The Incredibly Stressed ADR
Tiglath
I worry that Mr. Retzios may become unwell if he does not do an
attitudinal face about.
Bonusless, jobless, living in a country with tens of millions of guns
in private hands (the horror of it), and getting his Macedonian ass
kicked on soc.history.ancient on a regular basis.
When one discovers or is told that one made a crass error, tension
builds within. It stems from embarrassment, telling oneself "I should
know better," the fear of public ridicule, hurt pride, or a variety of
other causes, all mixed. And tension builds up for each new
mistake.
ADR has not discovered yet the magic of admitting errors. The moment
one admits error, the tension just vanishes. It's immediate release
and closure. The knowledge DB gets an update and one moves on and so
do our critics, if they are decent people. All it takes is a quick
look to see if the correcting agent is in fact correct. The moment
the correction conforms to reason, it's run, not walk to be prompt in
uttering, "I stand corrected."
Nobody must know this simple piece of wisdom in Macedonia, or in the
Macedonian ex-patriate circles ADR must frequent as a guest in the
U.S. It also seems too late because ADR has nothing but deaf ears for
anyone reminding him of this salient fact.
Last month ADR accumulated serious electrostatic voltage, with his
claim that winter was not an element in the German defeat, and his
gaffes on Alexander, but this month after his reiteration that one
cannot prove a negative, that the symbols < and > are not used in
solving inequalities, his notion that Nero lost his throne because he
overtaxed people to rebuild Rome after the fire, and now that Divi are
not 100% gods -- all blunders unacknowledged -- the man is a
veritable walking, talking Van de Graaff Generator.
A man who is still here pouring bunk in the group after being so
chastized must be of stout heart, but our words, or any internet
vitriol for that matter, is nothing compared to the sustained tension
this poor fellow must walk about with, and the last thing I would want
is for Anastassios, who is no spring chicken, that one day after
getting his richly deserved daily dose of scorn for his bunk, he would
suddenly clutch his chest and pitch forward, zapped by the tension of
a surfeit of unacknowledged mistakes.
Repeat with me... "I was wrong."
Now try yourself, and then write it down in all the threads you
participated since I've met you, and probably much before.
And be well!
Tiglath
95 Thesen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well you have certainly scolded Anastassios Ratsios of Macedonia.
Maybe he will clean up his act, mend his ways, and hew to the
facts as you see them.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~
Christopher Ingham
Last month ADR accumulated serious electrostatic voltage, with his
claim that <snip> Nero lost his throne because he
overtaxed people to rebuild Rome after the fire <snip> -- all
blunders unacknowledged
Could you expand on what you're claiming? Jupiter, Venus, Mars, et
al. were not_divi_, nor were Caesar, Augustus, Vespasian, and other
posthumously deified emperors_dei_; so there must have been a relative
form of divinity applied to the latter group, n'est-ce pas?
Christopher Ingham
Christopher Ingham
> Last month ADR accumulated serious electrostatic voltage, with his
> claim that <snip> Divi are
> not 100% gods -- all blunders unacknowledged
Tacitus claims (_Hist._1.16.2) that Nero's_luxuria_was one of the two
causes of his downfall. Could you explain how the Golden House would
not fall under this category?
Christopher Ingham
Tiglath
wrote:
Nero's fall was due to multiple causes not a single cause as ADR
proposed. As I said in my post if one had to single out just ONE
cause for his downfall it would be that he neglected his duties of
governance to become a singer. Governance had been neglected before,
and emperors had ransacked the treasury before, but not for something
perceived as shameful as full-time bohemian pursuits. One must be
reminded that in classical Rome, actors, singers, and charioteers,
etc., even if they became celebrities, belonged squarely to a low
class, and it was unbecoming an emperor to be one of them. It was
not only the spending but also the kind of spending.
When Nero returned from his tour of Greece, there was a corn shortage
in Rome and the populace was angry, the aristocracy hated him, and the
legions were restless because of Nero's lack of interest in the
provinces (other than Greece) and the murders of commanders like
Corbulo and those of the Rhine armies. And all the relief they got
was to see Nero's 1808 crowns won in singing contests in the East.
Mommsen puts it this way:
:"One of his striking features was his antipathy towards Romanness.
He liked to pose as an artist and a Greek, a predilection he carried
into politics: he restored freedom to the Achaeans, even though they
did not know what to do with it. His personality was bereft of a
single redeeming feature. He was arguably the most contemptible
Emperor ever to sit on the throne of Rome. [...] His attitude towards
serious politics has already been indicated. Only a complete blank
can be ascribed to him [...] the business of government was repugnant
to him. [...] He was the first Imperator who did not feel it at all
necessary to be at the head of his troops. [...] He was a cowardly,
unmilitary nature."
-- Mommsen, T., 1992, A History of Rome Under the Emperors,
p.175, Routledge
To cite as the single cause of Nero's downfall his overtaxing the rich
to pay for the rebuilding of Rome after the fire it's plain wrong.
Surely rebuilding efforts added to the profligacy, and sure Vindex's
rebellion was the trigger, but neither would have degenerated into a
quick end, were it not for the crimes, neglect, and shame brought by
Nero's sustained dedication to indulge his adolescent and Bohemian
inclinations.
Tiglath
wrote:
> On Nov 20, 4:20 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> Last month ADR accumulated serious electrostatic voltage, with his
> claim that <snip> Nero lost his throne because he
> overtaxed people to rebuild Rome after the fire <snip> -- all
> blunders unacknowledged
>
> Could you expand on what you're claiming?
Let's be clear about this too. My objection is to ADR's claim that
Divi:
"There were beyond ordinary but they were not Gods."
It is wrong.
I'll be happy to discuss any germane issues as long as that is
understood.
> Jupiter, Venus, Mars, et
> al. were not_divi_, nor were Caesar, Augustus, Vespasian, and other
> posthumously deified emperors_dei
I cannot accept that premise when we have one of our main sources
saying that Caesar was numbered among the 'Deii."
"Periit sexto et quinquagensimo aetatis anno atque in deorum numerum
relatus est[.]"
-- Suetonius - De Vita Caesarum, Divus Julius 88
It looks like at that time (the only time that matters), the two terms
were interchangeable.
>; so there must have been a relative
> form of divinity applied to the latter group, n'est-ce pas?
>
Let us agree on what "divine" means in this context. It doesn't mean
being heavenly perfect; like in "her ass was divine."
It means having the nature of or being a deity. So by definitions
"divine" and "godly" are synonymous, as the words stand today.
It doesn't seem to have been much different in classical Rome since we
see the same deity (Caesar) being called Divi and Deum.
Cassell's gives this for Divus:
adj. divine or deified; Cic., Liv., Verg.
substantive m. a god and Diva a goddess: Pl., Lucr., Cic., Liv.,
Verg., Hor.; often as epithet of dead and deified emperors.
C.T. Lewis gives:
adj., of a deity, deified, hence godlike, divine.
noun., a god, divinity, a divine being: (i.e., Apollo) Liv. :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JoRI2BxODJMC&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=divus#v=onepage&q=divus&f=false
Again, Divi and Deus both mean 'god' much as we can find being used
differently at times. For something like "God willing" they used
Deus. "si dis placet" (Cic.), or for "God forbid" "di meliora" (Cic.,
Liv.).
There is little doubt however, that as far as classical Rome is
concerned, the statement that Divi "were not Gods" is DEAD WRONG.
Tiglath
It's Retzios of San Ramon actually.
Anastassios exemplifies how fundamentalism is not limited to
religion.
He has not read all the bunk he posts in a holy book of scripture, but
just like fundamentalists ADR knows he is right and knows that nothing
will budge him from his belief. The truth in his bunk is an axiom,
not the end product of a process of reasoning. The bunk is true and
if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must
be thrown out, not the bunk.
Regulars should thank me for the service I provide. Flame and pure
nonsense threads are easy to bypass because they are mostly fluff and
little is lost in ignoring them wholesale. Giwer's threads are a
good example. But people like ADR are more insidious; they latch onto
healthy, interesting threads and undermine them in a germ-like manner
with constant misinformation and false claims. So nothing less than
the equivalent of an all-out antibiotic assault will discourage them
off their lice-like grasp on good discussions.
I know it's unpleasant to have so many posts to expose their bullshit
and counter its deleterious effects, but it pays off. Next door in
soc.history.medieval quite a few ADR-like pests left for a path of
less resistance when regulars gang-banged them. Aggie has not posted
much since I thrashed him good on Romulus. And ADR has been flagging
since our Protagoras and Alexander days, because he just doesn't have
what it takes to do to me what I do to him.
No need to thank me really because my reward is the fun I have in the
process, but in the end by pushing back on those morons, there is more
time to discuss seriously what we are here for: ancient history.
Christopher Ingham
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 4:20 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
I inadvertently reversed selected remarks of yours in my two posts.
You said,
>>> Last month ADR accumulated serious electrostatic voltage, with his >>> claim that <snip> Divi are not 100% gods -- all blunders
>>> unacknowledged
> > Could you expand on what you're claiming?
> Let's be clear about this too. My objection is to ADR's claim that
> Divi:
>
> "There were beyond ordinary but they were not Gods."
>
> It is wrong.
I didn't read the thread in which the discussion occurred, but I
assume ADR was referring to the emperors.
In the sense that divi possessed a relative form of divinity, he was
wrong. But theirs was not on a par with that of the Olympian gods --
it was more a demigod status. The Romans also sacrificed to the ghosts
of the dead (_manes_) and to the_genius_of the paterfamilias (Price
2003), and thus by your criterion a good proportion of the inhabitants
of the Roman Empire were gods. You evidently hold the christianizing
and anachronistic viewpoint which dichotomizes beings as either sacred
or profane, which is not consistent with that of the pagans of
classical antiquity, who believed that there were varying degrees of
divinity.
> > Jupiter, Venus, Mars, et
> > al. were not_divi_, nor were Caesar, Augustus, Vespasian, and other
> > posthumously deified emperors_dei
>
> I cannot accept that premise when we have one of our main sources
> saying that Caesar was numbered among the 'Deii."
>
> "Periit sexto et quinquagensimo aetatis anno atque in deorum numerum
> relatus est[.]"
>
> -- Suetonius - De Vita Caesarum, Divus Julius 88
>
> It looks like at that time (the only time that matters), the two terms
> were interchangeable.
You objected to ADR's claim that divi (plural) weren't gods, so why is
this "the only time that matters"?
Caesar, in such measures as introducing the cult of his_genius_ and
his_Salus_, anticipated the cult of the emperors (the divi), but his
intention to be worshipped as a god -- Iuppiter Iulius -- in his own
lifetime went beyond what the emperors (which he was not) were to
attempt (Weinstock 1971; Gradel 2002, 61-9), and was in any event a
bit of overreaching which helped to hasten his death. Caesar's case is
an anomaly, and by the time of the dedication of his temple in 42 BCE
he had been relegated to a mere divus.
> >; so there must have been a relative
> > form of divinity applied to the latter group, n'est-ce pas?
> Let us agree on what "divine" means in this context. It doesn't mean
> being heavenly perfect; like in "her ass was divine."
> It means having the nature of or being a deity. So by definitions
> "divine" and "godly" are synonymous, as the words stand today.
> It doesn't seem to have been much different in classical Rome since we
> see the same deity (Caesar) being called Divi and Deum.
> Cassell's gives this for Divus:
> adj. divine or deified; Cic., Liv., Verg.
> substantive m. a god and Diva a goddess: Pl., Lucr., Cic., Liv.,
> Verg., Hor.; often as epithet of dead and deified emperors.
> C.T. Lewis gives:
> adj., of a deity, deified, hence godlike, divine.
> noun., a god, divinity, a divine being: (i.e., Apollo) Liv. :
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JoRI2BxODJMC&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=d...
> Again, Divi and Deus both mean 'god' much as we can find being used
> differently at times. For something like "God willing" they used
> Deus. "si dis placet" (Cic.), or for "God forbid" "di meliora" (Cic.,
> Liv.).
A nice job of dictionary research, but this does not mask your
unfamiliarity with the subject at hand, i.e., the degree of divinity
of the emperors.
"_Deus_and_divus_designate two different types of Roman divinity.
A_deus_was immortal and had never experienced mortal existence, but
a_divus_ -- from the beginning of the Principate at least -- was a
divinity who obtained this status posthumously and by human
agency" (Scheid 2003).
Most modern commentators on emperor-cult understand the deification of
emperors to be an honorific, an intensive form of flattery, bestowed
by the senate as part of an honors for benefactions contract, having
more to do with politics than religion (Fishwick 1991; Fishwick 2003;
Gradel 2002; Price 2003; Scheid 2003; Taylor 1931; Turcan 1996; etc.).
At no time was their divinity equated with that of Jupiter, Juno,
Mars, et al.
> There is little doubt however, that as far as classical Rome is
> concerned, the statement that Divi "were not Gods" is DEAD WRONG.
Yes, but they were demigods. Your remarks, however, indicate that you
haven't a clue about such distinctions.
Sources consulted:
-- Fishwick 1991 = Duncan Fishwick, "Seneca and the Temple of
Divus
Claudius,"_Britannia_22 (1991): 137-41.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/526633
-- Fishwick 2003 = Duncan Fishwick,_The Imperial Cult in the Latin
West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the
Roman Empire_, vol. 3.3 (Leiden: Brill, 2003).
http://books.google.com/books?id=XPmvcE_fKhMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false
-- Gradel 2002 = Ittai Gradel,_Emperor Worship and Roman Religion_
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
http://books.google.com/books?id=QmErhH8TJLYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=9#v=onepage&q=&f=false
-- _OCD_rev.³ = _The Oxford Classical Dictionary_, 3rd rev. ed.(New
York: Oxford University Press, 2003)
-- Price 2003 = Simon R. F. Price, in_OCD_rev.³, s.v. "ruler-cult."
-- Scheid 2003 = John Scheid, in_OCD_rev.³, s.v. "_deus, divus_."
-- Taylor 1931 = Lily R. Taylor,_The Divinity of the Roman Emperor_
(Middleton, CT: American Philological Association, 1931).
-- Weinstock 1971 = Stefan Weinstock,_Divus Julius_(Oxford: Oxford
University Press, Clarendon Press, 1971).
-- Taylor 1931 = Lily R. Taylor,_The Divinity of the Roman Emperor_
(Middleton, CT: American Philological Association, 1931).
Christopher Ingham
Christopher Ingham
> On Nov 21, 7:06 am, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 4:20 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
I inadvertently reversed selected remarks of yours in my two posts.
You said,
>>> Last month ADR accumulated serious electrostatic voltage, with his
>>> claim that <snip> Nero lost his throne because he overtaxed people >>> to rebuild Rome after the fire <snip> -- all blunders >>> unacknowledged
Some pertinent quotes from Miriam T. Griffin,_Nero: The End of a
Dynasty_, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2000):
http://books.google.com/books?id=NjV17FMUzUQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false
"The general verdict of antiquity was that Nero's extravagance caused
his financial difficulties" [199].
"It is difficult to deny the copious testimony of the ancient authors
that Nero eventually found himself in grievous financial difficulty
which led him to exact money and seize treasures from Italy and the
provinces" [197].
As to the reasons for Nero's downfall, "Dio [63.22.12] notes heavier
taxes and forced levies in Gaul and Britain; [...] the Elder Pliny
[_NH_18.35] remarks that Nero put to death six landowners in Africa
who together owned one half of the land of the province. In addition,
the sufferings [...] of Egypt through the exactions of Caecina Tuscus
and of Greece through the collections of Acratus[....]" [186-7].
Tacitus (_Ann._15.46) says that the Great Fire was the direct cause of
levies initiated in Greece and Asia in 64. "Dio [63.1] alleges that
Nero eventually took to claiming all the property of those executed
and those living in exile, and the last is confirmed by Tacitus
[_Ann._16.1-3, 14, 17]. These last excesses belong to the period after
the Fire when there were also voluntary and compulsory contributions
throughout Italy and the provinces" [205].
"The same theme of magnificence and grandeur underlies the plans for
the Domus Aurea, the residence in which Nero would at last live like a
man and which cost Otho 50,000,000 HS just to add the finishing
touches [Suet. _Otho_ 2]" [206].
"[A] fact that attests to to Nero's financial difficulties is the
support his rebellious governors found in their provinces. [Vindex in
Gaul, Galba, and Macer in Africa] rose in arms against the Princeps
whose officials were told, or acted as if they had been told, 'You
know what my needs are'" [198].
"Numismatists have demonstrated, and historians have confirmed, that
Vindex was acting [...] as a disillusioned Roman senator rousing the
Gallic upper classes to revolt against an unworthy ruler whose
rapacity they had already experienced" [16].
"These risings [of the legions under Vindex and Galba] gave the
verdict of the Roman governing classes on their Emperor's rapacity and
cruelty. As Tacitus makes Galba say, 'It was not Vindex with his
unarmed province or I with one legion that freed the people from
Nero's yoke, but his own monstrousness and extravagance'" [187].
Christopher Ingham
ADR
<christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I didn't read the thread in which the discussion occurred, but I
> assume ADR was referring to the emperors.
>
> In the sense that divi possessed a relative form of divinity, he was
> wrong. But theirs was not on a par with that of the Olympian gods --
> it was more a demigod status. The Romans also sacrificed to the ghosts
> of the dead (_manes_) and to the_genius_of the paterfamilias (Price
> 2003), and thus by your criterion a good proportion of the inhabitants
> of the Roman Empire were gods. You evidently hold the christianizing
> and anachronistic viewpoint which dichotomizes beings as either sacred
> or profane, which is not consistent with that of the pagans of
> classical antiquity, who believed that there were varying degrees of
> divinity.
Christopher, actually my position was very similar to yours. My
position was, again, that in antiquity, these subtle graduations in
divinity were understood far better than we can achieve it today. But
as usual, Tiglath, instead of engaging in a civilized debate, launches
into extreme polemics without discussing the merits of the issue as if
the whole world pivots around this point. I guess that now you are on
her list as having disagreed with her. Good going.
igor
ADR desperately looking for allies, referring to Tiglath (male
designation) as "her" is another example of desperation and a clear
sign of male chauvinism.
Tiglath
<christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Some pertinent quotes from Miriam T. Griffin,_Nero: The End of a
> Dynasty_, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2000):http://books.google.com/books?id=NjV17FMUzUQC&printsec=frontcover&sou...
>
> "The general verdict of antiquity was that Nero's extravagance caused
> his financial difficulties" [199].
>
Caligula emptied the treasury as well.
> "It is difficult to deny the copious testimony of the ancient authors
> that Nero eventually found himself in grievous financial difficulty
> which led him to exact money and seize treasures from Italy and the
> provinces" [197].
>
That was surely cause for discontent but not the reason why the
legions revolted.
> As to the reasons for Nero's downfall, "Dio [63.22.12] notes heavier
> taxes and forced levies in Gaul and Britain; [...]
I quoted Dio's version of Vindex's speech in full before as
evidence. By quoting selectively you make it appear as if taxes were
the main complain. It won't do. Tell the whole truth.
Dio gives taxes the LEAST space (importance?) among the reasons for
Nero's downfall. Which he enumerates through Vindex' s speech listing
complaints and reasons to revolt against Nero
See for yourself:
TAXES:
"he has despoiled the whole Roman world"
MURDER:
"has destroyed all the flower of the senate, because he debauched and
then killed his mother"
NEGLECT AND BOHEMIAN PURSUITS:
"does not preserve even the semblance of sovereignty [...]
I have seen him, my friends and allies,— believe me,— I have seen that
man (if man he is who has married Sporus and been given in marriage to
Pythagoras), in the circle of the theatre, that is, in the orchestra,
sometimes holding the lyre and dressed in loose tunic and buskins, and
again wearing in general-soled shoes and mask. I have often heard him
sing, play the herald, and act in tragedies. I have seen him in
chains, hustled about as a miscreant, heavy with child, aye, in the
travail of childbirth — in short, imitating all the situations of
mythology by what he said and what was said to him, by what he
submitted to and by what he did. Will anyone, then, style such a
person Caesar and emperor and Augustus? Never! Let no one abuse those
sacred titles. They were held by Augustus and by Claudius, whereas
this fellow might most properly be termed Thyestes, Oedipus, Alcmeon,
or Orestes; for these are the characters that he represents on the
stage and it is these titles that he has assumed in place of the
others."
