3 ms·
"Now it turns out the rule 'large and disciplined organizations win' needs to have a qualification appended: 'at games that change slowly.'" The pattern I see
by sdurkin 18y ago
"Now it turns out the rule 'large and disciplined organizations win' needs to have a qualification appended: 'at games that change slowly.'"
The pattern I see throughout history is that large organizations endure until some disruptive technology takes them down. (Greek hoplite armies vs. light infantry and archers, armored knights vs. longbows, cavalry corps vs. tanks.)
The modern age has simply accelerated the whole process. Technological change occurs increasingly quickly now, and so these "overturnings" happen more and more often. Because large organizations take time to form, the balance of power has shifted to small entrepreneurial organizations.
- hs 18y agotrue, you might want to look at empires that lasts for centuries after rapid expansion alexander the great, napoleon, the japanese (1940ish) don't count because they cannot sustain the expansion ironically, mongol empire (and its vast expansion) lasted for 3.5 centuries. there must be some other reasons that neither cruelty nor barbarism can explain (in fact, empires based on cruelty/barbarism don't last long)
- taw 18y agoThere's little correlation between cruelty during wars and cruelty during normal operations. Most successful empires were borderline genocidal when fighting, and mostly benign and well organized at home, as this combination allows expansion and prevents internal failure. I cannot really think of a good counterexample, Rome and other ancient powers, British Empire and successful colonial powers, and USA all fit here. Medieval Catholicism (which wasn't really a country, but it can be considered an empire of sorts) also expanded by genocide, but was rather benign inside. Soviet Union was very brutal inside and fell quickly due to inside forces.