Just because those revolting are Christians does not mean they were revolting because they were Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_relations_with_the_Parthians_and_Sassanids
Religion was an afterthought. The Parthians/Sassanids were simply the next biggest bully on the block, and their wars had more to do with the personal aggrandizement of Emperors and Kings than any religious motivation.
You can maybe characterize the late Byzantine interaction as religious somewhat, but then again its just a veneer to justify political control.
I shall cite a Wikipedia page in response that has just as much to say on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Dekker
You cited what is essentially a stub in an attempt to prove your point...Congratulations?
'Scuse me while I whip this out...
Mark Whittow,
The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025: "Above all in Armenia [the region], Persian anti-Christian persecution created pro-Roman sentiment and actual rebellion which the Romans could exploit."
Warren Treadgold,
A History of the Byzantine State and Society: "Rather than send eastern troops to the West, the emperor chose to attack Persia...Justin listened to appeals from the Armenians under Persian rule, who were plotting rebellion...The Persian war began when the Armenians killed their Persian governor and revolted early in 572."
You are furthermore arguing against a position I never took. I never said that the wars were solely religious conflicts.
As with most wars, attempting to isolate it to any one cause is pointless; religion played a role, but geopolitics and personalities did as well.
It's unhelpful to pigeonhole "this is a religious war", "this isn't a religious war". Most conflicts have involved religious us vs. them overtones, whether they were started over ostensibly religion-related matters or not. Most wars cited as "religious conflicts" involved a helluva lot of stuff that didn't have to do with the religions that were ostensibly involved. You can't just say "no these wars didn't have anything to do with religion" when a lot of the fighting happened because people acted according to religious motivations.
Patroklos said:
HOW you fight a war is not the same as WHY you fight a war.
But this
is why the Romans fought. If the omens were bad, the Romans didn't tend to fight. If there's no fighting, what's the problem?
Patroklos said:
Start your own thread if you don't have any intention of staying on topic.
Responding to people without reading what they have to say is called "trolling" in some parts of the internets. What I have to say in this thread is perfectly on topic. I'm the reason the damn thread was created in the first place.
Patroklos said:
Again, HOW you fight a war is not the same thing as WHY you fight a war. Your examples are superficial. If their wasn't a war in the first place none of what you describe would have happened. Please point out the Roman wars that were started because Mars said so.
By that definition, no conflicts were
religious wars, because none of the deities in question actually popped up and said YO DO THIS. With the possible exceptions of the Jews hanging out in Canaan and Muhammad in Arabia. You're mutilating an already difficult-to-use term beyond all possible applicability.
Patroklos said:
Let me educate you:
"The main cause of the Punic Wars was the clash of interests between the existing Carthaginian Empire and the expanding Roman Republic. The Romans were initially interested in expansion via Sicily (which at that time was a cultural melting pot), part of which lay under Carthaginian control."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_Wars
Congratulations, you have described part of the root causes of the First Punic War. That is not the same war as the Second Punic War. Try again.
Personally, I would advise you not to use Wikipedia. While Wikipedia can contain useful information, in general the history articles are of highly uneven quality and tend to be strongly affected by random internet users' biases.
Patroklos said:
I guess you could try and say expansion isn't economic in nature, but I don't think you are that dishonest.
To describe the Roman attack on Sicily as a solely economic enterprise is to describe the First World War as a solely nationalistic enterprise. It's an incomplete answer, and by itself useless. Rather like calling the Crusades 'religious wars' or the New Orleans Saints a 'passing team'.
Patroklos said:
But if you want to continue to believe they were caused because Mars said so, be my guest.
If you have no interest in discussing the topic at hand seriously, that's fine too. I can always farm postcount elsewhere with less effort.
This is essentially where Dachs analysis fails, he is putting the cart before the horse.
Is anyone really going to maintain that the wars between Rome and Carthage would not have happened had both sides been athiests? Of course not, because the same forces that actually caused conflict would have existed regarless of any religious factors. It may have looked different, but it would have happened all the same.
Oddly, I don't maintain the position you just attributed to me. In fact, I entirely agree with the post you just made. Shocking. Please separate the content of my posts from that of CurtSibling's.
