I study a lot of history, and a moderate amount of finance.
An observation I made some time back -- it seems like most military conflicts post-gunpowder are won or lost far more by logistics and supply than individual combat ability. Gunpowder is what put an end to Parthian/Hunnish/Mongol-type mobile mounted archery warfare. There hasn't been any "we don't need logistics" type of wars since then, assuming both sides has at least some semblance of military discipline, cohesion, and leadership.
Even blitzkreig -- the archetypical fast strike -- doesn't work without lots of gasoline, jeeps, ammunition, and railroads. And if you run out of gas -- literally -- you lose. See: 1941, Operation Barbarossa, Stalingrad and Moscow.
But what if you've got an overwhelming economical and logistical advantage, like the Union had over the Confederacy? Or what Imperial Britain had after Napoleon's defeat over, well, the whole world?
This is where a model looking at liquidity is somewhat interesting.