pothos.org

I wonder if it can be traced back to who were the first Empire Buliders. I say this as part of maybe my own hypocracy and maybe an excuse for Alexander.

Its been said The Romans Where Brutal. Alexander was responsible for mass suffering etc.

2 days ago I watched 3 native Americand indians Dancing singing etc. It brough a lump th my throat. My some asked about them and I expalined how they were nearly put to extinction by the whites etc etc. Then I spoke to an American and he admited it and the crazy thing is he went bact to British Imperialism. The Roman Empire. Alexander The Great. It became clear conqueres have only done what has been dome before none of us has clean hands.

So basically where did all the Imperialis stuff begin. Who was the First conquerer or first taker of land and Propert.? Does it Even have a beggining. Just how far along the time line does Alexander made an appearance?

For America nad Uk among others to be a wealthy nation... Means that its done some killing and pilfering. I guess what im saying is none of us have claen hands .

kenny

The scene with the chimps figuring out that if they hits someone over the head the one being hit would probably be knocked out or killed? Primatewise, it was then (though, perhaps, without a monolith to encourage it).

That's great.

Such a question like that will probably never be figured out. When looking at various cultures through time, there are always examples of war, on a macro level, and strife between clans, on a micro level. Chimps were once thought to be living in harmony until Jane Goodall recorded the first chimp murder by a band of male chimps, so I'm sure it could be traced back as far as humans (or something like them) we competing for land or food.

As far as conquerers go, we'll probably never find that one out either. In recorded history the first bout of full-scale warfare (correct me if I'm wrong) can be found on the Stele of the STandard of Ur, dating c.2600 BC. So I'm sure since there has been civilization there has been war or others wanting to have what others have.

rjones, i agree. Although i am not so sure that we come from chimps, but the general idea is that the territorial wars started since man started to claim his own grounds.

Great question kenny! Hehe rjones... about the chimps...

I wonder if empire is a bit more than the schoolyard bully taking the small kid's lunch money though? There is definitely a lot accompanying the military institution. Control of trade, information, education, culture, even language... Every empire invariably claims to be different to all others and better than the last one. I'm not sure every "beneficiary" of the benevolent emperor is inclined to agree.

rocktupac wrote:As far as conquerers go, we'll probably never find that one out either. In recorded history the first bout of full-scale warfare (correct me if I'm wrong) can be found on the Stele of the STandard of Ur, dating c.2600 BC. So I'm sure since there has been civilization there has been war or others wanting to have what others have.

You're right there; although, technically (being very pedantic), the Standard of Ur is archaeology rather than "recorded history" .

The Sumerians had a complicated arrangement, whereby different city states appear to have been "top dog" at different times. I can't remember off the top of my head whether there are historical records that describe how, say, Lagash became top city after defeating Uruk in war ... but I imagine that any city's pre-eminence arose largely out of conflict (they certainly didn't vote for precedence!).

But I would say you are right to say that "ever since there has been civilisation there has been war" - as soon as one person, or group of people, gained something that someone else didn't have, human nature took over ...

ATB