Medieval places of interest off the beaten track
Julian Richards
you recommend to visit that are not on the usual tourist trails?
I like Mountfitchet Castle in Essex
http://www.gold.enta.net/castle.htm
and West Stow, the Saxon village near Bury St Edmunds
http://www.stedmunds.co.uk/west_stow.html
plus the nearby cathedral at Bury St Edmunds itself
http://www.stedmunds.co.uk/lifestyle/cathedral.html
--
Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse
with people that you would never want in your house.
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
erilar
Richards <s...@sig.co.uk> wrote:
> Keeping up the offence against the off topic posts, which places would
> you recommend to visit that are not on the usual tourist trails?
There are lots of lovely castle ruins in Germany that are not overrun
with tourists. And there are some nice ones that are not too crowded
with tourists out of season. Avoid mid-summer! 8-)
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
erilar
> Keeping up the offence against the off topic posts, which places would
> you recommend to visit that are not on the usual tourist trails?
Having sent off the previous general post, I'll add one specific one:
Gelnhausen not only has a lovely medieval Altstadt, but a wonderful
ruined Kaiserpfalz(imperial palace) popular with the Hohenstaufen
emperors, and a neat hotel on the site of and named after the mill that
belonged to said palace. It's not very far from FRA(the Frankfurt
airport), but I didn't notice any tourists in September a couple years
ago when I was there.
Renia
> Keeping up the offence against the off topic posts, which places would
> you recommend to visit that are not on the usual tourist trails?
Castle Campbell, Dollar in Scotland. Fascinating.
Renia
Kel Rekuta
Nice view from the hills above it as well.
I rather liked Threave and Caerlaverock in the Borders.
Kel
David C. Pugh
news:4206285...@sympatico.ca...
Wamba church near Valladolid: named after the Visigothic king, or the
other way round, one of the earliest horseshoe arches and an ossuary.
San Remi basilica in Rheims: most people do the cathedral and leave it
at that.
Castello dos Mouros at Sintra, Portugal: climb it from the station and
on the east side for a lonelier approach. Curtain-wall on top of rocky
mountain, impregnable except for the inconvenient fact of no water.
Marvellous view.
The alcazar at Malaga: the Alhambra's little brother, without the
military-precision guided visits for thousands.
The painted churches of Moldavia -- Voronets etc.
--
David C. Pugh
Philosophers have sought to explain the world, and Marxists to change it;
the point, however, is to blame someone else for it.
To mail me, replace biblical character with his dad.
Larry Swain
It may not be quite off the beaten track, but I suspect that fewer
people visit there than one would expect: but I had a grand time at the
old city of York. It was truly a fun time--and the great thing is that
it has been occupied since before Roman times, so there's something
there to interest everyone.
I was disappointed to find however that no real marker/park/memorial etc
exists to honor the Battle of Stamford Bridge.
William Black
"Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:iLmdnVKlU64...@rcn.net...
>
>
> It may not be quite off the beaten track, but I suspect that fewer
> people visit there than one would expect: but I had a grand time at the
> old city of York. It was truly a fun time--and the great thing is that
> it has been occupied since before Roman times, so there's something
> there to interest everyone.
Get out of York and visit the castles within forty miles.
Richmond and Helmsley are good, Pickering is a good example of one that's
been made in a 'romantic ruin' by the Victorians (even if it does have the
best extant example of a ground floor solar) and Scarborough is spectacular.
>
> I was disappointed to find however that no real marker/park/memorial etc
> exists to honor the Battle of Stamford Bridge.
>
They're building a new bridge...
And flood defences.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
C A Candy
>you recommend to visit that are not on the usual tourist trails?
Finchale Priory, just north of Durham. Perfect for a picnic, at an
absolutely gorgeous spot along the Wear. Second place would be the
Bishop's palace in Bishop Auckland, which has among other items Antony
Bek's sword and some absolutely magnificent paintings. Well worth the
trip.
Someday I'll get a web tour of Finchale I've been working on for years
with one of my fellows from Durham finished. Along with all the other
projects... *sigh*
Cheers,
Chris
------------------
Christopher Candy
Department(s) of History
University of Durham
Virginia Commonwealth University
C.A....@durham.ac.uk
Odysseus
>
<snip>
>
> The alcazar at Malaga: the Alhambra's little brother, without the
> military-precision guided visits for thousands.
>
I was very impressed with that one; although much less of its plaster
& tile decoration has survived than at the Alhambra, it has a
wonderful atmosphere, somewhat reminiscent of an Escher print, with
chambers and courtyards on multiple levels providing a new
perspective around every corner. There's a Roman amphitheatre at the
foot of the hill on whose shoulder it's situated, and a very
substantial later fortification higher up, above the reach of
cannon-fire from the harbour. Of course Málaga itself is scarcely
"off the beaten path", having the main airport serving the Costa del Sol.
--
Odysseus
David C. Pugh
news:4206D617...@yahoo-dot.ca...
> "David C. Pugh" wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > The alcazar at Malaga: the Alhambra's little brother, without the
> > military-precision guided visits for thousands.
> >
>
> I was very impressed with that one; although much less of its plaster
> & tile decoration has survived than at the Alhambra, it has a
> wonderful atmosphere, somewhat reminiscent of an Escher print, with
> chambers and courtyards on multiple levels providing a new
> perspective around every corner.
Yes! Yes! Beautifully put.
There's a Roman amphitheatre at the
> foot of the hill on whose shoulder it's situated, and a very
> substantial later fortification higher up, above the reach of
> cannon-fire from the harbour. Of course Málaga itself is scarcely
> "off the beaten path", having the main airport serving the Costa del Sol.
From where I live, everyone flies via Alicante. But how many of the
sunworshippers do the alcazar? When I was there I met only a handful of
Spaniards, and entrance was only a euro or two, which doesn't suggest hordes
or trippers.
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
>
> The alcazar at Malaga: the Alhambra's little brother, without the
> military-precision guided visits for thousands.
>
Yes, by some reason it is not very popular. BTW, if you climb (or
drive)
on the very top (more modern part of the fortifications), the view is
absolutely fantastic.
Alhambra did not impress me as it was suppossed to. The gardens are
beautiful and all this plaster work as well. But, IMO, this was a
clear demonstration of a cultural stagnation: a lot of intricate work
but no innovative architectural solutions and the defences with their
rectangular towers look very "backward".
> The painted churches of Moldavia -- Voronets etc.
A lot of the old thingies in Russia, even within Moscow itself.
Lithuania - Trakai, residence of the Great Duke Witold/Vitovt/Vitautas.
City walls in Tallin - a rare case when most of the medieval
fortifications survived.
David C. Pugh
news:1107802070....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > The alcazar at Malaga: the Alhambra's little brother, without the
> > military-precision guided visits for thousands.
> >
> Yes, by some reason it is not very popular. BTW, if you climb (or
> drive) on the very top (more modern part of the fortifications), the view
is
> absolutely fantastic.
When I was there the path along the wall from the alcazar to the highest
castle was closed, and they told me some story about descending, walking to
A, taking a bus to B and walking to C. Given that it was cold and raining
and the upper castle was mostly fogged in anyway, I gave it a miss. Next
time!
> Alhambra did not impress me as it was suppossed to. The gardens are
> beautiful and all this plaster work as well. But, IMO, this was a
> clear demonstration of a cultural stagnation: a lot of intricate work
> but no innovative architectural solutions and the defences with their
> rectangular towers look very "backward".
Agreed. I think the kings reckoned that if an enemy ever got that far,
they were doomed anyway.
I don't care for that round thingy in the middle built by (?) Carlos V.
> > The painted churches of Moldavia -- Voronets etc.
>
> A lot of the old thingies in Russia, even within Moscow itself.
>
> Lithuania - Trakai, residence of the Great Duke Witold/Vitovt/Vitautas.
>
> City walls in Tallin - a rare case when most of the medieval
> fortifications survived.
Are you sure that isn't what your Israeli friend wasn't admiring in
Tallinn, as opposed to getting massages -- or were we talking about Riga?
I've got another nomnation: Vera Cruz at Segovia, a cute little
dodecadronal church built by the T*mpl*rs. Stands all alone on a hill across
the valley from the alcazar.
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1107802070....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > The alcazar at Malaga: the Alhambra's little brother, without
the
> > > military-precision guided visits for thousands.
> > >
> > Yes, by some reason it is not very popular. BTW, if you climb (or
> > drive) on the very top (more modern part of the fortifications),
the view
> is
> > absolutely fantastic.
>
> When I was there the path along the wall from the alcazar to the
highest
> castle was closed, and they told me some story about descending,
walking to
> A, taking a bus to B and walking to C.
It looks like the natives do like to tell stories and to give the
directions. We went all the way along the wall (interesting but not
always enjoyable exercise) and when on the top, found that there is
an alternative modern road to it. How a bus got into this picture, is
a little bit beyond me (it is possible that there is a bus route to the
top).
>Given that it was cold and raining
> and the upper castle was mostly fogged in anyway, I gave it a miss.
Next
> time!
It worth it.
>
> > Alhambra did not impress me as it was suppossed to. The gardens are
> > beautiful and all this plaster work as well. But, IMO, this was a
> > clear demonstration of a cultural stagnation: a lot of intricate
work
> > but no innovative architectural solutions and the defences with
their
> > rectangular towers look very "backward".
>
> Agreed. I think the kings reckoned that if an enemy ever got that
far,
> they were doomed anyway.
Or simply could not come with anything more modern....
>
> I don't care for that round thingy in the middle built by (?)
Carlos V.
A little bit bizzare, isn't it? OTOH, it _is_ an attempt to build
something new...
>
> > > The painted churches of Moldavia -- Voronets etc.
> >
> > A lot of the old thingies in Russia, even within Moscow itself.
> >
> > Lithuania - Trakai, residence of the Great Duke
Witold/Vitovt/Vitautas.
> >
> > City walls in Tallin - a rare case when most of the medieval
> > fortifications survived.
>
> Are you sure that isn't what your Israeli friend wasn't admiring
in
> Tallinn,
>as opposed to getting massages -- or were we talking about Riga?
It was Riga and, anyway, this guy is my wife's relative, not a friend
of mine (actually, I never saw him).
Tallinn, being considerably less important place, was preserved better.
At least as of 3 decades ago, most of the old city was pretty much
intact, most of the defensive perimeters of the lower and upper town
survived and the same goes for the old churches. IIRC, near the city
(or in the city itself, don't remember) there was a small palace built
by Peter I for his 2nd wife who was from this area.
"Historic" Riga, as far as I can remember, was mostly XIX - early XX
with very few really old buildings here and there. After all, it was
an important Baltic port and people were not too much concerned with
preservation of the things medieval until quite recently.
>
> I've got another nomnation: Vera Cruz at Segovia, a cute little
> dodecadronal church built by the T*mpl*rs.
Saw it only from alcazar.
>Stands all alone on a hill across
> the valley from the alcazar.
Their Roman aqueduct is very impressive and their alcazar is very
"medieval": found it in a number of movies posing as a lot of different
things (including French fortress in one of the numerous versions of
"3 Musketeers").
Toledo. View from outside is still exactly like on El Greco's painting.
Can't figure out how people manage to drive the cars on Toledo streets:
most of them are more narrow than a car but this does not look like a
serious obstacle to bi-directional traffic.
Warsaw is probably one of the candidates but one should keep in mind
that
most of its medieval and early modern buildings are modern replicas
(city being mostly destroyed during WWII).
Prague has a VERY interesting mix of the medieval and early modern
buildings (and, IIRC, it took almost 1,000 years to finish their
main cathedral). Not that it is really "off the beaten track". OTOH,
the uniforms of the presidential guards make them look like the
parakits.
David C. Pugh
news:1107807879.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> It looks like the natives do like to tell stories and to give the
> directions. We went all the way along the wall (interesting but not
> always enjoyable exercise) and when on the top, found that there is
> an alternative modern road to it. How a bus got into this picture, is
> a little bit beyond me (it is possible that there is a bus route to the
> top).
Yes, or nearly so. Thing is, when the wall was closed it would be a
longer walk along the road, which probably snaked to and from across the
hillside, with an excellent chance of getting lost. So they wanted me to
take the bus.
> > Agreed. I think the kings reckoned that if an enemy ever got that
> far, they were doomed anyway.
>
> Or simply could not come with anything more modern....
They were rich enough, I don't see why they couldn't have done. Perhaps
they chose to spend the money on frontier fortresses. Apparently there were
a lot of these, and Granada did survive the Christian conquest of Murcia and
western Andalucia for quite a long time.
> > I don't care for that round thingy in the middle built by (?)
> Carlos V.
>
> A little bit bizzare, isn't it? OTOH, it _is_ an attempt to build
> something new...
Wonder if it was the same time as that church in the middle of the
Mezquita at Cordoba? Same architectural philosophy -- PLONK!
> Tallinn, being considerably less important place, was preserved better.
> At least as of 3 decades ago, most of the old city was pretty much
> intact, most of the defensive perimeters of the lower and upper town
> survived and the same goes for the old churches. IIRC, near the city
> (or in the city itself, don't remember) there was a small palace built
> by Peter I for his 2nd wife who was from this area.
Sounds fun. It's well advertised in Norway.
> "Historic" Riga, as far as I can remember, was mostly XIX - early XX
> with very few really old buildings here and there. After all, it was
> an important Baltic port and people were not too much concerned with
> preservation of the things medieval until quite recently.
Oh, how true. In that sense, the medievals were raving Modernists -- the
French Style was the equivalent of the 20th century buildings with the
load-bearing thingies and utilities on the outside (Pompidou Centre)?
Bigger was better and higher was better and newer was better and the
only use for old buildings was as a stone quarry.
> > I've got another nomnation: Vera Cruz at Segovia, a cute little
> > dodecadronal church built by the T*mpl*rs.
>
> Saw it only from alcazar.
I semi-circumnavigated Segovia last time: walked from the bus station up
onto the wooded hills on the south side of the river, wonderful views of the
alcazar, down at the west end, from where it is like the prow of a ship,
then up to Vera Cruz, then up the hill to the northern gate. I really
recommend this trip, instead of simply straight going up into the old city
from the flat bit.
Did you eat the Segovia sucking-pig? Local speciality.
> >Stands all alone on a hill across
> > the valley from the alcazar.
>
> Their Roman aqueduct is very impressive and their alcazar is very
> "medieval": found it in a number of movies posing as a lot of different
> things (including French fortress in one of the numerous versions of
> "3 Musketeers").
LOL.
I have my reservations about that square keep, but otherwise it's an
exquisite building.
> Toledo. View from outside is still exactly like on El Greco's painting.
Yes. I had myself a walk around the south side too, from the bridge
nearest the station to the western bridge.
> Can't figure out how people manage to drive the cars on Toledo streets:
> most of them are more narrow than a car but this does not look like a
> serious obstacle to bi-directional traffic.
Probably something to do with quantum mechanics. The street contains
both Car A and Car B simultaneously, as potentials, until the wave-function
is collapsed by observation. If they don't look where they are driving,
there *is* no observer, QED. We can call it Schroedinger's Traffic-Jam. :-)
Ever heard the joke about parking in Rome?
Q: How do the Romans park?
A: The same way *you*'d park if you'd just spilt a bottle of
sulphuric acid in your lap.........
> Prague has a VERY interesting mix of the medieval and early modern
> buildings (and, IIRC, it took almost 1,000 years to finish their
> main cathedral). Not that it is really "off the beaten track". OTOH,
> the uniforms of the presidential guards make them look like the
> parakits.
Would the Pechersky Lavra count as off the beaten track? I saw the mummy
of Nestor there, the first time I've seen the body (as opposed to coffin or
bones) of someone from my period. :-)
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1107807879.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It looks like the natives do like to tell stories and to give the
> > directions. We went all the way along the wall (interesting but not
> > always enjoyable exercise) and when on the top, found that there is
> > an alternative modern road to it. How a bus got into this picture,
is
> > a little bit beyond me (it is possible that there is a bus route to
the
> > top).
>
> Yes, or nearly so. Thing is, when the wall was closed it would be
a
> longer walk along the road, which probably snaked to and from across
the
> hillside, with an excellent chance of getting lost. So they wanted me
to
> take the bus.
Or, simpler, they would not understand why anybody agrees to walk if
there is a bus available. BTW, I don't think that there would be too
many chances to get lost while going uphill or even around the hill:
it is too big to be lost from a view.
>
> > > Agreed. I think the kings reckoned that if an enemy ever got
that
> > far, they were doomed anyway.
> >
> > Or simply could not come with anything more modern....
>
> They were rich enough, I don't see why they couldn't have done.
Perhaps because the old ways were considered good enough?
>Perhaps
> they chose to spend the money on frontier fortresses.
Can't comment on those because I did not see them. But Alhambra
visibly lacks artillery and relevant arrangements.
>Apparently there were
> a lot of these, and Granada did survive the Christian conquest of
Murcia and
> western Andalucia for quite a long time.
>
IIRC, this had a lot to do with the natural obstacles: the whole
Castilian army was destroyed in the mountains (Sierra Morena?).
> > > I don't care for that round thingy in the middle built by (?)
> > Carlos V.
> >
> > A little bit bizzare, isn't it? OTOH, it _is_ an attempt to build
> > something new...
>
> Wonder if it was the same time as that church in the middle of
the
> Mezquita at Cordoba? Same architectural philosophy -- PLONK!
>
AFAIK, the local bishop insisted on this insanity against the wishes
of the locals (Christians). Carlos, who never was there, eventually
took bishop's side. Later, when he visited Cordoba, he commented that
"we destroyed something that nobody had to build something that
everybody has". So I would not be too critical to his architectural
philosophies.
BTW, The Great Mosque in Cordoba is more of the same. It is great,
impressive, beautiful, etc. but it's architecture is anything but
innovative: the same arches as in Toledo and elsewhere. Borrowed
from the early Bizantians I presume?
OTOH, I saw cracks on the dome of this built-in cathedral but original
structure looks pretty much intact.
Again, OTOH, cathedral in Seville incorporated minaret of the mosque
destroyed by an earthquake (Heralda?) and combination looks beautiful.
> > Tallinn, being considerably less important place, was preserved
better.
> > At least as of 3 decades ago, most of the old city was pretty much
> > intact, most of the defensive perimeters of the lower and upper
town
> > survived and the same goes for the old churches. IIRC, near the
city
> > (or in the city itself, don't remember) there was a small palace
built
> > by Peter I for his 2nd wife who was from this area.
>
> Sounds fun. It's well advertised in Norway.
>
Pribably. They are (AFAIK) closely related to Finland and Norway is,
IIRC, somewhere around. Can't tell for sure where exactly because we,
Americans, don't study geography: if you need to get somewhare abroad,
just tell your travel agent (this is a plagiat but chances are that
you don't know the source so I'll get away with it).
> > "Historic" Riga, as far as I can remember, was mostly XIX - early
XX
> > with very few really old buildings here and there. After all, it
was
> > an important Baltic port and people were not too much concerned
with
> > preservation of the things medieval until quite recently.
>
> Oh, how true. In that sense, the medievals were raving Modernists
-- the
> French Style was the equivalent of the 20th century buildings with
the
> load-bearing thingies and utilities on the outside (Pompidou Centre)?
>
Never was in a Frangistan but I saw the photos of monstrosity you are
talking about. Anyway, what one can expect from French? :-)
> Bigger was better and higher was better and newer was better and
the
> only use for old buildings was as a stone quarry.
>
With population growing and space being limited, you have to build
bigger buildings.
> > > I've got another nomnation: Vera Cruz at Segovia, a cute
little
> > > dodecadronal church built by the T*mpl*rs.
> >
> > Saw it only from alcazar.
>
> I semi-circumnavigated Segovia last time: walked from the bus
station up
> onto the wooded hills on the south side of the river, wonderful views
of the
> alcazar, down at the west end, from where it is like the prow of a
ship,
> then up to Vera Cruz, then up the hill to the northern gate. I really
> recommend this trip, instead of simply straight going up into the old
city
> from the flat bit.
... as I did. Unfortunately, we did not have enough time for anything
else: this day's route was Madrid->Escorial->Franco's memorial (forgot
the name of this complex)->Segovia->Madrid. With an imbecile of a
guide.
>
> Did you eat the Segovia sucking-pig? Local speciality.
>
> > >Stands all alone on a hill across
> > > the valley from the alcazar.
> >
> > Their Roman aqueduct is very impressive and their alcazar is very
> > "medieval": found it in a number of movies posing as a lot of
different
> > things (including French fortress in one of the numerous versions
of
> > "3 Musketeers").
>
> LOL.
IMHO, it is rather sad. One more implementation of a principle: "public
is stupid and will digest anything you show."
>
> I have my reservations about that square keep,
The gate tower?
>but otherwise it's an
> exquisite building.
Indeed.
>
> > Toledo. View from outside is still exactly like on El Greco's
painting.
>
> Yes. I had myself a walk around the south side too, from the
bridge
> nearest the station to the western bridge.
>
> > Can't figure out how people manage to drive the cars on Toledo
streets:
> > most of them are more narrow than a car but this does not look like
a
> > serious obstacle to bi-directional traffic.
>
> Probably something to do with quantum mechanics. The street
contains
> both Car A and Car B simultaneously, as potentials, until the
wave-function
> is collapsed by observation. If they don't look where they are
driving,
> there *is* no observer, QED. We can call it Schroedinger's
Traffic-Jam. :-)
That would probably explain it. :-)
>
> Ever heard the joke about parking in Rome?
> Q: How do the Romans park?
> A: The same way *you*'d park if you'd just spilt a bottle of
> sulphuric acid in your lap.........
Well, my brother in law lives in NY and I was amazed by an easiness
with which he parks his car in a space that is noticeably shorter
than the car itself. Probably more of the quantum mechanics.
>
> > Prague has a VERY interesting mix of the medieval and early modern
> > buildings (and, IIRC, it took almost 1,000 years to finish their
> > main cathedral). Not that it is really "off the beaten track".
OTOH,
> > the uniforms of the presidential guards make them look like the
> > parakits.
>
> Would the Pechersky Lavra count as off the beaten track?
Can't tell how popular Ukraine is among the foreign tourists. Probably,
they would try to make place more attractive for the westerners but
I'm very sceptical about suddenly discovered Ukrainian ....errr...
"democracy".
>I saw the mummy
> of Nestor there, the first time I've seen the body (as opposed to
coffin or
> bones) of someone from my period. :-)
Don't engage in a self-promotion. Even Paul is considerably younger
than this mummy... :-)
David C. Pugh
news:1107873451....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Or, simpler, they would not understand why anybody agrees to walk if
> there is a bus available.
That's a definite possibility.
BTW, I don't think that there would be too
> many chances to get lost while going uphill or even around the hill:
> it is too big to be lost from a view.
I'll go for it if I'm ever in Malaga again and it isn't pouring with
rain.
> Can't comment on those because I did not see them. But Alhambra
> visibly lacks artillery and relevant arrangements.
You mean gun-platforms that are still there? Yes, I don't recall any.
> IIRC, this had a lot to do with the natural obstacles: the whole
> Castilian army was destroyed in the mountains (Sierra Morena?).
Sierra Morena is north of Cordoba-Seville -- the country between Granada
and the Guadalquivir is hilly, but not as much as I expected. There seem to
be isolated mountains here and there rather than long ridges, IOW it's not
an Alpine or Pyrenean type of mountain barrier. But I haven't been on the
direct route to Jaen etc. so there is a lot of country I haven't seen.
> AFAIK, the local bishop insisted on this insanity against the wishes
> of the locals (Christians). Carlos, who never was there, eventually
> took bishop's side. Later, when he visited Cordoba, he commented that
> "we destroyed something that nobody had to build something that
> everybody has". So I would not be too critical to his architectural
> philosophies.
No, I am aware of his remarks about Cordoba and wasn't gunning for him
personally. If the cap fits other people, they can wear it.
> BTW, The Great Mosque in Cordoba is more of the same. It is great,
> impressive, beautiful, etc. but it's architecture is anything but
> innovative: the same arches as in Toledo and elsewhere. Borrowed
> from the early Bizantians I presume?
Not that I know of, the horseshoe arch is Visigothic. The Moors liked it
so much that they exported it to other Muslim lands, as far as India and so
on.
But the point of a mosque is to pack more people in, they didn't have
any need to reach for the skies. The Ottoman mosques are a copies of (or
developments of) Hagia Sophia, and the really tall mosque that Hassan of
Morocco built is in competition with Western spires and skyscraping.
> OTOH, I saw cracks on the dome of this built-in cathedral but original
> structure looks pretty much intact.
Less to go wrong!
> Again, OTOH, cathedral in Seville incorporated minaret of the mosque
> destroyed by an earthquake (Heralda?) and combination looks beautiful.
Giralda. Did you go up it? Not steep twisty stairs like in Western
cathedrals. You could ride a horse (or a motorbike) up it easily.
> Pribably. They are (AFAIK) closely related to Finland and Norway is,
> IIRC, somewhere around. Can't tell for sure where exactly because we,
> Americans, don't study geography: if you need to get somewhare abroad,
> just tell your travel agent (this is a plagiat but chances are that
> you don't know the source so I'll get away with it).
You're right, I don't. But that Americans think that Norway is a town in
Sweden (to which we say, It's the other way round!) is not just a joke, too
many reliable witnesses swear to it.
> > Bigger was better and higher was better and newer was better and
> the only use for old buildings was as a stone quarry.
> >
>
> With population growing and space being limited, you have to build
> bigger buildings.
Indeed. And if you build a bigger one than the next town, you get more
pilgrims = more money. Churches were working plant.
> ... as I did. Unfortunately, we did not have enough time for anything
> else: this day's route was Madrid->Escorial->Franco's memorial (forgot
> the name of this complex)
Valle de los Caidos IIRC. Haven't been, saw it from the train only.
->Segovia->Madrid. With an imbecile of a guide.
Maybe the same guide as told me in the Escorial that Columbus thought
the earth was flat, and when I objected told me to get an education.
> IMHO, it is rather sad. One more implementation of a principle: "public
> is stupid and will digest anything you show."
Shall we have a thread on "Medieval Buildings Moved to Different
Countries by Hollywood"?
>
> >
> > I have my reservations about that square keep,
>
> The gate tower?
Big tall rectangular thing with battlements, doesn't match the elegant
roofline.
> >I saw the mummy of Nestor there, the first time I've seen the body (as
opposed to coffin or bones) of someone from my period. :-)
>
> Don't engage in a self-promotion. Even Paul is considerably younger
> than this mummy... :-)
Doesn't look as leathery, either!
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1107873451....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Or, simpler, they would not understand why anybody agrees to walk
if
> > there is a bus available.
>
> That's a definite possibility.
It looks like you could freely communicate with the natives. We could
not. When we needed to get tickets from Torremolinos to Malaga, my
wife 1st read to the bus driver a relevant sentence from the tourist
guide (you know, one of these useful books with the spellings given
in English). After the 3rd attempt, she just gave book to him, pointed
to the sentence, said "Malaga" and hold two fingers. _That_ combination
he understood easily.
>
> BTW, I don't think that there would be too
> > many chances to get lost while going uphill or even around the
hill:
> > it is too big to be lost from a view.
>
> I'll go for it if I'm ever in Malaga again and it isn't pouring
with
> rain.
>
> > Can't comment on those because I did not see them. But Alhambra
> > visibly lacks artillery and relevant arrangements.
>
> You mean gun-platforms that are still there? Yes, I don't recall
any.
Probably they had something by the end but the whole fortress was
clearly pre-cannon in its design.
The same can be said for Kremlin if Moscow. It was built when the
firearms became a factor but construction (at least one of the
remaining internal wall) is clearly pre-gunpowder: tall thin wall
with the tall narrow towers. Quite a contrast with the fortifications
built few decades later: extremely thick low walls with the placements
for a powerful artillery and small firearms.
>
> > IIRC, this had a lot to do with the natural obstacles: the whole
> > Castilian army was destroyed in the mountains (Sierra Morena?).
>
> Sierra Morena is north of Cordoba-Seville -- the country between
Granada
> and the Guadalquivir is hilly, but not as much as I expected. There
seem to
> be isolated mountains here and there rather than long ridges, IOW
it's not
> an Alpine or Pyrenean type of mountain barrier. But I haven't been on
the
> direct route to Jaen etc. so there is a lot of country I haven't
seen.
I read in Isabella's biography that the Moors managed to ambush and
destroy a Castilian army in <whatever was there>. I can try to find
the book and exact area.
>
> > AFAIK, the local bishop insisted on this insanity against the
wishes
> > of the locals (Christians). Carlos, who never was there, eventually
> > took bishop's side. Later, when he visited Cordoba, he commented
that
> > "we destroyed something that nobody had to build something that
> > everybody has". So I would not be too critical to his architectural
> > philosophies.
>
> No, I am aware of his remarks about Cordoba and wasn't gunning
for him
> personally. If the cap fits other people, they can wear it.
>
Well, if you are looking for the high-placed energetic people with
no taste, this was not the only and/or worst example... :-)
> > BTW, The Great Mosque in Cordoba is more of the same. It is great,
> > impressive, beautiful, etc. but it's architecture is anything but
> > innovative: the same arches as in Toledo and elsewhere. Borrowed
> > from the early Bizantians I presume?
>
> Not that I know of, the horseshoe arch is Visigothic.
Even better.
> The Moors liked it
> so much that they exported it to other Muslim lands, as far as India
and so
> on.
>
> But the point of a mosque is to pack more people in, they didn't
have
> any need to reach for the skies. The Ottoman mosques are a copies of
(or
> developments of) Hagia Sophia, and the really tall mosque that Hassan
of
> Morocco built is in competition with Western spires and skyscraping.
Exactly. They had been copying the existing ideas. What about something
of their own?
>
> > OTOH, I saw cracks on the dome of this built-in cathedral but
original
> > structure looks pretty much intact.
>
> Less to go wrong!
>
Well, you got a point on this one. :-)
> > Again, OTOH, cathedral in Seville incorporated minaret of the
mosque
> > destroyed by an earthquake (Heralda?) and combination looks
beautiful.
>
> Giralda. Did you go up it?
Neah, I'm too lazy.
>Not steep twisty stairs like in Western
> cathedrals.
Stairs of St.Stephan in Vienna.... Brrrrr!
>You could ride a horse (or a motorbike) up it easily.
>
> > Pribably. They are (AFAIK) closely related to Finland and Norway
is,
> > IIRC, somewhere around. Can't tell for sure where exactly because
we,
> > Americans, don't study geography: if you need to get somewhare
abroad,
> > just tell your travel agent (this is a plagiat but chances are that
> > you don't know the source so I'll get away with it).
>
> You're right, I don't.
A popular Russian play of mid-XVIII.
