Some scholars say that the American Natives lost between 90-95% of their population when Europeans began migrating to the New World in the 16th Century. How can you guys discount disease as a primary catalyst for the destruction of the Romans? Colony termites can easily replace dead soldiers within a relatively short period, as can healthy civilizations, IF the hive (civilian population) is healthy. These diseases did not discriminate based on education, titles, positions of power, nor any other worldly measure and decimated both aristocrats and plebs.
We assign too much damn importance to individual battles. They mattered when the victor went on to massacre or enslave the civilians, such as Alesia, and the Jewish Revolts. Otherwise, like Vietnam, just killing soldiers and not the civilians supplying, replacing, and reequipping them, takes a long time and really doesn't have a lasting effect on history, at least not as much as anything that indiscriminately kills civilians. Japan was coerced into surrender after two civilian population centers were destroyed (more than that if you include the firebombings), not after its military had been beaten. In fact to do the latter would've meant the death of a whole lot of people, and the extension of the war for years. The Romans knew this, and that's why they had no qualms about doing some of the things that they did. Attacking soldiers only means long, lasting, unfinished wars. You think we Americans would have learned this by now...
We should use our military far less, and only when we're prepared to actually fight an unconditional war. The modern concept of the military is flawed; it's not something to throw around like a sparring match. As long as we do, we should be prepared to be beaten. Soldiers can simply be relatively easily replaced, that's why the Vietnamese KNEW they would ultimately win, period!!! Each year we were only killing a fraction of North Vietnamese soldiers ready for enlistment every year, so the North Vietnamese were actually growing stronger, not weaker. Sorry for not being sentimental, I do respect soldiers... but that's the reality of it. I am definitely not arguing for genocide or for any harm to civilians, I'm saying that we shouldn't use our military in the way we do. There's nothing glorious about war. The Middle East was relatively at peace while authoritarian leaders reigned, as they effectively had enslaved the populace; Saudi Arabia is one prime example.
We assign too much damn importance to individual battles. They mattered when the victor went on to massacre or enslave the civilians, such as Alesia, and the Jewish Revolts. Otherwise, like Vietnam, just killing soldiers and not the civilians supplying, replacing, and reequipping them, takes a long time and really doesn't have a lasting effect on history, at least not as much as anything that indiscriminately kills civilians. Japan was coerced into surrender after two civilian population centers were destroyed (more than that if you include the firebombings), not after its military had been beaten. In fact to do the latter would've meant the death of a whole lot of people, and the extension of the war for years. The Romans knew this, and that's why they had no qualms about doing some of the things that they did. Attacking soldiers only means long, lasting, unfinished wars. You think we Americans would have learned this by now...
We should use our military far less, and only when we're prepared to actually fight an unconditional war. The modern concept of the military is flawed; it's not something to throw around like a sparring match. As long as we do, we should be prepared to be beaten. Soldiers can simply be relatively easily replaced, that's why the Vietnamese KNEW they would ultimately win, period!!! Each year we were only killing a fraction of North Vietnamese soldiers ready for enlistment every year, so the North Vietnamese were actually growing stronger, not weaker. Sorry for not being sentimental, I do respect soldiers... but that's the reality of it. I am definitely not arguing for genocide or for any harm to civilians, I'm saying that we shouldn't use our military in the way we do. There's nothing glorious about war. The Middle East was relatively at peace while authoritarian leaders reigned, as they effectively had enslaved the populace; Saudi Arabia is one prime example.
Christopher Vidrine, 30
