Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wouldn't it be fair to say that defining terrorism is like beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder. Defining a terrorist defies objective criteria no matter how hard we try because it is all in how the perpetrator is percieved by different audiences that determines whether he is a terrorist or not.The French thought Jerry Lewis was a talented actor and the Germans thought David Hasselhof could sing. I would disagree with both, so who is correct?
I believe that we were recognized by France even before the surrender at Yorktown. That was one of the things that torpedoed the Confederacy, no European government would recognize them for fear of alienating the superior economic might of the North, even though some nations, such as Britain, leaned towards recognizing the CSA none ever did that I am aware of.
I will throw my hat in the ring and say that two unremarked villains are Genghis Khan, who laid waste to cities if they failed to submit, and Suleiman the Magnificent who did the same. Both conquered vast territories through the use of systematic death and destruction. There are tales of cities that surrendered at the approach of the Mongol Horde just because of the ferocious reputation.I cant remember who said it but earlier in this thread someone said that attacking civilians is a new development in warfare. you are wrong. Has no one heard of Jericho, Troy, or Carthage. There is a long history of civilians being considered legitimate targets in war. A modern difference is now we can bomb the cities where before they had to batter down the walls before the slaughter could start.
One thing that is striking about that table of figures during the GD is the tax receipts that increased 5-fold between the early 1930s and 1945. It's basically a view that has continued to this day - high government spending anchored in the idea that the government is the provider and enabler.
I completely agree that the high level of government spending is a legacy of the New Deal. I couldn't find or couldn't figure out how to get the unemployment for the WWII era out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. I do know that by 1940, in the middle of rearmament the US was at virtual full employment. It helped that so many men were being drafted into the military as well. I have not argued with the notion that there was little effect to the common man, this feeds the perception that WWII led the US out of the Depression. Some of the key numbers I have seen are the level of consumer spending and durable goods orders, both began to rise after the second half of 1938. As the current downturn and the '80's demonstrate, it takes awhile for an economic recovery to percolate down to the average citizen. By the same token, it takes awhile for the effects of a downturn to be widely felt as well.
Hezbollah were terrorists long before they got the cloak of legitimacy through winning the Palestinian elections. There actions since have shown that they still deserve the label.
Because they are the years during the which the economy was still in contraction. You must have noticed the downward spiral bottoming out in 1933 and then reversing itself with a hiccup in 1937-38?
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?"
Don't they need to be affiliated to a recognized nation state? Otherwise they are what are termed non-state actors. Al-Quaeda fits the definition of a non-state actor I think.
Does that make sense or am I just rambling?
Maybe a little of both. It makes sense but couldn't historians fall into the same trap if they wander into another discipline?
I definitely agree that the Shaara's do an excellent job at historical fiction. Harry Turtledove would probably be excellent at it if he wasn't so invested in counterfactual fiction. I think Turtledove was an historian before he became a novelist but I am not 100% certain. Good historical fiction definitely has the essence of realism, often to such an extent that it is hard to separate the fact from the fiction. Plus it has a story that draws you in and causes the reader to become somewhat invested in the success or failure of the protagonist.
Many disciplines overlap. A historian writing about the introduction of gunpowder has to have some knowledge of the chemistry involved to adequately explain its uses and effects. There are numerous other examples. We all have our specialties but a general base of knowledge is essential, hence the classical liberal arts education.
Agreed, most Roman soldiers were not from the city of Rome. However in the time of the British conquest 1st century B.C to 1st century A.D., the large majority of Legionnaires were of Italian extraction, an area that had been part of the Empire for over 300 years at that point. Locals were enrolled only as auxiliaries, it was not until later when an area had been largely pacified that they were allowed to join the Legion with the promise of citizenship. Even then, most locals were sent to other parts of the Empire to serve because it helped to ensure their loyalty if they were not at home. Third World internal security forces still do this, mainly because it works. The chances that there were many Britons in the Legions stationed in Britain is actually quite small.Legionnaires also were not allowed to marry until they had completed twenty of their twenty-five years. The land grants were to keep them near the fort and available to be recalled to the colors at need.
awe you ruined it for me. I haven't seen 300 yet!
If you are a stickler for something even remotely resembling historical accuracy don't waste your time. I actually got up and walked out of the theater with my wife because I was so disgusted with the movie.I dont have a problem with historical fiction per se, I just have a problem when history is so distorted it is unrecognizable as such yet it is marketed as historical fiction. 300 is a perfect example of such a movie. They should have said it was verrry loosely based on Thermopylae, instead was portrayed in the previews as being fairly accurate.
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.
If that is the case then the Romans in Britian broke the mold. There is a long and venerable tradition of soldiers taking foreign wives from wherever they happen to be stationed. One look at all the Korean and german stores outside any US militay installation will show you that. One look at all the amerasians in Vietnam today gives the lie to this concept as well.In antiquity, the Romans guaranteed a soldier a plot of land outside his local fort upon retirement for several reasons, one of which is the high of intermarriage with the local population. I remember reading a letter from a tribune to the Senate where he implored them for more funds to pay for the upkeep of the soldiers wives to stem desertion rates.
I knew I would find it and here it is. THE SECRET OF THE SOLDIERS WHO DIDN?T SHOOT:http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1989/2/1989_2_36.shtmlThis is one of the best Articles I have read yet exploding SLAM's myth. I remember reading it back in High School long before I had seen combat myself, much less got my first kill. Excellent article.
