Rise of Professorial Armies

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

I'm writing an magazine article on the Rise of Professorial Armies. Can anyone give me some good information for my research?


Besides, what is your thoughts on this issue?

[konny]

When? What? Today? Early Modern mercenary armies? High MA knights? Imperial Roman Legions? Xenophon's 10,000? Mykenian retinue forces?

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

From 1500's up to 1800's.

[MemnonOfRhodes]

You could use a different title, Professional armies existed over 2500 years in 1500

[konny]

From 1500's up to 1800's.

This time scale isn't realy usefull because we have two complete different kind of armies in this periode: the mercenaries armies that came up in the late MA, and the standing armies that developed during the 17th Century.

For the first kind of army I would suggest a time scale of 1250 to 1650.

For the second kind of army (18th Century) I would take another look if you can call them professional at all: in wartime most European powers used consription, and other forms of 'forced recruitment', very much to fill the ranks of their batallions (in case of Britain: to fill the ships). These armies were more the direct forerunners of the 19th and 20th Century conscript armies than the descendants of the early modern merc armies.

[Azog 150]

Well you could look at England's New Model Army from after the Civil War. Its was England's first fully professional army and although it was disbanded after a short time, it paved the way for England's (And later Britain's) motto of having a small but highly professional force while many other European countries continued to rely on conscription.

In fact, since the formation of the New Model Army, conscription has only been issued in Britain twice- Second half of WW1 (1916-18) and WW2 and its aftermath (1939-1960)

[MemnonOfRhodes]

Landsknechts

[Last Roman]

Well are we talking professional mercenaries or professional national armies? (or both?)

[MemnonOfRhodes]

Bit a of broad subject if u ask me,Army's of different country's ok,But in General is a bit too much....

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Well are we talking professional mercenaries or professional national armies? (or both?)

Both. I wanted to write it based on them from 1500's-1800's and how they got out of the "hellhole" Feudal system.

[Remison]

For the time period your looking in, look up Swedish King Gustav Adolf. He would start what would be a long road of introducing a new military professionalism into Europe. Prussian King, Willhelm 1 also would lay further ground work towards developing a model of officership. Frances Louis XIV also played an importnant role in this development.

[hellheaven1987]

For the time period your looking in, look up Swedish King Gustav Adolf. He would start what would be a long road of introducing a new military professionalism into Europe. Prussian King, Willhelm 1 also would lay further ground work towards developing a model of officership. Frances Louis XIV also played an importnant role in this development.

Gustav's army was a mercenary-based force; sure, the core of this force was formed by Swedish, but even those force was mercenary more in term.

Strickly, full volunteer force based on one nationality like US Armed Force today only appeared after WWII.

[SaberHRE]

Gustav's army was a mercenary-based force; sure, the core of this force was formed by Swedish, but even those force was mercenary more in term.

Strickly, full volunteer force based on one nationality like US Armed Force today only appeared after WWII.

US armed forces accepts foreigners into service...

You can't classify the armies of the past according to today's standards.

Thus with that said, I believe the first professional army was formed from the French veterans of HYW. Charles' VII through the formation of franc archers and the professionalization of his urban militia and men-at-arms created the first standing army of his times.

We could go into more debate that the soldiers of Henry VI of the Holy roman empire and that of his son(and grandchildren) were professional soldiers. They were initally composed of feudal knights willing to serve on knight fees, and who through continuous service stopped being a feudal force. We could argue they were purely mercenaries, but many fought for German emperors, and very rarely against them.

[frontier-auxilia]

In a sense mercenary can be considered "professionals". Sure not a state army but its clear that their trade lies in solely war.

Imo warmen you should trace your roots down 1000 years for deremilitari is your friend and provide some good info if you wanna fill more gap plus let the readers and editors knowing you cite some academic or primary sources. http://www.deremilitari.org/

Also from my historical understanding, an army don't needed to be dub professional to be more effective. Coming to think about it the mongols and early republican roman armies were pretty much participatory militia. Yet they came out on top against many other professional forces in their period. The Qing bannerman were also professional in a sense but when they remained militarily inactive for a dang long time, even the local raised militia trounced them in everything.

[Remison]

Gustav's army was a mercenary-based force; sure, the core of this force was formed by Swedish, but even those force was mercenary more in term.

Strickly, full volunteer force based on one nationality like US Armed Force today only appeared after WWII.

The 18th century french army was, largley, a volunteer force...

Anyways, Back to the topic. Gustavus army makeup might hade a considerable makeup of mercenaries but that was a given is an standing army of the time. However, he also attempted to intergrate mercenaries into his system by hiring them indivualy instead of whole units. He made steps towards educating his officers as functional leaders teaching not only the craft of war, but the history and theory. This is a large part of what determines a standing army as professional. Sweden wasnt the only nation during this period to make headway in reforming their respective army. The Dutch would set fine examples themselves. I'm sure someone here could elaborate better than me.

[konny]

Both. I wanted to write it based on them from 1500's-1800's and how they got out of the "hellhole" Feudal system.

In this case you should make sure that you do not base your conclusions on wrong assumptions on what "feudal" armies have looked like. As I said in another thread: there is a hughe difference between an army of the year 1100 and one of 1300. I would also suggest to focus on one army, in this case I think the French army would be the most interesting in its developement. If you try to take everything into account from Spain to Sweden and from Scotland to Turkey you'll never be able to finish researching.

[hellheaven1987]

In this case you should make sure that you do not base your conclusions on wrong assumptions on what "feudal" armies have looked like. As I said in another thread: there is a hughe difference between an army of the year 1100 and one of 1300. I would also suggest to focus on one army, in this case I think the French army would be the most interesting in its developement. If you try to take everything into account from Spain to Sweden and from Scotland to Turkey you'll never be able to finish researching.

General speaking military force from Middle Age to 1700s were divided into three groups:

1. Feudal or Semi-Feudal system; Medieval European and early Ottoman were based on this. The feature of this system was the core of armed force was based on professional force, either merc or "king's own", and the bulk of army was composed by conscripts.

2. Full mercenary system.

3. Militia + mercenary.

[pannonian]

Well are we talking professional mercenaries or professional national armies? (or both?)

Read the thread title. The OP is talking about professorial armies, so we should be discussing armies that only admit recruits with at least a PhD, and why they arose considering how much this limited their recruiting pool. I blame the increasingly complicated weapons systems.

[Belisaire_]

Rise of professional armies is related to the reborn of infantry and the decadence of Chevalry, Swiss pikemen in beginning of 14th century, English longbowmen in 14th and 15th century, and Spanish tercios were already professionnal troops.

[hellheaven1987]

Rise of professional armies is related to the reborn of infantry and the decadence of Chevalry, Swiss pikemen in beginning of 14th century, English longbowmen in 14th and 15th century, and Spanish tercios were already professionnal troops.

No, Swiss pikemen were more or less militia at home and mercenary outside.

If we want to discuss about the root of mercenary it can go back as far as last Antiquity/early Byzantium. Early Byzantium was heavily composed by mercenary troops, and even mid-Byzantium focused on elite units + local militia force (very similar as early Ottoman military).

We also need to consider Religious Orders, such as Knight of St John, which never died off until Napoleanic time.