- The question for wordbuilding is how can we think about conscript armies, mandatory enrollment, and crafts. I could find other examples in history but major examples that are well known are Israel's universal enlistment, the Vietnam draft, Emergency consumption in Ukraine right now, an I have no idea how conscription works in Russia. I'm wildly unqualified to comment on the modern politics of Eastern Europe, but conscript armies play an important role in history- and fiction. --- One thing that's really hard to get away from when writing fiction is violence. The most bits of common advice authors get, right after "show, don't tell," are "raise the stakes" and "add more conflict." Short of apocalyptic catastrophes like planet-destroying asteroids and volcanic eruptions, putting an end (or avoiding) brutal wars offer pretty big stakes in fantasy novels. Also, pandemics and the like offer big stakes, but the _conflicts_ tend to be less physical, which makes them harder for authors to really lean into. Arguments with colleagues and long nights wrestling with difficult equations aren't as cinematic as flashy battles between orcs and elves. So speculative fiction tends to involve a lot of armies, and I read a lot of speculative fiction. Yet (before I started the research for this article) I knew remarkably little about the social underpinnings that lead to different societies or organize their militaries into different of armies, recruited and organized in different ways. In the interests of improving my worldbuilding skills -- and, if I'm being honest, coming to a better understanding of the distinctions between Ukrainian and Russian conscription was one of the inspirations for this piece as well -- I decided to do a deep dive into the history of conscription and how it contrasts with other methods of putting together an army. ## Conscript Armies Conscript armies have taken diverse forms, depending on factors such as geography, culture, and political structures. Their overall efficacy is shaped by factors such as civic morale and technological advancements. While some conscription systems have proven highly successful in fostering strong, cohesive military forces, others have faced challenges in terms of training, morale, and resistance from the population. The reasons for that surprised me a bit, but probably shouldn't have. ### Ancient & Medieval After the destruction of Thebes by Alexander the Great, the Athenians created a naval levy system (the "ephebeia") required young men to [undergo military training](https://camws.org/sites/default/files/meeting2019/abstracts/1804.EphebeiaAndOropos.pdf) in order [to defend Attica against Boeotian raiders](https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/6635), among other things like religious and garrison duties, but it turned out that 18 and 19 year old conscripts were not only generally unenthusiastic, they were also woefully untrained -- historically speaking, most Greek soldiers were a lot older than ours, and [most Europeans before the 18th century tended to think that young men were wildly unfit to fight](https://www.bookandsword.com/2021/09/25/the-cult-of-youth/) -- the ideal age was considered somewhere in the 30s, actually. Teenagers were usually [relegated to garrison duty](https://www.bookandsword.com/2019/07/27/in-antiquity-fighting-wasnt-a-young-mans-game/) and chasing down lightly armed opponents. In many African societies,[ age-sets have played an essential role in organizing military forces](https://www.sfwa.org/2021/08/10/unusual-governments-to-take-inspiration-from/). Age-sets, or groups of individuals born within a specific time frame, would undergo initiation ceremonies and assume various responsibilities, including military service. This form of conscription was crucial for societies such as the Maasai, where young men (known as "moran") would serve as warriors to protect their communities and livestock. Similarly, [the Nuer people of Sudan relied on age-set systems to assemble their military forces](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41716559). These systems were effective in fostering group cohesion and creating a shared sense of duty. The Roman Republic employed [a conscription system known as the "legionary levy,"](https://dokumen.pub/warfare-in-the-roman-world-110701428x-9781107014282.html) which required male citizens of military age (usually between 17 and 46) to serve in the army. Roman society was divided into several property classes, with each class having specific military obligations. The Roman army's structure and tactics, combined with the conscription system, allowed Rome to expand its territory and establish its dominance throughout the Mediterranean. The Roman conscription system was effective, particularly during the Republic's expansionist phase, although the eventual transition to a professional standing army during the Empire period suggests that conscription had its limits... as seen when the Empire (to its detriment) [returned to conscription during its later years](https://cimsec.org/lessons-late-roman-army/). That said, it's worth noting that they tended toward mass conscription of foreign tribesman instead of citizens who might have otherwise seen military service as civic duty. The Assyrian Empire, one of the most powerful ancient Near Eastern states, employed a conscription system to maintain its large and well-organized military. Assyrian kings would periodically [issue decrees requiring eligible men to serve in the army](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/essentials/soldiers/theassyrianarmy/), generally during the summer when farmers weren't as necessary back home. This practice was replaced over the course of about 200 years with increasing professionalisation as the Assyrian kings poached professional fighters from defeated enemies and no longer needed the summer levies. ### Modern Israel requires non-ultra-Orthodox male Jewish, Druze or Circassian citizens, as well as Jewish women, to [serve in