Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The situation you describe is a fundamental question of politics in a leadership change, and I imagine that even the Greeks debated this kind of question. The will of the people is dependent upon things that they perceive, which is not always a complete picture. It can also shift easily because of propaganda, moments of extreme emotion, and so forth. It also may be impractical. Leaders have a better view of what is practical because they have a more complete view of resources, capabilities, and other assets which are necessary to achieve a goal. However, they can be corrupted and can forget about their constituents which they serve.In the end I think that it is a balancing act; the national goal is important, but it should be pursued in terms of the goals of the rulers. Of course, the rulers' goals should be made in light of the national goal. Expecting the national goal to be pursued at all costs can lead to impracticability and lead to anarchy; expecting the rulers' to complete their own goals without regard for the national goal can lead to totalitarianism.
While watching a show on Biblical battles, I learned a bit about the different forms of swords. The early Israelites began using the sickle sword which had a “bent”, curved blade. I believe that they adopted this from another civilization during the time. However, they also would have used things such as clubs – inferior to the sword. The advantage of the sickle sword was that it was good for slicing things with, and perhaps as such it was also used in some form or another for harvesting. The disadvantage was that it would not be used to directly pierce.Later on, by the time of David and Jonathan, the Israelites battled the Philistines using a superior weapon, a version of the short sword which had been developed (I believe by another civilization of the era). This weapon was superior because of its piercing power with its pointed end. What's interesting is how long the sword was used in battle, even after its time in the limelight as a primary weapon had ceased. I think that it is obvious that its decline came with the invention of gunpowder sometime during the late Renaissance period, but even then it took several hundred years for an effective firearm to be produced that could be used as a primary weapon. This was probably some time during the 1600s or so, meaning the sword was a primary instrument for over 3000 years (!!). An impressive history, indeed.
While I can understand the drive for “inclusive” religion to a certain degree, the trend that I was referring to is not of that ilk. Rather, it is more of a conservative trend which echoes of ages past – a “pure” practice of Christianity – than a watered down version that may exist with modernites. While attending an institution that is mentioned in the book – and while studying the First Great Awakening – it dawned on me that the parallel was quite clear. Of course, with any historical parallel, there will necessarily be distinctions. But in terms of general cause-reaction-counteraction + figureheads + institutions, in my opinion this does exist.
I agree that pockets of slavery would likely have lasted well after 1865 had there been no war. As an institution, Southerners had strong attachments not only to that way of life, but they seem to have been a very “proud” people (still are today). The South Carolina secession document, for example, echoes that sentiment. They would not have wanted others telling them what they could and could not do.
However, the Civil War occurred in the era of the Transportation Revolution, and mechanical engineering was beginning to take flight. Indeed, the world was entering the "Second Phase" of the Industrial Revolution. Slavery, as an institution, would gradually have been needed less.
I do think, however, that the integration of black America into the larger white society would have been stunted, and the whole civil rights movement would have turned out much differently than it actually did.
Yes, alternate history is a blast. And we haven't even started a thread on what would have happened if England would have surrendered to Germany in WWII. Someone ought to do that. 😛I believe that a number of European countries had already begun to outlaw slavery during the early- to mid-Nineteenth Century. So yes, the tide was turning through the world by the time the Civil War broke out in the States.
You might find interesting what I posted in another thread about the Little Ice Age. Basically, scientists have been able to determine that a temperature drop from about the Renaissance age to the Industrial Revolution had a profound effect on Europe and America. They theorize that this may have occurred because of changing water warm or cold water currents in the Atlantic. What is also interesting is that there is a suspicion that this may be occurring again. In fact, not long after watching the program which aired that theory, I saw a news story which mentioned the possibility of our world revisiting this scenario.That said, I imagine it's difficult to determine whether this is true or not. I believe that weather patterns shift from time to time, so the climate model is not completely predictable.
inputink wrote:usually in historical films – especially WW2 films the british war effort is minimalised and the Americans are doing most of it.
LOL, I don't doubt it, and it's got to be pretty annoying for the folks in the UK. Wasn't the storyline of the WWII submarine movie - U-571 - changed from the British taking over the sub to the Americans? Yes, I suppose I would be annoyed if I were British. Also, I know that in the movie Master and Commander, the story was changed. The novel takes place around 1815 or so, and the British are battling with the Americans, but in the movie the story is set back to around 1805, and the Brits are instead battling the French.
inputink wrote:Has anyone seen the Pianist???? its about a Jewish Pianist who survives the holocaust - it seems more gritty...but again some parts are a bit farfetched if you know what I mean (I guess you can't avoid that). It was a true story though.
