Maybe this is my status as a 1st world white guy, but in having trouble figuring out why two medieval nations go to war. Can you help?
>>47066360
>What is it good for?
I wish I had saved that one page from Nikolai Dante where Tzar of future-Russia answers that question.Everything!
>>47066360
>Maybe this is my status as a 1st world white guy,
Your ignorance is not a consequence of your whiteness. It's a personal failing, don;t try to bring down the rest of the race for the sake of your self loathing.
>but in having trouble figuring out why two medieval nations go to war.
Land, plunder, and rape. War could be good for your nation's economy at any point prior to industrialization. It was one of the few ways a poor man could acquire significant material wealth and opportunities to reproduce.
>>47066360
For the lords it was mostly to get new lands and taxes while the soldiers fought for plunder. So its always for money.
This is the nature of war, whose stake is at once the game and the authority and the justification. Seen so, war is the truest form of divination. It is the testing of one’s will and the will of another within that larger will which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. War is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god.
But aren't people generally good?
Why would a good person kill, murder and rape?
>>47066360
Hey, here's a crazy idea, how about you use that 1st world white guy privilege of yours and go read a book on history. You'll find very good accounts of how and why various wars got started, about the people in them and the consequences of those wars.
>>47066511
You're so fucking white
>>47066360
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq4SSlsZ_p0
>>47066360
Because one king thinks the other is a shit.
People have gone to war over less.
>>47066716
>Aren't people generally good?
What is "good?"
I guess you could argue that from a biological standpoint "good" would be behaving in a manner that continued the propagation of one's own species or gene pool. There are plenty of circumstances, awful as they may be, where killing other people or worse achieves this end.
For fucks sake, one of the reasons Rome was able to grow in it's early years was due to a mass rape, and that civilization arguably has helped propagate functioning society more than any other.
>>47066360
>but in having trouble figuring out why two medieval nations go to war.
>People this ignorant actually exist
Come on now, books are a thing!.
>>47066824
>>47066891
>moral relativism
Wars aren't started because you just love killing. There's millions of interesting dramatic reasons countries go to war.
Think about fucking 9/11. It was
*Bush destroys twin towers*
"Hey, Iraq, uh, we think the people responsible came from here. Can we just kinda occupy you and look around?"
"No? We'll tell you if we find the people responsible."
"Yeah, that's not good enough. We're occupying you."
>>47066942
Some people probably started wars because they loved killing.
>>47066931
I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just trying to explain why somebody might go ahead and choose to do those things.
>>47066942
>*Bush destroys twin towers*
Uh-huh, sure.
>>47066891
When do you start college, anon?
>>47066360
>Expansion
>Trade
>Client States asked
>They got in the way while marching on an enemy they previously declared war on
>Reunification under a single nation
Advancements in technology and medicine.
>>47066360
well it could be religious, it could be both kingdoms want control over a certain resource, it could even be because the kingdoms have been enemies for so long that they simply consider weakening each other via the sacking or seizing of settlements to be in there interests.
>>47066942
>Not greentexting
>Using * * to denote actions
>Bush destroys twin towers.
>>47066968
>Starting a war just because they love killing
>Wasting national wealth to satiate bloodlust and nothing else
>>47066360
There are more reasons to go to war than there are reasons not to go to war.
>>47067023
>religious
No, actually most cases that isn't what triggers a war between two nations. It is instead used as justification for recruiting soldiers
>His faith says he has to eat your babies.
>Educate this heathen by ramming you Holy sword of truth through his gut!
>>47066360
>I don't know why two midieval nations would go to war
Read a goddamn history book
Read a psychology book
Try to get two greedy people to share a bag of candy.
>White guy first world
You have education by virtue of being in the 1st world
being a white guy has nothing to do with it, you are just an ignorant ass.
>>47066931
What's wrong with moral relativism?
>>47066824
And you're such a fucking nigger
>>47066716
Nope. What the fuck gave you that idea?
>>47067078
Obviously they can loot shit as they kill but people will do things that are not totally rational. There was once a war started over a looted wooden bucket. A war that lasted twelve years.
>>47066931
>Why doesn't that guy from literally half the world away think the way I do?
>Well maybe because he was bought up differently and thinks that-
>Don't go all morality mumbo jumbo on me mister!
>>47067213
>War of the Bucket
>but was really an episode in the over 300-year-long struggle between Guelphs and Ghibellines.
Yeah the bucket was the only reason...
>>47067017
This is more a side effect than a reason to start it.
>>47067150
It undermines idealism, which is important for forward societal progress.