>But that Americans think that Norway is a town in
> Sweden
Sweden being what exactly?
>(to which we say, It's the other way round!) is not just a joke, too
> many reliable witnesses swear to it.
If these witnesses were Americans, how would they remember all these
obscure names? And if they were not, they prone to be malicious
anti-American liars.
>
> > > Bigger was better and higher was better and newer was better
and
> > the only use for old buildings was as a stone quarry.
> > >
> >
> > With population growing and space being limited, you have to build
> > bigger buildings.
>
> Indeed. And if you build a bigger one than the next town, you get
more
> pilgrims = more money. Churches were working plant.
>
I don't think that this was the case with Riga but being an important
port did not hurt.
> > ... as I did. Unfortunately, we did not have enough time for
anything
> > else: this day's route was Madrid->Escorial->Franco's memorial
(forgot
> > the name of this complex)
>
> Valle de los Caidos IIRC. Haven't been, saw it from the train
only.
>
Now, this is REALLY impressive. Did not know that there was a railroad
nearby.
> ->Segovia->Madrid. With an imbecile of a guide.
>
> Maybe the same guide as told me in the Escorial that Columbus
thought
> the earth was flat, and when I objected told me to get an education.
>
Was she drunk as our guide?
> > IMHO, it is rather sad. One more implementation of a principle:
"public
> > is stupid and will digest anything you show."
>
> Shall we have a thread on "Medieval Buildings Moved to Different
> Countries by Hollywood"?
Why not?
>
> >
> > >
> > > I have my reservations about that square keep,
> >
> > The gate tower?
>
> Big tall rectangular thing with battlements, doesn't match the
elegant
> roofline.
>
Well, there could be issues of practicality involved...
> > >I saw the mummy of Nestor there, the first time I've seen the body
(as
> opposed to coffin or bones) of someone from my period. :-)
> >
> > Don't engage in a self-promotion. Even Paul is considerably younger
> > than this mummy... :-)
>
> Doesn't look as leathery, either!
Can't even made a decent mummy out of himself!
David C. Pugh
news:1107973563.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> It looks like you could freely communicate with the natives. We could
> not. When we needed to get tickets from Torremolinos to Malaga, my
> wife 1st read to the bus driver a relevant sentence from the tourist
> guide (you know, one of these useful books with the spellings given
> in English).
Those things are a menace. Suppose that you master the pronunciation and
produce a perfect sentence. The guys thinks, aha, tourist speaks Spanish and
rattles away to you.
After the 3rd attempt, she just gave book to him, pointed
> to the sentence, said "Malaga" and hold two fingers. _That_ combination
> he understood easily.
It's all that was needed. Add a smile, and what else could you convey if
you had the language of a Cervantes or a Lorca?
> > But the point of a mosque is to pack more people in, they didn't
> have any need to reach for the skies. The Ottoman mosques are a copies of
(or developments of) Hagia Sophia, and the really tall mosque that Hassan of
Morocco built is in competition with Western spires and skyscraping.
>
> Exactly. They had been copying the existing ideas. What about something
> of their own?
I'll leave that one for Yusuf, mostly...... Given the way that running
water is integrated into the architecture of the Alhambra, though, I really
think you should give them credit for the invention of room
air-conditioning.
> > Giralda. Did you go up it?
>
> Neah, I'm too lazy.
I always have to get the top of something. Then take photographs
straight down.
> >Not steep twisty stairs like in Western
> > cathedrals.
>
> Stairs of St.Stephan in Vienna.... Brrrrr!
Never been there. Wonder how they compare with some of the really bad
ones in the UK......
> >But that Americans think that Norway is a town in
> > Sweden
>
> Sweden being what exactly?
Where Eastern Norwegians go shopping.....
> Now, this is REALLY impressive. Did not know that there was a railroad
> nearby.
Two actually. One line goes to Segovia and stops, the other is the more
long-distance line to Avila, Valladolid and so on. From the first you see
Valle de los Caidos across the valley, from the second -- IIRC -- you can
also see it, on the same side as you.
> > Maybe the same guide as told me in the Escorial that Columbus
> thought the earth was flat, and when I objected told me to get an
education.
> >
> Was she drunk as our guide?
Mine was a he, about 60, and was possessed of an enormous dignity that
left little room for knowledge. Actually he wasn't my guide, I wandered the
Escorial on my own, but overheard him telling this nonsense to a group and
got him on his own to try to inform him ..... Next time I mind my own
business.
> > Shall we have a thread on "Medieval Buildings Moved to Different
> > Countries by Hollywood"?
>
> Why not?
OK, you've started with Segovia, wonder if anyone else knows any.
> > > >I saw the mummy of Nestor there, the first time I've seen the body
> (as opposed to coffin or bones) of someone from my period. :-)
> > >
> > > Don't engage in a self-promotion. Even Paul is considerably younger
> > > than this mummy... :-)
> >
> > Doesn't look as leathery, either!
>
> Can't even made a decent mummy out of himself!
And he a chemist, too!
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1107973563.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > But the point of a mosque is to pack more people in, they
didn't
> > have any need to reach for the skies. The Ottoman mosques are a
copies of
> (or developments of) Hagia Sophia, and the really tall mosque that
Hassan of
> Morocco built is in competition with Western spires and skyscraping.
> >
> > Exactly. They had been copying the existing ideas. What about
something
> > of their own?
>
> I'll leave that one for Yusuf, mostly...... Given the way that
running
> water is integrated into the architecture of the Alhambra, though, I
really
> think you should give them credit for the invention of room
> air-conditioning.
But not too much in the terms of a heating... :-)
>
> > > Giralda. Did you go up it?
> >
> > Neah, I'm too lazy.
>
> I always have to get the top of something. Then take photographs
> straight down.
In most cases you are getting a sea of the roofs.... Except the cases
like alcazars in Malaga or even Segovia.
>
> > >Not steep twisty stairs like in Western
> > > cathedrals.
> >
> > Stairs of St.Stephan in Vienna.... Brrrrr!
>
> Never been there.
In Viena? (this would be a major loss) or on the top of this cathedral
(not a loss at all because you can't see nothing but the dirty roofs)
>Wonder how they compare with some of the really bad
> ones in the UK......
My wife made it on the top of St.Paul in London. Not too much in the
terms of the pictures she made. Probably better stairs than in St.S.
because it is really difficult to have them worse.
>
> > >But that Americans think that Norway is a town in
> > > Sweden
> >
> > Sweden being what exactly?
>
> Where Eastern Norwegians go shopping.....
You are explaining one peculiar word by using another.... :-)
>
> > Now, this is REALLY impressive. Did not know that there was a
railroad
> > nearby.
>
> Two actually. One line goes to Segovia and stops, the other is
the more
> long-distance line to Avila, Valladolid and so on. From the first you
see
> Valle de los Caidos across the valley, from the second -- IIRC -- you
can
> also see it, on the same side as you.
>From the place itself you can hardly see the railroads but the general
view is breathtaking. Architecture of the memorial itself is also
interesting and impressive.
>
> > > Maybe the same guide as told me in the Escorial that Columbus
> > thought the earth was flat, and when I objected told me to get an
> education.
> > >
> > Was she drunk as our guide?
>
> Mine was a he, about 60, and was possessed of an enormous dignity
that
> left little room for knowledge.
Our had neither...
>
> > > Shall we have a thread on "Medieval Buildings Moved to
Different
> > > Countries by Hollywood"?
> >
> > Why not?
>
> OK, you've started with Segovia, wonder if anyone else knows any.
>
This is not Hollywood, but one of the suburban palaces near Moscow
successfully acted as either Kensington Palace or some other English
royal residence. Tzar's palace in Livadia acted as palace in Naples.
Worontsov's palace in Alupka (Crimea) acted as French nunnery.
On a smaller scale, the same set of the "gothic" chairs could be found
in the numerous Soviet movies being moved in time and place all over
Europe (Germany of various times was the most popular geographic area).
> > > > >I saw the mummy of Nestor there, the first time I've seen the
body
> > (as opposed to coffin or bones) of someone from my period. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Don't engage in a self-promotion. Even Paul is considerably
younger
> > > > than this mummy... :-)
> > >
> > > Doesn't look as leathery, either!
> >
> > Can't even made a decent mummy out of himself!
>
> And he a chemist, too!
Some chemist!
David C. Pugh
news:1107984143.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Exactly. They had been copying the existing ideas. What about
> something of their own?
> >
> > I'll leave that one for Yusuf, mostly...... Given the way that
> running water is integrated into the architecture of the Alhambra, though,
I
> really think you should give them credit for the invention of room
> > air-conditioning.
>
> But not too much in the terms of a heating... :-)
How do we know how they heated in the Alhambra in the 14th century?
Portable braziers would no longer be there; remember the place was a
derelict haunt of gypsies in the 19th century. And the same would go for
warm and cuddly concubines ;-)
> > I always have to get the top of something. Then take photographs
> > straight down.
>
> In most cases you are getting a sea of the roofs.... Except the cases
> like alcazars in Malaga or even Segovia.
Seas of roofs are not without interest. But yes, the views from the
Segovia alcazar are something else again, especially in spring when there
are still snows on the Sierra.
> In Viena? (this would be a major loss) or on the top of this cathedral
> (not a loss at all because you can't see nothing but the dirty roofs)
Neither. Vienna is a hole in my European-capitals education. Mea culpa!
> My wife made it on the top of St.Paul in London.
While you were still at the bottom? Hmmmmmm.
(get a native colleague to explain what you achieved with the wrong
preposition there)
Not too much in the
> terms of the pictures she made.
don't understand that bit
Probably better stairs than in St.S.
> because it is really difficult to have them worse.
Nah, St. Paul dome stairs are luxurious. Like a VIP elevator compared to
the medieval stuff. Or, funnily enough, the transept towers of the Sagrada
Familia at the bottom.
> You are explaining one peculiar word by using another.... :-)
Ignotum per ignotius.......
> >From the place itself you can hardly see the railroads but the general
> view is breathtaking. Architecture of the memorial itself is also
> interesting and impressive.
I thought you'd like it; it was built by the slave labour of liberals,
socialists, anti-clericals and general good guys. ;-)
> This is not Hollywood, but one of the suburban palaces near Moscow
> successfully acted as either Kensington Palace or some other English
> royal residence. Tzar's palace in Livadia acted as palace in Naples.
> Worontsov's palace in Alupka (Crimea) acted as French nunnery.
I don't suppose the Russian audiences were as well-informed as you?
> On a smaller scale, the same set of the "gothic" chairs could be found
> in the numerous Soviet movies being moved in time and place all over
> Europe (Germany of various times was the most popular geographic area).
That's funny!
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1107984143.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
>
> > > > Exactly. They had been copying the existing ideas. What about
> > something of their own?
> > >
> > > I'll leave that one for Yusuf, mostly...... Given the way
that
> > running water is integrated into the architecture of the Alhambra,
though,
> I
> > really think you should give them credit for the invention of room
> > > air-conditioning.
> >
> > But not too much in the terms of a heating... :-)
>
> How do we know how they heated in the Alhambra in the 14th
century?
IIRC (there was a competent guide this time), they were doing mostly
braziers. And hanged rugs all over the place. I don't think that the
open running water would be a positively contributing factor
heating-wise.
> Portable braziers would no longer be there; remember the place was a
> derelict haunt of gypsies in the 19th century. And the same would go
for
> warm and cuddly concubines ;-)
You mean putting all of them together in one warm friendly heating
heap? AFAIK, this would result in even higher mortality rate among
the members of a harem.
Probably my main point had been missed somewhare in the process. They
could do the beautiful things and arrangements. The Lions Court and
the fardens of Alhambra were beautiful and the same goes for the
ornaments on the walls and ceilings. The running water was a great
idea (BTW, the same system is in the court of the Great Moque of
Cordoba). In comparison, the "european" (these Moors also had been
Europeans but who cares) ornaments often look vulgar and not so
delicate. Very little, if anything, to compare with the gardens and
landscaping.
But, in the "technological" areas, including architecture, the
"europeans"
kept trying the new forms and methods, while the Muslims remained
practically "static".
>
> > > I always have to get the top of something. Then take
photographs
> > > straight down.
> >
> > In most cases you are getting a sea of the roofs.... Except the
cases
> > like alcazars in Malaga or even Segovia.
>
> Seas of roofs are not without interest.
Interesting in Prague or Salzburg. Not interesting at all in Vienna.
>But yes, the views from the
> Segovia alcazar are something else again, especially in spring when
there
> are still snows on the Sierra.
I was there in an early fall but it still was very impressive.
>
> > In Viena? (this would be a major loss) or on the top of this
cathedral
> > (not a loss at all because you can't see nothing but the dirty
roofs)
>
> Neither. Vienna is a hole in my European-capitals education. Mea
culpa!
Very interesting imperial jewels. Impressive mostly due to their age
because you may see much bigger stones in London's Tower or Moscow's
Armory or Diamond Fund.
If you like Klimt's paintings, then Vienna is attractive art-wise
(other than Klimt, the art collections are far from being impressive).
Nice coffee-houses but the natives would smoke in your face and I
suspect
that an idea of ventillation did not come to the area, yet.
I was not too impressed by the interiors of the Vienna's Opera (IMO,
Bolshoy in Moscow and Mariinsky in St.Petersburg are more impressive).
The old center of the city is very nice and, unlike the US, people
could just walk (as a way of time-spending vs. doing it as a sport
exercise or out of a need to get from A to B).
Parks are very nice.
OTOH, too much of "imperial" architecture (similar samples could
be seen in London and Moscow) and the new districts are mostly ugly.
>
> > My wife made it on the top of St.Paul in London.
>
> While you were still at the bottom? Hmmmmmm.
I had a strong pain in the back and even simple walking was painful.
>
> (get a native colleague to explain what you achieved with the
wrong
> preposition there)
>
I think I figured this out on my own. Why you liberals tend to be
so dirty-minded? :-)
> Not too much in the
> > terms of the pictures she made.
>
> don't understand that bit
Of course, she made a lot of photos, while _at_ the top. Mostly the
roofs of London. Not very interesting.
>
> Probably better stairs than in St.S.
> > because it is really difficult to have them worse.
>
> Nah, St. Paul dome stairs are luxurious. Like a VIP elevator
compared to
> the medieval stuff. Or, funnily enough, the transept towers of the
Sagrada
> Familia at the bottom.
>
?
> > You are explaining one peculiar word by using another.... :-)
>
> Ignotum per ignotius.......
OK, I figured out part of it. Sweden is a place where "Absolute" is
produced. Probably an absolute monarchy ruled by some Swedish Family
(Volvo?).
Still not sure what Norway can mean. Is it some product or simply a
name of a parking lot near Sweden (you mentioned shopping)?
>
> > >From the place itself you can hardly see the railroads but the
general
> > view is breathtaking. Architecture of the memorial itself is also
> > interesting and impressive.
>
> I thought you'd like it; it was built by the slave labour of
liberals,
> socialists, anti-clericals
It looks like you forgot the communists and anarchists...
>and general good guys. ;-)
>
Yes, I know. In general, the leaders who manage to put the above
categories of people to some (not necessarily useful) work are
near and dear to my heart providing they limit their activities to
the above-mentioned categories. :-)
> > This is not Hollywood, but one of the suburban palaces near Moscow
> > successfully acted as either Kensington Palace or some other
English
> > royal residence. Tzar's palace in Livadia acted as palace in
Naples.
> > Worontsov's palace in Alupka (Crimea) acted as French nunnery.
>
> I don't suppose the Russian audiences were as well-informed as
you?
>
Some of the places on my list were very-well known.
BTW, IIRC, in one of the incarnations of "3 Musketeers" Chambourt
acted as Louvre. This, of course, is not a major move...
> > On a smaller scale, the same set of the "gothic" chairs could be
found
> > in the numerous Soviet movies being moved in time and place all
over
> > Europe (Germany of various times was the most popular geographic
area).
>
> That's funny!
>
But those were really impressive chairs! :-)
Now, it is your turn. :-)
BTW, back to the mummies and Paul's inadequacy as a chemist. I was
thinking, maybe he is a vampire? This would explain a lot of things
(including the horses) and excuse his failure as a mummy. After all,
you can't expect him to be everything....
David C. Pugh
news:1108043921.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > But not too much in the terms of a heating... :-)
> >
> > How do we know how they heated in the Alhambra in the 14th
> century?
>
> IIRC (there was a competent guide this time), they were doing mostly
> braziers. And hanged rugs all over the place. I don't think that the
> open running water would be a positively contributing factor
> heating-wise.
Maybe they turned it off? Otherwise yes, I expect it would give me
rheumatism in a Granada winter. I was there at Easter and it wasn't any
warmer than Norway would have been....... You could always spend all day in
their sauna. :-)
> > Portable braziers would no longer be there; remember the place was a
> > derelict haunt of gypsies in the 19th century. And the same would go
> for warm and cuddly concubines ;-)
>
> You mean putting all of them together in one warm friendly heating
> heap? AFAIK, this would result in even higher mortality rate among
> the members of a harem.
The ones on the bottom, sure. And the ones on the top would be cold. As
Aristotle surely said, The Golden Mean of the harem heap is half-way down.
> Probably my main point had been missed somewhare in the process. They
> could do the beautiful things and arrangements. The Lions Court and
> the fardens of Alhambra were beautiful
I actually preferred the Myrtles Court. But there's no point taking a
camera there, you'd just get Japanese heads, better to buy a really good
picture-book at the shop.
and the same goes for the
> ornaments on the walls and ceilings. The running water was a great
> idea (BTW, the same system is in the court of the Great Moque of
> Cordoba). In comparison, the "european" (these Moors also had been
> Europeans but who cares) ornaments often look vulgar and not so
> delicate.
I can't stand the Latin Baroque, myself, like an explosion in a
gold-leaf factory. I shall be very happy if I never see another fat baby
with wings. And so that's one of the things I like about Muslim and Mudejar
art.......
Very little, if anything, to compare with the gardens and
> landscaping. But, in the "technological" areas, including architecture,
the
> "europeans" kept trying the new forms and methods, while the Muslims
remained practically "static".
You might be right, this is a big topic that ties in with a SHM
perennial, the question why the industrial revolution and conquest of the
world happened in and from a hitherto backward area. As regards the
Alhambra, you surely have your point about fortifications, but as regards
elegance of living arrangements, I'm not convinced that fancy architecture
would have brought any additional benefits. You know that the Water Court
still sits in Valencia, the farmer-judges apportioning the irrigation water
on the same system as the Moors had, and it might be even older? As far as I
know, they really did achieve perfection with that aspect of technology at
least. Maybe Yusuf knows of technological advances that would contradict
your thesis. Would you care to put a date on the beginning of the "stasis"?
> > Seas of roofs are not without interest.
>
> Interesting in Prague or Salzburg. Not interesting at all in Vienna.
Okay!
> Very interesting imperial jewels. Impressive mostly due to their age
> because you may see much bigger stones in London's Tower or Moscow's
> Armory or Diamond Fund.
Been in the Armoury. Can't remember where the Faubergé eggs were --
there, the Hermitage or both? I'm not too thrilled with big fat jewels
anyway, but I did like those eggs.
> If you like Klimt's paintings, then Vienna is attractive art-wise
> (other than Klimt, the art collections are far from being impressive).
That's more Eve's thing...... I take it you did the Prado?
> Nice coffee-houses but the natives would smoke in your face and I
> suspect that an idea of ventillation did not come to the area, yet.
I have the same suspicion, and I try to keep out of such places.
> I was not too impressed by the interiors of the Vienna's Opera (IMO,
> Bolshoy in Moscow and Mariinsky in St.Petersburg are more impressive).
> The old center of the city is very nice and, unlike the US, people
> could just walk (as a way of time-spending vs. doing it as a sport
> exercise or out of a need to get from A to B).
I love walking around old cities, never do these tourist bus things. Use
the metro, pop up and walk.
> Parks are very nice.
So I hear. The film "Before Sunrise" was a nice advert for Vienna,
although I'm allergic to Julie Delpy.
> > > My wife made it on the top of St.Paul in London.
> I think I figured this out on my own. Why you liberals tend to be
> so dirty-minded? :-)
The only thing left to us after your lot have taken our welfare states
away
:-)
> > Nah, St. Paul dome stairs are luxurious. Like a VIP elevator
> compared to the medieval stuff. Or, funnily enough, the transept towers of
the Sagrada Familia at the bottom.
> >
>
> ?
Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, in a way very medieval -- a church being
built by contributions by pilgrims, over a century or two. They've only
built the transepts and a bit of nave, and already there are trees growing
out of what they built in the early years. There's a lift, but I climbed the
towers in a very, very, narrow staircase with people coming the other way
(helps to be Spiderman) and the bottom bit is IIRC the narrowest, and also
dark.
> OK, I figured out part of it. Sweden is a place where "Absolute" is
> produced. Probably an absolute monarchy ruled by some Swedish Family
> (Volvo?).
Yes, and the fact that Swedes emigrated to India to become the ruling
class is proven by the title given to high-born Swedish women, namely
"Mem-SAAB".
> Still not sure what Norway can mean. Is it some product or simply a
> name of a parking lot near Sweden (you mentioned shopping)?
There's No'way the Swedes can find it......
(Valle de los Caidos)
> > > >From the place itself you can hardly see the railroads but the
> general view is breathtaking. Architecture of the memorial itself is also
> > > interesting and impressive.
> >
> > I thought you'd like it; it was built by the slave labour of
> liberals, socialists, anti-clericals
>
> It looks like you forgot the communists and anarchists...
see below. Anyway, "communist" could, as well as meaning Party member,
also be the contemporary expression for people believing in the sort of
thing you have in your Constitution -- as it was in the McCarthy period.
> >and general good guys. ;-)
> >
> Yes, I know. In general, the leaders who manage to put the above
> categories of people to some (not necessarily useful) work are
> near and dear to my heart providing they limit their activities to
> the above-mentioned categories. :-)
Come the Revolution, we'll return the compliment. Would you mind listing
your construction skills for this list I'm making, Mr. Milman? :-)
> Now, it is your turn. :-)
Damn, I'm sure I've noticed this sort of thing -- like Segovia
representing a French castle -- AT THE TIME, but remembering it afterwards
is a whole different ball game. We liberal communists have so much good
stuff in our heads, you see, that there isn't always room for more :-)
> BTW, back to the mummies and Paul's inadequacy as a chemist. I was
> thinking, maybe he is a vampire? This would explain a lot of things
> (including the horses)
what do vampires have to do with horse-strangling? Oh, I see,
tourniquets.
and excuse his failure as a mummy. After all,
> you can't expect him to be everything....
I don't remember any mummies in the City Watch -- do the zombies have
all their affirmative-action slots?
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1108043921.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > But not too much in the terms of a heating... :-)
> > >
> > > How do we know how they heated in the Alhambra in the 14th
> > century?
> >
> > IIRC (there was a competent guide this time), they were doing
mostly
> > braziers. And hanged rugs all over the place. I don't think that
the
> > open running water would be a positively contributing factor
> > heating-wise.
>
> Maybe they turned it off?
An interesting idea. Taking into an account their level of a
technological
development, this would probably mean ordering some unfortunate slave
to put his finger into <whatever was a source of the water flow> and
stay in this position until it gets warmer....
>Otherwise yes, I expect it would give me
> rheumatism in a Granada winter. I was there at Easter and it wasn't
any
> warmer than Norway would have been....... You could always spend all
day in
> their sauna. :-)
You are using this "N" word again.... Mentioning of sauna does not
clarify anything: I have sauna in our condo and can stay the whole
day in it. Does this mean that our clubhouse is a "Norway" (whatever
it means)? :-)
>
> > > Portable braziers would no longer be there; remember the place
was a
> > > derelict haunt of gypsies in the 19th century. And the same would
go
> > for warm and cuddly concubines ;-)
> >
> > You mean putting all of them together in one warm friendly heating
> > heap? AFAIK, this would result in even higher mortality rate among
> > the members of a harem.
>
> The ones on the bottom, sure.
Err.... this too. IIRC, the relationships in Alhambra's harem most
of the time reminded those in a snakepit. OTOH, I'm not sure that
the snake tend to develop that degree of a personal animosity to the
other members of their species.
>And the ones on the top would be cold.
>As
> Aristotle surely said, The Golden Mean of the harem heap is half-way
down.
I'm afraid that the Golden Mean (providing that staying alive _is_
considered an important factor) was being safely away of any heap.
>
> > Probably my main point had been missed somewhare in the process.
They
> > could do the beautiful things and arrangements. The Lions Court and
> > the fardens of Alhambra were beautiful
>
> I actually preferred the Myrtles Court. But there's no point
taking a
> camera there, you'd just get Japanese heads,
Chopped off or attached to the bodies?
When I visited Alhambra it was reasonably Japanese-free. Perhaps
because the rain was coming....
>better to buy a really good
> picture-book at the shop.
>
Yes. Saves a lot of trouble.
Actually, we managed to make a number of rather good shots before
rain started.
> and the same goes for the
> > ornaments on the walls and ceilings. The running water was a great
> > idea (BTW, the same system is in the court of the Great Moque of
> > Cordoba). In comparison, the "european" (these Moors also had been
> > Europeans but who cares) ornaments often look vulgar and not so
> > delicate.
>
> I can't stand the Latin Baroque, myself, like an explosion in a
> gold-leaf factory.
Yes. And, as often, French had been showing the way.... I remember
in Kensington Palace guide pointed to some ugly piece of furniture
that Victoria got from France. Combination of sky-blue, pink, and
gold colors with the paintings of the female heads (I quote the guide:
"alledgedly, the dames of an ill repute") on the places that by some
reason had not been painted into some color..... Quoting the same
source, "these French simply did not know when to stop".
>I shall be very happy if I never see another fat baby
> with wings.
And "triumph" of one more royal figure... IMO, most of the art-related
things (paintings, costumes, decorative art, park planning, etc.)
influenced by or related to Louis XIV were exercises in a very bad
taste. Which, by some reason, had been parroted all over Europe.
>And so that's one of the things I like about Muslim and Mudejar
> art.......
I see. :-)
>
> Very little, if anything, to compare with the gardens and
> > landscaping. But, in the "technological" areas, including
architecture,
> the
> > "europeans" kept trying the new forms and methods, while the
Muslims
> remained practically "static".
>
> You might be right, this is a big topic that ties in with a SHM
> perennial, the question why the industrial revolution and conquest of
the
> world happened in and from a hitherto backward area.
By the time it happened, this area was anything but backward. People
usually tend to skip over the gap few centuries long....
>As regards the
> Alhambra, you surely have your point about fortifications, but as
regards
> elegance of living arrangements, I'm not convinced that fancy
architecture
> would have brought any additional benefits.
I'm not saying that it would be "better". I'm saying that what I saw
reflected absense of innovative thinking. Not all innovative thinking
provide immediate improvements, greater comfort, etc.
> You know that the Water Court
> still sits in Valencia, the farmer-judges apportioning the irrigation
water
> on the same system as the Moors had, and it might be even older?
And the old Roman bridges are still in place....
>As far as I
> know, they really did achieve perfection with that aspect of
technology at
> least. Maybe Yusuf knows of technological advances that would
contradict
> your thesis. Would you care to put a date on the beginning of the
"stasis"?
Nope.
>
> > > Seas of roofs are not without interest.
> >
> > Interesting in Prague or Salzburg. Not interesting at all in
Vienna.
>
> Okay!
>
The big parts of Salzburg and vicimites are well known thanks to
"Married with children" .... oops... "Sounds of you know what"...
> > Very interesting imperial jewels. Impressive mostly due to their
age
> > because you may see much bigger stones in London's Tower or
Moscow's
> > Armory or Diamond Fund.
>
> Been in the Armoury. Can't remember where the Faubergé eggs were
--
> there, the Hermitage or both?
IIRC, most of them were out of the SU and recently had been sold on
Sothbey. At least some of them, IIRC, to some Russian personalities.
>I'm not too thrilled with big fat jewels
> anyway, but I did like those eggs.
>
Because they are easier to sell? :-)
> > If you like Klimt's paintings, then Vienna is attractive art-wise
> > (other than Klimt, the art collections are far from being
impressive).
>
> That's more Eve's thing...... I take it you did the Prado?
Sure. Unfortunately (thanks for the ever-drunk guide) our schedule
was congested and we had only appr. an hour. Spent mostly on Goya and
Velasques.
>
> > Nice coffee-houses but the natives would smoke in your face and I
> > suspect that an idea of ventillation did not come to the area, yet.
>
> I have the same suspicion, and I try to keep out of such places.
The pity is that they have really good coffee and pastries.
>
> > I was not too impressed by the interiors of the Vienna's Opera
(IMO,
> > Bolshoy in Moscow and Mariinsky in St.Petersburg are more
impressive).
> > The old center of the city is very nice and, unlike the US, people
> > could just walk (as a way of time-spending vs. doing it as a sport
> > exercise or out of a need to get from A to B).
>
> I love walking around old cities, never do these tourist bus
things. Use
> the metro, pop up and walk.
This is what we are usually doing. Spain was more or less an exception:
we took a guided tour that brought us through Madrid, Segovia, Toledo,
Seville, Cordoba, Granada and Malaga. With my dislike to driving in
the unfamiliar areas and inability to drive with a standard shift,
we'd hardly manage to make this route on our own. The drawback had been
attachment to the schedules.
>
> > Parks are very nice.
>
> So I hear. The film "Before Sunrise"
Not sure that I saw it.
>was a nice advert for Vienna,
> although I'm allergic to Julie Delpy.
>
> > > > My wife made it on the top of St.Paul in London.
>
> > I think I figured this out on my own. Why you liberals tend to be
> > so dirty-minded? :-)
>
> The only thing left to us after your lot have taken our welfare
states
> away
> :-)
>
Aren't you living in one of them? :-)
[]
> > OK, I figured out part of it. Sweden is a place where "Absolute" is
> > produced. Probably an absolute monarchy ruled by some Swedish
Family
> > (Volvo?).
>
> Yes, and the fact that Swedes emigrated to India to become the
ruling
> class is proven by the title given to high-born Swedish women, namely
> "Mem-SAAB".
Thanks for filling this gap. I was wondering how SAAB fits into the
picture.
>
> > Still not sure what Norway can mean. Is it some product or simply a
> > name of a parking lot near Sweden (you mentioned shopping)?
>
> There's No'way the Swedes can find it......
>
Ah, so this "N-word" is just a local dialect. Just like "screw!" in
Massachusetsian....
> (Valle de los Caidos)
> > > > >From the place itself you can hardly see the railroads but the
> > general view is breathtaking. Architecture of the memorial itself
is also
> > > > interesting and impressive.
> > >
> > > I thought you'd like it; it was built by the slave labour of
> > liberals, socialists, anti-clericals
> >
> > It looks like you forgot the communists and anarchists...
