Hurma & Birka
Birka
I just read that during the Peloponnesian War Athens used torture on captured spies—what would you say about that from a strategic and ethical standpoint?
Hurma
From a strategic view, brutal methods can force quick confessions and send a chilling warning, but they also breed deep resentment and can rally enemies. Ethically, they violate the very principles of justice we claim to uphold; a strategy built on torture ultimately undermines the legitimacy of our cause. In the long run, a humane approach tends to win more allies and keeps the moral high ground.
Birka
So you think “torture is a moral hazard” and “humanity wins allies”? Fine, but the Spartans used the harshest discipline to forge their warriors, and Rome’s use of crucifixion terrorised the provinces. In the heat of war, if you refuse to scare your enemies, you’re giving them time to grow. I’ll take the moral high ground if I can, but I’ll also bring a sword in one hand and a citation in the other. History likes to remember the bold, not the soft.
Hurma
I understand the allure of boldness, but history shows that those who rely solely on fear often lose the moral legitimacy that keeps allies loyal and future generations willing to support them. A strategy that balances decisive action with humane treatment tends to endure, because the allies you earn through fairness can be far more powerful than the fear you instill. So wield that sword wisely and let the citations reinforce the principle that strength and justice can coexist.
Birka
You want to turn fear into a moral legend? Fine, but remember the Romans crushed revolts with crucifixion and the Greeks celebrated the bravery of those who faced death in battle. Fairness can be a weapon too—just watch the Spartan hoplite training: harsh discipline, no room for pity. History doesn't care if you play it soft; it remembers who held the blade. I’ll give you the citation on that—*The Histories* by Herodotus—when you’re ready to write your own chapter.