• SovereignState
    link
    281 year ago

    why don’t presidents fight the war? why do they always send the poor?

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      201 year ago

      We’d have a lot less wars if the ruling class had to participate directly that’s for sure.

      • @PolandIsAStateOfMind
        link
        211 year ago

        Unfortunately the mortality rate among the brass is way lower than among the ranks. Was also the same in times when the ruling class was participating directly. And it didn’t exactly lessened the number of wars, in republican Rome it was even one of the reasons there were so many of them. They would just developed the warrior ethos again or sometheing like that.

        What we need is more latrine disasters.

    • @Kultronx
      link
      111 year ago

      Unfortunately this hasn’t really been a thing since pre-feudal times. back then the leader would generally be the greatest warrior and on occasion conflict would be settled by a duel.

    • @SpaceDogs
      link
      111 year ago

      I remember during the beginning of the war people were praising Zelensky for being on the battlefield while Putin was sitting pretty in the Kremlin (their words not mine). Now that he’s not fighting himself I haven’t heard a peep of criticism on the same level of what they used against Putin. Very weird.

      • SovereignState
        link
        71 year ago

        I’d wager his battlefield looked a lot like a Marvel battlefield

    • @REEEEvolution
      link
      61 year ago

      The one thing thr ancient greeks did right - let the rich fight their wars themselves.

      • @Franfran2424
        link
        81 year ago

        i mean, slaves were used in war, just not mentioned.

        spartan hoplites, and helots.

        • @REEEEvolution
          link
          61 year ago

          The spartans were scared shitless of arming their slaves.

          Slaves were not really used in war until the early middle ages, because during war you need discipline and reliability in your troops. Slaves tend to fuck off. In the middle ages, islamic realms used warrior slaves, first the Ghulams, then the Mamluks, then the Janniseries. They were kept reliable by good treatment, a fostered elite culture of their formations and religious incentives. Always worked for a while, then the slave solders took over and cut the middle man.

          In short: Slave soldiers. Not a good idea.

          • @PolandIsAStateOfMind
            link
            71 year ago

            The spartans were scared shitless of arming their slaves.

            If you mean helots they armed them all the time, helots served in every campaign as light infantry.

          • @Shrike502
            link
            61 year ago

            On the other hand, Spartans did wage war against their own slaves

          • @Franfran2424
            link
            51 year ago

            They werent scared of it, because they literally did it?

            Whats dangerous is taking all your military away on a campaign and leaving slaves that are ex-soldiers behind with the families of the leadership.

  • Soviet Snake
    link
    271 year ago

    They are taking “to the last Ukrainian” quite literally, huh.

  • @Franfran2424
    link
    191 year ago

    “president, can you start ignoring congress and send congresists to the frontlines?”

    totally not a dictatorship

  • @Shrike502
    link
    131 year ago

    Don’t they already do PR at the battlefield?

  • @Mzuark
    cake
    link
    111 year ago

    This is literally like the last days of Nazi Germany. Sending everyone they have, old, young, combat ready or not, right into the meat grinder.

    • @Shrike502
      link
      61 year ago

      And yet quite a lot of Nazi leadership and party members seem to have survived and lived nicely afterwards, with cushy jobs in NATO