Eagles Eyrie surrenders to Harmless?

Salararius wrote: This is a game.  Comparing it to the real world is interesting.  I don't feel the parallel is accurate, but I'll play with the idea.

I wrote a huge post and then the browser "timed out" and not it is gone ... there goes my spare time

Anyway the short version. Since Luna prohibited the current politics I will stick only to a fast point in the historical examples.

All of them, to my best of knowledge, after the war campaigns which they wages for different reasons, reverted to a state of peacekeeping after reaching their goals or when the reasons for their expansion ended. The Romans, wisely understanding that even if they no longer desired war, other people still did and they WOULD come to their cities eventually had the credo "si vis pacem para bellum" (If you want peace, prepare for war). Going to war doesn't de facto mean that you want one.

None of the "good at war" countries did historically wage everlasting wars and they eventually stopped when there was no reason for them to continue, realizing that war was a mean to an end and not just a hobby.

In this case all the people that point fingers about H? wanting war, fail to provide with the obvious missing point. WHY .?.  We stand nothing to gain (even if we DO win - what did H? gain out of the Consone War .?. ) and we put everything at stake, so why would we want one .?. Just stop and think about it for a moment.

P.s.
Read a bit on Epaminondas if you have the time. It is a good example of the flux and confusion of power around wars :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epaminondas

Closing the thread as I said I would.

Luna