War: What Is It Good For?

In the Legacy of Ancient Hellas

War has been with us since we have been what we are, the human species. In fact insects, fish, reptiles, birds and mammals confront one another within their own species and outside of their realms. Conflict is tied to living, it is connected to life on the planet. We endeavor to praise and recreate the harmony of nature, the balance of the elements and the bliss of a joyful and pleasant existence, and our human spiritual institutions have made this sense of bliss central to their construction, the base and foundation of their raison d'etre. We can safely say that humanity has tried very hard throughout history and is still trying to create a life free from negativity and violence, hate and bigotry, a constant thrust to remake the world a better place for all. There is nothing wrong in this, not at all. In fact, it is expected of all of us that we do our part, whatever we can, to achieve the next step in bringing forth the notion of utopia, that someday Camelot which spiritual teachers, philosophers and dreamers have all envisioned and left for us to ponder in books, scriptures, mythologies and teachings. These moral values and ethics are what many believe separate us from the denizens of the animal world, for whom we know many might be compared to when their instincts are allowed to take hold and produce those wars and holocausts that have plagued humanity since we could remember.

A number of cultures such as the Native American and many African cultures see the world and the cosmos as connected. Thus, humanity and the animal and organic world are one entity, without the separation or demarkation that features in other cultures and faith teachings, such as the Abrahamic faiths and Zoroastrianism. Buddhism and Hinduism, like the religion of the Maya, pretty much teach and stress the connection of all beings and creatures as basic. Humanity lives alongside other life forms rather than rules over them, even though it is obvious that it is Man who has the last say regarding that relationship. An interesting observation between the monotheistic civilizations and the non western systems is in the manner in which these cultures view the world and the cosmos, and in how they see and define time. One common denominator in all cultures and civilizations is the acknowledgement that time cannot be defeated, but rather that all will be defeated or at least must submit to the will of time. It is what we do with the time we have and how we understand the world which differentiates the different cultures and their philosophical thought patterns and sets of values.

Ancient Greek civilization produced a plethora of thinkers and theorists, some agreeing with each other while some stood in vehemently opposition. This was a civilization based on the culture of the mind and logic, which grew out of a chaotic prehistoric past that saw ice ages, migrations and the harshness of survival first hand. When high civilization arose in the Aegean, collective memory blended with the Mediterranean civilizations which were already there to produce what was the most unique civilization of the ancient world. Unlike the religious based god cultures to the east and south of the Aegean, religion was seen as a stepping stone, tool for those who might need it, rather than be at the center of Hellenic civilization. With such a view as this, where logic and reason were at the helm of the mindset, it is no wonder that Greek civilization like the Western civilization which it inspired, reacted as they did on a very human level. Man was at the center of the cosmos, and it was Man who did what he had to do to make things right. The gods could not be trusted, nor could they be depended upon for anything. If you want something done right, do it yourself. If you feel the need to alter your lifestyle or the thoughts of your fellows, or change society then you need speak up and do so, or do so by force if necessary. Sacrifices and offerings were enacted and the gods contemplated but at the end of the day, Hellenic civilization was the most human oriented one ever. I do this because I think this must be done, and I will do it, for my own ego or for the betterment of all. The West has not changed from this and still holds this attitude in it's dealings with the world or with it's own populations. Western conquest has had and still holds the notion that the conquest will be for the betterment of all, and the conquests can be studied and seen in that light for sure. This is why all the campaigns were not called imperialism or colonialism by the conquerors, because their endeavors were seen, in fact they are still seen, as beneficial to everyone, conqueror and conquered alike. This comes not from a sense of the divine or the otherworldly, but from logic and reason on a very personal, human level. It is a sort of codified and compiled ideology all it's own, and it is a legacy from the ancient Greeks.

