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?

Depends on how it is waged

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

the whole expansion into india went pretty poorly didnt it

Basically Alexander just took over the preexisting Persian satrapy system

The expansion into India didn't happen at all

Soldiers mutinied