs accounts, poll tax returns, Parish registers, city records, trading company records, hospital and educational establishment records, manorial accounts, probate inventories, farm accounts, tithe files. With a national accounting framework and careful cross-checking, it is possible to reconstruct population and GDP back to the medieval period. The picture that emerges is of reversals of fortune within both Europe and Asia, as well as between the two continents.
>>901176
>Madison
Fucking pleb
>>901242
From Broadberry's works it appears that Song china was the economic heighpoint.
This view is supported by the fact that writers and visitors too China mention it hadn't advanced since Marco Polo visisted, Adam Smith even suggested Marco Polo visited China after it's peak and now it turns out the old bastard might have been right.
Another stunning thing is the little divergence found in the research, in Europe England and Holland started surging ahead of Spain and Italy from the Black Death (1340) onward. In Asia Japan experienced growth when China was steadily declining.
Feudal kingdoms were like tiny Somalias and often couldn't afford more than a couple guys with spears when there wasn't a war going on.
>>900986
Charles Martel had standing armies to face the Muslim hordes as early as 730. Tho the economic toll it took forced him to seize church lands and become vilified by the pope.
>>901266
China was overpopulated as fuck and wages were significantly lower. In fact Yangtze Delta China had labor so cheap it used more laborious woodblock printing rather than loose type-set printing despite having invented it hundreds of years before Europeans, same goes for other things like drainage of lands and agriculture.
Not surprising when you realize wet rice cultivation provides like 3 or 4 times more than grain farming. Europe wouldn't catch up with Chinese levels of population growth until the potato was introduced, we all saw what that did to Ireland...
>>901258
>Fucking pleb
Says the guy citing someone who did not post data for the period of Europe we're actually discussing.
>>901265
Broadberry doesn't actually give data for Song Italy, so it's kinda hard to make a comparison off his studies.
His England however is given as much richer than Madison's, so if we go off of that, you'd have to considerably bump up Italy, it's not unthinkable to say to a level above China.
>>901266
>Italy wasn't even a country during the time of which you speak.
Italy is a very clearly defined geographic region, however.
>>901288
Of course in China the most prized form of wealth was a basic increase in population. Look at Italian cities. They had wealth, but relatively small citizen populations, in an emergency the citizens could be mobilized but for the most part, all their wealth could only obtain the services of unreliable and expensive mercenaries. The food and manpower surplus was intentional, as it supplied the two most important ingredients for military campaign.
Also Europeans didn't get good until they started cooking the per capita books with the Black Plague. Population could only be so high with poor hygiene.
>>901296
>His England however is given as much richer than Madison's, so if we go off of that,
Don't get me wrong I love the work Madison did but there are now multiple studies which suggest at least some of his guestimates were off and that in many cases actual evidence suggests a picture different from the one he paints, a picture that actually agrees with what period sources said about wealth in different parts of the world.
>>901319
Period sources have middle ages Italy as stupid fucking rich tho, so I'm not seeing what point you're trying to make against me.
>>901318
I don't really get the whole central bureaucracy thing, Mandarins were as much slaves to the apparatus as they were its boss. The curtailing of free trade and focus on agriculture were ruinous, perhaps great for stability for ruinous in the long term.
>Also Europeans didn't get good until they started cooking the per capita books with the Black Plague. Population could only be so high with poor hygiene.
Come again? Not sure I follow what you are saying.
>>901206
>This view is supported by the fact that writers and visitors too China mention it hadn't advanced since Marco Polo visisted, Adam Smith even suggested Marco Polo visited China after it's peak and now it turns out the old bastard might have been right.
This is just plain wrong. What would casual visitors to China know of it's history? Much of East Asian history was unknown to Europeans of the 18th Century, Especially the great armchaired cunts of Enlightenment Europe like Adam Smith. They'd travel the world and see anything that wasn't approximate to European standards of civilization of the 1700's as "stuck in time" despite shitloads of changes that has happened since Marco Polo's days. The fucking Catholic clergy such as Jesuits know more of Chinkdom than the Philosophes.
I mean, I could give you one example: the Chink cotton industry which was largely unnoticed due to
1) Dwarfed by India.
2) Silk was more famous
But Chinks may not have invented the cotton gin but they did invent during the 1700's an underground vacuum dryroom that enabled cotton to stay dry and not rot away to the point that it approached cotton-gin tier production because shitloads of cotton was saved.
