The Functions of Government

Chapter 1

The Origins of Government

Government is the term applied to civil authority in a human community. For our purposes, it includes tribal chieftains, democracies, dictatorships, monarchies, and all other forms of civil authority. Ideally, government is the authority which a community creates (or to which a community submits) in order to effectively deal with problems deemed sufficiently important to require compulsory behavior and compliance, or community effort or funding. But, as we know, government can also be simply an instrument by which a few impose their will on the many for their own purposes. There are many ways by which decisions are made by and for communities, just as there are many ways by which individuals and groups of individuals attain the authority and power to make and enforce those decisions. These are the subjects of politics and history. But once such authority is established, one can say there is a government, whether its form is that of a monarchy, an aristocracy, a democracy, a theocracy, or a dictatorship. Whatever their form, governments seek to accomplish certain objectives for themselves and for the community.

Governments appear to have originated in the Middle East thousands of years ago; they are now nearly universal. Some governments evolved in response to shared goals and challenges, the resolution of which required communal action and leadership. Others derived from conquest and imposition.

Before there were governments, there were communities. In prehistoric times, people banded together for company, for raising families, and for more effective hunting and fishing. And of course, they banded together for protection.

Forming groups is not unique to humans; ants live in groups, as do baboons, wolves, wildebeest, and elephants. Like humans, they live in societies which are more than mere groups; they are communities, in which there are rules and assumptions; there are means for reaching decisions and accomplishing things beyond the capacity of individuals. Essentially, a community is a collection of individuals who live in proximity, by virtue of which they find mates and share interests and values.

There were almost certainly rules of conduct in even the most primitive tribe, rules governing the sharing of kill, contribution of work for the erection of dwellings, and marriage. A system of customs does not, however, constitute a government. There has to be an administrative authority, with power to enforce decisions and accomplish community objectives.

Leadership and Authority

In the beginning, there was no government in our sense of the word. On the other hand, there was certainly authority, the authority of a parent, the authority of a successful hunter or warrior, the authority of a priest or healer. The authority of a parent keeps order in a household (or cavehold); it enables the parent to require children to do what is good for them (learn to hunt, study, keep clean) and to learn certain manners (such as respect for elders), and it enables the parent to settle disputes which inevitably arise among children. A successful hunter was likely able to instruct lesser hunters on cooperation in stalking and killing game. Those with an appropriate bent presumably taught their companions rituals and stories. Man soon learned that, not only did child care benefit from cooperative effort, but other activities also benefitted from a communal approach, from house building to hunting and defense. But this clearly did not happen everywhere to an equal degree. Aboriginal groups in Australia seem to rely on leadership to initiate movement, like flocks of birds, but for little else. Man also learned that acknowledging the authority of a leader’s heir could avoid bloody quarrels for dominance.⁴

One need only look at the animal kingdom to see the authority exercised by a mother over her offspring, and in many species, authority is exercised by any adult over youths of the herd–It takes a village. In many animal groups (lion prides, hippopotami, gorillas), authority is frequently exercised by a dominant male who lords it over all the females and fights to exclude competition from other males.

Government is perhaps a natural outgrowth of authority. Certainly the authority exercised by parents is similar to that of a government. Parents protect their young, train them in the ways necessary for survival, and govern their behavior in no end of ways. As a family increases in size, a grandfather may be recognized as the head of the family, the pater familias, with authority over an extended family. A community is formed, whose members may turn to such a person to settle disputes, to organize hunting, or to organize defense. The authority of a family head is of ancient recognition; under Roman law, such authority included the power of life and death over family members. Even in the 15th century, Sir Thomas More was constrained to write in Utopia, Husbands punish their wives, parents their children, unless the offense is so great that a public punishment seems to be for the common good.

Writing about Henri Membertou (d. 1611), chief of the Souriquois Indians in Nova Scotia, Marc Lescarbot (c. 1570–1641) wrote,

[H]e has under him a number of families whom he rules, not with as much authority as our king has over his subjects, but by his ability to harangue, to give counsel, to lead into war, and to give justice to those who received injury. … He does not impose taxes on them, but if there is a hunt, he gets a share without taking part in it. It is true that sometimes he is given presents of beaver pelts and other things when he is employed to heal the sick or exorcize demons, or to reveal the future or those who are absent.⁵

There are many other factors in the evolution of government. With the development of agriculture, either fields or their produce had to be allocated, and at some point it was realized that irrigation would increase yield and that surplus grain would have to be stored for future use. In some areas, government may have evolved from common efforts to develop water resources–building dams and irrigation canals.

Leadership can evolve quite independently of institutions; it occurs regularly in nature, even among cattle, apes, and birds. Some men are born with qualities which inspire respect, born leaders. In animal studies, dominant individuals–whether birds or cows or monkeys–are sometimes called alphas. The essence of leadership is the ability to attract and satisfy a following. Numerous factors contribute towards alphas–strength, intelligence, courage, persistence–but perhaps political acumen is also required. A Norwegian biologist, Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe (1894-1976), studying the behavior of sparrows, pheasants, ducks and geese, cockatoos, parrots and canaries, concluded that Despotism is the basic idea of the world, indissolubly bound up with all life and existence. Studying chickens, he summarized their stratification with the term pecking order. But frequently, leadership is an objective sought for its own sake; an outgrowth of ambition, the will to power.

It is likely that in every prehistoric community, an individual stood out as an exceptionally skilled hunter. With his energy and mastery of weapons, such an individual would have attracted deference, and would have been looked to for leadership in defense as well as hunting. In his City in History, Lewis Mumford quotes a Babylonian account of a heroic hunter, Enkidu: [He] took his weapon to chase the Lions: the chief cattlemen would lie down. Enkidu is their watchman, the bold man, the unique hero.