I think Moral Relativism is important, and certainly necessary in a lot of contexts, but when it becomes extreme pragmatism or borderline nihilism it's a problem.
>>47067213
Every war boils down to sone guy wanting another ones wealth and that's it.
A bucket from a well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Bucket
>>47066360
Medieval Nations weren't countries. They were a collection of nobles sworn to follow one dude. So oftentimes their conflicts were conflicts of rulers.
>>47067315
>It undermines idealism, which is important for forward societal progress.
What?
>>47067222
>Can we agree that the gang rapes happening half way across the world are bad?
>It's their culture, don't be insensitive
>>47067277
You dont seem to realize how dumb people are anon. Look up the emu war.
>>47066931
Except that morality is totally relative, you can raise people to believe damn near anything. You can judge the quality of a moral code on rational lines (I.e. western culture beats Islamic culture because it's less repressive, more economically and socially visible as it doesn't stifle new ideas, citizens under it are happier and healthier and Islamic culture fucks it all up to appease a god which, fedora tipping aside, almost certainly doesn't exist but ultimately peoples morality is learned.
>>47067410
That wasn't a war. That was a bunch of idiots being idiots who couldn't kill a bunch of birds in one of the most disastrous hunting trips ever.
>>47067315
>b-but if thats true then it would cause problems!
>so it's not true!
>>47067404
But it IS in their culture. They do not consider them bad. Who are you to judge them?
>>47067438
It was a military action anon. It counts.
>>47067404
>Why do those people cut off my soldiers' dicks?
>Could it be because they've been raping and pillaging through his land?
>No, it's him that's wrong
ftfy
>>47067277
To be fair it was full of loot.
>>47067461
No, if military action counts as 'war' the U.S would have done nearly as much sneaky shit it has done in the last 50 years. 'Military action' is one of the few things the President use the military to do shit without Congressional approval.
If it was the same as war, every proposal to bomb, kill, assassinate, and generally douche things up around the world never would have happened because Congress would have cock-blocked him.
>>47067459
>>47067404
That's not moral relativism. The fact that it's in their culture might make it understandable, but that does not make it desireable for everyone else, especially the ones affected by that particular tidbit. There is a huge difference between understanding and acceptance, you dolts.
>>47067500
>>47067461
>>47067438
>>47067410
This is starting to move away from medieval and more into modern, and that's a whole 'nother can of worms. Get back on topic people.
>>47066360
The same reasons people go to war now, someone benefits from it and they either support people with reasons to start a war, or they convince people they have reasons to start a war.
England was once so fucking desperate to have a go at the Spaniards in Jamaica for trade reasons that they started one in retaliation for an event 3 years prior where an English captain got his ear cut off by spanish pirates.
France and England were at each other's throats for a hundred years because of a claim on the throne that was legal in one country and illegal in the other.
>It totally counts on the mother's side you guys.
>Uhm, no it really doesn't, only the father's side counts.
>Fine, war.
Also, if you're fucking clueless of something educate yourself you piece of shit, it takes 10 minutes of googling to learn war more stuff than you'll learn in 2 days of keeping this shitty thread alive with poorly backed up arguments and people drifting off the point because you HAD to use the image you did.
>>47067503
I accept it happening in their land. Not near my home, though - it's not in my culture.
>>47066360
It starts after a bunch of goddesses get into an argument about who is prettier. One thing leads to another there's a kidnapped queen and an armada on somebody's doorstep.
>>47067110
I think it's at least a contributing factor beyond easy justification. If only because large centralized religions have a lot of political power and probably try and push for there members to spend there time stabbing people who are no members of the same faith.
also some kings were genuinely religious, so would make decision with what there faith says being taken into consideration.
>>47066836
>Leslie Fish
Based
>>47067533
What about the war of the golden stool?
>>47067417
Doesn't moral relativism depend on how morality itself is defined? If morality is defined as "what does not inhibit the propagation of a healthy species" wouldn't that make things like murder and rape, to the extent that it increases the chance of mentally unhealthy children, objectively wrong?
>>47067000
When did you drop out of high school, anon?
>>47067588
Yes organized religions have a lot of political sway, but it is seldom used to start a war, but rather to make starting a war sound more just(the Crusades). It doesn't make much sense for a Holy man to order people to fight and die for some guy's land that you never heard of, but if you do it to spread the Truth, or liberate Holy Land, suddenly it makes more sense, and it makes people feel less guilty about the inevitable pillaging.
