France still bitter about Waterloo

[K. A. Pital]

This thread veered into the general direction of justified conflict and whether legal differences can justify support of one warring party over the other. However, I would be wary of turning it into a pure ACW thread.

[Steve]

This thread veered into the general direction of justified conflict and whether legal differences can justify support of one warring party over the other. However, I would be wary of turning it into a pure ACW thread.

Hence my opening remarks and my apology in the mod forum.

I was primarily demonstrating that the South cannot claim to be the aggrieved party, but had through a consistent pattern of behavior brought the invasion upon themselves, and for a cause that was monstrous.

[Metahive]

I admit I'm not an expert on the Achaemenid Persians, but wasn't their entire system a theocratic monarchy where the Great King was the embodiment of Ahura Mazda, where he called even satraps his slaves and where anyone's life or property could be taken at his whim? If not, I'll gladly read sources that show where this is incorrect. I love learning new stuff about history.

That persians Shahs were revered as divine is actually a quite old misconception based on the greek misunderstanding of proskynesis. Proskynesis, a form of kowtow-like bowing, was how people paid their entirely secular respect to the Shah. Greeks who heard about the practice and who themselves reserved this kind of gesture to their gods thought that this mean that persian Shahs were God-Kings like the egyptian Pharaos. This was however not the case and a Shah assuming divine status would have been seen as highly blasphemous according to Zoroastrianism.
I suspect that what you heard about the persian Shah owning all his citizens might come from Herodot, but that too might have been a greek misconception as they translated a word as "slave" which the Persians used for an dependent people in general (including debtors and prisoners of war).

As for reading, you might try the Encyclopedia Iranica. I think it's out of print, but you can access an electronic version here:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/

[K. A. Pital]

To add to Metahive, Darius was a Zoroastrian, but like Cyrus II, aka Cyrus the Great, Darius tolerated other faiths in the Empire. The Greeks indeed mistook the word "royal servant" for slave, when in fact these had been not slaves in the classical antiquity sense.

[Channel72]

The Persians were definitely way more progressive than the Middle Eastern empires which they conquered (Assyria/Babylon) - both of which had slavery and misogynist laws, and practiced forced relocations and resettlements of conquered people as a matter of practice (also impaling and flaying said people en masse).

The Persians returned many of the relocated peoples to their ancestral lands (most famously the Jews of course) and were generally more tolerant and progressive all around than the other Middle Eastern empires they conquered.

Still, they were aggressively expansionist - they conquered all the way to Egypt and made Egypt into a Persian "satrap" (province), and would have conquered Greece, except after Marathon it became apparent that the Persians had a lot of difficulty dealing with hoplites - also, Persia was constantly distracted with other problems throughout their empire including revolts in Egypt, etc.

[Metahive]

Still, they were aggressively expansionist - they conquered all the way to Egypt and made Egypt into a Persian "satrap" (province), and would have conquered Greece, except after Marathon it became apparent that the Persians had a lot of difficulty dealing with hoplites - also, Persia was constantly distracted with other problems throughout their empire including revolts in Egypt, etc.

Actually, how well the Persians could deal with hoplites depended largely on what terrain they fought them. At Marathon the Persians were caught off-guard while disembarking their troops (and I remind you that in the battles preceding that the Persians were victorious). At Thermopylae they had to attack within a narrow corridor that protected the greek Flanks and at Plataiai the Persians actually made good progress until Mardonius got himself killed and troop morale fell apart. They did however hire greek mercenaries to provide heavy infantry for their armies afterwards (see Xenophon) and Alexander had to face them in his campaigns.

Also, yeah, the Achaemenids were expansionist. So were the Romans. But romanisation is seen as positive (despite it practically annhiliating continental celtic culture) whereas the Persians are seen as monstrous barbarians who almost succeeded in destroying all civilisation forever. Kind of a slight and not quite justified imbalance in assessment, doncha' think?

[Elheru Aran]

Propaganda is a wonderful thing. That's what this essentially comes down to, the whole thread-- France doesn't like that its romantic image of the Napoleonic period is being tarnished by what they see as other countries going 'nyah we won'. The Greeks painted the Persians as monsters and played up their lucky victories to the hilt. The US won the Civil War... but Confederate apologist propaganda still took a hold in far too many people's minds.

[cmdrjones]

It's late and I'm tired, so this is only a partial response. I'll get around to the rest later but I want to address two main points:

#2 Those who support the invasion of the South use slavery as their justification while ignoring or downplaying the sovereignty angle while simultaneously arguing that BECAUSE of slavery (or some other social ill) that sovereignty doesn't matter.

The sovereignty angle in the context of the American Civil War SHOULD be ignored, because it is almost entirely irrelevant. Slavery was the central cause of the war. Even take a look at the various states' articles of secession, i.e. the official announcement by the state governments of the reasons for secession. Notice how the message throughout is dedicated to discussing the of slavery, not the issue of state's rights or sovereignty. And the Supreme Court has confirmed that there was no legal basis for secession, thus there was no legitimacy to the Confederate government. Obviously, we can go down a whole rabbit hole here about what the notion of legitimacy actually means, and how if the Confederates had impossibly won we would be defining it differently, but that's really besides the point. The Civil War was not about sovereignty.