Read up on "The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the making of the Modern Economy." by Kenneth Pomeranze. Or the term "Great Divergence" in General. Shit argues that economically East Asia and (Western) Europe were pretty much at the same pace, with almost the same economic conditions that if progressivists were taken seriously, should lead to industrialization, until the 1700's when only Europe industrialized and E. Asia "failed" for reasons still debated
>>900986
rome was a ridiculous economical and political contraption that did a lot of whack ass shit
>>901343
I am not trying to make a point against you, just pointing out Broadberry is pretty neat.
Period sources suggest Italy was indeed the richest part of Europe until the 15th century when the Burgundian low countries equaled and then surpassed it. Then the Italian wars happened and everything went to shit.
>>901344
>Not sure I follow what you are saying.
He's probably saying that the shift to high skill labour caused by the plague's manpower shortages considerably helped Europe's per capita gdp. Which is not wrong, but not relevant either, unless we're considering absolute gdp instead.
>>901355
Europe Industrialized because They were close to the first Country to Industrialize(Britian)
The Real Question should be why Did Britian Industrialize and Not any of the great power before them including many European Powers
>>901360
>just pointing out Broadberry is pretty neat
Oh well I'm certainly not gonna try to take him down. Tho his work looks more like Madison with 1.5x numbers, so I'm not seeing what's with all the hubbub about his work, the comparative conclusions aren't very different.
>>901355
>Read up on "The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the making of the Modern Economy." by Kenneth Pomeranze. Or the term "Great Divergence" in General. Shit argues that economically East Asia and (Western) Europe were pretty much at the same pace, with almost the same economic conditions that if progressivists were taken seriously, should lead to industrialization, until the 1700's when only Europe industrialized and E. Asia "failed" for reasons still debated
I did.
And then I read the work by Broadberry and his Asian collaborateurs who debunk that idea. China did not use it's technological advances, their artificers were noted to be poor and literally everyone European who went there agreed on that. I'd seriously argue Japan was more like Europe, a little behind but unlike China it was growing and advancing, it had similar institutions etc.
>>901376
What other great power had great access to and quantities of coal and iron readily available to fuel the new industrial complex?
>>901376
Because Britain was the second richest country in Europe for 150-200 odd years.
>>901250
Thanks buddy. It looks interesting
>>901380
Well he uses more sources for one, and in my eyes rightly identifies the Black Death as a catalyst of prosperity which lead to continuous growth in some economies while decline in others.
>>901223
Those countries aren't super poor because they prefer their old way of life... they are super poor because of war and internal strife.
That's bad.
>>901384
>China did not use it's technological advances
>Just mentioned one
Ok m8.
>literally everyone European who went there-
Again with the European perspective. And broadberry utilized no doubt the British cunts who were rebuffed and got mad at China because of it. These cunts would say and have said the same thing to
>Tokugawa Japan
"Le Stuck In Time" feudal narrative despite the fact that Tokugawa managed to centralize the government, establish schools, and all the nice things the Tokugawa did.
>>901408
Didn't use mills that much.
>Again with the European perspective.
If 100 Frenchmen visit Somalia over the course of three centuries and note it's poor would you not believe a single one of them? Would it take the word of a Somalian to establish something?
>"Le Stuck In Time" feudal narrative
Who said that because I sure didn't.
>>901421
>If 100 Frenchmen visit Somalia over the course of three centuries and note it's poor would you not believe a single one of them? Would it take the word of a Somalian to establish something?
Except it's mixed? In the 18th Century, the French (kek) Jesuits pretty much saw a thriving empire that did utilize changes in technology, albeit slowly.
Brits said "It was an old Man o' War that has kept the same pace for centuries." Ergo no change. The Brits: who just knew of China in the 18th Century. And fresh off the failed delegations of the late 18th Century. Compared to Jesuits who were there since the latter half of the Ming?
Come on.
>Who said that because I sure didn't.
Not you: European observers in Tokugawa Japan. Literally the same narrative.
>>901442
>Not you: European observers in Tokugawa Japan. Literally the same narrative.
They didn't comment on it's economy being stagnant as opposed to China.
As for your Jesuits, the paper shows Ming China briefly rekindled growth in China but it didn't last nor did it reach Song levels of prosperity.
