5 ms·

It's important to remind everyone that this common adage is very wrong, looking at history (at least as long as we take "strong men" to mean "powerful armies").

It's important to remind everyone that this common adage is very wrong, looking at history (at least as long as we take "strong men" to mean "powerful armies"). Tough times mean brittle impoverished societies with weak armies that crumble easily. Easy times (prosperous, politically stable societies) are what creates strong armies. War requires huge investments of resources, so only prosperous societies can have powerful armies. War also requires strong leadership that can't be corrupted or divided - only politically stable societies can ensure their war leaders will not turn cloak or start fighting among themselves.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BitwiseFool 4y ago
>"Tough times mean brittle impoverished societies with weak armies that crumble easily. Easy times (prosperous, politically stable societies) are what creates strong armies." I believe a counterpoint to this are armies such as the Viet Cong, and especially the Taliban.
- simiones 4y ago
  I don't necessarily agree even there. The Viet Cong was a well supplied and well organized army, with significant logistical support from North Vietnam, and would likely had failed miserably if North Vietnam hadn't waited to consolidate its power and accrue supplies (and international support) after the revolution and previous civil war. In the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, the taliban received ample support from the USA, including training, arms and logistics; again, they would have very likely failed in the absence of this support. In the NATO invasion of Afghanistan, the taliban quickly lost the military war, but ultimately retained their cultural advantage; the regime that the USA tried to install was simply unpopular, and instantly folded the moment it stopped being propped up. Either way, the last few decades of war have not led to some flourishing of Afghanistan as the theory predicts: it remains poor and by all likelihood will remain poor for the forseeable future, as all other war zones do. Also, in both cases, the advantage of fighting in their own territory was a significant part of what ultimately defeated their opponents.
pfraze 4y ago
That adage is honestly just a way to call somebody soft.
V-2 4y ago
It's a huge oversimplification, and as such it's borderline useless of course; not much more than a meme of sorts. Still, "strong men", the way I read it, means "adamantly striving for the increase of power" (not just military power) rather than "being powerful already". When it comes down to such vague and ambiguous terms, the whole thing becomes as open to interpretation as a horoscope - basically unfalsifiable : )
- dionidium 4y ago
  I'm not sure why you'd insist on an eccentric interpretation of "strong" in the context of this quote. It's a common English word that means, "having the power to move heavy weights or perform other physically demanding tasks" or "able to withstand great force or pressure." Synonyms include: powerful, muscular, sturdy, robust, tough, rugged, stalwart, hardy. In ordinary English these terms can be applied to mental as well as physical fortitude. The meaning here is not opaque.
- hhjinks 4y ago
  It's not even an oversimplification, it's axiomatic. We have easy and tough times, and we have people who lead us into easy and tough times. If we define those who lead a nation out of tough times as "strong men," they are necessarily a product of the tough times they lived through, and vice versa. Without saying exactly what kind of person a "strong man" or a "weak man" is, the saying says literally nothing.
  - V-2 4y ago
    Yeah well, of course it's a bit like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, because if strong men fail to create easy times, you can always say that apparently they weren't truly strong, and so on, circular logic ;)
- simiones 4y ago
