• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Fire_Unionist

Colonel
21 Badges
Jul 6, 2008
852
3.563
  • Prison Architect
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • 500k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II
How common, historically speaking, has the direct election of military officers by soldiers (or other forms of military democracy) been? Are there any examples of this from ancient history in addition to more commonly known anarchist experiments?
 
It's been quite romanticized as of late, but I remember reading that Caribbean pirate crews in the early 18th century tended to have some sort of election for ship officers. But again, this is among essentially bandits; can't recall an organised state where this was common.
 
It's been quite romanticized as of late, but I remember reading that Caribbean pirate crews in the early 18th century tended to have some sort of election for ship officers. But again, this is among essentially bandits; can't recall an organised state where this was common.
That's true, thanks for the reminder!
 
There are some theories among anthropologists? where tribes elected leadership in conflicts. Take this with a healthy dose of sceptisism though as I cant find nor provide a source.

During both the french and russian revolutions there where quickly abandoned experiments with elected commanding officers.

Apart from those I cannot recal any examples apart from indirect ones. Eg mercenaries and especially condottieri.
 
didn't the athenians elect their generals during the later stages of the peloponesian war?
 
I seem to recall something about one of the Germanic leaders having been elected by a council representing the various tribes, to oppose Rome.

There was also something about Athens electing a general for an expedition (to Syracuse?), or the intended general having initially refused and then accepting after being voted to the position, I vaguely recall.

It seems more likely to have happened in tribal and only loosely organized societies, rather than in highly structured ones like Rome and in authoritarian states where they were appointed by the ruler.
 
During the early stages of the Finnish Civil War in 1918 the Red Guard of Finland operated and acted with democratic principles. The Red Guards were often formed and founded by the men with same locality, same worker's union, or same workplace. It was common that the Red Guards had armed companies of tailors, carpenters, shoemakers, masons, etc. It used to be, that the chief of the company(the commanding officer) was elected among the crew. Also the platoon leaders(officers) were elected and selected by the rules of acclamation, this means roughly speaking, that the candidate for the loudest popularity was selected for the post of platoon leader.
 
American Militia system. Especially during the Revolutionary and the Early Plains wars.
Also civil war in part, especially early parts.
 
How common, historically speaking, has the direct election of military officers by soldiers (or other forms of military democracy) been? Are there any examples of this from ancient history in addition to more commonly known anarchist experiments?

Roman military tribunes during the republican period? The enrolling of the legions and the selection of the officers seems to have had an elective element in it. At least I seem to remember something like that from reading Polybios.
 
Athenian generals were elected, as were Roman consuls and military tribunes and Carthaginian generals, but I couldn't tell you how officers below those levels were chosen.
 
Ah yes, "vote by acclimation": All in favor, say "Aye". Vote passed. No opportunity to vote for an alternative. I've seen that done by a union that I had to join as a condition of employment. The union bosses effectively ran a dictatorship, but it was all "democratically" voted on, just without any option to vote against their choice. Something like 200 local members, with about 75 present for the meeting; the vote went about 20 in favor. Passed. It was sickening to watch.

Wasn't Xenophon voted in to command the group of former mercenaries from Sparta stuck in Persia?
 
Ah yes, "vote by acclimation": All in favor, say "Aye". Vote passed. No opportunity to vote for an alternative. I've seen that done by a union that I had to join as a condition of employment. The union bosses effectively ran a dictatorship, but it was all "democratically" voted on, just without any option to vote against their choice. Something like 200 local members, with about 75 present for the meeting; the vote went about 20 in favor. Passed. It was sickening to watch.

Wasn't Xenophon voted in to command the group of former mercenaries from Sparta stuck in Persia?

I can imagine this case of yours happening, but not in the Finnish Red Guard. If the crew experienced the discipline was too harsh or have been poorly treated, they had the opportunity to vote for discharging the commander from his duty. This "fanaticism" towards democracy in the Red Guards led to dishonesty and poor war success.
 

Attachments

  • Punakaartin_sotilaita[1].jpg
    Punakaartin_sotilaita[1].jpg
    30,7 KB · Views: 33
Ah yes, "vote by acclimation": All in favor, say "Aye". Vote passed. No opportunity to vote for an alternative. I've seen that done by a union that I had to join as a condition of employment. The union bosses effectively ran a dictatorship, but it was all "democratically" voted on, just without any option to vote against their choice. Something like 200 local members, with about 75 present for the meeting; the vote went about 20 in favor. Passed. It was sickening to watch.

Wasn't Xenophon voted in to command the group of former mercenaries from Sparta stuck in Persia?

Acclamation is usually done in such a way that if no one objects the vote goes through, if someone does object it turns into a regular vote. (sometimes there's a minimum threshold of objections for turning it into a vote)
 
Acclamation is usually done in such a way that if no one objects the vote goes through, if someone does object it turns into a regular vote. (sometimes there's a minimum threshold of objections for turning it into a vote)

Reminds me a bit of this.
 
So what were the reasons this practice was abandoned in the examples stated? Why is it not common practice nowadays
 
Said to be militarily ineffective. But I would like more info on that.
I am dubious about that.
The International Brigades used to elect their own officers and of the many sins attributed to them military inefficiency was not one.
In the Germany on the other hand the officer class took quite severe offense at the mere idea... one reason why the conservative officer corps was so dead-set against the left, was the fact that mutinous soldiers had cut off officers epaulets (the only thing they cut off) and elected their own leaders.
Freikorps formations did much the same though in a more covert way (soldiers chose under which officer they would serve with unpopular officers facing problems filling their ranks which would see their Freikorps crumble or them replaced by a more popular successor) and also performed reasonably well.
I would even submit that battle see another form of popular vote with soldiers: Unpopular or incompetent officers have long been known to be especially likely to fall while visiting the front lines or leading an assault...
 
Said to be militarily ineffective. But I would like more info on that.
In a professional military, you want people to gain promotion based on merit and performance, not popularity. It's possible to have a leader who is both popular and effective, but popularity will trump effectiveness which is obviously not optimal.
In a non-professional military, people gain promotion due to political power, not popularity. This helps insure the nominal loyalty of the military against popular uprising.
 
In a professional military, you want people to gain promotion based on merit and performance, not popularity. It's possible to have a leader who is both popular and effective, but popularity will trump effectiveness which is obviously not optimal.
In a non-professional military, people gain promotion due to political power, not popularity. This helps insure the nominal loyalty of the military against popular uprising.
That is the idea, but plenty of professional militaries, not least today's US Army shows that this idea of 'promoting on merit' does not mean more competent officers necessarily. You simply get structures of patronage, cliques and popularity contests within the military which then leads to people getting promoted based on their ability to play internal politics.
I think your answer, without attacking you, would be what a member of a professional military caste would claim as a defense against more democracy and against threats to his way of life.