|
Edited on Tue Sep-05-06 09:18 PM by happyslug
Historically, Draftee armies are as good as Volunteer armies (and often better). The biggest problem with Draftee Armies is motivation. If the Draftee Army believes in the War, they are as motivated as any Volunteer. Furthermore since the Army can select who they want the quality of the Army as a whole increases. Thus man for man an Draftee army that believes in the war they are in will defeat any Volunteer army of the same size, equipment, training, Doctrine, leadership, organization and supplies.
The problem with Draftee Armies is when the Country (and thus the Draftees) no longer support the war. When this happens the army rapidly declines (For example the German Army after the Summer of 1918 when it became clear the war was lost, the US Army in Vietnam when it became clear that the majority of Americans no longer supported the war in Vietnam and the classic example, the Third Punic War where the Roman Army took three years to take Carthage do to the Roman Army asking why are we fighting Carthage when Hannibal has been dead for over a Generation?). In all three cases the Draftee Army was replaced by a Smaller Volunteer Army, The key was the Army had to be Small for only a limited number of people wanted to volunteer to serve in the army (This especially hurt the German Army during the 1920s for their Doctrine had changed during 1914-1918 giving more and more power to NCOs and away from officers, this require good quality NCO who were NOT enlisting into the German Army in the 1920s, thus the quick switch back to a Draftee Army in the 1930s when the German Army was expanded again).
The Roman Army replaced its Draftee/Militia Army with an all Volunteer force and then started it move from a Republic to a Monarchy (The New All Volunteer Army was first form in 107 BC, but 82 BC Sulla had used it to gain Complete Dictatorship over Rome and by 48 BC when Caesar defeated Pompey. had used it to take complete control over Rome). No efforts were attempted to review the old Militia/ Volunteer Army after Sulla for that meant giving power to the lower classes. The Militia Army had defeated Hannibal in 202 BC and destroyed Macedonia in the Second Macedonia War (Which ended in 196 BC). Over the next 50 years the Roman Elite used the Roman Militia Army to loot the Mediterranean (This including Destroying Macedonia in 168 BC and making Greece under Roman control) . Finally the Roman Elite used the Militia Army to Destroy Carthage in 146 BC (and what remained of Macedonia in 148 BC) Destroying what was left of any real opposition to Roman rule in the Mediterranean. Finally the Roman people said enough was enough, they first show this opposition during the Third Punic and Fourth Macedonia war (Both around 146 BC) where the Roman Army was like the US Army in Vietnam from 1968-1972, going through the motions only, not caring if Rome won or lost the war their were fighting but trying to survive the war. This "walking" with their feet continued through the Gracchi (Who the plebeians supported to the extent the Roman Elite killed both Gracchi Brothers whose crime was just wanting to enforce existing law restricting law ownership to what the law permitted and distributing what land was held in excess to landless Romans). The Roman elite were much more afraid of their own people after 133 BC and the Gracchi then they were of any foreign enemy of Rome so when Maius formed the first Mercenary Roman Army in 107 BC, the Roman Elite wanted more for it was the proper tool to loot the Mediterranean AND cost less then giving the Roman Plebeians land. This anti-plebeian policy continued throughout the Empire, even as the Empire fell, the Roman Elite preferred German barbarians as soldiers than arming they own peasants. Finally when the Empire was reduced to the hump of Greece and Turkey do to the Islamic Invasion of the 600s (and the Germanic Invasions of the 400s) the Empire Finally went back to a Militia Type Army and with that Army survived the Islamic Invasion, outlasted the Caliphate, outlasted Charlemagne's Empire, the Bulgarian Empire, the Serbian Empire and even the Rus kingdom of Kiev, till the final blow to the Empire was made during the Fourth Crusade in 1204 AD (Though the real damage had been done at Mazakurt in 1084 AD where the Empire lost to the Seljuk Turks what is now central Turkey). This later Roman Empire is often called Byzantine Empire but if you go by the date of the Re-adoption of a Militia/Draftee Army. it lasted almost as long as the much larger Roman Empire of the Classical period. Furthermore the Byzantine Empire had enemies on all sides, any one of them capable of conquering their Country, unlike the Roman Empire of the Classical period that had no real enemies except its internal enemies of its own peasants. From Hannibal to the Goths Rome was never besieged or threatened by Foreign Armies, while the much smaller Byzantine Empire's Capital of Constantinople was besieged dozens of of times and only taken in 1204 AD.
