Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I am sensing some socio-political bias as well as chronological. Are there no villains in the Americas? How about Fransisco Pizarro, who toppled the Incan Empire in two weeks? Off the top of their head, can anyone think of an American “Villain” of noteworthy stature? Maybe I am the only one blinded my own country's sparkling reputation. Second choice, as a continuation of the chronological/cultural bias I pointed out before, is the Kurd-slaying Saddam Hussein
I would like to bring up Joan of Arc as a winner in the esprit de corps department, although I am unfamiliar with other aspects of her military leadership. She might have been a deplorable strategist for all I know, but she did inspire enough renewed enthusiasm to directly influence the Hundred Years' War at an incredibly young age.
I am interested whether you think that a national goal is more important than a goal for the leaders of that nation. Is it more important for the people of a country to have a goal and support it (and the people fighting for that goal) than it is for the leaders/rulers of a country to have a specific goal and work to complete it?
How about the invention of the sword? I have no earthly idea when that happened in history, but has there ever been an instrument more closely associated with warfare? Swords are not useful for anything but killing and fighting. you can't make anything with them, build furniture, they are not good kitchen tools. I suppose you could harvest grain with them, and a lot of the pictures i've seen of ancient civilizations have soldiers using modified scythes as swords. But for the most part, the sword is exclusively for warfare, and certainly a huge step on the road to modern warfare.
I like fiction, and alternate histories on occasion. there is so much good military fiction out there, if you are interested in military fiction/history, take a look at S.M. Stirling. he also writes sci-fi and stuff, but he focuses primarily on historical and non-historical military.
I think it is important not to underestimate the inertia of society in general. The tendency of most cultures is to distract themselves from the things which are the most important and pertinent to their daily lives and long-term health. Look at ancient Rome: the overwhelming political corruption and what amounted to bribery of the masses with free bread and daily gladitorial combat. In a perfect world, a few influential people with wisdom and foresight could have reversed Rome’s decline and fall. In the real world, people are lazy, and would much rather maintain status quo than make helpful changes, however slight. All this is simply to say that slavery, both in gangs and in smaller home-based settings, probably could have continued in pockets until quite recently, simply through routine, rote, custom and resistance to gradual change. If slaves were never emancipated, and that emancipation not reasonably well enforced, I think it would have taken the US a very long time to completely remove slavery. Interestingly, even a delay of 40 or 50 years would put the civil rights movement smack dab in the present.
Alternate histories are fun aren't they?1. It was undoubtedly a good thing that Hitler’s advance across Europe was stopped.
2. The Japanese side of the war, and the use of the bomb, will always be more controversial than the war on the German "front."
3. One effect that the attack on Pearl Harbor had was to remove America from its isolationist attitude. The signifigance of this effect should not be underestimated. How different would modern history have been if the American people continued to feel that all outside political involvement was dangerous and scary? Would any of our more current wars and police actions and military aid programs have ever happened, without the catalyst of a dramatic example of our vulnerability? If America had remained an isolationist state, would the UN even exist? Would the Vietnam War have ever happened? What about our involvement in Yugoslavia and the Balkan states? I think that the dramatic shift away from Isolationism was one effect of Pearl Harbor with incredible long term political signifigance, perhaps only second to the use of the bomb, and its impact on international relations.
what do you think?
❓
