Homosexuals caused Srebrenica!

[toughbutfair]

Exhausted by debt and rampant inflation, Yugoslavia was well on its way to dissolution by the late 1980s. And for those who couldn't see this writing on the wall, the behaviour of Milosevic in Kosovo in 1989 would have confirmed fears that the future within The Union of South Slavs would be one of submitting to Serb hegemony.

What would you have had the West do - ignore the democratically expressed wishes of Croats and Slovenes for independence?

If America had done nothing people here would criticise them for not intervening in a country with no oil and say this proves the reasoning for Iraq.

[cgcsb2]

It's a very serious issue and I shouldn't make light of it, especially as 7,000 people were killed, but anybody else think that perhaps the Dutch army were confused when one of the gay soldiers started singing "In the Navy" by the Village People?

(apologies to gay friends for blatant stereotyping)

[Riadach]

That's one of the reasons the Irish made up a third of the British Army at the height of Empire.

And not to mention the roles of the Welsh and the Highland Scots.

I think Vegetius may explain why:

We shall next examine whether the city or the country produces the best and most capable soldiers. No one, I imagine, can doubt that the peasants are the most fit to carry arms for they from their infancy have been exposed to all kinds of weather and have been brought up to the hardest labor. They are able to endure the greatest heat of the sun, are unacquainted with the use of baths, and are strangers to the other luxuries of life. They are simple, content with little, inured to all kinds of fatigue, and prepared in some measure for a military life by their continual employment in their country-work, in handling the spade, digging trenches and carrying burdens. In cases of necessity, however, they are sometimes obliged to make levies in the cities. And these men, as soon as enlisted, should be taught to work on entrenchments, to march in ranks, to carry heavy burdens, and to bear the sun and dust. Their meals should be coarse and moderate; they should be accustomed to lie sometimes in the open air and sometimes in tents. After this, they should be instructed in the use of their arms. And if any long expedition is planned, they should be encamped as far as possible from the temptations of the city. By these precautions their minds, as well as their bodies, will properly be prepared for the service.

‘For it is certain that the less a man is acquainted with the sweets of life, the less reason he has to be afraid of death.’

Digital | Attic - Warfare : De Re Militari Book I: The Selection and Training of New Levies

It's also interesting that the Western and Easterns Roman Empire were in constant contention for the province of Illyria, because it was a good source of rural Italic-speaking poor, who could be drawn on for efficient levies, as opposed to relying on the Germanic foederatii. Although Vegetius may be biased and certainly disdained for the decay of the Roman Empire, it certainly would add fuel to the claim that decadence does indeed produce military ineffectiveness. Rome's advancement in urbanisation may indeed have ultimately been its downfall. It also may explain ideas in 12th century French romances which idolise the rural orientated knight, but treat the burgher based militia with disdain. And even today, recruiting policy seems to favour those less acquainted with the sweets of life, given that military is predisposed to target areas of urban poor for recruitment. I'm certainly sure that the Taliban favour those with less reason to be afraid of death.

[Thranduil]

And even today, recruiting policy seems to favour those less acquainted with the sweets of life, given that military is predisposed to target areas of urban poor for recruitment. I'm certainly sure that the Taliban favour those with less reason to be afraid of death.

I think that has more to do with the fact that the military doesn't offer salaries of the level required to tempt the well off more than with any theory that the 'lower' socioeconomic classes are more disposed to behaving fearlessly on the battlefield.

If we are to apply the theory you have outlined to modern warfare such as in Afghanistan then being urbanised and modernised has it's advantages too in a way that wouldn't have been possible in the ancient world - namely in military technology. If in the ancient world some power gained a technological advantage it could be easily stolen from them - but that's not the case today where such advantages rely on technology too sophisticated to be easily stolen or copied (not to mention considering the materials required). Technology's involvement in war means some powers can still decimate their enemies from a distance without fear of losing too many men in the process (and thus be decadent yet also successful in military matters), if (as seems to be the trend) the movement towards regarding populations as fair game in war continues to gather steam then technology will win the day even for decadent powers. The Dutch backing off seems to agree with your thesis when applied to it (the Dutch comiing from a well urbanised and well looked after population) but don't forget the second part when the NATO bombed Serbia anyway (using the technological advantage) and got to ultimately win the day regardless.

[Riadach]

I think that has more to do with the fact that the military doesn't offer salaries of the level required to tempt the well off more than with any theory that the 'lower' socioeconomic classes are more disposed to behaving fearlessly on the battlefield.

