|
FreudianSlippers posted:I liked it best when the brunt of the fighting was done by the elite and the peasants following along were mainly there to like carry everything, dig trenches, and cook the food and stuff. Cato the Younger over here.
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:I liked it best when the brunt of the fighting was done by the elite and the peasants following along were mainly there to like carry everything, dig trenches, and cook the food and stuff. unironically the Romans did it right by mandating all property holders serve in the military. While it did not do much to actually address class inequality or poo poo like that, at least it meant that Rome only went to war when there was a reason, and the elites could not just throw away the lives of the poor to serve their own ends. If the elites wanted to go to war with Veii, it was their sons, fathers, brothers, and husbands dying, not the poor. Now they may have managed to find a whole lot of reasons, but when 50k dudes died in Cannae, it was not 50k nameless poor people, it was a huge swathe of the wealthy elite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
Rome rather unusually for polities of the time would go to war every summer, every year. I don't think having the elites in the army taught them much of anything in the way of restraint. If anything the opposite is true, the incentives for elites to gain prestige waging war likely resulted in more conflict, death, and atrocities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 20:40
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Rome rather unusually for polities of the time would go to war every summer, every year. I don't think having the elites in the army taught them much of anything in the way of restraint... Indeed, because success in warfare was key to a political career, and an aristocrat will likely be in charge of an army for only one year, there are huge pressures to wage war. You can only be consul once*, better make it count and conquer some foes!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 20:42
|
|
|
It ended up damaging the smallest property holders most, because they were the ones who would leave their farms to go on long campaigns and not be able to afford to pay someone to take care of it in their absence. Meanwhile, the wealthy families that could maintain their wealth could easily buy up the farms of the ruined soldier farmers and still have money to buy up or invest in any newly conquered lands, so they benefit from the conquests of Rome while the conquering soldiers have to pull teeth in the senate to get their hands on any of that land.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:It ended up damaging the smallest property holders most, because they were the ones who would leave their farms to go on long campaigns and not be able to afford to pay someone to take care of it in their absence. The equipment also had to be self-supplied and was really loving expensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:It ended up damaging the smallest property holders most, because they were the ones who would leave their farms to go on long campaigns and not be able to afford to pay someone to take care of it in their absence. yeah it was not a good system it is just better that sending all the poor to die. A bunch of farmers were bankrupted by the siege of Veii because it went so long that they missed multiple harvest seasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The equipment also had to be self-supplied and was really loving expensive. Did the Romans ever have a major military role for the proto-proletariat other than "paying taxes"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Did the Romans ever have a major military role for the proto-proletariat other than "paying taxes"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velites
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 21:35
|
|
|
Nessus posted:It's weird sometimes to consider how much that poo poo cost because like, you could probably outfit a legion with BUDK-grade steel equipment now for relatively cheap. I an unsure if this represents Class Privilege. skirmishers e: ninja
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
My understanding is that constant warfare did pay off for the small landowner in the early days when they were conquering their Italian neighbors. The fact that it stopped paying off for them in overseas provinces was a source of considerable social unrest
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 21:38
|
|
|
The absolute poorest free romans were used as sailors; iirc even skirmishes had a minimum wealth requirement
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 21:39
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:yeah it was not a good system it is just better that sending all the poor to die. A bunch of farmers were bankrupted by the siege of Veii because it went so long that they missed multiple harvest seasons. the american military, which gets the exploiting the poor reputation for some reason, is marginally richer than the general american population. not like by a huge amount but they are richer this is almost certainly confounded by the fact that they all have jobs, the military being a job