>
> see below. Anyway, "communist" could, as well as meaning Party
member,
> also be the contemporary expression for people believing in the sort
of
> thing you have in your Constitution -- as it was in the McCarthy
period.
>
> > >and general good guys. ;-)
> > >
> > Yes, I know. In general, the leaders who manage to put the above
> > categories of people to some (not necessarily useful) work are
> > near and dear to my heart providing they limit their activities to
> > the above-mentioned categories. :-)
>
> Come the Revolution, we'll return the compliment.
Not if all of you folks are busy extending Big Dig the whole way to
San Francisco....
>Would you mind listing
> your construction skills for this list I'm making, Mr. Milman? :-)
Well, being from The Motherland of All Elephants, I can be very useful
in organizing things properly. I'm not sure that you are competent
enough even in the simplest actions like organizing a guarded
perimeter (speaking about this issue, couple months ago I saw in
"Metro"
a "typical" schema of the American army base abroad; the "security
specialists" involved should be fired without a right to do anything
more intellectual than dishwashing).
>
> > Now, it is your turn. :-)
>
> Damn, I'm sure I've noticed this sort of thing -- like Segovia
> representing a French castle -- AT THE TIME, but remembering it
afterwards
> is a whole different ball game. We liberal communists have so much
good
> stuff in our heads, you see, that there isn't always room for more
:-)
Too busy singing "International" and chanting "Power to the people!"?
BTW, being a voluntarily liberal, can you explain me why the
revolutionary
regimes are so fond of a mass singing on the streets?
>
> > BTW, back to the mummies and Paul's inadequacy as a chemist. I was
> > thinking, maybe he is a vampire? This would explain a lot of things
> > (including the horses)
>
> what do vampires have to do with horse-strangling? Oh, I see,
> tourniquets.
For a liberal, you are VERY sharp-minded.... :-)
I agree that 1st stangle and THEN drink blood sounds like a
little bit of a perversion to outsider. However, the great (sizewise)
man has a right to the small peculiarities...
>
> and excuse his failure as a mummy. After all,
> > you can't expect him to be everything....
>
> I don't remember any mummies in the City Watch -- do the zombies
have
> all their affirmative-action slots?
Don't forget a verwolf.
But to think about it, yes, there are no mummies in the CW. I wonder
why....
David C. Pugh
news:1108057247.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
An interesting idea. Taking into an account their level of a
technological development, this would probably mean ordering some
unfortunate slave to put his finger into <whatever was a source of the water
flow> and stay in this position until it gets warmer....
Nice work if you can get it. No worse than McJobs. (Maybe they called
them IbnJobs in Nasrid Granada?)
You are using this "N" word again....
Sorry. Say, if the Old World doesn't exist any more, why do you worry
about its influence so? :-)
Err.... this too. IIRC, the relationships in Alhambra's harem most
of the time reminded those in a snakepit. OTOH, I'm not sure that
the snake tend to develop that degree of a personal animosity to the
other members of their species.
I don't know anything about the Nasrid harem, but something I read on
the Topkapi harem certainly bears out your general principle. Put lots of
uneducated people in a confined space with nothing to do but compete for
attention, and what do you get? Apart from Hollywood, I mean.
Actually, we managed to make a number of rather good shots before
rain started.
Good for you. I think I had a camera in my bag, and didn't attempt to
use it, because trying to get a clear shot at anything was such a hassle.
And my guide was very knowledgeable, I had one of the best of their corps,
so I tried to listen instead. Did much more photography in the deserted
Malaga alcazar, on the other hand......
> I can't stand the Latin Baroque, myself, like an explosion in a
> gold-leaf factory.
Yes. And, as often, French had been showing the way.... I remember
in Kensington Palace guide pointed to some ugly piece of furniture
that Victoria got from France. Combination of sky-blue, pink, and
gold colors with the paintings of the female heads (I quote the guide:
"alledgedly, the dames of an ill repute")
Or excellent repute among sensible people. Didn't Saint Terry have a
corrective along those lines?
>I shall be very happy if I never see another fat baby
> with wings.
And "triumph" of one more royal figure...
Amen.
IMO, most of the art-related things (paintings, costumes, decorative art,
park planning, etc.) influenced by or related to Louis XIV were exercises in
a very bad taste. Which, by some reason, had been parroted all over Europe.
Amazingly enough, I think I would agree with you there..... For gardens
I much prefer the English style, Capability Brown (don't get started on B.S.
Johnson now.....), for ladies' costumes I prefer Empire.
>And so that's one of the things I like about Muslim and Mudejar
> art.......
I see. :-)
Yep. It's a Fat-Babies-With-Wings-Free-Zone.
> You might be right, this is a big topic that ties in with a SHM
> perennial, the question why the industrial revolution and conquest of
the world happened in and from a hitherto backward area.
By the time it happened, this area was anything but backward. People
usually tend to skip over the gap few centuries long....
You know what I mean. How X1 in anno 1000 turned into X2 in anno 1700,
whereas Y1 in anno 1000 failed to turn into Y2 in anno 1700.
I'm not saying that it would be "better". I'm saying that what I saw
reflected absense of innovative thinking. Not all innovative thinking
provide immediate improvements, greater comfort, etc.
I don't think I'd argue with that on the basis of the Alhambra itself,
but I'm not sure how far you were wanting to generalise it.
IIRC, most of them were out of the SU and recently had been sold on
Sothbey. At least some of them, IIRC, to some Russian personalities.
They were still in the museums when I was there in 1989. Hey, don't look
at me like that, I didn't take them!
>I'm not too thrilled with big fat jewels
> anyway, but I did like those eggs.
Because they are easier to sell? :-)
Or poach?
Sure. Unfortunately (thanks for the ever-drunk guide) our schedule
was congested and we had only appr. an hour. Spent mostly on Goya and
Velasques.
Museums give me terrible backache, so I concentrated on Velasquez and
Hieronymous Bosch. Next time, I will start with the Goya, and I recommend
you hit the basement for the Hieronymous Bosch -- most of his production is
there, I think, and whereas paintings of court bigwigs and peasant lassies
are not entirely unknown from other hands, there is only the one Bosch......
The pity is that they have really good coffee and pastries.
Yes, what a waste of good brainfood on smokers......
This is what we are usually doing. Spain was more or less an exception:
we took a guided tour that brought us through Madrid, Segovia, Toledo,
Seville, Cordoba, Granada and Malaga.
Now that's a schedule! How long did it take?
With my dislike to driving in the unfamiliar areas
I sympathise. I've driven in Spain twice. The first time I hired a car
at Barajas and drove the motorway onto the N1, scared me half to death, but
then I had a nice country drive up to the Puerta de Navacerrada and through
the mountains to the Puerta de Somosierra. Spain is such an empty country
away from the coast and the cities! The second time was a car hire from
Girona to Besalu, Ripoll, Santa Pau* and the Montseny. I really enjoyed
that, until I got lost in Girona, couldn't find anywhere to leave the hire
car at the
station, and drove through Girona in the rush hour for the second time to
reach the airport and dump it there instead. I learnt that it doesn't matter
if they hoot at you, as long as you haven't hit anything you're ahead of the
game.
* Another nomination for the thread. Santa Pau is a perfectly preserved
walled village, the Catalan equivalent of Perouges near Lyon.
and inability to drive with a standard shift,
What was that about technological sophistication again? :-) :-)
we'd hardly manage to make this route on our own. The drawback had been
attachment to the schedules.
The only time in my life I ever did that sort of trip was a week-long
excursion from the kibbutz, and a package to Leningrad-Kiev-Moscow in the
days of Gorbachev. Both involved getting up at 04.00, which I refuse
to do nowadays.
> > I think I figured this out on my own. Why you liberals tend to be
> > so dirty-minded? :-)
>
> The only thing left to us after your lot have taken our welfare
states away :-)
Aren't you living in one of them? :-)
I'm living in one that *used* to be one of them. Once upon a time we
paid
high taxes for good public services, which I think is cool. Low taxes for
fewer public services is also a conceivable option. But high taxes for crap
public services has nothing much to recommend it.
Ah, so this "N-word" is just a local dialect. Just like "screw!" in
Massachusetsian....
Actually, you should be careful of us. Look at a globe. We got Svalbard
in the Arctic, and Dronning Maud Land in Antarctica -- hands up, we got you
surrounded!
> Come the Revolution, we'll return the compliment.
Not if all of you folks are busy extending Big Dig the whole way to
San Francisco....
No, no, the Diggers were the 17th century English socialists, nothing to
do with us. Ask for Tony Benn.
>Would you mind listing
> your construction skills for this list I'm making, Mr. Milman? :-)
Well, being from The Motherland of All Elephants, I can be very useful
in organizing things properly.
Na levo, I assume? OK, makes note: Milman, procurement of building
materials.
I'm not sure that you are competent
enough even in the simplest actions like organizing a guarded
perimeter (speaking about this issue, couple months ago I saw in
"Metro"a "typical" schema of the American army base abroad; the "security
specialists" involved should be fired without a right to do anything
more intellectual than dishwashing).
I don't understand this, are you holding *me* responsible for the poor
security of an American army base? =8-O
Too busy singing "International" and chanting "Power to the people!"?
BTW, being a voluntarily liberal, can you explain me why the
revolutionary regimes are so fond of a mass singing on the streets?
They'll soon change their mind when they hear my singing voice :-)
I agree that 1st stangle and THEN drink blood sounds like a
little bit of a perversion to outsider. However, the great (sizewise)
man has a right to the small peculiarities...
Look where that got Raskolnikov......
But to think about it, yes, there are no mummies in the CW. I wonder
why....
Can't get the Ptrainees, I guess.
am...@hotmail.com
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1108057247.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> An interesting idea. Taking into an account their level of a
> technological development, this would probably mean ordering some
> unfortunate slave to put his finger into <whatever was a source of
the water
> flow> and stay in this position until it gets warmer....
>
> Nice work if you can get it.
Yes, especially for the people who were not extremely fond of
moving around.
>No worse than McJobs. (Maybe they called
> them IbnJobs in Nasrid Granada?)
>
> You are using this "N" word again....
>
> Sorry. Say, if the Old World doesn't exist any more,
Hey, even I know that the OW exists. It consists of three countries:
New Old World (we like it), Old Old World (we don't like it) and
France (we DO NOT like it). I have some trouble with figuring out
how and where UK fits into this picture but, after all, it is not
really connected to the Old World except by tunnel (which probably
caused less hassle and expences and definitely took less time to
accomplish than Big Dig) so it does not REALLY count. And, after
all, they do speak English (with a funny accent but still...)...
>why do you worry
> about its influence so? :-)
>
To start with, it DOES exist. And, as in Chaadaev's definition of
Russia, "it exists to show a bad example to the rest of the world".
:-)
> Err.... this too. IIRC, the relationships in Alhambra's harem most
> of the time reminded those in a snakepit. OTOH, I'm not sure that
> the snake tend to develop that degree of a personal animosity to the
> other members of their species.
>
> I don't know anything about the Nasrid harem, but something I
read on
> the Topkapi harem certainly bears out your general principle. Put
lots of
> uneducated people in a confined space with nothing to do but compete
for
> attention, and what do you get? Apart from Hollywood, I mean.
>
AFAIK, the issue was not as much congested accomodations and
absense of a high education but rather an intensive fight for the
power (who will be the heir, which family will enjoy status of the
relatives of the favorite wife, etc.).
What little I remember from guide's explanations (a very good one
this time), murders were a commonplace.
> Did much more photography in the deserted
> Malaga alcazar, on the other hand......
>
I don't know why it is not popular. Probably the new fortress
higher on the mountain is too strong a competition. When we were
there, the old fortress was practically empty, while the new one
was full of the tourists. Probably because of a better view.
> > I can't stand the Latin Baroque, myself, like an explosion in a
> > gold-leaf factory.
>
> Yes. And, as often, French had been showing the way.... I remember
> in Kensington Palace guide pointed to some ugly piece of furniture
> that Victoria got from France. Combination of sky-blue, pink, and
> gold colors with the paintings of the female heads (I quote the
guide:
> "alledgedly, the dames of an ill repute")
>
> Or excellent repute among sensible people. Didn't Saint Terry
have a
> corrective along those lines?
Sorry to dissapoint you but quite a few writers made these
corrections well before T.P.
> IMO, most of the art-related things (paintings, costumes, decorative
art,
> park planning, etc.) influenced by or related to Louis XIV were
exercises in
> a very bad taste. Which, by some reason, had been parroted all over
Europe.
>
> Amazingly enough, I think I would agree with you there.....
Are you sure that you are REALLY a liberal?
>For gardens
> I much prefer the English style,
AFAIK, the whole idea of the gardens of Versallies was that they
represented a majestic view while observed from a certain point
(IIRC, St. Simon even mentioned a specific window or a balcony).
The English system is much more enjoyable (not in Pratchettian
sense) when you are _in_ the gardens. IMO, makes much more sense.
>Capability Brown (don't get started on B.S.
> Johnson now.....), for ladies' costumes I prefer Empire.
>
You mean Napoeonic times? Well, during the Directory times the
fabrics used to be more transparent. :-)
> > You might be right, this is a big topic that ties in with a SHM
> > perennial, the question why the industrial revolution and conquest
of
> the world happened in and from a hitherto backward area.
>
> By the time it happened, this area was anything but backward. People
> usually tend to skip over the gap few centuries long....
>
> You know what I mean. How X1 in anno 1000 turned into X2 in anno
1700,
> whereas Y1 in anno 1000 failed to turn into Y2 in anno 1700.
Well, I tend to look at this issue from a little bit different
perspective. The Islamic world started its existence on the most
cultured areas of the Ancient World: Egypt, Syria, Iran, Eastern
parts of the Bizantian Empire. These parts also (AFAIK) suffered
considerably less damage from the earlier mass invasions of the
various "barbarians" then what eventually became a "Western World".
To the credit of the early Muslim conquerors it must be said that,
on average, they tended to do less damage than all the Goths,
Vandals, Lombards, etc. As a result, most of what they built had
been built on a better preserved foundation. However, in a long run,
their tendency/ability/<whatever> to build something new proved to
be much lower than <the same> of their Western contemporaries. It
quite well could be a simple "Why change something that works
satisfactory" or something more complex, involving religion, climat
or whatever.
The difference was quite clear well before 1700. A gunpowder
alledgedly came from the East but, IIRC, Mohammed II had to employ
the Christian specialists to build a siege artillery for assault on
Constantinople.
>
> IIRC, most of them were out of the SU and recently had been sold on
> Sothbey. At least some of them, IIRC, to some Russian personalities.
>
> They were still in the museums when I was there in 1989.
There were few of them in the Armory but they represented only
a fraction of the whole.
> Hey, don't look
> at me like that, I didn't take them!
>
As with the case of a mummy, you are a little bit too young to
be suspected. AFAIK, most of them had been either taken by the
fleeing owners or quietly sold by the commies together with many
other confiscated jewels.
> >I'm not too thrilled with big fat jewels
> > anyway, but I did like those eggs.
>
> Because they are easier to sell? :-)
>
> Or poach?
I don't think that thye are easily digestable. :-)
BTW, you are falling into a standard trap: "Faberge - eggs". These
eggs represented only a tiny fraction of the production of Faberge
shop. Very few of them had been made every year for Imperial family
as the Easter presents. I know of one being presented to Kshesinskaya
by <whatever Great Duke was at this point her official ...er..
"protector"> but she was practically a member of a family being
under "protection" of (at least one) one Great Duke, having a
child from another (and maintaining this relationship all the way
to a marriage in emigration), still having an ultimate protection
from Nicholas and, what was important, being "approved" by Empress.
Most of Faberge production were much more common things like the
figurines from the semi-precious stones, costume jewelry, jewelry
boxes, cigarete cases, etc.
In a book I'm reading now (a very funny "ironic detective" written
by one of the popular "modern" Russian writers) this "faberge trap"
reached almost an absurd degree. Talking about some Soviet-times
collector, author mentions, among other things, "collection of
Faberge eggs". IMHO, chances for a provate collector (unless he was
not a member of top-level elite) to keep openly even a single
Faberge egg were almost as good as to keep one of the imperial
crowns: things of this quality and fame would qualify as a "national
treasure" and you may figure out the rest. Another obvious question
is from which sourse a private person in the SU could _legally_ get
"collection" of these eggs? Who could be an initial owner with any
degree of a legality? It was not some family ring stored by an old
woman...
>
> Sure. Unfortunately (thanks for the ever-drunk guide) our schedule
> was congested and we had only appr. an hour. Spent mostly on Goya and
> Velasques.
>
> Museums give me terrible backache, so I concentrated on Velasquez
and
> Hieronymous Bosch. Next time, I will start with the Goya, and I
recommend
> you hit the basement for the Hieronymous Bosch -- most of his
production is
> there, I think, and whereas paintings of court bigwigs and peasant
lassies
> are not entirely unknown from other hands, there is only the one
Bosch......
Seeing originals of Goya's "dark period" was quite an experience.
We simply did not have enough time for a basement and, while I like
Bosch's paintings, to understand them one has to know a contemporary
code of the allegories, which is not the case with me.
>
> The pity is that they have really good coffee and pastries.
>
> Yes, what a waste of good brainfood on smokers......
>
Yes.
> This is what we are usually doing. Spain was more or less an
exception:
> we took a guided tour that brought us through Madrid, Segovia,
Toledo,
> Seville, Cordoba, Granada and Malaga.
>
> Now that's a schedule! How long did it take?
>
Appr two weeks with the last 3 (?) days being spent in Torremalinos
near Malaga.
[]
> and inability to drive with a standard shift,
>
> What was that about technological sophistication again? :-) :-)
This IS a manifestation of the technological sophistication:
I achieved such an advanced degree of it that I can't use the
less advanced technologies. :-)
Without a need to have both feet and hands permanently deployed
during the driving process, some females on the
American roads manage to drive while simultaneously drinking
coffee, talking on the phone, refreshing makeup and checking for
the things left on a back seat of a monstrous SUV.
> > > I think I figured this out on my own. Why you liberals tend to be
> > > so dirty-minded? :-)
> >
> > The only thing left to us after your lot have taken our welfare
> states away :-)
>
> Aren't you living in one of them? :-)
>
> I'm living in one that *used* to be one of them. Once upon a time
we
> paid
> high taxes for good public services,
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??????????????????
>which I think is cool.
Sure, it would be cool.
>Low taxes for
> fewer public services is also a conceivable option. But high taxes
for crap
> public services has nothing much to recommend it.
>
Well, being a conservative, I understand that the services will
be crappy (sooner or later), no matter how much you are going to
pay for them. So if you have enough money left, you may pay for
something on the side.
> > Come the Revolution, we'll return the compliment.
>
> Not if all of you folks are busy extending Big Dig the whole way to
> San Francisco....
>
> No, no, the Diggers were the 17th century English socialists,
nothing to
> do with us. Ask for Tony Benn.
Iwas not talking about _voluntarily_ digging....
>
> >Would you mind listing
> > your construction skills for this list I'm making, Mr. Milman? :-)
>
> Well, being from The Motherland of All Elephants, I can be very
useful
> in organizing things properly.
>
> Na levo, I assume? OK, makes note: Milman, procurement of
building
> materials.
My congratulations: you have very little to learn about Russia and
its language. :-)
>
> I'm not sure that you are competent
> enough even in the simplest actions like organizing a guarded
> perimeter (speaking about this issue, couple months ago I saw in
> "Metro"a "typical" schema of the American army base abroad; the
"security
> specialists" involved should be fired without a right to do anything
> more intellectual than dishwashing).
>
> I don't understand this, are you holding *me* responsible for the
poor
> security of an American army base? =8-O
While it would be tempting to blame you personally, no I was just
venting my frustration with an obvious idiocy. What sense does it
make to put on the explosion-proof walls and windows if anybody can
drive a car through what passes for the "gates"? You know, this
wooden plank across the driveway that will be raised after you
demonstrated a proper pass. As an option, you can just drive through
it and break the plank (why not if your car is filled with the
explosives). What about building the real gates and placing in
front of them a simple but efficient set of the concrete blocks
which would prevent car from coming to the gates at a high speed
(IIRC, the Soviets had these things on the border between East and
West Germany, cost practically nothing).
>
> Too busy singing "International" and chanting "Power to the people!"?
> BTW, being a voluntarily liberal, can you explain me why the
> revolutionary regimes are so fond of a mass singing on the streets?
>
> They'll soon change their mind when they hear my singing voice
:-)
We DO have a lot in common. :-)
>
> I agree that 1st stangle and THEN drink blood sounds like a
> little bit of a perversion to outsider. However, the great (sizewise)
> man has a right to the small peculiarities...
>
> Look where that got Raskolnikov......
Which one? Dostoyevsky's hero or the real one? :-)
David C. Pugh
> > An interesting idea. Taking into an account their level of a
> > technological development, this would probably mean ordering some
> > unfortunate slave to put his finger into <whatever was a source of
> the water flow> and stay in this position until it gets warmer....
> >
> > Nice work if you can get it.
>
> Yes, especially for the people who were not extremely fond of
> moving around.
Does that include you? :-)
> >No worse than McJobs. (Maybe they called
> > them IbnJobs in Nasrid Granada?)
> >
> Hey, even I know that the OW exists. It consists of three countries:
> New Old World (we like it), Old Old World (we don't like it) and
> France (we DO NOT like it). I have some trouble with figuring out
> how and where UK fits into this picture but, after all, it is not
> really connected to the Old World except by tunnel (which probably
> caused less hassle and expences and definitely took less time to
> accomplish than Big Dig) so it does not REALLY count. And, after
> all, they do speak English (with a funny accent but still...)...
But today Rumsfeld said that it was the Old Rumsfeld who said that about
the Old Europe, so I shall wait to see how the New Milman follows the
ever-changing party line in this respect :-)
> To start with, it DOES exist. And, as in Chaadaev's definition of
> Russia, "it exists to show a bad example to the rest of the world".
Who was this Chaadaev, he sounds a sensible sort of fellow?
> > I don't know anything about the Nasrid harem, but something I
> read on the Topkapi harem certainly bears out your general principle. Put
> lots of uneducated people in a confined space with nothing to do but
compete for attention, and what do you get? Apart from Hollywood, I mean.
> >
>
> AFAIK, the issue was not as much congested accomodations and
> absense of a high education but rather an intensive fight for the
> power (who will be the heir, which family will enjoy status of the
> relatives of the favorite wife, etc.).
IOW, "competing for attention", hence my comparison :-)
> What little I remember from guide's explanations (a very good one
> this time), murders were a commonplace.
Poisonings, I assume?
As regards the guides, the Alhambra is VERY organised. I did the tour
inter alia with a lady who had been a guide somewhere else and was thinking
of obtaining a post here, or had just got one, I forget which, and she
wanted to see how the crackerjack guide did it. What management consultants
call benchmarking.
> > Did much more photography in the deserted
> > Malaga alcazar, on the other hand......
> >
> I don't know why it is not popular. Probably the new fortress
> higher on the mountain is too strong a competition. When we were
> there, the old fortress was practically empty, while the new one
> was full of the tourists. Probably because of a better view.
If they do a standard bus tour for tourists, with the open-top bus and
all that, it's possible that they drive to the top fortress but not the
bottom one. Partly for the view, or perhaps it's cheaper to get in?
> Are you sure that you are REALLY a liberal?
Are you sure that you're really a conservative?
> AFAIK, the whole idea of the gardens of Versallies was that they
> represented a majestic view while observed from a certain point
> (IIRC, St. Simon even mentioned a specific window or a balcony).
> The English system is much more enjoyable (not in Pratchettian
> sense) when you are _in_ the gardens. IMO, makes much more sense.
Absolutely. But there again, the French were responsible for the
Claude-glass, a concave mirror which you held up and looked at with your
back to the view. It made the scenery look like an Italian miniature, and a
view was considered "correct" if it conformed to the Claude canons, which is
where we got the word picturesque -- the nature gets it right and achieves
the state of being like a picture -- and otherwise "incorrect", whereupon no
one would go to see it.
And the Versailles system only works for the guy in the window, who you
can bet your last sou is not going to be anyone less than the King (Le Roi
Fenetre?). The English system is more democratic, at least in the Athenian
sense of the elite who have access to the house, they can all get the same
experiences.
> You mean Napoeonic times? Well, during the Directory times the
> fabrics used to be more transparent. :-)
They were? Yes, that's probably what I do mean, then. Not a great expert
on the period but I know what I like :-)
> Well, I tend to look at this issue from a little bit different
> perspective. The Islamic world started its existence on the most
> cultured areas of the Ancient World: Egypt, Syria, Iran, Eastern
> parts of the Bizantian Empire. These parts also (AFAIK) suffered
> considerably less damage from the earlier mass invasions of the
> various "barbarians" then what eventually became a "Western World".
> To the credit of the early Muslim conquerors it must be said that,
> on average, they tended to do less damage than all the Goths,
> Vandals, Lombards, etc.
Welcomed to many of the countries to get rid of the Byzantine tax
collectors and Melkite religious oppressors.
As a result, most of what they built had
> been built on a better preserved foundation. However, in a long run,
> their tendency/ability/<whatever> to build something new proved to
> be much lower than <the same> of their Western contemporaries. It
> quite well could be a simple "Why change something that works
> satisfactory" or something more complex, involving religion, climat
> or whatever.
Have you read Bernard Lewis' "The Muslim Discovery of Europe"?
He is big on the Muslim cultural self-confidence that was sure they
had nothing to learn, until it was much too late.
> The difference was quite clear well before 1700. A gunpowder
> alledgedly came from the East but, IIRC, Mohammed II had to employ
> the Christian specialists to build a siege artillery for assault on
> Constantinople.
A Christian, nota bene, from outside of the Bermuda Triangle :-9
OTOH, don't they say that good management involves hiring the smartest
subordinates?
> BTW, you are falling into a standard trap: "Faberge - eggs". These
> eggs represented only a tiny fraction of the production of Faberge
> shop.
Actually, I knew that Faberge made lots of other stuff, isn't the brand
name still going strong in fact? But costume jewelry etc. doesn't interest
me. The sheer perverse skill of the eggs, however, is impressive. (In Lyon
there is a museum of miniatures. Very, very small miniatures, you can only
see what they are under magnification.)
> In a book I'm reading now (a very funny "ironic detective" written
> by one of the popular "modern" Russian writers) this "faberge trap"
> reached almost an absurd degree. Talking about some Soviet-times
> collector, author mentions, among other things, "collection of
> Faberge eggs".
Oy. Is this part of the writer's funny irony or a real mistake on his
part?
IMHO, chances for a provate collector (unless he was
> not a member of top-level elite) to keep openly even a single
> Faberge egg were almost as good as to keep one of the imperial
> crowns: things of this quality and fame would qualify as a "national
> treasure" and you may figure out the rest.
Yep.
They have things called "fact-checkers" for novelists. If I'm writing a
thriller with a scene set in Podunk, Nebraska, for example, and have no
intention of going there, I hire the fact-checker to find out how long it
takes to walk from one house to, well, the other house. You'd be good at
this for people doing Russia-set novels. I don't know if Martin Cruz Smith
made many mistakes in his Moscow series?
I'll give you another horrible example. There are two writers of
whodunnits set in Ancient Rome, Steven Saylor (late Republic) and Lindsey
Davies (the Flavians). I recommend the former but not the latter. Davies had
three Roman sisters being called Camilla, Antonia and Julia or something
like
that; however, Roman women did not have praenomina, so that if Sextus
Camillus (say) had three daughters, they could be called nothing other than
Camilla, Camilla and Camilla. They used nicknames within the family, of
course. I don't know whether Davies was unaware of this, or aware but
thought that the readership wouldn't understand such an alien social
phenomenon. But for me, the only reason for writing or reading a historical
novel is to help us get into alien social phenomena. Otherwise, it's just
modern American girls in fancy dress.
> Seeing originals of Goya's "dark period" was quite an experience.
I shall try for those next time.
> We simply did not have enough time for a basement and, while I like
> Bosch's paintings, to understand them one has to know a contemporary
> code of the allegories, which is not the case with me.
AFAIK it is not the case with anyone. The key has been lost, I thin?
Eve would know.
> Appr two weeks with the last 3 (?) days being spent in Torremalinos
> near Malaga.
Ah, Costa del Fish'n'Chips.
Well, that was a good schedule. I've seen a lot worse.
> > and inability to drive with a standard shift,
> >
> > What was that about technological sophistication again? :-) :-)
>
> This IS a manifestation of the technological sophistication:
> I achieved such an advanced degree of it that I can't use the
> less advanced technologies. :-)
I shall remember that excuse. In fact, I think I'll have it embroidered,
framed and hung on the wall :-)
> Without a need to have both feet and hands permanently deployed
> during the driving process, some females on the
> American roads manage to drive while simultaneously drinking
> coffee, talking on the phone, refreshing makeup and checking for
> the things left on a back seat of a monstrous SUV.
Let's get this straight. They have automatic transmissions which free up
the right hand, and I think you have something called cruise control that fr
ees up the right foot (that right? Don't need to hold it on the gas pedal?).
But what about the left hand on the wheel? Does that still apply while doing
these four things you describe above, or are they using both hands for those
and steering with their feet?
> > I'm living in one that *used* to be one of them. Once upon a time
> we paid high taxes for good public services,
>
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??????????????????
Yes, honestly.
> >Low taxes for fewer public services is also a conceivable option. But
high taxes for crap public services has nothing much to recommend it.
> >
> Well, being a conservative, I understand that the services will
> be crappy (sooner or later), no matter how much you are going to
> pay for them.
If there were to be some sort of Ibn Khaldun-ish inevitability about the
public services becoming crappy (while still costing as much, or preferably
twice as much) after say 30 years, then two conclusions seem to present
themselves:
1. Live only in that 30-year window, or
2. Be a conservative (in the American sense of the word)
Or perhaps:
3. Enjoy that 30-year window then become a conservative.
However, I'm not yet convinced of the premise.
So if you have enough money left, you may pay for something on the side.
I'm a member of a private clinic here, that costs much more but gives
much better service. Now call me a hypocrite :-)
> Iwas not talking about _voluntarily_ digging....
Let me think of some good work for you to do come the Revolution.
Ah, got the very thing. If you look at the comments of John Cartmell,
Martin and myself on deforestation, you may be able to intuit the answer.
:-)
> > Well, being from The Motherland of All Elephants, I can be very
> useful in organizing things properly.
> >
> > Na levo, I assume? OK, makes note: Milman, procurement of
> building materials.
