Two Histories: Which one is Correct?

[Publius1787]

Two Histories: Which one is Correct?

When white man arrived in North America, there were about 5,000,000 native red indians. After 20 years of European occupation, several wars and deliberate hunting and destruction of most of the buffalo herds (the Indian's primary food supply)... this population dropped to only about 250,000 native Indians.
When white Europeans landed in Australia, they killed over 40,000 native black aborigines in a deliberate campaign of genocide and slaughter.
During World War 1, over 21 million people died for no good reason.
During World War 2, over 50 million people died, also for no good reason. Who do you think paid for Hitler's rise to power, and who PAID for the growth of his army?
Given some of these facts, ask yourself: Which RACE of human beings has proven itself to be the most aggressive, violent and harmful compared to other races of people? Which RACE has been involved in more killing and imperial military invasions and occupations of other countries than any other RACE?
This goes the heart of the question about "racial superiority"... since nobody can choose their genetics or their parents...

Response Below

Before I begin, it has been well documented that the overwhelming majority of those Native Americans you cited died out due to weak immune systems; unable to handle the pox that European settlers brought with them. Now that your first misrepresentation has been formally trashed allow me to deconstruct the rest.


The conflict principle transcends cultures, races, and ethnicities. Therefore, the question is not whether whites were evil in dominating others, ALL civilizations utilized their technology to dominate others, but whether others would have done the same to whites if the tables were turned. The answer to that question is a resounding YES. Thus, the fallacy of your thinking is clear.

Whites dominated the world not because of racial superiority, but cultural superiority that led to technological superiority. They indeed had an incentive to produce such a culture. They were never but a moment away from war with other white cultures. Hence they raced each other to colonize Africa, Asia, and the Americas, so that they would remain economically competitive against each other and therefore militarily dominant against a war with other white cultures.

The fact that others who were taken over by whites could not band together to flush out invaders is telling. Whites used warring Native American tribes against each other just as they used warring African tribes against each other to their advantage. Generally, whites would go to the losing tribe and offer technologically advanced weapons to them in return for land, treaties, and alliances. Now we must again ask ourselves if this would have happened to whites if the situation was reversed for Native Americans, Africans, or Asians. Indeed, they held the same practices in their smaller and technologically less advanced societies. The answer must be yes.

With that said it is also telling that Japan was never colonized. They did not resist white imperialism because they knew they could not. Instead they took the strengths that white culture produced, adopted them, and quickly became a world power. Indeed, this is how civilizations advance. They took what works from the working model and applied it to themselves. For the past 300 years whites have held the working formula. It has nothing to do with racial superiority, but cultural and technological superiority. So Japan became stronger due to white imperialism, as did every other country (colonized or not) with the technology that with introduced into their cultures.

The wars created by whites were so violent simply because whites ruled the world due to cultural and technological superiority. You cannot tell me that the violence that whites created would not have happened if the shoe was on the other foot. Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism which has led to the destruction of untold millions of domestic populations in their various countries. With that said you aren't really against western ways of thought, you just don't like the current Western Model. Indeed, you are attempting to discredit one civilization with/for an ideology produced by that same civilization. You don't really care about other peoples, you simply want them to be pressed under a different western ideology.

Well there you go. I have answered your question and more. Your argument has been deconstructed, discredited, and proved null and void. Have a nice day. Now enjoy this Japanese orchestra playing Beethoven. You're welcome Japan. In Japan no dispute about No. 1 holiday song - CBS News

Of course, it is wholly possible to disagree with both. In that case, lets hear what you think.

 

[The Germans are coming]

There is nothing as pathetic as people bragging about what they perceive as "their race".

How little have you personaly achieved in life to be proud of something you never ever were involved in in any possible way.

 

[Publius1787]

There is nothing as pathetic as people bragging about what they perceive as "their race".

How little have you personaly achieved in life to be proud of something you never ever were involved in in any possible way.

I agree with the above, but I never made either of the claims you seem to be responding to.

 

[The Germans are coming]

There is nothing as pathetic as people bragging about what they perceive as "their race".

How little have you personaly achieved in life to be proud of something you never ever were involved in in any possible way.

I agree with the above, but I never made either of the claims you seem to be responding to.

Wasnt directed at you, but the people you quoted.

