Why no more hereditary miltaries?

[archon476]

Simply put, democracy and career choice concerns aside, what's stopping the formation of official hereditary military families who are expected to contribute at least one career soldier every generation to whichever state currently holds sway over them in exchange for land, privileges, or whatnot? Others can of course join as volunteers. It simply strikes me as odd that it doesn't seem to have taken root anywhere in the world in the modern era.

Past examples include Ming Dynasty guard units and the prussian officer families.

[Apocal]

The rise of the individual and the celebration of free will. Plus those guys, historically, tend to eventually turn to shit anyway and either overthrow the government or just become total losers on the battlefield.

That being said, I went through a fairly prestigious advanced operator's course for some of our gear a few years back, the class was almost even split between blueshirts and khakis. And out of the 13 students, I was the only one who was not the son of a Master Chief or an Admiral. Later someone else made the remark that about 2/3 of the pilots in our Marine fighter squadron were sons or daughters of Marine Corps generals and it wasn't a terribly unusual thing.

Still kind of awkward.

That being said, my extended family has had someone in uniform every generation, with my current generation neck and neck with the WW2 one for numbers (5). Of course the percentages are much lower because there are about twenty times as many of us in total .

[Zor]

Why? Because it creates a military class, a class of people seperate from the rest of society whos profession is war. People inside said group and outside see each other as diferent than the rest of society and people outside see themselves as diferent from everyone else. This is dangerous to the stability of a society. It also tends to deminish the quality of soldiers over time, The Streltsi in Russia are a prime example of where this mentality leads.

With a Standing Army composed of either volunteers or conscripts, Susan the Infantrywoman is not part of something fundamentaly distinct and diferent entity from Larry the Haberdasher.

Zor

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by Zor

Why? Because it creates a military class, a class of people seperate from the rest of society whos profession is war. People inside said group and outside see each other as diferent than the rest of society and people outside see themselves as diferent from everyone else. This is dangerous to the stability of a society.

Uh... you pretty much described the attitude of most of the present US military. No need for hereditary anything for that, any position that is so culturally different from the other parts of society is going to produce that mentality.

[StarSpawn]

They also have a tendency to die out if the Wars are particulary bitter, sort of a Darvinian test if you want.

[Torr Samaho]

Originally Posted by Apocal

Uh... you pretty much described the attitude of most of the present US military. No need for hereditary anything for that, any position that is so culturally different from the other parts of society is going to produce that mentality.

it would produce a mentality of "being born to rule", opposing civilian control of the military (by elected leaders)

promotion by merit increases efficiency of a military anyway, just because someone is the son of a rich landlord this doesn't mean he's any good in uniform.

[dylanredefined]

There was an interesting documentary a few years back comparing the USMC
with American society in general.It actually ended up pointing out that the marines actually believed and lived by values the society they were pledged to defend didn't really hold any more.So you may well end up with larger amounts of families with a history of serving in the marines compared to the other services.It wasn't sure if it was a good or a bad thing.
I think the 2 world wars did for the whole hereditary military killed off lots in the first one and opened up the military to the whole meritocracy ideal.

[MarekGutkowski]

I can also add that I current day and age when power is held by those with a big pocketbook and not by those in Armour. Son of a banker is more likely to drive a Ferrari then a son of a Master Chief or even a Admiral.

In ages past the one in Armour also had the biggest pocketbook. Being in the armed forces a knight or what ever was the only way to get rich now there are other easier ways to earn wealth, so why bother.

[Roi Danton]

Originally Posted by archon476

Simply put, democracy and career choice concerns aside, what's stopping the formation of official hereditary military families who are expected to contribute at least one career soldier every generation to whichever state currently holds sway over them in exchange for land, privileges, or whatnot? Others can of course join as volunteers. It simply strikes me as odd that it doesn't seem to have taken root anywhere in the world in the modern era.

Past examples include Ming Dynasty guard units and the prussian officer families.

Why should the state even want one? Today a top notch scientist or engineer is equally valuable to a nation than the most dedicated soldier. Indeed I believe that they are even more important than a whole platoon of elite soldiers. In a world where someone with enough technology can wipe out anyone he chooses or disrupt a whole economy by pressing a button no nation has need for a military family - at least not enough to give them extra stuff beside their usual pay.

Also of course this does prohibit the creation of a warrior caste. Which is a good thing.

