Was military service a privilege?

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

Traits cannot be restricted to a certain time-period, so the reformator trait will appear even when the reforms cannot occur yet.

As for the historical accuracy: in the Classical age, warfare was seen as a social duty, so military reforms often were the result of social changes. And social change takes time. The Romans did not reform their army because they wanted to, but because they had. The citizen-soldier was a deeply ingrained ideal, so it took an extended manpower crisis to make the switch to a professional army tenable.

Sorry for OT, but I want to ask: To a citizen in the classical age, was soldiery as much a privilege to them as it was a social responsibility?

[Ludens]

Sorry for OT, but I want to ask: To a citizen in the classical age, was soldiery as much a privilege to them as it was a social responsibility?

What do you mean with privilege? The poor people went to war as well; they just did it as akontistai / velites, not proper heavy infantry.

[Randal]

But it was a right of free male citizens only, and it delineated who could and could not vote in some ancient societies.

So I can see it being judged a privilege. Or at least an important part of these people's identities. That said, I haven't actually read much on the subject. But I understand the question.

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

Sorry if I didn't phrase it quite well (feel free to separate this into a new topic). I what I meant as privilege is that the classical citizen would take warfare as a right- in the same sense that some of us would take voting as a right. A social privilege, given by default, abhorrent if deprived of.

[Arjos]

I think it varied between cultures...
We have examples of slaves or children of certain people used as soldiers; societies ran by the warriors themselves and people going to war for the sake of their poleis...

[Ludens]

But it was a right of free male citizens only, and it delineated who could and could not vote in some ancient societies.

So I can see it being judged a privilege. Or at least an important part of these people's identities. That said, I haven't actually read much on the subject. But I understand the question.


Sorry if I didn't phrase it quite well (feel free to separate this into a new topic). I what I meant as privilege is that the classical citizen would take warfare as a right- in the same sense that some of us would take voting as a right. A social privilege, given by default, abhorrent if deprived of.

Ah, I see. This is a bit beyond me, so I've created a new thread for this question.

However, I do know that both service as a hoplite and voting rights were tied to property classes. The idea was that the citizens who had greatest stake in the welfare of the city, should have the greatest influence and make the best defenders. It has been argued that voting rights were indeed based on the military importance of a socio-economic group (hence Athens became a democracy when it's navy became important); but I've only read Van Wees on this, and he disagrees emphatically. He argues that people who fell short of voting rights, but could afford hoplite equipment, still fought as hoplites. They weren't legally obliged to do so, but they could.

So hoplite service was something prestigious, or at least better than serving as an akontistoi. It wasn't a privilege, however. If you could afford it, you could join, regardless of your voting right.

[Cambyses]

In certain ancient societies you were not considering a real man until you had fought in some kind of battle / raid.

Different in some ways but not others with the respect, wealth and influence that could be won by a man among his peers on the battlefield. Fighting was an opportunity to distinguish yourself and your family. Look at how one of the greatest defences of Socrates was his bravery in battle (or after the battle in fact, bt its the same thing). Or how certain families became extremely powerful in the ancient world simply through pursuit of the military discipline. Victory could lead to massive rewards - not just for the generals, men throughout the army would benefit either directly throgh looting or indirectly through gains in social status.

The opportunity to take advantage of a military position would have been seen by many as a priveledged one. Im sure there were plenty of others who thought differently, especially in the more sophisticated (yes, I know) societies.

[fomalhaut]

As a citizen, military service was expected, honored, respected.

Hell, from what I understand, being a citizen in real terms meant being simply able to afford your own Panoply.

but those were the citizen soldiers, the semi professionals. as for the mass of armies? no, being levied by force from your home to fight someone elses war was not a privelage.

[Ludens]

Maybe the confusion is about the word "privilege"? It's often used to indicate a special opportunity, but I took it to have the old meaning of "private law": an (exception to a) rule or service that is only available to a certain group. Going to war definitely wasn't that sort of privilege. A Greek polis would bring as many people as it could, even if all they could do was throw stones. Service as a hoplite or as cavalry also wasn't, going by Van Wees' argument. It was a civic duty, something that you were supposed to do with pride, but not an exclusive right.

[Arjos]

Absolutely, even the rowers were very proud of their part, I think some people even volunteered iirc...

[vartan]

Military service a privilege? No. But highly indicative of privilege, in the way the term is used academically. Whether or not the warrior was mounted. How heavily armed he was. How protected he was. Which sort of soldiers was he grouped with. All these indicate the sort of privilege or lack of privilege the person had in his society.