Hello
I watched a historical program yesterday on tv. The subject was Alexander the Great.
Then I said to myself, these kind of stories are almost always to the glory of the character...
But, did he HAVE to go to war against Persia ?
I know we can't judge past eras with our present mind, but I'm annoyed. It's always "they were great, they fought and won".
But what was the human cost ?
Another example, I can understant the people in Paris during the Commune, fighting for their rights. But I can't see a good reason for the start of the Franco Prussian war, several months before.
( That's why I state "no godwin point", some times - in all the centuries - they may be good reasons (1) to go to war. But other times I can't understand why, a long time after, we're still gloryfing them.. )
(1) "good reasons" for the actual point of view of the people involved in such a war.
Frederick argued "I was young and wanted to see my name in the newspapers". Alexander claimed it was retaliation for the Persian attack on Greece about eight generations previously. I'm not sure who was the bigger liar....
For the rest, I admire their skill, and suspect I might have liked Frederick personally if we'd agreed to compromise on our preferred languages and speak German to each other, but I certainly don't buy into the glorification bit. When I was younger I might have, but I'm older now.
Seems to me it's the human condition.
The world would be a better place is everyone was like me, did what I did, liked what I like, believed what I believe ... so I will go and make the world a better place.
Until/ Unless we realise that that other people are other, that they don't want what we want, don't think what we think, don't believe what we believe ... and that that's alright and that it's how things should be I do not believe we can bring an end to war. :( :( :'(
The sad thing is that in the days of Alexander and Napoleon, they actually went to war.
Nowadays, those who declare war are not those forced to endure it.
I think it's too hard to generalise. I read about the Assyrian army which was basically funded by the spoils of war, which meant that they had to keep making war in order to pay for the army ... It was an insane cycle.
Napoleon may have initially expressed republican fervour, but ended up with a gaudy empire that outshone the Bourbons.
I feel that a lot of the time there's good intentions which just sort of drift. One could, if one was so minded, trace Alexander's attitude to Persia back to the Persian wars which, if my memory of Herodotus serves, was caused by Athens supporting one of it's colonies who had interfered in a Persian rebellion.
Could World War I could have been if Austria had said "well, that's a bit of a blow, losing an Archduke, but we have plenty more"? Or is there a certain inevitability to it?
Don't get me started.