Hellas was never a unified nation. The various city states; Athens, Corinth, Sparta, Ithaca, all prized their independence and uniqueness. They could come together for the moment to unite against a common invader, such as when the Persian empire invaded a number of times, and in that unity were actually effective in defeating the invaders. But the common feature of life in ancient Hellas was that of city states almost constantly at war with one another. In these city states, there was no standing army but it was the duty of the citizens to rally when the call to arms came about. There were trained generals, special soldiers and hoplites who gained a reputation in leading the citizen army, as their experience was needed at the helm. But every citizen was expected to fight for his city, regardless. This is one reason why Greek society placed such importance on health and fitness, on the importance of the games and competitions. Common people were reminded everywhere they turned that a muscular and toned figure were a desired feature and a keynote of that society. In this way the various states could be ever ready for the almost certain, eventual competition that might develop over the disagreement of the ownership of a plot of land or gaining the tribute of some colony or outpost that was of benefit for the survival of the city state. With such poor, rocky soil ancient Greek city states had to figure out how to feed themselves, and continue to procure food for their ever growing populations. Mothers had to keep producing children, preferably boys, because war was so common that any drop in population meant that there were less men to fight for the state, and the final destruction of a city state meant wholesale massacre for the population and slavery for the women and children. Behind this brilliant and unique civilization of the mind was the ever present fear of being extinguished, forever. Was it this mindset of insecurity that produced all the greatness, the science and the thinkers and the varied means of expression that was Greek art, theater and poetry? Was it fear that stimulated the modes by which people would guide their lives and set their moral values for centuries? Cultures and civilizations are influenced by their geography and their experience with all that was around them. What ever we may think or believe, the great ancient civilization of Hellas, while glorious and colorful like the later Renaissance of medieval Italy, was marked with bloodshed and nearly continuous warfare. In fact, just as the Greeks in their exact demeanor would uphold as a fact their findings regarding science, mathematics, ethnicity, race or the belief or non belief in divinity, they all seemed to agree that war was a constant in the life of mankind. As long as anthropos would live in groups or tribes in close proximity to another group or tribe, and the two were forced by necessity to compete for farming and grazing land or natural resources there would be the potential for conflict and most certainly, there would eventually be a conflict. This was an accepted fact of life. To fight for survival was considered honorable and an important necessity for which every citizen played a part and had their role. The ancient Greek city states fought each other for control of Sicilian agriculture just as the United States and Japan went to war when their interests in the Pacific region collided. When two parties have their eye on a prize, they fight. 

If we study history of any civilization or nation either of the past or present, we see that they were right. Historian Will Durant states in his work The Lessons of History that whenever two nations had to compete for resources, land or economic gain, those two nations went to war. He writes 'in the past 3,241 years of recorded history only 268 have seen no war'. In our own day we see nations great and small competing for the same entities as was seen in the past, for economic gain and all for the glory of making nations great again. All the pacifist activism and the grass roots movements that sought to unite people across the globe in the hope that they would sit down together in one common kumbaya, feel good campfire have not diminished the desire for nations to go to war, and do so willingly and readily. Indeed, war seems to be a natural state of man's being and existence, though we may all wish to think otherwise and are ever ready to deny this in fiery debate at the drop of a hat. We fight and we love to fight, and create all sorts of reasons why we need to fight and why we need to defend our fighting. Pacifist though we may be, we study martial arts as a means to self realization, discipline and health, yet want to forget why these arts developed in the first place. If it weren't due to the notion of an enemy, then for what were martial arts developed? 

