As Western countries become more culturally estranged from the realities of military service, a lot of hitherto well-known negotiating techniques are falling by the wayside.
One of the classics was mobilizing one's armed forces. This word may be seem strange to modern ears. "Mobilize? What does that even mean? Aren't tanks and jets inherently mobile?"
Actually, no.
A lot of military equipment spends most of its time in storage. There will be training equipment that gets beaten up, but that is by design – it is considered otherwise unsuitable for active service.
This is because the more you use something, the faster it wears out, and it's cheaper to just have a vehicle parked in a lot than to drive it around every day.
This is why so many European armies are largely incapable of doing anything on a short notice: most of their hardware is effectively mothballed.
This isn't actually anything new. Before the Industrial Age, standing armies were usually treated the same way, with the components broken up and placed in isolated (often rural) garrisons. Why rural? Well, to put them closer to where the food is grown! In an age of horse-drawn carts, concentrating 50,000 men together and trying to feed, clothe and arrange for sanitary conditions was a major effort. That's effectively a small town and a major expense.
It was far easier to break it up into smaller groups and spread them out.
However, if war looked likely – or if one wanted to send a clear message of intent – one option was to gather all those troops back together – mobilizing them.
This involved considerable expense, so it was not just an idle threat. A lot of gold was consumed in gathering all those scattered regiments together and readying them for service. Similarly, ordering the Navy to make ready for sea and calling in ships from distant ports also was expensive and therefore sent a clear message.
Another form of mobilization was the call-up of reserves or militia formations. This was even more disruptive to society, and when one reviews various historical crises, mobilization decrees feature prominently.
At the same time, the absence of a mobilization also speaks volumes. If a country declares a firm stand, but take no steps to prepare for conflict, it is obviously to all observers that it is not that committed to prevailing in whatever confrontation is underway.
Obviously, if one side mobilizes and the other does not, it's even more clear who is going to prevail.
Chateau Lloyd 
Leave a comment