Wars where the "wrong side" won

[English assassin]

History, as they say, is written by the victor.

I am currently reading the History of the Peloponnesian war. (as you do). Possibly because Athens was a sea power (like Britain), possibly because she was a democracy, possibly because she left lots of elegant ruins, the conventional schoolboy view in the UK was generally in favour of Athens and against Sparta. Or it was at my school anyway.

Alas, history does not share our prejudices, and oligarchic and oppressive Sparta won that war convincingly. Poor Athens never recovered her glory. (I did actually know that before starting on Thucydides never fear)

Which got me thinking. Realising its not a very serious historical question, what other examples are there of wars where the "wrong" side won? Ideally they should involve a clear dichotomy between two very different cultures, one of which (the loser) should seem very much preferable to modern eyes? Ie notwithstanding history being written by the victor, which wars would you like to have seen go the other way, and why?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nam . Nuff said.

[Colovion]

Rome and Carthage.

:(

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

The Hundred Years War

Louis,

[Gawain of Orkeny]

*cough*Another one: The American Civil War.

I don't think it would have been better off if the South had won, per se, but the utter annihalation of the CSA has led to an ever-increasing down spiral in State's Rights--which is the issue it was fought over in the first place. I think that it would have been best if the CSA surrendered in the end, but only after some reforms were enacted to ensure the proper near-autonamy of the States.

Well its nice to see there are some things we totaly agree upon

[Red Harvest]

Well its nice to see there are some things we totaly agree upon

It reflects poorly on both of you. With the South wanting to cut up the United States into pieces, and spread slavery through more of North America. I have a hard time seeing the U.S. Civil War as the wrong side having won.

[Kagemusha]

Native americans vs.white settlers.

[cunctator]

Rome vs. Germans 9ad.

[Red Harvest]

*cough*Another one: The American Civil War.

I don't think it would have been better off if the South had won, per se, but the utter annihalation of the CSA has led to an ever-increasing down spiral in State's Rights--which is the issue it was fought over in the first place. I think that it would have been best if the CSA surrendered in the end, but only after some reforms were enacted to ensure the proper near-autonamy of the States.

The problem was that the South was unwilling to compromise over slavery, and hiding behind the guise of States Rights. If you read the history, the problem was that the South wanted to extend slavery, and they seceeded because they were not able to extend it as they wanted. Bleeding Kansas was an example of how fanatical they had become. The Southern states seceeded even before Lincoln took office. Lincoln had said he would not allow slavery to be extended to the territories, but he would still have had to contend with a very fractured govt that would have greatly limited his power. Ironically, Secessionists gave him exactly the kind of power they feared.

It was the South that drove the country away from States Rights. Even R.E. Lee felt that secession was fundamentally wrong, " Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution." Robert E. Lee, letter, 23 January 1861

Most of the drives I see in modern times for States Rights are regressive ones (not to mention the ACW.) As such I oppose them. If States Rights were used for noble causes I would likely feel differently. At the moment I have a hard time attaching States Rights causes to much of anything I support.

[Red Harvest]

Of course you won't like some of it, you could always move somewhere else. I would rather move to a state that agreed with my political ideas than live in a country where half the population disagrees with the national laws.

This is getting way off topic. I've discussed this falacy before. No, many of us can't simply jump careers because some in the state have gone extremist on me. We move states to follow careers, not change careers because of state politics. The Federal system is a *moderator* to some of the whims of states. Having to pull up roots every twenty years or so because of extremists is a lousy way to run a country.

What it boils down to is that my allegience is to my country, not my state.

[The Wizard]

I agree with Plato, really. Sparta was not the wrong side. It was just as democratic as Athens, and if you look at its policies towards its citizens and who it saw as its citizens according to what kind of terms, Sparta was far more democratic than Athens.

And Panzer, I cannot believe my eyes. Take a look at the statistics, eh? 10 million was, at the time, half of the entire Jewish people, if not more. This would amount to what? 2 billion? 2.5 billion human citizens killed by communism to equal the percentage of the Jewish people killed in relation to the total numbers, but then in terms of world population? 100 million is peanuts in comparison, especially when one remembers that the Holocaust was a state-sponsored, concerted effort at genocide while those 100 million are an amalgamation of political enemies of the communist regime, people killed in proxy wars by both commies as NATO troops, and on and on. The two are simply incomparable.



~Wiz

[The Wizard]

Take a look at my post, yes? If one takes the Spartan and the Athenian terms of being a citizen, then one comes to the following conclusion: Athenian citizens (which used slaves, I assure you) had to have lived in the city for an extended period of time, and had to live within Attica to qualify.

Meanwhile, Sparta saw as its citizens the Spartiates, those who's sons were entered into the agogè. And these people were all seen as equal, everyone -- provided they had not run from battle -- was allowed into the public mess, or the gymnasium, or the citizens' council (forgot the real name), regardless of age, family or wealth. Helots and other such peoples were not Spartan citizens, but conquered peoples. If you say their fate was a cruel one, I tend to agree. But if you say that Sparta was less democratical and even not democratical at all just because these people, seen by the Spartans themselves as inhabitants of another polis, then I say you are suffering from hindsight.



~Wiz

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by The Wizard
I agree with Plato, really. Sparta was not the wrong side. It was just as democratic as Athens, and if you look at its policies towards its citizens and who it saw as its citizens according to what kind of terms, Sparta was far more democratic than Athens.

Oh please Athens is the model for democracy whlie Sparta is the model for a Republic. We of course took the best of them both.

[King of Atlantis]

Oh please Athens is the model for democracy whlie Sparta is the model for a Republic. We of course took the best of them both.

