Is history mostly about war and money?

it was always about the money (and wealth in general), the opinions of spooked underlings don't hold much relevance historically speaking

because economical reasons are reason of majority of wars
religion and race is only used to gather the masses to fight the war

The thinking that war is fought for money since always is a recent thing my dudes. Just think for a second, you can probably name a few wars that were clearly not fought over economic gain. Wars can be profitable sure, doesn't mean monetary gain is the only reason they're fought tho.

"Economical reasons" is more than just "I'm going to invade them to steal their money." It means the conditions that led to war are economic.

>race existing before 1400
>Religions ( and not local cults) existing before the Axial Age.

Great Bait m8.

yep, good rephrase
>Just think for a second, you can probably name a few wars that were clearly not fought over economic gain.
I can't think of any. Maybe Hitler kept fighting during the battle of Berlin because he still believed he could win ww2 or to extend his life by a few days, but by that time the more pragmatic nazis were already in Argentina trying to get bags of gold teeth through customs.

Land
Oil
or Religion

Look at any war, at least one will correlate. You're welcome.

Ideology, resources, power, speed.

If anyone tells you otherwise, they have some wacky agenda.

fedora.jpg

It's about survival. Money and war are mere tools to achieve this goal.

you denying what i said?

>I can't think of any.

What are you even doing here?

Big wars here we go:
>World War 1 for the UK
>World war 2 for the UK

Both wars were a massive economic drain on the UK and lead to the collapse of their Empire.

Romes founding war that started their Empire was over women. Thousands of nobles in Europe invested heavily into the Crusades with no promises of monetary compensation. Charlemagne invaded Saxony in a campaign that lasts decades, because the Saxons raided and burned a Church. Olga of Kiev massacred people for killing her husband, then burned their city to the ground.

Sure you can spin it so every humans incentive has always been money. Maybe the Rape of the Sabine Women was planned by some ancient economist that foresaw the need for a larger and taxable population. Maybe the British thought by buying American products they could win the war and have even larger economic benefits than by simply staying neutral.

Maybe humans aren't robots that calculate every action based on profit and loss. Greed isn't the only feeling humans have. Loyalty and honour can drag your country into an expensive war. Family, faith, political ambitions all play their part too. There are hundreds of possible reasons for starting or joining a war.

You can argue "lol the USA invaded Iraq for economic reasons" and I can tell you it was a bloody expensive operation that didn't serve the economic interests of the coalition members that helped the USA invade Iraq. They were there because they're the allies of the USA.

REEEEEEEEEEE FUCK OFF WITH YOUR 20TH CENTURY LOOK ON WAR AND STOP APPLYING IT TO EVERY WAR EVER BECAUSE YOU THINK EVERY WAR IS LIKE THE USA AND ITS MIDDLE EASTERN ADVENTURES

race wasn't really a thing until the 19th century

prejudice was but not so much race

History is about people.

The human action dictated the course of history. Anything else is consequentional.

War is fought for resources, money is a representation of resources. Everything is about resources.

>race existing before 1400
could you elaborate? I'm not trying to argue, just interested in how you came up with that.

only correct answers ITT

reasons like religion, territory, etc. are just secondary justifications dancing around the main issues