What is the?

What is the /k/ reasoning for why Arab militaries were good in ye olden days but shit in modern times?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    War has changed

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sextuples

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Holy shit le war never changes homosexuals absolutely btfo

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Holy shit le war never changes homosexuals absolutely btfo

      Based. "War never changes" gays in absolute shambles

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Digits confirm, fallout cucks BTFOd

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What a fricking get

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      tim cain bros.... not like this.... not like this

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      well there ya go.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Epic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it was the better intro

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Todd btfo, cheggem.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      WITNESSED

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The number of death in Chinese and Japanese

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      F
      P
      B
      P

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm just here for the screencap

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      SNAAAAAKE!!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      YOU ARE AWAITED IN VALHALA SHINY AND CHROME

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      MGS4 chads rise up

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      witnessed

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      naturalbornchiller
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I witnessed a truth in the world.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      WITNESSED

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Sex
      Sex
      >Sex
      Sex

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Unironically this.

      Tribalism has become a massive liability in modern Arab armies. Hell, it was a liability even back during the days of the Caliphate, but it's substantially worse now.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      damn son

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Cap' me senpai

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Those Digits
      Put me in the screencap

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      BEHOLDERED AND CHECKENED

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      put me in the screencap

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      witnessed
      savage post, savage digits

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It did.
      Absolute digits confirm.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      holy digits

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's like asking: Why were italian militaries good in ancient times, but shit in WW2? Anyway, God has revealed the truth here Actual military historians hate that dumb Fallout line with a passion.

      Why are they shit now? Because nomadic pastoralists are not great in the modern age, and weren't even great for a while before it.
      - Agricultural improvements tipped the balance further in favour of agrarian societies. In particular the nourishment gap went away because agricultural societies could afford enough of a surplus to actually feed their soldiers well; in the past, nomadic pastoralists tended to be larger and stronger than peasant soldiers due to dietary differences. But the agricultural societies were also just fielding way more soldiers.
      - Development of heavy weaponry, particularly cannons, resulted in a substantial advantage for societies that had actual cities where heavy industry could produce said weapons. Nomadic pastoralist empires did try to found cities like that, to varying success, as they recognized their importance, but the most successful ones were the ones who basically became settled altogether (such as the Ottoman Turks).
      - Improvements in communication and logistics began to take away a lot of the "hit and run" advantage that nomadic pastoralists had in warfare.

      Take away all the advantages of being nomadic pastoralists in ancient society, and throw in centuries of Islam losing its early spirit of unity and fervour, and you're left with a bunch of tribalistic goatfrickers whose society never developed the kind of national mentality needed to field a large, disciplined, cooperating army with a strong NCO corps.

      Basically [...] fpbp

      Good answers. Though the two most decisive inovations by far were automatic firearms and the railway. The railway allowed agrarian armies the same/superior logistics and movement speed as mounted nomands even deep in the stepp.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A feudal society can conduct medieval warfare just fine. A feudal society is going to struggle hard at adapting to modern warfare.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Please don't use the term "feudalism" in regards to medieval nations that never had feudal institutions, namely the private land ownership for militry service.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nope.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I insist. Feudalism, particularly in Western Europe followed a significant decentralization of government and a drastic shift from the previously highly centralized states and had as much impact on the development of Western Societies as the rise of the towns and cities as well as the prominent city-states. It was very much a continuation of the tradition of less centralized, more limited governments that have existed in Europe since ancient Greece and continue to this day.

