Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ok see if I'm going in the right direction…how much of a government does there have to be to have command over “Lawful combatants?”
The B-52 is my choice also. Aside from its longevity so far. It is also the platform the AF seems to test many of its munitions out on. Every time some new ordinance comes out, they test it with the B-52. That thing can carry EVERYTHING! I'll bet someone has even attempted to install Air-to-air missiles on it at some given time. Also I think 2030 is a bit early from that last date I've heard.But I didn't want to take away from the KC-135 (Boeing 707) Strong platform and we use it for all of the other stuff AWACS, JSTARS. Not sure if they plan to use the new KC45 for any of that stuff.
So could we say that a historian is more of a researchist? Obviously many focus on certain areas and after a certain amout of time develops an expansive amount of knowledge, but acquires that knowledge from any and all sources available. And perhaps the problem with other disciplines is when they tread into the world of the historian carrying only the sources from their discipline that they invite the wrath of other historians.Does that make sense or am I just rambling?
So what is the difference between terrorists and revolutionaries? Just the side of the fence you are on?
I guess the underlying argument is who is supposed to tell the story? Can archeologists tell the story or are the historians supposed to? Sorry to get off topic
I didn't add that one since it was actually used During Vietnam. Otherwise you could add the F-4, A-6 and others.
Is it only the archeologist who finds things and dates them and it's the historian who deciphers the evidence?
I thought that too, but after reading the definition of archeologist it may be more and I think thats where anthropologist come in. Both of them, I believe, try to determine how people acted on a day to day basis, based on the things they find. Historians deal with events. As specific as the date of a battle or as broad as the migrations of peoples.
Lets clear this up. Here are a few definitions of Archeology1)The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and pottery. The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionCopyright ? 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.2)the branch of anthropology that studies prehistoric people and their cultures WordNet? 3.0, ? 2006 by Princeton University. 3)The scientific study of past human life and culture by the examination of physical remains, such as graves, tools, and pottery. The American Heritage? Science DictionaryCopyright ? 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.Now here is anthropology:1. the science that deals with the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, and social customs and beliefs of humankind. 2. the study of human beings' similarity to and divergence from other animals. 3. the science of humans and their works. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, ? Random House, Inc. 2006. I think what is going on is that many archeologists are also anthropologists. Now when the A's start to get away from the daily life events they are studying and start to use that to create their own history, thats when whe have the problem being discussed here. Now that does not mean that Historians don't need A's. There is a lot of information that H's use to support their histories, and that's how it has to work. History is a record of past events. That record is supported by concrete evidence such as the artifacts unearthed by archeologists or by interpretation of previously documented records. I don't think A's take the other records into consideration some times. Good ones may.Now regarding modern archeology, There is so much more we can do with technology. They are discovering ancient building in the rainforests of central and South American using satelites. We can peer into the ground using radar. But there are still occasions where you need to dig, but it may not have to be on a massive scale. While I was in England, I learned that much of the archeology going on there is Rescue Archeology. Basically when they are putting in a road or a building and come across something, archeologists go in to catalog the site and remove artifacts before the site is destroyed and lost. A shame really.
Again remember most “Roman” solders were not from Rome. While the Tribunii, Legatus, and Consul were usually of Roman origin, these were appointed members and probably had much less time with the respective legion than those actually IN the Legion. Plus for many years the mass of troops were filled with locals. Allowing local men to “join” the legions with the promise of Roman Citizenship was a way that Rome could assimilate conquerored peoples into the Empire. If there were any foreigners intermarrying with the Britons, they were far from “Roman” and would do very little for to increase British stock.
I don't believe there was that much Roman blood. Many of the troops were from Gaul and Iberia and I doubt many true Romans would have taken Briton wives.
The allies had something to work with, with the Enigma machine. We had a machine but didn't know the key, that just took some time to acquire. As far as the Linear A, we only have the end result and nothing to compare it to. Heck for several languages we didn't understand them until we discovered the Rosetta Stone which gave us something to compare to.
