I don't recall learning about switching sides with fluidity (as in Afghanistan), but I do recall learning that this little game got broken up once the common people were enlisted.
I don't recall learning about switching sides with fluidity (as in Afghanistan), but I do recall learning that this little game got broken up once the common people were enlisted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma-yuddha#In_the_Mahabhara...
Is there a good English translation? Or a French one maybe?
I'm not quite sure which translation is the best for the whole work as a verse epic. The fragments I've read were so dry it wasn't fun to read.
Rules of war hold up only in certain cases, like:
1. You're so much stronger than your opponent that you can unilaterally uphold rules that disadvantage you in combat.
Example: USA in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. Both sides expect to survive the fighting and possibly engage again in the future, so it makes sense for both sides to play by the rulebook to reduce costs of ongoing conflict.
Example: not shooting at enemy medical transports, and not using yours for combat operations, lest the enemy starts shooting your medics. Extreme example: MAD doctrine - nuclear powers are bound by the ultimate rulebook, breaking which will annihilate them all. That's what kept USA and USSR from engaging in full-scale warfare. That's what keeping China, Russia and USA from direct confrontation today.
3. There are powerful third parties willing to intervene against the side that breaks the rules.
Example: Geneva Conventions, to some extent (I don't think anyone got actually pounded over breaking them). Also sports.
No high-minded rule can overcome the fear of death. So, for a warring party to hold themselves to a standard, the stakes either have to be so low that they can do it out of virtue (or PR considerations), or breaking the rules must be more dangerous than upholding them.
Video of the scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeeoEpmyb2Y
https://acoup.blog/2020/04/16/collections-a-trip-through-ber...
"... what seems to be the case is that, for people like Bertran, the chance of dying in all of that war remained relatively low. In the first case, the style of warfare of the 12th century, oriented around raids and sieges, with relatively few large set-battles and relatively smaller armies – tended towards lower casualties in comparison to the warfare of other eras."
But do keep in mind that this is a particular period of medieval warfare; it's not universal.