Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Table of war - west v east

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Binge-Drinker (U1655287) on Saturday, 13th August 2005

  Has the western world had more conflict and wars than
  the eastern.
  
  As a westerner I know very little regarding eastern conflict, could this be because there were less ?
  
  Which country was involved in the most amount of conflicts and or wars.
  
  Considering Britain has no land borders it was involved in a few.
  
  And when one looks back at the Norse peoples trail of conflict which turned into a relatively calm part of Europe apart from WW II, why did this happen, what changed their attitude ?
  
  Are dictators more prone to wars than monarchs ?
  
  Cheers Nick

  Link to this forum: Table of war - west v east

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 13th August 2005

  Nick, neither me do I know much, but from the basics I know, easterners (referring to Oriental Asians) went through the same number of wars from antiquity until today - there are even striking similarities (to an extend always): the struggle of chinese kingdoms in the 5th-3th BC centuries till one of them (re)formed a Chinese empire reminds us the struggle among the cities/kingdoms around the Mediterranean sea at exactly the same period - the only difference is that for Mediterraneans their average army would be one of 10,000 while for Chinese around 100,000!!! Infantry, cavalry, naval forces and amphibian invasions... whatever you want! East Asians even went through the same trouble with the Mongols etc. Japanese suffered also the break up of their island-empire having severe 'inter-warlord' wars. I read last year the Art of War of Sun Tzu and was quite amazed by the progressed perception of war of the chinese civilisation - a sign not only of their advanced culture but also of their numerous and major (in terms of numbers involved!) wars.
  Indians also had suffered numerous wars among the various kingdoms and with mongols also in the north... those wars became even worse by the forceful arrival of the muslim religion in the area. One cannot say easily if Indian lands or Chinese ones were the theater of more battles. One thing is for sure: say from 2000 BC to 2000 AD East Asia may even surpass Europe in number of battles occured.
  
  Talking about Norwegians, Swedish, and Danish - there are two axis: the wars between them and their raids on western and southern Europe. Nothing spectacular happened. Most aggresions of Vickings in Europe do not classify exactly for being named as wars (a bunch of 3-4 ships of 150-200 men going up a river and raiding unarmed villages of non-existing states on lands ruled by other warlords)like most civil wars among Vickings were actually clan-wars and not something extended. Some invasions that may classify as wars were made in northern France, in England and in Sicely and were done because there was none to stop them doing it. As soon as population numbers 'relaxed' in Scandinavia due to immigration, kings in those lands were more able to centralise their power within their states (following the example of the rest of Europe), thus for them to have again inter-Scandinavic wars there should be a reason of paramount importance - not that they did not have wars (Norway fought its way to independence from Sweden if I am not wrong in the 19th century). It was on the one hand that from 11th century they gradually lost the ability to do something south of them cos European state were getting solidified and any... raid say on England would imply ending up an english colony...and on the other hand, being so north for others it was just snow and ice, thus of no special interest.
  
  Dictatorship or monarchy or democracy it does not matter, the frequency a state will be implicated in a war is being defined by its international environment and its own policies (especially socio-financial ones).

  Link to this forum: Table of war - west v east

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 14th August 2005

  Nikolaos,
  
  reply to message 2.
  
  I very much appreciated this well-thought reply.
  
  Kind regards.

  Link to this forum: Table of war - west v east

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Sunday, 14th August 2005

  Nick,
  
  I think geography usually explains a lot about the history of conflicts. Mountains offer protection to their inhabitants. Therefore highlanders are usually far more independent than lowlanders, but also less influenced by new trends and therefore more conservative. If the mountains are off the beaten track the inhabitants can live there more peacefully than in other geographic regions. But if a trade route cuts across them, the opposite happens: there’ll always be banditry. Worse still if at some stage imperial powers take an interest in the these regions, then all hell breaks loose and can last for centuries. See: Afghanistan, Chechnya or the Balkans.
  
