Already a member?
Sign in
Location: The Argument Against Raiding
Discussion: A historical arguement for Raiding
Watch
 byates |
A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 6 2008, 2:35 PM EDT if you look at history, the successful raiders were not just raiders, they were also traders, explorers, and mercenaries. They would much rather bargain than fight, less expensive in time and material. But, they were well enough trained and armed to fight off those that tried to take what they had. During the middle ages many small villages and towns hired raiders to protect them from other raiders, each group could concentrate on what it did best and rely on the others to provide what they could not provide their self. Research the Vikings, Pirates, and Landsknechts. Operation like a private defense agency or band of mercenaries would probably be successful. 6 out of 10 found this valuable. Do you? |
 ~Jack~ |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 6 2008, 3:15 PM EDT but... that doesn't really tell us much of anything... It just proves that attacking defenseless people or farmers isn't the way to go. Defending them from those who do is better. Also, there will be a time where people will simply fortify their homes, train themselves to fight, and annihilate any raider that comes for a visit, period. Raiders are a temporary solution, and they always tend to get wiped out in the end. Viking raiders: Were destroyed when the rest of Europe made larger, more powerful ships. Pirates: Pirates are not always going to have cities to plunder, and defenseless towns and villages will not always be defenseless. they never have a graceful end to them. Overall, raiding is a temporary. it may be successful for a few generations, but someone out there will resist raiders and fight back for themselves. that puts both the raiders and the raider-defenders out of business. And that brings us to the issue of raiding vs. trading... Raiding usually means that someone is making a living by taking other people's property by force in raids. Trading is different. two parties trade for goods they want. unless things go sour, no one is attacking anyone else. 13 out of 13 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Kaikelx Kaikelx |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 6 2008, 7:26 PM EDT This isn't an argument for raiding, this is and argument for being a PDF or a mercenary corp. 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
byates |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 6 2008, 11:22 PM EDT "Overall, raiding is a temporary. it may be successful for a few generations, but someone out there will resist raiders and fight back for themselves. that puts both the raiders and the raider-defenders out of business.I will yield to ~Jack~ on this, after all what use is a lifestyle if you have to adapt to changing conditions after a century or two, that would be four to eight generations. Look at what the Europeans raiding the America's resulted in, not a European left, the natives resisted and drove them back into the sea. The age of the Vikings only lasted from 790 to 1066, not even 300 years. Look at the history of piracy, it is only making a few billion dollars a year world-wide. Of course that is only reported piracy, but it is estimated that between 10% and 50% of all piracy is reported. If you look at this map http://www.icc-ccs.org/extra/display.php you will see that there has not been a reported pirate attack this year since July. Of course trading is different from raiding, a trader would never raid, unless they could turn a profit. Do you find this valuable? |
|
~Jack~ |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 9:21 AM EDT Piracy happens in under-developed nations with poor security. (where there is no active military presence) The Classic European Pirates have died out, why? they can no longer attack port cities or other ships without getting themselves blown out of the water. Overall, raiders are living in an ever-decreasing space. The more raiding they do, the smaller the space they have gets. eventually, they can't raid no more and have to find some place else to go. :) 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
byates |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 11:14 AM EDT "Overall, raiders are living in an ever-decreasing space. The more raiding they do, the smaller the space they have gets. eventually, they can't raid no more and have to find some place else to go.~Jack~, I said I yield the argument to you. After all for raiding and piracy to increase there would have to be a breakdown in civilization of some sort. Does anyone on this forum believe that such a thing is possible? Does anyone even speculate about a breakdown? Do you find this valuable? |
|
~Jack~ |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 11:48 AM EDT after a break down, there will always be a build up. :P Do you find this valuable? |
|
byates |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 12:53 PM EDT "after a break down, there will always be a build up. :P"Right, I am totally in agreement with you. After a few generations there will be no raiders of any sort. Do you live in a civilized area? If so think back to the last time someone raided an organization, say a store or bank, or even an individual. I agree with those that say those things only happen when society breaks down. In the civilized parts of the world people have armed their selves against the raiders. But, in the less civilized parts, the ones ruled by robber barons that are little more than raiders their selves, the people are unarmed and must depend on "protection agencies" that dictate the fees that the people will pay for protection and if they don't pay armed thugs will come and take their property. Do you find this valuable? |
 Andering_J_REDDSON |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 12:57 PM EDT "Does anyone on this forum believe that such a thing is possible? Does anyone even speculate about a breakdown? "Yes. Even (*gasp*) in the United States. Do you find this valuable? |
 13th.Casualty |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 1:13 PM EDT Wait, you're saying raids against other camps? That's just wrong. Whenever someone says 'raiding' on this site, I always assume raiding Wal-Marts and stuff. Do you find this valuable? |
|
byates |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 2:03 PM EDT "Wait, you're saying raids against other camps? That's just wrong. Whenever someone says 'raiding' on this site, I always assume raiding Wal-Marts and stuff."The way that I have been using it is to take something of value away from someone else. If it is abandoned, I would call that scavenging. Trading would be an exchange without coercion. Do you find this valuable? |
