[philipodonnell]

Guns, Germs and Steel had an interesting theory that as societies increased in complexity and size, warfare became more likely to take place away from the main population centers and therefore less damaging. Two tribes go to war its pretty easy to end up destroying every piece of infrastructure from both so there wasn't a ton of investment in it when we were just tribes.

So not so much surviving warfare as much as an increasing capability to control it so it took place away from the productive infrastructure. A pattern we see to this day.

[duxup]

Inversely a historian once explained to me that generally through history in order to take an area, you took the local village, or even city and there was a great deal less focus until later on specific borders or a campaign where your goal was tracts of land. Effectively if you took the city state, you generally had obtained the local surrounding land as well.... and if you didn't plan to keep the village or city, you destroyed it and the next nearest city or village was effectively the point of control.

[mcguire]

The early historic record is replete with stories of capturing cities, pillaging, resettling or killing the population, and burning the city.

A bit unbelievable, given that the cities get back in business quickly, but population centers have apparently always been centers for conflict.