Successful leadership in one area, such as repelling attack, may have led to new leadership roles, such as dispute settlement. Each would reinforce the other. Repeated resort to a particular leader would give rise to an established leader, or chief–and repeated resort to chiefs would give rise to the institution of a chiefdom, and ultimately government.⁶

The need for leadership and the type of person to whom a group will look for leadership will vary according to the challenge presented. The will to power must operate within the context of its environment. Confronted by marauding predators such as wolves, lions, or tigers, ancient man would have looked to a successful hunter for leadership. Threatened by attack by another tribe, they would have looked to a strong fighter. If the challenge is too severe, on the other hand, the development of government may be impeded. The challenge confronting the Eskimo is one which has not generally been made malleable by joint effort; survival is an individual or family affair. The hostile environment protects them, however, from many other kinds of challenge, such as invasion, which might have stimulated the development of government.

In an ancient society, influence can be imagined to have accrued to the successful farmer, who would probably have had employees or at least family members working for him on his property, over whom his authority would be great. His influence would have been augmented, moreover, by the material wealth produced by his success. And as the concept of property developed, owners exercised authority over their land, from the traditional concept of No Trespassing to determinations of what improvements should be made.

Certainly in some cases, the need for effective military leadership gave rise to a military elite, an aristocracy, led in many cases by a king. Once established, such authorities would tend to seek to maintain, indeed to expand and institutionalize, their authority. Defense was frequently held out as the justification for such authority, but defense was not the only cause for the evolution of government. The resolution of disputes frequently fell to a strong or wise man, whose role could evolve into that of a chief.

The Role of Cities and Villages

For humans, it has been observed that a group of at least several families is required for security and protection. A group can be far more effective in defending against slave raiding and against animal incursions into fields; groups can care for the injured and ill, and share in times of food shortages. And in a group of sufficient size, there can be the beginnings of specialization of labor.

While leadership certainly existed in the era of hunting and gathering, government probably received a fillip when village settlements evolved. Agriculture, even in its rudest and lowest state, supposes a settlement: some sort of fixed habitation which cannot be abandoned without great loss. With the domestication of animals and the introduction of agriculture, populations grew, and villages formed. As Lewis Mumford pointed out in The City in History,

The village, with its permanent locus and complex relationships among persons now able to specialize, produced a whole new series of challenges and needs, but it also produced the possibility of investment in something permanent. Nomads carry tents; they do not build stone buildings. The first monumental building may have been a temple, or it may have been a citadel–at Mayan and Assyrian sites, religious buildings appear to predominate, but prehistoric mounds in England appear to have had military purposes. But regardless of which came first or which was more important at the time, the citadel would seem more important from the standpoint of government genealogy. As the situs of local leadership, the citadel gave rise to the skills of administering a government, military and civil, and it also began the agglomeration of funds necessary to build castles and barracks, to build courts, schools and libraries, and to build dams and roads. And here we find the seeds of a bureaucracy, in the functionaries who helped the leadership administer their domain.⁷

The emergence of village councils, the informal meetings of village farmers to allocate land in medieval Europe and in some English villages until very recently, suggest a natural tendency for the members of a community to get together to solve problems without the need for hierarchy. The Saxons introduced the hundred, an assembly of the free peasantry which met periodically, usually outside at a motte hill. (A hundred approximated the amount of land necessary to sustain a hundred households.) Hundreds participated in the administration of law, dispensing justice, and keeping the peace. They also supplied military troops, and the head of the hundred was responsible for leading its forces. As a court (the hundred court), hundreds remained in some English communities until 1867, when a system of county courts was established. By that time, different subdivisions, such as sanitary districts and highway districts, had arisen to address other needs.

Some have attributed the beginnings of government to the founding of cities. National affairs were not of immediate concern when populations were relatively isolated in farms and small towns; local officials could discipline the rowdy, inspect roads and bridges, and dispense justice. The city produced an exponential increase in collective needs and opportunities, including walls for defense, temples for religious rites, aqueducts, reservoirs and granaries for storage of food and water, drains and sewers–and all that these structures imply, from taxes to military training. And the permanent accumulation of individuals as neighbors and customers and suppliers created unprecedented strains on human relationships requiring qualitative increases in dispute settling systems.⁸

Security is certainly one of the principal reasons governments came to be. Once villages began to grow more than necessary to meet basic needs, there was an accumulation of wealth which would attract predators–wild animals, pirates, brigands, and neighboring tribes with less luck in hunting or agriculture. It would surely have been learned at an early stage that cooperation in defense is more effective than every man for himself. Cooperation can provide more sophisticated arms, walls, and strategies than would otherwise be the case. It would also have been observed that a good defense requires effective leadership.

Hierarchy

There can be no doubt that conquest also played a role in the development of governments. Conquest certainly required the conquerors to impose their will on the natives. Many governments must have derived from the existence of an aristocracy, with its monopoly of arms and the other tools of power, and its need to control and exploit its position, whether military or proprietary.

Some have associated the development of government with the development of hierarchy, but hierarchy is only the consequence of the respect shown those who exercise authority, not a precondition. While respect for government and those who exercise authority is a necessary adjunct of government, class distinctions are more the result of private property and the uneven distribution of wealth. It can be argued that an advanced economy requires the accumulation of wealth in order to fund industrial infrastructure, but, however one feels about the relative merits, it is not inconceivable that an egalitarian society could fund an industrial economy.

Hierarchy was a natural consequence of conquest; conquered peoples became enslaved or otherwise assigned to more menial positions in the new society, for the benefit of the conquerors, who became an upper class associated with government and the military. From serfs and soldiers evolved class distinctions, both social and functional.⁹

It could be argued that government evolved from the efforts of a ruling class–a class of warriors who were either successful at defending their town or village, or who had conquered a town or village–to protect their prerogatives. Indeed, where there was a threat, who better to organize a defense than a military elite? Presumably, it was such elites who caused castles to be built, and who manned them after they were built.