I did not want to inflate the paragraph above with its prelude, though
it squarely belongs to it.
"Many murders, robberies and outrages, it is true, have often been
committed by others; but as for the other deeds committed by Nero, how
could one find words fittingly to describe them?"
> the Elder Pliny
> [_NH_18.35] remarks that Nero put to death six landowners in Africa
> who together owned one half of the land of the province. In addition,
> the sufferings [...] of Egypt through the exactions of Caecina Tuscus
> and of Greece through the collections of Acratus[....]" [186-7].
>
So? Tiberius did much of the same. The revolt did not start in
Africa or Greece.
> Tacitus (_Ann._15.46) says that the Great Fire was the direct cause of
> levies initiated in Greece and Asia in 64. "Dio [63.1] alleges that
> Nero eventually took to claiming all the property of those executed
> and those living in exile, and the last is confirmed by Tacitus
> [_Ann._16.1-3, 14, 17]. These last excesses belong to the period after
> the Fire when there were also voluntary and compulsory contributions
> throughout Italy and the provinces" [205].
>
Surely the levies in Greece and Asia did not cause Vindex to rise, or
the Rhine armies to revolt, or Galba to leave Spain.
> "The same theme of magnificence and grandeur underlies the plans for
> the Domus Aurea, the residence in which Nero would at last live like a
> man and which cost Otho 50,000,000 HS just to add the finishing
> touches [Suet. _Otho_ 2]" [206].
>
Evidence of profligacy is not evidence that taxes imposed on the rich
to rebuild Rome after the fire were the main cause for Nero's
downfall.
> "[A] fact that attests to to Nero's financial difficulties is the
> support his rebellious governors found in their provinces. [Vindex in
> Gaul, Galba, and Macer in Africa] rose in arms against the Princeps
> whose officials were told, or acted as if they had been told, 'You
> know what my needs are'" [198].
>
That's an unfortunate statement. Galba's political ambitions surely
were acted upon not because Nero had no money, but because of the
propitious climate to overthrow an emperor who had outstayed his
welcomed for a variety of reasons as enumerated by Dio, for
example.
> "Numismatists have demonstrated, and historians have confirmed, that
> Vindex was acting [...] as a disillusioned Roman senator rousing the
> Gallic upper classes to revolt against an unworthy ruler whose
> rapacity they had already experienced" [16].
>
We seem to have Vindex's own words as conceived by Cassius Dio. I
doubt numismatists can contradict them.
> "These risings [of the legions under Vindex and Galba] gave the
> verdict of the Roman governing classes on their Emperor's rapacity and
> cruelty.
Unless you have evidence that Nero did not pay the legions and that
was their primary cause to reject him. I doubt that the legions afar
would revolt because their emperor was despoiling the populace or even
the aristocracy.
While obviously a contributing factor, I believe far more important
were that Nero had murdered popular military commanders and that he
was a lousy commander-in-chief who was loathed for being what Vindex
(Dio) describes better than I could.
To be specific, again, the statement I vehemently disagree with is :
"it was his [Nero’s] effort to rebuilt Rome that cost him his
throne because he imposed high taxes on the wealthy."
Which is like saying that Saddam Hussein was toppled because his
eldest son liked to rape women with long legs (which he probably
did).
Tiglath
wrote:
> > Let's be clear about this too. My objection is to ADR's claim that
> > Divi:
>
> > "There were beyond ordinary but they were not Gods."
>
> > It is wrong.
>
> In the sense that divi possessed a relative form of divinity, he was
> wrong. But theirs was not on a par with that of the Olympian gods --
> it was more a demigod status.
Again, Caesar was counted among the "Deii" How much clearer does it
need to be?
> The Romans also sacrificed to the ghosts
> of the dead (_manes_) and to the_genius_of the paterfamilias (Price
> 2003), and thus by your criterion a good proportion of the inhabitants
> of the Roman Empire were gods.
Never alluded to any of them.
> You evidently hold the christianizing
> and anachronistic viewpoint which dichotomizes beings as either sacred
> or profane,
Thank you for the ascribed simplism, at no cost.
How, by the way, would a "Christianizing viewpoint" be a dichotomy,
given the array of divine characters in the Christian pantheon? God,
Jesus, the Ghost, the many virgins, the many angels and archangels?
Being captive of my anachronistic viewpoints I do not know or even
suspect that the pantheons of antiquity were hierarchical. It's all
black and white to me and I just can't change my stripes. For that, I
am sorry.
> which is not consistent with that of the pagans of
> classical antiquity, who believed that there were varying degrees of
> divinity.
>
Isn't a lesser god still a god?
Isn't the object of my objection the statement that the Divi, "were
not Gods."?
If you are not a god you can't be divine in any degree.
Aren't the Greek country gods still gods even if they don't have
Olympian stature?
And which classical Roman source supports that Divi were demigods?
Also, is more powerful Zeus more divine than less powerful Pan? I
think not. Not anymore than more powerful Mike Tyson is more human
than less powerful Christopher Ingham (assuming you are no prize
fighter).
> > > Jupiter, Venus, Mars, et
> > > al. were not_divi_, nor were Caesar, Augustus, Vespasian, and other
> > > posthumously deified emperors_dei
>
> > I cannot accept that premise when we have one of our main sources
> > saying that Caesar was numbered among the 'Deii."
>
> > "Periit sexto et quinquagensimo aetatis anno atque in deorum numerum
> > relatus est[.]"
>
> > -- Suetonius - De Vita Caesarum, Divus Julius 88
>
> > It looks like at that time (the only time that matters), the two terms
> > were interchangeable.
>
> You objected to ADR's claim that divi (plural) weren't gods, so why is
> this "the only time that matters"?
>
Because the Divi brought as examples are Caesar and the emperors of
the early Roman empire.
> Caesar, in such measures as introducing the cult of his_genius_ and
> his_Salus_, anticipated the cult of the emperors (the divi), but his
> intention to be worshipped as a god -- Iuppiter Iulius -- in his own
> lifetime went beyond what the emperors (which he was not) were to
> attempt (Weinstock 1971; Gradel 2002, 61-9), and was in any event a
> bit of overreaching which helped to hasten his death. Caesar's case is
> an anomaly, and by the time of the dedication of his temple in 42 BCE
> he had been relegated to a mere divus.
>
I never disputed that the Roman pantheon was hierarchichal. A mere
Divus, was still a mere god, not a mere not-god.
>
> A nice job of dictionary research, but this does not mask your
> unfamiliarity with the subject at hand, i.e., the degree of divinity
> of the emperors.
>
Nothing goes by you.
> A_deus_was immortal and had never experienced mortal existence
It would be unfair, on the other hand, to mention your unfamiliarity
with Suetonius saying that Caesar -- a mortal -- was counted among the
Deii, because I have cited him three times -- sadly to no effect.
> but
> a_divus_ -- from the beginning of the Principate at least -- was a
> divinity who obtained this status posthumously and by human
> agency" (Scheid 2003).
Is it my eyes? On November 23, you seem to be rebutting the point
that there were no differences between Divi and Deii, to a man who on
November 20, wrote:
"In the end the difference boils down to divi having been men
consecrated after death, but ending up being gods all the same."
-- Tiglath
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/fa3ac3f0b29f9d62
>
> Most modern commentators on emperor-cult understand the deification of
> emperors to be an honorific, an intensive form of flattery, bestowed
> by the senate as part of an honors for benefactions contract, having
> more to do with politics than religion (Fishwick 1991; Fishwick 2003;
> Gradel 2002; Price 2003; Scheid 2003; Taylor 1931; Turcan 1996; etc.).
> At no time was their divinity equated with that of Jupiter, Juno,
> Mars, et al.
It would not be safe to reply with even the smallest of flames, with
all that straw around you.
>
> > There is little doubt however, that as far as classical Rome is
> > concerned, the statement that Divi "were not Gods" is DEAD WRONG.
>
> Yes, but they were demigods. Your remarks, however, indicate that you
> haven't a clue about such distinctions.
>
Hit on the nail again.
That must be the reason why on November 20, I cited this reference.
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=1929
You would save yourself a lot of research if you would first read a
foregoing debate before butting in at the end, ignorant of who said
what.
Tiglath
> On Nov 23, 12:59 am, Christopher Ingham
>
> <christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I didn't read the thread in which the discussion occurred, but I
> > assume ADR was referring to the emperors.
>
> > In the sense that divi possessed a relative form of divinity, he was
> > wrong. But theirs was not on a par with that of the Olympian gods --
> > it was more a demigod status. The Romans also sacrificed to the ghosts
> > of the dead (_manes_) and to the_genius_of the paterfamilias (Price
> > 2003), and thus by your criterion a good proportion of the inhabitants
> > of the Roman Empire were gods. You evidently hold the christianizing
> > and anachronistic viewpoint which dichotomizes beings as either sacred
> > or profane, which is not consistent with that of the pagans of
> > classical antiquity, who believed that there were varying degrees of
> > divinity.
>
> Christopher, actually my position was very similar to yours.
How so? Chris agrees with me that "Vidi were no gods" is an
incorrect statement.
And that's exactly how you summed up your paragraph on the matter.
And that's exactly the scope of my objection.
[Vidi] "There were beyond ordinary but they were not Gods."
-- Anastassios D. Retzios - November 20, 2009
Take responsibility for your own words, man.
> My
> position was, again, that in antiquity, these subtle graduations in
> divinity were understood far better than we can achieve it today. But
> as usual, Tiglath, instead of engaging in a civilized debate, launches
> into extreme polemics without discussing the merits of the issue as if
> the whole world pivots around this point. I guess that now you are on
> her list as having disagreed with her. Good going.
Anastassios is not a very good spear-thrower, which in a Macedonian
amounts to a crippling disability.
I can hardly be blamed of fabricating anything resembling what ADR
accuses me of when I base my objection on something HE WROTE, and
which I quote accurately and in context.
Again. He wrote this full sentence about the Divi. I have not
changed a word.
"There were beyond ordinary but they were not Gods."
Can you see "WERE NOT GODS"?
It's a clear declarative sentence.
If ADR wants to admit that his statement was wrong he is free to do
so, but to blame me of misinterpreting him, or any deviousness is
inane when his words stand with utter clarity.
ADR likes to talk about civilized debate, but INVARIABLY in our
conversations he was the first to resort to insults. Now that his
spears are returned and hit home, he complaints. Well, in this world
sometimes what goes around comes around.
Stop whining,and more importantly STOP THE BUNK.
Tiglath
I noticed.
Bad spear-thrower. Phillip can't be happy in his grave.
ADR's aggressive attempt to suck Chris's dick, is even more disgusting
than Vindex's portrait of Nero.
Chris is on nobody's side, for what I've seen, he is on the side of
the truth, but can disagree with people without being offensive, which
is rare in these precincts.
I am pretty much the same, unless provoked, and my dislike of ADR is
not personal, it's business: historical business. He has no respect
for the truth and when he is told so he loses his manners -- not an
endearing combination.
He is jealous that with the utmost ease I can compile a list of his
blunders that needs a scroll bar, and that he cannot do the same to me
despite the thousands of posts I have in the archives.
He still has to produce evidence for his claim that Hannibal was
leading his troops from the front at Cannae. If he doesn't soon I'll
have to add it to his nugget list.
He should also explain to the Concerned Readers his recent statement
that the symbols < and > are not used in solving mathematical
inequalities. Those of us not as lucky as him to have studied at an
Scottish university, could learn a lot from the explanation of this
groundbreaking news, which is much overdue and eagerly awaited.
ADR
It is my policy not to reply to your hateful and full of ignorance
postings. But, in the case of Hannibal, I thought it prudent to
provide to the readers of this post some facts. The very detailed
description of the battle occurs in Polybius histories and it is the
main text on which to base what each commander was doing at the course
of the battle. For those who are interested in reading Polybius (not
you, I am sure), here is the actual text
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-cannae.html
As one can see, throughout the text, Hannibal commands the center of
his line with his brother Mago, the weakest part of his deployment.
But what was he doing exactly? Reading critically the Polybius
account, it appears that he was in the thick of the fight, leading
attacks and counterattacks. Here is the relevant section:
"....Lucius Aemilius still survived. Determined to act up to his own
exhortatory speech, and seeing that the decision of the battle rested
mainly on the legionaries, riding up to the center of the line he led
the charge himself, and personally grappled with the enemy, at the
same time cheering on and exhorting his soldiers to the charge.
Hannibal, on the other side, did the same, for he too had taken his
place on the center from the commencement......:"
For those who have difficulty decoding the text, here it is again in
summary "Lucius Aemilius...led the charge himself and personally
grappled with the enemy...Hannibal, on the other side, did the
same...." In any case, the tendency by Hannibal to lead charges by
his troops is well documented and part of his myth. That he fought
along with his men in the front lines in Cannae is attested by
Polybius, describing the actions of Hannibal and the Roman commander
facing him.
Again, posting links is easy, reading texts is not. Just Wikipedia
would not do. If anybody cares to discuss items in a serious and
contemplative manner, I would be happy to oblige. You are not on that
list.
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The very detailed description of the battle occurs
> in Polybius histories
I'm amazed at how few people actually know what
a "Source" is.
If I claimed that it was "Scientifically proven"
that this "Tiglath" disorder could be cured, a
"Source" wouldn't be a magazine, book, documentary
or web page making the exact same claim, it would
be the peer-reviewed "Study" which came to this
conclusion.
You know, the "Source."
Similarly, Polybius wasn't present at Cannae, and
his only so-called "Source" was the Romans themselves.
....or maybe you were thinking a lot of
front-line-center Roman soldiers survived the battle?
See (speaking rhetorically, of course), reasonable
people can read your account of the battle and see
a concerted effort to glorify (and hence save the
reputation of) a Roman general who ultimately failed,
but whose family would rather not be politically
marginalized by that astounding failure.
And as far as failures go, Cannae, for the Romans,
was *Huge*.
95 Thesen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JTEM
I take it you do not regard Polybius as a reliable source for
what happened at Cannae.
David H
~~~~~~~~~~
ADR
> Similarly, Polybius wasn't present at Cannae, and
> his only so-called "Source" was the Romans themselves.
How many historians were actually at the battles that they
describe??? In fact, it is impossible to write an account of a battle
one is participating in. Battles are confusing events and one only
knows what is happening in his surrounding area, not in the whole of
the battlefield. Sometimes even commanders have no clear idea of what
is happening in other sections. The events of the battle are pieced
together by individual accounts. And, at the time of Polybius, there
may have been a multitude of such accounts that Polybius, very much
like all modern historians pieced together. If you bother to read the
text, many Carthagenian commanders are also noted.
> ....or maybe you were thinking a lot of
> front-line-center Roman soldiers survived the battle?
We know that there were quite a number of survivors, despite the heavy
losses that the Romans suffered
> See (speaking rhetorically, of course), reasonable
> people can read your account of the battle and see
> a concerted effort to glorify (and hence save the
> reputation of) a Roman general who ultimately failed,
> but whose family would rather not be politically
> marginalized by that astounding failure.
>
> And as far as failures go, Cannae, for the Romans,
> was *Huge*.
This account was written quite some decades after the battle (in the
mid 2nd century BCE) and the family of the said general had managed to
move on without the works of Polybius, which, as most books in
antiquity, ended up in the shelves of the libraries of a few
aristocrats and men of letters. It is highly questionable that
Polybius, as a hostage, would have been able to organize public
readings. And survivors of the battle were long dead by the time of
the compilation of this work.
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 24, 1:05 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Similarly, Polybius wasn't present at Cannae, and
> > his only so-called "Source" was the Romans themselves.
>
> How many historians were actually at the battles that they
> describe??? In fact, it is impossible to write an account of a battle
> one is participating in.
Clausewitz, Schliffen, Napoleon, Caesar, and numerous modern generals
somehow managed to accomplish this task.
> Battles are confusing events and one only
> knows what is happening in his surrounding area, not in the whole of
> the battlefield.
Following the same logic, Lev Tolstoy declared that position of an
army commander on a battlefield is totally useless because he never
has timely and correct information.
> Sometimes even commanders have no clear idea of what
> is happening in other sections. The events of the battle are pieced
> together by individual accounts.
Or, quite often, the gaps are filled up by imagination....
[]
Christopher Ingham
> On Nov 23, 3:59 am, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > Let's be clear about this too. My objection is to ADR's claim that
> > > Divi:
>
> > > "There were beyond ordinary but they were not Gods."
>
> > > It is wrong.
>
> > In the sense that divi possessed a relative form of divinity, he was
> > wrong. But theirs was not on a par with that of the Olympian gods --
> > it was more a demigod status.
>
> Again, Caesar was counted among the "Deii" How much clearer does it
> need to be?
Again, Caesar's case -- and the evidence is controversial -- was
unprecedented, never to be repeated. And, again, the senate in 42 BCE
voted to bestow on him the honors of a divus, not a deus. Let's be
clear about this, too: your objection concerned "the divi" -- note the
plural form -- who (except arguably for Caesar) were not "in deorum
numerum."
> > The Romans also sacrificed to the ghosts
> > of the dead (_manes_) and to the_genius_of the paterfamilias (Price
> > 2003), and thus by your criterion a good proportion of the inhabitants
> > of the Roman Empire were gods.
>
> Never alluded to any of them.
You alluded to the divi, who possessed a form of divinity, as did the
manes and the genii. These latter, who number in the hundreds of
thousands, were gods, too, if we adhere to your either/or criterion.
> > You evidently hold the christianizing
> > and anachronistic viewpoint which dichotomizes beings as either sacred
> > or profane,
>
> Thank you for the ascribed simplism, at no cost.
>
> How, by the way, would a "Christianizing viewpoint" be a dichotomy,
> given the array of divine characters in the Christian pantheon? God,
> Jesus, the Ghost, the many virgins, the many angels and archangels?
These would fall under the sacred category.
> Being captive of my anachronistic viewpoints I do not know or even
> suspect that the pantheons of antiquity were hierarchical. It's all
> black and white to me and I just can't change my stripes. For that, I
> am sorry.
Then you have no business making pronouncements on the subject.
> > which is not consistent with that of the pagans of
> > classical antiquity, who believed that there were varying degrees of
> > divinity.
>
> Isn't a lesser god still a god?
>
> Isn't the object of my objection the statement that the Divi, "were
> not Gods."?
>
> If you are not a god you can't be divine in any degree.
>
> Aren't the Greek country gods still gods even if they don't have
> Olympian stature?
>
> And which classical Roman source supports that Divi were demigods?
>
> Also, is more powerful Zeus more divine than less powerful Pan? I
> think not. Not anymore than more powerful Mike Tyson is more human
> than less powerful Christopher Ingham (assuming you are no prize
> fighter).
So there were hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of them (see
above). All hail the god Sextus Afer, the head of household living on
the fourth floor of the Insula Bolani (a tenement) in Transtiberim (a
region in Rome).
> > > > Jupiter, Venus, Mars, et
> > > > al. were not_divi_, nor were Caesar, Augustus, Vespasian, and other
> > > > posthumously deified emperors_dei
>
> > > I cannot accept that premise when we have one of our main sources
> > > saying that Caesar was numbered among the 'Deii."
>
> > > "Periit sexto et quinquagensimo aetatis anno atque in deorum numerum
> > > relatus est[.]"
>
> > > -- Suetonius - De Vita Caesarum, Divus Julius 88
>
> > > It looks like at that time (the only time that matters), the two terms
> > > were interchangeable.
>
> > You objected to ADR's claim that divi (plural) weren't gods, so why is
> > this "the only time that matters"?
>
> Because the Divi brought as examples are Caesar and the emperors of
> the early Roman empire.
>
> > Caesar, in such measures as introducing the cult of his_genius_ and
> > his_Salus_, anticipated the cult of the emperors (the divi), but his
> > intention to be worshipped as a god -- Iuppiter Iulius -- in his own
> > lifetime went beyond what the emperors (which he was not) were to
> > attempt (Weinstock 1971; Gradel 2002, 61-9), and was in any event a
> > bit of overreaching which helped to hasten his death. Caesar's case is
> > an anomaly, and by the time of the dedication of his temple in 42 BCE
> > he had been relegated to a mere divus.
>
> I never disputed that the Roman pantheon was hierarchichal. A mere
> Divus, was still a mere god, not a mere not-god.
