• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Ask me about Warfare

Aldarion

Archmage
I am aware of the context in which spatha was adapted. But as to the rest of what you've written I'm afraid that you are simply wrong on Principate legionaries. They were not heavy skirmishers but heavy infantry and nothing else. Furthermore they didn't charge in and fight mass of duels but kept a formation of closed ranks in which their use of their shield and the sword came to decimate the opposition.
No, that is incorrect. They were heavy infantry in terms of armor and their basic battlefield role, but look more closely at their equipment: two javelins, and a large curved tower shield. This "curved tower" part is important. Heavy infantry that fights in formation has a shield which protects as much frontage as possible: look at Greek Aspis, late Roman clipeus, Norse rond... all of these shields were intended for combat in the shield wall. They were large and round, which allowed the soldier to protect not only himself, but also the vulnerable (right) side of a soldier next to him. Roman scutum however sucks for the shield wall combat. It is simply too large, too heavy, and not protective enough. What it excels at is giving individual soldier as much protection as possible, especially so in the context of missile combat, but also in individual close-quarters fighting. In other words, Roman legionary was expected to fight either in a loose formation or as an individual, not shoulder to shoulder with his comrades. Further, usage of heavy javelins by legionaries themselves would have been impossible had they fought in close-rank order: and without heavy javelins, you simply don't have the legions of late Republic or early Empire.

Look also at how Republican legions fought against the Macedonian phalanx: first they launched a barrage of javelins, then drew swords and went in close. And usually they lost in a head-on clash. Times when they won? When the phalanx was somehow disrupted, which legionaries would exploit by penetrating ranks of the phalanx in what were essentially piecemeal actions by small groups or even individual soldiers.

You know when scutum disappears? During the late Empire, which is precisely when legions abandon javelins as a primary weapon in exchange for the spear. And again we see the pattern I noted above: shield wall formation = large round shields. Also, do you know when shields similar to Roman scutum reappear? In Middle Ages, specifically as protection for crossbowmen. And granted, heavy infantry could fight from behind the pavise wall, but pavise itself was a response to requirements of ranged combat.

Likewise for a sword. Roman gladius was an adoption of Spanish sword. And you know what is also interesting? Ancient chronicles compared Iberian infantry to Greek peltasts - who were light skirmish infantry. Roman authors specifically noted similarity in equipment and tactics between the Iberian infantry and their own legionaries. In fact, Iberian speirai are a direct equivalent of Roman maniples.

So either Roman authors were lying about Iberian combat tactics, they were lying about their own combat tactics, or you are wrong about Roman legionaries being your typical heavy melee infantry.

Now, it is true that above mostly concerns legions of the Roman Republic rather than those of the Principate. However, equipment of the Principate legionaries is very similar to that of Republican equivalents - whereas late Roman legionaries have equipment completely different from their Principate predecessors. This would also suggest that Principate legions were tactically much closer to tactics of the post-Marian Republican legions than to those of the Late Empire.
 

Gurkhal

Auror
Thank you for taking the time for writing a pretty long trolling post, Aldarion . I reject your conclusion and shall look elsewhere for an answer to my question. Hopefully we'll interact in a more serious way in the future. :)
 

pmmg

Myth Weaver
If you are not concerned with the anachronistic elements of this, then I would think they would want the longer sword if they could get it.

Though, I would have to wonder why they would carry the weapon full time if it was only for a broken ground scenario. Do they fight on broken ground a lot?
 

Aldarion

Archmage
Thank you for taking the time for writing a pretty long trolling post, Aldarion . I reject your conclusion and shall look elsewhere for an answer to my question. Hopefully we'll interact in a more serious way in the future. :)
It is not trolling at all. Not everything that disagrees with your opinions is trolling.
 
Define longer sword.

2 things at play here I think. First there is cost. It's only a bit of extra bronze which is needed to make a longer sword. But, 20.000 times a bit (or however many soldiers you have) is still a lot. And that for a back-up weapon.

Then there is the fact that it's a back-up weapon first and foremost. This means the soldiers will carry it around in adition to their regular equipment of spear and shield. You don't want to be adding extra weight to your equipment just because you have some rare circumstances where it might be useful. You're much better off simply selecting an advantageous battle field. What's more, these soldiers have a shield, which means that even if they aren't in formation, they'd likely be fighting with sword and shield, not just sword. Of course, you can use the longer sword with a shield as well, there just isn't as much benefit. And the longer sword might be a hindrance when combined with the shield.

The thing to remember here is that warfare was a serious business. While of course random things happened, people also optimized what they had, simply because people don't like dying or losing battles. If it made sense to have the longer swords, then someone who spent their days fighting would have come up with it.
 

Gurkhal

Auror
If you are not concerned with the anachronistic elements of this, then I would think they would want the longer sword if they could get it.

Though, I would have to wonder why they would carry the weapon full time if it was only for a broken ground scenario. Do they fight on broken ground a lot?
Yes, I'm ready to accept anachronistic elements if necessary or if I get a really good idea. If I wanted to write strictly historical I would have written historical fiction.

The idea is that its a Hellenistic inspired world and that Hellenistic-style armies have both come to fight enemies who will happily retreat to or fight in looser formation on broken ground along with inspiration from the historical experience of fighting Rome where broken ground could become very bad news for a phalanx. Therefore they might want to be able to get the phalangites to perform on broken ground as well.
It is not trolling at all. Not everything that disagrees with your opinions is trolling.
In theory I agree and I'm no stranger to hold minority views if those makes sense to me.

But everything you have written flies in the face of everything I read or heard on the matter and what seems reasonable to me. And I know for a fact that you are well read on historical military matters. Thus my opinion that you're trolling me.
Define longer sword.

2 things at play here I think. First there is cost. It's only a bit of extra bronze which is needed to make a longer sword. But, 20.000 times a bit (or however many soldiers you have) is still a lot. And that for a back-up weapon.

Then there is the fact that it's a back-up weapon first and foremost. This means the soldiers will carry it around in adition to their regular equipment of spear and shield. You don't want to be adding extra weight to your equipment just because you have some rare circumstances where it might be useful. You're much better off simply selecting an advantageous battle field. What's more, these soldiers have a shield, which means that even if they aren't in formation, they'd likely be fighting with sword and shield, not just sword. Of course, you can use the longer sword with a shield as well, there just isn't as much benefit. And the longer sword might be a hindrance when combined with the shield.

The thing to remember here is that warfare was a serious business. While of course random things happened, people also optimized what they had, simply because people don't like dying or losing battles. If it made sense to have the longer swords, then someone who spent their days fighting would have come up with it.

I'm thinking about the Roman spatha here. So not bronze weapons but more likely iron or even early steel weapons.

Just something that if the fighting goes to ground where a phalanx is unsuitable then the phalangites would be able to keep fighting and not go the way of Pydna. Now there might be other ways to deal with this but having the phalangites essentially regulated to the side line in that kind of scenario tells me that someone would perhaps have sought a solution to this problem/weakness.

A longger sword might be a problem, so I'm open to other invovations that might help the make the phalangites in a phalanx more adaptable if things are not ideal to them.

I totally agree that warfare was serious business. However lets not forget that Hellenistic style armies mostly fought other Hellenistic armies and that a growing reliance on the "pike push" was a trend that was only challenged by the arrival of the Roman legions, which did force inovation and new ideas, to my knowledge, to be attempted on larger scale.
 

Aldarion

Archmage
In theory I agree and I'm no stranger to hold minority views if those makes sense to me.

But everything you have written flies in the face of everything I read or heard on the matter and what seems reasonable to me. And I know for a fact that you are well read on historical military matters. Thus my opinion that you're trolling me.
It is not trolling, although it definitely is unorthodox.

But personally, I simply cannot see Roman legions fighting as your typical heavy infantry.

Firstly, we have accounts of their combat against the Macedonian phalanx, where victory was a result of individual legionaries and small groups leaving formation in order to exploit the gaps and openings that had appeared in the phalanx thanks to the uneven terrain.

Secondly, as I have noted, legionary equipment is actually well suited to missile exchange.

We also have contrast with late Roman legions which fought in the shield wall, and had completely different equipment.
 

Gurkhal

Auror
This thread has been way to silent for too long. So I'll ask a question and see if we can get things moving again.

What would you think are the main pros and cons between professional soldiers and "lifestyle warriors"?

With "lifestyle warriors" I mean the likes of medieval knights, Bronze Age Maryannu charioteers and others who have a martial lifestyle and expectations to fight for their community (however that's defined) while at the same time not being paid by some kind of authority (gifts are different from a salary as I understand it).
 

