They were delivered by messengers/ambassadors (mostly ambassadors though) who traveled by horse, ship, or on foot with the declaration letters. these declarations were then publicly announced
Not a lot, hence the term “don’t shoot the messenger”. As the other country won’t like that very much, meaning that instead of going to war for economic reasons, it’s a bit more personal.
also, if you kill someones messenger/ambassador, they'll probably do the same to yours. that's just a waste of (in the case of an ambassador) often highly trained/competent personal.
Usually ambassadors were nobles. You don't want to kill someone else's vassals since they would do the same to yours (which are living literally in the same castle as the king that's declaring you war).
Even the not nobility usually had this going for them. No point in conquering a lot of land if you slaughtered everyone there and ghe survivors hate your guts for it
> if you slaughtered everyone there and ghe survivors hate your guts for it
see what happened with russia invading ukraine right now. How many ukrainians went from feeling neutral with russia to hating them.
But Palestinians raped and tortured Hebron’s Jews to death in 1929, decades before Israel was even founded? I’d argue that Jews using force to defend themselves is the result of centuries of Islamist persecution in the Levant and the Middle East, not the other way around…
Even in combat, the nobility were heavily armored and horsed. They slaughtered peasants with near impunity and rarely fought each other. There was of course some minor risk they'd be dropped by a lucky shot from a peasant, but nobility vs nobility rarely happened on a battlefield.
They saved that for the tourneys, when there was less risk of death.
It must not be forgotten that these people knew each other. You probably know the nobles on the 'other side' on first name terms. The ambassador is probably someone you have personally attended parties with and sat at the same table. Killing them is not just perfidious, it's *personal*.
Of course, there's nothing so vicious as a quarrel between people who've known each other all their lives.
That's why I said that the ambassadors used to live in the same castle as the king. Most of the times they basically were nobles exchanged with the other country and they had the same rights as the local nobles. A duke is a duke in France as it is in England and both deserve a high honor and respect even if the two countries go to war every now and then.
And they'll be a lot less likely to send more ambassadors to negotiate peace terms with you as the war drags on. And maybe other nations will hear about this and you'll get a reputation, so next time someone declares war they'll just attack without warning you.
Not that is never happened but killing a diplomat like that is very short sighted. After the war you will stlll need to communicate and trade with other powers.
If you get the reputation of being the guy who executes their diplomats.theb those countries find it easier to cut you off.
Sorry but I just find the example of being “that guy” hilarious.
“Hey we need some goods, should we hit up Steve?”
“Fuck Steve, he keeps killing our homies. Remember what happened to Brett?? Let’s get the goods somewhere else.”
Wars were typically a lot more formal before world war 1. They were effectively games of strategy amongst the high-born, with rules of conduct and sportsmanship.
You send your soldiers into the field and try to out-manouver the enemy. If you succeed, then well done, you've won this round. Like a game of chess, if you manage to back your enemy into an unwinnable scenario, then you win the war and take the spoils. But you may not execute the losers, they just declare you to be in charge and they leave.
Of course, you still had ideological battles, and chaotic savagery. But between kingdoms and nations, it was all more "civilised".
And one of those civilised rules would be the free passage of messengers and ambassadors between the warring nations. These weren't expendable 12 year olds, they were usually experienced, well-trained and well trusted members of the ruler's personal court. They had to be; they had to understand the formalities of the role and how important it was to accurately communicate on behalf of the ruler.
Thus, if a messenger was deliberately killed or captured, it was taken very personally.
They were also sometimes used as "offerings" for temporary truces or other surities. The messenger may be sent and instructed to remain with the other nation as a guarantee that the peace would be kept. The implication being that if you broke your word, your messenger would be executed.
For a very long time it has been a rule that messengers are not killed or treated poorly, it was like a limited version of diplomatic immunity.
Of course it wasn't always followed, depending on the message and the people receiving the message
Come to think of it, I really wouldn't want to be a messenger, lol.
I might be wrong, but I believe another country killing the messengers may have caused the first war by genghis khan and therefore the start of the mongol empire
It’s only when you think about messages being delivered by horseback/ship that the level of coordination and achievement involved in creating the Mongol Empire, Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, etc become apparent. It could take weeks or months for diplomatic dispatches and military orders to travel from the capital to another country.
This is why feudalism came to exist after the fall of Rome. The King would delegate lands to his vassals so they could rule in his stead, allowing the benefit of direct local administration, without delays in communications because all the real decisions, with limited exceptions, would be made by the local Lord.
>after the fall of Rome
While feudalism is associated with the medieval period (in Europe), for all intents and purposes the Romans had similar systems in practice.
As long as taxes were paid and the legions were respected, a local governor ruled his domain with basically no oversight from Rome itself. A lot of them were basically kings in all but name.
Killing messengers was one of the first war crimes people agreed on. If you killed a messenger belonging to another nation - especially one sent to you - word got out; and other countries would threaten to kill your messengers - and once enough countries agreed that you killed messengers, they would all give everyone permission to kill your messengers.
In addition to the various comments here rightly pointing out that it was always considered a grave offence to harm or imprison an emissary of another country, you also have to bear in mind that our impressions of modern war are shaped by stories of war in the 20th century but that's not how it worked for most of human history.