>
> My congratulations: you have very little to learn about Russia and
> its language. :-)
<bows>
> > I don't understand this, are you holding *me* responsible for the
> poor security of an American army base? =8-O
>
> While it would be tempting to blame you personally, no I was just
> venting my frustration with an obvious idiocy. What sense does it
> make to put on the explosion-proof walls and windows if anybody can
> drive a car through what passes for the "gates"? You know, this
> wooden plank across the driveway that will be raised after you
> demonstrated a proper pass. As an option, you can just drive through
> it and break the plank (why not if your car is filled with the
> explosives).
especially if you're not planning to come back.
What about building the real gates and placing in
> front of them a simple but efficient set of the concrete blocks
> which would prevent car from coming to the gates at a high speed
> (IIRC, the Soviets had these things on the border between East and
> West Germany, cost practically nothing).
As did our medieval castles. Zig-zagging gates. There's a good example
at the western end of the Roman bridge at Toledo, you'll remember. Or
think of driving a truck-bomb to the top of our Malagan alcazar, not so
easy. Perhaps the American forces should hire medieval hobbyists like
ourselves?
I understand that they're building things called "blast walls" in
Baghdad now. We medievalists understand this, we call them "citadels",
"alcazars", "forbidden cities" and so forth. I also understand that the
graffiti artists and mural-painters are enjoying them. I ask, therefore,
where are the scholarly monographs on the graffiti painted on the medieval
castles: Henry V Go Home, William is a Bastard and so forth? Of course the
Book of Hours of the Duc de Berry has censored these, by failing to show the
white walls adorned with tagged initials and caricatures. As usual, Monty
Python gets this right.
> > Too busy singing "International" and chanting "Power to the people!"?
> > BTW, being a voluntarily liberal, can you explain me why the
> > revolutionary regimes are so fond of a mass singing on the streets?
> >
> > They'll soon change their mind when they hear my singing voice
> :-)
>
> We DO have a lot in common. :-)
Croakers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your key.
> > I agree that 1st stangle and THEN drink blood sounds like a
> > little bit of a perversion to outsider. However, the great (sizewise)
> > man has a right to the small peculiarities...
> >
> > Look where that got Raskolnikov......
>
> Which one? Dostoyevsky's hero or the real one? :-)
Was there a real one? I know that FD got all his plots from what we
would now call the supermarket tabloids, but I don't know the details.
am...@hotmail.com
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
>
> > > An interesting idea. Taking into an account their level of a
> > > technological development, this would probably mean ordering some
> > > unfortunate slave to put his finger into <whatever was a source
of
> > the water flow> and stay in this position until it gets warmer....
> > >
> > > Nice work if you can get it.
> >
> > Yes, especially for the people who were not extremely fond of
> > moving around.
>
> Does that include you? :-)
I'll have to look at a fine print in the job's description. It may
contian, as Pan Zagloba said, "unnacceptable conditions"....
>
> > >No worse than McJobs. (Maybe they called
> > > them IbnJobs in Nasrid Granada?)
> > >
>
> > Hey, even I know that the OW exists. It consists of three
countries:
> > New Old World (we like it), Old Old World (we don't like it) and
> > France (we DO NOT like it). I have some trouble with figuring out
> > how and where UK fits into this picture but, after all, it is not
> > really connected to the Old World except by tunnel (which probably
> > caused less hassle and expences and definitely took less time to
> > accomplish than Big Dig) so it does not REALLY count. And, after
> > all, they do speak English (with a funny accent but still...)...
>
> But today Rumsfeld said that it was the Old Rumsfeld who said
that about
> the Old Europe,
>o I shall wait to see how the New Milman follows the
> ever-changing party line in this respect :-)
I do not belong to ANY party so why would I care?
>
> > To start with, it DOES exist. And, as in Chaadaev's definition of
> > Russia, "it exists to show a bad example to the rest of the world".
>
> Who was this Chaadaev, he sounds a sensible sort of fellow?
He was very smart but I can't comment on sensibility of a person
who was officially declared insane. :-)
>
> > > I don't know anything about the Nasrid harem, but something I
read on the Topkapi harem certainly bears out your general principle.
Put
> > lots of uneducated people in a confined space with nothing to do
but
> compete for attention, and what do you get? Apart from Hollywood, I
mean.
> > >
> >
> > AFAIK, the issue was not as much congested accomodations and
> > absense of a high education but rather an intensive fight for the
> > power (who will be the heir, which family will enjoy status of the
> > relatives of the favorite wife, etc.).
>
> IOW, "competing for attention", hence my comparison :-)
>
> > What little I remember from guide's explanations (a very good one
> > this time), murders were a commonplace.
>
> Poisonings, I assume?
>
Strangling, stabbing as well, IIRC.
> > > Did much more photography in the deserted
> > > Malaga alcazar, on the other hand......
> > >
> > I don't know why it is not popular. Probably the new fortress
> > higher on the mountain is too strong a competition. When we were
> > there, the old fortress was practically empty, while the new one
> > was full of the tourists. Probably because of a better view.
>
> If they do a standard bus tour for tourists, with the open-top
bus and
> all that, it's possible that they drive to the top fortress but not
the
> bottom one. Partly for the view, or perhaps it's cheaper to get in?
It is very easy to get to the lower fortress because it it just off
the street.
>
> > Are you sure that you are REALLY a liberal?
>
> Are you sure that you're really a conservative?
>
No, I'm a reactionary. So what about you?
[]
> And the Versailles system only works for the guy in the window,
who you
> can bet your last sou is not going to be anyone less than the King
(Le Roi
> Fenetre?).
Exactly.
>The English system is more democratic, at least in the Athenian
> sense of the elite who have access to the house, they can all get the
same
> experiences.
>
> > You mean Napoeonic times? Well, during the Directory times the
> > fabrics used to be more transparent. :-)
>
> They were? Yes, that's probably what I do mean, then. Not a great
expert
> on the period but I know what I like :-)
>
Nappy was too "bourguese" in his tastes and opinions and the dresses
became less transparent. You can compare Josephine's portrait during
the earlier stage of her career and he dresses as the empress.
> > Well, I tend to look at this issue from a little bit different
> > perspective. The Islamic world started its existence on the most
> > cultured areas of the Ancient World: Egypt, Syria, Iran, Eastern
> > parts of the Bizantian Empire. These parts also (AFAIK) suffered
> > considerably less damage from the earlier mass invasions of the
> > various "barbarians" then what eventually became a "Western World".
> > To the credit of the early Muslim conquerors it must be said that,
> > on average, they tended to do less damage than all the Goths,
> > Vandals, Lombards, etc.
>
> Welcomed to many of the countries to get rid of the Byzantine tax
> collectors and Melkite religious oppressors.
I would not overestimate this "welcome" and I doubt that they were
REALLY welcomed in Persia and many other places but the important
thing is that they came into the reasonably untouched places while
whatever passed for "western Civilization" was built literarily on
the ruines of the Western Roman Empire. The Bizantians could be
unpopular but they kept territories properly functioning and the
Arabs inherited a lot of undamaged things. OTOH, when the dust
settled in the Western Europe, there was a bloody mess and not too
much more.
>
> As a result, most of what they built had
> > been built on a better preserved foundation. However, in a long
run,
> > their tendency/ability/<whatever> to build something new proved to
> > be much lower than <the same> of their Western contemporaries. It
> > quite well could be a simple "Why change something that works
> > satisfactory" or something more complex, involving religion, climat
> > or whatever.
>
> Have you read Bernard Lewis' "The Muslim Discovery of Europe"?
> He is big on the Muslim cultural self-confidence that was sure they
> had nothing to learn, until it was much too late.
Sounds quite plausible to me. Not sure that in practical terms this
self-confidence was always based on the real facts. Short of the
period between the 1st wave of the Islamic conquests (at this point
they definitely were under-cultured comparing to their opponents)
and the wave of the Turkish (Seljuk) conquests the Muslim world
does not look like being noticeably ahead of the Western one (and
there is always an issue of the Bizantians). Perhaps "rich" is more
to the point?
>
> > The difference was quite clear well before 1700. A gunpowder
> > alledgedly came from the East but, IIRC, Mohammed II had to employ
> > the Christian specialists to build a siege artillery for assault on
> > Constantinople.
>
> A Christian, nota bene, from outside of the Bermuda Triangle :-9
Comes as a big surprise? :-)
>
> OTOH, don't they say that good management involves hiring the
smartest
> subordinates?
Yes, it does. However when you can't find the competent ones at home,
you are facing serious problem. Nothing uniquely Islamic. Russia
faced the same problem in XVII and Romanovs launched an extensive
program of hiring the foreigners with a requirement of
"Russification" being condition for raising to the "cabinet" levels.
Peter removed even this restriction.
>
> > BTW, you are falling into a standard trap: "Faberge - eggs". These
> > eggs represented only a tiny fraction of the production of Faberge
> > shop.
>
> Actually, I knew that Faberge made lots of other stuff, isn't the
brand
> name still going strong in fact? But costume jewelry etc. doesn't
interest
> me. The sheer perverse skill of the eggs, however, is impressive.
Well, not all of them are in the best taste but as a show of skill
they are impressive.
> (In Lyon
> there is a museum of miniatures. Very, very small miniatures, you can
only
> see what they are under magnification.)
In Pecherskaya Lavra (Kiev) there was a museum of the similar stuff
made by a local specialist. All the way up (or don?) to putting the
horseshoes on a flea (to show that he is no worse than a famous
Russian literary personage).
There were some other things of the kind here and there. IIRC, in
the Museum of the Soviet Army there was a text carved on a grain of
rice (present from China).
>
> > In a book I'm reading now (a very funny "ironic detective" written
> > by one of the popular "modern" Russian writers) this "faberge trap"
> > reached almost an absurd degree. Talking about some Soviet-times
> > collector, author mentions, among other things, "collection of
> > Faberge eggs".
>
> Oy. Is this part of the writer's funny irony or a real mistake on
his
> part?
_Her_ part.
>
> They have things called "fact-checkers" for novelists.
She bragged about having a really good editor. Well, there are clear
lapses here and there in her books.
> If I'm writing a
> thriller with a scene set in Podunk, Nebraska, for example, and have
no
> intention of going there, I hire the fact-checker to find out how
long it
> takes to walk from one house to, well, the other house. You'd be
good at
> this for people doing Russia-set novels. I don't know if Martin Cruz
Smith
> made many mistakes in his Moscow series?
>
Have no clue about this author and his books. But in some books I
found the jewels like "inconspicious black 'Mosckvitch'" (would,
say gold-plated WV Beetle be inconspicious?) or author's ideas on how
the Russians will drink vodka with caviar (BTW, why 'Stolichnaya' is
considered a high-class drink by some American writers is beyond me).
> I'll give you another horrible example. There are two writers of
> whodunnits set in Ancient Rome, Steven Saylor (late Republic) and
Lindsey
> Davies (the Flavians). I recommend the former but not the latter.
Davies had
> three Roman sisters being called Camilla, Antonia and Julia or
something
> like
> that; however, Roman women did not have praenomina, so that if Sextus
> Camillus (say) had three daughters, they could be called nothing
other than
> Camilla, Camilla and Camilla. They used nicknames within the family,
of
> course.
One of the most common mistakes with the Russian names was that
the English-speaking writers did not have a concept of "otchestvo"
and often mistook it for the last name. Recently, I met reference
to Tolstoy's "Death of Ivan Iliytch" and the article's writer called
hero simply "Iliytch". Only person's close friends would do such a
thing because this was his father's name (family name is not given
in novel's title) and addressing by "otchestvo" assumed close ties
with a person.
>I don't know whether Davies was unaware of this, or aware but
> thought that the readership wouldn't understand such an alien social
> phenomenon. But for me, the only reason for writing or reading a
historical
> novel is to help us get into alien social phenomena. Otherwise, it's
just
> modern American girls in fancy dress.
Good point.
>
> > Seeing originals of Goya's "dark period" was quite an experience.
>
> I shall try for those next time.
>
> > We simply did not have enough time for a basement and, while I like
> > Bosch's paintings, to understand them one has to know a
contemporary
> > code of the allegories, which is not the case with me.
>
> AFAIK it is not the case with anyone. The key has been lost, I
thin?
I read explanation of some of them and I don't think that this was
anything but a common knowledge so the specialists probably would know.
> Eve would know.
>
> > Appr two weeks with the last 3 (?) days being spent in Torremalinos
> > near Malaga.
>
> Ah, Costa del Fish'n'Chips.
We prefered shrimps with a white wine. :-)
> > This IS a manifestation of the technological sophistication:
> > I achieved such an advanced degree of it that I can't use the
> > less advanced technologies. :-)
>
> I shall remember that excuse. In fact, I think I'll have it
embroidered,
> framed and hung on the wall :-)
Do it! :-)
>
> > Without a need to have both feet and hands permanently deployed
> > during the driving process, some females on the
> > American roads manage to drive while simultaneously drinking
> > coffee, talking on the phone, refreshing makeup and checking for
> > the things left on a back seat of a monstrous SUV.
>
> Let's get this straight. They have automatic transmissions which
free up
> the right hand, and I think you have something called cruise control
that fr
> ees up the right foot (that right? Don't need to hold it on the gas
pedal?).
Right. Unless you have to brake, which is rarely done by the SUV
owners (uless they face even bigger SUV).
> But what about the left hand on the wheel? Does that still apply
while doing
> these four things you describe above, or are they using both hands
for those
> and steering with their feet?
This is an extreme degree of a technical sophistication to which
I don't have a plausible explanation. If you count carefully, the
free hands would not account for ALL activities and I'm not sure
if one can put makeup on or drink coffee with a feet. It is just a
different level of <whatever>. Something like a concept of
"Picknik on a roadside". One thing is clear. Not sure that steering
comes anywhere into the picture (watching the road definitely does
not, this is the whole idea of having SUV).
>
> > > I'm living in one that *used* to be one of them. Once upon a
time
> > we paid high taxes for good public services,
> >
> > Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??????????????????
>
> Yes, honestly.
splork, splork, splork, etc.
>
> > >Low taxes for fewer public services is also a conceivable option.
But
> high taxes for crap public services has nothing much to recommend it.
> > >
> > Well, being a conservative, I understand that the services will
> > be crappy (sooner or later), no matter how much you are going to
> > pay for them.
>
> If there were to be some sort of Ibn Khaldun-ish inevitability
about the
> public services becoming crappy
> (while still costing as much, or preferably
> twice as much) after say 30 years,
Yes, it's one of the basic laws of the Universe.
>then two conclusions seem to present
> themselves:
> 1. Live only in that 30-year window,
An option.
or
> 2. Be a conservative (in the American sense of the word)
Anotehr option. Not that it makes any difference because we have
high and lousy no matter what.
>
> Or perhaps:
> 3. Enjoy that 30-year window then become a conservative.
>
Will make any difference only for an absolute monarch but I'm not
sure that they pay taxes.
To think about it, became a _rich_ (not sure if there are poor)
US Senator.
> However, I'm not yet convinced of the premise.
>
> So if you have enough money left, you may pay for something on the
side.
>
> I'm a member of a private clinic here, that costs much more but
gives
> much better service. Now call me a hypocrite :-)
>
Better that than imbecile. :-)
> > Iwas not talking about _voluntarily_ digging....
>
> Let me think of some good work for you to do come the Revolution.
>
> Ah, got the very thing. If you look at the comments of John
Cartmell,
> Martin and myself on deforestation, you may be able to intuit the
answer.
> :-)
>
You all are amateurs. :-)
> > > Well, being from The Motherland of All Elephants, I can be very
> > useful in organizing things properly.
> > >
> > > Na levo, I assume? OK, makes note: Milman, procurement of
> > building materials.
> >
> > My congratulations: you have very little to learn about Russia and
> > its language. :-)
>
> <bows>
>
> > > I don't understand this, are you holding *me* responsible for
the
> > poor security of an American army base? =8-O
> >
> > While it would be tempting to blame you personally, no I was just
> > venting my frustration with an obvious idiocy. What sense does it
> > make to put on the explosion-proof walls and windows if anybody can
> > drive a car through what passes for the "gates"? You know, this
> > wooden plank across the driveway that will be raised after you
> > demonstrated a proper pass. As an option, you can just drive
through
> > it and break the plank (why not if your car is filled with the
> > explosives).
>
> especially if you're not planning to come back.
Exactly.
>
> What about building the real gates and placing in
> > front of them a simple but efficient set of the concrete blocks
> > which would prevent car from coming to the gates at a high speed
> > (IIRC, the Soviets had these things on the border between East and
> > West Germany, cost practically nothing).
>
> As did our medieval castles. Zig-zagging gates.
Yes. Exactly my thinking.
>There's a good example
> at the western end of the Roman bridge at Toledo, you'll remember. Or
> think of driving a truck-bomb to the top of our Malagan alcazar, not
so
> easy.
And not so fast....
>Perhaps the American forces should hire medieval hobbyists like
> ourselves?
>
It would not hurt.
> I understand that they're building things called "blast walls" in
> Baghdad now. We medievalists understand this, we call them
"citadels",
> "alcazars", "forbidden cities" and so forth. I also understand that
the
> graffiti artists and mural-painters are enjoying them.
Isn't it a little bit of a contradiction?
>I ask, therefore,
> where are the scholarly monographs on the graffiti painted on the
medieval
> castles: Henry V Go Home, William is a Bastard and so forth?
I'd suspect that the medieval graffiti artists would end up by hanging
from these walls (one more thing to borrow).
> > > Look where that got Raskolnikov......
> >
> > Which one? Dostoyevsky's hero or the real one? :-)
>
> Was there a real one?
Of course. Fedor Raskolnikov. One of the prominent personages
of the Russian Revolution. Later was one of those who witch-hunted
Bulgakov. Eventually, found himself on a wrong side of Uncle Joe
and was defenestrated .... oops.. fell from the window of a hotel in
Paris...
David C. Pugh
news:1108325199.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'll have to look at a fine print in the job's description. It may
> contian, as Pan Zagloba said, "unnacceptable conditions"....
Hmmm, you sound surprisingly like a trade unionist or something. I
thought anything an employer wished to do was acceptable? That's what
Freedom means, surely?
> He was very smart but I can't comment on sensibility of a person
> who was officially declared insane. :-)
I'm not sure than being officially declared insane should make us think
badly of him. Especially if it was the USSR that did the declaring, or was
he earlier?
> It is very easy to get to the lower fortress because it it just off
> the street.
Of course, but not all tourists are wandering round the streets like you
and I. Some are collected from the hotel and bussed around the place, then
delivered to a restaurant for genuine flamenco entertainment, and so to bed.
> No, I'm a reactionary.
Refreshingly accurate and honest!
So what about you?
I'm a reactionary too, but we're reacting against different things, not
least one another :-)
Come to think of it, most people may be reactionaries. For instance, one
might argue that Bolshevism was in part a reaction to the disconcerting
individualistic modernity of the Witte (?) era in favour of the communal
solidarity, real or imagined, of the _mir_.
> Nappy was too "bourguese" in his tastes and opinions and the dresses
> became less transparent. You can compare Josephine's portrait during
> the earlier stage of her career and he dresses as the empress.
If I had several lives I should definitely like to research this period
more, you're way ahead of me. :-)
> I would not overestimate this "welcome" and I doubt that they were
> REALLY welcomed in Persia and many other places
On the contrary, they had to seriously conquer the place. But Syria and
Egypt went down like a house of cards.
but the important
> thing is that they came into the reasonably untouched places while
> whatever passed for "western Civilization" was built literarily on
> the ruines of the Western Roman Empire. The Bizantians could be
> unpopular but they kept territories properly functioning and the
> Arabs inherited a lot of undamaged things.
Agreed. The first time I read a history of Late Antiquity, David Read's
stamping-ground, it was an eye-opener. It occurred to me that the Umayyad
caliphate could, equally well as Byzantium and Charlemagne, qualify as "a
Roman successor-state". Details like the guy who wrote the definitive
defence of Byzantine icons having previously been the caliphal finance
minister tend to reinforce this notion. And in my study of my "own" period,
I have been struck by how many cities of the Ancient world were trashed only
comparatively recently.
(funny how we keep returning to on-topic, isn't it?)
OTOH, when the dust settled in the Western Europe, there was a bloody mess
and not too much more.
Hum. Perhaps you overstate the case there.
> > Have you read Bernard Lewis' "The Muslim Discovery of Europe"?
> > He is big on the Muslim cultural self-confidence that was sure they
> > had nothing to learn, until it was much too late.
>
> Sounds quite plausible to me. Not sure that in practical terms this
> self-confidence was always based on the real facts.
No indeed, and I don't think Lewis suggests that either, but it's been a
while, you should read the book yourself.
Short of the
> period between the 1st wave of the Islamic conquests (at this point
> they definitely were under-cultured comparing to their opponents)
> and the wave of the Turkish (Seljuk) conquests the Muslim world
> does not look like being noticeably ahead of the Western one (and
> there is always an issue of the Bizantians). Perhaps "rich" is more
> to the point?
So the West was "the second-best civilisation -- we try harder"?
> > A Christian, nota bene, from outside of the Bermuda Triangle :-9
>
> Comes as a big surprise? :-)
Nope :-)
> Yes, it does. However when you can't find the competent ones at home,
> you are facing serious problem. Nothing uniquely Islamic. Russia
> faced the same problem in XVII and Romanovs launched an extensive
> program of hiring the foreigners with a requirement of
> "Russification" being condition for raising to the "cabinet" levels.
> Peter removed even this restriction.
There was a guy in "War and Peace" joked about petitioning the Tsar to
be promoted a German.
The Dano-Norwegian state that ended in 1814 had also been run by German
technocrats, mostly Holsteiners.
However, it's worth noting that the technicians who take service with
remote states might not always be the best; they might be the ones who had
failed at home, or wrote their own diplomas. In Norway we've had some
Swedish doctors who have been struck off at home for malpractice, but no one
tells us. :-(
> In Pecherskaya Lavra (Kiev) there was a museum of the similar stuff
> made by a local specialist. All the way up (or don?) to putting the
> horseshoes on a flea (to show that he is no worse than a famous
> Russian literary personage).
Yes, that's the sort of thing. Never saw the Pecherskaya one, alas,
didn't know it was there.
Shows that nanotechnology isn't as new as they think, huh?
> There were some other things of the kind here and there. IIRC, in
> the Museum of the Soviet Army there was a text carved on a grain of
> rice (present from China).
Another one I missed!
> She bragged about having a really good editor. Well, there are clear
> lapses here and there in her books.
Editors don't seem to exist any more, judging by the homophone
confusions I'm seeing even in scholarly works.
> Have no clue about this author and his books. But in some books I
> found the jewels like "inconspicious black 'Mosckvitch'" (would,
> say gold-plated WV Beetle be inconspicious?)
Hm, my impression is that Moskvitches and Zils were Party cadre cars,
inconspicous would have called for a dirty brown Lada or something?
or author's ideas on how
> the Russians will drink vodka with caviar (BTW, why 'Stolichnaya' is
> considered a high-class drink by some American writers is beyond me).
Perhaps it's namedropping?
> One of the most common mistakes with the Russian names was that
> the English-speaking writers did not have a concept of "otchestvo"
> and often mistook it for the last name. Recently, I met reference
> to Tolstoy's "Death of Ivan Iliytch" and the article's writer called
> hero simply "Iliytch".
Ouch. Shame!
I've seen people doing horrible things with Muslim names too, not
realising that (say) "Nur ad-Din" is a single unit, an honorific (= Light of
the Faith), and so he isn't Mr. Din.
Only person's close friends would do such a
> thing because this was his father's name (family name is not given
> in novel's title) and addressing by "otchestvo" assumed close ties
> with a person.
Unless it was V.I. Lenin, who was referred to as "Ilich" (after his
death?) as a special form of reverence, no?
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that *formal* Russian
address is by forename and otchestvo together, so that ordinary people would
address, say, Gorbachev when he was doing his walkabouts as "Mikhail
Sergeyevich (?)" -- it sounds intimate to Western ears but isn't really, as
family and close friends use otchestvo alone (as above) or the diminutive
(in his case, Misha?). That right?
Even between Norway and the UK, which both have the same structure of
forename and surname, there are cultural differences. Norwegians tend to
address non-intimates by their surnames alone, which to an English ear
sounds rather insulting -- as if you've lost your "Mr." through a criminal
conviction. I hate it when the Norwegians hail me as "Pugh!", it reminds me
of school :-( I try to train them to call me "David" alone, on the model of
Cher, Sting etc.
> We prefered shrimps with a white wine. :-)
Good for you! Near Alicante is Costa del Lutefisk :-)
> Right. Unless you have to brake, which is rarely done by the SUV
> owners (uless they face even bigger SUV).
Maybe you should send them to Iraq instead of their NG husbands, they
may be more scary?
> This is an extreme degree of a technical sophistication to which
> I don't have a plausible explanation. If you count carefully, the
> free hands would not account for ALL activities and I'm not sure
> if one can put makeup on or drink coffee with a feet. It is just a
> different level of <whatever>. Something like a concept of
> "Picknik on a roadside".
I know and love the book, but am not sure how it fits with the use of
all five manipulatory appendages of the SUV driver. Expain?
> splork, splork, splork, etc.
<virtual Heimlich manoeuvre>
> > I'm a member of a private clinic here, that costs much more but
> gives much better service. Now call me a hypocrite :-)
> >
> Better that than imbecile. :-)
My sentiments exactly.
> You all are amateurs. :-)
So, if we were professionals, what forced labour should we put you to?
I'm open to suggestions, Brer Alex :-)
> Of course. Fedor Raskolnikov. One of the prominent personages
> of the Russian Revolution. Later was one of those who witch-hunted
> Bulgakov. Eventually, found himself on a wrong side of Uncle Joe
> and was defenestrated .... oops.. fell from the window of a hotel in
> Paris...
Well well. I thought I knew a leeeeedle bit of Russian history, but you
got me there, holed below the waterline.
am...@hotmail.com
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1108325199.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I'll have to look at a fine print in the job's description. It may
> > contian, as Pan Zagloba said, "unnacceptable conditions"....
>
> Hmmm, you sound surprisingly like a trade unionist or something.
I
> thought anything an employer wished to do was acceptable? That's what
> Freedom means, surely?
Not to THAT degree.
[OT: A persistent problem with the well-educated Anglophones is that
you guys
tend to consider an English-language literature as self-sufficient and,
out of "outside world", the picks tend to be something extremely boring
and
pompous like _Lev_ Tolstoy. Even Chekhov, who was a brilliant humorist
(and
known in Russia mostly in this capacity) got his "fame" in
English-speaking
world as an author of the boring-to-death dramas mocked by Pratchett.
Zagloba is one of the heroes of Sienkiewicz's 'Trilogy', something like
a
Polish version of Baron Munchausen (while ago I found that the Baron is
known mostly thanks to the movie)........ And now, I'm running to a
really
deep bomb shelter.... :-)]
Pan Zagloba was telling the stories about his popularities with the
Tatars (hinting that then current Khan looked exactly like he) and
Turks.
According to him, the Sultan was ready to make him a ruler of Walachia
but,
not wishing establishment of a dynasty, put forward an "unacceptable
condition".... :-)
>
> > He was very smart but I can't comment on sensibility of a person
> > who was officially declared insane. :-)
>
> I'm not sure than being officially declared insane should make us
think
> badly of him.
I was commenting exclusively on his _sensibility_. Nobody questioned
his
intellect but he managed to get himself declared insane and spent years
under a house arrest.
>Especially if it was the USSR that did the declaring, or was
> he earlier?
I understand that you are too lazy to do a Google search. :-)
No, he was not criticising the USSR because he lived in XIX century.
Was famous for his criticism of a contemporary Russia but one can
comment
that the statement I quoted did not add too much to an _official_
definition
of Russia during the reign of Nicholas I: "Russia is neither
agricultural
nor industrial country. It is a military state and its main goal is to
horrify the rest of the world." .... With an official definition like
this one, you don't really need Chaadaev....
>
> > It is very easy to get to the lower fortress because it it just off
> > the street.
>
> Of course, but not all tourists are wandering round the streets
like you
> and I. Some are collected from the hotel and bussed around the place,
then
> delivered to a restaurant for genuine flamenco entertainment, and so
to bed.
Indeed. I can see how the lower fortress does not fit into this schema:
no spectacular views, going up and down all the time (excludes olds
people),
nothing "really" spectacular inside. OTOH, the upper one has a
breathtaking
view and "exotic" enough.
IIRC, the Roman theater at the bottom was fenced off.
>
> > No, I'm a reactionary.
>
> Refreshingly accurate and honest!
Of course. To my surprise, too few liberals are NOT ashamed of being
called
"liberals" (well, Warren Beaty at least had a courage to define himself
as
"I'm tax and spend liberal and proud of it"; not that it did any good
to his
political aspiration). As it was said in "The Fifth Element", "Never be
ashamed of what you are!"
>
> So what about you?
>
> I'm a reactionary too, but we're reacting against different
things, not
> least one another :-)
Reactionary Liberal? Hmmmmmmm, you start sounding as our Democrats:
they
don't have any comprehensive ideology of their own (except for giving a
field day to the trial lawyers) so they are _reacting_ on the
opponent's
_actions_ (mostly on the basis: "I'm oppossed to anything proposed by
my
opponent"). :-)
>
> Come to think of it, most people may be reactionaries. For
instance, one
> might argue that Bolshevism was in part a reaction to the
disconcerting
> individualistic modernity of the Witte (?) era in favour of the
communal
> solidarity, real or imagined, of the _mir_.
>
I think that it was mostly a reaction on a power vacuum. :-)
> > Nappy was too "bourguese" in his tastes and opinions and the
dresses
> > became less transparent. You can compare Josephine's portrait
during
> > the earlier stage of her career and he dresses as the empress.
>
> If I had several lives I should definitely like to research this
period
> more, you're way ahead of me. :-)
>
You mean the portraits of the females clad in the transparent dresses?
:-)
Nappy, IMO, was (as Louis XIV) and of the best pre-modern exaplmes of
what
can be accomplished by a combination of an absolute power, a lot of
money
and extremely bad taste. [To think about it, French Republicans had
been
also very fond of the gold-covered costumes: the Republican officials,
civilian and military, had been wearing a lot of it.]
As for the taste in literature, AFAIK, Nappy did not like "Barber of
Seville"
or "Marriage of Figaro" but highly approved of "Tarar" and "Guilty
Mother".
> > I would not overestimate this "welcome" and I doubt that they were
> > REALLY welcomed in Persia and many other places
>
> On the contrary, they had to seriously conquer the place. But
Syria and
> Egypt went down like a house of cards.
>
Yes. The Byzantians were not necessarily popular but neither were they
very
destructive. Even lighthouse of Alexandria was still functioning.
