>>17450065
More resources than money,war existed before money.

Spanish Civil War

>>17450065
So....anti statism? I doubt all the different religious groups in the world would just be chilling together otherwise.

>>17450065
Things are obviously more complex than that. Separating ideology and the desire for geographical expansion, for example, seems in most cases complicated to say the least. Did the Nazis want to expand because they believed in Lebensraum, or did Lebensraum justify their desire for expansion? Obviously, the answer is “both”, or rather, they didn't distinguish between desire and ideology.

It's the same with religion. To take a period I specialize in, the Wars of Religion in 16th-century France, it's exactly the same thing. Obviously, the various Princes, the towns, the King and all the other protagonists were seeking to strengthen their influence, extend their lands or their rights, whether Catholic or Protestant. But they were all true believers and religion was the driving force behind their actions, not just an afterthought.

And then, we can talk about the majority of those who took part in the war: the ordinary combatants, from the lower nobility or commoners. They are often extremely zealous in their faith, sometimes to excess (which can even embarrass their leaders). Their motivation is very often religion... But also the riches to be gained from war. In their minds, one doesn't exclude the other, and they even go together: loot is seen as a “fair catch”, a reward for good deeds, whether that reward is a sack of grain or an entire territory.

So the OP's “fact” isn't really a fact at all. Or rather, it's a much more complex question than a simple post on 4chan without any source.

>>17451169
Ideology just a tool for the elite to control the masses, like a pretty sugarcoated pill for sheeple to swallow. Religion just same thing, divide and rule, keep the peons distracted while the fat cats get rich. All about power, influence, and resources, and yeah, cash money, the ultimate motivator. No war ever just about spreading the gospel or fighting for justice, its about whose gonna get the gold, and the strong always take it from the weak,

>>17451174
Wow Anon, you're so smart and unique, you're the only one with original thoughts, everyone else is just a soulless flesh automamaton, but not you Anon, you're so special, the greatest mind that ever lived.
Happy 14th birthday btw

>>17451174
Again, if you think that no leader has ever sincerely believed - whether in a religion or an ideology - you're wrong.

I'm extremely sorry to say this as I'm not really a fan of gratuitous insults on the internet but your post shows a level of understanding on the level of a pre-teen, I'd say 12 to 14 years old.

Yes, of course ideology and religion have been used to manipulate people. It's not an extremely original thought, and it's been developed thousands of times. But - to take an example that everyone will understand - Hitler was a convinced Nazi. To take an example that fewer people will understand, the Dukes of Guise were devout and sincere Catholics. That didn't stop them from using ideology/religion to raise armies, extend their influence, win money, but they were sincere in their political or religious beliefs.

Again, the idea is not to separate ideology and money, or religion and power. Everything is interconnected, to the point where it's impossible to disentangle them: when the Pope sends his troops to fight an enemy condiottiere, it's as much to protect his financial interests as his ideological ones. A powerful Pope is one who can make himself heard and impose the law of the Church. And a pope who can impose the law of the Church can raise more taxes, so he be more powerful in carrying the Catholic faith. So The more powerful he is spiritually, the more powerful he is temporally. And vice versa.

Tajik Civil War

>No war has ever happened or will ever happen because of ideology or religion
These old desert men would like to have a discussion with you.