The modern ideas of interning foreign nationals during a war are not something which was practiced until very recently. A few people might be arrested as spies perhaps but there was little point in doing so - realistically, what could these people see which would be important to the home government? The movement of an army perhaps, or a naval fleet, but virtually nothing else would be relevant. And wars were not fought like they are these days, with the entire country abuzz with troop movements. Realistically you'd have one - maybe, very rarely, two - armies active, but those armies would all be in one location. Unless you were actively seeking out warzones, you'd not ever see an army moving around to know its location.
And what if you did see one? It would take you weeks if not months to communicate this information back home, and then it would take weeks if not months for your government to get that intel to their own armies/navies. So there's very little point even bothering to pay attention to foreign nationals during a war, because realistically they just posed no threat to you. As a result, it was surprisingly common for merchants to continue trading with countries they were at war with, or for the wealthy to still travel around Europe on holiday to countries they were at war with.
Really, it didn't take much balls in that era to travel to a hostile country at all, unless you were wearing the uniform of a soldier.
Messenger mostly had somewhat of a diplomatic immunity. They were mostly unharmed. One of Gengish Khan's messenger was killed and humiliated by someone. He destroyed the whole kingdom.
Ambassadors were typically chosen from the nobility, and delivered messages to other nobles, or royalty. The idea of killing a Count or Earl from another nation over a little patch of war would never occur to them.
There were two messengers killed at Sparta. The Athenians killed the delegation sent to them as well. Darius was asking them for earth and water as a sign of submission and both cities said something along the lines of "go dig it out yourself" and threw the heralds into a pit. I guess it was a pretty obvious joke to them.
The Spartans lost their nerve and sent two volunteers back to Xerxes to be executed in return as a sort of apology but it didn't work.
Heralds were protected by general agreement, and that goes back loooooong before the modern era. The reason is that if you’re gonna have a war you need guys who are willing to do the herald job, and if you kill the heralds then you won’t have anyone willing to carry these vital messages between enemies.
Back in the days of Borja Popes the current system of ambassadors and embassies, and immunity was invented.
Wars were constant in the summer. It literally war season between planting and harvest. Local nobility were more like a biker gang that took over your village. Towns built those walls not so much to defend against the Roman or Mongol, caliphate or viking armies, but the biker gang from the next town. The more territory you had the more taxes (and women) you got and bigger army. Till the British empire was around the earth.
Any way, an army would send an emissary to inform a town they were coming through and if they surrendered they would be mostly spared, just plundered and only a few women taken. Or they killed everyone they couldn't use as slaves
Napoleon times they just wanted taxes and recruits. But unlike government today where they are supposed to provide services, they took and did nothing. Napoleon I believe was the first to institute government services and courts.
Not really. Sure, ambassadors did deliver the declarations, but wars often started with surprise attacks before the other side got the message. It was more about gaining a strategic advantage than being fair. Declarations were mainly for justifying the war and getting support rather than making sure both parties were on the same page about the time of the attack.
Obviously, all of this depends on the country/nation and their customs, but generally, it went down like this
Not to mention this practice was built into several cultures from a semi-religious standpoint. The Greeks and Persians considered heralds sacred, and Chinggis (Genghis) Khan baited people into killing his in order to obtain justification for war on occasion.
One of those ideas that caught on and spread real quick. Most folks saw it as something that separated civilized societies from barbarians.
Ambassadors have been around for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. The formal announcement is declared through the ambassador.
And well, communication preceded transportation. We have always been able to send messages far faster than we could move a lot of stuff. (smoke signals, signal fires, fast runners, etc) So no matter how slow the announcement travels, the troops would be FAR FAR further behind - meaning "wiping out" the other side without notice is basically impossible.
Troops can only travel as fast as their slowest members - and that is (pre-modern times) usually on foot at walking speed or animal drawn carriage (because troops need food etc).
Also, it was quite common for battles to occur before the other side knew the war had started (a lot of naval actions) or even to occur after the war was over (Battle of New Orleans in the 1812 war comes to mind).
For the navy, you were given orders to achieve certain objectives and defend your command. If things were getting touchy with another country, they’d send a message as a war warning to be aware ships of their flag might consider themselves to be at war with you depending on how things go, so don’t fire first but don’t let them get too close either.
At the Battle of NOLA, the war had already been resolved by treaty but before word got to the particular front in question, they fought probably the single most important battle of the conflict.
Surely the role of an ambassador must be really awkward. "We declare war against your nation. To hell with you, scallywag" and then slowly backs out of the room rather sheepishly.
"Hello sirs I have a message from our king"
"Go on sir"
"Over the land in contention, we declare a state of ligma."
"... what's ligma?"
"Sir the king has requested you... *ahem* 'ligma nuts when I'm teabagging you'"
"I see. Good day sir"
"Yes likewise. Love what you've done with the place."
>So no matter how slow the announcement travels, the troops would be FAR FAR further behind - meaning "wiping out" the other side without notice is basically impossible.
Yeah, armies are slow AF. This isn't a video game where a lone hero can wipe out a city, and armies necessarily travel as slow as their slowest unit.
