• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    The ancients very much understood the value in just changing leadership. So conquering yes, genocide? Usually only when religion is involved.

    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      This is fundamentally not true. Invading, looting then burning down entire towns, killing men, and raping and/or kidnapping women and children was practiced across the globe by many different cultures for thousands of years

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        You’re confusing the fact that stuff happened, with that stuff being the go to thing to do. Even the Mongols preferred to take towns with the populace intact so they could get taxes as soon as possible. Popular history blows the genocidal stuff way out of proportion.

        • protist@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Dude. I’m confusing “the fact that stuff happened” with the fact that stuff happened lmao

          I don’t know what history you’re reading, but sexual violence and the destruction of towns and cities has been pervasive in war for millennia. Here’s a brief introduction for you

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            Stop. Just stop. If you can’t defend this-

            When you say “they,” are you referring to all humans throughout all of human history? Not conquering/displacing people is a much more recent international norm

            Without bringing up a Wikipedia article about rape then you’ve already lost.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        That’s breathtakingly untrue. I know it’s the sensational popular view of historical warfare but it’s just not true. Generally the worst thing that would happen is to be enslaved. But as time goes on and we develop different power structures after the Romans, decapitation of the government becomes far more preferred. So there’s a big battle, the loser leader gets killed, and the remaining nobles swear loyalty to the new leader. Trained people are simply too valuable to kill out of hand.

        Of course we do have documented instances of genocide and mass destruction. Nobody is saying it didn’t happen. It just wasn’t the normal mode of operation.