the Israel Defense Forces](https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/our-soldiers/) (IDF) when they turn 18. Men typically serve for 32 months, while women serve for 24 months. This form of conscription has been viewed as essential for the nation's security, given its geopolitical position and ongoing conflicts with neighboring countries. Unlike the ephebeia, the IDF's mandatory service model seems to have fostered a highly skilled and adaptable military force; it bears a stronger resemblance to the early Roman republic, in that it is seen as a key part of civic duty and is tied to pride in one's citizenship, rather than being felt as an embarrassing necessity to win unpopular foreign wars to save on tax money for elites, as in the late Roman period. The Vietnam War marked a significant shift in American military policy, with conscription playing a major role. The draft, as it was called, targeted men aged 18-26 and employed a lottery system to determine the order of induction. This system was often criticized for being unfair, as [individuals with connections or wealth could avoid service through deferments or by enlisting in the National Guard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War). The draft fueled anti-war sentiment and led to widespread protests, particularly among younger Americans, and led to low morale among troops and increased opposition to the conflict at home. Ukraine's recent experience with conscription provides another lens through which to examine the efficacy of conscript armies. In response to Russian aggression in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, the Ukrainian government [implemented emergency conscription measures in 2013](https://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2013/10/03/Ukraine-to-end-military-conscription-after-autumn-call-ups/UPI-95521380772920/), which it hoped would be enough. It wasn't, and [conscription continued in 2014](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27247428) and on to [2022](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/23/ukraine-declares-state-of-emergency-summons-citizens-home). While the initial draft helped Ukraine respond to the immediate crisis, it also revealed shortcomings in its military infrastructure, as many conscripts were poorly trained and equipped. Early on, the draft was met with resistance from certain segments of the population, leading to cases of draft evasion and desertion, although when the Russian-Ukraine war broke out, [Ukraine has held out for significantly longer than anyone expected](https://www.brookings.edu/on-the-record/how-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-tested-the-international-legal-order/). The vibe I get from reading about relatively modern conscription is that military morale is less continginent on whether the army is volunteer or not than whether the cause is considered worthwhile by the citizenry, and how citizens view their country in general. ## Feudal Armies Feudal European armies do not fit neatly into either the conscript or volunteer categories, as their structure was based on a different system of social organization and military service. The feudal system was characterized by a hierarchy of relationships, in which vassals pledged their allegiance and military service to a lord in exchange for land, protection, and various rights. This system of mutual obligations, rather than conscription or volunteerism, was the basis of military organization during the feudal period. The [backbone of feudal European armies consisted of knights](https://www.britannica.com/topic/tactics/Medieval-tactics-in-the-West), who were heavily armed and mounted warriors that got by as shock cavalry rather than discipline or brilliant tactics. Knights were typically vassals of a lord, and their military service was a part of their feudal obligations, although as with anything the [reality was a bit more complex](https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/feud/hd_feud.htm), since some knights were landless, some lands were held unconditionally, etc. Still, the general idea was that in times of conflict, a lord would call upon his vassals, who would in turn assemble their own retainers and forces to form a larger army. These [forces could be supplemented by levies, which were local militias made up of commoners who were required to serve for a limited time](https://www.medievalists.net/2018/04/medieval-military-revolution/). The levies probably count as conscripts, but their primary role was to provide support to the professional fighting forces, similarly to how they were used in Assyria during the 8th century BCE. For my favorite book series that uses levies as a plot point (albeit with a Roman twist!), check out Jim Butcher's [Codex Alera](https://www.jim-butcher.com/books/alera). Feudal armies were not standing forces; they were assembled on an ad hoc basis, with vassals and their forces being called upon for specific campaigns or conflicts. This system had some advantages, as it allowed rulers to muster forces relatively quickly without the need for a large standing army, which would have been costly to maintain. However, it also had significant drawbacks, including the challenge of maintaining cohesion and discipline among diverse groups of vassals and retainers, and the limited duration of service that vassals were obligated to provide. Although they're often grouped together in world history courses ([which is fairly controversial](https://www.jstor.org/stable/177767)), Japanese samurai were professional warriors who served the daimyo (feudal lords) in exchange for land and privileges... but were decidedly _not_ shock cavalry. Their relationship with their lords was generally more paternal than what European knights experienced, but overall, there was a strong element of heredity and eliteness involved in this type of military... at least for the professional core. The [ashigaru were farmers who served as peasant foot soldiers](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1f0yy4/historical_samurai_and_ashigaru_an_overview_of/), similarly to European levided serfs -- the main difference being that although they typically served their own lords, sometimes they served as mercenaries. More on mercenaries later. ## Volunteer Armies The Mali Empire, which flourished in West Africa between the 13th and 16th centuries, provides an example of a volunteer army. The empire's military was composed of both full-time professional soldiers and part-time volunteers. The professional soldiers, known as "farari," were the backbone of the Mali army and served as the personal guard of the Mansa (king, for those of you who, like myself and almost all of my students, initially thought it was [the stupendously wealthy Mansa Musa](https://www.history.com/news/who-was-the-richest-man-in-history-mansa-musa)'s first name). The part-time volunteer forces, which included cavalry and infantry, were drawn from various tribes and regions under Mali's control. The Mali Empire's military successes, such as the conquest of the Ghana Empire, can be attributed in part to its volunteer army. The Rajput kingdoms of medieval India offer an example of volunteer armies in an Asian context. The Rajputs were a warrior caste known for their martial prowess and adherence to a strict code of honor. Rajput rulers maintained a standing army of professional warriors and relied on volunteer forces from various clans and families during times of conflict. The Rajput military tradition was effective in maintaining regional autonomy and resisting foreign invasions, such as those from the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. Historians view the Rajput volunteer armies as generally effective in their regional context, but they also acknowledge the challenges of maintaining cohesion among various clans and the limitations of these forces when confronted with technologically superior adversaries. The modern US military, composed primarily of volunteers, has its roots in the post-Vietnam era. Following the end of the draft in 1973, the United States transitioned to an all-volunteer force. This change was accompanied by increased spending on recruitment, training, and benefits to attract and retain high-quality personnel. The volunteer model has resulted in a professional, well-trained military force capable of projecting power globally, as demonstrated in the Gulf War, the Iraq War, and the ongoing fight against terrorism. Historians view the all-volunteer US military as highly effective, though they also recognize challenges in recruitment, particularly during times of economic prosperity or extended conflicts, as well as issues of social inequality and representation within the military ranks. ## Mercenary Armies Mercenaries are professional soldiers who are hired by a state, ruler, or other entity to fight on their behalf, typically for financial gain. It's not always direct pay -- oftentimes, they're paid in loot from battles... which can create some relatively perverse incentives. The Carthaginian army of the ancient Mediterranean provides one of my favorite examples of a predominantly mercenary force, mostly because [I find Carthage endlessly fascinating](https://www.eleanorkonik.com/haegemans-elissa-of-carthage/) %% ( [[Haegemans on Elissa of Carthage]] ) %%. Carthage relied heavily on mercenaries from its extensive network of client states and allies. The[ Carthaginian military was noted for its diversity]([Carthaginian Army - World History Encyclopedia](https://www.worldhistory.org/Carthaginian_Army/)), with soldiers hailing from North Africa, Iberia, and the wider Mediterranean region. The use of such forces allowed Carthage to maintain a flexible and adaptable military, as demonstrated by the famous general [Hannibal's exploits during the Second Punic War (218-201 BCE)](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ancient-battlefield-launched-legend-hannibal-180974744/). Sure, reliance on mercenaries and volunteers can created challenges, but a good leader like Hannibal could [unite the disparate ethnicities into an incredible fighting force](https://www.aresgames.eu/21446). The biggest problem facing Carthage, in my opinion, was their habit of [punishing unsuccessful generals -- and sometimes exiling their entire armies](https://books.google.com/books?id=rbbNDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT60&lpg=PT60&dq=The+Carthaginians%2C+who+would+show+a+penchant+for+punishing+failed+commanders%2C+exiled+both+Malchus+and+his+army.&ots=omNxED6JJM&sig=ACfU3U0CzrKujF-HnLMi6RtwzjyWfP95Pw&hl=en#v=onepage&q=The%20Carthaginians%2C%20who%20would%20show%20a%20penchant%20for%20punishing%20failed%20commanders%2C%20exiled%20both%20Malchus%20and%20his%20army.&f=false), even when they were comprised of citizens! In Renaissance Italy, mercenary armies led by condottieri played a crucial role in the region's numerous conflicts. Condottieri were military commanders who led [bands of professional soldiers known as "free companies"](https://www.britannica.com/topic/condottiere), which were hired by city-states and other factions to fight in their wars. The Italian city-states, such as Milan, Florence, and Venice, frequently employed condottieri and their companies to wage wars on their behalf or to bolster their defenses. Some of the most famous condottieri include Sir John Hawkwood, who led the White Company, and Bartolomeo Colleoni, who fought for Venice. While these mercenary forces were often highly skilled and effective on the battlefield, their loyalties could be fickle, and they sometimes switched sides for better pay or opportunities. Some of my favorite fantasy novels are based on this phenomenon -- check out my review of [The Traitor Son Cycle by Miles Cameron](https://www.eleanorkonik.com/the-traitor-son-cycle-by-miles-cameron/) %% ( [[2021-02-26 The Traitor Son Cycle by Miles Cameron]] ) %% for a personal favorite, or the better-known [Black Company