> but the important
> > thing is that they came into the reasonably untouched places while
> > whatever passed for "western Civilization" was built literarily on
> > the ruines of the Western Roman Empire. The Bizantians could be
> > unpopular but they kept territories properly functioning and the
> > Arabs inherited a lot of undamaged things.
>
> Agreed. The first time I read a history of Late Antiquity, David
Read's
> stamping-ground,
He definitely has more than one stamping-ground.
>it was an eye-opener. It occurred to me that the Umayyad
> caliphate could, equally well as Byzantium and Charlemagne, qualify
as "a
> Roman successor-state".
That's the whole point. And I suspect that Charlemagne had much less in
the
terms of inheritance to dealt with even in Italy.
>Details like the guy who wrote the definitive
> defence of Byzantine icons having previously been the caliphal
finance
> minister tend to reinforce this notion.
There was a considerable Christian population in the area even by the
times of
Crusades. Probably it was utterly impractical to kill all of them. In
Persia,
there was a much faster success in the terms of dealing with
Zaraostrism
(again, it was not practical to kill or enslave all the local
"pagans").
> And in my study of my "own" period,
> I have been struck by how many cities of the Ancient world were
trashed only
> comparatively recently.
IIRC, some of them only in the Ottoman times. But even the Ottomans had
been
quite careful in the terms of "legacy and heritage".
>
> (funny how we keep returning to on-topic, isn't it?)
Yes.
>
> OTOH, when the dust settled in the Western Europe, there was a bloody
mess
> and not too much more.
>
> Hum. Perhaps you overstate the case there.
>
Well, there were few pieces left here and there but not too much
comparing
to the East where the whole systems were left pretty much intact.
> > > Have you read Bernard Lewis' "The Muslim Discovery of
Europe"?
> > > He is big on the Muslim cultural self-confidence that was sure
they
> > > had nothing to learn, until it was much too late.
> >
> > Sounds quite plausible to me. Not sure that in practical terms this
> > self-confidence was always based on the real facts.
>
> No indeed, and I don't think Lewis suggests that either, but it's
been a
> while, you should read the book yourself.
>
> Short of the
> > period between the 1st wave of the Islamic conquests (at this point
> > they definitely were under-cultured comparing to their opponents)
> > and the wave of the Turkish (Seljuk) conquests the Muslim world
> > does not look like being noticeably ahead of the Western one (and
> > there is always an issue of the Bizantians). Perhaps "rich" is
more
> > to the point?
>
> So the West was "the second-best civilisation -- we try harder"?
>
They had to work harder for living. :-)
> > > A Christian, nota bene, from outside of the Bermuda Triangle
:-9
> >
> > Comes as a big surprise? :-)
>
> Nope :-)
>
> > Yes, it does. However when you can't find the competent ones at
home,
> > you are facing serious problem. Nothing uniquely Islamic. Russia
> > faced the same problem in XVII and Romanovs launched an extensive
> > program of hiring the foreigners with a requirement of
> > "Russification" being condition for raising to the "cabinet"
levels.
> > Peter removed even this restriction.
>
> There was a guy in "War and Peace" joked about petitioning the
Tsar to
> be promoted a German.
Errrr... the "guy" was actually a real person, namely general Ermolov
(founder of Grozny in Chechia).
>
> The Dano-Norwegian state that ended in 1814 had also been run by
German
> technocrats, mostly Holsteiners.
And then Norway was run by the French ones....
>
> > In Pecherskaya Lavra (Kiev) there was a museum of the similar stuff
> > made by a local specialist. All the way up (or don?) to putting the
> > horseshoes on a flea (to show that he is no worse than a famous
> > Russian literary personage).
>
> Yes, that's the sort of thing. Never saw the Pecherskaya one,
alas,
> didn't know it was there.
I don't know if this was a permanent exhibition.
>
> Shows that nanotechnology isn't as new as they think, huh?
>
> > There were some other things of the kind here and there. IIRC, in
> > the Museum of the Soviet Army there was a text carved on a grain of
> > rice (present from China).
>
> Another one I missed!
Yep!
[]
> > Have no clue about this author and his books. But in some books I
> > found the jewels like "inconspicious black 'Mosckvitch'" (would,
> > say gold-plated WV Beetle be inconspicious?)
>
> Hm, my impression is that Moskvitches and Zils were Party cadre
cars,
> inconspicous would have called for a dirty brown Lada or something?
Not Moskvitch - a low level vechicle. Volga->Chaika->Zil. And the black
was reserved only for "nomenclature".
As for Lada, the name in the SU was "Giguli". You may make an educated
guess
why it was changed for export models.
>
> or author's ideas on how
> > the Russians will drink vodka with caviar (BTW, why 'Stolichnaya'
is
> > considered a high-class drink by some American writers is beyond
me).
>
> Perhaps it's namedropping?
>
> > One of the most common mistakes with the Russian names was that
> > the English-speaking writers did not have a concept of "otchestvo"
> > and often mistook it for the last name. Recently, I met reference
> > to Tolstoy's "Death of Ivan Iliytch" and the article's writer
called
> > hero simply "Iliytch".
>
> Ouch. Shame!
No, just funny.
>
> I've seen people doing horrible things with Muslim names too, not
> realising that (say) "Nur ad-Din" is a single unit, an honorific (=
Light of
> the Faith), and so he isn't Mr. Din.
>
> Only person's close friends would do such a
> > thing because this was his father's name (family name is not given
> > in novel's title) and addressing by "otchestvo" assumed close ties
> > with a person.
>
> Unless it was V.I. Lenin, who was referred to as "Ilich" (after
his
> death?) as a special form of reverence, no?
Exactly.
>
> Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that *formal*
Russian
> address is by forename and otchestvo together,
Yes.
> so that ordinary people would
> address, say, Gorbachev when he was doing his walkabouts as "Mikhail
> Sergeyevich (?)" -- it sounds intimate to Western ears but isn't
really, as
> family and close friends use otchestvo alone (as above) or the
diminutive
> (in his case, Misha?). That right?
>
Yes.
> Even between Norway and the UK, which both have the same
structure of
> forename and surname, there are cultural differences. Norwegians tend
to
> address non-intimates by their surnames alone, which to an English
ear
> sounds rather insulting -- as if you've lost your "Mr." through a
criminal
> conviction. I hate it when the Norwegians hail me as "Pugh!",
Do you have that cute little tail? :-)
>
> > Right. Unless you have to brake, which is rarely done by the SUV
> > owners (uless they face even bigger SUV).
>
> Maybe you should send them to Iraq instead of their NG husbands,
they
> may be more scary?
>
It's a very good idea: they already have a correct attitude t oward the
fellow-drivers... Actually, I'm all for females in combat (and let the
bleeding hearts complain about excessive cruelty)...
> > This is an extreme degree of a technical sophistication to which
> > I don't have a plausible explanation. If you count carefully, the
> > free hands would not account for ALL activities and I'm not sure
> > if one can put makeup on or drink coffee with a feet. It is just a
> > different level of <whatever>. Something like a concept of
> > "Picknik on a roadside".
>
> I know and love the book, but am not sure how it fits with the
use of
> all five manipulatory appendages of the SUV driver. Expain?
A degree of a sophistication that is so much higher than one posessed
by
<whatever> that a meaningful contact or explanation is possible.
>
> > Of course. Fedor Raskolnikov. One of the prominent personages
> > of the Russian Revolution. Later was one of those who witch-hunted
> > Bulgakov. Eventually, found himself on a wrong side of Uncle Joe
> > and was defenestrated .... oops.. fell from the window of a hotel
in
> > Paris...
>
> Well well. I thought I knew a leeeeedle bit of Russian history,
but you
> got me there, holed below the waterline.
This was the whole idea. :-)
David C. Pugh
news:1108397139....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Hmmm, you sound surprisingly like a trade unionist or something.
> I thought anything an employer wished to do was acceptable? That's what
> > Freedom means, surely?
>
> Not to THAT degree.
Tut tut, putting restrictions on the rights of the employer. Disallow
castration of staff today, what communist interference with freedom of
association will we be seeing tomorrow? :-)
> [OT: A persistent problem with the well-educated Anglophones is that
> you guys tend to consider an English-language literature as
self-sufficient and,> out of "outside world", the picks tend to be something
extremely boring> and> pompous like _Lev_ Tolstoy.
I was reading my way through the Penguin Classics translations of
Russian and German literature at school. I think you should maybe be blaming
the translators and publishers here, for telling us that Tolstoy and so
forth was where it's at. I read a Voinovich once, though, maybe slightly
more out of the box?
Even Chekhov, who was a brilliant humorist> (and> known in Russia mostly in
this capacity) got his "fame" in> English-speaking> world as an author of
the boring-to-death dramas mocked by Pratchett.
Maybe the humour got lost in translation. People tell me that Kafka is a
scream in the original, but that the translators have missed the humour or
been unable to convey it.
> Zagloba is one of the heroes of Sienkiewicz's 'Trilogy', something like
> a> Polish version of Baron Munchausen (while ago I found that the Baron
is> known mostly thanks to the movie)........ And now, I'm running to a
> really> deep bomb shelter.... :-)]
Have fun down there :-)
> Pan Zagloba was telling the stories about his popularities with the
> Tatars (hinting that then current Khan looked exactly like he) and
> Turks.> According to him, the Sultan was ready to make him a ruler of
Walachia> but,> not wishing establishment of a dynasty, put forward an
"unacceptable> condition".... :-)
Ah. What you might call a cut in the benefits.
Funny coincidence, but <vallak>, derived from Wallachia, is the
Norwegian for "gelding". Better not tell the Wallachians.
> I was commenting exclusively on his _sensibility_. Nobody questioned
> his> intellect but he managed to get himself declared insane and spent
years
> under a house arrest.
Perhaps he had agoraphobia?
> I understand that you are too lazy to do a Google search. :-)
Yup. And I always write longer letters and posts offline.
> that the statement I quoted did not add too much to an _official_
> definition of Russia during the reign of Nicholas I: "Russia is neither
> agricultural nor industrial country. It is a military state and its main
goal is to
> horrify the rest of the world." .... With an official definition like
> this one, you don't really need Chaadaev....
No indeed! Full marks to Nicky One for honesty, though. Even franker
than PNAC 1999.
> Indeed. I can see how the lower fortress does not fit into this schema:
> no spectacular views, going up and down all the time (excludes olds
> people),> nothing "really" spectacular inside.
Not brash and vulgar enough?
OTOH, the upper one has a
> breathtaking> view and "exotic" enough.> IIRC, the Roman theater at the
bottom was fenced off.
In my time too. I think they're still excavating it and preparing to
make it into an official sight, as opposed to site.
> Of course. To my surprise, too few liberals are NOT ashamed of being
> called> "liberals" (well, Warren Beaty at least had a courage to define
himself> as> "I'm tax and spend liberal and proud of it"; not that it did
any good> to his> political aspiration). As it was said in "The Fifth
Element", "Never be> ashamed of what you are!"
Yes, I remember Dukakis running away from the label of "liberal", which
was at one and the same time mendacious, cowardly and fruitless.
> Reactionary Liberal?
Nothing wrong with wanting to restore a past state of affairs if you
think that it was better. If someone robbed your house, you'd want to get
your stuff back, that makes you a reactionary -- and so?
Hmmmmmmm, you start sounding as our Democrats:
> they> don't have any comprehensive ideology of their own (except for
giving a> field day to the trial lawyers) so they are _reacting_ on the
> opponent's> _actions_ (mostly on the basis: "I'm oppossed to anything
proposed by> my> opponent"). :-)
The most ancient principle of politics. :-)
> > If I had several lives I should definitely like to research this
> period more, you're way ahead of me. :-)
> >
> You mean the portraits of the females clad in the transparent dresses?
> :-)
In the absence of a time machine to research it better :-)
> Nappy, IMO, was (as Louis XIV) and of the best pre-modern exaplmes of what
can be accomplished by a combination of an absolute power, a lot of
> money and extremely bad taste.
Remember Bokassa? A bad-taste imitation of Napoleon?
[To think about it, French Republicans had> been> also very fond of the
gold-covered costumes: the Republican officials,> civilian and military, had
been wearing a lot of it.]
I am a bit nostalgic for the Mao-suit with rank indicated by the number
of ballpoints in the pockets. But it can't last, we are a species devoted to
display and hierarchy, nothing to be done about it.
However, I can assure you that if I ever become Lord Protector of the
World, my sartorial style will be more like the Patriarch of Ankh-Morpork
than the gold-covered costumes. Or perhaps plain white, like the Indian
politicians of the Nehru era -- I quite fancy a white _kurta_ outfit.
> As for the taste in literature, AFAIK, Nappy did not like "Barber of
> Seville"or "Marriage of Figaro" but highly approved of "Tarar" and "Guilty
> Mother".
If Napoleon was alive today, which awful TV programmes would he be
watching? :-)
> Yes. The Byzantians were not necessarily popular but neither were they
> very destructive. Even lighthouse of Alexandria was still functioning.
I suspect that we all suffer from a book or movie-induced assumption
that the medieval landscape was one of Classical ruins, just because stuff
is ruined now. Some of it was, but not all. So I'd like to see a movie
about the Middle Ages that had the great southern cities looking as they had
been in Late Antiquity. One might even start a movie in a Roman city, so the
audience thinks it's a conventional Roman movie with togas and stuff, then
have guys in robes going Allah Akhbar in the hippodrome or something.
Wouldn't work with all the blurbs and critics and trailers we have now, but
you see what I mean. Shake up people's preconceptions a bit.
> > Agreed. The first time I read a history of Late Antiquity, David
> Read's stamping-ground,
>
> He definitely has more than one stamping-ground.
"including but not limited to" as they say in the contracts :-)
> There was a considerable Christian population in the area even by the
> times of Crusades.
Yes, in the Syrian mountains about 50%, I believe. The Terry Jones and
Karen Armstrong type popular revisionism is all very well, a necessary
corrective to earlier popular heroics, but it is really unfair to present
the Crusaders as a sort of unmotivated psycho aggressors. The Franks thought
of themselves, not as conquering the Holy Land, but as *re-*conquering it.
The Byzantine Emperor maintained a formal claim on Syria, Palestine and
Egypt in the same way as the PRC has a formal claim on Taiwan. But then
Saladin thought of himself as reconquering it too. That's how it goes, when
a piece of real estate changes hands a couple of times, both sides think of
themselves as innocently recovering what is theirs.
Probably it was utterly impractical to kill all of them.
Now now, behave: killing People of the Book who submitted was never
policy.
In> Persia,> there was a much faster success in the terms of dealing with
> Zaraostrism> (again, it was not practical to kill or enslave all the local
> "pagans").
Zoroastrianism had a lower status in their eyes, certainly, but the
early caliphs were nothing like Chinghis.
> > And in my study of my "own" period,
> > I have been struck by how many cities of the Ancient world were
> trashed only comparatively recently.
>
> IIRC, some of them only in the Ottoman times. But even the Ottomans had
> been quite careful in the terms of "legacy and heritage".
People think of the Roman Empire as "being overrun by barbarians", but
most of its great cities and other neat bits of plant seem to have been
destroyed piecemeal over the next 1500 years or so -- a war here, a
rebellion there, another war and so on. IIRC Baibars or some other Mamluk
destroyed the coastal cities of Palestine to prevent the Franks coming back.
Presumably, if we could have seen them just before he did that, we would
have seen more or less Hellenistic-looking cities?
> > There was a guy in "War and Peace" joked about petitioning the
> Tsar to be promoted a German.
>
> Errrr... the "guy" was actually a real person, namely general Ermolov
> (founder of Grozny in Chechia).
Plenty of other real people in WaP!
> > The Dano-Norwegian state that ended in 1814 had also been run by
> German technocrats, mostly Holsteiners.
>
> And then Norway was run by the French ones....
If you mean Bernadotte, I don't think he came trailing a cometary tail
of other Frenchmen. Or a mafia family like his patron. I think he was a
one-person package?
> As for Lada, the name in the SU was "Giguli". You may make an educated
> guess why it was changed for export models.
Let's see-- because when you drove it, everything went all jiggly? ;-)
Actually, my father had a Lada once, it gave him less trouble than any
other car he had...... I had to teach him the gauges, though, which were
labelled in Russian :-)
> Yes.
Glad to get things right on occasion!
> > Even between Norway and the UK, which both have the same
> structure of forename and surname, there are cultural differences.
Norwegians tend to address non-intimates by their surnames alone, which to
an English ear sounds rather insulting -- as if you've lost your "Mr."
through a
> criminal conviction. I hate it when the Norwegians hail me as "Pugh!",
>
> Do you have that cute little tail? :-)
Huh? Don't understand that one.
> It's a very good idea: they already have a correct attitude t oward the
> fellow-drivers... Actually, I'm all for females in combat (and let the
> bleeding hearts complain about excessive cruelty)...
To the other side?
> > I know and love the book, but am not sure how it fits with the
> use of all five manipulatory appendages of the SUV driver. Expain?
>
> A degree of a sophistication that is so much higher than one posessed
> by <whatever> that a meaningful contact or explanation is possible.
Ah! Now I get it. Remembering Lem's Solaristics, which never got
anywhere, you could also found an Institute of Advanced SUVistic Studies.
Lots of academic salaries, resulting in cosmic agnosticism. :-)
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1108397139....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Hmmm, you sound surprisingly like a trade unionist or
something.
> > I thought anything an employer wished to do was acceptable? That's
what
> > > Freedom means, surely?
> >
> > Not to THAT degree.
>
> Tut tut, putting restrictions on the rights of the employer.
Disallow
> castration of staff today, what communist interference with freedom
of
> association will we be seeing tomorrow? :-)
Don't you worry, the process is already started. One (so far) company
made non-smoking a condition of employment. This means no smoking at
_any time_,
even at home.
>
> > [OT: A persistent problem with the well-educated Anglophones is
that
> > you guys tend to consider an English-language literature as
> self-sufficient and,> out of "outside world", the picks tend to be
something
> extremely boring> and> pompous like _Lev_ Tolstoy.
>
> I was reading my way through the Penguin Classics translations of
> Russian and German literature at school.
My absolutely sincere sympathies and condolences.
> I think you should maybe be blaming
> the translators and publishers here, for telling us that Tolstoy and
so
> forth was where it's at.
I did not say that it is your fault, I said that it is your _problem_
(like
being a victim rather than perpetrator).
>I read a Voinovich once,
I'm not extremely fond of him. "Chonkin" was funny but that's pretty
much it.
>though, maybe slightly
> more out of the box?
A lot but I'm not sure that they are necessary available in English (or
Norwegian :-)) and some of them, like Saltikov-Schedrin do need certain
backround in Russian history and culture (otherwise, it may be
difficult
to figure out what type of a punishment is "fuit'!" :-)).
AFAIK, Bulgakov is translated (at least abridged version of Master and
Margarita).
>
> Even Chekhov, who was a brilliant humorist> (and> known in Russia
mostly in
> this capacity) got his "fame" in> English-speaking> world as an
author of
> the boring-to-death dramas mocked by Pratchett.
>
> Maybe the humour got lost in translation.
No, no, no. His plays ARE boring (by certain historic and cultural
reasons)
but out of 10-12 volumes of his works the plays and "serious" (aka
"boring but
translated") works would take 2 volumes at most. Add one more volume
for the letters, etc. The rest are short humorous stories. Most of them
_very_
funny but probably would not be translated as "diminishing" (or
whatever).
>People tell me that Kafka is a
> scream in the original, but that the translators have missed the
humour or
> been unable to convey it.
Quiet possible. BTW, speaking about the Czech writers, it is strange
but s
fact that Chapek is relatively little known in the English-speaking
world.
What a loss!
>
> > Zagloba is one of the heroes of Sienkiewicz's 'Trilogy', something
like
> > a> Polish version of Baron Munchausen (while ago I found that the
Baron
> is> known mostly thanks to the movie)........ And now, I'm running to
a
> > really> deep bomb shelter.... :-)]
>
> Have fun down there :-)
I will. BTW, just out of a curiosity, did you _read_ Adventures of
Baron
Munchausen?
>
> > Pan Zagloba was telling the stories about his popularities with the
> > Tatars (hinting that then current Khan looked exactly like he) and
> > Turks.> According to him, the Sultan was ready to make him a ruler
of
> Walachia> but,> not wishing establishment of a dynasty, put forward
an
> "unacceptable> condition".... :-)
>
> Ah. What you might call a cut in the benefits.
A very insightful definition. :-)
>
> Funny coincidence, but <vallak>, derived from Wallachia, is the
> Norwegian for "gelding". Better not tell the Wallachians.
>
Are there any of them still around?
> > I was commenting exclusively on his _sensibility_. Nobody
questioned
> > his> intellect but he managed to get himself declared insane and
spent
> years
> > under a house arrest.
>
> Perhaps he had agoraphobia?
Or rather authorities expected him to have one and did their best to
save
him from unnecessary aggravation...
>
> > I understand that you are too lazy to do a Google search. :-)
>
> Yup. And I always write longer letters and posts offline.
>
> > that the statement I quoted did not add too much to an _official_
> > definition of Russia during the reign of Nicholas I: "Russia is
neither
> > agricultural nor industrial country. It is a military state and its
main
> goal is to
> > horrify the rest of the world." .... With an official definition
like
> > this one, you don't really need Chaadaev....
>
> No indeed! Full marks to Nicky One for honesty, though.
Yes, you would expect that a TRUE idiot would be honest up to that
degree.
But impressive, isn't it? IIRC, this was what children had been taught
in
schools at Nicky's time. Strangely, a lot of them grew up into the
thinking
individuals.
"God, save me from becoming a general and getting stupid without any
fault
of mine!" (written by A.K.Tolstoy, BTW, quite a few people, including
Alexander II tried really hard to make him a general; he retired as a
colonel). "There is nothing as dirty and repulsive as Russian atheism
and
religiousness" (the same author).
And Schedrin was MUCH worse ...
>Even franker
> than PNAC 1999.
?
>
> > Indeed. I can see how the lower fortress does not fit into this
schema:
> > no spectacular views, going up and down all the time (excludes olds
> > people),> nothing "really" spectacular inside.
>
> Not brash and vulgar enough?
>
No cannons, no nothing.... Except fortress itself...
> OTOH, the upper one has a
> > breathtaking> view and "exotic" enough.> IIRC, the Roman theater at
the
> bottom was fenced off.
>
> In my time too. I think they're still excavating it and preparing
to
> make it into an official sight, as opposed to site.
>
I see.
> > Of course. To my surprise, too few liberals are NOT ashamed of
being
> > called> "liberals" (well, Warren Beaty at least had a courage to
define
> himself> as> "I'm tax and spend liberal and proud of it"; not that it
did
> any good> to his> political aspiration). As it was said in "The Fifth
> Element", "Never be> ashamed of what you are!"
>
> Yes, I remember Dukakis running away from the label of "liberal",
which
> was at one and the same time mendacious, cowardly and fruitless.
And stupid to start with. This tactics did not help Kerry as well. Now
Dems
made Dean as their party chairman so one can expect certain degree of a
honesty (especially at the full moon)...
>
> > Reactionary Liberal?
>
> Nothing wrong with wanting to restore a past state of affairs if
you
> think that it was better. If someone robbed your house, you'd want to
get
> your stuff back, that makes you a reactionary -- and so?
It's quite all right with me because if you are a _true_ liberal, you
must
be happy to help the needy ones (which includes a burglar).
>
> Hmmmmmmm, you start sounding as our Democrats:
> > they> don't have any comprehensive ideology of their own (except
for
> giving a> field day to the trial lawyers) so they are _reacting_ on
the
> > opponent's> _actions_ (mostly on the basis: "I'm oppossed to
anything
> proposed by> my> opponent"). :-)
>
> The most ancient principle of politics. :-)
>
You will be surprised but it gets a little bit worn out in the American
politics: people want to hear what you are planning to do rather than
you
explaining them what other guy is doing wrong.
> > > If I had several lives I should definitely like to research
this
> > period more, you're way ahead of me. :-)
> > >
> > You mean the portraits of the females clad in the transparent
dresses?
> > :-)
>
> In the absence of a time machine to research it better :-)
>
Purely scientific interests of course....
> > Nappy, IMO, was (as Louis XIV) and of the best pre-modern exaplmes
of what
> can be accomplished by a combination of an absolute power, a lot of
> > money and extremely bad taste.
>
> Remember Bokassa? A bad-taste imitation of Napoleon?
>
> [To think about it, French Republicans had> been> also very fond of
the
> gold-covered costumes: the Republican officials,> civilian and
military, had
> been wearing a lot of it.]
>
> I am a bit nostalgic for the Mao-suit with rank indicated by the
number
> of ballpoints in the pockets.
Depends on how expensive ballpoint is in a particular society. As a
gold
equivalent....
>But it can't last, we are a species devoted to
> display and hierarchy, nothing to be done about it.
>
Breznev being one of the most spectacular modern reincarnations of the
old pompous guys...
> However, I can assure you that if I ever become Lord Protector of
the
> World, my sartorial style will be more like the Patriarch of
Ankh-Morpork
> than the gold-covered costumes.
Patrician?
>Or perhaps plain white, like the Indian
> politicians of the Nehru era -- I quite fancy a white _kurta_ outfit.
So you are saying now...
>
> > As for the taste in literature, AFAIK, Nappy did not like "Barber
of
> > Seville"or "Marriage of Figaro" but highly approved of "Tarar" and
"Guilty
> > Mother".
>
> If Napoleon was alive today, which awful TV programmes would he
be
> watching? :-)
This is a good one...
>
> > Yes. The Byzantians were not necessarily popular but neither were
they
> > very destructive. Even lighthouse of Alexandria was still
functioning.
>
> I suspect that we all suffer from a book or movie-induced
assumption
> that the medieval landscape was one of Classical ruins, just because
stuff
> is ruined now. Some of it was, but not all.
Yes, I'm talking about the relative degrees. Less to the East, more to
the
West.
> So I'd like to see a movie
> about the Middle Ages that had the great southern cities looking as
they had
> been in Late Antiquity. One might even start a movie in a Roman city,
so the
> audience thinks it's a conventional Roman movie with togas and stuff,
then
> have guys in robes going Allah Akhbar in the hippodrome or something.
Better "something" in their harems... :-)
> Wouldn't work with all the blurbs and critics and trailers we have
now, but
> you see what I mean. Shake up people's preconceptions a bit.
Probably will not happen because everybody "knows" that <etc.>.....
>
> > > Agreed. The first time I read a history of Late Antiquity,
David
> > Read's stamping-ground,
> >
> > He definitely has more than one stamping-ground.
>
> "including but not limited to" as they say in the contracts :-)
>
> > There was a considerable Christian population in the area even by
the
> > times of Crusades.
>
> Yes, in the Syrian mountains about 50%, I believe. The Terry
Jones and
> Karen Armstrong type popular revisionism is all very well, a
necessary
> corrective to earlier popular heroics, but it is really unfair to
present
> the Crusaders as a sort of unmotivated psycho aggressors.
Foolish as well....
>The Franks thought
> of themselves, not as conquering the Holy Land, but as
*re-*conquering it.
Which was, de facto, the case. More or less.
> The Byzantine Emperor maintained a formal claim on Syria, Palestine
and
> Egypt in the same way as the PRC has a formal claim on Taiwan.
And this kept him in a state of a conflict with most of the Crusaders.
>But then
> Saladin thought of himself as reconquering it too.
Which also was the case.
>That's how it goes, when
> a piece of real estate changes hands a couple of times, both sides
think of
> themselves as innocently recovering what is theirs.
And any extremity is foolish.
>
> Probably it was utterly impractical to kill all of them.
>
> Now now, behave: killing People of the Book who submitted was
never
> policy.
Well, but one had to be practical. Beybars, AFAIK, was rather
determined to
do just that.
>
> In> Persia,> there was a much faster success in the terms of dealing
with
> > Zaraostrism> (again, it was not practical to kill or enslave all
the local
> > "pagans").
>
> Zoroastrianism had a lower status in their eyes, certainly, but
the
> early caliphs were nothing like Chinghis.
>
Chingis did not kill people due to their religion, which was a big
consolation
to those whom he _did_ kill. To be killed just because you believe in
a wrong God (or are simply using a wrong prayer book) _is_ terrible but
to
be killed so that other people will learn the lesson is a completely
different story.
> > > And in my study of my "own" period,
> > > I have been struck by how many cities of the Ancient world were
> > trashed only comparatively recently.
> >
> > IIRC, some of them only in the Ottoman times. But even the Ottomans
had
> > been quite careful in the terms of "legacy and heritage".
>
> People think of the Roman Empire as "being overrun by
barbarians", but
> most of its great cities and other neat bits of plant seem to have
been
> destroyed piecemeal over the next 1500 years or so -- a war here, a
> rebellion there, another war and so on.
IIRC, Rome was pretty much in the ruins by the time some degree of an
order
had been re-established. Then, of course, its citizens (and a lot of
others)
proceeded with a further destruction....
>IIRC Baibars or some other Mamluk
> destroyed the coastal cities of Palestine to prevent the Franks
coming back.
> Presumably, if we could have seen them just before he did that, we
would
> have seen more or less Hellenistic-looking cities?
Not sure but may be.
> If you mean Bernadotte, I don't think he came trailing a cometary
tail
> of other Frenchmen. Or a mafia family like his patron. I think he was
a
> one-person package?
Two - he brought his son. Then there was an addition of his wife and
his
son's wife (Josephine's granddaughter, IIRC).
>
> > As for Lada, the name in the SU was "Giguli". You may make an
educated
> > guess why it was changed for export models.
>
> Let's see-- because when you drove it, everything went all
jiggly? ;-)
>
Gigolo....
> Actually, my father had a Lada once, it gave him less trouble
than any
> other car he had......
How come? Ah yes, it was a Fiat after all...
> > criminal conviction. I hate it when the Norwegians hail me as
"Pugh!",
> >
> > Do you have that cute little tail? :-)
>
> Huh? Don't understand that one.
"Pug". :-)
>
> > It's a very good idea: they already have a correct attitude t oward
the
> > fellow-drivers... Actually, I'm all for females in combat (and let
the
> > bleeding hearts complain about excessive cruelty)...
>
> To the other side?
To the males of the other side.
David C. Pugh
news:1108419376.8...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Don't you worry, the process is already started. One (so far) company
> made non-smoking a condition of employment. This means no smoking at
> _any time_, even at home.
I consider myself to be a serious clean-air fanatic, but I wouldn't
support the above. Or attempts to ban smoking in homes with children by
statute, as has been occasionally suggested. I'd rather spend the political
and moral capital in some real punishment of the assholes who smoke in
places where everyone sane agrees you shouldn't, like elevators, buses,
doctors' waiting rooms and so forth. Oh, and let's not forget people who
smoke while filling petrol at the station......
> My absolutely sincere sympathies and condolences.
