Wars in history

[Aunt Spiker]

You know - I'm just 1/2 way through my World Civ Semester in school - and so far I've read about 17 separate accounts of battle or warfare being fought that are *new* to me from the last 600 years. These have been fought by/in : Great Britain, Scotland, Continental Europe, In Africa, Russia, South America and North America.

I don't EVER want to hear from anyone EVER again stupid crap like "Why do Americans LOVE war so much" and "Why do Americans love violence"

We don't - the WORLD does.
We are no different than everyone else it seems.

hrmph!

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Violence is a tool; it has no inherent value to it. I'm rather tired of the messianic message of world peace, conflict resolution, and democracy being spread by some of my liberal comrades.

Kudos to you if you too despise this demonization of violence.

 

[Wiseone]

I think its a bad generalization to be fair, but its a criticism for modern times. I don't really think many people would consider it right to call the English crazy war mongers because of the 100 years war. Or that the Italians are horrible conquers because of the Roman Empire.

 

[samsmart]

You know - I'm just 1/2 way through my World Civ Semester in school - and so far I've read about 17 separate accounts of battle or warfare being fought that are *new* to me from the last 600 years. These have been fought by/in : Great Britain, Scotland, Continental Europe, In Africa, Russia, South America and North America.

I don't EVER want to hear from anyone EVER again stupid crap like "Why do Americans LOVE war so much" and "Why do Americans love violence"

We don't - the WORLD does.
We are no different than everyone else it seems.

hrmph!

One thing to mention: It is not that Americans love war so much - rather, the criticism is the reasons America, and all other nations, choose to go to war. It should not be for disengenuous reasons, or to cause personal profits.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The majority of wars are fought over the desire to control, dominate and control another region, people, market or nation - purely self-centered and led by the nobility and the elite based on their whims and desires.

Very *few* wars throughout the last 600 years have been fought for the "good of the people as a whole"

Very - very - very few.

 

[MichaelW]

You know - I'm just 1/2 way through my World Civ Semester in school - and so far I've read about 17 separate accounts of battle or warfare being fought that are *new* to me from the last 600 years. These have been fought by/in : Great Britain, Scotland, Continental Europe, In Africa, Russia, South America and North America.

Don't forget all the civil wars as well.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Don't forget all the civil wars as well.

I was surprised at how much I *didn't* know about - civil or international . . . and I can expand that "new to me list" now - Pugachev's Rebellion and so forth (which wasn't too long ago, really).

Unbelievable

(I'll note that Pugachev's Rebellion (and many others) wasn't led by aristocracy - but a rebellion of the people against the aristocracy and so forth)

 

[MichaelW]

Here's some others

There were a series of civil wars in New Zealand during the latter part of the 19th century. Maoris rebelled against the government and British settlers.

Also, the Australians fought a war against emus in the 1920's. The emus won. There was a two day civil war in Austria during the 1930's. Did you know about the American invasions of Grenada or the Dominican Republic?

 

[cpwill]

One thing to mention: It is not that Americans love war so much - rather, the criticism is the reasons America, and all other nations, choose to go to war. It should not be for disengenuous reasons, or to cause personal profits.

that's a good point; America's wars tend to be pretty ideological.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

that's a good point; America's wars tend to be pretty ideological.

That actually seems to be a very common thread in most wars. . . it's most assuredly not an 'American' thing.
Very few wars are waged by a country against another power for non-ideological purposes if you tally them all up. Ideological (politically) or religious.

 

[Wiseone]

That actually seems to be a very common thread in most wars. . . it's most assuredly not an 'American' thing.
Very few wars are waged by a country against another power for non-ideological purposes if you tally them all up. Ideological (politically) or religious.

The reason the wars of the past are viewed as different is because they involve different people and different times. The same Europeans who did that stuff aren't the same ones they are today. No one should take or be assigned blame for the sins of their father.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The reason the wars of the past are viewed as different is because they involve different people and different times. The same Europeans who did that stuff aren't the same ones they are today. No one should take or be assigned blame for the sins of their father.

