I know that several countries have strong federal systems. However, I am not aware of any country that has anything like the American tradition of military forces at the sub-national level. I know that Switzerland has a very strong militia tradition, but I don’t know how it’s organized. I imagine that some people outside America are familiar with the National Guard; but even many Americans are not aware that many states have truly independent State Defense Forces that cannot be federalized.
Is there any other country that has a military force which is independent of the national-level military structure?
Certainly not in the UK. Our military is very specifically ‘Her Majesty’s Forces’. In fact, Henry VII barred barons from having their own military forces in order to strengthen his position, so having local military would fly in he face of our laws. Our Police forces are local, however.
State Defence Forces are authorised pursuant to an act of Congress. If Congress revokes that premission they will simply disband. Most of them seem to be glorified hunting clubs and marching bands anyway.
There is, however, the private regiment, the Atholl Highlanders, which is not part of the British Army. Its now purely ceremonial, but it has its roots in the idea of private regiments raised by members of the nobility.
Militias were more common in earlier times; ultimate control of the county militias for either King or parliament was one of the earliest kicking off points for the English Civil War. After that the parliament army outgrew the control of Dr. Frankenstein and acted as it’s own thing. After that experience no-one wanted the equivalent of the SA to form again and roam around demanding funds and therefore tight controls on all British military forces ensued.
A regular army, or the nucleus of one, was founded in 1660, and henceforth militia were merely there to quell riots and aid the civil power, but only inside the country. America continued this system. Although perhaps not to the point of requiring every able-bodied man to serve.
From the 19th century on we had the regulars, the volunteer forces, and the Territorial Army, week-end soldiers who don’t cost much. Now we generally rely on the police to quell riots.
This was the case in Germany even after German unification in 1871: Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg maintained their own, semi-autonomous armies until WWI (actually even well into the war). Besides the Prussian Department of War in Berlin, there were separate Departments of War in Munich (Kingdom of Bavaria), Dresden (Kingdom of Saxony) and Stuttgart (Kingdom of Württemberg).
The UK had something called the Volunteer Force which was essentially an autonomous militia from 1859 to 1881. After that it was integrated into the regular forces and basically morphed into the Territorial Army.
I believe, although not to the point of looking it up, that some American State Governors have regarded their National Guards as their personal playthings.
And they were jealous of any notion the latter could obey federal orders.
I suspect that this requires a) a highly (con)federal government where the local government has some power, and b) a country large enough that a local division makes sense. So Switzerland does a well but not b. I’m not sure who would be similar to the US in respect to these prerequisites, Germany maybe?
Some countries, like Lebanon or Northern Ireland have/had paramilitary militias that are also involved as political parties. The may be de facto regionalized, but due to their demographics, not to any specific decision to not be federal.
Yes, but those aren’t exactly sanctioned. Examples depend on how specific you want to get. All it takes is intransigence and access to arms.
Sure, apart from the Chinese Warlords in the pre-WWII era, South-East Asia had small groups of private armed forces up to the 1980s at least ( Vietnam, Cambodia etc. ). And in Medellín and south of the Rio Grande generally there are mini-armies devoted to drugs, anti-drugs, communism ( Latin varieties ), anti-communism, protecting capitalism, shooting street urchins and various good causes. I was surprised to learn recently that Medellín has over 2 million inhabitants, not all of whom are sweethearts.
The US militias who were the bogeymen of the 1990s were misnamed, since militia is a state term, they were rather gangs of wannabe guerrillas.
Anyway, even in the middle ages European noble’s had retainers and private affinity’s, especially after Charlemagne and in the later period of Bastard Feudalism. The Kings eventually broke them nearly everywhere. In England, Henry VII did sterling work attacking Livery and Maintenance.
Oh, and northern Asia east of the Urals had many private armies after the Russian Civil War, ranging from various forms of socialism, to Buddhism, to Whites, to bandits etc… As did more west, the Ukraine.
And of course, not merely the communists, but their acolytes, the nazis, started off as private gangs degenerated from the Freikorps groups who protected Germany from the bolshevik private gangs from 1918 on.
Kinda rare now though.
I’d bet that the US system of having state military forces that are mostly under the purview of the states is a historical relic that derives from the British practice of raising militia regiments from the various political subdivisions in an area.
It apparently just followed forward in the same way up past the Civil War (think about how many State regiments there were, vs. US Regiments).
Eventually, this Federal/State relationship got formalized in the early part of the 20th century.
I think the dual-command thing is also a historical relic of the era when frontier areas needed protection that the Federal forces couldn’t or wouldn’t provide; state militias were more responsive, so they got used by the states to fight Indians or bandits or whoever.
I can’t think of anywhere else that had a sort of frontier period like the US did, and that has relatively strong political subdivisions.