All forms of government result in a hierarchy; a freely elected president is likely to have a grand residence and guards not different in kind from that of a dictator or king, and he is certainly as likely to have a following of sycophants. An elite may have considerable authority, economic and otherwise, with respect to how a society functions–if not by law, by economic power. And some elites do in fact acquire governmental powers; barons in England had the right to hold trials and dispense justice on their lands through the 19th century, and some land holdings in Maryland had similar rights, bequeathed by Charles II (1630-1685). But an elite is not the same thing as a government.

The will to power has two practical consequences; it provides manpower for government and it impels those in power to use that power, to one degree or another, to perpetuate that power. To some, governance is not a form of service, but the ultimate prize. In fact the concept of government as service to the governed is of relatively recent vintage, traceable in large part to Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Strong leaders may have evolved from protectors into political chieftains, from heroes into exploiters. With the concentration of technical, political, and religious power, the tribal chieftain may have become the awe-inspiring king.

In human society, of course, the alpha seeks not only to establish himself but also his family–his children, his brothers, and his cousins. Thus, whatever the merits of his claim to authority, the seeds of hierarchy are sown, independent of alphaness. Lewis Mumford observed that, while the neolithic village may have welcomed the skill and prowess of strong males in the hunting of game and in defense of the village, those same males could eventually have turned their position and military skill to the imposition of civil authority. Hunters became warriors, warriors became chieftains; chieftains became kings. The alpha male enjoys authority, and the privileges and respect–and frequently riches–which flow from authority. So, once established, such a male is as likely as not to desire to perpetuate his status and pass it on to his kin, rather than retire to the country.¹⁰

Aristocracy and kingship fostered the development of citadels, which transformed villages into administrative centers and then cities. It is not clear at this point whether the first citadels were erected for defensive or authoritarian purposes, but they soon became centers of political as well as military power. As the situs of local leadership, the citadel gave rise to the skills of administering a government, military and civil, and it also began the agglomeration of funds necessary to build castles and barracks, to build courts, schools and libraries, and to build dams and roads. The people who helped administer the city and its surrounding area gave rise to bureaucracy, the functionaries who helped the leadership administer their domain.

The Social Contract

One way of looking at a nation state is to view it as a social contract, an arrangement whereby citizens give up certain amounts of freedom and pay taxes (or tribute) in order to secure the order and protection afforded by government. This view is known as the social contract, and while it is doubtful people knowingly got together to form such a compact, it is a useful way of describing the trade-off inherent in a nation state. Certain freedoms are sacrificed, and certain benefits are received. This was the view of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the famous English philosopher; submission to a government dominated by a sovereign is preferable to anarchy.¹¹

The Preamble to the Constitution adopted by the State of Massachusetts Bay in 1780 provided,

The end of the institution, maintenance and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body-politic; to protect it; and to furnish the individuals who compose it, with the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquillity, their natural rights, and the blessings of life: And whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.

According to this view, the body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a Constitution of Government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them.

Not all would agree; anarchists believe the trade-off is too dear; they oppose government as a matter of principal. And in many parts of the world over the millennia, peoples who did not want to pay taxes or serve in a government’s army moved to new geographic areas, such as forests or mountains.¹²

It has been said that The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance of basic security and public order. Perhaps this is true philosophically, but it does not address what steps are necessary or warranted to maintain such security and order, or what freedoms should be given up to attain them. These are issues with respect to which peoples disagree.

A code of laws does not constitute a government; there has to be an administrative authority, with power to enforce the law and accomplish community objectives. Without such authority, it is arguable that there is no law; debates still rage as to whether international law is really law in the absence of a governing body and sanctions. But that is not the subject of this work, which seeks to identify what governments do, regardless of their composition or organization.

*   *   *

Chapter 2

War and Defense

Security, or shall we say the protection of the person from one’s neighbors, is perhaps the most universal need, whether the threat is foreign or domestic. But let us first address defense, since the consequences of foreign invasion have so frequently been drastic–death or enslavement. Alexander Hamilton, one of America’s founding fathers, believed that the common defense of the members was the first purpose to be answered by the new government of the United States. He wrote, Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct, and Few persons will be so visionary, as seriously to contend, that military forces ought not to be raised to quell a rebellion, or resist an invasion.

Governments and armies have a symbiotic relationship; armies need governments to raise the taxes with which to fund their pay and equipment, and governments need armies to protect the state, to ensure law and order, and to thwart rebellions. Recruitment, supply, training, logistics–all require substantial sums of money and authority.

War

Most governments observe the rule of live and let live, but nation states are led by human beings, and go to war for any number of reasons, good and bad. Naked aggression is generally deemed a violation of international norms, but fighting to defend one’s country is universally recognized as a just war. But defense is a malleable term; not infrequently, a national interest is perceived which requires the projection of force beyond a country’s borders. As Clausewitz observed, The aggressor always pretends to be peace-loving because he would like to achieve his conquests without bloodshed. … Therefore, aggression must be presented as a defensive reaction by the aggressor nation. After World War I, the German War Office changed its name to Wehrmacht, defense agency, and in 1949, the United States changed the name of its War Department to Department of Defense.

War is, at least so far in human history, a fact of life. In primitive societies, it was not uncommon for wars to evolve from an incident which, while perhaps affecting only a single person or family, was viewed as a transgression demanding communal retribution. It was common in New Guinea, until recently, for a family to avenge the death or injury of a relative by a member of a different tribe, and blood feuds appear to have persisted in America’s Appalachian mountains through the 19th century. The settling of scores was considered a communal responsibility, leading to tribal wars which persisted for generations.

