7 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 th

> 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.