4 ms·

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.

It is a question of also being overrun by other kingdoms

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.