In the 5th and 4th centuries BC, Persia invaded the Greek city-states (ultimately without success), and Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) conquered Asia Minor and continued all the way to what is now India. In 43 AD, the Romans conquered England, which remained a Roman province until 410. From 623 to 1050, the Muslim conquest extended from India across North Africa to Spain. In the 8th century, Charlemagne invaded Saxony, and in 1066, the Normans conquered England, establishing a new aristocracy which maintained its dominance for more than 800 years. Genghis Khan (c. 1162-1227) founded the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history, occupying most of Central Asia and China. Mongol depredations in Russia and Eastern Europe continued from 1220 through the end of the 13th century; from 1237 to 1240, the Mongols destroyed all of the major cities of Eastern Europe, except for Novgorod and Pskov.¹³ In the 16th century, Spain conquered South America. In 1812, Napoleon invaded Russia, and in 1830, the French invaded and captured Algiers on the pretext of a slight to their consul. More recent examples include Germany’s invasions of Belgium and France in the 20th century, and America’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in the 21st century.

Even when successful, invasions are expensive and the changes effected are frequently transitory. In World War II, the adversaries conducted massive bombing raids on cities, sometimes to generate fear, sometimes to eliminate arms production or disrupt transportation. The Germans practically destroyed Warsaw, and attempted to destroy London. The allies practically destroyed Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

A country’s decision to go to war may be purely defensive, or may be to annex land as in the case of Nazi Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia. It may seek installation of a friendly regime, as in the case of the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq, or may seek to impose a religion. Some wars are initiated, at least in explanations to the public, for the protection of ethnic populations in neighboring countries. This was the explanation provided for Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938, for NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999, and for Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008. Aggression can sometimes be the result of economic considerations, such as the desire to access raw materials, to create new markets, to acquire new lands for the aggressor’s population, or to expand the aggressor’s tax base. The Romans needed food supplies for their growing cities; Spain’s conquest of South America was initially motivated by the desire for gold; and Britain’s conquest of India was motivated by its desire for trade and markets. Von Clausewitz (1780-1831), author of the famous work On War, once said, War is a continuation of politics by other means.

It would appear that wars sometimes evolve from international tensions resulting from simply encroaching on another country’s sphere of influence. Governments can feel threatened by the mere proximity of a powerful foreign force. In 1823, the United States promulgated a policy known as the Monroe Doctrine, declaring that the Americas should no longer be subject to European colonization, and that any attempt by European governments to subjugate or control any country in the Americas recognized by the United States would be considered a threat. When the Soviet Union installed missiles in Cuba in 1962, the United States threatened to bomb them. War was averted when the Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba in exchange for President Kennedy’s promise to remove American missiles from Turkey.

While the underlying causes may have been brewing over many years, hostilities are sometimes occasioned by a specific event. World War I was triggered by the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, in 1914. Many wars are caused by micro-incidents. Herodotus (c. 484-c. 425 BC) recounts the excuse propounded by Persia for attacking Greece: the captain of a visiting Greek ship made off with the daughter of a Persian gentleman (an excuse dismissed by Herodotus, who believed the relationship must have been consensual).

From time to time, the Security Council of the United Nations has authorized peacekeeping missions, pursuant to which member governments assign troops and supplies for service in another country to squelch a conflict or monitor a peace agreement. The UN has sponsored missions in Congo (1961and 1999), El Salvador (1991-1995), Haiti (1996-2001), East Timor (1999-2012), Sudan (2012), and numerous other countries. Brazil alone has sent troops to more than 30 UN peacekeeping operations since 1948. Governments have participated in peacekeeping missions sponsored by other international organizations, as well, such as the African Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The concept of a just war, known as Bellum Justum or Just War Theory, has been debated by philosophers and others for millennia. It is said that Cicero espoused the idea of a just war, as did Saint Augustine (354-430) and Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). To be just in the eyes of modern theorists, a war must have a just cause and be declared by a proper authority with the right intention. It must be commenced only as a last resort, and must have a reasonable chance of success. And the resort to war must be proportional to the threat. Hugo Grotius’ 1604 seminal work on international law called De Iure Praedae (The Law of Prize and Booty) was an advocate’s brief defending Dutch raids on Spanish and Portuguese shipping.

Defense

War, when it occurs, is real, and governments are not merely responding to the desires of a military-industrial complex by preparing defenses. Defense is one of the most elemental purposes for which a people look to government, and for some places, it was probably the reason for which government came to be established. As Alexander Hamilton put it in The Federalist (no. 11), The rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by an adequate power.

In less organized times, societies relied on non-professional soldiers–shepherds, farmers, and other citizens–to take up arms in the event of war. When attacked, peoples arouse themselves for defense; this is true of tribal communities as well as national governments. In prehistoric times, one may imagine that defense was a volunteer effort springing from a common need; the economist Adam Smith observed that, in less organized societies, such as the American Indian tribes, every man was a warrior as well as a hunter. Defense is inherent in animal societies as well as human; when faced with danger, elephants gather around the young in a defensive circle. Robert Ardrey, in his The Social Contract, observed, There is no alpha baboon who, when the troop is challenged by the predator, will not accept the risk and like a medieval knight go forth to do battle.

In The Wealth of Nations (published 1776), Adam Smith commented that standing armies were a natural development in a modernizing society, like other manifestations of specialization and division of labor. Rome relied on citizen armies until after the Second Punic War (218–201 BC), when the Roman military evolved from an unsalaried citizen militia to a professional force. Having established an overseas empire, a standing army became necessary to assert Rome’s authority, and by the year 400 AD, the Roman army had nearly a half million soldiers. After the Roman Empire, military service became a personal obligation to one’s lord, usually associated with the right to occupy and manage a tract of land.

