|
On August 11 2017 10:05 Shiragaku wrote:
I was reading up a bit on the Warlord Era of China and warlordism in the Congo and Roman Republic came to mind. Do you think it is more fair to categorize people like Crasus, Caesar, and Pompey as warlords more than anything? And now that I think about it, is it fair to say that the German princes during the 30 Years War were basically warlords as well?
So most of medieval and classic history consisted of civilized warlords?
Are there leaders of wars who are not warlords? Like, if you were in a leadership position during a war you were part of, doesn't that automatically make you a warlord?
|
On August 11 2017 11:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 10:05 Shiragaku wrote:
I was reading up a bit on the Warlord Era of China and warlordism in the Congo and Roman Republic came to mind. Do you think it is more fair to categorize people like Crasus, Caesar, and Pompey as warlords more than anything? And now that I think about it, is it fair to say that the German princes during the 30 Years War were basically warlords as well?
So most of medieval and classic history consisted of civilized warlords? Are there leaders of wars who are not warlords? Like, if you were in a leadership position during a war you were part of, doesn't that automatically make you a warlord?
No...
Sorry. I meant:
Yes. No...
|
How the fuck do mosquitos survive winter? Do they hide in trees? Do they plant eggs that will hatch next summer? Do they migrate? It can't be possible...
|
On August 11 2017 19:22 SoSexy wrote:
How the fuck do mosquitos survive winter? Do they hide in trees? Do they plant eggs that will hatch next summer? Do they migrate? It can't be possible...
Hide in trees : yes. Plant eggs that will hatch next summer : yes. Migrate : no.
As many insects, they enter a diapause state (think hibernation) during winter and start again when it gets warm enough. Some mosquito species do so as eggs, some as larva, some as adults.
(2014 article on Mosquito diapause)
|
On August 11 2017 17:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 11:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 11 2017 10:05 Shiragaku wrote:
I was reading up a bit on the Warlord Era of China and warlordism in the Congo and Roman Republic came to mind. Do you think it is more fair to categorize people like Crasus, Caesar, and Pompey as warlords more than anything? And now that I think about it, is it fair to say that the German princes during the 30 Years War were basically warlords as well?
So most of medieval and classic history consisted of civilized warlords? Are there leaders of wars who are not warlords? Like, if you were in a leadership position during a war you were part of, doesn't that automatically make you a warlord? No... Sorry. I meant: Yes. No...
Are we only supposed to call non-westerners warlords? Only the people we don't like? I guess I'm unsure how you guys differentiate it.
|
You'll have to define warlord first, and what that makes them different from a lord, a king, an emperor, a president, a prime minister, a general, a commander, that sort of thing. Then we can answer that question. But I would say no, being a warlord implies that military power is the sole focus of the leader with no interest or subservience to the country/natio/state. Otherwise you might as well say that Eisenhower/Hitler/Stalin was a warlord of WW2.
|
I think warlords are basically people who start aggressive wars of expansion (And are successful in those?). A bit of tribalism is also involved. I don't think that there is a situation where there is a single warlord, you usually have a bunch of them involved in constantly changing alliances.
So basically, a feudal country is full of warlords, a country without a strong central authority is also full of warlords.
|
I think:
- a leader is a warlord if he gained power through war and continues to wage wars (or at least use violence) to maintain that power. If someone was already in power before starting a war he cannot be called a warlord unless he was in charge of something much smaller than what he currently controls.
- a leader cannot be a warlord if his ascension to power is somehow justified because (I think) the name implies that his power comes mostly from his conquests.
- A warlord is someone who emerges from chaos and creates his own "warlordship" instead of taking over an existing state. He can still be a warlord if he takes over his country, but he has to replace or destroy former administration with his loyal warriors.
Wouldn't call Ceasar, German princes, Oliver Cromwell or Napoleon warlords. Would call Germanic leaders who built their kingdoms on the ruins of Western Empire warlords. Would call succesful medieval peasant revolt leaders warlords. Would call Viking leaders in British Isles, Normandy and what is modern Russia warlords too. Not sure but probably would call guys like Hussein or Gaddafi warlords. Not sure but probably wouldn't call Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great warlords.
|
What about first world leaders who use war to maintain the status quo? Bush and Iraq, Clinton and Bosnia, Bush and Iraq, Obama and Iraq, Etc... do leaders who use war to maintain the power dynamics where they are on top of the food Chain count as being a warlord?
|
|
|
On August 12 2017 01:53 Paljas wrote:
no
Wait--leaders of regions who use military might to dictate terms, strong arm deals, and invade other nations who break ranks from their status quo are not warlords?
|
|
|
On August 12 2017 03:14 JimmiC wrote:
No matter how desperately you want it no. For all the reasons above you seem to ignore.
Which one is a no?
That warlords use military might to enforce control or that the US has been using military might to enforce rule in the Middle East? Which do you think is not true?
|
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
|
On August 12 2017 05:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Do you have a different definition then?
|
warlords don't have constitutions for one
|
|
|
On August 12 2017 09:09 IgnE wrote:
warlords don't have constitutions for one
I have never read that definition--where did you find it?
I guess that would mean that all the countries in Africa who are having civil wars are not actually warlords because they're trying to unify the state under one rule?
|
On August 12 2017 12:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 09:09 IgnE wrote:
warlords don't have constitutions for one Checks and balances are another. They also dont tend to have exit plans (though they have failed) of giving the country they hit a democratic government. There are alot of things questionable about american foreign policy. But if they were warlords canada and mexico would be states now.
If checks and balances are required doesn't that make all monarchies immediately warlords? Majority of western history counts as Warlords too doesn't it?
Of course, it would also mean any currently defined warlord who has peers in his system that he takes advice from would stop counting as a warlord because he'd have a check and balance. Is that your idea of a Warlord?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
