🎓 On the Many Different Types of Armies

Considering the distinctions between soldiers, warriors, conscripts, volunteers, levies, mercenaries, etc.

One thing that's really hard to get away from when writing fiction — or studying history — is violence. The most bits of common advice authors get, right after "show, don't tell," are "raise the stakes" and "add more conflict." Short of apocalyptic catastrophes like planet-destroying asteroids and volcanic eruptions, ending (or avoiding) brutal wars offer pretty big stakes in fantasy novels. Sure, pandemics and the like offer big stakes, but the conflicts tend to be less physical, which makes them harder for authors to really lean into. Arguments with colleagues and long nights wrestling with difficult equations aren't as cinematic as flashy battles between orcs and elves.

So speculative fiction & history books tend to involve a lot of armies, and I read a lot of both. After the war between Russia and Ukraine broke out, I realized I was genuinely shaky on the differences between different "types" of conscription and, on a broader level, types of armies. I'm wildly unqualified to comment on the modern politics of Eastern Europe, but “what the different kinds of armies are” feels like the sort of thing that fantasy authors and history nerds should know about, I decided to look into the issue and promptly went down several related rabbit holes.

Soldiers vs. Warriors

Military scifi often makes a distinction between soldiers and warriors. Soldiers are often presented as being trained and part of a unit — think Roman Legionnaires as opposed to the “undisciplined” “barbarian” raiders. It's often presented as a question of tactics but to me it comes across as more of an indicator of the resources and social structures at hand.

Military scifi tends to place a premium on discipline, training, and unit cohesion, which is why events like the Battle of Rorke's Drift wind up inspiring military scifi like the Confederation of Valor (which is one of the only books my husband and I both like). For those who don't follow obscure historical battles, that's the one where 150 British and colonial troops defended a religious mission station against attacks by 3,000 to 4,000 Zulu warriors. It's soldiers vs. warriors in a nutshell, with a side of “superior technology matters” and “storming a defensive encampment favors the defender.”

In a similar vein, military science fiction and fantasy also makes a sharp distinction drawn between the professionals and the amateurs. It's mostly a question of training, but as with many things in life, motivation is a big factor. This isn't scientific or anything, but I tend to think of "people who fight each other in battles" as being divided into roughly three categories: levies or conscripts, professional soldiers, and raiders.

A Brief Overview of Types of Fighters

Professional soldiers are basically full-time folks who signed up to fight for their country, and although they do get paid... that's often not the main reason soldiers sign up to fight. Loyalty and service plays a big part. Most modern armies are professional armies, although not all: Israel has widespread conscription even leaving aside the martial law situation in Ukraine and whatever is happening in Russia.

Levies and conscripts are normal people — farmers, historically, because most people used to be farmers. They get pulled into fighting a war, usually because of some emergency. Sometimes this can go on for years, even decades, but no matter how much skill they acquire, conscripts aren't necessarily fighting because they want to be. They're fighting because they don't have a choice. There are some subtle distinctions between the two in terms of how long and precisely when they need to serve (levies I think tended to have stricter time limits) but for my purposes, they are very similar.

Then there are the raiders and pirates who aren't really full-time trained soldiers but also weren't conscripted into battle. They're fighting because they want the financial reward, which they generally take instead of earn. Often, fighting isn't normally what they do throughout the year. The obvious example is “barbarian” nomadic herders riding into a town and stealing stuff then leaving, or teenagers getting involved in border raids in the summer but who mostly spend their time farming and herding sheep. The modern example is Somali pirates — some of whom are independent professionals making a career of it, and others who started out as fisherman and got involved in piracy to make a little money on the side.

Mercenaries

Mercenaries occupy kind of a weird spot on that three-way spectrum. They're paid like professionals, and answer to governments. Privateers rather than pirates, as it were. Sure, they generally hire out to multiple governments over the course of their lives, but mercenaries are sort of by definition motivated by money without necessarily being outright thieves — at a given time, at least. A lot of early mercenaries came from raider groups — and many mercenary companies engaged in banditry when they didn't have an active contract. The Cossacks are a semi-nomadic steppe people, many of whom served Russia as mercenaries for awhile, forming what amounted to a defensive perimeter around the Russian empire. Some folks think that Carthage, Rome, and the Tang Dynasty shifting (at different points) to a more mercenary army led to their respective downfalls.