>>47066360
>A neighboring kingdom has something you need
>They won't give it to you
>(write in)
>>47067503
Yup. True story: There are cannibals who eat their loved ones when they die because that's just how they do. They think our culture is barbaric for treating dead loved one's bodies like garbage and throwing it away. Moral relativism isn't being okay with cannibalism but understanding that, to them, there's nothing wrong with it.
>>47067593
>war of the golden stool
Which ended with exactly what the British wanted: more land.
The stool was a convenient reason to start the war, much as it was the Zulu war when they were ordered to disarm. It was pretty damn obvious no one was going to agree to that, making military intervention necessary.
>I really want to sit on that stool
>Er sorry mate, it's a holy seat containing the spirits of our ancestors, only the king can-
>FUCK YOU
And then we went to war with the Ashanti
>This tea stuff's really nice, but it's giving China too much power
>Yeah. Hey, let's get them hooked on opium!
>Hey, Britain, would you mind not selling us all these drugs, it's kind of a massive problem now..
>TAKE YOUR FUCKING MEDICINE, CATHAY
That happened twice.
>>47067603
There are so many things wrong with everything from your question to your conclusion that it's giving me a migraine just thinking about it.
To put it simply, no, nothing you say is particularly correct.
>>47067570
They don't leave en masse out of boredom though someone bombs the shit out of them making even the people who had good lifes to leave their country.
>>47066360
Money and control over more land is a big one, everyone always needs more resources.
Another is "taking what's yours", such as the crusades and in a way, the Hundred Year War.
>>47067315
You should know morals are relative, you should act in your everyday life as if they weren't?
>>47066360
Wealth and power in medieval society is mostly determined by how much land you control. You want more land, but all of it is already owned by someone. So when you think your army is strong enough to take your neighbor's land, you start a war.
>>47067603
Morality basically always boils down to "don't fuck with other people's shit". Morality is "relative" when it's applied differently based on different answers to questions like: What can be a person's shit? Which shit is the most unfuckwithable? Whose shit is the most unfuckwithable? Generally murder and rape are immoral, unless there's an excuse that says it's your shit to fuck with (aka your right).
t. someone completely uneducated
>>47067150
I think that determining what is good for the whole of humanity is more important that what is accepted by small groups and cultures.
>>47066716
All tribal groups in all species that form them are based on violence.
If a pack of raiding chimpanzees passes a group of raiders from the group they're planning to raid they let them pass. The noncombatants are the targets.
Among American Indians, the scalps of women and children brought greater favor because it meant the taker had reached the enemy's inner sanctum and hit them where they're most vulnerable.
Mutilation of dead bodies to doom them in the afterlife was also practiced.
Where resources are scarce we'll fight to have the most. Using violence to secure a high quality of life for one group at the expense of others has proven more adaptive than splitting them and guaranteeing a mediocre quality of life for everyone. In that way it is good, because it's better for the species than collectivism, even if most individuals suffer for it. At least it was, before we had nukes.
Violence is in our nature because our environments selected for violence. War created us, War is God.
>>47067603
Well yeah, the root of morality is generally a few basic ideas that the specifics get extrapolated from. Generally you can define it as basically being about treating people like you the way you want to be treated. You then define what people like you are and how you weigh beneficial outcomes on a scale of the individual and the society you previously defined. There's then normally an 'unless you rally want to' clause, which is where means and ends come in.
Basically it's various permutations of 'don't be a dick to people that deserve respect unless it's super important'. Everything else is quibbling over definitions of grouping.
>>47067716
It was started unintentionally though, And the africans claim they still won because all they still kept the stool.
>>47067813
Yeah basically this
>>47067577
Stupid. Such a story would be quickly forgotten, I can tell you!
>>47067841
Well, it was their goal. So, in a certain sense, they did. About as pyrrhic a victory as you could get, though.
>>47067150
Because it leads to conclusions like "The Nazi Party was just doing what was right for them."
>>47067769
I believe it's certain idealist who wants to bring them "truth, justice, American way" despite them being of different culture.
>>47067824
It's the opposite.
>>47067957
It does indeed. Me, at least.
>>47066360
The vast majority of people who know anything about medieval Europe are 1st world white guys, and besides literally anyone could figure this out by sitting down for 3 minutes to have a bit of a think, you're just a retard.
>>47067150
A positive life ethos drives you to do things and change the world you're living in. The clash between them is a crucible.
Without some perceived higher purpose to drive us we just turn into last men, sick of being alive and only interested in avoiding discomfort.
On the grand scale of things yeah, there's no actual divine law, but that doesn't mean we can't act on an ethos as if it were.
>>47067869
You say this, but how many ships can your face launch?
>>47067957
but they were anon....
