"I have written this maxim a few different ways, but it is worth writing again: no army can help but recreate its civilian social structures on the battlefield."
Interesting to see Conway's law show up here. Companies tend to ship their org structure in a product.
"it is very hard to square the circle whereby coexisting in alliance with the Klingon Empire as we see it is the right and moral thing for the Federation to do."
You have to understand that the Klingons in TOS were a metaphor for the Soviets/Russians and TNG was reflecting the 1980s/1990s hope that democracy was taking root there and by working with them they would be Westernized.
It's also stated in enterprise that Klingons do have other castes, the warrior caste is just the most dominant. (Although the caste system doesn't seem strictly hereditary)
One of my favorite dynamics: Warrior class that really kicks butt, takes control over the state and then slowly becomes obsolete but is so embedded in the social structure that it just sticks around sucking up vast resources for hundreds of years.
I've read the Ottoman Empire had this happen with the Janissaries, but there are lots of other instances of the military becoming a colossal useless but dangerous parasite, even lots of current-day ones.
I think Tokugawa-era samurai fits the description better. The Meiji era saw the samurai stripped of most of their stipends and privileges, and with little left but their pride they had to go find respectable jobs.
Sparta was built on slavery, their obsession with war was necessary to keep their slaves in check and deal with constant uprisings, it was very practical for their way of life.
Its also because they built it entirely on slaves and refused citizenship to most. 300 was an entertaining movie but it left out the slavery that was central to Sparta.
I'm sorry, this is just sententious bloviation. The sources are so thin, there's no reason to go around imputing all these fantastical ideas that somehow benefit your own beliefs. It's just boring and insipid to watch people fall into this trap over and over.
Agreed, the article contained a lot of speculation and not many historical examples. It was more about what the author thought “made sense” than what reality was.
It was also quite long winded. Probably could have been summarized to maybe 3 reasons. Oddly enough I don’t see “money” mentioned, at least not simply, and that should probably be reason #1