Yet in all times, Kings, and persons of Soveraigne authority, because of their Independency, are in continuall jealousies, and in the state and posture of Gladiators; having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another; that is, their Forts, Garrisons, and Guns upon the Frontiers of their Kingdomes; and continuall Spyes upon their neighbours; which is a posture of War.
Thus, successful sovereign entities may be expected to be particularly good at this activity.
The thing that is grotesque about it: there doesn’t seem to be a clear agreement or plan to stop. As if warring was some kind of natural law. From observing history it certainly seems that way.
You can find historians articles that explained how revolutionary France "beat" the royalist coalition in 92 despite being dead broke.
Just as an offside remarks: history is not as fixed as wikipedia. You should always question the history you've learned. That's questions like Furet's "is the French revolution the mother of all totalitarism?" that made the field really advance. And to ask this kind of question, subjectivity is good as long as evidence can still convince you. I don't think any furetien academic is still convinced that the French revolution bred all totalitarism, but their responses to more marxist historians (as well as tehier new questions) are invaluable to make the field advance.
You really needs diversity of thought in literary fields.