Charlemagne maintained effective armies from 772 on to subdue the Saxons, but these depended on the support and loyalty of his subordinate nobles. In part these armies were assembled by promises of spoils to the participating nobles, whose soldiers were similarly rewarded with a share. In the 13th century, Marco Polo reported that there were 1,200 great cities in China, and that the Khan maintained a standing garrison of 1,000 men or more in each of them. Some had garrisons of 20,000 or 30,000. In France, the first permanent army, paid with regular wages, was established under Charles VII (1403-1461); Hungary’s king similarly had a standing army composed almost entirely of mercenaries.

In America, it was common for the colonies to rely on militias. With the exception of Pennsylvania, which relied on volunteers, each colony required men between certain ages (usually 16 and 60) to enroll in a local militia and participate in training. They were also required to supply their own muskets, ammunition, and clothing. In New England, drills were held as often as once a week when Indians were perceived as a threat to the colony, but later the rate declined to about eight a year. During the American Revolution, the army raised by the Continental Congress was far too small to cover all the colonies, so that there was considerable reliance on state militias.

Upon achieving independence, many in the United States did not trust a large standing army; the regular army remained quite small, so that militias provided the majority of the troops during the Mexican-American War, the start of the American Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. Jefferson, who became president in 1801, advocated a government of limited functions and limited power, but the Federalist Party advocated a strong central authority and believed that a strong Untied States must have a strong military force. During the Federalist administrations, the government created a small army, and expanded it, and then created a navy.

In 1903, most state militias were brought under the federal government. Consolidated and renamed the National Guard, it is essentially a reserve force for the Army. In World War I, the National Guard made up 40 percent of the U.S. combat divisions in France, and in World War II the National Guard made up 19 divisions. During the Korean War, 140,000 Guardsmen were called up, and 63,000 for the invasion of Iraq. They have also participated in U.S. peacekeeping operations in Somalia, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo, and as responders to natural disasters, such as hurricanes. They have also been called up in response to violent strikes and riots. Unless called up, most National Guardsmen in the United States serve One weekend a month, two weeks a year. Pilots and other specialties may be required to serve more frequently.

Of course, a militia would not be able to cope with modern rockets, bombs, and aircraft. For modern warfare, a specially prepared army is necessary, one trained in information technology as well as drill. These are known as standing armies, armies that permit the recruitment and training of career soldiers. Members of a militia, having other occupations, can devote only limited time to military exercises, while military exercises are the principal occupation of soldiers in a standing army.

The authority to create and maintain a standing army is provided for by the constitution of many countries, including, by way of example, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Poland, and the United States. In 2010, five countries maintained active duty militaries in excess of one million: China (approximately 2.2 million), the United States (approximately 1.5 million), India (approximately 1.3 million), North Korea (approximately 1.1 million), and Russia (approximately one million). Twenty-six countries maintained armies in excess of 150,000. France maintained the largest army in Europe, with 259,000 regulars and 419,000 reserves. Inasmuch as standing armies are extremely costly, not all countries have them. Countries without armies in 2010 included Costa Rica, Dominica, Grenada, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Palau, and Panama. Monaco is able to avoid the need for a significant armed force because France has undertaken its defense by treaty; similarly, Palau, an island country in the Pacific, relies on the United States for its defense.

Recruitment

The first issue for any military is how to recruit. In ancient Rome, military service was compulsory. Rome’s male citizens were divided into groups, determined by status, wealth, and age. Each group was nominally divided into 100 men; these were subdivided into groups according to age, with men aged 17 to 45 deemed liable for active duty. Similarly, in ancient China, the State of Qin required all households to be registered, which allowed the introduction of universal military service. Large armies were raised, allowing the conquest of much of what is now China in 221 BC.

The first time a draft was used in America was in the Civil War. Both sides initially called for volunteers, but many who responded did so for only one year and did not reenlist. In 1862, the South enacted a draft, and in 1863, the North did the same. During the First World War, the United States required all males between the ages of 21 and 30 to register for military service. A total of 24.3 million Americans were drafted (about a quarter of the population); of these, about 4.3 million were mobilized, and over two million of them transported overseas. Within a year of the war’s end, the force was reduced to some 256,000, and in 1921, Congress fixed the future strength of the army at 175,000. In World War II, manpower for the armed forces was again provided by a draft.

But conscription raises many issues, such as how to treat conscientious objectors, fathers, and women. Since 1973, the U.S. Army has been composed entirely of volunteers; by eliminating the draft, the government hoped to defuse popular opposition to the war in Vietnam. Males aged 18 to 25 are still required to register with the Selective Service System to enable a reintroduction of conscription if necessary, but as of 2019 there was no draft in the United States.

A volunteer army is of course more expensive than one supported by conscription. Not only must soldiers be paid sufficient amounts to attract enlistments, but a volunteer force must be provided more collateral benefits. For example, the United States military maintains a worldwide system of commissaries which sell groceries and household supplies at low prices to members of the armed services community. It also maintains a worldwide radio and television broadcast network (the U.S. Armed Forces Radio and Television Service) for service men and women stationed overseas, and for Navy ships at sea. Sometimes known as the Armed Forces Network, it broadcasts popular American radio and television programs from the major U.S. networks.

Mercenaries and Other Non-governmental Military Organizations

Many governments have resorted to mercenaries to fight their wars or to supplement their regular troops. Mercenaries are generally deemed to be those who are not nationals of the parties at war, and fight primarily for the pay. Governments have turned to mercenaries when there are not enough trained personnel available, or where there is insufficient domestic support for a particular campaign.

In his famous book, The Prince (c. 1513), Niccolo Machiavelli expressed doubts about mercenaries, arguing that, since they were interested only in their pay, they would not take the kind of risks that lead to victory in battle. He believed that citizens made better soldiers, being motivated by the defense of their homeland rather than mere money. On the other hand, Thomas More, in his book Utopia (1516), espoused the view that it is better to use mercenaries than citizens.

