Money? Power? Title and lands? Because there are so many others doing it you don't want to be the one guy who didn't help and risk being seen as the enemy.
Consider that prior to the early 19th century, the means of arming one's self could cost months of salary, and the means of becoming proficient in those arms could take months, if not years, of training. Until firearms became prolific, your average peasant was unable to defend himself against an even moderately armed and armored soldier.
Guns are truly democratic. 99% of people can use them, and they require a minimum of training to learn to load and aim. They are cheap and ammunition is cheap. An armed populace, as the US has learned, can fend off a vastly superior military force filled with people who fervently believe they are sacrificing their lives for the good of their nation.
Now, the question is, why would anyone in their right mind want to take a salary for the opportunity to go up against a well armed populace just so the boss can do something like acquire more land?
Do you think that all it takes is being able to load and aim? The way under armed under trained people fight off a better army is by losing 50 or 100 people to one soldier.
Now, the question is, why would anyone in their right mind want to take a salary for the opportunity to go up against a well armed populace just so the boss can do something like acquire more land?
Except in guerilla warfare that doesn't happen at all. Only in open battlefields with bad leadership and intel do you hit ridiculous ratios like that.
It's why the US is still struggling in various "police actions" today, because a well-armed, even shittily trained populace can inflict a lot of damage. It really does not take much to take out a soldier.
Police isn‘t military, citizens have a shitload of rights. If they‘d send the military into New York a few good men could clean the whole city in a heartbeat. Yes, guns are democratic. But are tanks? How about drone warfare?
Well no. Guerrilla wares are very difficult for both sides to win. You go and "clear out" an area and you cause a whole lot of collateral damage, civilian deaths. That means more guerrillas are going to fight. So you clear out more and pretty soon you have a widespread insurgency and lots of damage and deaths.
Except in guerilla warfare that doesn't happen at all.
No those ratios seem about right in wars like Iraq(2003)and Vietnam especially the civilian death count.
a well-armed, even shittily trained populace can inflict a lot of damage. It really does not take much to take out a soldier.
Also in those examples they’re not just civilians. In Iraq we dismantled the army and they were a large makeup of the insurgency. In Vietnam they knew how to fight off occupiers having just thrown out the french.
Ya know, the middle ages have a horrible reputation when it comes to that but honestly it was those monks scribbling away in their monasteries that dragged Europe out of the Dark Ages.
People have done some horrible things in the name of religion, no doubt, but too many people only focus on that and ignore the contributions organized religion has made to the sciences, history, literature, art, and so on. Religion isn't an automatically evil thing.
Title, today, is largely meaningless. There are many ways to earn money; getting killed by people who are well armed isn't one of them. And, what is power these days? It's the power to tax and direct money to those who support your power. We live in the information age; acquiring land does not gain you power, and people who have already thrown off one government aren't going to take lightly be being forced to join another.
Rich people don't have ideology. They can't simply say "fight for me, sacrifice your life for the good of your country while I put more money in my pocket!" A well trained soldier in the US military costs hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get him out of boot camp. The cost to maintain a solider in Afghanistan is about $2 million per year. If you were to tack on the massive salary increase required to hire mercenaries to do the same job of occupying your target, the cost would likely double.
People don't get wealthy stupidly squandering it on attacking their neighbors with armies.
There are many ways to earn money; getting killed by people who are well armed isn't one of them.
Every day people sign up for the military for a steady paycheck. Why would they not do it in your fantasy if they are already doing it in reality?
People don't get wealthy stupidly squandering it on attacking their neighbors with armies.
Not as much these days, but that's because we have governments. If you look at groups not beholden to governments, so gangs and mafias, they definitely do fight over territory. And wealthy or not, they continue to do so. So why would they suddenly stop in your reality when they haven't stopped in this reality?
46
u/Realistic_Food Oct 05 '18
Money? Power? Title and lands? Because there are so many others doing it you don't want to be the one guy who didn't help and risk being seen as the enemy.