current war in donbass has shown that conscripts cant fight on equal footing with professional soldiers and mercenaries.
Conscript armies are obsolete
Liam Ortiz
Other urls found in this thread:
m.youtube.com
bitchute.com
twitter.com
Carter Wright
Nooooo, all men must defend their je... HOMELAND. My heckin homelandino!
Owen Allen
Based and Good.
Kevin Phillips
white power, bro
Z
Cooper Rogers
Machiavelli already convincingly established that chasers of coin are ultimately a shoddy basis to rely on for your empire. Soldiers must come from the land and people themselves, or they will have no loyalty to it. But it is true that mercenaries can be very good soldiers.
Levi Edwards
Niggers arent people.
Besides, the villagers were supporting the jihadis and that is just like real counterinsurgency looks like.
Camden Bailey
I could look up the passage in the Prince and the comment by Frederik, but I found. A summary:
> "Good arms," in Machiavelli's view, can be only the state's own troops; that is, its own citizens, rather than outsiders. Keeping with his view that independence and self-sufficiency are the only security, Machiavelli asserts that dependence on foreign troops is the kiss of death to a prince's power. He had good reasons to think so, having observed the widespread use of foreign mercenaries in Italy and what he felt were its disastrous consequences. He blamed the mercenaries for lacking the spirit of soldiers who were defending their own lands and homes. In his opinion, the mercenaries were lazy, looking only for the easiest way to get their money, regardless of whether this benefited the state that employed them. They were also untrustworthy, because if they worked for a prince's money, they were probably just as willing to work for the prince's opponent.
Notice also Machiavelli's characteristic assessment of human selfishness: If you hire a talented mercenary who is successful, you will never be safe, because he will want to take over your position.
Mercenaries were common in the Renaissance. Ironically, the most famous were the Italian condottieri, sophisticated professional soldiers who spent their lives serving various employers. Criticism of them was commonplace and not necessarily always deserved, because many of them were highly successful and loyal to their employers' interests. Both foreign and Italian mercenaries participated in Italian warfare.
Jackson Adams
dobass brainwashed cannon fodder actually useful for ruskies
Austin Clark
Picrel is the Black Army of Matthias Corvinus, one of the most successful armies of the 15th century. It consisted entirely of mercenaries. While I agree that mercenaries lack the morale, however they are professional soldiers unlike conscripts and this is a huge advantage.
Jayden Clark
>It's only bad when Russia does it
Connor Ward
It has always been expedient to hire mercenaries, because you don’t have to maintain them when you are not using the army and because it’s very easy to recruit. Also, they are usually very capable fighters. Risks associated are as listed above; overbidding by opponent, lack of loyalty, minimal effort for maximum pay and ultimately armies going rogue when there is no war to sustain them, creating a cycle of violence. I have also read the journal of the terror by Cléry, which describes the massacre of the Swiss guard. It sums it up nicely:
>it’s clear that mercenaries can have loyalty and this sustained the French king for a while
>on the other hand the local population finds itself opposing a foreign army, which leads to animosity on its own and highlights how those in power can rule against the will of the people.
>in the end it’s clear that a popular uprising will overcome even the most professional soldiers, because a people with a purpose will always outlast any soldiery.
In the end it’s sometimes expedient and even wise to hire mercenaries, but in the end a spiral of violence will emerge (Roman empire and 17th century Europe are other examples), the mercenaries will become unmanageable and organized ethnic armies will prevail.
Jaxon Edwards
Obviously it’s very interesting to see the West turn to hired guns once again. I wonder if it will eventually become a subculture to rival that of the Landsknechten:
m.youtube.com
Adam Torres
>you don’t have to maintain them when you are not using
>overbidding by opponent, lack of loyalty, minimal effort for maximum pay
You are right but as in my example you can overcome these risks with money. The Black Army was a standing army for 40 years and was maintained during peacetime as well thus eliminating the risk of overbidding or lack of loyalty, since they were in a stable long term employement.
Caleb Clark
I am not entirely familiar with this army, but if they were in continuous service for 40 years and we’re kept in service when there was peace, you could say that it is practically a normal army in all but name. In those periods it was still quite normal to use a volksstorm ‘conscription’ method when there was war, but lower noblemen had started wandering around and selling themselves to the highest bidder. These were better armed and better trained than peasants, but these armies did suffer the drawbacks associated with hired guns, and they were usually employed on a short contract. If a king was already rich enough to keep a well-trained army for decades, payed for by conquest or tax, it is actually a sign that the modern variety of the Was the make-up of the army very international or were they people of the land as well?
Tyler Nguyen
Absolutely this. Conscription is slavery.
Sebastian James
...That the modern variety of armies, which does not lean on lords or normal citizenry has practically been established
Noah Jenkins
Zogohomo forcing this anti-russian propaganda, since french are getting kicked out of Africa.
Juan Cook
they should wear goofy straw chink hats and throw grenades into helicopters while the russian special forces are distributing their death cards. i saw that in a movie
Elijah Martinez
Only people who do not have soldier skills would say pro soldiers are somehow better. You learn all the skills to the point of boredom in six months.
Conscripts are BETTER. Innate ability (IQ, etc.) is more important than training after a certain period of training. And if you recruit from the whole population as in conscription, you will have higher IQ soldiers than the desperate losers that sign up for professional military.
Conscription also fields 20x more men for the same money. I'd rather take twenty 100 IQ men besides me who have trained for 6 months instead of one 90 IQ dimwit ''pro'' who has trained for five years.
Brayden Perez
He also wrote about it in his edition of The Art of War.
Mason Williams
>Was the make-up of the army very international or were they people of the land as well?
It was an international army with Polish, Czech, German, Serb and Hungarian soldiers and they were paid regulary, so it was a mercenary army despite of it being a standing one. It was a conquering, offensive army, since at the time, Hungary basically had 2 armies, this and the regular army, made up of the nobles and their subjects, who manned the forts and castles on the border of the country against the Ottomans
Dylan Perry
ITT: dumbfucks that believe anything they see on the internet.
Ayden Ramirez
Yes, Africa is shit and mercenaries are scum, these are both well known facts.
Jace Perez
I know you have mandatory military service in Finland and I envy that, we had it here as well during communism.
>you will have higher IQ soldiers than the desperate losers that sign up for professional military.
The only problem with this, that the desperate losers will command the conscripts, despite them being low IQ thus reducing the capability of the soldiers themselves.
Justin Cox
>reports said
>witnesses said
>sources claim
>experts agree
>studies show
>research indicates
>just trust us this time ok??
Jaxson Allen
Interesting. I might look into it further. Inwoner if it is possible to keep such an army without engaging in wars of expansion.
Tyler Diaz
WAR IS FUCKING GAY FOR FUCKING GAY GUYS
Asher Bennett
BASED BEYOND BELIEF