<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 28 2003, 12:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 28 2003, 12:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Oct 27 2003, 08:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 27 2003, 08:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why not take a stab at the War on Terror, now as far as I know this is a war to take the fighting to the terrorists. To defend our country from their threat, now were not gaining anything economicaly by doing this, and I doubt the terrorists goal is to take down our economy by haveing us produce to many jets. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lordy, gonna see a huge number of teenangster wanna-commies jumping all over this one!!! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
If people keep flying planes into our world <b>trade</b> centers, thats an economic attack on us. The loss of life was of miniscule impact on the country compared to the loss of money, business, economic collapse, etc. We gain much economically from protecting our country's infrastructure from terrorist attacks, from keeping our airlines in business due to passengers not being scared of terrorists, overthrowing dictators who threaten the region where all ouur energy supplies come from, working to prevent korean dictators from threatening our trading partners in Japan and South Korea, etc. You might get really crass and say that our responses to terrorism are far too economically oriented, actually. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You make a good point, but the World Trade Center was not hit because it was an economic hub of America ... if they wanted to hit economy, they're crash the plane into Wall Street and the House of Representatives. No, the WTC was destroyed because it was a symbol of international American power, and they wanted to disgrace that symbol.
As for the Civil War, it was NOT fought over slavery. That is a common misconception. It was fought to reuite the Union. As for this one, yes, the war did have economic causes, because they whole reason the Southern states seceded was because the North put a very heavy tarriff on exports (which the South needed to survive economically).
But anyway, is the (new) War on Iraq, or War on Afghanistan economically motivated? Behind the scenes I'm sure they play a major role, but they're not CAUSED by economics.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 27 2003, 11:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 27 2003, 11:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Oct 27 2003, 07:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Oct 27 2003, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What about the Crusades? It had economic EFFECTS, but not causes, right? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The classic... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Fighting against the infidel was a sweet cover story for controlling far-eastern trade routes that just happened to go through the mideast. More taxes, tarrifs, spice-running, etc. The fact that these highly lucrative logistical routes were owned by heathen moslem anti-christs was a great way to stir up the Euro-peasants that couldn't care less about their rich lords getting richer... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Source?
As in, how do you know the Church had all this knowledge and planned this out in such detail? I think it was religiously motivated.
As for the main thesis, it is inevitable that any war will have some economic root. But you can find ANY root if you dig deep enough. So are we refining the discussion to Immediate Causes of the wars, or the most majoe Basic Causes?
Well, maybe when the Romans sacked Carthage. Leading up it was economic, but in the end it was just a vendetta. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
The Assyrians were known for warring against villages with nothing to offer them, just for being on the way to their target. But in that time most civilizations fought just to exercise their will as well as for conquest.
I thought that the topic was wars CAUSED by Economics? However, I fail to see how many of these wars are justified as being CAUSED by economic reasons.
For example the English civil war in 1640 had many economic reasons behind it, but was mostly fueled by Religion (the second war particularly) and the insecurity the English gentry felt about their king. The war itself was caused because Charles I just pushed the Gentry in the wrong direction both in terms of economics and religion. However, other kings and queens had gotton away with pushing economic interests (such as King James I).
So technically arguing that wars are caused by economics is completely incorrect, because few wars are SOLELY based on economics for their actual CAUSE. You can however analyse wars and find that say, World War 2 had its beginnings FROM an economic crisis (the depression). However you cannot say that the cause of WW2 was economic, again, a motivation but quite frankly there are many more valid reasons to WW2 than just economics. The first, and biggest would definitely be the massive amount of bitterness felt by the Germans after WW1.
Now saying that WW1 was caused by economics would be MORE correct, because pretty much they fought a war for the sake of fighting a war.
However, I still think the premise is impossible to uphold, you can find economic reasons behind any war, but you cannot possibly justify it as the leading cause in every case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As in, how do you know the Church had all this knowledge and planned this out in such detail? I think it was religiously motivated.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He is quite correct. The crusades were less motivated by religion than they were about european lords/Church leaders wanting to expand their power base. The whole holy war thing was just a good way of getting your average peasant to do your bidding.
Economics here was definitely part of the cause and motivation for the war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for this one, yes, the war did have economic causes, because they whole reason the Southern states seceded was because the North put a very heavy tarriff on exports (which the South needed to survive economically). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tarrifs were a contributing factor. However, I would stress the constant atempts by Southern politicians to expand slavery into the western territories. Without a firm base of slavery in the west, the South was convinced that the balance of the senate would eventually swing against them, given that the western territories they had towards the end of the 1850's (New Mexico, Texas) were not ideally suited for slavery (California was, and the Compromise of 1850, whilst on paper would seem to favour the South, in fact was a huge blow to them as they lost California). The Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas and the Dread Scott case all came from a strong Southern desire to maintain slavery by pushing into the West. Once the Southerners lost control of the Presidency however, they paniked. They knew that slavery was only very shakely established in the West (New Mexico for example had only 27 slaves), and as such they knew from their own experiance of reworking the laws of the Union in order to further slavery that a strong anti-slavery President could undo all their Western work. Thus they secceded and the war began a few months later (Now THAT was stupid, attacking first gave Lincoln all the justification he needed).
So to sum it all up, it is economic. You can say Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union, which is true, but the war was started for economic reasons, and the South fought it for economic reasons. Secession and the attack on Fort Sumter were the direct result of a percieved threat to Southern economic interests: slavery, it's spread into the west and the resulting economic power that would have given the South.
