Talk:Stratocracy

Burma

Burma's stratocracy/junta has been dissolved, hasn't it? Wouldn't that make the reference in this article obsolte? ForestAngel (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Starship Troopers

Re: Starship Troopers

The text of the novel explicitly states that serving personnel may NOT vote and may NOT hold office. They may do so only after retirement. Does the article conflate Heinlein's novel with the 1997 Paul Verhoeven satirical film?75.103.156.62 (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Historical stratocracies

This section should probably be removed or re-written by someone that knows more about the historical/political background. The paragraph on the Cossacks is just a copy and paste from the first few sentences of the Cossacks own page. And the paragraph on the Spartans is just marveling at how powerful and glorious Spartan fighters were. Neither of those paragraphs explain or establish WHY and or HOW those societies were stratocracies.

I was tempted to delete the section; but I suppose the implied examples are better than having no examples at all. It really needs some work though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuki Izumi (talk • contribs) 10:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I share in general Yuki Izumi's concerns about the overall weakness of the historical section. I would not want to delete any examples either- it's better than nothing and they are illustrative. What needs to be teased out is that they are illustrative of the sheer range of systems that can be called stratocracy, which is fine and implied by the first para of the article.

In particular, the Roman section needs to be done more carefully and at greater length. I would not want to go too far but one can characterize the entire history of Rome as one or another form of stratocracy-

The Kingdom- Weakest case. An early iron age kingdom/town ruled by quasi-elected priest kings who also commanded the warriors. Like all early-phase polities, especially small lo-tech ones, it contains features of many things we would later call different social/political systems. By comparison, even feudal France was fantastically complex. The Roman monarchy contained elements of theocracy [maybe not quite-whatever it is called when the king is the chief priest ex officio, not a god himself], stratocracy, elective monarchy, landed oligarchy and probably others. But the military element of kingship and leadership was strong.

The Republic- a surprisingly strong case for also being various other things, including a landed oligarchy, with elements of democracy and stratocracy closely linked. The senior magistrates all exercised military command as a core function. Their political and military careers through the list of offices were essentially one thing. Senators had all normally been magistrates and at least some military service was integral. Civil and military command were one from the earliest days. When in the late republic provinces appeared, governors united civil and military command. I am not sure whether a lame male citizen who could not serve in the legions was thereby excluded from political office or voting in the assemblies, but the linkage between citizenship and military service was very strong. The legions were effectively a militia, and said militia and the People [the male citizen body] were effectively one even if there were exceptions made. One of the assemblies, the comitia centuriata, was composed of citizens in their legionary units, and was the assembly that elected the most senior magistrates. In effect, elected their commanders and the leaders of the state. That the class system also excluded male citizens too poor to supply their arms from this role is also a stratocratic element.

Late Republic- After Marius, one could argue a very different form of stratocracy entered the picture. The word still does not describe the whole of Roman government, as the senior leaders are still both military leaders and civilian politicians/senators/magistrates. But their soldiery becomes more long-service, those soldiers become more the basis of their political power, military success is increasingly the basis of senatorial and popular support, and serving the needs of the soldiers becomes one of the main platforms.

Empire- a continuation of the late republic. interestingly, one could argue that the overall body of citizens and to some degree the senatorial aristocracy is actually demilitarized over the life of the empire by the advent of a regular army, the dissolution of the Roman citizen assemblies, and the rise of an imperial bureaucracy including a military one, marginalizing the senate over time. One could even argue that the reforms of Diocletian completed this process by finally separating civil and military command in the provinces and at the centre. So although one could argue for the empire as essentially a militarized oligarchic republic with life-presidency, it also was less stratocratic and more resembled our ideas of civil and military than had the earlier republic.

If one looks at Greece, one sees similar near paradoxes. Sparta is an easy example of a kind of stratocracy as well, who would deny it? A republic whose citizens were a particularly small body of highly trained full time warriors and ruled by older veterans [ephors]. But consider Athens, even [perhaps especially] in its democratic phase. Male citizen body, like at Rome, effectively defined by availability to serve in the phalanx in more or less annual campaigns against rival cities. Election of senior leaders overlapping with or the same as election of war captains by the soldiers. By the democracy, the board of generals being still a body of elected senior politicians, but also defined by the role of military command, and being the most powerful state body.

If anything, these classical republic/politeia/democracy societies effectively define the idea of stratocracy as the full integration of civil and military service/leadership/life.

Just some notes for consideration. Integrating with the existing points [which are mostly good] takes more time than I have now. Sourcing ditto. Pretty confident though. Any general overview of these political systems would back up those conclusions. Don't know if any author has put it with this specific point in mind. Probably. Classics is a huge discipline. Random noter (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Yuki Izumi: and @Random noter:, I'm currently working on another re-edit of the article and will make sure to re-work the spartan and roman paragraphs for when I push it public. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire?

Would the Ottoman Empire count since the son who managed to gain military support and defeat his brothers would become Sultan?

Also this was enshrined in law so was not a Kraterocracy, especially as member of the official army had a role

References

Fictional section

The entire fictional section should probably be removed. Its not exactly what an encylclopedia would contain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.186.69.63 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Location of Cossack Hetmanate.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Qin state

The Qin state (but probably not empire) was a stratocracy, but it would probably be a long time before I could put together enough about this.FourLights (talk)