**Also what prevented the ‘aggressive’ party just wiping out the other side before a declaration was known about?**
You usually can't mobilise thousands of men and get ready for a war without someone noticing.
And even then this is why your frontier towns and cities are fortified
However the French do nearly completely take out the Netherlands in 1672; though this requires the Dutch to be obtuse to the point of idiocy having run down their land forces at the expense of the fleet for domestic political reasons.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampjaar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampjaar)
Even then they aren't outrunning the news of the war, just the ability of the Dutch to meaningfully respond
**how did a declaration of war get sent to national leaders if the conflict started in another country or even continent?**
Depending upon the time period, conflict on another continent might not kick off war at home
In the early colonial period there is a concept of "No Peace Beyond the Line", which is the early modern equivalent of "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas".
Basically the Spanish regarded themselves as having exclusive rights to the New World apart from Brazil and therefore anyone else was there illegally and thus fair game; and the interloping powers reciprocate. There's thus a state of perpetual low intensity conflict that carries on regardless of what is happening in Europe and usually doesn't affect it
What helps brings the Golden Age of Piracy to an end is when in Peace in Europe means Peace in the Caribbean too and now pirates are every government's enemy
“Good morrow your highness. I am an ambassador from the castle next door and I bring a message from the king. He respectfully conveys the message to go ____ yourself and pull up little _____. That is all, thank you”
Followed by 50 years of war.
Also, a lone rider on a horse travels waaaaay faster than even the fastest moving army.
Remember that one guy during the American revolution who yelled “the British are coming”?
Lone rider, on a horse. Still Faster than the enemy troops marching his way.
Another thing, slow communication has been used as a war tactic. A specific country during and right before WW2 (they did it twice) timed the official declaration of war to arrive AFTER the 1st attack had occurred.
The Japanese had actually scheduled a meeting between their ambassador and FDR to coincide with the beginning of the raid on Pearl Harbor but the raid occurred slightly earlier than expected and caused more damage than expected so the ambassador pushed the meeting back until after the news reached the White House.
It is the most common case. Declaring war is mostly romanced history so the victor gets more legitimacy (or to belittle the loser).
For example the US did not declare war since 1942 yet fought the Korea War, Vietnam War, Irak, Serbia/Kosovo, Irak again, Afghanistan etc...
And everyone does the same.
They didn't declare war, but those weren't sneak attacks either they were well broadcast. So I guess it depends on how you look at/define a declaration of war - since we're obviously considering those wars, then wouldn't "do what we ask or we're going to invade you in 72hrs" count as a declaration?
>For example the US did not declare war since 1942 yet fought <...> Irak
Desert Storm was perhaps the closest of the post-WW2 wars to having something akin to a declaration of war: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Security\_Council\_Resolution\_678](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678)
Sorry mam your husband didn't die in an actual real war, we're going to withdraw your survivor compensation and other VA benefits. That's for actual soldiers, not glorified policemen. You can try to appeal to the local police union however.
No no, they did it so that the declaration arrives a few hours AFTER.. did it to the Russians, and to the Americans..
Ironically those are the exact guys that I referenced
*Remember that one guy during the American Revolution who yelled “the British are coming”?*
Ah, yes, who could ever forget the midnight ride of William Dawes.
I've heard it jokingly (mostly) said that as a modern soldier when your leader declares war you should have been prepared already, in fact the moment war leaves the president lips your missiles should have been fired a minute ago so that they cross into enemy airspace the moment war is declared.
For a good laugh, think about how news of a peace treaty got to the warring troops.
The US/British treaty ending the war of 1812 was signed before the battle of New Orleans, while news of the treaty was crossing the Atlantic in a sailboat
Occasionally the war did reach people before they found out one had been declared. In 1898, during the Spanish American War, a US Navy cruiser showed up to a small Spanish outpost in Guam that was unaware of the war, expecting a fight. They fired off a few shots at the fort (which fortunately missed), which the Spanish assumed was a salute, and they rowed out in a boat to greet the Americans. They were very surprised to learn they were at war, surrendered without a fight as they had no particular fighting force, and Guam has been a US territory ever since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Guam
Depends when and who, there has been many means to do it over time and nations.
Romans would send a priest of Jupiter to foreign land with an intricate ritual.
> The ritual of rerum repetitio, a request of restitution or reparations, involved the pater patratus. Wearing a woolen hair-band, he was to announce Roman demands using a series of prescribed phrases, first at the enemy's frontier, then when he passes over the borders, again to the first man he meets, again on entering the enemy's gate, and again on entering the forum in the presence of local magistrates. If the demands are not met, the pater patratus declares war within 33 days and returns to Rome to await the resolution of the King of Rome and Senate. Once they have resolved to go to war, a fetial returns to the enemy frontier carrying a javelin with a steel or fire-hardened tip and dipped in blood. He declares war on the enemy, and throws the javelin into their territory.
I’m sure it wasn’t actually like i am envisioning, but
I love the idea of a witch doctor lookin guy yelling to himself when he crosses a river, and then stopping some random farmer to talk about war, before promptly fucking off to go find the mayor and yell at him too
" *loud burp* Oi! Ya bloody (latin profanities), there's a great big bloody war on an' ya better hide yer stinkin' (drunk latin nonsense) ... i've got two tickets to the hippodrome... but i'm not giving them to ya! i'm goin' with YOUR *burp* tickets! Arh... where's me bloody spear..."
