score:23
Paying an army with tax money does not confer inherently superior quality. While one could argue European feudal armies were inferior to the Roman legions, this had very little to do with taxation and much more to do with the fact that the Romans had a large, professional, standing army.
The prime factor here is the diminished state resources available to most European rulers after the fall of Rome, which necessitated the reliance on feudal levies in the first place. Therefore,
No, it doesn't, and it wouldn't.
Actually, they did, just not necessary right away.
Over the preceding three hundred years war had become the preserve of a body of professionals, knights for whom it was a major source of income. This state of affairs had come about gradually and, in large part, as a response to the equally slow erosion of feudal military obligation. Of the eighty-seven knights present at Caerlaverock in 1300, twenty-three were paid for their service and the rest were either members of the royal household or men responding to the traditional feudal summons.
James, Lawrence. Warrior Race: A History of the British at War. Hachette UK, 2010.
The main barrier was economics. When the Roman Empire fell, the economy of Western Europe was in shambles. The continental trade that had once flourished was replaced by small, largely (though not completely) self-sufficient manors. Economic weakness, compounded by an inadequate monetary supply meant it was easier to levy taxes in kind or in the form of services, rather than money.
Nonetheless, as the money economy of Europe recovered, mercenaries became more active in the latter Middle Ages. Liege lords hired them to complement feudal levies, and vassals hired them to fulfil military obligations. In some systems, mechanisms like scutage was developed to allow a vassal to opt out of military service by paying a fee, which the king then used to to hire substitutes.
The consequent reduction of the number of feudal troops available was largely offset by a parallel increase in the employment of stipendiaries and mercenaries . . . [M]any knights themselves, though still under feudal obligation, were also paid by the end of the 13th century,
Heath, Ian. Armies of Feudal Europe 1066-1300. Wargames Research Group, 2016.
In essence, scutage was a tax; and it was regularly used to pay for an army.
The flaw in logic here is that those "private" armies were not paid in the first place, and especially not paid by taxes. They were personal retinues who served their leader due to personal obligations. Furthermore, these originated mainly from the Germanic tribes that overran the Roman Empire, so it would have been rather more strange for them to suddenly be paid like a Roman standing army.
There's also the glaring problem of having the money to actually pay for an army. As we saw above, even knights were paid to serve longer than obligation demanded; the challenge was having the money to pay with. Up till the end of the Middle Ages, most states only hired armies when they need to.
A traditional agricultural economy was usually not rich enough to pay for a permanent army staffed with large numbers of men well equipped with expensive horses, armor, and weapons. The net result was that rulers relied on short-term armies instead.
Janin, Hunt, and Ursula Carlson. Mercenaries in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. McFarland, 2013.
No medieval state in western Europe could compete with Rome's financial resources or degree of centralised control; hence none of them
Perhaps, but evolution doesn't work off a couple of years. Eventually all the major feudal states of Europe that survived did adopt professional standing armies paid out of general taxation.
Moreover, evolution is all about the survival of the fittest in a given environment. If the "tax paid army" was truly so superior, the Roman Empire wouldn't have fallen. In reality, maintaining such an army was a massive economic burden, which was simply not realistic in most of Europe throughout the Middle Ages.
Upvote:0
And from comment to answer as it's from a much different angle than Sempahore...
They needed the latter to settle their adherents, but why they did not use both or revive the former a century or two later?
They couldn't. In this time frame, the Byzantine empire was thoroughly stretched financially from the wars in Persia (Byzantine - Sassanian wars) and later the Arabic wars. Their lands were struggling under harsh tax rates to support these armies as is and the devastation from the conflict started to impact what wealth the lands could produce. War is costly and the Byzantines were pushing a point where they could no longer afford war.
The Western Empire was even worse off...the power squabbles hit almost absurd heights and there was no longer any consistency in leadership. Most western empire emperors were somewhat contested (and in some cases not even recognized by the eastern empire) and the ones that were recognized had horribly short reigns, usually coming to death at the hands of an assassin or their own army turning on them. Tax collectors and most officials were corrupt and held little loyalty to anyone but themselves, meaning what taxes were collected rarely ended up in Roman coffers (slaying the Roman officials/tax collectors and proclaiming oneself emperor happened a few times as well, such as the Gordinians in Carthage). There were a few periods where a loyal subject of Rome that wanted to pay his/her taxes couldn't find a representative to pay taxes to. For info on how absurd this got, Year of the Five Emperors (google it for details) was an outright absurd time (193ad), yet somehow the Romans managed to outdo themselves in 236 with the year of the six emperors (I really recommend reading the intro here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Six_Emperors you have a cruel tyrant, a young aristocrat revolt, an elderly emporer and his son, a jealous neighbor, riots in Rome, an army killing it's own general, and feuding co-emperors publicly put to death...all in under a year).
because it is a big disadvantage even in the not too distant future.
You would need someone to look out for the not too distant future for this to apply. Most Western Empire Roman Emperors would be looking long past their own death to see the not too distant future.
The only thing that the Western Roman empire possessed that it could support an army with was land, not money. The feudal system was very much a response to the economic state of Europe.
Upvote:0
Other users' answers and comments motivated me to try answering my own question. Unfortunately, I can not give sources to my guesses, so please correct me where my speculations are wrong. Language fixing is also welcome!
First, one reason is already explained by Semaphore as "evolution is all about the survival of the fittest in a given environment". The patchwork land-settled army was enough to depend the country from external enemies, why cause internal resistance by increasing taxes? Only to conquer these enemies, but then Franks would not be much different from West Roman Empire and would face the same problems that caused it to fall (on which the historians can not agree for centuries). All the main kingdoms (Francia, Spain, Lombardia) seem to be on the maximal possible extent, with distant regions already not stable.
Second, they probably just could not do it. When Rome conquered large swaths of West Europe, these territories were economically and militarily inferior. Romans were able to build up their tax system there from scratch, as even strongest resistance would be relatively feeble. But early medieval kingdoms were more or less h*m*geneous; once the tax system has almost crumbled, the resistance to increasing taxes would be enormous.