With the Crusades, a misconception is that they were largely controlled by the Church. The Church called for them, but it was European lords who lead the men and commanded them in Palistine. As such, these lords were very interested in grabbing prime Medditeranian land and as such many brought their households, servants and some peasents with them to found new kingdoms. If you examine the 20 year period after the 1st Crusade, you see a whole bunch of "Crusader Kingdoms" spring up in Palistine, which were ruled by the various lords who had invaded. Economicallty driven most definitly, as they sat astride excellent real-estate (Don't discount all the Middle East as barren sands, Palistine was, and is still somewhat, a very rich land), coupled with proximity to Eastern and African trade routes. Money drove these lords to go on Crusade (oh sure the free ticket into heaven was nice but if the Pope had called for a Crusade to overthrow the Arabs of the Sahara Desert the silence would have been deafening <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ), and money prompted them to stay and continue to go back there even after Saladin and successive Arabic leaders managed to drive te Crusaders out.
Monse is pretty much dead on. War, even from it's very earliest days, has been about economics, be they plunder, booty, lands, slaves or resources. I can think of no conflict in history that has not had economic causes, obviously many wars have other causes as well, but money always comes into the equation somehow.
Egads! Monse and I, united in arms! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Oct 27 2003, 10:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Oct 27 2003, 10:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for this one, yes, the war did have economic causes, because they whole reason the Southern states seceded was because the North put a very heavy tarriff on exports (which the South needed to survive economically). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tarrifs were a contributing factor. However, I would stress the constant atempts by Southern politicians to expand slavery into the western territories. Without a firm base of slavery in the west, the South was convinced that the balance of the senate would eventually swing against them, given that the western territories they had towards the end of the 1850's (New Mexico, Texas) were not ideally suited for slavery (California was, and the Compromise of 1850, whilst on paper would seem to favour the South, in fact was a huge blow to them as they lost California). The Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas and the Dread Scott case all came from a strong Southern desire to maintain slavery by pushing into the West. Once the Southerners lost control of the Presidency however, they paniked. They knew that slavery was only very shakely established in the West (New Mexico for example had only 27 slaves), and as such they knew from their own experiance of reworking the laws of the Union in order to further slavery that a strong anti-slavery President could undo all their Western work. Thus they secceded and the war began a few months later (Now THAT was stupid, attacking first gave Lincoln all the justification he needed).
So to sum it all up, it is economic. You can say Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union, which is true, but the war was started for economic reasons, and the South fought it for economic reasons. Secession and the attack on Fort Sumter were the direct result of a percieved threat to Southern economic interests: slavery, it's spread into the west and the resulting economic power that would have given the South.
With the Crusades, a misconception is that they were largely controlled by the Church. The Church called for them, but it was European lords who lead the men and commanded them in Palistine. As such, these lords were very interested in grabbing prime Medditeranian land and as such many brought their households, servants and some peasents with them to found new kingdoms. If you examine the 20 year period after the 1st Crusade, you see a whole bunch of "Crusader Kingdoms" spring up in Palistine, which were ruled by the various lords who had invaded. Economicallty driven most definitly, as they sat astride excellent real-estate (Don't discount all the Middle East as barren sands, Palistine was, and is still somewhat, a very rich land), coupled with proximity to Eastern and African trade routes. Money drove these lords to go on Crusade (oh sure the free ticket into heaven was nice but if the Pope had called for a Crusade to overthrow the Arabs of the Sahara Desert the silence would have been deafening <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ), and money prompted them to stay and continue to go back there even after Saladin and successive Arabic leaders managed to drive te Crusaders out.
Monse is pretty much dead on. War, even from it's very earliest days, has been about economics, be they plunder, booty, lands, slaves or resources. I can think of no conflict in history that has not had economic causes, obviously many wars have other causes as well, but money always comes into the equation somehow.
Egads! Monse and I, united in arms! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I am bookmarking this topic - to thrust up the nose of the next nublet that comes along and tries to tell me religion starts wars.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am bookmarking this topic - to thrust up the nose of the next nublet that comes along and tries to tell me religion starts wars. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not exactly what I said. Religion did play a major part in the war, as it was the Church that called for the crusade. The Islamic invasions of Palistine in the 600's was partially the result of religious fervour, but one could also (correctly) point out that religion had simply been a unifying factor that allowed said invasions to take place (the arabic people had previously been to scattered and divided to conquor other lands). Plus, the fact that the Arabic invasions of the 600's - 700's typically invaded very rich and prosperous lands demonstrates that whilst many early Muslims may have been truely interested in spreading the word of Allah, economic factors such as the aquisition of new lands, plunder, slaves, tribute and booty certainly played a very large part. (Also provides a good explaination for why the Muslims never really tried pushing further into Europe than Spain; the rest of Europe was pretty poor compared to the massive wealth of Spain, North Africa, The Byzantine Empire and Persia. Continental Europe was a backwater).
Extrapolating off that point, the Catholic Church in Europe did exactly the same thing. There's no question that many of the aristocracy in Europe would have loved some Middle Eastern territory, but the problem was that each individual nation wasn't powerful enough to do it on their own. Plus there was the problem of getting there; by land ment going through the lands of other European nations, and the leaders of these lands would not have taken a cheery view to thousands of armed men in their borders; by sea ment passing close to other nation's shorelines, and nations tend to get very suspicious when a massive fleet filled with an invasion force is a couple of miles off their coast.
By calling for the Crusade, the Church was able to unite much of Europe behind a common cause. Economic concerns fueled the actual fighting, but without the unifying influence of the Church that conflict never could have occured. So religion did play a pivotal role in causing the war and making sure it could come about. But every war has a myriad of factors behind it's beginning; it is simply that economics is generally the largest and most powerful of these reasons.
