Why hasn't Stratocracy been more popular throughout history? The military has all the physical power, they could easily throw a coup at any time, so you'd think we'd see more examples of military rule in history.
Also why do Stratocracies tend to rule for such short periods? It seems like they lack staying power, as they always seem to make way for a republic shortly after a coup.
>tfw no merocratic stratocracy ever
...
Military dictatorship rule but roles determined by merit
Mongol empire? Run by khan and his generals, Subodei rose from son of a smith to one of the greatest generals in history via merit and his actions. Not sure how much you'd consider the empire a dictatorship, but strong singular military ruler seems to fit the bill
Because when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Militaries generally enforce compliance with force or the threat of force. That works great in the short term, but not so much in the long term, since it invites cycles of revolt and suppression. Especially in an industrial or postindustrial economy where the military is reliant on quite an elaborate supply chain to get all of its equipment, you can't really afford to have ongoing strife in the same place you're building your necessities.
It can get a little complicated to define what with the President also being the Commander in Chief in most countries
All the Khanate ended up adopting the Organistional structure of the nations they conquered, proving 's point in the long run.
What kind of effect would a Stratocratic democracy have on a nation's government and military anyways? If only veterans and active military personal can vote and run for office, what kind of policies could we expect to see from such a nation?
Was pinochet a stratocracy?
I think that the typical third-world banana republic or Saddam-style dictatorship is more or less a stratocracy or at least a thinly disguised stratocracy, so they're actually quite common. The thing is, these places generally become extremely corrupt because the way it works is, in exchange for the support of the military the state gives all important and profitable jobs to military types and their cousins, uncles, etc. But those people don't make good businessmen or scientists, so the economy can't compete internationally and stagnates.
The answer is that it’s been incredibly popular throughout history and even today probably most of those shitholes are military dictatorships pretending to be democracies. The United States set up a few military dictatorships in South America and the pacific even.
>military junta is the same thing as a stratocracy
Isn't a military junta sort of just a stratocracy that pretends not to be one?
I think the differences is mainly that in a military junta, the military is in control of the civilian government, while a stratocracy is when the military IS the government and you'd have to be in the military to hold any kind of govt. position.
Possibility because it hasn't been well articulated like other competing ideas about how to rule. Lacking anybody around to say "We should have a stratocracy and this is why" whenever a coup happens they make use of whatever ideas are kicking around at the time.
Well you had to be in the US government to hold any position in a military junta. You’re just nitpicking semantics garbage, probably the main feature of a military dictatorship is that it always pretends to be something else.
Why are brainlet posters always so fucking clueless? Yeah, the poster you are replying to conflated stratocracies and military juntas in a way that is not correct, but so did the OP he was replying to. Despite his mistake, his post was a fairly sensible reply to the OP.
Not really. A Junta can hire non army people.
A stratocracy needs to have army engineers for its decisive people of technology. And basically anything that is the 2-4 top levels of the government, inclduding local rule, can have no real civilians.
>Why hasn't Stratocracy been more popular throughout history?
Well I think it is important to define what exactly a Stratocracy is.
Simple military dictatorships for example are things that stretch back into pre history and have likely existed for as long as the concept of a 'warrior class' has.
But I would not recognise such governments as forms of Stratocracy, they tend to be mostly short lived dictatorships - interregnums between 'real' governments.
I would personally consider a Stratocracy to be a society that has been entirely militarised to the point that the lines between the government, military, economy and wider society all blur together.
While I do not know of any historical nation that would be a perfect match for my definition, I suppose that America of the 1940s and Japan of the 1930s did possess a few elements in-line with what I consider a Stratocracy to be.
I have actually been working on such a system for awhile now.
The basic idea being that every adult would hold military rank and over the course of their working life would have their rank increased when they have demonstrated the ability, dedication etc deserving of such.
This would mean that those at the apex of the rank hierarchy would be the most capable citizens of the society and as such the most suitable to lead it.
/thread
Are there any political philosophers that advocate a stratocracy? Militarism doesn't quite cut it.
>I have actually been working on such a system for awhile now.
>The basic idea being that every adult would hold military rank and over the course of their working life would have their rank increased when they have demonstrated the ability, dedication etc deserving of such.
>This would mean that those at the apex of the rank hierarchy would be the most capable citizens of the society and as such the most suitable to lead it.
Great idea. I actually worked for something called a "company" once that had a very similar system. People were "promoted" into "management positions" after demonstrating dedication and competence at their jobs. At the apex of the rank hierarchy were the most capable employees of the company. They never promoted people above their level of competence, and the upper management never made fucking stupid decisions out of self-interest or because they were radically out of touch with how the company actually worked.
>Why hasn't Stratocracy been more popular throughout history? The military has all the physical power, they could easily throw a coup at any time, so you'd think we'd see more examples of military rule in history.
You haven't even had an identifiable military throughout most of history. Most places throughout the world didn't have standing armies, just a small retainer force that would mobilize by whatever means were available when conflicts started and demobilized when they ended.
