— Begin quote from ____
A constant issue with these role-playing sites, centered around the creation of nations, is the development of militaries with a state, rather than of states with a military. By this I mean that the defining aspect and characteristics are driven by the military of the nation. In this sense, the military is the most developed aspect of a country, the corner-stone of identity and the prime mover of the narrative. It may be that the military is not actually literally reflected in such a prime position, and influences are taken from other sources, but for many players (at least when starting out) many choices, direct or indirect, seem to cater more to the development of armed forces than of any other element of the government (let alone of the nation as a whole including the civil/private sector).
The pitfall here is understandable. Tanks, planes, explosions and all of that are exciting and cool. We are all, whether we have realized it or not, aspiring armchair generals to some degree. We want to sperg out about our naval aviation, either indulging in its high-end, almost sci-fi, equipment or trying to make the best of a third-world arsenal of broken down MiGs and missiles with questionable engines. These are also things which are easy to deal with, calculating the road range of your tank is considerably more simple than theory-crafting about social policy. The assurance of mechanical certainty has its appeal. Movies, games, etc. all help to underline and contribute to this impulse, for the player-base it’s obviously going to be more exciting to pour over some battle and try to draw an appropriate interpretation of infantry doctrine than to observe hospital management to tailor your health policy. The attractiveness of dealing with these things first is evident.
I don’t think that people can necessarily be blamed for taking this approach, but it is clearly shallow and non-conductive to the evolution of a properly structured narrative. The military should be a reflection of the nation, not the other way around. Even “bunker” or “siege mentality” states from the real world are not defined by their military, rather the military is defined by the culture and the context in which it resides. Israel, North Korea, Rhodesia, Switzerland, Eritrea, to name a few, have/had distinctive military with a strong sense of culture, but that is the product, not the generator of society. This is not to say that the military can’t have an impact on culture, but it is a reaction, it is a cultural impact feeding back into itself. Conscription obviously brings about deep social implications, just like a small wholly professional military does.
Developing a military in due course, with a strong foundation in the nature of the country itself will also help incredibly towards constructing a military that is realistic. This will help avoid bloated and idealized masses of men and women in uniform armed with top-of-the-line equipment because the government is seemingly content to blow 50% of the budget on it.
I don’t think that this is a definitive list, and I certainly welcome the participation of others, but I’d like to consider some important things that should be defined well before a military is thought about in depth. These are not necessarily in order of importance, and many obviously overlap and have intricate correlations;
Population: perhaps one of the simplest, a large population will allow (with consideration of other factors) a large military
Age pyramid: A younger population tends for larger masses of conscripts, perhaps even child soldiers. An aging population would almost by necessity have to spend considerably per soldier in order to maximize it’s manpower.
Wealth (national): Can impact either quality per soldier or even a general quantity vs. quality. A low national wealth implies a poorly funded army with vast masses of conscripts, however when coupled with a reasonable gdppc a smaller but well equipped force can be an option.
Wealth (per capita): A high value implies a developed nation, much more likely to field a smaller force of well-equipped and well-trained personnel, contrasted with a nation that just has masses of light infantry and rusting tanks.
Political tendencies/history: To what degree has the political course of the nation impacted the development of the military? Have politics in general been liberal or restrictive? The historical trends of a nation will decide some important things, such as if there has been conscription, if there has consistently been a considerable level of expenditure on the military, etc.
History, past conflicts: A country with a history of armed conflict would possibly have a cultural preponderance to be more accepting of a higher degree of militarization in the present. This also depends on how the past conflicts were addressed. A nation with a history of using citizen militia for defense might still have some form of mass armament/conscription, whilst a large nation that had constant conflicts but was able to field specialized soldiers, or use masses of conscripts offensively, might only tolerate a small force.
Neighbors: Obviously a country surrounded by enemies is more likely to develop a siege mentality and have twelve-year-olds doing rifle drills. On the other hand a nation with developed cultural and economic links is not likely to enter into conflict, as Bastiat said, “When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.”
Ruling government: The party in power might be content to continue the historical trend, or it might be pushing for a reform in policy (in either way). Depending on the level of historical depth, a large military might be tough to dismantle, just like it would be difficult to quickly expand a small force. It might even be that the ruling government is the product of a military act, such as a former guerrilla force that has seized power.
Budget: this one is pretty evident. However, it is closely related to other expenditures, to what degree is military spending a priority for the government?
Expenditure as a percentage of GDP: just how much of the economy is being funneled into the military? Military spending is more often than not a malinvestment, so money being put into the armed forces is money that isn’t being reinvested into some other program, or perhaps not even being taxed at all.
Geography: does the nation have a large area of land to cover? Does it have only a few climates or does it have everything from mountain ranges to jungles to deserts? A military will obviously have to reflect these considerations, either by having more specialized troops or by possessing a more intricate logistical platform.
Proximity to conflict zones: Are you a Switzerland or a New Zealand?
Race/Sexual/Religious relations: the degree to which races, sexes, those of differing sexual or religious orientation are integrated in the military (and society) will affect the availability of manpower.
Potential threats or conflicts: the military will obviously be affected by what threats (real or imagined) have to be addressed. It could be a force geared to simply protect one border of the nation, shared with a hostile neighbor. It could be forced to defend from all sides against all comers, just like it could also be a small force deployed internationally to protect interests abroad or help allies. It could also be a force focused on internal threats, having to carry out counter-insurgency operations on its own territory.
These are just some considerations on the matter. Any participation is obviously more than welcome, as this should be treated as a communal WIP with the intent of generating a unified end product that can then be utilized as a forum-wide reference sheet.
— End quote