>>47068053
A thousandthey are all going the other way though
>>47067926
They caused about a 1000 brit casualties too... and suffered ~2000 in return, but the sanctity of the stool was not violated, which is what mattered, to them.
Also for various reasons the rule over them wasn't that tight in the end, even though they lost.
>>47067957
Well yeah, they were. But that doesn't make it right for anyone else because relativity.
If I'm going to armchair-philosopher this, I feel as though one of the major contributing factors in morality is whatever level of humanity an individual considers most important.
Personal self, close family unit, extended family, friends, other specific persons, one's own biological children, all human children, a particular ethnicity, the state, global humanity, etc.
Depending on what demographic who's progress you are putting first, your morality may change. In a fascist system, the level which is considered important is the state, and thus actions that may seem immoral to somebody who's interest is the global human population may seem obviously moral to them. Sure those people probably have an instinctual aversion to killing babies or something, but to get around this you've got the magical ability to de-humanize people not within your chosen demographic to subvert this instinct and flip it on it's head. Likewise, somebody who only cares for themselves and their own might be willing to press the "kill/enslave everyone else for gains" button.
Then you throw emotions into the mix and none of that barely fucking matters anyways. People have gone to war for some pretty fucking dumb reasons. Conflict doesn't need to be morally justified to happen.
>>47067957
Yes. Taking that stance doesn't mean you have to agree with them or even consider that their actions were justified.
Comprehension =/= justification.
It's good for you, it's good for me!
Weren't 90% of medieval wars about either pressing some family claim to some kingdom or just killing infidels? Go with one of those. Feel like you could get away with replacing "infidels" with "dwarves/elves/halflings" or whatever and add a racial thing to it.
>>47066716
>But aren't people generally good?
Almost exclusively to who they count as their tribe (however you define that). If you're not kin, get fucked.
The major success of civilization has been the expansion of who to consider and incorporate into a given tribe.
>>47066360
Land, power, resources, deciding who will succeed the next Duke/Count/Marquis/whatever, very rarely honor. Basically, if something is useful, and there's a lot of it at stake, war is an option.
>>47068140
Moral relativism isn't just about understanding other people's moral viewpoints. It's taking the position that all moral viewpoints are equally valid.
>>47068284
A lot were vassals/lord conflicts actually.
>>47066360
>but in having trouble figuring out why two medieval nations go to war. Can you help?
It starts at "You fucked my wife" and gets less petty from there.
>>47067813
I want the libertarians to leave.
>>47068326
Yes, ideally with the intent on being as impartial and unbiased as possible.
Again, I don't agree with it, I myself am personally biased and I form my biased morality based on what I feel is best for a global society. I feel as though you're trying to poke holes at an impractical idealism that nobody here is siding with so much as talking about.
Understanding moral relativism =/= being a moral relativist.
>>47066360
Protecting civilzation againt a horde? Freeing slaves? Defending against a totalitarian aggressor?
>>47066360
For land and glory.
>>47068541
>Protecting civilzation againt a horde?
>Defending against a totalitarian aggressor?
Woah, woah there. That's sounding awfully Islamophobic, comrade. Everyone knows that the Crusades were TOTALLY unprovoked and unjustified.
>>47068612
It's like you don't even want a kingdom of Jerusalem. Also, stop your pitiful baiting already
>>47068709
>not sucking sandnigger cock is "bait"
Fuck you.
>>47068709
>Deus may or may not Vult, depending on various factors
>>47068709
>baiting
lrn2sarcasm, comrade.
>>47067968
I think that its a common resource grab with that being the reasoning behind it and as it was explained in this thread that shit is older than rome.
>>47066360
Here goes then:
1. land and resources are finite. If your people need more of them then the easiest thing do is to fight someone else and take what they have.
2. from ancient times up until the end of the empires of Europe, this was why wars were fought. Colonialism was just "take land from the natives and make them work for you so your people can have more stuff."
3. Up until international trade, in particular 20th century globalism, the easiest way to get the resources your people needed was to fight others for it. Now that globalism is here, every nation worth mentioning prefers to trade with others for their resources instead of taking it by force because wars are expensive.
>>47068745
No fuck you faggot.
This is not /pol/.
>>47068935
Doesn't need to be /pol/ to be accurate. Medieval fantasy always draws heavily from historical events and other relevant factors. To cite the fact that the Crusades were a response to Muslim hostile expansion is neither baiting, not a /pol/-exclusive topic within the context of history and medieval events, which happens to be related to the topic started by the OP.
So sit down and hakuna your tatas, comrade.