>One other implication for the Great Divergence debate which is worth noting is that the focus on China seems to have led to an unfortunate neglect of Japan. China clearly was important within Asia because it had a large population and because it was probably the richest economy in the world at the time of the Northern Song dynasty. However, China continued to stagnate long after Japan had become the first Asian economy to make the transition to modern economic growth. To see the Great Divergence as a nineteenth century phenomenon, as in Pomeranz (2000), overlooks important changes within Asia as well as within Europe, and underplays the achievements of medieval and early modern Japan in laying the foundations of modern economic growth. This gives the misleading impression that Japanese development in the nineteenth century was dependent only on importing technology and ideas from outside Asia, whereas in fact it also built on dynamic forces internal to Asia, which are already visible in the success of the Japanese economy in ending growth reversals.
http://eh.net/eha/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Broadberry.pdf
I am not suggest it wasn't a thriving empire though, I said it's economy was stagnant while population growth continued.
>>900986
It came down to how much money and resources a single ruler could personally collect and distribute to feasibly fund an army. Roman taxation and even trade was almost entirely devoted to collecting large amounts of tribute from its provinces and doling it out to its legions and bureaucrats to keep them not only working, but loyal to their paymasters to boot.
This system works well for a state run entirely by a bureaucratic elite distinguished by their education and patronage, but not so well for a state where there are powerful clans and tribes who eat away at the power at the center to gather those taxes under one name.
So for a time the Franks, the Byzantines, and the Arab Caliphate had standing armies from adopting the old Roman system still in place, but eventually discovered the political issues, unsustainable expense, or legal loopholes that they brought into the system through their own customs or incorporation of vassal aristocracies that made the standing army a liability.
>>900986
>testudo while fighting in melee
>>901116
>Honestly, to me, the better question is what led to that paradigm shifting out in the 19th century
Industrialization cheapened the cost of outfitting and maintaining an army while also increasing state revenue from being able to tax the growing market slowly incorporating not just the lower and middle classes but international consumers as well.
Plus the massive land acquisitions through Napoleonic reforms that placed huge swathes of church and private aristocratic land into government hands.
>>901473
Eh, thanks for the clarification I suppose.
>>900986
It requires quite a lot of money. Rome was rich. Medieval kingdoms were not so rich.
Other ancient states tackled the issue in different ways. Ptolemaic Egypt had a Cleruch system, they would give Greeks a plot of land, and in return for this the Greek man must train yearly and go to war when called, as well as maintain his equipment. Essentially a well maintained militia.
>>901536
But no money was involved, the issue of money was avoided, the men were simply bound by duty to fight because of the land given to them for free in return for this service.
>>901536
The cleruch was basically the same system as pronoia, feudalism, timar, arimannia etc.
It seems to have been pretty much THE system for non standing militaries for agricultural economies. What were the alternatives?
>>901520
I actually more meant along the political lines, not the economic ones: Sure, an industrialized state is far wealthier and better able to bear the cost of a standing army, but that doesn't do much for the political ramifications, of the steps you need to take to keep the generals from seizing power any time they want.
But I should have been clearer, and I apologize for not being so.
>>901553
That was always a possibility, and it certainly happened now and then especially in the Middle East. I think a large standing army became a necessity when the ultra-rich monarchies of 18th century Europe began inflating their private armies to massive sizes, and the realities of the Napoleonic Wars proving wars in the future could no longer function on anything less than a similarly massive scale. The threat faced by Republics and Monarchies alike from one another also created a siege mentality of sorts that demanded the upkeep of a patriotic force that could mobilize at the drop of a hat to defend the nation from the invasion or insurrection that was sure to come from their ideological enemies.
>>901550
While Imperial China had a small (relative to size) standing army, it was supported by volunteer militias and standing/semi-pro provincial armies.
It's not necessarily feudal system as the Governor doesn't own those soldiers. Though if he was Jiedushi (Military Governor) he did.
But a truly unique alternative was that China had Private Military Organizations. It's not quite mercenarial as these guys would scoff at notions of serving foreigners, but due to Chinese law- which empowered people to help keep the peace by enforcing the law through owning weapons, especially the rural Chinese who can't be reached in time by Soldiers in the garrisons- Private Military Organizations (Youxia) pretty much were an armed private outfit who hired themselves as legal muscle to rural villages' prefects and aid in shit like bandit repression.
The ambition of most of these guys was to secure a government contract, fight in a war, and hoped to get noticed by the government and included into the formal military with a rank and a lucrative government salary. Basically becoming a military officer sans academy/civil service military exams/connections/all that formal shit.
