Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I liked the story in Troy…but then again, if it were a bad story, it probably wouldn’t have lasted for thousands of years. The Brad Pitt glamor of the movie was sort of annoying, but otherwise, it was fairly good.
As I looked through some of the history of the Crusades, I realized that the events of Kingdom of Heaven seemed pretty accurate. I had thought that Richard the Lionheart went crusading in the 1200s, which would have made the chronology of the story sort of awkward. But lo and behold, he went in the early 1190s, which makes his stop in France (to recruit Orlando Bloom) at least plausable.
Of course, in 1185 Baldwin IV dies and is followed by his child son, Baldwin V, who "reigns" until he dies a year later, when Sybilla takes over. In the movie, there is no son to intercept the kingdom before Sybilla gets it.
Also interesting about the movie is that Edward Norton played the role of the Leper King. I would not have guessed that one.That would make more sense. They didn’t show the “colonists” on the show trapping, killing, or skinning minks, rabbits, or other furry creatures, as that would probably have been a bit too much for a tame reality show (or for the families involved playing the colonists…or for the PETA folks who might be watching). If memory serves me correctly, the people on the show engaged in other activities such as agriculture, clam/shellfish hunting, and some fishing.
Buggfuzz, interesting what you say, as they mentioned some of those things in the show. There were guards who died along with the prisoners at Andersonville, evidence that it wasn’t a unilateral infliction of pain there as it was at Camp Douglas (the depravation of vegetables, which led to scurvy, is a particularly maddening scenario). The show mentioned that toward the end of the war, Grant did not want to do a prisoner swap with the South because he knew that he would merely be rearming his enemies, leading to more death down the road. Hence, Douglas swelled to some 12,000 prisoners, some of whom were freed to fight out West if they pledged their allegiance to the Union. This pledge also gave prisoners the chance to get a ride home at the end of the war, when they were freed. Otherwise, they had to walk home.
Yes, Wirtz was hung after what happened at Andersonville, but Sweet promoted. Go figure.It seems, thought, that Camp Douglas became the mission of some men obsessed with power when it was able to assert power over part of Chicago. I wonder if this drive was the same that influenced the leaders at the other camps. Furthermore, the unconstitutional trials that went on in or around the camp (I only caught a part of this during the program) is appears to be a sign of flagrant abuse of power. Perhaps they (Sweet, et al) would have an explanation for such activities, but we do see in other parts of history where unlawful trials signal gross injustices to human rights (such as during the New York Slave Revolt of 1741).
Although I saw Master and Commander: Far Side of the World when it was in theaters, I saw it again last night on DVD. I have to say, this is one of the best historical movies that I think I’ve seen. The storyline was intelligent and compelling; the script was tight and echoed the way I would conceive of communications being during the early 19th Century; and the cinematography, costumes, and props were all convincing. Russell Crowe made a great performance in this film and I hope he reprises the role of Aubrey if there are any sequels in the future.
I caught the last half or so of the program, which was really interesting. I had never before heard of such cruelty and torture occurring in the United States in the form of prison camps. What the Union did to Confederate soldiers – mostly under Col. Deland and Sweet – rivals some of the cruelty inflicted on the Jews during the holocaust. It’s a shame that this dark chapter in history is not more well known.
What about Sherman? Couldn’t he be considered a “least favorite” simply for his ushering in the age of total warfare? Up to that point, what would have motivated someone to inflict massive damage on property, and perhaps on life itself?
rldowns3 wrote:The current government has outgrown the origional intent, and in some ways this is good and in others it is bad. I don’t think any of the states back then would have signed on to our current form of government today. I think you’re right about that. It would be interesting to read a paper on positions the Founding Fathers took in terms of centralized government, and where the United States now stands in relation to those original ideals.nemesisenforcer wrote:The Domino Theory has always gotten a bad rap. It was a plausible scenario at the time and we saw it come to fruition in a limited way after the South fell with the installation of a commie govt. in Cambodia. Has the Domino Theory gotten a bad rap? I’m not familiar with modern criticisms against the theory, though I wouldn’t be surprised by them.