>>47069063
I'm not denying that the crusades were a reaction to muslim agressiom I'm more calling the guy a faggot for his tone.
One thing I have seen of /pol/acks is that they are complete disrespectful idiots.
>>47069063
Yeah but that kind of retarded rhetoric is only good for starting some shit flinging "discussion"
>>47069149
His tone came from the fact that you called the claim 'bait'. You can't exactly throw a jab and not expect a chair on 4chan.
>>47066511
>prior to industrialization
Nigga, I hate to tell you this, but large portions of the world have been industrialized and profiting from war for centuries.
>>47069176
I wasn't anon saying that he threw bait though.
>>47069176
That guy isn't me. I called it bait because >>47069173
He clearly meant to incite some kind of flaming with it
>>47067078
>Starting a war just because they love killing
>Wasting national wealth to satiate bloodlust and nothing else
Dumbfuck war is not solely the product of nations. The yanomamo tribes don't even occupy their defeated enemy's land or loot their goods.
>>47066360
Did you just invoke white privilege to excuse your lack of imagination, you absolute faggot?
>>47069173
I suppose. Personally I'm not bothered by discussing historical events.
Just cause the rest of the world's turned into a bunch of thin-skinned nancies who need to start a shitshow because "omg contruvurshee" relating to a religion currently in the mainstream spotlight doesn't make me want to not have a discussion if I can find equally sensible sorts - and really, /tg/'s about as good as it gets for that shit these days. Make of that fact what you will.
I mean, we could talk about the other shitty, retarded or ridiculous conflicts started over religion. How 'bout when England and Scotland duked it out during the 1800's over different interpretations of Christianity?
>>47069063
Well, in part. They also were due to the Pope wanting everyone in Europe to stop fighting each other over some peasant's pig getting lost and just pointing them at an obvious target.
>>47069215
>He clearly meant to incite some kind of flaming with it
Glad to know you apparently can read my mind, comrade. Maybe you can tell me where my keys are? I can't seem to find them. If not, perhaps you could stop presuming to know my intentions. My remark was a joke, at worst a shit joke, but a joke nonetheless, at the expense of currently mainstreaming views on the Crusades.
>>47069345
Yes, but for what purpose? I quoted Terry Pratchett in a context not at all related to religion, so why make that joke? Considering how things go around here, the chances that you're a /pol/ memester seemed pretty high, you gotta admit that.
>>47069405
I've never even posted on /pol/ so I don't even know what they sound like. I've been lurking and posting on /tg/ exclusively for the past five or six years now.
>>47067150
Moral relativism tells us that the only good is conformity and the only evil is individualism.
>>47069405
As for the purpose.. again, to make a joke. I can't speak for the quality of the joke, but the intent was to incite a dry chortle or two at best.
>>47067957
that was literally what the Nazi party was doing. Nevermind the moralistic justifications for genocide or the bluntly poor way the government was managed they didn't do anything they 'felt' was wrong.
they did a shit ton of things wrong but their morals justified that. Failure to understand a culture different from your own makes human interaction damn near impossible.
it doesn't mean you have to agree with that culture but understanding it helps move things along.
>>47066701
Fuckin' Holden you prophet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L2Gve7oh_4
>>47067150
Normies can't handle it
>>47066360
they're bored
>>47066716
>But aren't people generally good?
No.
>>47066511
>don't try to bring down the rest of the race for the sake of your self loathing.
This
>>47066891
>I guess you could argue that from a biological standpoint "good" would be behaving in a manner that continued the propagation of one's own species or gene pool.
No, "good" are the qualities people see in others that make them think that person will be beneficial to their survival. It's difficult for traits like that to evolve simply in order to ensure the survival of an entire species. It usually happens on a more microcosmic level. It's evolutionary beneficial to see someone who helps people as right, and someone who hurts people as wrong. Even other mammals I think have some rudimentary form of this. With humans though, it's more full formed, and we can also do mental gymnastics to twist it, which is why when anyone tries to justify something harmful they do, they spin it around such that their hurting is somehow actually helping.
>>47066360
To pay the guys you hired to keep others guys from killing you and taking your shit.
This isn't the modern day where you had a large number of government bureaucrats to take care of things with a population dedicated to some idea of a nation.
You had the men you could pay and the men you hoped would stay loyal to you with the men they could pay in return with a bunch of peasants inside a poorly defined area where large chunks of it belonged to some guy in Rome in an attempt to gain legitimacy for your rule beyond having the most knights.
