Holy War

I suppose this would be true if you consider that "God" is not a truth or a constant. By their very own definition of God, it must be the same one because God is everlasting and omnipotent. That which is everlasting withstands change. So do you suggest that you can redefine "God" in order to conceptualize the distrobution of belief?

You talk about 'leaders' in a way that implies some kind of modern centralised states, but in reality it was many different knights, lords and dukes heeding the popes call to arms. Now the Pope made the decision, not as a matter of finance, but one, as you say, of self defence. But this was not the defence of wealth, but of christian territory and christian security within Islamic territory. Despite what the cynics say, suprisingly few wars are fought over wealth, for the simple reason that war is very expensive.

You talk about 'leaders' in a way that implies some kind of modern centralised states, but in reality it was many different knights, lords and dukes heeding the popes call to arms. Now the Pope made the decision, not as a matter of finance, but one, as you say, of self defence. But this was not the defence of wealth, but of christian territory and christian security within Islamic territory. Despite what the cynics say, suprisingly few wars are fought over wealth, for the simple reason that war is very expensive.

I suppose this would be true if you consider that "God" is not a truth or a constant. By their very own definition of God, it must be the same one because God is everlasting and omnipotent. That which is everlasting withstands change. So do you suggest that you can redefine "God" in order to conceptualize the distrobution of belief?

No, the mention of leaders does not imply some kind of modern, centralized state. I used "leaders" because it is vague enough to include some kind of modern, centralized state as well as the feudal leaders and any other sort of leader that might play a role in making the decision to go to an armed conflict.

I'm not sure where you get your history, but your wrong. That's blunt, yes, and please don't take offense, but that's the bottom line. Was Christian territory and Christian security an issue - yes, of course, but how do these things relate to the Pope? They relate to the Pope through the Pope's purse.

It is not cynical to say that wars are fought over wealth, it's historic sense. War is extremely expensive, but the gains from war are often times great. To pop your balloon - consider the Roman Empire. The Romans paid for many of their conquests with the wealth looted from the conquered people.
Or we could talk about the Opium Wars where the British Empire invades China in order to secure their ability to trade in opium which was produced in their Indian holdings and sold in Chinese port cities.
Or we could talk about Japanese Imperialism leading up to the Second World War where Japan invades Manchuria, China, ect in order to find the necessary resources to supply it's growing industry and population.

The list goes on and on.

Wow, someone is sure of themselves:sarcastic:

I do not deny that the Pope would be financially impacted on by Islamic conquest of chrisitan territory, but that does not mean that this is automatically his motive.

The Jappanesse and British attacks on China were so easily effected that they were in effect skirmishs and takeovers, I mean war in the sense of a proper conflict. I was making a distinction between wealth and territory, and resources is where the two meet. Also I said suprisingly few, not all, most or even 50%.

In a logical sense, yes, the fact that the Pope is financially impacted by the rise of Islam does not necessarily mean that Urban called for the First Crusade because of wealth. However, it does seem to be the case that wealth was the primary motive of calling for the First Crusade.

This seems to be the case for several reasons. First, trade to Europe was threatened by the Islamic rise and the Islamic threat to Byzantium, trade being a matter of wealth. Further, the feudal lords of Europe who joined the Crusade did so primarily to find new lands to rule, also a matter of wealth.

Yeah, the Opium War was a proper conflict. The British declare war on China and crush the Chinese fleet because the Chinese banned the sale of opium, which was a massive cash crop for the British Empire.

The Japanese invasions of Manchuria, China and Indo-China were also proper conflicts. You know, military force and all that. The Japanese fought in China for years - years. Sounds like a proper conflict to me.

Surprisingly few. Okay, well I'm not surprised. Either way, at least we are agreed that most wars are fought for wealth.

I wonder if the Aztecs might be an example of a people who went regularly to war in order to fulfill a religious need as a priority?

I suspect history has apinted them as somewhat blacker than they actually were - but there does seem to have been a very real (insofar as it was perceived) need to keep a steady stream of sacrifices going.

And I still would like to know what contributors to this thread think of the numerous conflicts referred to in religious texts - do these not set a precedent for the followers of certain religions to wage wars?

Yes they are a good example. However they wage war in order to gain power and territory as well.

I am not sure what you mean by that, how much 'blacker' do they have to be painted than regular human sacrifice?.

They had a maginificent civilisation in some ways, and tenochitclan with its floating gardens qualifies as one of the wonders of the world, but even so they had a very dark and nihilistic view of existance and killed and enslaved thousands of people.

Well in the old testament most of these are wars fought by the Jews that they describe as 'ordered by god' in their mythology.

Well the degree to which they committed such sacrifice and why. No doubt it happened - whether it happened to the degree it is reported as happening might just be a result of propaganda.

No nihilism to it at all, if what little we know about their reasons rings true - they thought is was necessary to shed blood in order to keep the sun coming up - therefore it served a perceived religious purpose.It wasn't just done as a celebration of nothing in the eyes of the perpetrators.

Precisely! Therefore such wars set a precedent to believers in the Old Testament to this day - as does the wars between the Meccans and Medians in the Koran. Would the Arab conquest have happened without the Koran, would the recent struggles between Jewish settlers, palestinians and the IDF occur without the Torah?

These strike me as being conflicts for which religious pride is the primary motivator - more so than capture/control of resource (though it plays an undeniable part).

I am not denying that wealth was a factor, but your reason for deciding they were the primary one seem insufficent. It was about power, and in as much as that also means wealth, meant that as well. However the real question is, the power to do what?

Perhaps I could refine the point here. All wars are about power, and often this means wealth as well. However the reasons for wanting the wealth and power are more often the real motive, with supringly few wars fought just for wealth.

It was very nihilistic, as it viewed existance as a torrent of blood, and it formed a very fear driven societ.

Perhaps you have slightly missed my point here.

The power to make money. As for insufficient, what's the problem? Seriously, I'd be more than happy to expand on something if I haven't given sufficient explanation.

Sure, most everything that is done is done to satisfy some desire. But in particular instances, like when considering what compelled a war, the objects of desire can most certainly be the reason for doing something.

You can answer "desire" to nearly any "why did such and such happen?" sort of question. But that's pretty vague.

When we are talking about such a vast number of circumstances, like all war, the analysis will be "shallow" because it will be broad enough to encompass the plethora of examples. Each armed conflict is a complicated matter, but we can generalize by saying that wealth is typically the motivator. In this generalization, the reason why people want wealth is not relevant. It's an entirely different question.