  > Still, "strong men", the way I read it, means "adamantly striving for the increase of power" (not just military power) rather than "being powerful already". The problem in that case is that I don't think it is true that these types of strong men tend to create easy times - if anything, they tend to create worse times for everyone around them, unless they are actually already extremely powerful. Warmongering leaders (whether we are discussing economic or open war), especially ones leading currently weak countries, tend to create even worse times for their people. Just look at Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, or, perhaps more arguably, Putin right now.
saiya-jin 4y ago
> at least as long as we take "strong men" to mean "powerful armies" I've never understood it as you do - strong men are just strong men, no need to read between the lines (of 1-liner). If you stick to the original meaning, this saying is as valid now as anytime in the past. Strong men know what they want and need and are not afraid to go for it, and most often also obtain it. Being able to defend oneself is another meaning. In opposite to weak men, who are unsure of themselves, don't know what they want out of life, expecting things to be handled to them and life figured out. I don't know in which part of society you do exist, but anytime in my past and present both of those groups are/were well represented, and successful life is definitely a domain of the strong folks.
- simiones 4y ago
  I've usually seen this quote as a meme applied to military power, usually accompanied by imagery of roman legionnaires or such. As far as I understand, the original quote is coming from a post-apocalyptic novel, so I doubt the context is supposed to be everyday life. Even so, regardless of other context, the general reality is that wealth and power beget wealth and power. Poor people (or societies) have a much much smaller chance of becoming wealthy than people who start wealthy have of maintaining their wealth. I would agree that it those extraordinarily few people who manage to ascend the social latter are probably universally very strong people. But there are many times more people who could be considered weak that nevertheless preserve their wealth and status than there are strong people who improve their own. This applies both at an individual level as well as a group and societal level.
scottiebarnes 4y ago
I'm not familiar with the context of the quote but I've never taken the "strong men" part to mean "powerful armies". Rather, hard times (economic depression, warfare, disease, etc.) creating strong men meant creating toughness, resilience, patience and conservatism in society. The endurance of these events would eventually (somehow) allow the next generation to have its progress and luxuries; peace, economic prosperity, education. But easy times create comfort, arrogance, impatience, over-leverage; spoiled people don't know how good they have it, and so they think it'll last forever. It gets taken away from them, and they fight amongst each other about whose fault it is that everything is slipping away (blame immigrants, blame opposing parties, blame foreign powers, general polarization and divisiveness; them vs us). Everything goes to shit, and the cycle is renewed.
- watwut 4y ago
  The background of the quote is fictional books. In reality, generations that grew in tough times have more issues in general. They drink more, commit more crimes, more violence, have more mental health issues, you name it. Wars dont make people better. They make people desperate, resentful, hateful due to all the suffering and inability to get help. Notably, WWII was started by generation that went though WWI. Generation after WWI had more terrorist acts. Oh, and war in Ukraine was started by Russia - country that average person is far from living in luxury or economic prosperity.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  We know statistically that economic depression, warfare, and disease don’t create toughness, resilience, etc. in society. The most economically depressed, war-torn, disease-ravaged countries are not known for being particularly resilient nor are they known for producing particularly wealthy subsequent generations.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    Can you clarify? I don't think you can say "we know statistically" about economic history. I'd call that epistemological arrogance.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

