We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Latin for War. An armed contest between nations and the state of war between those who are in conflict against each other. A term which is the root of the idea of Jus Belli, the law of war.

Antebellum architecture

Antebellum architecture (meaning "prewar", from the Latin ante, "before", and bellum, "war") is the neoclassical architectural style characteristic of the 19th-century Southern United States, especially the Deep South, from after the birth of the United States with the American Revolution, to the start of the American Civil War. [1] Antebellum architecture is especially characterized by Georgian, Neo-classical, and Greek Revival style homes and mansions. These plantation houses were built in the southern American states during roughly the thirty years before the American Civil War approximately between the 1830s to 1860s. [2]

The phrase Si vis pacem, para bellum is adapted from a statement found in Latin author Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus's tract De Re Militari (4th or 5th century AD), in which the actual phrasing is Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum ("Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war."). [1] [2] The idea which it conveys also appears in earlier works such as Plato's Nomoi (Laws) and the Chinese Shi Ji. [3] [4] [5] The phrase presents the insight that the conditions of peace are often preserved by a readiness to make war when necessitated.

Whatever the source, the adage has become a living vocabulary item itself, used in the production of different ideas in a number of languages.

Si vis bellum para pacem Edit

For example, historian Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne made reference to the foreign policy of Napoleon Bonaparte: [6]

Everyone knows the adage. Had Bonaparte been a Latin scholar he would probably have reversed it and said, Si vis bellum para pacem.

In other words, a leader who is planning a war should put other nations off guard by cultivating peace. Conversely, another interpretation could be that preparing for peace may lead another party to wage war.

Si vis pacem para pactum Edit

In the United States, the National Arbitration and Peace Congress of 1907, presided over by Andrew Carnegie said:

These vast armaments on land and water are being defended as a means, not to wage war, but to prevent war… there is a safer way … it requires only the consent and the good-will of the governments. Today they say … If you want peace, prepare for war. This Congress says in behalf of the people: Si vis pacem, para pactum, if you want peace, agree to keep the peace. [7]

Si vis pacem fac bellum Edit

"If you want peace, make war". The solution does not cover the case of the nation that does not desire peace. Imperial Germany went to war in 1914 and was castigated by Richard Grelling, a German-Jewish pacifist, in J'Accuse (1915). In 1918 Grelling wrote again, this time as an expatriate in Switzerland. Citing Woodrow Wilson's "The world must be safe for democracy" speech before Congress on April 2, 1917, Grelling says: [8]

When all other means fail, . the liberation of the world from military domination can in the extreme case only take place by battle. . in place of si vis pacem para bellum a similarly sounding principle . may become a necessity: Si vis pacem, fac bellum.

Si vis pacem para pacem Edit

"If you want peace, prepare for peace." The great wars of the 19th and 20th centuries were opposed by the philosophy of pacifism, which in the 19th century was associated with early socialism, even though the socialism of the 20th century often lacked pacifistic tendencies, preaching violent revolution instead. The pacifism that opposed the world wars traced its lineage to Barthélemy Prosper Enfantin, an early French socialist and one of the founders of Saint-Simonianism. As early as April 2, 1841, he had said in a letter to General Saint-Cyr Nugues: [9]

Le fameux dicton . me semble beaucoup moins vrai, pour le XIX e siècle, que Si vis pacem, para pacem. The famous dictum . seems to me much less true, for the 19th century, than Si vis pacem, para pacem.

with reference to Algeria. By way of elucidation Enfantin goes on to say that war could have been avoided if a proper study of Algeria had been made.

The parabellum Edit

The main clause of the adage was used as a motto by German arms maker Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken (DWM), and is the source of the term Parabellum as applied to firearms and ammunition [10] [11] (especially the 9mm Parabellum cartridge). The term is an opposed parallel to the American use of "peacemaker" to mean the Colt Single Action Army handgun.


In Leviathan itself, [4] Hobbes speaks of 'warre of every one against every one', [5] of 'a war [. ] of every man against every man' [6] and of 'a perpetuall warre of every man against his neighbour', [4] [7] but the Latin phrase occurs in De Cive:

[. ] ostendo primo conditionem hominum extra societatem civilem, quam conditionem appellare liceat statum naturæ, aliam non esse quam bellum omnium contra omnes atque in eo bello jus esse omnibus in omnia. [8] I demonstrate, in the first place, that the state of men without civil society (which state we may properly call the state of nature) is nothing else but a mere war of all against all and in that war all men have equal right unto all things. [9]

Later on, two slightly modified versions are presented in De Cive:

[. ] Status hominum naturalis antequam in societatem coiretur, bellum fuerit neque hoc simpliciter, sed bellum omnium in omnes. [10] The natural state of men, before they entered into society, was a mere war, and that not simply, but a war of all men against all men. [11]

Nam unusquisque naturali necessitate bonum sibi appetit, neque est quisquam qui bellum istud omnium contra omnes, quod tali statui naturaliter adhæret, sibi existimat esse bonum. [12] For every man by natural necessity desires that which is good for him: nor is there any that esteems a war of all against all, which necessarily adheres to such a state, to be good for him. [13]

In chapter XIII of Leviathan, [14] Hobbes explains the concept with these words:

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called War and such a war as is of every man against every man. [15] [. ] In such condition there is no place for Industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea no commodious Building no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force no Knowledge of the face of the Earth no account of Time no Arts no Letters no Society and which is worst of all, continual Fear, and danger of violent death And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. [16]

The thought experiment places people in a pre-social condition, and theorizes what would happen in such a condition. According to Hobbes, the outcome is that people choose to enter a social contract, giving up some of their liberties in order to enjoy peace. This thought experiment is a test for the legitimation of a state in fulfilling its role as "sovereign" to guarantee social order, and for comparing different types of states on that basis.

