Pointless wars

Just had an interesting discussion with Greg (lost knight) on this subject, and it threw up more questions than it answered!
What exactly makes a war "pointless"? The aims, the outcome, the conduct? Almost every example of a "pointless" war I've previously thought of ( like the war of Jenkins' ear) turned out to have ulterior motives of some kind, so is there such a thing as a war fought for the sheer hell of it, because state(s) were bored and had nothing else to do?
Anyone got any thoughts?

 

Well there was the "pig war" which war which wasn't fought because both sides realised that it was pointless:
Pig War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some might question whether it was really a war however since there were no human casualties.

 

I always got a kick out of that one myself.

I wouldn't doubt that any number of "wars" started out as one thing and developed into "real war" and the cause of the dispute was lost in the mist.

Pointless is a bit difficult to “nail down” I think. Sometimes what is worth defending to one side or the other seems pointless to an outside observer with no “skin in the game.

The less than 40 minute war between the UK and Zanzibar, over who would be the new Sultan seems rather pointless (viewed from the outside in 1896), but to both the UK and Zanzibar at the time there were legitimate reasons. It only seems pointless in retrospect, however it does hold the world record for the shortest declared war in history.

 

That's the point that keeps stumping me, Clint. How exactly do you define "pointless". The Pig War concerned the US/Canada boundary, so it wasn't really pointless; there was an underlying motive. Same with the football war in 1969, it stemmed from land disputes.
How about defining some boundaries by starting with wars that didn't have an predetermined motive? I know that's going to be a helluva short list, but let's try! The Zanzibar war might squeeze by there.

 

Well one that was pretty pointless if it actually occured would be the one reported in the Táin Bó Cúailnge:
Táin Bó Cúailnge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For those not familiar a raid/series of battles/war fought between Ulster and Connacht over a couple of bulls. There's a song about it that's last couple of lines summarize it pretty well"
"The Brown Bull met the White Bull\
and robbed him of Life's Breath
Then bellowed he in victory
and ran himself to death."
(I can't find the words to the full song on line but it's on the Hounds and Heroes tape/cd/songbook at:
Morgan Wolfsinger for any that are interested and to give proper credit)

 

Oh, nice one!
Here's one in a similar vein-
Y Gododdin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Here's a "Top 10" List: Top 10 Most Pointless Wars

I wouldn't include the Falklands, French and Indian Wars, Napoleon's Russian Campaign or WW1 on my list, but there are some good ones.

Texas Archive War: Stemming from Sam Houston's dislike of having the capital of his state named "Austin". Whether you call this a "war" or not is another issue, but it was certainly pointless.

Football War: The cause of this war (riot at a soccer game) was pointless, the reasons behind it weren't. I think it deserves an honorable mention.

Serbo-Turkish War: Serbia decided to attack Turkey while Austro-Hungary and Russia were negotiating over how to divide the region. Serbia was likely trying to show its muscle, but ended up failing badly -- it tends to happen when a new, weak country attacks a large (if declining) empire. A nice example of not letting cooler heads prevail (diplomacy vs war).

Pastry War: A war started by the complaints of a French pastry chef in Mexico City. France blockaded Mexico and captured their entire fleet, but Mexico still responded by declaring war. They were forced to accept French demands a few months later. About all it accomplished was putting Santa Anna back into power.

 

Yes, but I understand that the "casualty" was quite delicious.

It seems to me that the expression "pointless war" is often used as a pejorative by those who don't agree with the a particular conflict. Name calling aside, I think the problem is in the term itself. It implies a lack of rationale for the war. Most wars do have a point even if they are not particularly good reasons. Of course, "good reasons" implies moral judgment, which usually becomes a sticky business on which to find consensus.

I would suggest a "pointless war" is one that involves 1) loss of human life and 2) resulted in no change of the status quo. I think the Iran-Iraq War would be a good candidate for this definition. A million casualties and nothing really changed.

 

Well, there are historical precedents.

During the Middle Ages, the local Lord would gather in the harvest, spend time celebrating and feasting, and then muster for 'service' to the Lord for the season. The number of trained people he could afford to equip, (as opposed to agricultural tool wielding peasants), demonstrated to the Lord's 'superior' just how powerful and helpful this particular Lord was going to be.
The Hundred Years War between France and England is a sterling example of a war made a-new every post-harvest, and then shut down annually during Winter, mainly for logistical/financial reasons. The more expensive the equipment for the Army could physically determine the length of the up-coming campaign, and this only got worse as standing armies were formed. Furthermore, according to Sir Steven Runcimen,( the distinguished British historian), it was the provisioning of troops that a commander of the day was most anxious about. There were lots of atrocities committed purely by tired/hungry/unpaid soldiers who had been pushed just that bit too far, and felt that their 'due' was to be settled immediately, rather than having to wait for the campaigning 'season' to end.

