01-21-2018, 05:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-21-2018, 05:16 PM by Warren Dew.)
(01-06-2018, 11:32 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:(01-01-2018, 02:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: We don't know yet when the crisis war will happen, so we don't know yet when the dividing line was between Millennials who will fight in it and postMillenials who will be too young.
I know Xenakis (or whatever his name is) claims there is ALWAYS a crisis war but history does not bear this out. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was called Glorious because of the lack of bloodshed. That being said a war during a 4T is more likely to occur, and such wars are typically total wars. That being said wars are not limited to 4Ts as the US has been involved in a war of some sort or the other every turning since its founding. Other powerful countries tend to have a similar history. The relative passivity of Europe is a recent phenomenon.
The Glorious Revolution involved plenty of bloodshed, but it was mostly in Scotland and Ireland rather than England. As it was preindustrial warfare, most commoners weren't involved, but that's just because of the different technology of war at the time.
Edit: That said, I read an article recently noting that wars continue until the losing side gives up. One could argue that James gave up early in the Glorious Revolution, reducing the amount of warfare. Without knowing what the sides are this time around, it's hard to evaluate the probability of their giving up early.
That does explain why crisis wars tend to be won by idealists, since idealists don't tend to give up even when they should.
