The significance of political control in military

In this 15th-century French miniature depicting the Battle of Manzikert, the combatants are clad in contemporary Western European armour. The Battle of Manzikert: Military Disaster or Political Failure?

The significance of political control in military

A further politicization of the military involved officers for a unit not belonging to and being drawn from the class of the military unit he commanded but being selected often through voting. For non-citizens, 25 years in the army was a guaranteed way of gaining citizenship for them and their family.

In the Republic, military service made a person of the equestrian class eligible for a wide range of profitable postings: At the highest level, two consuls were elected each year to head the government of the state and simultaneously were appointed the commanders-in-chief of the Roman army, and would be assigned a consular army and an area in which to campaign.

Violence broke out and the Senate ordered Gaius MariusThe significance of political control in military Consul for that year, to put down the revolt. Marius, although he was generally allied with the radicals, complied with the request and put down the revolt in the interest of public order.

The senate made its decision and Sulla was given the job but a short time later the decision was reversed by the Assembly, and Marius placed in command. Sulla then commanded six legions to march with him to Rome. This was a momentous event, and was unforeseen by Marius, as no Roman army had ever marched upon Rome - it was forbidden by law and ancient tradition.

Marius fled with no great loss of life and Sulla later disbanded his legions and re-established consular government, but the military had been shown to be able to be used as a political tool of individuals.

The significance of political control in military

It was a pattern to be repeated more famously later by Caesar. The incredibly wealthy consul Crassus, who had earlier displayed his wealth by entertaining the populace of Rome at a huge party with 10, tables, personally raised and funded six legions from his personal wealth.

Whilst he did not at this time use them for marching on Rome in direct furtherance of his own career, his desperation to rival the military campaigns of Pompey that led to recognition in the public eye means that his motives are unlikely to have been entirely selfless.

Government as Contract

This turning of an army loyal to its general against the state had occurred before under Sulla, but the circumstances were different this time: Caesar, on the other hand, marched his army against Rome purely for his own purposes.

In everything but name, the army had placed the first Emperor on the throne of Rome. Only later seemingly did the situation reverse and the soldiers began to dictate action to the officers and generals, raising generals to Emperors even when the generals themselves were completely lacking such ambition or wishes.

However, the state saw itself as relatively safe from such rebellions in the early imperial period. The reason for this safety from rebellion is that for a rebellion to be successful it was necessary for an usurper to gain control of a certain percentage of the army in order to stand some chance of success.

Sulla and Caesar had managed such actions because the consular system of that period had concentrated in their hands a large proportion of the small number of armies in service of the state at the time.

In the expanding empire, legions under generals were spread out across the extent of the Roman borders and it was not easy for one man to seize control of a great part of them, perhaps only commonly being in control of two or so legions.

However, later larger-scale wars necessitated the concentration of greater military power in the hands of generals. Likewise, from to the accession of Diocletian and the establishment of the Tetrarchy inRome saw 28 emperors of which only two had a natural death from the plague.

However, there were also 38 usurpers who raised revolts across the empire. Successful usurpers were usually either provincial governors, commanders of a large grouping of Roman legions, or prefects of the Praetorian guard, which had control of Rome, where the Imperial palace still lay.

The problem of usurpation seems to have lain at least partially in the lack of a clear tradition enshrined in law and popular will of an agreed method of ensuring succession, and also in the maintenance of large standing armies. The former problem was evident from the very first emperor Augustus and meant that those claiming imperial power via various means, and whether they went on to become emperor or be denounced as usurpers, could all claim some form of legitimacy.

The latter problem meant that there were always men remote from their duties and loyalties in Rome and in command or large armies marching under their discipline and command.

One of the most striking changes was the division and multiplication of the Roman provinces. The greater the manpower a provincial governor had under his command, the greater the temptation to make a bid to the throne.

Thus, provinces were slowly[ citation needed ] divided into smaller units to avoid concentration of power and military capacity in the hands of one man.

The latter part of the Roman reign began when Diocletian r. Diocletian was a strong and able leader but by creating smaller provinces, he effectively split the empire into two parts - East and West.

The maintenance of legions in a "strategic reserve" some distance behind the frontier and close to the emperors must also have been partially attributable to a need to preserve against rebellion by Roman border armies as much as against external invasion by an enemy.

He also established the tetrarchy in AD by appointing Maximianus, Galerius, and Constantius to power-sharing roles.South China Sea Topic Week By Ching Chang This article aims to provide a fair assessment of the military significance of the South China Sea land. Center for International Maritime Security.

The significance of political control in military

political commentators, and military observers never to overstate, or even to overrate, the military significance of the land features in the South. The bombing of Dresden was a British/American aerial bombing attack on the city of Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, during World War II in the European four raids between 13 and 15 February , heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3, tons of high-explosive bombs and.

50 Documents That Tell America’s Story

The term military simulation can cover a wide spectrum of activities, ranging from full-scale field-exercises, to abstract computerized models that can proceed with little or no human involvement—such as the Rand Strategy Assessment Center (RSAC)..

As a general scientific principle, the most reliable data comes from actual observation and the most reliable theories depend on it. to eliminate or prevent the flourishing or spread of: to control a forest fire.

Obsolete. to check or regulate (transactions), originally by means of a duplicate register. This political and military unity used regional governors to control justice and security, and let all kinds of trade expand and thrive.

The trade that India engaged in along the Silk Road flourished because of the decreased number of bandits on the roads, and the internal trade also did well because of the single currency that Chandragupta. The major effect of the Awakening was a rebellion against authoritarian religious rule which spilled over into other areas of colonial life.

Amidst the growing population of the colonies within the 18th Century and mass public gatherings, charismatic personalities such .

Assessing the Military Significance of the South China Sea Land Features