9 ms·

War was profitable back when you'd use horses, swords, bows and arrows to conquer more fertile arable land and slave labor, as that was the most value back then

War was profitable back when you'd use horses, swords, bows and arrows to conquer more fertile arable land and slave labor, as that was the most value back then. In the industrial era, the value is the profitable industry, which you just blew up with bombs to win the war, or had blown up loosing the war. Either way, you spent an insane amount of money going to war offensively or defensively, not winning anything of value other than some barren land which is now worthless, and now you're also broke from the debt you took to fight an industrial war. Advanced industry means wars are less likely to be profitable, not that they'll never occur.

kossTKR 3y ago
Being a huge history nerd war is almost always about profiteering, nothing has changed but propaganda. The US is one big imperial war machine that protects its ownership class assets with their foreign policy, like any other superpower would. "War profiteering", forceful opening of markets, huge contracts being made after all major wars, resource control? The forever wars happening from the second world war up until now to keep the West on top. What "we" did to South America, to Iran, to African countries when they wanted their surplus? Empire logic, game theory, nerdy statistical perspective even if you played a bit of civilisation or read Guns Germs and Steel. Classical geopolitics 20 years ago was all about these game theories, propaganda, that it's all a big game of Risk, acquiring the most while dominating others like literally all of history. What is war about today suddenly then? Beautiful philanthropic benevolence of the enlightened western peoples done very reluctantly but with great compassion for the future of the world despite immense expenses?
KineticLensman 3y ago
> War was profitable back when you'd use horses, swords, bows and arrows to conquer more fertile arable land and slave labor, as that was the most value back then. But maintaining large armies to do such conquering was massively expensive, and consider the extent to which various kings over the years have had their military ambitions crushed because their country or people could no longer tolerate the sacrifices required. The so-called slave labour still has to grow food to primarily feed itself, and this is a fairly full-time occupation in a pre-industrial state. There isn't a lot left over to sustain an occupying force in any sort of comfort (which incidentally isn't farming its home fields when it is doing the occupying).
- jltsiren 3y ago
  Don't think it in terms of states, standing armies, and occupying forces. Wars were often not between states but kings, and most people had no particular reason to favor one king over another. Armies often signaled famine and death, regardless of if they were "friendly" or not. Kings and their vassals usually maintained only small core forces. When more manpower was needed, armies could raised. War didn't have to be particularly profitable. It only needed to be more profitable than business, which is often was in a zero-growth environment. And it was obviously risky. The key thing was that nobody wanted a prolonged war, because it was expensive and pointless. Losing was often preferable. Sure the victors would kill some, enslave some, and rob some, but for most people, life would go on as before. Some elites would be different and they would swear allegiance to a different king, but most things would remain the same.

kossTKR 3y ago

Being a huge history nerd war is almost always about profiteering, nothing has changed but propaganda. The US is one big imperial war machine that protects its ownership class assets with their foreign policy, like any other superpower would. "War profiteering", forceful opening of markets, huge contracts being made after all major wars, resource control? The forever wars happening from the second world war up until now to keep the West on top. What "we" did to South America, to Iran, to African countries when they wanted their surplus? Empire logic, game theory, nerdy statistical perspective even if you played a bit of civilisation or read Guns Germs and Steel. Classical geopolitics 20 years ago was all about these game theories, propaganda, that it's all a big game of Risk, acquiring the most while dominating others like literally all of history. What is war about today suddenly then? Beautiful philanthropic benevolence of the enlightened western peoples done very reluctantly but with great compassion for the future of the world despite immense expenses?

KineticLensman 3y ago

> War was profitable back when you'd use horses, swords, bows and arrows to conquer more fertile arable land and slave labor, as that was the most value back then. But maintaining large armies to do such conquering was massively expensive, and consider the extent to which various kings over the years have had their military ambitions crushed because their country or people could no longer tolerate the sacrifices required. The so-called slave labour still has to grow food to primarily feed itself, and this is a fairly full-time occupation in a pre-industrial state. There isn't a lot left over to sustain an occupying force in any sort of comfort (which incidentally isn't farming its home fields when it is doing the occupying).

jltsiren 3y ago
Don't think it in terms of states, standing armies, and occupying forces. Wars were often not between states but kings, and most people had no particular reason to favor one king over another. Armies often signaled famine and death, regardless of if they were "friendly" or not. Kings and their vassals usually maintained only small core forces. When more manpower was needed, armies could raised. War didn't have to be particularly profitable. It only needed to be more profitable than business, which is often was in a zero-growth environment. And it was obviously risky. The key thing was that nobody wanted a prolonged war, because it was expensive and pointless. Losing was often preferable. Sure the victors would kill some, enslave some, and rob some, but for most people, life would go on as before. Some elites would be different and they would swear allegiance to a different king, but most things would remain the same.