Similar to the German Army of the 1920s, when the need for more manpower is needed the US must go to the Draft OR reduce the need for manpower by withdrawing from Iraq (Look at Rome, other than Caesar's Conquest of Gaul and Claudius Conquest of Britain 100 years later, Rome conquered NO MAJOR new territory after 107 BC (The large war were who was to Rule the Empire NOT to expand the Empire). For example Rome made Greece Roman Territory as opposed to being Roman "Allies" but that was just a matter of Degree not new Conquest, Egypt had been given to Rome BEFORE Caesar took in in 48 BC, so Egypt was not even Conquered. Augustus tried to take Germany, but failed and never tried again for he did not want to raise the Army needed to do the job. Judea was crushed for REVOLTING against Rome in 70 and 132 BC thus not a new Conquest (Judea had first come under Roman Control under Pompey the Great but even that Conquest was more to secure Egypt's border than to take a major new territory for Rome). This tendency NOT to conquer INCREASED under the Empire as the Roman Empire REDUCED its Army requirements by REFUSING to do anything more than defend Roman territory (The major exception to this was Trajan who took what is now Iraq around 112 AD, but his Successor Hadrian gave it right back). Even when the Romans in the 400s turned to German Tribes as Soldiers, these were used to keep the Roman Peasants from revolting then to conquer or retake "lost" Roman Territory to the "Barbarians". Most people in Gaul considered themselves Romans for at least 100 years after what we now called the Roman Empire in the West had Fallen, this was more true of what is now Spain and Italy. This was true as late as Charlemagne time (i.e. around 800 AD). The attempt to re-take the West by the Eastern Empire under Justinian (c 540 AD) was do to opposition to proposed land reforms in the West by the Barbarian overlords (Most land in the 500s were still owned by Roman elites even as technically the areas were now ruled by Germanic tribes). Justinian ordered the attack on the the Germanic Tribes in Italy, Spain and Tunisia to undo these acts of land reforms (taking of land from Roman elites to roman Peasants). The invasion by the Lombards into Italy in 570 AD seems to be tied in with an attempt to reinstate the land reforms that the Justinian had undone during his reign (while most historians used 476 and the abolishment of the last Western Roman Emperor as the end of the Empire, the same people owned most of the land in the West before and after that date (Mostly Roman Elites) and 570 is a more accurate date for the end of the Empire in the West. 570 AD is the date not only of the Lombards invasion of Northern Italy but the start of radical Land Redistribution to the peasants which would lead to more such land reforms during the whole of the Dark Ages. Thus the Dark Ages is one of the few times in history the rich become poorer and the poor became richer (Notice this is tied in with the disappearance of PAID soldiers and the reappearance of peasants Levies raised to protect their homes and farms).
My point here is simple, Militia/Draftee/Universal Military Service Armies if properly Equipped, motivated, organized and lead can defeat ANY Volunteer/Mercenary Army. The key is Motivation. If the choice is which thief is going to take most of the product of your work, such peasant does not care who rules over him and thus hard to motivate except with money (Thus the ease to raise Volunteer/Mercenary Armies). On the other hand a Motivated Army of Militia/Draftees can defeat such Mercenary Armies, even if minimally equipped and trained (do to Motivation and the ease it is to raise an army when the people are Motivated) if property lead and organized (as opposed to an unorganized armed mob). The key is motivation. The Roman Militia Army had no motivation to go to war just to enrich the Roman Elite and thus were terrible soldiers to loot the Mediterranean after Rome become the sole Super Power in Europe after 202 AD. On the other hand hired Mercenaries are easy to recruit if you promise them a share in the spoils and thus the perfect soldiers to loot with. The problem with Mercenaries is you must be able to pay them, if you do not have the money they will leave your service (They can NOT afford to stay, they can stay for a while, even a few years but over time they will HAVE to abandon you just to feed themselves). A motivated Militia is feeding itself and thus a lot cheaper to form up and if motivation is kept up, able to last for years in the field if they believe in what they are fighting for even if food and supplies are scare for years at a time (As was the case with Rome during the decades long first and Second Punic war and first and Second Macedonia Wars).
The Pentagon knows this, the US was defeated by Peasant Levies in Vietnam and the USSR was defeated by Peasant Levies in Afghanistan (And we are having a problem with the same Afghan Levies). Sadr's "Militia" is a such a Levy (Not quite a draft for Sadr's organization is not quite legal, but not a paid force either and consists of most if not all of the Shiites of military age in the Baghdad Slums in effect a de facto draft). While these forces are NOT anywhere near as equipped as is the US Army, these Militia are motivated and has enough equipment, leadership and doctrine to win (As can be seen in Lebanon where the Shiite Militia they held their fire till the situation was to their advantage and then and only then engaged the Israelis).
Thus the key is Motivation not whether someone is a Volunteer/Paid Mercenary or a Draftee/Militia/ Universal Military Service soldier. While it is easier to motivate with money and benefits then any other way, and it is easier to PAY people to train in proper fighting Doctrine when they are paid to do so, and is easier to have people form into organization to fight if that is how they are to be paid, if the same person is motivated by OTHER FACTORS, they can also be motivated to train properly, to obey orders and to stay in formations. It is harder to do so when it comes to draftees but not impossible and if done you can raise a much BETTER army, cheaper than if you rely on money alone.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
