[Bartok]

Originally Posted by HailHail
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What wars /period are we talking about? Don't get me wrong, I kinda see the argument, particularly in revoltionary wars like vietnam/russia even Ireland on a number of occassions in the past. Mostly because skint, disillusioned young men (and women) with no hope and nothing to lose would be relatively easy to convince to take up arms for an idea that might promise them a better life, and a chance to vent that anger/frustration on someone. Older heads would probably think more about the consequences . off the top of my sawdust crammed napper I can think of

ww1. started (kind of) by the black hand, most of whom's operatives were young men (including a certain mr princip).

Hundred years war - well edward III was no old man when that started.

the '45. Charles was 25

War of the two kings 1688-1691 - James II's army relied heavilly on young catholic recruits thirsting to have a crack at ulster protestants, Williams army benefited in a similar way, if less drastically. Both sides exploited the burning resentment of the people to swell their ranks.

United irish rebellion - no coincidence that this erupted soon after a lot of young, well trained battle hardened irish exiles returned home after serving France till the revolution .

HH I didn't really mean the political elites who are always credited/blamed for starting wars, I was really questioning whether they do that at all. It is populations who get themselves behind rival 'popular' political or nationalist movements and ideologies. The fact is that a ruler or ruling body without the support of the country or at the very least the armed forces can't go to war.

Snoots. I will see if I can dig up an unrepresentative sample of pictures all in support of my argument later on.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.