Political control of standing armies.

Bump, great question

>>1523385
Nationalism?

I'm just talking out of my ass, but maybe these standing armies of smaller nation states had a stronger sense of national identity and pride in serving their state than the Roman legions did serving a giant multiethnic empire and conversely the legions revolved more around cults of personality of their leaders than the empire itself? Idk

Rise in the standard of living. Why revolt when you can just get paid your fair share and fuck off to live in peace?

>And then, sometime in the mid-18th century, you start to see them again, almost everywhere in Europe, almost overnight. And you almost never get the same problems the ancients had with them; if anything, standing armies tend to be a force of moderation and social cohesion, not toppling their own states left right and center.

Maybe with the rise of nationalism the militaries felt innately suborned to the will of the state and not to individual generals.

Unless the failed state was very weak and could be toppled in a coup, but even then the generals needed at least some excuse to tell the troops that what they were doing was good for the Nation.

File: Screenshot_2016-08-09-03-37-25.png (231KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 720x1280px

>>1523385
Apparently everyone just copied Spain 'coz it 'just werks'

>>1523572
I doubt Nationalism had much to do with it. It's more that they didn't have much "pride" in serving emperor X or Y who probably just toppled his predecessor two months ago and they certainly didn't have much loyalty towards him. If their commander wants to stage a coup, hey why not, whose to stop him


On the other hand in an era of increasing absolutism like the 17th and 18th century, when most commanders are Nobles and those Nobles are bound to fight (be it of their own country or not mind you) for a divine right absolute monarch whose line has reigned unbroken for eons, following a strict etiquette and a code of war closely tied to their own reputation , the incentive to rebel and take power will be considerably lesser. Even rebellions like the Fronde weren't ment to topple the King.

Better pay, pension, and GI Bill. Being in the military now is just a uniformed bereaucrat.

>>1523385
While Nationalism plays a part, as does the idea >>1523671 mentioned (that stronger monarchs provided something to rally around), I think it's also because more and more the army provided a career for the common man. You didn't have to study archery, swordplay, and horsemanship to fight. Add to this that soldiers came to be treated as employees rather than simply fighters. As a result, they were paid actual wages, which allowed for bigger armies and citizen armies, because gold is easier to give out than land and peasants, and makes the military a job for the common man rather than a rich farmer that sometimes fights.

So you have:
>Nationalism
>something worth fighting for (a dynasty or a nation or an ideology)
>a chance for common men to gain something from service

Incidentally, these together prevent marauding mercenaries like in the 30 Years War too.