From a strictly philosphical point of view, any war that has reached a fighting stage has come about because of failure to compromise; the act of war represents the point at which negotiations broke down permanently, resulting in a 'test of strength'. The God of Battles was to now be the final arbiter of the given dispute. So, any war that has reached this point is, by definition, pointless. Propaganda is about justification for the 'position', politically speaking, of your government, as represented, now, by the actions of the armed forces that back up 'policy'. So, then,we arrive at Clausewitz, turning the 'artform' of war into "State policy by other means".

It goes further that if your state policy is pointless, then the war that results from it most certainly will be.

Personally, I believe it's just an excuse by the powers that be to stay that way, in control. War is CONSERVATIVE in origin, for many is the time it was perpetrated to make sure that the status quo did NOT change, (the Coalition Wars against Napolean Bonaparte are a prime example of this). It's insurance to make sure that radical elements don't become a majority. The French have achieved Social Revolution to combat this, where changes are made that are not obvious, and people wake up one fine morning to find society 'different' and never the same as they remember it. Always masters of innovation, Social Revolution has made the traditional war for social change a little dated and very 'ancien regime'. Why take your fight to the streets when your small group of radical people already have access to the strings of power? They can effect change without all the blood flowing.

Every war that has ever been fought will be justified as 'a necessity' by the winning power that fought it, so, officially, there are NO 'pointless wars'. Even wars you lose, like Vietnam, are justified by the protagonists as 'fought for a cause'. Furthermore, you will not get most veterans to admit that the sacrifces of they and their friends were 'for nothing'. It is only critics that label wars in this fashion.

 

Well, at least we agreed that the term "pointless" is completely arbitrary.

 

I classify pointless as being started for no good reason (ie: X insulted Y, so we must attack) and resulted in no territorial change. That does kind of narrow it down, though -- going by that its basically just the Pig War, Pastry War and Texas Archive War.

I'm sure there were hundreds of Medieval-era wars that fit the criteria.

 

I have problem with this. Your first condition relates to the cause your second to the conclusion. I think we have to go with one or the other. Then there's the time frame. If you look for instance at the Crusades long term there was no change in territory but they certainly had some significant impact. Or look at just the one that sacked Constantinople. No territorial change there but the Crusaders gathered a fair amount of loot and the economic power of the Byzantine Empire was severly impacted. Or how about Harold Hadradda's last campaign. No territorial change there.

If we go with "no good reason" though what is a "good reason"? Foir instance the Tain which I mentioned earlier was conducted to enhance national prestige. Is that a good reason? It was certainly thought so at the time, now however ....
Then there's the Spanish American war which was initiated on the false impression that the Spanish were responsible for sinking the Maine. Does this fit?

 

Looking back, I should have replaced "no territorial change" with "no significant lasting geopolitical/economic impacts".

I don't see both conditions as being related at all. The War of the Golden Stool in 1900 was started by pathetic reasons (the Ashanti Empire refused to give the British the Golden Stool), but resulted in the state becoming a part of the British Empire and led the exile of several local chiefs. So it was started for "no good reason", but did have an geopolitical impact within the country. Both conditions are needed -- if not, you could argue that the events like the Korean War are "pointless". The Korean War resulted in no major geopolitical or economic change as the peninsula was already divided at the 38th parallel before and both regimes continued their harsh policies for years. Just going by my latter condition, it would be a "pointless" war. However, the reasons for starting it were "good": send in troops after an unjustified DPRK invasion of the South. I'm not justifying the Korean war, I'm just saying it wasn't truly pointless. I should note that I see a difference between "started by" and "caused by". You could say WWI was started by the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand, but was caused by several factors including nationalism, imperialism, militarism and so on.

As for "good reason", that is open to interpretation. I was thinking along the lines of truly "stupid" reasons (hence my "X" "Y" line). The Pig War and the War of the Golden Stool are good examples of this. To answer your question, I would consider "enhancing national prestige" to be a bad reason.

To rephrase my classification: A truly "pointless war" should be started for "no good reason", and should have no significant lasting geopolitical/economic impacts. I think this narrows it down pretty well. With my revised latter component, the Crusades would not be "pointless" as there were significant economic impacts.

Of course this is open to interpretation -- this was just my opinion. If you want to get philosopical you can argue that all wars are pointless. If you want to look at things in a black-and-white fashion, you can say that every war has a valid point and some sort of geopolitical or economic impact. I feel my classification is a good middle ground.

