Lore wise/head cannon, what is the difference between a militaristic empire and then an empire with a huge military? - r/Stellaris (2024)

Militaristic factions will want you to conquer and vassalize other nations -- otherwise they won't give as much unity.

With that in mind, it seems like the big difference is whether or not the military is used proactively.

AFAIK, only expressly Pacifistic empires will benefit from not filling their naval cap (because using the We Come In Peace policy will penalize your economy for doing so)

"Why do we not have free healthcare?"

Vs.

"They're about to find out why we don't have free healthcare."

Here's one way to think of it: the militarist-pacifist axis isn't just about having a strong military (indeed, some pacifist empires might have a really powerful defensive fleet), so a militarist empire is more than just an empire with a big fleet: it's their entire philosophy on the purpose of war.

Think of the Klingons: war could be the answer to any problem and they have the firepower to back it up. The Federation, on the other hand, is at least at parity with the Klingons despite having a multipurpose exploration/research fleet without dedicated warships most of the time.

Militarist egalitarians might see an offensive war as necessary and just to free oppressed people. Think democratic crusaders.

Militarist spiritualists might see an offensive war as essential to spreading the good word.

Militarist authoritarians might see conquering the weak as their natural right.

Etc.

In my head a militaristic society is one where wielding a big stick is a core tenet of the state's ideology. War, strength, maybe even conquest are glorified a lot. If it's a dictatorship or an empire, leaders cannot really become leaders before having risen through military ranks. In democracies as well, citizens will generally favour politicians who have served their country. The military is something that should be invested into as much as possible. Things like education, research, infrastructure also get geared in a way that it helps the military function more efficiently.

Empires that just have huge militaries might just view it as another necessary good, not dissimilar to maintaining roads and funding education. The galaxy is dangerous after all. The military is one of many equally pressing priorities that the government has to manage, and it's more a tool for deterrence and defense that should only be used as a last resort.

A militaristic society would give social from there political capital to people from the military.

Think like citizenship/voting rights/family benefits based on service, veterans gaining higher pensions, families of active service members gaining better jobs or have acces to better education.

Non militaristic societies may value their army/navy personnel equally to those in other fields of life, but there is no extra benefits and no social capital there.

Ancient rome had the highest echelones of politicians be also generals and that was a criteria for office, that's militaristic.

Ancient greece had their highest echelones of politicians be also generals and that was part of their responsibilites, that's a non militaristic approach.

(the above one is actually not true for all of history, but to some parts of it).

According to the flavour texts, militaristic empires have the military involved in government.

For example for military commissariat, it says the government is "nominally democratic, with the dividing line between the civil administration and the military having blurred to the point where they have largely become one and the same."

For your example, you might have a large military, but government and military are still strictly separate, and the military is subordinate to the civilian government.In a militarist empire instead, the military IS the government.

There was an example of a truly pacifist empire in Stellaris lore. The Shallashians, whom had no weapons or military whatsoever.

The Xenophobe FE wiped them out because they were horrified by their utopian pacifism.

Most other comments focus on militarism/pacificism from a foreign policy perspective, so here's my take on a cultural/headcannon perspective:

A militarist society views the military as an integral part of government and society, and not simply a tool of the government separated from civilian life. Politicians likely require military service to compete for office, while veterans receive preferential treatment in accessing government services and healthcare. Veterans likely also are given more of a say in government, or have an exclusive right to participate/vote compared to their civilian counterparts. Ultimately one may still choose not to serve, but they would also be choosing to be a second-class citizen.

In a fanatic militarist society, there is no choice, and the government IS the military. Legally there are no civilians, you're considered either active duty or reserve and can be called up any time. Your military rank likely correlates with your social and economic rank. Refusal to participate in the best case makes you a social pariah; worst case, actively persecuted. Important services such as law enforcement, healthcare, and education are run and staffed by active-duty personnel. Same goes for any industry of strategic importance.

Russia is an example of a militaristic country. Russia actively seeks to une its military to advanced its international goals.

Brazil is a pacifist country that happens to have a significant military. Brazil seeks peaceful and friendly relations with neighbours so that it doesn't have to use its military.

The huge military one may be slacking or merely maintaining it out of necessity, like how Germany regularly has some scandal over a lack of ammunition, guns that overheat and bend from regular use or, the best equipment ever, MARINE helicopters that aren't fit to fly over water

The actually militaristic one is making sure it's actually PROPERLY maintained and always ready to go, also military service is an honour and a badge, like how veterans get special rights in the US

Also between two identical economies the militaristic empire would be able to field the bigger fleet thanks to the capacity buffs - sure, you can technically go above capacity, but it costs extra to maintain

It's not the size of your fleet that matters; it's what you plan to do with it.

A Militaristic empire is actively looking for reasons to use their military. They want to be declaring rivalries, starting wars, acquiring subjects, killing leviathans (all of which will please Militarist factions).

Edit: this is not headcannon, this just definitions of words.

