3 ms·
> At the very least, I would argue historic wars had more contextual meaning with them, fighting for one's land, nation, loved ones were more immediate and conn
by Ar-Curunir 7y ago
> At the very least, I would argue historic wars had more contextual meaning with them, fighting for one's land, nation, loved ones were more immediate and connected to the action,
War has been the same across millennia: rulers getting into fights and forcing the ruled to fight for these wars for them.
- ithkuil 7y agoNot always. War was also a career, a way to provide to your (present, future) family by stealing resources from others (pillaging). Rulers often rewarded veterans with lands of the conquered etc.
- Ar-Curunir 7y agoThat's precisely what war still is for many Americans too: a way to get cheap college, a guaranteed career, etc. Doesn't change the fact that it's still the poor being forced to take this option; the only difference is that it's the economy (controlled by the rulers) that's doing the coercion, instead of the rulers directly.
- ithkuil 7y agoI don't think everything can be explained in such a top down way, as if there is a determined ruling class that subjugates a set of passive actors that don't have any role in the hole story. Society is built by individuals that are ultimately driven by the same things, no matter what is your current place in the dominance hierarchy. Thinking that the average peasant would not engage in aggressive behaviour if it were not for the "ruling class" to provide that incentive fails to explain how the ruling class emerged in the first place. Humans compete. They compete for mates, for prestige, for resources. Harmony and peace require effort to build and sustain, but they pay dividends. Prosperity benefits the rulers too. Paradoxically, harmony and peace in ancient history was often the product of interests of the same ruling classes that engaged in the warring behaviour.