6 ms·

I once read a story in the Art of War, but also maybe had some words by his grandson not just Sun Tzu, I was maybe 12 so it is foggy, but the story was discussi

I once read a story in the Art of War, but also maybe had some words by his grandson not just Sun Tzu, I was maybe 12 so it is foggy, but the story was discussing different kingdoms, one had a wealthy government with small fields and government soldiers on all the corners, the other country had a poorer government with large fields and few soldiers, the question was which country will last the longest. Anyway the story said the second country because the farmers would be willing to fight to defend it, where in the first country there would be less motivation.

tEMporality7 8y ago
In reality, the soldiers would win because not only would they be well equipped, they would also be better at fighting.
- vertline3 8y ago
  It is a question of also being overrun by other kingdoms
- jayalpha 8y ago
  I think Paul Kennedy would disagree with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great...
- asveikau 8y ago
  I guess that's why the US has found it so easy in places like Iraq or Vietnam.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  Remember that the capability ratio between soldiers and civilians was much less before the rise of modern nation-states and technology. (The following is generalizing a very wide swath of places and times, and based on some things I've read; perhaps others know more:) Before modern nation-states, there weren't national armies so much as forces 'raised' by the aristocracy of civilians pressed into service, barely equipped or trained or even fed, and led by aristocrats who often had similar training (but better equipment). IIRC, Napoleon was the innovator of the modern nation-state military that you would recognize, in the late 18th century. In technology, the difference was civilians with heavy or sharp pointy things (maybe knives, maybe pitchforks or homemade spears) and poorly trained soldiers with spears; a mass of civilians had a chance. Today the difference is between civilians with handheld firearms and trained soldiers with tanks, missiles, artillery, attack helicopters and jet fighters. Even for the heavily armed civilian population of the U.S., your fate relies on whether the soldiers are willing to massacre you.
  - tormeh 8y ago
    >IIRC, Napoleon was the innovator of the modern nation-state military that you would recognize, in the late 18th century. Side note: The ottomans had standing, professional soldiers before that. The janissaries also served as police or firemen on occasion, but they lived in barracks.
golergka 8y ago
Interesting story. What would motivate farmers to support one ruler over another? Why would they care about being conquered at all?
- vertline3 8y ago
  They would have more to lose, less tax burden more autonomy. It is okay for you to disagree with it, that was the story.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  Yp, meet the new boss. Now I guess there's patriotism but back then no one cared, no newspapers and no Facebook. If basic rule was maintained and taxes stayed the same why would they care? Other than maybe "god given" rights to rule. This King is the rightful heir so I'll support him...
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Whatever kind of "patriotism" was there was nothing like the one of today, but not because Facebook - simply because nation states are a modern invention.
    - onetimemanytime 8y ago
      I said that there was no patriotism back then.
      - echaozh 8y ago
        There was patriotism even back then. There is a famous story about a merchant, after meeting the enemy army when traveling to another country to sell his cattle, gave all the cattle to the general claiming it was sent by the lord of the state. The general decided to retreat because he thought the intelligence about the invasion was leaked. This event was recorded in Chinese history, and is still used to teach the kids.
    - deleted 8y ago
sgt101 8y ago
Option 3 created the Hoplites and the Demos. Farmers can forge their own path of mutual interest sans kings.
- inawarminister 8y ago
  and the vaunted Roman legionaries of Middle Republic to Early Empire were also Italian farmers... in the Old World, for thousands of years, farmers and nomads fight each other. Sometimes the former won, sometimes the latter won - don't forget, the Indo-Europeans were steppe nomads who were the first to tame cavalry and make chariots!
  - thrower123 8y ago
    Until the development of modern firearms, the nomads won pretty consistently any time they could get their ducks in line and stop infighting. Mobility and being able to almost totally mobilize the fighting age population let them punch well above their weight.
yourbandsucks 8y ago
That's a great quote, but I think people there are pretty happy with things. Something like 400M people have gone from subsistence farming to the information economy in a single generation. Their government builds infrastructure instead of letting it crumble while overspending on military and foreign wars. And they don't have a hot drug war imprisoning tons of people. They see the due process problems as unlikely to affect them personally as long as they don't go looking for trouble, while many other things have been great for them and their families. The big question is whether Xi keeps getting more aggressive or if he's replaced in 5 years with someone more moderate.

