Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

levy and conscription

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 12:03:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
what exactly is the different between the two? I understand that a method of modern conscription that has been invented since the French Revolution, has allowed, for the first time that a country that doesn't have very large land (such as France) to deploy a troop of small corp level (100,000 - 300,000) on the battlefield.

The forced military service is, however, not something new during the middle age a lords were usually levy a troops from his non-military subject such as farmer during non-harvest time. The Roman also required all of her citizen (and beyond) to fight for the government during most of their life, yet neither of these two cases had created an arm forces of the same magnitude as in the post-revolution period. The Roman for example, need an entire Europe and Middle East to create a force of 250,000 personnel (during Augustus), a number vastly inferior compare to the revolution France give their size of territory.

I asked you this because I am researching a military history of my own country. My subject is that what exactly is the scale of war in South East Asia during 15-16 centuries. The historical accounts of both the Burmese and Thai are often included a very questionable figure such as a skirmish involved 200,000 troops, and sometime up to 900,000 troops during Beyanung invasion.

A pre-industrialized nation shouldn't be able to afford a troops at this magnitude given their scale of territory, in fact even a Mongol Empire at its peak is rarely deployed an army larger than 200,000 troops.

Both the Thai and Burmese, however are well know to deploy conscripted army during the war. The system is very similar to medieval Europe, fight during the dred season and back to the field during the rain. So I am curious if feudal army can produced similar effect to french conscription (which make the number valid) or is there any factor which could cause a significant effect between the two?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2013 11:18:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 12:03:31 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
what exactly is the different between the two? I understand that a method of modern conscription that has been invented since the French Revolution, has allowed, for the first time that a country that doesn't have very large land (such as France) to deploy a troop of small corp level (100,000 - 300,000) on the battlefield.

They are definitionally the same:
levy:
a : the enlistment or conscription of men for military service
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

The forced military service is, however, not something new during the middle age a lords were usually levy a troops from his non-military subject such as farmer during non-harvest time. The Roman also required all of her citizen (and beyond) to fight for the government during most of their life, yet neither of these two cases had created an arm forces of the same magnitude as in the post-revolution period. The Roman for example, need an entire Europe and Middle East to create a force of 250,000 personnel (during Augustus), a number vastly inferior compare to the revolution France give their size of territory.

If you go by Herodotus, King Xerxes of Persia fielded an army several times the size of le Grande Armee under Napoleon fully 2000 years prior.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I asked you this because I am researching a military history of my own country. My subject is that what exactly is the scale of war in South East Asia during 15-16 centuries. The historical accounts of both the Burmese and Thai are often included a very questionable figure such as a skirmish involved 200,000 troops, and sometime up to 900,000 troops during Beyanung invasion.

A pre-industrialized nation shouldn't be able to afford a troops at this magnitude given their scale of territory, in fact even a Mongol Empire at its peak is rarely deployed an army larger than 200,000 troops.

Mongolian armies were not known for being large, only being ridiculously effective. I believe we've gone over this before.

Both the Thai and Burmese, however are well know to deploy conscripted army during the war. The system is very similar to medieval Europe, fight during the dred season and back to the field during the rain. So I am curious if feudal army can produced similar effect to french conscription (which make the number valid) or is there any factor which could cause a significant effect between the two?

I'm not an expert in any of this, but from what I understand, conscription or "forced military service" is commonplace in world history. In some societies, the ruling class was the military (Sparta comes to mind), so military service wouldn't be forced, but rather definitional to their existence. I'm fairly certain Sparta was not unique in this regard.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 8:47:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
From what I have read the key difference is that conscription usually involves training and equipping the soldiers where as levees where usually just dragged along by their local lord and had no training and weapons were improvised.

Also conscription produced a standing army where as a Levee would be a temporary one.