I think that politics at any point in time in history is difficult, and it is far easier to judge decisions in retrospect. Unfortunately, when judging past actions, some people or ideologies are overly quick to do so, particularly when doing so supports one's contemporary ideology. We can see this time and time again.This is the problem with history; it is easily analyzed in retrospect but at some point must be lived in the present. To Americans living in the 30s and 40s, I’m not so sure that joining a war in Europe would have been viewed in terms of global politics and security. With the Great Depression and economic isolation of the era, the average American citizen would not have concerned himself much with European wars which had been going on with some frequency for the past…2000(?) years or so (on the other hand, WWI wasn’t that far behind, but the basis for American involvement in that war is beyond me right now).
Had all of Europe fallen to the Nazis, would the American attitude have changed without Pearl Harbor?I was going to try to answer your question, but in my research, I realized I couldn’t really answer your question. It seems like the main hoplite formation was the phalanx. I take this from Hellas: Hoplites:
A hoplite formation was a big part of the battle, the Phalanx was the premier hoplite formation and each man was protected by the friend on the right (the only part of the body not protected by the Hoplon). The phalanx depended on its members keeping together; the moment a breech appears was the moment the phalanx broke apart. A battle usually ended when the opposing sides phalanx broke.
Do you know of some separate formation proper to the hoplite that was also widely used by them? I didn't see anything like that.
Phalanx formations, which were comprised of "blocks" of soldiers in close proximity (with shields to protect up fronts and spears of the first few lines protruding otu the front), seem to have been based on the strategic notion that massive force in a concentrated area could roll over the enemy. That, it did do. While reading up on the phalanx, it occurred to me that the British used a similar philosophy in its successful use of the "Square" through the 19th or early 20th Centuries.Interesting comparisons between Civil War North/South goals, North/South Vietnam goals, and Iraq/insurgency goals. I’m wondering if this could be drawn out some more.
For example, the goal of Iraq it to become self-governing and essentially to "impose" its will on the country (sounds bad, but this is merely another way of creating a land of laws). From my understanding, the goal of the insurgents doesn't appear to be any form of government, but the downfall of the established government. In this sense, the insurgents have an easy task; they try to create chaos with small numbers of men and don't have to worry about governance.I noticed no one has yet voted for George Washington. Yet on this list, he is listed first (I’m guessing they were listed at least somewhat in order of greatness). Why is this?
I will cast my ballot with Sargon I since the Akkadians were a mobile empire…
What would mobility have to do with kindgomship? It would seem that if anything, this would detract from a people’s claim to having a kingdom.
Here's a timeline of Egyptian dynasties (from Wikipedia):
Early Dynastic Period of Egypt (1st to 2nd Dynasties; until ca. 27th century BC)
Old Kingdom (3rd to 6th Dynasties; 27th to 22nd centuries BC)
First Intermediate Period (7th to 11th Dynasties)
Middle Kingdom of Egypt (11th to 14th Dynasties; 20th to 17th centuries BC)
Second Intermediate Period (14th to 17th Dynasties)
Hyksos (15th to 16th Dynasties)
New Kingdom of Egypt (18th to 20th Dynasties; 16th to 11th centuries BC)
Third Intermediate Period (21st to 25th Dynasties; 11th to 7th centuries BC)
Late Period of Ancient Egypt (26th to 31st Dynasties; 7th century BC to 332 BC)
Achaemenid Dynasty
Graeco-Roman Egypt (332 BC to AD 639)
Ptolemaic Dynasty
Roman Empire
These figures put the Old Kingdom at a date prior to the emergence of Sargon. As evidence of an advanced Egyptian civilization at this time, the largest of the pyramids was built during this time (2530 B.C., Pharaoh Khufu). Even if the pyramids were built with massive amounts of slave labor, they would still require significant managerial oversight, as well as logistical expertise to some degree or another. I think that this suggests the existence of an advanced civilization.“What if” style questions are interesting, and I’ve seen a few historical scenarios on television. They usually don’t make it to the big screen, perhaps because they have less attraction to wide audiences.
I would be they'd be especially good in book format.
What if Hitler didn't start the war against the USSR when he did and conquered Britain?
What if Spain's Armada had defeated England? (that's more of an academic exercise, though)
What if the South had won the Civil War? This is actually an interesting question. Would the South have merely forced the North to recognize the Confederate States of America and nothing more? Or would the South have occupied the North?
Good questions.