Bosnian civil war. One might think that Milosevic had an incentive to control Bosnia for economic benefits. But such ideas aren't tangible. Milosevic supported the Bosnian-Serbs, he didn't make them fight. And they fought because they wanted to be with their daddy Milosevic.
I'm looking a little biased here because I'm focusing on the Serbs but it is basically the same for every side. They fought because of the connections their minds made between ethnicity, land, and pride; not necessarily money. I'm not sure how you're going to try to connect money to it. But the in reality the Bosnian civil war was so messed up that creating any kind of theory on the cause of it would be a great feat within itself.
What MonsE is claiming is that <i>every war ever, and probably in the future, hasn't/won't be fought because of anything else but economy</i>. Now am I right there? I guess you are saying that it's not only about what wars we have fought and what wars we will fight, because it's about the basic principle. Right?
Now I agree there that normally economy is the base of every war in the case of sensible leaders. However I must say that world has had a fair share of not-so-sane leaders. Examples: Half of the ancient egypt pharaos, Nero, Hitler, Stalin, The youngest japanese emperor(teenager, not insane but not mature anyway). Now when some person is crazy, and I mean totally wacko, you can't expect him to think about economy. The bad thing is that this person might as well be the 'son of god' which means that people have to do everything he says. Also religion can be a major factor when the ruling person is truely religious. Example: Pharaos, being children of the gods, had to take other people from the royal family as their wives. Now you know what happens after hundreds and thousands of years of inbreeding. Their children become, nicely put: retarded. I just read a book about this insane pharao who actually thought he is the child of god called Aton, his original name was akhenamon but he changed his name to akhenaton(the father of tutankhamon). The current main man however was Amon so this pharao decided to change things. Thousands of people died because they wanted to keep the old god Amon but the pharao(with his militarys aid) insisted on changing the god. The pharao didn't give a damn about economy, all he wanted was his new found god on 1st place, and all the people wanted was to keep the false god out. Edit: Basically all his aids begged him to stop the madness because it whacked egypts economy totally for decades, but they had to do what the pharao said because he was after all the son of god. Book spoiler: in the end however the priests of Amon poisoned Akhenaton and replaced him with his easy to control son tutankhamon(see the name change from aton to amon). This also acts as an argument for the other thread; insane leaders get replaced eventually.
So Imo you can't say that wars can't be fought over anything else but economy. Normally that is the case, especially after 1800-1900 when leaders started to become elected and chosen by the people instead of borning as leaders, but not always.
PS. Sorry for spelling errors and disordered post, I'm posting from school in a hurry.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Oct 28 2003, 04:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Oct 28 2003, 04:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm looking a little biased here because I'm focusing on the Serbs but it is basically the same for every side. They fought because of the connections their minds made between ethnicity, <b>land</b>, and pride; not necessarily money. I'm not sure how you're going to try to connect money to it. But the in reality the Bosnian civil war was so messed up that creating any kind of theory on the cause of it would be a great feat within itself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Land = economics. The oldest kind of economics, in fact. Fighting over territory is fighting over economics. The 20 (recent) years of southeastern european conflict boil down to fights over land control; the rest of it is inflamatory issues designed to unite your people behind you in your fight. And if you go back in time over a period of say, 2000 years in that region, it happens again and again. I must explain: people that create and run wars <i>do not usually truly care about their people's issues, they care about their own money and power</i>. I'm not sure how else I can say this to get it through.
As to Dread, and other people's points: I am not saying wars are caused purely by economics, and that there is no other cause. I am saying that economics is the root and is present in every conflict, and other issues may or may not contribute to a war (usually only for propaganda purposes, but whatever).
Ryo and I have agreed again. Let this day be known forever more as 'Ryo hearts MonsE and vis versa' day. Sound the trumpets! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Oct 27 2003, 10:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Oct 27 2003, 10:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for the Civil War, it was NOT fought over slavery. That is a common misconception. It was fought to reuite the Union. As for this one, yes, the war did have economic causes, because they whole reason the Southern states seceded was because the North put a very heavy tarriff on exports (which the South needed to survive economically). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I know it was not fought over slavery, but slavery was one of the main CAUSES for that war, which is what this topic is centered around.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 28 2003, 05:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 28 2003, 05:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As to Dread, and other people's points: I am not saying wars are caused purely by economics, and that there is no other cause. I am saying that economics is the root and is present in every conflict, and other issues may or may not contribute to a war (usually only for propaganda purposes, but whatever). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And some some wars can be fought purely by other reasons than economics, it's just much rarer.
And I await your naming of one. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 28 2003, 11:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 28 2003, 11:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And I await your naming of one. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My example? One could call it a civil war because people dropped like flies <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
OMG, you need money (*cough* economics *cough*) to buy food. You need food to live, therefore economics = life!!!!
You see where I'm going? Many of the struggles did indeed involve land-overtakings (or economics as you say it) But what war wouldnt that happen in? You're confusing benefit from purpose, many of the wars didn't think like this, OMG Let's go take our neightbour's land so we can get an ancient relic of economy <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> Hong-Kong and Japan aren't particular huge, but they have a damn good economy anyhow.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My example? One could call it a civil war because people dropped like flies<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am stupid today - can you explain this further, I have no idea what you mean.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OMG, you need money (*cough* economics *cough*) to buy food. You need food to live, therefore economics = life!!!!