Hobbes distinguishes between war and battle: war does not only consist of actual battle it points to the situation in which one knows there is a 'Will to contend by Battle'. [17]

In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), Thomas Jefferson uses the phrase bellum omnium in omnia ("war of all things against all things", assuming omnium is intended to be neuter like omnia) as he laments that the constitution of that state was twice at risk of being sacrificed to the nomination of a dictator after the manner of the Roman Republic. [18]

The phrase was sometimes used by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels:

Religion has become the spirit of civil society, of the sphere of egoism, of bellum omnium contra omnes. [19]

One could just as well deduce from this abstract phrase that each individual reciprocally blocks the assertion of the others' interests, so that, instead of a general affirmation this war of all against all produces a general negation. [20]

It is remarkable how Darwin rediscovers, among the beasts and plants, the society of England with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, 'inventions' and Malthusian 'struggle for existence'. It is Hobbes' bellum omnium contra omnes. [22]

  • In a letter to Pyotr Lavrov (London, 12–17 November 1875), Engels is expressed clearly against any attempt to legitimize the trend anthropomorphizing human nature to the distorted view of natural selection:

The whole Darwinists teaching of the struggle for existence is simply a transference from society to living nature of Hobbes's doctrine of bellum omnium contra omnes and of the bourgeois-economic doctrine of competition together with Malthus's theory of population. When this conjurer's trick has been performed. the same theories are transferred back again from organic nature into history and it is now claimed that their validity as eternal laws of human society has been proved. [23]

Insofar as the individual wants to preserve himself against other individuals, in a natural state of affairs he employs the intellect mostly for simulation alone. But because man, out of need and [24] boredom, wants to exist socially, herd-fashion, he requires a peace pact and he endeavors to banish at least the very crudest bellum omnium contra omnes from his world. [25]


  • Animal Atlas is produced by Longneedle Entertainment, LLC, a subsidiary of Bellum Entertainment Group. Animal Atlas is an educational wildlife show that "takes children on a tour of discovery, uncovering the secrets of how animals live and thrive. Young viewers meet animals from the familiar to the astounding, and the domesticated to the wild, including the diverse creatures of the African savanna, the finned and flippered of the big deep, and the colorful cast of the equatorial rainforest".[1] Atlas began in 2004 for its first season in national syndication and currently airing in the twelfth season. Animal Atlas is internationally distributed by Cisneros Media Distribution.
  • Coolest Places On Earth is a broadcast syndicated program airing in the United States from 2013-2017. The Coolest Places on Earth features cities, festivals, landmarks and natural wonders showcasing each location’s history and culture. The program is distributed internationally by Electus.
  • Corrupt Crimes premiered on September 6, 2015 in national broadcast syndication. Bellum partnered with the Sinclair Broadcast Group to launch Corrupt Crimes domestically on Sinclair stations. [3] The series investigates one or more recent crime stories, with expert analysis and dramatic storytelling. Cases include doping in sports, crimes of passion, wiretapping, espionage, treason, insider trading, government corruption, the black market, piracy, murder, blackmail, conspiracies, and more. Corrupt Crimes launched season two nationally syndicated covering over 86% of the US television market [4] on September 2, 2016. International distribution is managed by Sky Vision, the international division of SKY in the United Kingdom. [5]
  • Deep Undercover premiered in the United States on October 5, 2016, on Escape. The series is a co-production with Televisa[6] and is distributed in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland by ZDF Enterprises, the commercial arm of Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF). [7]Deep Undercover is a true crimes series from writer and producer Joseph D. Pistone, the real Donnie Brasco. Each episode tells the story of a different undercover operation from the POV of the undercover officers involved. [8] Cases include all types of organized crime, from the mafia and biker gangs, to international smugglers, cartels, treason, political corruption, white-collar crime, and murder cases.
  • Murderous Affairs premiered on October 5, 2016 in the United States on the Escape (TV network). The fifty-two episode series explores love affairs gone wrong and spouses driven to kill stories that give a whole new meaning to the vow, “till death do us part.” [9]Murderous Affairs is distributed internationally by IM Global. [10]
  • On The Spot is a weekly syndicated trivia show that asks entertaining questions from different categories including people, sports, music, health, food, technology, history, science, arts and entertainment, and culture. The show first aired nationally on September 25, 2011.
  • Zoo Clues is a 30-minute E/I program that tackles the animal kingdom’s most mind-blowing questions, like these: Can birds fly backwards? Are whales fish? Do dogs sweat? Questions and clues are presented, giving viewers a chance to guess the right answers.

Unsealed: Alien Files is a 30-minute program that investigates recently released government documents regarding alien and UFO encounters, made accessible to the public in 2011 by the Freedom of Information Act. Based on the information, Unsealed Alien Files re-examines key evidence and follows developing leads to investigate mass UFO sightings, personal abductions, government cover-ups, and breaking alien news from around the world.

Unsealed: Conspiracy Files investigates the previously top-secret files made public by the Freedom of Information Act. The show re-examines faulty assumptions, searches for inconsistencies, and explores new leads, questioning popular beliefs and arming viewers with information to make their own decisions.

  • State to State was a broadcast syndicated program set to release for the 2014-2015 season. "State to State", travels to every entertaining nook and cranny of America. The hectic dazzle of the Big Apple. The rawhide spirit of Wyoming. The revival of St. Louis. The innovation of Silicon Valley. The music of New Orleans and Austin. The Vegas Glitz. The La Glamour. The highest peaks. The driest deserts. The biggest events. And the hidden gems.
  • Safari Tracks is a 30-minute educational wildlife show focusing on African wildlife, comprising 52 episodes and produced in standard definition. Hosted by Benjamin Brown (who previously starred as the title character on the Disney Channel's wildlife documentary series Omba Mokomba) as the South African zoological protector and expert "Ushaka", this television program takes viewers on an African safari each episode- focusing on African wildlife and the magnificent and mysterious world of these animals, all in their natural habitat. It aired on Bounce TV, Antenna TV, Qubo, Smile of A Child TV, and international markets.
  • Wildlife Jams is a half-hour E/I television program focusing on how animals behave and promote awareness and responsibility toward wildlife issues. The 26-episode series takes viewers on an exciting journey through the animal kingdom to discover how animals behave and thrive in their native habitats, all to the soundtrack of critically acclaimed jazz musicians.
  • Family Style with Chef Jeff was a nationally syndicated show in the US for the 2013-2014 season. Family Style features Chef Jeff Henderson who demonstrates how good choices in the kitchen can lead to a life-changing experience for the whole family. Chef Jeff Henderson is a chef, author, and public speaker. Family Style with Chef Jeff currently airs on Bounce TV and international markets.
  • Now Eat This with Rocco DiSpirito was a nationally syndicated program that debuted on September 15, 2012, starring celebrity chef Rocco DiSpirito. Each episode focuses on an individual or family’s food issues and health. Rocco explains how people can eat what they love but still be healthier by cutting out processed ingredients, bad fats, and empty calories. Rocco arms his guests with the recipes, ingredients and cooking skills necessary to maximize the value and flavor of their favorite meals. The program shares its title with Rocco's best-selling cookbook series and New York-based food truck.
  • America Now: Bellum Entertainment partnered with ITV Studios and Raycom Media to produce and distribute America Now, a news and lifestyle syndicated strip hosted by Leeza Gibbons and Bill Rancic. America Now was broadcast across the United States from 2010-2014 on stations owned by Raycom Media and was airing via syndication in other markets around the country.
  • "Fix It and Finish It" was a nationally syndicated program that debuted on September 7, 2014, starring model and soap star Antonio Sabato, Jr.. Sabato, Jr. travels across America transforming lives, one space at a time. At each city, Fix It and Finish It partners with local designers and contractors to renovate a bedroom, family room, kitchen, or outdoor space. Homeowners who are in desperate need of renovation help tell us why they need a specific area in their home makeover.
  • Flip My Food with Chef Jeff was a nationally syndicated program that debuted on September 7, 2014, starring Chef Jeff Henderson. Chef Jeff traveled across the country to flip classic recipes into a healthier dish. In each ½ hour episode Chef Jeff met up with newsmakers, celebrities, and everyday people to “flip” their favorite dishes into dining experiences that taste better, have fewer calories and are fun to cook. This daily series gives viewers the ultimate takeaway, they’ll be able to enjoy their favorite foods more often and feel good about it in the process.

