What makes the wars in ancient time so positive unlike the wars in recent centuries?
In ancient time, many innocent people were killed too. The Kings/Queens in that time were also like the dictators in recent centuries.
Why do people accept the wars in ancient times but protest/hate the wars like WWI, WWII etc?
I don’t think people do always accept them, some history books are critical of wars waged in ancient times. in ‘the Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody’ for instance, Will Cuppy writes of Alexander the Great "He is known as Alexander the Great because he killed more people of more different kinds than any other man of his time." And of Julius Caesar he writes "while in Gaul, Caesar had slaughtered a m illion men, women, and children and enslaved a million more. No other roman had ever approached this figure."
It is true though that conquerers like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar often get a better press than say, Hitler, but I suppose the distance of time lends respectability to conquerers of the past. Also, of course, their conquests were succesful whereas Hitler’s were a failure.
I think succesful conquerers do tend to be judged less harshly by history than unsuccesful ones, perhaps because the conquered eventually come to accept the conquest. The countries conquered by the Roman empire for instance mostly became quite romanised themselves. I don’t know what we would say about the Roman empire today if say Julius Caesar and Emperor Claudius had been thrashed by the Britions and sent back to mainland Europe.
Because in the wars in ancient times, the winners got to decide how history would read. In an (mostly) illiterate society, you can decide what the facts are, and its hard for someone to dispute them without an education.
In modern wars, the general population has been educated enough to read and decide for themselves what really happened. And with the availability of video and audio documentation, its harder to fake the truth.
Think about it, without the famous photos at Abu Ghraib, most people would have thought the accusations of prisoner mistreatment were phony.
References :
I think your assumption that people accept ancient wars is wrong.
We are still feeling the fallout from the Crusades for example
References :
I don’t think people do always accept them, some history books are critical of wars waged in ancient times. in ‘the Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody’ for instance, Will Cuppy writes of Alexander the Great "He is known as Alexander the Great because he killed more people of more different kinds than any other man of his time." And of Julius Caesar he writes "while in Gaul, Caesar had slaughtered a m illion men, women, and children and enslaved a million more. No other roman had ever approached this figure."
It is true though that conquerers like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar often get a better press than say, Hitler, but I suppose the distance of time lends respectability to conquerers of the past. Also, of course, their conquests were succesful whereas Hitler’s were a failure.
I think succesful conquerers do tend to be judged less harshly by history than unsuccesful ones, perhaps because the conquered eventually come to accept the conquest. The countries conquered by the Roman empire for instance mostly became quite romanised themselves. I don’t know what we would say about the Roman empire today if say Julius Caesar and Emperor Claudius had been thrashed by the Britions and sent back to mainland Europe.
References :
don’t think that just because you didn’t read about it inthe history books, there weren’t protests to the wars
not everything can be fit into the history books concerning ancient wars
another thing is that before the middle of the 20th century, people didn’t get regular updates and live feed from the warzones themselves, they heard it from word of mouth, or the newspaper, or somewhere else
remember that many people could only imagine what they were told by survivors of the wars, the didn’t actually witness it in front of them on television
== in ancient wars, the casualties were much, much less becaus due to the technological advancements made in recent wars, casualty rates have skyrocketed – i mean, now we can drop a bomb and kill thousands instead of then, where you shoot a flaming arrow and kill maybe 1 or 2
so just take into account the different societies and the other things going on in and around the time during wars and maybe you’ll understand better
: )
References :
Louise makes an excellent point, but just to add to that:
I don’t think it’s just a matter of politics. How people ‘write history’ is only one part of it – and a part of it that doesn’t happen until decades (if not centuries) later.
I think the biggest issue here is actually technology. Think of it this way: If you are a soldier an ancient army – let’s say you’re a German barbarian – your strength is your primary asset. If you are stronger and faster than other people, you will have a much better chance of survival. It’s your own hands, and you will see the people that you’ll be fighting.
Now let’s go to WWI: You’re in a trench. A guy tells you to charge, you go ‘over the top,’ and get mowed down by a guy with a machine gun. The guy with the machine gun was the 100th person in line to be enlisted – that’s why he got to kill you. Strength and speed aren’t as important as luck. Oh yeah, and you’re living in miserable conditions.
WWII: You’re a civilian in a city. But your city gets bombed, and everything is destroyed. There’s no rhyme or reason – the only way to hit a target for sure was to drop so many bombs that you were virtually guaranteed to hit it. Your entire city is leveled, there are tens of thousands of civilian deaths, and you’re not even fighting. And if you even do get to fight on one of the ‘good’ fronts – say, Western front in Europe, guns have the same effect. All you need to do is aim and pull the trigger… There’s no strength, nothing you can really do to improve your odds. Run a little faster, hide a little better, shoot a little straighter. But it is so mechanical – the gun kills somebody, not you.
This is why after WWI and WWII you get postmodern movements like nihilism – the modern age is confusing because people become an interchangeable cog in the system. And when you feel replaceable you don’t like the idea of fighting.
Certainly, though, communication is also a big part of it. When war is something some people go off to do and return home, it’s glorious; when you can see the pictures and know what it’s like, it’s not as good. Postcards from WWI only allowed British soldiers to send back one of like five messages.
"I’m doing well."
"I received your parcel" / "I received your message."
"I am being sent up to the front." Etc.
Also, there’s an issue of population. I’m not so sure about this, but a change in who actually fights – as a class in society – changes as the world gets industrial.
Of course, with more people in the world come deadlier wars. Less than a hundred thousand Americans died in the Revolutionary War. More than half a million died in WW2, and more than half a million died in the first Battle of the Marne in WWI, over a period of just a few days.
References :