You see where I'm going? Many of the struggles did indeed involve land-overtakings (or economics as you say it) But what war wouldnt that happen in? You're confusing benefit from purpose, many of the wars didn't think like this, OMG Let's go take our neightbour's land so we can get an ancient relic of economy <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The trading or selling of food is certainly economics. I do not see where you are going, as your sarcasm overtakes your response and just makes it a confused mishmash of contradictions. Explain further please, and hopefully, more politely.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 28 2003, 11:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 28 2003, 11:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [QUOTE]My example? One could call it a civil war because people dropped like flies[/QUOTE]
I am stupid today - can you explain this further, I have no idea what you mean. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Silly me. I actually thought for a second that you actually read my posts before answering <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
[QUOTE=self]Now I agree there that normally economy is the base of every war in the case of sensible leaders. However I must say that world has had a fair share of not-so-sane leaders. Examples: Half of the ancient egypt pharaos, Nero, Hitler, Stalin, The youngest japanese emperor(teenager, not insane but not mature anyway). Now when some person is crazy, and I mean totally wacko, you can't expect him to think about economy. The bad thing is that this person might as well be the 'son of god' which means that people have to do everything he says. Also religion can be a major factor when the ruling person is truely religious. Example: Pharaos, being children of the gods, had to take other people from the royal family as their wives. Now you know what happens after hundreds and thousands of years of inbreeding. Their children become, nicely put: retarded. I just read a book about this insane pharao who actually thought he is the child of god called Aton, his original name was akhenamon but he changed his name to akhenaton. The current main man however was Amon so this pharao decided to change things. Thousands of people died because they wanted to keep the old god Amon but the pharao(with his militarys aid) insisted on changing the god. The pharao didn't give a damn about economy, all he wanted was his new found god on 1st place, and all the people wanted was to keep the false god out. Edit: Basically all his aids begged him to stop the madness because it whacked egypts economy totally for decades, but they had to do what the pharao said because he was after all the son of god. Book spoiler: in the end however the priests of Amon poisoned Akhenaton and replaced him with his easy to control son tutankhamon(see the name and religion change from aton to amon).[/QUOTE]
Ahh. Sorry, I just didn't remember the posting from the previous page (from 12 hours ago - cut an old man some slack).
Ok. So, was there really a war though? It sounds like one nutcake got assassinated, because he threatened the economy, stability, confidence of the people, etc. by his nutiness. Am I mistaken?
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
You're blessed Monse, you can argue a dead cow to life, a blind man to see, hell, even bind economics to every war (or everything if take your time) on this world.
The fact is, alot of this stuff is opinion-based and economics is such a broad term. You're saying people were manipulated with propeganda with false causes for nearly all of the war you cant just classify as expanding ones resources, and you say the real cause was economics.
The crusades, you say that the european traderoutes were threatened and that an european base to the entrance to asia would be a very powerful thing to have. But how can you know that the cause wasnt religion, you said it could be economics but you <i>cant</i> be sure of that.
Civilwars, is a matter of power, yes, perhaps these powers are the lands resources (which you so nicely bind to economic in an ever-lasting link-cycle) But the main thing is still power
Anyway, I might have harsh but I seemed like this thread werent heading anywhere.
<!--QuoteBegin--Epidemic+Oct 28 2003, 05:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Oct 28 2003, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The crusades, you say that the european traderoutes were threatened and that an european base to the entrance to asia would be a very powerful thing to have. But how can you know that the cause wasnt religion, you said it could be economics but you <i>cant</i> be sure of that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, now you're just arguing metaphysics - you can't have a disussion based on this logic. I have more evidence that the crusades was about economics than you have it being about religion. Religion does not buy troops, horses, fodder, castles, halberds, or anything else. Economics pays for it all, and is what causes a war to be worth fighting to the people who fund a war - the reward. Power is a type of economics as well, as it is the controlling aspect of the physical things. Without possessions and control of other economic things, you have no real power in any scale.
To say it's all opinion based is to say that gravity is my opinion. I am presenting evidence, and you are presenting... what? Convince me, don't just say neener neener and twirl your finger in the air.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 28 2003, 11:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 28 2003, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ahh. Sorry, I just didn't remember the posting from the previous page (from 12 hours ago - cut an old man some slack).
Ok. So, was there really a war though? It sounds like one nutcake got assassinated, because he threatened the economy, stability, confidence of the people, etc. by his nutiness. Am I mistaken? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thousands of egyptian people died in riots and in famine because economy got totally fuxored because of the nutcake and several years(I can't remember correctly but I think he ruled for 10-20 years) later the priests actually got the chance to kill him, though it's still debatable if the priests really killed him. The pharao just mysteriously died very young.
The pharao didn't care about his subjects, or the military, or egypts defensive status or the economy. All he cared was new temples for Aton and getting rid of the old god. All his advisors knew he was a total wacko and his orders were ridiculous but they didn't dare to oppose the son of god. When people found out that their centuries old god was being replaced they refused to give up on Amon. They hid their Amon-statuettes and killed guards just to show that they didn't want to let go of the old god. Now you know what kind of massacre it is when it boils down to military vs. people. And it lasted for many years. I call it civil war and I say that it had nothing to do with economy. Crazy man just had too much power.
Though there was several other wars related to the conflict, which were more economy based. When the neighbour states realized the weakness of Egypt(a lot of military and people died, weak economy, diseases ravaging because streets and nile was filled with bodies) they tried to conquer it. It was a miracle they didn't succeed.
Edit: I could go on about the subject for hours but this is the way I see it: people can be killed because of other things than economics, human emotions play a big part here -> wars can be waged because of other things as well.
Well Dread, I still only see that there were some riots, some famines, and maybe possibly an assassination. No civil war. Not applicable, as far as I can tell. Otherwise the assassinations of JFK and Abe Lincoln were wars.
