| |
This section added
July 2024
|
|
The history most of us are taught in schools informs us of many of the 'great' people of the past. But as it is conventionally taught it tells us little or nothing about the terrible death and destruction brought about by some of these 'great' people (the worst were invariably men).
I'll just mention a few. They are examples, I'm not implying that they were the worst.
Anyone who studied history would have learned of Alexander's great conquests. The 'great' Alexander looted and
burned the capital of the Persian empire, Persepolis, to the ground,
"destroying hundreds of years' worth of religious writings and art along with the magnificent palaces and audience halls which had made Persepolis the jewel of the empire."
Alexander is credited with spreading Greek culture and civilisation widely, but how many thousand innocent people were killed, how much destruction did he leave behind him, and how much of the indigenous culture was lost due in his 'glorious' conquests? We will probably never know.
He may have murdered his father, Philip of Macedonia, because he was too impatient for Philip to die and leave the kingdom to him. Philip had conquered most of Classical Greece during his reign.
Was Alexander a man we should admire, or a man we should despise?
One of William Shakespeare's best known plays was centred on Henry V's 'glorious' victories in France, including the
battle of Agincourt in 1415.
Shakespeare didn't mention the many English soldiers who died of disease before Agincourt, nor did he mention the devastation that would have taken place as the armies moved across France living off what they could take from the peasant farmers.
Henry V's aim, apparently, was to take back lands in France that he believed were rightfully the property of whoever was king in England, he apparently didn't care a lot about who had to suffer in order for him to 'regain his rightful inheritance'.
The English dominance lasted a whole 14 years until they were defeated in 1429 during the Siege of Orleans. Henry V had died in 1422.
What did the English people gain in the short term? Probably nothing. What did they gain in the long term? Certainly nothing. What did the French people suffer during the war? Many would have lost crops and food reserves, they probably suffered famine, starvation and nobody knows how man women would have been raped (probably by soldiers of both armies). A great number of soldiers died on both sides from disease and injuries. The common people of both England and France would have suffered from the taxes that would have been raised to pay for the campaigns. All for one man wanting to take power from another, who was equally determined to hold only power.
According to the
Wikipedia article on the Napoleonic Wars Casualties: "While military deaths are invariably put at between 2.5 million and 3.5 million, civilian death tolls vary from 750,000 to 3 million."
These happened in the twelve years from 1803 50 1815. So what was achieved by the slaughter? Fame and glory in France for Napoleon himself over that period, or at least the earlier part of the period. Following the disastrous invasion of Russia in 1812, in which 70,000 French soldiers died in a period of only about six months, Napoleon's reputation must have suffered. The total number of dead from Napoleon's invasion of Russia has been estimated at 334,000, the great majority of the would have been Russian civilians.
The destruction of towns, cities, farms, livestock and food reserves must have been colossal; it is inestimable.
What was achieved through all the death and destruction? Very little it seems.
To the British Wellington was, together with Nelson, one of the great heroes of the Napoleonic wars. Wellington won. Winning excuses many crimes.
In the Peninsula War (fought in the Iberian Peninsula: Spain and Portugal) Wellington got his troops to lay waste to the farms and crops of the Portuguese people with the aim of staving the French army. How many innocent Portuguese civilians also starved? Civilians are largely the forgotten of history; pawns who had to be sacrificed for the sake of winning the war.
Of course there were enormous numbers of other innocent victims of Wellington's campaigns, the Portuguese were not the only ones.
It could be argued with some justification that Napoleon was to blame for all this, but I'm sure that Wellington could have given more consideration to the Portuguese civilian population.
Had he won the Second World War, and started his Third Reich, which he intended would last for generations, would he have come to be thought of as one of history's 'greats'? But he lost the war and became one of histories great villains.
Was Hitler responsible for more deaths than Napoleon? He certainly was, and he was responsible for intentional genocide. I'm not disputing the fact that he is one of the abominations of history, but is he so much worse that several others?
How many would be conquerers were there in the past who were responsible for a great many deaths but failed in their ambitions and have been largely forgotten?
