8 ms·

I think his point wasn’t to have a political class with military experience, but rather a political class that are personally at risk from their policies and de

I think his point wasn’t to have a political class with military experience, but rather a political class that are personally at risk from their policies and decisions.

dragontamer 6y ago
That's called a warlord. Or if you want to be romantic about it: a knight, or samurai. There are many periods of history where warlords ruled by shear might and took to the battlefields personally. If you rule by military strength, then it is customary to also take to the battlefield. That's why the samurai class, knights, etc. etc. were on the battlefield. They were expected to personally enter battle as part of their political power. Turns out: having a bunch of warriors as leaders isn't the best political style. Not by a long shot. ---------- In any case, Agincourt remains the perfect example of that. The Armagnac decided to fight the English invasion. The Burgundians remained neutral. Then the Armagnacs were virtually wiped out in the battle of Agincourt, allowing the Burgundians to basically take over France and win the Armagnac vs Burgundian civil war. The Armagnacs died, defending their values. Since they died, the victory goes to other parties. ---------- > political class that are personally at risk from their policies and decisions. Note: with their heavy armor, superior training and armed guards... Knights weren't really the ones personally at risk in most battles. The unarmored peasants who fought under them, too poor for fancy armor. Too poor for nourishment (much smaller and weaker than a nobleman due to malnutrition). The peasants were at highest risk in any case. Agincourt was unusual in that the political class died as part of the battle. Normally, just the peasants die while the knights / noblemen retreat safely on their horses.
- mgarfias 6y ago
  No, its not what I mean. I want to see the politicians directly affected by their decisions. Like, their kids are sent off to fight along with the poors. Maybe they'll think twice about sending snuffy off to die if they or theirs will get dead.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    I know what you're trying to say. But I'm saying that history doesn't support your viewpoint. I can't think of any political power (be it Caesar, the Knights, Samurai, or whatever) across cultures where the politicians being part of the military had any such benefit you describe. We know what a warlord looks like when they're in power. The people who come to power by the sword are not peaceful folk. Military politicians (such as Samurai or Knights) seem to be more violent than democracies. They are more than willing to risk their lives, or send off their children to die to grab political power. EDIT: In the Samurai / Warring States era of Japan, it was common to marry off your daughters to rival warlords in the hopes of keeping the peace. But when war broke out, the Samurai were ruthless: they were willing to risk their daughters lives to advanced politically (ex: grab some land and/or glory). Back then, it was normal to fight a war for simple glory. Children be damned, or even your own life. That's the way of a warlord based political system.

I think his point wasn’t to have a political class with military experience, but rather a political class that are personally at risk from their policies and decisions.

dragontamer 6y ago

That's called a warlord. Or if you want to be romantic about it: a knight, or samurai. There are many periods of history where warlords ruled by shear might and took to the battlefields personally. If you rule by military strength, then it is customary to also take to the battlefield. That's why the samurai class, knights, etc. etc. were on the battlefield. They were expected to personally enter battle as part of their political power. Turns out: having a bunch of warriors as leaders isn't the best political style. Not by a long shot. ---------- In any case, Agincourt remains the perfect example of that. The Armagnac decided to fight the English invasion. The Burgundians remained neutral. Then the Armagnacs were virtually wiped out in the battle of Agincourt, allowing the Burgundians to basically take over France and win the Armagnac vs Burgundian civil war. The Armagnacs died, defending their values. Since they died, the victory goes to other parties. ---------- > political class that are personally at risk from their policies and decisions. Note: with their heavy armor, superior training and armed guards... Knights weren't really the ones personally at risk in most battles. The unarmored peasants who fought under them, too poor for fancy armor. Too poor for nourishment (much smaller and weaker than a nobleman due to malnutrition). The peasants were at highest risk in any case. Agincourt was unusual in that the political class died as part of the battle. Normally, just the peasants die while the knights / noblemen retreat safely on their horses.

mgarfias 6y ago
No, its not what I mean. I want to see the politicians directly affected by their decisions. Like, their kids are sent off to fight along with the poors. Maybe they'll think twice about sending snuffy off to die if they or theirs will get dead.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  I know what you're trying to say. But I'm saying that history doesn't support your viewpoint. I can't think of any political power (be it Caesar, the Knights, Samurai, or whatever) across cultures where the politicians being part of the military had any such benefit you describe. We know what a warlord looks like when they're in power. The people who come to power by the sword are not peaceful folk. Military politicians (such as Samurai or Knights) seem to be more violent than democracies. They are more than willing to risk their lives, or send off their children to die to grab political power. EDIT: In the Samurai / Warring States era of Japan, it was common to marry off your daughters to rival warlords in the hopes of keeping the peace. But when war broke out, the Samurai were ruthless: they were willing to risk their daughters lives to advanced politically (ex: grab some land and/or glory). Back then, it was normal to fight a war for simple glory. Children be damned, or even your own life. That's the way of a warlord based political system.