All hail the god Sextus Afer, paterfamilias.
>
> > A nice job of dictionary research, but this does not mask your
> > unfamiliarity with the subject at hand, i.e., the degree of divinity
> > of the emperors.
>
> Nothing goes by you.
>
> > A_deus_was immortal and had never experienced mortal existence
>
> It would be unfair, on the other hand, to mention your unfamiliarity
> with Suetonius saying that Caesar -- a mortal -- was counted among the
> Deii, because I have cited him three times -- sadly to no effect.
On the other hand, no modern scholar equates the divi with the deī,
Maybe if you cite Suetonius a fourth time I might change my mind.
> > but
> > a_divus_ -- from the beginning of the Principate at least -- was a
> > divinity who obtained this status posthumously and by human
> > agency" (Scheid 2003).
>
> Is it my eyes? On November 23, you seem to be rebutting the point
> that there were no differences between Divi and Deii, to a man who on
>
> November 20, wrote:
>
> "In the end the difference boils down to divi having been men
> consecrated after death, but ending up being gods all the same."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/fa3ac3f0b29f9d62
>
> > Most modern commentators on emperor-cult understand the deification of
> > emperors to be an honorific, an intensive form of flattery, bestowed
> > by the senate as part of an honors for benefactions contract, having
> > more to do with politics than religion (Fishwick 1991; Fishwick 2003;
> > Gradel 2002; Price 2003; Scheid 2003; Taylor 1931; Turcan 1996; etc.).
> > At no time was their divinity equated with that of Jupiter, Juno,
> > Mars, et al.
>
> It would not be safe to reply with even the smallest of flames, with
> all that straw around you.
>
> > > There is little doubt however, that as far as classical Rome is
> > > concerned, the statement that Divi "were not Gods" is DEAD WRONG.
>
> > Yes, but they were demigods. Your remarks, however, indicate that you
> > haven't a clue about such distinctions.
>
> Hit on the nail again.
>
> That must be the reason why on November 20, I cited this reference.
>
> http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=1929
>
> You would save yourself a lot of research if you would first read a
> foregoing debate before butting in at the end, ignorant of who said
> what.- Hide quoted text -
I "butted in" at the beginning of this thread, not the end, idiot.
You apparently like to make the most of ADR's occasional unfortunate
choice of words or phrases (I wonder if English is his first
language). I myself frequently use malapropisms. We would do better to
try to understand the essence of what he is trying to say, rather than
making hay pedantically with the inapt or unfelicitous way in which it
was said. In reference to his remark which you took issue with at the
beginning of this thread, he seems to have meant that a divus did not
have the status of one of "the gods," that is, one of the Olympian
deities and their circle. And given that condition, he was correct.
Christopher Ingham
Tiglath
<see his post above in the thread>
Sir, you are a monumental weasel.
Let's remind the Fair Readers of what you wrote.
"For Alexander, his presence in leading the [phalanx] oblique approach
was a necessity at Gaugamela. And for your information, Hannibal was
in the front line at Cannae, actually at the weak center that could
have been overwhelmed by the Romans."
-- ADR
The first sentence gives context to the second one, if needed be, as
it refers to Alexander's position *at the outset* of the battle of
Gaugamela, leading from the front. (Never mind that what it asserts
it's also wrong).
So the second sentence must also refer to where Hannibal was *at the
outset of the battle* of Cannae, and not at some later time.
That is also made clear by, "actually at the weak center," referring
to the jutting crescent of Iberian and Celtic troops, the initial
center of the Carthaginian battle order.
Now, ADR wants us to believe that Hannibal was leading, a la
Alexander, in front of the convex crescent of Iberians and Celts (why
should Hannibal? they looked to their own princes and friends for
encouragement, as Polybius tells us), and that when the infantry lines
closed in, Hannibal allowed himself to be trapped in a sea of footmen,
cut off from his Carthaginian lieutenants and so rendered unable to
manage the battle or do anything but attend to fighting the immediate
enemy at arms length, and so reduce himself to be less than an
infantry peon, for he had only one eye.
ADR wants us to believe that, folks. Hilarious.
That is not what the excerpt he quotes refers to.
He weasel instinct compels him to quotes selectively to save his ass
when I have him over the barrel and about to let JTEM loose on
him.
Let us quote ALL of the relevant battle account, shall we?
My annotations are in [brackets].
From ADR's reference at:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-cannae.html
=======================
[T]he legionaries took the place of the light-armed and closed with
the enemy.
[at that point Hannibal would be trapped tight in a vast sea of Roman,
Iberian, and Celtic infantry]
For a short time the Iberian and Celtic lines stood their ground and
fought gallantly; but, presently overpowered by the weight of the
heavy-armed lines, they gave way and retired to the rear, thus
breaking up the crescent.
[At this point Hannibal would probably be dead, the Carthaginian "weak
center" ADR refers to is now breached and retreating.]
The Roman maniples followed with spirit, and easily cut their way
through the enemy's line; since the Celts had been drawn up in a thin
line, while the Romans had closed up from the wings towards the center
and the point of danger. For the two wings did not come into action at
the same time as the center: but the center was first engaged, because
the Gauls, having been stationed on the arc of the crescent, had come
into contact with the enemy long before the wings, the convex of the
crescent being towards the enemy.
[At this point the Carthaginian "weak center" does not exist; Roman
infantry leaks through the breach, Iberians and Celts are retreating,
their first ranks cut to pieces, including Hannibal very likely if he
had been there.]
The Romans, however, going in pursuit of these troops, and hastily
closing in towards the center and the part of the enemy which was
giving ground, advanced so far that the Libyan heavy-armed troops on
either wing got on their flanks. Those on the right, facing to the
left, charged from the right upon the Roman flank; while those who
were on the left wing faced to the right, and, dressing by the left,
charged their right flank, the exigency of the moment suggesting to
them what they ought to do. Thus it came about, as Hannibal had
planned, that the Romans were caught between two hostile lines of
Libyans---thanks to their impetuous pursuit of the Celts. Still they
fought, though no longer in line, yet singly, or in maniples, which
faced to meet those who charged them on the flanks.
[Libyans attack the Roman flanks and begin the encirclement, to be
finished by Hasdrubal's cavalry. Again, the initial Punic "weak
center" does not exist and new fronts open as the Romans turn about to
defend their flanks, and later their rear.]
116. Though he had been from the first on the right wing, and had
taken part in the cavalry engagement, Lucius Aemilius still survived.
Determined to act up to his own exhortatory speech, and seeing that
the decision of the battle rested mainly on the legionaries, riding up
to the center of the line
[what "center of the line" is Polybius referring to? It cannot be
the "weak center" ADR alludes to, it does not exist, the action is now
at the flanks]
he led the charge himself, and personally grappled with the enemy, at
the same time cheering on and exhorting his soldiers to the charge.
Hannibal, on the other side, did the same, for he too had taken his
place on the center from the commencement.
[it's a new battle (as Livy says, "the Romans, who had fought one
battle to no purpose, left the Gauls and Spaniards, whose rear they
had been slaughtering, and commenced a fresh struggle with the
Africans.") and what Polybius describes here is Paullus riding to the
right Roman flank to lead the legionnaires as they are about to close
in with the Libyans, and Hannibal, who most obviously was not at the
"weak center," leading the newly formed front of his left wing
Libyans as they turned right to attack the right Roman flank; Hannibal
leads the center of his fellow countrymen against a superior mass of
enemy infantry. That is not typical Alexandrine behavior, that is to
join battle after the trap has sprung once he sees that all forces are
where they should, and all is left to do is to encourage by example
your best men to inflict grisly butchery on the enemy until final
victory. Learn the difference. ]
==============================
I have to give ADR points for his cunning. He left out enough to the
battle to deny readers the chance to see where what he excerpted
fitted in, and so create the false impression that he was right after
all. He nearly made it. If he had written "Hannibal was in the
front line at Cannae" I would have no choice but to admit he was
right. But he screwed the pooch when he added, "actually at the weak
center that could have been overwhelmed by the Romans," because that
is not the center his excerpt refers to; the strong Libyan front
Hannibal leads in his left wing is NOT, the "weak front" of the
initial battle order center ADR refers to.
In all, a commendable attempt at deception, but one that, luckily for
the readers, did not pay off. If ADR devoted to real study as much
effort as he devotes to damage control by ruse and subterfuge, he
would fare so much better.
In sum, in the art of deception, Anastassios your are no Hannibal.
Tiglath
It looks like English but it reads like Linear A.
Tiglath
> In fact, it is impossible to write an account of a battle
> one is participating in.
The wait is never long for the Gentle Readers to amuse themselves
watching Anastassios make a total ass of himself.
What ADR is telling us is that Xenophon did not write the Anabasis
because it is "in fact, impossible."
Equally Caesar never wrote about the Battle of Alesia, how could he?
It is "in fact, impossible."
ADR is experiencing a personal Cannae climbing a remarkable ladder of
success, wrong by wrong.
JTEM
95 Thesen <davidholi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I take it you do not regard Polybius as a
> reliable source for what happened at Cannae.
Accept him at face value, wipe your ass on him,
just don't misrepresent anything as "Fact" based
on him.
Again, any reasonable person can seee the issue.
Christopher Ingham
So, you didn't start this thread disputing ADR's "notion that Nero
lost his throne because he overtaxed people to rebuild Rome after the
fire" (your words) because the statement was wrong, but because he
failed to say that there were other causes too?
Christopher Ingham
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How many historians were actually at the
> battles that they describe???
So right away you yourself can identify why
skepticism is necessary...
> In fact, it is impossible to write an account
> of a battle one is participating in.
Pure nonsense.
What you mean is that the result won't be an
over-simplified-to-the-point-of-uselessness
account of the battle. Instead, what you'd get
is a mosaic, numerous highly detailed personal
which must be assembled in order to reveal the
larger picture.
...but you're ignoring the issue.
> And, at the time of Polybius, there may have
> been
"Maybe have been."
There "Maybe have not been."
So, which is more likely? Well, knowing what we
know, the latter.
> If you bother to read the text, many Carthagenian
> commanders are also noted.
Again, you're ignoring the point.
Cannae was a blunder, a failure of nearly unimaginable
magnitude, and without basis Polybius not only absolves
a rather prominent Roman from any of the blame in that
failure, but places him opposite Hannibal himself, the
two nearly toe to toe.
It doesn't take imagination to see POLITICAL motive in
this account of the battle. All that is required is
that one not take a religious-like faith in a book.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> It looks like English but it reads like Linear A.
Well now we know who NOT to go to with our
Linear A questions...
am...@hotmail.com
I'm under impression that he confuses (1) participant's ability to
write description of a battle with (2) possibility to write complete
AND correct description.While (1) had been done so many times that
denial is absurd, (2) was successfully screwed up both by participants
and by the authors who relied on other people's accounts (which may
rely on some other accounts and when you dig all the way to the
bottom, you may not find anything more reliable than confused rumors
from the participants).
Tiglath
> On the other hand, no modern scholar equates
> the divi with the deī, Maybe if you cite Suetonius a
> fourth time I might change my mind.
Are you blind?
I quoted TWO, Cassell and Lewis, who clearly translate Divus and Deus
as "god". They are MODERN scholars.
Days before your ignorant post in this thread on this subject I had
shown evidence that:
1) Divus means 'god' and that some authors used the term
interchangeably with Deus. Virgil, and Suetonius.... And therefore,
anyone claiming Divi were no gods was dead wrong.
2) The substantive difference in usage between Divus and Deus by
authors who did not use the terms interchangeably was that Divus was
used in preference to Deus to refer to consecrated mortals.
Having said all that before all your strawmen deluge, what the fuck
can your beef possibly be?
Apparently still is that I don't understand the difference between
Divi and Deii.
Are you mad as well as blind?
>
> > Never alluded to any of them.
>
> You alluded to the divi, who possessed a form of divinity, as did the
> manes and the genii. These latter, who number in the hundreds of
> thousands, were gods, too, if we adhere to your either/or criterion.
>
So now because there are other divinities that means that Divi are not
gods?
> > > which is not consistent with that of the pagans of
> > > classical antiquity, who believed that there were varying degrees of
> > > divinity.
>
> > Isn't a lesser god still a god?
>
> > Isn't the object of my objection the statement that the Divi, "were
> > not Gods."?
>
> > If you are not a god you can't be divine in any degree.
>
> > Aren't the Greek country gods still gods even if they don't have
> > Olympian stature?
>
> > And which classical Roman source supports that Divi were demigods?
>
> > Also, is more powerful Zeus more divine than less powerful Pan? I
> > think not. Not anymore than more powerful Mike Tyson is more human
> > than less powerful Christopher Ingham (assuming you are no prize
> > fighter).
>
> So there were hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of them (see
> above). All hail the god Sextus Afer, the head of household living on
> the fourth floor of the Insula Bolani (a tenement) in Transtiberim (a
> region in Rome).
>
>
You are divagating.
I wonder why you did not answer any of my questions above.
>
> > You would save yourself a lot of research if you would first read a
> > foregoing debate before butting in at the end, ignorant of who said
> > what.- Hide quoted text -
>
> I "butted in" at the beginning of this thread, not the end, idiot.
>
Insults. Hilarious.
I shall keep my hatched earthed, for now.
Let our readers note, however, that Christopher Ingham is first
between us to use insults. People like him forget and later complain
when they get a dose of their own medicine and can't take it.
Where did I say that you butted at the end of this THREAD?
Pay attention, pal. You are in the, "The Incredibly Stressed ADR"
thread, where I mentioned a DEBATE that took place in another thread,
titled at that point "Religion is tiresome toxic bullshit," and which
started with this post from ADR:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.quaker/msg/fa3ac3f0b29f9d62
You were ABSENT in that debate, which ended, and now you BUTT IN AT
THE END OF IT, in this thread, and have suffered consequently by
posting embarrassing amounts of straw as I noted on my previous reply,
still unacknowledged.
A better man would apologize for implying I made arguments I never
made.
You stand corrected.
> You apparently like to make the most of ADR's occasional unfortunate
> choice of words or phrases
It's neither apparent -- it's real -- nor his gaffes are occasional.
I have listed them in great number and fidelity.
> (I wonder if English is his first
> language).
A language problem manifests itself in poorly constructed sentences
and bad grammar. There is nothing wrong with his English, the
problem is with his ideas, which he writes down faithfully, and with
his character -- the man is congenitally unable to admit mistakes.
There have been a fair number of foreign contributors to history
groups. And if their language skills are not up to par they let the
people know and we cut them the necessary slack. And they usually
have a humble attitude that's nothing like ADR's
What linguistic difficulties do you see in this pair of sentences?
"The > and < symbols are not used in solving inequalities."
" Which again shows you that you do not understand even basic
algebra"
-- ADR
Nothing wrong with the English, is there? Yet...
Case in point is his latest defense of his claim that Hannibal led his
army from the front line at Cannae, like Alexander did at Gaugamela.
A man with bad English could not make the long and duplicitous case he
made with selective quoting of Polybius.
You are not a very good judge of character if you think ADR is just a
well-meaning, well-informed history aficionado, who knows what he is
talking about but his bad English manages to convey the wrong
impression: Naivete writ large.
> We would do better to
> try to understand the essence of what he is trying to say,
You do that, after you clear your schedule.
> rather than
> making hay pedantically with the inapt or unfelicitous way in which it
> was said.
You sound like the mother some people have.
> In reference to his remark which you took issue with at the
> beginning of this thread, he seems to have meant that a divus did not
> have the status of one of "the gods," that is, one of the Olympian
> deities and their circle. And given that condition, he was correct.
>
I see. The statement he did not write was the correct one.
Oh boy.
Tiglath
>
> I'm under impression that he confuses
Do we have another apologist for ADR shortcomings?
He is an adult who was issued a 101 brain just like the rest of us.
What he's done with it is less than impressive, even by the most
charitable standards, which once applied to him before he turned
offensive and arrogant.
(1) participant's ability to
> write description of a battle with (2) possibility to write complete AND correct description.
This is ABC historiography. The difficulties in reconstructing the
past, even the recent, are staggering. Unless we think hard about it
we do not realize that because the brain adds a lot of fill to the
incomplete reports of our senses.
Add to that the story telling incompetence of many ancient sources,
and the frequent lack of essential detail in stories that are well
narrated and interesting.
Throw on top the fog of war and reporting reliabl on a battle becomes
quite an enterprise, but still in no way it's impossible just because
you were there.
Churchill does a very good job of describing the battles he was in, in
The River War. Checking with other sources. And other examples
abound.
There is absolutely no excuse for making such inane comments like:
"In fact, it is impossible to write an account of a battle one is
participating in."
ADR is in dire need to censor himself.
Tiglath
>
> So, you didn't start this thread disputing ADR's
> "notion that Nero lost his throne because he
> overtaxed people to rebuild Rome after the
> fire" (your words)
My words in no way misrepresent what he actually wrote, if that is
what you imply with "(your words): These are his words.
“In fact, it was his [Nero’s] effort to rebuilt Rome that cost him his
throne because he imposed high taxes on the wealthy.”
-- ADR
His version is even worse, filled with smug certainty and more
emphatically wrong.
You'll blame his "bad" English for it, no doubt.
He makes it sound as if there was no wrongdoing involved in the cause
for his downfall, for after all an effort to rebuild Rome is far from
evil even if it angered the rich had to pay for it.
> because the statement was wrong, but because he
> failed to say that there were other causes too?
>
The statement is wrong because it gives as SOLE cause of his downfall
something that did not cause his downfall.
One analogy would be that If you stab someone in the heart and the leg
he may die seconds sooner than if you stabbed him only in the heart,
but it is wrong to say that he died because you stabbed him in the
leg.
Tiglath
Why do you so enjoy being perpetually out of your depth?
Tiglath
> ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > How many historians were actually at the
> > battles that they describe???
>
> So right away you yourself can identify why
> skepticism is necessary...
>
> > In fact, it is impossible to write an account
> > of a battle one is participating in.
>
>
That is clear evidence that I have savaged ADR to the dislike of some
sensitive readers, who now feel ADR is a victim and feel sorry for
him, and forget the obscene amount of bunk he's been pouring into this
forum for weeks and weeks.
Incredible.
People keep volunteering to second guess him and overlook the bullshit
he writes in favor of what he "must" mean, just because they would
never write such inane ideas.
Well folks...
ADR DOES AND WILL.
And he means it.
Here is an example to convince the doubters who feel sorry for the
goober.
After I chastized him repeatedly for saying:
"In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat."
He replied with:
"And I stand by it as do all modern military historians."
Surely that rules out the kind suggestion a poster made today that
these are malapropisms (which means misuses of a single word, in fact)
and that he writes these things because he is a non-native English
speaker. My foot.
Not only he had the change to retract his howler, but he actually
confirmed that he stands by it, and that he thinks all historians
support him.
Wake up, folks.
J Antero
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:4b667564-a3dc-4bae...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 4:00 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > How many historians were actually at the
> > battles that they describe???
>
> So right away you yourself can identify why
> skepticism is necessary...
>
> > In fact, it is impossible to write an account
> > of a battle one is participating in.
>
>
> What you mean ...
That is clear evidence that I have savaged ADR to the dislike of some
sensitive readers, who now feel ADR is a victim and feel sorry for
him, and forget the obscene amount of bunk he's been pouring into this
forum for weeks and weeks.
Incredible.
People keep volunteering to second guess him and overlook the bullshit
he writes in favor of what he "must" mean, just because they would
never write such inane ideas.
Well folks...
ADR DOES AND WILL.
And he means it.
Here is an example to convince the doubters who feel sorry for the
goober.
After I chastized him repeatedly for saying:
==== "In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat."====
<chuckle> He was at his brainless best.....
igor
I believe he meant that cold winter was one of many elements of German
defeat but not the decisive one... Germans were doomed from the get
go...
igor
Bending over the barrel and unleashing JTEM is brilliant comedy,
hahahahhahahahhh
I hope ADR does not take you humor personally and runs away, you
definately take the crown of the funniest poster in this group!!!
Hey ADR be a man, stand up for yourself!!!
Tiglath
Another one.
Tiglath
Thank you kindly.
ADR is a sore loser more spent than the stimulus package,
After covering himself with glory, you would think he would be more
careful, but no sir. The specter of a big black whip curling upon
him and nipping him sharply in the tuches makes him nervous and even
more prone to hilarious blunders, as seen today.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Do we have another apologist for ADR shortcomings?
