• 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