The state was unable to financially support enough legionary troops (especially with the loss of Spain and North Africa), and unable to convert its unarmed populace for self-defense in a timely manner. [More]What is it that's necessary to the security of a free state again...?
And why it it that some would have us believe eviscerating that is "reasonable"?
This link is a few years old, but it contains a lesson that is timeless.
[Via cycjec]
2 comments:
Best observation under "musings":
"The tale of an unarmed civilian population ringed by a professional but underfunded army is a very unhappy tale indeed. If Ward-Perkins makes the case for the substantial sophistication of the Roman economy (based upon earlier ancient economies of Greek and Etruscan settlers) then he also makes the case that a populace stripped of its ability to defend itself, or regenerate its local or regional economies, is subject to catastrophic collapses in living standards and population. This bodes ill for modern nations which have contracted the tools of violence exclusively to professionals. The American capacity, through its vast reserve and National Guard system, to deploy force in federal structure gives it a flexibility and security that other Western nations (and other Anglosphere members) cannot match."
Plus the armed civilian population aka milita.
Know history or be condemned to repeat it.
"Dithering", or whatever Ozombie is doing about Afghanistan(now I understand he wants to hit the accelerator) ain't going to be nothin' compared to what happens when the Army and all aren't PAID. Or their pay is worthless. Think of thousands of excitable young lads with no money, nothing to do, and thousands of tons of munitions nearby. When Caeser wasn't given his due, and told to wait in Northern Italy for further instructions,pay,provender,etc, he went straight to Rome and took the Republic apart. Instead of the Rubicon, some enterprising general may cross the Potomac, with the III Legion.
Post a Comment