>>Patton's Army
It's interesting that the upper hand in warfare traditionally went to the state with the most money, which is why Edward III had to borrow 1.5 million florins (a staggering almost inconceivable sum) and then defaulted in 1345, leading to what was probably Europe's first great banking crisis when the Bardi and Peruzzi banks collapsed (and making way for the rise of the Medici bank, one of the great patrons of the Renaissance). Essentially, the leader who could buy the biggest army won.
But then, as armies shifted away from mercenaries, you needed wealth, yes, but also population. Part of Napoleon's success was the combination of a very populous nation and very aggressive conscription which just gave huge numbers. Of course you still needed to feed and arm that huge army, but without population, you couldn't have a powerful army.
In the 20th century we started shifting back, but both directly (bodies in the field) and indirectly (industrial might), population was still important.
But now we're entering an era where population is once again becoming decoupled from power. If you have automated factories turning out automated weapons, what need of actual population to become a world power?
I wonder how that plays out.
