Have there ever been any actual religious wars? I'm not talking about thinly veiled "religious wars" where a king just wants more land/power/status so he claims that the opposing side are evil because of their religion. I mean wars that were started solely because of a difference in faith.
Pls no religious fighting. This isn't a theology thread. I am just genuinely interested in this because from what "religious wars" I've read about, religion was usually just used as an excuse or tool to gain mass support to conquer another nation instead of as an actual reason to start conflict.
You are trying to create a false dialectic where there isn't one. They go hand in hand together. Anyway, the First Crusade is a good example. It was essentially a suicide mission which left the vast majority of its participants financially ruined. There was absolutely no "rational" point to it besides trying to go to heaven by battling the Muslims.
/thread
I'd argue most war is "religious" in nature. The only reason a rational materialist would take such a risk is if there was, say, a 90% chance of surviving and earning more than you would in 20 years from loot, pay and land or if their survival was at stake and they die anyway if they lose. They might be slave soldiers or levies who fear punishment or they might have been misled about what they were getting into, but soldiers like this are not very effective, they will only hold the enemy at bay and flee or desert at the first opportunity. A certain level of delusion and superstition is essential for morale.
In the republic, bureaucrats are in power and the military are their b***hes. And the army controlled by the bureaucrats is just pathetic. A society of Militaries controlled by militaries is already not that great, but a society where militaries are controlled by bureaucrats is just ridiculous.
This is why France, and in fact any atheist country since the atheist revolutions centuries ago, have all lost their wars. The most recent illustrations is Mali for France and Afghanistan for the US, and Ukraine for Russia.
With republicans, the society is based on commerce, not the wars. So the army is here to have opaque commercial spendings worth billions every year, and the actual physical conflict really doesnt matter. Its output even less. If anything the physical conflict is just here for public posturing, which atheists love so much, since they have no objective morality.
Also, bureaucrats are fricking worthless at running a republic, at running their own bureaucracy, and they suck even more at taking military decisions during a conflict.
It is a curse. Rationalism opens up so much but it also turns people into worthless grubhub NPCs. We really need to hurry up and achieve the übermensch state before it destroys us.
I would disagree with a few points though. The military is a form of bureaucracy, even when it was driven by the personal charisma of Kings and their heroic knights it could be reduced to a bureaucratic format. Although the bureaucrats sought glory, this had to be factored in, like an equation, to make sure every Duke and Earl had an opportunity to fight in the vanguard or command his own unit. It is unavoidable, especially in the modern era where warfare now involves the production and design of weapons and their proper application, war is fought by industrialists and merchants as much as brave commandos.
What system can solve this problem, I do not know. Maybe fill Northrop Grumman with veterans and patriots.
only one's i can think of are recent, not really historical but even then its iffy. i'd argue the Rashidun Caliphate's first tribal wars to consolidate power in Arabia were genuine religious wars.
This too. People too often think leaders in the past were le Nietzschean 50-d chess masters who were immune to the religions or superstitions of their subjects. While I don't like Islam, I have zero doubt in the sincerity of the early Muslims in what they believed to be the true religion.
>religion was usually just used as an excuse or tool to gain mass support to conquer another nation instead of as an actual reason to start conflict.
this is an absolute brainlet talking point because you assume that people back then were just as cynical and pragmatic as people are in todays affluent western society.
but medieval rulers in particular were on average much more spiritual and religious. even kings who where considered heretics and renegades by their contemporaries build huge churches and financed monasteries, because they had the very real fear that they and their ancestors could go to hell
Frolo from Hunchback of Notre Dame is an unironically accurate depiction of this
Well Almoravid dynasty started as some followers of the really religious dude on the edge of the world. I don't think they really cared about stuff like land and power initially.
Can’t get more religious than the Munster uprising
i don't think so at all
> I'm not talking about thinly veiled "religious wars" where a king just wants more land/power/status so he claims that the opposing side are evil because of their religion.
Talking to you is pointless because you are dismissive of medieval beliefs from the get go. Crusades were about religion and now land and power for most people and more crusades.
>This isn't a theology Thread
Well you shouldn't study medieval history if that's your take. You will NEVER understand medieval people without being open to religious discussion.
The First Crusade
The Religious military orders were very dedicated to their religion and did what they did because of it. The Hospitallers, Templars, Teutonic Order, and other ones, like that in Spain, genuinely believed in their convictions and loved conventual lives in monasteries. They would end up getting used by kings and others for personal gain, like civil wars in Castillo and Outremer, but then they’d turn and fight the Muslims because of their faith. The Hospitallers at Rhodes is the best example because they were mostly independent of any secular powers. They would just roll around the Med sea and frick up muslims whenever just because they weren’t Christian. The Teutons also fought in a similar vain as they weren’t under a secular King.
Yes. The "English" civil war was started by a Scottish army invading England with the only goals of establishing Presbyterianism across all of Britain.
The battle of Bagai in 347. The Western Emperor sent a legate named Macarius to convert the Donatists, by force in necessary, resulting in a battle due to their refusal to join with Rome despite monetary incentives.
Another instance of a purely religious war is the Albigensian Crusade. This was initiated by the Papal states against the County of Toulouse, then an independent realm that was harboring several different religious beliefs that were contrary to that of Rome. Raymond VI refused to agree to persecute people for their religious beliefs, so the external invasion was started. This war resulted in the establishment of the medieval Inquisition in southern France, while non-Romanists continued to meet in underground churches.
The little-known 1487-89 war by Rome and France against the Waldensians (aka Vaudois) in the Alpine provinces could be considered a purely religious crusade. They ended up losing the battle as the terrain was too unfavorable for the invaders. There is a French-language article with no English equivalent on it here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croisade_contre_les_vaudois_de_1488
You could argue the English Civil War was a religious war, although it had some purely political undertones to it also that might have prevented the war from breaking out.
>English Civil
>English
They are rare and historians do consider the crusades (at least first to third) as one of the rare instances of an actual religious war. Mostly because many who participated went broke and they didn’t have much to gain from it.
yep satan vs god and satan won
1st crusade
the viking king had turned christian. he had many sons
his second son joined the first crusade
some of his men literally carved crucifixes on their foreheads
they raided israelites and muslims on the way to jerusalem, they took treasures and slaves.
they had so much loot they had to tie it to their mast and yardarms. their ships sparkled in the sun
but this is the most terrifying thing in history, viking religious fanatics
>the viking king had turned christian. he had many sons
>his second son joined the first crusade
there is no norse king who could have turned christian and have his second son join the first crusade. its chronological impossible.