Academi (formerly Blackwater) is a well-known modern example of a mercenary company — they've worked for the UAE as well as the USA, and employ mercenaries from places like the USA, Columbia, and Sudan. I find it moderately amusing that the Blackwater boss objected to his employees being called mercenaries, when nobody bats an eye at the term "contractor." America has lots of contractors associated with the military, but the distinction between contractors and mercenaries can be pretty hard to parse.

On the Russian side, there’s the Wagner group, which has been in the news a lot lately. Are they mercenaries, or terrorists? The labels matter mostly for propaganda purposes, I think — similar to how some folks consider the wide swaths of the Baltimore City Police Department to be “just another gang.” But they do matter, because nuance and implications matter, particularly for authors.

The Free Companies

One of the most well-known series involving mercenary companies is the Black Company by Glen Cook; the closest real-life analog is the free companies that proliferated during the 12th and 14th centuries. The Italian captains were called Condottieri, which — to my point above about Blackwater & the American defense industry — basically translates as "contractor." Swiss mercenaries came to prominence around this time, too, mostly because of the Hundred Years War.

What I've always found interesting is that mercenary companies like those of that era are generally portrayed as even more "professional" than the standing armies — they fight for money, not loyalty. They fight to win, not for pride. They care more about strategy than chivalry, and generally avoid combat where possible.

Theoretically, that means they win more often.

In Renaissance Italy, mercenary armies led by condottieri played a crucial role in the region's numerous conflicts. Condottieri were military commanders who led bands of professional soldiers known as "free companies", which were hired by city-states and other factions to fight in their wars. The Italian city-states, such as Milan, Florence, and Venice, frequently employed condottieri and their companies to wage wars on their behalf or to bolster their defenses. Some of the most famous condottieri include Sir John Hawkwood, who led the White Company, and Bartolomeo Colleoni, who fought for Venice.

It circles right back around to that "soldier vs warrior" divide, except mercenaries are even more eye-on-the-prize and unconcerned about personal bravery (or, you know, honor) than soldiers in a standing army. Probably because they don't have the collective might of a nation and its government to fall back on; mercenary companies have a lot of freedom, but they're also a lot more alone in the world.

Mercenaries are professional soldiers who are hired by a state, ruler, or other entity to fight on their behalf, typically for financial gain. It's not always direct pay — oftentimes, they're paid in loot from battles... which can create some relatively perverse incentives.

Carthage

The Carthaginian army of the ancient Mediterranean provides one of my favorite examples of a predominantly mercenary force, mostly because I find Carthage endlessly fascinating. It’s hard to know a lot about the individuals, but Carthage relied heavily on mercenaries from its extensive network of client states and allies. The Carthaginian military was noted for its diversity, with soldiers hailing from North Africa, Iberia, and the wider Mediterranean region. The use of such forces allowed Carthage to maintain a flexible and adaptable military, as demonstrated by the famous general Hannibal's exploits during the Second Punic War (218-201 BCE). Sure, reliance on mercenaries and volunteers created challenges, but a good leader like Hannibal could unite the disparate ethnicities into an incredible fighting force. The biggest problem facing Carthage, in my opinion, was their habit of punishing unsuccessful generals — and sometimes exiling their entire armies, even when they were comprised of citizens!

Mercenary captains are generally in the business of keeping their people alive so they can fight and make money another day, and they don't lose sight of that because they're professionals. Doing the job and not letting emotions get the better of you is the definition of professionalism, isn't it? The Carthaginians certainly seemed to think so, given how they sometimes put unwilling commanders in charge (e.g. Hannibal being forced to lead the invasion of Syracuse) and exiled armies for the sin of losing — which sometimes led those armies to rebel and conquer their own cities so they could come home.

Even so, professional soldiers will march even though there is booty and drunkenness to be had in a sacked town. It's not that good mercenary companies who keep their men from pillaging have moral objections per se, although that's presumably a consideration for at least some mercenary captains. No, in this case, bad discipline can get you killed, because if soldiers are too busy pillaging to fight, they can't respond to a surprise attack or pursue a routed enemy to deal with them before they regroup.