>>47069193
>context
>>47068094
>>47068053
>>47067869
>>47067577
>>47067729
>mfw tea also boosted the slave trade into the massive thing that it was
>because some guy wanted his tea sweet instead
tea is awesome when you realize how many corpses were strewn along the way for you to drink it today
>>47066360
Easily the worst person on /tg/ right now
>mfw armchair philosopher's try to justify moral relativism
An objectively terrible NET. Read more.
>>47066360
This is a question that you should be qualified to answer before you even touch a traditional game, much less go on this fucking board and ask this inane nonsense.
Jobs, technology, a common purpose.
>>47069285
I know right. It's almost like co-opting an identity that other people shove on to you for your own purposes is a thing or something. :^)
>>47066716
Because the people you're doing it to are infidels or foreigners or maybe invaders themselves, and have no particular moral value in your worldview.
>>47067213
one theory is the wars that led to the English Civil war where essentially created by one old lady starting a riot by throwing a stool.
BECUZ WITTOUT WAR YOUZ NEVA GONNA GIT MORE TEEF
>>47075146
Don't they grow right out of your jaw a while after they're knocked out?
>>47075194
NOT ENUFF
>>47072211
The hell are they teaching you kids in school now days that makes you think the slave trade was still going on in the 19th century?
Most medieval wars were between lords/vassals, usually pressing questionable claims on bits of land.
The bigger wars were usually fought for the same reason wars were fought for years before and years to come. Money, territory, and influence.
>>47066360
>ctrl+f "casus belli"
>zero hits
COME THE FUCK ON
>>47067315
>implying nihilists aren't right
>>47066360
Lots of wars in medieval Europe were fought because the other side had a different streak of Christianity. The papal law forbid fighting a war against people of the same doctrine, but when the protestants came up, it caused a 30 year war, mostly because people didn't want having to pay taxes to the pope and shit.
On the flip site, the loyalists were promised any land they could "reclaim" for the pope, and of course there was plundering to be had.
Then there's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnAvNdVyJB0
And just fighting because it's good for the ego of the officers.
The Renascence had a lot of militaristic states, Prussia chief among them. It was very much pre-fascism, and a lot of moral values were directly drawn from military might and a man just wasn't taken seriously if he hadn't served in the military.
War as a way of gaining any advantage was so widespread that it very much shaped Europe at the very foundation, up to and including World War 2.
The foundation of the EU was very deliberately to tie the states together specifically so they had reason to not war against each other in the future.,
>>47066716
People killed each other prehistory even when resources were plentiful. Entire tribes were slaughtered.
>>47066360
Land, plnder, rape, political bickering, my god has a bigger dick than yours, your way of life is wrong, you are strangers so you're not people, slavery, noble house rivalry, sea trading connection, land trading routes and finally, just for the hell of it.
>>47066360
OP go and play Crusader Kings or Europa Universalise
>>47066419
For you, anon. From "The Courtship of Jena Makarov"
1/2This took so much more time than I anticipated.
2/2
You just know Vladimir had that in his head for ages and was dying for someone to set him up.
>>47066931
>being a moral realist
>thinking the universe takes sides and that there are objective normative facts
>being this retarded
>>47066836
>>47067592
/tg/ has excellent taste.
>>47066701
“War, not peace, produces virtue. War, not peace, purges vice. War, and preparation for war, call forth all that is noble and honorable in a man. It unites him with his brothers and binds them in selfless love, eradicating in the crucible of necessity all which is base and ignoble. There in the holy mill of murder the meanest of men may seek and find that part of himself, concealed beneath the corrupt, which shines forth brilliant and virtuous, worthy of honor before the gods. Do not despise war, my young friend, nor delude yourself that mercy and compassion are virtues superior to andreia, to manly valor.”
>>47066360
The 34th Rule of Acquisition.
>>47077267
And all the Spartans were killed by their own slaves , and the region prospered because city-states weren't fighting.
Because more than 1 guy thinks he is rightful hier of the throne, because of territorial disputes, because they live in a resourceless shithole and are too nigger to trade so they decide to attack instead.
>>47077321
After their worst defeat they were still a (lesser) power for more than 200 years.
>>47066360
Usually resources. Are you retarded?
>>47077267
Purging vices? Selflessness? Uniting with "my brothers"?
Woah, you make war sounding like hardcore socialism. That ain't fun at all.
