War and...Sportsmanship

Wars happen. They've been happening almost since the beginning of time. Why? I suppose most people would agree that it's largely because of selfishness. One guy wants what the other guy has, so boom - they fight each other for it. Probably true in many cases. But what if it started with something totally different? I have my own theory (begin bracing yourself). Back in the day, people didn't really have much to do, other than play another round of "who can shove the stick into his eye the farthest," or other games like that. They were bored. So all the nations got together and agreed to create armies to compete against each other. Not for any real reason, but just for the sake of competition. Get it? Like the sports we play today! Maybe early warfare was just a primitive version of our competitive sports, albeit a very crude and kind of dangerous version. Then again, maybe not. But it still intrigues me. Today when sports fans think rivalry, they think UNC-Duke, Cowboys-Redskins, Michigan-Ohio State, etc. Forget them! What about Athens vs. Sparta? Now that's a rivalry. You've got smart, cultured, sophisticated Athens (almost like an Ivy-League school back when they were also sports powers) versus the mean, ugly bad boys of Sparta (I can almost see a Raiders logo on their helmets). Or look at Rome. Can you imagine Julius Caesar in the middle of heated contract negotiations? What about the Roman Senate arguing over financing for a new stadium with retractable awning? And what about when history teachers always say things like, "at this point in time, so and so country had the world's best army." What if that's not just a guess? What if it really was their true ranking? I wouldn't be surprised if some guy somewhere had started a monthly Power Ranking, or even a Top 25 list that reflected the ever changing strength of the different nations. Do you think maybe people were filling out World War I brackets for their office contests? And what would it be like if a reporter had written an article to help them make their picks? Don't worry, I already went to the trouble to think that one through. I think it would read something like this.

"Well it's that time of year again. You know, it's really hard to predict how this thing will turn out. We have some established forces as well as some newcomers this year. Germany is kind of a surprise favorite for a lot of people. They're young, but they've had a lot of success already, and they've shown that they're never intimidated. They'll go toe to toe with anyone and everyone. France has traditionally been a big talker, but lately they've struggled to back it up. They have some firepower, but their defense has also been questioned by many. Russia is really the big question mark. They've showed signs in the past of becoming an established powerhouse, but their shocking non-conference loss to upstart Japan was a major red flag. Plus there have been recent reports of major team chemistry issues. I would count on an early exit for them. There are also some possible Cinderellas in the field. I see the United States as being the best possibility. The Americans have been pretty quiet since their huge upset against Britain, but I really like their energy. Definitely a lot of potential. If they find their way into the tournament, they could make some noise. My overall favorite, though, has to be Britain. They never really get many home matchups, but they're excellent on the road. The pressure of being in someone else's house doesn't faze them. The British are the type of gritty, veteran group that can grind out a win when they need it most, and I think they'll find a way to win here."

Ok, maybe I took this a little too far.......