Lol, I we were talking about justifications, not “war without a cause”.
Do you think the civil wars and revolts you linked to occurred… without justification? Because otherwise you were just posting a link of Roman conflicts with utterly no relevance to the conversation at hand, which is about what I’ve come to expect over the course of this conversation.
Do you think the civil wars and revolts you linked to occurred… without justification?
The first example I gave is a scenario where a city was raised without justification. There are plenty of examples on the list I gave you of soldiers destroying cities because they were previously occupied by a rival general. The justification for the civil war isnt the justification used to attack a city who’s crime was only being occupied by an armed force
Here’s one briefly covering the very Roman origins of the concept of Just War
The etymology of a phrase isn’t the same as originating the very idea of justifying a war. In the chapter about the ancient world the first sentence runs counter to your summary. It states that the iliad was the first western writing to pose the conflict based on contingency instead of nature.
Again, this is explaining the origins of what a just war is to the Romans, it’s not saying that justifying wars was unique to or invented by the Romans.
None of your Citations claim that Romans were the only people justifying their conquest. Nor do they make any arguments claiming that the Romans invented the concept of justifying conflicts.
The problem with making giant sweeping claims is that it only takes one Example to counter them.
But, you know, fuck all those, they’re reliant on the writing of elites and ethnic authors. What the fuck do they know?
Lol, no they’re pretty decent papers, they just don’t make the claims you assume they do.
I think you’re conflating the codified concept of the Roman “just war” with the concept of justifying wars in general.
Which is kinda hilarious, because Rome had a far eastern counterpart that was active during the same periods and had very similar problems with “barbaric” neighbors. There are plenty of examples of the Han Empire justifying their own wars for nearly the same exact reasons. I just think you have a extremely eurocentric view of history.
The first example I gave is a scenario where a city was raised without justification.
And now you’re demonstrating an utter inability to differentiate between the actions of soldiers and the actions of the polity. Wonderful.
Again, this is explaining the origins of what a just war is to the Romans, it’s not saying that justifying wars was unique to or invented by the Romans.
None of your Citations claim that Romans were the only people justifying their conquest. Nor do they make any arguments claiming that the Romans invented the concept of justifying conflicts.
If you’d’ve fucking bothered reading what I’ve been saying, this might look familiar:
You have to remember that the pre-modern period was still very much a time of naked self-interest (as opposed to obfuscated self-interest) - it wasn’t so much that the non-Roman peoples thought of themselves as evil (or that the Romans thought of non-Roman peoples as thinking of themselves as evil), but that they saw less need to create elaborate justifications for participating in what was a common behavior of society at the time.
Because the Greeks and the Persians wrote of their own motivations in largely the same way - largely sans justification
Lol, no they’re pretty decent papers, they just don’t make the claims you assume they do.
Me: “Romans had a concept of just war, and placed a relatively high value on that concept for their time and in comparison to their contemporaries.”
You: [some long fucking diatribe trying to link the sacking of a city with the idea that the Romans didn’t have an idea of just war, despite the fact that it is not relevant either as a data point or as an assertion of standing policy, along with denying that ancient societies very often operated wars without justification because of some bizarre fucking universalist idea of intrinsic moral ideas being present in all cultures in the past, whilst simultaneously trying to paint the Roman Empire as acting without justification]
I can quote you for every part of that characterization of your position, mind you.
This is literally the fucking explanation I offered in the very first comment of this fucking thread
The Romans placed a relatively high value on the idea of Iustum Bellum - just war. Now, this was certainly not always adhered to - and furthermore, was often very far from ‘just’ as we would recognize it. But the Romans regarded the process of morally justifying their wars as something that made them superior to barbarian polities.
Like, Jesus fucking Christ, do I have to fucking spoon-feed you, here?
And now you’re demonstrating an utter inability to differentiate between the actions of soldiers and the actions of the polity.
Lol, by that logic America wasn’t responsible for the My Lai massacre… If soldiers keep doing it and aren’t dissuaded or stopped, then it’s an implicit policy.
but that they saw less need to create elaborate justifications for participating in what was a common behavior of society at the time.
largely the same way - largely sans justification
Ahh, so now we’re creeping away from the claim “very Roman origin of Just War”?
Me: “Romans had a concept of just war, and placed a relatively high value on that concept for their time and in comparison to their contemporaries.”
Lol, “How many quotes will it take from societies not veiling their self-interest and, in fact, taking great pride in their naked self-interest, would it take to change your mind? Or is that a lost cause?”
This you?
So now that we’ve confirmed that Romans weren’t unique, the argument is how much more value the Romans placed on this compared to other contemporary societies…?
some long fucking diatribe trying to link the sacking of a city with the idea that the Romans didn’t have an idea of just war, despite the fact that it is not relevant either as a data point or as an assertion of standing policy
Lol, man that single example has you fuming! It was just an example I provided because of your flabbergasted response of “what”.
I see you’re not mentioning the other source that spoke about how the Han, who were contemporaries with the Romans, justified their wars.
But hey, being a little drama queen is certainly a way to get your point across, not a good way. But you do you.
Ahh, so now we’re creeping away from the claim “very Roman origin of Just War”?
Literally outlined in the paper you didn’t read, yes, Roman ideas of Just War were very Italic (ie Roman in this context, putting aside questions of the differences of contemporary Italic peoples and the process of cultures forming or changing) in origin.
Lol, “How many quotes will it take from societies not veiling their self-interest and, in fact, taking great pride in their naked self-interest, would it take to change your mind? Or is that a lost cause?” This you?
Yes, it absolutely is me, in response to you denying that contemporary societies didn’t act in naked self-interest much of the time. Like, are you incapable of remembering what you yourself said, or just unwilling to?
So now that we’ve confirmed that Romans weren’t unique, the argument is how much more value the Romans placed on this compared to other contemporary societies…?
Holy fucking shit, literally in my first comment
The Romans placed a relatively high value on the idea of Iustum Bellum - just war.
I see you’re not mentioning the other source that spoke about how the Han, who were contemporaries with the Romans, justified their wars.
Please point out where I said the Han didn’t have a strong conception of just war.
I’ve spoken to some dumb fucking cunts. But you’re the stupidest this month, easy.
You stated the origin of the concept of just war is Roman, not that the justifications they utilized were “italic”. Moving the goal post.
in response to you denying that contemporary societies didn’t act in naked self-interest much of the time.
Again, my rebuttal was that societies justify their actions within their own cultural framework. Your claim was that Rome was the only empire who were commiting to just wars.
Holy fucking shit, literally in my first comment
Ahh so this was a subjective comparison the whole time… And you’ve just been dramatically pedantic with all of your claims. Great…
Please point out where I said the Han didn’t have a strong conception of just war.
“How many quotes will it take from societies not veiling their self-interest and, in fact, taking great pride in their naked self-interest, would it take to change your mind?”
“Yes, it absolutely is me, in response to you denying that contemporary societies didn’t act in naked self-interest much of the time”
“Here’s one briefly covering the very Roman origins of the concept of Just War and the contrast with Greeks and other civilizations of antiquity,”
If you weren’t trying to imply that Romans were unique in justifying their wars, then why did you have a problem with the rebuttal of “all cultures justify their wars from within their own cultural framework”? Why did you freak out when I gave examples of religious wars in ancient mesopotamia?
You’re just being academically dishonest and moving the goal post out of pure pigheadedness.
I’ve spoken to some dumb fucking cunts. But you’re the stupidest this month, easy.
Lol, so spicy… Maybe try going outaide and touching some grass?
You stated the origin of the concept of just war is Roman, not that the justifications they utilized were “italic”. Moving the goal post.
Jesus fucking Christ. The mention of Italic origins was because Rome didn’t spring out fully formed; the point of the comparison was to demonstrate that it was an unusual cultural affectation that was not widely shared by other major cultures of the period.
“How many quotes will it take from societies not veiling their self-interest and, in fact, taking great pride in their naked self-interest, would it take to change your mind?”
“Yes, it absolutely is me, in response to you denying that contemporary societies didn’t act in naked self-interest much of the time”
Yes, in response to you denying that societies acted in accordance with naked self-interest. You, quite literally and explicitly, denied that claim. Are you reversing your opinion now? If so, I commend your ability to admit when you’ve made a brazenly stupid claim.
“Here’s one briefly covering the very Roman origins of the concept of Just War and the contrast with Greeks and other civilizations of antiquity,”
The word contrast means nothing to you, I see. You may want to invest in a dictionary.