Again I am forced to acknowledge the brilliant exactness and honesty of the ancient Greeks. War is hell but without hell heaven, though temporal in our lives, would not exist. How many beneficial inventions came about due to war? What kinds of discipline developed and encouraged nations afterwards in history studying earlier conflicts in which smaller armies overcame the greatest of odds against them? Thucydides claimed that war has more to do with economics than it does with bravery or the tradition of arms. He thought it to be a duty to stand up and fight for freedom from oppression. Observing the duality of the meaning of war Thucydides "believed nobody is driven to war by ignorance, while no one thinks he will gain anything from it is deterred by fear". Humans make war and find reasons for it, and engage in it, most willingly. In defending honor, freedom and glory, one thinks of the Spartans and their allies at Thermopylae, fighting a duel to the death for what they considered a sacred duty to uphold individual freedom in the face of an advancing empire. We all acknowledge the reality of our surroundings and the state of our being, and we react accordingly. When we are thirsty we seek something to drink, when we are hungry we search for food, when we are tired we rest and when we feel the need for shelter, provisions or comfort we set out to work so as to attain that which we need. When we are threatened we react to the threat as a means to survive, and we do not hesitate. In this we remain uncomfortable, as such a reaction is undesirable and somewhat unpleasant, but we react anyway because we know we have to. Like the rabbit is ever watchful for the wolf who wishes to kill and  consume it, we human beings are survivalists despite our created humanistic philosophies and the ideologies of brotherhood and love we have been nurtured with in our youth by those who wish humanity could do better than what we have evidenced. Our higher callings however, have not defended or protected us from those with lower, darker intentions. 

Ancient Greek warfare was a group effort with an emphasis on uniting in squared off ranks in which every hoplite was responsible for the other. One's shield could protect one's self, or was there to protect the companion on one's side. Armored and arranged in close ranks, the group could lock shields and literally present a wall to the enemy, with spears and swords protruding. To break ranks meant that the formation would fall apart rendering the individual hoplites vulnerable to being surrounded and cut to pieces. Each hoplite, armed with body armor such as a breastplate and helmet, with leg guards protecting the shins, the mid section of the body protected by the large circular shield known as the hoplon or aspis, standing next to his comrade presented a nearly invincible entity, together in a group a literal killing machine. The stories and tales from such epics as the Iliad describe the sound and fury of such hand to hand battles; the clashing of weapons and spears, the thuds of axes and hammers striking the shields of their opponents, the hiss of a sword streaking across a breastplate or helmet, the screams of those struck down in an instant and the moans of the wounded who lie in heaps surrounded by carnage, all testify that war was taken very seriously among these ancients. It was an experience that was considered necessary, a kill or be killed event upon which the survival of the state depended. Though considered totally harsh and unpleasant, as defined by some ancient philosophers war was as common and natural as relieving one's self, an occurrence that was a mandatory and natural part of the human existence. Even Socrates, one of the most famous and well known of the ancient Greek thinkers and founder of what we call western philosophy, was not totally turned off by war but saw in it benefits for character and morality. Born around 470 BC, in fact he was an active soldier in his younger days and continued fighting well into his later years. His views of life were certainly influenced by what he saw and experienced on the field of battle. In one of the court hearings later in life that sought to undo him, when asked if he would flee philosophy he replied that this would like asking the soldier to flee the battlefield. Though unpleasantness abounds, retreat is never a choice or a consideration. Perhaps the practice of warfare in his day is what inspired individuals to engage in debate and critical thinking. According to Socrates, the first to be frustrated by his opponent's argument and use foul language and throw insults in the course of a debate was considered the loser of that discussion. If in ancient Greek warfare there was no room for human dignity, at least at the forum of ideas there should be. But not eternally, as history has shown us time and again. 

We prefer to think that we are different today, that we are more merciful and compassionate in our war mongering. Certainly, the civilized world has come a long way from those ancient days of lacking empathy which gave rise to wholesale slaughter. Yet we still make war and are ready to do what we must to attain our goals, backing the endeavor up with the blessing of the gods and fr the purpose of making things better for all. We may be deceiving ourselves, lying to ourselves, pretending to be deaf to the notion that we are carrying on a many thousand year old tradition. However, we are still at it and probably always will be at it. The writer H.G. Wells in his War of the Worlds replayed the invasion of ancient Greece by the Persian empire, when the Greek city states were forced to unite together for the common good asnd to defend their culture. The nations of the Well's Earth, after making war with each other for centuries indeed millennia, were forced to unite as one to confront the greater threat from outer space. Greek discipline and their experience in warfare with each other defeated the Persian invaders. In Well's story, the technology of the human armies are primitive in comparison to the invaders from space. Ironically, it is the common cold, something the Martians lacked immunity, which defeated the invaders and saved the earth from complete annihilation. This is a nod to both science and somewhat to spiritual influence. In place of immunity to germs, the ancient Greeks saw the common cold that defeated their invading enemies in their swords and spears, and in the will of a people who prized individual liberty above all else. To them their culture, their way of life and their ever readiness to make war when they were called upon gave them victory over greater odds.

