• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

What are some examples of merciful/compassionate warlords?

G

GenesisNemesis

Let's Go Dark Brandon!
Warning Level 4
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
3,984
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Secular Humanist, Scientific Skepticism, Strong Atheism
We always hear about the bloodthirsty ones, so I was wondering about the opposite side of the spectrum.
 
My babysitter's family had tales of when the family lived in Russia. At one point two Cossacks rode up. The daughters hid under the dining room table, so they wouldn't be raped or carried off. the Cossacks demanded food and stormed into the house. They sat at the table, ate the food and drank wine.
The girls cowered and prayed and tried not to make any noise.
After the meal, the men burped and stood and walked out. One paused at the door, "We're leaving, you can let your daughters out from under the table." And they were gone.
 
GenesisNemesis said:
We always hear about the bloodthirsty ones, so I was wondering about the opposite side of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

Alexander the Great. He loved to conquer, but he preferred if towns just surrendered without a fight. If they did so, and welcomed him, he would reward the town with building construction, Greek culture and a bunch of soldiers wanting to spend their money in the town.
 
Augustus seemed to know when to fight and when to display mercy.
The 30 years of his reign were a marked improvement on the previous 90 or so years.
 
Some of the battles in eastern Europe in the late 17th century were quite civilised affairs. Battles were by appointment, an area was set aside for spectators, and the battle might be postponed if the weather was bad.
 
credoconsolans said:
GenesisNemesis said:
We always hear about the bloodthirsty ones, so I was wondering about the opposite side of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

Alexander the Great. He loved to conquer, but he preferred if towns just surrendered without a fight. If they did so, and welcomed him, he would reward the town with building construction, Greek culture and a bunch of soldiers wanting to spend their money in the town.
Click to expand...

Alexander was not exactly a warlord. He was a hegemon or ruler which in Greek means he was almost a king. But he was definitely regarded as a legitimate head of state. The term "warlord" implies illegitimacy. A warlord rules by force alone. This question requires a definition of the term. I would suggest that a warlord is one who uses (and probably has to use) his army to rule.

Alexander, Augustus, and many of the other mentioned here, did not need to use their armies to collect taxes and control the people. They had civilian institutions to do that. Military force was in the background, but civil government also existed. I would suggest that that is not the case with warlords of Africa and with many warlords throughout history. Ironically, I suggests that warlords are not very capable of waging war except against the people they rule. I they leave their realm, they lose it. Given that definition, it would seem to me that it would be difficult, though not necessarily impossible, for a warlord to govern at least a portion of the population with kindness and generosity.
 
Xerxes. His enemies were cruel and demanded that people stand. He was kind and all he asked was that they kneel.
 
boneyard bill said:
credoconsolans said:
Alexander the Great. He loved to conquer, but he preferred if towns just surrendered without a fight. If they did so, and welcomed him, he would reward the town with building construction, Greek culture and a bunch of soldiers wanting to spend their money in the town.
Click to expand...

Alexander was not exactly a warlord. He was a hegemon or ruler which in Greek means he was almost a king. But he was definitely regarded as a legitimate head of state. The term "warlord" implies illegitimacy. A warlord rules by force alone. This question requires a definition of the term. I would suggest that a warlord is one who uses (and probably has to use) his army to rule.

Alexander, Augustus, and many of the other mentioned here, did not need to use their armies to collect taxes and control the people. They had civilian institutions to do that. Military force was in the background, but civil government also existed. I would suggest that that is not the case with warlords of Africa and with many warlords throughout history. Ironically, I suggests that warlords are not very capable of waging war except against the people they rule. I they leave their realm, they lose it. Given that definition, it would seem to me that it would be difficult, though not necessarily impossible, for a warlord to govern at least a portion of the population with kindness and generosity.
Click to expand...

To Alexander he was a legitimate ruler. Perhaps not so to the people he conquered.

Remember the definition of "freedom fighter". It's relative.

Considering Alexander did indeed leave his generals to rule areas and whatever troops would settle in the area, you could say he meets your definition of a 'warlord'.
 
credoconsolans said:
boneyard bill said:
Alexander was not exactly a warlord. He was a hegemon or ruler which in Greek means he was almost a king. But he was definitely regarded as a legitimate head of state. The term "warlord" implies illegitimacy. A warlord rules by force alone. This question requires a definition of the term. I would suggest that a warlord is one who uses (and probably has to use) his army to rule.

Alexander, Augustus, and many of the other mentioned here, did not need to use their armies to collect taxes and control the people. They had civilian institutions to do that. Military force was in the background, but civil government also existed. I would suggest that that is not the case with warlords of Africa and with many warlords throughout history. Ironically, I suggests that warlords are not very capable of waging war except against the people they rule. I they leave their realm, they lose it. Given that definition, it would seem to me that it would be difficult, though not necessarily impossible, for a warlord to govern at least a portion of the population with kindness and generosity.
Click to expand...

To Alexander he was a legitimate ruler. Perhaps not so to the people he conquered.

Remember the definition of "freedom fighter". It's relative.

Considering Alexander did indeed leave his generals to rule areas and whatever troops would settle in the area, you could say he meets your definition of a 'warlord'.
Click to expand...

In general, conquest was legitimate in those days. This was especially true in non-Persian areas. The Greek-speaking city states of asia minor mostly surrendered without resistance. Halicarnasus put up a pro-forma fight and, of course, Tyre held out for a long time but that was the base for the Persian fleet. But Israel, Egypt and Mesopotamia put up no fight at all, and after Gaugamela, Alexander met some resistance from Persian tribes but mostly his fights came in India.

Alexander left Persian Satraps in charge in Persia but replaced them with Greeks after returning from India. But the Greeks and Macedonians were only the guys at the top of the pyramid. The local bureaucracies continue to function on behalf of their Greek and Macedonian leaders. The Ptolemys and the Selucids had plenty of back-up to enable them go to war with each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom