On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 01:29:31 -0500, flipper wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:02:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:38:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:
Tweaking your chime a wee bit... can't you admit that religion has
been the cause of most wars and most ills of the world ?:-)
...Jim Thompson
Nope. Money is the cause of most wars.
I think that's an oversimplification.
I agree. I didn't want to get into the details. Perhaps another
oversimplification will help. Most modern wars and revolutions are
started for religious, political, racial, tribal, or just plain stupid
purposes. Left to themselves, such wars tend to fizzle out rapidly.
What perpetuates them is that wars and revolts are a very efficient
method of redistributing wealth and political power. It's also the
source of substantial revenue for the industrial sector. Small
changes can be done peacefully, but if you want to reorganize the
country quickly, it takes a war or revolution.
For example, the history of
the Crusades is more about plunder than religion.
I think that's an oversimplification as well. 'Living off the land'
and 'plundering' the 'conquered' was SOP for thousands of years prior
and hundreds of years after the 'Crusades' so that aspect was not
particularly 'unique'
Yep. I just supplied an example, not a detailed history of the
numerous wars of the time. A good question would be why there was
almost continuous warfare during the middle ages? That's because
making war on the neighbors was literally the only effective means of
generating positive growth for the local rulers. When the economic
basis of the rulers was land, the only way to get more land was to
make war.
The problem was that war wasn't particularly popular. The peasants
weren't particularly interested in a war of expansion for their
rulers. The feudal system provided relatively cheap cannon fodder,
but there was only so much of that available. The military quality of
the peasantry was also demonstratively lousy. So, the rulers hired
mercenaries, which required (insert drum roll) money. Initially, they
were paid with a license to plunder, but that was insufficient. The
mercenaries wanted at least their expenses paid in advance, which
means that the war was to be fought with cash in advance. Plundering
continued, but primarily as a performance bonus.
However, the peasants still found it useful to know why they were
fighting. So, a proper atrocity and list of grievances were
fabricated for the occasion. Religion usually played a major part of
this although racial and political reasons were sometimes added.
The first crusade took place only after decades of pleading by the
Byzantine Empire for help against Muslims invasion from the east and
one of the reasons for a delayed response is Europe was also fighting
Muslim invasion from the south into Spain and Italy. Or, rather,
retaking the regions.
Yep.... and the first thing the Crusaders did, at the start of the 4th
Crusade, when arriving in Constantinople was get involved in the
palace intrigues, expedite a coup (twice), demand payment for their
help in the coup, and then sack the town when payment was not
forthcoming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade
Yeah, I know it's an oversimplification as the politics was really
thick. I just wanted to point out the importance of cash payments,
even during the Crusades.
It's not just a bit ironic that Muslims complain the 'crusades' were
invasions of 'their lands' when every square inch of it they took by
the sword.
How far back to you want to go? The map of the world has changed
drastically over the centuries. Although there have been some
peaceful border changes, the overwhelming majority of such changes
were inspired by wars.
However, I will
admit that religion makes a good cover story.
As for the ills of the world, the basic problem is that the planet has
too many people.
You think it had 'too many people' when ancient Egypt conquered it's
'known world', or Alexander, or Caesar, or the Moguls, and the list
goes on?
Yes. Many invasions and migrations were initiated because the
available land could not support a growing population. Modern food
production technology has delayed the inevitable Malthusian disaster
for centuries. The problem is the same today as it was in Egypt,
Greece, and central Asia, as it was in ancient history. Only the
scale is different. Countries where population pressure is extreme
(i.e. India and China) have adopted philosophical and political
systems that are designed to help them tolerate overcrowding and
shortages. That works, but is only a temporary expedient.
Btw, the Mongols did more damage to the Muslim empires than the
'Christians' of the time ever dreamed of.
Yep. The Mongols were more honest about it too. The Mongols were in
it for the plunder and didn't need any religious or political
motivation. If the Crusaders had been as honest about their
intentions and centralized their leadership, methinks they would have
done much better.
I have no idea what to do about that. Hopefully, I
won't be around when someone tries to solve that problem.
Drivel: Not too many years ago, mankind looked to religion for the
answers to his problems. Today, mankind seems to be look at religion
as the cause of his problems. That's a fairly impressive switch in
perhaps 150 years.
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060
http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558