 

I found the bit about the "Golden Stool" intersting so looked it up and found:
Golden Stool - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
War of the Golden Stool - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When it is considered that the war was at least in part over who had sovereignty of the area and the stool was a potent symbol of such sovereignty I'm not sure you can say it was started for "no good reason". The British wanted if not control over the entire region the Shanti to not contest the area they did control. The Ashanti did not want to acknowledge the British as their masters. So while I'm not saying the reasons were "good" they were certainly of considerable import to the parties involved.

It does get very hard to make a decision on things like this. For instance the "pig war" didn't result in any human casualties but the fact that it was indeed settled without them helped establish a climate of "reasonableness" between the US and the British/Canadians. Indeed one could argue that it set a firm precendent to pass incidents such as this to authorities interested in solving them without bloodshed and that no small impact either economically or geopolitically is it? Likewise "national prestige" may not be on our list of reasons for going to war at this time but it certainly has been considered a very important one in the past. Indeed one can argue that it was the reason that Japan became involved in WWII for instance or that Britain and France declared war on Germany in said conflict.

 

I just came across the "Golden Stool" a few days ago. Its certainly one of the most 'interesting' wars I've come across. The war itself absolutely pertained to sovereignty, but the it actually began when the British governor demanded: "What must I do to the man, whoever he is, who has failed to give to the Queen, who is the paramount power in the country, the stool to which she is entitled?....Why am I not sitting on the Golden Stool at this moment? I am the representative of the paramount power in this country; why have you relegated me to this chair?". After this, the Ashanti chiefs left to prepare for war. Hence, the actual event that 'sparked' the war was the British governor's selfishness. The war likely would have began anyway because of widespread Ashanti hatred for their British occupiers, but it just so turned out to have been sparked by an selfish act.

As I've said, there has to be a few more of these type of conflicts. I'll see if I can find anything else.

 

Was it? Or was the British insistence on having it an insistence that the Ashanti recongize British supremacy? This wasn't the first time such an item has cropped up in British history by the way. Historian can probably give us more details but here are some links to the "Stone of Destiny"
Stone of Scone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Stone of Destiny a.k.a. the Stone of Scone, by Neil Harding McAlister. ( Neil McAlister ). Brigadoonery.
Where does the real Stone of Scone lie? - News - The Independent
The Stone of Destiny | VisitScotland

 

The pacific WWII. Teh Japanese empire had all the territory they could handle by 1940.

 

The British had insisted that for several months, but it didn't lead to war. The Governer, Hodgson, personally demanded to sit on it ("Why am I not sitting on the Golden Stool at this moment"), not just to remove it from the Ashanti and thus deprive them of their "symbol of sovereignty". From what I gather, this demand wasn't well-thought out -- and it backfired by leading to war. The British were certainly not expecting this to cause a war -- Hodgson was besieged in his fort for over a month until relief arrived.

Here's some background. I know its from wikipedia (which I despise using), but its the easiest to quote at this time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Mitchell_Hodgson

"The Golden Stool was said to be an immense throne of solid gold. The other treasures [Golden stool was hidden] were taken to London, where they were greatly admired for their artistic workmanship.....In 1899 Hodgson sent his private secretary, Captain Armitage, on a secret expedition to find the golden stool. The expedition succeeded only in arousing the suspicions of the Asante. In April 1900 Hodgson summoned the Asante Chiefs to an assembly at Kumasi. He asked them: "What must I do to the man, whoever he is, who has failed to give to the Queen, who is the paramount power in the country, the stool to which she is entitled? Where is the Golden Stool? Why am I not sitting on the Golden Stool at this moment? I am the representative of the paramount power in this country; why have you relegated me to this chair? Why did you not take the opportunity of my coming to Kumasi to bring the Golden Stool and give it to me to sit upon?" The chiefs listened in silence, then went home to prepare for war."

Now, the impression I get from the quote is that Hodgson was after it primarily for the throne's for the intrinsic value -- not as a way to strip the Ashanti of their symbol of sovereignty. Even if the only intention was for them to recognizing British sovereignty, this would result in Hodgson being treated like the King, which would obviously benefit him while he was stationed in the area. Either way, I view it as a sort of petty act.

I don't know that much more about it and I'm not comfortable to discuss it further without some research. I think its just a good example of a pointless war

 

Pointlessness is like obsenity, I can't define it specificly, but I know it when I see it. That being said its almost impossible to define it in a single sentence.

To my mind the First World War was the ultimate pointless war. Many nation's literally rushed into this, all hopeng to fullfill some great agenda, yet none of them got what they expected. Yes there were great changes effected, yet all the principle players a generation later fought a bigger war over the same ground for pretty much the same reasons.

Futility is defined as doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.