I am looking for information about arms control prior to gunpowder during the Roman republic if possible but any time periods works.
Regardless of whether or not arms control occurred prior to guns do you think it would be reasonable for a government to forbid weapons?
One I think it would be a great way to discourage dissenters. What population is going to go up against armed soldiers with nothing but knives and rocks. I see such a thing as being of great advantage to a government, evil or benign, simply because it's people have no means to fight back.
I do see one problem with this. It increases the cost of maintaining larger standing armies for the defense of the main and minor settlements because militias would be near impossible to raise at a moments notice.
One other item of note is that the cost of weapons would probablely be a self regulating form of arms control. However I do wonder about professional soldiers and those retired. I would think they would take their weapons and armor home with them, I may be wrong though.
With these points of thinking, I think that control of weapons is going to occur more often in secure areas away from borders.
One last thing. If my above reasoning seems valid what type of weapons would be forbidden to the common population, or even the entire population save for those permitted to own weapons.
Edit: let's keep this on topic and relevant.
Regardless of whether or not arms control occurred prior to guns do you think it would be reasonable for a government to forbid weapons?
One I think it would be a great way to discourage dissenters. What population is going to go up against armed soldiers with nothing but knives and rocks. I see such a thing as being of great advantage to a government, evil or benign, simply because it's people have no means to fight back.
I do see one problem with this. It increases the cost of maintaining larger standing armies for the defense of the main and minor settlements because militias would be near impossible to raise at a moments notice.
One other item of note is that the cost of weapons would probablely be a self regulating form of arms control. However I do wonder about professional soldiers and those retired. I would think they would take their weapons and armor home with them, I may be wrong though.
With these points of thinking, I think that control of weapons is going to occur more often in secure areas away from borders.
One last thing. If my above reasoning seems valid what type of weapons would be forbidden to the common population, or even the entire population save for those permitted to own weapons.
Edit: let's keep this on topic and relevant.
Last edited: