Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elaer" data-source="post: 1285080" data-attributes="member: 2680">Hypersmurf,Not to discount what seems to be a pretty cool book, but instead of crediting Gemmell, we really have to examine Thucydides, who in his History recounted the Melian argument, which went something like this:The Athenian had the island of Melos surrounded and cut off.  Their generals requested parley, and rather than attempt to get the Melian's surrender with arguments that the Athenians were righteous, noble, and favored by the gods, they basically said that they had more men and ships and spears, no help was coming, and that Melos could surrender or die.   The Melians basically told them to stuff it (Thucydides put it more eloquently than I did), and held out several months until Athens took the city, and killed every man who could wield a spear.To say that there is an explicit moral to the story is difficult, different people take away different things.  But this is not necessarily the question that is posed by asking "can I reasonably expect success."  Another question is "Can I effectively continue to resist."  In the examples we have used so far, we have examine total war that can only end with the destruction of the enemy.  In these cases, survival of the state is not possible without victory, and even the smallest chance of victory is better that the oppression of the tyrannical foriegn power.   Fighting is an option, because it has a greater chance of success than not fighting.   But lets lower the odds.  Let us look at Great Britain after World War II.   The Brits are perhaps the only Empire in history to return most of its territory to its native people without overwhelming bloodshed.  The British did not fight an all out war in India, Africa, or any of the various places it controlled, because it was pointless to do so.   Eventually, India, with a billion people half a world away, would be independent.  Rather than fight a war, they let it go with very little bloodshed (at least on their own part).   But let us look at this from a Jus ad Bellum perspective: apart from virtually no chance of success, you could have justified an Indian-British War from a British view:  They were a sovereign nation with an opposition force within their territory (Just Cause and Legitimate Authority), with the sole intent on keeping their territory (Right Intentions) through use of a military police force (generally accepted as Proportional).   But would it be justified?  No, because its just a finger in the dyke:  eventually, the situation would have to be resolved and the British would have to give India its own Sovereignty. Remember, Just War Theory is a field of study, not a checklist.   I would say personally that the certainty of success required to justify war is inversely proportional to the level of the crisis.  It kind of like self-defense.  If a mugger wants your wallet, give him your wallet, you're more likely to get out of the situation that way.  If he's on drugs and looks like he's going to kill you, fight, because your odds are better that way.</blockquote>

Verification