Were you thinking that there's only room for one
under the title, "Stupid shit head"?
Guess again.
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> After covering himself with glory, you would
> think he would be more careful, but no sir.
> The specter of a big black whip curling upon
> him and nipping him sharply in the tuches
> makes him nervous and
This is well beyond "ego" and deep into "Mania."
You post a lot of volume. Period. It might some
day be effective if you ever develop any reading
comprehension, or at least figure out that you
can't prove a negative, but until them it's just
a lot of bullshit.
You know, like your ADR posts.
.....lots & lots of bullshit.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Why do you so enjoy being perpetually
> out of your depth?
Because it's only here, in the shallows,
where I can enjoy the spectacle of a
jackass who thinks he can prove a negative.
We don't get that in the deep end.
95 Thesen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OMG has JTEM turned against our Tiglath,
the champion of true scholarship ?
I don't see how Caesar could be divine since
he could not vanish,disappear and return from
the dead.
David H
~~~~~~~~
Tiglath
Shallow JTEM thinks he has to write stuff like that to signal he still
has a pulse when in fact silence would be so much healthier for his
terminal reputation.
If you can't be man enough to answer my question, be at least cheeky
enough to do it, flower.
How can you be so sure that one cannot prove a negative when such
assurance can only come from proving a negative?
ADR
Igor, my man, the worse thing that one can do to mad dogs is feed
them.
If there is an issue on which I have something substantive to say, I
will post. Self-important idiots with a mean streak a mile wide like
Tiglath will not keep me away.
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > Do we have another apologist for ADR shortcomings?
>
> Were you thinking that there's only room for one
> under the title, "Stupid shit head"?
>
> Guess again.
>
And for no reason at all JTEM calls Alex, "Stupid shit head"; probably
thinking that he is insulting me. Which means that JTEM has no idea
what "apologist" means.
The shoe fits.
Tiglath
I do enjoys your terrible pratfalls, Anastassios. Sue me. I don't
seem to be alone either. And with your aptitudes you are so-not-near
from starving me of them, I could not begin to tell you.
> If there is an issue on which I have something substantive to say, I
> will post. Self-important idiots with a mean streak a mile wide like
> Tiglath will not keep me away.
See what I told you folks? People who START throwing insults until
their interlocutor loses patience, can't take their own medicine when
it's returned, and whine no end like a pig to the slaughter blaming
the character of their opponent for wounds they should take gladly if
they only remembered they started the meanness.
Stop whining; the last thing soc.ancient.history needs is an
effeminate Macedonian.
More relevantly...
ADR keeps evading and avoiding and has yet to explain the meaning of
these statements he made together a short time ago.
J Antero
===Another one.===
Maybe huge doses of turkey will straighten these miscreants out!
<chuckle, chuckle>
ADR
> On Nov 24, 3:32 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <see his post above in the thread>
>
> Sir, you are a monumental weasel.
>
> Let's remind the Fair Readers of what you wrote.
>
> "For Alexander, his presence in leading the [phalanx] oblique approach
> was a necessity at Gaugamela. And for your information, Hannibal was
> in the front line at Cannae, actually at the weak center that could
> have been overwhelmed by the Romans."
>
> -- ADR
>
> The first sentence gives context to the second one, if needed be, as
> it refers to Alexander's position *at the outset* of the battle of
> Gaugamela, leading from the front. (Never mind that what it asserts
> it's also wrong).
>
> So the second sentence must also refer to where Hannibal was *at the
> outset of the battle* of Cannae, and not at some later time.
>
> That is also made clear by, "actually at the weak center," referring
> to the jutting crescent of Iberian and Celtic troops, the initial
> center of the Carthaginian battle order.
>
> Now, ADR wants us to believe that Hannibal was leading, a la
> Alexander, in front of the convex crescent of Iberians and Celts (why
> should Hannibal? they looked to their own princes and friends for
> encouragement, as Polybius tells us), and that when the infantry lines
> closed in, Hannibal allowed himself to be trapped in a sea of footmen,
> cut off from his Carthaginian lieutenants and so rendered unable to
> manage the battle or do anything but attend to fighting the immediate
> enemy at arms length, and so reduce himself to be less than an
> infantry peon, for he had only one eye.
>
> ADR wants us to believe that, folks. Hilarious.
>
> That is not what the excerpt he quotes refers to.
>
> He weasel instinct compels him to quotes selectively to save his ass
> when I have him over the barrel and about to let JTEM loose on
> him.
>
> Let us quote ALL of the relevant battle account, shall we?
>
> My annotations are in [brackets].
>
> From ADR's reference at:
>
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-cannae.html
>
> =======================
>
> [T]he legionaries took the place of the light-armed and closed with
> the enemy.
>
> [at that point Hannibal would be trapped tight in a vast sea of Roman,
> Iberian, and Celtic infantry]
>
> For a short time the Iberian and Celtic lines stood their ground and
> fought gallantly; but, presently overpowered by the weight of the
> heavy-armed lines, they gave way and retired to the rear, thus
> breaking up the crescent.
>
> [At this point Hannibal would probably be dead, the Carthaginian "weak
> center" ADR refers to is now breached and retreating.]
>
> The Roman maniples followed with spirit, and easily cut their way
> through the enemy's line; since the Celts had been drawn up in a thin
> line, while the Romans had closed up from the wings towards the center
> and the point of danger. For the two wings did not come into action at
> the same time as the center: but the center was first engaged, because
> the Gauls, having been stationed on the arc of the crescent, had come
> into contact with the enemy long before the wings, the convex of the
> crescent being towards the enemy.
>
> [At this point the Carthaginian "weak center" does not exist; Roman
> infantry leaks through the breach, Iberians and Celts are retreating,
> their first ranks cut to pieces, including Hannibal very likely if he
> had been there.]
>
> The Romans, however, going in pursuit of these troops, and hastily
> closing in towards the center and the part of the enemy which was
> giving ground, advanced so far that the Libyan heavy-armed troops on
> either wing got on their flanks. Those on the right, facing to the
> left, charged from the right upon the Roman flank; while those who
> were on the left wing faced to the right, and, dressing by the left,
> charged their right flank, the exigency of the moment suggesting to
> them what they ought to do. Thus it came about, as Hannibal had
> planned, that the Romans were caught between two hostile lines of
> Libyans---thanks to their impetuous pursuit of the Celts. Still they
> fought, though no longer in line, yet singly, or in maniples, which
> faced to meet those who charged them on the flanks.
>
> [Libyans attack the Roman flanks and begin the encirclement, to be
> finished by Hasdrubal's cavalry. Again, the initial Punic "weak
> center" does not exist and new fronts open as the Romans turn about to
> defend their flanks, and later their rear.]
>
> 116. Though he had been from the first on the right wing, and had
> taken part in the cavalry engagement, Lucius Aemilius still survived.
> Determined to act up to his own exhortatory speech, and seeing that
> the decision of the battle rested mainly on the legionaries, riding up
> to the center of the line
>
> [what "center of the line" is Polybius referring to? It cannot be
> the "weak center" ADR alludes to, it does not exist, the action is now
> at the flanks]
>
> he led the charge himself, and personally grappled with the enemy, at
> the same time cheering on and exhorting his soldiers to the charge.
> Hannibal, on the other side, did the same, for he too had taken his
> place on the center from the commencement.
>
> [it's a new battle (as Livy says, "the Romans, who had fought one
> battle to no purpose, left the Gauls and Spaniards, whose rear they
> had been slaughtering, and commenced a fresh struggle with the
> Africans.") and what Polybius describes here is Paullus riding to the
> right Roman flank to lead the legionnaires as they are about to close
> in with the Libyans, and Hannibal, who most obviously was not at the
> "weak center," leading the newly formed front of his left wing
> Libyans as they turned right to attack the right Roman flank; Hannibal
> leads the center of his fellow countrymen against a superior mass of
> enemy infantry. That is not typical Alexandrine behavior, that is to
> join battle after the trap has sprung once he sees that all forces are
> where they should, and all is left to do is to encourage by example
> your best men to inflict grisly butchery on the enemy until final
> victory. Learn the difference. ]
>
> ==============================
>
> I have to give ADR points for his cunning. He left out enough to the
> battle to deny readers the chance to see where what he excerpted
> fitted in, and so create the false impression that he was right after
> all. He nearly made it. If he had written "Hannibal was in the
> front line at Cannae" I would have no choice but to admit he was
> right. But he screwed the pooch when he added, "actually at the weak
> center that could have been overwhelmed by the Romans," because that
> is not the center his excerpt refers to; the strong Libyan front
> Hannibal leads in his left wing is NOT, the "weak front" of the
> initial battle order center ADR refers to.
>
> In all, a commendable attempt at deception, but one that, luckily for
> the readers, did not pay off. If ADR devoted to real study as much
> effort as he devotes to damage control by ruse and subterfuge, he
> would fare so much better.
>
> In sum, in the art of deception, Anastassios your are no Hannibal.
I enjoy your efforts to weasel out and it is really funny and gets
funnier by the minute
Here is your statement:
_______________
116. Though he had been from the first on the right wing, and had
taken part in the cavalry engagement, Lucius Aemilius still survived.
Determined to act up to his own exhortatory speech, and seeing that
the decision of the battle rested mainly on the legionaries, riding up
to the center of the line
[what "center of the line" is Polybius referring to? It cannot be
the "weak center" ADR alludes to, it does not exist, the action is now
at the flanks]
he led the charge himself, and personally grappled with the enemy, at
the same time cheering on and exhorting his soldiers to the charge.
Hannibal, on the other side, did the same, for he too had taken his
place on the center from the commencement.
_____________________
"What "center of the line" is Polybius referring to??? He, he,
he...what don't you ask him? This is was amazingly funny.
But let's see what one of the notable historians of this period,
Erlne Bradford, says in his "Hannibal":
"....Meanwhile, the main bodies of the two armies, the sweating
infantry, had come into collision. Hannibal, 'who had been in this
part of the field since the commencement of the battle', regardless of
his own safety, led on the very troops he had doomed to sacrifice,
The thin line of the Spaniards and Gauls could not hold for very long
against the steady, blundgeon-like blows that the dense mass of the
advancing legions threw against it....."
Erlne Bradford, "Hannibal", Dorset Press, New York, 1981
Please do take on your objections with Polybius, Livy and Bradford.
They may enjoy your "creative spirit"!!!! Why don't you also start a
book on alternative history???
But, hey, you are a legend in your own mind...what else is left to
say?
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 24, 4:05 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm under impression that he confuses
>
> Do we have another apologist for ADR shortcomings?
Just trying to be nice. :-)
>
> He is an adult who was issued a 101 brain just like the rest of us.
> What he's done with it is less than impressive, even by the most
> charitable standards, which once applied to him before he turned
> offensive and arrogant.
>
> (1) participant's ability to
>
> > write description of a battle with (2) possibility to write complete AND correct description.
>
> This is ABC historiography.
But they are obviously not clear to everyone.
> The difficulties in reconstructing the
> past, even the recent, are staggering. Unless we think hard about it
> we do not realize that because the brain adds a lot of fill to the
> incomplete reports of our senses.
Exactly. This is why references to the <whatever> sources as a 100%
reliable description of the _details_ is a risky thing at best.
>
> Add to that the story telling incompetence of many ancient sources,
> and the frequent lack of essential detail in stories that are well
> narrated and interesting.
Of course. Not to mention that quite often historians had been
intentionally writing things as they "should be" or at least "could
be". For example, showing example of a personal bravery was considered
an important part of a generalship in many cultures and well over the
ages.
It is anybody's guess of what usage was a commander of an army of
40-50K fighting in the 1st row while his troops are in a critical
situation and need a commander capable of giving orders.
>
> Throw on top the fog of war and reporting reliabl on a battle becomes
> quite an enterprise, but still in no way it's impossible just because
> you were there.
Indeed. To start with, "being there" does not exclude reliance on the
other people's accounts. Then, depending on writer's position, he may
be in the best position to view the whole picture. Napoleon would be a
good example because, short of couple episodes of his early career, he
was not leading his troops sword in hand. This is not to say that his
memories are totally accurate (to put it mildly) but this was his
deliberate choice, not absence of information.
Clausewitz in his description of the Battle at Borodino provided
detailed description of the episode in which he participated AND also
gave a general analysis of the Russian position, strategic situation,
etc. OTOH, he provided a detailed description of Jena-Auerstedt in
which he participated in much more modest capacity.
>
> Churchill does a very good job of describing the battles he was in, in
> The River War. Checking with other sources. And other examples
> abound.
>
> There is absolutely no excuse for making such inane comments like:
>
> "In fact, it is impossible to write an account of a battle one is
> participating in."
>
He should simply add: "... if one ends up being killed in this battle"
and probably nobody will argue. :-)
igor
You are in no position to call anybody a miscreant. I believe you are
the one who stated that communists conquered Russia..
Hilarious....Keep chuckling....chuckle.....chuckle.....
J Antero
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:26104c30-6a65-41b7-9770-
==It is anybody's guess of what usage was a commander of an army of
40-50K fighting in the 1st row while his troops are in a critical
situation and need a commander capable of giving orders.===
Caesar did it a few times to rally his troops, but I think what it led to
with Cyrus doing it demonstrated that it can turn even a well planned battle
into a coin toss.
Tiglath
e:
>
> > > I'm under impression that he confuses
>
> > Do we have another apologist for ADR shortcomings?
>
> Just trying to be nice. :-)
>
Much to learn there... What's your hourly fee?
>
> It is anybody's guess of what usage was a commander of an army of
> 40-50K fighting in the 1st row while his troops are in a critical
> situation and need a commander capable of giving orders.
>
>
Vehement agreement there. The literature is abundant on the
generalship of the commanders of the Second Punic War, not only at
Cannae, but at Zama and in general others. And Hannibal's commanding
style is nothing like Alexander's. As I said in my reply to the
Mameluke, I mean the Macedonian, Hannibal's style was, "at the front
sometimes, in other places other times."
This is what I pointed out in my initial discussion on this point.
While Alexander become a cavalry captain at the outset of his two most
famous battles until his wing had won his side of the battle, Hannibal
seems to have struck a more balanced approach, sharing the risks with
his men at times, but also keeping his only eye on managing the battle
in general.
It's unfortunate that we don't have Punic sources for this, because
you want to hurt the sources we have when you realize the lack of
important detail.
>
> > There is absolutely no excuse for making such inane comments like:
>
> > "In fact, it is impossible to write an account of a battle one is
> > participating in."
>
> He should simply add: "... if one ends up being killed in this battle"
That's funny.
I hope ADR won't end up with his legs tied on a dinner table tomorrow,
well roasted as he is...
Tiglath
> figure out that you
> can't prove a negative,
The Argument from Cacophony must come naturally when you get your caca
pushed as much as you do.
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 25, 2:35 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> e:
>
>
>
> > > > I'm under impression that he confuses
>
> > > Do we have another apologist for ADR shortcomings?
>
> > Just trying to be nice. :-)
>
> Much to learn there... What's your hourly fee?
>
>
>
> > It is anybody's guess of what usage was a commander of an army of
> > 40-50K fighting in the 1st row while his troops are in a critical
> > situation and need a commander capable of giving orders.
>
> Vehement agreement there. The literature is abundant on the
> generalship of the commanders of the Second Punic War, not only at
> Cannae, but at Zama and in general others. And Hannibal's commanding
> style is nothing like Alexander's.
He was fighting against totally different enemy.
> As I said in my reply to the
> Mameluke, I mean the Macedonian, Hannibal's style was, "at the front
> sometimes, in other places other times."
>
Well, if you want to win a battle with something more than a single
cavalry charge, you have to be able to see the whole picture and give
appropriate orders.
> This is what I pointed out in my initial discussion on this point.
> While Alexander become a cavalry captain at the outset of his two most
> famous battles until his wing had won his side of the battle,
But again, IIRC, Alexander did not do this always.
> Hannibal
> seems to have struck a more balanced approach, sharing the risks with
> his men at times, but also keeping his only eye on managing the battle
> in general.
>
In one of the battles of French Wars of Religion commanders of BOTH
armies had been captured. :-)
> It's unfortunate that we don't have Punic sources for this, because
> you want to hurt the sources we have when you realize the lack of
> important detail.
Indeed. All the time you have a Roman side of the story. Even if you
make a somewhat wild assumption that the Roman sources were fair and
balanced (hah!), still they could not provide the whole picture.
ADR
>
> > This is what I pointed out in my initial discussion on this point.
> > While Alexander become a cavalry captain at the outset of his two most
> > famous battles until his wing had won his side of the battle,
>
> But again, IIRC, Alexander did not do this always.
Alexander was involved personally in the thick of the battle in most
of his engagements, But he was hardly unique. A good number of
generals in the period of classical antiquity did just that (and so
did many successful generals up to modern times). His father, Philip,
was also in the thick of battle and he sustained numerous serious
injuries. In fact, Alexander did this sometimes to excess. In
Gaugamela, he had to be recalled to help his left wing under
Parmenio.
This whole issues started with a rhetorical question. Most people,
including generals, are not fully aware of how battles were evolving -
even up to modern times- throughout the whole front. Generals are
best positioned to get information with messengers providing input and
requests from individual commanders, sometimes accurate, sometimes
inaccurate. Most often, they lack information of how things are
progressing ***in real time*** beyond what their senses can provide.
Of course, at the end of the battle, their lieutenants provide more
detailed information about specific events and a synthesis evolves.
For example, Napoleon did not know about how the battle of Waterloo
was evolving in various areas despite being at the best position to do
so. The smoke from the guns and muskets as well as the hills obscured
a lot of the field. Ney's cavalry charge was unsupported by
artillery, something that Napoleon would never had allowed if he was
fully aware of what was happening. The details of the battle as it
unfolded was compiled by the eyewitness accounts of various
participants, including the leading generals. Julius Caesar was not
aware of how the battle was evolving throughout the lines of Alessia.
He could respond to request of troops or not during the attack of the
Gauls, but detailed accounts of the exact encounter throughout the
whole line of fortifications and during the flanking attack were
collected post facto. Battles are notoriously confusing events and
most times commanders do not have a great vantage point to see the
evolution of the battle and respond in real time. At the end of the
battle, the collated information is occasionally unreliable as
personal motives and ambitions color the description of events and it
is really up to a good historian to collect the information, evaluate
contradictory information and provide an accurate picture of the
battle as it actually happened.
J Antero
"igor" <inbel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f45fdbcf-c9bb-4e31...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
===You are in no position to call anybody a miscreant. I believe you are
the one who stated that communists conquered Russia..
Hilarious....Keep chuckling....chuckle.....chuckle.....===
They did, fool .
They had it for 70 years. You're in a history group.
igor
> "igor" <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmm, you have been chuckling to much, my son... For your information
the communists you are talking about were Russians, how is it possible
for Russians to conquer Russians??? Maybe in the alternate universe
you come from, mr. Chuckle.
Tiglath
wrote and wrote...
<snip insufferably long and condescending elementary stuff everybody
knows and to which ADR's ex cathedra tone imparts a sense of breaking
news as if he was bringing a great revelation>
Give the poor readers a break.
A man of your of level of fallibility putting on airs of erudition
carries as well as Mike Tyson as a ballerina.
J Antero
==Hmmm, you have been chuckling to much, my son... For your information
the communists you are talking about were Russians, how is it possible
for Russians to conquer Russians??? Maybe in the alternate universe
you come from, mr. Chuckle.==
Stalin was Russian, Einstein? Beria?
Aside from the various nationalities it was to a large extent an ideological
war that had international aims.
There was a large war that broke out that lasted for a few years and cost
over one million casualties.
I doubt the people sent to slave labor camps over the Stalinist reign
thought they were anything but conquered and subjugated.
Is this a history group, or a ward...?
J Antero
A Concise History of the Russian Revolution , Pipes, 1996
Note Part Two: "The Bolsheviks Conquer Russia "
.