No one is saying people can't be killed for reasons other than economics - when I someday snap and shoot you dead, it will be purely personal. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> I am talking about wars. Let's keep our eye on the ball here.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 29 2003, 12:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 29 2003, 12:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well Dread, I still only see that there were some riots, some famines, and maybe possibly an assassination. No civil war. Not applicable, as far as I can tell. Otherwise the assassinations of JFK and Abe Lincoln were wars.
No one is saying people can't be killed for reasons other than economics - when I someday snap and shoot you dead, it will be purely personal. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> I am talking about wars. Let's keep our eye on the ball here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, so you are agreeing a war because of personal issues is possible? So we are down to the example I assume? Well, I still think it was a civil war. It's interesting that you say 'some riots' some famines' concidering the whole conflict lasted for well over 10 years and killed even thousands(if not tens of thousands) of people. I'm not sure why it's so important for you to have the solid modern example about non-economical war. It still doesn't have anything to do with the discussion about if people can wage wars for other reasons as well(which is where the whole idea and argument started).
Anyways, I've already proved that at least major conflicts happen because of other things than economics. Why is it so hard to believe that a war could happen just as easily? The Akhenaton conflict could have been a war very easily if the guy had only thought of spreading the 'Atons glory' to other empires as well.
And I'm going to bed, again, just as discussion was getting interesting. I just can't afford to lose all of my night sleep <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
You lazy kids these days - always sleeping. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
What I am saying is, you are not describing a civil war. No armed conflict, no meeting of combatants. It's not a war, it sounds like civil unrest. We have to have a clear definition of what a war is - it is not riots, or unrest, or hating your leader. If so, every country, throughout all of history, has been at war every single moment, of every single day.
Comments
*hint to anyone else who wants to try, use last years snowball fight*
War of 1812....wait, no.
World War I...wait, no.
World War II...wait, no.
...Korean War? (Better known as North east asia conflict)?
Lordy, gonna see a huge number of teenangster wanna-commies jumping all over this one!!! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
If people keep flying planes into our world <b>trade</b> centers, thats an economic attack on us. The loss of life was of miniscule impact on the country compared to the loss of money, business, economic collapse, etc. We gain much economically from protecting our country's infrastructure from terrorist attacks, from keeping our airlines in business due to passengers not being scared of terrorists, overthrowing dictators who threaten the region where all ouur energy supplies come from, working to prevent korean dictators from threatening our trading partners in Japan and South Korea, etc. You might get really crass and say that our responses to terrorism are far too economically oriented, actually. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You make a good point, but the World Trade Center was not hit because it was an economic hub of America ... if they wanted to hit economy, they're crash the plane into Wall Street and the House of Representatives. No, the WTC was destroyed because it was a symbol of international American power, and they wanted to disgrace that symbol.
As for the Civil War, it was NOT fought over slavery. That is a common misconception. It was fought to reuite the Union. As for this one, yes, the war did have economic causes, because they whole reason the Southern states seceded was because the North put a very heavy tarriff on exports (which the South needed to survive economically).
But anyway, is the (new) War on Iraq, or War on Afghanistan economically motivated? Behind the scenes I'm sure they play a major role, but they're not CAUSED by economics.
It had economic EFFECTS, but not causes, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The classic... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Fighting against the infidel was a sweet cover story for controlling far-eastern trade routes that just happened to go through the mideast. More taxes, tarrifs, spice-running, etc. The fact that these highly lucrative logistical routes were owned by heathen moslem anti-christs was a great way to stir up the Euro-peasants that couldn't care less about their rich lords getting richer... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Source?
As in, how do you know the Church had all this knowledge and planned this out in such detail? I think it was religiously motivated.
As for the main thesis, it is inevitable that any war will have some economic root. But you can find ANY root if you dig deep enough. So are we refining the discussion to Immediate Causes of the wars, or the most majoe Basic Causes?
The Assyrians were known for warring against villages with nothing to offer them, just for being on the way to their target. But in that time most civilizations fought just to exercise their will as well as for conquest.
For example the English civil war in 1640 had many economic reasons behind it, but was mostly fueled by Religion (the second war particularly) and the insecurity the English gentry felt about their king. The war itself was caused because Charles I just pushed the Gentry in the wrong direction both in terms of economics and religion. However, other kings and queens had gotton away with pushing economic interests (such as King James I).
So technically arguing that wars are caused by economics is completely incorrect, because few wars are SOLELY based on economics for their actual CAUSE. You can however analyse wars and find that say, World War 2 had its beginnings FROM an economic crisis (the depression). However you cannot say that the cause of WW2 was economic, again, a motivation but quite frankly there are many more valid reasons to WW2 than just economics. The first, and biggest would definitely be the massive amount of bitterness felt by the Germans after WW1.
Now saying that WW1 was caused by economics would be MORE correct, because pretty much they fought a war for the sake of fighting a war.
However, I still think the premise is impossible to uphold, you can find economic reasons behind any war, but you cannot possibly justify it as the leading cause in every case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As in, how do you know the Church had all this knowledge and planned this out in such detail? I think it was religiously motivated.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He is quite correct. The crusades were less motivated by religion than they were about european lords/Church leaders wanting to expand their power base. The whole holy war thing was just a good way of getting your average peasant to do your bidding.
