Read on Twitter
The germanics were smaller in number and less united than the romans, and yet they kicked their asses again and again. Why?
The germanics were physically larger, had a home advantage, and were forced to select for competence and virtuous soldiers. Roman soldiers were smaller
The germanics were physically larger, had a home advantage, and were forced to select for competence and virtuous soldiers. Roman soldiers were smaller
And to my knowledge didn't have to be particularly pious or faithful to the state. Their number of military coups is testament to this.
Numerical advantages disappear as the quality goes down. I'm reminded immediately of that viking berserker in Britain that held a bridge by
Numerical advantages disappear as the quality goes down. I'm reminded immediately of that viking berserker in Britain that held a bridge by
himself, fighting off the english until he was stabbed in the balls. Mongols, the Jaccobbean jewish revolt, Imperial and Shogunate Japan, etc. Quality generally beats quantity.
Technology naturally levels the playing field a lot. But one can hardly say the amerindian warriors of Tecimseh or the Seminoles were weak. Low numbers, but a hell of a force nonetheless.
A certain Germany understood this, and tried to combine mass war with quality soldiers
A certain Germany understood this, and tried to combine mass war with quality soldiers
It took a backstabber and four of the world's most powerful empires (France, Russia, America, and Britain) to defeat a state smaller than Texas right on their doorstep.
Blah blah they were bad, but you cant say they were weak or impotent.
Blah blah they were bad, but you cant say they were weak or impotent.
Mass warfare, the industrial man, the throwing of numbers and masses of faceless men against others, it's only effective against other masses in the long run.
Anerica has thousands of soldiers fighting a few hundred mountain men. Despite the best technology, they can't beat em
Anerica has thousands of soldiers fighting a few hundred mountain men. Despite the best technology, they can't beat em
Mass mobilization and war can only work if the intent is to colonize a region at the same time. If manifest destiny ended at the Appalachian mountains, but mass war against the Amerindians continued regardless, the Amerindians would've won.
Hell, the revolutionary war had this effect shown.
A ragtag bunch of farmers and laymen harassed and smashed the foremost empire in the world because the americans had to select for competence and piety.
A ragtag bunch of farmers and laymen harassed and smashed the foremost empire in the world because the americans had to select for competence and piety.
A limited number of warriors also means wars are by necessity shorter and less destructive. You cant just replace someone as easily. Wars have to be tactical strikes and quick, or you lose.
Once this isn't the case, when you fight only for yourself and not glory, soldiers are
Once this isn't the case, when you fight only for yourself and not glory, soldiers are
less effective. They become state mercenaries, not troops. And mercenaries have no loyalty. Once they get someone to pledge loyalty too, the mercenaries will wreck shop.
A strong leader with a face and a goal will accomplish way more in the long run.
A strong leader with a face and a goal will accomplish way more in the long run.
But why do large scale revolutions and wars succeed?
Numbers are important. I'm not denying that. But numbers aren't everything. That's an atomic and industrial mindset.
I'm ending this thread here.
/end.
Numbers are important. I'm not denying that. But numbers aren't everything. That's an atomic and industrial mindset.
I'm ending this thread here.
/end.
