Message from @Mr. Nessel
Discord ID: 676838207207505990
Idk if it's fair to call it a genocide considering the nature of tribal warfare where entire tribes get moblized to fight
So in effect driving combatants into the desert would be vastly more devastating
I certainly don't think it was as unprovoked as say the Armenian genocide where they just sent innocent civilians into the desert
even so, thats just how the world used to work and still does to some extent. Its not like african tribes werent genociding each other before the germans went there and afterwards
It's regrettable because those tribes precisely are some of the last surviving non Bantus
They lived in the desert to begin with because Bantus killed most of them
Of course nobody calls the Bantu expansion genocidal tho
of course not
well i guess the question is also if they had better characteristics than the bantu, to know if it was a loss or not
besides the biodiversity argument
or i guess an ethnonationalist one
in my eyes europeans thrived pretty much everywhere they set foot on
i guess that makes me more of an imperialist or colonialist or something
but thats completely unworkable rn so i will take ethnonationalism
I agree that Europeans can do well pretty much everywhere and aren't wrong to spread around considering that's just what everyone does (no use to bind yourself to a higher self imposed standard)
And yes we need to look inside atm
As far as colonialism etc. is concerned I don't like mistreating subjects and whatnot
There's a respectable way to go about things
is war mistreatment?
Involving civillians isn't ok
what if you just fight the fighters and give ppl a chance to leave to some third country
I support giving them a chance to vacate places when feasable but of course that rarely will result in all leaving
Looking more at it actually seems like one of the generals in Namibia was genocidal and there was killing of unarmed people
german general?
Yeah Lothar von Trotha
Had the army occupy water places
that was my starting assumption, i dont think my father would have made a big deal out of it if it was just combatants
Then as the Herero were starved and dehydrated he killed them many of them being unarmed or women/children
I was thinking it's a bit messy because the actually armed people were taking their whole families with them
if you actually take them close to the battlefield then dont be surprised about what happens
It used to be standard practice during more primitive times actually
People would always take their families and whatnot on campaign
I think Alexander the great was actually the one who ended that which allowed him to sweep through Persia much more easily
conquering vast swaths of land seems kinda pointless, you can never occupy it for more than a few years because that takes way too many men
They could by using locals
The empire broke up because of Antipater though
Killed Alexander's son so the empire ended up split amongst the Diadochi
Which lead to hellenism spreading to India and whatnot
i only read alexanders wikipedia article on a train ride so im not too familiar