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The equipment also had to be self-supplied and was really loving expensive. Yes that is the reason for the separate classes of soldier in the early legions. They move through the various levels of equipment needed for hoplite warfare, starting with velites who are skirmisers, hastati with a helmet, shield and spear, principes with greaves as well ,and triarii with a breastplate looking fully like classical greek hoplites. The wealthiest were the cavalry, who were also the least likely to die since they were mostly used to chase routers of flank vulnerable infantry. bob dobbs is dead posted:the american military, which gets the exploiting the poor reputation for some reason, is marginally richer than the general american population. not like by a huge amount but they are richer its a general trend of the last century. There were no wealth requirements to be a soldier in WWI or WWII, and the rich could use various means to prevent their children from going to war. The point is the elites can wage wars at 0 personal risk, unlike prior times when waging war meant risking the lives of the elites as they were at various times Hoplites, Cavalry, Knights, etc. its the basic premise of Fortunate Son. WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Aug 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:the american military, which gets the exploiting the poor reputation for some reason, is marginally richer than the general american population. not like by a huge amount but they are richer Not bad pay, either. E3 (PFC, which is basically everyone after basic and a bit) is about $24k/yr. Also pretty good (for that pay level) medical, housing allowance, food allowance, etc. There's more to it than the raw pay indicates. The raw cash is just a touch below the median national income for someone 18-24 (note that this is significantly lower than the general median income, since income skews higher with age). E5 (basic sergent) is closing in on 32k/yr, and once you get into the actual senior NCO ranks it starts to ramp rapidly. By that point you're probably talking someone who is making a career of being in the military, so it makes sense that they'd need to ramp it up. Of course basic bitch O1 gets over $43k/yr, so as always it help to be a noble.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 21:51
|
|
|
Kinda related, I think sometimes people also miss the details of what happens later--the state starts supplying equipment, but the soldiers are still sort of paying for it. It's deducted from salary. It does allow them to recruit anyone but it's not like a modern military. You had to pay to replace things too, like broken shields, and you paid for your rations. Though free food was one of the specific perks the allied forces got.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
Nessus posted:It's weird sometimes to consider how much that poo poo cost because like, you could probably outfit a legion with BUDK-grade steel equipment now for relatively cheap. I an unsure if this represents Class Privilege. In constitutional theory, proletarii did not serve in the army, nor were they taxed. The name says outright what they were considered to contribute to society—proles, descendants. Velites were fifth class and that much more respectable. In actual fact, Roman leaders discovered that proletarii were an acceptable source of military manpower as soon as the more respectable soldiery happened to have been massacred.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 22:02
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:The absolute poorest free romans were used as sailors; iirc even skirmishes had a minimum wealth requirement This is a point that deserves emphasizing. For most of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, the Roman navy demanded enormous amounts of manpower. Oared warships are incredibly crew-intensive, but also benefit enormously from those crews being highly-motivated and well trained. But you don't need to provide any equipment to pull an oar, for this same reason the Athenian navy was full of Athens's poorest citizens during the 5th century BC, while the richer ones served as hoplites. During the height of the First Punic war several hundred thousand sailors were mobilized by Rome, and while the navy was probably never again that large, it was still a very large institution for the next 150 or so years, especially until the final defeat of Carthage. The navy would have absorbed all of Rome's landless citizen military manpower and then some during this period. An underdiscussed factor in the rise of landless men serving in the Roman army in the 1st century BC is the significant reduction in size of the navy after Rome had defeated all major naval enemies, which shrunk the main type of military service for landless men at the same time that the number of landless men was increasing (although probably not by as much as contemporary sources thought, landscape archaeology of 1st century BC Italy does not support the idea of a large-scale collapse in the number smallholding farmers).
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
There was a bit of received wisdom from the Ancient Greeks that monarchies had good cavalry, oligarchies had good hoplites, and democracies had good navies. The idea was that whatever class held power would have the most incentive to fight. Under this schema, in a monarchy it was the king and his retinue/court that held power, hence their reliance on cavalry; oligarchies vested power in their landed citizenry, which made for good hoplites; and democracies had their power centered in their poor citizenry, making for heavily incentivized rowers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:yeah it was not a good system it is just better that sending all the poor to die. A bunch of farmers were bankrupted by the siege of Veii because it went so long that they missed multiple harvest seasons. I think historically, it's fairly rare for just all the poor, the bottom strata, to be the ones doing the fighting. They certainly can and will fight in worst case scenarios, but usually the bottom strata doesn't get to fight, won't be asked to fight. And even when they do fight, they're often not the most useful ones in the fight. Getting to fight is some kind of upper or at least middle strata territory. There may always be some kind of element of separation between the tippy top and the rank and file (especially after long periods of peace where an army is just an annoying expense instead of an engine of social mobility), but just because people say they're the ones on the bottom doesn't mean that they are. Although in modern times you do get more and more cases of armies being able to recruit and train up people from pretty much any walk of life bob dobbs is dead posted:the american military, which gets the exploiting the poor reputation for some reason, is marginally richer than the general american population. not like by a huge amount but they are richer There's also a whole lot of post-service benefits given to former military.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 00:10
