Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think that Mary Tudor got a bad rap and has been labeled as “Bloody” because the historians covering her were biased against her. She was born of Henry VIII – not the most level-headed of chaps (or kings, for that matter) – and with the pressure of politics in 16th Century England it must have been difficult for someone like her.
I still think - and I forgot to add this to the historical movies thread - that A Man for All Seasons is one of my favorite movies of all time.Interesting question. Plutarch discussed how religion was used in Rome not out of belief in some deity, but because it was known how powerful and unifying of a force it could be for the masses. Likewise, it would have been known to the Romans how religion – and religious persecution – could be a rallying cry or a call to arms for more of the religious. Because of the difficulty that a small band (~990) of Jews posed at Masada (the siege lasted 6 months or more), the Romans wouldn’t have wanted to repeat those events. A cover up would be a natural political move, even though I know of no evidence that supports it.
From what I understand Alexander was a great military in the way he merged kingdoms. I believe he married the daughter of a foreign king, thereby solidifying their alliance.
Extra points to Alexander for conquering during ancient times. Regardless of the time, not having a map (or accurate map) to go by must make it incredibly difficult to conquer foreign lands. To conquer (a large portion of) the ancient world is an amazing feat. I have not seen the recent movie Alexander - can anyone tell me if it's any good from a military standpoint?Seabiscuit was pretty good, though I haven’t read the book. I have heard that the race against War Admiral was really quite popular when it occurred…I don’t know how many millions of people were listening to the race, but it was a good chunk of the American demographic.
On another note, has anyone here seen The Thin Red Line? It got good reviews, but I wasn't that impressed. Had some good parts, but it was kind of "spacy" at times. Had a lot of cameos by well-known actors.Interesting…I was going to vote for Scipio, but instead chose Napoleon.
Although Napoleon may be remembered for his fateful trip to Russia, I have to wonder how many people can persuade soldiers to switch sides and join you after they've come to arrest you.
From Wikipedia:
King Louis XVIII sent the Fifth Regiment, led by Marshal Michel Ney who had formerly served under Napoleon in Russia, to meet him at Grenoble. Napoleon approached the regiment alone, dismounted his horse and, when he was within earshot of Ney's forces, shouted "Soldiers of the Fifth, you recognize me. If any man would shoot his emperor, he may do so now". Following a brief silence, the soldiers shouted "Vive L'Empereur!" and marched with Napoleon to Paris. He arrived on 20 March, quickly raising a regular army of 140,000 and a volunteer force of around 200,000 and governed for a Hundred Days.
Pretty amazing.nemesisenforcer wrote:So it is with Iraq: our enemies can’t ignore it because it is so vital to their own worldview that to abandon it to us would be unthinkable. I realize I’m mixing metaphors somewhat, but I believe Iraq is a mutli-faceted issue with a lot of long term ramifications and potetentials for everyone involved.
I agree - the ramifications are long-term and we really won't know the effect that the removal of Sadam will have on the Middle East for years to come. There are a lot of factors yet to play out, but the course of Iraq will also define Bush's presidency to some degree. If Iraq fall, long after Bush is out of office, he will be blamed; if Iraq succeeds, then Bush will still be blamed (lol) - actually, while that may still be true, his legacy will shine more brightly.What was his contract for…$100 over 5 years? Something like that. I saw him interviewed by Bill O’Reilly a few days ago where he said Sirius’ subscription base went from something like 800,000 to 3,000,000 after he signed on (those numbers might be a bit off).
Howard Stern can probably be credited with shaping some of the more recent years of Western Civilization!SKYDIVER386 wrote:The initial stages of the invasion were an overwhelming success for Germany and many slavs hailed the Germans as liberators. I’m convinced that most if not all of the peoples of eastern Russia would have joined the Germans in fighting against the Soviets, but the Nazi’s would have none of it. Soon after the invasion was underway, the SS units began the brutal slaughter of the slavs and things behind the lines turned from a warm welcome to deadly hostility.
Wow, great insightful WWII knowledge, Skydiver. Welcome to the forum!
Based on what you said (above), it's less surprising what happened to German civilians by the Soviets after the war ended. They brought it on themselves in a sense by their choice of political leaders or failure to stand up against Nazi domination in Germany.
That said, I wonder why Germany did not resort to chemical or biological weapons during the War when they were fighting on two fronts. Hitler didn't have a problem using it on the Jews, but why, from a strategic/madman standpoint, would he not use it on the Soviets?DonaldBaker wrote:But Mel Gibson proved that the Christian audience is a cash cow almost on par with the Star Wars crowd.
But you're being too logical here. Businesses will go after the dollars unless it means being possibly subjected to having mud thrown at them by the media, special interest groups, and elitists. I guess a short way of saying it is they have no backbone. This makes Mel's feat so spectacular; not only did he hear it by the media, special interest groups, and elitists - but he won, and reaped the economic rewards.
So to tie it together, political correctness removes one's backbone.True, and a good thing to remember. The History Channel program made it seem like Josephus’ account was factual, though I suppose it could have been more representational.
It's possibly Josephus' source could have been from written testimony that the Jews wrote down before they killed themselves, though that might be likely or unlikely, depending on the way you look at it. If they only had one night between the time they decided to kill themselves and the time the Romans broke through the gate, would they have written down the procedure of their sad deaths?Interestingly enough, I think that some of this has to do with “legal creep” – and no, I’m not talking about a sleezy lawyer. What I mean is that in the legal community, the adoption of the notion of “separation of Church and State” has become more and more strict over the past 50 years or so. I bet that the average college or high school student would say that these words are found in the Bill of Rights, even though they are not in any part of the Constitution.
As laws go, so does society and culture over time (hence the word "creep"). The strict "separation" between politics and religion has been interpreted by mainstream culture as a validation of moral and religious relativism, where no religion is to be given preference because they are all equally valid. (NB: I seem to have noticed this happening more and more these days, as the "separation of Church and State" argument is used not only as a rationale for arguments in Establishment Clause situations, but also in non-government situations where religion mixes with public life).
With relativism comes political correctness, which prohibits behavior which is "offensive" to a minority segment. One curious feature of this, however, is that political correctness doesn't seem to have a problem with behavior that is offensive to majority segments. Nor does it seem to have a problem with offending the truth and accuracy.
Hence, it's not surprising that Disney would downplay the Christian themes in the Chronicles of Narnia. It doesn't want the movie to be branded as a "Christian" film so that the target audience will be larger.But when did all this start? Perhaps it was with JFK. I’m not sure how he knew Marilyn Monroe, but that “Happy Birthday, Mr. President” song still lives in the American memory and seems to place a Hollywood-Washington link.
Since the Supreme Court has such power today, do you think that Separation of Powers, as enumerated in Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution, is flawed? Or is it just the implementation of the articles to blame? If so, why wasn’t this implementation checked along the way through the “self-correcting” nature of checks and balances?
Perhaps an even deeper question is this: was the decision in Marbury vs. Madison to blame for the current power status of the Supreme Court?Interesting answer.
I have thought of parallels between modern-day America and ancient Rome; vast influence, military superiority, cultural spectacle for all. I suppose that since Europe is like the foreign arm of the Democratic Party in the U.S., the complacency and excesses of America become those of Europe as well.