They have a romantic image in Chinese history but were some of China's most barbaric military outfits. During the Imjin War Korean cities sacked by Japanese were sacked again by Soldiers from a PMO background.
How could they have? Even though Europe eclipsed the Romans economically relatively quickly, they still were still restricted by feudal administration. Serfs were tied down to their land and their lords so the only place where the monarch could have gotten troops for his standing army was the royal domain, which usually was not that large. This of course means that any standing army would have been ineffectively small.
I think people often forget how nominal a feudal kings rule actually was.
>>901629
>>900986
Why do you think ANYTHING devolved after Rome fell? The roads, the architecture, the military, economic activity, huge cities etc?
It's because it was all a result of the complexity and magnitude that Rome reached. After Rome fell and shit became decentralized communities had to become independent to survive. No more relying on trade or on the emperors army to defend them. Everything had to be done locally. People went back to the primal roles of farming, smithing, carpentry, crafting and so on. The complex economy of Rome was replaced by natural economy, in which being a merchant extremely rarely paid for itself and barter was the way to go. Such a primitive society simply wasn't able to accrue the excess resources (food, time, people) needed to sustain any standing armies, politicians, officials, artists or anything of the sort.
Feudalism was the result of the collapse of Rome after which every smaller society had to fend for itself. Obviously over time they developed into smaller states with their own ruling families which over time mingled, waged wars, aligned and separated with and from eachother. As more time went by and the societies gradually became more sophisticated and centralized again, standing armies, alongside with every other perk of an advanced civilization became a thing again.
>>901520
>>901553
It wasn't just the cheapness of an army that made standing armies possible. It was also the increased effectiveness of literally everything and everyone due to the industrialization that led to the surplus of people that weren't really needed in farming or any other primal activities that made their recruitment possible.
A standing army was advantageous because it essentially meant a professional army, and after several wars also an experienced one. Military became a career path separate from any other. No more did it have anything to do with aristocracy as it used to during the feudal era. Due to increased centralization and industrialization the mass production and uniformity of weapons, military tools, clothes, ammo was another thing that made standing armies possible.
the most famous legion was formed by Spaniards they conquered Britain among others
>>901769
>the most famous legion was formed by Spaniards
You do know that "hispana" refers to their station and not ethnic composition right? Up to Caracalla, the legions proper were manned exclusively by citizens, so italians and roman colonists basically.
This general Hispanic really existed
The praetorian guard Cesar, was formed exclusively by Spanish centurianos
>>900986
Money.
Source: Rome 2 Total war: Divide Et Impera mod
>>900986
>Saxon Fyrd.
anytime anywhere in England a king could have 10,000 at Fyrdsmen at his beck and call within a week.
>>900986
The main argument seems to be that it was to expensive.
But what made it so expensive?
>>900986
It required tons of resources and very organised logistics.
Feudal armies were better financial-wise.
>>903292
End of slavery.
>>903134
The anglo-saxons couldn't even get that many men together for the battle of Hastings, and they KNEW Hastings was a win or die situation for the kingdom.
No. For one, you CANNOT call up whoever whenever. For one, they're only obligated to serve for so long out of the year. Blow your load early and they're not coming back until next year.
Second, farmers not at home means farmers not farming, meaning you starve and potential wreck the economy for years.
They're also mediocre combatants on a good day.
>>903134
This was a tribal levy, not a standing army.
>>903324
>Franko-Norman detected
"levy" every man was a soldier.
>>903312
They couldn't call that many at Hastings because they sent everyone home 5 days earlier!
The king and his thegns could demand service from anyone if the kingdom was directly threatened, they could not however maintain a "field army" home or abroad for longer than the service was. They had a massive army that was on par with any standing army as it could be called up anytime anywhere, think Romano-German border armies.
The economy wouldn't be wrecked for years if they missed a harvest....not to mention not all the men were always called and most villages had the young and the old if the situation became too dire. They didn't rely on yearly agriculture like other more "advanced" civilizations had previously done.
>mediocre
lel sure m8.
>>903292
Because legionaries were professional soldiers. By the time of the marian reforms, the Roman Empire was a giant compared to its rivals as well as a naval power, having a standing army it can ship anywhere was better than having tons of regional levies (that might be used against the central state in a rebellion).
>>903361
A part-time soldier, and their lack of discipline showed.
>>901128
The mamelukes were also slave soldiers that technically didn't need to be paid, just be equipped and boarded by the state
>>901629
>>901632
based Philip Augustus
>>903361
>>Franko-Norman detected
>"levy" every man was a soldier.