Now, this is the predominant opinion held among historians on the Civil War. It is ridiculous to then take this and claim that these same people are also claiming that because of slavery that sovereignty doesn't matter. I understand people have made that claim in this thread, but I am not making that argument. I am merely concerned with your inaccurate and apologist behavior towards the Civil War specifically. It was not about sovereignty, plain and simple.

These people (IHMO) tend NOT to grant the right of China to invade and take Taiwan on the grounds of Sovereignty (because the PRC is evil), or oppose the Muslim brotherhood takeover of Egypt (which was a popular vote BTW, but again because those people are evil, no), or again, oppose the secession of scotland (because UK or something) but Support the forcible extrication of Kosovo (Because this time the SERBS are evil!), but not the Secession of the Crimea or Novorussya, but Supported the breakup of the Soviet Union, but ALSO supported the Reunification of Germany.... etc etc. [/auote]

So you just are basically just grouping together everybody that has ever disagreed with you on any topic into the same category? I vehemently disagree with you on the issue of the Civil War, but the rest of that description doesn't fit me. Hell, I don't even consider that list of yours to be ideologically coherent. These are all complex issue that are hotly disagreed upon, even among liberals and conservatives and other broad swathes of public opinion. And there is no obvious logical link from the issue of the Civil War to any of those issues.

What I didn't make clear (and I apologize) is that for the modern Liberal, Ideology purity trumps intellectual consistency.

First of all: prove it. You just made a claim about half of the population, I expect you to back it up. Second of all: why do you even treat liberal as one big homogenous, like-minded group anyway? Conservatives aren't homogenous, either. Just because there are broad philosophical alliances, there are still huge differences between, say, communists and socialists and European liberalism and American liberalism and etc. etc.

I favor letting people secede (liberty), ESPECIALLY if they are part of a voluntary union (Scotland and the South come to mind immediately), but I do NOT suport great power meddling in others affairs which leads to colonial adventurism and entangling alliances and 'coalition' warfare.

I agree with you on Scotland. I disagree with you on the South, because there is nothing in the US Constitution that implies that the union is, in fact, voluntary. There was no legal basis for secession in that case. Scotland is different because there IS a legal basis for said secession, and the history and context are utterly different. I agree with you about colonial adventurism et al. I don't think there is a clear link between the reality of the Civil War and the reality of the latter.

As far as the south goes, they had the absolute right, as sovereign states, to secede at any time.

Most legal historians disagree with you. They were NOT sovereign states, under the US Constitution. States are permitted limited self-government, but are ultimately and definitively subordinate to the federal government. The abandonment of the Articles of Confederation ended any sovereignty for the states, from a legal perspective.

The North used the institution of slavery as a convenient excuse to invade and occupy the Confederate states.

Blatantly false. It is clear how little you know about the actual history of the Civil War. Read the link I posted above. The Confederate states explicitly use slavery as THEIR excuse for seceding from the Union; the Union initially invaded to restore rightful (under the Constitution, anyway) sovereignty over those states. The Emancipation Proclamation, and the convergence of abolitionist goals with strategic war goals, would not come until 1863.

The Confederates DID fire first when the Union forces refused to evacuate terrorty that was not theirs anymore.

Again, blatantly false. The Confederates had no right to that territory under interpretation of the law. Further, even if the states were sovereign (which they weren't), that land didn't belong to the states anyway, it was officially property of the US Federal Government. Attacking them is still an act of war, because they are invading foreign territory.

The North acted hypocritically by #1 raising troops to invade states that had seceded, much like the British had done to them.

Not directly comparable, in my opinion. Granted, there is room for debate on a philosophical level to this regard, but I consider that a completely separate discussion so I won't address this further.

#2 suspended habeas corpus #3 imprisoned dissidents #4 illegally used executive power to tax and wage war #5 when they DID free slaves, they did NOT free them within their own territory.

Agree with you on #2 and #3. Nobody ever claimed that the Union were 100% angels or anything. But that's completely separate from the argument over the legitimacy of slavery and secession. #4 is idiotic, as there is nothing illegal about said use of executive power, it is explicitly stated in the Constitution. #5 is true, but it's hilarious because it directly contradicts your earlier assertion that the North used slavery as a flimsy justification for an invasion.

If that war was to be described accurately it should be called the War of Secession precisely because the war aims of the Confederate states was never to overthrow the US government and establish their rule over the entirety of the country which is what a 'civil war' is.

All 'civil war' means is a war between citizens of the same country. It is not further qualified by any war goals of said citizens. War of Secession and Civil War are equally accurate, the latter is simply more common and more familiar.

I would bet money that if they had 9 million whites instead of the slaves, the economic and military balance would have swung far enough in their favor to ensure victory, but then again... if they had had 9 million slaves, then the war would probably not have been feasible in the first place, no?

Maybe I'm just tired, but I honestly am not sure what you are trying to say here, exactly.

Ok, i'll sum up because this is getting WAY off the topic of france grumbling about waterloo.

#1 I already agreed the south was monstrous... digging up more examples of it is irrelevant as are more appeals to authority.

#2 By what authority did the Federal Government induce the states to Sign and ratify the Constitution?
Answer: It didn't because the states created it. Hence it HAS no authority beyond what the states granted it, that's why its powers are DUN-DUN-DUUUUUUNNNNN!!!! Enumerated.

#3 I was pointing out that if the slaves never existed, most of the justification for the War evaporates.... because left with JUST sovereignty to talk about the North aint got much now do they?

#4 War of Secession vs Civil war IS accurate and IS important because it provides that magic thing called context that you seem to try to avoid by bringing up canes and Dredd scott and Fort Sumpter and so on.

The South WAS WRONG TO OWN SLAVES. (WRONG WRONG WRONG and BADWRONG, or BADONG and I am against that I am for the opposite of BADONG: GNODAB!!)

There, did I say it enough for you?

[Channel72]

[Also, yeah, the Achaemenids were expansionist. So were the Romans. But romanisation is seen as positive (despite it practically annhiliating continental celtic culture) whereas the Persians are seen as monstrous barbarians who almost succeeded in destroying all civilisation forever. Kind of a slight and not quite justified imbalance in assessment, doncha' think?

Sure - but that's just Western bias at work. In Iran, Persepolis is a major tourist attraction and the Achaemenid Empire is considered part of their national heritage, much like the West venerates the Romans.

#3 I was pointing out that if the slaves never existed, most of the justification for the War evaporates.... because left with JUST sovereignty to talk about the North aint got much now do they?

If slaves never existed, the South would have no economy to speak of, and would have to actually do something (gasp) useful to generate a GDP.

The South WAS WRONG TO OWN SLAVES. (WRONG WRONG WRONG and BADWRONG, or BADONG and I am against that I am for the opposite of BADONG: GNODAB!!)

Really? And here I was thinking slavery was awesome.

[Patroklos]

I mean, are you saying that you'd be all for the US to invade Saudi Arabia, depose the monarchy and install a democracy with better laws?

Actually, yes. Had the US succeeded in transforming the Middle East into a stable region with democratic or even semi-authoritarian secular countries, it would be a desireable influence. However, the record is hardly stellar: the influence produces a rise in radicalism and reactionary movements, either directly (invasion of Iraq - collapse of puppet regime - rise of Islamic State) or in roundabout ways (the act against Mossadegh - Shah regime - Islamic uprising, funding Qatar and Saudi Arabia - spillover funding for islamic fundamentalism in ME and Africa).

I'm sympathetic to that sentiment. Historically we have many examples of conquering nations improving the cultures and laws of the nations they've conquered. However, lately when we actually try this it doesn't pan out well, especially in the Mideast. Honestly, I can't even begin to think of a way to realistically depose the Saudi Monarchy without causing major chaos that will inevitably have many unpredictable side effects throughout the region.



Also, back in 2003 Bush was pretty much promising to do exactly what you're saying here. He was exaggerating and lying about the threat posed by Saddam, of course, to get everyone on board. But aside from that, it sounds like your philosophy here should have made you very supportive of the 2003 war, given that you wouldn't have known at the time how badly it was going to be bungled.

For your historical comparison I think you need to remember what "Rome conquers Gaul" would have looked like had there been a modern media there to report it live to today's audience for judgement and the record it for posterity like we do now. Those cases only seem clean and successful when sanitized via centuries or millenia of distance. We also tend to think of a process of decades or centuries of subjugating, coopting and then rebuilding conqueres as a trivial and short term affair the further from the present it is.

The Romans would laugh at the current ME troubles as a seasons rebellion, the cost of doing buisness. Then they would do their buisness in response and it would look a lot different than ours. No, I am much cooler leaving those methods of bringing our definition of modernity to our neighbors in the in the past thank you very much.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm prepared to take your word for it... except...

http://www.ancientgreekbattles.net/Page ... lation.htm

Hmm, I think that I put too much trust in the census of Demetrius, which I remembered as putting the slave population pf Athens at 400 000; however, I found that most historians dismiss it as too high. Still, it is still possible that slaves did outnumber the free citizens by two-three times, at least as far as this census is concerned:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=8441541

Part of the issue, I think, is that you might get different results if you compare citizens to slaves, versus if you compare citizen families to slaves.

The slave population of Athens would include both sexes and all ages, including people who, if free, would not be eligible to vote because they were women or underage males. However, the women and underage males of the property-owning citizen class were not slaves, even if they were not citizens- they had defined legal rights and could not be traded as property.

More generally, though, part of the question is whether the Persians invaded Greece with any intention of freeing their slaves. Because if their sole goal was to reduce the Greek city-states to tributary status, then the war does not have a particularly progressive character.

I am not sure what the goals of the Persians were, other than removing a competitor.

I'm not sure they had any. As you say, the Greek city-states' existence was disruptive to the Persian empire's western frontier- not so much because the Greeks were "free" as because they were a large cluster of mutually independent yet heavily armed polities, with ethnic and cultural ties to Anatolian cities under Persian rule. And, of course, they were a potential source of mercenaries or allies for any prospective rebel.

Given that, I don't see much evidence that the Persians would have freed any Greek slaves. Unless, of course, impoverishing the Greeks with tribute payments would have forced them to sell off slaves to places they could more easily win their freedom or something, a highly indirect means.

An attacker doesn't get credit for being the more progressive side in a war, if they have no intention of actually doing any significant good for the target of their attack.

The goals of the Persians were to punish some greek city states for supporting uprisings in Ionia which resulted in several persian cities going up in flames. So no, unlike what 300 and its sequel say, it wasn't because "Dareios hated the Greeks for their freedom" (actual movie quote, paraphrased).

Insofar as any Greek actually believed this at the time (unclear to me if they did), 'freedom' would probably have more to do with the fractious independence of the Greek city-states than with any set of political rights. The "freedom" being sacrificed would have more to do with the Greeks' ability to govern themselves.

...My favorite figure in classical Greece is the Theban leader Epaminondas. Aka the guy who kicked the Spartans out of Messenia and liberated the helots. And the guy who's never had a movie made about him, which sucks, although admittedly a lot of sources about him were lost over time, so that probably contributed.

You gotta love anybody who manages to whup the legendary Spartans by the relatively straightforward expedient of organizing his men into a giant L.

Ok, i'll sum up because this is getting WAY off the topic of france grumbling about waterloo...

#2 By what authority did the Federal Government induce the states to Sign and ratify the Constitution?
Answer: It didn't because the states created it. Hence it HAS no authority beyond what the states granted it, that's why its powers are DUN-DUN-DUUUUUUNNNNN!!!! Enumerated.

That does not mean random states can randomly ignore the compact by which the federal government was made. If you sign a contract, you don't get to back out of it the minute it becomes unprofitable.

This is exactly why there was massive, extensive debate about the wording and structure of the Constitution in 1787, why ten amendments totalling a length equal to a large fraction of the original document had to be added before it had a prayer of being ratified, and why several states had prolonged debates about ratification.

Because everyone went into the process knowing that this wasn't going to be a casual thing you could just walk out of the minute the rest of the country disagreed with you about something like, oh, treating other human beings as property.

#3 I was pointing out that if the slaves never existed, most of the justification for the War evaporates.... because left with JUST sovereignty to talk about the North aint got much now do they?

If the slaves had never existed the southern states would have had no desire to secede, so of course the United States would have no desire to stop them.

The reason sovereignty became an issue is that the Confederate states repeatedly ignored or violated federal laws, stole federal property, and refused to honor election results that had been carried out in accordance with rules they were strongly in favor of as long as pro-slavery presidents got elected.

It's like, if Bob's stealing something, and a police officer walks by, and Bob attacks the police officer for fear that he'll stop Bob from committing the theft... NOW the issue is about the officer's right to defend himself, and about Bob attacking a police officer.

But it's silly to say "well, if Bob hadn't been stealing something, then this would all have been about the policeman hitting Bob for no reason!" Sure, Bob wouldn't have gotten hit by the police- because there wouldn't have been a fight in the first place. Because the reason there was a fight is because Bob started breaking the law, then used violence to defend his right to keep doing so.

#4 War of Secession vs Civil war IS accurate and IS important because it provides that magic thing called context that you seem to try to avoid by bringing up canes and Dredd scott and Fort Sumpter and so on.

What context? How does it make the slightest bit of difference whether we call it a 'war of secession' or a 'civil war?' Neither term has any effect on whether one side or the other was right or wrong.

[Gandalf]

That does not mean random states can randomly ignore the compact by which the federal government was made. If you sign a contract, you don't get to back out of it the minute it becomes unprofitable.

This is exactly why there was massive, extensive debate about the wording and structure of the Constitution in 1787, why ten amendments totalling a length equal to a large fraction of the original document had to be added before it had a prayer of being ratified, and why several states had prolonged debates about ratification.

Because everyone went into the process knowing that this wasn't going to be a casual thing you could just walk out of the minute the rest of the country disagreed with you about something like, oh, treating other human beings as property.

Too bad this apparently doesn't apply to treaties that the US government signed with Native American tribes.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes; Congress took a nakedly self-serving position on those, plus of course the long history of American private citizens grossly provoking the natives, then having state, territory, or federal government move in to 'restore order' by expelling the natives from the area when they predictably react violently to having their property stolen and their families tortured or killed.

If the Indians had only had the means to retaliate effectively and cause great harm to the US over their dishonorable treatment, they would have been well within their rights to do so.

What is just, is just, regardless of who is doing it to whom.

[Metahive]

Insofar as any Greek actually believed this at the time (unclear to me if they did), 'freedom' would probably have more to do with the fractious independence of the Greek city-states than with any set of political rights. The "freedom" being sacrificed would have more to do with the Greeks' ability to govern themselves.

The point is, the Persian Wars were not ideologically motivated as modern writers and filmmakers try to propagate, it was a simple matter of politics. The Athenians had engaged in aggressive actions agains the Persians and so they decided to punish them for it and keep them from doing so in the future by conquest. Lofty ideals like "freedom" and "self-determination" didn't enter into it. As can be seen by the fact that the Athenians never attempted to actually spread their democratic political system and tried their hand at imperialist oppression themselves when they were given the chance.
Same thing applies to other modern historical movies like Braveheart. "Freedom" had at no point been William Wallace's motivation, but simply him supporting a different pretender to the scottish crown than Edward I.

[K. A. Pital]

Given that, I don't see much evidence that the Persians would have freed any Greek slaves.

It is possible that they could have forced a transition to an economy which would be based on free labour. Cyrus liked to pose as the liberator of people, allowing repatriation of captives and freeing people in various bonded-labour forms. So it is not that simple.

An attacker doesn't get credit for being the more progressive side in a war, if they have no intention of actually doing any significant good for the target of their attack.

Once again, for wars of conquest it is not that simple. If the attacker wants to force his legal system on the captured territories, this is already a significant good.

[Channel72]

Given that, I don't see much evidence that the Persians would have freed any Greek slaves.

It is possible that they could have forced a transition to an economy which would be based on free labour. Cyrus liked to pose as the liberator of people, allowing repatriation of captives and freeing people in various bonded-labour forms. So it is not that simple.

Eh... possibly - but how much of Cyrus's benevolence really extended to his successors like Cambyses, Xerxes and Darius? The Greeks never warred with Persia under Cyrus.

Cyrus did war with Anatolian kingdoms like Lydia, but I don't think he did anything like liberate slaves there.

[K. A. Pital]

Lydia was a core satrapy for the Empire, so I think that slavery did not flourish there, at least in the times of Darius. I should read more on this, though, as we really have a wealth of Central Asian professionals working on ancient Persia in the former Soviet Union. Shame I have not read more on it at the university.

[cmdrjones]

Ok, i'll sum up because this is getting WAY off the topic of france grumbling about waterloo...

#2 By what authority did the Federal Government induce the states to Sign and ratify the Constitution?
Answer: It didn't because the states created it. Hence it HAS no authority beyond what the states granted it, that's why its powers are DUN-DUN-DUUUUUUNNNNN!!!! Enumerated.

That does not mean random states can randomly ignore the compact by which the federal government was made. If you sign a contract, you don't get to back out of it the minute it becomes unprofitable. This is exactly why there was massive, extensive debate about the wording and structure of the Constitution in 1787, why ten amendments totalling a length equal to a large fraction of the original document had to be added before it had a prayer of being ratified, and why several states had prolonged debates about ratification.

Because everyone went into the process knowing that this wasn't going to be a casual thing you could just walk out of the minute the rest of the country disagreed with you about something like, oh, treating other human beings as property.

I think we've arrived at a place where we can agree on the basics, so I'll finish my points. I agree and concede the point about the debates that took place, but would like to add a caveat: Yes, you shouldn't get to walk away the "minute things become unprofitable" but by that wording you seem to accept that the several states HAVE the sovereign right TO walk away, you just don't think it should be A) spur of the moment B) based on profit or C) used to justify shit like slavery. I agree on all points. I was only pointing out that conceptually, the right is there.

#3 I was pointing out that if the slaves never existed, most of the justification for the War evaporates.... because left with JUST sovereignty to talk about the North aint got much now do they?

If the slaves had never existed the southern states would have had no desire to secede, so of course the United States would have no desire to stop them.

The reason sovereignty became an issue is that the Confederate states repeatedly ignored or violated federal laws, stole federal property, and refused to honor election results that had been carried out in accordance with rules they were strongly in favor of as long as pro-slavery presidents got elected.

It's like, if Bob's stealing something, and a police officer walks by, and Bob attacks the police officer for fear that he'll stop Bob from committing the theft... NOW the issue is about the officer's right to defend himself, and about Bob attacking a police officer.

But it's silly to say "well, if Bob hadn't been stealing something, then this would all have been about the policeman hitting Bob for no reason!" Sure, Bob wouldn't have gotten hit by the police- because there wouldn't have been a fight in the first place. Because the reason there was a fight is because Bob started breaking the law, then used violence to defend his right to keep doing so.

YEs! Yes! Yes! 1000 times yes! The confederates went about Secession in massively stupid and immoral way. We agree on that. Now, My point was that once slavery is removed (for the sake of argument) then bob isn't stealing, he's having a club meeting. And he's not attacking the Cop for no reason, he's attacking him for refusing to get off his porch, oh and the Cop is Canadian. Now, in REALITY, if slavery didn't exist, you are right, the south would have had no reason to secede, BUT if they had wanted to secede because, oh I don't know, they god a wild hair up their ass about something else... say fallout from hypothetical involvement of the US in the French Invasion of Mexico. At that point, the justifications for a Union invasion of the Confederacy start to crumble.

#4 War of Secession vs Civil war IS accurate and IS important because it provides that magic thing called context that you seem to try to avoid by bringing up canes and Dredd scott and Fort Sumpter and so on.

What context? How does it make the slightest bit of difference whether we call it a 'war of secession' or a 'civil war?' Neither term has any effect on whether one side or the other was right or wrong.

Because it #1 gives context to the war aims of the South. For instance, (bringing this back to Napoleon) What if the French called the war with Spain over the accession of Joseph Bonaparte as "La guerre contre les Enquêteurs espagnols perfides qui se sont rebellés brutalement contre notre frère chéri Joseph?"

Would that not imply that the Spanish had other designs other than driving out French occupiers?

You are, in fact correct that the term doesn't affect who is right and wrong, but it DOES affect how people think about the war. It's propaganda. War of secession is more accurate, why do you hate accuracy? WHY? WHY?

[Thanas]

Prussia and Austria were not real allies? Were they puppets then? Whose puppets? British puppets, I guess. And yes, had you read your own link till the end, which you obviously have not (I have read this work long before starting this discussion), namely section V starting p. 401, you would note that the author himself notes the French were not exceptional in their violence and other combatants were quite possibly just as cruel.

Yeah, I read that and I agree with it - still doesn't excuse the conduct of the French in the wars they started.

It does not follow that the long-lasting French occupation of Central Europe produced the type of civilian casualties you are talking about, because in places othe than Spain there was no civil war with the French - and Netherlands, Belgium and many vassal states actually did not suffer mass civilian casualties until the Coalition invaded Central Europe and France.

Did you just miss the examples in Italy he cited? Read the article again.

Where there was no resistance, the civilian casualties of Napoleon's rule were not present.

A) Bullshit, as evidenced by Italy and Jaffa - there was no resistance yet casualties still happened, on his own orders
B) Even if we were to accept that premise, do you realise how stupid that is? "If you obey the Tyrant, he will not hurt you". Well, no shit.

Laws are important. If a country stands for crazy backwardness and religious terror, anyone who crushes this regime is in my view doing the world a service. You can surely understand that. Whoever ends the IS regime in Iraq, if he were to create a state that could be more progressive in its place, is welcome to intervene, actually, it is just that the US has a piss poor record in such matters. Napoleon's record, at least for Central and Eastern Europe, was far better and some of the vassal states he created managed to keep the progressive laws intact after the French defeat.

His own actions are often in complete disregard to the ideals he claimed to fight for. That is not that new, either. In many places he ended democracy as well (Northern Germany), in others he pretended to create one and then immediately abolished it. Look at the Cisalpine Republic:

In 1797, Napoleon did establish a democratic republic in northern Italy, the Cisalpine Republic. By 1800, power in the Cisalpine Republic had been centralised in the hands of a council of ministers appointed by Napoleon; in 1802 he ordered that he himself be elected president of the republic; and in 1805 he abolished the republic entirely and created a hereditary monarchy with himself as king.

Even more, while he tried to abolish serfdom abroad, he actually reinstituted slavery in the French Empire and also carried out a systematic oppression against Black people, even dismissing those who had integrated and made officers (Dumas).

I certainly cannot rate him higher than any of the enlightened aristocrats.

It is pretty much common knowledge that the Achaemenid Empire's population consisted in majority of free workers, while slaves were a minority, and could not rely on slave labour the way Athens, and Ancient Greece in general, did. In Athens, which was a slavocracy, slaves outnumbered the free citizens massively (like 10 to one or something) - on a scale unthinkable in the Achaemenid Empire, where slavery as a practice related to a small subset of men and was already on the decline as an institution.

Oh FFS, slavery in the Achaemenid Empire =/= slavery in Ancient Greece. They are different models of societies and many of what are claimed to be free citizens by Persian standards would be slaves under Greek standards. For example, the people in Egypt forced by law to tend their land until they die, with no freedom of movement and no rights to protest tax collections are free citizens under Persian standards but are little better than Helots in practice. The Persian empire also was heavily dependent on Slavery, at least as dependent than Greece. They just did not call it that, they called it tribute (tribute in the form of labour). There is no great power in ancient society except for the Romans which managed to not be dependent on slavery and the Romans just replaced slavery with early forms of serfdom. Educate yourself on ancient productivity and economics please. It is impossible to create an Empire as huge as that without massively relying on slaves. The surplus is just not there in ancient agriculture.

And if it comes to political rights, very few people in the Persian Empire were truly free.

[K. A. Pital]

The Persian empire also was heavily dependent on Slavery, at least as dependent than Greece. They just did not call it that, they called it tribute (tribute in the form of labour).

Except you have a piss poor idea of the Achaemenid Empire. Slave labour could not supplant free labour and the number of slaves was small. "Tribute in the form of labour" (corvee) is not the same as classical slavery.

There is no great power in ancient society except for the Romans which managed to not be dependent on slavery and the Romans just replaced slavery with early forms of serfdom.

Your Rome-wanking is tiresome, Thanas. I know that you're a Roman fanatic. Go cry in a corner that I'm not interested.

And if it comes to political rights, very few people in the Persian Empire were truly free.

I'd rather be the subject of the king than a fucking slave to be sold. You, on the other hand, are despicable.

They are different models of societies and many of what are claimed to be free citizens by Persian standards would be slaves under Greek standards.

Not even some actual Achaemenid slaves would be "slaves" under Greek standards, because they could marry free persons, own property, etc.

Yeah, I read that and I agree with it - still doesn't excuse the conduct of the French in the wars they started.

So basically you claim that the French "started" the wars and that was their fault because of that. I'm not sure I'm ready to continue this bullshit discussion any further. You also completely ignored my point that not all parts of the French Empire were experiencing civilian casualties due to extensive warfare until the coalition invaded it, so it is quite understandable how the coalition could inflict casualties on the populations of Central Europe, Netherlands, Belgium, Southern France etc. It is only hard for you to accept because you're biased. You started with "Napoleon was much worse than the others" and now you're just saying "but well they attacked first".

Even if we were to accept that premise, do you realise how stupid that is? "If you obey the Tyrant, he will not hurt you". Well, no shit.

You forgot to end this pathetic tirade of yours with Napoleon's opponents were DEMOCRATS who were fighting for FREEDOM! ALL HAIL BRITANNIA!

His own actions are often in complete disregard to the ideals he claimed to fight for.

Hence why he was not a revolutionary. He was, at best, an enlightened autocrat. But compared to the others - boo hoo, sorry if I consider the states with serfdom sad fucking pieces of shit that deserved to be defeated and destroyed.

[cmdrjones]

That does not mean random states can randomly ignore the compact by which the federal government was made. If you sign a contract, you don't get to back out of it the minute it becomes unprofitable.

This is exactly why there was massive, extensive debate about the wording and structure of the Constitution in 1787, why ten amendments totalling a length equal to a large fraction of the original document had to be added before it had a prayer of being ratified, and why several states had prolonged debates about ratification.

Because everyone went into the process knowing that this wasn't going to be a casual thing you could just walk out of the minute the rest of the country disagreed with you about something like, oh, treating other human beings as property.

Too bad this apparently doesn't apply to treaties that the US government signed with Native American tribes.

I endorse this statement. So, Simon Jester, under what circumstances CAN you back out of a contract? Suppose when another party or group of parties to the contract start interfering with parts of the contract or don't live up to it?

[Thanas]

Except you have a piss poor idea of the Achaemenid Empire. Slave labour could not supplant free labour and the number of slaves was small. "Tribute in the form of labour" (corvee) is not the same as classical slavery.

You don't even understand that there are degrees of slavery and that every ancient city probably had its own interpretation of what slavery means. Thus, slavery in Athens is not the same as Slavery in Sparta or Slavery in Rome or in the Persian Empire. You cannot just go and say "HURR DURR one is a slave and one is free, therefore the freed man is better, despite having less actual freedoms than the slave in X." You are hung up on terms which were never the same over the ancient world and which varied wildly. And in a huge Empire like the Persian Empire, which never replaced the local conditions from above, you just cannot make blanket statements like you are in the habit of making. What you have to do is to go on the local level and then extrapolate from there. What you are doing is not a legitimate form of argument.

There is no great power in ancient society except for the Romans which managed to not be dependent on slavery and the Romans just replaced slavery with early forms of serfdom.

Your Rome-wanking is tiresome, Thanas. I know that you're a Roman fanatic. Go cry in a corner that I'm not interested.

How the fuck is this Rome-wank? Off your meds again? Saying they replaced slavery with early forms of serfdom does not make the Romans good guys.

I'd rather be the subject of the king than a fucking slave to be sold. You, on the other hand, are despicable.

There is little practical difference for some, and a massive practical differences for other regions. You cannot just say "SLAVERY = BAD". A slave in Pompeii had more rights than a free citizen under the Persians in Egypt. That is just a fact. You denying it because one society defines slavery a certain way and another defines it a different way is completely ignorant. Slavery does not mean the same thing. Nor does "free citizen". You are fucking applying universal standards in an era where there are none and where even the term citizen carries completely different meanings and rights in Persepolis, Tyre, Athens and Sparta. FFS.

And it is not that easy. Do you for example consider Helots slaves? Yes? No? Under what definition of slavery are you working here? The modern one ("social death") or the classical one "limited degree of rights"?

Not even some actual Achaemenid slaves would be "slaves" under Greek standards, because they could marry free persons, own property, etc.

Maybe you just haven't kept up and are still influenced by the shitty marxist research. In which case read this, which shows a much wider and more complex picture than "GOOD PERSIANS", "BAD GREEKS".

