In the history of mankind there have been many empires, conquests, and wars, all that for glory and greatness, does glory deserve all these human sacrifices? '
I am not judging any nation because my nation was also part of those nations which had many wars and which also sought greatness and glory.
Isn't it better to live in peace and try to improve the condition of life of these citizens, even if you don't have the power and the greatness?
Does the quest for power and greatness of nations, deserve all these conquests, its wars and its deaths?
The question is problematic. Most conflicts in human history have been born not of the quest for power, but the desire for security and the need to obtain scarce resources. Man being an imperfect - and imperfectible being and the ability to trust his fellow man being anything but spontaneous.
To be sure, history has not been without conflicts about the seeking of greatness and power. See also the Napoleonic Wars - sorry, had to include that one - World War II, the Cold War.
However, even here, these were conflicts born to some lesser or greater extent of the desire not just to secure power, but to establish a way of life and a philosophy/ideology that those espousing it believed was to the betterment of mankind. Napoleonic France believed it was bringing to the world the ideals of the French Revolution. Even the Communists, Fascists and National Socialists believed that they were bringing to man a world order rooted in science and History - the latter with a capital "H."
The irony being that, at least for the West, the most cataclysmic war in its history was a war about security and not ideology. It was World War I - a war fought on the basis of realpoloitik and the balance of power - that shattered the West's self-confidence.
Prior to 1914, the West dominated the world not just physically, but philosophically and psychologically. Not for nothing was the Meiji Restoration in Japan about the effort by Japanese leaders to imitate Western methods and technology. Not even God could sink the ships built by Western nations. (So He sent an iceberg to do it for Him.)
It is hard in this age to imagine the degree to which, at one time, Western civilization dominated the world. The belief was not just that Western ideas had brought man to the pinnacle of civilization, but that it made progress - the capacity to "live in peace and try to improve the condition of life of these citizens" - inevitable.
Then, as John Toland wrote in his book on the battle of the Somme, "the boys went over the top and off of a moral cliff" and the West was never the same. Thus opening up the world to the "secular religions" of Communism, Fascism and National Socialism and all the other "isms" that still plague the world.
The question then is problematic. Resources are scarce, man is neither perfect nor perfectible and trust in one's fellows is problematic. Again, World War I, at an irreducible level, was about peoples trying to secure their place - their access to resources and security and thus peace - in the world.
As Henry Kissinger put it, The Great War - as World War I was called until 1939 - was fought because Germany was too weak to rule the world and too strong to fit safely in the European balance of power. Thus for Germany, the war, at the most fundamental level, was about protecting its' standard of living and security while being surrounded by countries that feared it because it was so strong.
While for France and Russia it was about protecting itself from a country that, no matter its words, was too strong to be trusted. If such trust was misplaced, they would sacrifice the "peace" and the "condition of life" of their citizens.
To be sure, Napoleonic France, the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, to use those examples, were waging wars of conquest. However, even for them at a fundamental level, they postulated that conflict was the irreducible condition of the human animal and thus only by conquest could they subdue such conflict and bring enlightenment to humanity. In this conquest and power were equated with progress.
Thus, fundamentally, this question postulates a false dichotomy. That it is either conquest or the "good of man." In fact, those motives, at many points in history, simply became blurred together and inseparable. History, in that sense, was no accident.
good reasoning haha, well I do not agree with you on Napoleon, except to say that indeed for them révolutionnaire France had to bring Liberty to the world
Well, as the old saw has it, where you sit depends upon where you stand. Certainly the Germanic states did not feel that way and the "continental system" was not popular. Plus, I doubt that the Russians felt liberated by France.
Bottom line, France - under Napoleon - was seeking not to live in peace and "to improve the condition of life of these citizens," but rather to impose his vision of what that ought to look like. Not unlike the others I answered in this question.
It was a "quest for power and greatness." Specifically France's and his'.
Yes - although I was not aware that they extended all the way to Moscow.
Be that as it may, every country is apt to say that it has "natural borders." The Germans, at a certain juncture in their history, called it "Lebensraum."
Takes on a different flavor when you put it that way, does it not? The bottom line is that if "peace" and "the condition of life of these citizens" is the issue, you do not define that in geographical terms.
Historical error the border of France has never extended to moscow and the invasion of russia has absolutely nothing to do with border issues.
And you should know that suddenly it is the French monarchy which invented this concept and in particular Louis XIV that the great Simone Weil compared to Hitler. Because France was absolutely nothing at all in its beginnings and we were surrounded by very powerful neighbor and throughout its history France will try to protect itself from its neighbors and our Kings will determine that it takes its borders there to protect France , finally Tocqueville was right, the revolution made that to continue what the monarchy wanted to achieve but which it did not succeed in doing
That was a joke. Don't tell me that France's natural borders don't extend to Moscow, tell Napoleon.
The rest of what you said does not say very much. At one point Germany was nothing. Then at one point it seemed one step away from world domination.
Again, your contrast was between "the quest for power" on the one hand, and on the other hand, peace and "the condition of life of these citizens." My point being that the neat sharp line you drew does not exist given the human condition.
