I'm curious about causus bellies throughout history. Specifically, ones given by like the Mongols and other hordes.

I'm curious about causus bellies throughout history. Specifically, ones given by like the Mongols and other hordes. Did they even attempt to offer a reason, or was it just outright 'me want me smash?'

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was way cooler back then. Powers could just kill each other when they wanted to and didn't have to come up with some gay reason to do so.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is literally what Russia did.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >M-muh natzees
        >M-muh donbawe people!!!
        Yeah no, they didn't.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They had casus belli you nig nog, they were varying levels of bullshit but they didn't
        >"just invade for the lulz xD get in we're invading ukraine"

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Caucus bellies
    I do want to smash a cute chechnyan girl anon, after it is liberated from russia

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Send spies to enemy nation
    >When they kill your spies use it as justification for war
    A cassus belli nearly always existed to justify war either to the other ruling elites, other nations, or the gods, but in some cases they could be pretty bullshit.
    >How dare you defend yourself Carthage you better destroy your weapons and navy
    >Good now burn down your city and move 15 miles inland
    >You refuse our reasonable demands? This is an act of war

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did big empires like Rome ever bother?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rome consistently only fought civil and defensive wars.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most of Rome’s wars were defensive either genuinely or ostensibly. Either someone attacking them, someone attacking their ally (which most of what people see as “Rome” was up until the 1st century BC), or rebelling against Roman suzerainty.

      >Be allied to country A
      >Country B invades country A
      >Defeat country B
      >Force country B to be ally
      >Country B breaks alliance
      >Conquer country B outright

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah.

      Rome consistently only fought civil and defensive wars.

      Ehh. I guess, according to them anyway. Rome did employ casus belli in going to war, as

      Most of Rome’s wars were defensive either genuinely or ostensibly. Either someone attacking them, someone attacking their ally (which most of what people see as “Rome” was up until the 1st century BC), or rebelling against Roman suzerainty.

      >Be allied to country A
      >Country B invades country A
      >Defeat country B
      >Force country B to be ally
      >Country B breaks alliance
      >Conquer country B outright

      explained. A lot of them were sorta bullshit though, "defensive" in name only, like in the case with Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain. Supposedly it was because they were aiding the Gauls, but even if they were, the real reason was obviously further conquest and tribute.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Everyone did. Whether they made up tldead merchants, border violations or just literal made of shit.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I dont know about later on but in the early days Rome had a convoluted ritual they had to perform to declare war, something like sending a priest to the border to give terms that when refused "justified" the war

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. Romans considered wars without a proper causus belli to be dishonorable and barbarian-like. They always justified came up with a causus belli to justify their wars, no matter how ridiculous it was.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rome is the one particular example of antiquity where they did actually care about the casus belli. Mind you, 9 out of 10 times it was pure bullshit, but they did give a "reason".
      The Romans had a funny thing in which they would make insane demands upon other peoples, outright refuse to negotiate, and if the other nation refused or disrespected the envoys, the Romans would take it as a declaration of war. And to add insult to injury they would claim that they were fighting a defensive war while pillaging and enslaving their enemies.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Thucydides, writing in the ancient world, stated nations go to war for three real reasons: fear, alliances/respect, and interest, but they tend to justify their war either in terms of nationalism or fearmongering. Really not much has changed.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Thucydides
      c.460 – c.400 BC
      Wew lads

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        War. War Never Changes.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The is nothing new under the sun

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >casus belli
    >Mongols
    Hah, good one. Insomuch as there was one at all: "You appear vulnerable" sums it up.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/RXYZVBQ.jpg

      I'm curious about causus bellies throughout history. Specifically, ones given by like the Mongols and other hordes. Did they even attempt to offer a reason, or was it just outright 'me want me smash?'

      Mongol casus belli were pure bullshit
      Even if you surrendered they still genocided your entire city just because "why not LMAO"

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why did you kill my spies- I mean merchants? Now I’m going to genocide your people which I definitely didn’t plan from the start

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Eh, they had a pretty solid one against the Persians. Totally valid and they didn't want to go to war with Persia but some dumbfuck killed and mutilated their ambassadors during a trade negotiation that would have benefited both

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The last Shah of Persia famously refused an offer of peaceful annexation from the Mongols by having the head of the mongol envoy sent back to Khan with the notice of refusal in its mouth

          Bullshit story
          Temujin would have invaded even if they agreed

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but we said it was a good causus belli. Causus belli aren't for the enemy they are to garner internal support and dissuade third party interference

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      Mongol casus belli were pure bullshit
      Even if you surrendered they still genocided your entire city just because "why not LMAO"

      >Mongols send an envoy telling you to pay up, bitch
      >Kill said envoy, flip off upstart horsefucking savages
      >Ya dun goofed.jpg
      >Khwarazmia? More like Kh-where'smyhead

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nice anon

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >casus belli
    generally doesnt appear until you have at least a vestige of civilization, so no, the Mongols just came and did, because fuck you.
    Also, Circassian women were renowned as sex slaves throughout the known world, so that was one major reason they conquered Ukraine

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Except he absolutely did.
      >Send spies disguised as merchants
      >If they kill the spies use it as justification for war
      >If they don’t have the spies instigate a reason for war

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        one of the hordes used to nail a proclamition to a towns walls that said
        >let us in to take all your shit and your women
        >or we murder you all, do it anyway, and burn all your shit to the ground.
        not exactly sporting, was it?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Circassians lived in the Northwest Caucasus, not Ukraine.
      And the largest displacement of Circassians happened in the 1800s as a result of the Russian Empire's invasion and genocide.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    According the Mandate of Heaven theory of legitimacy, I have the right to try and overthrow you and if I'm successful it retroactively justifies my actions.

