3 ms·

I think the main issue with comparing past principles on governing and current ones, are the technological differences. Communications around the world take an

• somenameforme 3y ago
  As odd as it may sound at first, I think safe to say that the overall asymmetry in professional vs civilian forces has dramatically decreased over time. Spain's conquest of the Inca Empire, a warlike nation, is analogous to the edge professional militaries of the times would have had against peasants. And they were able to destroy an entire empire of these 'peasants', with an 'army' of exactly 168 Spaniards. Disease played a relatively small role given these absurdly disproportionate odds. What mattered was horses, weaponry, and armor. It was enough to make the Spaniards seem literally invincible. In modern times, America has ostensibly the most powerful army on Earth. Yet in Afghanistan we lost to sandal wearing religious radicals primarily equipped with WW2 era weaponry and some improvised explosives. And our "victory" in Iraq was defined as being left constrained to micro-sized 'green zones' we're completely unable to leave without extensively armored and prepped convoys, or otherwise it's like to turn into a one way trip. Of course the catch is that it's dumb to mock things as 'WW2 era weaponry.' A Talibani armed with a Springfield 1903, or Mauser 1898, numbers indicating their manufacturing date, is not only able to kill literally any soldier, but also from extremely far distances. And until the opportunity emerges said Talibani can simply keep that rifle tucked under his robes, looking just like any other civilian. Unless the e.g. US wants to simply start engaging in mass genocide, it's essentially impossible to defeat these sort of insurrections. Especially when each person you kill suddenly turns their otherwise moderate neighbors, friends, and brothers into the next insurrectionists.
  • asdff 3y ago
    In the case of the spaniards its a little different. They ambushed the emperor and essentially slaughtered his host who continued to throw themselves in front of the spanish to protect the emperor, eventually order broke down and they were routed, but the incan empire and the spanish would contest for power for decades still. Another Spaniard around this time, Magellan, made it to the beaches with some 60 men thinking with god and modern arms he would have the advantage against some three thousand Filipinos, and he didn't make it off that beach. The narrative that the spanish just routed everyone doesn't actually hold much water, most of the big takings e.g. in mexico were from identifying existing political enemies operating within a feudal system not unlike that of europe, rallying them and supplying them in their own proxy war against the established aztec power. In modern times you only see the restraint you see because of the political consequences of allowing the full force of the military machine to be umleashed. Consider how the military actualy behaved in afhanistan or iraq vs the pacific theater. They would visit villages on foot and use interpreters and attempt to form relationships with the locals, instead of just strategically bombing them flat on the off chance they harbor something important to the war machine. The most intense battle of Iraq, the second battle of Falluja, saw 600 civilian deaths. The battle for Okinawa saw over 100,000 civilians dead, a third of the population. That being said I think it goes to show that if push really came to shove, the new war planning would readily go away for the old war planning of strategic bombing along with atomic weaponry, at which there is no cave that will protect you when we have nuclear warheads designed to penetrate the deepest bunkers. There is no safe haven when the US army can engage you from beyond the curve of the earth.
    • somenameforme 3y ago
      The Battle of Cajamarca [1], where the Incan Emperor was captured, had the emperor arrive with a retinue of some 7000+ experienced soldiers who were armed with weapons such as knives, axes, and lassos. His advisers had already advised him that the Spanish were low in number, probably human, and recommended killing them. The Incan recounting of the battle states that the Spanish attacked after the Emperor threatened to kill them. The slaves the Emperor had around him were the ones who stood impassively as the Spanish butchered them, but that happened after the 'army' of 168 Spaniards had already managed to route the army of 7000+ warriors around the emperor, suffering a total of one injury in the process. In modern times you're conflating conventional warfare with insurgent warfare, which are very different. Conventional warfare is largely defined by sizable groups organizing and intentionally making the presence known in a limited region, setting the stage for 'normal' engagements. So for instance Iraq quickly turned into an insurgency but the Second Battle of Falluja was one of the few conventional encounters. Several thousand disorganized insurgents with limited arms and equipment decided to stick around and engage a modern military, multiple times their size, head on. They were obviously, and knowingly, signing on for a one way trip to Allah. That said, even there a heavily outnumbered, out-gunned, and out-teched rabble suicidally engaging in conventional warfare managed to inflict hundreds of casualties - about 5% of the military force. Imagine a similar scenario in times past where you had a rabble of 4000 peasants equipped with whatever instruments they could manage, against 13,000+ armed and armed soldiers with cavalry and archery support. It's highly unlikely that the army would suffer a single casualty, let alone death. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cajamarca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cajamarca