          To compare that system to a despotic, all-powerful tyranny of the rest of the world that has no accountability, no counterweight and nothing but a facade behind warlordism that has always existed throughout Africa to Asia is to disparage and put down the historically valuable and uniquely European way of society that largely shaped the European world into the early stages of the way it is today.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Okay fine.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This.
            Limit of tyranny power in Europe played huge rule in kickstarting progress and industrial revolution. Weak government made environment where individualism can prosper. Artisans, merchants, inventors all could prosper via their own skill and merit. When in Asian despotism everything individual has can be conficated by state's strongmen at whim and there is no environment for business and innovation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            with no "y" tyranny is just troony

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              trann

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It was de-facto feudalistic even if the sultan liked to pretend your seemingly autonomous tribe that spent 50% of the year in his territory and was dependent on him for trade of which it would starve without was its own separate political entity.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Each non white race has limited capabilities. Black folk caped at stone age, south americans were barely in an early bronze age, muslims and asians got stuck at feudalism

      Feudalism doesn't just mean primitive, it refers to an actual system of government. For example, the island of Sark in the English Channel remained a feudal state until 2008. Other than a few eccentricities (like the local lord banning cars from ever being used there due to noise and pollution, so everything is horse-drawn), it was never some backwards medieval holdover as far as technology went.
      I'd argue feudalism wasn't even that bad as far as more authoritarian systems went, it was more of a confusing mess of power being delegated to other people in incremental amounts. It's part of why Sark even became part of England. When the Normans conquered England, William became King of England but remained the Duke of Normandy as well. The latter title would imply that William owed homage to the French king, but the former would imply he was equal to the French king. This led to what historians call the Angevin Empire, where the House of Plantagenet directly controlled most of France (they had autonomy within in France for a while) as well as England simply because the English king was also a vassal of the French king due to a loophole. This is part of what sparked the beginning of the Hundred Years War, the English had been throwing their weight around since they were the most powerful vassals of the French king and it was honestly questionable as to who was actually in charge of anyone for a while. It was during the Hundred Years War that England tried invading France to consolidate their power, since after Richard the Lionhearted died the French sensed weakness and began undercutting English influence in their lands. Sark and the Channel Islands are the only English holdings during that war that they managed to keep to this day.
      Compare all that to more Eastern governments where there's zero question about power, the local king has all the power and everyone else has none, and when he dies everything collapses and a bunch of warlords pop up.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Feudalism doesn't just mean primitive, it refers to an actual system of government
        Specifically one based on personal loyalty in contrast to say rule of law.

        >I'd argue feudalism wasn't even that bad as far as more authoritarian systems went, it was more of a confusing mess of power being delegated to other people in incremental amounts
        The problem with feudalism is that it is dependent on the personal leadership of a particular individual, and so tends not to survive the death of that leader, leading to as you say the phenomenon where
        >when he dies everything collapses

        We see the same mechanisms today in gang warfare... and office politics.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Inb4 some fricking Frog or Francophile tries to claim the Normans were Frenchmen.
        Even in the most negative view of them, they were completely culturally integrated by the time of Henry III, who learned Old English in addition to the French "lingua franca" of the European upper class. I will die on this hill if I must.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There must have been some degree of French-ness to them, as the legal system's lexicon is brimming with French words introduced by the Normans.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, French was the international language of prestige in those days, and came to combine with the higher Latin-based register already present in Old English for many "fancier" words.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          the creation of English nobility and monarchy separated from the continent only came about during the hundred year war.
          Not only did they still hold land/titles on the continent a lot of people on the continent held land/titles in England. They where also marrying across the channel all the time. Henry III was not just born from such a marriage but marries a french noble as well.
          So every generation one of the parents would just speak French the other parent would have been raised speaking French and learned English as a second language so he could communicate with the commoners.
          It is only when due to the war English nobility stops marring across the channel as much that their primary language starts to shift to English. Leading to the creation of modern English where over a quarter of the words are just French. More than all the Germanic language words in it.
          The English you speak today is more frog than english.
          For fricks sake your current royals are just a bunch of Germans larping as Brits.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            i agreed with you up to the point that you said that more of modern english is frog than anything else. It flatly is not. There's more latin influence on english than french. I'm not disagreeing with you on any of the former, but anon even a cursory (oh hey, another latin word not french as many people try suggest) search will show you that english is a germanic language with heavy romance language influence, not the other way around.

