Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
But France had no revolutions as bloody and far-reaching as 1789, only the one in 1848 came close. Who can deny that the Arts and Sciences flowered in Europe during the 19th century? The relative peace that they enjoyed was due to the Concert of Europe, which was a duirect result of the horrors and disruption of the Napoleonic wars.
Footnote goes at the end as always and you can add "emphasis mine" if you italicize your words to distinguish them from the secondary source. The only time you want a footnote in the middle of a sentence is when you want the reader to stop immediately and read a point about whatever it is you have footnoted such as a person's name or a place name etc....Usually this is done to denote that such and such a person is not so and so or not to be confused with someone else etc...This can be awkward at times and shouldn't be overdone. Just use discretion where possible.
Donald has it right here. One thing many students do is excessively footnote. Footnotes should only be used to cite facts and to give credit for thoughts or conceptss that are not the authors. It is easy to get wrapped up in the technicalities of footnoting. The acronym I always keep in mind when footnoting papers is KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Too many footnotes detract from the flow of the paper, only footnote things that are directly pulled from another source. It is not necessary to fottnote generally known or acceptedthings either. Ex. I would not footnote the fact that D-day was June 6, 1944 even though every allied invasion of WWII had a d-day. It is generally accepted that when referring to D-day one is referring to Operation Overlord.
But aren?t all the cultural underpinnings of current western Civilization descended from the Greeks and Romans as our cultural forebears with a later Jewish influence descended from the Christians? The earlier eastern civilizations moved away from the western model with the division of the ancient Mediterranean world between Greeks and Persians.I cannot argue with civilization beginning in the ancient Near East, but they are not our cultural ancestors, the Greeks and Romans are. The question becomes, what cultural elements do we derive from the Near East? This thread is about Western Civilization not civilization as a whole.
Ski,Even if I bought your contention that only 1% of Arabs are involved in terrorism, which I do not. What about the other 99% percent that may not actively participate. The overwhelming majority of these support the activities of the terrorists. Please don't give me the tired majority of Muslims are moderates line, I call BS on that. Most in fact, do support terrorism or at least its stated goals. If there was such a peaceful majority of Muslims, where are they? One would think we would have heard from them by now. Instead, I see hundreds of thousands protesting cartoons, movies, and statements. I see Arabs burning down western embassies and demanding we change. It seems that the west are the tolerant ones and the "moderate" Muslim has yet to make an appearance.If we were to launch an OPF the results would be the same as in Iraq. The supposed Palestinians are not groaning under the yoke of the terrorists, they support them despite the horrendous conditions under which they live.Most Americans don't have a clue what they are talking about. They take neither the time or effort to find anything out. The average American only knows what they media tells them, much like the average Arab. Unfortunately the average American media outlet preaches essentially the same anti-American line as Al-Jazeera.
Truth is only a hazy concept for poets and philosophers.
And what about regular folk? What then is the difference between truth and fact. I contend that the concept of truth is metaphysical whereas fact is either physical, verifiable, or both.
Then you must go by the letter of the law at the time. Davis was a traitor, as was Washington, Adams and the rest of those who participated in the revolutionary war. They broke the law, just because they won (except Davis of course) doesnt change that fact. The fact that they won is what saved them from the hangmans noose.
You are absolutely right. Historically, winning usually fixes everything. I made exactly this point when I joined this thread.
They were traitors against crown, the difference is that the side they were fighting for won, Davis' side did not. Therefore, he was not vindicated by victory. I point out that history is written by the winners despite all the protestations on the left, that is still true. The ultimate verdict in history like in life, is whether you win or lose.
As an example, if the Nazi's had won 60 years ago would anyone be talking about how horrible it was that they killed all the Jews and other so-called undesirables? I think not, instead Hitler would be lauded as a visionary who eliminated a corrupting influence from society and the Allies would be fools who followed the Jews into the dustbin of history. The fact is, that while according to the British the Founding Fathers were traitors, they won, and their victory absolved them of the crime of treachery. Davis lost, therefore he is still a traitor while Washington, etc are not.
