A Medieval State with a professional Army

[Sulemain]

You're mission, if you choose to except it, is to have state existing in the period 800AD-1453AD in Europe with a professional army paid for by taxation, standing and volunteer based.

 

[profxyz]

I'm pretty sure the Byzantine Empire had pretty professional armies during most of the period, particularly during the Macedonian period. You can see this by the fact that they had horse archers, and that isn't exactly a skill you can just pick up unless you were on the steppes. Same goes for the Byzantine navy, which again required people who actually knew how to maneuver ships around.

 

[Sulemain]

I'm pretty sure the Byzantine Empire had pretty professional armies during most of the period, particularly during the Macedonian period. You can see this by the fact that they had horse archers, and that isn't exactly a skill you can just pick up unless you were on the steppes. Same goes for the Byzantine navy, which again required people who actually knew how to maneuver ships around.

Perhaps I should have done so in the OP, but excluding the Byzantine Empire

And I was of the understanding that the Byzantine Army of the 7th Century onwards was more Semi-Feudal.

 

[LSCatilina]

In the case we're talking about western medieval armies, the standing armies of Charles VII fit the OP.

If you want that happening earlier, it may appears in the middle part of HYW rather than the late, by butterflying away Charles VI's madness period.
Bureaucratisation, realms taxation and presence (and need) of rather large and permanant armies existed since quite a moment, and use of taxes money to fund these wasn't out of range when you had a rather strong and unified state.

 

[Prussian-Eagle]

To have a standing army, you are probably going to need some of these things to happen

1. A strong centralized state that can fund such an thing. (I.E. Eastern Roman Empire)
2. Inspiration from the Roman Empire to create a Professional Army (I.E. Matthais Corvinus)
3. Possible earlier discovery of gunpowder that would eventually in the decline of the Feudalistic Knights.

Now out of all of these im probably going to say that gunpowder would be the most important change because i view that gunpowder really allowed many of these medieval states to centralize due to cannons rending the great medieval feudal castles of medieval Europe obsolete, thus making it harder to rebel against your king.

Also, if you were to stretch your definition of a standing army a bit we could consider the housecarls of the norse countries a standing army.

 

[LSCatilina]

1. A strong centralized state that can fund such an thing. (I.E. Eastern Roman Empire)

Depending on your definition of centralized, it may be not the case. A bureaucratic state should be enough, having several feudal or pseudo-feudal identities within his borders but able to raise and manage taxes on the realm scale.

2. Inspiration from the Roman Empire to create a Professional Army (I.E. Matthais Corvinus)

Not really. IOTL western standing armies were formed from former mercenary companies. In fact, for the contemporary eye, they were such. Only that the king maintained their presence (while in clearly reduced numbers) with himself at their head (delegating his power to courtier) instead of an independent capitain.

French compagnies d'ordonnance's soldiers, for instance, while clearly a standing army, had its soldiers buying their own equipment, inheritence from old routiers.

In fact, while standing armies re-appeared in Europe only at the middle of XVth century, professional armies appeared much earlier with mercenary armies, whom soldiers lived from war.

(That said, I'm pretty sure that Corvinus' Black Army had the same roots).

3. Possible earlier discovery of gunpowder that would eventually in the decline of the Feudalistic Knights.

Gunpowder was used in the XIIIth century, and didn't caused its decline.
Earlier cannons (up to the XVth century) were quite inneficient, at the point they were used as psychological weapons rather than siege (mechanical artillery being more efficient).

Two factors allowed cannons to be a decisive changes.
1) Metal projectiles : before that, balls were made of stone, with a bad penetration power, not making late medieval fortification that threated. When mettalurgic knowledge progressed, and made this change happen, the situation was different.

But even there, castles were modified : larger walls, cannons on them, new fortifications. The thing is, it costed quite a lot, and only great lords or important cities could fund them, and only great lords could do that.

That said, the tendency to great lords to absorb their weakest neighbours was already quite established by the XIIIth century. It only quikened events there.

