Why do people create defensive armies?

[Naokaukodem]

When the gallics were invaded by Rome, why did they took the pain to create an army with such a despair, and die?

In the same way, why Corsica (France) or Le Pays Basque (France also) fought so hard (terrorism) in order to revendicate a nationality?

I don't get it. Why not simply offer oneself to the best (in term of everything, army and morals)?

 

[say1988]

Why do you not want to be a slave?

Because groups of people, like individuals, want ot have control over themselves and not have anyone dictating what they may or may not do. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I don't get it. Why not simply offer oneself to the best (in term of everything, army and morals)?

Basically, you're asking why, when states or peoples are attacked, they don't surrender immediately, but start resisting?

 

[say1988]

I missed that last line, who is to define "best" in these circumstances?
The Nazis had a better army than France in 1941, but they were still resisting, why didn't they surrecnder?
Who is to say that the Romans had better morals than the Gallic tribes when they were invaded? I am sure they thought they were better than Rome.

 

[LightSpectra]

I don't get it. Why not simply offer oneself to the best (in term of everything, army and morals)?

Because might doesn't make right. If you specifically made this thread to challenge that notion then you're probably not going to be taken seriously.

 

[Yui108]

Because might doesn't make right. If you specifically made this thread to challenge that notion then you're probably not going to be taken seriously.

Thrasymachus may have had a point. Socrates' refutation certainly wasn't very strong. Would you care to provide a better one?

 

[LightSpectra]

Thrasymachus may have had a point. Socrates' refutation certainly wasn't very strong. Would you care to provide a better one?

Yes, the Gorgias.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Why do you not want to be a slave?

Oh, is this what they think? People getting invaded fears to become slaves? that's pretty odd to me. When you are invaded, most of the time you continue your life, but pay your taxes to another person... that's pretty obvious to me.

I would fear more the war itself, like pillaging, murders, rapes... but would it have such things if the invaded surrendered immediately?

Or would the ones that want surrender being caught into two fires, their actual leader and the one to come eventually? Wouldn't they be punished if the defender wins the war and they surrendered? It would be only about the entropy that makes a power have its tentacles deep into the people?

Because groups of people, like individuals, want ot have control over themselves and not have anyone dictating what they may or may not do. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not.

But people never have control over themselves... they are always ruled by a king or a president, have to pay taxes wherever they go, etc... it's just a matter of who is ruling. And being the gallics, being ruled by Rome had not prooven to be worse than being ruled by a gallic, so...

Basically, you're asking why, when states or peoples are attacked, they don't surrender immediately, but start resisting?

Yes.

I missed that last line, who is to define "best" in these circumstances?
The Nazis had a better army than France in 1941, but they were still resisting, why didn't they surrecnder?
Who is to say that the Romans had better morals than the Gallic tribes when they were invaded? I am sure they thought they were better than Rome.

The Nazis had concentration camps, taking free people to put them here. That's a great difference of morals here. As to Romans, they had circus games, and enslaving also... but nothing proves that there were not slaves with Gallics also, I mean why gallic society would be of perfect virtue? They probably had barbaric practices too, that's the era that wanted that...

But I just think that individuals could see in simple difference a great danger, so that any propaganda would make the deal... propaganda made by the rulers, conveyed by the entropy of the power. It's far to be a simple game. Any camp will punish by death any "treason".

Rulers have inconsidered powers on the people they rule. It's to satify them, their thirst of power, that one have to fight in the first place. Nothing else.

However, that's also true that a ruler can be self-convinced that his people deserves not to be invaded. "The Nation" and all that shiet, but I admit I fail to see anything strong in this, aside from History, concepts and labels.

Because might doesn't make right. If you specifically made this thread to challenge that notion then you're probably not going to be taken seriously.

