Whenever the rise of nations is mentioned in history, the conquests are regarded as symbols of bravery and greatness and the crimes in which the conquerors committed massacres, plundering cities and villages are ignored. Was it ruined?
On the basis of this bloodshed, he is given the title of Great or Great. This style was adopted in historiography because the historians were courtiers and attributed conquests to prosperity due to his patronage.
So we see in history that the wars fought for conquests are defined by the military tactics of kings and generals. Soldiers are trained to give their lives in the name of bravery and loyalty.
When any nation starts a series of conquests, it is based on military power. In order to expand their empire, other countries are invaded and the greed of booty is never satisfied. Conquests are intoxicating, which knows no bounds, especially when the conqueror defeats the opponent, he becomes proud of his greatness and magnificence.
He also expresses this by crushing the bodies of the defeated under chariots. He skins living humans and builds towers of skulls. On this basis they become great in history and their crimes become achievements.
When the Greeks attacked Troy, Achilles and Hector had a duel and Hector was killed. Achilles tied Hector’s dead body to a chariot and dragged it around the citadel. His family was watching this scene from the wall of the fort.
When Alexander the Greek conquered Palestine, he killed the governor of Gaza and dragged his body to announce his victory. As a conqueror, Alexander massacred the citizens of Thebes, the Greek city-state, and proved his greatness by killing 25,000 people in Egypt when he conquered Iran.
This series of massacres did not stop. He also left his stories of bloodshed in Afghanistan and India.
But despite the brutality and bloodshed, Alexander was made ‘great’. Even other rulers wanted to follow his footsteps and make themselves warriors and conquerors. For example, Julius Caesar often said that he was getting old and had not accomplished anything like Alexander.
But when he got the chance, he carried his personality through murder and massacred about 60,000 people in Gaul.
This thirst for victory led him to England, where he plundered and became a powerful military leader feared even by the Roman Senate. It was his desire to become king that led to his murder.
In the Roman Empire, it was customary to praise the general who killed five thousand people, and when this victorious general came to Rome with a large number of booty and slaves, a magnificent victory procession was held. .
The devastation caused by the Mongols in the course of conquests is rare. The invasions of Genghis Khan and his successors destroyed the major cities of Central Asia that were centers of knowledge. Burned them to dust. They destroyed the city of Baghdad and its Baitul Hikmat and massacred the citizens. Now historians call the results of the Mongol conquests the Mongol peace, because their massacres left no opponents.
Julius Caesar was not the only one who wanted to become Alexander, but Aladdin Khalji was also inspired by his conquests and wanted to follow in his footsteps and start a series of conquests.
But when one of his courtiers explained to him that it is better to conquer entire India before conquering the world. He then pleased his heart by adding Sikandar II to his name.
While rulers aspired to become great through conquests, there were two rulers in India who repented of war after seeing the ravages of war. One of them was King Ashoka of the Maurya Empire. After the battle of Kalinga, who saw the devastation of war, he turned his attention to peace instead of war.
This section contains related reference points (Related Nodes field).
Perhaps he was the first king who learned from the bloodshed of war and then fought no war.
Napoleon is also considered a great general and conqueror. He repeatedly expressed his desire to become Alexander II. Leaving Europe aside, this was also the motivation behind his invasion of Egypt, as Alexander had also conquered Egypt. The city of Alexandria is still standing today.
Feroze Shah Tughlaq in India also had the policy of avoiding conquests and staying away from war, because war results in people being killed and families being destroyed.
Ironically, historians interpret Feroze Shah’s pacifism as his cowardice, for to them, the only honorable ruler is one who keeps on conquering, bringing booty, and rewarding courtiers.
Historians view that conquests lead to booms. Distorts history, because conquests are crimes. No nation rises to the top by looting. The crimes of conquests hollow him out from within. His humanity is lost and the conqueror creates opposition in his nation by establishing his power and then tries to maintain his power by killing those opponents as enemies.
It is necessary that this narrative of history should be changed and instead of making the conquerors great, they should be condemned for their bloodshed and brutality by making them criminals.
The language of historiography should also be changed, in which bravery and courage are praised because those under their influence were killed.
Until this view of history is changed, murderers and robbers will remain masters of great personalities, so nations should be ashamed of their victories instead of being proud of them.
Note: This article is based on the personal opinion of the author, Independent Urdu does not necessarily agree with it.