            Also, the peple suggesting that arab militaries do not suck because of jordan,U.A.E. or whatever other military... when was the last time any of them actually fought a war & not just exposed to the "tip of the spear" special forces those nations have. even the saudi perfomance in yemen has been pathetic, even with US support.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I'm talking about the vocabulary not the grammar. But yes Latin is about as big of a source of words as French. Combined they represent about 60 percent of english vocabulary.
              Now that is just counting words and not ascribing value to them. The core of the words we use everyday are Germanic in origin.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The English you speak today is more frog than english
            Opinion discarded

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            i agreed with you up to the point that you said that more of modern english is frog than anything else. It flatly is not. There's more latin influence on english than french. I'm not disagreeing with you on any of the former, but anon even a cursory (oh hey, another latin word not french as many people try suggest) search will show you that english is a germanic language with heavy romance language influence, not the other way around.

            Also, the peple suggesting that arab militaries do not suck because of jordan,U.A.E. or whatever other military... when was the last time any of them actually fought a war & not just exposed to the "tip of the spear" special forces those nations have. even the saudi perfomance in yemen has been pathetic, even with US support.

            >The English you speak today is more frog than english
            Opinion discarded

            This first homosexual is completely sidestepping what I'm trying to say: Francophiles like to claim that every king post-union of the Houses of Normandy and Wessex acted as nakedly French as Richard Coeur de Lion when that simply isn't the case. From Henry III onwards, the Angevins demonstrably began to culturally and governmentally "identify"/"center"/"completely assimilate and become English" in England, and Henry III is notable for being the first to actually learn Old English as a second language, which the subsequent kings did as well (Longshanks used anti-French rhetoric when making a public statement about potential French invasion over Scottish bullshit, even claiming that were they to succeed, they would "wipe out the English language, a detestable plan"). Yes, it wasn't until the tail end of the HYW that English became the sole language, but even the strongest "lol, lmao, the Angevins dragged you into shit while not caring one lick about England" argument really falls apart after King John.
            Richard the Lionheart was the worst of it, that's for sure.

            I can write more walls of text if you want tbh

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              NTA but I'm interested.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tribal allegiances arent suited for modern warfare

    Kinship however was the only basis in forming an army until conscription so they were just normal armies for most of history

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The soviet union helped them overthrow their old governments and militaries and trained the new ones.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >looks at Saudi-Arabia, UAE or Jordan's military performance
      Nah man, they just fricking suck at every type of modern warfare.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    a couple of generations of inbreeding

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm honestly surprised Pakistan even functions as a state and terrified they and India have nukes.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Pakistan is a country held together by hatred of Indians, the desire not to share the same country as the Afghans, and Iran being the wrong type of muslim

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well they don't really function, sort of an extended hill-people family that doesn't like the Black folk next door

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Each non white race has limited capabilities. Black folk caped at stone age, south americans were barely in an early bronze age, muslims and asians got stuck at feudalism

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Please don't use the term "feudalism" in regards to medieval nations that never had feudal institutions, namely the private land ownership for militry service.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Anon, it's feudal to tying to get them to stop using that word incorrectly.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You shouldn't take that for granite.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Arab militaries
    Arabs relied on slave soldiers, ghilmen, mameluks and most famously jannisaries. Also most of the soldiers during the muslim expansion were not arabs but steppes horsemen.
    The most famous muslim soldier Saladin was a kurd for example, at a time before hundreds of generations of inbreeding devastated muslim genetics.
    I hope this helps you understand arabs are worthless Black folk who could never maintain a civilisation on their own.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >most famously jannisaries
      That was an ottoman creation moron

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ancient arabs had great leaders, a sense of nobility and righteous ideals

    Modern arabs have shit leaders, an unwarranted self-aggrandizing culture and rabid zealots