 UnUndead |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 5:21 PM EDT My history is a little bit fuzzy, but didn't a group of Vikings take over Normandy, as well as a large portion of Britain? And did not the Huns raid Byzantium so heavily they were granted a huge portion of that land? Did not barbaric raiders from Germania cause the fall of the western Roman Empire? Byates, by your definition of "raiding" would I be raiding if I forcibly took something that belonged to me? If so, we would have to define ownership. Is ownership defined by what I say is mine, or by whether or not I can stop others from taking or having what I say is mine? Or is it defined by something else? Does might give me the right to take from others? Does might give me the right to define what rights I have? Sorry for wasting your time. Do you find this valuable? |
|
~Jack~ |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 5:31 PM EDT Uh... no... Might does not determine whether or not you have the right to pummel others into the ground and take what they worked so hard to make. Heck, if that were true, the United States of America would have taken over pretty much every country it went to war with. But since it was not the case... Blargh! Anyhow, the Vikings kinda died out. The raiding half of their culture died out. "There is always a bigger fish" And raiders never keep land they took, and those who did, didn't keep them raiding. 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
UnUndead |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 5:54 PM EDT Whether or not might makes right is determined by the definition of right, which is "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral; that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc." according to dictionary.com. Those are only two definitions (separated by the ";"), of course. It would hardly benefit anyone if I were to list them all. Therefore, since there are no moral absolutes, everyone has the right to do anything they see as morally correct. This means pummeling others into the ground and taking what they have worked so hard to make, in some cases. Raiding does not imply a nomadic lifestyle. One could have a permanent base set up and raid outward from it. The Vikings, for example, often raided Europeans and took the loot back to Scandinavia, their permanent dwelling place. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
~Jack~ |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 6:24 PM EDT "Whether or not might makes right is determined by the definition of right, which is "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral; that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc." according to dictionary.com. Those are only two definitions (separated by the ";"), of course. It would hardly benefit anyone if I were to list them all.And who here has morals that say: "Killing other people is good thing." last I checked, that is an oxymoron. if killing is good, then that person has absolutely no problem with people coming in to kill him, giving him no chance to fight back, and in totally destroying everything he has. Last I checked, not even a raider believes in that. You either over-thought this topic, or seriously under-thought it. Either way, even by perspective. What is right is simply what is the right thing to do. Raiders who kill and steal do so fully aware that what they are doing is wrong. But they do it anyways because they want to. "Might makes right" is not. "Might allows you to do what you want" is. Alright? And I don't give a crap what the dictionary says, because it is not law when the context of the definition does not apply. And I am aware that raiding is not a purely nomadic life style. I do my research too. 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
byates |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 7:32 PM EDT "last I checked, that is an oxymoron. if killing is good, then that person has absolutely no problem with people coming in to kill him, giving him no chance to fight back, and in totally destroying everything he has. Last I checked, not even a raider believes in that.Jack, I think that you are underestimating people ability to rationalize. Historically people have been able to rationalize killing and enslaving others by many different means. But, they all boiled down to believing that you were superior to the people you were abusing. Look at how Hamas feels about Jews, ranking them with animals. Raiders tend to believe that might makes right or even further that might is right, they were made mighty by some superior force. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
 Survivor_Gill |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 8:32 PM EDT "all boiled down to believing that you were superior to the people you were abusing."What better evidence of superiority is required than the decimation of an individual by the means of another? Might is Right. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
UnUndead |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 8:35 PM EDT Killing other people can be a good thing. Let's say your sister (if you don't have one, your hypothetical sister) is being attacked by several men. The only way for you to save your sister is killing one or more of the men. Saving your sister is the right thing to do, is it not? Killing is not always good. Killing can, I repeat, can be good. To me, killing to keep my family alive is good. To me, killing me is not good in most situations. If I was about to turn into a mindless zombie and attempt to eat my family, it would be right to kill me. I recognize that others have the right to kill me in some cases, like if I am attacking their family, friends, or selves. As to, "What is right is simply what is the right thing to do," that may be what right is, but what is the right thing to do? Is the right thing what will benefit you or your loved ones the most, or is it what will benefit some random person you have no bond with, but will also hurt you or your loved ones? Raiders who kill and steal do so for various reasons. Some because they are ordered to by those more powerful than them, some for personal gain, some for other reasons, too numerous for me to care to list. Some would argue that what you want is always right to you. However, if what is right to you conflicts with what is right to the rest of your community, it will not be considered right in your community. One's community is often more powerful than one, so in this situation, might does make right. "Alright? And I don't give a crap what the dictionary says, because it is not law when the context of the definition does not apply." Please clear this up for me, as I'm having a tad bit of difficulty interpreting it. Does the context of the definition applying imply that it is law? And what is this "it" of which you type? I'm running out of characters. See you next post! 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Survivor_Gill |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 8:39 PM EDT You people speak as though morality is some kind of objective concept. 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
UnUndead |
RE: A historical arguement for Raiding
Aug 7 2008, 8:42 PM EDT Yes, my reply to your "raiders never kept land they took" was not very good at all. I just noticed that I misinterpreted that bit. I should have just typed in "NORMANDY!" Morality is like beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder. Just as anything can be beautiful, anything can be right, as long as it is considered so by at least one person. Do you find this valuable? |
