Pre-Modern Armies for Worldbuilders, Part I: Why They Fight

This series begins by examining how pre-modern societies’ civilian social structures directly influence their military organizations and combat motivations, emphasizing that armies mirror their societies’ hierarchies and values.

The series explores how pre-modern armies are shaped by societal factors such as whether a society is agrarian or nomadic, centralized or fragmented. It highlights that armies tend to reflect civilian hierarchies, with leadership and recruitment driven by societal norms. The author emphasizes that understanding these social foundations is crucial for analyzing historical armies or designing fictional ones. The ongoing analysis will cover recruitment, funding, leadership, cohesion, and their impact on battlefield tactics.

Why It Matters

Understanding how societies produce their armies reveals insights into historical conflicts, societal values, and political structures. For worldbuilders and historians, this knowledge aids in creating realistic military systems and understanding past military campaigns’ motivations and organization. It also underscores that military systems are not isolated but deeply intertwined with civilian life and social hierarchies.

Background

Historically, pre-industrial armies emerged from societal structures rooted in agriculture, kinship, and local authority. Unlike modern professional armies, these forces were often small, expensive, and closely linked to civilian hierarchies. The series builds on foundational works like Crone’s ‘Pre-Industrial Societies’ and Gat’s ‘War in Human Civilization,’ aiming to synthesize patterns across different societies and highlight their relevance for both historical analysis and fictional worldbuilding.

“No army can help but recreate its civilian social structures on the battlefield.”

— Bret Devereaux

“Armies tend to mirror civilian hierarchies, with similar lines of status shaping military leadership.”

— Bret Devereaux

What Remains Unclear

It is not yet clear how specific societal factors, such as cultural values or economic systems, further influence military tactics and cohesion in different pre-modern societies. The series will explore these aspects in subsequent parts.

What’s Next

Future installments will examine recruitment practices, funding mechanisms, leadership structures, and battlefield cohesion, illustrating how these elements vary across different societal types and influence military effectiveness.

Key Questions

How do nomadic societies organize their armies without a centralized state?

Nomadic societies often rely on kinship, tribal leadership, and mobile tactics rather than formal state armies. Their military organization reflects their social structure, emphasizing mobility, personal loyalty, and raid-based warfare.

Why do armies tend to mirror civilian hierarchies?

Because military service in pre-modern societies was often voluntary or based on social obligation, armies naturally reflected existing social and political hierarchies, with leadership and recruitment rooted in societal norms.

What are the key differences between pre-modern and modern armies?

Pre-modern armies are typically smaller, less professional, and more directly tied to civilian social structures. Modern armies are larger, centralized, and often professional, with distinct military institutions separate from civilian hierarchies.

Source: Hacker News