 

[Publius1787]

There is nothing as pathetic as people bragging about what they perceive as "their race".

How little have you personaly achieved in life to be proud of something you never ever were involved in in any possible way.

I agree with the above, but I never made either of the claims you seem to be responding to.

Wasnt directed at you, but the people you quoted.

Indeed, he does make a racial argument by the statement of the word "race" but what he fails to understand is that he is really making a cultural one. There is no proof that the acts he speaks of are genetically driven. There is plenty of proof that it was culturally driven, although, I dismantled that argument brick by brick. As toward past achievements, or lack thereof, I don't see him making that argument either. It is easy to get bogged down in race and catch the "my people" syndrome, however, this is a historical argument. There is no doubt that DAWS is is using the historical argument to trash a people of today, but his historical accuracy is lacking.

 

[The Germans are coming]

There is nothing as pathetic as people bragging about what they perceive as "their race".

How little have you personaly achieved in life to be proud of something you never ever were involved in in any possible way.

I agree with the above, but I never made either of the claims you seem to be responding to.

Wasnt directed at you, but the people you quoted.

Indeed, he does make a racial argument by the statement of the word "race" but what he fails to understand is that he is really making a cultural one. There is no proof that the acts he speaks of are genetically driven. There is plenty of proof that it was culturally driven, although, I dismantled that argument brick by brick. As toward past achievements, or lack thereof, I don't see him making that argument either. It is easy to get bogged down in race and catch the "my people" syndrome, however, this is a historical argument. There is no doubt that DAWS is is using the historical argument to trash a people of today, but his historical accuracy is lacking.

Human conflict has more reasons than simple culture. The old Germanic tribes used to believe in a religion that required people to die in battle to permited into heaven. But I doubt that they butcherd half as much as the modern German fascists of the 20th century did. The Skythians of the central plains of Asia as well as the Mongols probably butcherd more.
If I were to pick a region of this planet which saw the highest count of people killed through conflict it would be China. Which even before Communist famines saw civil wars like during the Waring States era that had cost the lives of millions. Which doesnt have as much to do with culture than with with the simply massive population and the sideeffect of living to close to the Mongols.

 

[Publius1787]

There is nothing as pathetic as people bragging about what they perceive as "their race".

How little have you personaly achieved in life to be proud of something you never ever were involved in in any possible way.

I agree with the above, but I never made either of the claims you seem to be responding to.

Wasnt directed at you, but the people you quoted.

Indeed, he does make a racial argument by the statement of the word "race" but what he fails to understand is that he is really making a cultural one. There is no proof that the acts he speaks of are genetically driven. There is plenty of proof that it was culturally driven, although, I dismantled that argument brick by brick. As toward past achievements, or lack thereof, I don't see him making that argument either. It is easy to get bogged down in race and catch the "my people" syndrome, however, this is a historical argument. There is no doubt that DAWS is is using the historical argument to trash a people of today, but his historical accuracy is lacking.

Human conflict has more reasons than simple culture. The old Germanic tribes used to believe in a religion that required people to die inbattle to permited into heaven. But I doubt that they butcherd half as much as the modern German fascists of the 20th century did. The Skythians of the central plains of Asia as well as the Mongols probably butcherd more.
If I were to pick a region of this planet which saw the highest count of people killed through conflict it would be China. Which even before Communist famines saw civil wars like during the Waring States era that had cost the lives of millions. Which doesnt have as much to do with culture that with with the simply massive ammount of population and the sideeffect of living to close to the Mongols.

Religious beliefs, Nazism, the "Cultural Revolution" in China, and the warring culture of Mongol hordes are all cultural attributes that played a large role in their actions. Although, what you say is relevant to deconstructing the veracity of DAWS's claim that whites are the most violent.

 

[The Germans are coming]

There is nothing as pathetic as people bragging about what they perceive as "their race".

How little have you personaly achieved in life to be proud of something you never ever were involved in in any possible way.

I agree with the above, but I never made either of the claims you seem to be responding to.

Wasnt directed at you, but the people you quoted.