>>47077438
Is an asshole on this thread who answered a genuine question with a dick reply?
get to get that fresh water and farm land some how
resources of one kind or another... arable land, livestock, mineral deposits, exploitable wildlife or vegetation, territory, xenophobia, religious disagreements, or maybe you just don't like the guy that runs the place for some/any/no reason and you want to murder him and rape his bitches and burn down his shit because you're a spoiled dick and shit rolls downhill and your peasants can fucking eat it and savor every kernel of corn from it if they're too lazy to grow enough food for your banquets AND their stupid children or lepers or whatever, and they better thank you for it or it's one million years dungeon
human history is just a big string of that sort of nightmare over and over, every generation thinks they came up with it
>>47066360
>war wives and pregnancies are a secret
Why are liberals so fucking retarded?
>>47077570
They stay in echo chambers to listen to their own voices.
>>47066360
High risk high benefit, motherfucker.
>>47077570
Secret = dumb average people don't know it
>>47066716
>>47067325
It's pretty easy to forget that medieval Europe spent centuries in a state in which 90% of the population was one bad year away from starvation. Running out of resources wasn't a matter of importing them from somewhere else more productive.
Overall greater prosperity through technology and internationalism has made war less necessary today, because money can always be converted into the resources you need (though the rate may be unfavorable) via international trade. That wasn't possible in horse-and-buggy, single-digit-percentage-literacy, pre-lateen-sail times.
So as with most wars ever, it was mainly over resources. the middle ages in Europe were a particularly shit time for resources.
>>47066360
Normally because two powerful families had a disagreement over territory or a royal succession, or a power struggle between two claimants within a country leading in civil war. Regular people get forced to fight on behest of these powerful families.
Usually its about resources, sometimes about honor.
Throughout history political power has been those who possess and can mete out violence, you have to show you're willing to make war to maintain your power, and you will use diplomacy to ensure other peoples violence can back up your own violence until you have mutual defence pacts and the like that caused ww1.
>>47066360
One of them couldn't into economics but has fairly abundant eager young men and pointy sticks, so they attempted to intimidate the neighboring nation that was good with money into giving them wealth, demonstrating their ability via a raid.
The opposing nation was not amused and struck back.
>>47077726
Sums up the Viking raids desu
>>47066360
The Economy.
>>47077570
Because most people put it out of their minds.
>>47066360
Usually it can be traced back to disruptions to the staple food supply fucking up the economy and making the short term damages from war worth the long term gain. Or short term gain in times of actual famine.
War calmed the fuck down a lot once we got better at having people who would rather not die in all honesty. But when you're faced with certainly starving to death vs. maybe getting stabbed by some guy who you also have a chance to stab, well. There you have it.
Also bait is pretty low quality, look at that image even.
> The most shameful consequence of conflict comes out into the open.
> More Niggers.
I agree with your post.
>>47077698
>>47077698
Religious wars can be explained pretty simply by three factors.
1. Tribes in the Roman era and earlier adopted different strains of Christianity, to differing degrees, which further deviated from one another simply by being practiced in separate tribes' areas. Add Muslims and holdout pagans, all full of internal divisions as well, and there are solid odds that your centuries-old economic rivals on all sides practiced a different religion than you did. So after a few generations of fighting, your enemy's religion being the wrong one becomes as viable a motive to keep fighting as any other (especially for rulers seeking to mobilize clueless illiterate peasants who prayed desperately for a decent harvest constantly).
>>47077908
2. Speaking of rulers, monarchy and a strong church were pretty deeply entrenched in the ideology of the ruled. The idea that us commoners can rebel if we don't consent to our government is pretty new, because whenever mass revolt happened in the past, it was pretty seriously unsuccessful. When obedience to the feudal lord is unambiguously favorable for the peasantry, it becomes "good" on moral grounds without needing justification as a strategic move. Medieval commoners had extremely limited vocabulary and little access to ideas except those espoused by local authorities like the church; they weren't philosophers. So obedience to the nobility was pretty strong. That's why religious calls to war actually worked.
>>47077918
3. Nobility and the church had reason to believe religious conquest was desirable. The Catholic church had more money than all but the strongest empires for most of the medieval period, and power in even greater proportion. If you could be their good buddies, you'd share in it (with the exception of all the times the HRE got big in their britches). Shared religion fostered political alliance and could be used to bolster your lands against your neighbors' future economic/military ambitions. This sets up a Europe in which, as a ruler, you're either the church's attack dog being promised land and wealth for your success, or you live next door to that guy. being suspicious of anyone who shares a religion with your aggressive neighbors is just good strategy. Give that enough time, and it becomes part of your culture.
>medieval nations
Well, there's a mis-understanding for starters. They aren't "nations", they are Kingdoms, or Republics, or Duchies, or Empires.
They go to war because war is the profession of the nobility. That is their job.
