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.
You could also say that might
does make right, in the sense that, say, Julius Evola would. I.e. (to very para-explain) the mightiest conquering state would primarily be doing so to impose their own interests at the conquered peoples' extent, and thus the defenders would need to defend to stop this exploitation. Might makes right so it is every populus' purpose to resist and counteract such threats, as it were.
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.
The exact same value of taxes? The exact same influence on how much taxes they pay? A conquering state is unlikely to have much popularity from among the conquered for these two reasons (particularly the latter), so they're less likely to make the gamble of buttering them up (i.e. the former). And if they were to delegate autonomy (i.e. allowing the conquered influence on their taxation amounts), what would be the point of conquering? Unless the area is a particularly key geostrategic region, it seems that they'd otherwise be wasting exploiting the resources they've gained, and therefore, why would it be worth gaining those resources in the first place?
You have to remember, if they just had simple geostrategic concerns on their minds, such as altering the balance of power, then rather than outright conquering the state, it's probably in a state's best interest to turn it into a rump state (nullifying any political and military threat from that state) and leaving it to be a buffer against outside powers. States conquer because they see the resources (natural/economic/manpower) from the conquered are probably worth more than the expense of taking and holding it.
I would fear more the war itself, like pillaging, murders, rapes... but would it have such things if the invaded surrendered immediately?
Who's to say they wouldn't? People tend to shut up when they don't exist; mass pillaging, murders and rapes can stop people existing and being able to put up any potential significant resistance for years to come.
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...
But the Gallic rulers' power base was the Gauls. The Roman rulers' power base was the Romans. If you were Gallic and under significantly unfavourable conditions due to your ruler, would you rather they be Gallic (and thus you would be a part of the power base which keeps them in place, and can also more easily gage and influence the opinions of others who are in the same power base) or Roman (and thus you would not be a part of the power base which keeps them in place and can only hope that the situation is just as rotten in Rome, probably with somewhat less ways of gaging such opinions)?
Likewise, if you were Roman, would you really care for how bad things are for mister Brennus over in Gaul if you couldn't see him, hear him, and your luxurious way of life was maintained by his potential downtrodden-ness?
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...
The problem is, you're looking at the ancient Roman/Gallic situation objectively from a distance (
"they were both probably as barbaric and similar as each other") and the Nazi/French situation from a subjective point of view. The Romans certainly thought of the Gauls as being much less civilized than themselves to the extent that they were somewhat lesser peoples - why would the Gauls think any different of the Romans?
The Nazis had concentration camps and put free people there. But didn't the French imprison otherwise free peoples without trial in Indochina and Africa? Moreover, didn't the Nazis think it was somewhat barbaric (albeit worded differently) that the French
weren't doing this to certain groups within society deemed undesirable? If you're using the same objective qualifiers as with the example of Rome/Gaul, then Germany/France should be no different.
For example: must a ruler of a people be the same nationality as them?
Nope, although if the people who he rules who don't belong to his nationality also don't form his power base, then he is hardly going to have their interests at heart.
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.
Nationality as a concept did not exist through much of history. It's only from the mid-17th century onwards, really, that it has had much significance in this regard. The wars of Persia against Babylon and Lydia and Phoenicia and (for the most part) Greece had pretty much no nationality-based undertones. As another example, the Hundred Years' War is often viewed today as a conflict primarily between the nations of England and France - rather than a dynastic dispute by a French lineage with a power base primarily based around modern France and another lineage with a power base primarily based in England.