Indeed, he does make a racial argument by the statement of the word "race" but what he fails to understand is that he is really making a cultural one. There is no proof that the acts he speaks of are genetically driven. There is plenty of proof that it was culturally driven, although, I dismantled that argument brick by brick. As toward past achievements, or lack thereof, I don't see him making that argument either. It is easy to get bogged down in race and catch the "my people" syndrome, however, this is a historical argument. There is no doubt that DAWS is is using the historical argument to trash a people of today, but his historical accuracy is lacking.

Human conflict has more reasons than simple culture. The old Germanic tribes used to believe in a religion that required people to die inbattle to permited into heaven. But I doubt that they butcherd half as much as the modern German fascists of the 20th century did. The Skythians of the central plains of Asia as well as the Mongols probably butcherd more.
If I were to pick a region of this planet which saw the highest count of people killed through conflict it would be China. Which even before Communist famines saw civil wars like during the Waring States era that had cost the lives of millions. Which doesnt have as much to do with culture that with with the simply massive ammount of population and the sideeffect of living to close to the Mongols.

Religious beliefs, Nazism, the "Cultural Revolution" in China, and the warring culture of Mongol hordes are all cultural attributes that played a large role in their actions. Although, what you say is relevant to deconstructing the veracity of DAWS's claim that whites are the most violent.

Well ok. maybe.

In my opinion violence in a historical context is merely a political measure of achieving certain means or profits.

And not a cultural attribute.

Gold for the Spaniards, Slaves for the Romans, Conquest for the Jihadis and Crusaders and on and on.

It is not as much as fullfilling a certain notion of cultural destiny or comitment as about gaining a benefit through conflict.

That is in my opinion the main reason for conflict in history.

 

[Publius1787]

I agree with the above, but I never made either of the claims you seem to be responding to.

Wasnt directed at you, but the people you quoted.

Indeed, he does make a racial argument by the statement of the word "race" but what he fails to understand is that he is really making a cultural one. There is no proof that the acts he speaks of are genetically driven. There is plenty of proof that it was culturally driven, although, I dismantled that argument brick by brick. As toward past achievements, or lack thereof, I don't see him making that argument either. It is easy to get bogged down in race and catch the "my people" syndrome, however, this is a historical argument. There is no doubt that DAWS is is using the historical argument to trash a people of today, but his historical accuracy is lacking.

Human conflict has more reasons than simple culture. The old Germanic tribes used to believe in a religion that required people to die inbattle to permited into heaven. But I doubt that they butcherd half as much as the modern German fascists of the 20th century did. The Skythians of the central plains of Asia as well as the Mongols probably butcherd more.
If I were to pick a region of this planet which saw the highest count of people killed through conflict it would be China. Which even before Communist famines saw civil wars like during the Waring States era that had cost the lives of millions. Which doesnt have as much to do with culture that with with the simply massive ammount of population and the sideeffect of living to close to the Mongols.

Religious beliefs, Nazism, the "Cultural Revolution" in China, and the warring culture of Mongol hordes are all cultural attributes that played a large role in their actions. Although, what you say is relevant to deconstructing the veracity of DAWS's claim that whites are the most violent.

Well ok. maybe.

In my opinion violence in a historical context is merely a political measure of achieving certain means or profits.

And not a cultural attribute.

Gold for the Spaniards, Slaves for the Romans, Conquest for the Jihadis and Crusaders and on and on.

It is not as much as fullfilling a certain notion of cultural destiny or comitment as about gaining a benefit through conflict.

That is in my opinion the main reason for conflict in history.

Yes but what of the conditions that made them victorious in their various conquests? Why were some more successful than others? There are generally two theories on this and each hold an important part of the key. Location and environmental factors are one. Culture is the other.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism

Your pathetic deflection into an ad hom attack on the left was a de facto concession on your part that you had nothing substantive with which to rebut daws101 position.

 

[The Germans are coming]

Wasnt directed at you, but the people you quoted.

Indeed, he does make a racial argument by the statement of the word "race" but what he fails to understand is that he is really making a cultural one. There is no proof that the acts he speaks of are genetically driven. There is plenty of proof that it was culturally driven, although, I dismantled that argument brick by brick. As toward past achievements, or lack thereof, I don't see him making that argument either. It is easy to get bogged down in race and catch the "my people" syndrome, however, this is a historical argument. There is no doubt that DAWS is is using the historical argument to trash a people of today, but his historical accuracy is lacking.

