Eagles Eyrie surrenders to Harmless?

Many consider this the Great Trove War after a several month "collect the dead and brace yourself" time frame. 

This is a game.  Comparing it to the real world is interesting.  I don't feel the parallel is accurate, but I'll play with the idea.

As do you, I will start with the USA.  The USA has been in a near constant state of war:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

So, do the citizen's of the USA "want" to be at war or can their luck really be that bad?  In the current time, most US citizen's do not want to be at war and most are never at war.  But, most US citizen's don't mind supporting war.  We elect leaders that devote a lot of our tax money to ensuring our soldiers are the best trained and equipped in the world.  The US army is currently an all volunteer force.  Do the volunteers "want" to be at war?  I read a lot.  In the last 4-6 months I've read the following books that provide some insight into the minds of people who join the military.  "All American Sniper", "Into the Fire", "Absurdistan" and "Unbroken".  I've read a lot more books stretching back decades by individuals who've fought (or participated) in wars.  The one clear text is that these people do indeed want to be in the middle of a war.  It's clear there is a pecking order in the military with those with the greatest interest in fighting gravitating to the jobs with the most fighting.  One overarching theme expressed in every military biography is that once a sane, intelligent person get's experience in war, he/she looses his desire to be at war.  So, although most American's do indeed "not want war" those individuals are not actually in wars.  But, those that do participate do want to be in war.  That is what they volunteer for.  It's not why they stay, that's a different discussion.  Those in charge (and those that vote for those in charge) want war for reasons that sadly parallel the reasons people in games give.  Saying that the president that orders troops to war doesn't want to do that is silly.  Of course he/she wants war, he/she is choosing war over other available (perhaps less desirable) options.  That individual may want war for "legitimate" reasons but to suggest that somehow they are "forced" to fight is silly.  The USA has never fought a strictly defensive war for it's survival.

You mention Pax Romana, let's look at that.  Pax Romana was a period of "relative peace" for Rome.  I'm no historian, but according to Wiki it lasted from 27 BC to 180 AD.  So, if you look at the wars fought by Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Rome#2nd_century_BC), you see that during those roughly 207 years Rome was at war someplace for 61 years.  That means Rome was at war 33% of the time presented as a shining example of how Rome "didn't want war".  This is a time when Rome held sway over nearly 100% of the accessible (to Roman technology) world and yet still managed to be "at war" 1 in every 3 years.  Again we see a nation depicted as "not wanting war" but even during it's most peaceful period, it's in a near constant state of war.  It's also a nation that moves from a levy (or draft) based defensive military to a volunteer (non-citizen) based offensive military.  A nation who's people "don't want war" but who do not mind actively supporting those that do want war (for whatever sociological-economic reasons).  Romans, like Americans, were perfectly happy "wanting war" as long as they were not personally fighting in the war.

Martin Luther King did not want violent conflict (war).  Nelson Mandela did not want violent conflict.  Mahatma Gandhi did not like violent conflict.  etc...  Now, how often did those individuals or the movements they inspired actively inflict violence on others?  There are real world examples of populations that both say they do not like violent conflict and prove it by going out and sucking at violent conflict.  People supporting every one of those causes died.  People in every one of those causes lost every "battle".  That is what people look like that don't want war.  There are probably a lot more examples throughout history but most people that do not want war do not last long.

BTW, H? is now getting embroiled in it's 3rd world war.  If Neville Chamberlian had been involved in the crisis moment leading to 3 world wars, yes, I'd question if he really wanted peace.  You would not?  The Greeks are a fascinating example.  Like H? and it's wars, the Greeks have been involved in a series of financial crisis.  I believe, that somewhat based on the decisions the Greeks have made and are making, they are choosing to be in a financial crisis.  If that isn't what the Greeks want, then they should make different choices.  Like the Greeks, if H? doesn't want war, it should make different choices.

Are you still here???   You have been obsolete for so long, isn't your cheese getting moldy?