BitwiseFool 4y ago

>"Tough times mean brittle impoverished societies with weak armies that crumble easily. Easy times (prosperous, politically stable societies) are what creates strong armies." I believe a counterpoint to this are armies such as the Viet Cong, and especially the Taliban.

simiones 4y ago
I don't necessarily agree even there. The Viet Cong was a well supplied and well organized army, with significant logistical support from North Vietnam, and would likely had failed miserably if North Vietnam hadn't waited to consolidate its power and accrue supplies (and international support) after the revolution and previous civil war. In the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, the taliban received ample support from the USA, including training, arms and logistics; again, they would have very likely failed in the absence of this support. In the NATO invasion of Afghanistan, the taliban quickly lost the military war, but ultimately retained their cultural advantage; the regime that the USA tried to install was simply unpopular, and instantly folded the moment it stopped being propped up. Either way, the last few decades of war have not led to some flourishing of Afghanistan as the theory predicts: it remains poor and by all likelihood will remain poor for the forseeable future, as all other war zones do. Also, in both cases, the advantage of fighting in their own territory was a significant part of what ultimately defeated their opponents.

pfraze 4y ago

That adage is honestly just a way to call somebody soft.

V-2 4y ago

It's a huge oversimplification, and as such it's borderline useless of course; not much more than a meme of sorts. Still, "strong men", the way I read it, means "adamantly striving for the increase of power" (not just military power) rather than "being powerful already". When it comes down to such vague and ambiguous terms, the whole thing becomes as open to interpretation as a horoscope - basically unfalsifiable : )

dionidium 4y ago
I'm not sure why you'd insist on an eccentric interpretation of "strong" in the context of this quote. It's a common English word that means, "having the power to move heavy weights or perform other physically demanding tasks" or "able to withstand great force or pressure." Synonyms include: powerful, muscular, sturdy, robust, tough, rugged, stalwart, hardy. In ordinary English these terms can be applied to mental as well as physical fortitude. The meaning here is not opaque.
hhjinks 4y ago
It's not even an oversimplification, it's axiomatic. We have easy and tough times, and we have people who lead us into easy and tough times. If we define those who lead a nation out of tough times as "strong men," they are necessarily a product of the tough times they lived through, and vice versa. Without saying exactly what kind of person a "strong man" or a "weak man" is, the saying says literally nothing.
- V-2 4y ago
  Yeah well, of course it's a bit like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, because if strong men fail to create easy times, you can always say that apparently they weren't truly strong, and so on, circular logic ;)
simiones 4y ago
> Still, "strong men", the way I read it, means "adamantly striving for the increase of power" (not just military power) rather than "being powerful already". The problem in that case is that I don't think it is true that these types of strong men tend to create easy times - if anything, they tend to create worse times for everyone around them, unless they are actually already extremely powerful. Warmongering leaders (whether we are discussing economic or open war), especially ones leading currently weak countries, tend to create even worse times for their people. Just look at Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, or, perhaps more arguably, Putin right now.

saiya-jin 4y ago

> at least as long as we take "strong men" to mean "powerful armies" I've never understood it as you do - strong men are just strong men, no need to read between the lines (of 1-liner). If you stick to the original meaning, this saying is as valid now as anytime in the past. Strong men know what they want and need and are not afraid to go for it, and most often also obtain it. Being able to defend oneself is another meaning. In opposite to weak men, who are unsure of themselves, don't know what they want out of life, expecting things to be handled to them and life figured out. I don't know in which part of society you do exist, but anytime in my past and present both of those groups are/were well represented, and successful life is definitely a domain of the strong folks.

simiones 4y ago
I've usually seen this quote as a meme applied to military power, usually accompanied by imagery of roman legionnaires or such. As far as I understand, the original quote is coming from a post-apocalyptic novel, so I doubt the context is supposed to be everyday life. Even so, regardless of other context, the general reality is that wealth and power beget wealth and power. Poor people (or societies) have a much much smaller chance of becoming wealthy than people who start wealthy have of maintaining their wealth. I would agree that it those extraordinarily few people who manage to ascend the social latter are probably universally very strong people. But there are many times more people who could be considered weak that nevertheless preserve their wealth and status than there are strong people who improve their own. This applies both at an individual level as well as a group and societal level.

scottiebarnes 4y ago

I'm not familiar with the context of the quote but I've never taken the "strong men" part to mean "powerful armies". Rather, hard times (economic depression, warfare, disease, etc.) creating strong men meant creating toughness, resilience, patience and conservatism in society. The endurance of these events would eventually (somehow) allow the next generation to have its progress and luxuries; peace, economic prosperity, education. But easy times create comfort, arrogance, impatience, over-leverage; spoiled people don't know how good they have it, and so they think it'll last forever. It gets taken away from them, and they fight amongst each other about whose fault it is that everything is slipping away (blame immigrants, blame opposing parties, blame foreign powers, general polarization and divisiveness; them vs us). Everything goes to shit, and the cycle is renewed.

watwut 4y ago
The background of the quote is fictional books. In reality, generations that grew in tough times have more issues in general. They drink more, commit more crimes, more violence, have more mental health issues, you name it. Wars dont make people better. They make people desperate, resentful, hateful due to all the suffering and inability to get help. Notably, WWII was started by generation that went though WWI. Generation after WWI had more terrorist acts. Oh, and war in Ukraine was started by Russia - country that average person is far from living in luxury or economic prosperity.
SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
We know statistically that economic depression, warfare, and disease don’t create toughness, resilience, etc. in society. The most economically depressed, war-torn, disease-ravaged countries are not known for being particularly resilient nor are they known for producing particularly wealthy subsequent generations.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  Can you clarify? I don't think you can say "we know statistically" about economic history. I'd call that epistemological arrogance.