4 ms·

If you ran a simulation, the kingdoms in a region can constantly plunder each other or cooperate (trade). A region where only plundering dominated would be per

If you ran a simulation, the kingdoms in a region can constantly plunder each other or cooperate (trade). A region where only plundering dominated would be perpetually reset to square 1. The wealth of ancient India or China can be attributed to the fact that trade was a dominant force, though that does not rule out conflicts between kingdoms. The Hindu rules of war explicitly rules out destruction of civilian assets or scorched earth strategies, something quite the norm in other parts of the world. This is true in modern warfare, a big difference between modern states and the likes of ISIS.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Hindu rules of war explicitly rules out destruction of civilian assets or scorched earth strategies Everyone says this. Literally, everyone. Again, going back to Roman treatises on fighting honourably and this and that. Everyone says this. Everyone bends to reality from time to time. If you’re claiming there were zero, or even a shockingly small number, of kingdoms razed with civilians slaughtered in pre-colonial India, you aren’t consulting historical sources. (Similar to the claim that India and China gained from trading in a way that is distinct from e.g. the Aztecs or Dutch. Lots of trading empires across history. Many of them relatively peaceful, at least for a time.)
- naruvimama 5y ago
  There are benefits to not antagonising the population of the conquered kingdoms. This is precisely what we follow in the modern world so should not be surprised. In practice it is not honour but just practical unless you want to constantly engaged in conflict with your "new" citizens.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > benefits to not antagonising the population of the conquered kingdoms A problem sidestepped across anqituity, including in India, by killing and/or enslaving the conquered population.
  - naruvimama 5y ago
    > A problem sidestepped across anqituity, including in India, by killing and/or enslaving the conquered population. Except that what you want most is the knowledge and skills of the population. It was attempted multiple times, especially around the same time Hitler was busy with his project in Europe, he definitely wasn't alone with his ideas.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> Hindu rules of war explicitly rules out destruction of civilian assets or scorched earth strategies Everyone says this. Literally, everyone. Again, going back to Roman treatises on fighting honourably and this and that. Everyone says this. Everyone bends to reality from time to time. If you’re claiming there were zero, or even a shockingly small number, of kingdoms razed with civilians slaughtered in pre-colonial India, you aren’t consulting historical sources. (Similar to the claim that India and China gained from trading in a way that is distinct from e.g. the Aztecs or Dutch. Lots of trading empires across history. Many of them relatively peaceful, at least for a time.)

naruvimama 5y ago
There are benefits to not antagonising the population of the conquered kingdoms. This is precisely what we follow in the modern world so should not be surprised. In practice it is not honour but just practical unless you want to constantly engaged in conflict with your "new" citizens.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > benefits to not antagonising the population of the conquered kingdoms A problem sidestepped across anqituity, including in India, by killing and/or enslaving the conquered population.
- naruvimama 5y ago
  > A problem sidestepped across anqituity, including in India, by killing and/or enslaving the conquered population. Except that what you want most is the knowledge and skills of the population. It was attempted multiple times, especially around the same time Hitler was busy with his project in Europe, he definitely wasn't alone with his ideas.