War And The Futility Of Peace Protests

Once again the voices of the morally superior are raised against the military, against war, and in favor of world peace. These well meaning souls don’t seem to have a clue about war, the meaning of war, the impact of stopping a war, the strategic impact of one-sided peace initiatives, or anything beyond their conviction that the world would be peaceful if people just stopped fighting. These are the people who think war is immoral and unnatural because inter-species fighting is immoral. Of course one only has to look at the animal kingdom to determine that inter-species killing and fighting is very prevalent. In virtually every animal species the males fight over females, territory, and resources. In some cases whole packs of animals attack and kill similar packs over territory and resources. Chimpanzees in particular organize war parties and conduct what have all of the earmarks of raids on neighboring groups where killing is the objective. The obvious conclusion is that inter-species killing is commonplace in the animal kingdom but is not viewed as being immoral but simply as the way things are.

The Darwinists believe that man is descended from a common ancestor with apes and is simply another animal. To the Darwinists man is born, reproduces, and dies just like other animals. Man has no purpose, no objective beyond reproduction, and lives a life of futility, but as usual the Darwinists want to have it both ways. On the one hand they know we are just another member of the animal kingdom but being a superior animal we have a concept of morality and of right and wrong whereas animals do not. But if we are an animal like the apes, then why are our wars considered immoral by these people? Clearly the answer must be because we have some inner voice, a consciousness that tells us what is right and wrong. This of course sounds a great deal like a soul, but I digress.

The reality is that World Peace is a dream, much like the Alchemist’s dream of changing base metal into gold. There has never been a time in human history, going back to the Neolithic when man was not engaged in some form of combat. The idea that primitive man lived a life in harmony with nature and at peace with others is simply a dream that these peace advocates have created for themselves but that is all it is – a dream. One only has to look at primitive societies today to see that they engage in warfare that frequently results in fatalities. So the idea that man is by nature peaceful is simply erroneous and those people who mount these peace rallies whose aim is world peace are really indulging in an exercise in futility.

But suppose that these people who are anti-war and anti-military were to gain enough political power that they could put their philosophy of pacifism into practice? Well the history books are filled with examples where various kings and countries have tried to buy off aggressive threats, but it never works – it only delays the inevitable and those that tried to pay tribute always come out the loser. Machiavelli points out that wars cannot be avoided – only delayed. We have examples in our own time. The League of Nations was created as a way of avoiding war, of creating a forum where issues could be talked about and resolved without violence. Well the League did not prevent Mussolini from invading Ethiopia nor did it keep Hitler from invading Austria. The “peace at any price” lobby got control of the British government led by Neville Chamberlain who was so determined to avoid war that he almost singlehandedly brought on the second World War. The United Nations was created for the express purpose of providing a forum for the resolution of conflicts without violence. It was supposed to prevent wars. It has failed and failed miserably. It has not prevented any war, stopped any war, or even come close – it has turned into an ineffectual debating society.

The fact is that war seems to be the natural state of man, but not all men and not all the time. In reality – even in ancient times – only a small portion of the population is engaged in warfare, the majority of the population is law abiding citizens going about their daily lives. Of course these are also those people who are carried off in to slavery, slaughtered by score, and find themselves exploited by the conquerors or even by their own military dictators. So it is only this small portion of the general population – the warrior class – who fight the battles that determine the fate of people, states, nations, or empires. In fact the future of these and the fate of peoples has commonly hinged on one battle, fought by a relatively small number of men, in a small area over a period of hours. These are the battles that yield not just a new order of things but may determine the future of whole civilizations.

It was the battle of Thermopylae that allowed the Athenian city states to organize and fight off the Persians. It was the battle of Waterloo that brought down Napoleon. It was the battle of Hastings that ended the reign of Harold and the Anglo-Saxons and the list goes on and on. Therefore, while the majority of the population may not want war and may not actually fight in a war, their future has always been in the hands of a few warriors. While those who seek peace and protest war may be well intentioned the fact is that war has always existed and it is the warrior who creates and maintains the peace. A nation at peace cannot remain at peace without a strong military defense and any country that disarms is ultimately doomed to destruction and enslavement.

The Battle of Thermopylae

The recent movie “300” is generating a lot of money – mostly from the young male audience world wide – those who read comic books rather than anything resembling a real book. This movie has also gotten the Iranians (Persians) all stirred up because of its portrayal of Persians as some sort of monstrous, androgynous, barbarians. But the real issue here is the impact this sort of movie has overall on history.

