i dissagree, human nature? in the animal world wars do happen, some species of antz do attack each other, gorillas atack other clans, wolfpacks attack others for control of good hunting ground, the difference is that humans have technology and take war to the ultimate level
The most common cause of wars
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
i dissagree, human nature? in the animal world wars do happen, some species of antz do attack each other, gorillas atack other clans, wolfpacks attack others for control of good hunting ground, the difference is that humans have technology and take war to the ultimate level
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
There are those that say that Economic factors are the motive for all history, not just wars. Most conflict is truly tracable to some form of avarice, whether for land, chattels, goods, even status. As Vrylakas quite properly pointed out, status is a big one in primative cultures. The word for war can be traced to a contraction for aquiring pigs, or stealing cattle or some such in many language groups.
Big wars are always fought over pride. When each side ups the ante until all the chips are on the table. War starts when one with the shorter stack forces the issue anyway. Hence pride.
J
Big wars are always fought over pride. When each side ups the ante until all the chips are on the table. War starts when one with the shorter stack forces the issue anyway. Hence pride.
J
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
Yes, but the trouble is the crusaders missed their target
. They did take over the holy land, but they also plundered Constantinopole (if they were there already, why not conquer it too?).In fact, the underlying cause for the crusades was also greed. The Pope offered great rewards of land and money to whomever would join the fight.
The best example is the socalled "Children's Crusade" (don't remember which one it was). The Pope loaded several ships with children and adolescents to go and fight in the Holy Land. They said children would be protected by God and by some sort of miracle would win the war for them. Turns out that the ships were cought in a storm and many sank. The remaining children were simply sold in Alexandria as slaves.
Ancient Grudge
Its all in this life
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MrPresident
The biggest single cause of war? Humanity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to true human nature is too fight. technology is just away of gettin better weapons to kill eachother with or to help bulid a powerful nation which the will lead to war. Fighting is in human nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MrPresident
The biggest single cause of war? Humanity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to true human nature is too fight. technology is just away of gettin better weapons to kill eachother with or to help bulid a powerful nation which the will lead to war. Fighting is in human nature.
AnarchyBoy
Despot
Hedgehog, I'm so glad someone pointed that out: the Crusades were indeed about money, not religion. The Pope wanted money from Alexis of Byzantium, and the crusaders wanted money from Judea and plenary indulgence (the ultimate money... good for eternity). The crusaders didn't travel thousands of miles and risk their lives beacuse they just loved Jesus that much: they wanted to get rich.
So to respond to the original question, I'd say that money is the only real cause of war. Wars about religion, liberty, justice, apple pie and the American way usually have some kind of economic factor hidden underneath them.
So to respond to the original question, I'd say that money is the only real cause of war. Wars about religion, liberty, justice, apple pie and the American way usually have some kind of economic factor hidden underneath them.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
I think you guys are being a little general. Up until about 1800, it was possible in most wars for individuals to make money from them: kings would get territories to tax, soldiers and sailors would get plunder, etc.. But since the emergence of the modern state, it's the state that gets the booty - if there is any. Modern wars are so destructive that there is rarely much in the way of booty to collect.
It reminds me of the ridiculous marxist argument that Kosovo was about some mineral deposit. Don't be absurd; any capitalists interested in such a deposit could have bought it for less than the instability and risk of war might have cost them.
Certainly access to wealth might be a cause of war, or an excuse for it. It certainly was a major issue when the U.S. entered the First World War in 1917, angry that it could not trade across the Atlantic in safety. But the idea that "money" itself is the cause because people are hoping to "make money" in the same way as privateers did in the 1770s is just plain wrong.
I will vote "other," because the missing category is the obvious one: POWER. Politicians are the ones who start wars in today's world, for good or for ill, and even guerrillas and terrorists like Osama Bin Laden, Che Guevera and Savimbi were politicians first and foremost. Politicians deal in the currency of power, not of money.
Ask most (not all, but most) businessmen at any time in the past 100 years if they want a war of any sort, and the answer would be no; most are willing to take a hit to even avoid TRADE wars, since they are terrified at the chaos and risk to their investments that political events can create.
R.III
It reminds me of the ridiculous marxist argument that Kosovo was about some mineral deposit. Don't be absurd; any capitalists interested in such a deposit could have bought it for less than the instability and risk of war might have cost them.
