Would the military be improved if officers were chosen from rich aristocrats trained from birth to lead?
Would the military be improved if officers were chosen from rich aristocrats trained from birth to lead?
Robert Taylor
Alexander Evans
Probably not
Zachary Wood
No.
Camden Flores
It depends. How intense is their training? Are women allowed? Do they serve only as officers of a combat MOS or do they fill all the other non combat rolls. Are non aristocrats allowed as officers?
Liam Nelson
No, because with the invention of the crossbow and then the musket, the highly trained born and bred warrior was just as easily killed, and at long range, as the peasant.
The following centuries saw the best of the aristocratic bloodlines killed in needless wars, and now there are none left.
Anthony Martin
Why not? That's how we've been doing things for thousands of years.
Ryan Phillips
There's a reason we stopped.
Lincoln Peterson
They wouldn't be grunts, they'd be officers. Officers tend not to die as much as enlisted.
Andrew Roberts
untrue, junior officers have higher fatality rates than enlisted throughout most wars including the GWOT.
Wyatt Wilson
If we could look at a baby and know if it were mentally healthy enough for such a thing then maybe. What you're talking about is a social engineering program that's incredibly invasive and would require somewhere around 60 years to develop properly, given 20 yours for phase I, II, and III trials. May have been possible under national socialism but never with a volunteer military.
Jaxon Ortiz
Ok so clearly you have no historical knowlege of how warfare worked, how aristocratic officers operated, and how warfare works in the modern era.
heres a hint: in the 19th century, British army officers purchased their commissions, which was only possible by being from wealthy families. They then lorded over their regiments as petty kings and were generally ineffective as fuck, and got a lot of men killed, and rarely were able to achieve their objectives without massive reinforcement and logistical superiority and time. Look at the British army's record after Waterloo through the end of ww1 and you'll see the utter disaster that "aristocratic" officer corps was, for the greatest empire of the era.
Angel Gray
Maybe for Navy and Air Force, but I sure as hell wouldn't want hereditary aristocrats commanding infantry in the field.
Whatever advantages might come from naturally superior officers would be offset by the loss of cohesion/morale caused by having some high-born asshole ordering normies to charge in and die. The enlisted would feel less kinship with their commanders, and the commanders would likely be too willing to sacrifice the lives of their men.
Ryder Morris
For thousands of years men have fought to the death for kings whose only qualifications came from winning the genetic lottery. I assure you, soldiers will have no problem with morale fighting under aristocratic officers.
Jack Ross
Marginally, but the best thing would be to do with the military is to take it fucking seriously and kick minorities and women out, it isn't a post office its a military. Properly enforcing discipline rather than the bullshit that is in current militaries
Dylan Russell
Tell that to the Tsar.
Ryder Rogers
>I assure you, soldiers will have no problem with morale fighting under aristocratic officers.
I know you're being sarcastic, but there are some fat neckbeards who actually believe this shit.
Nicholas Collins
When Europe was still monarchist they managed to conquer and colonize most of the world. Now that they've become republican they've become a bunch of weak pussies who never venture outside of their own borders. You tell me who had the braver soldiers.
Jordan Flores
You want people who chose the job and even if you breed them from birth to be officers in today's modern world its just not possible to insulate them from the other options.
What is much smarter and much more congruent with modern military needs is making the officer corps more appealing to those who excel in their field. Because currently its a job that basically amounts to babysitting 70 IQ enlisted and idiot-proofing even the most mundane processes and equipment.
At least for the USA its not as bad as other countries. There's a good bit of prestige in being a decent ranking officer in the states, most other countries dont give a shit or actively resent people in the service.
Mason Brown
When Europe was still monarchist it managed to kill most of its young men in 4 years, utterly bankrupt the continent, destroying all the monarchs who had any real power, ushering in the communist era, leading to fascism and then do it all over again in 20 years, completely ruining what remained of the global empires.
So shut the fuck up.