The use of foreign troops has a long history. In the 13th century BC, Egypt’s Ramesses II (c. 1303-1213 BC) employed 11,000 mercenaries during his battles with Syria and Libya. In the 4th century BC, most powers used mercenaries, including Carthage, Macedon, Persia, and Rhodes. Such was also frequently the case in China and Japan, and in Byzantium. The use of mercenaries was less common during the early Middle Ages, when fighting was a duty one owed one’s lord, but in the 11th century, William the Conqueror employed Flemish mercenaries in his conquest of England. In the later Middle Ages, when armies disbanded, soldiers sometimes formed free companies or free lances, which maintained their military skills and cohesion and hired themselves out to governments. Catalan and German mercenaries had prominent roles in the Serbian victory over Bulgarians in the Battle of Velbuzd in 1330. The White Company commanded by Sir John Hawkwood was the best known English free company of the 14th century; a Welshman, Owain Lawgoch, formed a free company and fought for the French against the English during the Hundred Years War. The battles between Italy’s city states in the 14th and 15th centuries were frequently conducted by groups of mercenaries organized and led by condottieri.

The use of mercenaries was also common in the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) in Europe, and before the French Revolution, Louis XV’s army included 12 Swiss regiments (including the Swiss Guard), and regiments from Scotland, Sweden, Italy, and Belgium. Foreign regiments comprised about 20,000 men in 1733, rising to 48,000 at the time of the Seven Years’ War. The Spanish Army also made use of foreign regiments in the 17th century, including Irish, Italian, and Swiss regiments. The last of such regiments was disbanded in 1815. To suppress the American Revolution, King George III of England hired soldiers from German principalities to supplement the Royal Army. The majority were from the German State of Hesse-Kassel, so that they were referred to by the Americans as Hessians.

Nepalese troops known as Gurkhas served under contract to the East India Company in the Pindaree War of 1817, in Bharatpur in 1826, and in the First and Second Anglo-Sikh Wars in 1846 and 1848. During the Indian Rebellion of 1857, Gurkhas fought on the British side, and became part of the British Indian Army. Among the best known mercenaries are the French Foreign Legion, which was founded in 1831 to recruit foreign nationals to maintain peace in Algeria. It has fought in World Wars I and II, Rwanda, the Ivory Coast, Afghanistan, and many other conflicts. As of 2016, there were more than 7,000 soldiers in the Foreign Legion.

The Geneva Convention does not accord mercenaries the status of combatants or prisoners of war, so that, if captured, they can be treated like ordinary criminals; indeed, mercenaries are treated as criminals under the 1989 UN Mercenary Convention. Article 2 of that convention made it an offense to employ mercenaries, and Article 3.1 made it an offense to serve as a mercenary, but neither the United States nor the United Kingdom has signed the convention. Some foreign soldiers, such as the French Foreign Legion and Indian Gurkhas, are deemed foreign volunteers, and are not deemed to be mercenaries under the laws of war.

Some countries, including France and South Africa, have laws which bar their citizens and residents from fighting as mercenaries in foreign wars. South Africa’s law makes an exception for actions in humanitarian operations. In the late 18th century, England made it illegal for British subjects to join the armed forces of any state warring with a state at peace with Great Britain. This law caused considerable confusion for British citizens fighting for the rebels in the Greek War of Independence (1821-1832), and again for British volunteers fighting for the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939).

Another way in which countries at war augment their military is through licensing privateers. It is reported that Henry III of England issued privateering commissions in 1243, and in 1295; Edward I (r. 1272-1307) issued licenses known as letters of marque and reprisal, which were licenses to plunder enemy ships. In effect, such letters converted a private vessel into a naval auxiliary. If operating under a government’s letters of marque, a ship and its crew were entitled to treatment as prisoners of war; otherwise, they could be hanged as common pirates. In the 17th and 18th centuries, England approved the depredations of Spanish galleons by privately financed and outfitted pirates. Queen Elizabeth I actually shared in the booty generated by Francis Drake’s attacks on Spanish shipping.

In Europe, licensing privateers during wartime became common. Article I of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, but none have been issued by the United States since 1815.¹⁴

Some military units are not beholden to a government, but rather to a private corporation or similar entity. The British East India Company formed its own military, and eventually conquered most of India. The British South Africa Police, a paramilitary force formed by Cecil Rhodes’ British South Africa Company in 1889-1890, continued, with diminishing powers, until 1980.

When there is no draft, the military is frequently shorthanded, and must rely on contractors for various services. Support services such as food preparation, transportation, and supply were traditionally part of the military service, but more recently private contractors are used for such services. In the absence of a draft, the U.S. government has increasingly used private contractors in overseas operations; such contractors are civilians, but their functions are not always limited to civilian type duties such as transportation and maintenance; indeed it hired private contractors to provide security services in Iraq and Afghanistan, arguing that if such contractors are not employed in front-line combat, they are not mercenaries. They may also be distinguishable from mercenaries in that they are usually U.S. nationals.

Contracts also call for private companies to provide intelligence services to the U.S. Army and security for the Army Corps of Engineers on reconstruction work in Iraq. Blackwater, a private company, was paid millions of dollars to provide such services in Iraq. In October 2007, the United Nations released a two-year study that stated, that although hired as security guards, private contractors were performing military duties. The report found that the use of contractors such as Blackwater was a new form of mercenary activity and illegal under international law.

Colombia’s Defense Ministry has also signed contracts with companies from other countries to carry out anti-narcotics operations, security, or military activities, and in the mid-1990s, a private company known as Executive Outcomes was employed by the Sierra Leone government as military advisers and to train government soldiers. Executive Outcomes was also employed in Angola, Indonesia, and other locations, but closed in 1998. Some other recently active private military companies are Sandline International (Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, closed in 2004), Gurkha Security Guards, Ltd (Sierra Leone), and DynCorp International (Bosnia, Somalia, Angola, Haiti, Colombia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan).

