Ancient and modern military philosophy from Aristotle to Machiavelli

Abstract
Today, nearly all countries in the world field standing, professional military forces that are used for a wide range of defensive and offensive purposes, and this same situation has existed for most of recorded history. Not surprisingly, the debate concerning the appropriate role of the military in society has also been the focus of scholarship for more than two millennia. The purpose of this study is to provide a systematic review of the relevant literature concerning the philosophy of the military then and now and what issues the military deals with that can be drawn from the great thinkers from antiquity and the Renaissance such as Aristotle, Plato, Thomas Aquinas and Niccoli Machiavelli In addition, an analysis concerning the ancient and modern philosophies of the military in terms of who should be in the military, what is the role of the military and what is the role of a individual military service member is followed by a summary of the research and key findings about these issues in the conclusion.



The Philosophy of the Military: Then and Now

Throughout history, humankind has looked to the military not only for protection from enemies, but for peace-keeping, nation building and regime-changing purposes as well. The ancient philosophy of the military as espoused by critical thinkers shares some commonalities with modern perspectives, but there are some fundamental differences involved as well. To help provide some fresh insights into these issues, the purpose of this study was to provide a systematic review of the relevant literature concerning the philosophy of the military then and now and what issues the military deals with that can be drawn from thinkers such as Aristotle, Plato, Thomas Aquinas and Niccoli Machiavelli. For this purpose, the philosophy of the military will be operationalized as the prevailing contemporary views concerning who should be in the military, what is the role of the military and what is the role of an individual military service member. Finally, a summary of the research and key findings about these issues are presented in the study’s conclusion.
Contrasting Philosophy of the Military: Then and Now
What is the role of the military?
Ancient humans, like their modern counterparts, were faced with some profound challenges in developing and sustaining a viable society and ultimately civilizations. Wars were ever present over scarce resources, land, slaves and power, and brutality was the order of the day. Violent clashes between tribes, and then larger communities and eventually powerful city-states were commonplace and this situation formed the essential zeitgeist of the ancient world. Any peoples who were not part of the tribe were automatically regarded as enemies, and the school of hard knocks provided ample evidence of the legitimacy of this view.
Indeed, prior to the Treaty of Kadesh between the Egyptians and Hittites around 1260 BCE, the notion of a peace treaty between neighboring nations did not even exist and it was simply assumed that other peoples were belligerent and intent on their destruction (Murphy, 2015). For example, according to one historian, “Warfare has been a constant throughout human history and conflict can certainly be traced back to our hominid ancestors in our evolutionary past” (Development of professional armies, 2018, para. 2). In fact, it is reasonable to posit that humans are hard-wired for warfare since the competition over scarce resources remains a harsh reality during any period in history. Against this backdrop, it is readily apparent that views about the role of the military date to antiquity, as well as how their use in anger could be avoided through alternatives such as alliances with other nation-states.
Even after the formalization of the Treaty of Kadesh, though, views about the appropriate role of the military in ancient societies differed according to the civilization and historical period involved, but the concept of the military as a force for protection and maintenance of the social order was widely recognized. In fact, by the 2nd century BCE, professional standing armies began to appear which would have a profound impact on Western views about the appropriate role and purpose of a nation’s military forces, including those advanced by Aristotle and Plato. The philosophy of the military developed by these ancient great thinkers was subsumed within a larger framework of virtue ethics. In this regard, Jensen (2017) advises that, “Virtue ethics includes a family of theories with a rich and complex history, including ancient perspectives from the likes of Aristotle and the Stoics, as well as medieval perspectives such as that of Thomas Aquinas” (p.37).
From the perspective of Aristotle and like-minded theorists, the appropriate role of the military was to provide an exemplar for other members of society by making the significant sacrifices required of all soldiers. This view was in sharp contrast to other philosophies about the military during this period in history such as those promulgated by the Stoics and their emphasis on the welfare of the individual rather than the larger society in which they lived. In this regard, Jensen (2017) points out that:
Modern institutions like the military aim to improve performance, achieve efficiencies, and accomplish very specific common ends. More generally, political systems and political leaders should be striving to find peace and support flourishing nations and citizens. The Stoic ethic, with its much more limited focus on the good of the individual, does not seem to be as good a fit as the Aristotelian ethic, with its focus on building a flourishing set of nested institutions. (p. 37)
As an integral part of the “nested institutions” that formed a viable social order, the role of the military was therefore conceptualized as a whole rather than focusing on its constituent elements and this ancient philosophy has special implications for military leaders today. Indeed, Jensen (2017) concludes that, “Our military forces would be much better off following the Aristotelian than the Stoic path. While it might be more difficult, the payoff will be much better” (p. 37). Nevertheless, it is clear that the debate over the proper role of the military in society dates to antiquity and it remains largely unresolved with respect to how, when and why military forces should be deployed.
