Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Then again, the Mongols were quite capable of occupying much larger areas with much larger populations than the occupying forces (China and Persia being the prime examples). The Mongol's more open reign of terror is just one factor in that, another is the modern US military's reluctance to put soldiers in harm's way.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue May 14th, 2013 at 06:07:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think modern technology makes it really hard to make the comparison meaningfully.

On the one hand, we have air strikes, drones, artillery and what not - easy kills from a distance.  But on the other hand, pretty much anyone can put together a rather nasty bomb, and an AK-47 can turn just about anyone into a soldier.  

That wasn't the case in the medieval and early modern worlds, when weapons were hard to use effectively without training and experience.  It was harder for a popular resistance to be effective.

Another key difference in the modern world is the ideology of nationalism.  On average, ordinary people seem to care more about who their rulers are than in the past, and are much less likely to tolerate a foreign conquering power.  

by Zwackus on Wed May 15th, 2013 at 09:19:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series