Thank you, but I seem to have liked them better than you do. Did
a school essay comparing "Crime and Punishment" with "MacBeth",
not forgetting that FD was a fan of Shakespeare.
> I did not say that it is your fault, I said that it is your _problem_
> (like being a victim rather than perpetrator).
Ah :-)
> >I read a Voinovich once,
>
> I'm not extremely fond of him. "Chonkin" was funny but that's pretty
> much it.
Yes, it was Private Chonkin that I read, I still remember the You Know
Who which suddenly wasn't You Know Where any more. Never got to the Yawning
Heights.
> A lot but I'm not sure that they are necessary available in English (or
> Norwegian :-)) and some of them, like Saltikov-Schedrin do need certain
> backround in Russian history and culture (otherwise, it may be
> difficult to figure out what type of a punishment is "fuit'!" :-)).
Fuit? Futuit?
> AFAIK, Bulgakov is translated (at least abridged version of Master and
> Margarita).
What with the efforts of some Kievans to tell me all about him, I should
try him. (BTW, ever read Malamud's "The Fixer", set in Kiev in Tsarist
times?)
> No, no, no. His plays ARE boring (by certain historic and cultural
> reasons) but out of 10-12 volumes of his works the plays and "serious"
(aka "boring but translated") works would take 2 volumes at most. Add one
more volume> for the letters, etc. The rest are short humorous stories. Most
of them> _very_> funny but probably would not be translated as "diminishing"
(or> whatever).
Diminishing? You mean un-PC disrespectful of someone, and if so of whom?
> Quiet possible. BTW, speaking about the Czech writers, it is strange
> but s> fact that Chapek is relatively little known in the English-speaking
> world.> What a loss!
Well, all SF fans have at least *heard* of him for R.U.R. Did he create
Schweik? We've heard of him too. Kundera is surely our best-known Czech.
> I will. BTW, just out of a curiosity, did you _read_ Adventures of
> Baron Munchausen?
No, which is why I missed David Read's reference last year. I was given
a couple of his stories at school, I remember the one with the horse hanging
from the church steeple, but haven't read the book as such.
> > Funny coincidence, but <vallak>, derived from Wallachia, is the
> > Norwegian for "gelding". Better not tell the Wallachians.
> >
> Are there any of them still around?
What, Wallachians or geldings? I don't meet any horses, but I've met a
lot of Wallachians.
> Or rather authorities expected him to have one and did their best to
> save him from unnecessary aggravation...
Very considerate of them!
> But impressive, isn't it? IIRC, this was what children had been taught
> in> schools at Nicky's time. Strangely, a lot of them grew up into the
> thinking> individuals.
So perhaps people survive education after all.
> "God, save me from becoming a general and getting stupid without any
> fault> of mine!" (written by A.K.Tolstoy,
He the one that wrote the source that Inger knew?
BTW, quite a few people, including
> Alexander II tried really hard to make him a general; he retired as a
> colonel). "There is nothing as dirty and repulsive as Russian atheism
> and> religiousness" (the same author).
Very topical in view of the recent circular going round the Duma......
> And Schedrin was MUCH worse ...
Now I'm sure most of us have never heard of Schedrin......
> >Even franker than PNAC 1999.
>
> ?
"Project for the New American Century", the document describing
what the neocons would do if they got the chance.
> > Nothing wrong with wanting to restore a past state of affairs if
> you think that it was better. If someone robbed your house, you'd want to
> get your stuff back, that makes you a reactionary -- and so?
>
> It's quite all right with me because if you are a _true_ liberal, you
> must be happy to help the needy ones (which includes a burglar).
Nah, that's the definition of "saint". A liberal wants to help the needy
ones collectively, in advance, so they are less likely to burgle him. :-)
This was also known as enlightened conservatism, now extinct. :-)
> > However, I can assure you that if I ever become Lord Protector of
> the World, my sartorial style will be more like the Patriarch of
> Ankh-Morpork than the gold-covered costumes.
>
> Patrician?
Damn. Of course. Must have been the talking about Byzantium that made
the brainfart.
> >Or perhaps plain white, like the Indian
> > politicians of the Nehru era -- I quite fancy a white _kurta_ outfit.
>
> So you are saying now...
So remember and use it against me! As Lord Protector I would be like
Frederick the Great: you can say what you like, if I can do what I like. :-)
> >The Franks thought of themselves, not as conquering the Holy Land, but as
*re-*conquering it.
>
> Which was, de facto, the case. More or less.
Indeed. If you set a time-limit beyond which you cannot reclaim your
lost territories (implying that before that limit, you can), you create some
interesting implications for contemporary politics.
> > The Byzantine Emperor maintained a formal claim on Syria, Palestine
> and Egypt in the same way as the PRC has a formal claim on Taiwan.
>
> And this kept him in a state of a conflict with most of the Crusaders.
Oh yes.
> >But then Saladin thought of himself as reconquering it too.
>
> Which also was the case.
Inevitably. Islam has this doctrine of not recognising any losses, so
that some integristas want to recover al-Andalus. But the other side isn't
supposed to have the same sentiments, are they?
> Well, but one had to be practical. Beybars, AFAIK, was rather
> determined to do just that.
I was thinking of the early days, which were not so brutal.
> Chingis did not kill people due to their religion, which was a big
> consolation to those whom he _did_ kill. To be killed just because you
believe in a wrong God (or are simply using a wrong prayer book) _is_
terrible but tobe killed so that other people will learn the lesson is a
completely different story.
Makes note in Milman file: OK, come the Revolution, after you've used
your special skills to procure all those building materials na levo, we
promise to kill you not for your beliefs but solely to teach the others a
lesson. Happy now? :-)
> IIRC, Rome was pretty much in the ruins by the time some degree of an
> order had been re-established. Then, of course, its citizens (and a lot of
> others) proceeded with a further destruction....
And they used it as a quarry........
> Two - he brought his son. Then there was an addition of his wife and
> his son's wife (Josephine's granddaughter, IIRC).
OK, I stand corrected.
> > > As for Lada, the name in the SU was "Giguli". You may make an
> educated guess why it was changed for export models.
> >
> > Let's see-- because when you drove it, everything went all jiggly?
;-)
> >
> Gigolo....
>
I know, I was looking for less obvious interpretations. :-)
> > Huh? Don't understand that one.
>
> "Pug". :-)
That's how the Norwegians pronounce it, but a Pug isn't a tail. It's a
dog with a squashed nose.
> >
> > > It's a very good idea: they already have a correct attitude t oward
> the fellow-drivers... Actually, I'm all for females in combat (and let
> the bleeding hearts complain about excessive cruelty)...
> >
> > To the other side?
>
> To the males of the other side.
What I thought you meant......
Athanasios Styliaras
I would like to dine infirmations about this room
Renia
> Dear Sir/Madam,
> I would like to dine infirmations about this room
Sometimes, I am just confounded.
Renia
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1108419376.8...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Don't you worry, the process is already started. One (so far)
company
> > made non-smoking a condition of employment. This means no smoking
at
> > _any time_, even at home.
>
> I consider myself to be a serious clean-air fanatic, but I
wouldn't
> support the above.
We have more and more in common. :-)
I hate the smoke-filled places in Europe and much prefer smoke-free
arrangements but what people are doing outside work is their private
business. I can understand drug testing because narcotics could have
a lasting effect but smoking is a different issue and the reasoning
that
it is a health danger and the smokers will require a higher cost of
the health insurance is a nonsense. What about those who eats junk
food?
Fire everybody who was noticed near Macdonalds or Burger King?
>Or attempts to ban smoking in homes with children by
> statute, as has been occasionally suggested. I'd rather spend the
political
> and moral capital in some real punishment of the assholes who smoke
in
> places where everyone sane agrees you shouldn't, like elevators,
buses,
> doctors' waiting rooms and so forth.
I must tell that iun these areas US achieved a noticeable success.
I did not see people doing anything of the above for the last few
years.
>Oh, and let's not forget people who
> smoke while filling petrol at the station......
Fine, as long as nobody else is around and station is insured. Of
course,
this is not the most cost-efficient way to teach the morons but....
>
> > My absolutely sincere sympathies and condolences.
>
> Thank you, but I seem to have liked them better than you do.
Fortunately, at my times, the "hard labor" was more or less limited to
"War and Peace".
On a positive side, we practically (or at all) did not study a
foreign literature and as a result I did not develop any strong
negative reaction to it. Eventually, I did develop this reaction
toward the "approved" modern writers. BTW, any idea why clear and
unashemed white supremacist like Jack London was on the approved
list?
>Did
> a school essay comparing "Crime and Punishment" with "MacBeth",
> not forgetting that FD was a fan of Shakespeare.
School essay? Wow!!!!
>
> > I did not say that it is your fault, I said that it is your
_problem_
> > (like being a victim rather than perpetrator).
>
> Ah :-)
>
> > >I read a Voinovich once,
> >
> > I'm not extremely fond of him. "Chonkin" was funny but that's
pretty
> > much it.
>
> Yes, it was Private Chonkin that I read, I still remember the You
Know
> Who which suddenly wasn't You Know Where any more. Never got to the
Yawning
> Heights.
Not that you missed too much. Problem with the political satires is
that many of them have short life span and not necessarily posess the
noticeable _literary_ merits.
>
> > A lot but I'm not sure that they are necessary available in English
(or
> > Norwegian :-)) and some of them, like Saltikov-Schedrin do need
certain
> > backround in Russian history and culture (otherwise, it may be
> > difficult to figure out what type of a punishment is "fuit'!" :-)).
>
> Fuit? Futuit?
Just as I said, you have to have a background. :-)
It is a wistling sound accompanying someone being placed in a cart with
gendarme and sent to the places "where Makar did not herd his calves".
To make it more understandable, it is an indication of how easy
certain things had been done by the Russian authorities in S-S's times
(being 1st a victim of fuit' and then a high-placed administrator, he
knew all sides of this problem). "You just put your signature
and fuit'!" :-)
>
> > AFAIK, Bulgakov is translated (at least abridged version of Master
and
> > Margarita).
>
> What with the efforts of some Kievans to tell me all about him, I
should
> try him.
It will be time well-spent. I'd also recommend to find it there is
a translation of B's "Dog's Heart". Perhaps a little bit "lesser"
thing than "M&M" but extremely funny.
>(BTW, ever read Malamud's "The Fixer", set in Kiev in Tsarist
> times?)
>
No.
> > No, no, no. His plays ARE boring (by certain historic and cultural
> > reasons) but out of 10-12 volumes of his works the plays and
"serious"
> (aka "boring but translated") works would take 2 volumes at most. Add
one
> more volume> for the letters, etc. The rest are short humorous
stories. Most
> of them> _very_> funny but probably would not be translated as
"diminishing"
> (or> whatever).
>
> Diminishing? You mean un-PC disrespectful of someone, and if so
of whom?
A great writer should be serious: speak about the "issues" and
preferably be boring. Have to teach people. Any attempts to be
entertaining may diminish his stature. :-)
Why, otherwise, only the most boring things written by Chekhov are
known to the English-speaking reader?
There could be an extra influence of a strange notion about Russian
mysterious soul (what's mysterious about it, I still can't figure
out; perhaps a tendency to get drunk at any excuse and even without
it?): the Russians are supossed to be eternally concerned with some
moral problems (AFAIK, the most important of them usually was related
to when and where the next drinking party should be arranged but who
am I to argue with DOstoevsky?). These people can't be interested in
something light and funny, which means that all their writers HAVE
to be long-winded, pompous and boring to death. If they wrote something
that does not fit a notion (even Dostoevsky wrote some very funny
novels, believe it or not), it should be disregarded and the "victim"
(like you) will be fed a selection of most ....er... "important" novels
and plays.
>
> > Quiet possible. BTW, speaking about the Czech writers, it is
strange
> > but s> fact that Chapek is relatively little known in the
English-speaking
> > world.> What a loss!
>
> Well, all SF fans have at least *heard* of him for R.U.R.
It was a single thing out of many and probably not the most significant
one ("War against the Salamanders" probably would fit the bill). He was
not a SF writer even if he wrote some of his works in this genre.
Neither was he a detective writer or a "dedicated" humorist, etc.
>Did he create
> Schweik?
No, it was Gashek.
>We've heard of him too. Kundera is surely our best-known Czech.
>
That figures.
> > I will. BTW, just out of a curiosity, did you _read_ Adventures of
> > Baron Munchausen?
>
> No, which is why I missed David Read's reference last year.
David also saw the (latest) movie but did not read the book. Looks like
it is not popular in English-speaking world.
>I was given
> a couple of his stories at school, I remember the one with the horse
hanging
> from the church steeple, but haven't read the book as such.
>
> > > Funny coincidence, but <vallak>, derived from Wallachia, is
the
> > > Norwegian for "gelding". Better not tell the Wallachians.
> > >
> > Are there any of them still around?
>
> What, Wallachians or geldings? I don't meet any horses, but I've
met a
> lot of Wallachians.
Really?
>
> > Or rather authorities expected him to have one and did their best
to
> > save him from unnecessary aggravation...
>
> Very considerate of them!
Indeed.
>
> > But impressive, isn't it? IIRC, this was what children had been
taught
> > in> schools at Nicky's time. Strangely, a lot of them grew up into
the
> > thinking> individuals.
>
> So perhaps people survive education after all.
At least some of them.
>
> > "God, save me from becoming a general and getting stupid without
any
> > fault> of mine!" (written by A.K.Tolstoy,
>
> He the one that wrote the source that Inger
alledgedly
>knew?
... and claimed obsolete?
Yes.
>
> BTW, quite a few people, including
> > Alexander II tried really hard to make him a general; he retired as
a
> > colonel). "There is nothing as dirty and repulsive as Russian
atheism
> > and> religiousness" (the same author).
>
> Very topical in view of the recent circular going round the
Duma......
Yes, for a reactionary, he had extremely balanced perspective.
For example (this would be relevant to the recent thread on
darvinism vs whatever), he wrote the following things to the Chairman
of the State Committee of Publishing (being from the top of Russian
society, A.K. could and did afford great degree of disrespect to the
high-placed officials). I'll not try to reproduce it in the verses:
Well, Misha, don't complain. Your ass is not adorned with a tail so
you should not worry about the things that happened before the Deluge.
...
Who gave you the right of control? Had you been present during
Creation?
What was God's design and what he considered appropriate, can't be
known
to the Chairman of the Publishing Committee and, to think about it,
to limit so boldly scope of God's powers smells of a heresy and you
can be sent to Solovky for lapses in your faith!
...
But, let's assume for a moment that Darwin's teachings are plain
stupid. Your persecutions are much more repulsive than any stupidity!
>
> > And Schedrin was MUCH worse ...
>
> Now I'm sure most of us have never heard of Schedrin......
You lost a lot. Some of his works are translated into English,
inclusing
"History of the City" (perhaps the most comprehensive view on Russian
history).
>
> > >Even franker than PNAC 1999.
> >
> > ?
>
> "Project for the New American Century", the document describing
> what the neocons would do if they got the chance.
>
Perhaps I'm inconsistent, but I did not read it.
> > > Nothing wrong with wanting to restore a past state of affairs
if
> > you think that it was better. If someone robbed your house, you'd
want to
> > get your stuff back, that makes you a reactionary -- and so?
> >
> > It's quite all right with me because if you are a _true_ liberal,
you
> > must be happy to help the needy ones (which includes a burglar).
>
> Nah, that's the definition of "saint". A liberal wants to help
the needy
> ones collectively, in advance, so they are less likely to burgle him.
:-)
A liberal is a conservative who had not been mugged. :-)
>
> > >The Franks thought of themselves, not as conquering the Holy Land,
but as
> *re-*conquering it.
> >
> > Which was, de facto, the case. More or less.
>
> Indeed. If you set a time-limit beyond which you cannot reclaim
your
> lost territories (implying that before that limit, you can), you
create some
> interesting implications for contemporary politics.
Very interesting ones. Especially if you throw in "the circumstances".
AFAIK, now the Latvians are complaining about Molotov-Ribbentrop
Pact (which is reasonable) but keep a complete slience regarding
the agreements of Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam that legalized post-WWII
Soviet borders: you can complain about Hitler but not about FDR and
WC. :-)
>
> > > The Byzantine Emperor maintained a formal claim on Syria,
Palestine
> > and Egypt in the same way as the PRC has a formal claim on Taiwan.
> >
> > And this kept him in a state of a conflict with most of the
Crusaders.
>
> Oh yes.
I still don't understand how Bizantian Empire became so military weak:
it still had a lot of a population but it looks like this population
did not have any intention to fight.
>
> > >But then Saladin thought of himself as reconquering it too.
> >
> > Which also was the case.
>
> Inevitably. Islam has this doctrine of not recognising any
losses, so
> that some integristas want to recover al-Andalus.
And Spanish position on this being what exactly? :-)
>But the other side isn't
> supposed to have the same sentiments, are they?
You hit the nail on the head. It looks like the modern (at least)
Islam world is considering only its wishes, rights and grievancies
and is seriously surprised each time somebody else is not fully
accomodating.
>
> > Well, but one had to be practical. Beybars, AFAIK, was rather
> > determined to do just that.
>
> I was thinking of the early days, which were not so brutal.
Yes, why kill all of them if they are of no danger?
>
> > Chingis did not kill people due to their religion, which was a big
> > consolation to those whom he _did_ kill. To be killed just because
you
> believe in a wrong God (or are simply using a wrong prayer book) _is_
> terrible but tobe killed so that other people will learn the lesson
is a
> completely different story.
>
> Makes note in Milman file: OK, come the Revolution, after you've
used
> your special skills to procure all those building materials na levo,
we
> promise to kill you not for your beliefs but solely to teach the
others a
> lesson. Happy now? :-)
Yes, I feel much better.
> > > Huh? Don't understand that one.
> >
> > "Pug". :-)
>
> That's how the Norwegians pronounce it, but a Pug isn't a tail.
It's a
> dog with a squashed nose.
_And_ a very cute tail.
David C. Pugh
news:1108489693.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > Don't you worry, the process is already started. One (so far)
> company made non-smoking a condition of employment. This means no smoking
at _any time_, even at home.
> >
> > I consider myself to be a serious clean-air fanatic, but I
> wouldn't support the above.
>
> We have more and more in common. :-)
Worrying, ain't it? Are the End Times upon us?
> I hate the smoke-filled places in Europe and much prefer smoke-free
> arrangements but what people are doing outside work is their private
> business. I can understand drug testing because narcotics could have
> a lasting effect but smoking is a different issue and the reasoning
> that> it is a health danger and the smokers will require a higher cost of
> the health insurance is a nonsense. What about those who eats junk
> food?> Fire everybody who was noticed near Macdonalds or Burger King?
Yes, I've used the same argument myself. Moreover, health premiums are
only a corporate issue if the company is paying them, and as a good
pointy-headed-liberal-communist-socialist-terrorist-heathen, I want my
health paid by the state instead.
Smokers who are not actually smoking right now tend to stink the place
up anyway, because of the smell on their clothes and hair, but banning
people from the workplace who smell is rather unworkable, and what do we do
about garlic and farts?
> >Or attempts to ban smoking in homes with children by
> > statute, as has been occasionally suggested. I'd rather spend the
> political and moral capital in some real punishment of the assholes who
smoke in places where everyone sane agrees you shouldn't, like elevators,
> buses, doctors' waiting rooms and so forth.
>
> I must tell that iun these areas US achieved a noticeable success.
> I did not see people doing anything of the above for the last few
> years.
Compliance is pretty good in Norway, but what bugs me is that where it
isn't, there are no sanctions. The number of people fined for smoking in the
history of the country so far is zero. If the smoker lights up, say in an
airplane or a post office, has a minute of two of smoke, then has to put it
out because someone comes and tells him to, then he's ahead of the game and
has lost nothing. Meanwhile everyone else has lost.
> >Oh, and let's not forget people who
> > smoke while filling petrol at the station......
>
> Fine, as long as nobody else is around and station is insured.
But if I'm close enough to see someone filling petrol while smoking, I'm
close enough to join them in their brief enjoyment of higher temperatures
than we usually get in Norway.........
> toward the "approved" modern writers. BTW, any idea why clear and
> unashemed white supremacist like Jack London was on the approved
> list?
The only Jack London stuff I've ever read had nothing to do with white
and black races, only with men, dogs and snow. "To Build a Fire" is London,
isn't it? I had that at school. Perhaps the educationalists were unaware of
what he had to say on white supremacy, I certainly was until you mentioned
it.
> >Did a school essay comparing "Crime and Punishment" with "MacBeth",
> > not forgetting that FD was a fan of Shakespeare.
>
> School essay? Wow!!!!
Not a D essay, however :-) Don't remember how old I was, maybe 15? Did
one in Sixth Form (Senior High to you) about what I called the Greek
Immoralists -- the bad guys in the Socratic dialogues.
> Not that you missed too much. Problem with the political satires is
> that many of them have short life span and not necessarily posess the
> noticeable _literary_ merits.
Very true.
> It is a wistling sound accompanying someone being placed in a cart with
> gendarme and sent to the places "where Makar did not herd his calves".
Fuit! I get it. You could translate as "whoosh!"
> It will be time well-spent. I'd also recommend to find it there is
> a translation of B's "Dog's Heart". Perhaps a little bit "lesser"
> thing than "M&M" but extremely funny.
Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.
> >(BTW, ever read Malamud's "The Fixer", set in Kiev in Tsarist
> > times?)
> >
> No.
Depressing story of anti-Semitism and local notions of due process.
> A great writer should be serious: speak about the "issues" and
> preferably be boring. Have to teach people. Any attempts to be
> entertaining may diminish his stature. :-)
That's a very big problem with Norwegian academia. They don't have the
British tradition of wearing one's learning lightly and being eloquent.
Scholarly quality is measured by degree of tedium. Oh, and the Methodology
can be most of the book.
In the 19th century Norway also had the concept of the Great Writer as
spiritual leader and teacher of the people. We called him the
<dikterhøvding>, literally "poet-chieftain".
> There could be an extra influence of a strange notion about Russian
> mysterious soul
Yes, remember the devochka who asked me whether I had one?
(what's mysterious about it, I still can't figure
> out; perhaps a tendency to get drunk at any excuse and even without
> it?): the Russians are supossed to be eternally concerned with some
> moral problems (AFAIK, the most important of them usually was related
> to when and where the next drinking party should be arranged but who
> am I to argue with DOstoevsky?).
You know Douglas Adams? He had something about the three stages of
civilisation: What can we eat, Why do we eat, and Where shall we do lunch?
Or something like that.
These people can't be interested in
> something light and funny, which means that all their writers HAVE
> to be long-winded, pompous and boring to death.
But anyone reading them gets prestige.......
If they wrote something
> that does not fit a notion (even Dostoevsky wrote some very funny
> novels, believe it or not), it should be disregarded and the "victim"
> (like you) will be fed a selection of most ....er... "important" novels
> and plays.
Chesterton wrote that people imagine that the opposite of funny is
serious. No, he said, the opposite of funny is not funny, and the opposite
of serious is not serious. You can be funny and serious (like Pratchett), or
funny and not serious (Wodehouse?) or not funny and serious (science?) or
not funny and not serious (politicians).
> But, let's assume for a moment that Darwin's teachings are plain
> stupid. Your persecutions are much more repulsive than any stupidity!
That was well said!
> You lost a lot. Some of his works are translated into English,
> inclusing
> "History of the City" (perhaps the most comprehensive view on Russian
> history).
I'm intrigued.
> A liberal is a conservative who had not been mugged. :-)
A conservative is a liberal who thinks he's so rich that nothing can
happen to him? :-)
> AFAIK, now the Latvians are complaining about Molotov-Ribbentrop
> Pact (which is reasonable) but keep a complete slience regarding
> the agreements of Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam that legalized post-WWII
> Soviet borders: you can complain about Hitler but not about FDR and
> WC. :-)
What do the Latvians want? Anything that was once theirs to be theirs?
But not anything that was once someone else's to be that someone else's?
Nothing against Latvians, but that's nationalism for you.
> I still don't understand how Bizantian Empire became so military weak:
> it still had a lot of a population but it looks like this population
> did not have any intention to fight.
Yes, they were truly civilised, and so had to hire barbarians to fight
for them, and we all know what happens then.......... Reading Anna Comnena,
it's very hard to work out how they won when they did win. She wasn't there,
and for all her torrents of words, you're not really any the wiser. They get
beaten and run like rabbits, Alexius loses whole armies... and then suddenly
he's won.
> > Inevitably. Islam has this doctrine of not recognising any
> losses, so that some integristas want to recover al-Andalus.
>
> And Spanish position on this being what exactly? :-)
Well, the Spaniards soon caught or killed pretty much everyone involved
in 11-3, without invading Iceland on the basis that one of the guys got a
haircut there, so I think they're handling it OK........
> >But the other side isn't
> > supposed to have the same sentiments, are they?
>
> You hit the nail on the head. It looks like the modern (at least)
> Islam world is considering only its wishes, rights and grievancies
> and is seriously surprised each time somebody else is not fully
> accomodating.
I see this as something done by everyone, a human thing. At every level
from a marital row to the clash of civilisations. A failure to remember that
the other party functions very like we do. Push, and we push back. We know
that *we* rally round our leader when attacked -- but we expect to bomb the
other guys into breaking with theirs. We think that we can discourage the
rebels by shooting their families, but we understand that shooting *our*
families only causes more of us to take up arms.
> > That's how the Norwegians pronounce it, but a Pug isn't a tail.
> It's a dog with a squashed nose.
>
> _And_ a very cute tail.
It does? Didn't remember that. I regret to inform you that I seriously
lack a cute tail...... :-(
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1108489693.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Don't you worry, the process is already started. One (so far)
> > company made non-smoking a condition of employment. This means no
smoking
> at _any time_, even at home.
> > >
> > > I consider myself to be a serious clean-air fanatic, but I
> > wouldn't support the above.
> >
> > We have more and more in common. :-)
>
> Worrying, ain't it?
Actually not. Part of that mrxist philosophy I was indoctrinated with
included something on "unity and fight of the opposits". Don't have a
vaguest recollection on what this was about but it sounds quite
fitting for the ocassion.
>Are the End Times upon us?
Now, THIS is quite possible (I mean marxism being applicable to
something is a bad sign....)
>
> > I hate the smoke-filled places in Europe and much prefer smoke-free
> > arrangements but what people are doing outside work is their
private
> > business. I can understand drug testing because narcotics could
have
> > a lasting effect but smoking is a different issue and the reasoning
> > that> it is a health danger and the smokers will require a higher
cost of
> > the health insurance is a nonsense. What about those who eats junk
> > food?> Fire everybody who was noticed near Macdonalds or Burger
King?
>
> Yes, I've used the same argument myself.
It was all over _conservative_ talk shows.
>Moreover, health premiums are
> only a corporate issue if the company is paying them,
They do pay part of a medical insurance but, if extended, their
action can be in a contradiction with, for example, ADA (if you are
handicapped, your health insurance IS more expensive but ADA protects
you from a health-based discrimination).
>and as a good
> pointy-headed-liberal-communist-socialist-terrorist-heathen, I want
my
> health paid by the state instead.
Ah, this is, of course, an answer. OTOH, I spent 40 years within this
system and have no intention to be covered by it again.
>
> Smokers who are not actually smoking right now tend to stink the
place
> up anyway, because of the smell on their clothes and hair,
Not really a big problem in the US because of the showers and
deodorants. But of course, you can smell if someone smoked 5 minutes
ago (another thing is that the natives don't have a habit of getting
very close to you, so that this is not a big factor as well).
> but banning
> people from the workplace who smell is rather unworkable, and what do
we do
> about garlic and farts?
The issue was a cost of health insurance, not the smell.
>
> > >Or attempts to ban smoking in homes with children by
> > > statute, as has been occasionally suggested. I'd rather spend the
> > political and moral capital in some real punishment of the assholes
who
> smoke in places where everyone sane agrees you shouldn't, like
elevators,
> > buses, doctors' waiting rooms and so forth.
> >
> > I must tell that iun these areas US achieved a noticeable success.
> > I did not see people doing anything of the above for the last few
> > years.
>
> Compliance is pretty good in Norway, but what bugs me is that
where it
> isn't, there are no sanctions.
Of course, doing something a la Robinson Crusoe (shooting few guilty
people and hanging them on a street corner) may produce a faster
and better compliance, but.....
>
> > toward the "approved" modern writers. BTW, any idea why clear and
> > unashemed white supremacist like Jack London was on the approved
> > list?
>
> The only Jack London stuff I've ever read had nothing to do with
white
> and black races,
It was not specifically black vs white. It was white Anglo-Saxon
vs everybody else ("lesser" whites, Indians, blacks, natives of the
Pacific islands, etc.). I don't remember if Irish also qualified as a
part of the super-race.
>only with men, dogs and snow. "To Build a Fire" is London,
> isn't it? I had that at school. Perhaps the educationalists were
unaware of
> what he had to say on white supremacy, I certainly was until you
mentioned
> it.
Read his "northern" stories more careful. White _is_ superior to
the natives, even if he is a newcomer into the area. Ditto for the
Pacific islands.
>
> > It is a wistling sound accompanying someone being placed in a cart
with
> > gendarme and sent to the places "where Makar did not herd his
calves".
>
> Fuit! I get it. You could translate as "whoosh!"
>
Fuit' sounds better to me. :-)
>
> In the 19th century Norway also had the concept of the Great
Writer as
> spiritual leader and teacher of the people.
Very close to the Russian XIX century notion. Why do you think Lev
Tolstoy was so revered? Because he was ready and willing to teach
even when he was not asked to.
> We called him the
> <dikterhøvding>, literally "poet-chieftain".
>
> > There could be an extra influence of a strange notion about Russian
> > mysterious soul
>
> Yes, remember the devochka who asked me whether I had one?
>
Ah yes!
> (what's mysterious about it, I still can't figure
> > out; perhaps a tendency to get drunk at any excuse and even without
> > it?): the Russians are supossed to be eternally concerned with some
> > moral problems (AFAIK, the most important of them usually was
related
> > to when and where the next drinking party should be arranged but
who
> > am I to argue with DOstoevsky?).
>
> You know Douglas Adams?
Hichiker's Guide?
>He had something about the three stages of
> civilisation: What can we eat, Why do we eat, and Where shall we do
lunch?
> Or something like that.
>
Change eat to drink and you got it... :-)
> These people can't be interested in
> > something light and funny, which means that all their writers HAVE
> > to be long-winded, pompous and boring to death.
>
> But anyone reading them gets prestige.......
>
Of course! They are sooooo deep! Ditto for the unwatcheable movies.
[]
>
> > But, let's assume for a moment that Darwin's teachings are plain
> > stupid. Your persecutions are much more repulsive than any
stupidity!
