War and Civilization: Crash Course World History 205
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Bob
von Clausewitz said that war was politics by other means. Individuals rob and murder - groups of individuals forming political bodies make war. Not all individuals are thieves and murderers and not all political bodies are war like. The problem for the non-war like peoples is that if a group that was war like came along - the non-war like peoples better be prepared for them - or they would have a problem.
An ancient saying goes something like -if you want peace - be prepared for war- because if you were not able to defend yourself - someone would attack you. On the frontiers of civilization - individuals must be prepared to protect themselves against people who are thieves and murderers. Once you have more organization - you can create units that are there to protect you - such as police or militaries.
Civilizations surrounded by less organized peoples tend to expand at those peoples expense until they run into a political entity that can resist them. While they can have treaties to sort things out between them - wars are often part of the process of sorting things out.
Larger political entities have a mixture of war like and non-war like peoples so their politics is somewhat complicated. Having a very strong political ruler simplifies that some what but as this ruler is there by the will and force he can bring to bear - he is more likely to be war like than non-war like. Political entities that do not have very small leadership groups - tend to be less focused and their politics more diverse. Thus, the rise of democracies has reduced the number of wars because the average people who will bear the brunt of the war have a larger say in whether or not there will be one. Mostly, democracies find another way to sort things out.
There are however very large numbers of people in the world still who are ruled by very small power groups - and these political entities can and do bring about wars when they take it upon themselves to act aggressively. A common reasoning of the war like leadership of these political entities is that the non-war like people won't do anything because they are to weak willed. Sometimes they are right about that - other times they are not. Still other times, while they initially resist, the political will of the non-war like entities fails and the war like entities out last them. This was what the Japanese thought they would accomplish when they attacked the Americans in WWII - and failed - and what the North Vietnamese were counting on when they fought to bring totalitarian rule to South East Asia - and they succeeded.
There's nothing new or unknown about any of this. It is a mark of the abysmal education and foolishness of people that this is even a topic of discussion. Of course. most of the categories these videos fall into are like that.
.
reply
von Clausewitz said that war was politics by other means. Individuals rob and murder - groups of individuals forming political bodies make war. Not all individuals are thieves and murderers and not all political bodies are war like. The problem for the non-war like peoples is that if a group that was war like came along - the non-war like peoples better be prepared for them - or they would have a problem.
An ancient saying goes something like -if you want peace - be prepared for war- because if you were not able to defend yourself - someone would attack you. On the frontiers of civilization - individuals must be prepared to protect themselves against people who are thieves and murderers. Once you have more organization - you can create units that are there to protect you - such as police or militaries.
Civilizations surrounded by less organized peoples tend to expand at those peoples expense until they run into a political entity that can resist them. While they can have treaties to sort things out between them - wars are often part of the process of sorting things out.
Larger political entities have a mixture of war like and non-war like peoples so their politics is somewhat complicated. Having a very strong political ruler simplifies that some what but as this ruler is there by the will and force he can bring to bear - he is more likely to be war like than non-war like. Political entities that do not have very small leadership groups - tend to be less focused and their politics more diverse. Thus, the rise of democracies has reduced the number of wars because the average people who will bear the brunt of the war have a larger say in whether or not there will be one. Mostly, democracies find another way to sort things out.
There are however very large numbers of people in the world still who are ruled by very small power groups - and these political entities can and do bring about wars when they take it upon themselves to act aggressively. A common reasoning of the war like leadership of these political entities is that the non-war like people won't do anything because they are to weak willed. Sometimes they are right about that - other times they are not. Still other times, while they initially resist, the political will of the non-war like entities fails and the war like entities out last them. This was what the Japanese thought they would accomplish when they attacked the Americans in WWII - and failed - and what the North Vietnamese were counting on when they fought to bring totalitarian rule to South East Asia - and they succeeded.
There's nothing new or unknown about any of this. It is a mark of the abysmal education and foolishness of people that this is even a topic of discussion. Of course. most of the categories these videos fall into are like that.
