War

[Bendy 1,821]

Quote: from Twilight Sparkle.  

 

Is there some sort of epic pony war in the distant future or something?

 

 

Since the ponies have the concept of war, how harsh do you deem the wars they had been? Only small bloody conflicts or small bloody conflicts as well as large bloody conflicts?

 

Could they have had a terrible war in the past like ours, where many had been killed? Since Twilight did say 'epic pony war'. That might imply they once had a great war, where many died and the suffering was great. 

Edited May 26, 2014 by Rush

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

War, War never changes.

 

And it is inevitable that any planet that houses individual groups of sapient creatures would eventually have a war. So it could be a pony war, or a war between griffons and ponies, or a war between anything really.

[Khaoios 1,970]

To answer you question............I think, Edwin Starr can say it:

 

 

So, you could say no, I would not want a bloody war. 

[ghostfacekiller39 23,880]

They've probably had wars in the past, but I doubt it was anything as bad as the wars we see in the history of the human race The Royal Sisters likely found the root of the problem and nipped it at the bud before anything serious could escalate, like we saw them do with Discord in the S4 premiere

[Side Bird 566]

Yeah there's probably been wars. If it was before Luna and Celestia they could've been very bloody. And we never know there could've been a war during the thousand years Luna was gone, or way before that.

[Demirari 454]

The ponies would had a high chance of experiencing wars during their duration of Equestria. Considering the past when there were three tribes instead of one united kingdom. The bad blood between the tribes probably did sparked wars. Then continuing onwards, there would also be a high chance of warfare if there are oppositions to Equestria and the banishment of Luna could had caused a large conflict. I mean, considering that it was a royal princess that rebelled, there could had been supporters that rallied behind Princess Luna and could had potentially sparked a civil war.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Demirari

[Anneal 2,198]

War, War never changes.

 

"War. War sometimes changes.

 

I mean, it must have changed at some point, right? I doubt that ponykind always had the ability to turn the entirety of Equestria into that charred stuff at a bottom of a barbecue." ~ Fallout Equestria: Duck and Cover.

 

I feel that this phrase is more accurate.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Late Suri Polomare

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

"War. War sometimes changes.

 

I mean, it must have changed at some point, right? I doubt that ponykind always had the ability to turn the entirety of Equestria into that charred stuff at a bottom of a barbecue." ~ Fallout Equestria: Duck and Cover.

 

I feel that this phrase is more accurate.

Nah, it hasn't changed at is most base. War is, and always will be the mass killing of over sapients by sapient creatures. The weapons may change, and the location may. But it will always be the same.

[Khaoios 1,970]

Nah, it hasn't changed at is most base. War is, and always will be the mass killing of over sapients by sapient creatures. The weapons may change, and the location may. But it will always be the same.

 

And that is why.......and I quote "War and Violence is commonly known to be Mankind's way of Life" - (can't remember but one of the Spartans said it before the battle of Thermopylae)

[IridscentNionios 1,422]

"Nobody knows...." that's all i can say. Nothing is impossible.

[Anneal 2,198]

Nah, it hasn't changed at is most base. War is, and always will be the mass killing of over sapients by sapient creatures. The weapons may change, and the location may. But it will always be the same.

The casualties can change from relatively low to extremely high, so it isn't really mass killing. I mean, it is a tragedy, but I don't think good twenty or so people injured or dead would be considered "mass killing" to a typical country. 

 

Still, it depends how you see it. War NEVER changes, yet it ALWAYS changes. 

[Silverwisp the Bard 2,354]

Probably some conflict before Luna and Celestia took over. Afterwards not so much.

The pegasi at least seemed to have a quasi Spartan system going on after all.

That being said, with the universe being what it is, I doubt the conflicts ever got close to anything from human history, both in scale or cruelty.

 

 

 

 

I feel that this phrase is more accurate.

The quote refers to tmotives behind war: greed, ambition etc., not the means by which it is fought. It gets misinterpreted a lot.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Silverwisp the Bard

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

The casualties can change from relatively low to extremely high, so it isn't really mass killing. I mean, it is a tragedy, but I don't think good twenty or so people injured or dead would be considered "mass killing" to a typical country. 

 

Still, it depends how you see it. War NEVER changes, yet it ALWAYS changes.

 

Mass killing as anything more than low numbers. War is always groups of people, killing other groups. While the tactics used to wage it, and while the weaponry changes, war itself never does. It will always be people killing people.

[Guest]

fdfdfdasdaaweawewereererf

Edited June 7, 2018 by ,,,

[Anneal 2,198]

Mass killing as anything more than low numbers. War is always groups of people, killing other groups. While the tactics used to wage it, and while the weaponry changes, war itself never does. It will always be people killing people.

Well, depending on how you define the loose term of "war", the Bolshevik Revolution only ended with a few wounded soldiers.

 

Or the Anglo-Swedish "War", which was bloodless in a way. Sweden conscripted people to join the war in the case of a British invasion, but it never came. Basically the only bloodshed that happened was with the draft evaders.

 

And this one, the Three Hundred and Thirty-Five Years War. The Royalist fleet in 1651 surrendered without a shot, but there was a lack of a peace treaty for centuries.

 

And there was also a conflict in the US called the Toledo War, which only had one wounded. 

 

Also, the Third Cod War. While the previous two summed up to two deaths, the third only had one injured fisherman.

 

Anyway, "war" is armed conflict between different states or groups. While war generally implies killing, it's not the direct definition of war itself. There are several exceptions of war where both sides did cause property damage, injuries, or take up arms, but no loss of life. 

