“which is why I point out the brutality of both sides in historical conflicts”
I prefer to focus on the heroic, the greatness of historical figures, the ways in which these world historical figures can teach us lessons.
Robert E. Lee takes a lot of flak these days because he was loyal to his state instead of the Union, but the fact remains that he was a magnificent soldier and a great man.
He has lessons to teach anyone who cares to look. However, it seems to me that when we become tendentiously even-handed, and concentrate too much on whatever transgressions are alleged, those lessons seem to be lost.
There is no way that any historical figure who was a military leader is going to be a saint-Julius Caesar was a good example-he was certainly a brutal conqueror-one who captured and executed the leaders of kingdoms all over Europe and farther-as well as being a notorious womanizer, etc-but he was one of history’s great generals and military minds. Texas own Sam Houston was a great fighter and leader, the person who won independence for Texas(and we maybe should have stayed that way, in my opinion)-but he was also said to have been intolerant of dissenting opinions, a harsh man, a womanizer and a hard drinker.
Gengis Khan, Attila the Hun, Alaric, etc-they were all great soldiers and leaders, but no one would ever say they were not also brutal or accuse them of being nice-even General George Patton was supposedly a cruel, explosive and harsh man...