Conquered countries: allies or enemies?

Conquered countries: allies or enemies? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

philosophy -> Conquered countries: allies or enemies? (5/24/2007 3:47:39 PM)
It's been suggested, (ta, Vendaval), that an interesting angle to discuss is when does a conquered country become an ally of a conquering one.....and when does it instead become a heriditary enemy? What factors come into play? What examples from history exist?

Vendaval -> RE: Conquered countries: allies or enemies? (5/24/2007 3:59:30 PM)
Great! You decided to go ahead and post this then... Do you know much about the Spanish invasion of the Aztec Empire? About other tribes who were enemies of the Aztecs aiding Cortez? That is a good place to start. I can see that selfbnd411 is also viewing this thread, he should have some insights to share...

Sinergy -> RE: Conquered countries: allies or enemies? (5/24/2007 4:32:45 PM)
Hello A/all, I did a study on this back in college, and I will try to summarize what I wrote back then. The Ancient Romans, early in their existence, would engage in warfare with other cities in Italy, then the rest of Gallic Europe, conquering the locals. Rather than inflict their values and religions on the conquered, they simply insisted that the local dieties and religions be subsumed into their pantheon of dieties. The would conquer a Pictish or a Moorish or whatever people, include their dieties, buid them aquaducts, etc., and include them into the Roman world. This worked swimmingly for hundreds of years. I dont remember the dates off the top of my head, but the Romans ran into trouble dealing with the Celts, well, the Druids actually, in Gaul. While the Celts were more than willing to go along with the Roman thing, the Celts lived in abject fear of the Druids and their religion. The only real description of this religion comes from Roman historians, so what they actually believed may be lost to history. This became a problem because the Romans could tell the Celts to do X and Y and Z, and the Celts would happily do this. Until some Druids told the Celts to rise in revolve and slaughter the Romans, at which point they would. The Romans first attempted to contact and subsume Druidic beliefs into their pantheon, but were shunned. The Romans eventually gave up and attacked the Druids, driving them to a stronghold on an island in Western England and burned or killed them all. It was the first time in Roman history that they displayed open hostility towards a religion. In a sense, it set the stage for the next time the Romans displayed open hostility towards another religion, in this case Christianity. What is interesting about these two cases is they are the only two examples in the history of the Roman Empire where the local religion was hostile to the Romans. In both cases the local religion was militarily weaker, and in the one case (Druids) ended up being destroyed, and in the other case (Christianity) ended up converting later Emperors. What I took away from learning this is that the more exclusionary a religion is, the more unwilling to find common cause with people who think different, and the more actively hostile towards people who have different beliefs, the more likely it is to end in strife. Sinergy

Arpig -> RE: Conquered countries: allies or enemies? (5/24/2007 5:15:27 PM)
Actually early Christianity wasn't hostile to the Roman Empire, rather the opposite "Render unto ceasar" and all that. it was the Hebrews who were hostile...and they were crushed and scattered

Sinergy -> RE: Conquered countries: allies or enemies? (5/24/2007 5:23:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Actually early Christianity wasn't hostile to the Roman Empire, rather the opposite "Render unto ceasar" and all that. it was the Hebrews who were hostile...and they were crushed and scattered Yes and no. Christianity refused to allow themselves to be subsumed into the Roman Pantheon. The first commandment: "Thou shalt not worship any gods before me" The Romans knew it was only a matter of time before they did a Druid on the empire. Sinergy

Tuomas -> RE: Conquered countries: allies or enemies? (5/24/2007 5:23:17 PM)
I think it depends a lot on the nature of the conquerors, the conquerees, the means in which it was done, the context, the cause, the reasoning of the parties and a host of other issues. Take, for example, the Angloamerican "conquest" of Germany during the World Wars. Under the conditions signed after WWI, Germany became a bitter enemy with the outbreak of war 21 years later. After WWII, however, Germany became one of the strongest allies of the Americans and British in less than five years, largely because of the different treatment by the conquerors, and the threat of Soviet expansionism. If you contrast that with, say Slovenia, which was briefly a "country" in the 8th century. Since then it has been amalgamated into different nations: the Hapsburgs, the Frankish, Yugoslavia, etc. But even after all those years of subjugation, the Slovene national identy remained latent and sprung to life one thousand one hundred years later. It really depends on the individual country and the circumstances around it. I don't think you can make a blanket statement about it...