Professional, standing armies were the exception, not the norm, which is why so much attention is paid to societies like Sparta and Rome which had them, especially in a pre-industrial era. How can you have a government based along military rank lines when your military in most times and places has been an incredibly ad hoc organization?
The hammer and nail analogy is very apropos. When I was in Iraq the first time during the surge, we came in guns blazing into south Baghdad and within 3 months smashed any semblance of insurgent activity simply by absolutely destroying everything that was hostile to us. Eventually civvies moved back into sector after the fighting dropped off, but we continued the same optempo and within 6 months we were dealing with a full on uprising (see Sadr city May 2008) all due to our heavy handed tactics.
Obviously not the same scenario OP described, but just a glimpse of how the military works and what would happen if we had a coup.
Because the military is only good at doing military, the nuances of civilian governance are out of the usual scope of military thought.
Knowing how to order semi-slave soldiers to make a trencht is not the same as ruling a country
Fuck the military, they're braindead idiots
>The military has all the physical power, they could easily throw a coup at any time, so you'd think we'd see more examples of military rule in history.
A lot of the time military heads simply don't want to deal with the bullshit inherent in civilian leadership.
See there's your problem, you didn't go full mongol and btfo of literally everything.
This. Reminds me of the Neo Assyrian Empire and the cycle of Babylonian rebellions.
Only people who idolize military are those who never served.
Military is full of retards. What's even worse is that non-retards become retarded. Military is a tool, and it's functioning is organized around a single purpose.
You can't govern a society the same way you lead your troops.
You can't govern a society the same way you run business either for that matter.
Also, this user explained it well
Swiss federalism basically is a stratocracy though, it's just that every citizen is a part of the army.
I don't think countries that happen to have mandatory service is the same thing.
They don't just happen to have mandatory service. Switzerland doesn't have an official army, so everyone is part of a federal militia.
can't argue with that logic tbqh. We either went too far...or not enough. Can't really decide.
Out of the 44 American presidents, 26 (over half) of them had some form of military service. Even good ol' W. Bush was an officer in navy.
After World War 1, many officers went from educated, upper-class men who made it in easy because of nepotism, to just average joes from the middle class. It's defiantly much different today than it was in the past. But the reason why I bring it up is because the status of being an officer in the military was much higher back then. Not even 100 years ago the average person was a farmer or, to an extent, specialized in some sort of trade. Being college-educated was something special so it was much easier to gain access to a government position. Not only that, but War was much more prevalent in the past, so many men would have some sort of military background. There was a higher chance of someone with military experience being in a government position.
In the early times of humanity (ancient era, medieval era) new civilizations/states were expanding and thus were always prepared for war. Unlike today, where a man serves for 4-5 years so he can sit at a desk and type about what he learned in today's PowerPoint presentation, military service in the past had men signing 10-25 years of their life away. Basically you would serve until death (unless you were lucky).
When monarchies became a big thing in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, war was constant. In response, men of nobility were encouraged/required to serve in the military and being a soldier was an honor for both the common man and the wealthy. After their service, nobility would take government positions or general positions of power.
Let's not forget when colonies fought for independence they were led by Generals. So when independence was achieved, those who showed good leadership (aka Generals) were first in line for government control.
Basically, governments have always been under some sort of control by the military. It just wasn't direct.
George W. Bush actually served in the Air Force, not navy. My bad.
see: legend of the galactic heroes
It happened constantly to the Romans and Ottomans via the Praetorians and the Jannisaries respectively.
A society that tries to have generals for politicians will rapidly find itself with politicians for generals.
Because governments have many duties that have nothing to do with weapons, so it doesn't make any sense to make those duties a military responsibility.
He served in the texas air national guard.
Sparta had no professional standing army. The civic duty of defending their community fell in the hands of the citizen body. There was no separate entity from the citizen body nor was there a military. To have a standing army would be going against what Sparta stood for.
On the other hand the other Greek City States towards the 4th century BC start having small, standing units such as the Athenian cavalry, the Sacreb Band of Thebes and the Thousand of Argos. These were all elite hand picked troops who were to be the core of the army set aside from the other hoplites.
That would be a recipe for a perpetual state of war. Either expansionist/imperialist war or civil war.
Is soft power better in the long run than hard power?
Depends what world you are living in. If you are living in a world where people are adept at using soft power, and it happens all the time, it's a good idea to do the same.
However, if you're surrounded by rogue actors, there's really only one thing to do.
You need both, but soft power is generally better, why use force when they willingly become slave.
I have been working on similiar idea for a while now.
Basically, you have a system similiar to what Starship Troopers had, that being society split to either Citizens And Residents (civilians whatever). Both have the same rights but only Citizens hold any political power, can vote and get elected.
Any Resident can become Citizen by serving in the Army for a certain amount of years or by working for the goverment (of course it would take more time to gain status of Citizen this way).
Being a Citizen comes with responsibilities however, those being conscription in times of war and the fact that voting is compulsory. If you fail to fullfill this, you lose your Citizen status, however you can gain it back again.