Training

Of course, there is more to maintaining an army than manpower and weapons; soldiers must know how to use their weapons effectively. And they must learn to obey orders without question or delay. One of the advantages of a regular, standing army, is the opportunity to instill discipline and expertise.

Before the invention of modern weapons, a soldier’s personal skill with the sword (or axe, pike, or bow and arrow) was of crucial importance, as was his personal fitness. In ancient times, every citizen was expected to know how to handle such a weapon; in ancient Greece, every male citizen was required to perform military exercises. Roman soldiers devoted considerable time to training–formations, marching, and sword practice. In medieval Europe, every person with the pretensions of a gentleman knew how to use a sword, and in many cases, how to ride and use a lance. This was an individual obligation.

With the invention of firearms, individual swordsmanship became irrelevant; instead it was important that soldiers act together, and discipline became more important. The British line and square were examples of coordinated soldiering with firearms. Strength and agility became less important, although in 17th century France skill with the sword was still valued. The citizenry is no longer expected to practice arms; now the cost of educating and training soldiers is borne by governments.

Modern weapons and machinery have made training indispensable. The operation and maintenance of modern communications gear, radar, rockets, and tanks requires extensive training; becoming a Navy pilot requires months of intensive instruction and practice. To conduct such training, the United States has established special commands in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. It also maintains Army and Air Force National Guard and Reserve units, which provide training for reserve units that can be called up in time of war. In the U.S. Army, soldiers capable of maintaining and operating sophisticated electronics equipment are designated specialists.

Commissioned officers generally receive training in leadership and management, in addition to training relating to their specific military function. Many militaries require university degrees as a prerequisite for commissioning, but many (including New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom) do not. To train officers, the U.S. government maintains three military academies: the Military Academy at West Point, New York, the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, and the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Graduates of these institutions receive Bachelor of Science degrees and are commissioned as second lieutenants. The services also operate Officer Candidate Schools which qualify candidates for commissions after four to six months of training following graduation from college.

The U.S. also operates a National War College to teach the formulation and implementation of national security strategy, and an Industrial College of the Armed Forces to address issues related to procurement, logistics, and resource management. It maintains a number of other educational centers as well, addressing issues such as defense acquisition and military intelligence. The Joint Forces Staff College (Norfolk, Virginia) trains officers for planning and operations in the interagency and multinational levels.

Castles and Forts

To protect against attack, governments throughout history have built walls, castles, and forts. Walls were sometimes built to provide a safe haven, but many were erected around entire cities. Some walls may have been erected by a community, with leadership, of course, but without governmental compulsion or financing. The hill forts in Celtic Britain appear to predate governments as we know them. Many, if not most cities and towns in ancient times built walls. Fortified towns have been found in what is now Afghanistan, Bulgaria, India, Iraq, and Pakistan, some dating to the 5th millennium BC; Jericho in what is now Palestine had a wall as early as the 8th millennium BC. In ancient Greece, Mycenae had large stone walls, and Athens built walls around its city and along its road to Piraeus, its seaport. In 271 AD, the emperor Aurelian built massive walls around Rome, which still stand. The Romans built walls in other cities, as well, including Constantinople, Carcassonne (France), and London. From the early Middle Ages through the 17th century, many European towns and cities built walls; examples include Amsterdam, Candia, Derry, Lucca, Nicosia, and Stockholm.

The Chinese word for city wall and city are the same, chan. China’s capital in the Shang Dynasty (c. 1600-1050 BC), Zhengzhou, was surrounded by a wall rising to 26 feet. China’s most famous wall, the Great Wall, was begun in the 7th century BC and expanded and repaired over succeeding centuries, especially during the Ming Dynasty in the 15th and 16th centuries AD.

Until the invention of gunpowder, walls generally provided effective protection, vulnerable only to a prolonged and expensive siege. But with the invention of gunpowder, walls became less effective, and after the 17th century many cities removed their walls.

Castles are of more recent vintage. After the fall of the Carolingian Empire, individual lords and princes were required to become self-reliant. To secure their authority and defend it against others, kings, counts, and barons built castles. These not only provided a defensive bastion, but also a base from which to exercise control of their territory. William the Conqueror established 36 castles between 1066 and 1087 (including the Tower of London and Warwick Castle) to consolidate his authority in Britain. A large number of castles and fortified towns (bastides) were also built in the Dordogne region of France, along the border of the lands claimed by the English king during the 14th and 15th centuries.

As in the case of walls, castles became less effective with the arrival of cannon, and many were demolished. Some were replaced by forts, walled bastions for cannon and soldiers–not essentially different from castles, but very different in design. They were much lower in profile, and evolved into star shapes, so as to permit riflemen to fire at soldiers attempting to scale the walls. On arriving in Nova Scotia in 1632, the French Colonists led by Isaac de Razilly erected Fort Sainte-Marie de Grace. The most famous designer of forts was another Frenchman, Sébastien Le Prestre, Seigneur de Vauban (1633-1707). The U.S. government built several forts in the 19th century, including Fort McHenry in Baltimore (1798-1800) and Fort Sumter in Charleston (1829).

Mobilization

Before initiating a war or responding to a threat, it is necessary to ensure that arrangements are in place for movement of soldiers, concentration of supplies, and production and delivery of armaments, supplies, and food. Mobilization is the term for effecting such arrangements. General mobilization of a nation’s military forces is generally considered an act of war by likely enemies. In the interest of avoiding actual conflict, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union mobilized during the Cold War. But assembling and maneuvering large numbers of men, many if not most with limited military training, requires intricate planning, and long before actual conflict, governments develop plans for mobilization in the event of war.