Bellum Entertainment distributed six first-run syndicated series to local broadcast television stations, as well as to pay, cable, broadcast networks, and subscription video-on-demand platforms in the United States. Bellum Entertainment's catalog contained thirty-nine titles and 2,067 episodes. Bellum partnered with international distributors including Electus, Red Arrow, IM Global, Cisneros Media Distribution, and Cineflix to distribute programs to territories worldwide.

In September 2008, LongNeedle partnered with home entertainment distributor NCircle Entertainment to distribute their programming to home media, including traditional disc media and streaming services such as Amazon Prime Video.

In 2017, Bellum began to be investigated by the United States Department of Labor for misclassifying workers as independent contractors rather than employees. Robert Lindsey, a DOL investigator, also stated that Bellum is being investigated for missed and-or- late payrolls. [11] Bellum has had wage claims filed against them by over fifty workers as of August 2017. Many of the cases are currently pending, and possible criminal charges are being considered by the state. Several employees who have won small claims suits over wage theft remain unpaid. Bellum also owes numerous companies unpaid money and as a result has been blacklisted from various distributors from consideration of production deals. It owes one company, Launchpad Entertainment, LLC over $275,000 in unpaid footage license fees that it used in programs. [12]

A legal notice published in the July 19, 2019 issue of The Hollywood Reporter indicates Bellum's library assets would be publicly auctioned by The Credit Junction (acting as the secured party) beginning July 22, 2019, before the actual auction occurs on August 15 at the office of a Santa Monica attorney. The auction would have been called off if Bellum secured their library for a payment of $10 million it is unknown if they were able to do so. [13]

Table of Contents

Illyricum saw some fighting during the Great Roman Civil War between Julius Caesar and the forces of the Senate led by Pompey. The Romans who lived in some of the coastal towns supported Caesar, while the native peoples supported Pompey. Quintus Cornificius, a Caesarian, repulsed Quintus Octavius, a Pompeian. The Dalmatians routed Aulus Gabinius, a Caesarian who had been ordered by Caesar to join Cornificius in Illyricum. The Dalmatians later asked Caesar for pardon. Caesar demanded a tribute and hostages (as normal practice) as compensation and sent Publius Vatinius with three legions to enforce this. When Caesar was murdered in 44 BC the Dalmatians ignored these demands and routed five of Vatinius' cohorts. With the disruptions caused by the further Roman civil wars Α] Dalmatian piracy in the Adriatic Sea became a problem again. Β] Γ]

In 35 BC the Iapydes of northern Illyricum carried out raids into north-eastern Italy. They attacked Aquileia, and plundered Tergestus (Trieste). In 35-33 BC Octavian (who was to become the emperor Augustus) undertook military campaigns in the region. He defeated the Iapydes, the northernmost tribe of Dalmatia. He then pushed into southern Pannonia and seized the city of Segesta (which later, as a Roman town, was called Siscia). The then turned on the Dalmatians and seized Promona (to the south of modern Knin, Croatia) on the coast, the main city of the Liburnians, which had been seized by the Dalmatians. After that he seized the Dalmatian cities of Sunodium and Setovia. He then moved on the Derbani, who sued for peace. He also destroyed the settlements on the islands of Melite (Mljet) and Melaina Corcyra (Korčula) because it inhabitants practiced piracy. He deprived the Liburnians of their ships because they practiced piracy, too. Octavian's lieutenants conducted various other operations in the region. Octavian temporarily restored Roman authority in Dalmatia and pushed into southern Pannonia, which had never reached by the Roman armies before. Δ] Ε]

In 27 BC the first settlement between Octavian and the Roman senate formalised Octavian's absolute rule, bestowed the title on Augustus on him, and made him the first Roman emperor. It also made arrangements about the provinces of the empire. Most provinces remained senatorial provinces, whose governors were chosen by the senate from among the senators, and the frontier provinces became imperial provinces, whose governors were appointed by Augustus. The province of Illyricum was constituted and, despite being a frontier province, it was designated as a senatorial province. It included both Dalmatia and the newly conquered territory in southern Pannonia.

From 14 BC to 10 BC there was a series of rebellions in southern Pannonia and northern Dalmatia which Roman writers referred to as bellum pannomicum (the Pannonian war). We have very little information about these events. Most of it comes from brief accounts by Cassius Dio and a few references by other authors. We are not told what the causes were either. The Roman sources had little interest in events in Illyria from the campaigns of Augustus in 35-33 BC to 16 BC. Cassius Dio wrote that in that year the governor of Illyria for 17-16 BC, Publius Silius Nerva, went to fight in the Italian Alps because there were no troops there. Some Pannonians and Noricans entered Istria and pillaged it. Silius Nerva quickly brought the situation under control. At the same time there was a small rebellion in Dalmatia. The Dentheletae, together with the Scordisci (who lived in today's Serbia, at the confluence of the Rivers Savus [Sava], Dravus [Drava] and Danube) attacked the Roman province of Macedonia. A civil war broke out in Thrace. In 15 BC the Romans conquered the Scordisci and annexed Noricum and conducted other operations in other parts of the Alps against the Rhaeti and Vindelici. Ζ] In later 13 BC Augustus gave Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, his most important ally, the supreme command in Illyricum. He found a negotiated solution. However, he died suddenly and the treaty was ignored. The command was given to Tiberius who defeated the Illyrians. The beginning of Roman military operations in Illyricum might have started by Marcus Vinicius the governor for 14-13 BC. The Pannonian war led to Illyricum being transferred from being a senatorial to being an imperial province. Η] ⎖] ⎗] ⎘] ⎙]

Spoiler warning!
This section contains plot details.


