Marxism Never Died, It Just Went Underground

[Hwen Hoshino]

The prime example of Marxism coexisting with liberty is the military; a totally Marxist organization ostensibly protecting liberty.

In what period? Current US Army and Navy is not doing that.

No. They were professional soldiers. The knights were raised professional from birth.

But each knight was in a larger army for themselves, not as a professional unit. Even the king had to offer lands, or treaties or whatnot to get the various lords to show up. They were professional fighters, and spent a lot of time practicing fighting, but it was not a professional army.

I think trying to redefine the word professional advances the argument nowhere. You can rename them pink unicorn troopers and changing the name does not alter the historical reality. These were professional armies organized under a feudalism system, and they didn't often run around like bandits.

Yes they ran around like bandits often.

[GloryofGreece]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfeXl3LBXs

[Montegriffo]

Magna Carta was for the liberties of the barons and counts.

Point of order.
England doesn't have Counts. We have Earls. Count is the European name for an Earl.

[Montegriffo]

In medieval Europe, there were strict codes of conduct about warfare.

If you are talking about chivalric codes they died at Crecy under a volley of arrows from the English longbow.

[Montegriffo]

But each knight was in a larger army for themselves, not as a professional unit. Even the king had to offer lands, or treaties or whatnot to get the various lords to show up. They were professional fighters, and spent a lot of time practicing fighting, but it was not a professional army.

I think trying to redefine the word professional advances the argument nowhere. You can rename them pink unicorn troopers and changing the name does not alter the historical reality. These were professional armies organized under a feudalism system, and they didn't often run around like bandits.

They weren't, and they did.

http://www.hundredyearswar.com/Books/Hi ... y_for_.htm

By the early 14th century, the most effective armies were those consisting of professional, paid troops. At this point, these warriors were largely mercenaries, kings and magnates not yet being wealthy enough to maintain armies permanently.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

No doi, that is what I said.

A professional soldier in an ad hoc force is more like a mercenary.

[Speaker to Animals]

Neither of you understand what these terms mean. You are describing the difference between regular and irregular troops, not professional troops and mercenaries.

Mercenaries are professionals too. I mean.. duh.

The analog to an irregular troop would be like the longbowman companies the crown commissioned during the Hundred Years War. Most of us have ancestors who were the analog to regular troops, and we can look them up in the British online records for the war. If you have English ancestors, you can probably see them on the rolls as men-at-arms, archers-at-arms, etc.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

And you are a feckless Papist that romanticizes past.

[Montegriffo]

There is a difference between professional soldiers and a professional army.
Especially when the King refuses to pay in full for services tendered.

[Montegriffo]

No doi, that is what I said.

A professional soldier in an ad hoc force is more like a mercenary.

Hey I was just backing up your point with a valid source. No disagreement here.