Militarism is an ethic. Ethics are, by definition, ways of looking at the world, a philosophy.Militarism (in Stellaris's somewhat simplified system) is the ethic of 'war and other methods using military power, are good, glorious, and healthy ways for nation-states to interact.' It is the natural, and laudable, state of things that a more militarily powerful group ruled over less powerful ones, in this outlook. The ethic is also about the willingness to bring this state of affairs into reality, eg, using overwhelming firepower in the no retreat doctrine, declaring wars freely, etc.

Simply having power is not militarism, militarism is how the government thinks about how it ought to use the military.

Pacifism, in short, (both in Stellaris and mature pacifism IRL) is not the condition of being powerless, that is just being weak. Pacifism, as the opposite of militarism, is about saying 'war/violence is deplorable and a last resort, and we should not use our military as a tool of gain.'

The game suffers from the same problem in sci-fi; it boils down entire species to black and white binaries. However, instead of thinking of ethos as the hivemind philosophy of a group, it is better to think of it as the answer to, 'how and why''.

A militaristic empire views violence as either acceptable, or preferable, as a method of solving problems. That doesn't mean they can't make other choices, just that they prefer to sort things out violently. Violence is honor, and therefore a means in itself.

A spiritualist empire, on the other hand, views the universe in religious terms, and believes in the power of temporal species' will to overcome natural law. To this end, they might create a massive fleet to spread their belief, or protect their holy mission, or to defend their citizens who might otherwise fave persecution. The fleet is a means to their goal.

A pacifist, on the other hand, may strive to avoid violence, but still maintain a massive fleet to defend itself. Maybe they value peace for their citizens, or maybe they believe it is acceptable to fight when all other means are exhausted. Maybe they view deterrents as prefer. The fleet is a means to secure peace.

Think of it this way; is an agricultural society the same as a society that produces lots of food? No, the former denotes a philosophical underpinning while the latter is a real world ramification. The two are linked, but not in a way where they are exclusive. Militarism is the purpose, the feet is the means to accomplish it.

I think of militarist/pacifist as whether they glorify war (not necessarily the armed forces, although that may be part of it) and whether they actively seek it out. Most human civilizations would likely fall in the militarist or fanatic militarist camp. Fanatic militarists: Nazi Germany, imperial Japan, fascist Italy.

Most of Western Europe in the age of exploration and imperialism would be at least militarist or fanatic militarist, since these countries were essentially constantly seeking to expand their territory through conquests (“Oro, Dios y Gloria”). The modern US has fluctuated between militarist and fanatic militarist, but I would never put it anywhere near the pacifist side of the spectrum.

Countries which are neither militarist nor pacifist would be countries such as some (but definitely not all) countries in modern (post WW2) Western Europe.

There are few pacifist countries, but I would include countries which have declared permanent neutrality, such as Austria, Switzerland, Costa Rica, even Finland, as well as possibly countries such as Iceland and Ireland which don’t have much, if any, standing military. Note that many of those countries still have a military, and many also have compulsory service. Switzerland even participated in the invasion of Afghanistan. However, they have stated that they have no intention of ever expanding their borders militarily, and for many the armed forces are part of a “peace through strength” mindset.

So, just about all forms of government, of any and every ethic, will have a military. To what extent a military is huge largely depends on the point of comparison; to the space age primitives a 20 stack corvette fleet is huge.

However, a militaristic empire is an empire with militaristic views. On the more moderate end, that can be something like we see in the US where veterans are thanked for their service by members of the public, held in high regard, given discounts, etc. It's not that being in the military makes you a first class citizen, but very mild militarism would see it as a respectable and honourable thing to do. More militarist empires might have some sort of national service equivalent, like much of Europe did (and still does in some places) since most of Europe was quite militarist in the not-too-distant past. And, at the more extreme end, you would expect to find a society similar to Starship Troopers or ancient Rome - military service does make you a citizen/first-class citizen and earn you rights. Not only are you respected for it, your government actively goes out of its way to incentivise and reward service. Those who don't serve would likely be looked down upon, and such a society would take an extremely dim view of conscientious objectors.

This, of course, would feed through into policy. The US is somewhat militaristic, and their response to most things is "lets invade it!" Small African country wants to stop using the dollar for trade? Why bother with diplomacy when you can just curbstomp their entire armed forces, topple the government and install your own? Middle Eastern dictator is being horrible to his people? That's an American problem! An American problem that can be solved by throwing a chunk of the military at it and telling them to do their thing. And, of course, getting more contracts for the military industrial complex. Etc.

To bring this back to Stellaris; a militaristic empire is likely one whose first approach to problem solving is violence - war for any and every reason. Some people look at nearby democratic crusaders and say "we can convert them" (gospel of the masses megacorp), others think "we can send a diplomat to make them favour us" (most empires) and then there's the militarist empire who goes "abso-f*cking-loutely not! Not in this neighbourhood!" and makes claims on the democratic crusader's capitol and declares preemptive war on them.

Likewise, some people look at Amor Alveo and decide it's beautiful and they'll pacify the ameobas. Others cordon it off with starbases then leave it alone. Militarists look at the sole remaining breeding ground of a beautiful species... And decide that they're going to want to bring strike craft and point defense.

A militaristic empire has values of war baked in. Their heroes are warriors, their society sees war as glorious and necessary thing.

An empire which has a huge military has it's own values and happens to feel it needs a large navy for its own aims. But the point is an army is a means to an end rather than an end value of that society.

Any empire can understand that having a strong military is important for survival. Militarists idealize the military and armed struggle. It could be that they are a warrior race, idealizing the concept of combat itself. Or they could be an empire that believes in something like a "world revolution", that they have a right and obligation to make all others share their way of life. Or they could be a more classic evil empire, believing that they have the right to take whatever they want because precisely because they are strong and others are weak.

A militarist empire would never see war as senseless. A soldier never "died for nothing" according to them. They died in glorious combat and will go to valhalla, or they bravely gave their lives for the revolution or in service to the empire. Children would be brought up to believe that it is good and honorable to die for their country. They venerate war heroes and great commanders.

In militarist empires the military is a central part of the governing apparatus. Even in a democracy it is either a soft or hard requirement for a candidate to have served in the military. There would be no real barrier between the civilian government and the military.

Militaristic society will have a military part of cultural live. They will have celebration days for them, parades would be in the media, owning and using weapons would be glorified. Even small details like discounts for military personnel would be visible.

For countries with large militaries, it would be a job like any other. A lot of people would work there, but not take it as a status symbol.

In a militaristic empire, serving in the military is part of their cultural identity and is deeply rooted in their society. Young adults are simply required to serve, and are otherwise shunned for being cowards and weaklings. An egalitarian-materialist empire with a large military could, RP wise, just be soldiers doing it for the money.

military recruiting is at a all time high, and every citizen knows that military service is a valid and good career.

Since you mention this, it is actually extremely hard to prop up a militarist faction out of nothing. Being at war helps a bit, but unless it's your governing ethic, the faction is almost always in decline. I'd wish that those factions would be more susceptible to outside influences - so if you're fighting a war for 30 years or a crisis is going on for that long, your society shifts towards that ethic.

Those who follow militatisc ethos have a different view of the world. They think conflict is unavoidable and instead of shirking from it they embrace it. Strength is virtue.

Your empire on the other hand has a big navy out of necessity.

Well if I didn't know any better or stellaris for the matter, I would've thought you're talking about USA. Like in media and most citizens there don't advocate for war yet US has the largest military spending in the world and has been in multiple wars due to their leaders. Or maybe this isnt true at all cause im not actually an American and this is how I perceived it from social media like an idiot.

But on the other hand you can pick any militaristic Muslim nation in our world currently in which its citizens do hate their rivals and are willing to join the military willingly yet doesn't have as much spending as the big powers today.

My headcannon would just be that a country with huge enough economy and populace vs militaristic countries without a huge economy and populace.

Gameplay-wise, the difference is the mindset. Militarist Pops - or rather, their Faction - want to use the big stick, while anyone else not in the Pacifist faction typically doesn't have concerns about whether or not they use the fleet.

Lore-wise (headcanon):

The Militarists have large fleets possibly to use them, yes, but I use Militarist-Pacifist axis to represent the particular custom empire's desire for battle and/or war. This can include simply intra-species conflict, e.g. duels are common. They solve things militarily, you could say.

Meanwhile, anyone else with a large fleet just has a large fleet. Does owning an expensive computer make you a computer tech? No - you can use it for other things too. Does owning a gun make you a war-ready patriot of your nation? No - you could have it for self-defense (especially if you live in a dangerous place) or for hunting food.
Having a large fleet - even expensive, with much of your economy focused on it - could be entirely defensive. Your enemies may be many, or they may be strong, or whatever else. Maybe your empire is just gearing up to go on a grand Leviathan hunt. Maybe your peoples have a strong sense of an impending Crisis.
Or maybe pirates, space fauna, and such just won't leave you alone. I wouldn't call bears "militaristic" but they sure do pack some serious capability to kill people, and sometimes the other empires sure do like poking bears.

Big military: The United States

Militarist: North Korea

I easily chalk it to how I act:

• Militaristic means I want to war to war, for some kind of offensive goal.

• Pacifist is purely to protect myself and allies.

• Xenophobe means I want to war for slaves/vassals/purge.

• Xenophile I want to have a Military to protect my allies and my citizens.

• Egalitarian is to free other citizens and similar to xebophile.

• Authoritarian is pretty much the same as xenophobe except I usually will take the land or vassals instead of purge.

• Materialist is so I can have more resources to research or vassals to assist.

• I don't play spiritualist.

It's the difference between China and the United States.

The US has a genuine warrior culture - they're deferential to soldiers, they like interventionist foreign policy, and they believe that might makes right. Clever strategy and personal valor in combat are held above all else and earn the highest military accolades, and being a decorated soldier practically guarantees you the public support needed to enter politics.

China technically has a larger standing army than the US, but they're not deferential to soldiers at all - being a soldier is a blind duty, and the majority of what a soldier does will involve pointing a gun at their own people, not people in other countries. What the US military might reward as "valor" would be seen as violating the command structure (tantamount to a rejection of the state), and could well get you summarily executed.