Guards

Another notable example of mercenaries throughout history is the Swiss mercenaries, who were highly sought after during the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern period. Renowned for their discipline and battlefield prowess, Swiss mercenaries were employed by various European powers, including France, Spain, and the Papal States. The Swiss Guard, established in 1506 and still active today, serves as the Vatican's security force. For my favorite examples of Swiss guards in fiction, check out The Shadow of the Lion by Mercedes Lackey.

Incidentally, while both the Praetorian Guard and the Swiss Guard were elites charged with protection of a political leader, the Praetorian Guard was an integral part of the Roman military structure and made up of Roman citizens, while the Swiss Guard was a mercenary force of foreign origin, although over time, members from other provinces or even Germanic auxiliaries were occasionally incorporated into the Praetorian ranks.

Unfortunately, I don’t know a lot about their motivations on an individual basis. If you do, please reach out or let me know in the comments!

Ancient Conscription

After the destruction of Thebes by Alexander the Great, the Athenians created a naval levy system (the "ephebeia") required young men to undergo military training in order to defend Attica against Boeotian raiders, among other things like religious and garrison duties. It turned out that 18 and 19 year old conscripts were not only generally unenthusiastic, they were also woefully untrained — historically speaking, most Greek soldiers were a lot older than ours, and most Europeans before the 18th century tended to think that young men were wildly unfit to fight. The ideal age was considered somewhere in the 30s, actually. Teenagers were usually relegated to garrison duty and chasing down lightly armed opponents.

In many African societies, age-sets have played an essential role in organizing military forces. Age-sets, or groups of individuals born within a specific time frame, would undergo initiation ceremonies and assume various responsibilities, including military service. This form of conscription was crucial for societies such as the Maasai, where young men (known as "moran") would serve as warriors to protect their communities and livestock. Similarly, the Nuer people of Sudan relied on age-set systems to assemble their military forces. These systems were effective in fostering group cohesion and creating a shared sense of duty.

The Roman Republic employed a conscription system known as the "legionary levy," which required male citizens of military age (usually between 17 and 46) to serve in the army. Roman society was divided into several property classes, with each class having specific military obligations. The Roman army's structure and tactics, combined with the conscription system, allowed Rome to expand its territory and establish its dominance throughout the Mediterranean. The Roman conscription system was effective, particularly during the Republic's expansionist phase, although the eventual transition to a professional standing army during the Empire period suggests that conscription had its limits... as seen when the Empire (to its detriment) returned to conscription during its later years. That said, it's worth noting that they tended toward mass conscription of foreign tribesman instead of citizens who might have otherwise seen military service as civic duty.

The Assyrian Empire, one of the most powerful ancient Near Eastern states, employed a conscription system to maintain its large and well-organized military. Assyrian kings would periodically issue decrees requiring eligible men to serve in the army, generally during the summer when farmers weren't as necessary back home. This practice was replaced over the course of about 200 years with increasing professionalisation as the Assyrian kings poached professional fighters from defeated enemies and no longer needed the summer levies.

Medieval Conscription

Feudal European armies do not fit neatly into either the conscript or volunteer categories, as their structure was based on a different system of social organization and military service. The feudal system was characterized by a hierarchy of relationships, in which vassals pledged their allegiance and military service to a lord in exchange for land, protection, and various rights. This system of mutual obligations, rather than conscription or volunteerism, was the basis of military organization during the feudal period.

The backbone of feudal European armies consisted of knights, who were heavily armed and mounted warriors that got by as shock cavalry rather than discipline or brilliant tactics. Knights were typically vassals of a lord, and their military service was a part of their feudal obligations, although as with anything the reality was a bit more complex, since some knights were landless, some lands were held unconditionally, etc. Still, the general idea was that in times of conflict, a lord would call upon his vassals, who would in turn assemble their own retainers and forces to form a larger army. These forces could be supplemented by levies, which were local militias made up of commoners who were required to serve for a limited time. The levies probably count as conscripts, but their primary role was to provide support to the professional fighting forces, similarly to how they were used in Assyria during the 8th century BCE. For my favorite book series that uses levies as a plot point (albeit with a Roman twist!), check out Jim Butcher's Codex Alera.

Feudal armies were not standing forces; they were assembled on an ad hoc basis, with vassals and their forces being called upon for specific campaigns or conflicts. This system had some advantages, as it allowed rulers to muster forces relatively quickly without the need for a large standing army, which would have been costly to maintain. However, it also had major drawbacks, including the challenge of maintaining cohesion and discipline among diverse groups of vassals and retainers, and the limited duration of service that vassals were obligated to provide.