Pipes' masterly works The Russian Revolution and Russia Under the Bolshevik
Regime are regarded as the classic treatments of the seminal transforming
event of the twentieth century. Pipes has now distilled that two-volume
account into a brilliant new history that is likely to become the standard
one-volume account of the Russian Revolution. Pipes argues that the
revolution was an intellectual, rather than a class uprising; that it was
steeped in terror from its very outset; and that it was not a revolution at
all but a coup d'�tat. He examines the establishment in Soviet Russia
between 1917 and 1920 of a new type of regime: the world's first modern,
industrial, totalitarian state. And he describes the Civil War, the attempts
to export the revolution abroad, the militarization of politics and the
solidification of the Communist state in the early 1920s, demonstrating
persuasively how the resulting system owed less to the theories of Marx than
it did to the character of Lenin and Russia's long authoritarian tradition.
"Despite its sadness, insight abounds in this history, [it is] among the
most reliably researched and skillfully synthesized works ever written on
the revolution."--Booklist
"A deep and eloquent condemnation of the revolution and its aftermath."--The
New York Times
"A highly readable, succinct interpretation of the preconditions, events,
and immediate sequelae of the Russian Revolution."--Book News
CONTENTS
Part One: The Agony of the Old Regime
1. Russia in 1900
A. The Peasantry
B. Official Russia
C. The Intelligentsia
2. The Constitutional Experiment
A. The Revolution of 1905
B. Stolypin
3. Russia at War
A. Her Prospects
B. The First Year
C. Catastrophe Looms
4. The February Revolution
Part Two: The Bolsheviks Conquer Russia
5. Lenin and the Origins of Bolshevism
6. The October Coup
A. The Bolshevik's Failed Bids for Power
B. The Coup
7. Building the One-Party State
8. The Revolution Internationalized
A. Brest-Litovsk
B. Foreign Involvement
9. War Communism
A. The Creation of a Command Economy
B. The War Against the Village
10. Red Terror
A. The Murder of the Imperial Family
B. Mass Terror
Part Three: Russia under the Bolshevik Regime
11. The Civil War
A. The First Battles: 1918
B. The Climax: 1919-1920
12. The New Empire
13. Communism for Export
14. Spiritual Life
A. Culture as Propaganda
B. War on Religion
15. Communism in Crisis
A. NEP--The False Thermidor
B. The Crisis of the New Regime
16. Reflections on the Russian Revolution
igor
>
> - Show quoted text -
Einstein??? Dude, pahlease.....
Stalins ethnicity had nothing to do with communists capturing
political power during the civil war. Following your logic, US gets
conquered every four or eight years and black democrats just conquered
US of A.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> The Argument from
Like I said, "Volume."
Though your signal-to-noise ratio is appallingly
low. You're no different than an unusually
flatulent cow. No matter how much gas escapes
your enormous sphincter, it ain't never going to
sound like a symphony...
JTEM
Thesen <davidholi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> OMG has JTEM turned against our Tiglath,
You're so observant that it's scary.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Shallow
Yes, yes, very original... the way you repeat
what other people say.
Tiglath
I love to see JTEM stump by my question, like that.
Answer the question. Wassamatter?
J Antero
==== Einstein??? Dude, pahlease.....
Stalins ethnicity had nothing to do with communists capturing
political power during the civil war. Following your logic, US gets
conquered every four or eight years and black democrats just conquered
US of A ======
<chuckle, chuckle>
Ibore (from just above) " For your information the communists you are
talking about [taking over Russia in the Revolution] were Russians, how is
it possible for Russians to conquer Russians??? Maybe in the alternate
universe you come from, mr. Chuckle "
I then pointed out thar Stalin was Georgian, something he apparently didn't
know, and then retreated from.
You're in a *history* group Ibore, and you don't know any.
am...@hotmail.com
> This whole issues started with a rhetorical question.
As far as I'm concerned it started with the statement that participant
can't write account of the battle. There was nothing about accuracy or
completeness and I did not notice any question mark indicating that
this is a question.
> Most people,
> including generals, are not fully aware of how battles were evolving -
> even up to modern times- throughout the whole front.
This has nothing to do with the statement to which I commented but,
for quite a while, even this was not always true as long as the armies
were small and battlefields reasonably limited.
> Generals are
> best positioned to get information with messengers providing input and
> requests from individual commanders, sometimes accurate, sometimes
> inaccurate. Most often, they lack information of how things are
> progressing ***in real time*** beyond what their senses can provide.
Unless you insists that participant of the battle is supposed to write
an account while battle is progressing, this has nothing to do with
the subject (ability of a battle participant to write description of
this battle).
You are confusing problems of command on a battlefield with the
problems related to describing the battle.
> Of course, at the end of the battle, their lieutenants provide more
> detailed information about specific events and a synthesis evolves.
> For example, Napoleon did not know about how the battle of Waterloo
> was evolving in various areas despite being at the best position to do
> so. The smoke from the guns and muskets as well as the hills obscured
> a lot of the field. Ney's cavalry charge was unsupported by
> artillery, something that Napoleon would never had allowed if he was
> fully aware of what was happening.
Using Waterloo as an example of Nappy's generalship is a little bit
bizarre by the obvious reasons.
Unless you can prove that at Austerlitz he also did not have a clue
about what is going on until the battle was won, the case is neither
here nor there.
Of course, growing size of the modern armies started posing problems
which did not exist in the smaller armies of the earlier times and
commander in chief had to delegate more initiative to the
subordinates. What this have to do with what I wrote?
BTW, even in the much earlier times, commanders who relied on "in-
depth" formations and complicated battle plans quite often recognized
a need to lead from the rear, preferably from position that provides
the best possible view of a battlefield. Genghis was rarely, if ever
(except the 1st stages of his career) seen in the front line.
[snip; Lev Tolstoy already used all your arguments to "prove" that
Napoleon was not a military genius]
> At the end of the
> battle, the collated information is occasionally unreliable as
> personal motives and ambitions color the description of events and it
> is really up to a good historian to collect the information, evaluate
> contradictory information and provide an accurate picture of the
> battle as it actually happened.
Who told you that "a good historian" can't be participant of the
battle? Even if Nappy and Caesar were more self-promoters
than ...er.... "true" (or "good") historians, I doubt that you can
find too many military historians of Clausewitz' caliber (ditto for
Schliffen who surely was if not true historian than well-qualified
military specialist).
OTOH, it is anybody's guess how reliable had been accounts written by
the people removed from the events by few centuries. Especially if one
takes into an account that "scientific" part of a military history
(critical analysis of the sources, evaluation of the numbers, etc.)
was not really well-developed in the ancient world (any reasonably
competent military historian would easily figure out that armies of
hundreds of thousands were a little bit on unrealistic side). Not to
mention that "accuracy" was not always a goal. Person was writing a
history to glorify somebody (or some country) and certain degree of
embellishment was expected.
Tiglath
> On Nov 25, 10:08 pm, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 3:36 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > This whole issues started with a rhetorical question.
>
> As far as I'm concerned it started with the statement that participant
> can't write account of the battle. There was nothing about accuracy or
> completeness and I did not notice any question mark indicating that
> this is a question.
ZAP!
ADR not only revises history he also revises his own posts, which is
acceptable as long as the revision is submitted as a correction, but
no, he submits it as a reference to what he said. I have put several
times side by side his contradictions and he is not concerned at all
about them. Anything goes.
Tiglath
I can't argue with someone with a Ph.D. in sphincter I/O.
am...@hotmail.com
He knows quite well that Stalin was Georgian and he also, quite
correctly, pointed to the fact that the Bolsheviks won the Civil War
because they were supported by majority of Russians (all alternatives
failed in gaining enough of a popular support to match Bolshevik
armies in numbers). Bolshevik coup in November of 1917 became possible
because they had overwhelming support of the Petrograd's garrison
(mostly Russians). Collectivization became possible because (strange
as it may sound), it was supported by the millions of Russian peasants
(part of it being confiscation of well-to-do peasants' property).
Stalin (who was almost nobody at the time of the coup and was not a
head of the Bolsheviks during the RCW) would mean nothing if he was
not supported by a majority of the Russian communists (as was clearly
demonstrated by the defeat of his political opponents). Beria is
simply irrelevant because his role in communists' victory was plain
zero.
Communists came to power in Russia but they did not "conquer" it
unless we are going to use the same term for any winning side in any
civil war (Henry VII and Cromwell "conquered" England, Franco
"conquered" Spain, Mannerheim "conquered" Finland, etc.).
am...@hotmail.com
Looks like, being an asshole (judging by the deep knowledge of the
intimate details, chances are that he is cow's asshole), he (or would
"it" be more appropriate for cow's sphincter?) has the 1st-hand
knowledge of the subject. However, let's look at the bright side,
confession about a symphony clearly shows that at least it knows its
own limitations....
J Antero
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:54686f46-7ac6-4598-be53-
> ==== Einstein??? Dude, pahlease.....
> Stalins ethnicity had nothing to do with communists capturing
> political power during the civil war. Following your logic, US gets
> conquered every four or eight years and black democrats just conquered
> US of A ======
>
> <chuckle, chuckle>
>
> Ibore (from just above) " For your information the communists you are
> talking about [taking over Russia in the Revolution] were Russians, how is
> it possible for Russians to conquer Russians??? Maybe in the alternate
> universe you come from, mr. Chuckle "
>
> I then pointed out thar Stalin was Georgian, something he apparently
> didn't
> know, and then retreated from.
>
> You're in a *history* group Ibore, and you don't know any.
==He knows quite well that Stalin was Georgian ==
He said "the communists you are talking about [taking over Russia in the
Revolution] were Russians."
That was wrong.
For instance: Stalin was Georgian, Trotsky was Ukrainian, Felx Dzerjinski
was a Pole, Protian was Armenian, Kruschev (who replaced Stalin) was
Ukrainian.
===and he also, quite
correctly, pointed to the fact that the Bolsheviks won the Civil War
because they were supported by majority of Russians (all alternatives
failed in gaining enough of a popular support to match Bolshevik
armies in numbers). Bolshevik coup in November of 1917 became possible
because they had overwhelming support of the Petrograd's garrison
(mostly Russians). Collectivization became possible because (strange
as it may sound), it was supported by the millions of Russian peasants
(part of it being confiscation of well-to-do peasants' property).
Stalin (who was almost nobody at the time of the coup and was not a
head of the Bolsheviks during the RCW) would mean nothing if he was
not supported by a majority of the Russian communists (as was clearly
demonstrated by the defeat of his political opponents). Beria is
simply irrelevant because his role in communists' victory was plain
zero.===
Ahh, so it was actually quite democratic and free?
Interesting. I had a Teaching Company course called "Rise and Fall of Soviet
Communism" that described it somewhat diffeently...
Either you, or that professor, is under a deep delusion.
Here's another source on the subject:
A Concise History of the Russian Revolution , Pipes, 1996
Note Part Two: "The Bolsheviks Conquer Russia "
.
Pipes' masterly works The Russian Revolution and Russia Under the Bolshevik
Regime are regarded as the classic treatments of the seminal transforming
event of the twentieth century. Pipes has now distilled that two-volume
account into a brilliant new history that is likely to become the standard
one-volume account of the Russian Revolution. Pipes argues that the
revolution was an intellectual, rather than a class uprising; that it was
*** steeped in terror from its very outset***; and that ***it was not a
revolution at
all but a coup d'�tat****.
CONTENTS
4. The February Revolution
12. The New Empire
13. Communism for Export
==Communists came to power in Russia but they did not "conquer" it===
It took a bloody war for the Bolsheviks to get power, and then to hold it
they used widespread terror tactics.
The secret police and the slave labor camps were quite effective. Those are
the tactics needed by "conquerors", not liberators.
The estimates for Soviet citizens killed by their governemnt are a high as
20 million.
Not conquered, indeed.
igor
>
> - Show quoted text -
Retardero, and I pointed out that Stalins ethnicity had nothing to do
with communists grabbing power in Russia... Keep on chuckling. It is a
history group, did you get lost???
igor
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:54686f46-7ac6-4598-be53-
> > ==== Einstein??? Dude, pahlease.....
> > Stalins ethnicity had nothing to do with communists capturing
> > political power during the civil war. Following your logic, US gets
> > conquered every four or eight years and black democrats just conquered
> > US of A ======
>
> > <chuckle, chuckle>
>
> > Ibore (from just above) " For your information the communists you are
> > talking about [taking over Russia in the Revolution] were Russians, how is
> > it possible for Russians to conquer Russians??? Maybe in the alternate
> > universe you come from, mr. Chuckle "
>
> > I then pointed out thar Stalin was Georgian, something he apparently
> > didn't
> > know, and then retreated from.
>
> > You're in a *history* group Ibore, and you don't know any.
>
> ==He knows quite well that Stalin was Georgian ==
>
> He said "the communists you are talking about [taking over Russia in the
> Revolution] were Russians."
>
> That was wrong.
>
> For instance: Stalin was Georgian, Trotsky was Ukrainian, Felx Dzerjinski
> was a Pole, Protian was Armenian, Kruschev (who replaced Stalin) was
> Ukrainian.
Ignorant fool.. Trotsky was a Jew, Lenin was Russian, German, Jewish,
Calmik, Stalin was Georgian, Ossetian. Russian is a language group,
it is multinational, just like US.... JTEM regoice, you are not the
stupidest poster in this group anymore..... Falks meet Retardero the
chuckle maister!!!!!!
>
> ===and he also, quite
> correctly, pointed to the fact that the Bolsheviks won the Civil War
> because they were supported by majority of Russians (all alternatives
> failed in gaining enough of a popular support to match Bolshevik
> armies in numbers). Bolshevik coup in November of 1917 became possible
> because they had overwhelming support of the Petrograd's garrison
> (mostly Russians). Collectivization became possible because (strange
> as it may sound), it was supported by the millions of Russian peasants
> (part of it being confiscation of well-to-do peasants' property).
> Stalin (who was almost nobody at the time of the coup and was not a
> head of the Bolsheviks during the RCW) would mean nothing if he was
> not supported by a majority of the Russian communists (as was clearly
> demonstrated by the defeat of his political opponents). Beria is
> simply irrelevant because his role in communists' victory was plain
> zero.===
>
> Ahh, so it was actually quite democratic and free?
>
> Interesting. I had a Teaching Company course called "Rise and Fall of Soviet
> Communism" that described it somewhat diffeently...
> Either you, or that professor, is under a deep delusion.
The only one whos under delusion here is Retardero who was getting
high behind the garbage dumpster before the class....
>
> Here's another source on the subject:
>
> A Concise History of the Russian Revolution , Pipes, 1996
>
> Note Part Two: "The Bolsheviks Conquer Russia "
> .
>
> Pipes' masterly works The Russian Revolution and Russia Under the Bolshevik
> Regime are regarded as the classic treatments of the seminal transforming
> event of the twentieth century. Pipes has now distilled that two-volume
> account into a brilliant new history that is likely to become the standard
> one-volume account of the Russian Revolution. Pipes argues that the
> revolution was an intellectual, rather than a class uprising; that it was
> *** steeped in terror from its very outset***; and that ***it was not a
> revolution at
> all but a coup d'état****.
> Not conquered, indeed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Retardero, before recommending any reading material you should read it
yourself beforehand.
am...@hotmail.com
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:54686f46-7ac6-4598-be53-
I did not write anything of the kind so conclusion is totally yours.
And it is a very stupid conclusion.
igor
Retardero places Einstein in the same group with Stalin and Beria as
Georgians who conquered Russia. Next he will claim that such Austrians
as Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi conquered Germany...Hilarious..
am...@hotmail.com
He does not understand the basics (not a big surprise there) and tries
to argue by attributing to other people things they did not say and
then making absurd conclusions based on his own inventions.
"Democracy" and "nicety" had nothing to do with the Russian Revolution
but by the end of the RCW the Red Army had been few millions strong
(over 5M, IIRC) while the "Whites" (who never managed to unite) had
been lucky to have hundreds of thousands. Taking into an account that
most of these 5M had been Russians and that they had been fighting
_for_ the Bolsheviks, what other support do you need (I would really
like to hear from Antero what was Beria's role in the RCW but this is
highly unlikely). As for Stalin's support in the Party, the guy
obviously did not read Bazanov (Stalin's secretary): with Molotov's
help he _did_ get support of the lower levels of the Party apparatus
by appointing his people and because distribution of the goodies was
coming from him. His opponents had been defeated politically before
they were exterminated physically.
As for the issue of "conquest", AFAIK, this term is not being
routinely used for the civil wars so, as soon as it is acknowledged
that there was a _civil_ war in Russia, discussion is over.
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 24, 12:03 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 3:32 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <see his post above in the thread>
>
> > Sir, you are a monumental weasel.
>
> > Let's remind the Fair Readers of what you wrote.
>
> > "For Alexander, his presence in leading the [phalanx] oblique approach
> > was a necessity at Gaugamela. And for your information, Hannibal was
> > in the front line at Cannae, actually at the weak center that could
> > have been overwhelmed by the Romans."
>
> > -- ADR
>
> > The first sentence gives context to the second one, if needed be, as
> > it refers to Alexander's position *at the outset* of the battle of
> > Gaugamela, leading from the front. (Never mind that what it asserts
> > it's also wrong).
>
> > So the second sentence must also refer to where Hannibal was *at the
> > outset of the battle* of Cannae, and not at some later time.
>
> > That is also made clear by, "actually at the weak center," referring
> > to the jutting crescent of Iberian and Celtic troops, the initial
> > center of the Carthaginian battle order.
>
> > Now, ADR wants us to believe that Hannibal was leading, a la
> > Alexander, in front of the convex crescent of Iberians and Celts (why
> > should Hannibal? they looked to their own princes and friends for
> > encouragement, as Polybius tells us), and that when the infantry lines
> > closed in, Hannibal allowed himself to be trapped in a sea of footmen,
> > cut off from his Carthaginian lieutenants and so rendered unable to
> > manage the battle or do anything but attend to fighting the immediate
> > enemy at arms length, and so reduce himself to be less than an
> > infantry peon, for he had only one eye.
>
> > ADR wants us to believe that, folks. Hilarious.
>
> > That is not what the excerpt he quotes refers to.
>
> > He weasel instinct compels him to quotes selectively to save his ass
> > when I have him over the barrel and about to let JTEM loose on
> > him.
>
> > Let us quote ALL of the relevant battle account, shall we?
>
> > My annotations are in [brackets].
>
> > From ADR's reference at:
>
> >http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-cannae.html
>
> > =======================
>
> > [T]he legionaries took the place of the light-armed and closed with
> > the enemy.
>
> > [at that point Hannibal would be trapped tight in a vast sea of Roman,
> > Iberian, and Celtic infantry]
>
> > For a short time the Iberian and Celtic lines stood their ground and
> > fought gallantly; but, presently overpowered by the weight of the
> > heavy-armed lines, they gave way and retired to the rear, thus
> > breaking up the crescent.
>
> > [At this point Hannibal would probably be dead, the Carthaginian "weak
> > center" ADR refers to is now breached and retreating.]
>
> > The Roman maniples followed with spirit, and easily cut their way
> > through the enemy's line; since the Celts had been drawn up in a thin
> > line, while the Romans had closed up from the wings towards the center
> > and the point of danger. For the two wings did not come into action at
> > the same time as the center: but the center was first engaged, because
> > the Gauls, having been stationed on the arc of the crescent, had come
> > into contact with the enemy long before the wings, the convex of the
> > crescent being towards the enemy.
>
> > [At this point the Carthaginian "weak center" does not exist; Roman
> > infantry leaks through the breach, Iberians and Celts are retreating,
> > their first ranks cut to pieces, including Hannibal very likely if he
> > had been there.]
>
> > The Romans, however, going in pursuit of these troops, and hastily
> > closing in towards the center and the part of the enemy which was
> > giving ground, advanced so far that the Libyan heavy-armed troops on
> > either wing got on their flanks. Those on the right, facing to the
> > left, charged from the right upon the Roman flank; while those who
> > were on the left wing faced to the right, and, dressing by the left,
> > charged their right flank, the exigency of the moment suggesting to
> > them what they ought to do. Thus it came about, as Hannibal had
> > planned, that the Romans were caught between two hostile lines of
> > Libyans---thanks to their impetuous pursuit of the Celts. Still they
> > fought, though no longer in line, yet singly, or in maniples, which
> > faced to meet those who charged them on the flanks.
>
> > [Libyans attack the Roman flanks and begin the encirclement, to be
> > finished by Hasdrubal's cavalry. Again, the initial Punic "weak
> > center" does not exist and new fronts open as the Romans turn about to
> > defend their flanks, and later their rear.]