.
reply
Best
The fact that wealth is more efficiently built through trade rather than Conquest I think it's been true for a very long time even during the first and second World War. Nate Nations go to war with each other primarily because men think with their penises rather than with their minds and they make decisions based on cell will and self-image rather than on what is best for their countries.
The reason Wars have become less common on a large scale in my opinion is because of nuclear weapons providing mutually assured destruction. The fear of nuclear Holocaust keeps everyone calm.
reply
The fact that wealth is more efficiently built through trade rather than Conquest I think it's been true for a very long time even during the first and second World War. Nate Nations go to war with each other primarily because men think with their penises rather than with their minds and they make decisions based on cell will and self-image rather than on what is best for their countries.
The reason Wars have become less common on a large scale in my opinion is because of nuclear weapons providing mutually assured destruction. The fear of nuclear Holocaust keeps everyone calm.
reply
Bjorn
I always enjoy it when people I like but don't know like other people I like but don't know, but seeing John Green from the Past wearing a Night Vale shirt makes me especially happy because it's not as mainstream as Assassin's Creed or Doctor Who or Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones.
reply
I always enjoy it when people I like but don't know like other people I like but don't know, but seeing John Green from the Past wearing a Night Vale shirt makes me especially happy because it's not as mainstream as Assassin's Creed or Doctor Who or Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones.
reply
Keith
The question was posed after WWII: 'Will we continue to do what our weapons make it possible for us to do? ' Since 1945, our weapons have made it possible to kill every human on Earth ten times over. Hence the reluctance to do what our weapons make capable.
reply
The question was posed after WWII: 'Will we continue to do what our weapons make it possible for us to do? ' Since 1945, our weapons have made it possible to kill every human on Earth ten times over. Hence the reluctance to do what our weapons make capable.
reply
Lazlo
-War can lead to cooperating-, hmmm; which is more important, cooperation or competition?
Two groups must cooperate before they compete. In another way, groups must cooperate to fight; if they don-t, then it-s just a chase.
reply
-War can lead to cooperating-, hmmm; which is more important, cooperation or competition?
Two groups must cooperate before they compete. In another way, groups must cooperate to fight; if they don-t, then it-s just a chase.
reply
Smonked
Dude. empires basically only ended if you choose not to define the European colonial empires as empires. for some reason. Like, you-re basically saying the British Empire. wasn-t an empire, nor is the contemporary US Empire.
reply
Dude. empires basically only ended if you choose not to define the European colonial empires as empires. for some reason. Like, you-re basically saying the British Empire. wasn-t an empire, nor is the contemporary US Empire.
reply
thebaconeater
America is an empire. We rule the entire world economically via the Petrodollar and swift. well we used to. We are a failing empire now. That is why they want to go to war with Iran, Syria, and Venezuela
reply
America is an empire. We rule the entire world economically via the Petrodollar and swift. well we used to. We are a failing empire now. That is why they want to go to war with Iran, Syria, and Venezuela
reply
THAT
I am a strict pacifist and believe all violence is unnecessary. We all could cooperate and agree not to hurt each other, but some of us don't want to. So maybe war is inevitable but it's not NECESSARY.
reply
I am a strict pacifist and believe all violence is unnecessary. We all could cooperate and agree not to hurt each other, but some of us don't want to. So maybe war is inevitable but it's not NECESSARY.
reply
Ahmed
So essentially war is the theory of Everything. Well in terms of the social structures that we have created. Btw this is by far the best series in the whole crash course world history.
reply
So essentially war is the theory of Everything. Well in terms of the social structures that we have created. Btw this is by far the best series in the whole crash course world history.
reply
Brian
Rome spend a larger % of it's GDP on military than even the US does today. The largely sole reason wars have almost disappeared today is the threat of nuclear retaliation.
reply
Rome spend a larger % of it's GDP on military than even the US does today. The largely sole reason wars have almost disappeared today is the threat of nuclear retaliation.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