If you weren’t trying to imply that Romans were unique in justifying their wars, then why did you have a problem with the rebuttal of “all cultures justify their wars from within their own cultural framework”?
… you mean when you did the exact opposite of that, and claimed that me saying
When the Gauls and Germanics went on raids, their thinking wasn’t “Dohohoho, time to commit some CRIMES”, but rather, “This is the way the world works, I’m taking an opportunity”, the way that a merchant might eye a good deal
was incorrect?
Like, fuck, can you not hold the same position for more than two comments? Is this pathological?
Why did you freak out when I gave examples of religious wars in ancient mesopotamia?
Because you have no conception of what the justification of wars were in ancient Mesopotamia, you just saw ‘idols’ and thought ‘religious ideal of a just war’. Anything else, apparently, would be too complex for you to grasp.
You’re just being academically dishonest and moving the goal post out of pure pigheadedness.
I’m not being ‘academically dishonest’, you’re seeming simply incapable of recognizing that your reading comprehension is subpar, and that several of the claims you made were not only baseless but utterly bizarre in some weird attempt to cling to your original contrarian position.
Ahh so this was a subjective comparison the whole time…
So you finally got around to reading literally the very first comment in this thread? Excellent. I’m so happy for you. Maybe in the future, you should work on your enduring incapacity to exercise basic literacy.
Do you think the civil wars and revolts you linked to occurred… without justification? Because otherwise you were just posting a link of Roman conflicts with utterly no relevance to the conversation at hand, which is about what I’ve come to expect over the course of this conversation.
Sure.
Here’s one briefly covering the very Roman origins of the concept of Just War and the contrast with Greeks and other civilizations of antiquity, as well as covering how the concept of just war primary had a resurgence with the Enlightenment, not as some eternal and intrinsic value held by mankind as you seem to think. Though I could go through considerable dispute with their view on Just War in the medieval period
Here’s one covering the importance of justifications for war in Roman culture and its origins
Here’s one covering the abhorrence of Romans at what they saw as an unjust war waged by one of their own
Here’s one covering the common and brutal amoral realpolitik espoused by Thucydides in examining and explaining the Greek wars of his time, including the attitudes of the actors involved
Here’s one on the very nakedly self-interested justifications of the Hellenic Macedonians in the conquests of Phillip and Alexander and how utterly unremarkable they were in context of contemporary societies
Here’s one on Germanic legal and moral thought regarding violence and war in antiquity
Here’s one on the Germanic ethos of violence for personal gain in late antiquity/early medieval period
But, you know, fuck all those, they’re reliant on the writing of elites and ethnic authors. What the fuck do they know?
Fuck’s sake.
The first example I gave is a scenario where a city was raised without justification. There are plenty of examples on the list I gave you of soldiers destroying cities because they were previously occupied by a rival general. The justification for the civil war isnt the justification used to attack a city who’s crime was only being occupied by an armed force
The etymology of a phrase isn’t the same as originating the very idea of justifying a war. In the chapter about the ancient world the first sentence runs counter to your summary. It states that the iliad was the first western writing to pose the conflict based on contingency instead of nature.
Again, this is explaining the origins of what a just war is to the Romans, it’s not saying that justifying wars was unique to or invented by the Romans.
None of your Citations claim that Romans were the only people justifying their conquest. Nor do they make any arguments claiming that the Romans invented the concept of justifying conflicts.
The problem with making giant sweeping claims is that it only takes one Example to counter them.
Lol, no they’re pretty decent papers, they just don’t make the claims you assume they do.
I think you’re conflating the codified concept of the Roman “just war” with the concept of justifying wars in general.
Which is kinda hilarious, because Rome had a far eastern counterpart that was active during the same periods and had very similar problems with “barbaric” neighbors. There are plenty of examples of the Han Empire justifying their own wars for nearly the same exact reasons. I just think you have a extremely eurocentric view of history.
And now you’re demonstrating an utter inability to differentiate between the actions of soldiers and the actions of the polity. Wonderful.
If you’d’ve fucking bothered reading what I’ve been saying, this might look familiar:
Me: “Romans had a concept of just war, and placed a relatively high value on that concept for their time and in comparison to their contemporaries.”
