TradeSurplus
Russ wrote ...

Tamim writes:

Yeah, but it's different. They expanded their territories in their neighborhoood, but they didn't establish colonies in lands previously occupied by "inferior" people.

Is there any particular reason conquest followed by occupation is any

better

than conquest followed by occupation and colonization?

Yes there is. Conquest followed by occupation allows the possibility of liberation and a return to freedom for the conquered people and in any case, allows that people's continued existence. Conquest followed by occupation and colonization results in the destruction of the conquered people (over a couple or three generations maybe, unless you're unfortunate like the native americans). This is a bad thing. I won't explain in this post why the destruction of an entire people is a bad thing because I hope that you know why already. If not, let me know and I'll explain further.