Joshua Wright
If you're referring to WW1 then that was caused largely by the republics of France, the UK, and the USA fucking up shit as usual. The monarchies involved in that war were the last bastion of bravery and honor fighting against the republics that ganged up on them.
Jayden Kelly
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Tyler Baker
>they've become a bunch of weak pussies who never venture outside of their own borders.
Probably because after WW1, empires with colonial holdings rapidly bankrupted themselves trying to keep control. The far smarter thing to do is let your colonial holdings be "independent", while keeping a decent grip on businesses that service that nation, like how France operates in french Africa.
James Long
It started because Germany encouraged Austro Hungary to take the most aggressive approach against Serbia because they were confident they could beat France and Russia. It was AH's and Germany's war.
Liam Morris
>caused by
Who sent the ultimatums to whom?
Who mobilized first?
Who entered a neutral country in an attempt to invade their neighbor with a flanking maneuver?
The USA didn’t even enter the war till 1917.
Stop getting your narratives from German revisionist materials that are laughably false.
And if monarchs were so powerful, why did they lose to the decadent republics?
You’re not an aristocrat so stop sucking their dead dry cocks.
Carter Nelson
The UK and USA had no reason to get involved in the war, Belgium was not a part of the British Empire and so they should have not gotten involved just because they were invaded, and the USA had literally no reason at all to help anyone in that war but that stupid fuck Wilson wanted to destroy monarchy because of his inferiority complex.
Hudson Rodriguez
Because it became very easy to murder officers with plausible deniability when grenades came around, and people really tend to dislike snobby chip on their shoulder officers.
Bentley Harris
So black overweight antinationalists can take over.
Nathaniel Jones
Belgium had a defensive treaty with the UK and everyone knew it.
You really have zero idea what you’re talking about and are arguing purely from emotion.
Charles Carter
Actually nationalism is anti-monarchist, and one of the major reasons for its decline as well as the death of the empires.
Jaxson Martin
Please name one black overweight antinationalist army officer in current service.
Michael Flores
The UK had agreed to protect Belgium and the Zimmerman telegram alone was a valid reason to declare war.
Matthew Richardson
Oh looks, it's another Austro-Hungarian fetishist crying that literally everyone in the world fucking hated them by the time WW1 kicked into full force.
Luis Hall
The Zimmerman telegram was just a precautionary measure, certainly not enough to justify declaring war. And the British signed a defensive treated with Belgium just so they could have an excuse to go to war with Germany when they inevitably went to war with France.
Jeremiah Edwards
>The Zimmerman telegram was just a precautionary measure, certainly not enough to justify declaring war
Grayson Harris
>And the British signed a defensive treated with Belgium just so they could have an excuse to go to war with Germany when they inevitably went to war with France.
Germany didn't exist when the agreement was made.
Alexander Green
I've gotta wonder what goes through the mind of a Kraut-apologist. What could possibly make someone want to defend the worst European nation
Brayden Martin
But they saw the signs and knew that it eventually would exist.
Luis Edwards
No, not by the 1830's it wasn't.
Luis Hall
You ever heard of the term "fragging?"
Camden Johnson
They had grenades way back in the Napoleonic Wars, but no one fragged Napoleon.
Aaron Perry
West point.jpg
Citadel.jpg
Henry Ortiz
No. Officer's from noble birth are one of the most incompetent that existed.
Juan Green
Clearly it's not like you need good officers to conquer all these vast swathes of territory, right?
Lincoln Rogers
No, you need competent traders, merchants and diplomats.
Kevin Russell
Bullets don't discriminate by how much money your daddy has, which is why the world stopped doing it.
Easton Johnson
You're acting like the aristocracy was made up of cowards, but they were usually the most willing to fight. Knights had a well known reputation of being eager for combat, and in WW1 officers were killed in higher percentages than enlisted because they climbed over the trenches and fought right alongside their men.
Lucas Cox
>in WW1 officers were killed in higher percentages than enlisted because they climbed over the trenches and fought right alongside their men.