This movie purports to show the Battle of Thermopylae which was fought in August 480 BC between the Persians under King Xerxes and the Spartans led by King Leonidas. This was a bloody battle where the Greeks lost a total of approximately 1400 people including all 300 of the Spartans to the Persians suffered losses of approximately 20,000. The Persians heavily outnumbered the Greeks but Leonidas had selected the narrow defile at Thermopylae which was only 50 feet wide as the place of battle. This allowed his Spartans standing shoulder to shoulder to fend off an army of approximately 150,000. On the third day a shepherd showed a secret pass to the Persians allowing them to flank the Spartans. The Spartans continued to fight a rear guard action allowing the Greek Army to escape. The Persians simply stood back and killed the Spartans in a hail of arrows. These are the essential facts of this battle.

My concern is that in reading various versions of this battle I discover that the details of the battle can vary and in some cases dramatically. For example in some versions Leonidas is killed on the first day and a substantial battle rages over his body with the Greeks eventually capturing it. In another version Leonidas is killed on the third day and the remaining Greeks protect his body. This is actually a small point but if Leonidas was killed on the first day then the Spartans fought leaderless for the remaining two days. Again a small point but without Leonidas who made the decision to stay as a rear guard and order the Army to retreat?

In some versions the Greeks built a wall and fought in front of this wall. Of course this was a mountainous defile so where did this wall come from? In one version this wall was built with the bodies of the Persians, which is quite plausible given that the Persians lost a total of 20,000 men. Fighting in front of a wall constructed completely of corpses would certainly have a psychological impact and this is probably the reality. Some maintain that these bodies were buried by Xerxes to avoid having his troops march by thousands of dead troops, but again this was a mountain pass so where could these corpses have been buried? Were they burned?

Then we have the Immortals, the crack troops of the Persian Army and the personal body guard of Xerxes. In the movie these troops are shown with dramatic silver masks – dramatic but not very practical. In some historical versions these troops were indeed masked but with a gauze like material that did not obscure their vision. In earlier versions no reference is made to the Immortals being masked. So which is it? Masked or unmasked? Does it matter?

Then there is the final day and how it was conducted. Xerxes sent 10,000 troops over the pass to outflank the Greeks who are still in the narrow defile and actually number slightly more than a thousand men. While the odds are overwhelming and the outcome foregone, the reality is that the Greeks could still have fought the Persians to a standstill because the terrain was still in their favor even if the numbers were not. However, the final battle was short lived but in one version the Greeks fought the Persians face to face. Their spears were broken, many had no swords and the fighting was hand to hand. This would only have occurred had the Spartan Phalanx broken but how did that happen? Was it because Leonidas was dead and there was no one in command? In another version the Spartans retreated to a hillock and formed up to fight but Xerxes had his archers simply kill them off and there was no face to face battle. This version is less dramatic but would certainly explain why the third day of battle was relatively short.

The movie provides a very distorted view of this battle, which is not surprising since it is based on a comic book. But for many young people this is the only view they will ever see or read about of this battle. If this is the only view they ever have over time it could easily replace the historical facts. The only point here is that it is easy to see how a historical event like the Battle of Thermopylae, which was described shortly after it was fought can be distorted into something quite different from the reality. The story of the battle rests on variable descriptions based on memories, that morph into legends, and ultimately become myth. Of course the movie is simply one of those versions but what of other legends -- how real are they?

We have Jason and the Argonauts which is considered to be a legend, but there is evidence that real gold in collected in sheep hides. This gives credibility to Jason and the Golden Fleece so is the legend of Jason fact or fiction? The Trojan War was considered to be a poem and nothing more until the location of Troy was discovered. So if Troy was a real place was there a Trojan War as described by Homer? Was there an actual Achilles, Hector, Paris, Helen, and the whole roster of people found in the Illiad? What about the almost universal view of Dragons? Did these exist? Were these dragons dinosaurs and are described as Dragons? If so then this means the paleontologists view is wrong and dinosaurs and man co-existed at some point. The world is filled with legends and myths so it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, but based on a historical battle that was documented at the time, it is easy to see how in the course of 2500 years this actual event can fade into legend and then into myth – so what else has this happened to?