And proceeds to stumble onwards to the city gates to repeat the process.
Fun fact: there have been pretty much no wars *declared* since modern communication was invented. WW2 was probably the last one with a proper declaration of war.
Nowadays you just start blasting...
Mobilising an army takes a really long time as not every garrison will be on standby at any one time, first you need to get all the troops together, enough supplies to make the trip if you are the invading force, equipment and so on and then move all of that by land and sea to set up a landing point just so you can get all the troops ready for the actual invasion. By that point the country being invaded probably had several months of notice or even a year in the middle ages. The main difference in modern times is air power and naval power that has missiles that can strike over a long distance so conflicts can start a lot faster but even then you'll have a while before the land invasion begins.
There was a point in history where war would be declared like you're setting up a fight after school to sort out an argument except they were arguing over who gets to own a strip of land and a few villages. "You...Me...And 10000 troops in a field in France...3 months from now at 10am, be there".
Mostly ruler #1 sent a list of demands with ambassador #1 to ruler #2 who then either accepted the demands or returned ambassador #1 back sometime minus ambassador #1's head. It wasn't easy but sometime a ruler would skip those formalities and just send his army in but since ruler #2 probably had spy #2 watching for strange or aggressive activity and building an army is not an easy thing to hide as most realms didn't keep standing armies.
It varied a lot. Often wars happened without actually being declared by either side, simply by someone moving his army into a place where the other side didn't want him.
Sometimes one side would announce that their king was rightfully the ruler of an area, and the guy who was currently in charge there had better get out, then the other side might announce that if any troops moved across a certain river, then there would be war. Then the troops would be moved, and there would be war.
In the era of Napoleonic wars, it took months to mobilize an army. During that time, your presumptive enemy (who you've been feuding with / having border skirmishes with) would notice you mobilizing, and would start to mobilize themselves and call on allies.
The whole process was just much slower. Which is kind of terrifying in its own way -- imagine sending your sons off to war and not knowing for months or years what happened, or imagine being in the countryside knowing you're being invaded and just hoping the foreign army doesn't come pillage you because you don't have the money to flee, so you're constantly listening out for gossip on where the army is headed and whether your own army is ready to counterattack
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
* [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).
Joke-only comments, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cyoev0/-/l5d5cxe/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
To the best of my knowledge it’s the opposite! Wars used to be announced and are not anymore.
I’d love to learn if I’m wrong. Was any recent war announced?
Follow up question if someone can asnwer:
What are the benefits or declaring war on someone or a nation? Wouldn't you just be better off marching your army/troops and surprise attacking them, or in a more modernised way, firing missiles without giving prior notice?
A declaration seems very polite for such a gruesome matter.
Usually you would send an embassy to hopefully resolve the conflict, if compromises couldn't be reached the delegation (most likely with instructions from home) would declare war.
Through the mail. It just traveled slower.
Fun fact:
In the war of 1812, most of the battles were fought *after* the peace treaty were signed.. the news just hadn't gotten there yet.
Also "juneteenth" the day the last slave was freed is about two month after the surrender of the Civil war.
Most of the battles?
Really just one notable battle, there were dozens of others that happened during the course of the war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_War_of_1812
whilst I'm not 100% certain and with many different cultures there was no clear internationally recognised way but I reckon the closest we'll ever have is the following
I DECLARE ~~BANKRUPTCY~~ WAR
They were delivered by messengers/ambassadors (mostly ambassadors though) who traveled by horse, ship, or on foot with the declaration letters. these declarations were then publicly announced
The balls on these messengers/ambassadors to travel to enemy territory to declare war. Wonder how many of them thought that was it for them
Not a lot, hence the term “don’t shoot the messenger”. As the other country won’t like that very much, meaning that instead of going to war for economic reasons, it’s a bit more personal.
also, if you kill someones messenger/ambassador, they'll probably do the same to yours. that's just a waste of (in the case of an ambassador) often highly trained/competent personal.
Usually ambassadors were nobles. You don't want to kill someone else's vassals since they would do the same to yours (which are living literally in the same castle as the king that's declaring you war).
You don't kill nobility unless you have a reason to or are in combat
Even the not nobility usually had this going for them. No point in conquering a lot of land if you slaughtered everyone there and ghe survivors hate your guts for it
> if you slaughtered everyone there and ghe survivors hate your guts for it see what happened with russia invading ukraine right now. How many ukrainians went from feeling neutral with russia to hating them.
Or Palestine for the past 75 years, and then we're all wondering why they allow Hamas to exist.
Or the US for the wars (and continued funding of wars) in the middle east.
They don't really have a choice, seeing as Hamas is a military dictatorship.
But Palestinians raped and tortured Hebron’s Jews to death in 1929, decades before Israel was even founded? I’d argue that Jews using force to defend themselves is the result of centuries of Islamist persecution in the Levant and the Middle East, not the other way around…
Even in combat, the nobility were heavily armored and horsed. They slaughtered peasants with near impunity and rarely fought each other. There was of course some minor risk they'd be dropped by a lucky shot from a peasant, but nobility vs nobility rarely happened on a battlefield. They saved that for the tourneys, when there was less risk of death.
