![warlike human grouos warlike human grouos](https://t-static.dafiti.com.br/GCTj3oVK-VjKh38gSd22UHUBTuc=/fit-in/430x623/static.dafiti.com.br/p/shoulder-saia-longa-warlike-verde-9746-9278311-4-zoom.jpg)
Of course, if Europeans were shown to have wars no more violent or frequent than other areas, then some explanations for its (temporary) rise to global dominance might not stack up. Of course the explanations for any 'warlike' differences are another thing. now I do know somewhat and that's interesting but not yet conclusive. I think we’ve had enough of new races which are nothing more than reflavors of pre-existing ones. No need for more boring favoured human there. Japan seems to have had long period of comparative peace from Nobunaga on, China also seems to have had more periods of peace than Europe, India I don't know, Central Asia I don't know. The Northern Easten Kindoms can already be filled with forsaken,blood elf, forest troll, worgen and dwarf. So for example, the China area did have wars during the period in question were they more or less frequent than in Europe, more or less violent, intra-regional or extra-regional (ie attacks from or to outside powers). Is there such an (with all obvious flaws) analysis or do we just have to go on 'well, everybody fights'? What I am asking about is the degree of violence, the regularity and the propensity (if these are not the same) in some sort of objective analysis. I am aware that everybody fights and this is the main fact that people seem to be willing to share as if it is a novel idea. Either you are not getting my question, or I'm wording the question very sloppily. The reality might be a resounding no, and I would be interested if it is, but assertions without evidence make for bad history.