04-29-2007, 08:42 PM
Marshal and Cristina,
I agree with your astute assertions; we have to be discerning in completely assuming the modern world is 'nicer' than they were back then. True, what was considered necessary back then, particularly for one to attain a strategic efficacy, or religious rites (human sacrifice) can be construed nowadays as horrrendously 'cruel'. But remember, they fought back then with weapons that wouldn't 'teach lessons' from afar. Someone can go to work nowadays, press a button, and thousands die he not only has to see, but die thousands of miles away. I hope I can presume we are all susceptible in judging with moral condemnations. That is seemingly very righteous, but the political world has become extremely rife with platitudes etc. to justify actions down the ages (such as 'we are attacking them to preserve our peoples' freedom').
I think it is safe to assume war is always cruel, in any time or form. We have to decide for ourselves what is 'justified'; Alexander's horrible suppression of the Thebans in 335 B.C. was a, from an amoral point of view, an oject lesson to the rest of Greece to not be seditious in any manner, and in doing so assured him of a stable home base for his future enterprise in Asia.
Hannibal's capture of Tarentum in 212 B.C. was invaluable for his cause, and he smartly exploited the contempt that many of the nobles in the great port had for their Roman masters. When he captured the great port through treachery, he methodically ordered for every Roman citizen to be slain, and every Tarentine to be spared. Many Romans surely tried to surrender, but this unfortunate demonstration greatly appeased the Tarentines who favored an alliance with him, and the others were conciliated because of his leniency. Actually, the Tarentine nobles approached him in the first place beacuse of his good treatment of defeated allies of Rome's; it should not be underestimated how discerning Hannibal was of the fact policy wins wars.
Many Gallic peoples proved they would acquiesce and work under Julius Caesar, thus his 'lessons' inflicted upon the poor Eburones and inhabitants of Uxellodunum were probably not necessary; but in the long term, he had decimated the Gauls so thoroughly that they were incapable of rising up in arms against Rome in the near future, when Rome was dangerously vulnerable with the upcoming civil war. Whether Caesar considered this, or whether he perpetuated some things because there existed a demoniacal part in his nature, we don't know for sure. In my opinion, Caesar was possessed of every attribute, good and bad.
Anyway, there a thousands of variants and examples, and not just from the famous leaders. Again, war is intrinsically cruel. Sun Tzu (or whomever really wrote the Art of War; he probably at least wrote a good chunk of it, with other material being contributed by unknown authors over along period), was very considerant with his proclamation that the greatest battle is the one never fought. But such a goal, as history as unwaveringly shown, is impracticable.
But I guess one could argue the first two examples are basically not much worse than the agenda of a terrible dictator. Achieving one's goal via 'necessary' bloodshed can be accepted depending on the sitaution; in the case of Alexander and Caesar, there was an element of despotism involved. Not so with Hannibal, and it would perhaps more evident if not everyhting we read of him came from an unfriendly pen. But we can't be certain.
Stalin efficiently controlled more people with his pernicious personal power, for a quarter of a century, probably more than any other tyrant in history; because of his methods, he efficaciously precluded any establishment of an independent power within his realm. Pol Pot (Saloth Sar)[/b], contrarily, was probably just as proportionately ruthless, but lasted just three years before being ousted.
In many cases of ancient times, a massacre of townspeople was a military measure to break the citizens' will to resist. An example can be found with Scipio at New Carthage in 210 B.C., in which he immediately gave the order to his men to stop the killing when he received the citadel's surrender. He subsequently displayed a generous level of diplomacy to the defeated. However, the towns of Iliturgi (probably modern Lorqui) and Astapa (modern Estepa) suffered fatyes in 205 B.C. due to personal reasons for Scipio: they had turned on the Romans when the tide turned in the conflict here in Spain against the Scipios, and had been complicit in the destruction of his father and uncle (at least Iliturgi, or Ilorci, with regards to Gnaeus Scipio). We can't blame people for doig what's best for their own interests, but I guess we shouldn't expect Scipio to not take such a personal tragedy, well, personally.
But how far should we respect the 'necessity' of certain actions? The Mongols were noted for their post-apocalyptic destruction of peoples; but they did stop, or even not begin, if submission was received when they demanded it, and they wanted to facilitate trade and culture through the people they conquered (they even promoted freedom of religion). However, unlike the other great empires - China, Alexander's, Rome, and the Arabs, they left no sustained military strength and viable administrative presence. This is peculiar, because Genghis Khan was an able statesman, in his advocacy of religious toleration and encouragement of international trade. Moreover, his imperial ordinances promoted a mingling of cultures that helped in commercially linking Europe and Asia. But for the rivers of blood he shed, so to speak, there is seemingly no forgiveness.
We must remember that modern times see plenty of false-flagging, and when modern chroniclers etc. accuse the ancients of a level of cruelty far beyond today's standards, we can question the legitimacy of such accusations. Yes, times are different, and from our basic values and what we are accustomed to, we would loathe life back then. But terror bombing of civilians, ethnic cleansing, and genocide were far more prevalent in modern times. Few commanders of antiquity meet measure by those standards. But maybe one can argue that because the world became bigger, 'cruelty' in war simply followed the ratio.
Not an easy topic to conclude, though. Perhaps there is no conclusion; merely perspective.
