When did the aristocracy/political elite stop fighting in wars?
>Be Caeser attacking Alexandria >47 BC>Personally lead beach landing on Pharos Island>Your light marines get attacked by superior numbers of Pompeian heavy infantry >Eventually the marines get pushed back to the boats>You have to throw off your armor, jump in the bay, and swim to safety to escape captureModern leaders could never...
>>18421348When firearms leveled the playing field
>>18421348Ultimately, post WWI, but it was on the decline since at least the Napoleonic Wars
>>18421348Say what? The British royal family still requires all males to perform military service.
For the U.S., post WWII. Teddy Roosevelt’s son landed with the first wave at Utah Beach, and celebrities like Gene Autry, Ted Williams and Jimmy Stewart flew in combat, though there were some rich and famous people who got cushy safe assignments. The Civil War was called a “rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight” but in reality the upper classes were over represented in casualties, with a crazy number of generals getting killed or maimed.
>>18421348With the emergence of democracy. Historically, political power and martial power are one in the same so in modern democratic republics, the plebs are the political power and thus fight the wars. In Medieval Europe, it was the Knights and Barons who fought and the serfs and peasants didnt. In ancient Sparta, it was the Hoplite elite class that fought in wars. Not just as officers, the entire infantry grunt force was made up of the Hoplite elites whos only purpose was to fight wars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmcJ1UDXzGA
>>18421373A shitload of European aristocracy died in WWI
>>18421373The Napoleonic wars were fought mainly by aristocrats. Are you saying they didn't have firearms?
>>18421456>Medieval Europe and ancient Sparta>Not having serfs, peasants, and slaves fight
>>18421348as soon as they could
>>18421464>fought mainly by aristocratsridiculous. aristocrats paid for troops and commanded them, but for every officer there were 20 peasants doing the brunt of the killing and dying. In numbers, there are few eras where aristocrats outnumbered commoners in battle.
>>18421408Famously Andrew could not even sweat after the Falklands.Harry flew a helicopter in Afghanistan. Pretty dangerous, though no comparison to leaders who had to lead a lot closer to the front.
>>18421544They didnt. Slaves never EVER fought in wars, let alone the non citizens of Sparta. Youre an idiot who has no clue what hes talking about
>>18421636Got no idea if you're saying the Helots were not slaves, or that they didn't fight in wars
>>18421669NTA, I guess if you call them slaves of slave adjacent is a philosophical discussion.I dimly remember an anecdote from school history that the Spartans would take the Helot's shield straps when they were on campaign and rested for the night so that if the Helots tried to revolt, they would not be able to use the shields and thus had no chance.
>>18421348It depends on what you mean by 'fighting'. Heavy cavalry comprised of a knight aristocratic elite started declining in relevancy around the 14th century and onward, but the aristocratic elite was still entrenched in military life for centuries, they just stopped leading cavalry charges and instead focused on commanding.
Based Theo and Jake. These white boys are aight.
>>18421636Why are you lying about this?
>>18421348Invention of the telegraph when they didn't have to anymore.
>>18421408Britain is a slave of the US. The Royal Family are slaves to Parliament.
Wew zoomies are shaking in their boots at the thought of dying for Israel. Dont worry we will take care of the lonely zoomettes while you are getting dronemaxxed kek
>>18421348Upper class are overrepresented in the army, middle class forms the bulk, and lower class are actually underrepresented. And that skews even further when you consider how many white middle & higher sign up for the frontline units, while blacks sign up for non-combat roles and Latinos end up in ex:mortar units
>>18421608Officers in WW1 had far higher fatality rates than common soldiers If you wanna do Nap wars, compare the expected behavior of officers vs regular sailors on British ships. The sailors were encouraged to go prone or crouch while under fire, while officers had to stand upright at all times.
>>18421921I don't think the volunteer army members are complaining that they might have to fight, its just typical panican hysteria
>>18421464lol
>>18421348Aristocrats pussy out of wars whenever they became prolonged, sustained, large-scale, and very violent total wars. No single weapon system caused it. Aristos generally preferred small scale limited wars which were short, often decided by a single battle, with wars effectively just negotiation tactics as opposed to something that actually finished off opponents.It happened to Ancient China (Warring States period & mass conscription = decline of the warrior class), Japan (same as above), and 1600s Europe (establishment of state armies = aristocrats relegating themselves to officer or administative roles).
In the US probably Vietnam. I believe McCain would have been a rich kid but he still flew a very dangerous position. Might have been prestigious but I'd not be surprised if pilot fatality rates were higher than grunts in Vietnam.After Vietnam and you still might get aristocrats' kids serving, but it's not as common. My guess would be they almost always end up in the POG roles or are far away from the really vicious fighting. And that stuff is clearly important, in modern warfare you can still be in danger in those, but it's sort of the difference between in WW1 being an aristocrat's son and serving in the colonies versus serving in the Somme. Alternatively - JFK's father was Ambassador to the UK in 1937-1940. His sons served as>A patrol bomber pilot (Eldest)>A PT boat commander facing active combat (JFK)>Seaman's apprentice on a destroyer (RFK)>Spoiiled brat service in Europe during the Korean war (Teddy)No fucking ambassador's son today or billionaire's son today is ever going to dodge drones or be on some cruiser in the Persian Gulf.
>>18423900Rich people in general have never volunteered for military service unless they came from a military family. You don't see any new money billionaires' kids serving their country. That's for poors.
>>18421348The minimum age to become President is 35 years old, that's also around the maximum age for military enlistment for most branches.
>>18423945The age of enlistment is totally arbitrary and can (and does) change whenever the different branches of the military need it to. The army just raised it to 42, by the way. It was as high as 50 during the world wars. The limit is whatever they say it is, according to their presumed need and the available pool of eligible men, and undoubtedly can (and has) been waived in special circumstances. But none of that matters, because Trump is the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, which is a civilian post. Ergo, he cannot enlist, cannot serve as an officer either. The commander in chief is a civilian by express condition of the Constitution to preserve civilian control over the military. He cannot serve in his capacity as commander in chief and also put on a uniform. He'd have to resign first.
>>18421348The aristocracy and the political elite of today, the bourgeoisie, are separate caste of people with fundamentally different mentalities and worldviews. The latter are kshatriya and the former are visayas, to use Hindu terminology. The bourgeoisie rose to the forefront of society with liberalism. The American and French revolutions were bourgeois revolts against the aristocracy.
>>18423968Insane how the world became more like India without even needing mass migration.
