You have full posting privileges

To kill or be killed

My last post gave me the idea for this topic. I know
"Xena: WP" is just a show and so of course the
pacifists are always going to be right and all the
*warmongers* perceived as evil, etc...
("The Price" being a good example of all that).

But I wonder if the *old* Xena (before she was
reformed) was really on the right track to begin
with. Okay, before you think I'm nuts and just
trying to get people ticked off- I guess I'm not talking
about Xena herself of course because she's
just a fictional character. But I'm really talking
about her mind set which is similar to that of
those warlords in history who had the mentality
that if they didn't conquer everyone else, everyone
else would conquer them.

I read a lot about Alexander the Great and his conquests
and used to think of him as a monster who killed
mercilessly. But upon closer examination of his life
and his upbringing, I saw that Alexander was
brought up in a time of pure chaos (and I'm not
sure if things are that much different today), and
was correct in his assumption that if he didn't conquer
his neighbors, Macedon was doomed to fall into the
hands of either the barbarians, the Persians, or the
Spartans, etc. (Horror truly begets horror!) .

Granted, he probably extended himself farther than
he needed to in campaigning all the way to India and
Egypt, but I suppose if you expand your borders, you
constantly have to defend them by conquering your
new neighbors! (Sun Tze's general rule- always
make enemies with your neighbor- friends with the
next adjacent territory!).

Now that's just one example. Ghengis Khan was a
*ruthless* warlord, but a lot of Chinese actually
respect him because he brought order to land in
turmoil and brought China to one of its most powerful
dynasties (his son dang near would have swept
Europe if political duties hadn't called him back
home).

Let's face it. The pacifists back then were rounded up
and thrown to the lions and there were no Hercules's
or Xenas to protect them.
(I think Machiavelli would have agreed with me on
some of this. And as far as I know, he was a peaceful
man. It's just that he was a realist and not an idealist.
But those who are in power will always fear those
who think.).

Now don't get me wrong- I'm not some jingoistic nut
who thinks that we should go parading our troops
around the world and pick on third world countries
or anything like that. But I'll be the first to admit
that my country (the US) is by definition a highly
militant nation and wasn't exactly founded on
peaceful terms (we slaughtered just as many if not
more American Indians than the Nazis killed Jews).

So the bottom line is (I wish I could think of a way to
end my posts without saying that), that I do think
that warlords had their place and were only perceived
as evil by the ones whom they conquered. After all,
those warlords who failed miserably are written
in history as villains whereas those who were successful
are generally written as heroes.

richi

The criteria for a great warlord:
1). Must have a grand, strategic vision
2). Must be willing to take risks
3). Must be able to make intelligent decisions quickly

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page