Ought it exist? Yup, but that is not the way the world is. As Victor Davis Hanson (paraphrasing Thucydides) put it: "Power, not justice... is always the final arbiter of state relations; self-interest, not morality, is what guides and must guide the behavior of states. Appeals to mercy or hope for reprieve are misguided, not rooted in logic or a realistic understanding of human behavior."
Ditto Theodore Roosevelt: "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."
Bottom line, as I say, where you sit depends upon where you stand. When Germany was securing "living space" it was seen by France as conquest. Yet when it was Napoleon, it was all about France's "natural borders."
I repeat, it is the French monarchy which invents this concept, and Louis XIV will attach a capital importance to it, moreover it is the revolutionaries who will make these conquests it is not Napoleon, Napoleon was at that moment a simple general he was far from the power.
Let us not forget either that Napoleon will declare practically no war with the exception of Russia and Spain, all the others were wars of the other European countries financed by the English, who wanted to restore the European balance.
Show me a map where the natural borders of France extended to Moscow? You would never find it, because what extended near the Russian border was not territories attached to France but it was territories under French influence which is different.
Really? I thought the Romans, Alexander the Great, Ghenghis Khan, just to name a few, had been at it a while before France. Indeed, before France was France.
Nope, France may have given it a name, but the concept well pre-dates France.
oh yes but hey honestly, the gaul does not look like much there were only tibuses divised lol.
Oh that of course, after, the Monarchy and the Republic tried to defend what seemed to them to be in the interest of France, it is also the case for England etc.
Well, you may note the common denominator here. It is great to be able to define the "natural borders" if you have the power to define and enforce them.
The bottom line is that I fully agree, nations defend their interests. That was MY point. It was YOUR question that attempted to make a distinction that works in theory but not so much in actual practice.
Oh yes, it is difficult to live in a world where everyone thinks they have interests and natural borders to conquer and defend lol.
But since the end of the second world war, we have managed to strike a balance, as long as the US continues to play its role as the world's policeman lol
Well, it is not a function of world's policeman. It is rather who has the power to enforce their interests. That was my point.
Again, I don't think the French empire was built absent the power to create it. Today France remains a weakened, but still significant global player - particularly in the context of Europe. It iwill not likely relinquish that role for some abstract principle.
Indeed, let us not forget that it was France that wanted the EU to adopt the euro as a means of leveraging German wealth to French diplomatic advantage. (You may recall that the Germans did not want to give up the deutschmark.) That was a cold hard power calculation tarted up under the banner of European unity.
Anyhow, the family reckons, so I have to run. Cheers!
I want to clarify that when I said the policeman of the world it is not an insult, I think that it is the USA which maintains a global geopolitical balance, of course it defends its interests but I think that as Zbigniew Brzeziński said, the day when the usa will no longer be able to play this role we will return to a geopolitical mess.
Fuck your Greatness fuck your glory, Real Greatness and Real Glory only works when all countries work together , not some Greedy country starts a war so they can make more money ,, and it's happening as we speak,, China has but properties all over the world taking over large areas of all countries it started bombing our Air Force Base are military base in Guam we have had ships submarines airplanes are many women are over there fighting right now because China Wants to Rule the World it was to control the money I like China what the fuck are they doing so is the covid-19 virus was that meant to be done so the United States would go broke and then try to see the way in the back door I don't know I'm about sick of all of it by the way where the fuck do you get off glorifying War and killing people fuck you sorry if that sounds rude but fuck you this is totally wrong
It is better for everyone to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. And peaceful. That is a wonderful ideal.
Unfortunately, it ignores our inescapable human nature.
Decause people are greedy and want more and more. Nobady want to cooperate, talk, understand each other. But we claim to be superior creatures, then we should show that and prezerv the peace and save in this way much more then just people, we can save, cultures, buildings, ideas for the futures, art... It is posible to achive that because all people want that in the world. All people feel good when listen to peace and love words, so this is a sign of unity and posible peace.
The power don't belong to the people/country but to some elites. If evrething whas voted by the country people 100% of the population 100% the army will disapear from all countrys. Nobady want to kill somebody who look like them , exept thous whit mental problem. Ar nation who never try to take over other and just wanted to protec themself and exist in the world, no desire for power and glory. Just deire for prosperity for theyr own people. But the elite of the other country wanted to stole that progres and no want to cooperate in development.
Where in my comment do I claim that every individual needs their very own house? The basics (shelter, food, water, electricity) is all one really needs, and to provide those basics for everyone on earth we already have the resources to do it, but not the motivation.
@Bellatris I was clearly responding to someone else. The USSR did what you want and look how ugly soviet cities are. If you're gonna build public housing for everone, it's going to be done by the lowest bidder and the result will be crap that will be expensive to maintain as time goes by.
