Now I disagree with that line of thinking. It seems like you're very quick to throw things into two camps; military, or non-military,
commoners, or nobility. The thing about history is that it isn't black and white, it's a whole spectrum of colors. It's hard to put these sorts of things into an either-or situation because it's not two options. There's economic history, social history, cultural history, etc, and to simply lump everything together into "SHOOT OR NOT SHOOT" seems kinda demeaning. Likewise, sure you can generally sum every person in the world into vague terms like "commoners" and "nobility". But that's like summing every person into camps of "has brown hair" and "doesn't have brown hair." It works, but it tells you literally nothing about the individuals. Adolf Hitler and Takuma both fall into the former camp, but one is significantly more historically interesting than the other.
It's also hard to make broad choices like that over the entirety of human history without narrowing it down to a time period. A term like "nobility" has a very different context in 17th century Japan versus 3100 BC Egypt versus 20th century America. WWII is vastly different than the Third Punic War, or the Crimean War, or the Peloponnesian Wars. There are some nobles who I would find fascinating, others who would bore me to death.
tl;dr context matters and broad categories don't really work