But that in itself is an estimation of the value of one's life is it not? If one person thinks that 30,000 a year is enough to put one's life in danger, whereas another doesn't, surely the latter places a higher value on their life than the former. The adage about 'the less a man is acquainted with the sweets of life, the less he fears death' seems to hold through. It's also interesting to notice that the Romans too offered social status, privilege, and social recognition in exchange for military service. The U.S. army offers its recruits, wage packets, pensions, recognition and education. None of these are attractive to the middle-class earner but certainly draw in those who wouldn't otherwise have these opportunities. There was little motivation for a citizen to become a soldier, neither is their motivation for a middle class educated U.S. citizen to become one, and Vegetius, although writing would have easily justified this.

If we are to apply the theory you have outlined to modern warfare such as in Afghanistan then being urbanised and modernised has it's advantages too in a way that wouldn't have been possible in the ancient world - namely in military technology. If in the ancient world some power gained a technological advantage it could be easily stolen from them - but that's not the case today where such advantages rely on technology too sophisticated to be easily stolen or copied (not to mention considering the materials required). Technology's involvement in war means some powers can still decimate their enemies from a distance without fear of losing too many men in the process (and thus be decadent yet also successful in military matters), if (as seems to be the trend) the movement towards regarding populations as fair game in war continues to gather steam then technology will win the day even for decadent powers. The Dutch backing off seems to agree with your thesis when applied to it (the Dutch comiing from a well urbanised and well looked after population) but don't forget the second part when the NATO bombed Serbia anyway (using the technological advantage) and got to ultimately win the day regardless.

But I think you mistake Vegetius's point. He certainly wasn't saying that armies from primarily rural countries devasted armies from primarily urban ones. It was merely a reference to the calibre of soldiers. I'm quite sure he appreciated the technological inventiveness that urbanisation brought, but realised that it doesn't make up for the effectiveness of hardy soldiers. Technology can decimate, but it fails in assymetric warfare, given most assymetric wars since the 1950s have favoured the weaker part. I think even the Afghanistan example shows this. The U.S. and U.K. are all to willing to use airstrikes and drones, keeping their military out of harms way, which unfortunately leads to indiscriminate killing, whereas keeping it simple, putting their soldiers in a difficult environment would actually reduce collateral damage, and in the long term, make the war easier to win, although at a higher cost. One wonders had soldiers entered the Bora Bora mountains, and air bombardment not been heavily relied upon, would we still be searching for Bin Laden?

[Thranduil]

But that in itself is an estimation of the value of one's life is it not? If one person thinks that 30,000 a year is enough to put one's life in danger, whereas another doesn't, surely the latter places a higher value on their life than the former.

It depends on whether or not joining the army is seen in the terms of 'putting one's life in danger', is there truly a widespread belief anymore in the dangers of military service? The proportion of deaths endured by the US and UK in the Middle East is small - i don't believe it's true people consider military versus some other job on the basis of a threat to their life and decide to go for the other because they are afraid to die, i don't think the possibility of deaths or injury are really that big in the minds of people (in Western countries) considering the career and then there are others who swing the opposite direction and choose it because there is a higher than average likelihood of danger (same reason people climb mountains). I agree it was true for the ancient world though (and sometimes i grant you it is true for the modern world - as in Vietnam).

But I think you mistake Vegetius's point. He certainly wasn't saying that armies from primarily rural countries devasted armies from primarily urban ones. It was merely a reference to the calibre of soldiers.

No i didn't mistake it and i never claimed that. My point was that technology changes the ancient world maxim (as exemplified in the fall of the Roman Empire which you describe) that a harsh upbringing gives you an overall military advantage that counts at the end of the day, with massive technological involvement the 'toughness' of soldiers might not matter so much anymore.

It used to be that kings marched with their soldiers and even took to the battlefield, then that changed completely (the array of obese, soft, draft dodging warmongers in the last US administration is a case in point of how much that has changed), then the kings no longer marched and saw war but still ordered the pieces around on the battlefield, now we seem to be entering a stage in which even soldiers can be kept safe from harm and detached from the killing (a man on a ship pressing a button that releases death into the sky killing someone he will never see or even know about), i suppose when taken to it's extremity it will result in a completely technological war fought with drones and machines (some armies are already doing that).

I'm quite sure he appreciated the technological inventiveness that urbanisation brought, but realised that it doesn't make up for the effectiveness of hardy soldiers.

