A willingness for war

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by S.A.M., Nov 19, 2008.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I was listening to a podcast on the Punic war, when Rome attacked Carthage after taking all its weapons and the children of its nobility and considered the Carthagenian unwillingness to burn down their city as an act of war.

    This got me thinking. What makes a people more or less willing to go to war against another country? What drives some regions in the world to live without invasion and occupation and others to do nothing but? Why do some countries invest in destroying other countries instead of improving their own?

    The destruction of Carthage laid the seed for the fall of the Roman Empire, what would history have been like if they had not destroyed Carthage?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Money, power and special interests. I would probably venture an educated guess that it's in that order, too.

    Those who have money, power and special interests versus those who don't. Look at India ...it can't even feed its multitude of starving people. So it can't afford to go to war.

    Nations who go to war with other nations usually, almost always, do both. I don't think you can separate it like that.

    Which reminds me, SAM, why is so many people in India starving to death while India shoots rockets into space?

    Flowers, roses, love and manna from the sky! See? All the world's woes can be laid at the feet of those fuckin' Romans!! Or are you going to blame that on the Jews, too???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Baron Max
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. fantasus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    117
    You forgot:

    India has actually fought several wars with much bloodshed, especially with Pakistan after their independence 1948, and there has been some fighting with the chinese. Viet Nam after US left fought chinese and invaded Cambodia (or perhaps liberated?). Ethiopia and Somalia fougth each other (1980´s) - hardly wealthy nations, like several african nations(Soth Africa, Uganda, Tanzania, Egypt Morocco) - in Congo even today, and many more had internal fighting. In later decades there has been a lot of relatively "unnoticed" wars, often between countries without very big income.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Those weren't "wars", they were minor little armed conflicts or border skirmishes.

    Those wouldn't be considered "war". Even some of the "so-called" civil wars in the world today aren't "wars" ...they're just armed conflicts or skirmishes.

    I think the term "war" means something different, on a larger scale.

    Baron Max
     
  8. fantasus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    117
    Like the Iran-Iraq episodes? The american skirmishes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam to 1972, Korea start 50´s? Nothing?
     
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Didn't read my post, did you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Baron Max
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Hmm, India fought several wars among its local kings, with invaders and until today, at the borders. But I'm talking more in terms of empire building, annexation and expansionism. What drove Genghis Khan, for example to expand his empire? Alexander the Great? Ashoka, The Mauryas and Guptas?

    Why did the Mughals invade India and stop expanding? What changed?
     
  11. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Decades long drought conditions on the steppes is what drove Genghis. He first organized the tribes to seek out new grasslands for the herds. When they couldn't find much at home, they drove into Europe. Genghis Khan wasn't seeking conquest, he was seeking grazing land for the tribe's herds.

    Alexander the Great simply loved war and conquest. But to be fair, he did understand local governments and economies. Once some area was conquered he went off in search of more fun and games for his warriors.

    The others I don't know about other than the names.

    Baron Max
     
  12. G. F. Schleebenhorst England != UK Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,213
    Initially he just wanted to smack the Persians around for some revenge, and conquer their empire.
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    every war this planet has ever known has boiled down to the following 2 reasons:
    1. i'm better than you.
    2. i want what you got.
    every region of the world has been invaded or invaded somewhere else.
    the sole exception being antarctica, possibly greenland.
    see the two listed items above.
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    What was that all about?
     
  15. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    The Macedonians sympathised with the Greek city states. After years of battles with the Achaemenids, Alexander considered it the greatest prize to defeat them. He did. That was reason enough.

    ~String
     
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    They never had a great Khan after Genghis and Kublai. The tribes fragmented. There was squabbling among the leaders, and a lot of plain old mediocre leadership.

    Besides, it's not quite correct to say that it stopped expanding. The "Mughal" Empire in south Asia suffered the same fate as the "Mongol" Empire in east Asia. The occupiers assimilated the culture of the occupied peoples and began intermarrying. Their structure endured but the distinction between the occupied and the occupier blurred. By the 19th century it was referred to as the Indo-Persian Empire. The Taj Mahal is named in the Indo-European language of the Persians, not the language of the Mongols.

    Quite similar to England after the Norman Invasion. There has been no disruptive discontinuity in the government of England since 1066, yet the rulers are now English and not French.
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Thanks. As an aside, the Mughals were Turkic Mongols, the court language was Persian, much of the Indian Muslim poetry of the time was also in Farsi, including the inimitable Mirza Ghalib, who wrote in both Persian and an extremely complex Urdu.
     

Share This Page