Things that you have learned from history

[||Lz3||]

well... since a lot of people think history is worthless... let's prove them wrong, show us what you have learn(t/ed) of it

well in my case...one thing I have learned about history... is that in the eventual case I become the world ruler...

Russia will be the last country to be invaded.

[Aemilius Paulus]

...That a war rarely ends or solves anything (really not the statement a war hawk and a conservative like me should be saying!). Usually the loser harbors hate against the victor and eventually turns that hate into an outburst of violence known to us as war.

For instance, France lost to Prussia in the Franco-Prussian War. France then joined the First World War to contest the lost territories of Alsace and Lorraine, eventually winning them. In WWII, the bitter Germans tried to regain the territory but lost. After, that the lessons of history had finally sunk in and the Allies made a peace treaty and controlled postwar Germany to where WWIII would not be started because of Germany's bitterness. As a matter of fact, I doubt that many Germans are still angry about those two French Departments.

The lesson here is that the wars did not do much to solve the territory dispute and that international conflicts rarely end after only a single war. Also, the Allies should have learned from history and shouldn't have tried to humiliate Germany after WWI. If the Allies were determined to humiliate it, which they were, they should have made sure Germany could not rise again, and supervise it, which the Allies failed to do after WWI.


"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" as George Santayana said.

EDIT: Also, I do not know what ||Lz3|| meant by the last line, but in my opinion, a good lesson that was taught by history was that you should not invade Russia. The Teutonic Knights, Poles (in early 1600s), Napoleon and Hitler all invaded it but failed. Only the Mongols managed to successfully encroach upon the lands of the Motherland. Nevertheless, the Mongols did not actually conquer Russia, they only managed to force Muscovy to pay tribute. Eventually, though, Russia broke away from the Golden Horde.

[Cullhwch]

I thought that the Poles forced a good part of a Russia to accept their King as ruler at some point.

[penguinking]

That while nonviolence may not always succeed, it always does at least as well, if not better, than violence.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I thought that the Poles forced a good part of a Russia to accept their King as ruler at some point.

It was during Lzedmitry (False Dmitry/Dimitry) I & II era, when a some obscure Polish nobleman (actually to successive claimed he was the miraculously surviving Tsarevich Dimitry, who was the heir of Russia (the real Dimityr was assasinated roughly twenty years earlier). He posed as a Russian, so many people accepted him at first. Once he became the Tsar, though, he began leaning towards Catholics and Poles, who helped him ascend to the throne and eventually invited them into Russia as the people grew restless. The Poles as well as some other Western countries began imposing their force on Russia. Soon a full-fledged rebellion broke out. There was a seven-year war and the Poles were defeated. The Poles therefore invaded Russia, but not actually controlled it or forced it to accept any king for any period of time. The rebellion broke out as soon as Lzedmitry was installed.

[Cbvani]

Russia will be the last country to be invaded.

If I have to take over the whole world by force.....
Heck, I won't invade Russia, I'll lay siege to the whole country. Russia can surrender before I commit troops to it.

If I must, Mongolians will lead my armies.

[Ignopotens]

Heck, I won't invade Russia, I'll lay siege to the whole country.

Well then the joke's on you. Russia has so much natural resources they won't even notice the siege.

[SwissBarbar]

yeah, 1 month with no imports an exports and they will sure notice ^^

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

that in order to successfully invade Britain the British must be: a) split up in different tribes ( the romans) b) still recovering from the retreat of the previous occupant(the Saxons) c) must be recovering from beating back a previous invasion and if you have a righteous claim to the throne(the Normans--> i thought for a long time these guys where the vikings because in dutch ,a viking is sometimes called a "noorman" which is old language for man from the north :p)

The Normans were, technically, an offshoot of the Vikings. William the Conqueror's great-great-great grandfather was, supposedly, a Viking called Rolf the Ganger who plundered Northern France, and got paid off with a duchy by the French King. By the time they invaded however they were basically French.

I learned that the 'British' who were steamrollered by the Romans are actually the Welsh and Cornish... (that was ages ago though).

Treating the defeated well defeats the entire purpose of war, which is to impose your conditions on your enemy...

Machiavelli is right, but he's what I call "No Duh!" right, meaning that he is pretty much stating the obvious, not to mention that the obvious he stated is unachievable and illogical (in the sense that you don't fight a war and then treat the vanquished enemy well). Then again, I seriously doubt that Machiavelli was actually advocating the good treatment of enemies. He was just warning the reader of the results of war.

I agree totally, the only reason for a war is a difference of opinion, usually because one side wants something that the others have, and the others won't give it up. In other words, in order to resolve the conflict in your favour, you have to disregard the opposing sides wishes. Therefore, how can you treat them that well? Machiavelli is sneaky like that, it may be the perfect solution on the surface, but in reality, it is entirely unattainable.

That people like to be led, and told what's right or wrong, and have someone else tell them what "God" wants out of them, usually conveniently one god or another created by that same ruling class, or passed down over hundreds/thousands of years from ruler to ruler...

It's just the same story over and over again throughout all of known history.

People wanting to be told what to do, human nature... sigh...

History really is just one way of demonstrating that no matter how much everything changes, there are some things that never change.

[machinor]

Regarding Machiavelli (he's kind of my field of expertise)... if you're talking about "Il Principe" then you have to take into account, that it was written to a certain point in history for a certain person (or rather family) regarding by-then current events, problems and discussions. It was never meant to be a guide of everlasting value. That would go strictly against Machiavelli's concept of history and politics which he conceived to be dynamic and even organic. Apart from that he does state some things that are still true today, although the things about warfare may be outdated mostly.

