Originally posted by Storm
Neither of both. Just because you are in a position of power, doesn' t mean you actually should take such actions.
So practically you either undecided or just can't make a decision. People in power are pressure to take action. You can't please everyone. You make the final call. That is why people choose you to be in power. That's how it works.
Originally posted by Quark_666
And colonization.And you said much of what we think of as colonization is actually militarism, which I wholeheartedly agree with. But why was militarism more effective than colonization?
1st off, colonized lands were/are conquered lands.
But why was militarism more effective? There are many reasons; ill give you one. Cause it can ultimately and forcefully instill the laws of the land colonizers would need in order to operate and progress effectively within a society. Militarism would also create thing like a solid societal structure such as discipline which would most likely be a top core value out of many, everyone would be encouraged to practice.
Colonization is nothing with w/out a good solid base and a stable and organized structure. Otherwise you'd either have a rouge "cut off from the world" society or an unrecognizable sovereign with no allies which will make you prey to powerful more aggressive neighbors with allies and more resources and with an eye on expansion.
A stand alone colony is a sitting duck waiting for inevitable extinction or for it to be conquered.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
1st off, colonized lands were/are conquered lands.But why was militarism more effective? There are many reasons; ill give you one. Cause it can ultimately and forcefully instill the laws of the land colonizers would need in order to operate and progress effectively within a society. Militarism would also create thing like a solid societal structure such as discipline which would most likely be a top core value out of many, everyone would be encouraged to practice.
Colonization is nothing with w/out a good solid base and a stable and organized structure. Otherwise you'd either have a rouge "cut off from the world" society or an unrecognizable sovereign with no allies which will make you prey to powerful more aggressive neighbors with allies and more resources and with an eye on expansion.
A stand alone colony is a sitting duck waiting for inevitable extinction or for it to be conquered.
Looks like we're off subject. It's now an argument between conquest and economics. But the discussion is better now anyway.
Who said anything about forfeiting military strength to colonize? Conquest isn't the only way to maintain military strength. If anything, conquest depletes the strength of the military unless it has positive side effects financially. It all comes down to money. The only way to get a powerful military is to get rich. You can get rich by conquering and rendering nations to waste, which temporarily makes you rich. But once you've ransacked your money source, the spoils stop coming.
If you gain power, gain power politically and economically. That way your sources are happy to give you strength because it strengthens them, they can keep strengthening you for the next five centuries, and you don't really have any enemies.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarfColonise. We could get more mighty!
Imagine that you're a great and powerful King (or Queen) and you have a vast and skillful military. You've enter many battles and your generals are notorious great warriors. Let's just cut to the chase.......You can kick major ass!
Well, so happens that there are neighbor lands which remain neutral. It's open for anyone to claim. What would you choose?
Colonization or Conquer?
As usual I reserve my own opinion. But for this one.....I'd say Conquer! The rule of the mighty is greater than the rule of the equal.
Originally posted by Council#13
Colonize. If something bad goes wrong, I won't have to take the complete blame. Also, I think there's less chance of rebellion if you colonize.
This depends completely on how you handle it. Machevellian principles take this issue away mostly if incorporated correctly. Western powers have proven this in the past few centuries.
Originally posted by Darth Exodus
Machiavelli said that it was 'better to be feared than loved' so he would say conquer.
However, Sun Tzu said that 'Ulitimate excellence lies not in winning every battle but in defeating the enemy without ever fighting'
So I'm undecided.
Conquering is more fun though....
If you base all of your conclusions off of quotes from other people, you are gonna have to believe everything.
Originally posted by lord xyz
You must have had to swallow your pride to say that. Cool.
I thought you'd be touched.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarfI guess whatever is more appropriate in a particular instance.
Imagine that you're a great and powerful King (or Queen) and you have a vast and skillful military. You've enter many battles and your generals are notorious great warriors. Let's just cut to the chase.......You can kick major ass!
Well, so happens that there are neighbor lands which remain neutral. It's open for anyone to claim. What would you choose?
Colonization or Conquer?
As usual I reserve my own opinion. But for this one.....I'd say Conquer! The rule of the mighty is greater than the rule of the equal.