Human conflict has more reasons than simple culture. The old Germanic tribes used to believe in a religion that required people to die inbattle to permited into heaven. But I doubt that they butcherd half as much as the modern German fascists of the 20th century did. The Skythians of the central plains of Asia as well as the Mongols probably butcherd more.
If I were to pick a region of this planet which saw the highest count of people killed through conflict it would be China. Which even before Communist famines saw civil wars like during the Waring States era that had cost the lives of millions. Which doesnt have as much to do with culture that with with the simply massive ammount of population and the sideeffect of living to close to the Mongols.

Religious beliefs, Nazism, the "Cultural Revolution" in China, and the warring culture of Mongol hordes are all cultural attributes that played a large role in their actions. Although, what you say is relevant to deconstructing the veracity of DAWS's claim that whites are the most violent.

Well ok. maybe.

In my opinion violence in a historical context is merely a political measure of achieving certain means or profits.

And not a cultural attribute.

Gold for the Spaniards, Slaves for the Romans, Conquest for the Jihadis and Crusaders and on and on.

It is not as much as fullfilling a certain notion of cultural destiny or comitment as about gaining a benefit through conflict.

That is in my opinion the main reason for conflict in history.

Yes but what of the conditions that made them victorious in their various conquests? Why were some more successful than others? There are generally two theories on this and each hold an important part of the key. Location and environmental factors are one. Culture is the other.

Sometimes the answere to that is so simplistic it fucking blows ones mind.

In case of the Mongols it is the recursive bow.

Until then people in Asia and Europe only had long bows and short bows which couldnt penetrate thik armour.

With the exception of the crossbow, which took ages to load and couldnt be fired from horseback.

The recursive bow could unleash enought force with so little effort that the chainmail armours and steel plated cuirasses of the medieval knights and arabian warriors were renderd useless.

 

[Asclepias]

I agree with the cultural perspective. Whites have a culture that promotes violence and takeover due to their time spent trapped in the ice age. Resources were scarce and those that were more aggressive survived. Even after being brought back from further devolution during the dark ages they again became overcrowded in Europe. The colonization of the world is an expression of that aggressive and violent behavior. They have somehow convinced the rest of the world that this is a desirable trait.....well at least when they get what they want.

Exhibit A: Entitled white guy upset about perceived lack of resources.

Man killed in Austin after shooting Mexican Consulate - CNN.com

 

[Publius1787]

Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism

Your pathetic deflection into an ad hom attack on the left was a de facto concession on your part that you had nothing substantive with which to rebut daws101 position.

That was simply my assessment of why he was making such an argument. It is derived from years of Marxist theory where we can see clearly an attempt to de-emphasize western culture and values. Though I will admit that that response is an assessment, and nothing more, the true meat and potatoes are in the argument before that one.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism

Your pathetic deflection into an ad hom attack on the left was a de facto concession on your part that you had nothing substantive with which to rebut daws101 position.

That was simply my assessment of why he was making such an argument. It is derived from years of Marxist theory where we can see clearly an attempt to de-emphasize western culture and values. Though I will admit that that response is an assessment, and nothing more, the true meat and potatoes are in the argument before that one.

That you destroyed your own credibility in your OP is your problem, not that of Daws101.

 

[Publius1787]

Indeed, he does make a racial argument by the statement of the word "race" but what he fails to understand is that he is really making a cultural one. There is no proof that the acts he speaks of are genetically driven. There is plenty of proof that it was culturally driven, although, I dismantled that argument brick by brick. As toward past achievements, or lack thereof, I don't see him making that argument either. It is easy to get bogged down in race and catch the "my people" syndrome, however, this is a historical argument. There is no doubt that DAWS is is using the historical argument to trash a people of today, but his historical accuracy is lacking.

Human conflict has more reasons than simple culture. The old Germanic tribes used to believe in a religion that required people to die inbattle to permited into heaven. But I doubt that they butcherd half as much as the modern German fascists of the 20th century did. The Skythians of the central plains of Asia as well as the Mongols probably butcherd more.
If I were to pick a region of this planet which saw the highest count of people killed through conflict it would be China. Which even before Communist famines saw civil wars like during the Waring States era that had cost the lives of millions. Which doesnt have as much to do with culture that with with the simply massive ammount of population and the sideeffect of living to close to the Mongols.

