- #1
brainstorm
- 568
- 0
Without knowing much specific war history, it seems to be common knowledge that war was often used for imperialist economic purposes in the past. Presumably, the winning army would either kill any surviving opponents and take their land and property or enslave them. My question is whether imperialistic war was usually carried out as a primary strategy for acquiring agricultural resources, including land and/or slaves - or did such war tactics evolve out of situations of need where the aggressor was already agriculturally successful but wanted to expand their territory? Is it possible that certain cultures of dominating farmers violently in order to avoid having to do farming work has always been a strategy of soldiers to get food instead of having to engage in the hard tedious labor of agriculture?