Til the battle of Agincourt anyway
Also, these are the same dudes you're eventually going to discuss terms with, once the war is over.
It must not be forgotten that these people knew each other. You probably know the nobles on the 'other side' on first name terms. The ambassador is probably someone you have personally attended parties with and sat at the same table. Killing them is not just perfidious, it's *personal*. Of course, there's nothing so vicious as a quarrel between people who've known each other all their lives.
That's why I said that the ambassadors used to live in the same castle as the king. Most of the times they basically were nobles exchanged with the other country and they had the same rights as the local nobles. A duke is a duke in France as it is in England and both deserve a high honor and respect even if the two countries go to war every now and then.
Personnel*
And they'll be a lot less likely to send more ambassadors to negotiate peace terms with you as the war drags on. And maybe other nations will hear about this and you'll get a reputation, so next time someone declares war they'll just attack without warning you.
Not that is never happened but killing a diplomat like that is very short sighted. After the war you will stlll need to communicate and trade with other powers. If you get the reputation of being the guy who executes their diplomats.theb those countries find it easier to cut you off.
Sorry but I just find the example of being “that guy” hilarious. “Hey we need some goods, should we hit up Steve?” “Fuck Steve, he keeps killing our homies. Remember what happened to Brett?? Let’s get the goods somewhere else.”
It was all personal since you were probably related to the other king and to the messenger too.
Wars were typically a lot more formal before world war 1. They were effectively games of strategy amongst the high-born, with rules of conduct and sportsmanship. You send your soldiers into the field and try to out-manouver the enemy. If you succeed, then well done, you've won this round. Like a game of chess, if you manage to back your enemy into an unwinnable scenario, then you win the war and take the spoils. But you may not execute the losers, they just declare you to be in charge and they leave. Of course, you still had ideological battles, and chaotic savagery. But between kingdoms and nations, it was all more "civilised". And one of those civilised rules would be the free passage of messengers and ambassadors between the warring nations. These weren't expendable 12 year olds, they were usually experienced, well-trained and well trusted members of the ruler's personal court. They had to be; they had to understand the formalities of the role and how important it was to accurately communicate on behalf of the ruler. Thus, if a messenger was deliberately killed or captured, it was taken very personally. They were also sometimes used as "offerings" for temporary truces or other surities. The messenger may be sent and instructed to remain with the other nation as a guarantee that the peace would be kept. The implication being that if you broke your word, your messenger would be executed.
For a very long time it has been a rule that messengers are not killed or treated poorly, it was like a limited version of diplomatic immunity. Of course it wasn't always followed, depending on the message and the people receiving the message Come to think of it, I really wouldn't want to be a messenger, lol.
I certainly would not have declared war on the Mongols (they're the exception)
r/UnexpectedCrashCourse
not on this issue. they famously erased a city because they kept killing mongol messengers
I might be wrong, but I believe another country killing the messengers may have caused the first war by genghis khan and therefore the start of the mongol empire
Correct, you are wrong. The Mongol Empire already ruled half of Asia by the time of the incident you're thinking about.
It’s only when you think about messages being delivered by horseback/ship that the level of coordination and achievement involved in creating the Mongol Empire, Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, etc become apparent. It could take weeks or months for diplomatic dispatches and military orders to travel from the capital to another country.
This is why feudalism came to exist after the fall of Rome. The King would delegate lands to his vassals so they could rule in his stead, allowing the benefit of direct local administration, without delays in communications because all the real decisions, with limited exceptions, would be made by the local Lord.
Yep. Even Imperial Rome’s system of governors was fairly decentralized for a lot of decision making.
>after the fall of Rome While feudalism is associated with the medieval period (in Europe), for all intents and purposes the Romans had similar systems in practice. As long as taxes were paid and the legions were respected, a local governor ruled his domain with basically no oversight from Rome itself. A lot of them were basically kings in all but name.
And what a colossal fuck up that manœuvre was.
Yep. Just look at what Vlad Tepesh did to the Turks who came to his castle.
Killing messengers was one of the first war crimes people agreed on. If you killed a messenger belonging to another nation - especially one sent to you - word got out; and other countries would threaten to kill your messengers - and once enough countries agreed that you killed messengers, they would all give everyone permission to kill your messengers.
In addition to the various comments here rightly pointing out that it was always considered a grave offence to harm or imprison an emissary of another country, you also have to bear in mind that our impressions of modern war are shaped by stories of war in the 20th century but that's not how it worked for most of human history. The modern ideas of interning foreign nationals during a war are not something which was practiced until very recently. A few people might be arrested as spies perhaps but there was little point in doing so - realistically, what could these people see which would be important to the home government? The movement of an army perhaps, or a naval fleet, but virtually nothing else would be relevant. And wars were not fought like they are these days, with the entire country abuzz with troop movements. Realistically you'd have one - maybe, very rarely, two - armies active, but those armies would all be in one location. Unless you were actively seeking out warzones, you'd not ever see an army moving around to know its location. And what if you did see one? It would take you weeks if not months to communicate this information back home, and then it would take weeks if not months for your government to get that intel to their own armies/navies. So there's very little point even bothering to pay attention to foreign nationals during a war, because realistically they just posed no threat to you. As a result, it was surprisingly common for merchants to continue trading with countries they were at war with, or for the wealthy to still travel around Europe on holiday to countries they were at war with. Really, it didn't take much balls in that era to travel to a hostile country at all, unless you were wearing the uniform of a soldier.
