"How did the nobles become noble in the first place!?"

Spears are the timeless OG weapon.

Swords were always a secondary weapon, like handguns are today. I think it's novels that created the meme.

By dying?

Depends on the ruler actually.

Japan's nobility kinda just happened to be the most successful rice farmers and rolled that into becoming their community leaders.

England's were mostly William the Conqueror's friends.

Rome's claimed descent from deities, and might have kinda been telling the truth if you follow the theory that polytheism starts as ancestor worship.

Germanic tribes had military leaders in tandem with religious/legal leaders.

Pre-bronze age societies were ruled by priest kings who mostly held power by controlling the distribution of grain from temples.

A lot of Eastern Europe's leaders were Vikings that happened to find really good places to start settlements.

In societies like the Haudenosaunee "nobility" was more just that you were the head of your extended family or the long house you called home.

The Roman Empire was inaugurated by Augustus "just happening" to hold several very powerful titles of office simultaneously, and never giving any of them up and passing them all on to his chosen successor. It's actually pretty funny just how bureaucratic his takeover was considering how many stoic statues of him in military attire there are. Guy became the king of the Mediterranean through paperworking his way into it.

Peasant uprisings have happened throughout history. Some succeeded but then the whole country collapsed, others were put down violently. Then you have the french cycle of rebellion, democracy, external invasion, monarchy reinstated. They did that like four times before it stuck.

We were taught in the military that if we are armed, and run into local unarmed resistance, try to deescalate the situation.

I know because I've discussed and seen it innumerable times, but it always gives me a feeling of absurdity being reminded that the RoE for modern militaries in most combat zones is stricter than it is for US police.

Unless we are outnumbered 5 to 1

So as few as five unarmed people can take a trained, armed soldier? I would’ve thought that ratio should be higher. Good to know.

Maybe the comic should make that connection, because it doesn't say a single thing about that. It instead says "where'd ya get that land?" "My dad yadda yadda fought for it" "well we're going to use physical violence to remove you from it."

Furthermore, it suggests that "fighting for it" is a good/acceptable thing to do, by that logic I can only assume that the pictured miscreants are OK with how the grandpa "fought" the Native Americans for it. In my view if we're playing these types of bullshit games the ruffians have no claim to my land either unless they're Natives, in fact I have more than the hooligans do by virtue of having inherited or paid for it while the ruffians only claim to my land is "I'm jealous."

The only people that could realistically claim they have more right to that land than I do would be it's original inhabitants, not even another tribe (say it used to be Apache land the Comanche would similarly not have any higher right to claim it than I.) Of course, the tribes often warred and took the other's land, so tbh whoever the apache took it from would have more claim than them, and Cro Magnon before them, Neanderthals before them, and Homo Erectus (lol) before them, all the way back to when ancient Asians crossed the land bridge to get here, those people have the true claim to the land, unless we wanna count Dryopithecus, or protozoans I guess.

Furthermore, that implies that since Russia is "fighting" Ukraine for their land, whoever wins the battle is the morally correct group who should retain ownership of the land even if it's the imperialists who are invading said land rather than the defenders. Personally I believe Russia is in the wrong even if they win, idk about you.

The comic is poorly written, if the point it was trying to get across is "late 18th early 19th century england" specific. Instead it reads as "kill landowners now because at some point when society was less developed imperialism was cool." It's really just pro-imperialism, at the end of the day, with the justification of "well that's what they did 200yr ago so it's cool when we do it now"

In conclusion, what's your address? If you don't own a house what's your parent's address? That land and house will become mine just as soon as I kill your dad. That's how it works right? Do I get to keep his wife too, if we're playing by caveman rules? And his sons become free labor to work the fields and I can marry off your sisters for a dowry of an ox and three chickens? No? Why not?

The fact that Someone should get something doesn't prevail should kill rent seeking under the premise that the hungry kill everyone.