Yes, that's how tribal levies work. Compare the levies of the Hebrew kings, or the Aztec kings, or the Slav kings, etc etc.
>>900986
Because Rome had the advantage of a well educated population and a complex bureaucracy required to recruit, equip, pay and train soldiers. In the chaos and division afterwards it was simple for the warlord who would be king say to say to good warrior Bob "hey Bob, I'll give you this village we conquered that you can tax and lord over. All I ask you to do in return is send me a small cut of the taxes every year and train your sons to fight and buy them swords and chainmail and stuff so they stay alive. Deal?"
>>903584
Rome's advantage was in fact overpopulation and unemployment. Having one of the longest growing seasons on top of being surrounded by other warlike city states creating a culture where war=politics and an endless cycle of go to war---plunder and enslave--soldiers come home to no jobs (work now done by slaves)--go to war and get paid again. One of the reasons for the collapse of the western empire was simply that it did not have the cash flow/trade routes of the east and there simply wasn't anyone worth conquering. The west at the end was simply financially insolvent
>>903362
But what about professional soldiers made it expensive?
>>903845
The fact you have to pay them all the time, not just when you're using them.
>>903845
You ever had a kid?
Imagine having 200 grown kids, but you also employ them and have to pay for their equipment, training, and salary at the bare minimum.
Now imaging 2,000
20,000
200,000
Not to mention these are all able bodied young men from a predominantly patriarchial agricultural society.
So in addition to increased expenses you also run the risk of losing taxes.
Did the older civilizations (Egypt, Sumer etc.) also have standing armies comparable to Rome?
Or was the Roman army unprecedented so far?
>>904177
They had some standing units, like the Persian "immortals" that could have been quite numerous.
But an entire standing army was a new, unprecedented thing. I think Seleucids tried something like that as well?
>>900986
A combination of organization, money, and sovereignty. As well as the fact that, when the Franks were horse fucking the rest of Europe, they didn't really need it. For them, it was a lot more effective to simply tell their warriors that if they fought well, they'd get land. Since they were reasonably good and were fighting as a military to get land instead of protecting it, it worked out fine.
On organization; while it obviously varied depending on the kingdom and the year, as a rule of thumb feudalism only required the nobility to follow the king around during campaign. They did not necessarily have to follow his exact instructions in battle. So while most of the relatively wealthy nobility maintained a small force of unlanded nobility kept on retainer(which if united would create a small but fairly effective standing army), they tended to do whatever they viewed as being good for themselves.
On money.... while its certainly more efficient to set up a bureaucracy and tax everyone to get the money, its fairly difficult to set up that system when your nobility are resistant to giving up so much more. As such, it was a long and slow journey to get to the point where kings could have more than a largeish bodyguard unit.
Sovereignty is also a big issue; the problem with feudalism is that landed nobility have a degree of sovereignty, but not all of it. As such, its a bit much for a king to go marching around his noble's land and picking up all his peasants to take away for twenty years.
>>904177
They had smallish core groups for peacetime, and expanded it greatly during major wars. Its kind of like America for WWI and WWII.
Does somebody know which percentage of Roman budegt was used for its military?
>>900986
Money
>>904758
At least according to wiki, about 75% for a lot of the lifetime of the empire.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Roman_army
>>905134
that's insane.
Nowadays, countries spend about 2% of their budget on military, is that correct?
>>903845
You have to pay them even during peaceful times
>>905134
Holy shit.
>>905134
Makes sense
>>905181
in that ballpark, though the Roman economy was very different, at least 90% of the population were farmers and Roman government spending was just a few percentiles of GDP
>>901344
All those are valid criticisms, but this thread is about standing armies, and I have already pointed out some of the ways in which the imperial system was able to maintain the surpluses required for such armies, as well as the inadequacy of the European economies to support such.
>>901361
How is a loss of (by one estimate) 50% of the population not relevant? The Black Death is literally the elephant in the room. It would be like talking about the Pelloponesian War while ignoring the plague at Athens.
I am of course alluding to the not uncommon hypothesis that it was the Black Death that catalyzed wealth creation and a functioning labor market. This was despite numerous attempts to restrict workers wages via statute, restrictions which were routinely ignored.
Because history is cyclical, not linear.
