I missed the last thread, so you're getting it now
>>280819981
>The era where knights and nobility controlled the battlefield was over
This did begin around this time, but it wouldn't really end until the 1800's. Kings and nobility would lead armies until the 19th century. Napoleon is widely regarded as the last great general-ruler for a reason. After him, armies got so large and military schools got so good that kings were better off leaving leading to professionals. Plus, governments were secure enough that you didn't need to be a great leader to stay in power. When Wellington beat Napoleon at Waterloo, there was no way he could turn that into taking the throne
>>280821168
>>280821491
Churchill has a quote about this. A perfect example is the Franco-Prussian war. The war waged by the Second French Empire and the one waged by the Third Republic were fundamentally different. The Empire fought a war over honor with field armies. It was conventional and saw lots of decorum. The Republic fought a desperate struggle that painted the Germans as hated enemies of the French people and encouraged guerilla resistance. The Empire would never have dug in around Paris after the army surrendered at Sedan, the Republic was ready to hold as long as it took to raise as many armies as needed. Democratic wars tend to be far longer and more total than authoritarian wars, and democracies almost always win. There's a reason the armies of the First French Republic were the largest in Europe since the fall of Rome. No other society was able to galvanize all the people to fight, no other was willing to commit to massive and civilizational struggle. Napoleon lost in the end because he switched back to a dictators war and met the allies on equal footing.

History shows that when a democracy borders a non-democracy, the democracy will start the war and win. I say this all as a firm believer in democracy. This is a good thing, I am a Jacobin.