Economics here was definitely part of the cause and motivation for the war.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tarrifs were a contributing factor. However, I would stress the constant atempts by Southern politicians to expand slavery into the western territories. Without a firm base of slavery in the west, the South was convinced that the balance of the senate would eventually swing against them, given that the western territories they had towards the end of the 1850's (New Mexico, Texas) were not ideally suited for slavery (California was, and the Compromise of 1850, whilst on paper would seem to favour the South, in fact was a huge blow to them as they lost California). The Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas and the Dread Scott case all came from a strong Southern desire to maintain slavery by pushing into the West. Once the Southerners lost control of the Presidency however, they paniked. They knew that slavery was only very shakely established in the West (New Mexico for example had only 27 slaves), and as such they knew from their own experiance of reworking the laws of the Union in order to further slavery that a strong anti-slavery President could undo all their Western work. Thus they secceded and the war began a few months later (Now THAT was stupid, attacking first gave Lincoln all the justification he needed).
So to sum it all up, it is economic. You can say Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union, which is true, but the war was started for economic reasons, and the South fought it for economic reasons. Secession and the attack on Fort Sumter were the direct result of a percieved threat to Southern economic interests: slavery, it's spread into the west and the resulting economic power that would have given the South.
With the Crusades, a misconception is that they were largely controlled by the Church. The Church called for them, but it was European lords who lead the men and commanded them in Palistine. As such, these lords were very interested in grabbing prime Medditeranian land and as such many brought their households, servants and some peasents with them to found new kingdoms. If you examine the 20 year period after the 1st Crusade, you see a whole bunch of "Crusader Kingdoms" spring up in Palistine, which were ruled by the various lords who had invaded. Economicallty driven most definitly, as they sat astride excellent real-estate (Don't discount all the Middle East as barren sands, Palistine was, and is still somewhat, a very rich land), coupled with proximity to Eastern and African trade routes. Money drove these lords to go on Crusade (oh sure the free ticket into heaven was nice but if the Pope had called for a Crusade to overthrow the Arabs of the Sahara Desert the silence would have been deafening <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ), and money prompted them to stay and continue to go back there even after Saladin and successive Arabic leaders managed to drive te Crusaders out.
Monse is pretty much dead on. War, even from it's very earliest days, has been about economics, be they plunder, booty, lands, slaves or resources. I can think of no conflict in history that has not had economic causes, obviously many wars have other causes as well, but money always comes into the equation somehow.
Egads! Monse and I, united in arms! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tarrifs were a contributing factor. However, I would stress the constant atempts by Southern politicians to expand slavery into the western territories. Without a firm base of slavery in the west, the South was convinced that the balance of the senate would eventually swing against them, given that the western territories they had towards the end of the 1850's (New Mexico, Texas) were not ideally suited for slavery (California was, and the Compromise of 1850, whilst on paper would seem to favour the South, in fact was a huge blow to them as they lost California). The Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas and the Dread Scott case all came from a strong Southern desire to maintain slavery by pushing into the West. Once the Southerners lost control of the Presidency however, they paniked. They knew that slavery was only very shakely established in the West (New Mexico for example had only 27 slaves), and as such they knew from their own experiance of reworking the laws of the Union in order to further slavery that a strong anti-slavery President could undo all their Western work. Thus they secceded and the war began a few months later (Now THAT was stupid, attacking first gave Lincoln all the justification he needed).
So to sum it all up, it is economic. You can say Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union, which is true, but the war was started for economic reasons, and the South fought it for economic reasons. Secession and the attack on Fort Sumter were the direct result of a percieved threat to Southern economic interests: slavery, it's spread into the west and the resulting economic power that would have given the South.
With the Crusades, a misconception is that they were largely controlled by the Church. The Church called for them, but it was European lords who lead the men and commanded them in Palistine. As such, these lords were very interested in grabbing prime Medditeranian land and as such many brought their households, servants and some peasents with them to found new kingdoms. If you examine the 20 year period after the 1st Crusade, you see a whole bunch of "Crusader Kingdoms" spring up in Palistine, which were ruled by the various lords who had invaded. Economicallty driven most definitly, as they sat astride excellent real-estate (Don't discount all the Middle East as barren sands, Palistine was, and is still somewhat, a very rich land), coupled with proximity to Eastern and African trade routes. Money drove these lords to go on Crusade (oh sure the free ticket into heaven was nice but if the Pope had called for a Crusade to overthrow the Arabs of the Sahara Desert the silence would have been deafening <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ), and money prompted them to stay and continue to go back there even after Saladin and successive Arabic leaders managed to drive te Crusaders out.
Monse is pretty much dead on. War, even from it's very earliest days, has been about economics, be they plunder, booty, lands, slaves or resources. I can think of no conflict in history that has not had economic causes, obviously many wars have other causes as well, but money always comes into the equation somehow.
Egads! Monse and I, united in arms! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am bookmarking this topic - to thrust up the nose of the next nublet that comes along and tries to tell me religion starts wars.
That's not exactly what I said. Religion did play a major part in the war, as it was the Church that called for the crusade. The Islamic invasions of Palistine in the 600's was partially the result of religious fervour, but one could also (correctly) point out that religion had simply been a unifying factor that allowed said invasions to take place (the arabic people had previously been to scattered and divided to conquor other lands). Plus, the fact that the Arabic invasions of the 600's - 700's typically invaded very rich and prosperous lands demonstrates that whilst many early Muslims may have been truely interested in spreading the word of Allah, economic factors such as the aquisition of new lands, plunder, slaves, tribute and booty certainly played a very large part. (Also provides a good explaination for why the Muslims never really tried pushing further into Europe than Spain; the rest of Europe was pretty poor compared to the massive wealth of Spain, North Africa, The Byzantine Empire and Persia. Continental Europe was a backwater).