series](https://us.macmillan.com/series/chroniclesoftheblackcompany), which is fun not just because it's widely considered the foundational low fantasy grimdark book, but because it the later books put a free company in fantasy!India with lots of wild sorcery. Another notable example of mercenaries throughout history is [the Swiss mercenaries](https://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/moderneurope/theodore-jaspers/), who were highly sought after during the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern period. Renowned for their discipline and battlefield prowess, Swiss mercenaries were employed by various European powers, including France, Spain, and the Papal States. [The Swiss Guard, established in 1506 and still active today, serves as the Vatican's security force](https://www.uu.nl/en/news/why-does-the-vatican-have-a-swiss-guard) and is a testament to the enduring legacy of Swiss mercenary tradition. For my favorite examples of Swiss guards in fiction, check out [The Shadow of the Lion](https://www.baen.com/the-shadow-of-the-lion.html) by Mercedes Lackey. ## Contractor-Supported Armies The use of defense contractors in the modern era gained prominence during the second half of the 20th century, particularly after the end of the Cold War. The increasing complexity of military technology, the rise of asymmetric warfare, and the need for cost-saving measures led many countries to turn to private companies for various services, including logistics, maintenance, training, and, in some cases, combat support. The widespread use of defense contractors in the modern era is often traced back to the 1990s, with the United States and other countries increasingly relying on private firms during peacekeeping operations and interventions in places such as the Balkans and Somalia. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan further accelerated this trend, as the need for specialized skills, expertise, and capabilities led to an even greater reliance on private military and security companies. Ancient and historical analogues to modern defense contractors are not entirely comparable, but there have been instances of states and rulers relying on private military forces or mercenaries for various purposes. As discussed earlier, Renaissance Italy's condottieri and their companies, Swiss mercenaries in the Late Middle Ages, and Carthaginian mercenaries are examples of non-state military actors who served in conflicts. However, these historical examples were primarily focused on direct combat roles, while modern defense contractors encompass a broader range of services and functions. The East India Company, a British joint-stock company founded in 1600, is another historical example of a non-state actor with significant military capabilities. The company, which was granted a monopoly on English trade with the East Indies, maintained its own private army, known as the East India Company's armies or the Presidency armies. These forces, comprised of European officers and local soldiers, were primarily used to protect the company's interests, including its trading posts and territories. While there are some similarities between the East India Company and modern defense contractors, such as their status as private entities with military capabilities, there are also important differences. The East India Company was a commercial enterprise with its own territorial holdings and played a significant role in the administration and governance of its territories, whereas modern defense contractors are primarily service providers, operating under contract to support state military forces. The modern reliance on military defense contractors, particularly in recent decades, represents a complex issue that does not fit neatly into the traditional categories of conscript, volunteer, or mercenary armies. Defense contractors are private companies that provide a wide range of services to the military, from logistics and maintenance to training and, in some cases, direct combat support. While these contractors are not part of the official military, their personnel often have military backgrounds, and they operate in close coordination with the armed forces. In the context of military operations, the personnel employed by defense contractors who are involved in combat or security roles are sometimes referred to as private military contractors (PMCs) or private security contractors (PSCs). The use of PMCs and PSCs has generated considerable debate among scholars, policymakers, and military professionals, with some considering them akin to mercenaries due to their non-state employment and the financial motivations behind their work. However, others argue that PMCs and PSCs differ from traditional mercenaries in important ways. For example, PMCs and PSCs typically operate under contracts that are subject to the laws and regulations of the hiring country, whereas mercenaries have historically been more loosely regulated and, in some cases, have operated outside the bounds of formal legal structures. Moreover, PMCs and PSCs often work alongside regular military forces, providing specialized skills or capabilities that complement the work of the official armed forces. The blurring of lines between volunteer armies and mercenary forces in the context of defense contractors is indeed a topic of discussion in the literature. Scholars have debated the ethical, legal, and practical implications of this development, including questions of accountability, the potential for human rights abuses, and the impact on the nature of warfare itself. The United Kingdom, like the United States, has a significant reliance on defense contractors. UK-based companies such as G4S, Aegis Defence Services, and Control Risks have been involved in providing various services, ranging from security and training to intelligence analysis and risk management. In recent conflicts, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, British defense contractors have played a prominent role, supporting