You: [some long fucking diatribe trying to link the sacking of a city with the idea that the Romans didn’t have an idea of just war, despite the fact that it is not relevant either as a data point or as an assertion of standing policy, along with denying that ancient societies very often operated wars without justification because of some bizarre fucking universalist idea of intrinsic moral ideas being present in all cultures in the past, whilst simultaneously trying to paint the Roman Empire as acting without justification]
I can quote you for every part of that characterization of your position, mind you.
This is literally the fucking explanation I offered in the very first comment of this fucking thread
Like, Jesus fucking Christ, do I have to fucking spoon-feed you, here?
Lol, by that logic America wasn’t responsible for the My Lai massacre… If soldiers keep doing it and aren’t dissuaded or stopped, then it’s an implicit policy.
Ahh, so now we’re creeping away from the claim “very Roman origin of Just War”?
Lol, “How many quotes will it take from societies not veiling their self-interest and, in fact, taking great pride in their naked self-interest, would it take to change your mind? Or is that a lost cause?” This you?
So now that we’ve confirmed that Romans weren’t unique, the argument is how much more value the Romans placed on this compared to other contemporary societies…?
Lol, man that single example has you fuming! It was just an example I provided because of your flabbergasted response of “what”.
I see you’re not mentioning the other source that spoke about how the Han, who were contemporaries with the Romans, justified their wars.
But hey, being a little drama queen is certainly a way to get your point across, not a good way. But you do you.
Literally outlined in the paper you didn’t read, yes, Roman ideas of Just War were very Italic (ie Roman in this context, putting aside questions of the differences of contemporary Italic peoples and the process of cultures forming or changing) in origin.
Yes, it absolutely is me, in response to you denying that contemporary societies didn’t act in naked self-interest much of the time. Like, are you incapable of remembering what you yourself said, or just unwilling to?
Holy fucking shit, literally in my first comment
Please point out where I said the Han didn’t have a strong conception of just war.
I’ve spoken to some dumb fucking cunts. But you’re the stupidest this month, easy.
You stated the origin of the concept of just war is Roman, not that the justifications they utilized were “italic”. Moving the goal post.
Again, my rebuttal was that societies justify their actions within their own cultural framework. Your claim was that Rome was the only empire who were commiting to just wars.
Ahh so this was a subjective comparison the whole time… And you’ve just been dramatically pedantic with all of your claims. Great…
“How many quotes will it take from societies not veiling their self-interest and, in fact, taking great pride in their naked self-interest, would it take to change your mind?”
“Yes, it absolutely is me, in response to you denying that contemporary societies didn’t act in naked self-interest much of the time”
“Here’s one briefly covering the very Roman origins of the concept of Just War and the contrast with Greeks and other civilizations of antiquity,”
If you weren’t trying to imply that Romans were unique in justifying their wars, then why did you have a problem with the rebuttal of “all cultures justify their wars from within their own cultural framework”? Why did you freak out when I gave examples of religious wars in ancient mesopotamia?
You’re just being academically dishonest and moving the goal post out of pure pigheadedness.
Lol, so spicy… Maybe try going outaide and touching some grass?
Jesus fucking Christ. The mention of Italic origins was because Rome didn’t spring out fully formed; the point of the comparison was to demonstrate that it was an unusual cultural affectation that was not widely shared by other major cultures of the period.
Yes, in response to you denying that societies acted in accordance with naked self-interest. You, quite literally and explicitly, denied that claim. Are you reversing your opinion now? If so, I commend your ability to admit when you’ve made a brazenly stupid claim.
The word contrast means nothing to you, I see. You may want to invest in a dictionary.
… you mean when you did the exact opposite of that, and claimed that me saying
was incorrect?
Like, fuck, can you not hold the same position for more than two comments? Is this pathological?
Because you have no conception of what the justification of wars were in ancient Mesopotamia, you just saw ‘idols’ and thought ‘religious ideal of a just war’. Anything else, apparently, would be too complex for you to grasp.
I’m not being ‘academically dishonest’, you’re seeming simply incapable of recognizing that your reading comprehension is subpar, and that several of the claims you made were not only baseless but utterly bizarre in some weird attempt to cling to your original contrarian position.
So you finally got around to reading literally the very first comment in this thread? Excellent. I’m so happy for you. Maybe in the future, you should work on your enduring incapacity to exercise basic literacy.