    “I am the flail of god. Had you not created great sins, god would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.” -Genghis Khan

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Casus Belli? What's that?

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    One of the first conquests Genghis Khan did after unifying the Mongols was at the request of Uyghur Muslims to overthrow a local Nestorian Christian king. Shit like this is still used today with countries claiming they are only invading at a local faction or population's request to liberate them. And famously he only invaded Khwarezmia because of his envoys being executed. Fake casus belli is still casus belli, most people make shit up to go to war like Saddam's WMDs or Rome always claiming their conquests were defensive.

    You are getting retarded answers because you are a retarded gay yourself and asking this on PrepHole instead of PrepHole

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The last Shah of Persia famously refused an offer of peaceful annexation from the Mongols by having the head of the mongol envoy sent back to Khan with the notice of refusal in its mouth

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lord Tengri asked the serene Genghis to concur all the world to spread their religion. Genghis proclaimed that all the people in tents (nomads) were under his dominion. The mongols brutally killed any steppe person that didn't consider themselves to be under the rule of Gengihs, even if they weren't aware of the Khan's proclamation. Mongols and other steppe people consider people living in cities (civilizations) to be buck broken people they often compared to cattle. Do you need to have a causus belli to invade cattle? Topkek.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      conquer*

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A typical tactic for the big empires once casus belli dried up is:

    >tell everyone around you they’re under your jurisdiction and must pay up because you’re their rightful king
    >extort as much as you can get
    >if they seem to be even a minor threat, double their fine
    >if they don’t pay, escalate demands even more and so on
    >when they inevitably refuse eventually, go to war

    This is surprisingly easy to justify donestically (“we protect them for the barbarians and they just won’t pay their fair share”)

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >expecting any of the retarded cum-guzzling gays here to give you an answer that isn't pulled straight from their gaping asshole

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reading history I'm acutely aware of revisionism, and machtpolitik.

    By the time war actually happens the relationship must have already deteriorated over years of not decades.

    After a war, the "reason" is chosen for political convenience, bearing more relevance to the present then to the past.

    To me at least it seems there's only a clear "reason" when nations are small and power is concentrated

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Broadly speaking I can break caucus belli down into categories.

    A. A hegemonic power forces a hedgmon to accept a deal; immediately accuses them of breaking it.
    Often marriage is involved, but farcical repayments, or a theft is manufactured.

    B. A false flag
    Where one power attacks themselves to cause outrage and justify attacking a neutral country.
    Typically a neutral country will refuse all diplomatic engagement, so they will be accused of harboring terrorists, thieves etc.
    Helen of troy for instance wasn't actually in troy.

    C. A general revolt
    A occupied country manufacturers a series of exaggerated misdeeds and revolts against the occupier.

    So for instance 9/11 was the caucuss belli for invading Iraq, even though Iraq literally had nothing to do with it, Osama probably had nothing to do with it, and Osama had little to do with Iraq.

    In Ukraine and Georgia/ Russia shelling of border towns was the caucuss belli, though nobody can really work out who shelled who.

    In China there are islands that are contested despite having no strategic significance, it's just a premise for patrolling warships onto other countries waters

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hey nice shitty wall you got there chong
    >put up the white tent
    >surrender now and we let you tards live in exchange for tribute and a few thousand slave soldiers to join us
    >next day, put up the red tent
    >every male in the city is dead. Should have really surrendered by now fuccos
    >black tent goes up
    >Skull mountains
    It worked pretty well against China, once they realised the Mongols could be paid off, combined with the fear, word of the tent system spread pretty fast and helped speed up the conquest as some cities just opened their gates and surrendered.

    Of course there is a tent beyond that and its resolved for arabs that slaughter diplomats bearing gifts in the name of free trade, and that tent is found in your pants.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Only a pure, uncontested strongman culture doesn’t need to have a cassus belli.
    It’s basically just down to the whims of the biggest orc at that point.

    For any government type with a middle or oligarchic class, even the most despotic governments need to give a cassus belli to their internal clients.

    In Russia for example the publicly stated reason for Ukraine is Muh Nazis or whatever.
    But for the oligarchs Putin probably sat down and said “Ok boys, we’re going to get this much more revenue or whatever after the war. See you in Kiev in two weeks”
    He only has to answer to his cabal so the public excuse can be as flimsy as it needs to be.
    Of course that’s assuming everything goes to plan, but it is a cassus belli, for his clients at least.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bump

Your email address will not be published.