I'm from an Ex-communist country and i live in a commy blok. 1. If world will be peaceful ther will no be any more need for military money. 2. Many buildings will be save and administrate as what the country need. 3. USSR had thous horible bloks and my country as well because the communist sistem who invest like crazy in army and farmings and never concentrate to really develop the economy. Nobady wanted communism not even Russia. 4. You will save space and money from hospitals who will not need to bring people who are about to die from war actions. 5 All the country can start to cooperate whit each other to help them to develop and improve each other sistem. PEACE IS THE WAY
Izrael is the land of Jews way before muslims come ther. The history desire for war and glory bring this situation. If the Romans and Muslim never invaded that region this situation would had not exist.
Even Turk from Anatolia peninsula and in Istambul... all of them are invadators who need to go back in central asia where is ther place, to be togeder whit Turkistan, Tajikistan, Kirkistan, Pakistan, Afganistan... That the home of muslims, as well whit nord Africans.
@Alexandrubaschet08 history is a concept, not an entity, it says nothing. Palestinians see it as their home and they don't care about you or anyone else. Even if it isn't technically their home (debatable), that's irrelevant. What's de-jure is rarely de-facto.
Unfortunately, it's human nature to war with each other. It's not just nations, because if you read history closely, you will find that before nations, there were hundreds and hundreds of little wars, waged by one small area against another. Even in relationships, there tends to be friction. And think of all the murders that take place, those are just little wars of conquest, etc. I don't mean to make human nature an excuse for war or murder, because just because there is a tendency toward something, doesn't mean we have to give into that tendency. We can chose to love one another, and not have wars.
Power, fame, & notariety (which is what your actually basing this on) are not married to greatness. "Greatness" so to speak doesn't happen by force or preying on others; greatness indicates good. Good operates morally and ethically. Oposite of power fame and notariety.
And the numbskull who believes good is a modern concept within last 60 years and has been reversing cycle history keeps repeating... you need to do a lot more historical research; figures throught have stated the same good/evil structure and its influences. That destructive cycle has dramatically accelerated & spread global (instead of being isolated to region/continent limitations) ever since the industrial revolution.
IM SOOOOOO HAPPY YOU ASK SUCH A QESTION!!! I feel like my words get to your heard afther our conversation. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
In peacetime nations prosper. In peacetime people live in harmony. "Pax Romana" - "Roman Peace" was the longest and most prosperous period of the Roman Empire.
It whas a moment in the time of Cezar when he made peace whit the barbarian tribes and no any military war had been fight for yares, in that time Roma get it glory that we know it today, whit invention, development, peace and a huge population of 1/2 millions people in the capital. 1 million people befor Chris whas a huge number. Next city that will make 1 million will be London afther the industrial revolution.
Agree, it whas terible and usless from them. Nobady asked to take Galia and Galia didn't show any danger for Roma, but what i want to say in war people sufer and olso the nation and society. In the peace time evrybody prosper. That 200 yares of peace prove it.
Yes but they imposed peace through war and the conquests and you forget the despicable destruction of Carthage, some historians say that the Romans committed the first genocide in history against Carthage
Chartage attak Roma first and schare them so bad by sending elephants to the gate of Roma that they decide to protect themself from such a thing to ever happen again. Olso they didn't force peace throw war because they whas alwase attak by Scotish, German, Dacians, Persians... Roman Empire had the power to protect that peace by not letting the barbarian come in the empire, but when they go to war and expand that mean > incorporation (people, money) > instruction (people, money)> training campain (people, money) > planing (money) > fight (people, money) > victory (people) > restructuration/anexation (people, money) > defence sistem to protect the new border (people, money). All thous stuff go in usless shit and Roman Empire didn't make any military campain for 200 in that peace. What i want to say is when they concentrate to develop themself and take care for the people evrybody prosper. This is a small example from a time line, ther is no any time line whit perfect peace so i can give you and example of such a pacifist nation. But in all time of peace evrybody win.
The only people who got any glory or greatness out of it were either plotted against, deceived and murdered due to envy or they became drunk with power and ended up despised by the very people whose lives provided their privileges and met an equally dishonorable end.
It's the natural order of things and to deny it one has to be completely retarded. That's basically what the nation-destroying, suicidal communists what to achieve all the time. Every group of people has its own interests and will pursue them no matter what. If they fail to do so nature punishes them with extinction.
Of course I agree but a small part of humanity will always cater to that base thinking just like a small part of humanity will always be racist or use drugs. In my opinion the turning point of history was the industrial revolution because it changed everyone’s living standards and all the empires before barely mattered.
People see the world differently. There will always be disputes. Sometimes they will be resolved in court. Other times people are far more passionate about their ideas and willing to kill or die for them.
Humans have been like this for thousands of years. It's only been the last couple of hundred years that anyone has even contemplated stopping this and really only in the last 60 or so years that the trend has slowly started to reverse.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
A nation which chooses not to fight wars will usually become the slaves of those who do. In the real world we dont usually get to sit by and be left alone. there is always a price to be paid. Even when a nation doesn't choose war and another country will choose it for them
Of course not. It's all human stupidity at its best.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(18-24)
+1 y
nah wars are just massive incel uprising. many of those soldiers couldn't get laid so they became soldiers and invaded other countries to steal their ''women'')
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