Religious beliefs, Nazism, the "Cultural Revolution" in China, and the warring culture of Mongol hordes are all cultural attributes that played a large role in their actions. Although, what you say is relevant to deconstructing the veracity of DAWS's claim that whites are the most violent.

Well ok. maybe.

In my opinion violence in a historical context is merely a political measure of achieving certain means or profits.

And not a cultural attribute.

Gold for the Spaniards, Slaves for the Romans, Conquest for the Jihadis and Crusaders and on and on.

It is not as much as fullfilling a certain notion of cultural destiny or comitment as about gaining a benefit through conflict.

That is in my opinion the main reason for conflict in history.

Yes but what of the conditions that made them victorious in their various conquests? Why were some more successful than others? There are generally two theories on this and each hold an important part of the key. Location and environmental factors are one. Culture is the other.

Sometimes the answere to that is so simplistic it fucking blows ones mind.

In case of the Mongols it is the recursive bow.

Until then people in Asia and Europe only had long bows and short bows which couldnt penetrate thik armour.

With the exception of the crossbow, which took ages to load and couldnt be fired from horseback.

The recursive bow could unleash enought force with so little effort that the chainmail armours and steel plated cuirasses of the medieval knights and arabian warriors were renderd useless.

Indeed, conflict is a great motivator for innovation.

 

[The Germans are coming]

Human conflict has more reasons than simple culture. The old Germanic tribes used to believe in a religion that required people to die inbattle to permited into heaven. But I doubt that they butcherd half as much as the modern German fascists of the 20th century did. The Skythians of the central plains of Asia as well as the Mongols probably butcherd more.
If I were to pick a region of this planet which saw the highest count of people killed through conflict it would be China. Which even before Communist famines saw civil wars like during the Waring States era that had cost the lives of millions. Which doesnt have as much to do with culture that with with the simply massive ammount of population and the sideeffect of living to close to the Mongols.

Religious beliefs, Nazism, the "Cultural Revolution" in China, and the warring culture of Mongol hordes are all cultural attributes that played a large role in their actions. Although, what you say is relevant to deconstructing the veracity of DAWS's claim that whites are the most violent.

Well ok. maybe.

In my opinion violence in a historical context is merely a political measure of achieving certain means or profits.

And not a cultural attribute.

Gold for the Spaniards, Slaves for the Romans, Conquest for the Jihadis and Crusaders and on and on.

It is not as much as fullfilling a certain notion of cultural destiny or comitment as about gaining a benefit through conflict.

That is in my opinion the main reason for conflict in history.

Yes but what of the conditions that made them victorious in their various conquests? Why were some more successful than others? There are generally two theories on this and each hold an important part of the key. Location and environmental factors are one. Culture is the other.

Sometimes the answere to that is so simplistic it fucking blows ones mind.

In case of the Mongols it is the recursive bow.

Until then people in Asia and Europe only had long bows and short bows which couldnt penetrate thik armour.

With the exception of the crossbow, which took ages to load and couldnt be fired from horseback.

The recursive bow could unleash enought force with so little effort that the chainmail armours and steel plated cuirasses of the medieval knights and arabian warriors were renderd useless.

Indeed, conflict is a great motivator for innovation.

Absolutly. Besides the incentive being profit and benefit I guess technology should also be added.

The phalanx formation made hellenic conquest of Anatolia, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia and Bactria possible.

The new "Vorderlader" rifle made Prussias military so successfull in the late 19th century.

Better tech - less risk.

 

[Publius1787]

Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism

Your pathetic deflection into an ad hom attack on the left was a de facto concession on your part that you had nothing substantive with which to rebut daws101 position.

That was simply my assessment of why he was making such an argument. It is derived from years of Marxist theory where we can see clearly an attempt to de-emphasize western culture and values. Though I will admit that that response is an assessment, and nothing more, the true meat and potatoes are in the argument before that one.

That you destroyed your own credibility in your OP is your problem, not Daws101.

I have no time nor will for those who refuse to debate on the merits. I honestly and accurately told you the meaning of that statement. I then referred you to the "meat and potatoes" of my argument. You refused to address that argument, opting instead to pursue further my assessment on where his argument is derived from. Your above statement does absolutely nothing to carry this conversation forward. If you truly believe it, then you really have no need to post further now do you? I will once again refer you to the argument itself. Failure to respond to the argument will simply result in me ignoring you.

