[PzLdr]

Sparta was dived into three classes of citizenship. Only the first, the homoi [p/s?] was allowed to serve in the military - and run the country. The other two classes, the artisans and the helots were an enforced support system. One of the reasons Sparta fell to the Boetians was her refusal to expand her warrior class, and therefore her manpower [along with her refusal to update her military doctrine and tactics]. By the end of her war with Thebes and her allies, Sparta couldn't field an army of sufficient size to fight. so I think your example of Sparta is erroneous.

The Roman legions, pre Marius, were limited to property owners, but they were not voluntary. Service was a requisite of citizenship.

I also disagree with the proposition that the draft would be ..."telling citizens that they must set their
private business aside altogether and,
upon pain of death, do what the state
tells them, ordering them about in ways
(UCMJ, hierarchy) that would be uncon-
stitutional in civil life."

First, there is no "pain of death" and hasn't been that I can remember for those who refuse to set aside their private business instead of doing what the state tells them.Second, when you are in the service, you're not in civilian life Third this country has told its citizens the had to submit to military discipline in the Revolution [militia might be short term active duty , but all able bodied men were enrolled], the War of 1812, several of the Indian Wars, the Whiskey Rebellion,the Civil War [first draft law], WWI, WWI, the entire Cold War, and of course, Korea and Viet Nam. So for historical purposes, we've required submission for military service in all but the Mexican War, the Indian Wars of the West [and the Seminole War], and the Spanish - American War. So I would argue that on a historical basis, your premise is shaky.

And as an Army Officer from the Viet Nam era, and a student of history, I believe that a conscript Army will provide an Army of sufficient size, and more than adequate professionalism to best provide for the nation's security.

[steve-b]

First, there is no "pain of death"

Nonsense.

The government orders you to do something. You tell them to get bent. The government sends men with guns. If you tell the men with guns to get bent, they kill you. QED.

[CatoRenasci]

I, too, am a former Army officer from the Vietnam Era, and an ABD (all but dissertation) in history, and I disagree with you that a draft army would be adequately professional.

To equate militia service, which was very limited in duration (typicaly 90 days) and location (usually within the state), and under discipline far different from a professional military (e.g. elected officers) with a draft which obliges citizens to spend years in uniform wherever the military chooses and under the same discipline as professional soldiers is simply absurd. Conscription, then, has really been used only in the later part of the Civil War (where there were draft riots), WWI (when it was intended to keep the burden spread rather than have only the 'best and brightest' sign up), WWII (when it passed by 1 vote) and thereafter until it was abolished in the early 1970's. I served with both draftees and volunteers, and I'll take the volunteers any day.

Roman service was indeed limited to property-owning citizens, but [per Wikipedia and consistent with my memories of reading Mommsen's History of Rome some 30 years ago] the early Republic had no standing army. When war threatened the consuls of the day would be charged with the duty of recruiting an army from the eligible citizenry of the Republic. As a rule one of the consuls would lead this mainly volunteer army into battle. Much closer to our militia type system.

We could argue all day about why Sparta fell. Not worth it.