[lit-ideas] Re: War and Panic
- From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 01:26:25 -0500
>>True we have the sterling examples of Athens annihilating
Melos and Rome erasing Carthage but in neither case did it
produce peace for those states.
Sorry, you missed the whole point of the post.
The viewpoint Hanson chose is that of the
victor-in-relation-to-the-vanquished. Carthage never attacked
Rome again. Of course Rome fought other wars; that wasn't the
point.
However if you want to refute Hanson, start naming lasting
periods of peace in world history that resulted from indecisive
wars. Do that and his whole thesis crumbles. I thought somebody
might try to do that, or at least think of one exception. I can't
think of a historical situation that runs counter to Hanson's
thesis. Can you?
For Hanson, war is the norm of human history. Peace is the brief
and fortunate interval between wars. Hanson asked, "What caused
those brief and fortunate intervals of peace?" He concluded that
the longest periods of peace in human history followed decisive
conflicts, where one side annihilated another. If the adversary
remains unconvinced of their total defeat, new wars break out
soon enough. Without those decisive defeats, peacemaking is just
an impotent Neville Chamberlain act.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
