2 ms·
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 reaso
by 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.