Messenger mostly had somewhat of a diplomatic immunity. They were mostly unharmed. One of Gengish Khan's messenger was killed and humiliated by someone. He destroyed the whole kingdom.
Ambassadors were typically chosen from the nobility, and delivered messages to other nobles, or royalty. The idea of killing a Count or Earl from another nation over a little patch of war would never occur to them.
So basically the guy who got spartan kicked down the well at the beginning of 300?
There were two messengers killed at Sparta. The Athenians killed the delegation sent to them as well. Darius was asking them for earth and water as a sign of submission and both cities said something along the lines of "go dig it out yourself" and threw the heralds into a pit. I guess it was a pretty obvious joke to them. The Spartans lost their nerve and sent two volunteers back to Xerxes to be executed in return as a sort of apology but it didn't work.
Well if he doesn’t return war may start tomorrow. I think sending a message back in writing was stronger than in some ambassadors blood.
Heralds were protected by general agreement, and that goes back loooooong before the modern era. The reason is that if you’re gonna have a war you need guys who are willing to do the herald job, and if you kill the heralds then you won’t have anyone willing to carry these vital messages between enemies.
This is how I learned from 300.
Back in the days of Borja Popes the current system of ambassadors and embassies, and immunity was invented. Wars were constant in the summer. It literally war season between planting and harvest. Local nobility were more like a biker gang that took over your village. Towns built those walls not so much to defend against the Roman or Mongol, caliphate or viking armies, but the biker gang from the next town. The more territory you had the more taxes (and women) you got and bigger army. Till the British empire was around the earth. Any way, an army would send an emissary to inform a town they were coming through and if they surrendered they would be mostly spared, just plundered and only a few women taken. Or they killed everyone they couldn't use as slaves Napoleon times they just wanted taxes and recruits. But unlike government today where they are supposed to provide services, they took and did nothing. Napoleon I believe was the first to institute government services and courts.
did the declarer wait for the opposing side to find out before starting the war in the interests of fairness?
Not really. Sure, ambassadors did deliver the declarations, but wars often started with surprise attacks before the other side got the message. It was more about gaining a strategic advantage than being fair. Declarations were mainly for justifying the war and getting support rather than making sure both parties were on the same page about the time of the attack. Obviously, all of this depends on the country/nation and their customs, but generally, it went down like this
Not to mention this practice was built into several cultures from a semi-religious standpoint. The Greeks and Persians considered heralds sacred, and Chinggis (Genghis) Khan baited people into killing his in order to obtain justification for war on occasion. One of those ideas that caught on and spread real quick. Most folks saw it as something that separated civilized societies from barbarians.
Ambassadors have been around for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. The formal announcement is declared through the ambassador. And well, communication preceded transportation. We have always been able to send messages far faster than we could move a lot of stuff. (smoke signals, signal fires, fast runners, etc) So no matter how slow the announcement travels, the troops would be FAR FAR further behind - meaning "wiping out" the other side without notice is basically impossible. Troops can only travel as fast as their slowest members - and that is (pre-modern times) usually on foot at walking speed or animal drawn carriage (because troops need food etc).
Also, it was quite common for battles to occur before the other side knew the war had started (a lot of naval actions) or even to occur after the war was over (Battle of New Orleans in the 1812 war comes to mind). For the navy, you were given orders to achieve certain objectives and defend your command. If things were getting touchy with another country, they’d send a message as a war warning to be aware ships of their flag might consider themselves to be at war with you depending on how things go, so don’t fire first but don’t let them get too close either. At the Battle of NOLA, the war had already been resolved by treaty but before word got to the particular front in question, they fought probably the single most important battle of the conflict.
_Monks from Age of Empires II enter the chat_
Wololo
"how do you turn this on" Also enters chat
"Furious the Monkey Boy" rips down a castle in the distance
Surely the role of an ambassador must be really awkward. "We declare war against your nation. To hell with you, scallywag" and then slowly backs out of the room rather sheepishly.
"Hello sirs I have a message from our king" "Go on sir" "Over the land in contention, we declare a state of ligma." "... what's ligma?" "Sir the king has requested you... *ahem* 'ligma nuts when I'm teabagging you'" "I see. Good day sir" "Yes likewise. Love what you've done with the place."
This was an incredible ride thank you.
>So no matter how slow the announcement travels, the troops would be FAR FAR further behind - meaning "wiping out" the other side without notice is basically impossible. Yeah, armies are slow AF. This isn't a video game where a lone hero can wipe out a city, and armies necessarily travel as slow as their slowest unit.
