Para- a man after my own heart.
I have been interested in that too recently. More for the continious cycle of rule by terror in the Middle East- anyway:
I don't believe any long standing large civilization present or fallen has come about without aggression. Smaller early nomadic congregations (Paleolithic and Neolithic) were led by wisdom and age but when agriculture and settling came to a land, people followed for a reason. The first known large civilization(s)- around Mesopotamia (between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers) were ruled by fear and intimidation through terror and the rumors that instilled that fear. If you look up King Sargon, you will see what I mean. It is human nature, the tactics of Sargon and other leaders were practiced because there wasn't media to broadcast the word and traveling large distances to speak to your people was difficult- it was about ruling people and keeping the only known land and agriculture under that rule. Later on (exploration maturing) it was the occupation and cultivation of new land and/or common currency- such as precious metals, spices and stones- for the people - or strictly civil imperialism. And let's not forget religion, interestingly those that decide to look up Sargon should note his story sounds an awful lot like someone in the bible but we won't go there.
Edit- evolution, revolutions, media and overall intelligence have made aggressive rule in present times inutile - yet aggressive tactics are still needed to protect peoples from the areas which have not come from under it.
Assuming that there is no land that has been occupied by the same peoples and customs for 10 thousand years- Prolly not. Though, (thinking of long standing Aboringines of regions) Australia was not formed by war and it's settlers did not fight the native peoples. They obtained Independence gradually and only knew war from WWI- present and really none of their own. Maybe Australia.
(I haven't had my coffee yet so I'm a little crusty/confused- I may edit more later
)