What is a Holy war?

Stannum wrote:

First you want a declaration as to who was the aggressor during World War !!.  You got it.  Hitler.  So you left it alone.

Yes; it was an interesting reply, as it seemed to contradict something you had said earlier.

Think of it like this:

Person A wrote:

Hitler was the attacker during World War II.

Person B wrote:

All defenders are deemed to be attackers by the history as recorded by the attackers and all attackers are recorded as defenders by history as recorded by attackers and history as recorded by defenders is destroyed by attackers.

As you can see, Person A implies that the attacker can be identified in an absolute sense.

Person B on the other hand implies that the identity of the attacker always depends on who the victor was.

Either Person A is right, and there are exceptions to the statement proposed by Person B; or Person B is right, and Person A is merely repeating propaganda.

MrP

Hi Mr Pedantic:

I can't speak either for Stannum or for Sara. But they are not here.

But I've got the impression that they think as I do: that no was is ever just, or holy.

That, even if a country is attacked, and reacts against the attack, no one ever wins a war. Except the people who decided to start the war for their own benefit. And who never go to war. 

That, whatever is the real reason to start a war, it will be always justified by the attacker with one "just" or "holy" reason or another.

That what we know about a war is actually the version feed to us by the victors.

All defenders are deemed to be attackers by the history as recorded by the attackers and all attackers are recorded as defenders by history as recorded by attackers and history as recorded by defenders is destroyed by attackers.

 If Hitler had won the war I wouldn't be here writing to you. But of course, my death would have been justified: Jews are vermin, and therefore, expandable.

And each and everyone of you would believe it was just.

Aside note: As some of you still do. Because the thread about Jews dying in the Shoah is still unresolved, is it not?

And finally, Julius Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon river because he wanted power. But he wrote De Bello Gallico to justify it. History is written by the victors.

There's nothing new about it.

All defenders are deemed to be attackers by the history as recorded by the attackers and all attackers are recorded as defenders by history as recorded by attackers and history as recorded by defenders is destroyed by attackers.

You seem to imply that alternative versions never exist. But you can study the Crusades from the point of view of contemporary European accounts, or you can read the Arab historians of the period. You can study the Napoleonic Wars from the French point of view, or the English, or the German. As for the Second World War, there is no shortage of primary German material.

The only cases where your statement might be true are those where only one or two accounts exist.

The poor children in the Tower were killed by their hunchbacked uncle, Richard III.

Richard III was neither an hunchback, nor did he kill his nephews.The history of his reign was recorded by Thomas More. He wrote for the usurper Tudor kings. The victors.

 Horace Walpole corrected the record in the XVIIIth century. So there are versions which record a different history than the accepted one.

Yet, if you visit the Tower of London, you are told about the evil murderer Richard, and his poor nephews.  There are alternative versions of history. Care to challenge the official one? Or is it easier just to believe what you're told?

Do people nowadays regard all those massacres as "just"?

I don't know, I would have to ask the people one by one. Half and half, probably. Depending on what history they were fed.

You contradict yourself.

First, you state that Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon because "he wanted power". Then you say that he wrote DBG "to justify it".

No, I don't. Where is the contradiction? 

Where did you find your alternative version of those events, if the facts of history are decided by "the victors"?

Truth is the daughter of Time. If one cares to investigate.

C. Svetonivs Tranqvillvs, De Vita Caesarum. 

Praegrauant tamen cetera facta dictaque eius, ut et abusus dominatione et iure caesus existimetur. non enim honores modo nimios recepit: continuum consulatum, perpetuam dictaturam praefecturamque morum, insuper praenomen Imperatoris, cognomen Patris patriae, statuam inter reges, suggestum in orchestra;.....

I know you know Latin, but many people don't. It goes like this, more or less:

But many of his actions and words turned the scale so, that it is believed that he abused his power and deserved to be killed. Because he not only accepted undeserved honours, like the lifelong consulship, the lifelong dictatorship, and also the title of Emperor, the surname of Father of the Land, a statue among the statues of the kings, and a raised chair at the parliament.....

These words were written under Adrianus, many years after the death of Julius Caesar.

Truth is the daughter of time. If one cares to investigate. If one dares to challenge the "official" record.

I do.

Otherwise, I wouldn't be challenging a Brit with the facts of his own country History.

Hello Alexa,

Alexa For Australia wrote:

...So there are versions which record a different history than the accepted one.

In which case, it's an over-simplification to say that "History is written by the victors", which implies that no alternative versions exist.

A more accurate statement would be: "One version of events is written by the victors; other versions are written by other parties".

Every schoolboy or schoolgirl who studies the subject in an English school will encounter your "corrected" version; there is nothing daring or challenging about it.

(By the way, the Tower of London is a tourist attraction: not a university, or even a school. The guides will also tell you entertaining stories about ghosts and ravens.)

That's a much more reasonable statement than your earlier remark that if Germany had won the Second World War, "each and every one of us" here would think you were "vermin".

The contradiction lies in maintaining on the one hand that Caesar, as "victor", decided the facts of history with his DBG, while implying on the other hand that you have access to some alternative version of events.

If Caesar had decided the facts of history, there would be no alternative versions for you to access.

The passage you quote occurs in Suetonius's discussion of Caesar's "clemency", of which he has just enumerated examples.

It relates to events that occurred after the crossing of the Rubicon. It doesn't relate to Caesar's decision to cross the Rubicon.

The latter is however discussed, earlier in the Life; if you're inclined to trust the slightly obsequious Suetonius, he presents a number of possible reasons for Caesar's decision, including the one you prefer.

This incidentally demonstrates that while Caesar may have wanted to present one version of events, other versions survived: thus again disproving the contention that "History is written by the victors".

I'm not aware that we've discussed Richard III before. So I'm not quite sure how your comments about him represent a "challenge" to my view of him. And as I've already said, your "corrected" view of Richard III is itself quite conventional.

All the best,

MrP