From the perspective of Plato and Aristotle, the appropriate role of the military was to help set the inimitable standards for excellence for the rest of society. In this capacity, the military’s appropriate role was also to serve as guardians for society, a point made in Plato’s Republic. For example, Plato believed that “the guardian must seek above all to identify with the common good . . . and are therefore the ‘proto-citizens’ or even ‘meta-citizens’” (Hittinger, 1995, p. 4). This is not to say, of course, that ordinary citizens could not rise to the level of excellence of the members of the military, but it is to say that the military occupied a special place in ancient Greek society and this view has had significant implications for modern Western military forces (Jensen, 2017).
According to Jensen (2017), Aristotle’s views provide a useful approach to understanding the appropriate role of the military both on and off of the battlefield that still have relevance for modern military organizations. In this regard, Jensen concludes that the Aristotelian approach is useful because (1) it is a better match for the institutional nature of modern Western military service, (2) it incorporates a higher degree of flexibility, which allows the account to be adjusted appropriately to the variety of circumstances in which modern militaries operate, and (3) it is better able to contend with the kinds of tragedies that are at the heart of the military experience in war” (2017, p. 38).
In this work, Politics, Aristotle made the distinction between members of the military who served in free societies compared to those who served tyrants, with the former protecting their ruler and the citizens of their country willingly, while tyrants used their military forces to protect them from the nation-state’s citizens. For example, Aristotle points out that:
For the citizens guard their kings with their weapons, whereas a foreign contingent guards tyrants. For kings rule willing subjects on the basis of law, whereas the latter rule unwilling ones. Thus the former have bodyguards drawn from the citizens, whereas the latter have their bodyguards to protect them against the citizens. (2017, p. 92)
By the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas (1987), noted for his views about what factors had to be satisfied for just war, also believed that it was the responsibility of the military to protect the citizens of a society, but only pursuant to the lawful commands of those in charge. By the early 16th century, however, other theorists weighed in on the role of the military and its leaders. For instance, Machiavelli’s treatise The Prince, addressed entirely novel concepts concerning the specific criteria that were required to justify the need to use the military to rule the masses, by force if necessary, and to defend powerful city-states at all costs (Bagley, 1989). In sum, Machiavelli (2005) placed a high priority on the appropriate role of the military as a protective force for the ruling elite in The Prince wherein he “links the overriding value of military power to the conduct of politics and the security of the state” (Dover, 2015, p. 574).
It was Machiavelli’s view that national leaders can delegate the authority needed to lead the military in its various roles in society, but they may need to take direct command in the event qualified military leaders are unavailable. In this regard, Bagley (1989) notes that Machiavelli “stresses the need for captains from within the city-state who are capable of leading the militia both offensively and defensively and, if none are available, the prince himself may have to assume command” (p. 116). The need to constantly “put down the mob” while simultaneously protecting the nation’s leader made it clear that Machiavelli had a poor opinion of human nature but one that was firmly grounded in his times.
According to some historians, however, Machiavelli’s “might makes right” view about the appropriate role of the military failed to take into account the propensity for the oppressed to rise up against the oppressors in ways that preclude their suppression by the military or even the “prince himself.” For instance, according to Colish (1998), while Machiavelli set the stage for further debate over the proper role of the military, his views ignored many of the important trends that were taking place during this period in history, including the viability of the alternative of employing mercenaries when absolutely necessary. In this regard, Colish (1998) advises that:
Machiavelli displays in this work the humanist's propensity for a selective and ad hoc use of sources [and] some have also pointed out that Machiavelli's message in the Art of War == his familiar call for the imitation of ancient military institutions, the praise of the citizen militia, and the critique of mercenary troops - reveals his lack of realism and his failure to acknowledge the military technologies, arrangements, and outcomes prevalent in his own day. (p. 1151)
Notwithstanding Machiavelli’s purported “lack of realism,” he consistently – and proudly -- draws on the historical record to cite numerous examples of rulers who used their military forces to brutally assume power and retain it over time, a tendency which underscores the reality of his arguments. Moreover,in each case, Machiavelli points to the ruthless qualities of such men, who managed to overcome all of the challenges and obstacles arrayed against them to achieve greatness. Like Machiavelli’s own experiences with the military and his distrust of hired guns, the historical leaders he admires used their own empirical observations and military experiences to gain power. For instance, in The Prince, Machiavelli points to an especially blood-thirsty and treacherous 3rd century BCE leader, Agathocles. In this regard, Machiavelli writes admiringly about this leader by noting:
Agathocles, the Sicilian, became King of Syracuse not only from a private but from a low and abject position. This man, the son of a potter, through all the changes in his fortunes always led an infamous life. Nevertheless, he ac companied his infamies with so much ability of mind and body that, having devoted himself to the military profession, he rose through its ranks to be Praetor of Syracuse. (pp. 55-56)
Not satisfied with this lofty position, Agathocles went on to seek higher office by using violence to achieve his objectives, going so far as to use the military to assassinate the entire senate of Syracuse to assume power himself. As Machiavelli confirms:
Being established in that position, and having deliberately resolved to make himself prince and to seize by violence, without obligation to others, that which had been conceded to him by assent, he came to an understanding for this purpose with Amilcar, the Carthaginian, who, with his army, was fighting in Sicily. One morning he assembled the people and the senate of Syracuse, as if he had to discuss with them things relating to the Republic, and at a given signal the soldiers killed all the senators and the richest of the people; these dead, he seized and held the princedom of that city without any civil commotion. (p. 56)
The fact that Agathocles succeeded in assuming power by violently plotting the murder of legitimate political leaders further underscores Machiavelli’s views about how the military can be used in ways that are contrary to its traditional offensive and defensive roles. Moreover, Machiavelli’s influence on future leaders cannot be overstated, so his lack of vision with respect to trends in military technologies, arrangements and outcomes can perhaps be ignored to some extent. What cannot be ignored, however, is the contentious debate concerning who should serve in the military, and as the research that follows below indicates, this issue also remains largely unresolved today.

Who should be in the military?
With some rare exceptions, historical views about who should be in the military in both the ancient and modern worlds have been primarily geared towards allowing males only to serve. These views should not be regarded as misogynic but rather as a pragmatic response to the need for having the largest and most physically powerful individuals serve as guardians of society (Jensen, 2017). For example, in Plato’s Republic, the following exchange between Socrates and Glaucon underscore these beliefs:
Socrates: Do we think that the females of our guard-dogs should join in guarding precisely what the males guard, hunt with them, and share everything with them? Or do we think that they should stay indoors and look after the house, on the grounds that they are incapable of doing this because they must bear and rear the puppies, while the males should work and have the entire care of the flock?
Glaucon: They should share everything—except that we employ the females as we would weaker animals, and the males as we would stronger ones. (p. 139).
Likewise, Aristotle believed that it was the fundamental obligations of all citizens (read male) to contribute to the civic good through military service, all in an effort to provide a stable society in which others could make meaningful choices about their own lives. In this regard, Simpson (1997) notes that Aristotle believed that a military “alliance gets its usefulness from its numbers even if they are all of the same kind, for the nature of an alliance is to provide the sort of help that a greater weight does when it presses down the scales” (1997, p. 38). In his work, Politics, Aristotle makes this specific point:
A city-state consists not only of a number of people, but of people of different kinds, since a city-state does not come from people who are alike. For a city-state is different from a military alliance. An alliance is useful because of the weight of numbers, even if they are all of the same 25 kind, since the natural aim of a military alliance is the sort of mutual assistance that a heavier weight provides if placed on a scales. (p. 27).
Using this view as a point of departure, Aquinas (1987) also believed that a nation’s ruler should encourage military service by qualified male citizens and leverage its military forces in ways that promoted the social good and protected the defenseless from enemy forces.
According to Aquinas (1987), no specific natural law stipulates whether service in the military should be voluntary or obligatory and this requirement is also situation-specific. In some cases, it is reasonable to suggest that ancient kingdoms such as the Hittites and Egyptians enjoyed a “peace dividend” by virtue of entering into an alliance and the need for massive standing armies was reduced. By very sharp contrast, countries such as Israel today that are surrounded by belligerents believe that it is vitally important for all adult citizens to serve their country, either through active military service (it is noteworthy that lengthier service times are still required for males compared to females) or some type of approved community service activities.
The decision concerning who should serve in the military has therefore been historically relegated to national leaders, many of whom may have had few historical precedents to guide them in the process. It is little wonder, then, that the decisions concerning who should serve in the military may backfire in major ways, with neighboring nations viewing large-scale mobilization as an act of war and respond in kind. Likewise, the failure to maintain a minimal level of defensive military forces may encourage adventurous national leaders to take advantage of this perceived weakness and wage total war. This point is also made by Koritansky (2017) who emphasizes that, “Within a particular socio-political context, it may indeed be a terrible mistake to make military service compulsory even though the natural law does not specify which situations call for which measures” (p. 4).