>
> That was well said!
Yes, out of all Tolstoy writers he is my favorite.
>
> > You lost a lot. Some of his works are translated into English,
> > inclusing
> > "History of the City" (perhaps the most comprehensive view on
Russian
> > history).
>
> I'm intrigued.
>
As I said, it is published and available. It is more detailed
than A.K.Tolstoy's take on the issue (rejected by Inger) because
it is prose. :-)
> > A liberal is a conservative who had not been mugged. :-)
>
> A conservative is a liberal who thinks he's so rich that nothing
can
> happen to him? :-)
>
Very few would qualify.
> > AFAIK, now the Latvians are complaining about Molotov-Ribbentrop
> > Pact (which is reasonable) but keep a complete slience regarding
> > the agreements of Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam that legalized
post-WWII
> > Soviet borders: you can complain about Hitler but not about FDR and
> > WC. :-)
>
> What do the Latvians want? Anything that was once theirs to be
theirs?
AFAIK, nobody wants anything from them and they got all their
territory. As I understand, they want status of the permanent
victims including everybody's acknowledgement that Latvian SSmen
were the good guys and that the Latvian Jews simply dissapeared
in a thin air and that the locals had nothing to do with it.
I _suspect_ that in practical terms they want some extra freedom
to dealt with their Russian-speaking population. NOt sure what
else. Perhaps getting gas and oil from Russia at the discount
rate? Strange way to achieve this goal.
> But not anything that was once someone else's to be that someone
else's?
>
> Nothing against Latvians, but that's nationalism for you.
>
Just as the Russian version, it is obnoxious. But what makes it
more obnoxious in my eyes is that they are trying to revise WWII.
Regardless of how "bad" the Soviets were, they were on a right
side and the Latvians were not.
> > I still don't understand how Bizantian Empire became so military
weak:
> > it still had a lot of a population but it looks like this
population
> > did not have any intention to fight.
>
> Yes, they were truly civilised, and so had to hire barbarians to
fight
> for them, and we all know what happens then.......... Reading Anna
Comnena,
> it's very hard to work out how they won when they did win. She wasn't
there,
> and for all her torrents of words, you're not really any the wiser.
They get
> beaten and run like rabbits, Alexius loses whole armies... and then
suddenly
> he's won.
>
They were military successful for the decades afterwards but these
successes did not strenghten them.
> > > Inevitably. Islam has this doctrine of not recognising any
> > losses, so that some integristas want to recover al-Andalus.
> >
> > And Spanish position on this being what exactly? :-)
>
> Well, the Spaniards soon caught or killed pretty much everyone
involved
> in 11-3, without invading Iceland on the basis that one of the guys
got a
> haircut there, so I think they're handling it OK........
>
I see. They are not REALLY accomodating toward the rightful claims...
:-)
> > >But the other side isn't
> > > supposed to have the same sentiments, are they?
> >
> > You hit the nail on the head. It looks like the modern (at least)
> > Islam world is considering only its wishes, rights and grievancies
> > and is seriously surprised each time somebody else is not fully
> > accomodating.
>
> I see this as something done by everyone, a human thing. At every
level
> from a marital row to the clash of civilisations. A failure to
remember that
> the other party functions very like we do. Push, and we push back.
Yes, but these "towel-headed" guys want to keep pushing without
being pushed back.
>We know
> that *we* rally round our leader when attacked -- but we expect to
bomb the
> other guys into breaking with theirs. We think that we can discourage
the
> rebels by shooting their families,
Historically, this worked if done properly. The Soviets did subdue
Lithuania after WWII (took few years).
> but we understand that shooting *our*
> families only causes more of us to take up arms.
>
Indeed. This is always "who is doing what to whom" but do you
always have to put yourself into other person's shoes?
> > > That's how the Norwegians pronounce it, but a Pug isn't a
tail.
> > It's a dog with a squashed nose.
> >
> > _And_ a very cute tail.
>
> It does? Didn't remember that.
It is VERY cute.
> I regret to inform you that I seriously
> lack a cute tail...... :-(
Which makes you what? Foxterrier? :-)
David C. Pugh
news:1108503627....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Actually not. Part of that mrxist philosophy I was indoctrinated with
included something on "unity and fight of the opposits". Don't have a
vaguest recollection on what this was about but it sounds quite
fitting for the ocassion.
There are aspects of Marxism as analysis of what's going on that make
sense, but I always found the way they used the word "dialectic" to be both
opaque and soporific. I mean, I'm a reasonably intelligent person (be quiet,
Alex), but I never made head or tail of that thesis-antithesis-synthesis
stuff.
>Are the End Times upon us?
Now, THIS is quite possible (I mean marxism being applicable to
something is a bad sign....)
What's next: Tiggers not responding to an insult, perhaps? Martin
getting religion?
> Yes, I've used the same argument myself.
It was all over _conservative_ talk shows.
Well, a stopped clock is right twice a day.......
Ah, this is, of course, an answer. OTOH, I spent 40 years within this
system and have no intention to be covered by it again.
Were you nomenklatura back there? Are you working for a nice
white-collar corporation now? If the answers are no and yes respectively,
then maybe you're comparing apples and oranges.
My biggest beef with corporate responsibility for healthcare is that it
gives the company powers of almost life and death over its employees. There
is no longer a rational economic calculus of whether you wish to work for
them at a given salary and take the shit the management dishes out. You're
not a capitalist employee any more but a feudal retainer, except with less
job security. The more your boss provides for you, the more he can take away
if you step out of line. For some funny reason, power doesn't bother
conservatives when it's wielded by corporations. If basic healthcare is
tax-funded and free, on the other hand, then the cost of giving the boss the
finger is considerably less.
Not really a big problem in the US because of the showers and
deodorants. But of course, you can smell if someone smoked 5 minutes
ago (another thing is that the natives don't have a habit of getting
very close to you, so that this is not a big factor as well).
I've noticed that different kinds of hair trap the smoke smell to
different degrees. Some women still stink of smoke an hour after a
cigarette, others don't.
What's that about the natives not getting close to you? Personal space?
Most Murricans are much cuddlier than Norwegians. :-)
Of course, doing something a la Robinson Crusoe (shooting few guilty
people and hanging them on a street corner) may produce a faster
and better compliance, but.....
I would really like to have the PK powers to make people who smoke in
lifts etc. suddenly swallow hard........
It was not specifically black vs white. It was white Anglo-Saxon
vs everybody else ("lesser" whites, Indians, blacks, natives of the
Pacific islands, etc.).
Oh dear. A lot of the stuff I was given to read as a child was like
that, not because it was still being written at that time, but because it
was left over. I had a history encyclopaedia series that had probably
belonged to my father as a child. In some ways it was marvellous, full of
instructions for making models of historical stuff from scrap materials; but
I also remember what you guys used to call Popovism. "Inventions the British
Have Given the World". Included radio, since Marconi went to Cornwall to
make an experiment, and so on.
I don't remember if Irish also qualified as a
part of the super-race.
I very much doubt it. Have a look at "Punch" cartoons from the 19th
century to see the view of Irishmen as a species of dangerous monkey. :-(
Read his "northern" stories more careful. White _is_ superior to
the natives, even if he is a newcomer into the area. Ditto for the
Pacific islands.
OK, if I come across them again I shall read them with my consciousness
raised, comrade political officer! ;-) To be fair, in "To Build a Fire"
there is only the one man, a newcomer, who ignores native advice and freezes
to death.
Very close to the Russian XIX century notion. Why do you think Lev
Tolstoy was so revered? Because he was ready and willing to teach
even when he was not asked to.
Despite being a total shit at home, no?
Hichiker's Guide?
Yes.
>He had something about the three stages of
> civilisation: What can we eat, Why do we eat, and Where shall we do
lunch? Or something like that.
>
Change eat to drink and you got it... :-)
:-)
Of course! They are sooooo deep! Ditto for the unwatcheable movies.
And music. When I was at Oxford, someone did a piece that consisted of
repetition of a short phrase for 24 hours. I looked in on it and remember
people playacting intense rapture. My theory of such works of art is that
the artist does them so that he will know where his men-friends are going to
be for the next 24 hours while he is visiting their wives......
Yes, out of all Tolstoy writers he is my favorite.
What relationship was A.K. to Lev? And you mean there were more Tolstoy
writers apart from those two?
AFAIK, nobody wants anything from them and they got all their
territory. As I understand, they want status of the permanent
victims including everybody's acknowledgement that Latvian SSmen
were the good guys and that the Latvian Jews simply dissapeared
in a thin air and that the locals had nothing to do with it.
Oh dear oh dear.....
You have an anomalous situation with Finland, up to a point. They were
German allies, but no one in the West holds that against them, given their
reasons for this; and AFAIK there were no Jews there anyway.
Just as the Russian version, it is obnoxious. But what makes it
more obnoxious in my eyes is that they are trying to revise WWII.
Regardless of how "bad" the Soviets were, they were on a right
side and the Latvians were not.
Yes, although it's not clear what they ought to have done. There were
only two games in town, getting annexed by the Soviets and joining the
Nazis. At the least, though, they ought perhaps to consider the possibility
of admitting what went on and stop the nonsense about these SS patriots.
They were military successful for the decades afterwards but these
successes did not strenghten them.
I dunno, the empire looked pretty good under John II. One can always say
that it was overstretched, rotten at the core and so forth, but that's
hindsight. You can always say it about empires that went down, it's almost a
tautology.
They often say that the new breed of provincial nobles like the Comneni
were a more military type than the previous metropolitan elite, and
certainly Anna profiles her father as a heroic warrior on the personal
level. But she gives praise for courage and dash to many others, including,
I think, from the old families, while Caesar John Ducas was pretty
effective, though a scion of this supposedly decadent court dynasty. I wish
I knew more about the ordinary Byzantine soldier of this period, who he was,
what he wanted and how badly.
When Anna describes the Franks, she is telling us about a quite
different sort of animal from even the boldest Byzantine warrior -- a raving
loony with a deathwish. And that's just the clergy..... :-) OTOH, she
claims that they are pretty cowardly the moment their charge fails, while
the Byzantines are better at stuff like fighting retreats.
BTW, I've reading Usamah ibn Munqidh as well, and he describes the
Franks as hypercautious.
> Well, the Spaniards soon caught or killed pretty much everyone
involved in 11-3, without invading Iceland on the basis that one of the guys
got a haircut there, so I think they're handling it OK........
I see. They are not REALLY accomodating toward the rightful claims...
:-)
Not really, no :-) And since most of the Muslims in Spain have come
there to get away from the Moroccan economy, I doubt that they are all
equally keen to recreate the caliphate.
> I see this as something done by everyone, a human thing. At every
level from a marital row to the clash of civilisations. A failure to
remember that the other party functions very like we do. Push, and we push
back.
Yes, but these "towel-headed" guys want to keep pushing without
being pushed back.
The same has been said about these "Stetson-hatted" guys too, you know.
And probabky the "pith-helmeted" guys before them. The divine order of the
universe is that we do unto others and the others never do unto us back.
Like I said, that's baseline human. You know cognitive attribution theory?
>We know that *we* rally round our leader when attacked -- but we expect to
bomb the other guys into breaking with theirs. We think that we can
discourage the rebels by shooting their families,
Historically, this worked if done properly. The Soviets did subdue
Lithuania after WWII (took few years).
Someone wrote a SF story about the Nazis conquering the world and being
opposed in India by Gandhi with his satyagraha. His method didn't work. They
just killed all the non-violent protestors. Gandhi tactics only work against
the civilised occupier. Of course, if you don't want to be civilised, that's
a choice, but it's very hard to retrace your steps later.
> but we understand that shooting *our*
> families only causes more of us to take up arms.
Indeed. This is always "who is doing what to whom" but do you
always have to put yourself into other person's shoes?
Like I said, it's a choice to be civilised. That was the classic
argument against slavery, that it dehumanised both parties. Of course, the
moment one party decides that it is civilised by some kind of intrinsic
quality, by definition, without having to do civilised things, then it's
game over. If I imagine that my being honest is a cosmic constant and not
dependent on my actual behaviour, so that I can pick a hundred pockets a day
without damage to my self-esteem, then it is unlikely that my behaviour will
improve.
>I regret to inform you that I seriously
> lack a cute tail...... :-(
Which makes you what? Foxterrier? :-)
Don't say that, Michael will send me down foxholes!
am...@hotmail.com
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1108503627....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Actually not. Part of that mrxist philosophy I was indoctrinated with
> included something on "unity and fight of the opposits". Don't have a
> vaguest recollection on what this was about but it sounds quite
> fitting for the ocassion.
>
> There are aspects of Marxism as analysis of what's going on that
make
> sense, but I always found the way they used the word "dialectic" to
be both
> opaque and soporific.
Agree. Schopenhauer had it as a simple and understandable art of a
winning a public discussion (by using the dishonest methods, if
necessary).
>I mean, I'm a reasonably intelligent person (be quiet,
> Alex),
Now, wait a minute! I never objected against your being intelligent.
I was just commenting on a direction in which your intelligence
was carrying you. :-)
>but I never made head or tail of that thesis-antithesis-synthesis
> stuff.
When had been forced to study this exciting stuff for 5 years
(as a mandatory part of a college carriculum), I developed the
following efficient (judging by easiness of passing the exams with
the high marks) method of studying it:
1. Don't pay any attention to what lecturer is talking about as
long as he/she/it is on the subject.
Unless he/she/it is talking about something completely irrelevant,
which sometimes was the case, the subject influences negatively
your digestive system and general health (one of Bulgakov's heroes
recommended his patients not to read the Soviet newspapers before
dinner).
2. Never argue with the lecturer: it _may_ be of an immediate
entertaining value (and will keep you from snoring too loudly)
but it _will_ have an adverse effect by the end of a semester when
you have to pass an exam.
3. From time to time go to the library, take one of the recommended
manuals (with the relevant places highlighted by the previous
readers), read the highlighted pieces (and nothing else by the
reasons explained in item 1) and volunteer to answer _this_
question on a seminar. This would (a) prevent you from the a need
to read this crap all the time and to be afraid of being _forced_
to talk about the subjects you don't have a clue about and (b) put
you on teacher's good side with a tangible positive effect at
the end of a semester.
As soon as I figured out these simple rules, subject ceased to
be a problem. Of course, I still don't have a clue, but why should
I? :-)
>
> >Are the End Times upon us?
>
> Now, THIS is quite possible (I mean marxism being applicable to
> something is a bad sign....)
>
> What's next: Tiggers not responding to an insult, perhaps? Martin
> getting religion?
These would be, indeed, the portenous omens but I know The Ultimate
Sign of The End Times being upon us: Paul and Spencer will stop
insulting each other and agree on something.
>
> Ah, this is, of course, an answer. OTOH, I spent 40 years within this
> system and have no intention to be covered by it again.
>
> Were you nomenklatura back there?
Of course I was not. Neither am I a member of US Senate. This is
why I don't expect a good-quality medical service from goverment
run institution....
>Are you working for a nice
> white-collar corporation now?
Yes, but so far I'm using my wife's medical insurance: it is much
better than one provided by my company.
>If the answers are no and yes respectively,
> then maybe you're comparing apples and oranges.
Not at all. I'm talking about the things available to an average
person in both cases.
>
> My biggest beef with corporate responsibility for healthcare is
that it
> gives the company powers of almost life and death over its employees.
Actually, this is not true. If company has short- and long-term
disability policies (and, as far as my experience goes, all of
them do), the things are waaaaaaay out of company's hands.
Unfortunately, I have a lot of a relevant experience available.
>There
> is no longer a rational economic calculus of whether you wish to work
for
> them at a given salary and take the shit the management dishes out.
> You're
> not a capitalist employee any more but a feudal retainer, except with
less
> job security. The more your boss provides for you, the more he can
take away
> if you step out of line.
Can't say about experiences of UK and Norway but in the US one
thing is clear: employer's behavior is an almost direct dependence
on economy conditions. When economy is expanding, a qualified
workforce becames more valuable and more difficult to get and
retain and company has to offer more to keep cadres.
When everything goes South, the trend is reversed.
But an important thing is that you can buy medical insurance on
your own. I heard a lot of the horror stories but a friend of my
was buying it while he was out of work (for more than a year)
and, having a lot of health problems, he needed an extensive
one. Not to mention that when there is an emergency, you'll
be taken into a hospital and treated properly with or without
any insurance. If you don't have one, the paiments can be
arranged in the convenient installments (or not paid at all, AFAIK,
nobody can take you to the court for this).
>For some funny reason, power doesn't bother
> conservatives when it's wielded by corporations. If basic healthcare
is
> tax-funded and free,
"Tax-funded" is not "free". It is paid by the taxpayers and
you have to have enough of them working to provide for the
necessary expences. The more fingers are given to the bosses,
the higher taxes on the working people should be to keep
system solvent.
>on the other hand, then the cost of giving the boss the
> finger is considerably less.
>
Can't say about UK and Norway, but in the US "goverment" can't do
things like this efficiently (unless it is doing them for itself)
and this is a fact. The existing state-run health programs like
Medicaid and Medicare are noticeably more wasteful and expensive
than the private-run ones.
Judging by what I read while ago on another NG, the UK system is
not exactly a model of efficiency and competence: it takes more
than a week to "organize" a phone being installed on patient's
bedside (looks like a simple idea of _keeping_ it near the bed
all the time proved to bee too complicated for thelocal medicine).
> What's that about the natives not getting close to you? Personal
space?
Yes.
> Most Murricans are much cuddlier than Norwegians. :-)
>
Don't know any Norwegians and can't comment.
> Of course, doing something a la Robinson Crusoe (shooting few guilty
> people and hanging them on a street corner) may produce a faster
> and better compliance, but.....
>
> I would really like to have the PK
?
> powers to make people who smoke in
> lifts etc. suddenly swallow hard........
>
I noticed that the liberals tend to be excessively cruel... :-)
> It was not specifically black vs white. It was white Anglo-Saxon
> vs everybody else ("lesser" whites, Indians, blacks, natives of the
> Pacific islands, etc.).
>
> Oh dear. A lot of the stuff I was given to read as a child was
like
> that, not because it was still being written at that time, but
because it
> was left over.
Well, Jack London was not exactly a left-over of the Old Ages.
>I had a history encyclopaedia series that had probably
> belonged to my father as a child. In some ways it was marvellous,
full of
> instructions for making models of historical stuff from scrap
materials; but
> I also remember what you guys used to call Popovism.
I never heard the word.
> "Inventions the British
> Have Given the World". Included radio, since Marconi went to Cornwall
to
> make an experiment, and so on.
I see. Russian priority in all areas of science.
...Ivan the Terrible said to his boyars: "I can see through you!...
Write it down: X-rays are Russian discovery!..." :-)
>
> Read his "northern" stories more careful. White _is_ superior to
> the natives, even if he is a newcomer into the area. Ditto for the
> Pacific islands.
>
> OK, if I come across them again I shall read them with my
consciousness
> raised, comrade political officer! ;-)
Usually I don't mind things like this but J.L. was extremely
obnoxious in this area.
> Very close to the Russian XIX century notion. Why do you think Lev
> Tolstoy was so revered? Because he was ready and willing to teach
> even when he was not asked to.
>
> Despite being a total shit at home, no?
Exactly. The guy got a semi-god status and was visibly pissed off
when somebody (for example, royal family) failed to recognize it.
His treatement of his household, etc. was completely overlooked.
>
> Of course! They are sooooo deep! Ditto for the unwatcheable movies.
>
> And music. When I was at Oxford, someone did a piece that
consisted of
> repetition of a short phrase for 24 hours. I looked in on it and
remember
> people playacting intense rapture. My theory of such works of art is
that
> the artist does them so that he will know where his men-friends are
going to
> be for the next 24 hours while he is visiting their wives......
There is always an audience for something claimed "deep" and
"serious". In many cases criteria for awarding these definitions
is simple: they are boring and professionally inept and the
"authorities" (art critics) want their piece of action. Most of
the post-WWII "serious" French movie directors were, IMO, simply
incompetents who got a proper advertisement. Tarkovsky's "Andrey
Rublev" demonstrated a complete ineptitude with a camera and
cutting but it was "deep". Style of his next movies was tailored
to a certain segment of the Soviet audience who would react
predictably to certain things (mostly due to a complete absense
of exposure to something else). One of my hobbies was to predict
reaction of some of my friends on T's new movie (without watching
it myself). I never missed. :-)
>
> Yes, out of all Tolstoy writers he is my favorite.
>
> What relationship was A.K. to Lev?
None. Tolstoy was a very big "family" (not in the sense of a real
family) with the various branches being on the substantially
different steps of a social ladder. A.K.Tolstoy belonged to the
"top echelon" of it. His mother was, IIRC, a daughter of
Perovsky and had a habit of annoying wife of Nicholas I by wearing
the same hats (and looking better in them). A.K. was a childhood
friend of Alexander II (who tried in vain to make him a general)
and could address many of the highest-level officials (like
Chairman of the Publishing Committee) by their 1st names. Or to
tell in Alexander's face that punishment of Chernishevsky (who
was on a different end of a political spectrum) was unjust.
Lev, AFAIK, belonged to much "lower" part of a family (noble but
not REALLY "high-aristocracy") and it shows in, say "War and Peace".
If youy remember the book, father Rostov is a leader nobility
(Predvoditel Dvorianstva) of Moscow Governorship. What Tolstoy
_did_ describe is a rich _noble_ who could be a Predvoditel of a
_provintial_ governorship. An important role but a difference
between these two positions was huge and Rostov does not look fit
for one in Moscow (he looks as a parvenue to Prince Bolkonsky who
would qualify).
I suspect that Tolstoy simply described a household of the social
level he knew. As you may notice, description of Bolkonsky's
household is considerably more sketchy.
>And you mean there were more Tolstoy
> writers apart from those two?
>
Indeed. A.N.Tolstoy - a prominent writer of Stalin's times. With the
same 1st name as A.K., he used to mock the ignorant people by
"taking a credit" for A.K.'s famous plays (".... just you wait
until he will start calling an author!"). Was a talented writer
but also an extreme opportunist.
[]
> AFAIK, nobody wants anything from them and they got all their
> territory. As I understand, they want status of the permanent
> victims including everybody's acknowledgement that Latvian SSmen
> were the good guys and that the Latvian Jews simply dissapeared
> in a thin air and that the locals had nothing to do with it.
>
> Oh dear oh dear.....
>
Yes, as you know, I'm not enamored with the Soviet era or
with the today's Russia but there are limits to everything.
> You have an anomalous situation with Finland, up to a point. They
were
> German allies, but no one in the West holds that against them, given
their
> reasons for this; and AFAIK there were no Jews there anyway.
>
Yes, they had all the reasons to fight on a wrong side.
My father was fighting against them during WWII and did not
express anything but respect (well, there was one case when they
raided a hospital and killed everybody but that's pretty much it).
I met a Jewish guy who was captured by the Fins during WWII and
actually got a preferential treatement (thanks to the American
Jewish charitable organizations) as soon as his ethnic identity
was confirmed. BTW, IIRC, there were Jews in Finland but no
discrimination.
> Just as the Russian version, it is obnoxious. But what makes it
> more obnoxious in my eyes is that they are trying to revise WWII.
> Regardless of how "bad" the Soviets were, they were on a right
> side and the Latvians were not.
>
> Yes, although it's not clear what they ought to have done.
Two simple things:
1. Not to volunteer into the SS units (esp. those doing the dirty
work).
2. Not to be active in helping Germans in capturing and killing the
local Jews.
In other words, to do nothing.
>There were
> only two games in town, getting annexed by the Soviets and joining
the
> Nazis.
Wrong. There was one "game" at a time. 1st, to be annexed by the
Soviets (not "occupied" because they got a full-scale citizenship).
Then, to be occupied (or annexed?) by the Nazies who, IIRC, gave
a citizenship status only to the "folksdoich". In both cases,
the choice was not their.
OTOH, _volunteering_ to do something dirty for the Soviets
or Nazies _was_ a matter of choice. Historically, record in
this area is not very good. At least once the Bolsheviks had been
saved by the Red Latvian Rifles (in 1918) and quite a few of
them had been quite prominent in building Cheka. Of course, it
is wrong to blame the whole nation for the deeds of the individuals
but it is also wrong to pretend that it consisted exclusively of
the suffering angels.
BTW, it is not like the Latvians had some excessively warm feelings
toward the Germans. IIRC, the German population of pre-WWII
Latvia was steadily dwindling well before Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
>At the least, though, they ought perhaps to consider the possibility
> of admitting what went on and stop the nonsense about these SS
patriots.
They don't want to. All "admittance", in their opinion, should
come from the Russian side. Not that, IMO, it will do any good.
The Russians acknowledged the killings of Katyn with no noticeable
positive impact on Polish-Russian relations.
[Bizantians]
>
> They were military successful for the decades afterwards but these
> successes did not strenghten them.
>
> I dunno, the empire looked pretty good under John II. One can
always say
> that it was overstretched, rotten at the core and so forth, but
that's
> hindsight. You can always say it about empires that went down, it's
almost a
> tautology.
>
Maybe the roots were social. A lot of a population but a small
"military class". Unlike ....er... "typical" (hopefully, nobody
else will read this) feudal state with a extensive free military
class. To a great degree, Bizantians had to rely on the mercenaries
and the allies (Variangian Guard, hired nomadic troops, alliances
with the Seljuk rulers, etc.).
As a result, the rootless adventurers like Robert Guiscard or
Catalan Company turned to be a deadly treat.
> They often say that the new breed of provincial nobles like the
Comneni
> were a more military type than the previous metropolitan elite,
Yes, but my impression was that it was too little too late.
> and
> certainly Anna profiles her father as a heroic warrior on the
personal
> level.
And my impression is that he was a capable commander as well.
But a quality of the troops in his disposal and ability to rely
on the local resources is another issue.
> But she gives praise for courage and dash to many others, including,
> I think, from the old families, while Caesar John Ducas was pretty
> effective, though a scion of this supposedly decadent court dynasty.
I wish
> I knew more about the ordinary Byzantine soldier of this period, who
he was,
> what he wanted and how badly.
Where is David Read?????????????????????????????????? :-)
>
> When Anna describes the Franks, she is telling us about a quite
> different sort of animal from even the boldest Byzantine warrior -- a
raving
> loony with a deathwish.
Most of them probably were not but they clearly had an advantage
in "spirit".
>And that's just the clergy..... :-) OTOH, she
> claims that they are pretty cowardly the moment their charge fails,
while
> the Byzantines are better at stuff like fighting retreats.
There is always a danger in fighting retreats. One could do it
Mongolian style or one could do it the way described by Tzar
Alexey Michailovitch who wrote that he was very sorry about the
losses in his army but very glad to know that most of it survived
by fleeing from the field.
>
> BTW, I've reading Usamah ibn Munqidh as well, and he describes
the
> Franks as hypercautious.
>
Well, a little bit later you have an army that included both a
raving maniac like Richard I and a cautious statesman like
Phillip-August. Both were "Franks". :-)
> > Well, the Spaniards soon caught or killed pretty much everyone
> involved in 11-3, without invading Iceland on the basis that one of
the guys
> got a haircut there, so I think they're handling it OK........
>
> I see. They are not REALLY accomodating toward the rightful claims...
> :-)
>
> Not really, no :-) And since most of the Muslims in Spain have
come
> there to get away from the Moroccan economy, I doubt that they are
all
> equally keen to recreate the caliphate.
It's a shrewed observation but, OTOH, you never know. Some of them
may want caliphat _with_ the goods. Sometimes recognition of the
impossibilities is tragically delayed (look at the example of the
Russian Revolution and the following developments).
> We think that we can
> discourage the rebels by shooting their families,
>
> Historically, this worked if done properly. The Soviets did subdue
> Lithuania after WWII (took few years).
>
> Someone wrote a SF story about the Nazis conquering the world and
being
> opposed in India by Gandhi with his satyagraha. His method didn't
work. They
> just killed all the non-violent protestors.
Well, in the post-WWII SU they killed all violent protesters as
well.
>Gandhi tactics only work against
> the civilised occupier.
Exactly. "Reasonably civilized", I'd say: one that does not mind
_some_ killing but not over certain limit.
> >I regret to inform you that I seriously
> > lack a cute tail...... :-(
>
> Which makes you what? Foxterrier? :-)
>
> Don't say that, Michael will send me down foxholes!
OK, would a bulldog be more preferable? :-)
Yusuf B Gursey
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1108043921.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Very little, if anything, to compare with the gardens and
> > landscaping. But, in the "technological" areas, including
architecture,
> the
> > "europeans" kept trying the new forms and methods, while the
Muslims
> remained practically "static".
>
> You might be right, this is a big topic that ties in with a SHM
> perennial, the question why the industrial revolution and conquest of
the
my guess is the discovery of the Americas (made possible by the
introduction of norse shipbuilding).
> world happened in and from a hitherto backward area. As regards the
> Alhambra, you surely have your point about fortifications, but as
regards
> elegance of living arrangements, I'm not convinced that fancy
architecture
> would have brought any additional benefits. You know that the Water
Court
> still sits in Valencia, the farmer-judges apportioning the irrigation
water
> on the same system as the Moors had, and it might be even older? As
far as I
> know, they really did achieve perfection with that aspect of
technology at
> least. Maybe Yusuf knows of technological advances that would
contradict
I would say that the Ottomans did advance architecture. inspired by
byzantine forms they made a new synthesis, and Sinan's pupil advanced
architecture in India (Taj Mahal), yet another synthesis. later,
Ottomans also adopted, to some extent, baroque or roccoco styles.
David C. Pugh
news:1108658281.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > There are aspects of Marxism as analysis of what's going on that
> make sense, but I always found the way they used the word "dialectic" to
> be both opaque and soporific.
>
> Agree. Schopenhauer had it as a simple and understandable art of a
> winning a public discussion (by using the dishonest methods, if
> necessary).
Yeah, I've seen that "manual" circulated and it's great!!! He should be
the patron saint of Usenet.
> >I mean, I'm a reasonably intelligent person (be quiet, Alex),
>
> Now, wait a minute! I never objected against your being intelligent.
> I was just commenting on a direction in which your intelligence
> was carrying you. :-)
I can live with that :-)
> >but I never made head or tail of that thesis-antithesis-synthesis
> > stuff.
(snip Alex guide to study technique)
> As soon as I figured out these simple rules, subject ceased to
> be a problem. Of course, I still don't have a clue, but why should
> I? :-)
Why indeed. Contemplating the dialectic probably killed more brain cells
than samogon ever did.
> These would be, indeed, the portenous omens but I know The Ultimate
> Sign of The End Times being upon us: Paul and Spencer will stop
> insulting each other and agree on something.