Yes, I have seen that movie and enjoyed it quite a bit. In fact, it is one of the top historical films I have seen. It takes place during the Jewish uprising against the Nazis in a particular ghetto.DonaldBaker wrote:Yes the influence is very noticeable, but not from the children of the revivals. Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Gilbert Tennent, Samuel Davies, and Theordore Frelinghuysen might not have all approved of independence. Most of them I suspect (because of their devotion to Calvinism) would have been loyalists being the more conservative minded ideologically.
Then how would you reconcile this with the severing from the Church of England? It seems that the "children of the revivals" that you mentioned are merely children - literally, because I believe they'd be in the next generation - of the likes of the Wesley brothers who founded the Methodist church circa 1703 in England. It seems that Whitefield, Edwards, et al would have at least been open to political rebellion, even if not bloody revolution. Speaking of the Wesley brothers, this gives me an idea for a thread on another Great Awakening comparison I'll post in the GA topic.jonnyjmboy, welcome to the forum.
I agree that it was good that Hitler's advance was stopped in Europe, particularly since we now know he had written of his plans to invade the United States after his warring in Europe was done (see my post on Hitler's Lost Plan). I also think that the pre-WWII isolationism tainted world economic growth. Especially during the Great Depression, countries became more concerned with domestic production and therefore raised tariffs, which effectively denies the efficient allocation of resources (read: bad news) for countries in the long run.
As far as your other questions, countries tried out the League of Nations prior to the UN, and no, I don't think that the Vietnam War would have happened if America kept her isolationistic tendencies through the 1960s. The Domino Theory was really based on a proactive approach to world affairs - similar to Bush's proactive approach to fighting terrorism (fighting the terrorist "there" rather than "here").
Interesting point, though...I wonder if someone has ever mapped out the frequency of U.S. foreign military actions during the 20th Century. There would probably be a lull during the 1930s and then a jump during WWII and then a continually high rate through the rest of the century.It’s interesting that you called it a “Mossad-esque rescue operation”. Right before commercial breaks during the program, they gave tidbits on how Biblical military operations were inspirations for modern-day military operations (i.e. the “Gideon Force” during WWI or WWII was a smaller squad of special ops soldiers designed after the Biblical-era Gideon’s decision to use 300 mobile troops over a larger army to accomplish his objectives). I believe Abram/Abraham’s nighttime rescue of Lot was pointed to as the influence for some modern-day Israeli nighttime raid, though which one in particular eludes me now.
And you point to the absence of a reference to Abram heading the rescue of Lot. In the program reenactment, they had Abram as the lead warrior going into the camp raid with sickle sword in hand. Thought you'd find that interesting.Interesting.
Camp Douglas has to be the North=s best kept secret of the Civil War B their Andersonville B but a camp that must be identified with extreme cruelty and Aconvenient@ record keeping of the dead.
I see that the author notes the discrepancy in reporting of the number of dead, just as was mentioned in the program. Do you happen to know the Pritchard man?
Thanks for the words, Donnie. The more we post, the more the posts get picked up by searchers on the web, and the more people read what we have to say. Hopefully we’ll get more people involved. I’ve been busy with another internet project over the past two months and so I haven’t been quite as active recruiting more people. I’ll have to keep developing my strategy in doing that.
When was the Maxim used? Last summer I went to the Museum of American History at the Smithsonian where I saw a history of guns. I remember one of the earlier machine guns must have had about 20 barrels, all lined up side by side (this must have been pre-Gatling). I think it was around WWI that they started producing a machine gun that resembled modern-day guns.
I think that gunpowder certainly did separate its age of warfare from the previous age. According to this site, gunpowder was introduced to Europe some time in the 13th Century. Obviously, it took some time for it to spread in its use before it came to be a force in military technology. Had one nation taken the lead to begin to produce weapons utilizing gunpowder, it would have had a clear advantage over its rivals. I don’t know that this happened, though.
I remember watching a show a few years ago about fireworks, and how that kind of powder was used in carnivals or some entertainment form in Italy...perhaps Venice...I think during the Renaissance. They liked the bright, "sparkly" colors, no doubt.
Certainly, the U.S. had an advantage with the atom bomb in 1945. Even today, one of the reasons for the U.S. dominance in its role as a superpower is its nuclear arsenal, and its ability to sustain such an arsenal (the economics of it probably helped bring the USSR down during the Cold War). Today, there's constant worrying that rogue nations - or even careless ones - will get nuclear technology. This would take away some advantage the U.S. has in terms of military might, but it would also push the world closer to destruction. Unfortunately, these nations will not know the lessons learned by the superpowers during the Cold War.