What I learned from history? To quote a great spaghetti western: "One bandit is an outlaw, ten are a gang, ten thousand are an army! That is the goal! To overcome the limits of individual violence, which is crime, and get to the violence of the mass, which is history!"
In short: Just conquer enough land, butcher enough enemies and there will always be people defending, admiring and even praising you. (Machiavelli said something similar as he despised people (especially historians) praising tyrants)
Plus: There is no absolute truth in history, only certain numbers and facts which are being interpretated differently by different people (sadly very often along the lines of nationalistic nonsens).

Gosh, as I look upon my statement(s)... I seem to be quite bitter towards history.

[Gleemonex]

Treating the defeated well defeats the entire purpose of war, which is to impose your conditions on your enemy. How would you expect USSR to treat Germany after Germany killed roughly 3,000,000 soldiers and about 15,000,000 - 20,000,000 civilians? Or if you are France after WWI who bled all of those years of war just to get those two territories, Alsace and Lorraine? The whole point of war is to gain something or to pacify your enemy, even if you were fighting a defensive war. Machiavelli is right, but he's what I call "No Duh!" right, meaning that he is pretty much stating the obvious, not to mention that the obvious he stated is unachievable and illogical (in the sense that you don't fight a war and then treat the vanquished enemy well). Then again, I seriously doubt that Machiavelli was actually advocating the good treatment of enemies. He was just warning the reader of the results of war.

I agree totally, the only reason for a war is a difference of opinion, usually because one side wants something that the others have, and the others won't give it up. In other words, in order to resolve the conflict in your favour, you have to disregard the opposing sides wishes. Therefore, how can you treat them that well? Machiavelli is sneaky like that, it may be the perfect solution on the surface, but in reality, it is entirely unattainable.

I disagree as much as you agree. I won't go on and on, because it's a pretty deep subject and you both seem like fairly bright guys, so I'll just provide some quick counter-examples: Post-WWII Axis (especially Japan). Japanese-occupied Taiwan. Any popular coup.

It all comes down to the fact that the leaders and the people don't always want the same thing.

-Glee

[TWFanatic]

...That a war rarely ends or solves anything (really not the statement a war hawk and a conservative like me should be saying!). Usually the loser harbors hate against the victor and eventually turns that hate into an outburst of violence known to us as war.

This is because too few people have read Machiavelli. The defeated must either be utterly annihilated so that they cannot return later seeking revenge, or treated so well that they do not desire revenge. Or so goes the theory.

[Megas Methuselah]

Is that what happened in Caesar's Gallic conquests, TWF?

[Celtic_Punk]

I've learnt that mankind loves history, loves to try to put its past together in a neat little sum, missing crucial facts and lessons, dooming us to repeat its follies. inshort, we're f***ed cause we are too nearsighted.

i also learnt that my ancestors invented the soap. disproving the lies of the "stars" of the ancient world and the dirty British nationalists. BOOYAH!

[HunGeneral]

I've "learned" a few things from History:

- Humanity rarely learns from it's mistakes or it's history
- Wars don't decide who is right or wrong
- Humans can easely be cruel to eachother
- even the most justice and good willing idea's can be misused and have horribe results
- war and conflicts based on hate and desire for revenge always last long are rarely won by any of the partipiants...

(Sorry for wrong Spelling)

One more thing: I agree on the statement from Machiavelli - (Haven't read his work yet but I plan to) I think it's true. Tha later of the two solutions might work better

[Beefy187]

I learnt that one of the theme in history is 'search for good government'

I learnt the flaws in democracy from Ancient Athens and aristocracy from Ancient Sparta.

Also I learnt that men loves wars! (300 proves it!)

[Cambyses]

This is because too few people have read Machiavelli. The defeated must either be utterly annihilated so that they cannot return later seeking revenge, or treated so well that they do not desire revenge. Or so goes the theory.

Yes, I totally agree with this. Its almost impossible to win a modern war of conquest as a hostile civilian population is very difficult to deal with if you have a conscience. Ancient peoples were aware of this and reacted accordingly, Alexander the Great being a prime example.

The Roman decision to extend the franchise so thoroughly is also IMO the biggest reason their empire was so long lived in comparison to some others.

Also, and more controversially, I have learnt that moving towards democracy is effectively a type of coup, usually giving one person enormously more power than they had before at the expense of the established government of the state. In many many cases this change coincided with a form of warfare that focused on larger numbers of troops, effectively empowering them over the current elites. For example, the Greek hoplite revolution, followed by Iphikrates' reforms, also Athens's shift to a naval power, the Macedonian monarchy giving more authority to the smaller landowners who made up their phalanxes, the English longbowman, the Russian peasant etc etc.

Lastly I learnt that if the world was run solely by historians we would all live in a happier place, but that probably nothing would ever change and we would soon be toppled by a demagogue with an army of spontaneously combusting pet hamsters.

[Aemilius Paulus]

treated so well that they do not desire revenge

Treating the defeated well defeats the entire purpose of war, which is to impose your conditions on your enemy. How would you expect USSR to treat Germany after Germany killed roughly 3,000,000 soldiers and about 15,000,000 - 20,000,000 civilians? Or if you are France after WWI who bled all of those years of war just to get those two territories, Alsace and Lorraine? The whole point of war is to gain something or to pacify your enemy, even if you were fighting a defensive war. Machiavelli is right, but he's what I call "No Duh!" right, meaning that he is pretty much stating the obvious, not to mention that the obvious he stated is unachievable and illogical (in the sense that you don't fight a war and then treat the vanquished enemy well). Then again, I seriously doubt that Machiavelli was actually advocating the good treatment of enemies. He was just warning the reader of the results of war.