Creating Military Culture From Scratch

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

One of the strongest people I've ever met was a very dwarf-like woman only 5'3".

That right there is a statistical outlier.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by martinl

Of course, the purpose in question might not be the purpose of the organization.

Good point. A cui bono test is always adviseable.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

That right there is a statistical outlier.

If I believed even a little bit in fairies, I would say with absolute certainty she was part dwarf. Stocky, temperamental, greedy, super strong... she even had chin whiskers she removed with regular electrolysis.

She exists, so one shouldn't make judgements about individuals until you meet them.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

If I believed even a little bit in fairies, I would say with absolute certainty she was part dwarf. Stocky, temperamental, greedy, super strong... she even had chin whiskers she removed with regular electrolysis.

She exists, so one shouldn't make judgements about individuals until you meet them.

My presumption of her existence is a prejudgement as is my presumption that she qualifies as an individual.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

My presumption of her existence is a prejudgement as is my presumption that she qualifies as an individual.

That's overly pedantic, not quite accurate, and intentionally misses my point.
There is no need to judge or presume when I outright state something as fact.
Prejudging her would be to assume something that I didn't state.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Good point. A cui bono test is always adviseable.

That is a worthwhile point. Many military structures are for protecting an aristocracies power. And some are just for delighting in the culture of war for the sake of the culture of war; are effectively lethal SCAs. Which would be all very well if all they had to do was tourneys, however these types of groups tend to be trusted with the security of the state in which they dwell. Examples of that sort of thing would be the Mamelukes in Napoleons time. While it could be said that they were in a technological backwater it would be absurd to think that they had no knowledge or even their religious prejudices overcame intell reports. The Sultan's army could have treated them the same way and had before on earlier campaigns.

Even supposedly more pragmatic Western militaries have traces of that. While sentimentality usually gets nominal justification if it appears to interfere with operations, sometimes such things can be rather absurd like those Wehrmacht officers who claimed that American artillery was unsporting.

We are accustomed to think of a military as political muscle and usually it is to some degree. However there are other tendencies and some cultures emphasize those more then efficiency as muscle.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

That is a worthwhile point. Many military structures are for protecting an aristocracies power. And some are just for delighting in the culture of war for the sake of the culture of war; are effectively lethal SCAs. Which would be all very well if all they had to do was tourneys, however these types of groups tend to be trusted with the security of the state in which they dwell. Examples of that sort of thing would be the Mamelukes in Napoleons time. While it could be said that they were in a technological backwater it would be absurd to think that they had no knowledge or even their religious prejudices overcame intell reports. The Sultan's army could have treated them the same way and had before on earlier campaigns.

Even supposedly more pragmatic Western militaries have traces of that. While sentimentality usually gets nominal justification if it appears to interfere with operations, sometimes such things can be rather absurd like those Wehrmacht officers who claimed that American artillery was unsporting.

We are accustomed to think of a military as political muscle and usually it is to some degree. However there are other tendencies and some cultures emphasize those more then efficiency as muscle.

Going with that, what if there is a future force whose primary purpose was ritual battles? Abduction of alien species for scientific study? Anything you can think of? That would be a lot different then one for conquest or prevention of same or even a force raised with the assumption that there are powers that think conquest a worthwhile objective.

Ritual battles, odd as it may seem are feasible in a sci-fi context. They are not practical against an existential threat but in a situation where the stakes are so low that total defeat is an obvious marginal disadvantage compared to continued warfare such might exist. Or where the gallactic empire's might is so great that full-scale warfare between baronies is impossible.

Suppose the stakes are belt mining interests argued between two populous worlds in the same system? They could maintain State Champions; perhaps supplimenting rather then replacing their regular military forces for such purposes.

Remember this is a cultural not a technical issue. The only reason we don't have ritual warfare in the twenty-first century is that it is unfashionable. A lot of minor quarrels might fruitfully be solved that way.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

There isn't a historically significant military force that HASN'T done it that way.

Can you give an example from before 1700 or outside of Europe (and not in a country which deliberately copied European military organization?) Many Classical Greek armies, for example, had no officers below the lochagos who commanded a company of 50-100.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That's overly pedantic, not quite accurate, and intentionally misses my point.
There is no need to judge or presume when I outright state something as fact.
Prejudging her would be to assume something that I didn't state.

That would be prejudging the validity of your statement of fact.

The pedantry has a purpose. There is no way you can make a blanket condemnation of the evils of prejudgement otherwise you will be vulnerable to such "pedantry". You can only say that prejudgement has in itself strong tendencies toward injustice which at least is demonstrably true and not therefore a prejudgement.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Can you give an example from before 1700 or outside of Europe (and not in a country which deliberately copied European military organization?) Many Classical Greek armies, for example, had no officers below the lochagos who commanded a company of 50-100.

No. Because the European system before 1700 or so was in fact almost as pariochial in its own way as others. The Manchu for instance may have been one of the most successful martial states in the world at the time. Far more successful then Prussia for instance though not as successful as England. The Manchu's cavalry-heavy system was well adapted to the steepes which they dominated in a manner analogous to the Royal Navy.

One of the main differences in many non-European armies of the time was to not take infantry training as seriously and collect the warrior-castes that would have been officers into elite striking forces, usually cavalry while their infantry was so badly tended they would have been better off without. In fact I think the more pragmatic Maratha did tend to do without infantry at least without the armed mob type(I will have to look that up). In any case they cut their fat considerably. In any case Europeans often found Asian cavalry better then European but their infantry considerably worse. It was a matter of attention; Asian infantry in European service were as good as Europeans because they were properly drilled.

Martial-cultures that were from societies that did not have a tradition of pitched-battle actually gave Europeans more trouble in the tactical sense; the Iroquois for instance. That mustn't be exagerrated as it often is though. Iroquois would have been no better in intensely cultivated terrain then European light infantry and depended on their forests. By comparison Croats needed backup when going outside their own home turf.