No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece
historytoday.com
No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece
1–10 of 140 posts
Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece
#2I'm disappointed the article didn't have a link towards a copy of the book; at this point I think most copyright have expired, no?
Here's one I found: http://demonax.info/doku.php?id=text:how_to_survive_under_si...
Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece
#3The real interesting part is the Swiss model, or instead of having a big army a small one with heavy weapons and a popular conscription one month (paid) per year 18-28 years range, for the rest.
That's interesting because:
- it's not good to go to war OUTSIDE country borders
- power are balanced: the State can count (perhaps) on army, but if it goes against the people they are trained and armed, with less heavy weapons, but much bigger numbers
The last missing parts is ERASING military-industrial complex or having weapons ONLY built by the State in State-owned factories out of State-only research, with conscription for manufacturing industries IF we need to scale for a war, but ONLY in this case and ONLY in emergency mode.
These are the basic tools to maintain a Democracy avoid dangerous shifts.
Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece
#4I'm disappointed the article didn't have a link towards a copy of the book; at this point I think most copyright have expired, no? Here's one I found: http://demonax.info/doku.php?id=text:how_to_survive_under_si...
I wouldn't expect to see a link, unless the article was occasioned by the publication of a new edition. This author probably is in the habit of referring to the original Greek, and may have found older, public-domain translations of it to be somehow unsatisfactory.
Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece
#5The real interesting part is the Swiss model, or instead of having a big army a small one with heavy weapons and a popular conscription one month (paid) per year 18-28 years range, for the rest. That's interesting because: - it's not good to go to war OUTSIDE country borders - power are balanced: the State can count (perhaps) on army, but if it goes against the people they are trained and armed, with less heavy weapo…
Powers are not balanced in Switzerland. The reason most modern countries stopped conscription is because infantrymen are far less useful than they used to be in combats - they remain useful if you want to control the place you have invaded but are not that useful to do the actual invading. Advanced weaponry is just too efficient: artillery, helicopters, planes, drones, missiles.
Switzerland is not even really trying to defend itself. The chief reason it’s safe is because it’s surrounded by countries with an actual army. They rely on France for part of their air defence.
Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece
#6The real interesting part is the Swiss model, or instead of having a big army a small one with heavy weapons and a popular conscription one month (paid) per year 18-28 years range, for the rest. That's interesting because: - it's not good to go to war OUTSIDE country borders - power are balanced: the State can count (perhaps) on army, but if it goes against the people they are trained and armed, with less heavy weapo…
...or it could be a recipe for civil war if those trained and armed people split into different factions. I don't see that happening in Switzerland, but that's probably one of the reasons why this model hasn't caught on a lot.
Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece
#7The real interesting part is the Swiss model, or instead of having a big army a small one with heavy weapons and a popular conscription one month (paid) per year 18-28 years range, for the rest. That's interesting because: - it's not good to go to war OUTSIDE country borders - power are balanced: the State can count (perhaps) on army, but if it goes against the people they are trained and armed, with less heavy weapo…
...or it could be a recipe for civil war if those trained and armed people split into different factions. I don't see that happening in Switzerland, but that's probably one of the reasons why this model hasn't caught on a lot.
If people do split into factions, they have to settle somehow. Of course, hopefully peacefully. Forcing society to stay coherent against it's will sounds a we... authoritarian?
Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece
#8The real interesting part is the Swiss model, or instead of having a big army a small one with heavy weapons and a popular conscription one month (paid) per year 18-28 years range, for the rest. That's interesting because: - it's not good to go to war OUTSIDE country borders - power are balanced: the State can count (perhaps) on army, but if it goes against the people they are trained and armed, with less heavy weapo…
Powers are not balanced in Switzerland. The reason most modern countries stopped conscription is because infantrymen are far less useful than they used to be in combats - they remain useful if you want to control the place you have invaded but are not that useful to do the actual invading. Advanced weaponry is just too efficient: artillery, helicopters, planes, drones, missiles. Switzerland is not even really trying…
Not do invading?
Long-running conscription could work with advanced tech. Not 1-year-to-train-and-then-back-to-civilian-life. But train-and-then-keep-training-till-40+.
Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece
#9The real interesting part is the Swiss model, or instead of having a big army a small one with heavy weapons and a popular conscription one month (paid) per year 18-28 years range, for the rest. That's interesting because: - it's not good to go to war OUTSIDE country borders - power are balanced: the State can count (perhaps) on army, but if it goes against the people they are trained and armed, with less heavy weapo…
Powers are not balanced in Switzerland. The reason most modern countries stopped conscription is because infantrymen are far less useful than they used to be in combats - they remain useful if you want to control the place you have invaded but are not that useful to do the actual invading. Advanced weaponry is just too efficient: artillery, helicopters, planes, drones, missiles. Switzerland is not even really trying…
Which of the weapons you mentioned has capability to occupy ground? I think Ukraine taught us that 2k soldiers in a factory area can delay a much more expensive army for months or until they run out of food/ammo. Russian needed a million infantry men to have a chance of occupying UKraine. Afghanistan collapsed by mere infantry in a few weeks, only because they could not move fast enough.
If one wants to occupy and keep land in today’s nationalist states, swarming is still the most viable proposition.
Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece
#10The real interesting part is the Swiss model, or instead of having a big army a small one with heavy weapons and a popular conscription one month (paid) per year 18-28 years range, for the rest. That's interesting because: - it's not good to go to war OUTSIDE country borders - power are balanced: the State can count (perhaps) on army, but if it goes against the people they are trained and armed, with less heavy weapo…
Powers are not balanced in Switzerland. The reason most modern countries stopped conscription is because infantrymen are far less useful than they used to be in combats - they remain useful if you want to control the place you have invaded but are not that useful to do the actual invading. Advanced weaponry is just too efficient: artillery, helicopters, planes, drones, missiles. Switzerland is not even really trying…
Hem, Swiss do have conscription, they only relaxed them a bit, for instance not allowing anymore ammo at home, just weapons, anyone can buy ammo of course but classic sealed packages for the service use only aren't anymore a thing.
Mandatory bunkers and scattered cornerstones are not mandatory anymore either, but still shelters must be provided by the public, mandatory long-lasting food supply are there etc
Mined roads are far less mined than before, but still there. So I think Swiss STILL care it's defense. Also my point is about protecting against foreign invasions instead of build armies to invade other countries because that's the point of peace.
If we want peace dialogue is mandatory and a good weapon aside help well, si vis pacem para bellum, BUT being MUCH more able to defend instead of offend is a good stability key.