Much more so in the ancient world, if the decadent high tech powers ever completely abandon the idea of civilian enemy rights then militarily every war would be a cakewalk (just blow up every sign of settlement and move on).

Technology can decimate, but it fails in assymetric warfare, given most assymetric wars since the 1950s have favoured the weaker part.

I think it is very heavily involved in assymetric warfare too, night vision goggles, Kevlar armor, high tech propaganda, ability to call in air strikes, satelite support etc. The problem is how to analyse the results of assymetric wars - they never end with every rebel killed or captured and usually end with either a clear victory for the smaller, irregular force (Vietnam), a negotiated settlement (NI) or the larger power defers responsibility - ie set up a puppet regime and leave it to continue your policies and deal with rebels.

[Riadach]

It depends on whether or not joining the army is seen in the terms of 'putting one's life in danger', is there truly a widespread belief anymore in the dangers of military service? The proportion of deaths endured by the US and UK in the Middle East is small - i don't believe it's true people consider military versus some other job on the basis of a threat to their life and decide to go for the other because they are afraid to die, i don't think the possibility of deaths or injury are really that big in the minds of people (in Western countries) considering the career and then there are others who swing the opposite direction and choose it because there is a higher than average likelihood of danger (same reason people climb mountains). I agree it was true for the ancient world though (and sometimes i grant you it is true for the modern world - as in Vietnam).

Ah now, I think that is exactly one of the elements on considers when entering theatres of war. All military men are asked to put the interests of their nation above that of there on, and expected to make the ultimate sacrifice and not to run from the ultimate peril. If in signing that contract, one is not putting a price on ones life, then I can't see what else would be?

No i didn't mistake it and i never claimed that. My point was that technology changes the ancient world maxim (as exemplified in the fall of the Roman Empire which you describe) that a harsh upbringing gives you an overall military advantage that counts at the end of the day, with massive technological involvement the 'toughness' of soldiers might not matter so much anymore.

But clearly it does, as in the afghan example.No amount of technological effectivness allows you to penetrate mountain strongholds. You still need enormous amounts of footwork.

It used to be that kings marched with their soldiers and even took to the battlefield, then that changed completely (the array of obese, soft, draft dodging warmongers in the last US administration is a case in point of how much that has changed), then the kings no longer marched and saw war but still ordered the pieces around on the battlefield, now we seem to be entering a stage in which even soldiers can be kept safe from harm and detached from the killing (a man on a ship pressing a button that releases death into the sky killing someone he will never see or even know about), i suppose when taken to it's extremity it will result in a completely technological war fought with drones and machines (some armies are already doing that).

It won't though, at least not by both sides. Any two armies advanced enough to fight with such sophisticated weapons will probably not resort to war in the first place.

Much more so in the ancient world, if the decadent high tech powers ever completely abandon the idea of civilian enemy rights then militarily every war would be a cakewalk (just blow up every sign of settlement and move on).

I suppose that is a fair point in regard to technology. It could be argued though, that its effectivness only relies on abandoning the rules of war, could such be said for the effectiveness of hardened soldiers? I still don't see any manner in which they can be easily replaced by technology, especially in irregular warfare.

I think it is very heavily involved in assymetric warfare too, night vision goggles, Kevlar armor, high tech propaganda, ability to call in air strikes, satelite support etc. The problem is how to analyse the results of assymetric wars - they never end with every rebel killed or captured and usually end with either a clear victory for the smaller, irregular force (Vietnam), a negotiated settlement (NI) or the larger power defers responsibility - ie set up a puppet regime and leave it to continue your policies and deal with rebels.

But its use does not mean it compensates for hardy soldiers. The main reason why assymetric warfare is successful, is that the smaller party, as of necessity is more willing to fight than the larger one. It needs to because fundamentally it has no other battlefield to fight on. Therefore, if the conditions are harsh, it must endure them. The larger parties have no such impositions. If the war gets too tough, then it can, indeed through the force of popular opinion, and soldier dissatisfaction, must withdraw and come to terms. It is irregular warfare, in which the smaller party need not win, just not lose, and the larger party must not merely fight, but must maintain the will to fight. That is exactly where soldier hardiness comes into it. No amount of technology will compensate for the fact that the enemy irregulars are of necessity comfortable in the environment they fight in, if your own soldiers cannot reach the same benchmark, then your attempts are doomed to failure.