Empires are a bloody business.  The great enterprise of conquest requires tremendous capital to get off the ground.  Treasure and a surplus of population are needed to man an army.  In one sense empire building can be seen as evidence of man’s ingenuity given the planning and logistics involved at the outset, in the strategic arena above the tactical level which has distinctly different characteristics.  As in mobilization for extensive public works there is a need for focusing the efforts of many to serve the ends of few, even the ends of one, be it king or general.  Besides the obvious imposition on the soldier, war is a tremendous imposition on all of society with the losses of men, the squander of treasure, and the general diversion of energy away from more productive pursuits.  But somehow this mobilization occurs.  A population is convinced, cajoled, seduced, compelled and brought to believe that somehow their war of conquest will bring more in return than is lost in the process.

War of conquest has served over time to mix peoples of different backgrounds and to broaden the cultural influence at work within any given society.  While this can be viewed as a benefit it is hardly the only, or best way to achieve this.  Free peaceable trade and travel meet this end without violence and the lingering feuds which outlive conquests.

The inescapable connection is evidenced between warfare and the rise of the state.  Many arguments are put forward about the state being a vital defender, including Stayer on page 118.  However, the state is most vigorous in defending its ruling elites.  Besides warfare, the state is ruthless with rivals among its own populace. As for the rest of society it is hard to say their lives would be any more dangerous without the existence of the warfare state. It is interesting to speculate about will be possible when man’s ingenuity is directed completely towards life enhancement instead of warfare.

It is relatively easy to understand the conceit and power-lust which motivates leaders.  It is a far more interesting question to consider what it is that makes people fall in with war.  People generally love their own families, those that don't are considered criminally insane.  Societies will evolve when a broader recognition of the family of man takes hold and supplants the earlier vestigial hatred of the outsider.  Religion is one possible mechanism to steer man in that direction, however religion must avoid the temptation of imitating the state and pitting its adherents against the non-adherents.  Only when religion can rise above sectarianism can it truly deliver a harmony based on a family of man implying brotherhood of all men under one father.  

The question for me is this: does being civilized just mean living under the control of a state?  If this is so then it follows that prisoners are the most civilized of us all!  I counter that civilization is instead an individual status.  From this it easy to reason that a civilized society is one in which a certain critical mass of individuals have evolved into civility.  Unanimity is not required but plurality is.  One may be a in a civilized minority amidst a barbaric majority - a condition which may describe our present situation, or be a minority barbarian in a largely civilized society.  Viewing the dichotomy this way conserves a respect for the individuals involved, the sort of respect which states sadly lack in most cases.

Studying the history of these conflicts is best viewed as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.  As an end unto itself it is a dreary litany.  As a means to seeking ways to do better next time it is more helpful.  It is also a valuable reminder of what to avoid, which behaviors will invariable end badly, and the sad legacy of unchecked ambition and power.  The fact that this pattern has been repeated wherever people have settled is proof of our common humanity, or at least certain impulses which are shared.  The one bright spot in all this is that same ingenuity of man.  Even now ethics, philosophy and religion are influencing man, there is a moral evolution running alongside the evolutions of civilizations and technologies albeit these evolutions don’t always run in lockstep.  The existence of a temporal lag between these different evolutions does not mean that they aren’t happening.  It can be difficult to focus on the bigger picture in light of the relative length of time for evolution to unfold but given the timeline analogies considered last week it is clear that the pace of change is accelerating in a manner reminiscent of Moore’s Law.  The scale still exceeds an individual’s lifespan but the pace of change has brought about incredible progress in an amount of time practically insignificant to geologic time, or deep history.