>
> > 116. Though he had been from the first on the right wing, and had
> > taken part in the cavalry engagement, Lucius Aemilius still survived.
> > Determined to act up to his own exhortatory speech, and seeing that
> > the decision of the battle rested mainly on the legionaries, riding up
> > to the center of the line
>
> > [what "center of the line" is Polybius referring to? It cannot be
> > the "weak center" ADR alludes to, it does not exist, the action is now
> > at the flanks]
>
> > he led the charge himself, and personally grappled with the enemy, at
> > the same time cheering on and exhorting his soldiers to the charge.
> > Hannibal, on the other side, did the same, for he too had taken his
> > place on the center from the commencement.
>
> > [it's a new battle (as Livy says, "the Romans, who had fought one
> > battle to no purpose, left the Gauls and Spaniards, whose rear they
> > had been slaughtering, and commenced a fresh struggle with the
> > Africans.") and what Polybius describes here is Paullus riding to the
> > right Roman flank to lead the legionnaires as they are about to close
> > in with the Libyans, and Hannibal, who most obviously was not at the
> > "weak center," leading the newly formed front of his left wing
> > Libyans as they turned right to attack the right Roman flank; Hannibal
> > leads the center of his fellow countrymen against a superior mass of
> > enemy infantry. That is not typical Alexandrine behavior, that is to
> > join battle after the trap has sprung once he sees that all forces are
> > where they should, and all is left to do is to encourage by example
> > your best men to inflict grisly butchery on the enemy until final
> > victory. Learn the difference. ]
>
> > ==============================
>
> > I have to give ADR points for his cunning. He left out enough to the
> > battle to deny readers the chance to see where what he excerpted
> > fitted in, and so create the false impression that he was right after
> > all. He nearly made it. If he had written "Hannibal was in the
> > front line at Cannae" I would have no choice but to admit he was
> > right. But he screwed the pooch when he added, "actually at the weak
> > center that could have been overwhelmed by the Romans," because that
> > is not the center his excerpt refers to; the strong Libyan front
> > Hannibal leads in his left wing is NOT, the "weak front" of the
> > initial battle order center ADR refers to.
>
> > In all, a commendable attempt at deception, but one that, luckily for
> > the readers, did not pay off. If ADR devoted to real study as much
> > effort as he devotes to damage control by ruse and subterfuge, he
> > would fare so much better.
>
> > In sum, in the art of deception, Anastassios your are no Hannibal.
>
> I enjoy your efforts to weasel out and it is really funny and gets
> funnier by the minute
>
> Here is your statement:
>
> _______________
>
> 116. Though he had been from the first on the right wing, and had
> taken part in the cavalry engagement, Lucius Aemilius still survived.
> Determined to act up to his own exhortatory speech, and seeing that
> the decision of the battle rested mainly on the legionaries, riding up
> to the center of the line
>
> [what "center of the line" is Polybius referring to? It cannot be
> the "weak center" ADR alludes to, it does not exist, the action is now
> at the flanks]
>
> he led the charge himself, and personally grappled with the enemy,
Was he an individual fighter on Conan (or, even better, Cohen)
Barbarian scale? If not, this was behavior of a commander who lost his
head. Charging ahead when your flanks and rear are under attack is a
sure sign of a military genius like the Prussian general (Ruchel,
IIRC), who, after arrival at the last stage of the battle of Jena
declared that he is not looking either to the right or to the left but
marches forward to attack the enemy (this was just fine by Napoleon).
> at
> the same time cheering on and exhorting his soldiers to the charge.
Taking into an account amount of noise caused by the fighting, how
many soldiers could he cheer up or exhort? 10, 20? OK, 50. Probably
their centurion could do this better.
> Hannibal, on the other side, did the same, for he too had taken his
> place on the center from the commencement.
> _____________________
>
> "What "center of the line" is Polybius referring to??? He, he,
> he...what don't you ask him? This is was amazingly funny.
>
> But let's see what one of the notable historians of this period,
> Erlne Bradford, says in his "Hannibal":
>
> "....Meanwhile, the main bodies of the two armies, the sweating
> infantry, had come into collision. Hannibal, 'who had been in this
> part of the field since the commencement of the battle', regardless of
> his own safety, led on the very troops he had doomed to sacrifice,
> The thin line of the Spaniards and Gauls could not hold for very long
> against the steady, blundgeon-like blows that the dense mass of the
> advancing legions threw against it....."
>
> Erlne Bradford, "Hannibal", Dorset Press, New York, 1981
>
> Please do take on your objections with Polybius, Livy and Bradford.
> They may enjoy your "creative spirit"!!!! Why don't you also start a
> book on alternative history???
>
> But, hey, you are a legend in your own mind...what else is left to
> say?
The fact that something is written by someone and then repeated by
others is not always the best proof that something really took place.
A fine example is Delbruk's analysis of the Winkelrid legend which
concluded that the whole story had been retroactively transported from
the battle of Bicocca back to the battle of Sempach with the heroic
additions which had nothing to do with the death of real Winkelrid;
again, there is no guarantee that Delbruck had been right in _his_
analysis. Or you can look at the ridiculously great numbers of the
Persian, Hunnic, Mongolian, Turkish, etc. armies which had been
traveling from book to book with the professional historians being
seemingly unconcerned with their absurdity.
One confusing thing about the ...er... "personal leadership" in the
old battles is that quite often commander led this or that detachment
to the battle line (to boost its morale) and then was prudently
getting back to the place where he could be of a greater use. Napoleon
(AFAIK) was doing this from time to time and the lesser personages
even more so. Then the event was immortalized by the writers,
painters, historians and became a heroic fact. Chandler's "The
campaigns of Napoleon" contains an interesting comment to the painting
"The Battle of Eylau": "...It is, however, dubious whether Murat
(wielding riding crop) reached such personal close quarters with the
enemy on any occasions."
While it is rather risky to deny completely a possibility of
Hannibal's staying in the center, "leading the troops" may mean many
things besides marching in the 1st rank sword in hand (except few
people immediately to the right and left nobody would see him to start
with). He could quite well be on a horseback _behind_ the formation
(at least he would be able to see what's going on and have some
freedom of movement). He could just be with the center for a short
while and then, when everybody got busy, prudently leave to do some
generalship, etc. Not to mention that it is anything but clear where
this story came from. AFAIK, there are no Punic accounts and, while
there were numerous Roman survivors, the front ranks of the Roman
center (the only area where Hannibal the Fencer could be observed) was
an area with a very low rate of survival (for the Romans) AND it was a
place with a low rate of survival for the Hannibal's troops. In other
words, probability of the description is extremely low (of course,
"low" does not mean a total impossibility).
When it comes to "rallying" the troops, doing so on foot also was not
the most efficient thing to do because the said troops had to see the
point around which they were supposed to rally and, if they were
running in a panic or simply were in a state of disorder, this point
should stick out as a sore finger so somebody on a horseback and
preferably accompanied by a standard-bearer and a bugler (or somebody
else capable of making loud and easily recognizable noises) would have
much better chances to accomplish his task than a heroic but difficult
to see figure on foot. Not to mention that (short of the cases when
really small numbers had been involved so that rallying effect could
be achieved by explaining to them in a loud voice some peculiarities
of their ancestry) process of rallying was better done at some point
in the rear so the running soldiers would more or less bump into the
"rallying point" (example, Bernadotte at Wagram; unfortunately, Nappy
interfered in the most interesting moment thus contributing to the
Swedish history).
Not that it is totally clear why would he want to strengthen his
center (which was probably what his presence was supposed to
accomplish) if the whole idea was to let center to fall back. Not
that, being busy fencing with the Roman legionaries, would he be able
to figure out when it is a good time to fall back. Even if he could,
how would he give a signal to retreat?
To make a long story short, the only (IMO) sensible interpretation of
what is written in the quoted sources is that he was positioned, at
least initially, in the center but behind his troops and on a
horseback (and probably on some hill, if available) to be able to
control events in this sector while retaining freedom of movement.
Taking into an account that at Zama Hannibal let the Romans
exterminate 2 out of 3 Carthaginian lines (including one formed by his
compatriots), he does not strike as excessively sentimental type and
his concern about well-being of the Iberian troops at Cannae would be
one a purely practical side.
ADR
> > _____________________
>
> > "What "center of the line" is Polybius referring to??? He, he,
> > he...what don't you ask him? This is was amazingly funny.
>
> > But let's see what one of the notable historians of this period,
> > Erlne Bradford, says in his "Hannibal":
>
> > "....Meanwhile, the main bodies of the two armies, the sweating
> > infantry, had come into collision. Hannibal, 'who had been in this
> > part of the field since the commencement of the battle', regardless of
> > his own safety, led on the very troops he had doomed to sacrifice,
> > The thin line of the Spaniards and Gauls could not hold for very long
> > against the steady, blundgeon-like blows that the dense mass of the
> > advancing legions threw against it....."
>
> > Erlne Bradford, "Hannibal", Dorset Press, New York, 1981
>
> > Please do take on your objections with Polybius, Livy and Bradford.
> > They may enjoy your "creative spirit"!!!! Why don't you also start a
> > book on alternative history???
>
> > But, hey, you are a legend in your own mind...what else is left to
> > say?
>
> The fact that something is written by someone and then repeated by
> others is not always the best proof that something really took place.
True enough. There are not that many original sources on the battle
of Cannae (but the ones we have are quited detaiiled), so one has to
go with with one has. Of course, a critical analysis of these sources
is imperative. In this case, I do not have any difficulty in
accepting the fact that Hannibal was in the thick of the battle (with
his brother, Mago) in the center of the Carthaginian line. His plan
rested on the performance of his center. If it gave up too soon, the
envelopment action would have been meaningless. His presence there was
imperative in maintaining moral. In addition, the troops in the
center were not the African contingent. Furthermore, Hannibal was a
soldier's general. Cannae would not have been the first time he would
have been near or at the killing line in a battle.
> A fine example is Delbruk's analysis of the Winkelrid legend which
> concluded that the whole story had been retroactively transported from
> the battle of Bicocca back to the battle of Sempach with the heroic
> additions which had nothing to do with the death of real Winkelrid;
> again, there is no guarantee that Delbruck had been right in _his_
> analysis. Or you can look at the ridiculously great numbers of the
> Persian, Hunnic, Mongolian, Turkish, etc. armies which had been
> traveling from book to book with the professional historians being
> seemingly unconcerned with their absurdity.
Possibly so. I do not dispute this, although even professional
historians in this case can only substitute informed guesses to the
numbers discussed by ancient historians. Most mention the numbers and
then post their own thoughts about them.
> One confusing thing about the ...er... "personal leadership" in the
> old battles is that quite often commander led this or that detachment
> to the battle line (to boost its morale) and then was prudently
> getting back to the place where he could be of a greater use.
Well, we know that this was not the case for a number of commanders,
Alexander quite notable among them. If you read the record, there
were not many cases in which a commander in the classical world made
extensive changes after the battle had commenced. The tools of
command were not there and the troops were not that easy to be moved
from one end of the line to the other. Committing reserves was just
about what a commander could have done in most of the circumstances.
A great general anticipated the moves of the opposing force and laid
out his plan in detail prior to the battle. If it was a good plan and
the general had perceptive lieutenants, it worked. Thus with
Alexander in Gaugamela, Caesar in Pharsalus and others. For many
generals or even emperors, being at the killing line (or very close to
it) was a perceived necessity: Titus at the siege of Jerusalem was
reckless and so were many emperor some of whom fell in battle (notably
Julian, in a close cavalry engagement). Sometimes, leading the troops
in a desperate battle is "where one can be of a greater use."
> Napoleon
> (AFAIK) was doing this from time to time and the lesser personages
> even more so. Then the event was immortalized by the writers,
> painters, historians and became a heroic fact. Chandler's "The
> campaigns of Napoleon" contains an interesting comment to the painting
> "The Battle of Eylau": "...It is, however, dubious whether Murat
> (wielding riding crop) reached such personal close quarters with the
> enemy on any occasions."
Well, Murat was reckless and I do believe that he was in killing zone
more often than not.
> While it is rather risky to deny completely a possibility of
> Hannibal's staying in the center, "leading the troops" may mean many
> things besides marching in the 1st rank sword in hand (except few
> people immediately to the right and left nobody would see him to start
> with). He could quite well be on a horseback _behind_ the formation
> (at least he would be able to see what's going on and have some
> freedom of movement).
I think that being at horseback near the center would have likely made
him an easy target. However, there would have been certain
identifying elements (such as standards) marking his presence and
visible from a variety of areas in the line. How much freedom he had
to move around would have depended on the actual arrangement of the
various elements of the Carthagenian center.
> He could just be with the center for a short
> while and then, when everybody got busy, prudently leave to do some
> generalship, etc. Not to mention that it is anything but clear where
> this story came from. AFAIK, there are no Punic accounts and, while
> there were numerous Roman survivors, the front ranks of the Roman
> center (the only area where Hannibal the Fencer could be observed) was
> an area with a very low rate of survival (for the Romans) AND it was a
> place with a low rate of survival for the Hannibal's troops. In other
> words, probability of the description is extremely low (of course,
> "low" does not mean a total impossibility).
Well, we know that there were many survivors (about 20,000 or so). We
can only guess on how good our accounts are. I actually believe them
to be accurate at this point. There is unanimity about his position
and personal engagement was a characteristic of his. Plus, there was
not much generalship that he could have done. Reaching any of his
commanders in the wings would have been impossible. Where would one
find them in that battlefield? He depended on them to put the plan
into action, and they did. There is little evidence that ancient
commanders were capable of redirecting cavalry after the engagement
begun.
> When it comes to "rallying" the troops, doing so on foot also was not
> the most efficient thing to do because the said troops had to see the
> point around which they were supposed to rally and, if they were
> running in a panic or simply were in a state of disorder, this point
> should stick out as a sore finger so somebody on a horseback and
> preferably accompanied by a standard-bearer and a bugler (or somebody
> else capable of making loud and easily recognizable noises) would have
> much better chances to accomplish his task than a heroic but difficult
> to see figure on foot. Not to mention that (short of the cases when
> really small numbers had been involved so that rallying effect could
> be achieved by explaining to them in a loud voice some peculiarities
> of their ancestry) process of rallying was better done at some point
> in the rear so the running soldiers would more or less bump into the
> "rallying point" (example, Bernadotte at Wagram; unfortunately, Nappy
> interfered in the most interesting moment thus contributing to the
> Swedish history).
I think the effect of the commander fighting alongside the men was a
morale booster. Ancient generals fighting with their troops were
unlikely to rally them if panic had ensued (not that it did not
happen, but it was only the mark of distinguished ones). As long as
many troops could see his standard and had not heard any rumors of his
death, their morale would have remained high. I think that if he had
not stayed near the killing zone, his troops (the Celts and the
Iberians) would have fled the field very early on.
> Not that it is totally clear why would he want to strengthen his
> center (which was probably what his presence was supposed to
> accomplish) if the whole idea was to let center to fall back. Not
> that, being busy fencing with the Roman legionaries, would he be able
> to figure out when it is a good time to fall back. Even if he could,
> how would he give a signal to retreat?
The center had to hold long enough for the envelopment to work. Had
the Romans punched through the center like a knife through butter, the
whole point about the envelopment would have been lost, In fact, if
the Roman legions had dispersed the Carthagenian center, they could
have fallen on the rear of Hannibal's wings, forcing them to flee.
So, as in Marathon, it was imperative for the center to only fall back
but to hold.
> To make a long story short, the only (IMO) sensible interpretation of
> what is written in the quoted sources is that he was positioned, at
> least initially, in the center but behind his troops and on a
> horseback (and probably on some hill, if available) to be able to
> control events in this sector while retaining freedom of movement.
This is a guess and it is quite possible. How could he have led
charges in this arrangement (which he did, according to the sources),
remains to be deduced. And from the moment the battle commenced,
"controlling events" was near impossible. It is hardly possible in
modern warfare. Not only the undulating ground but also the dust from
the horses and humans moving through the battlefield would have made
it impossible for anybody to have an idea where anybody was in that
battlefield.
> Taking into an account that at Zama Hannibal let the Romans
> exterminate 2 out of 3 Carthaginian lines (including one formed by his
> compatriots), he does not strike as excessively sentimental type and
> his concern about well-being of the Iberian troops at Cannae would be
> one a purely practical side.
Well, Zama is another story. He is much older at Zama, way past prime
fighting age. I do not think that he had the "well-being" of the
Iberian troops in mind at Cannae, but their performance. He had to
give them some reason to fight to death against superior forces. His
presence and his comradeship were essential in hardening these troops
to stand their ground.
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 27, 2:04 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > _____________________
>
> > > "What "center of the line" is Polybius referring to??? He, he,
> > > he...what don't you ask him? This is was amazingly funny.
>
> > > But let's see what one of the notable historians of this period,
> > > Erlne Bradford, says in his "Hannibal":
>
> > > "....Meanwhile, the main bodies of the two armies, the sweating
> > > infantry, had come into collision. Hannibal, 'who had been in this
> > > part of the field since the commencement of the battle', regardless of
> > > his own safety, led on the very troops he had doomed to sacrifice,
> > > The thin line of the Spaniards and Gauls could not hold for very long
> > > against the steady, blundgeon-like blows that the dense mass of the
> > > advancing legions threw against it....."
>
> > > Erlne Bradford, "Hannibal", Dorset Press, New York, 1981
>
> > > Please do take on your objections with Polybius, Livy and Bradford.
> > > They may enjoy your "creative spirit"!!!! Why don't you also start a
> > > book on alternative history???
>
> > > But, hey, you are a legend in your own mind...what else is left to
> > > say?
>
> > The fact that something is written by someone and then repeated by
> > others is not always the best proof that something really took place.
>
> True enough. There are not that many original sources on the battle
> of Cannae (but the ones we have are quited detaiiled),
Sorry, some of the details provided in some of the "detailed" accounts
look like a total crap (like the story about the captured Hannibal's
soldiers kept inside Roman formation who suddenly attacked their
captors from the back). Anyway, the main thing is to ask where these
details came from and how reliable are they.
> so one has to
> go with with one has.
Sure, like Persian army 1M strong marching to Thermophile...
> Of course, a critical analysis of these sources
> is imperative.
Well said. Unfortunately, after saying this you are getting back to
the square 1.
> In this case, I do not have any difficulty in
> accepting the fact that Hannibal was in the thick of the battle (with
> his brother, Mago) in the center of the Carthaginian line.
What you just wrote is, as I already explained, a generality which may
mean many different things out of which one that you prefer seems
least likely.
> His plan
> rested on the performance of his center. If it gave up too soon, the
> envelopment action would have been meaningless. His presence there was
> imperative in maintaining moral.
"Presense" perhaps. Fighting in the front (and on foot) most probably
would not because nobody would see him and because he would be in no
position to figure out what is going on and when it is a good time to
"gave up" as you put it.
> In addition, the troops in the
> center were not the African contingent.
So what?
> Furthermore, Hannibal was a
> soldier's general.
While quite often this is a synonym to "complete incompetent", he was
a great general and had a battle to win. And part of the winning
formula was coordination of the various units (see your own text
above).
> Cannae would not have been the first time he would
> have been near or at the killing line in a battle.
Of course, he was "near" the "killing line". Question is why would he
be _in_ this line?
>
> > A fine example is Delbruk's analysis of the Winkelrid legend which
> > concluded that the whole story had been retroactively transported from
> > the battle of Bicocca back to the battle of Sempach with the heroic
> > additions which had nothing to do with the death of real Winkelrid;
> > again, there is no guarantee that Delbruck had been right in _his_
> > analysis. Or you can look at the ridiculously great numbers of the
> > Persian, Hunnic, Mongolian, Turkish, etc. armies which had been
> > traveling from book to book with the professional historians being
> > seemingly unconcerned with their absurdity.
>
> Possibly so. I do not dispute this, although even professional
> historians in this case can only substitute informed guesses to the
> numbers discussed by ancient historians. Most mention the numbers and
> then post their own thoughts about them.
Like saying that these numbers are total nonsense.
The point is that somebody quoting the ancient sources without a
critical analysis is automatically suspect in letting through certain
amount of nonsense.
>
> > One confusing thing about the ...er... "personal leadership" in the
> > old battles is that quite often commander led this or that detachment
> > to the battle line (to boost its morale) and then was prudently
> > getting back to the place where he could be of a greater use.