  Cheers, Jozef
  

  Link to this forum: Table of war - west v east

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 14th August 2005

  Now that I remembered, the most aggresive state ever existed (plus the most conspiratory one since it had more governors assasinated in its short 200 history than the famous-for-conspiracy Byzantium in its 1000 history).... is of course USA so it gives really a bad name on democracy!!! Ehehehe... Sounds funny but, if I have not been wrongly informed, since 1776 US was always into some war and there has been only ONE year that passed with the state not occupying its forces in some war somewhere - that was 1893 or 1895 or around there! That would even make the likes of militarist Germany or imperial Japan of 1850-1950 seem like pacifists! Take into that US officially became an 'empire' only after WW2.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Table of war - west v east

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Binge-Drinker (U1655287) on Sunday, 14th August 2005

  Thanks for the interesting and fascinating replies. I never thought of America as historically being a war monger, but it does beg the question how many of these conflicts it started, perhaps time past it was thought an easier target, and competition.
  
  The geographical aspects are also interesting. The English channel protecting England, but also an area of conflict with the Dutch and French. Britains hold on Gibraltar for tactical reasons. The Suez canal caused conflict.
  
  Cheers and thanks Nick
  
  

  Link to this forum: Table of war - west v east

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Sunday, 14th August 2005

  Has the western world had more conflict and wars than
  the eastern.
  
  As a westerner I know very little regarding eastern conflict, could this be because there were less ?
  
  Which country was involved in the most amount of conflicts and or wars.
  
  Considering Britain has no land borders it was involved in a few.
  
  And when one looks back at the Norse peoples trail of conflict which turned into a relatively calm part of Europe apart from WW II, why did this happen, what changed their attitude ?
  
  Are dictators more prone to wars than monarchs ?
  
  Cheers Nick Β 
  
  Nicolas
  
  I think you would have to define several of the terms you use before anything could be said meaningfully. For instance, east and west. originally the boundary was about the region of Persia/Iran but over time, especially the rise of the Muslim powers and isolation of the Christian states in Europe meant that the west applied to a much smaller period.
  
  Similarly what do you mean by war? At what point does a local tribal dispute become a war. Over much of history most conflicts have been small scale affairs, often of limited impact beyond their immediate victims. Wars between more organised and powerful states are far fewer in number but have often been more destructive and resulted in impacts far beyond the immediate Theatre of war.
  
  Similarly, when nations from various areas clash how would you count it? Say a European clash with a tribe in Africa, trade disputes with Muslim powers in the Med. or Indian Ocean, the Pacific war, with Japan on one side and a range of European, American and Asian powers on the other?
  
  Britain has only lacked land borders for a limited period of history. For much of the earlier period there were borders, often violently contested between the various groups. More recently the gaining of independence of the Irish republic has meant a land border again. Also, to maintain British independence the nation has often had to extend power beyond its borders, helping to prevent a number of potential superpowers rising by seizing domination of the continent. In recent centuries this led to conflicts in widely scattered parts of the world, often resulting from the need to restrain rivals in Europe.
  
  On the Viking period a lot depends on the interpretation, which has been much contested. It has often been suggested that much of the destruction generated was exhaugrated by their opponents because of the political and religious differences as they were the last 'pagan' region in Europe able to resist the more organised religious states. Even so their impact was intense and far reaching. While chiefly of importance in NW European and the Russian sphere they were influential as far as the Caspian and Byzantium, both as mercenaries and a military threat. Even later several of the Scandinavian states played important military roles, most famously the Swedes in the 30 years War. It was only really after the Napoleonic period that the area became known for being largely non-aggressive.
  
  Therefore I am tempted to say there is no simple answer to the question because, unless you define it far more I don’t think it has much meaning. I hope that doesn’t sound too offensive but if your looking for simple answers to complex questions they rarely exist.
  
  Steve
  

  Link to this forum: Table of war - west v east

  Report message7

Back to top