• tetris11@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    *a few. I like to believe wars were fought more over resource domineering than ideology or emotion

    Otherwise jesus are we lost as a species

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah. Wars weren’t fought because a king had a temper tantrum. Wars were mostly fought to control land.

      This is mistaking cause and effect. Fighting over land results in a lot of strong emotions. Emotions aren’t the cause of fighting over land.

      • NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It is, though, compromise and negotiation would be the healthy way to deal with these things, fighting over them is a failure of emotional control, it’s required by at least one side of those kinds of conflicts. And many a war was indeed fought due to kings having temper tantrums.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          If your army can easily crush the enemy and they refuse to give you the resources you want, it’s not an emotional decision to go to war to get it. It might be an immoral one, but so is demanding the resources in the first place.

      • tetris11@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I mean the War of the Roses was fought initially for resources/control, but began to become more about settling bitter feuds than economic gain. But I see these as exceptions