|
|
|
|
|
by saalweachter
960 days ago
|
|
Firstly, I actually have no idea if there was a war with this particular tribe that resulted in this particular treaty. That's not always the way it went; sometimes it was just diplomacy and trade (with the odd group of assholes sprinkling violence in for fun; it was rarely 100% peaceful, even when it was mostly peaceful). Second, what do you think winning a war means? It's not always -- usually? almost never? -- a matter of one side eliminating or crushing the other to the point of abject subjugation. Rather, once there's a clear "winner", the losing side is usually willing to accept a unfavorable treaty that gives the victor whatever land or trade benefits they were after, and in return for the losing side not saying "fuck it" and trying to take as many people as possible with them, the winning side generally agrees to leave existing power structures largely intact and leave them some part of what's theirs. |
|
If you decide they're going to live then yes. You need to show them that if they can't or won't unconditionally surrender and change their ways then they will in fact be abjectly subjugated and their lives will be miserable. Eventually enough of them will agree that it's not worth it. That was more or less the the USA approach with Japan in WW2. The thought being that they will fight to the death if they feel there's any sliver of hope. So nukes were dropped which showed there was not and that it wasn't worth fighting anymore.
The other option is to just slaughter them. This has been used more frequently throughout history.