They're idiots, experience isn't something to be thrown away out of misguided sentimentality.
Gavin Howard
Leading from the front is essential, user. It's the only concrete way you can lead your men into machinegun fire, against a fortified enemy. Without the officers' and NCO's example, there's little motivating the men to keep going once shit hits the fan and they're likely to either disengage or hunker down.
Carson Kelly
Also, obviously, the officer also needs to be at the front to actually lead the men. There's no way to have a good understanding of the battle on the platoon level unless you're actually in the thick of it.
Alexander Morales
Napoleon was actually a good military leader who nearly let pre-monarch genocide France into a new empire, read just about any account of WW1 or after and the most common theme is how much the men absolutely fucking despised their officers who acted like they were the best thing since sliced bread.
There's a reason NCO's became way more popular than CO's at some point, the disconnect between the men and the officers in democratic societies grew way too large. Officers could barely fathom how much disrespect they got on a daily basis and soldiers couldn't care less if an officer took a bullet, the NCO's were pretty much the only thing keep a very wonky and hastily built bridge together.
Connor Long
>Leading from the front is essential,
Throwing experienced personnel away isn't.
William Anderson
Leading from the front isn't throwing away anything. Without it you'd just have more casualties and far less success. Platoon level leadership needs to be at the front to maintain adequate situational awareness and command. Even company level and above might be forced to the front if the situation requires it.
Xavier Gomez
>Leading from the front isn't throwing away anything.
It is when you're literally hopping in front of a machine gun our of the only (relatively) safe place on the battlefield for no gains.
Angel Jackson
Have you ever heard about this thing called Austria Hungary and how their leader got shot by this Serbian guy so Austria Hungary wanted to do all this stuff to Serbia and because Serbia said no they declared war on Serbia and since Russia was an ally of Serbia they declared war on Austria and because Germany was an ally of Austria they declared war on Serbia and Russia and since France was an ally of Russia they declared war on Austria and Germany and Great Britain was an ally of France so they declared war on Austria and France and at the same time the Ottoman empire wanted to fuck some shit up they declared war on great Britain and Russia and all that great stuff. That's how the war started bucko, not because of america and great Britain or whatever the fuck kind of retarted shit you said. Europe can fuck itself over without our help, they did it damn well twice in the last century
Luis Adams
It's not, because it keeps you competitive with the enemy. Without effective leadership the enemy has an advantage that you completely lack and the Great War in general was just a desperate attempt at trying to grasp any small advantage possible. Without officers and NCOs joining the enlisted in the assault and showing their faith both in the plan and battle, the men would have very little reason to keep moving and fighting. There were already mutinies at the start of the war, so there was no way they could afford to not fight.
John Martin
It would improve the military's reliability in shooting their fellow countrymen. It would also improve military participation by the wealthy, something modern democracies seem to lack.
Certain third world countries would be better off with an English-style purchase system. Britain was able to enjoy the early fruits of the Industrial Revolution without communist/fascist revolutions, thereby forming the economic basis of empire. If Venezuela had a purchase system, I doubt Hugo Chavez would have risen to power.
Joseph Kelly
Liam Parker
>WW1 officers were killed in higher percentages than enlisted because they climbed over the trenches and fought right alongside their men.
They were killed in higher numbers because German snipers were trained to shoot the guys with the swords and tailored uniforms.
Benjamin Long
Listen here you retarded weeb nigger, cause i'm gonna tell you what was happening in poland before the partitions. Poland relied entirely on a nobility-based military force. The plan was that if someone invaded, the upper class would leave their palaces, and assemble as a fighting force, and the peasants stayed at home because they were deemed not worth being made fight. But that rarely happened, because if the nobleman in question could actually get off the chair without assistance, he didn't feel like leaving his palace to fight for the interest of his country. Thus, poland failed to present competetive numbers in battle, and was entirely conquered in the time of a couple decades.
Jace Ross
It was like this in the past and was changed for a reason.