Extrapolating off that point, the Catholic Church in Europe did exactly the same thing. There's no question that many of the aristocracy in Europe would have loved some Middle Eastern territory, but the problem was that each individual nation wasn't powerful enough to do it on their own. Plus there was the problem of getting there; by land ment going through the lands of other European nations, and the leaders of these lands would not have taken a cheery view to thousands of armed men in their borders; by sea ment passing close to other nation's shorelines, and nations tend to get very suspicious when a massive fleet filled with an invasion force is a couple of miles off their coast.
By calling for the Crusade, the Church was able to unite much of Europe behind a common cause. Economic concerns fueled the actual fighting, but without the unifying influence of the Church that conflict never could have occured. So religion did play a pivotal role in causing the war and making sure it could come about. But every war has a myriad of factors behind it's beginning; it is simply that economics is generally the largest and most powerful of these reasons.
I'm looking a little biased here because I'm focusing on the Serbs but it is basically the same for every side. They fought because of the connections their minds made between ethnicity, land, and pride; not necessarily money. I'm not sure how you're going to try to connect money to it. But the in reality the Bosnian civil war was so messed up that creating any kind of theory on the cause of it would be a great feat within itself.
What MonsE is claiming is that <i>every war ever, and probably in the future, hasn't/won't be fought because of anything else but economy</i>. Now am I right there? I guess you are saying that it's not only about what wars we have fought and what wars we will fight, because it's about the basic principle. Right?
Now I agree there that normally economy is the base of every war in the case of sensible leaders. However I must say that world has had a fair share of not-so-sane leaders. Examples: Half of the ancient egypt pharaos, Nero, Hitler, Stalin, The youngest japanese emperor(teenager, not insane but not mature anyway). Now when some person is crazy, and I mean totally wacko, you can't expect him to think about economy. The bad thing is that this person might as well be the 'son of god' which means that people have to do everything he says. Also religion can be a major factor when the ruling person is truely religious. Example: Pharaos, being children of the gods, had to take other people from the royal family as their wives. Now you know what happens after hundreds and thousands of years of inbreeding. Their children become, nicely put: retarded. I just read a book about this insane pharao who actually thought he is the child of god called Aton, his original name was akhenamon but he changed his name to akhenaton(the father of tutankhamon). The current main man however was Amon so this pharao decided to change things. Thousands of people died because they wanted to keep the old god Amon but the pharao(with his militarys aid) insisted on changing the god. The pharao didn't give a damn about economy, all he wanted was his new found god on 1st place, and all the people wanted was to keep the false god out. Edit: Basically all his aids begged him to stop the madness because it whacked egypts economy totally for decades, but they had to do what the pharao said because he was after all the son of god. Book spoiler: in the end however the priests of Amon poisoned Akhenaton and replaced him with his easy to control son tutankhamon(see the name change from aton to amon). This also acts as an argument for the other thread; insane leaders get replaced eventually.
So Imo you can't say that wars can't be fought over anything else but economy. Normally that is the case, especially after 1800-1900 when leaders started to become elected and chosen by the people instead of borning as leaders, but not always.
PS. Sorry for spelling errors and disordered post, I'm posting from school in a hurry.
Land = economics. The oldest kind of economics, in fact. Fighting over territory is fighting over economics. The 20 (recent) years of southeastern european conflict boil down to fights over land control; the rest of it is inflamatory issues designed to unite your people behind you in your fight. And if you go back in time over a period of say, 2000 years in that region, it happens again and again. I must explain: people that create and run wars <i>do not usually truly care about their people's issues, they care about their own money and power</i>. I'm not sure how else I can say this to get it through.
As to Dread, and other people's points: I am not saying wars are caused purely by economics, and that there is no other cause. I am saying that economics is the root and is present in every conflict, and other issues may or may not contribute to a war (usually only for propaganda purposes, but whatever).
Ryo and I have agreed again. Let this day be known forever more as 'Ryo hearts MonsE and vis versa' day. Sound the trumpets! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I know it was not fought over slavery, but slavery was one of the main CAUSES for that war, which is what this topic is centered around.
And some some wars can be fought purely by other reasons than economics, it's just much rarer.
My example? One could call it a civil war because people dropped like flies <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
You see where I'm going? Many of the struggles did indeed involve land-overtakings (or economics as you say it) But what war wouldnt that happen in?
You're confusing benefit from purpose, many of the wars didn't think like this, OMG Let's go take our neightbour's land so we can get an ancient relic of economy <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
Hong-Kong and Japan aren't particular huge, but they have a damn good economy anyhow.
I am stupid today - can you explain this further, I have no idea what you mean.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OMG, you need money (*cough* economics *cough*) to buy food. You need food to live, therefore economics = life!!!!
You see where I'm going? Many of the struggles did indeed involve land-overtakings (or economics as you say it) But what war wouldnt that happen in?
You're confusing benefit from purpose, many of the wars didn't think like this, OMG Let's go take our neightbour's land so we can get an ancient relic of economy <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The trading or selling of food is certainly economics. I do not see where you are going, as your sarcasm overtakes your response and just makes it a confused mishmash of contradictions. Explain further please, and hopefully, more politely.