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >a sense of nobility
      >"An episode during the battle that demonstrated the rift between the armies occurred when a Mamluk rider, dressed in heavy armour, rode to within only a few steps from the French lines and demanded a duel. The French responded with gunfire."
      Fricking frogs. Why do they have no sense of honor?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Big armored muzzie on a horse rides up to you and angrily shouts something in sand-speak
        I'd shoot too, ngl

      • 1 month ago
        naturalbornchiller

        if you're fighting fair, you're doing it wrong.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Develops bioweapons and nuclear bombs in secret so my dysgenic rat-people race can crawl through the irradiated ruins of your once-noble kind.
          Out-fricking-played.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I've seen the vatnik version so many times I forgot that this is the original

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Contemporary symmetrical/conventional warfare employs highly advanced and networked technology that sandBlack folk can't really develop, produce or operate at a level comparable to a first world nation.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Islam didn't degenerate the population to such a degree back then.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is the real answer. They peaked at the age where Islam had the least sway over their empires. Now they have a frankensteined ideology of wahabism and leftover communism with a dash of 7th century Islamism for a good measure

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because mass spamming religious zealots with near peer level armies is much more effective than mass spamming armies of nowhere near peer level religious zealots. The west made war a specialized vocation and invested trillions of dollars into modern weaponry, tactics, and training. The Middle East just buy our hand me downs or more likely Russian weapons because they can’t afford our literal garbage, strap bombs to themselves and try to sneakily kamikaze our soldiers because they can’t win in actual fire fights, or just machine gun unarmed civilians and claim it is some kind of major military feat before getting their homelands bombed to oblivion.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In ye olden days they weren’t as inbred, and they happened to roll perfect with having the right people around to tard wrangle all the tribes and foreign soldiers. Same reason why Mongolia peaked with Genghis.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Arabs never did well is the truth
    >Seljuks
    Turks
    >Saladin
    Kurd
    >Iberia
    Moors and Berbers, and when the christians pushed back they had to call for more berber tribals for help
    >Ottomans
    Turks again
    >Mameluks
    Literally Turkkish and eastern european slaves who seized control

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They were never good.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Byzantine
    >military
    >treatise
    Kek I bet the guys who were losing to everyone for six centuries until they started hiring Frankish, Slav and Steppe mercenaries are a great source on military matters.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Kek I bet the guys who were losing to everyone for six centuries until they started hiring Frankish, Slav and Steppe mercenaries are a great source on military matters.
      thanks for letting us know you know shit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Byzatine military

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >i wish muhammad wouldve stroked out in that damn cave

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >frick and win against american and their alliances. wish own dicks at faces of US israeli lobbies. walk into the BRICS.

    kek.. looks like arabs are still winning.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      As always, dying in troves to inconvenience white people is the only way for the turdies to get back at those that are so infintely superior to them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No one is taking brics seriously rajeesh. We're just itching for Chinese gibs, the rest of brics can frick off

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They can't keep up with technology.

    The days of hundreds of highly charged men charging towards their enemy are long gone. Now they can be picked off quite comfortably from the air.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Muslims got so fricked in the crusades that they became permanently moronic and refused to ever change.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think they were ever smart to begin with, all they had was crazy numbers to overwhelm opposition with.

