Definition
In historical English law, "military state" referred to the soldiery of the kingdom of Great Britain — that is, the collective body of persons holding military rank or engaged in military service under the Crown. The term described a recognized social and legal category rather than a form of government or political arrangement. It was used to distinguish the military class from the civil state (the civilian population and civil offices) and the ecclesiastical state (the clergy).
The term does not appear in modern American or British legal usage as a technical term of art. Where it surfaces in contemporary discourse, it most commonly refers colloquially to a government or political system dominated by military power — a meaning distinct from and broader than its historical legal definition.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A state or nation governed by or under the strong influence of the military; sometimes used interchangeably with "militarized state" or "military dictatorship."
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster's 1913 does not provide a discrete entry for "military state" as a compound term, though "military" is defined broadly to encompass matters relating to soldiers and warfare.
The gap here is significant. In ordinary contemporary usage, "military state" almost invariably describes a type of government — authoritarian, militarized, or junta-controlled. In its historical legal meaning, the term is entirely structural and social: it designates the class of soldiers within the British constitutional order, not a form of governance. A researcher encountering "military state" in a historical legal document should not read modern political meaning into it.
Common Confusion
"Military state" should not be confused with martial law, military government, or military occupation — all of which are distinct legal concepts involving the exercise of military authority over civilian populations or territories. The historical legal term describes a social category (who the soldiers are), not a mode of governance (how military authority is exercised). It is also distinct from "military tenure," which refers to the feudal landholding arrangements — knight-service, grand-serjeanty, cornage — by which military service obligations were organized. Rapalje & Lawrence's entry for "military state" appears immediately adjacent to entries for "military station," "military tenures," and related terms, making inadvertent conflation easy in close reading of that source.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is effectively a fossil — its technical legal meaning was confined to historical British constitutional and social description and has no living counterpart in American law. Researchers are most likely to encounter it in:
1. Pre-19th century English legal treatises and cases, where the "three estates" or social-order framing (military, civil, ecclesiastical) organized legal and political analysis.
2. Historical texts on feudal tenure, where the military state was the class whose land obligations were defined by knight-service and related tenures.
3. British constitutional history sources discussing the relationship between Crown, Parliament, and the armed forces.
The primary research trap is importing modern meaning. A researcher reading "military state" in a 17th or 18th century English legal source should understand it as referring to the soldier class within the established social order, not as a commentary on military dominance of government. The Rapalje & Lawrence citation to 1 Lev. 131 (Levinz's Reports) places the term firmly in the Restoration-era English common law tradition.
For researchers working on American military law, constitutional war powers, or military justice, this historical term has no direct operative relevance — those inquiries are better served by consulting the encyclopedia entries below.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary and Rapalje & Lawrence are in complete agreement: both define "military state" simply as the soldiery of the kingdom of Great Britain. Neither source elaborates further, which itself signals that the term was understood as self-evident within its historical context rather than contested or technically complex.
Rapalje & Lawrence's entry is notable for what surrounds it: the fragment visible in the source material shows "military state" embedded among entries for "mill-dam," "mill privilege," "military station," and "military tenures." This placement in an alphabetically organized dictionary of legal terms and citations suggests the term was treated as a defined phrase requiring authoritative support (the citation to 1 Lev. 131) rather than as an obvious descriptive label.
Neither historical dictionary addresses the term's relationship to the broader constitutional structure of British government or to the feudal tenure system — connections that a researcher would need to reconstruct from supplementary sources on English constitutional history and feudal law. Neither source is useful for any American law application.
Jurisdictional Note
The term as historically defined is specific to English law. It has no recognized equivalent in American legal terminology, where military personnel are defined by statute (principally Title 10, U.S. Code) and constitutional provision rather than by social-estate classification.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Commander-in-Chief Power and Military Authority (The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia)
Military Justice — Overview (UCMJ) (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)