National armies fight nations, royal armies fight their like, the first obey a mob, always demented and the second a king, generally sane.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Armies are not only for offensives.
When you have warfare, things happen; people suffer; the noncombatants suffer as well as the combatants. And so it happens in civil war.
I look askance at any movement which assists in making the peacemaker among nations merely a national warrior.
Military dictatorship, you can focus on it, you can fight it directly. It's a band of power-driven people.
None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.
From Syria even to Rome I fight with wild beasts, by land and sea, by night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards, even a company of soldiers, who only grow worse when they are kindly treated.
Soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them.
Politicians, like generals, have a tendency to fight the last war.
They used to be seen as insane or unthinkable acts of madmen. But if they take place they'll be called 'war' too. And there will still be no conventional war.
No opposing quotes found.