[fiddeert]

It's not a problem that money can solve. If you think it is, it's over.

It wasn't that long ago that men would sign up for almost-certain death in defence of their families, their people, their nation. Recognise that young men have nothing worth fighting for now. There is a much larger issue that can't be solved by throwing a few more shekels at disillusioned mercenaries.

[crooked-v]

None of the wars the US has started or gotten involved in since WW2 involved defense of "their families, their people, their nation". The 'War on Terror' was advertised as that, except oops, actually it wasn't and nothing was gained from it! Of course young men don't want to sign up.

[heavyset_go]

Washington wouldn't have had an army if he didn't pay them, you can't have wars between nations that rely on the morale of the public to sacrifice themselves and their children to the front lines in order to protect the wealthy's interests, you'll run out of true believers very quickly.

You'll need to pay people not to defect, desert or try to get their family asylum somewhere that isn't a warzone. That, or you force them through conscription.

[estearum]

> Recognise that young men have nothing worth fighting for now.

There's a lot worth fighting for, it's just not the particular people we've been fighting.

[linkregister]

For most of history, soldiers were drawn primarily from the farmers (99% of people). They were employed for fixed time periods; if they didn't go to war then they would be subject to corvee and be put to work on national infrastructure. Military service was involuntary, but also closely tied to status. Additionally, enslaving defeated combatants was lucrative for winning armies. Belief in the campaign was rarely an important factor.

[Markoff]

> It wasn't that long ago that men would sign up for almost-certain death in defence of their families, their people, their nation.

I would say WW2 was pretty long time ago, none of the latter US wars was about thing you mention, everyone serving in following wars were not soldiers but mercenaries.

Btw. why you need army to defend your own family? Also your family is more likely to be hurt by your fellow citizen than some foreign soldier.

[esseph]

> I would say WW2 was pretty long time ago

A staggering number of people enlisted or re-enlisted after a break in service due to 9/11 and patriotic ideas. (... And then more than half ended up getting sent to Iraq.)

[ks2048]

The more history I learn, the more I see how big of a role mercenaries played in wars of the past.

[whattheheckheck]

In Game of Thrones (A Clash of Kings), Lord Varys poses a riddle to Tyrion Lannister involving three men—a king, a priest, and a rich man—each commanding a sellsword to kill the other two based on their respective sources of authority: law, gods, or gold. The riddle asks, "Who lives and who dies?" with the answer being that the sellsword decides, as he holds the physical power of life and death.

Varys reveals that power resides where men believe it resides, explaining that authority is a "mummer's trick" or a shadow that exists only because people accept the illusions of kings, priests, and the wealthy. While the sellsword physically survives to execute the killing, the riddle illustrates that true power is not inherent in any single figure but is created by collective belief and obedience.

The Characters: The king represents law, the priest represents religion, and the rich man represents wealth, while the sellsword represents the people or the military force. The Core Message: No matter how much gold, divine favor, or legal claim one possesses, their power is null without the belief and support of the common people. The Twist: Varys notes that the sellsword is "no one," emphasizing that power is fluid and can be seized by anyone who commands the loyalty of those with the means to enforce it.

[zelias]

Double meaning: "no one" can also refer to the Faceless Men, the magical face-changing assassins of Braavos, who kill on behalf of the common people with some frequency