I am stupid today - can you explain this further, I have no idea what you mean. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Silly me. I actually thought for a second that you actually read my posts before answering <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
[QUOTE=self]Now I agree there that normally economy is the base of every war in the case of sensible leaders. However I must say that world has had a fair share of not-so-sane leaders. Examples: Half of the ancient egypt pharaos, Nero, Hitler, Stalin, The youngest japanese emperor(teenager, not insane but not mature anyway). Now when some person is crazy, and I mean totally wacko, you can't expect him to think about economy. The bad thing is that this person might as well be the 'son of god' which means that people have to do everything he says. Also religion can be a major factor when the ruling person is truely religious. Example: Pharaos, being children of the gods, had to take other people from the royal family as their wives. Now you know what happens after hundreds and thousands of years of inbreeding. Their children become, nicely put: retarded. I just read a book about this insane pharao who actually thought he is the child of god called Aton, his original name was akhenamon but he changed his name to akhenaton. The current main man however was Amon so this pharao decided to change things. Thousands of people died because they wanted to keep the old god Amon but the pharao(with his militarys aid) insisted on changing the god. The pharao didn't give a damn about economy, all he wanted was his new found god on 1st place, and all the people wanted was to keep the false god out. Edit: Basically all his aids begged him to stop the madness because it whacked egypts economy totally for decades, but they had to do what the pharao said because he was after all the son of god. Book spoiler: in the end however the priests of Amon poisoned Akhenaton and replaced him with his easy to control son tutankhamon(see the name and religion change from aton to amon).[/QUOTE]
m3h spl33n.
Ok. So, was there really a war though? It sounds like one nutcake got assassinated, because he threatened the economy, stability, confidence of the people, etc. by his nutiness. Am I mistaken?
The fact is, alot of this stuff is opinion-based and economics is such a broad term. You're saying people were manipulated with propeganda with false causes for nearly all of the war you cant just classify as expanding ones resources, and you say the real cause was economics.
The crusades, you say that the european traderoutes were threatened and that an european base to the entrance to asia would be a very powerful thing to have.
But how can you know that the cause wasnt religion, you said it could be economics but you <i>cant</i> be sure of that.
Civilwars, is a matter of power, yes, perhaps these powers are the lands resources (which you so nicely bind to economic in an ever-lasting link-cycle) But the main thing is still power
Anyway, I might have harsh but I seemed like this thread werent heading anywhere.
But how can you know that the cause wasnt religion, you said it could be economics but you <i>cant</i> be sure of that.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, now you're just arguing metaphysics - you can't have a disussion based on this logic. I have more evidence that the crusades was about economics than you have it being about religion. Religion does not buy troops, horses, fodder, castles, halberds, or anything else. Economics pays for it all, and is what causes a war to be worth fighting to the people who fund a war - the reward. Power is a type of economics as well, as it is the controlling aspect of the physical things. Without possessions and control of other economic things, you have no real power in any scale.
To say it's all opinion based is to say that gravity is my opinion. I am presenting evidence, and you are presenting... what? Convince me, don't just say neener neener and twirl your finger in the air.
Ok. So, was there really a war though? It sounds like one nutcake got assassinated, because he threatened the economy, stability, confidence of the people, etc. by his nutiness. Am I mistaken? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thousands of egyptian people died in riots and in famine because economy got totally fuxored because of the nutcake and several years(I can't remember correctly but I think he ruled for 10-20 years) later the priests actually got the chance to kill him, though it's still debatable if the priests really killed him. The pharao just mysteriously died very young.
The pharao didn't care about his subjects, or the military, or egypts defensive status or the economy. All he cared was new temples for Aton and getting rid of the old god. All his advisors knew he was a total wacko and his orders were ridiculous but they didn't dare to oppose the son of god. When people found out that their centuries old god was being replaced they refused to give up on Amon. They hid their Amon-statuettes and killed guards just to show that they didn't want to let go of the old god. Now you know what kind of massacre it is when it boils down to military vs. people. And it lasted for many years. I call it civil war and I say that it had nothing to do with economy. Crazy man just had too much power.
Though there was several other wars related to the conflict, which were more economy based. When the neighbour states realized the weakness of Egypt(a lot of military and people died, weak economy, diseases ravaging because streets and nile was filled with bodies) they tried to conquer it. It was a miracle they didn't succeed.
Edit: I could go on about the subject for hours but this is the way I see it: people can be killed because of other things than economics, human emotions play a big part here -> wars can be waged because of other things as well.
Off to play Diablo 2 1.10 <!--emo&::skulk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/skulk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='skulk.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::gorge::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif'><!--endemo-->
No one is saying people can't be killed for reasons other than economics - when I someday snap and shoot you dead, it will be purely personal. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> I am talking about wars. Let's keep our eye on the ball here.
No one is saying people can't be killed for reasons other than economics - when I someday snap and shoot you dead, it will be purely personal. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> I am talking about wars. Let's keep our eye on the ball here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, so you are agreeing a war because of personal issues is possible? So we are down to the example I assume? Well, I still think it was a civil war. It's interesting that you say 'some riots' some famines' concidering the whole conflict lasted for well over 10 years and killed even thousands(if not tens of thousands) of people. I'm not sure why it's so important for you to have the solid modern example about non-economical war. It still doesn't have anything to do with the discussion about if people can wage wars for other reasons as well(which is where the whole idea and argument started).
Anyways, I've already proved that at least major conflicts happen because of other things than economics. Why is it so hard to believe that a war could happen just as easily? The Akhenaton conflict could have been a war very easily if the guy had only thought of spreading the 'Atons glory' to other empires as well.
And I'm going to bed, again, just as discussion was getting interesting. I just can't afford to lose all of my night sleep <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
What I am saying is, you are not describing a civil war. No armed conflict, no meeting of combatants. It's not a war, it sounds like civil unrest. We have to have a clear definition of what a war is - it is not riots, or unrest, or hating your leader. If so, every country, throughout all of history, has been at war every single moment, of every single day.