4 ms·

Exactly, this is my point. Napoleon's professional standing armies are a relatively recent (~200 years) and exceptional compared to the historical norm. Even Na

by pradn 5y ago

Exactly, this is my point. Napoleon's professional standing armies are a relatively recent (~200 years) and exceptional compared to the historical norm. Even Napoleon was able to take lots of territory by just negotiating with actors who knew they had no chance. People don't want to just go die; this requires a large amount of training. Not wanting to kill someone is something like a universal.

tasogare 5y ago
I agree about the not wanting to die but "Not wanting to kill someone is something like a universal." is clearly wrong in a lot of cultures. And ignoring this fact is precisely what lead to some recent military disasters as well as bloodshed within Europe.
DenisM 5y ago
Rome had professional standing armies more than 2000 years ago.
- pradn 5y ago
  You are absolutely right, my mistake. None-the-less, professional standing armies didn't exist in most locales for most of history.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Most locales for most of history couldn't afford standing armies. And not even from a financial standpoint -- there simply wasn't enough excess goods or food to have them out of the workforce.
    - pradn 5y ago
      Yes, that's true. A war machine requires surplus value. One reason why feudalism developed in Europe was for mounted warriors to be able to supply their warhorses. Facing constant violence, only super-appropriation of peasant surplus could give local lords and warriors enough resources to hold their own. And much of the success of many of the empires of history lies in their ability to requisition surplus value and use it to hire enough military labor. Rome could muster more soldiers than Carthage, for example.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  Many centuries passed during which there were no armies with the qualities that those of Rome shared with those of Napoleon.
natmaka 5y ago
AFAIK this also was the approach adopted by the Mongols, as early as during the 13th century (Golden Horde khanate).

by pradn 5y ago

tasogare 5y ago

I agree about the not wanting to die but "Not wanting to kill someone is something like a universal." is clearly wrong in a lot of cultures. And ignoring this fact is precisely what lead to some recent military disasters as well as bloodshed within Europe.

DenisM 5y ago

Rome had professional standing armies more than 2000 years ago.

pradn 5y ago
You are absolutely right, my mistake. None-the-less, professional standing armies didn't exist in most locales for most of history.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Most locales for most of history couldn't afford standing armies. And not even from a financial standpoint -- there simply wasn't enough excess goods or food to have them out of the workforce.
  - pradn 5y ago
    Yes, that's true. A war machine requires surplus value. One reason why feudalism developed in Europe was for mounted warriors to be able to supply their warhorses. Facing constant violence, only super-appropriation of peasant surplus could give local lords and warriors enough resources to hold their own. And much of the success of many of the empires of history lies in their ability to requisition surplus value and use it to hire enough military labor. Rome could muster more soldiers than Carthage, for example.
jessaustin 5y ago
Many centuries passed during which there were no armies with the qualities that those of Rome shared with those of Napoleon.

natmaka 5y ago

AFAIK this also was the approach adopted by the Mongols, as early as during the 13th century (Golden Horde khanate).