So... war determines who is right AND who is left?
"War does not determine who is right, it determines who is left." - true or not ?
- Thread starter kiwitt
- Start date
So... war determines who is right AND who is left?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Man who seeks wisdom in fortune cookies likely to get crumbs.
Cheetah
Deity
I see... I think.Well, you should have asked then.
In the late 17th century, the reigning O'Neil, Turlough Luineach was getting very old and alchoholic (he famously caused a succession crisis when he was pronounced dead after a drinking session, only to rise a day later, presumably with a wicked hangover).
The principal combatants were Turlough, Hugh O'Neil, the Earl of Tyrone, and the MacShane brothers. Turlough's principal strength was that he was already the O'Neil, the MacShane brothers as their name implies controlled the access to mercenaries from Scotland, while Hugh O'Neil had the central location and the implied support of the O'Donnels. He won it after the O'Donnels entered the conflict after Hugh Roe O'Neil escaped his wine induced captivity to claim rulership of Tyrconnel.
The conflict completely altered the balance of power in Ireland.
kiwitt chose a poor word I suppose. 'Ideal' may not be the most accurate term, but in those civil wars they were certainly fighting to "annihilate" the other opinions on who should rule. No?
You tell me.
As I've said, both sayings carry some truth with them, but they're not entirely accurate or useful in all situations.
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
Correct ... a better word "opinion".
When I say Ideal ... I mean "notion", "philosophy", "opinion" or many other word to describe it.
No. War is fought to compel somebody else to do what you want them to do. It is not necessarily about Ideals, about land, or money, or the Means of Production. All of those could of course be part of the reason why a given war is fought, but they are not generalizable. What is, is suasion.
"History is written by the victors" makes me sick.
I was all set to pull out Thukydides when I saw this.
"History is written by the victors" makes me sick.
Cheetah
Deity
That's not to different from what me and kiwitt is trying to say, is it?
Well, it is quite "theoretical" at the very least, but couldn't the legacy of Carthage - as told and written by the Romans - be a suitable example where it does seem to fit? Until archaeological remains were found all we knew about Carthage came from very unflattering Roman sources.I was all set to pull out Thukydides when I saw this.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,112
If you add "in bed" to the end of fortune cookie fortunes sometimes you get really interesting meanings.
On-topic: War is sort of a wasteful way to resolve conflicts.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Not really.
Take for example, the outcome of the war. Turlough was still alive, he was still technically the O'Neil, and he certainly wanted the power that went with that. The MacShanes still harbored ambitions in Tyrone, but they were now focused on their family holdings in Scotland.
No one's opinion changed, much less was wiped out.
Hugh just made sure their soldiers were dead, and they ran out of credit.
Cheetah
Deity
Well, yes, but then the "realistic idea" that any of them could rule except for Hugh was kinda laid dead...
I realise I'm coming at this from a very difficult position, because the terms kiwitt and I chose to describe what we meant weren't very accurate. The war did mean an end to any other possibilities about who should rule. As such, the other contestants were still around, but their ambitions by then were nothing more than what some drunk bums could be rambling about. At least as long as they weren't able to rebuild.
Their ___* had been annihilated.
* Insert the proper word here.
I realise I'm coming at this from a very difficult position, because the terms kiwitt and I chose to describe what we meant weren't very accurate. The war did mean an end to any other possibilities about who should rule. As such, the other contestants were still around, but their ambitions by then were nothing more than what some drunk bums could be rambling about. At least as long as they weren't able to rebuild.
Their ___* had been annihilated.
* Insert the proper word here.
Martacus
World's Greatest Warrior
I prefer Patton's version of the axiom in question (parpaphrased, sice I don't have the actual quote at hand):
"The point of war isn't to fight and die for one's country, it's to make the other sorry [fellow] die for his."
"The point of war isn't to fight and die for one's country, it's to make the other sorry [fellow] die for his."
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Not at all. If something had happened to Hugh, say, he went into exile in Spain in 1609 after failing to entice the Butlers into revolt, the MacShanes and Turlough's Sept were happy to take advantage of the situation.
The quote is something more like "Nobody ever won a war by dying for their country, they made the other [guy] die for his country."
Cheetah
Deity
Or in other words (words that might match our point of view), Hugh's power shrunk, their powers grew and their _____ were revived. If Hugh had actually managed to kill them though, it would have been much more difficult to revive their _______.
I fully understand what kiwitt was trying to say, but I know from experience that I am very bad at explaining the underlying thoughts.
