Talk:Standing army

What about historically outside Europe? 213.186.252.209 14:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

It's a matter of dispute whether the Ottoman Empire was part of Europe or Asia, even the part of it that was geographically part of Europe. It says there should be a citation as to whether or it was Charles VII who first established standing armies in Western Europe, and I will not argue with that. The truth is, from around his time up until the Treaty of Westphalia most armies were sort of like private armies, half soldiers and, unless they were led by a strong ruler, half marauding bandits. The Ottomans had standing armies in the sense that we think of conscripted state armies (more like impressed in their case), and the French may well have been ahead of their time, but they didn't become commonplace in what we usually think of as Europe until after the the Treaty of Westphalia. Shield2 04:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

"The establishment of a standing army by King James II in 1685 in Britain and later the control of the British Army over the British Colonies in America was controversial, leading to distrust of peacetime armies too much under the power of the head of state, versus civilian control of the military, resulting tyranny."

This sentence needs attention.

It is also historically quite wrong.

other first 'modern' standing armies...

The Dutch Republic is supposed to have had something akin to a standing army by the early 17th century, right? And, if I'm not mistaken, both Sweden and Brandenburg-Prussia had standing armies before England. The prussian army of the late 17th/early 18th century is often cited as the first recognizeably modern standing army.

And of course Cromwell's New Model army....an early example of a professional army as we understand it today. Whether it meets the criteria for a 'standing army' i'm not sure.

A elaborated 'history' section would be good for this page. One thing worth including is the context for the emergence of standing armies in early modern Europe--the desire for rising territorial rulers to raise armed forces for flexibly and autonomously: that is, by-pass old feudal means of raising troops through the nobility, and rely less on costly and often unreliable mercenaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.64.143 (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

History POV

The section regarding the Tercios currently reads:

By other definitions of a standing army, being understood as one of volunteering professionals instead of that of conscription levies or hired mercenaries, Spain created Europe's and the world's first modern standing army through the creation of the distinguished Tercios by Emperor Charles I of Spain (also known as Charles V of Austria). The Tercios revolutionized modern warfare in Europe and became the most prestigious and undefeated force during the era of Spanish Habsburg dominance in Europe. Eventually all European armies would try to mimic the style and tactics of fighting used by the Tercios because of their constant innovative evolution that was sparked by creative veteran soldiers that formed the regiments and their great leaders. The Tercios became such a successful force that their reputation as an undefeatable force gave them a psychological advantage in the battlefield against their enemies who greatly feared them. The Spanish Habsburgs would form Tercio regiments in all of their possessions, including the Italian Tercios, the Portuguese Tercios and the Burgundian Tercios.

The highlighted sections specifically are in need of a bit of a cleanup. It's unsourced and just sounds kind of hero worship-y. Sawta (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Section request - Present day standing armies

I noticed this article talks about "modern" standing armies, within the past 500 years or so. Although this might be modern from a historical prespective, it might be more beneficial for the lay reader, such as myself, if the article were to include some of the more easily digestible examples of present day armies that meet the definition of a "standing army". Say, armies that existed at least within the last 100 years or so. Historical examples are great, but I don't really have a good frame of reference to compare them to; I have a feeling that other readers may be in the same or similar boats.

Additionally, I noticed that on the See Also section that it listed Countries without armed forces. Is anyone else interested in the reverse? That is, a list of countries that 'do' have standing armies? I don't know how big the demand is, and I suspect a similar article might already fill this. Military and paramilitary, maybe? If anyone can think of an article that would fill this need more precisely, please add it to the See Also section in its place. Thanks! Sawta (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This article currently claims that the Roman standing army was first instituted under emperor Augustus: "Under the reign of Augustus, the first Roman emperor, a standing professional army of the Roman Empire was gradually instituted, with regularized pay. This professional force of legionaries was expensive to maintain, but supported the authority of the empire, not only as combat troops but also as provincial police forces, engineers, and guards."

This seems to contradict the Marian reforms article, in which it is clearly explained that the Roman standing army was built under the Republic, starting in 107 BCE, by statesman Gaius Marius.

I'm not an expert, so I can't say for sure which of these is correct, but from the little research I've done it seems that the Marian reforms did create a full time professional army. Can anyone confirm or clarify? Montgolfière (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Eastern Roman/Byzantine army

How come the French are credited with the first standing army when there was a permanent standing army (Tagma or Tagmata) in the Byzantine Empire?

To quote this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagma_(military) article: "In later Byzantine usage, the term came to refer exclusively to the professional, standing troops, garrisoned in and around the capital of Constantinople.[2] Most of them traced their origins to the Imperial guard units of the later Roman Empire. By the 7th century, these had declined to little more than parade troops, meaning that the emperors were hard put to face the frequent revolts of the new and powerful thematic formations, especially the Opsicians, the Asian theme closest to the capital. Within the first sixty years since its creation, it was involved in five revolts, culminating in the briefly successful rebellion and usurpation of the throne by its commander, the Count Artabasdos, in 741–743.[3]

After putting down the revolt, Emperor Constantine V (r. 741–775) reformed the old guard units of Constantinople into the new tagmata regiments, which were meant to provide the emperor with a core of professional and loyal troops,[4] both as a defense against provincial revolts, and also, at the time, as a formation devoted to Constantine's iconoclastic policies.[5] The tagmata were exclusively heavy cavalry units,[6] more mobile than the theme troops, and maintained on a permanent basis. During the defensive phase of the Empire in the 8th and 9th centuries, their role was that of a central reserve, garrisoned in and around the capital, in regions such as Thrace and Bithynia.[6] They formed the core of the imperial army on campaign, augmented by the provincial levies of thematic troops, who were more concerned with local defense." — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeavyManCrush (talk • contribs) 22:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)