You might also want to answer me this - if I am not called a slave but treated like one, am I not one? If so, the people considered "booty of the bow" (but not slaves) who were even branded should be considered here as well.

So basically you claim that the French "started" the wars and that was their fault because of that. I'm not sure I'm ready to continue this bullshit discussion any further. You also completely ignored my point that not all parts of the French Empire were experiencing civilian casualties due to extensive warfare until the coalition invaded it, so it is quite understandable how the coalition could inflict casualties on the populations of Central Europe, Netherlands, Belgium, Southern France etc. It is only hard for you to accept because you're biased. You started with "Napoleon was much worse than the others" and now you're just saying "but well they attacked first".

If you want to say that all the casualties happened in Russia and the counterinvasions from that point on (ignoring the Italian examples of the conduct in Italy in the article, I see) then that still falls on Napoleon's shoulders, as he did start the war with Russia. Same with Spain.

Even if we were to accept that premise, do you realise how stupid that is? "If you obey the Tyrant, he will not hurt you". Well, no shit.

You forgot to end this pathetic tirade of yours with Napoleon's opponents were DEMOCRATS who were fighting for FREEDOM! ALL HAIL BRITANNIA!

What a pathetic retort. You forgot to end it with NAPOLEON, LIBERATOR OF ALL RACES.

Hence why he was not a revolutionary. He was, at best, an enlightened autocrat. But compared to the others - boo hoo, sorry if I consider the states with serfdom sad fucking pieces of shit that deserved to be defeated and destroyed.

I don't see anything in Napoleon's actions that suggest he was a better ruler and/or administrator than the Prussians or the Dutch, not even the Austrians. Like I said, you got a point with Russia and possibly with Spain, but the bloodshed there is too much for me to consider it worth anything.

[Channel72]

Thanas, what are some of the primary sources for slavery in the Achaemenid Empire?

Back when I was researching this, I recall that the sources of Achaemenid Persia were pretty sparse, since the Persians didn't have any kind of native equivalent to the Greek historians (like Xenophon etc.) So we've basically got Persian cuneiform inscriptions and monuments (the Cyrus cylinder, etc.) to go on, along with second-hand stuff like contemporary Greek historians (mostly just Xenophon and Herodotus - neither of whom were as particularly reliable or thorough as Thucydides who didn't really address the Persian wars), and I guess whatever mostly useless tidbits the Hebrews decided to scribble down in Nehemiah/Ezra. We also have the Zoroastrian religious texts, but even these are mostly monuments in the Achaemenid era - the more substantial information comes from Parthian/Sassanian times.

So how can we make confident statements about slavery in the Persian empire?

(I'm genuinely curious here - not really putting forth an argument, but rather a question.)

[Channel72]

I'd also add that, unlike the Assyrians, Babylonians and even the Hittites, the Persians seem to have a dearth of legal texts and law codes (or at least excavations of Persepolis have so far failed to find them). We've got lots of cuneiform legal documents from Babylon/Assyria (Hammurabi being the most famous, obviously) - but there are many more. These legal texts often highlight how utterly fucking brutal and misogynist the Assyrians were, for example.

But the ruins of Persepolis, along with the first Persian capital (the name of which escapes me at the moment) don't seem to have yielded the kind of rich tradition of legal documents that were found in Nineveh/Babylon/Hattusa etc. At least as far as I recall - I read through a lot of the Near Eastern legal texts back when I was studying the Old Testament, but I don't recall any from Achaemenid Persia.

[Thanas]

Thanas, what are some of the primary sources for slavery in the Achaemenid Empire?

Back when I was researching this, I recall that the sources of Achaemenid Persia were pretty sparse, since the Persians didn't have any kind of native equivalent to the Greek historians (like Xenophon etc.) So we've basically got Persian cuneiform inscriptions and monuments (the Cyrus cylinder, etc.) to go on, along with second-hand stuff like contemporary Greek historians (mostly just Xenophon and Herodotus - neither of whom were as particularly reliable or thorough as Thucydides who didn't really address the Persian wars), and I guess whatever mostly useless tidbits the Hebrews decided to scribble down in Nehemiah/Ezra. We also have the Zoroastrian religious texts, but even these are mostly monuments in the Achaemenid era - the more substantial information comes from Parthian/Sassanian times.

So how can we make confident statements about slavery in the Persian empire?

(I'm genuinely curious here - not really putting forth an argument, but rather a question.)

The evidence really isn't that great and you've already named most of it. Most of the additional evidence comes from sale contracts for slaves (mostly remains, some Papyri and ostraka), some archeological evidence etc. For the Persian subjects in the west, we also got some manumission inscriptions at temples. A good friend of mine is researching these at the moment. Additional evidence is cited here. as well as in the book which I already linked to in the previous post here.

The best source for current research on ancient slavery is the Handwörterbuch der antiken Sklaverei but I am currently at home so I can't get it.

So we got little evidence but what little evidence there is suggest slavery was widespread in the Empire.