Certainly access to wealth might be a cause of war, or an excuse for it. It certainly was a major issue when the U.S. entered the First World War in 1917, angry that it could not trade across the Atlantic in safety. But the idea that "money" itself is the cause because people are hoping to "make money" in the same way as privateers did in the 1770s is just plain wrong.
I will vote "other," because the missing category is the obvious one: POWER. Politicians are the ones who start wars in today's world, for good or for ill, and even guerrillas and terrorists like Osama Bin Laden, Che Guevera and Savimbi were politicians first and foremost. Politicians deal in the currency of power, not of money.
Ask most (not all, but most) businessmen at any time in the past 100 years if they want a war of any sort, and the answer would be no; most are willing to take a hit to even avoid TRADE wars, since they are terrified at the chaos and risk to their investments that political events can create.
R.III
Ancient Grudge
Its all in this life
Nationalism is i think the biggest factor in wars starting and continuing.
Mîtiu Ioan
Deity
Interesting ... feudal war was even more devastating than modern ones - but of course according with a general more reduced population the number of casualties was smaller
- and "nationalism" don't even exist in those times .... I will say that there isn't one general cause for any war, but even not for one particular war. In any war exists many factions which join to one or another parts, determining in many cases, major turninig in the succesions of events ...
For example - the Crusades - was probably motivated for greed of many European kings and blessed by some obscure reason by Pope - but I'm sure that 90% of soldier figth for religious reason. Also when the IVth Crusade ( if I'm remeber right
) was in lack of food the christian forces attack also a Christian Kingdom - the Romanian-Bulgarian Tzarat of Asan's Kings. And was defeated ... even that previous thay gain support from Ionita Caloian - rulor of this kingdom. Anyway the wars is - as Clausewitz said : "Continuing policy in other plan" - so probably the reason for wars is generally one : POLICY ... and this depending by context of course.
Regards,
P.S. : Excuse me for my bad english language ...
Mad Bomber
Commander
Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
Interesting ... feudal war was even more devastating than modern ones - but of course according with a general more reduced population the number of casualties was smaller
I will say that there isn't one general cause for any war, but even not for one particular war. In any war exists many factions which join to one or another parts, determining in many cases, major turninig in the succesions of events ...
For example - the Crusades - was probably motivated for greed of many European kings and blessed by some obscure reason by Pope - but I'm sure that 90% of soldier figth for religious reason. Also when the IVth Crusade ( if I'm remeber right
Anyway the wars is - as Clausewitz said : "Continuing policy in other plan" - so probably the reason for wars is generally one : POLICY ... and this depending by context of course.
Regards,
P.S. : Excuse me for my bad english language ...
As you pointed out there are many reasons for wars. You use the Crusades as an example of greed when it is actually a microcosim of all the reasons for fighting wars. The Crusades were started by the invasion of the Byzantine territories in 1071 and the cutting of the pilgramage routes to Jerusalem. For the Byzantines the main reason was to reconquer their lost teritory. For the pope it was religion, reopening the pilgramage routes to jerusalem was the priority. For the minor nobles of europe it was mainly greed, as the establishment of a christian state in palestine would give them oportunity for plunder, lands, and glory. For the great lords and the kings of europe it was a way to extend his or her power. No war is fought for one reason, we are human and the motivation that I may have to fight is not necessarily the same as others who would fight with me.
I don't think people would start a war just because of the booties. It was a nice by product to the victors but I doubt that's the cause. I have never read or heard anyone rally for their people to a war using the sloan: "Let go to war and get rich!"
Dr. Dr. Doktor
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,354
I'm concerned that the western way of war in the infomation age is simply there to prevent boredom from degenerating into apathy. No war no need for a state. Absence of war = anarchy.
In the good old days wars were filthy, disgusting even. Now their cleanliness is only exceeded by their lack of any real consequence for the perpetrators. It's like American Football. Clean family fun. Poison gas might change all that of course.
So the reason for war is the continuation of order.
In the good old days wars were filthy, disgusting even. Now their cleanliness is only exceeded by their lack of any real consequence for the perpetrators. It's like American Football. Clean family fun. Poison gas might change all that of course.
So the reason for war is the continuation of order.
Similar threads