Edited May 26, 2014 by Late Suri Polomare

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

Well, depending on how you define the loose term of "war", the Bolshevik Revolution only ended with a few wounded soldiers.

 

Or the Anglo-Swedish "War", which was bloodless in a way. Sweden conscripted people to join the war in the case of a British invasion, but it never came. Basically the only bloodshed that happened was with the draft evaders.

 

And this one, the Three Hundred and Thirty-Five Years War. The Royalist fleet in 1651 surrendered without a shot, but there was a lack of a peace treaty for centuries.

 

And there was also a conflict in the US called the Toledo War, which only had one wounded. 

 

Also, the Third Cod War. While the previous two summed up to two deaths, the third only had one injured fisherman.

 

Anyway, "war" is armed conflict between different states or groups. While war generally implies killing, it's not the direct definition of war itself. There are several exceptions of war where both sides did cause property damage, injuries, or take up arms, but no loss of life.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war

War hasn't changed mate, you are just arguing semantics at this point. It is always the same.

[Anneal 2,198]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war

War hasn't changed mate, you are just arguing semantics at this point. It is always the same.

Like I said, war can imply killing, which might happen most of the time, but not always. Fighting doesn't equal killing.

 

It's a bit funny how we're arguing over a phrase from Fallout. (Still thinks that war changes.) Again, depends how you look at it.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Late Suri Polomare

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

Like I said, war can imply killing, which might happen most of the time, but not always. Fighting doesn't equal killing.

 

It's a bit funny how we're arguing over a phrase from Fallout. (Still thinks that war changes.)

The quote was meant to show how War in the human definition never changes. No matter what weapons are used, or what tactics War will remain the same. It is people fighting. Because if it changed at its most base level, then it would not be war.

[Anneal 2,198]

The quote was meant to show how War in the human definition never changes. No matter what weapons are used, or what tactics War will remain the same. It is people fighting. Because if it changed at its most base level, then it would not be war.

I just realized we're both saying the same thing several times.  :okiedokielokie:

 

 

This is what's kind of going on. 

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

I just realized we're both saying the same thing several times.  :okiedokielokie:

 

This is what's kind of going on.

 

Haha for the most part yes. And to get it back on topic, if Equestria is a realistic fantasy universe, then war would inevitably happen at some point. Because sooner or later, those different races are going to have a disagreement they can't hug out. An in universe example would be the hearths warming eve.

[Anneal 2,198]

Haha for the most part yes. And to get it back on topic, if Equestria is a realistic fantasy universe, then war would inevitably happen at some point. Because sooner or later, those different races are going to have a disagreement they can't hug out. An in universe example would be the hearths warming eve.

War is part of nature. You can't really expect sentient beings not to fight on anything, because they're always thinking differently. So unless everyone is literally a clone in all parts, you can't really keep the peace forever.

[Silverwisp the Bard 2,354]

 

 

, if Equestria is a realistic fantasy universe, then war would inevitably happen at some point.

It isn't though. Even with the toneshift from G3, Equestria is a good deal more peaceful than the real world.

As for your example, even with the threat of starvation, Hurricane didn't even consider violence against the other tribes an option.

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

It isn't though. Even with the toneshift from G3, Equestria is a good deal more peaceful than the real world.

As for your example, even with the threat of starvation, Hurricane didn't even consider violence against the other tribes an option.

But the changelings openly invaded Canterlot. While inner pony conflicts may not occur, other races have shown the ability and want to wage battle with Equestria.

[pony.colin 156]

Quote: from Twilight Sparkle.  

 

 

Since the ponies have the concept of war, how harsh do you deem the wars they had been? Only small bloody conflicts or small bloody conflicts as well as large bloody conflicts?

 

Could they have had a terrible war in the past like ours, where many had been killed? Since Twilight did say 'epic pony war'. That might imply they once had a great war, where many died and the suffering was great. 

 

They also apparently have the concepts of "Bullet" and "Tank" - yet neither of these objects have appeared in the series.  Why would there exist bullets (assuming catridges for firearms, possibly even indicating the existance of firearms in Equestria) or armoured fighting vehicles (if these were laying around, one would have wondered why the ponies didn't at least try using them during Tirek's conquest).  I always felt that was like anachronistic writing to have slipped those in during 'May the Best Pet Win'.  (probably not the best term to use, maybe).

 

I'd like to reference Chaotic Discord's Headcannon on the history of Equestria

 

http://mlpforums.com/topic/97978-cdiscords-post-s4-history-of-equestria-headcanon/#entry2627480

 

If ponies ever had some types of wars, I'd figure it would have been very small scale bloody conflicts (some time before the events of Hearth's warming eve - and I do mean, some time before that, probably still in tribal warfare before pre-equestria founding).  In other words, I believe they happened in the very, very distance past, long since abandoned.

 

 

It isn't though. Even with the toneshift from G3, Equestria is a good deal more peaceful than the real world.

As for your example, even with the threat of starvation, Hurricane didn't even consider violence against the other tribes an option.

 

 

Which leads me to think that ponies in the current present have long since abandoned most war-like tendencies and have moved on.  Suggesting that pony society is far less war-like than it used to be in the past.

Edited May 26, 2014 by pony.colin

[LZRD WZRD 1,929]

I assume they have, but there don't appear to be any affects left over from it. There's no racism and everyone seems to get along rather well. So I doubt any wars have happened in Celestia's time