Aldarion

Archmage
This thread has been way to silent for too long. So I'll ask a question and see if we can get things moving again.

What would you think are the main pros and cons between professional soldiers and "lifestyle warriors"?

With "lifestyle warriors" I mean the likes of medieval knights, Bronze Age Maryannu charioteers and others who have a martial lifestyle and expectations to fight for their community (however that's defined) while at the same time not being paid by some kind of authority (gifts are different from a salary as I understand it).
Wage is wage, doesn't matter how it is drawn. So I'd say that knights are still professional soldiers in my definition.
 

pmmg

Myth Weaver
What would you think are the main pros and cons between professional soldiers and "lifestyle warriors"?

Professional:
Pro... You have an army, and it makes all those other peoples think a little before trying to take your stuff.
Con.. Its expensive to keep.

Lifestyle:
Pro... You have an army, and it makes all those other peoples think a little before trying to take your stuff.
Pro... They are less expensive to keep.
Con... They are likely less capable, as the cost is on them to get good at it.
 

Mad Swede

Auror
This thread has been way to silent for too long. So I'll ask a question and see if we can get things moving again.

What would you think are the main pros and cons between professional soldiers and "lifestyle warriors"?

With "lifestyle warriors" I mean the likes of medieval knights, Bronze Age Maryannu charioteers and others who have a martial lifestyle and expectations to fight for their community (however that's defined) while at the same time not being paid by some kind of authority (gifts are different from a salary as I understand it).
OK, writing this as a retired professional soldier. What you mean by a lifestyle warrior is what we look for when we recruit professional soldiers. There is no difference, because what we want is someone who is motivated by something other than money or sadism.

However, if by professional soldier you mean a mercenary, that is someone who fights only for money (and sometimes for the pleasure of killing and hurting others) then the real disadvantage of them is lack of loyalty - they work for whomever pays them best. If mercenaries don't get paid they change sides.
 
If mercenaries don't get paid they change sides.
Or, as has happened in some Italian city states through the ages, they notice that you don't have an army of your own and that they are actually the only force of any significance in the region and that means they can simply invade your city and take it for themselves. Made even easier since you're hired and thus they'll open their gates to you and let you walk in when you come to "defend" them...

I'm wondering how many people start out in the army (especially in the past) for money and the pleasure of killing. Yes, there is a small percentage of people who truly enjoy hurting others. However, I would imagine that many more people would either be lured by tales of greatness, or simply for lack of prospects. After all, if you're the third or fourth son on a small, poor farm, and a bad harvest comes in, do you stick around hungry or do you take your chances and join the military? Of course, once you're in the military, you can then go for the guy paying you the most money or for your country or for honor. And I'm sure it changes through the years.
 
Okay, I am writing in part about a post-tribal warrior culture, in a country where there is an established history of tribal warfare, that has now amalgamated into a national military, but they still refer to them as ‘warriors’. The commanders come from the noble families, the rest of them come from lesser stock. So I am interested in this question.

Whether that’s arguable or not, I am not really interested in that - that’s my world, and I’m sticking with it.

But some of your answers confuse me. Not saying they are wrong; you don’t want new recruits joining a modern day army because ‘they want to kill people in a legal and paid way’, because that’s psychopath material, and a slippery slope to extremism.

But many of those who join the more elite services such as the Royal Marines here in the UK are usually the type of man who lacks the part of their brain that gets scared easily - who can therefore keep their cool when needed, which is somewhere near psychopath material. Along the lines of surgeons or others in high stress jobs who can keep their cool under pressure. We have to acknowledge that. They probably make the best soldiers. Given that they have a moral compass and a sense of empathy too, ideally.

The money issue is more complex than ‘it shouldn’t be the motivator’ because most if not all working class new recruits into the army and navy mostly are from poor social-economic backgrounds, in the UK anyway, who may have come from places with low employment rates and consequently are motivated to join the armed forces to gain job security, leave their dead end towns, and earn a guaranteed wage. Recruiters purposely set up their stalls in poorer areas because they are more likely to get people signed up. Money is in part a motivator In this instance. Historically there may have been a similar sentiment.