Blake Robinson
Are you being retarded on purpose or are you genuinely that stupid? The UK was a member of the Entente and flat out told Germany they will declare war if they attack Belgium and the Netherlands, which they did. The US wanted nothing to do with it whatsoever until u boats started attacking ships (the Lusitania being the last straw) and the Zimmerman message. Jesus fucking Christ weebs need to be drawn and quartered.
Isaiah Cooper
I mean, the reason is not good enough. We could easily revert and still be better off.
Kayden Robinson
There's a thread not far from here talking about why the Arabs have bad modern military. This point is why, or at least a reason.
Andrew Harris
Yeah, and modern officers are significantly more effective overall than a bunch of aristocrats.
Dylan Rogers
The triumphalism that democratic republicans hold is absolutely hilarious. Republics weren't a new innovation from the enlightenment. Romen spent more time as a republic than the United States has existed. Then that republic as we are failing, and monarchy (in all but name) came back, as it will eventually come back.
Chase Morgan
>t. knows nothing about the great war
Kayden Smith
If you’re not trolling, you’re a retard.
Jonathan Gomez
The german Navy uprisings at the end of ww1 would like to have a word with you.
Blake Sanchez
>You tell me who had the braver soldiers.
Because the soldiers are always the ones who decide when and where wars are fought, right? Do you even think before you post?
Colton Davis
>USA had no reason
>US citizens die and US ships are sunk by German hands
>no reason
You sound like a traitor and a limp dick.
Jack Long
>are arguing purely from emotion.
That’s what libs and women do. That way, they can never be wrong.
Blake Anderson
are you just avatarfagging or are you a bot that posts the same images every single thread
this is the third time I've seen you making the same arguments for feudal systems with the exact same images in the exact same order
Sebastian Anderson
Well maybe the USA shouldn't have been shipping weapons to the UK then
Lincoln Ross
>trained from birth to lead
There's no quality control on this. You'd get a couple decent natural leaders and a pile of cowering little shits whose arrogance was only matched by their ignorance.
Juan Price
Why should they have? It's not America's fault that the Huns couldn't fight a war against a well-supplied enemy.
Liam Morgan
>chosen from rich aristocrats
yikes
Adrian Sanchez
That reason being primogeniture stopped being a thing and rich ruling class scions realized dying for politicians is the height of cuckoldery.
Zachary Diaz
The current system is pretty much halfway there because all officers are required to have a college degree to be commissioned which puts them leaps and bounds ahead of most of their junior enlisted personnel from a socio-economic standpoint.
Christian Perez
Yes
Nolan Sanders
The military will literally pay for you college if you decide to become an officer though, so smart poor people can also join. That's not aristocratic, that's meritocratic.
Xavier Young
Yeah, probably. A lot of people don't realize muh nobility wasn't just about fuckin your cousins to keep the family wealth together, they were literally genetically distinct from the rapebabies they took charge of. Simply put, not everyone is cut from officer cloth
Aaron Adams
In terms of "aristocracy" you mean some 6"4 aryan ubersoldaten from some fucking enchanted castle in the alps, who was raised hunting boars and nigs?
sure
but in modern terms, an aristrocrat is no more than a degenerate socialite like those instagram whores and effeminate men
I'd rather take orders from bubba than some faggot spoiled by his parents who thinks he's tough shit
aristocracy requires aestheics and some kind of elitism and modern culture has lost that due to changes in class metrics and overall cultural norms of western civilization.
Too bad.
Bentley Perry
>bachelors
>rich/aristocratic/meritocratic/meaningful in any way
Pick one. In the 1970s, a college degree corresponded to a higher IQ. It hasn't for 40 years.
Chase Lee
Experience is not taught. It is birthed through fire.
Zachary Mitchell
>Charge of the light brigade
You know how everyone hates snobby rich kids and wants them to die? Let's put them in charge of the poor kids he used to bully, that'll go well.
Nathaniel Sanders
>Vietnam Friends of Frag Grenades would like to know your location