Despite the historiographical jitters. I have to keep reminding myself that we, in fact, are not trying to invade France with the short end of a stick. The longbowman and the arquebuser (or is it arquebusier?) in uneasy coexistence until the invention of the musket, and later, the NRA. But there are desires for overwhelming force throughout history, and writing, sadly or not, sometimes marshals its own forces, in order to "innovate" and "outflank" ("Full plate carapace? Nice knowing you." said to the Agrarian gilded mercantile yes-men poems, c. 1895)
On a related note, Peter the Great thought he was a superb dentist. He would wander his palace and, quite at random, rip out "bad" teeth of servants. I can think of several recent geopolitical inferences from this, mostly centering on 1600 Penn.
Maybe the New Brutalism is more an antidote to the New Feudalism more than anything else. Which I like. The former, I mean.
If a battle was going bad longbowman fearing capture would drop their bows and fight with swords as a melee. Why? Captured prisoners of war that were thought of being possible longbowman were usually ransomed back to their kingdom, but not after having both of their draw fingers cut off. A bowman who could use a sword adeptly, came back home with all his digits intact.
Caller, you've been on hold the longest....