To be fair, mercs and conscriptions did not work well for most militaries throughout history up until him, unless you were the Mongols.
Nonsense. I've made good use of them in Crusader Kings 2. Though they were pretty chewed up by the time I was finished with them.
Demosthenes wrote:To be fair, mercs and conscriptions did not work well for most militaries throughout history up until him, unless you were the Mongols.
The Romans used paid armies extensively for hundreds of years, even to the point of allowing them governance over some of the Roman territories. This is especially true after the fall of the Republic.
The Romans used paid armies extensively for hundreds of years, even to the point of allowing them governance over some of the Roman territories. This is especially true after the fall of the Republic.
Yeah, which could be speculated to be part of the fall of the Empire itself. Many of those mercenaries were groups who had been previously conquered and/or displaced by the Roman Army in the first place. Rome hired them because they were clearly badass fighters, but then they had an army that was largely loyal to getting paid, then to their commanders, then their homes... and they didn't care much about the good of the Empire as a whole.
Robear wrote:The Romans used paid armies extensively for hundreds of years, even to the point of allowing them governance over some of the Roman territories. This is especially true after the fall of the Republic.
Yeah, which could be speculated to be part of the fall of the Empire itself.
It's more part of the transformation of the Empire into successor states than a 'fall'. The idea that Rome 'fell' is...well it's at least a lot more controversial than is commonly understood.
Many of those mercenaries were groups who had been previously conquered and/or displaced by the Roman Army in the first place. Rome hired them because they were clearly badass fighters, but then they had an army that was largely loyal to getting paid, then to their commanders, then their homes... and they didn't care much about the good of the Empire as a whole.
They didn't so much hire them as in most cases they settled refugee groups Rome had militarily defeated. Or even when those groups did have a military victory, they eventually reached a settlement with Rome where they did the fighting (and reproducing) in exchange for becoming part of the Roman system.
That sort of begs the question "how long does something have to work before it is not a failure?". If, for instance, a bridge lasts for 250 years and collapses, do we call the bridge a failure? It seems to me that the use of mercenaries has been highly effective in achieving specific political/military goals.
That sort of begs the question "how long does something have to work before it is not a failure?". If, for instance, a bridge lasts for 250 years and collapses, do we call the bridge a failure? It seems to me that the use of mercenaries has been highly effective in achieving specific political/military goals.
This newsletter. I'm writing for it and subscribing. Hell I started the patreon for this opinion.
That sort of begs the question "how long does something have to work before it is not a failure?". If, for instance, a bridge lasts for 250 years and collapses, do we call the bridge a failure? It seems to me that the use of mercenaries has been highly effective in achieving specific political/military goals.
I dunno, I'm tending to think far more long term than I did before anymore. I'm sure if you asked people like 60 years ago how the innovations of coal and oil usage were going they'd be thrilled. Today, possibly not quite so much. If we continue to not do anything about it, 60 years in the future, folks are probably not going to be thinking it was quite as successful as we do today and certainly not as successful as folks did 120 years prior to them.
Paleocon wrote:That sort of begs the question "how long does something have to work before it is not a failure?". If, for instance, a bridge lasts for 250 years and collapses, do we call the bridge a failure? It seems to me that the use of mercenaries has been highly effective in achieving specific political/military goals.
I dunno, I'm tending to think far more long term than I did before anymore. I'm sure if you asked people like 60 years ago how the innovations of coal and oil usage were going they'd be thrilled. Today, possibly not quite so much. If we continue to not do anything about it, 60 years in the future, folks are probably not going to be thinking it was quite as successful as we do today and certainly not as successful as folks did 120 years prior to them.
Even in the coal and oil example you bring up above, it is unimaginable that the world would have arrived at industrialization without available and affordable energy. Just because our needs have evolved doesn't mean that industrialization and the industries necessary to bring it about were failures. It just means that the tools of the past were not necessarily appropriate for the present. I imagine the converse is likely true as well. Our tools and understanding of our world are built on a foundation of what has come before us... as flawed as they were.
The world has not arrived at industrialization.
Pages