I'll agree so long as you're implying that statement to the US as well.

the citizens of the country often aren't the voice of said military decisions - point blank.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

That actually seems to be a very common thread in most wars. . . it's most assuredly not an 'American' thing.
Very few wars are waged by a country against another power for non-ideological purposes if you tally them all up. Ideological (politically) or religious.

1600s in europe wars were fought for economic reasons for quite a while once the nation state began to develop to the point economic considerations could be made. Wars are still arguably for material consideration.

 

[Diogenes]

1600s in europe wars were fought for economic reasons for quite a while once the nation state began to develop to the point economic considerations could be made. Wars are still arguably for material consideration.

True, but wars are easier to sell if you can pass them off as ideological. It is difficult to recruit folks to risk their lives to fatten someone else's wallet.

Pirates at least share the loot. Nearly five centuries ago, someone asked one of the original Spanish conquistadors why he and his companions came to the new world. The classic (and honest) reply: "We came to serve the greater glory of God! And also to get rich"

 

[MKULTRABOY]

True this. Wars must be sold to the people.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

True this. Wars must be sold to the people.

wel that is truly something that's changed.

*Now* we care more and more - we know more and we have more opinions and we force those opinions to matter.

Things didn't use to be quite that way, though. Especially Pre 20th Century - wars were fought by the upper crusts against other upper crusts - against the wishes of the peasants and townsfolk who didn't WANT to be bothered by anyone.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Im still pretty concerted its the upper crusts that bring us to war. :shrug:

 

[MichaelW]

That actually seems to be a very common thread in most wars. . . it's most assuredly not an 'American' thing.
Very few wars are waged by a country against another power for non-ideological purposes if you tally them all up. Ideological (politically) or religious.

A war between Nicaragua and Honduras started over a football game. Just my 5 cents.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Im still pretty concerted its the upper crusts that bring us to war. :shrug:

The French Revolution (s) weren't stirred by the aristocracy. :shrug:

 

[Diogenes]

The French Revolution (s) weren't stirred by the aristocracy. :shrug:

Actually it was started by the aristocracy, those in particular who wanted to liberalize the social rules. It got way out of hand quite quickly (once again, the elites failed to anticipate the unintended consequences). Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution makes the case quite eloquently - in fact, the chronicle of the French Revolution is practically a script for the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia a little over a century later.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

It's my understanding that the beginning of the 1789 series of revolutions were started by the 3rd Estate of the General Assembly - mostly consisting of peasants, merchants and so forth.
What started it was an issue of taxation - the 3rd Estate carried too much of the tax burden and the other 2 estates which consisted of aristocracy and clergy opposed paying any taxes. - as their movement progressed some aristocrats joined with them but it did not originate with them.

In a nutshell - the 3rd Estate became the National Constituent Assembly - took the Tennis Court Oath and pushed the resolution of the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen'

It's a very complicated mess of activity - but it was initiated and led by the common-folk (modern day middle and lower class) and not the elite.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I was surprised at how much I *didn't* know about - civil or international . . . and I can expand that "new to me list" now - Pugachev's Rebellion and so forth (which wasn't too long ago, really).

One of my favorites was the "War of Jenkin's Ear".

 

[Aunt Spiker]

One of my favorites was the "War of Jenkin's Ear".

Yeah, seriously - I wasn't actually surprised by them pressing a war over hte whole issue - but the fact that he kept it really got me.

 

[topshelf]

Jeffrey Perrett's excellent book, A Company Made by War (2004) chronicles the various wars that our country has been involved in - going all the way back to the French & Indian war. It's an eye opener and a fairly short read. I highly recommend.

 

[Diogenes]

Another great read is Max Boot's The Savage Wars Of Peace: Small Wars And The Rise Of American Power. Things were different when a naval squadron was months away from superior authority and decisions were the responsibility of the commander on the spot; Political Correctness didn't stand a chance back then.