Prior to the creation of Hyrule, Bellum attacked the homeworld of the Parella. In order to stave off being eaten by the beast, the Parella adapted a mutualistic relationship with it, building the interplanetary portals known as the Mirrors of Twilight and constantly goading Bellum from world to world, ensuring that it would have a steady source of food so it wouldn't turn on them. Bellum would later gain numerous other races as followers, most notably the River Zora. One of the worlds that fell victim to Bellum during this time was the Realm of Twilight: it killed most of the native life and reduced the planet to a dark, bleak, cold wasteland.

Bellum arrived on Hyrule around the time of most Druthulidi, creeping into the primordial oceans that had only barely formed. It initially allied with the First Sages who summoned it, before quickly betraying them alongside the other Druthulidi. It waited and observed its brethren fight, gaining followers from the primitive ocean life and occasionally sending out smaller armies to antagonize and sabotage other Druthulidi. Unlike the other Druthulidi, Bellum was content to wait countless centuries for the oceans to rise, at which point it would have a considerable territory and resource advantage over the other Druthulidi who almost entirely based their operations on land. It also began creating portals to other worlds it had conquered on the ocean floor so that it could reinforce itself. After the First Sages allied with Majora to deal with the Druthulidi that turned against them, Bellum retreated to the depths of the ocean and entered a deep sleep.

Ancient Age

During the ancient era, Bellum summoned the Parella and River Zora through portals from other worlds and instigated a conflict between two advanced civilizations: the Oshus Empire and the Cobble Kingdom. It provided both sides with military and economic aid, until the Oshunites rejected any further help. The Cobble Kingdom took full advantage of Bellum's aid and dominated most of the land and sea north of Hyrule. Eventually all three empires were destroyed by King Oshus when he unleashed his automated Phantom Army. Many of the Parella were killed and the River Zora quickly retreated to the south and eventually made their way to Hyrule. Bellum retreated to the ocean depths and entered a deep sleep while more Parella armies on other worlds prepared themselves.

The Realm of Twilight

When a group of Parella attempted to come through one of Bellum's portals again, many of them end up in the Realm of Twilight. It is discovered that one of Bellum's portals had washed up on land and ended up in the Gerudo Desert after many centuries, and when the Gerudo's Circle of Warlords activated the portal to banish the Dark Interlopers, it interfered with the Parella's arrival. The Parella's leader, Jelyf, allies herself with the Twili king Mizorant and his son Zant, offering to open portals into Hyrule and aid them in conquering the land. In truth, the Parella only wished to enter Hyrule so that they could return to the seas and find their master Bellum. After attacking and destroying the Zora Dominion, the Parella follow the River Zora to the Great Sea to continue locating Bellum.

Return of Sulkaris

Bellum is briefly seen by Tetralyna in her vision, retreating into the depths of the ocean.


Ancient Egypt Edit

A 2017 study found that the just war tradition can be traced as far back as to Ancient Egypt. [4] Egyptian ethics of war usually centered on three mains ideas, these including the cosmological role of Egypt, the pharaoh as a divine office and executor of the will of the gods, and the superiority of the Egyptian state and population over all other states and peoples. Egyptian political theology held that the pharaoh had the exclusive legitimacy in justly initiating a war, usually claimed in order to carry out the will of the gods. Senusret I in the Twelfth Dynasty claimed that "I was nursed to be a conqueror. his [Atum] son and his protector, he gave me to conquer what he conquered." Later pharaohs also considered their sonship of the god Amun-Re as granting them absolute ability to declare war on the deity's behalf. Pharaohs often visited temples prior to initiating campaigns, where the pharaoh was believed to receive their commands of war from the deities. So, for example, Kamose claimed that "I went north because I was strong (enough) to attack the Asiatics through the command of Amon, the just of counsels." A stela erected by Thutmose III at the Temple of Amun at Karnak "provides an unequivocal statement of the pharaoh's divine mandate to wage war on his enemies." As the period of the New Kingdom progressed and Egypt heightened its territorial ambition, so did the invocation of just war aid the justification of these efforts. The universal principle of Maat, signifying order and justice, was central to the Egyptian notion of just war and its ability to guarantee Egypt virtually no limits on what it could take, do, or use in order to guarantee the ambitions of the state. [4]

Confucian Edit

Chinese philosophy produced a massive body of work on warfare, much of it during the Zhou dynasty, especially the Warring States era. War was justified only as a last resort and only by the rightful sovereign however, questioning the decision of the emperor concerning the necessity of a military action was not permissible. The success of a military campaign was sufficient proof that the campaign had been righteous. [5]

Though Japan did not develop its own doctrine of just war, between the 5th and 7th centuries they drew heavily from Chinese philosophy, and especially Confucian views. As part of the Japanese campaign to take the northeastern island Honshu, Japanese military action was portrayed as an effort to "pacify" the Emishi people who were likened to "bandits" and "wild-hearted wolf cubs" and accused of invading Japan's frontier lands. [5]

India Edit

The Indian Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, offers the first written discussions of a "just war" (dharma-yuddha or "righteous war"). In it, one of five ruling brothers (Pandavas) asks if the suffering caused by war can ever be justified. A long discussion then ensues between the siblings, establishing criteria like proportionality (chariots cannot attack cavalry, only other chariots no attacking people in distress), just means (no poisoned or barbed arrows), just cause (no attacking out of rage), and fair treatment of captives and the wounded. [6] The war in the Mahabharata is preceded by context that develops the "just cause" for the war including last-minute efforts to reconcile differences to avoid war. At the beginning of the war, there is the discussion of "just conduct" appropriate to the context of war.

