Yes, I've heard of that. The duration of each peace is much more important than how many peaces were declared, though.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yes, I've heard of that. The duration of each peace is much more important than how many peaces were declared, though.
If they declared peace three times during his reign then they can't have lasted too long.
It was closed when Rome was totally at peace, and it happened something like 3 times during the whole Republic.
As said before, Rome was at war every few decades even during the Pax Romana, and even when at peace externally, there were revolts in some province or the other every few decades. There's not one Emperor who hasn't had a war or revolt to deal with (even if a few of them didn't have foreign wars to wage).
The Roman Empire was considerably expanded by Augustus - and not only in Egypt. There were several client-states/vassals that were annexed, for instance.
Switzerland was basically at peace from 1515 to 1798 - the official independance is usually put at 1648 because it wasn't considered part of HRE anymore after that, yet it had been de facto independant for the previous 250 years.
There were several bits of civil wars during the 16-18th centuries, though, religious civil wars notably.
There was also a minor swedish invasion during the 30-years war, although that was quietly swept under the rug by all involved.
Though Austria and Spain invaded parts of Switzerland that they annexed in 1622 as well?
Luxembourg was invaded in 1914, although there wasn't much fighting, as such.
Not exacly, in international "war laws" we are fighting non-national combatants.
Also means that anyone, ANYONE, are free to fight these bandits as they have no protection under the geneve-convention.
The pacification of citizens is a threat to world peace.
Supreme law and order.
Without getting too much into this, this is the excuse thought up by the US. In international law this argument is seen as flawed and only the most strict interpretation of the Geneve convention would allow this. Most see organisations like Al Qaida or the VietCong as organised troops fighting for a goverment not recognised by the country capturing them. Those troops do get protection.
I wouldn't count those actions as militairy action in the sense of it breaking peace. I would count wars fought over territory, borders, or colonies/puppet goverments as peace breakers.
Didn't Sweden allow German troops passage during WW2 and helped Finland in the Winter War though?
Last edited:
Moriori people, Chatham islands: +/-1500 - november 19 1835
The first human habitation of the Chathams involved migrating Polynesian tribes who settled the islands about 1500 CE,and in their isolation became the Moriori people.
The Moriori society was a peaceful society and bloodshed was outlawed by the chief Nunuku after generations of warfare. Arguments were solved by consensus or by individual duels singular combat rather than warfare, but at the first sign of bloodshed, the fight was over.
On November 19, 1835, a British ship carrying 500 Māori armed with guns, clubs and axes arrived, followed by another ship on December 5, 1835 with a further 400 Māori. They proceeded to massacre the Moriori and enslave the survivors. A Moriori survivor recalled: "[The Māori] commenced to kill us like sheep.... [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed - men, women and children indiscriminately". A Māori conqueror justified their actions as follows: "We took possession... in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped....."
The first human habitation of the Chathams involved migrating Polynesian tribes who settled the islands about 1500 CE,and in their isolation became the Moriori people.
The Moriori society was a peaceful society and bloodshed was outlawed by the chief Nunuku after generations of warfare. Arguments were solved by consensus or by individual duels singular combat rather than warfare, but at the first sign of bloodshed, the fight was over.
On November 19, 1835, a British ship carrying 500 Māori armed with guns, clubs and axes arrived, followed by another ship on December 5, 1835 with a further 400 Māori. They proceeded to massacre the Moriori and enslave the survivors. A Moriori survivor recalled: "[The Māori] commenced to kill us like sheep.... [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed - men, women and children indiscriminately". A Māori conqueror justified their actions as follows: "We took possession... in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped....."
1. Those troops *should* get protection, but who can stand up against a sole superpower if it's them who bend the rules?
2. I would count the fight over recources or ideology as peace-breaking as well.
The reason being that for example the current "world order" is very reluctant to change borders of nations, but that doesn't mean the fighting has ceased.
German, US, Soviet and British troops/airplanes/ships went over Swedish territory during WW2.
We didn't fight any of them though.
The official Swedish stance was neutrality though that accidentally a lot of "volunteers" and Swedish air force ended up in Finland without anyone officially knowing how, though they just happened to stay there until the conflict was over, probably as they didn't know how to find their way back home.
You have to be very careful when stating anything about the Moriori, as there are a lot of myths and dubious claims about them. There are some who very seriously believe they were a celtic people gradually driven aside from the whole of NZ by the Maori. You similarly have to be very careful about early historical work from here (19th century being early
), as some of the methods and claims have been called into question by more recent historians. I'd want to see several sources and counter claims before taking anything for granted.I don't actually know what the current consensus in on the Moriori, or at least not in any detail. That said, your last paragraph is in line with what I've seen. The rest falls into the murkier parts of our history. There is a general agreement that the Moriori were a subgroup of Maori, but there are a wide range of estimates for any dates to do with settlement or events. Anyway, I'd hesitate to put a small community living on an isolated island on this list.
Fair enough i guess, but i'm still glad i posted it, so you could inform us about this.You have to be very careful when stating anything about the Moriori, as there are a lot of myths and dubious claims about them. There are some who very seriously believe they were a celtic people gradually driven aside from the whole of NZ by the Maori. You similarly have to be very careful about early historical work from here (19th century being early
I don't actually know what the current consensus in on the Moriori, or at least not in any detail. That said, your last paragraph is in line with what I've seen. The rest falls into the murkier parts of our history. There is a general agreement that the Moriori were a subgroup of Maori, but there are a wide range of estimates for any dates to do with settlement or events. Anyway, I'd hesitate to put a small community living on an isolated island on this list.
I was actually going to reply to the couple of other times they've been brought up, until I saw those posts were months old, so this gave me a good chance. That said, there's not necessarily anything wrong with what you put, it does seem to be in line with what I've seen. It's more just a note of caution that any historical work more than 3 or 4 decades old about here is a bit dodgy, and that there's still ongoing debate about some aspects.
Also, at the very least it's a nice parable of what could happen if a country/society (unilaterally) dismisses warfare.
Oh well. Just because the belligerents claim they are protecting peace, that doesn't make a war less wary, I'd say. Too many wars have been faught in the name of peace, and they always have been labeled just. That doesn't really change that they are wars.