dcnovice -> RE: Conquered countries: allies or enemies? (5/24/2007 5:30:38 PM)
Not sure if this really relates, but it might. A Northern lady chided Lincoln for his magnanimous approach toward the crumbling and soon-to-be defeated South. She said he should be destroying his enemies instead. "Why, madam," he replied, "do I not destroy my enemy when I make him my friend?"

caitlyn -> RE: Conquered countries: allies or enemies? (5/25/2007 7:02:03 AM)
It fairly clear that some conquered people tend to find familier with those that conquered them. What isn't so clear, is why. There are a few scholarly works on this topic, and the general concensus seems to be that there is no rhyme or reason. Sinergy brought up religious tolerance ... which can be true in some instance, and not so much in others ... for instance during the Crusader period, Islam was generally tolerant of the Jews, while the Provencal, not so much ... and yet the Abbasids had a Jewish population almost constantly in revolt, while the Kingdom of Jerusalem did not. Current events in Iraq disprove the religious tolerance theory. Economic prosperity may also be used as an example, but is full of flaws. The flames of Scotland's actions at Bannockburn were fueled by economic prosperity. The various Romanized, Germanic tribes is another good example of economic prosperity leading to revolt against those that conquered. So, we are left with the factor that none of us really want to admit ... that of complete supplication of a foe. The Romans make an excellent case study here. In most cases, when Roman Legates acted with tolerance, they condemned the state to continued warfare, while those that crushed completely, usually found a passive population. From Alicia to Masada, completely supplication at the hands of the Romans, usually meant a pacified population. Then again, you can dispute this theory also .., probably the harshest treatment received by any people conquered by the Germans in the Second World War, were the people of the Balkans ... and they were probably the most prone to resistance. France receives the easiest treatment, and was the most pacified. Long post, to say that I don't think there is a defacto answer, other than to admit that historically, this really does happen at times.

meatcleaver -> RE: Conquered countries: allies or enemies? (5/25/2007 8:28:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Then again, you can dispute this theory also .., probably the harshest treatment received by any people conquered by the Germans in the Second World War, were the people of the Balkans ... and they were probably the most prone to resistance. France receives the easiest treatment, and was the most pacified. The French lost their stomach to fight when they lost Paris. By that time they had lost about as many people as the US and the UK would in the whole of the war. The ultimate humiliation for the French was Hitler's victory march through Paris which followed the same route that Napoleon had taken. The German's (especially the officer class) admired French culture and regarded Paris as many Europeans do, as the continent's most beautiful city. Which was why Germn commansers refused to destroy it when retreating from Paris. The Slavs, well they were untermensch and would always be treated harsher by the Germans. Though Slav resistence in the Balkens wasn't as costly to the Germans as has often been claimed.

vield -> RE: Conquered countries: allies or enemies? (5/25/2007 9:01:28 AM)
There are many examples of conquered countries becoming loyal allies of the conqueror when it became in their own best interest to do so, as the Boers of southern Africa became partners of the Brits in fighting the Germans in East Africa in WWI. There are also many examples of the conquered country's people remaining dealy enemies of the invaders, and eventually (sometimes repeatedly) rising up against the occupation power. The Vietnamese rose up against Chinese occupation ( I think in about 1200 AD or so) and drove them out, leaving a festering distrust of China by Vietnamese to this day. Sometimes one group allies with the invader and one resists and opposes, as in the case of the Brits in catholic and in protestant Ireland. In many years of historical study I have found there seems to be no fixed rules that work If the occupied people have serious common interests with the occupier cooperation may occur, as sometimes happened between Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Norse and Britons in Britain prior to 1066 AD. Sometimes people resent their own government so much an invader is seen as a liberator as happened initially in WWII when Germany occupied the Ukraine. Naturally the SS and Gestapo soon put a halt to that notion.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.734375E-02