In Sikhism, the term dharamyudh describes a war that is fought for just, righteous or religious reasons, especially in defence of one's own beliefs. Though some core tenets in the Sikh religion are understood to emphasise peace and nonviolence, especially before the 1606 execution of Guru Arjan by Mughal emperor Jahangir, [7] military force may be justified if all peaceful means to settle a conflict have been exhausted, thus resulting in a dharamyudh. [8]

Ancient Greece and Rome Edit

The notion of just war in Europe originates and is developed first in ancient Greece, and then in the Roman Empire. [9] [10] [11]

It was Aristotle who first introduced the concept and terminology to the Hellenic world where war was a last resort and required conduct that would not make impossible the restoration of peace. Aristotle generally has a favorable opinion of war and warfare to "avoid becoming enslaved to others" is justified as self-defense. As an exception to this, Aristotelian just war theory permitted warfare to enslave what Aristotle called "natural slaves". In Aristotelian philosophy, the abolition of what he considers "natural slavery" would undermine civic freedom. The pursuit of freedom is inseparable from pursuing mastery over "those who deserve to be slaves". According to The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle's Politics the targets of this aggressive warfare were non-Greeks, noting Aristotle's view that "our poets say 'it is proper for Greeks to rule non-Greeks'". [12] [13]

In ancient Rome, a "just cause" for war might include the necessity of repelling an invasion, or retaliation for pillaging or a breach of treaty. [14] War was always potentially nefas ("wrong, forbidden"), and risked religious pollution and divine disfavor. [15] A "just war" (bellum iustum) thus required a ritualized declaration by the fetial priests. [16] More broadly, conventions of war and treaty-making were part of the ius gentium, the "law of nations", the customary moral obligations regarded as innate and universal to human beings. [17] The quintessential explanation of Just War theory in the ancient world is found in Cicero's De Officiis, Book 1, sections 1.11.33–1.13.41. Although, it is well known that Julius Caesar did not often follow these necessities.

Christian views Edit

Christian theory of the Just War begins around the time of Augustine of Hippo [18] The Just War theory, with some amendments, is still used by Christians today as a guide to whether or not a war can be justified. War may be necessary and right, even though it may not be good. In the case of a country that has been invaded by an occupying force, war may be the only way to restore justice. [19]

Saint Augustine Edit

Saint Augustine held that, while individuals should not resort immediately to violence, God has given the sword to government for good reason (based upon Romans 13:4). In Contra Faustum Manichaeum book 22 sections 69–76, Augustine argues that Christians, as part of a government, need not be ashamed of protecting peace and punishing wickedness when forced to do so by a government. Augustine asserted that this was a personal, philosophical stance: "What is here required is not a bodily action, but an inward disposition. The sacred seat of virtue is the heart." [20]

Nonetheless, he asserted, peacefulness in the face of a grave wrong that could only be stopped by violence would be a sin. Defense of one's self or others could be a necessity, especially when authorized by a legitimate authority:

They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men such persons have by no means violated the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." [21]

While not breaking down the conditions necessary for war to be just, Augustine nonetheless originated the very phrase itself in his work The City of God:

But, say they, the wise man will wage Just Wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars. [21]

J. Mark Mattox writes that, for the individual Christian under the rule of a government engaged in an immoral war, Augustine admonished that Christians, "by divine edict, have no choice but to subject themselves to their political masters and [should] seek to ensure that they execute their war-fighting duty as justly as possible." [22]

Saint Thomas Aquinas Edit

The just war theory by Thomas Aquinas has had a lasting impact on later generations of thinkers and was part of an emerging consensus in Medieval Europe on just war. [23] In the 13th century Aquinas reflected in detail on peace and war. Aquinas was a Dominican friar and contemplated the teachings of the Bible on peace and war in combination with ideas from Aristotle, Plato, Saint Augustine and other philosophers whose writings are part of the Western canon. Aquinas' views on war drew heavily on the Decretum Gratiani, a book the Italian monk Gratian had compiled with passages from the Bible. After its publication in the 12th century, the Decretum Gratiani had been republished with commentary from Pope Innocent IV and the Dominican friar Raymond of Penafort. Other significant influences on Aquinas just war theory were Alexander of Hales and Henry of Segusio. [24]

In Summa Theologica Aquinas asserted that it is not always a sin to wage war and set out criteria for a just war. According to Aquinas, three requirements must be met: First, the war must be waged upon the command of a rightful sovereign. Second, the war needs to be waged for just cause, on account of some wrong the attacked have committed. Thirdly, warriors must have the right intent, namely to promote good and to avoid evil. [25] Aquinas came to the conclusion that a just war could be offensive and that injustice should not be tolerated so as to avoid war. Nevertheless, Aquinas argued that violence must only be used as a last resort. On the battlefield, violence was only justified to the extent it was necessary. Soldiers needed to avoid cruelty and a just war was limited by the conduct of just combatants. Aquinas argued that it was only in the pursuit of justice, that the good intention of a moral act could justify negative consequences, including the killing of the innocent during a war. [26]

School of Salamanca Edit

The School of Salamanca expanded on Thomistic understanding of natural law and just war. It stated that war is one of the worst evils suffered by mankind. The School's adherents reasoned that war should be a last resort, and only then, when necessary to prevent an even greater evil. Diplomatic resolution is always preferable, even for the more powerful party, before a war is started. Examples of "just war" are:

  • In self-defense, as long as there is a reasonable possibility of success.
  • Preventive war against a tyrant who is about to attack.
  • War to punish a guilty enemy.

War is not legitimate or illegitimate simply based on its original motivation: it must comply with a series of additional requirements:

  • It is necessary that the response be commensurate with the evil use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.
  • Governing authorities declare war, but their decision is not sufficient cause to begin a war. If the people oppose a war, then it is illegitimate. The people have a right to depose a government that is waging or is about to wage an unjust war.
  • Once war has begun, there remain moral limits to action. For example, one may not attack innocents or kill hostages.
  • It is obligatory to take advantage of all options for dialogue and negotiations before undertaking a war war is only legitimate as a last resort.

Under this doctrine expansionist wars, wars of pillage, wars to convert infidels or pagans, and wars for glory are all inherently unjust.

First World War Edit

In the early part of the First World War, a group of theologians in Germany published a manifesto seeking to justify the actions of the German government. At the British government's request Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury, took the lead in collaborating with a large number of other religious leaders, including some with whom he had differed in the past, to write a rebuttal of the Germans' contentions. Both German and British theologians based themselves on the Just War theory, each group seeking to prove that it applied to the war waged by their own side. [27]

Contemporary Catholic doctrine Edit

The just war doctrine of the Catholic Church found in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force": [28] [29]

  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective
  • there must be serious prospects of success
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition).

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church elaborates on the Just War Doctrine in paragraphs 500 to 501: [30]

If this responsibility justifies the possession of sufficient means to exercise this right to defense, States still have the obligation to do everything possible "to ensure that the conditions of peace exist, not only within their own territory but throughout the world". It is important to remember that "it is one thing to wage a war of self-defense it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation. The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties". The Charter of the United Nations intends to preserve future generations from war with a prohibition against force to resolve disputes between States. Like most philosophy, it permits legitimate defense and measures to maintain peace. In every case, the charter requires that self-defense must respect the traditional limits of necessity and proportionality. Therefore, engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions. International legitimacy for the use of armed force, on the basis of rigorous assessment and with well-founded motivations, can only be given by the decision of a competent body that identifies specific situations as threats to peace and authorizes an intrusion into the sphere of autonomy usually reserved to a State.

Pope John Paul II in an address to a group of soldiers said the following: [31]

Peace, as taught by Sacred Scripture and the experience of men itself, is more than just the absence of war. And the Christian is aware that on earth a human society that is completely and always peaceful is, unfortunately, an utopia and that the ideologies which present it as easily attainable only nourish vain hopes. The cause of peace will not go forward by denying the possibility and the obligation to defend it.

Russian Orthodox Church and the Just War Edit

The War and Peace section in the Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church is crucial for understanding the Russian Orthodox Church’s attitude towards war. The document offers criteria of distinguishing between an aggressive war, which is unacceptable, and a justified war, attributing the highest moral and sacred value of military acts of bravery to a true believer who participates in a “justified” war. Additionally, the document considers the just war criteria as developed in Western Christianity eligible for Russian Orthodoxy, so the “justified war” idea in Western theology is applicable to the Russian Orthodox Church too. [32]

In the same document is stated to wars have accompanied human history since the fall and, according to the Gospel, will continue to accompany it. While recognizing war as evil, the Russian Orthodox Church does not prohibit her members from participating in hostilities if at stake is the security of their neighbors and the restoration of trampled justice. Then war is considered to be necessary, though undesirable, but means. Also, it is stated to Orthodoxy has had profound respect for soldiers who gave their lives to protect the life and security of their neighbors. [33]

The just war tradition Edit

The just war theory by the Medieval Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas was developed further by legal scholars in the context of international law. Cardinal Cajetan, the jurist Francisco de Vitoria, the two Jesuit priests Luis de Molina and Francisco Suárez, as well as the humanist Hugo Grotius and the lawyer Luigi Taparelli were most influential in the formation of a just war tradition. This just war tradition was well established by the 19th century and found its practical application in the Hague Peace Conferences and the founding of the League of Nations in 1920. After the United States Congress declared war on Germany in 1917, Cardinal James Gibbons issued a letter that all Catholics were to support the war [34] because "Our Lord Jesus Christ does not stand for peace at any price. If by Pacifism is meant the teaching that the use of force is never justifiable, then, however well meant, it is mistaken, and it is hurtful to the life of our country." [35] Armed conflicts such as the Spanish Civil War, World War II and the Cold War were, as a matter of course, judged according to the norms that Aquinas' just war theory had established by philosophers such as Jacques Maritain, Elizabeth Anscombe and John Finnis. [23]

The first work dedicated specifically to just war was De bellis justis of Stanisław of Skarbimierz (1360–1431), who justified war by the Kingdom of Poland with Teutonic Knights. [ citation needed ] Francisco de Vitoria criticized the conquest of America by the Kingdom of Spain on the basis of just war theory. [36] With Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius just war theory was replaced by international law theory, codified as a set of rules, which today still encompass the points commonly debated, with some modifications. [37] The importance of the theory of just war faded with the revival of classical republicanism beginning with works of Thomas Hobbes.

Just war theorists combine a moral abhorrence towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. The criteria of the just war tradition act as an aid in determining whether resorting to arms is morally permissible. Just war theories are attempts "to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces" they attempt "to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice". [38] Although the criticism can be made that the application of just war theory is relativistic, one of the fundamental bases of the tradition is the Ethic of Reciprocity, particularly when it comes to in bello considerations of deportment during battle. If one set of combatants promise to treat their enemies with a modicum of restraint and respect, then the hope is that other sets of combatants will do similarly in reciprocation (a concept not unrelated to the considerations of Game Theory).

The just war tradition addresses the morality of the use of force in two parts: when it is right to resort to armed force (the concern of jus ad bellum) and what is acceptable in using such force (the concern of jus in bello). [39] In more recent years, a third category—jus post bellum—has been added, which governs the justice of war termination and peace agreements, as well as the prosecution of war criminals.

Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin defined only three types of just war, [40] all of which share the central trait of being revolutionary in character. In simple terms: "To the Russian workers has fallen the honor and the good fortune of being the first to start the revolution—the great and only legitimate and just war, the war of the oppressed against the oppressors.", [41] with these two opposing categories being defined in terms of class, as is typical in the left. In that manner, Lenin shunned the more common interpretation of a defensive war as a just one—often summarized as "who fired the first shot?"—precisely because it didn't take in consideration the class factor. Which side initiated aggressions or had a grievance or any other commonly considered factor of jus ad bellum mattered not at all, he claimed if one side was being oppressed by the other, the war against the oppressor would always be, by definition, a defensive war anyway. Any war lacking this duality of oppressed and oppressor was, in contradistinction, always a reactionary, unjust war, in which the oppressed effectively fight in order to protect their own oppressors:

"But picture to yourselves a slave-owner who owned 100 slaves warring against a slave-owner who owned 200 slaves for a more "just" distribution of slaves. Clearly, the application of the term "defensive" war, or war "for the defense of the fatherland" in such a case would be historically false, and in practice would be sheer deception of the common people, of philistines, of ignorant people, by the astute slaveowners. Precisely in this way are the present-day imperialist bourgeoisie deceiving the peoples by means of "national ideology" and the term "defense of the fatherland" in the present war between slave-owners for fortifying and strengthening slavery." [42]

Anarcho-capitalist scholar Murray Rothbard stated: "a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them." [43]

The consensus among Christians on the use of violence has changed radically since the crusades were fought. The just war theory prevailing for most of the last two centuries—that violence is an evil that can, in certain situations, be condoned as the lesser of evils—is relatively young. Although it has inherited some elements (the criteria of legitimate authority, just cause, right intention) from the older war theory that first evolved around AD 400, it has rejected two premises that underpinned all medieval just wars, including crusades: first, that violence could be employed on behalf of Christ's intentions for mankind and could even be directly authorized by him and second, that it was a morally neutral force that drew whatever ethical coloring it had from the intentions of the perpetrators. [44]

Just War Theory has two sets of criteria, the first establishing jus ad bellum (the right to go to war), and the second establishing jus in bello (right conduct within war). [45]

Jus ad bellum Edit

In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence).