2) Establishment of standing armies.
There I think you got the cause/effect wrong. As said, gunpowder artillery existed before the XVth century but never was a real threat.
But at the moment where standing armies with strong artillery components (that only great lords could fund) existed instead of relativly isolated and limited previously used, it became hard to resist an actual artillery barrage, definitely chaging the look of war.

So, gunpowder is less a premise for standing army, than a cause that admittedly influenced back its premise.

And (using again French exemple) even when the biggest lords were crushed or tamed, you still had an important feudal component in war, alongside standing armies (that went quite neglected for a time, especially during early Italian Wars)
The same ordinances that created standing compagnies also re-organized feudal levies and systematized them.

Basically, feudal levies and standing armies weren't opposite, and french kings (whom power still dependend from feudal institutions, depsite the strengthening of their authority) couldn't erase them.

 

[Essam]

The janissaries as a conscripted corps of converts were pretty professional for the period.

 

[Falastur]

I believe France's first standing army dates back to the late 1430s - 1436 I believe? If I remember my facts right, this was actually preceded by one year by an English* standing army signed on a one-year contact, but it never saw any action so it is virtually forgotten.


*Actually an army of Frenchmen created and funded by the Parlement of Paris, but they were recruited to fight for the English cause. If I'd said "French army" it would've given the wrong impression.

 

[LSCatilina]

I believe France's first standing army dates back to the late 1430s - 1436 I believe?

Ordinances of 1445, precisely.

If I remember my facts right, this was actually preceded by one year by an English* standing army signed on a one-year contact, but it never saw any action so it is virtually forgotten.

Well, "English" as well would give the wrong impression. I think "Parlementarian" army would be better fit the civil war context.

That said, I never heard of this before. Are you sure it's not the usual hiring of mercenaries, or the as usual raising of an urban militia?
(I'm going to see on the chronicles of this period, but at least the precise year would help)

 

[MikeTurcotte]

You're mission, if you choose to except it, is to have state existing in the period 800AD-1453AD in Europe with a professional army paid for by taxation, standing and volunteer based.

I think nationalism is a needed component.

For example, you want a 'French Army'; that is a force owing alliegience to the nation of France as opposed to a armed force raised by a noble that happens to be comprised of French men.

Part of the requirement would be to 'lessen' the feudalism. A professional army swears alliegience to a polity, not a person, unless that person embodies a polity.

 

[LSCatilina]

I think nationalism is a needed component.

Not necessarily, historical exemples proove the contrary.

First, I think it's again a problem of seeing feudalism (here late feudalism) and pre-nationalism as too oppisite things. That was never the case : the ordinances that created a standing army were the same that re-organized the feudal levies.

Then, you didn't really had a "french" feeling that included all of the kingdom, but rather really strong local identities that were partially based and unified with the other, over a dynastic alligeance.

not a person, unless that person embodies a polity.

And it was exactly the case of feudal society. A person (dynastically, or a moral person as in urban entities) embodied the polity. More than that, he at least embodied the military part of the polity.

Standing armies, maybe up to XVIIth century (and probably later for much cases) did pledged alligence to a sovereign, not an abstract concept.

 

[Blackfox5]

To do all of that you need cash (coins), and a professional tax system. Europe did not start coining its own cash again until late in the Middle Ages. Without cash, you can't pay for troops or pay tax collectors to collect taxes in cash (or even in goods).

Europe is simply not monetized enough to have a professional army. Nor are any of the kings strong enough to assert authority over the entirety of their lands by this time to have sufficient tax collection - too much has already been lost to feudalism.

By making certain dynasties far more successful than they were IOTL, it may be just possible that one or two states achieve that just before 1453. Holy Roman Empire is probably the best candidate if the Ottonians or Hohenstaufen's are more successful because of the mines found in the German lands. France that does not have to deal with half the country being owned by English lords would be the only other real candidate.

Anything earlier would require a POD much earlier than 800. Perhaps a world where the Ostrogoths in Italy were never invaded in the sixth century and they created a centralized state.

 

[Berat2beti]

Ottoman Empire Jannisaries:

Standardized Uniform
Standardized weapons
Full time soldiers
Standardized training
On time pay