Alright, so by your reckoning Rome was not prepared for war,
Rome during the Late Empire had neglected the health of its military for a number of reasons that I won’t go into at the moment, since it would take up several comments worth of context. Fuck, the battle that turned Atilla’s army away was won by barbarian allies.
but the US was prepared for Pearl Harbor,
No, the US was prepared for war, not for a specific battle. Hence, you know, having one of the most powerful navies on the face of the earth.
and Chamberlain’s Britain was prepared for Hitler?
Chamberlain’s Britain was preparing for Hitler, that was the entire point of Chamberlain’s stalling; and again, Britain still had one of the most powerful militaries in the world even before that. Jesus Christ.
How about the Spanish Invasion of Portugal in the 18th century?
Not familiar with it, but I would doubt that being unprepared for war helped them at all. A quick check suggests that the disorder of their ill-prepared army was ruinous and that British assistance was key.
There seems to be a disconnect in how we’re talking about this. You seem to be understanding the quote as a statement on preparedness; if you want peace, you should ensure your military is heavily funded and capable of repelling all comers.
My read was more about anticipation; if you want peace, you should plan for war.
On the surface it seems like we’re saying the same thing, but it comes into conflict when we run into historical examples. Like to my mind, Rome was always preparing for war, at the time of the quote they were waging wars like clockwork. But it’s that very habit of bullying their neighbors that put such a large target on their backs.
By contrast, Britain had been working towards disarmament for years before they shifted gears, there was a reason Chamberlain had to buy so much time. Germany on the other hand had been working tirelessly towards their goals of conquest. Germany had been preparing for war while Britain was preparing for peace.
Rome during the Late Empire had neglected the health of its military for a number of reasons that I won’t go into at the moment, since it would take up several comments worth of context. Fuck, the battle that turned Atilla’s army away was won by barbarian allies.
No, the US was prepared for war, not for a specific battle. Hence, you know, having one of the most powerful navies on the face of the earth.
Chamberlain’s Britain was preparing for Hitler, that was the entire point of Chamberlain’s stalling; and again, Britain still had one of the most powerful militaries in the world even before that. Jesus Christ.
Not familiar with it, but I would doubt that being unprepared for war helped them at all. A quick check suggests that the disorder of their ill-prepared army was ruinous and that British assistance was key.
There seems to be a disconnect in how we’re talking about this. You seem to be understanding the quote as a statement on preparedness; if you want peace, you should ensure your military is heavily funded and capable of repelling all comers.
My read was more about anticipation; if you want peace, you should plan for war.
On the surface it seems like we’re saying the same thing, but it comes into conflict when we run into historical examples. Like to my mind, Rome was always preparing for war, at the time of the quote they were waging wars like clockwork. But it’s that very habit of bullying their neighbors that put such a large target on their backs.
By contrast, Britain had been working towards disarmament for years before they shifted gears, there was a reason Chamberlain had to buy so much time. Germany on the other hand had been working tirelessly towards their goals of conquest. Germany had been preparing for war while Britain was preparing for peace.
Does that make sense from your perspective?