Is this biased reporting?

[Occhidiangela]

I would have thought that anarchy was the perfect solution to reduce (external) war.  :P
[right][snapback]93662[/snapback][/right]

Tee Hee, only if every nation agrees to be anarchist.

As soon as one get organized, given that anarchy will tend to facilitate quite a bit of low scale, internal violence/strife (see the Irish and Scots apparent cultural joy of fighting amongst each other, or the Labanese) the first group/nation that "gets organized" will tend to be able to play divide and conquer if they so desire.

Who would be funding the army under anarchy? 
How would an army function without anyone to give it direction, and without any layers of leadership / management?
What would stop desertion?

The same way they function in the contemporary states of anarchy like Sierre Leon, Serbia/Bosnia, Liberia. One of the better descriptions of that condition is here.

The New Warrior Class written in 1994

A small army/warband coalesces around a strong man, who provides via the charismatic method, or force of will, the organization and leadership to move. Like old Gothic or Germanic war band leaders, success breeds success until the army gets unwieldy. It then either splits, or self immolates, and you end up with

A sort of feudalism, depending on what kind of economic system can be strong armed into supporting those with the weapons and the will to use them.

All it takes is one force of personality to "get organized" . . .

Occhi