3 ms·

> The only examples I can think of where this isn't true is either in modern times (US Grant being a possible example) War tends to effectively flatten societa

> The only examples I can think of where this isn't true is either in modern times (US Grant being a possible example) War tends to effectively flatten societal hierarchy. When a society is in trouble the best people for the job tend to rise to the top because results are what matter and when the alternative is bad enough people don't care that someone doesn't have the right pedigree if they have the necessary skills.

enkid 5y ago
Historically, not really. It was the norm for people leading the fighting to be some sort of elite. Think the nobility in middle ages Europe, the Spartans' control over the way more numerous Helots, the caste system of India, and the Samurai of Japan. There are probably exceptions I'm not thinking of, but for the vast majority of history, it was the already powerful that were leading the forces, not some plucky newcomer with the right stuff.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Nobody's realistically expecting anyone to go from peasant to general. That's an obtuse red herring. What does happen is that everyone worth a crap gets their career fast tracked. People go from machinist to plant operator or from junior officer to general in a year, etc, etc. People who would have been promoted because they know someone are passed over because when things are serious like in wartime people feel they cannot get away with forgoing more promising people for those kinds of people. People who would have had to work a whole career to break between class levels can do it in a fraction of the time.
  - enkid 5y ago
    Look, the article is making a historical argument, and your talking about the modern ways wars are fought. I believe the author has an incorrect belief about how historically battles were won, and I pointed to several historical examples. Now, you can either refute my examples or provide your own, but pointing to the way the military runs today does nothing for my argument that historically "winning a battle" was not a great method of social mobility yo "elite" status.
watwut 5y ago
Wars bring huge amount of corruption with them. And they involve huge amounts of bad decision making too. It does not sound to me like historical argument.

enkid 5y ago

Historically, not really. It was the norm for people leading the fighting to be some sort of elite. Think the nobility in middle ages Europe, the Spartans' control over the way more numerous Helots, the caste system of India, and the Samurai of Japan. There are probably exceptions I'm not thinking of, but for the vast majority of history, it was the already powerful that were leading the forces, not some plucky newcomer with the right stuff.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Nobody's realistically expecting anyone to go from peasant to general. That's an obtuse red herring. What does happen is that everyone worth a crap gets their career fast tracked. People go from machinist to plant operator or from junior officer to general in a year, etc, etc. People who would have been promoted because they know someone are passed over because when things are serious like in wartime people feel they cannot get away with forgoing more promising people for those kinds of people. People who would have had to work a whole career to break between class levels can do it in a fraction of the time.
- enkid 5y ago
  Look, the article is making a historical argument, and your talking about the modern ways wars are fought. I believe the author has an incorrect belief about how historically battles were won, and I pointed to several historical examples. Now, you can either refute my examples or provide your own, but pointing to the way the military runs today does nothing for my argument that historically "winning a battle" was not a great method of social mobility yo "elite" status.

watwut 5y ago

Wars bring huge amount of corruption with them. And they involve huge amounts of bad decision making too. It does not sound to me like historical argument.