The further back you go in the middle ages, the more Christianity becomes a poorly understood veneer over the essentially pagan ethos of the nobility. The ancient Greeks said that War is Justice, and the Germans believed this too. This means that two forces collide, and cosmic force determine who is the winner. The ancient Romans told the story of Brennus, who told the defeated Romans "Vae Victus" when he demanded payment: woe to the defeated. To them, waging war was for the defense and survival of the city.
Christianity is weird in that it doesn't think war is an inherently good thing, so things had to be come up with such as the "just war theory" and the like.
A Duke or King goes to war because it is his right and duty to acquire land for his family, glory for his family, and acclaim from his people. Kind of hard to understand if you're lowborn.
>>47067698
Have you been reading Herodotus, anon?
>>47066716
Both sides of a conflict will think that they are good and the other side evil. In the end good vs. evil is a false dichotomy.
>>47075194
And how do they knocked out without war?
>>47075930
Who the fuck considers the 30 years and the great northern war to be "medieval"? Even the fucking reformation being medieval is too much imho.
>>47072211
I'm having a cup right now!
>not a single person answered "absolutely nothing"
for fucks sake /tg/, get your shit togetherö.
>>Fedora tippers, the thread
>>47080653
>tl:dr
>>47067827
War didn't create us alone, it created us with nature. You can say war is god, but nature is Goddess.
Why war if not for her wetness and her bountiful bosom?
>>47075417
Not realizing that camilla sinensis has been consumed for 5000 years at least, be it by Chinese dick chopping slave owners, or Indian slave owners.
In the beginning people had stuff and along came other people with different stuff, some time's it was a shiny rock, sometimes a hot ass daughter. So if you wanted it bad enough you would take it, sometimes people fought because they didn't want to give it up.
The process of claiming stuff, such as land, absolute knowledge or eternal life (religion)as well as the standard shiny stuff and hot women, evolved and the desire of people was constantly changing acordingly, people came together In order to protect from takers, takers came together in order to take more stuff. Sometimes the protecters became really strong and became takers.
People selected or otherwise agreed upon having leaders in charge of protecting a group. Sometimes takers became leaders too. Sometimes takers took control of people and taked their freedoms too. Sometimes leader took shit from their people. And we decided to call the fights that ensued from the natural progression of taking and protecting and such war.
Now what is war good for?
Anything really, getting rid of people you don't like, getting more resources than you have,imposing your will only others getting more.
>>47066360
We are a bunch of dirt poor farmers, and they are a bunch of rich fops who do nothing all day. And if need be we can throw in some stuff about how they are all sinners to get the commoners in line.
And let's spend some cash to get mercenaries because some people will just fight for money.
>>47066824
Thanks
>>47066360
>Maybe this is my status as a 1st world white guy
Your ignorance is a product of the luxury and comfort produced by the success of Modern Western culture in terms of warfare, colonialism, conquest and assimilation of what made other cultures great; so you tell me what war is good for.
If you think it's a byproduct solely of your race than realistically you have more in common with white supremacists than you think.
Racism aside:
>but in having trouble figuring out why two medieval nations go to war. Can you help?
From what I understand medieval nations fought over political differences, land disputes, resources, but the "big" thing is you just sort of.. It's been hundreds of years and just no one fucking remembers why you hate one another, but you do and at this point it's just easier for one side to fucking murder the other than to talk it out.
The Middle-East has been fighting for thousands of years with one another and no one can fucking remember why; they point to a lot of "modern" reasons to try and rationalize it, but they've just been fighting for so fucking long it's all they know.
>>47083050
You want to reword that into a couple coherent sentences, or leave it as it is?
>>47066360
>why two medieval nations go to war
1) Land. More land means more power. More power means you're less likely to get invaded, and more likely to win future wars.
2) Loot. You ride around with your men stealing everything you can. This was the "chevauchee" of the Hundred Years War.
3) Keeps your nobles busy. When they're fighting foreigners they're not plotting against you. Plus letting them steal stuff keeps them happy.
Basically Medieval "nations" were just bandits with good PR.
>>47077698
>That wasn't possible in horse-and-buggy, single-digit-percentage-literacy, pre-lateen-sail times.
What the fuck do lateen sails have to do with anything?
>>47090665
>Basically Medieval "nations" were just bandits with good PR.
That's just governments in general.
>>47090665
To be fair, the ruling banditry had obligations to the peasantry that roving bands wouldn't.
Plus really shiny crowns.
>>47077938
>>47077918
>>47077908
And also because sometimes religious people actually believe in God and desire salvation for their immortal soul by spreading the gospel by the sword.
>>47066716
>>47086523
>Middle East
Whole world.