Anyway, there’s also the time period to consider too. The Knights Templar were for example religiously motivated to perform the tasks of God and to protect the ruling monarch - who was akin to God at the time. They may have been motivated by money or status but by and large they seemed like a pious lot.

Then we have the type in my story, who practice hereditary warriorhood. Like a passage into manhood. Is that a lifestyle warrior? I would think so. They are more motivated by the lifestyle and its importance to their heritage and culture more than anything else. They were born into money and so that is not a factor at all. But you might have a mixture of mercenary and honourable types within this category.
 
Last edited:

Gray-Hand

Minstrel
The advantage of having ‘cultural’ warriors like knights or samurai is that they sort of come ready made for whoever is leading an army. If the warrior role is a cultural one, it probably means that a certain proportion of a certain demographic will probably have been trained both physically and mentally to not only fight, but to deal with all the other aspects of war from a young age.

Big difference between an 18 year old guy who has been squiring since the age of seven, and likely having been around war and warriors most of their life and some dude who left the farm at age 18 because they weren’t first born and wouldn’t inherit, so they joined the army and got 6 months training. No matter how intense that 6 months is, it’s not the same as a lifetime.

On the other hand - if you set up properly to have a professional army, you can control the size of the forces at your disposal really well. If you need more, you can train and equip more within a relatively short amount of time. If you lose a battle, you can recruit and train up to the basic standard pretty quickly. Cultural warriors take years and years to make, and there’s only so many that any particular community can support, and that’s going to be fewer than it would be for professionals.
 

Gurkhal

Auror
Wage is wage, doesn't matter how it is drawn. So I'd say that knights are still professional soldiers in my definition.
So it is. But wage is wage and gift is gift.

I'll expand a little on this as to how I view the three types of lifestyle, professional and mercenary warriors/soldiers. And I know that I didn't mention mercenaries but I added them in response to Mad Swede 's post. This is a crude scenario but I hope I get my point across.

Say that I live in a big house with several people who rent rooms and pay me a fee for that. But a pair of thugs are coming to rob and kill me. So I call for help.

Lifestyle: I call a guy who I know work out much and practice martial arts and owns a gun and I've talked with him and he's said he can help me if there's that kind of problem in the house in exchange for paying half the rent he would otherwise have paid. So I say in the phone: "Help me, they're breaking down my door!" So he comes along to take down the bad guys. Afterwards I say "You did awesome! You don't need to pay rent for the rest of the year and let me buy you a couple of beers." This guy thus has a lifestyle that makes him suitable to call in the scenario and afterwards I give him gifts in gratitude for the help he's given me.

Professional: I call a guy who I pay $XXX every month, which allows him to work out, own a gun and practice martial arts and also have a few dollars left after those expenses, to help me if there's trouble. So I call him and say: "Help me, they're breaking down my door!" So this guy comes along and takes care of the bad guys. Afterwards I say "You did awesome! I'm so glad I decided to pay you to help me in case things get ugly." And I naturally continues to pay this guy for the services that he provided just now according to the terms that we have agreed upon. In effect I give him a salary to help me out when needed and keep himself fit to help out when I need him.

Mercenary: I call a guy who I know works out much and practice martial arts and owns a gun and while he don't live in the house I've been told he's ready to break heads for a price. I call him and say: "Help me, I'll pay you $XXX but they're breaking down my door!" So this guys comes along and takes down the bad guys. Afterwards I say "You did awesome! Here's your money." At which point he takes the money with a grin and that's the end of our interaction and no continued relation between us unless I call him again for a job. In effect I pay him for a job and that's the end of it. I can call him again in the future but its on a case-by-case basis.

I hope this made it a bit more clear as to the difference, as I view them, between three types of warriors/soldiers that you can employ.

Professional:
Pro... You have an army, and it makes all those other peoples think a little before trying to take your stuff.
Con.. Its expensive to keep.

Lifestyle:
Pro... You have an army, and it makes all those other peoples think a little before trying to take your stuff.
Pro... They are less expensive to keep.
Con... They are likely less capable, as the cost is on them to get good at it.
Partially true but I would argue that a lifestyle warrior wouldn't be worse than a professional soldier but that in terms of cost effectivness the professional soldier will likely reach the same level of competence as a lifestyle warrior for a small price tag. Not to mention that perhaps most importantly that each lifestyle warrior is likely a huge economic investment. But if there are weapons like firearms then that investment can easily be killed by someone who has been trained and equipped to shoot that firearm for a fraction of the cost that the lifestyle warrior demanded.

Knights didn't, to my knowledge, go away because their swordsmanship wasn't good enough. They went away because of cost effective reasons.
 

Aldarion

Archmage
So it is. But wage is wage and gift is gift.
Gift is something that is given freely.

Wage is something given for a service.

Knights are given land in exchange for their service as heavily armored cavalry. Therefore, land is a wage, not a gift.
I'll expand a little on this as to how I view the three types of lifestyle, professional and mercenary warriors/soldiers. And I know that I didn't mention mercenaries but I added them in response to @Mad Swede 's post. This is a crude scenario but I hope I get my point across.

Say that I live in a big house with several people who rent rooms and pay me a fee for that. But a pair of thugs are coming to rob and kill me. So I call for help.

Lifestyle: I call a guy who I know work out much and practice martial arts and owns a gun and I've talked with him and he's said he can help me if there's that kind of problem in the house in exchange for paying half the rent he would otherwise have paid. So I say in the phone: "Help me, they're breaking down my door!" So he comes along to take down the bad guys. Afterwards I say "You did awesome! You don't need to pay rent for the rest of the year and let me buy you a couple of beers." This guy thus has a lifestyle that makes him suitable to call in the scenario and afterwards I give him gifts in gratitude for the help he's given me.

Professional: I call a guy who I pay $XXX every month, which allows him to work out, own a gun and practice martial arts and also have a few dollars left after those expenses, to help me if there's trouble. So I call him and say: "Help me, they're breaking down my door!" So this guy comes along and takes care of the bad guys. Afterwards I say "You did awesome! I'm so glad I decided to pay you to help me in case things get ugly." And I naturally continues to pay this guy for the services that he provided just now according to the terms that we have agreed upon. In effect I give him a salary to help me out when needed and keep himself fit to help out when I need him.

Mercenary: I call a guy who I know works out much and practice martial arts and owns a gun and while he don't live in the house I've been told he's ready to break heads for a price. I call him and say: "Help me, I'll pay you $XXX but they're breaking down my door!" So this guys comes along and takes down the bad guys. Afterwards I say "You did awesome! Here's your money." At which point he takes the money with a grin and that's the end of our interaction and no continued relation between us unless I call him again for a job. In effect I pay him for a job and that's the end of it. I can call him again in the future but its on a case-by-case basis.

I hope this made it a bit more clear as to the difference, as I view them, between three types of warriors/soldiers that you can employ.
By that definition, however, knights would still be professional soldiers.

"Lifestyle warriors" by above would be the likes of Shaolin Monks or perhaps Knights Templar, who merged warrior duties with religious philosophy. But your typical knight has received a fief of land in exchange for his service as a soldier; he is thus a professional soldier and his fief is his payment.

Byzantines did something similar:
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
Rather than work from theoretical definitions, it's worth looking at actual examples.

The revolutionary and then Napoleonic armies of France were professional soldiers. They had specific pay rates for specific ranks, and when they didn't get paid (which included not only cash payment but expectations regarding kit and food), they tended to get cranky.

Those who went on Crusade were a variety of types. There were some who went without pay and without expectation of pay. Others did indeed draw income from estates back home, but nevertheless expected the lord they served (not always or even often a king) to provide for them during the campaign. This was fairly common, even outside the actual Crusades. If a lord called up an army there was an expectation he would cover some or all expenses for the duration, or for some fixed period of time, though the participant was also expected to furnish things like armor and mount. It was all very fluid and only partially enforceable. And those who led a crusading army fought without pay. Even the plunder was generally regarded not as profit but as recompense. Then, somewhere down in the middle were the sergeants-at-arms, valets, squires, and other dependents who were more compensated than they were paid. If they were lucky.

In the context of the same period (12thc-14thc), there were also mercenaries, which term shows war as always been a mercantile operation. Italian puts it even more neatly: condotierri, which means contractors. They way this usually worked was that the contracting party--a lord or town--negotiated a deal with some sort of captain, who promised so many men, arms, etc. for some term of service in exchange for cash money. Sometimes also a title or lands, but that was exceptional. The money got paid to the captain, who in turn used it (usually paid in installments) to raise the men he'd promised. Typically a working mercenary captain had a core of men ready to hand, raising more as needed. The ordinary mercenary soldier got paid by the captain. When the campaign went poorly, soldiers tended either to take their pay from the countryside, and when that played out, they just left. Or defected. I know best the mechanics of Italian late medieval mercenaries, but I'd love to hear from other places and times. I doubt Mongols hired mercenaries!

I see a fundamental shift between a standing army and military forces summoned ad hoc, such as so-called feudal armies. It isn't really about who gets paid or even how, but more about what happens when there *isn't* a war. The professional soldier still gets paid, is still at the call of the national government, still trains (at least in theory), and is usually subject to a rather different set of laws and legal administration. That is very different from tribal warriors or invading hordes or the whole apparatus of medieval knighthood. The picture could use some filling out. I'd love to know if Bengal or Moghul forces had mercenaries or "knights". I know we can look to Japanese samurai as an analogue to European knights, but what about Korea or China or southeast Asia?

And we haven't even addressed Rome or the Greeks or the Egyptians or Babylonians or ... well, you get the idea.
 

Mad Swede

Auror
Rather than work from theoretical definitions, it's worth looking at actual examples.

I see a fundamental shift between a standing army and military forces summoned ad hoc, such as so-called feudal armies. It isn't really about who gets paid or even how, but more about what happens when there *isn't* a war. The professional soldier still gets paid, is still at the call of the national government, still trains (at least in theory), and is usually subject to a rather different set of laws and legal administration. That is very different from tribal warriors or invading hordes or the whole apparatus of medieval knighthood. The picture could use some filling out. I'd love to know if Bengal or Moghul forces had mercenaries or "knights". I know we can look to Japanese samurai as an analogue to European knights, but what about Korea or China or southeast Asia?
The shift begins to occur in Western Europe just before the Thirty Years War, in part as a result of the developments in battlefield tactics, weapons and leadership. One of the main constraints on this development was economics, in that weaker countries could not usually afford large standing forces. Some, like the Swedes, got around the problem by being creative in how they funded and organised their military forces. Others had to wait until their economies developed before they could field significant forces.
 

Aldarion

Archmage
The shift begins to occur in Western Europe just before the Thirty Years War, in part as a result of the developments in battlefield tactics, weapons and leadership. One of the main constraints on this development was economics, in that weaker countries could not usually afford large standing forces. Some, like the Swedes, got around the problem by being creative in how they funded and organised their military forces. Others had to wait until their economies developed before they could field significant forces.
I see a fundamental shift between a standing army and military forces summoned ad hoc, such as so-called feudal armies. It isn't really about who gets paid or even how, but more about what happens when there *isn't* a war. The professional soldier still gets paid, is still at the call of the national government, still trains (at least in theory), and is usually subject to a rather different set of laws and legal administration. That is very different from tribal warriors or invading hordes or the whole apparatus of medieval knighthood. The picture could use some filling out. I'd love to know if Bengal or Moghul forces had mercenaries or "knights". I know we can look to Japanese samurai as an analogue to European knights, but what about Korea or China or southeast Asia?
It actually begins to occur in 15th century - first permanent (as in, "always under arms") military forces in Europe (outside the Ottoman Empire) were Hungarian border fort garrisons (established 1420s), French compagnies d'ordonnance (established 1439) and Hungarian Black Army (established 1458).

And yes, it was expensive - Hungary essentially bankrupted itself trying to maintain two separate standing armies. But considering the Ottoman threat, what other option there was?
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
It was indeed about economics, at least in part. Also needed is a solid infrastructure, for soldiers need to be housed, fed, and outfitted on some sort of reliable basis. Many will have families, so the pay has to be sufficient and regular. All of that presupposes a government with sufficient stability, organization, and income to pull it off. It also presupposes the government and people both see the need for such a national expense.

I agree there were precursors as early as the 15thc, I tend to place the shift more in the 16thc when a hundred years of religious warfare caused many governments to see the need for more than just mercenaries. But I would also argue you don't really see standing armies until the 18thc, when a whole range of social and economic changes ranging from the maintenance of colonies to the identification of national prestige with national wealth (and much else) produced a constant and permanent need. We move from some nations having standing armies to no nation being without one.

Epochal change happens like that. It takes epochs to transpire.
 
Top