>>905134
Wouldn't Rome get huge boosts from lucrative conquests though? I'm far from an expert on Rome but their more major conquests seemingly brought back an insane amount of loot and wealth from what little I've read, providing a much higher return on investment than what a modern military gets for its respective nation as long as there's still more neighbors to conquer.
>>905329
That's the thing. There's basically nowhere worth conquering anymore. The Parthians live in tents. The Germanics are butt naked in the snow. The Picts live in a swamp. None of this was a problem when they were raping and pillaging their way through the commercial center of the western world.
>>905329
Importing gold in the form of booty doesn't really make the state richer in the long run, not unless it boosts labor productivity etc. Spain and Portugal owned pretty much all the major silver mines for a couple of centuries yet they were quite poor.
>>905339
>Persians living in tents
lol no
You can see that into the 3rd and 4th centuries, Emperors were literally declaring war on Persia just so they could sack Ctesiphon and come back (Caracalla, Valerian, Julian the Apostate)
The cost of equipment and weapons was exponentally higher in Medieval Europe compared to the days of Rome. Some suits of plate armor took 1 craftsman an entire year to make. The Roman's Lorica Segmentata was a much simpler, although inferior piece of armor to produce.
>>905359
>Some suits of plate armor took 1 craftsman an entire year to make.
Some insanely decorated suit of renaissance plate armor is not indicative of medieval equipment.
>>905339
Makes some sense. Are war spoils a part of these sorts of ancient GDP calculations?
>>905343
Hasn't gold been the real prize for most of human history? I'm not that knowledgeable but its hard to imagine significant amounts of gold not being a boon to pretty much anything a civilization would want to do, especially in Europe or Asia.
>>905374
A basic suit of plate would still take a few months to make. Even with modern tools, it takes almost 3 months to make a basic suit of 14th century plate between the rivetin, leather crafting, rolling, peening, shearing, hammering etc.
>>905395
In terms of ancient State economics, cash flow is more important that hording cash as all the latter does is create inflation via devaluation due to a currency surplus. You can see the effects of having too much gold during the wars between Britain and Spain
>>905395
Not him; but the guy who posted the 75 percent figure: that's of the Roman imperial budget, not their GDP, which would of course be higher.
>>905395
>Hasn't gold been the real prize for most of human history? I'm not that knowledgeable but its hard to imagine significant amounts of gold not being a boon to pretty much anything a civilization would want to do, especially in Europe or Asia.
Gold was used as money and so was silver, however a large inflow of gold does not suddenly make everything worth more or less. Labor is the real intricate worth of goods.
>>905408
That goes on the assumption that you have a single person working on a suit of armor, something which doesn't really happen. Modern tools are not that much more advanced than the tools and machines they used, however they did have a way larger division of labor involved in the entire production process. A separate tanner, hinge maker, buckle maker, polisher etc etc. I'd have to dig through Mathias Goll's thesis but he had a few number on how many suits a medium sized (20 guys) armory could churn out in a week. Of course said armory could be belts, straps bucklers, sheet metal, rivets and such ready made from others.
>>905259
>How is a loss of (by one estimate) 50% of the population not relevant?
Because wealth was still being produced. The per capita rise wasm't just an inflated figure due to the black death, it reflected a real production improvement (spurred by the shifting labour market the black death created).
>>905181
75% of the roman budget was like 4% of the roman gdp. IIRC the top spending was 10% during the military anarchy, and that more due to pestilence shrinking the gdp than the budget being raised.
>>900986
First standing army after the Legions were the turkish Janissaries
>>901009
Jeez, didn't freaking sargon of akkad have a standing army?
>>905181
Also consider that in Rome, a good chunk of the public works projects that take up most of the current governmental gdp like road building and general upkeep was private.
>>901005
have a (you)
>>905514
That's just a restatement of what I said.
>>903845
>But what about professional soldiers made it expensive?
You pay for EVERYTHING
Quick name something that a soldier might need ... yup you need to pay for that.
>>901005
This
>>903845
They demand regular wages in actual currency. Before widespread and very stable paper money this meant a lot of silver, and no matter how rich one's nation theoretically was, gathering enough circulating currency without minting more or melting down what you already have to depreciate its value and meet your army's demand was an insanely complicated and difficult undertaking, one where speculating vultures and lenders hover around waiting to take advantage.
>>908144
This, actual economy activity meant jack shit in a world without fiat currencies and wealth was locked down to a limited amount of gold (that had to be physically transferred around) that was available in your area.