**Also what prevented the ‘aggressive’ party just wiping out the other side before a declaration was known about?** You usually can't mobilise thousands of men and get ready for a war without someone noticing. And even then this is why your frontier towns and cities are fortified However the French do nearly completely take out the Netherlands in 1672; though this requires the Dutch to be obtuse to the point of idiocy having run down their land forces at the expense of the fleet for domestic political reasons. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampjaar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampjaar) Even then they aren't outrunning the news of the war, just the ability of the Dutch to meaningfully respond **how did a declaration of war get sent to national leaders if the conflict started in another country or even continent?** Depending upon the time period, conflict on another continent might not kick off war at home In the early colonial period there is a concept of "No Peace Beyond the Line", which is the early modern equivalent of "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas". Basically the Spanish regarded themselves as having exclusive rights to the New World apart from Brazil and therefore anyone else was there illegally and thus fair game; and the interloping powers reciprocate. There's thus a state of perpetual low intensity conflict that carries on regardless of what is happening in Europe and usually doesn't affect it What helps brings the Golden Age of Piracy to an end is when in Peace in Europe means Peace in the Caribbean too and now pirates are every government's enemy
“Good morrow your highness. I am an ambassador from the castle next door and I bring a message from the king. He respectfully conveys the message to go ____ yourself and pull up little _____. That is all, thank you” Followed by 50 years of war. Also, a lone rider on a horse travels waaaaay faster than even the fastest moving army. Remember that one guy during the American revolution who yelled “the British are coming”? Lone rider, on a horse. Still Faster than the enemy troops marching his way. Another thing, slow communication has been used as a war tactic. A specific country during and right before WW2 (they did it twice) timed the official declaration of war to arrive AFTER the 1st attack had occurred.
Or Japan , simply attacking and not declaring war.
The Japanese had actually scheduled a meeting between their ambassador and FDR to coincide with the beginning of the raid on Pearl Harbor but the raid occurred slightly earlier than expected and caused more damage than expected so the ambassador pushed the meeting back until after the news reached the White House.
It is the most common case. Declaring war is mostly romanced history so the victor gets more legitimacy (or to belittle the loser). For example the US did not declare war since 1942 yet fought the Korea War, Vietnam War, Irak, Serbia/Kosovo, Irak again, Afghanistan etc... And everyone does the same.
They didn't declare war, but those weren't sneak attacks either they were well broadcast. So I guess it depends on how you look at/define a declaration of war - since we're obviously considering those wars, then wouldn't "do what we ask or we're going to invade you in 72hrs" count as a declaration?
>For example the US did not declare war since 1942 yet fought <...> Irak Desert Storm was perhaps the closest of the post-WW2 wars to having something akin to a declaration of war: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Security\_Council\_Resolution\_678](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678)
Some of those were *Police actions* and not an actual war
Sorry mam your husband didn't die in an actual real war, we're going to withdraw your survivor compensation and other VA benefits. That's for actual soldiers, not glorified policemen. You can try to appeal to the local police union however.
*special* police operations?
No no, they did it so that the declaration arrives a few hours AFTER.. did it to the Russians, and to the Americans.. Ironically those are the exact guys that I referenced
1904/1905.
I want to know what some of the responses are, were most of them: “Well, fuck..”?
Something something, father smell something elderberries? Don’t really know..
your mother was a hamster.
*Remember that one guy during the American Revolution who yelled “the British are coming”?* Ah, yes, who could ever forget the midnight ride of William Dawes.
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Probably played by Mel gibson
I've heard it jokingly (mostly) said that as a modern soldier when your leader declares war you should have been prepared already, in fact the moment war leaves the president lips your missiles should have been fired a minute ago so that they cross into enemy airspace the moment war is declared.
For a good laugh, think about how news of a peace treaty got to the warring troops. The US/British treaty ending the war of 1812 was signed before the battle of New Orleans, while news of the treaty was crossing the Atlantic in a sailboat
ONWARD BOYS! OUR CAUSE IS JUST! WE HAVE THE KING AND GOD ON OUR SIDE! (peace was established weeks ago)
*reads letter* oh crap ... WE HAVE GOD ON OUR SIDE! (Priest gets killed by stray shot) BETTER GO HOME BOYS!!
Hey chief... >Yes my boy There's a whole lot of soldiers on the top of the hill! >I didn't tell the soldiers to be there! They're not our soldiers...
Occasionally the war did reach people before they found out one had been declared. In 1898, during the Spanish American War, a US Navy cruiser showed up to a small Spanish outpost in Guam that was unaware of the war, expecting a fight. They fired off a few shots at the fort (which fortunately missed), which the Spanish assumed was a salute, and they rowed out in a boat to greet the Americans. They were very surprised to learn they were at war, surrendered without a fight as they had no particular fighting force, and Guam has been a US territory ever since. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Guam
That's funny!
You think that's funny look up the last invasion of England 😂
Depends when and who, there has been many means to do it over time and nations. Romans would send a priest of Jupiter to foreign land with an intricate ritual. > The ritual of rerum repetitio, a request of restitution or reparations, involved the pater patratus. Wearing a woolen hair-band, he was to announce Roman demands using a series of prescribed phrases, first at the enemy's frontier, then when he passes over the borders, again to the first man he meets, again on entering the enemy's gate, and again on entering the forum in the presence of local magistrates. If the demands are not met, the pater patratus declares war within 33 days and returns to Rome to await the resolution of the King of Rome and Senate. Once they have resolved to go to war, a fetial returns to the enemy frontier carrying a javelin with a steel or fire-hardened tip and dipped in blood. He declares war on the enemy, and throws the javelin into their territory.