tEMporality7 8y ago

In reality, the soldiers would win because not only would they be well equipped, they would also be better at fighting.

vertline3 8y ago
It is a question of also being overrun by other kingdoms
jayalpha 8y ago
I think Paul Kennedy would disagree with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great...
asveikau 8y ago
I guess that's why the US has found it so easy in places like Iraq or Vietnam.
forapurpose 8y ago
Remember that the capability ratio between soldiers and civilians was much less before the rise of modern nation-states and technology. (The following is generalizing a very wide swath of places and times, and based on some things I've read; perhaps others know more:) Before modern nation-states, there weren't national armies so much as forces 'raised' by the aristocracy of civilians pressed into service, barely equipped or trained or even fed, and led by aristocrats who often had similar training (but better equipment). IIRC, Napoleon was the innovator of the modern nation-state military that you would recognize, in the late 18th century. In technology, the difference was civilians with heavy or sharp pointy things (maybe knives, maybe pitchforks or homemade spears) and poorly trained soldiers with spears; a mass of civilians had a chance. Today the difference is between civilians with handheld firearms and trained soldiers with tanks, missiles, artillery, attack helicopters and jet fighters. Even for the heavily armed civilian population of the U.S., your fate relies on whether the soldiers are willing to massacre you.
- tormeh 8y ago
  >IIRC, Napoleon was the innovator of the modern nation-state military that you would recognize, in the late 18th century. Side note: The ottomans had standing, professional soldiers before that. The janissaries also served as police or firemen on occasion, but they lived in barracks.

golergka 8y ago

Interesting story. What would motivate farmers to support one ruler over another? Why would they care about being conquered at all?

vertline3 8y ago
They would have more to lose, less tax burden more autonomy. It is okay for you to disagree with it, that was the story.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
Yp, meet the new boss. Now I guess there's patriotism but back then no one cared, no newspapers and no Facebook. If basic rule was maintained and taxes stayed the same why would they care? Other than maybe "god given" rights to rule. This King is the rightful heir so I'll support him...
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Whatever kind of "patriotism" was there was nothing like the one of today, but not because Facebook - simply because nation states are a modern invention.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    I said that there was no patriotism back then.
    - echaozh 8y ago
      There was patriotism even back then. There is a famous story about a merchant, after meeting the enemy army when traveling to another country to sell his cattle, gave all the cattle to the general claiming it was sent by the lord of the state. The general decided to retreat because he thought the intelligence about the invasion was leaked. This event was recorded in Chinese history, and is still used to teach the kids.
  - deleted 8y ago

sgt101 8y ago

Option 3 created the Hoplites and the Demos. Farmers can forge their own path of mutual interest sans kings.

inawarminister 8y ago
and the vaunted Roman legionaries of Middle Republic to Early Empire were also Italian farmers... in the Old World, for thousands of years, farmers and nomads fight each other. Sometimes the former won, sometimes the latter won - don't forget, the Indo-Europeans were steppe nomads who were the first to tame cavalry and make chariots!
- thrower123 8y ago
  Until the development of modern firearms, the nomads won pretty consistently any time they could get their ducks in line and stop infighting. Mobility and being able to almost totally mobilize the fighting age population let them punch well above their weight.

yourbandsucks 8y ago

That's a great quote, but I think people there are pretty happy with things. Something like 400M people have gone from subsistence farming to the information economy in a single generation. Their government builds infrastructure instead of letting it crumble while overspending on military and foreign wars. And they don't have a hot drug war imprisoning tons of people. They see the due process problems as unlikely to affect them personally as long as they don't go looking for trouble, while many other things have been great for them and their families. The big question is whether Xi keeps getting more aggressive or if he's replaced in 5 years with someone more moderate.