War, as a phenomenon, accompanies mankind since time immemorial. There is no univocality of views on whether it is a universal and ancestral characteristic of our species or a product of specific socio-cultural or ecological developments that different human groups have lived over time in every part of the world. Indeed, comparative studies have shown that the 90-95% of societies both sedentary and nomadic documented in historical times as well as in contemporary times, has carried on or is still involved in armed conflicts, with the only exceptions represented by: isolated nomadic or island groups , groups of refugees, small enclaves located under the protection of large national states (although it is necessary to clarify that, for all the categories mentioned, the war is still a possible option!).
According to an estimate, since the introduction of writing (between 3400 and 3300 BC) until today, the chronicles have documented a succession of 14.500 conflicts that have caused almost 4 billion deaths, resulting from both armed actions and famines and from large-scale epidemics caused by conflicts. In the same period of time, the conflicts between indigenous peoples who are not registered, but of which we have news thanks to oral memories (in many cases handed down in an incredibly detailed manner), seem to have caused further 400 millions of deaths. Not only that, measuring what is technically called "Intensity of Conflicts" (the frequency and duration with which the geopolitical entities move war to one another), it has been discovered that from Antiquity to the Contemporary Age, it is not altogether varied. The only exception was a relatively short period between the 1991 (end of the Cold War) and the 2008, during which there was a decrease in the intensity of conflicts on a global level. Unfortunately, after that date things have returned to the sad "normality". However, even in the very short period of relative "Global Peace" mentioned above, the intensity with which the "dominant power" of the period (the United States of America) took war actions against other players on the international scene, not only was diminished but had even seen a pejorative evolution, even for a country not accustomed to lasting peace (in the course of their 242 years of history the United States have had only 18 years of peace while for the rest of the time they have remained engaged in conflicts of different magnitude against other peoples or countries). But, on closer inspection, this trend reflects a consolidated practice that has affected all the "hegemonic powers" from Antiquity until today.
One of the most important gods in Ancient Rome was Giano, represented with two heads oriented in opposite directions, therefore called "Bifronte". Among his functions, Giano had that of "protector of the city and its citizens-soldiers. That is why, in times of war, the doors of his temple remained open allowing the spirit of the god to be able to leave his home and reach the legionaries engaged in military campaigns; vice versa, when Rome was at peace with all peoples, at the end of a solemn ceremony with such an important significance that it must absolutely be recorded in the Annals of the city, the temple of Giano was closed. Well, it is necessary to remember that only in 3 occasions during the history of Roman civilization the temple of Janus was closed: after the First Punic War and for two short periods during the reign of Emperor Augustus. Without necessarily being "anti-American" or "anti-Roman", it is possible to observe the same tendency also for Ancient Egypt, Persia, Greek poleis, India and classical China, the American civilizations Colombian, etc ... This state of constant belligerence by the hegemonic powers in every period of history has even led to the coining of the term with the derogatory meaning "Warfare State" in opposition to the "Welfare State".
Another commonplace concerning the war is that phenomena such as population density or economic integration would have respectively incentives and disincentives to the outbreak of conflicts. These approximations are incorrect. As for population density, a historiographical analysis tells us that, not always the civilizations developed in contexts with a high population density have a marked propensity to war. Both the civilization of Mohenjo-daro in the Indus valley and the Minoan one in Crete developed in contexts that, according to modern rules, would be defined as "excessive demographic pressure", however the agricultural development of Mohenjo-daro and the Minoans' ability relying on trade allowed both civilizations to meet the needs of their respective populations without the need to constantly resort to the use of weapons (which, however, should not lead us to believe that these two civilizations lacked the tools to offend!). In parallel, a study conducted by Lawrence H. Keeley, professor of archeology at the University of Illinois in Chicago, has unveiled that, of all pre-Columbian indigenous societies of America, 13% was engaged in war activities only once 'year while the remaining 87% several times a year, and the primitive societies of North America and the Amazon, inhabitants sparsely populated areas, had a propensity to belligerence much greater than empires dominated by bloody cultures such as those of the Toltecs and of the Aztecs. With regard to economic integration, despite the fact that in recent decades the myth has been imposed that economic integration and the raising of incomes alone can lead to a general pacification of disputes between peoples and nations, the comparative reality tells us quite another . In the History of Humanity it is possible to find an increase in the level of hostility the greater the economic interactions between different countries or peoples. This is true for peoples with primitive culture as well as for advanced nations. There are no countries that have ever been such important economic partners as well as bitter enemies in war like France and Germany. The explanation of this curious phenomenon is that economic integration increases the volume of exchanges and also information, and this leads the parties to learn more about the possible "enemy". This fact should sound like a wake-up call to all those who thought that, to solve the problems of European integration, it was sufficient to entrust everything to the economy, even if it were a convenient "automatic pilot", without sketching the though minimum coherent political project, with the risk of losing to our continent a historical opportunity that, in case of bankruptcy, would hardly come back soon.
To conclude, we have seen how, regardless of its profound origin, war represents a constant in the path of mankind. Like any human event, it must be deconstructed, analyzed in its entirety and finally understood in its complexity, even in the presence of a high degree of partisanship, especially in the audience. In any case, there is no better way to begin to approach the phenomenology of war than to remember the harsh words of George Santayana, namely: "Only the dead have seen the end of the war."
(photo: US Army)
