>They fought a lot of times even when they were just regional (the region being Europe) powers.
Which is part of my argument: they fought on their way up, to secure dominance in Europe, and then went on to divide the world between then (or failed to, like Germany).
I also mention something similar later, when writing about Eastern Europe, that nation there's also fought as they developed to define their borders and reach, until those "solidified".
But your argument ignores the fact that they were fighting amongst themselves long before the "up" part started. England and France fought each other for hundreds of years before they even knew the parts of the world they would eventually colonize even existed. Germans were fighting in France and Poland long before a state called Germany existed. The gold rushes of colonization intensified these conflicts, but they didn't create them.
And even if they had, why should we assume they wouldn't happen again if Europe was heading "down" instead of "up"? It's depressingly common in history for peoples in decline to fall into warring amongst themselves over who gets to keep the largest part of what's left. What makes Europeans exempt from that tendency, other than the fragile agreement the EU represents that warring amongst themselves just isn't something Europeans do anymore?
The general European peace is one of the great accomplishments of modernity. We shouldn't take it for granted, or assume that it will hold without the willingness of today's Europe to work at maintaining it the way yesterday's did.
>But your argument ignores the fact that they were fighting amongst themselves long before the "up" part started.
That's because it's not the "up" itself that matters, it's the upwards trend -- which they did have since the 10th century or so.
In my other example, the balkan/eastern european nations fighting were even less "up" by any definition of wealth, power, etc. But they were going upwards from peripheral parts of empires or serfdoms under foreign rule (e.g. under the Ottomans) to building their own nation states.
>And even if they had, why should we assume they wouldn't happen again if Europe was heading "down" instead of "up"?
Who said we shouldn't assume that?
What I said is that the peaceful period was because of an end to the power and big stakes that resulted from the upward trend. Those powers entered a stasis, so to speak, and didn't have much to win over one another anymore.
If a forceful downward trend emerges, we can certainly see wars again.
Which is part of my argument: they fought on their way up, to secure dominance in Europe, and then went on to divide the world between then (or failed to, like Germany).
I also mention something similar later, when writing about Eastern Europe, that nation there's also fought as they developed to define their borders and reach, until those "solidified".