Was there ever a successful civilization (meaning dominant for a prolonged period) that had a military ruling class? I don't just mean a military class being higher than some peasantry (like feudalism), but one where military men made governmental decisions and there was a strong warrior culture.
define "successful" and "prolonged"
>"successful"
Influential in a region or across the globe
>"prolonged"
for over 250 years
>Influential in a region or across the globe
>for over 250 years
the Mamluk Sultanate
Spain, England, France, pretty much every single european state had a military ruling class for centuries, from the mycenic kingdoms to rome to the post-roman kingdoms. Not only that but also the clergy and traders participated in warfare extensively in Europe.
What the frick do you think Caesar, Pompey, Marcus Antonius, Sulla, Scipio and Crassus were? Every single roman heavyweight was a military officer.
>What the frick do you think Caesar, Pompey, Marcus Antonius, Sulla, Scipio and Crassus were? Every single roman heavyweight was a military officer.
I really just though senators were esteemed, wealthy, property-owning citizens. I didn’t think all of them were officers
It was a minimum requirement for some, but not all, high ranks.
>was there ever X?
>but i dont mean X
brainfart thread
Every civilization had a military class but they were almost never ruling. They were always below the priests, landed gentry or as of recently capitalists and career politicians.
In European feudalism the landed gentry were the military elite.
The Mamluk Sultanate. Mamluks were a military caste of slave soldiers which gained military power in different regions from Egypt to India. The Mamluk Sultanate took power in Egypt and Syria in ~1250 and lasted until ~1500.
They were a regional powerhouse and btfo'd the Mongols.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk_Sultanate
You ever hear of this political entity called the Roman Republic?
All senators were military men? I don’t think so.
Up to what point did the monarchs, royalty, their court advisors, and judges actually see military action? I don’t doubt at one point early on in history that was the case but by the late medieval period wouldn’t they have been isolated from that?
>Up to what point did the monarchs, royalty, their court advisors, and judges actually see military action? I don’t doubt at one point early on in history that was the case but by the late medieval period wouldn’t they have been isolated from that?
No, rulers et al still lead armies and actively fought in combat through the entirety of the middle ages. It continued well into the early modern period even if they generally did less physical fighting, and even still monarchs died in battle like Gustavus Adolphus.
There were still cases of monarchs leading armies through the 19th century, in fact.
Now that I think about it, Prussia fits the criteria of the thread.
>All senators were military men? I don’t think so.
Are you moronic? They literally were. You became a Roman Senator by getting on at least the bottom rung of the Cursus Honorum, with the role of quaestor. To even be eligible to become a quaestor, you needed to have 10 years recorded military service and no serious blemishes on your military reputation. Literally every single senator served in the military to at least an average distinction.
In classical Athens men who rowed in the navy and fought in the phalanx were fully participating in the affairs of state
The phalanxes were made up of citizens, but a lot of the rowers were mercenaries and metics, who were not citizens. Most of that has to do with the whole low level of organization, "you go to war in equipment you can personally afford" bit. While wealth and citizenship weren't exactly identical, the citizen body were definitely more well off than the metics, let alone the slaves. They're not the sort of people who want to fight as a galley rower, and they mostly have the means to afford the sort of kit to fight in a more prestigious role.
>Was there ever a successful civilization (meaning dominant for a prolonged period) that had a military ruling class? I don't just mean a military class being higher than some peasantry (like feudalism), but one where military men made governmental decisions and there was a strong warrior culture.
Rome after 200 AD is basically a military junta
It's been 40 minutes, someone needs to acknowledge the real answer here
The emperors, for the most part, didn't lead armies from the 5th to 6th centuries.
>5th century
what the frick did Majorian do, dance the macarena?
>for the most part
It qualifies for OP's 250 year requirement though, just barely
What the hell is a prolonged period?
India was always ruled by Khatri chads until the British came and introduced ~~*democracy*~~.
Imperivm Romanorvm's cvrsvs honorvm saw nearly every patrician serve in the Legions before starting a political career.
Nearly every civilization was like this until the industrial revolution, the use of force is an inherent arm of the state and naturally people with experience in it would have more advantage in both their rise and wielding that power. The industrial revolution changed this, economic power rose in importance, who could manufacture the most technologically up to date warships and whose railroads could transport the most troops and supplies.
A better question is which pre-industrial governments were civilian. Theocracies, aristocracy who leaned more towards land ownership, however it is debatable because they would be heavily intertwined with the army in any case. Armies swore loyalty to an individual not the state or an ideology.
Tokugawa Shogunate is a good example of this. The merchants became wealthy and allied themselves with the americans. The old military elite were exterminated.
Toltec.
They conquered such a stupidly vast territory in only 250 years, and all that without mettalurgy.