When did people start distinguishing between "just"

I managed to find an earlier account by Cicero https://satyagraha.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/cicero-on-just-war-theory/

>For since there are two ways of settling a dispute: first, by discussion; second, by physical force; and since the former is characteristic of man, the latter of the brute, we must resort to force only in case we may not avail ourselves of discussion.

>The only excuse, therefore, for going to war is that we may live in peace unharmed; and when the victory is won, we should spare those who have not been blood-thirsty and barbarous in their warfare.

>But when a war is fought out for supremacy and when glory is the object of war, it must still not fail to start from the same motives which I said a moment ago were the only righteous grounds for going to war. But those wars which have glory for their end must be carried on with less bitterness.

File: rhetoric.jpg (112KB, 592x524px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 592x524px

Second paragraph of this excerpt of Thucydides from the Athenian declaration of war against Sparta has some relevance to the thread.

Also i'd like to add that I love the subtle dig the speaker takes at the Spartans implying that they have absolutely no chance of defeating them.

It doesn't predate it, but a lot of our current ideas of just war come from Augustine.

>>2720569
That's a bust of Antiochus III, he even has the royal diadem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5drqzTAx18