> ...perhaps finally leading to the reasonably-stable "empires" we're somewhat familiar with from ancient history only as late as the Iron Age. I wouldn't be s

> ...perhaps finally leading to the reasonably-stable "empires" we're somewhat familiar with from ancient history only as late as the Iron Age. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a capital/resource : technology boundary at which you see this. Essentially, pre-metalworking, pre-farming, what do you have to risk if you upset order in your valley? You can migrate and hunt elsewhere. Post-metalworking, post-farming, we start to develop centralized resource generation. Suddenly, as long as there is some sense of economic equality (probably where the Romans went wrong with their neighbors), everyone stands to lose if anyone's farms are burned or the forges destroyed. At that point, the calculus changes greatly. And even more so when suddenly this technology is spread worldwide. Even during the world wars, you saw relatively limited wholesale destruction (e.g. carpet bombing cities) compared to what would have been possible. It'd also be curious to extend into the modern era, because it seems like longer simmering civil wars tend to happen in places where there is extreme economic inequality or a lack of infrastructure (e.g. DRC, South Sudan, Afghanistan). Which I guess is where the "bridges, not bombs" strategy comes from.