both the UK's armed forces and those of other coalition partners. The use of defense contractors by the UK has raised similar concerns as in the United States, with debates focusing on accountability, oversight, and the ethical implications of privatizing military functions. Russia has increasingly relied on private military companies (PMCs) in recent years, particularly in conflicts and operations abroad. The Wagner Group, a Russian PMC, has been involved in several conflicts, including those in Ukraine, Syria, and Libya. The Wagner Group is reported to have close ties to the Russian government and is believed to operate with significant unofficial support from Moscow. The use of PMCs like the Wagner Group allows Russia to maintain a level of deniability in its foreign interventions while still achieving its strategic objectives. This reliance on PMCs has raised concerns about the lack of transparency, accountability, and the potential for human rights abuses. South Africa also has a history of reliance on defense contractors, particularly during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. South African defense contractors, such as Executive Outcomes and Sandline International, gained prominence in the 1990s, providing military services to various governments and factions in Africa. These companies were involved in conflicts in Angola, Sierra Leone, and other countries, offering services such as training, intelligence, and direct combat support. The use of South African defense contractors has been controversial, with concerns about their impact on the conflicts in which they were involved, as well as broader issues of accountability and the privatization of warfare. These examples demonstrate that the reliance on defense contractors is not limited to the United States; other countries, both Western and non-Western, have also turned to private military and security companies to support their military objectives. This trend raises a host of ethical, legal, and practical questions about the nature of warfare in the 21st century and the implications of outsourcing military functions to private actors. ## Tribal Tribal or clan-based forces have played a significant role in various societies, such as the Bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula or the Scottish Highland clans. These forces, organized around familial or tribal connections, can also be considered a distinct category of military organization. Additionally, some societies have relied on elite, specialized forces, such as the Mamluks of Egypt, who were slave soldiers trained from a young age to serve as an elite military caste. The Germanic guards in the Roman Empire, often referred to as the foederati or barbarian auxiliaries, occupied a unique position that does not fit neatly into the categories of mercenaries, volunteers, or conscripts. The foederati were Germanic tribes or warriors who had entered into a treaty or agreement (foedus) with the Roman Empire, pledging their military service in exchange for land, protection, and various rights. While they fought for the Romans, these warriors maintained their own tribal structures and identities, which set them apart from regular Roman soldiers. The relationship between the Roman Empire and the Germanic guards can be understood as a pragmatic alliance, where both parties benefited from the arrangement. The Romans gained skilled and motivated warriors who bolstered their military capabilities, while the Germanic tribes received land, resources, and a level of political autonomy within the empire. The foederati were not mercenaries in the traditional sense, as they did not serve purely for financial gain, but their service was based on a contractual agreement with the Roman state. ## Relative Prevalence Throughout history, the prevalence of different types of armies—conscript, volunteer, mercenary, tribal, and feudal—has varied depending on factors such as the region, culture, and political structure. In some periods and places, conscript armies were more common, such as in [the late Roman period](https://cimsec.org/lessons-late-roman-army/) or [during the Napoleonic Wars in the early 19th century](https://www.pbs.org/empires/napoleon/n_war/soldier/page_1.html). In other contexts, volunteer armies have been more prevalent, as seen in the modern US military or the armies of ancient Carthage. Feudal armies, like those of medieval Europe and Japan, represent a unique category with their own set of characteristics and challenges. Mercenary armies have been more common in certain periods, such as Renaissance Italy or Late Middle Ages Europe, where [political fragmentation and frequent conflicts](https://www.jstor.org/stable/24474333) created a high demand for professional soldiers (although on occasion, [the guilds fulfilled military roles as well](https://www.jstor.org/stable/24545162), as insurgents -- often led by furriers and blacksmiths). All that said, it's important to remember that just because a particular government predominantly used one type of military service, doesn't mean they did so exclusively, even at a particular point in time. The [ancient Greeks probably used more mercenaries than we realize](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/mercenary-soldiers-were-more-common-in-greek-battles-than-historians-let-on-180980902/), in addition to periodically conscripting young men to supplement their military strength. ## Further Reading - Here is a sort of precursor article to this one, with some thoughts on [the distinctions between soldiers and warriors](https://www.eleanorkonik.com/opulence/) %% ( [[2022-04-13 Opulence]] ) %%, and why I tend to think mercenary armies are kind of weird. As a bonus, it starts off with a very short story :) - I found [Roman Lessons for the American All-Volunteer Force](https://nationalinterest.org/feature/roman-lessons-american-all-volunteer-force-192563) thought-provoking during my research but didn't entirely fit into the scope of this article.