Although they're often grouped together in world history courses (which is fairly controversial), Japanese samurai were professional warriors who served the daimyo (feudal lords) in exchange for land and privileges... but were decidedly not shock cavalry. Their relationship with their lords was generally more paternal than what European knights experienced, but overall, there was a strong element of heredity and eliteness involved in this type of military... at least for the professional core. The ashigaru were farmers who served as peasant foot soldiers, similarly to European levided serfs — the main difference being that although they typically served their own lords, sometimes they served as mercenaries.

Modern Conscription

Israel requires non-ultra-Orthodox male Jewish, Druze or Circassian citizens, as well as Jewish women, to serve in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) when they turn 18. Men typically serve for 32 months, while women serve for 24 months. This form of conscription has been viewed as essential for the nation's security, given its geopolitical position and ongoing conflicts with neighboring countries. Unlike the ephebeia, the IDF's mandatory service model seems to have fostered a highly skilled and adaptable military force; it bears a stronger resemblance to the early Roman republic, in that it is seen as a key part of civic duty and is tied to pride in one's citizenship, rather than being felt as an embarrassing necessity to win unpopular foreign wars to save on tax money for elites, as in the late Roman period.

The Vietnam War marked a significant shift in American military policy, with conscription playing a major role. The draft, as it was called, targeted men aged 18-26 and employed a lottery system to determine the order of induction. This system was often criticized for being unfair, as individuals with connections or wealth could avoid service through deferments or by enlisting in the National Guard. The draft fueled anti-war sentiment and led to widespread protests, particularly among younger Americans, and led to low morale among troops and increased opposition to the conflict at home.

More recently, the Ukrainian government implemented emergency conscription measures in 2013, which it hoped would be enough. It wasn't, and conscription continued in 2014 and on to 2022. While the initial draft helped Ukraine respond to the immediate crisis, it also revealed shortcomings in its military infrastructure, as many conscripts were poorly trained and equipped. Early on, the draft was met with resistance from certain segments of the population, leading to cases of draft evasion and desertion, although when the Russian-Ukraine war broke out, Ukraine held out for significantly longer than anyone expected.

The vibe I get from reading about relatively modern conscription is that military morale is less contingent on whether the army is volunteer or not than whether the cause is considered worthwhile by the citizenry, and how citizens view their country in general.

Relative Prevalence

Throughout history, the prevalence of different types of armies — conscript, volunteer, mercenary, tribal, and feudal — has varied depending on factors such as the region, culture, and political structure. In some periods and places, conscript armies were more common, such as in the late Roman period or during the Napoleonic Wars in the early 19th century. In other contexts, volunteer armies have been more prevalent, as seen in the modern US military or the armies of ancient Carthage.

Feudal armies, like those of medieval Europe and Japan, represent a unique category with their own set of characteristics and challenges. Mercenary armies have been more common in certain periods, such as Renaissance Italy or Late Middle Ages Europe, where political fragmentation and frequent conflicts created a high demand for professional soldiers (although on occasion, the guilds fulfilled military roles as well, as insurgents — often led by furriers and blacksmiths).

All that said, it's important to remember that just because a particular government predominantly used one type of military service, doesn't mean they did so exclusively, even at a particular point in time. The ancient Greeks probably used more mercenaries than we realize, in addition to periodically conscripting young men to supplement their military strength. Certainly using mercenaries and conscripts to supplement regular forces in times of duress makes sense.

When writing fiction — or nonfiction, truthfully — there’s a temptation to make things clean and tidy, and to generalize. But based on what I’ve read about the history and classification of fighters, reality seems to be pretty messy.

Further Reading

• After I wrote this, an aquaintance of mine posted this wonderful piece about Conscription — if you find this topic interesting, definitely check out Bean’s article! It’s more focused on modern conscription (including the surprisingly popular Swiss model, which I found fascinating) and has some information about times when it failed that I hadn’t been aware of.

• I found Roman Lessons for the American All-Volunteer Force thought-provoking during my research but didn't entirely fit into the scope of this article.

• This is decidedly not my area of expertise, so if you’ve got any great resources to share that aren’t too long or oriented specifically toward folks who are already hardcore fans of a particular era, please do share. I’m also interested in personal anecdotes, additional insights, and corrections!