 

[Publius1787]

Religious beliefs, Nazism, the "Cultural Revolution" in China, and the warring culture of Mongol hordes are all cultural attributes that played a large role in their actions. Although, what you say is relevant to deconstructing the veracity of DAWS's claim that whites are the most violent.

Well ok. maybe.

In my opinion violence in a historical context is merely a political measure of achieving certain means or profits.

And not a cultural attribute.

Gold for the Spaniards, Slaves for the Romans, Conquest for the Jihadis and Crusaders and on and on.

It is not as much as fullfilling a certain notion of cultural destiny or comitment as about gaining a benefit through conflict.

That is in my opinion the main reason for conflict in history.

Yes but what of the conditions that made them victorious in their various conquests? Why were some more successful than others? There are generally two theories on this and each hold an important part of the key. Location and environmental factors are one. Culture is the other.

Sometimes the answere to that is so simplistic it fucking blows ones mind.

In case of the Mongols it is the recursive bow.

Until then people in Asia and Europe only had long bows and short bows which couldnt penetrate thik armour.

With the exception of the crossbow, which took ages to load and couldnt be fired from horseback.

The recursive bow could unleash enought force with so little effort that the chainmail armours and steel plated cuirasses of the medieval knights and arabian warriors were renderd useless.

Indeed, conflict is a great motivator for innovation.

Absolutly. Besides the incentive being profit and benefit I guess technology should also be added.

The phalanx formation made hellenic conquest of Anatolia, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia and Bactria possible.

The new "Vorderlader" rifle made Prussias military so successfull in the late 19th century.

Better tech - less risk.

But technological advancement must be received in an environment that will foster and influence it. Conflict is merely and influence on culture.

 

[Publius1787]

I agree with the cultural perspective. Whites have a culture that promotes violence and takeover due to their time spent trapped in the ice age. Resources were scarce and those that were more aggressive survived. Even after being brought back from further devolution during the dark ages they again became overcrowded in Europe. The colonization of the world is an expression of that aggressive and violent behavior. They have somehow convinced the rest of the world that this is a desirable trait.....well at least when they get what they want.

Exhibit A: Entitled white guy upset about perceived lack of resources.

Man killed in Austin after shooting Mexican Consulate - CNN.com

I believed I addressed the underpinnings of colonialism/imperialism in the OP, although, it does not entirely disagree with your statement above. It does, however, place it in context.

 

[The Germans are coming]

Well ok. maybe.

In my opinion violence in a historical context is merely a political measure of achieving certain means or profits.

And not a cultural attribute.

Gold for the Spaniards, Slaves for the Romans, Conquest for the Jihadis and Crusaders and on and on.

It is not as much as fullfilling a certain notion of cultural destiny or comitment as about gaining a benefit through conflict.

That is in my opinion the main reason for conflict in history.

Yes but what of the conditions that made them victorious in their various conquests? Why were some more successful than others? There are generally two theories on this and each hold an important part of the key. Location and environmental factors are one. Culture is the other.

Sometimes the answere to that is so simplistic it fucking blows ones mind.

In case of the Mongols it is the recursive bow.

Until then people in Asia and Europe only had long bows and short bows which couldnt penetrate thik armour.

With the exception of the crossbow, which took ages to load and couldnt be fired from horseback.

The recursive bow could unleash enought force with so little effort that the chainmail armours and steel plated cuirasses of the medieval knights and arabian warriors were renderd useless.

Indeed, conflict is a great motivator for innovation.

Absolutly. Besides the incentive being profit and benefit I guess technology should also be added.

The phalanx formation made hellenic conquest of Anatolia, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia and Bactria possible.

The new "Vorderlader" rifle made Prussias military so successfull in the late 19th century.

Better tech - less risk.

But technological advancement must be received in an environment that will foster and influence it. Conflict is merely and influence on culture.

Not always.

Sometimes it happens by chance, like with the mongols, who in comparision to those they defeated were rather primitive.

Sometimes it is also money, like the O Neill rebellion in ireland where Spanish and irish troops outnumberd the English, but were crushed because the English could afford better cavalry saddles for their lancers.