Oh, and of course this doesn't mean that there aren't any military families around.

[Firethorn]

Originally Posted by Roi Danton

Oh, and of course this doesn't mean that there aren't any military families around.

There are still hereditary military families out there. But they have to make the choice each generation, and they have to compete with the rest of the volunteers. I do not view this as a bad thing.

Heck, I come from a military family myself. Dad was in the service, both my uncles, my brother spent some time. I'm the only career one.

Most hereditary systems would both increase the number of those unsuitable for the military, and those better elsewhere entering the service to meet their 'duty'.

[Ironanvil1]

Hereditary military only really makes sense in the context of your soldiers needing training from childhood, I'd think.
Knightly training or longbow use are the ones that spring to mind.

With modern training techniques that kind of upbringing is no longer necessary to turn out quality troops, so the dangers associated with it don't have to be borne.

[Q99]

I'm not sure if there's much advantage/point to it.

Some families will have kids that go military each generation anyway, but there's no real reason to make it obligatory. Kids from military families might be less gun-ho if it was required.

[Esoterica]

Originally Posted by Apocal

That being said, I went through a fairly prestigious advanced operator's course for some of our gear a few years back, the class was almost even split between blueshirts and khakis. And out of the 13 students, I was the only one who was not the son of a Master Chief or an Admiral. Later someone else made the remark that about 2/3 of the pilots in our Marine fighter squadron were sons or daughters of Marine Corps generals and it wasn't a terribly unusual thing.

I think that could just be attributed to "like father, like son." Alot of children tend to go into the same field as their parents- I know plenty of families where every other uncle, niece, and nephew is a lawyer or into real estate. It's what they know.

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by Esoterica

I think that could just be attributed to "like father, like son." Alot of children tend to go into the same field as their parents- I know plenty of families where every other uncle, niece, and nephew is a lawyer or into real estate. It's what they know.

I'm going to step out on a limb and risk slighting those two professions by saying this: nothing too bad would happen if all the realtors got together one day and decided that the rest of the country had gone to hell and they were going to get it back on track.

While the US military is far from that point, give it a few generations of all the motivated hardchargers coming from the same general background and we'd be like some of the militaries I've been on exercises with. Which is to say one bad election result or budget cut away from running their country.

Had there been anyone there who was just some dude who signed up for college money and decided he liked shooting big guns and missiles so he re-enlisted, I wouldn't be concerned, but there wasn't.

[Crazy Germans]

Originally Posted by Apocal

While the US military is far from that point, give it a few generations of all the motivated hardchargers coming from the same general background and we'd be like some of the militaries I've been on exercises with. Which is to say one bad election result or budget cut away from running their country.

Might I go out on a tangent and ask exactly which militaries these where? Just curious.

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by Crazy Germans

Might I go out on a tangent and ask exactly which militaries these where? Just curious.

The usual suspects south of the border of course, not Mexico, but further south than that. The only one I from across the pond was Greek and he may have just been lampooning us or putting it on. Or just an idiot in general.

[Firethorn]

Originally Posted by Apocal

While the US military is far from that point, give it a few generations of all the motivated hardchargers coming from the same general background and we'd be like some of the militaries I've been on exercises with. Which is to say one bad election result or budget cut away from running their country.

What it really takes, I think, is a military that becomes more loyal to a person than the country. Normally this person is some variation of a general. Often said general, as part of gaining the loyalty, promises to run the country better, fix the problems, get rid of the 'corrupt civilians'.

It takes a military that's much more disassociated with the other citizens of the country.

For the USA, the sheer scale of our military makes it less likely that a cult of personality will take over, especially with how easy the transition between military and civilian life is. Not only is like half our members from 'civilian' families*, a General would not only have to convince the Army, he'd also have to convince the Marines, Navy, and Air Force. And by the time a guy's that far up, he's only got a few years left anyways. He's so far gone that he might as well be the president for all the contact the lower troops have with him.

I can name my president. I can't name the Secretary of the Air Force at the moment.

*How would you count me? The majority of my male relatives served, but only 1 enlistment. I'm the only career, of my 'generation', only my brother has also served, my cousins pretty much DQ'd themselves early on being stupid.

[Forgetful]

Well, on an aside the sons and daughter of soldiers re-enlisting in the service isn't a particularly bad thing in my view-for one they've to live up to the image of a competent and well trained soldier.