More recently, however, there has been a growing recognition among political and military leaders around the world that women can not only serve in support roles, but participate in combat capacities as well. For example, the same views about women in the military that prevailed during antiquity remain salient in most modern societies with some rare exceptions such as Israel and North Korea’s universal conscription for all citizens, including females who are expected to serve in combat roles alongside their male counterparts. This trend, however, is relatively recent. In the United States, for example, the mandatory conscription began early on in the colonies where service by male citizens in the militia was obligatory although substitutions were allowed in exchange for payment of a fee (Perri, 2013).
Furthermore, today, all of the military services in the United States are comprised of volunteers. According to the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), mandatory conscription ended in December 1972 which was just before the war in Vietnam ended. The draft was ended based on the findings by a Gates Commission study that showed the military forces could be adequately maintained by an all-volunteer force (Understanding the military, 2010). While recruiting levels have varied since that time, the Gates Commission findings were accurate and the U.S. has been able to maintain a professional, combat-ready military force to date (Understanding the military, 2010).
This standing military force, though, remains predominately male. In fact, the controversy over whether women should serve in the military in general and in combat roles in particular is still being debated at the highest levels of command, but the organizational culture that exists at all levels of the military has appeared to dampen female enthusiasm for service in the armed forces. For example, the SAMHSA reports that, “Women make up about 16 percent of the Armed Forces, significantly less than their civilian workforce counterparts at 48 percent. A total of 15 percent of the active component and 17 percent of the reserve component are females” (Understanding the military, 2010, p. 12). In fact, just 5 percent of Marine Corps service members are female (Understanding the military, 2010).
While it is reasonable to suggest that many women are reluctant to serve in the military due to the high-profile cases of command and sexual abuse, there are also fewer career opportunities for females in the military compared to their male counterparts. According to the SAMHSA:
The low representation of women in the military is largely due to Federal policy that restricts women from holding certain military occupational specialties (MOS). Women are barred from serving in combat units and specialty units like the Special Forces. This exclusion policy bars women from an estimated 15–20 percent of all military occupations. (p. 12)
There are some indications that the situation is changing for the better for women in the military, and the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Acts of fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994 authorized the permanent assignment of women to combat ships and aircraft and since 1994, females have been authorized to serve in any division or above unit level; however, were are still not allowed to serve in brigade or lower unit if their main mission is direct combat operations (Understanding the military, 2010, p. 12). Regardless of who is allowed or required to serve in the military, though, all service members have historically served in similar roles as discussed further below.

What is the role of an individual military service member?
Just as the precise role of the military has varied over the centuries, so too has the role of the individual military service member. In all cases, this role has been defined by time, place, circumstances and leadership, existing along a continuum ranging from mere peace=keeping and security operations to large-scale shooting wars. In the past, the role of individual service members was primarily to blindly follow orders and demonstrate unswerving loyalty to their military commanders who were accountable to civilian leaders. Indeed, this role remained largely unchanged throughout the centuries until fairly recently when military leaders recognized the importance of formulating specific values and protocols to guide military organizations and establish expectations for individual service members.
The specific role expected of U.S. service members today depends on their military branch. At present, there are five branches of service: the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard (Understanding the military, 2010). Each of these branches, though, shares some common values with the others with respect to respecting their respective chains of command. In this regard, the SAMHSA reports that:
Each military unit from the largest (combatant commands) to the smallest (teams composed of four to five service members) has a very clear chain of command. The chain of command is based solely on the rank of the individual and there is one assigned officer in charge (the commander) and/or one enlisted or NCO at each level who bear all responsibility for the unit. (Understanding the military, 2010, p. 7)
In addition, service members are expected to perform their official duties in an exemplary fashion and to obey the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (USMJ). The specific role of individual service members, however, may also be influenced by the rigid organizational culture that is in place which is created in a top-down fashion. Military units may be commanded by female officers, and the organizational culture will place a high priority on inclusion practices. Conversely, military units led by old school leaders who view women in the armed forces with disdain may create a toxic work environment for females. Regardless of what type of organizational culture exists, though, all service members are expected to conform to the regulations set forth in the UCMJ, obey all lawful orders and comport themselves in keeping with the values of their respective branch of service.
Likewise, the roles played by individual service members may differ depending on whether they are members of the Reserves or National Guard or they are on active duty, with the former “citizen-soldiers” frequently performing services within the community such as disaster relief that benefit local citizenry. For instance, according to the SAMHSA:
Guard units exist in communities across the country and are integral to community life. The Guard responds to all types of emergencies, including snowstorms, tornados, fires, and floods, and trains regularly to support local officials in times of flu epidemics, and chemical, nuclear, or biological attacks or accidents. (Understanding the military, 2010, p. 4)
By contrast, the role played by National Guard troops differs from the Reserves because of its two overarching missions compared to the single mission for the Reserves. For instance, the SAMHSA reports that:
Unlike the Reserves, the National Guard has two missions—a Federal mission and a State mission. The Guard’s primary mission is to support the States in times of natural and human-made disasters. Guard units in each state can be mobilized by the Governor to provide support within the state or, under certain conditions, across state lines. This occurs when the Governor declares a state of emergency following civil unrest or natural disaster. (p. 4)
Active duty service members, however, are more often involved in prosecuting the commander in chief’s will. Irrespective of the branch of service involved, the role played by female service members has grown in importance in recent years, with a corresponding problem among the ranks due to the traditional masculine and even machismo organizational culture that has historically characterized military service in the United States. In the past, this type of culture was reinforced by the fact that only American males were eligible for the draft, a reality that manifested itself in terms of resentment and in some cases for the unwilling draftees, jealousy over such preferential treatment due only to biological happenstance. Today, though, the fact that so few women serve in the military compared to their representation in the civilian workforce makes it clear that longstanding historical views about who should serve in the military remain largely unchanged from antiquity.
Conclusion
The research showed that the philosophy of the military has changed in some substantive ways over the millennia, but it was also consistent in showing that many of the same issues that influenced the role of the military have remained unchanged unto the present. While ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle conceptualized the role of the military in terms of its ability to serve as a courageous example for the rest of society, later theorists such as Thomas Aquinas cited the need for a legitimate authority to exercise control over the military as well as the requirement for certain conditions to exist before these forces could be used offensively. By contrast, the views advanced by Niccoli Machiavelli focused on how the military could be used to secure power by whatever means necessary and to retain this usurped power against all odds. Finally, the research also showed that the philosophy concerning who should serve in the military has experienced little change over the millennia. Indeed, one of the more interesting findings to emerge from the research concerned the historical and modern views about who should serve in the armed forces. Although there have been some changes in the masculine organizational culture that characterizes most modern militaries through the slow but painful inclusion of increasing numbers of female service members, the overwhelming majority of military service members today remains men, due in large part to their perceived physical superiority compared to their female counterparts. It should be noted, however, that this philosophy also extends to other organizations in the modern world such as the Olympics where men and women compete separately due to their differences in physical abilities. This is not to say, of course, that men are better than women or vice versa, but it is to say that it is reasonable to conclude that unless and until technologies solutions are developed that will completely replace boots on the ground, the male dominance of the military will likely remain unchanged well into the foreseeable future.



References
Aquinas, T., Saint. (1987). St. Thomas Aquinas on politics and ethics: A Norton critical edition. (P. E. Sigmund, Trans.). New York: Norton
Aristotle, (2017). Aristotle. Politics- A new translation (C. D. C. Reeve, Introduction.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub.
Bagley, G. L. (1989, July). Do you have to be Machiavelli to succeed? Security Management, 33(7), 116.
Colish, M. L. (1998, Winter). Machiavelli's 'Art of War': A reconsideration. Renaissance Quarterly, 51(4), 1151-1155.
Development of professional armies. (2018). Daily History. Retrieved from https://daily history.org/How_did_ancient_Professional_Armies_develop%3F.
Dover, P. M. (2015, Winter). Machiavelli: A portrait. Canadian Journal of History, 50(3), 574-577.
Grube, G. (Trans.). (1992). Plato republic. Revised by C.D.C Reeve. Indianapolis. IN: Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.
Hittinger, J. P. (1995). The soldier and the citizen: Lessons from Plato and Aristotle. International Society for Military Ethics. Retrieved from http://isme.tamu.edu/ JSCOPE95/Hittinger95.html.
Jenen, M. N. (2017, Summer). Epictetus vs. Aristotle: What is the best way to frame the military virtues? Naval War College Review, 70(3), 37-41.
Koritansky, P. (2017). Thomas Aquinas: Political philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A peer-reviewed academic resource. Retrieved from https://www. iep.utm.edu/aqui-pol/#SSH6ai.
Machiavelli, N. (2005). The prince (P. Bondanella, Trans.). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Murphy, J. (2015, October 23). Conscientious objection isn't a legitimate posture for Britain in the face of ISIS ferocity. New Statesman, 144(5285), 29.
Perri, T. (2013, Winter). The evolution of military conscription in the United States. Independent Review, 17(3), 429-433.
.Understanding the military: The institution, the culture, and the people. (2010). Washington, DC: SAMHSA.