Jus in bello Edit

Once war has begun, just war theory (jus in bello) also directs how combatants are to act or should act:

Distinction Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no legitimate military targets, committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against civilians or prisoners of war (POWs), and attacking neutral targets. Moreover, combatants are not permitted to attack enemy combatants who have surrendered or who have been captured or who are injured and not presenting an immediate lethal threat or who are parachuting from disabled aircraft and are not airborne forces or who are shipwrecked. Proportionality Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. Combatants must make sure that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a legitimate military objective. This principle is meant to discern the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act. Military necessity Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of military necessity. An attack or action must be intended to help in the defeat of the enemy it must be an attack on a legitimate military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. Fair treatment of prisoners of war Enemy combatants who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them or otherwise mistreat them. No means malum in se Combatants may not use weapons or other methods of warfare that are considered evil, such as mass rape, forcing enemy combatants to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled (e.g., nuclear/biological weapons).

Ending a war: Jus post bellum Edit

In recent years, some theorists, such as Gary Bass, Louis Iasiello and Brian Orend, have proposed a third category within Just War theory. Jus post bellum concerns justice after a war, including peace treaties, reconstruction, environmental remediation, war crimes trials, and war reparations. Jus post bellum has been added to deal with the fact that some hostile actions may take place outside a traditional battlefield. Jus post bellum governs the justice of war termination and peace agreements, as well as the prosecution of war criminals, and publicly labeled terrorists. This idea has largely been added to help decide what to do if there are prisoners that have been taken during battle. It is, through government labeling and public opinion, that people use jus post bellum to justify the pursuit of labeled terrorist for the safety of the government's state in a modern context. The actual fault lies with the aggressor, so by being the aggressor they forfeit their rights for honorable treatment by their actions. This is the theory used to justify the actions taken by anyone fighting in a war to treat prisoners outside of war. [47] Actions after a conflict can be warranted by actions observed during war, meaning that there can be justification to meet violence with violence even after war. Orend, who was one of the theorists mentioned earlier, proposes the following principles:

Just cause for termination A state may terminate a war if there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation. Alternatively, a state may end a war if it becomes clear that any just goals of the war cannot be reached at all or cannot be reached without using excessive force. Right intention A state must only terminate a war under the conditions agreed upon in the above criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed. Public declaration and authority The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority. Discrimination The victor state is to differentiate between political and military leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive measures are to be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict. Truth and reconciliation may sometimes be more important than punishing war crimes. Proportionality Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist crusades, and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not permitted.

    – Militarism is the belief that war is not inherently bad but can be a beneficial aspect of society. – The core proposition of realism is a skepticism as to whether moral concepts such as justice can be applied to the conduct of international affairs. Proponents of realism believe that moral concepts should never prescribe, nor circumscribe, a state's behavior. Instead, a state should place an emphasis on state security and self-interest. One form of realism – descriptive realism – proposes that states cannot act morally, while another form – prescriptive realism – argues that the motivating factor for a state is self-interest. Just wars that violate Just Wars principles effectively constitute a branch of realism. and civil war – Just war theory states that a just war must have just authority. To the extent that this is interpreted as a legitimate government, this leaves little room for revolutionary war or civil war, in which an illegitimate entity may declare war for reasons that fit the remaining criteria of just war theory. This is less of a problem if the "just authority" is widely interpreted as "the will of the people" or similar. Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions side-steps this issue by stating that if one of the parties to a civil war is a High Contracting Party (in practice, the state recognized by the international community), both Parties to the conflict are bound "as a minimum, the following [humanitarian] provisions". Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention also makes clear that the treatment of prisoners of war is binding on both parties even when captured soldiers have an "allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power". – Absolutism holds that there are various ethical rules that are absolute. Breaking such moral rules is never legitimate and therefore is always unjustifiable. – The theory of self-defense based on rational self-interest maintains that the use of retaliatory force is justified against repressive nations that break the non-aggression principle. In addition, if a free country is itself subject to foreign aggression, it is morally imperative for that nation to defend itself and its citizens by whatever means necessary. Thus, any means to achieve a swift and complete victory over the enemy is imperative. This view is prominently held by Objectivists. [48] – Pacifism is the belief that war of any kind is morally unacceptable and/or pragmatically not worth the cost. Pacifists extend humanitarian concern not just to enemy civilians but also to combatants, especially conscripts. For example, Ben Salmon believed all war to be unjust. He was sentenced to death during World War I (later commuted to 25 years hard labor) for desertion and spreading propaganda. [49] – The moral theory most frequently summarized in the words "the end justifies the means", which tends to support the just war theory (unless the just war causes less beneficial means to become necessary, which further requires worst actions for self-defense with bad consequences).

These theorists either approve of war as retaliation, or of war as a last resort.

    (106–43 BC) (354–430) [22] (12th century) (1185–1245) [50] (1225–1274) (1360–1431) (1492–1546) (1548–1617) (1552–1608) (1580–1653) [51] (1632–1694) (1714–1767) (1886–1965) (1886–1944) (1892–1971) (1894–1962) [52] (1894–1969) (1913–1988) (1925–1965) (1926–1995) (1935–) (1935–)
  • James Turner Johnson (1938-) [53] (1939–) (1941–2013) (1945–)
  • David Luban (1949-) [54] (1950–) (1951–)
  • John Kelsay (1953–) [55] (1954–)
  • Nicholas Rennger (1959–) [56]
  • Anthony F. Lang Jr. (1968–) [57] (1970–)
  • Alex J. Bellamy (1975–) [58]
  • Daniel Brunstetter (1976–) [59]
  • Cian O'Driscoll [60]
  • Valerie Morkevicius (1978–) [58]
  • James Pattison (1980–) [61]

These theorists do not approve of war, but provide arguments for justifying retaliation when another starts war.

The Civil War and the Postbellum Period (1860-1900)

The first few decades following the Civil War saw little advancement of field botany in Kentucky. Frazee (1869) published a list of medicinal plants, and, during the 1870&rsquos and 1880&rsquos, a series of &ldquocounty reports&rdquo appeared (DeFriese 1877, 1884a,b,c,d Hussey 1876 Linney 1880, 1882 Crandall 1884). These reports described the general status of the timber resources for these counties and also provided some detail on the general flora, as well as early accounts of remaining old-growth forests. A significant publication during this period was the Ferns of Kentucky by John Williamson (1878) it was the first such state fern flora in the United States according to Cranfill (1980). No doubt botanical explorers from other states passed through Kentucky and made collections during this period, but the amount and degree of this activity are difficult to estimate. The pre-eminent Kentucky botanist of this period was an amateur botanist from Bowling Green, Sarah F. Price.