      Basically Russian orc tactics but brown edition

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That and gnosticism demoralized egyptians and levantines, do notice the only regions of the Mediterranean where they couldn't take over or got btfo after a while were catholic, the Catholic Church was not just the EU but the NATO of their time, the crusades may no have succeded in wiping out Dar Al Islam but it drained the muslims from the military capability to attack western Europe for centuries until Europe became too technologically and demographically strong for the muslim nations to directly fight. Nowadays all they have left is terrorism and emotional blackmail.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Arab Muslim armies that exploded outward from the Arabian peninsula in the 7th century were highly motivated and experienced through generations of tribal warfare. They were also attacking enemies who were already weakened (Byzantines, Persians, Germanics in North Africa and Iberia). Once the initial conquests were over, within a couple of generations the Arabs had intermingled with the local populations and had less cause of opportunity to practice the skills of warfare that had made them strong in the first place. The Arab's themselves recognized this and tried to counter it by co-opting more warlike horse peoples on their borders and granting them land and supplies in exchange for fighting against the infidel. The Seljuk Turks are perhaps the most famous example of these ghazis, or border warriors.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The Arab Muslim armies that exploded outward from the Arabian peninsula in the 7th century were highly motivated and experienced through generations of tribal warfare.
      But they were actually united under a common goal which is why another tribe didn't do the same thing. They were able to integrate new tribes and lead larger and larger forces over time. The reason for their success was centralization. The slow down after the massive initial "burst" over a few years was to centralize power and the massive amount of new territory not because they were incapable of going any further.
      Centralization is also why many middle eastern countries fail. They are not truly nations in a proper sense just lines on a map. There is no such thing as an "Afghan" like there is an "American" in the national sense. I can take a random person from California and compare them to a random person in New York and they are largely similar, I can force them to move into each other's states and they can do so without much issue. I grab two random people from Afghanistan and they're from completely different tribes and speak different languages and they may as well be from different countries and neither of them have received a standardized education or anything like that in the western sense.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I see what you're trying to say here, but I think you're slightly overstating how homogeneous the US is. While we've certainly turned into a stronger national unit over the decades, especially as trains, cars, planes, phones, and the internet have shortened distances, but there are still some noticeable cultural differences across regions. Traveling all the way across the country and integrating into a new community is possible, but not seamless. And from a subjective, personal point of view, I'd argue that anyone who does make such a change probably didn't belong wherever he started in the first place.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ironically you see american muslims have been going through the same process, by this point they are evolving into something which is different from African-Asian Islam:

          https://www.pewresearch.org/short-read/2021/08/04/women-are-becoming-more-involved-in-u-s-mosques/

          https://www.ispu.org/american-muslim-poll-2022-1/

          We are watching the emergence of a new branch of Islam adapted not to the tribal realities of the Mideast but to the social paradoxes of the West, I suspect given the trends what we will see is a more "egalitarian oriented" Islam, for example, due the simple fact their finances will become grinded by the current trends, student loans and mortgage will become more and more of an issue to be perceived through the optics of Islam rather than the clashes in the Middle East which, while visually shocking is ultimately "foreign news":

          https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/young-muslims-want-the-student-loans-system-to-change-heres-why_uk_61795440e4b066de4f6a46d6

          https://www.newarab.com/news/what-halal-mortgage-canada-wants-approve-muslims

          It may be in the coming years muslim political unrest and even armed clashes would come not as support for MENA, but demands for better social programs.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Defeated by the square, been behind ever since

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What is the /k/ reasoning for why Arab militaries were good in ye olden days
    They werent.

    The Byzantines and Persians had fought each other to exhaustion in the century prior to the Arab conquest. Thus the Arabs were able to take clay from each, once the clay recovered they were able to use it to fund further expansion.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The destruction of the Baghdad house of wisdom.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Their backbone strength always came from the tribal chads, precursors of the Houthis and various Afghani tribes in nature. Not great at technological development or highly organized warfare, but their fighting spirit is still blatantly useful even in this day and age. Saudi Arabia and the U.S. launched A LOT of expensive toys up their respective asses, and accomplished little if anything. There's a cycle in Arab countries where the cities become decadent shitheaps and the tribal chads swoop in to return things to SOVLFUL basedness, before succumbing to those skinned grapes and harem chicks themselves for the cycle to repeat itself.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A strong army is now a bigger threat than a weak army since the west has an interest in punishing Arab warmongers.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They overran exhausted Roman, Persian. And Ottomqn Empires. Now they exist to kill civilians who threaten the regime.

    Different skillset.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Arab armies were composed of nomadic pastoralists. Nomadic pastoralists tend to be pretty good at things that translate well to warfare, such as archery (for hunting) and especially horseback archery, which was a rather potent military technique in past times. Add to that the fact that nomadic pastoralists usually have a disproportionate amount of horses relative to their population and are good at living off the land and you have what is by default an elite force.

    Take that and combine it with a unifying factor (Islam), and then add in their civilized neighbours being in conditions of decline (Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602) and you have a recipe for a nomad army making massive territorial gains. Similar thing happened with the Mongols. Nomadic pastoralists get unified by Temujin, then push into a divided and weak China, a new and weak Khwarezmian Empire, declining Islamic states further south, and a weak and divided collection of Rus principalities.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why are they shit now? Because nomadic pastoralists are not great in the modern age, and weren't even great for a while before it.
      - Agricultural improvements tipped the balance further in favour of agrarian societies. In particular the nourishment gap went away because agricultural societies could afford enough of a surplus to actually feed their soldiers well; in the past, nomadic pastoralists tended to be larger and stronger than peasant soldiers due to dietary differences. But the agricultural societies were also just fielding way more soldiers.
      - Development of heavy weaponry, particularly cannons, resulted in a substantial advantage for societies that had actual cities where heavy industry could produce said weapons. Nomadic pastoralist empires did try to found cities like that, to varying success, as they recognized their importance, but the most successful ones were the ones who basically became settled altogether (such as the Ottoman Turks).
      - Improvements in communication and logistics began to take away a lot of the "hit and run" advantage that nomadic pastoralists had in warfare.

      Take away all the advantages of being nomadic pastoralists in ancient society, and throw in centuries of Islam losing its early spirit of unity and fervour, and you're left with a bunch of tribalistic goatfrickers whose society never developed the kind of national mentality needed to field a large, disciplined, cooperating army with a strong NCO corps.

      Basically

      War has changed

      fpbp

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Why are they shit now? Because nomadic pastoralists are not great in the modern age, and weren't even great for a while before it.

        Wrong. Their hardy and militaristic lifestyle actually made them so good, they were a threat to settled peoples well into the 20th century. In America, the Indian Wars finally came to an end in 1924. In Russia, the Russians were only finally able to achieve dominance over the Turkic steppe tribes thanks to the extensive use of aircrafts by the Red Army in the early 1930's.

        Material superiority is an enormous advantage in war between conventional armies, but there's a limit to its advantage. When the battlespace switches from conventional battles to asymmetric warfare, the advantage dissipates very quickly. Especially when facing opponents that are highly mobile, know the land, and are able to pick and choose engagements.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          For additional evidence, look at every insurgency in the last 100-some years.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ok...the Forest Brothers. Classic example. Or Chechens, there's another staple. Guess what happened to both?
            When they lost the cities, they lost relevance.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >limit to its advantage.
          It's not a physical limit. That's the industrial age (and arguably gunpowder age) difference. Once, partisans were physically viable combatants. Now their physical power is irrelevant. They'd auto-lose any combat. They depend on the industrial powers refusing to brute force exterminate their society.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That's the industrial age (and arguably gunpowder age) difference. Once, partisans were physically viable combatants. Now their physical power is irrelevant. They'd auto-lose any combat. They depend on the industrial powers refusing to brute force exterminate their society.

            Even in the industrial age, industrialized powers struggled with defeating peoples accustomed to asymmetrical warfare. A perfect modern day example are the Tuaregs. The colonial French couldn't subdue them, nor could any of the post-colonial African countries that border the Sahara Desert; Gaddafi tried multiple times to genocide them. But they're still a free self-governing people, much to the annoyance of the regional governments.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Inbreeding and war nows can't be won by 30 dudes on camels

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Arabs had horses. Then Turks came with better horses
    Then people started having cars

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *