Prior to the invention of reliable, accurate firearms, for much of history a relatively small number of dedicated warriors (e.g. armored knights on warhorses, s

Prior to the invention of reliable, accurate firearms, for much of history a relatively small number of dedicated warriors (e.g. armored knights on warhorses, samurai, cavalry, archers, etc) could dominate a much larger population of commoners (and conscript them into lesser forces such as infantry to increase their strength). To a degree, heavy weapons such as tanks, artillery, and armored helicopters allow dictators to exercise control over their people by employing a moderate sized army. Anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles appear to have cut into this advantage, but you still need pretty serious support from state actors to acquire those. Different technological innovations in warfare have sometimes been leveling (eg guns as “the great equalizer”, anti-tank missiles) and sometimes had the opposite effect (e.g. attack helicopters and fighter jets). It does seem plausible that robotic weapons will favor those with vast resources, even when they lack manpower. It’s not impossible that it could go the other way, though. Actually, I can see drones going both ways.