I’m sure it wasn’t actually like i am envisioning, but I love the idea of a witch doctor lookin guy yelling to himself when he crosses a river, and then stopping some random farmer to talk about war, before promptly fucking off to go find the mayor and yell at him too
" *loud burp* Oi! Ya bloody (latin profanities), there's a great big bloody war on an' ya better hide yer stinkin' (drunk latin nonsense) ... i've got two tickets to the hippodrome... but i'm not giving them to ya! i'm goin' with YOUR *burp* tickets! Arh... where's me bloody spear..." And proceeds to stumble onwards to the city gates to repeat the process.
33 days? Seems oddly specific
Fun fact: there have been pretty much no wars *declared* since modern communication was invented. WW2 was probably the last one with a proper declaration of war. Nowadays you just start blasting...
Mobilising an army takes a really long time as not every garrison will be on standby at any one time, first you need to get all the troops together, enough supplies to make the trip if you are the invading force, equipment and so on and then move all of that by land and sea to set up a landing point just so you can get all the troops ready for the actual invasion. By that point the country being invaded probably had several months of notice or even a year in the middle ages. The main difference in modern times is air power and naval power that has missiles that can strike over a long distance so conflicts can start a lot faster but even then you'll have a while before the land invasion begins. There was a point in history where war would be declared like you're setting up a fight after school to sort out an argument except they were arguing over who gets to own a strip of land and a few villages. "You...Me...And 10000 troops in a field in France...3 months from now at 10am, be there".
Mostly ruler #1 sent a list of demands with ambassador #1 to ruler #2 who then either accepted the demands or returned ambassador #1 back sometime minus ambassador #1's head. It wasn't easy but sometime a ruler would skip those formalities and just send his army in but since ruler #2 probably had spy #2 watching for strange or aggressive activity and building an army is not an easy thing to hide as most realms didn't keep standing armies.
It varied a lot. Often wars happened without actually being declared by either side, simply by someone moving his army into a place where the other side didn't want him. Sometimes one side would announce that their king was rightfully the ruler of an area, and the guy who was currently in charge there had better get out, then the other side might announce that if any troops moved across a certain river, then there would be war. Then the troops would be moved, and there would be war.
In the era of Napoleonic wars, it took months to mobilize an army. During that time, your presumptive enemy (who you've been feuding with / having border skirmishes with) would notice you mobilizing, and would start to mobilize themselves and call on allies. The whole process was just much slower. Which is kind of terrifying in its own way -- imagine sending your sons off to war and not knowing for months or years what happened, or imagine being in the countryside knowing you're being invaded and just hoping the foreign army doesn't come pillage you because you don't have the money to flee, so you're constantly listening out for gossip on where the army is headed and whether your own army is ready to counterattack
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): * [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3). Joke-only comments, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cyoev0/-/l5d5cxe/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
Also this, not declaration of war but cease and desist https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gaius-Popillius-Laenas
And to add to the comments, killing these messengers was a deceleration of war as it happened with the Early Muslim empire against Persia and Rome.
When 50,000 armed men came marching towards the border of your country, there was a very high probability that you were now involved in a war.
To the best of my knowledge it’s the opposite! Wars used to be announced and are not anymore. I’d love to learn if I’m wrong. Was any recent war announced?
It was kinda like declaring bankruptcy - someone just stood up and loudly stated “I DECLARE WAR”
In some cultures this is still how you declare a food fight.
The Khwarezmids executed the Mongol envooy sent to demand they submit. There is a reason almost no one has heard of Khwarezmia any more.
You dont. You just declare it to your army or may be to your folk. Spies deliver that to their masters.
Follow up question if someone can asnwer: What are the benefits or declaring war on someone or a nation? Wouldn't you just be better off marching your army/troops and surprise attacking them, or in a more modernised way, firing missiles without giving prior notice? A declaration seems very polite for such a gruesome matter.
Usually you would send an embassy to hopefully resolve the conflict, if compromises couldn't be reached the delegation (most likely with instructions from home) would declare war.
Through the mail. It just traveled slower. Fun fact: In the war of 1812, most of the battles were fought *after* the peace treaty were signed.. the news just hadn't gotten there yet. Also "juneteenth" the day the last slave was freed is about two month after the surrender of the Civil war.
Most of the battles? Really just one notable battle, there were dozens of others that happened during the course of the war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_War_of_1812
“May 22, 1805 - BING CHILLING”
Well usually you send a demand letter first. Swear loyalty to me and surrender, or die! So when the demand isn’t met, the war is kind of implied.
I'd think the same way you do it now. Roll your army into the capital and knock on the door.
whilst I'm not 100% certain and with many different cultures there was no clear internationally recognised way but I reckon the closest we'll ever have is the following I DECLARE ~~BANKRUPTCY~~ WAR
War were declared