Isnt a republic just a represnetative democracy. Thats what we got.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Isnt a republic just a represnetative democracy. Thats what we got.

No we are a democratic republic. Again its the republic part that garuntees the rights of minorities. The problem with democracy is its mob rule.

[Bartix]

And Panzer, I cannot believe my eyes. Take a look at the statistics, eh? 10 million was, at the time, half of the entire Jewish people, if not more. This would amount to what? 2 billion? 2.5 billion human citizens killed by communism to equal the percentage of the Jewish people killed in relation to the total numbers, but then in terms of world population? 100 million is peanuts in comparison

Value of human life is directly proportional to total popolasion of that ethnisity?
That is very silly.
A life is a life, and 100 is ten times as many as 10.
But i think Stalin said something.
"Loss of one life is tragedy, loss of thousands is statistics."
So death of last of the Mohikans is same as exterminasion of all who live in India, to take an all Indian exampel to show riddicklusness of your "reasoning".

Topic:
Most wars Romans won
Spanish civil war
War on Drugs

[cunctator]

The main difference was that the Mongols allowed religious freedom, unlike the Romans.

Before at latest 363ad the roman empire was a more tolerant place than any other state in europe before the enlighment in the 18th century. Everyone was allowed to admire the gods he want. The only main problems with religious freedom I am aware of were the ones with the monotheistic religions, because state authorities and large parts of the population did not understand them. While the ancient jewish religion was widely accepted the new christian one was suspicous for many people. Especially why they could not sacrifice to the official state gods and proove their loyality to the empire withthat. Also that they meet in private rooms to pry to their god increased their reputation as a kind of evil secret sect. But there weren`t any concentreted pursuits of christians before the end of the 3rd century only singular local suppression. I doubt that without the pax romana christianity could establish itself as a widespread mass religion.


Feudalism in Europe

For me a system were a few nobles ruled over all the others and are something better by birth is clearly a step backwards to a system where everybody has the chance to ascend in society.
Europe needed a few hundred years to reach the level it has had under roman rule again. I don`t think that this radically different world would be worse than the current.

I disagree. It may have slowed in Europe, but certaintly not in Byzantium and the Middle East.

Byzantium was only the surviving greek part of the former empire. There and in the middle east they could build on the ancient high culture demolished in europe. A still united and more peaceful mediterranean world with a more numerous population, more cultural diversity would has been a far better place for progress.

Ofcourse a culture devoloped in another way than before after it was integrated into the roman empire and became something different. Roman culture heavily influenced the celts while celtic culture also influenced the romans. Gaul with its Gallo-Romain population flourished and was one of the more properous regions of the empire.


If a native culture remained completly the same only shows that the conquerrors are not interested in properly integrating them into their empire and want only rule over this people or that their culture can`t offer very much.

[Advo-san]

Value of human life is directly proportional to total popolasion of that ethnisity?
That is very silly.
A life is a life, and 100 is ten times as many as 10.

Well, haven't you heard? According to some people's opinion, human life is not only a measurable quantity, whose value differs according to a nation's numbers, but even more: as long as a nation has a latino-vibe, it is ok to kill, supress and occupy other smaller nations, cause that is just politics and people are not to blame for their goverments
I get the feeling that some people, just because they r exellent programmers and they are constructing great mods, think they know everything not only about modding, but also about the history of a different continent. Well, they DON'T.

P.S. I ve written this post as neutral as possible, I hope I won't get another alert.

[Steppe Merc]

Will you stop, I don't want this closed.

If a native culture remained completly the same only shows that the conquerrors are not interested in properly integrating them into their empire and want only rule over this people or that their culture can`t offer very much

I don't get this. My point was that they didn't change the people's way of life, like the Romans did. They absorbed other cultures into their own, while allowing them to remain essentially the same.

[The Wizard]

Value of human life is directly proportional to total popolasion of that ethnisity?
That is very silly.
A life is a life, and 100 is ten times as many as 10.
But i think Stalin said something.
"Loss of one life is tragedy, loss of thousands is statistics."
So death of last of the Mohikans is same as exterminasion of all who live in India, to take an all Indian exampel to show riddicklusness of your "reasoning".

Oh, so you brush me into the same category as Panzer now? How nice.

If you read my post, you would notice that I am opposing the fact that Panzer proposes to wipe out half a people, comparing it to a hundred million on the world population. If you relatify that ratio, 2.5 billion people would have had to die to match the effect 10 million dead would have had on the Jewish people.

And yes, I do believe that if half a people is wiped out, or, to put this in modern, real terms: millions of people die in Darfur, then I find that worse than some three thousand in a building somewhere. Both are terrible, but what I oppose is that the immediateness of the killings in NYC are deemed much worse than those in Darfur.

But, we agree on an ethical level here. That means there is a very slight chance you and me will agree here. Therefore I propose we leave such debate to the Backroom, yes?

Oh, and Advo-san: I know exactly that you're talking to me. And indeed, a person should be judged on his own actions; the same goes for governments. Therefore people should not be judged on the actions of their nation in the past, for that is foolish and you surrender your own capability of thought, that which puts you above animals, to simple and animalistic fear.

Such an action would mean the Netherlands should pay reparations to each and every descendant of each and every person we ever wronged, and that each Dutchman should help pay those reparations. This includes all the slaves we ever traded, plus Spanish, Portuguese, English, Indonesians, and the list goes on and on and on and on. Completely useless. Preposterous to think that some people think that way.

But, I repeat what I said above. I will not go for any more baiting. Consider any more ethical debates (and indeed baits) to be ignored by me from now on.



~Wiz