Quote:
Originally Posted by Destroyer
barbaric conquest has always been as such, barbaric
there's no honor in it, nor has there ever been
but yeah, the fact that it's also the latest such conquest in history, probably gives it undeserved attention
but, there is nothing to be lauded in killing, pillaging and theft
|
without arguing the semantics of words like barbaric (i'm assuming you mean savages and not the literal definition of barbarians) i would claim you are wrong
its only wrong to the vanquished.
the "barbaric" conquests of rome were celebrated by triumphs, massive parades throughout the roman capitol, feasts and partying and usually punctuated by the public execution of members of the defeated enemy. there was no higher honor rome afforded then a triumph, and you only got one if you really fucked a people up in the name of your country
but rome was a civilized nation, if we go to more barbaric nations, and even later down the timeline, like the vikings for example. after they would murk shit they would be honored upon there arrival home
basically you are looking at the world with a new modern take. that viewpoint is very new based on world history. i blame the world wars and vietnam.
prior to the world wars, war itself was a much less bloody affair. and entire war could be won in a single battle between 40,000 guys to each side. the losing side might only lose 10,000 men, have 10,000 captured and enslaved, and 20,000 fleeing to safety. war over.
meanwhile the world wars hundreds of thousands would die in every single assault.
while the world wars brought casualty rates to insane heights, then you get a war like vietnam which is televised, and the "civilized" (soft) people at home got to see the ferocity and savagery of war, and became moralistically against it thanks to hippies
but my main point is your post is inherently wrong. throughout history there was always something to be lauded in killing, pillaging, and theft, as long as it benefitted YOUR NATION.