>
> Well, we know that this was not the case for a number of commanders,
> Alexander quite notable among them.
Sorry, I'm not going back to Alexander.
Enough to say that the Greek (and to a certain degree Macedonian)
warfare was built on a simple model in which commander's role, beyond
initial arrangement of the troops, was quite limited because battles
were the clashes of phalanxes with very little maneuvering,
practically no reserves and limited (mostly VERY limited) need to
coordinate actions of the separate units. Alexander was following
(more or less) existing tradition. Then, again, we don't know for sure
the tiny details of these battles.
> If you read the record, there
> were not many cases in which a commander in the classical world made
> extensive changes after the battle had commenced.
Hopefully, you are not going to insist that at Zama Hannibal and
Scipio did nothing after battle commenced. And we can be practically
sure that "the soldiers general" was with the 3rd line of his troops
and on a horseback so that he could run away while his troops had been
massacred.
> The tools of
> command were not there and the troops were not that easy to be moved
> from one end of the line to the other. Committing reserves was just
> about what a commander could have done in most of the circumstances.
Actually, this is a lot and this means that commander would stay
behind the front line, preferably on some hill so that he could see
what is going on and when reserves should be committed.
> A great general anticipated the moves of the opposing force and laid
> out his plan in detail prior to the battle.
And send copy to an adversary so that he can arrange his forces
according to the plan... :-)
> If it was a good plan and
> the general had perceptive lieutenants, it worked. Thus with
> Alexander in Gaugamela, Caesar in Pharsalus and others.
Somehow, I don't think that Caesar foreseen ALL possible scenarios of
Pharsalus and had nothing to do during the battle. After all, he and
Nappy were 2 greatest military self-promoters in the European history.
Nappy described his obvious strategic screw-up at Jena (when he
mistook auxiliary Prussian army for the main force, sent Bernadotte to
march to nowhere and left Davout to deal with the main Prussian army)
as a brilliant maneuver demonstrating his genius at its best, etc.
> For many
> generals or even emperors, being at the killing line (or very close to
> it) was a perceived necessity: Titus at the siege of Jerusalem was
> reckless and so were many emperor some of whom fell in battle (notably
> Julian, in a close cavalry engagement).
As I said, you are confusing being in the fighting zone with fighting
in the first rank. While the 1st can be quite useful, the 2nd is
mostly not (there were exceptions here and there).
> Sometimes, leading the troops
> in a desperate battle is "where one can be of a greater use."
>
To start with, you have to see where and when this greater use is.
Placing yourself into the 1st row of the fighters at the beginning of
the battle would not allow you to see anything of the kind.
> > Napoleon
> > (AFAIK) was doing this from time to time and the lesser personages
> > even more so. Then the event was immortalized by the writers,
> > painters, historians and became a heroic fact. Chandler's "The
> > campaigns of Napoleon" contains an interesting comment to the painting
> > "The Battle of Eylau": "...It is, however, dubious whether Murat
> > (wielding riding crop) reached such personal close quarters with the
> > enemy on any occasions."
>
> Well, Murat was reckless and I do believe that he was in killing zone
> more often than not.
>
Well, we have 2 believers, you and Chandler. Unfortunately, you
believe into the opposite things and, being nice and even-handed, I'm
saying that your opinions negate each other and we are ending up with
knowing nothing on this subject.
> > While it is rather risky to deny completely a possibility of
> > Hannibal's staying in the center, "leading the troops" may mean many
> > things besides marching in the 1st rank sword in hand (except few
> > people immediately to the right and left nobody would see him to start
> > with). He could quite well be on a horseback _behind_ the formation
> > (at least he would be able to see what's going on and have some
> > freedom of movement).
>
> I think that being at horseback near the center would have likely made
> him an easy target
Yes, it would. This is why I wrote "behind" the formation.
> However, there would have been certain
> identifying elements (such as standards) marking his presence and
> visible from a variety of areas in the line. How much freedom he had
> to move around would have depended on the actual arrangement of the
> various elements of the Carthagenian center.
Yes, except for the case when he is on foot in the 1st row encouraging
all 5 soldiers who could see him.
>
> > He could just be with the center for a short
> > while and then, when everybody got busy, prudently leave to do some
> > generalship, etc. Not to mention that it is anything but clear where
> > this story came from. AFAIK, there are no Punic accounts and, while
> > there were numerous Roman survivors, the front ranks of the Roman
> > center (the only area where Hannibal the Fencer could be observed) was
> > an area with a very low rate of survival (for the Romans) AND it was a
> > place with a low rate of survival for the Hannibal's troops. In other
> > words, probability of the description is extremely low (of course,
> > "low" does not mean a total impossibility).
>
> Well, we know that there were many survivors (about 20,000 or so).
You are missing the point. Following description of the battle those
Romans who could see him fighting in the front ranks of Carthaginian
army were probably in the worst position as far as chances to survive
had been involved. In other words, chance that the Roman writers could
rely on the accounts of the people who really SAW Hannibal in this
battle are minimal.
> We
> can only guess on how good our accounts are.
Most probably, they are extremely bad as far as the tiny details are
involved.
> I actually believe them
> to be accurate at this point.
Faith, by definition, has little to do with the logic.
>There is unanimity about his position
> and personal engagement was a characteristic of his.
Is this also an item of faith?
> Plus, there was
> not much generalship that he could have done.
> Reaching any of his
> commanders in the wings would have been impossible. Where would one
> find them in that battlefield? He depended on them to put the plan
> into action, and they did.
Well, in this post you already wrote something to the contrary about
the need to judge for how long center should held. Please make up your
mind which one would it be.
>There is little evidence that ancient
> commanders were capable of redirecting cavalry after the engagement
> begun.
>
Wasn't there something about Alexander redirecting his cavalry to help
Parmenion?
To think about it, both at Cannae and at Zama victorious cavalry was
redirected after engagement begun: after some chaise it reformed and
fall back onto the opponent's infantry.
> > When it comes to "rallying" the troops, doing so on foot also was not
> > the most efficient thing to do because the said troops had to see the
> > point around which they were supposed to rally and, if they were
> > running in a panic or simply were in a state of disorder, this point
> > should stick out as a sore finger so somebody on a horseback and
> > preferably accompanied by a standard-bearer and a bugler (or somebody
> > else capable of making loud and easily recognizable noises) would have
> > much better chances to accomplish his task than a heroic but difficult
> > to see figure on foot. Not to mention that (short of the cases when
> > really small numbers had been involved so that rallying effect could
> > be achieved by explaining to them in a loud voice some peculiarities
> > of their ancestry) process of rallying was better done at some point
> > in the rear so the running soldiers would more or less bump into the
> > "rallying point" (example, Bernadotte at Wagram; unfortunately, Nappy
> > interfered in the most interesting moment thus contributing to the
> > Swedish history).
>
> I think the effect of the commander fighting alongside the men was a
> morale booster.
"Alongside" means the wide variety of things from taking his place in
a phalanx or a shield wall to staying within artillery range. The same
goes for "fighting": it ranges from doing this literarilly, sword (or
lance, or battle axe) in hand all the way to do certain thing called
"generalship".
[more of the same]
>
> > Not that it is totally clear why would he want to strengthen his
> > center (which was probably what his presence was supposed to
> > accomplish) if the whole idea was to let center to fall back. Not
> > that, being busy fencing with the Roman legionaries, would he be able
> > to figure out when it is a good time to fall back. Even if he could,
> > how would he give a signal to retreat?
>
> The center had to hold long enough for the envelopment to work.
Thanks for explaining the obvious but it would be nice if, instead,
you answered the question: how would he manage to do <whatever> by
playing an ordinary soldier?
[snip]
> > To make a long story short, the only (IMO) sensible interpretation of
> > what is written in the quoted sources is that he was positioned, at
> > least initially, in the center but behind his troops and on a
> > horseback (and probably on some hill, if available) to be able to
> > control events in this sector while retaining freedom of movement.
>
> This is a guess and it is quite possible.
Thank you. I rest me case.
[]
> > Taking into an account that at Zama Hannibal let the Romans
> > exterminate 2 out of 3 Carthaginian lines (including one formed by his
> > compatriots), he does not strike as excessively sentimental type and
> > his concern about well-being of the Iberian troops at Cannae would be
> > one a purely practical side.
>
> Well, Zama is another story. He is much older at Zama, way past prime
> fighting age.
And this was the only thing that prevented him from joining the 1st
fighting line of his army? Well, most of his veterans probably were in
the same age category as he was (early 40's).
> I do not think that he had the "well-being" of the
> Iberian troops in mind at Cannae, but their performance. He had to
> give them some reason to fight to death against superior forces.
> His
> presence and his comradeship were essential in hardening these troops
> to stand their ground.
They had 2 possible reasons: (a) hatred of the Romans and/or (b)
chance of the loot. The 3rd possible reason is that, if defeated, they
were so far from their home that their chances for survival would be
quite low. Hannibal hanging among them, distributing cigarettes and
telling the dirty jokes hardly seems as a vitally important extra
motivation.
J Antero
"igor" <inbel...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f28cac50-0cad-4511-b467-
> ==== Einstein??? Dude, pahlease.....
> Stalins ethnicity had nothing to do with communists capturing
> political power during the civil war. Following your logic, US gets
> conquered every four or eight years and black democrats just conquered
> US of A ======
>
> <chuckle, chuckle>
>
> Ibore (from just above) " For your information the communists you are
> talking about [taking over Russia in the Revolution] were Russians, how is
> it possible for Russians to conquer Russians??? Maybe in the alternate
> universe you come from, mr. Chuckle "
>
> I then pointed out thar Stalin was Georgian, something he apparently
> didn't
> know, and then retreated from.
>
> You're in a *history* group Ibore, and you don't know any.- Hide quoted
> text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
===Retardero, and I pointed out that Stalins ethnicity had nothing to do
with communists grabbing power in Russia... Keep on chuckling. It is a
history group, did you get lost???====
Ibor the Retard: " For your information the communists you are
talking about [taking over Russia in the Revolution] were Russians, how is
it possible for Russians to conquer Russians??? Maybe in the alternate
universe you come from, mr. Chuckle "
My reply:
Stalin was Georgian, Trotsky was Ukrainian, Felx Dzerjinski
was a Pole, Protian was Armenian, Kruschev (who replaced Stalin) was
Ukrainian.
Res Ipsa Loquitur. <chuckle>
J Antero
On Nov 26, 8:23 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:54686f46-7ac6-4598-be53-
> > ==== Einstein??? Dude, pahlease.....
> > Stalins ethnicity had nothing to do with communists capturing
> > political power during the civil war. Following your logic, US gets
> > conquered every four or eight years and black democrats just conquered
> > US of A ======
>
> > <chuckle, chuckle>
>
> > Ibore (from just above) " For your information the communists you are
> > talking about [taking over Russia in the Revolution] were Russians, how
> > is
> > it possible for Russians to conquer Russians??? Maybe in the alternate
> > universe you come from, mr. Chuckle "
>
> > I then pointed out thar Stalin was Georgian, something he apparently
> > didn't
> > know, and then retreated from.
>
> > You're in a *history* group Ibore, and you don't know any.
>
> ==He knows quite well that Stalin was Georgian ==
>
> He said "the communists you are talking about [taking over Russia in the
> Revolution] were Russians."
>
> That was wrong.
>
> For instance: Stalin was Georgian, Trotsky was Ukrainian, Felx Dzerjinski
> was a Pole, Protian was Armenian, Kruschev (who replaced Stalin) was
> Ukrainian.
===Ignorant fool.. Trotsky was a Jew, Lenin was Russian, German, Jewish,
Calmik, Stalin was Georgian, Ossetian. Russian is a language group,
it is multinational, just like US.... JTEM regoice, you are not the
stupidest poster in this group anymore..... Falks meet Retardero the
chuckle maister!!!!!!===
Ibor, the ignorant little anti-jew, ignores people's nationality in
favor of their religion.
Trotsky was a Ukranian, moron. A Ukranian jew if that's how you want to put
it, moron.
Here's what the Ibor moron posted that I replied to:
" For your information the communists you are
> > talking about [taking over Russia in the Revolution] were Russians, how
> > is
> > it possible for Russians to conquer Russians??? Maybe in the alternate
> > universe you come from, mr. Chuckle "
So I then pointed out the that a lot of them WEREN'T Russian, and his big
reply is to agree with me, except ignoring Trotsky's Ukranian nationality,
in favor of saying "Trotsky was a Jew".
Yes, Ibor, you ARE a retard.
Run along Ibor. <snip garbage ranting>
ADR
> > True enough. There are not that many original sources on the battle
> > of Cannae (but the ones we have are quited detaiiled),
>
> Sorry, some of the details provided in some of the "detailed" accounts
> look like a total crap (like the story about the captured Hannibal's
> soldiers kept inside Roman formation who suddenly attacked their
> captors from the back). Anyway, the main thing is to ask where these
> details came from and how reliable are they.
You can ask and you can theorize. The sources are what they are. I do
not find it unbelievable that captured soldiers were able to attack
their captors. It happened in various battlefields. In Agincourt,
Henry V had captured French put to death for the fear of exactly
this. Romans at later ages admired Hannibal and even erected statues
to him. We have no particular reason to believe that much has been
faked or distorted. There were just too many survivors for the story
to be seriously distorted. Of course, it is your privilege to be a
sceptic. That we assess the information in a different manner is not
much of a surprise. Personal experiences and prejudices always
influence one's reading of original sources.
> > In this case, I do not have any difficulty in
> > accepting the fact that Hannibal was in the thick of the battle (with
> > his brother, Mago) in the center of the Carthaginian line.
>
> What you just wrote is, as I already explained, a generality which may
> mean many different things out of which one that you prefer seems
> least likely.
It seems "least likely to you". Well, since we cannot rerun a video
recording of the battle, personal assessments are inescapable.
> "Presense" perhaps. Fighting in the front (and on foot) most probably
> would not because nobody would see him and because he would be in no
> position to figure out what is going on and when it is a good time to
> "gave up" as you put it.
Assuming that there would have been a number of standards around him,
persons in the line would have been able to see him depending on the
topography and their location in the battle.
> > In addition, the troops in the
> > center were not the African contingent.
>
> So what?
The Celto-Iberians were the least reliable of his troops. Many were
mercenaries.
> > Furthermore, Hannibal was a
> > soldier's general.
>
> While quite often this is a synonym to "complete incompetent", he was
> a great general and had a battle to win. And part of the winning
> formula was coordination of the various units (see your own text
> above).
Well, there is no evidence whatsoever that he did any coordination
during the battle, apart from leading the troops in the center. After
the battle commenced, he dependent of his commanders in the wings to
execute his plan. Again, there is no evidence of a very complex
control and command in ancient warfare and the difficulties and the
length of time required to have runners contacting various commanders
in the field made it impossible to exert command in real time. If we
surmise that Hannibal wanted to keep in touch with Hasdrubal, how
could he have done it? Probably by sending a messenger, who would
have had to find Hasdrubal in the din and confusion of battle and who,
by the time he returned to Hannibal, would not have had any timely
information.
> > Cannae would not have been the first time he would
> > have been near or at the killing line in a battle.
>
> Of course, he was "near" the "killing line". Question is why would he
> be _in_ this line?
The killing line was several ranks deep. Hannibal did not have to be
right up front (although he may have been) to have been in the killing
zone. Had he stationed himself way in the back, his effort to inspire
the troops would have fallen flat.
> > Well, we know that this was not the case for a number of commanders,
> > Alexander quite notable among them.
>
> Sorry, I'm not going back to Alexander.
>
> Enough to say that the Greek (and to a certain degree Macedonian)
> warfare was built on a simple model in which commander's role, beyond
> initial arrangement of the troops, was quite limited because battles
> were the clashes of phalanxes with very little maneuvering,
> practically no reserves and limited (mostly VERY limited) need to
> coordinate actions of the separate units. Alexander was following
> (more or less) existing tradition. Then, again, we don't know for sure
> the tiny details of these battles.
This is actually not fully correct. In fact, Alexander's movement of
troops in all his battles (and especially in the Indus and Gaugamela)
was quite complex. Hardly anybody ever attempted his oblique approach
at Gaugamela. Many other battles during classical warfare were quite
complex as well.
> > If you read the record, there
> > were not many cases in which a commander in the classical world made
> > extensive changes after the battle had commenced.
>
> Hopefully, you are not going to insist that at Zama Hannibal and
> Scipio did nothing after battle commenced. And we can be practically
> sure that "the soldiers general" was with the 3rd line of his troops
> and on a horseback so that he could run away while his troops had been
> massacred.
Well, the battle of Zama is well recorded, so we know what happened.
There was not that much generalship. After the initial deployment,
the only time that both generals redeployed troops in a serious matter
was before the clash of the 3rd lines, when the battle abated for some
time. Hannibal did not do much more than move into the wings the
defeated men of the 1st and 2nd lines. He did not even anticipate the
return of the Roman cavalry. In any case, treating him as a coward is
unjust. He did survive the battle, but so did about 50% of the
Carthaginian army.
> > The tools of
> > command were not there and the troops were not that easy to be moved
> > from one end of the line to the other. Committing reserves was just
> > about what a commander could have done in most of the circumstances.
>
> Actually, this is a lot and this means that commander would stay
> behind the front line, preferably on some hill so that he could see
> what is going on and when reserves should be committed.
This is assuming that a hill was near by. Even so, our information is
that both Carthagenian and Roman (as well as Greek) generals were not
sitting it out by some hill but were within the formation. Even
Persian generals (and Persian kings) did so. For a battle to be
commanded from a hill without any good instruments of control and
command would have impractical. There were predetermined bugle or
trumped calls for different lines to move on and for reserves to move
in, but this was probably the sum of it.
> > If it was a good plan and
> > the general had perceptive lieutenants, it worked. Thus with
> > Alexander in Gaugamela, Caesar in Pharsalus and others.
>
> Somehow, I don't think that Caesar foreseen ALL possible scenarios of
> Pharsalus and had nothing to do during the battle
Possibly you can enlightened me as to what he did during the battle.
Caesar anticipated the cavalry attack and positioned cohorts in an
oblique order on his flank to meet the attack. He even remarked in
his commentaries that his troops managed the attack on the center of
the Pompeian line all on their own because of their maturity and
experience. If you have other information, let me know.
> > For many
> > generals or even emperors, being at the killing line (or very close to
> > it) was a perceived necessity: Titus at the siege of Jerusalem was
> > reckless and so were many emperor some of whom fell in battle (notably
> > Julian, in a close cavalry engagement).
>
> As I said, you are confusing being in the fighting zone with fighting
> in the first rank. While the 1st can be quite useful, the 2nd is
> mostly not (there were exceptions here and there).
I am not confusing anything. The killing zone is usually several
lines deep, Keegan has provided a lot of information about the extent
of the killing line at different types of battles. Assuming that
missiles from either army could have reached many lines deep and that
the killing zone would have extended several lines deep at the time of
a clash (as casualties in the front line were made up by troops just
behind) , the "killing zone" was much more than a single line.
> To start with, you have to see where and when this greater use is.
> Placing yourself into the 1st row of the fighters at the beginning of
> the battle would not allow you to see anything of the kind.
Even placing oneself in the sixth line would only have allowed very
limited visibility. But the point was not to see but to be seen. My
guess is that there was a number of standards signifying his position
and the flying standards were visible at some distance along the line.
> > Well, we know that there were many survivors (about 20,000 or so).
>
> You are missing the point. Following description of the battle those
> Romans who could see him fighting in the front ranks of Carthaginian
> army were probably in the worst position as far as chances to survive
> had been involved. In other words, chance that the Roman writers could
> rely on the accounts of the people who really SAW Hannibal in this
> battle are minimal.
We can only speculate on this. The survivors even included a
historian, Pictor. I guess that is your prerogative to believe the
sources, or not.
> > I actually believe them
> > to be accurate at this point.
>
> Faith, by definition, has little to do with the logic.
Who said anything about faith. I think that the information makes
logical sense. It was a crucial battle and the commander wanted the
center to hold by increasing the morale of the troops. It makes good
sense.
> >There is unanimity about his position
> > and personal engagement was a characteristic of his.
>
> Is this also an item of faith?