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I think historically, it's fairly rare for just all the poor, the bottom strata, to be the ones doing the fighting. Yep. It's projecting backwards a belief about today. There are exceptions but generally in preindustrial warfare, war was an elite institution and poorer people were support if they were present in battle at all. The poor were on their farms getting raided by the elites so it still sucked for them, just differently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
Sometimes I think the taboo on eating humans was created by the wealthy priest/ruler cast so the poor wouldn’t just eat them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 00:24
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:its a general trend of the last century. There were no wealth requirements to be a soldier in WWI or WWII, and the rich could use various means to prevent their children from going to war. The point is the elites can wage wars at 0 personal risk, unlike prior times when waging war meant risking the lives of the elites as they were at various times Hoplites, Cavalry, Knights, etc. its the basic premise of Fortunate Son. Do you have any examples of the elites preventing their children from going to war in WW1 and WW2? Since my understanding is that both of those wars had plenty of elite participation. The casualty lists of most UK public schools during WW1 are pretty grim and during WW2 you had people like Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. dying- the elites avoiding war seems more like a thing with Vietnam and later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 01:15
|
|
|
Pump it up! Do it! posted:Do you have any examples of the elites preventing their children from going to war in WW1 and WW2? Since my understanding is that both of those wars had plenty of elite participation. The casualty lists of most UK public schools during WW1 are pretty grim and during WW2 you had people like Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. dying- the elites avoiding war seems more like a thing with Vietnam and later. The Duchess of Rutland actively interfered in her son, the Marquess of Granby's attempts to fight in World War I. The book The Secret Rooms theorized that he was deeply ashamed by it, eventually becoming a reclusive-ish weirdo dying in his basement while trying to destroy the relevant records. Thinking back to the poems of Julian Grenfell, many elite saw war as this romantic thing in the early days. Or, as he put in a letter, " 'I adore war. It's like a big picnic without the objectlessness of a picnic."
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 04:06
|
|
|
i am not an expert so i might be overextending modernity like fromage said, but i was fairly certain that not a ton of the rich died in WWII, with Elvis being an extreme example of how they may have been in the army but not put at risk
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 04:16
|
|
|
JFK probably felt very not at risk when he was swimming miles with his buddy towed with his teeth after his boat got got.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 04:26
|
|
|
Crab Dad posted:Sometimes I think the taboo on eating humans was created by the wealthy priest/ruler cast so the poor wouldn’t just eat them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 04:41
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:i am not an expert so i might be overextending modernity like fromage said, but i was fairly certain that not a ton of the rich died in WWII, with Elvis being an extreme example of how they may have been in the army but not put at risk You're thinking of Vietnam. Elvis was 10 when WW2 ended.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 04:46
|
|
|
The horrors of World War 1 were really where it started to change as far as I know, though it took a while after that. Even then, look at how many politicians either intentionally use military service as a career move or end up there after the military. It's not exactly Roman level where military service was required before you could enter politics, but it hasn't gone away either. E: Was curious, 31 US presidents were in the military. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Aug 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 05:22
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I suspect that the urge to ritually devour individuals of a higher caste who act against your interests is, in fact, not that widespread, Roman Catholic theology notwithstanding That’s exactly what a higher caste historian/teacher would say.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 05:33
|
|
|
I'd imagine that the "trope" of elite dining with the poor fighting walks hand in hand with spread of mass conscription and the age of imperialism. Add to that the age old divide between rank and file and the officer class so the elite that did fight was still on a cultural level in little bit antagonist position against the conscript masses, I'd say that this idea starts spreading in 19th century really. Like socialists agitated with these views of 'why should the working man fight in capitalists war' way before WW1 but that agitation of course didn't hold up come the actual war when most socialist parties joined in on the war fervor. I'd also imagine that the particulars of this general trope differ from culture to culture. So cultures in eastern Europe that were under the dominion of Russian empire through its fall have different nuances to it than British who have that 'lions lead by donkeys' thing going on while I'd guess for Americans Vietnam War has the most impactful legacy in this regard...