In general, when speaking of armies prior to about 1600 it is prudent to reduce the reported numbers by a factor of 10 to get close to actual numbers. That would make the reported 500,000 man army number 50,000, which is still huge for a 7th century army. Consider that armies in the Hundred Years War averaged around 5-10,000 and this was when the armies could draw on established states not much more advanced from 1000 years previously. The 500,000 or 50,000 number, whichever you accept no doubt contains a large percentage of family and camp followers. Remember that until they settled in the remnants of the Roman Empire the Lombard's were nomads, so any figures for army size most likely included the numbers for the whole society and not just sword-carriers.Truly huge armies did not really appear until the Napoleonic Wars. Of course, there are obvious exceptions such as the Mongols, Romans, and Persians. Simply put, the logistics of fielding huge armies defeated most ancient and medieval people, it was simply too difficult to equip and supply massive forces before early modern times.
WWI. It caused the split with Russia and Europe, it changed Germany, it led to WWII, it changed the balance of world power from Europe to the United States, it started tensions between the Middle East and the West.
Lets see, Russia was only partly European to begin with, the split between Russia and Europe goes deeper than WWI and Bolshevism. Don't forget that Russia is a power that straddles Europe and Asia. Russian interests have always been different than Europe's. Indeed, Britain and Russia faced potential conflict along the Northwest Frontier in India virtually throughout the 19th century, it was one of the reasons Britain got involved in the Crimean War. I will buy the balance of power argument, WWI was definitely a turning point in America's ascendancy to world power status. I could argue that tension between the Middle East and West go back to at least the ancient Greeks but the current round has more to do with the building of the Suez Canal and the invention of the internal combustion engine and the West's subsequent reliance on Middle Eastern fossil fuels than anything that happened during WWI. If anything the West built up good will during WWI by dismantling the Ottoman Empire and granting the people of the Middle East at least limited self-government. Do not forget that it was England that set up the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or at a minimum was responsible for the conditions that allowed it to happen. They also established monarchies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Persia(Iran), and Jordan.
Pontius Pilate asked "What is truth?" Did anyone in history ever give him his answer?
I think we are still waiting for it. Those on the left think they have it, but they are mistaken. I think only God knows what the truth is. I will have to ask him about it in the next life.
Rundstedt saw the possibilities of the allied landings as clearly as Rommel did. Neither, however, had the courage of their convictions and neither was willing to buck the Fuerher by making common sense deployments. That being said, I think the only thing that could have really been done differently in Normandy is if the German reserves had been released earlier.Like I said, Rommel was an operational genius an an outstanding Corps commander but that is probably all he should have been was a Corps commander. He was out of his depth in command of a field army. His frequent bouts of nervous ulcers and breakdowns attest to his unfitness for command of a field army. His presence may have made a difference at El Alamein but he was in Germany relaxing after a nervous breakdown when the most severe test of his career happened. Of course he rushed to the battlefield but by the time he arrived the Axis postion in North Africa was fatally compromised.
I would dispute Rommel's status as Hitler's greatest general. He was an operational genius, but I would class von Manstein, Guderian, Rundstedt, and even Model as better generals than he. Rommel lacked a basic understanding of the logistics of warfare that is required of any great general.
I liked him when he was the British PM and what he has done since leaving office has convinced me more than ever that he is a man who gets it. Somewhat reminds me of Churchill in his clarity of vision. He is right, there is no reason that people of different faiths cant live alongside each other without violence. I can still believe others are wrong in their faith without wanting to kill them. I figure they will get their reward when they leave this earth and stand before Christ for judgement.
I would have to say yes. Histories should stand alone, but it is quite understandable to link them thematically where they intersect.
OK, now I get where you are coming from. I have to agree that you make a good point. Civilization is an abstract concept, but I still think there are defining characteristics that set the various civilizations apart and thus the definitions themselves are useful tools when discussing societies and cultures whether historic or contemporary.
The savagery of the fighting on the Eastern Front reflected the idealogical views of both sides. In the east, World War II was truly total as the loser faced not just defeat but annihilation. I have never read that being posted to the east was a punishment for German generals, in what source have you found that? I would tend to discount it as being dubious at best. Hitler routinely posted the best and brightest to the Eastern Front because he considered it THE decisive front of the war.