The modern world, dominated by the influence of western thought and methods spread by colonialism and technology, lives in the legacy of the ancient Greeks, utilizing those same beliefs and values to make our planet "safe for democracy" or to "bring those nations into the fold of freedom". It was Alexander the Great of Macedon who sought to spread Hellenic civilization for the betterment of the world, as it were. We have to ask the question if this can be maintained, or for that matter should it be maintained? The notion that one section of the world knows better and therefore normal for it to impose their civilization on others is an old question indeed.  Imperial powers from Rome to Great Britain used Alexander's approach in their conquests. The Umayyad Arab caliphate sought to liberate nations living under what they considered Byzantine, Persian, Indian or African tyranny. The United States acquired territories based on the concept of Manifest Destiny, wiping out native populations and importing slaves from Africa to boost an economy so as to compete with the markets of other nations. As in all human endeavors which give rise to great nations, the powerful empire succeeds beyond it's wildest dreams while others suffer or benefit under their rule. There is something in the foundation of that state which is progressive, and a nation's greatness lies in how progressive those values and ethics are and whether they can be applied to everyone, even to those who were segregated and discriminated. The population of ancient Athens were nearly 60% slaves, with no hope of them ever attaining equality. Perhaps the idea of the individual being the center of the universe eventually developed into those rights and guarantees enshrined in the American Constitution which would one day be applied to those who were denied these rights originally. Such is the saga of history and the growth of nations, a see-saw sweep of time and events that is two steps forward and one step back, infinitely. We seem to move slowly at a turtle's pace, much like a slow moving Macedonian phalanx bristling with sarissa spears across the field of time. As long as the phalanx holds together, nothing can stand up to it. However, one breach into the giant square and the whole thing falls apart. This is the story of the ancient Greek city states, and this holds true for our power nations of today who are in their debt and bear their legacy.

What will happen when nations will adopt other methods of governing and thinking patterns remain to be seen, but for now ancient Hellas is still alive and well in the mindsets of modern cultures who boast that the freedom of the individual as being central to the universe is the most important element in all the cosmos. How long will this pattern last? Jason, when leading his Argonauts in the search for the golden fleece said that men will forget the gods when they no longer depend on them, and the gods will simply disappear. Will humanity one day feel that they no longer need individual freedom and thus, abandon it? Socrates, who believed in the power of civil debate and argument, was in his old age accused of being unpatriotic. He pointed out that he fought in most of the wars that his state called him to, and it was that state he was proud of which allowed free thought and open debate. Rather than live in a state that would too easily welcome tyranny, he drank hemlock and died. He was more than willing to give his life for his community in battle, and in old age he gave his life for the great ideal, the right of the individual, that set ancient Greece apart from all other civilizations.

War will continue, if we were to ask the ancient Hellenes who both thought war natural and also created anti war plays and wrote extensively about the horrors of war and the barbarity of it all. Almost all nations on Earth have known war, and all denounce it as humanity's greatest wrong. We are now in the 21st century and we are still making war, profiting from war, crying for the fallen and staring in amazement at the destruction wrought by conflict. The League of Nations, the United Nations and various nation summits  created for the purpose of peace have done nothing to stop war.
War crime tribunals have not out an end to horrible massacres and inhuman acts of violence perpetrated against fellow human beings. Once again the ancient Greeks were - and I write this sadly...right on the money in the assumption and analysis, as it seems that war is here to stay, a seemingly natural and accepted condition of humanity, however much we prefer to think it otherwise. I wish somebody could prove those ancients sages wrong.