I mean the War of the Roses was fought initially for resources/control, but began to become more about settling bitter feuds than economic gain. But I see these as exceptions
It is, though, compromise and negotiation would be the healthy way to deal with these things, fighting over them is a failure of emotional control, it’s required by at least one side of those kinds of conflicts. And many a war was indeed fought due to kings having temper tantrums.
If your army can easily crush the enemy and they refuse to give you the resources you want, it’s not an emotional decision to go to war to get it. It might be an immoral one, but so is demanding the resources in the first place.
You really see that as the emotionally healthy way to deal with these kinds of situations? Building an army and crushing all who cannot stand against you so that you can take what they have and force your control over them?
War is men not coping with their emotions in a healthy way. There is more than that to it, sure, but that is the central pillar at the core of every war throughout documented history.
And men don’t? I am willing to bet that the most wars in history could be traced to men who couldn’t cope with their emotions in a healthy way.
Men don’t have emotions remember? Stoicism and what not.
*a few. I like to believe wars were fought more over resource domineering than ideology or emotion
Otherwise jesus are we lost as a species
Yeah. Wars weren’t fought because a king had a temper tantrum. Wars were mostly fought to control land.
This is mistaking cause and effect. Fighting over land results in a lot of strong emotions. Emotions aren’t the cause of fighting over land.
I mean the War of the Roses was fought initially for resources/control, but began to become more about settling bitter feuds than economic gain. But I see these as exceptions
It is, though, compromise and negotiation would be the healthy way to deal with these things, fighting over them is a failure of emotional control, it’s required by at least one side of those kinds of conflicts. And many a war was indeed fought due to kings having temper tantrums.
If your army can easily crush the enemy and they refuse to give you the resources you want, it’s not an emotional decision to go to war to get it. It might be an immoral one, but so is demanding the resources in the first place.
You really see that as the emotionally healthy way to deal with these kinds of situations? Building an army and crushing all who cannot stand against you so that you can take what they have and force your control over them?
Telling. Very telling.
Immoral = emotionally unhealthy.
It’s very telling that you think emotion has anything to do with it.
A better question is: what caused the dispute in the first place? Who the true aggressor?
You’re letting us know a lot about yourself there.
You’re letting us know a lot about you here.
War is men not coping with their emotions in a healthy way. There is more than that to it, sure, but that is the central pillar at the core of every war throughout documented history.