Sarah F. Price (1849--1903)

Sarah F. (&ldquoSadie&rdquo) Price was an all-round naturalist, publishing over two dozen botanical papers, including a flora of Warren County (Price 1893) and state lists of woody plants (Price 1898) and ferns (Price 1904). She also discovered several new species of plants, several of which were named for her, including Apios priceana, and Aster priceae. Her sudden death at age 54 left many projects unfinished, and some papers were published posthumously (Lovell 1951, 1959). Thus, except for the phenomenal activity of Price, botanical progress in Kentucky during this period was at a relatively low ebb. As the new century began, it had been 65 years since the last publication of C.W. Short, and other than the publication of Williamson (1878) there had been no additional comprehensive state-wide or regional studies.

Подпишитесь, чтобы загрузить Ante Bellum

Information about the Dragon Throne, the upcoming major update focusing on East Asia can be found on our Discord [] .

Following the defeat of the Hussites in Bohemia, Europe had enjoyed some years of internal peace and stability. But everything is about to change. The crushing defeat of the Holy Roman Empire at the Battle of Valencia has recently ended the Iberian Crusade in favour of the Andalusians, the retreating armies leaving the Frankish Emperor dead on the battlefield alongside his only son.

In the aftermath, the throne was hastily occupied by the late Emperor’s old and loathsome uncle Lothair, who has yet to produce a legitimate heir. Should Lothair die without a successor, his passing would not only mean extinction of the Carolingian dynasty, but also great turmoil within the Holy Roman Empire and its immediate neighbours.

Meanwhile, another threat strangles Europe from the south, as the Muslim Sultanate of Sicily is in the final phases of planning a thrust into Italy while Andalusia’s armies assemble for a punitive campaign against the Christians.

Trouble looms yet again in the Middle East an era of stagnation of the Nizzarid Sultanate has come to an end, with young and ambitious Sultan Abdul ascending to the throne bearing the promise of his forefathers to purge the Levant of Crusader States.

Order which has existed in Europe and the Near East for centuries is about to crumble and this mod will give you the opportunity to experience it first-hand.

Ante Bellum is an alternative history mod centered around Europe and the Middle East. The main idea of the mod is to preserve the base game gameplay without flooding the game with new mechanics while also offering new and fresh gameplay experience, provided by the addition of new countries, mission trees, events and such.

  • New nations and formable countries
  • New decisions
  • New events
  • New idea groups and policies
  • New or updated mission trees for more than 90 countries
  • Over 100 new provinces
  • New wastelands
  • New cultures and culture groups
  • New age and age abilities
  • New bookmarks
  • New religions
  • New monuments
  • New national ideas
  • New main theme soundtrack by Utopia
  • New technologies
  • New advisors
  • New buildings
  • New holy orders
  • Over 50 new government reforms
  • Extension of the timeline to 1900
  • Lore startup screens
  • Custom achievements
  • Colonial updates
  • New mercenary companies
  • Expanded dynamic province names

This is the list of all formable nations in Ante Bellum. Some base game countries are included, however those are not formable in the base game.

  • Abbasids
  • Albion
  • Arles
  • Austria-Hungary
  • Baltic Union
  • Belgium
  • Brandenburg
  • Caliphate
  • Carantania
  • Caribbean
  • Celtic Union
  • East Francia
  • Frankish Empire
  • Frisia
  • Great Moravia
  • Iberia
  • Illyria
  • Intermarium
  • Italiyya
  • Latin Empire
  • Middle Francia
  • North Sea Empire
  • Outremer
  • Trinacria
  • United Netherlands
  • United Principalities
  • Wendia
  • West Rome

Playing for the first time and not sure what to pick? The following list features some of the most interesting (not necessarily easy) countries in Ante Bellum that would be great for your first campaign.

  • Nizzarids
  • Byzantium
  • Francia
  • England
  • Lotharingia
  • Andalusia
  • Persia
  • Moravia
  • Denmark
  • Lombardy
  • Sicily
  • Morocco
  • Hansa
  • Bulgaria
  • Norway
  • Poland
  • Novgorod
  • Jerusalem

If you wish to learn about the history of the world in Ante Bellum, make sure to toggle the startup screen option in the game options. Ante Bellum adds a lore startup screen almost all major countries. They are the primary source of information about the nations and their history. Alternatively, you can join our Discord using the link below and use #ask-a-loremaster channel where the Loremasters of the mod will gladly answer your questions.


1 Jus ad bellum refers to the conditions under which one may resort to war or to force in general jus in bello governs the conduct of belligerents during a war, and in a broader sense comprises the rights and obligations of neutral parties as well.

2 Haggenmacher , P. , Grotius et la doctrine de la guerre juste , Paris , 1983 , pp. 250 ff. and 597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff., and “Mutations du concept de guerre juste de Grotius à Kant”, Cahiers de philosophie politique et juridique, No. 10, 1986 , pp. 117 – 122 .Google Scholar

3 There is an abundant literature on the concept of just war.

For the Graeco-Roman period in particular, see Clavadetscher-Thürlemann , S. , Polemos dikaios und bellum iustum: Versuch einer Ideengeschichte , Zurich , 1985 Google Scholar Mantovani , M. , Bellum iustum: Die Idee des gerechten Krieges in der romischen Kaiserzeit, Bern/Frankfurt am Main, 1990 Google Scholar Albert , S. , Bellum iustum: Die Theorie des gerechten Krieges und ihre praktische Bedeutung für die auswärtigen Auseinandersetzungen Roms in republikanischer Zeit , Lassleben , 1980 Google Scholar Hausmaninger , H. , “ Bellum iustum und iusta causa belli in älteren romischen Recht ”, Oesterreichische Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht , 1961 , Vol. 11 , pp. 335 ffGoogle Scholar .


  1. Vok

    Posted in a forum to say a lot for your help in this matter, I would also like something you can help?

  2. Dubhagain

    What words ... super, brilliant phrase

  3. Selwine

    You are wrong. I am able to prove it. Write to me in PM, discuss it.

  4. Vincenzo

    Of course, I apologize, but this answer does not suit me. Who else can suggest?

  5. Imre

    Just what you need. Together we can come to the right answer. I'm sure.

  6. Rutger

    hee hee

Write a message