I didn't make this thread specifically for this, but this can lead to it, somewhat, I guess. I can see what is might, but right seems to be far more complicated. It plays with interdependents concepts that can't be discussed separatly... For example: must a ruler of a people be the same nationality as them? What is nationality? Is that only a concept of identity? A group one belongs to? An extension of one's will? things are far better made in group. The group is the power to do things. Can I plan my own desires into the group? But isn't the better group humankind? Or, thist of power? Thist of distinction? Ambition? Dreams of DOMINATION? Is that all about that? DOMINATION? Now is it a Conscience characteristic or just a human one? What is life without dreams of domination?

So one could say that no, DOMINATION is not a right, because it can't be purchased by everybody... but is a right a right? Isn't there in this concept of right something that says that "as long as it does not prevent me to dominate, you can have it"?

 

[LightSpectra]

I didn't make this thread specifically for this, but this can lead to it, somewhat, I guess. I can see what is might, but right seems to be far more complicated. It plays with interdependents concepts that can't be discussed separatly... For example: must a ruler of a people be the same nationality as them? What is nationality? Is that only a concept of identity? A group one belongs to? An extension of one's will? things are far better made in group. The group is the power to do things.

I don't even know what you're talking about. Not all -- in fact, relatively few -- wars in history have been about nationality. In fact, there have been plenty of wars which, by their very definition, cannot have been about nationality: they're called civil wars.

Having dealt with the basically-sane part of your post, I now move on to the following, which...

Can I plan my own desires into the group? But isn't the better group humankind? Or, thist of power? Thist of distinction? Ambition? Dreams of DOMINATION? Is that all about that? DOMINATION? Now is it a Conscience characteristic or just a human one? What is life without dreams of domination?

... is so insane that my only comment is that it's like you're Brian Blessed if he fell madly in love with Friedrich Nietzsche.

This is what it is: the reason people defend themselves, whether on a personal scale like from a robber or on an international scale from an opposing alliance, is because might doesn't make right; which is to say, that people don't want to be forced to do things by threat of death. If I can't defend myself from somebody, I either have to die, or do what he says; and I find the tediousness of self-defense to be preferable to that. If you can't understand that, or you think it's wrong for X reasons as elucidated by 19th century philosophers, then quit posting because it doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Lone Wolf]

This is what it is: the reason people defend themselves, whether on a personal scale like from a robber or on an international scale from an opposing alliance, is because might doesn't make right; which is to say, that people don't want to be forced to do things by threat of death.

Looks like his thesis is about "most wars in history were between powers of roughly equal amount of oppressiveness, why did the common soldiers risk their lives for defending one oppressive power over another"? This ignores mercenaries, though.

I would fear more the war itself, like pillaging, murders, rapes... but would it have such things if the invaded surrendered immediately?

Well, many invasions include raiding and pillaging among their goals.

What is life without dreams of domination?

 

[LightSpectra]

Looks like his thesis is about "most wars in history were between powers of roughly equal amount of oppressiveness, why did the common soldiers risk their lives for defending one oppressive power over another"? This ignores mercenaries, though.

He kinda skirted that at one point before veering into something completely different.

There's plenty of answers to that. Leaders show favoritism to their own troops and servants; common folk usually don't think that the two powers are "about equally" oppressive; cultural affinity towards military glory; invading armies rarely are saintly to the occupants; et al.

 

[say1988]

But people never have control over themselves... they are always ruled by a king or a president, have to pay taxes wherever they go, etc... it's just a matter of who is ruling. And being the gallics, being ruled by Rome had not prooven to be worse than being ruled by a gallic, so...

They did rule thelmselves. The Gallic tribes had their own rulers and they wanted them. Do you want the Chinese government to suddenly take over your country? Is there no difference in that situation?

The Nazis had concentration camps, taking free people to put them here. That's a great difference of morals here.

But they were stronger and lots of people died that otherwise wouldn't have by resisting. Therefore, according to you, all French people should have sat passivly welcoming their Nazi overlords.

 

[LamaGT]

Personally i wouldn't be against, say, a Russian invasion of Ukraine but only if they would treat us decently(btw i'm partially Russian and i speak Russian usually)
So in my opinion it just depends on how the invaders treat the invaded, leaving large autonomy certainly would mean they would be quite calm.

 

[say1988]

And there were French people that didn't mind the Nazis.

Different people are different.

 

[Traitorfish]

The OP also seems to be forgetting that in plenty of cases people consider their own "national" government to be illegitimate or unduly oppressive, hence revolutions. Were the republican forces during the French Revolution, say, a "defensive force"? With that in mind, it's pretty foolish to assume that all governments are basically identical, just of differing nationality.

 

[LightSpectra]

Personally i wouldn't be against, say, a Russian invasion of Ukraine but only if they would treat us decently(btw i'm partially Russian and i speak Russian usually)
So in my opinion it just depends on how the invaders treat the invaded, leaving large autonomy certainly would mean they would be quite calm.

I'm also Ukrainian and think the converse.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I don't even know what you're talking about.

Well, nevermind. I was just trying to give an example about what you call the right: for example can people think it's wrong to be ruled by another person than their own nationality? Because this person would not represent them well. I don't know why this example, was thinking about the Gallics and Vercingetorix.

Not all -- in fact, relatively few -- wars in history have been about nationality. In fact, there have been plenty of wars which, by their very definition, cannot have been about nationality: they're called civil wars.

I have to firmly disagree with you. There's a dimension of nationality in a good number of wars of my knowledge, WWI and II to begin with.

Having dealt with the basically-sane part of your post, I now move on to the following, which...

... is so insane that my only comment is that it's like you're Brian Blessed if he fell madly in love with Friedrich Nietzsche.

I don't know who is Brian Blessed, neither do I know Friedrich Nietsoihzefzzze, but what i was saying here is that:

If nations are the groups (we can make great things only into a group), and not human kind, then there's something that prevent human kind to be the group. What is it? Desires of distinction, domination? It (rather) seems that yes. Therefore, (subsidiary question) are we all conditionned (by which nature: Consciencous Beings or simply Humans?) to have dreams of domination, and wouldn't be, by the randomest of hasards, why in the first place we (or more probably: our dirigeants) don't want to be invaded?

This is what it is: the reason people defend themselves, whether on a personal scale like from a robber or on an international scale from an opposing alliance, is because might doesn't make right; which is to say, that people don't want to be forced to do things by threat of death. If I can't defend myself from somebody, I either have to die, or do what he says; and I find the tediousness of self-defense to be preferable to that. If you can't understand that, or you think it's wrong for X reasons as elucidated by 19th century philosophers, then quit posting because it doesn't matter anymore.

Ô Greatness of Greatness, Great Enlightner, I already talked about that, but it seems you didn't listen... see the posts above. But i'm curious of what said the 19th century philosophers about that however... for I, I'm saying that self defense is purely irrational, irriationality usually encouraged by the propagandas.

 

[Lone Wolf]

What is it? Desires of distinction, domination?

I wouldn't define the concept of nationality as necessarily driven by domination. Distinction, probably.

for I, I'm saying that self defense is purely irrational, irriationality usually encouraged by the propagandas.

Well, you yourself have admitted that in some cases (defence against Nazi Germany, for instance) it's not irrational.

 

[Phrossack]

But i'm curious of what said the 19th century philosophers about that however... for I, I'm saying that self defense is purely irrational, irriationality usually encouraged by the propagandas.

So you wouldn't mind if I drew a knife and charged at you? Or are you referring to the national scale? Seriously, if any country that got invaded was obliged to immediately surrender, everyone would constantly be losing their land. And, of course, if an invading country wished to exterminate your people to make a little Lebensraum, you'd have to be a dear and oblige them.

 

[Leoreth]

I have to firmly disagree with you. There's a dimension of nationality in a good number of wars of my knowledge, WWI and II to begin with.

Then you probably have a really small reference pool, as your examples confirm.