Not at all. It is based on his biography by Livy. Here is part of
the section describing Hannibal:
"...his arms and his horses were conspicuous. He was at once by far
the first of the cavalry and infantry; and, foremost to advance to the
charge, was last to leave the engagement. Excessive vices
counterbalanced these high virtues of the hero; inhuman cruelty, more
than Punic perfidy, no truth, no reverence for things sacred, no fear
of the gods, no respect for oaths, no sense of religion..."
> Well, in this post you already wrote something to the contrary about
> the need to judge for how long center should held. Please make up your
> mind which one would it be.
The only way that Hannibal had to make the center hold was to be there
himself. He had no further reserves to commit and it would have been
impossible to recall the wings the moment the battle was joined.
> Wasn't there something about Alexander redirecting his cavalry to help
> Parmenion?
No, a messenger from Parmenio reached Alexander. Alexander was in hot
pursuit and had no clue that Parmenio and his left wing were in dire
straights.
> To think about it, both at Cannae and at Zama victorious cavalry was
> redirected after engagement begun: after some chaise it reformed and
> fall back onto the opponent's infantry.
It was not "redirected" by the commanders. Hasdrubal performed as
expected at Cannae and Scipio was glad to have seen his cavalry return
to the battle after some absence. Even Hannibal had no idea where the
Roman cavarly was, apparently.
>
> > I think the effect of the commander fighting alongside the men was a
> > morale booster.
>
> "Alongside" means the wide variety of things from taking his place in
> a phalanx or a shield wall to staying within artillery range. The same
> goes for "fighting": it ranges from doing this literarilly, sword (or
> lance, or battle axe) in hand all the way to do certain thing called
> "generalship".
Of course. For a commander to believably stand by his troops, he has
to be within the killing line and this would have several ranks
deep. Hannibal, at least according to ancient historians, was hardly
above hand to hand fighting. Was he right up front, ready to receive
a charging Roman line? Hard to know. I posted the information by
Polybius and Livy. From there one, there is not much to go on. He
was certainly not on a hill overlooking the battle.
>
> Thanks for explaining the obvious but it would be nice if, instead,
> you answered the question: how would he manage to do <whatever> by
> playing an ordinary soldier?
What did he do apart from fighting in the center and leading charge
and counter charge against the advancing legions (according to the
ancient historians)? The plan was laid before the battle, his various
commanders took the posts in the line and the battle commenced.
> And this was the only thing that prevented him from joining the 1st
> fighting line of his army? Well, most of his veterans probably were in
> the same age category as he was (early 40's).
He was 47 years old at Zama, a really advanced age in antiquity. I
hardly believe that his veterans included anybody from the original
group that crossed the Alps with him save a few. He was in Italy for
a very long time. Even troops serving for him in the last 5 years in
Italy would have been veterans.
> They had 2 possible reasons: (a) hatred of the Romans and/or (b)
> chance of the loot. The 3rd possible reason is that, if defeated, they
> were so far from their home that their chances for survival would be
> quite low. Hannibal hanging among them, distributing cigarettes and
> telling the dirty jokes hardly seems as a vitally important extra
> motivation.
Having been at war, I strongly disagree. I have actually strong
personal experiences in which the courage of the commander inspired
the whole unit. And the history of war is replete with such
examples. In many cases, the commander's personal example is what
makes the difference between defeat and victory. We can even see
examples of this in our modern age, an age of a more impersonal way of
war.
J Antero
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a2b4c60-60df-4fe5...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
==I did not write anything of the kind so conclusion is totally yours.
And it is a very stupid conclusion.==
It was a facetious reply entirely appropriate to your post that said:
pointed to the fact that the Bolsheviks won the Civil War
> because they were supported by majority of Russians (all alternatives
> failed in gaining enough of a popular support to match Bolshevik
> armies in numbers). Bolshevik coup in November of 1917 became possible
> because they had overwhelming support of the Petrograd's garrison
> (mostly Russians). Collectivization became possible because (strange
> as it may sound), it was supported by the millions of Russian peasants
> (part of it being confiscation of well-to-do peasants' property).
You should do a little reading about Soviet history so you don't say such
stupid things.
Try "Stalin", by Radzinsky and Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon
Sebag Montefiore.
J Antero
==Retardero places Einstein in the same group with Stalin and Beria as
Georgians who conquered Russia. Next he will claim that such Austrians
as Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi conquered Germany...Hilarious..==
Ibor the Retarded invents his own 'facts", poorly...
J Antero
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d83c0ec9-f61c-43f1-b548-
===As for the issue of "conquest", AFAIK, this term is not being
routinely used for the civil wars so, as soon as it is acknowledged
that there was a _civil_ war in Russia, discussion is over.===
;-)) A couple of exanmples to show you are wrong.
1 of 2)
CONTENTS
4. The February Revolution
******Part Two: The Bolsheviks Conquer Russia******
12. The New Empire
13. Communism for Export
2 of 2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War
"" The Huaihai Campaign of late 1948 and early 1949 secured east-central
China for the CPC.[44] The outcome of these encounters were decisive for the
military outcome of the civil war.[44] The Beiping-Tianjin Campaign resulted
in the Communist ***conquest*** of northern China lasting 64 days from
November 21, 1948 to January 31, 1949.[46] The People's Liberation Army
suffered heavy casualties from securing Zhangjiakou, Tianjin along with its
port and garrison at Dagu, and Beiping.[46] The CPC brought 890,000 troops
from the Northeast to oppose some 600,000 KMT troops.[45] There were 40,000
CPC casualties at Zhangjiakou alone. They in turned killed, wounded or
captured some 520,000 KMT during the campaign.[46] """
J Antero
refer to that war as the "War of Northern Conquest" .
igor
> "igor" <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Retardo the chuckling ant, what motivates you to waist bandwidth by
posting here? It is obvious that your history knowledge is null and
void.
All we have to do is to scroll up in this very thread to find:
<<Stalin was Russian, Einstein? Beria?
Aside from the various nationalities it was to a large extent an
ideological
war that had international aims.>>
Your flawed, unethical posts reveal your ant sized intellect and it
is reflected in your name…
am...@hotmail.com
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d83c0ec9-f61c-43f1-b548-
>
> ===As for the issue of "conquest", AFAIK, this term is not being
> routinely used for the civil wars so, as soon as it is acknowledged
> that there was a _civil_ war in Russia, discussion is over.===
>
> ;-)) A couple of exanmples to show you are wrong.
>
Show me examples on Cromwel, Henry VII, Henry IV "conquering"
corresponding countries and I'll agree.
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 27, 4:54 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > True enough. There are not that many original sources on the battle
> > > of Cannae (but the ones we have are quited detaiiled),
>
> > Sorry, some of the details provided in some of the "detailed" accounts
> > look like a total crap (like the story about the captured Hannibal's
> > soldiers kept inside Roman formation who suddenly attacked their
> > captors from the back). Anyway, the main thing is to ask where these
> > details came from and how reliable are they.
>
> You can ask and you can theorize. The sources are what they are.
Yes. They are highly unreliable writings of the people who usually
were not present at the event and quite often were not contemporaries
of the event and who relied on the sources unknown or simply on their
own imagination. They are also documents which repeatedly proved to be
terribly wrong on the numbers.
> I do
> not find it unbelievable that captured soldiers were able to attack
> their captors.
The obvious problem is that you are ready to believe practically
everything written in the "sources".
> It happened in various battlefields. In Agincourt,
> Henry V had captured French put to death for the fear of exactly
> this.
Or as a retribution for the murder of English baggage servants by
another French. However, example is not applicable because in Henry's
case these prisoners were not kept inside British battle formation.
> Romans at later ages admired Hannibal and even erected statues
> to him.
This has nothing to do with the subject: claim that Hannibal was
fighting on foot in the front rank.
> We have no particular reason to believe that much has been
> faked or distorted.
There are numerous reasons not to believe what you insist upon and I
listed some of them more than once. Your only response was that you
"believe" otherwise.
> There were just too many survivors for the story
> to be seriously distorted.
Not true because if "story" happened as you insist, very few (under
dozen) people would be able to see it happening and these few people
had very small chance to survive.
> Of course, it is your privilege to be a
> sceptic.
> That we assess the information in a different manner is not
> much of a surprise. Personal experiences and prejudices always
> influence one's reading of original sources.
I wonder what my personal experience has to do with the subject.
>
> > > In this case, I do not have any difficulty in
> > > accepting the fact that Hannibal was in the thick of the battle (with
> > > his brother, Mago) in the center of the Carthaginian line.
>
> > What you just wrote is, as I already explained, a generality which may
> > mean many different things out of which one that you prefer seems
> > least likely.
>
> It seems "least likely to you". Well, since we cannot rerun a video
> recording of the battle, personal assessments are inescapable.
Well, you are free to believe whatever you want but you are expressing
your beliefs in a very affirmative way implying that they are facts.
>
> > "Presense" perhaps. Fighting in the front (and on foot) most probably
> > would not because nobody would see him and because he would be in no
> > position to figure out what is going on and when it is a good time to
> > "gave up" as you put it.
>
> Assuming that there would have been a number of standards around him,
> persons in the line would have been able to see him depending on the
> topography and their location in the battle.
Sorry, I am going to ask a naive question: can you answer to what is
written? Your response has nothing to do with what I wrote.
>
> > > In addition, the troops in the
> > > center were not the African contingent.
>
> > So what?
>
> The Celto-Iberians were the least reliable of his troops. Many were
> mercenaries.
Mercenaries could be quite reliable if an option was death.
>
> > > Furthermore, Hannibal was a
> > > soldier's general.
>
> > While quite often this is a synonym to "complete incompetent", he was
> > a great general and had a battle to win. And part of the winning
> > formula was coordination of the various units (see your own text
> > above).
>
> Well, there is no evidence whatsoever that he did any coordination
> during the battle, apart from leading the troops in the center.
"Leading" is not equivalent to "fighting on foot in the 1st rank". Do
you understand the difference?
[]
> > > Cannae would not have been the first time he would
> > > have been near or at the killing line in a battle.
>
> > Of course, he was "near" the "killing line". Question is why would he
> > be _in_ this line?
>
> The killing line was several ranks deep.
OK. Define "killing line".
> Hannibal did not have to be
> right up front
Wow! We are progressing.
> (although he may have been) to have been in the killing
> zone. Had he stationed himself way in the back,
Define "way back".
> his effort to inspire
> the troops would have fallen flat.
No, it would not.
>
> > > Well, we know that this was not the case for a number of commanders,
> > > Alexander quite notable among them.
>
> > Sorry, I'm not going back to Alexander.
>
> > Enough to say that the Greek (and to a certain degree Macedonian)
> > warfare was built on a simple model in which commander's role, beyond
> > initial arrangement of the troops, was quite limited because battles
> > were the clashes of phalanxes with very little maneuvering,
> > practically no reserves and limited (mostly VERY limited) need to
> > coordinate actions of the separate units. Alexander was following
> > (more or less) existing tradition. Then, again, we don't know for sure
> > the tiny details of these battles.
>
> This is actually not fully correct. In fact, Alexander's movement of
> troops in all his battles (and especially in the Indus and Gaugamela)
> was quite complex.
I wrote "more or less", not "exactly".
[]
> > > If you read the record, there
> > > were not many cases in which a commander in the classical world made
> > > extensive changes after the battle had commenced.
>
> > Hopefully, you are not going to insist that at Zama Hannibal and
> > Scipio did nothing after battle commenced. And we can be practically
> > sure that "the soldiers general" was with the 3rd line of his troops
> > and on a horseback so that he could run away while his troops had been
> > massacred.
>
> Well, the battle of Zama is well recorded, so we know what happened.
> There was not that much generalship.
This is a total nonsense.
[]
>
> Having been at war, I strongly disagree. I have actually strong
> personal experiences in which the courage of the commander inspired
> the whole unit.
How many times your "unit" had been led by the army commander marching
(running, crawling, etc.) in the 1st rank?
am...@hotmail.com
You should not give stupid advices to the people who know subject
considerably better than you: this way your stupidity may be hidden
for a while.
Look at the size of the Red Army by the end of the RCW. Over 5M. Look
at the size and composition of Denikin's White army (and read
Wrangel's memories). Look at the size of Kolchak's army. Comparison of
the forces clearly shows who had bigger support among the population.
The story about "minorities" winning the RCW while most of the
Russians had been taking a nap is an old canard: Russians had been
duped by <whoever> and always had been innocent victims of the evil
<whoever>. Heard a lot of it in the Former Motherland of the
Elephants.
>
> Try "Stalin", by Radzinsky and Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon
> Sebag Montefiore.
Radzinsky is a good entertainer and I have his "Stalin" in original
language but it neither impressive nor extremely informative. Has
nothing to do with what I'm telling you and what you obviously can't
comprehend. On Stalin's personality and coming to the power read
Bazanov's memories: at least he was Stalin's personal secretary and
had 1st hand knowledge.
ADR
There is no need to continue this discussion beyond this point. You
can certainly have your opinions. Although you have not responded to
80% of my post and gave the impression that I did not define the
killing zone and elements of C&C in antiquity, there is no sense in
arguing beyond this point. There is hardly a professional historian
today that covers the period of mid-Republic who disagrees with the
accounts of Polybius and Livy of the battle of Cannae or the character
of Hannibal. You can point to me any texts that cover the Punic wars
or Hannibal's biography that disagree with these historians. But
this is a forum in which all kinds of opinions can and should be
heard.
> > Having been at war, I strongly disagree. I have actually strong
> > personal experiences in which the courage of the commander inspired
> > the whole unit.
>
> How many times your "unit" had been led by the army commander marching
> (running, crawling, etc.) in the 1st rank?
Many, and at crucial times. There are times when a commander knows
what the crucial part of the engagement is and that his personal
presence can make the difference. You seem to mistake senior officers
with staff officers. Good commanders are leaders of men. Front line
casualties of senior officers are hardly unheard of - even in very
modern engagements- and are in fact quite high compared to that of
the privates on a percentage basis. It varies from army to army and
their different fighting traditions.
James Beck
>On Nov 28, 1:57�am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 4:54�pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
[big snip]
>> Having been at war, I strongly disagree. �I have actually strong
>> personal experiences in which the courage of the commander inspired
>> the whole unit.
>
>How many times your "unit" had been led by the army commander marching
>(running, crawling, etc.) in the 1st rank?
On my last military post, the commanding general was so fat that he
couldn't pass in review at his own retirement ceremony. They set up a
sort of chariot, strapped him in and dragged him in review, instead.
The entertainment value was high.
Matt Giwer
> Amercian Civil War - even nowadays there are soutnerners who continue to
> refer to that war as the "War of Northern Conquest" .
War of Northern Aggression
War against secession.
Whatever. Civil war has a meaning. It was not a war for control of
the entire US of 1860. Only if it were a war for control would it have been
a civil war. The war of independence starting in 1776 be correctly called a
civil war if it were.
--
The conundrum of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is simple to state.
Is God circumcized?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4201
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Sun Nov 29 10:36:24 EST 2009
am...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 28, 7:33 pm, a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> There is no need to continue this discussion beyond this point.
Indeed. You are absolutely incapable (or unwilling) to answer any of
my questions and keep chanting your mantra "it is written so it has to
be true". It ceased being interesting or informative beyond being a
potential material for a chapter of MMV: until most recent times army
commanders had nothing to do after engagement started so their usual
occupation was to fight in the 1st ranks showing their swordsmanship.
Did I miss anything?
[]
> > > Having been at war, I strongly disagree. I have actually strong
> > > personal experiences in which the courage of the commander inspired
> > > the whole unit.
>
> > How many times your "unit" had been led by the army commander marching
> > (running, crawling, etc.) in the 1st rank?
>
> Many, and at crucial times.
Army commander personally leading his army marching in the 1st rank?
What army and war are you talking about?
>There are times when a commander knows
> what the crucial part of the engagement is and that his personal
> presence can make the difference.
Are you sure that you did not confuse army commander with a sergeant
or lieutenant?
[Well, when Pancho finally capitulated, half of his army were generals
or colonels so....]
> You seem to mistake senior officers
> with staff officers.
It seems to me that you are confused. Period.
> Good commanders are leaders of men.
I can imagine Ike personally leading the charge in the beaches....
J Antero
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7116e4e-f250-4767...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 28, 1:14 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d83c0ec9-f61c-43f1-b548-
>
> ===As for the issue of "conquest", AFAIK, this term is not being
> routinely used for the civil wars so, as soon as it is acknowledged
> that there was a _civil_ war in Russia, discussion is over.===
A couple of exanmples to show you are wrong.
1 of 2)
J Antero
== Your flawed, unethical posts reveal your ant sized intellect and it
is reflected in your name�===
Ibor the Stupid:
"" " For your information the communists you are
talking about [taking over Russia in the Revolution] were Russians, how is
it possible for Russians to conquer Russians??? Maybe in the alternate
universe you come from, mr. Chuckle """
You are nothng but an incompetent raving little liar and anti-jew.
Stalin was Georgian, Trotsky was Ukrainian, Felx Dzerjinski
was a Pole, Protian was Armenian, Kruschev (who replaced Stalin) was
Ukrainian.
When I pointed out the that a lot of communists who took over Russia in the
Revolution WEREN'T Russian, and his big
reply is to agree with me, except ignoring Trotsky's Ukranian nationality,
in favor of saying "Trotsky was a Jew".
There was a large war that broke out that lasted for a few years and cost
J Antero
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37b2e33e-c8f7-422a...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
===You should not give stupid advices to the people who know subject
considerably better than you: this way your stupidity may be hidden
for a while.===
Here's what I said that you went off on:
[re. the bolsheviks taking power in Russia] "so it was actually quite
democratic and free?"
Size of armies is not an indication of a revolution being "democratic and
free".
Here's a short description of what was involved in the bolshevik take over
of Russia by someone a little more competent than you:
"" Mr. Pipes writes trenchantly, and at times superbly....No single volume
known to me even begins to cater so adequately to those who want to discover
what really happened to Russia....Nor do I know any other book better
designed to help Soviet citizens to struggle out of the darkness." -- Ronald
Hingley, The New York Times Book Review Ground-breaking in its
inclusiveness, enthralling in its narrative of a movement whose purpose, in
the words of ***Leon Trotsky, was "to overthrow the world," ****
The Russian Revolution draws conclusions that have already aroused great
controversy in this country-and that are certain to be explosive when the
book is published in the Soviet Union. Richard *****Pipes argues
convincingly that the Russian Revolution was an intellectual, rather than a
class, uprising; that it was steeped in terror from its very outset; and
that it was not a revolution at all but a coup d'etat -- "the capture of
governmental power by a small minority.*****" ""
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pipes
Richard Pipes taught at Harvard University from 1950 until his retirement in
1996. He was the director of Harvard's Russian Research Center from 1968 to
1973 and is now Baird Professor Emeritus of History at Harvard University.
He acted as senior consultant at the Stanford Research Institute from 1973
to 1978. During the 1970s, he was an adviser to Washington Senator Henry M.
Jackson. In 1981 and 1982 he served as a member of the National Security
Council, holding the post of Director of East European and Soviet Affairs
under President Ronald Reagan.[2] Pipes was a member of the Committee on the
Present Danger from 1977 until 1992 and belongs to the Council of Foreign
Relations. In the 1970s, Pipes was a leading critic of d�tente, which he
described as "inspired by intellectual indolence and based on ignorance of
one's antagonist and therefore inherently inept".[3] Richard Pipes has
written 21 books and is a member of several editorial boards.
As for "popular support", they promised land to the poor - the people got
forced collectivization.
Governemnts who terrorize their people "steeped in terror from its very
outset", as above, don't get to cliam "popular support".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
Early Soviet period On the eve of the 1917 revolution, 28,600 convicts
were serving sentences of hard labor.[16] After the Russian Revolution of
1917 the Russian penal system was taken over by the Bolsheviks. From 1918,
camp-type detention facilities were set up, as a reformed analogy of the
earlier system of penal labor (katorgas), operated in Siberia in Imperial
Russia. The two main types were "Vechecka Special-purpose Camps" (??????
?????? ???, osobiye lagerya VCK) and forced labor camps (??????
?????????????? ?????, lagerya prinuditel'nikh rabot). They were installed
for various categories of people deemed dangerous for the state: for common
criminals, for prisoners of the Russian Civil War, for officials accused of
corruption, sabotage and embezzlement, various political enemies and
dissidents, as well as former aristocrats, businessmen and large land
owners.