In advance of World War I, the German General Staff prepared a strategic plan which contemplated the possibility of a war on two fronts, with France on the west and Russia on the east. In 1913, the French General Staff adopted a scheme of mobilization and concentration known as Plan XVI, addressing issues relating to concentration of forces. Although Plan XVI did not include specific strategies, France did have detailed war plans, as did the United States. Today, the U.S. Army maintains an office of Military Operations and Plans for strategy formulation; arms control, negotiation, and disarmament; force mobilization and demobilization; command and control; automation and communications, and other programs. In 2017, publicly known U.S. Operations Plans included plans dealing with possible events on the Korean Peninsula and in the Middle East.

In addition to military service, governments impose wide ranging restrictions on their citizens in wartime, such as diverting factory capacity from consumer goods to military production, and rationing. People accept them on account of the circumstances.

They must also organize their allies. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949 as an alliance of democratic governments in North America and Western Europe. In 1971, the U.S. government established a Defense Security Cooperation Agency to oversee military assistance, military education and training, and foreign military sales, as well as program management responsibilities for humanitarian assistance, mine removal, and other Department of Defense programs.

Organization

In less organized times, societies relied on non-professional soldiers–shepherds, farmers, and other citizens who in time of war took up arms. In the republics of ancient Greece, every citizen was subject to being called up to defend the city state, and in the early middle ages, barons were bound to take up arms at the command of their liege lords, and they in turn could call on the services of their serfs.

So long as weapons were primitive, no great planning was required. Leaders might emerge on account of strength or skill in the arts of battle, but the maintenance of military establishments probably began with the establishment of cities able to support them. Developments in military technology have made centralized management unavoidable. Today, most governments maintain a special government agency for the conduct of military affairs, and defense has become one of the most complex and highly developed bureaucracies. Practically every modern nation has an army, a military organization designed to fight on land, and where money allows, an air force designed and equipped to fight in and from the air. Many also have a navy, especially those located near a coast or major river. (Austria and Kyrgyzstan, among others, do not, inasmuch as they have no access to the sea.)

In America, a Continental Army was established by the Continental Congress in 1775, more than a year before the Declaration of Independence. In 1789, following independence from England, Congress established a Department of War to administer and control the army. For a few years, the War Department also administered the Navy, but in 1798, Congress established a Navy Department. The War Department also administered the Air Force until 1947, when Congress established the Department of Defense to supervise and coordinate the Department of the Army (formerly the War Department), the Navy Department, and a newly created Department of the Air Force. The Secretary of Defense is a civilian, whose primary responsibilities are for finance, weapons development and acquisition, and administration. He is a principal adviser to the President on military affairs, but plays only a minor role in directing military operations. Under the Secretary of Defense, there is a Secretary of the Army, a Secretary of the Navy, and a Secretary of the Air Force.

The commander in chief is frequently, if not always, the head of state, but the head of state is not generally expert in military matters. In the United States, the President is advised by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as by the Secretary of Defense. The Joint Chiefs of Staff consists of the Army Chief of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is also the principal military adviser to the National Security Council and to the Secretary of Defense. The Joint Chiefs of Staff is responsible for coordinating military planning with the policies adopted by the President and the Secretary of Defense. Such planning includes contingency plans, allocation of resources, logistics, and recommending personnel assignments for the execution of such plans.

As of 2019, the U.S. military comprised some 1.3 million men and women on active duty. In addition there were more than 840,000 members of the Reserve and National Guard, backed up by more than 730,000 civilians employed by the Defense Department. The Army, Navy, and Air Force each has its own research and development program, its own weapons acquisition program, its own personnel and legal offices, its own intelligence offices, and its own real estate management offices. Each is responsible for its own organization, training, logistical support, maintenance, medical, administration, communications, recruiting, and other activities.

Many if not most militaries are organized into various commands focusing on particular geographic areas or particular functions. In the time of Aristotle (384-322 BC), Athens had 10 generals, one of whom had command of the heavy infantry which would fight outside Greece’s borders in the event of war. Another was responsible for defending Athens, and two others were responsible for defending Piraeus, Athens’ seaport. Leaders were also elected to command the cavalry, and to command the men from each tribe.

In the United States, there are umbrella commands for the European theater, the Pacific, and for the Western Hemisphere, as well as commands for special operations and transportation. The Army is organized into various geographic commands, such as the European Command and the Pacific Command, and functional commands, such as the Special Operations Command and the Army Space and Missile Defense Command. Brazil’s army is divided into eight geographical commands. Particular brigades are designated for special operations, such as jungle fighting, parachuting, air support, and restoration of law and order. The Indonesian National Armed Forces (with a budget of US$8.4 billion and 476,000 personnel in 2013) were reorganized in 1985 to eliminate four multi-service regional defense commands, substituting 10 area commands (Military Regional Commands) reporting to the Commander of the Indonesian National Armed Forces. The navy and air force territorial commands were replaced by functional and operational commands.

The command of troops is vested in military officers, who generally receive their commission from the head of state or other high authority. In ancient Greece, however, officers were elected from the citizenry.

Navies

Nations that border on the sea or significant waterways generally have a military organization (a navy) equipped to protect their coastlines and seaports, and provide transport for offshore armies and their supplies. Today, all the world’s major powers maintain naval forces. The largest countries have aircraft carriers, submarines, and numerous other ships, ranging from cruisers to supply ships. Developing countries buy surplus ships from the larger countries, primarily from Western governments. Even some landlocked nations, such as Bolivia and Kazakhstan, have naval forces. (Bolivia’s naval force patrols its rivers and Lake Titicaca, which covers more than 3,000 square miles.) Some countries which have significant waterways, such as Switzerland which borders on several significant lakes, assign their protection to the army or other military organization. Still other landlocked countries, such as Austria, have no navy.