Thnaks, James
I agree with your astute assertions; we have to be discerning in completely assuming the modern world is 'nicer' than they were back then. True, what was considered necessary back then, particularly for one to attain a strategic efficacy, or religious rites (human sacrifice) can be construed nowadays as horrrendously 'cruel'. But remember, they fought back then with weapons that wouldn't 'teach lessons' from afar. Someone can go to work nowadays, press a button, and thousands die he not only has to see, but die thousands of miles away. I hope I can presume we are all susceptible in judging with moral condemnations. That is seemingly very righteous, but the political world has become extremely rife with platitudes etc. to justify actions down the ages (such as 'we are attacking them to preserve our peoples' freedom').
I think it is safe to assume war is always cruel, in any time or form. We have to decide for ourselves what is 'justified'; Alexander's horrible suppression of the Thebans in 335 B.C. was a, from an amoral point of view, an oject lesson to the rest of Greece to not be seditious in any manner, and in doing so assured him of a stable home base for his future enterprise in Asia.
Hannibal's capture of Tarentum in 212 B.C. was invaluable for his cause, and he smartly exploited the contempt that many of the nobles in the great port had for their Roman masters. When he captured the great port through treachery, he methodically ordered for every Roman citizen to be slain, and every Tarentine to be spared. Many Romans surely tried to surrender, but this unfortunate demonstration greatly appeased the Tarentines who favored an alliance with him, and the others were conciliated because of his leniency. Actually, the Tarentine nobles approached him in the first place beacuse of his good treatment of defeated allies of Rome's; it should not be underestimated how discerning Hannibal was of the fact policy wins wars.
Many Gallic peoples proved they would acquiesce and work under Julius Caesar, thus his 'lessons' inflicted upon the poor Eburones and inhabitants of Uxellodunum were probably not necessary; but in the long term, he had decimated the Gauls so thoroughly that they were incapable of rising up in arms against Rome in the near future, when Rome was dangerously vulnerable with the upcoming civil war. Whether Caesar considered this, or whether he perpetuated some things because there existed a demoniacal part in his nature, we don't know for sure. In my opinion, Caesar was possessed of every attribute, good and bad.
Anyway, there a thousands of variants and examples, and not just from the famous leaders. Again, war is intrinsically cruel. Sun Tzu (or whomever really wrote the Art of War; he probably at least wrote a good chunk of it, with other material being contributed by unknown authors over along period), was very considerant with his proclamation that the greatest battle is the one never fought. But such a goal, as history as unwaveringly shown, is impracticable.
But I guess one could argue the first two examples are basically not much worse than the agenda of a terrible dictator. Achieving one's goal via 'necessary' bloodshed can be accepted depending on the sitaution; in the case of Alexander and Caesar, there was an element of despotism involved. Not so with Hannibal, and it would perhaps more evident if not everyhting we read of him came from an unfriendly pen. But we can't be certain.
Stalin efficiently controlled more people with his pernicious personal power, for a quarter of a century, probably more than any other tyrant in history; because of his methods, he efficaciously precluded any establishment of an independent power within his realm. Pol Pot (Saloth Sar)[/b], contrarily, was probably just as proportionately ruthless, but lasted just three years before being ousted.
In many cases of ancient times, a massacre of townspeople was a military measure to break the citizens' will to resist. An example can be found with Scipio at New Carthage in 210 B.C., in which he immediately gave the order to his men to stop the killing when he received the citadel's surrender. He subsequently displayed a generous level of diplomacy to the defeated. However, the towns of Iliturgi (probably modern Lorqui) and Astapa (modern Estepa) suffered fatyes in 205 B.C. due to personal reasons for Scipio: they had turned on the Romans when the tide turned in the conflict here in Spain against the Scipios, and had been complicit in the destruction of his father and uncle (at least Iliturgi, or Ilorci, with regards to Gnaeus Scipio). We can't blame people for doig what's best for their own interests, but I guess we shouldn't expect Scipio to not take such a personal tragedy, well, personally.
But how far should we respect the 'necessity' of certain actions? The Mongols were noted for their post-apocalyptic destruction of peoples; but they did stop, or even not begin, if submission was received when they demanded it, and they wanted to facilitate trade and culture through the people they conquered (they even promoted freedom of religion). However, unlike the other great empires - China, Alexander's, Rome, and the Arabs, they left no sustained military strength and viable administrative presence. This is peculiar, because Genghis Khan was an able statesman, in his advocacy of religious toleration and encouragement of international trade. Moreover, his imperial ordinances promoted a mingling of cultures that helped in commercially linking Europe and Asia. But for the rivers of blood he shed, so to speak, there is seemingly no forgiveness.
We must remember that modern times see plenty of false-flagging, and when modern chroniclers etc. accuse the ancients of a level of cruelty far beyond today's standards, we can question the legitimacy of such accusations. Yes, times are different, and from our basic values and what we are accustomed to, we would loathe life back then. But terror bombing of civilians, ethnic cleansing, and genocide were far more prevalent in modern times. Few commanders of antiquity meet measure by those standards. But maybe one can argue that because the world became bigger, 'cruelty' in war simply followed the ratio.
Not an easy topic to conclude, though. Perhaps there is no conclusion; merely perspective.
Thnaks, James
"A ship in harbor is safe - but that is not what ships are built for."
James K MacKinnon
James K MacKinnon