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 05:58
|
|
|
I think in most wars the majority of soldiers and officers don't die, and there's decent odds for most of them never even seeing action, even in a big war. In times of smaller warfare, that would've been used as justification for limiting the size of the army. With the growth of bureaucratic armies that had to cover large spans of territory, that means much more posts where you may never really do anything but take in the local culture between training, and a lot of positions that could maybe be cushy if you can swing them. With the American army after World War 2, there were plenty of positions you could sign up for and probably not see any action. Plenty of posts throughout the world. Most famously, you could sign up for the national guard, and George W. Bush signed up for the Alabama air national guard, probably only managed because his connections, and then avoided the Vietnam draft that way. Of course, conversely I've heard allegations that John McCain probably would've gotten permanently grounded in the Navy after being involved with multiple crashes and accidents if it weren't for his connections convincing people to let him keep flying. That's the weird thing that's hard to get across. Some people don't mind the risk or inconvenience and they want the adventure or the glory of combat. My grandad had hitchhiked his way to California to work on airplanes during the buildup to WW2, and then after the outbreak of war, while he was in an industry protected from the draft, he wanted to serve and go on an adventure, and so had to quit and go back to Oklahoma to enlist, where he chose to become a radio technician, a job where he served at a fair distance away from the fighting. A really nuanced position. I'm sure during the height of the British empire, plenty of people must've had Opinions about where they wanted to be stationed. I know the French national guard made a big deal about not being deployed abroad. Going all the way back to Imperial Rome, I think there was a dynamic of the legions stationed in Italy wanting to stay in Italy, which didn't necessarily prevent people from Italy from signing up to further flung reaches of the empire where they were more likely to fight (although all that does fluctuate over the span of the Empire's lifetime). Fighting is risky, but it could also mean loot or glory to propel you upward socially.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 06:44
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Adding to the prehistoric war stuff, the Tollense Valley site is fascinating as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tollense_valley_battlefield
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 08:08
|
|
Lots of fun stuff to speculate about, but sadly very difficult to find concrete answers for.
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yep. It's projecting backwards a belief about today. There are exceptions but generally in preindustrial warfare, war was an elite institution and poorer people were support if they were present in battle at all. The poor were on their farms getting raided by the elites so it still sucked for them, just differently. that started to change already in the early modern era when the armies started to grow in size the farm raiding of course kept going on
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 11:06
|
|
|
Nessus posted:It's weird sometimes to consider how much that poo poo cost because like, you could probably outfit a legion with BUDK-grade steel equipment now for relatively cheap. I an unsure if this represents Class Privilege. Metal and metalworking is unbelievably cheap (and often unbelievably good) in the modern era compared to any premodern time. We make disposable goods out of metal and that would be unthinkable to someone in the classical era. A basic stainless steel skillet or stockpot you'd find at Walmart today would be a family heirloom if not a royal treasure if you transported it to back then. Edit: and a classical carpenter would lose their mind if shown the nail-and-screw aisle at Home Depot. Kylaer fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Aug 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 11:29
|
|
|
kiminewt posted:There's a half hour podcast episode of Tides of History on this which is interesting, if you're into that sorta thing. That is most definitely where I learned of it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
Kylaer posted:Metal and metalworking is unbelievably cheap (and often unbelievably good) in the modern era compared to any premodern time. We make disposable goods out of metal and that would be unthinkable to someone in the classical era. A basic stainless steel skillet or stockpot you'd find at Walmart today would be a family heirloom if not a royal treasure if you transported it to back then. It's kind of fun to think how things that are very common and boring would be mind-blowing to people of the past. I have multiple items of clothing made from a sturdy and durable cloth that has been dyed an intense and rich royal blue that barely fades, and these are considered so common and low-class that it would be socially unacceptable to wear them for any kind of formal event even though they are usually imported from the far east. Absolutely astonishing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
In the Stephen Moffat Dracula show (it's ok) there's a scene where Dracula first encounters modernity in like, an estate house, and he's just blown away by everything in this dilapidated shack of a home. Says something to the effect that this very poor woman is living a life of luxury that the wealthiest ottoman sultan would envy. I do think about that sometimes, how every night I sleep on better sheets and mattresses than Ghengis Khan ever did, I eat better food than any English king, spend my days in climate controlled, fully lit and perfectly clean structures surrounded by technologies that would seem magical to the most learned scholar of Rome. So was there any luxury available to the elites of the past that overshadows our quotidian consumption in a modern, industrialized country?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
zoux posted:In the Stephen Moffat Dracula show (it's ok) there's a scene where Dracula first encounters modernity in like, an estate house, and he's just blown away by everything in this dilapidated shack of a home. Says something to the effect that this very poor woman is living a life of luxury that the wealthiest ottoman sultan would envy. Blood sports. We just can’t compete with gladiators.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
zoux posted:
The greatest luxury of elites, then and now, is the ability to treat their lessers as tools. I've done that kind of work - serving the rich - and its just not structurally possible to spread that particular expression of wealth. No god-king had air conditioning, but you'll never own another human.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 17:12
|
|