Nah, that's the Penultimate Sign. Only after that will Inger reveal her
sources, and then the world will come to a
> Actually, this is not true. If company has short- and long-term
> disability policies (and, as far as my experience goes, all of
> them do), the things are waaaaaaay out of company's hands.
Could you explain that one in a bit more detail?
> on economy conditions. When economy is expanding, a qualified
> workforce becames more valuable and more difficult to get and
> retain and company has to offer more to keep cadres.
> When everything goes South, the trend is reversed.
Indeed. So it's OK that when things go south and an employee is laid
off, he loses his healthcare?
> one. Not to mention that when there is an emergency, you'll
> be taken into a hospital and treated properly with or without
> any insurance.
Now that doesn't match what I hear from others.
If you don't have one, the paiments can be arranged in the convenient
installments (or not paid at all, AFAIK, nobody can take you to the court
for this).
So the hospital has no recourse at all? If so, then it's actually free
healthcare, but in an irrational and inequitous manner.
> Judging by what I read while ago on another NG, the UK system is
> not exactly a model of efficiency and competence: it takes more
> than a week to "organize" a phone being installed on patient's
> bedside (looks like a simple idea of _keeping_ it near the bed
> all the time proved to bee too complicated for thelocal medicine).
I didn't think they kept anyone for as long as that any more :-(
> > I would really like to have the PK
>
> ?
Psychokinesis. Also known as telekinesis. What Dr. Grey does in X-Men
:-)
> > powers to make people who smoke in
> > lifts etc. suddenly swallow hard........
> >
> I noticed that the liberals tend to be excessively cruel... :-)
Nah, they're only smokers after all. :-)
> >I had a history encyclopaedia series that had probably
> > belonged to my father as a child. In some ways it was marvellous,
> full of instructions for making models of historical stuff from scrap
> materials; but I also remember what you guys used to call Popovism.
>
> I never heard the word.
Everything was invented by Professor Popov.
> > "Inventions the British
> > Have Given the World". Included radio, since Marconi went to Cornwall
> to make an experiment, and so on.
>
> I see. Russian priority in all areas of science.
Yeah, Popovism. Let's google for it.
One hit, http://www.uncorrelated.com/archives/000055.html
> ...Ivan the Terrible said to his boyars: "I can see through you!...
> Write it down: X-rays are Russian discovery!..." :-)
:-)
We have our equivalent here: something is always the World's First
(Biggest, etc.) in the whole of Norway! When Gro Harlem Brundtland was 50,
the local paper here called her the world's first female prime minister.
Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir and Maggie Thatcher were
what, chopped liver?
> Exactly. The guy got a semi-god status and was visibly pissed off
> when somebody (for example, royal family) failed to recognize it.
> His treatement of his household, etc. was completely overlooked.
When I read a bit about him, and realised that Levin was a
self-portrait, and when Levin was wanting to shoot or hang himself, I was
going "So what are you waiting for, schmuck?"
> There is always an audience for something claimed "deep" and
> "serious". In many cases criteria for awarding these definitions
> is simple: they are boring and professionally inept and the
> "authorities" (art critics) want their piece of action. Most of
> the post-WWII "serious" French movie directors were, IMO, simply
> incompetents who got a proper advertisement.
Eve will bite you for that!
Tarkovsky's "Andrey
> Rublev" demonstrated a complete ineptitude with a camera and
> cutting but it was "deep". Style of his next movies was tailored
> to a certain segment of the Soviet audience who would react
> predictably to certain things (mostly due to a complete absense
> of exposure to something else). One of my hobbies was to predict
> reaction of some of my friends on T's new movie (without watching
> it myself). I never missed. :-)
I must say, I found Tarkovsky's fondness for ruined concrete bunkers got
a bit old. He should maybe get together with J.G. Ballard.
> Lev, AFAIK, belonged to much "lower" part of a family (noble but
> not REALLY "high-aristocracy") and it shows in, say "War and Peace".
> If youy remember the book, father Rostov is a leader nobility
> (Predvoditel Dvorianstva) of Moscow Governorship.
He was? I'd forgotten that. Remembered the Rostovs as provincials.
(snip, but it was interesting)
> Yes, they had all the reasons to fight on a wrong side.
> My father was fighting against them during WWII and did not
> express anything but respect (well, there was one case when they
> raided a hospital and killed everybody but that's pretty much it).
> I met a Jewish guy who was captured by the Fins during WWII and
> actually got a preferential treatement (thanks to the American
> Jewish charitable organizations) as soon as his ethnic identity
> was confirmed. BTW, IIRC, there were Jews in Finland but no
> discrimination.
Interesting!
> > Yes, although it's not clear what they ought to have done.
>
> Two simple things:
> 1. Not to volunteer into the SS units (esp. those doing the dirty
> work).
> 2. Not to be active in helping Germans in capturing and killing the
> local Jews.
Misunderstanding, I was thinking of their participation in ordinary
warfare for or against your lot. Your two things above, no excuse clearly.
> OTOH, _volunteering_ to do something dirty for the Soviets
> or Nazies _was_ a matter of choice.
I suppose so. If you wanted to keep your head down and do the bare
minimum, did they let you? Or was it a "Help us catch Jews or we chop pieces
off your wife" deal?
> They don't want to. All "admittance", in their opinion, should
> come from the Russian side. Not that, IMO, it will do any good.
> The Russians acknowledged the killings of Katyn with no noticeable
> positive impact on Polish-Russian relations.
Yes, I remember them doing that, and I don't remember people in
the West falling over themselves to congratulate them on facing up to
the past the way we wanted everyone to do (except ourselves, of
course).
> Maybe the roots were social. A lot of a population but a small
> "military class". Unlike ....er... "typical" (hopefully, nobody
> else will read this) feudal state with a extensive free military
> class.
Could be.
To a great degree, Bizantians had to rely on the mercenaries
> and the allies (Variangian Guard, hired nomadic troops, alliances
> with the Seljuk rulers, etc.).
> As a result, the rootless adventurers like Robert Guiscard or
> Catalan Company turned to be a deadly treat.
As you say, they DID have such a population, and such a LOT of money,
that the only way to square the circle is that the population weren't any
good at it. Either because they didn't want to fight anyone, or because
given a chance they wanted only to fight the tax collectors. Anna describes
the Bulgarians as helping the Cumans etc. for that reason.
> > They often say that the new breed of provincial nobles like the
> Comneni were a more military type than the previous metropolitan elite,
>
> Yes, but my impression was that it was too little too late.
Could be. OTOH, if Manuel hadn't screwed the pooch at Myriocephalon, and
had lived long enough (looks like he died of discouragement) to get Alexius
III well settled, who knows? That's a what-if that I'd like to see gamed.
> And my impression is that he was a capable commander as well.
> But a quality of the troops in his disposal and ability to rely
> on the local resources is another issue.
Yup. Anna has him giving the most basic instructions to his troops. Like
which end of the sharp pointy thing to hold -- okay, I'm exaggerating, but
not much. If this isn't Anna's hagiography or Alexius' control-freakery but
was a necessary part of his job, it is seriously scary.
> There is always a danger in fighting retreats. One could do it
> Mongolian style or one could do it the way described by Tzar
> Alexey Michailovitch who wrote that he was very sorry about the
> losses in his army but very glad to know that most of it survived
> by fleeing from the field.
They were lucky to survive that, I guess. Who was he fighting?
> > BTW, I've reading Usamah ibn Munqidh as well, and he describes
> the Franks as hypercautious.
> >
> Well, a little bit later you have an army that included both a
> raving maniac like Richard I and a cautious statesman like
> Phillip-August. Both were "Franks". :-)
I meant the Palestinian Franks, the guys hanging out in the Jordanian
fortresses.
"A horseman from our men came to me galloping and said, "The Franks are
here!" So I hastened towards them as the vanguard of the Franks had come
into contact with them. The Franks (may Allah's curse be upon them!), who of
all men are the most cautious in warfare, climbed to the top of a small hill
where they made their stand, and we climbed to the top of another hill,
opposite them. Between the two hills stretched an open place in which our
isolated comrades and those leading the extra horses were passing, right
beneath the Franks, without having a horseman descend to them for fear of
some ambush or stratagem of war, although if they had descended they would
have succeeded in capturing them to the last man. Thus we stood facing them
on that hill in spite of the inferior number of our force and the fact that
the main party of our army had gone ahead of us in flight.
The Franks kept their post on top of the hill until the passage of our
comrades had ceased. They then marched towards us and we immediately
retreated before them, fighting the while. They made no effort to follow
after us; but any one of us who stopped his horse they slew, and any one
whose horse fell they took as prisoner. Finally the Franks turned back from
us. Thus Allah (worthy of admiration is he!) had decreed our safety through
their overcautiousness. Had we been as numerous as they were and had won the
victory over them as they had won over us, we would have exterminated them.
"
> > Not really, no :-) And since most of the Muslims in Spain have
> come there to get away from the Moroccan economy, I doubt that they are
> all equally keen to recreate the caliphate.
>
> It's a shrewed observation but, OTOH, you never know. Some of them
> may want caliphat _with_ the goods.
Something along those lines must be the motivation of the 11-3 perps,
and/or total alienation and badly-focused resentment. See Jim Beck's thread
on the psychology of extremists.
> >Gandhi tactics only work against
> > the civilised occupier.
>
> Exactly. "Reasonably civilized", I'd say: one that does not mind
> _some_ killing but not over certain limit.
On the one hand, the guy who shot all those unarmed protestors at
Amritsar was sacked. The Nazis wouldn't have done that. On the other hand,
he was lionised as a popular hero in the UK, which is really depressing.
> > Which makes you what? Foxterrier? :-)
> >
> > Don't say that, Michael will send me down foxholes!
>
> OK, would a bulldog be more preferable? :-)
Nah, who wants to bait bulls? If I was going to be a dog, I'd be a
Border Collie. Smartest dog there is, and runs around the mountains, don't
you see the resemblance? ;-)
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
[don't see my 1st post, hopefully it will appear]
Re: Bizantians
>
> > Maybe the roots were social. A lot of a population but a small
> > "military class". Unlike ....er... "typical" (hopefully, nobody
> > else will read this) feudal state with a extensive free military
> > class.
>
> Could be.
>
> To a great degree, Bizantians had to rely on the mercenaries
> > and the allies (Variangian Guard, hired nomadic troops, alliances
> > with the Seljuk rulers, etc.).
> > As a result, the rootless adventurers like Robert Guiscard or
> > Catalan Company turned to be a deadly treat.
>
> As you say, they DID have such a population, and such a LOT of
money,
> that the only way to square the circle is that the population weren't
any
> good at it. Either because they didn't want to fight anyone, or
because
> given a chance they wanted only to fight the tax collectors. Anna
describes
> the Bulgarians as helping the Cumans etc. for that reason.
I'll try to use the known parallels.
1. We _do_ know that the Romans were _not_ genetically uncapable
of fighting or even culturally pacifistic. However, with a
passage of time we _do_ see a clear decline of ability to raise
the new Roman armies and the quality of these armies.
Could it be that this was at least partially due to the fact that
the people became more and more "removed" from the goverment
and grew more and more indifferent to the state affairs,
including the military ones?
2. Russia of the "Moscow period" formally had a big military
class (just as Bizantian Empire) but, unlike neighbouring
Poland, this class would not provide quality warriors. At least
superficially, all these nobles look much more interested in
salaries and land grants than in fighting (except looting
part). Even this famous "people army" raised by the end of the
Times of Troubles to throw Poles out of Moscow happened not
because of an unexpected surge of a patriotism but because
rich trade city, Nizny Novgorod, promised to pay on a scale
that was at least one rank higher than a traditional level.
Only intensive western-style drilling enforced by Peter I
turned these reluctant warriors into the high-class troops.
OTOH, you may notice that socially close Polish army provided
the high quality troops.Why? Because Polish nobles were free
(not the slaves of the state as the Russian ones).
Can it be that with Bizantian Empire being socially close to both
late Roman Empire and pre-Petrian Russia even the military class
was to a great degree reluctant to fight (few talented
aristocrates did not change too much in any of the above cases).
And a "peaceful" population simply was not prepared to the
military service and perhaps even kept this way intentionally
to minimize domestic troubles?
David C. Pugh
news:1108778466.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> [don't see my 1st post, hopefully it will appear]
Nor I, perhaps you could repost it.
I would certainly guess that the original citizen-armies did feel
involved in the government of the Republic, and another factor is that the
enemy was a lot nearer and sometimes turned up at their doorsteps. If the
frontier of the Empire is a thousand miles away, you don't feel the same
imperative to help defend hearth and home. The Nation-in-Arms structure
requires a very clear and present danger.
> 2. Russia of the "Moscow period" formally had a big military
> class (just as Bizantian Empire) but, unlike neighbouring
> Poland, this class would not provide quality warriors. At least
> superficially, all these nobles look much more interested in
> salaries and land grants than in fighting (except looting
> part).
Even this famous "people army" raised by the end of the
> Times of Troubles to throw Poles out of Moscow happened not
> because of an unexpected surge of a patriotism but because
> rich trade city, Nizny Novgorod, promised to pay on a scale
> that was at least one rank higher than a traditional level.
There's always the possibility that what appears from a great distance
to be a motivated citizen army is actually paid mercenaries plus good
propaganda. :-)
> Only intensive western-style drilling enforced by Peter I
> turned these reluctant warriors into the high-class troops.
Reluctance is the default state for any rational human being, and it is
perhaps the success of any drilling that needs to be explained, rather than
its failure. :-)
> OTOH, you may notice that socially close Polish army provided
> the high quality troops.Why? Because Polish nobles were free
> (not the slaves of the state as the Russian ones).
That's certainly part of the whole Nation-in-Arms ideology -- a free
citizenry with something to fight for as well as the means with which to do
so, as opposed to both mercenaries on the one hand and slaves on the other.
> Can it be that with Bizantian Empire being socially close to both
> late Roman Empire and pre-Petrian Russia even the military class
> was to a great degree reluctant to fight (few talented
> aristocrates did not change too much in any of the above cases).
What is generally said about the Byzantines is that they regarded war as
an instrumental value. IOW, they were the most perfect Clausewitzians,
employing war as just one tool in a suite of strategies. In the words of
John Cinnamus, "Since many and various matters lead to one end, victory, it
is a matter of indifference which one uses to reach it."
They didn't see anything wrong with paying the enemy to go away, or
paying the enemy commander to switch sides, or any number of dirty tricks
that a true military culture would consider "dishonorable".
What the Byzantines of this period entirely lacked -- except perhaps
some individual provincial aristos, who as you say were not very numerous --
was any sense that war was glorious, or romantic, or fun. There have been
any number of militaristic cultures that thought the opposite.
The Byzantines were always absolutely horrified by the Latins' armed
priests: "The Latin customs with regard to priests differ from ours. We are
bidden by canon law and the teaching of the Gospel, "Touch not, grumble not,
attack not - for thou art consecrated". But your Latin barbarian will at the
same time handle sacred objects, fasten a shield to his left arm and grasp a
spear in his right. He will communicate the Body and Blood of the Deity and
meanwhile gaze on bloodshed and become himself "a man of blood" (as David
says in the Psalm). Thus the race is no less devoted to religion than to
war." (Anna)
> And a "peaceful" population simply was not prepared to the
> military service and perhaps even kept this way intentionally
> to minimize domestic troubles?
Do we know if the Byzantines discouraged arms-bearing in the general
population? I'm sure I don't.
Here's Anna on Robert Guiscard's draft:
"Not being satisfied with the men who had served in his army from the
beginning and had experience in battle, he formed a new army, made up of
recruits without any consideration of age. From all quarters of Lombardy and
Apulia he gathered them, over age and under age, pitiable objects who had
never seen armour even in their dreams, but then clad in breastplates and
carrying shields, awkwardly drawing bows to which they were completely
unused and falling flat on the ground when they were allowed to march.
Naturally these things provided an excuse for incessant trouble in Lombardy.
Everywhere one could hear the lamentation of men and the wailing of women
who shared in the bad fortune of their menfolk, for one mourned a husband
unfit for military service, another a son who knew nothing of war, and a
third a brother who was just a farmer or occupied in some other job. As I
said, this idea of Robert's was just as lunatic as the behaviour of Herod,
or even worse, for Herod raved only against babies, but Robert against boys
and older men as well."
An embassy from Henry VI:
"For if the Romans do not finally accept this embassy's demands and agree to
the wish of their lord and emperor, they will need to face in battle men who
are not flower-strewn like meadows with gems, nor swollen to haughty airs by
globes of moonlight-mocking pearls ... but who, being nurslings of Mars,
redden their eyes with a flame of desire equal to the rays of gems, and
adorn themselves beyond the gleam of pearls with sweat-pearls congealed by
day-long strife."
Anna again, contrasting the experienced and the inexperienced soldier:
"Maurocatacalon and his partisans went on: "If we use this place as a secure
base of operations, we shall inflict continual losses on them with daily
guerrilla warfare. They will never be allowed to leave their own camp to get
provisions or collect supplies." The argument was still going on when
Diogenes' sons, Nicephorus and Leo, dismounted from their chargers, took
away their bridles, gave them a slap and drove them off to graze in the
millet. "Have no fear, Sir", they said, "we'll draw our swords and cut them
to pieces." They were young men and for that reason had no experience of the
misery of war. "
Nicetas Choniates speaks of the Latins as "those who separate manly
vigour from other virtues and claim it for themselves (considering it the
most important quality)". That is, a Byzantine thought it only one of the
virtues.
Yusuf B Gursey
>
>
> But the point of a mosque is to pack more people in, they didn't
have
from the basic religious view just a shelter from the elements and
other distractions and gathering people for the Friday sermon.
otherwise muslims are free to pray anywhere.
> any need to reach for the skies. The Ottoman mosques are a copies of
(or
> developments of) Hagia Sophia, and the really tall mosque that Hassan
of
basically in terms of the basic idea of having a large space covered by
a dome and so on, yes. but I had taken around an architect art
historian around Istanbul and shae had explained to me several
succesful experiments on this theme and the enginnering and aesthetic
problems it presents, such as dome support and design, covering up the
ugly support buttresses etc. for a layman these sound like minor
details, but to the architect these are evry significant. also
emphasizing a single large dome was symbolic of a single God.
Yusuf B Gursey
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1108397139....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Yes. The Byzantians were not necessarily popular but neither were
they
> > very destructive. Even lighthouse of Alexandria was still
functioning.
>
> I suspect that we all suffer from a book or movie-induced
assumption
> that the medieval landscape was one of Classical ruins, just because
stuff
> is ruined now. Some of it was, but not all. So I'd like to see a
movie
> about the Middle Ages that had the great southern cities looking as
they had
> been in Late Antiquity. One might even start a movie in a Roman city,
so the
apparently one of the N. African interior cities (mainly christian) was
just about like that , with even a form of Romance surviving. forgot
its name right now, I have to look up one of my old posts.
yes, but they still were not considere outright pagans. the Qur'an
still mentions them apart from the "ka:fir"s (once with Jews,
Christians and Sabians followed by Zoroastrians and then Kafirs). but
the "Sura of the Romans" is
pro-Byzantine over the Persians.
first they were given a status intermediate between pagans on the one
hand and christians and jews and gnostics on the other. muslims also
adopted some of their festivals (Nawruz), redid their legends in muslim
garb (Shahname) and used their calender for civil purposes. later,
weakened considerabely, they were accorded a status comoarable to
christians & jews and the established zoroastrian clergy sided wrere
allied with the muslim authorities against more rebellious zoroastrain
offshoots. the near complete islamification of Iran (briefly undone by
the mongols, was rather late.
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> > These would be, indeed, the portenous omens but I know The Ultimate
> > Sign of The End Times being upon us: Paul and Spencer will stop
> > insulting each other and agree on something.
>
> Nah, that's the Penultimate Sign. Only after that will Inger
reveal her
> sources, and then the world will come to a
You mean something along the lines of angel opening the book, 5th
rider of Appocalipsus, etc.? I never thought that she was writing THIS
one....
>
> > Actually, this is not true. If company has short- and long-term
> > disability policies (and, as far as my experience goes, all of
> > them do), the things are waaaaaaay out of company's hands.
>
> Could you explain that one in a bit more detail?
>
Companies usually have short- and long-term disability insurances
that provide payments to you if you can't work by some medical reasons.
> > on economy conditions. When economy is expanding, a qualified
> > workforce becames more valuable and more difficult to get and
> > retain and company has to offer more to keep cadres.
> > When everything goes South, the trend is reversed.
>
> Indeed. So it's OK that when things go south and an employee is
laid
> off, he loses his healthcare?
>
It also is not OK for employee to loose his salary. After all, medical
needs may or may not happen but a need to eat and to live somewhere
is clear and obvious.
> > one. Not to mention that when there is an emergency, you'll
> > be taken into a hospital and treated properly with or without
> > any insurance.
>
> Now that doesn't match what I hear from others.
>
Unlike many others, I'm talking from a personal experience. I was
brought into emergency with a broken leg and nobody asked me about
insurance until there was a time to discuss options of a post-hospital
treatement.
Speaking generally, it is much cheaper for the hospital to treate
emergency patient without insurance than to deny treatement on this
basis. Expences will be passed (next year) to the paying patients
through the insurance companies. OTOH, refusal of a treatement can
easily result in a law suite with a need to pay: (a) to hospital's
lawyer and (b) to a person (or, if hospital is out of its luck, to
person's relatives) who did not get a treatement. IIRC, unseccessul
candidate to our VP's, Edwards, put at least one hospital out of
business on the lesser charges.
> If you don't have one, the paiments can be arranged in the convenient
> installments (or not paid at all, AFAIK, nobody can take you to the
court
> for this).
>
> So the hospital has no recourse at all?
Wrong. The expences will be passed to the paying people through the
raising premiums.
BTW, this is not too different from what you are calling "free" sytem
in which the capable taxpayers will have to pay more to keep system
solvent if a number of unemployed workers would go up. You just have
a state beurocracy vs the private ones.
>If so, then it's actually free
> healthcare, but in an irrational and inequitous manner.
>
Please, nothing is free except cheese in a mousetrap. There are simply
"visible" and "invisible" payments. And if you prefer to pretend that
your tax money are nothing, it is your choise.
> >
> > ?
>
> Psychokinesis. Also known as telekinesis.
Ah, I know about this one.
> > materials; but I also remember what you guys used to call Popovism.
> >
> > I never heard the word.
>
> Everything was invented by Professor Popov.
I suspect that this is a western invention because in Russian it would
mean "power of the clergy" ("popvschina") :-)
>
> > Lev, AFAIK, belonged to much "lower" part of a family (noble but
> > not REALLY "high-aristocracy") and it shows in, say "War and
Peace".
> > If youy remember the book, father Rostov is a leader nobility
> > (Predvoditel Dvorianstva) of Moscow Governorship.
>
> He was? I'd forgotten that. Remembered the Rostovs as
provincials.
Exactly. Not a head of the nobility of Moscow: politically, extremely
important part of nobility. If, while visiting Moscow, Nicholas I got
just a polite applause at his appearence in the theater, he would pay
immediate attention.
am...@hotmail.com
Well, they had been fighting in Spain and on Middle East, far away from
their homes.
OTOH, I'll agree that there is no need to stress "citizen" aspect of
it. It was helpful but probably no always necessary as long as state
had enough finances to maintain a proper discipline and drill. This,
however, was an expensive option available only to a well-functioning
state with a healthy economy.
>
> > 2. Russia of the "Moscow period" formally had a big military
> > class (just as Bizantian Empire) but, unlike neighbouring
> > Poland, this class would not provide quality warriors. At least
> > superficially, all these nobles look much more interested in
> > salaries and land grants than in fighting (except looting
> > part).
> Even this famous "people army" raised by the end of the
> > Times of Troubles to throw Poles out of Moscow happened not
> > because of an unexpected surge of a patriotism but because
> > rich trade city, Nizny Novgorod, promised to pay on a scale
> > that was at least one rank higher than a traditional level.
>
> There's always the possibility that what appears from a great
distance
> to be a motivated citizen army is actually paid mercenaries plus good
> propaganda. :-)
>
Indeed. But seriously, the armies of Ivan IV, Boris, Michael and
Alexey Romanov could not face western opponents in the open field.
While the armies of the first Romanovs had been almost definitely
technically backward, those of Ivan look more or less up to date:
powerful artillery, wide use of the infantry with the firearms.
Did not help at all: they had been routinely fleeing from the field.
However, by mid XVIII the Russian soldiers had been "easier to kill
than to chase from the filed" (don't remember which Prussian general
said this). No change to the better in their social status but a lot
of drill.
> > Only intensive western-style drilling enforced by Peter I
> > turned these reluctant warriors into the high-class troops.
>
> Reluctance is the default state for any rational human being, and
it is
> perhaps the success of any drilling that needs to be explained,
rather than
> its failure. :-)
Probably. But it clearly worked and still works. :-)
>
> > OTOH, you may notice that socially close Polish army provided
> > the high quality troops.Why? Because Polish nobles were free
> > (not the slaves of the state as the Russian ones).
>
> That's certainly part of the whole Nation-in-Arms ideology -- a
free
> citizenry with something to fight for as well as the means with which
to do
> so, as opposed to both mercenaries on the one hand and slaves on the
other.
Yes. But they proved to be helpless against the drilled opponents in
XVIII.
>
> > Can it be that with Bizantian Empire being socially close to both
> > late Roman Empire and pre-Petrian Russia even the military class
> > was to a great degree reluctant to fight (few talented
> > aristocrates did not change too much in any of the above cases).
>
> What is generally said about the Byzantines is that they regarded
war as
> an instrumental value. IOW, they were the most perfect
Clausewitzians,
> employing war as just one tool in a suite of strategies. In the words
of
> John Cinnamus, "Since many and various matters lead to one end,
victory, it
> is a matter of indifference which one uses to reach it."
>
> They didn't see anything wrong with paying the enemy to go away,
or
> paying the enemy commander to switch sides, or any number of dirty
tricks
> that a true military culture would consider "dishonorable".
Really? Perhaps person whom I'm going to quote did not belong to a
"true" military culture but he said: "there is no fortress that would
not surrender to a donkey loaded with a gold". Also he was very
appreciative of the enemy commanders who switched the sides and made
dirty tricks a part of his military legacy. Created one of the world's
largest empires ever. :-)
>
> What the Byzantines of this period entirely lacked -- except
perhaps
> some individual provincial aristos, who as you say were not very
numerous --
> was any sense that war was glorious, or romantic, or fun. There have
been
> any number of militaristic cultures that thought the opposite.
>
Did not "live by war"? Like the guys from Catalan Company and others?
[]
>
> Nicetas Choniates speaks of the Latins as "those who separate
manly
> vigour from other virtues and claim it for themselves (considering it
the
> most important quality)". That is, a Byzantine thought it only one of
the
> virtues.
This was, possibly, another way of formulating all these ...er..
"advantages of a pure feudalism"... :-)
David C. Pugh
news:1108925490.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > I would certainly guess that the original citizen-armies did feel
> > involved in the government of the Republic, and another factor is
> that the enemy was a lot nearer and sometimes turned up at their
doorsteps. If the frontier of the Empire is a thousand miles away, you don't
feel the same imperative to help defend hearth and home. The Nation-in-Arms
structure requires a very clear and present danger.
>
> Well, they had been fighting in Spain and on Middle East, far away from
> their homes.
Wasn't that *after* Marius had introduced the idea of rewarding veterans
with land, and, I think, paying for their equipment from public funds? Late
Republican armies weren't militia, they were long-service regulars. How were
they different from Byzantine soldiers in the era of the Comneni? Dunno.
> OTOH, I'll agree that there is no need to stress "citizen" aspect of
> it. It was helpful but probably no always necessary as long as state
> had enough finances to maintain a proper discipline and drill. This,
> however, was an expensive option available only to a well-functioning
> state with a healthy economy.
Yeah, not that I've tried it but I understand that to get really
"automatic" military behaviour you need a LOT of drill, ALL the time.
> However, by mid XVIII the Russian soldiers had been "easier to kill
> than to chase from the filed" (don't remember which Prussian general
> said this). No change to the better in their social status but a lot
> of drill.
I think Alexius had the problem that it's difficult to create veteran
armies from nothing with enemies coming at you from all directions -- you
have to throw half-trained guys into battle. The ones that survive are
veterans in a way, but they might only have learnt running-away skills, and
you're not going to get long-term unit cohesion that way. Make sense?
> Really? Perhaps person whom I'm going to quote did not belong to a
> "true" military culture but he said: "there is no fortress that would
> not surrender to a donkey loaded with a gold". Also he was very
> appreciative of the enemy commanders who switched the sides and made
> dirty tricks a part of his military legacy. Created one of the world's
> largest empires ever. :-)
:-) This needs rephrasing, then. The Byzantines were doing stuff that a
boneheaded chivalric culture would consider dishonorable? And maybe the
boneheads would consider your guy dishonorable too. So maybe we have three
elements here: cunning, honour and zest for war. The Byzantines were
cunning, dishonourable and un-zestful, a chivalric culture is stupid,
honourable and zestful, the Mongols were cunning, dishonourable and zestful.
> Did not "live by war"? Like the guys from Catalan Company and others?
Huh? The Catalan Company were, well, Catalans, weren't they? Very
zestful, just look at Tiggers. :-) What do they have to do with the
Byzantines c. 1100?
David C. Pugh
news:1108924124.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Nah, that's the Penultimate Sign. Only after that will Inger
> reveal her sources, and then the world will come to a
>
> You mean something along the lines of angel opening the book, 5th
> rider of Appocalipsus, etc.?
Yes, that's what I had in mind. War, Plague, Famine, Death and
Scientistic Method.
Companies usually have short- and long-term disability insurances
> that provide payments to you if you can't work by some medical reasons.
So what happens when you leave the company? You lose it all, no?
> > Indeed. So it's OK that when things go south and an employee is
> laid off, he loses his healthcare?
> >
> It also is not OK for employee to loose his salary. After all, medical
> needs may or may not happen but a need to eat and to live somewhere
> is clear and obvious.
True. So, in Europe, I lose my salary, while in the US I lose my salary
AND my health insurance. Please to explain why losing both is so much worse
than losing just the one?
> Unlike many others, I'm talking from a personal experience. I was
> brought into emergency with a broken leg and nobody asked me about
> insurance until there was a time to discuss options of a post-hospital
> treatement.
OK, I'll remember your example.
> Wrong. The expences will be passed to the paying people through the
> raising premiums.
Okay. They write off the cost and pass it on, understood.
> BTW, this is not too different from what you are calling "free" sytem
> in which the capable taxpayers will have to pay more to keep system
> solvent if a number of unemployed workers would go up. You just have
> a state beurocracy vs the private ones.
Ideally, though, the state system aims to break even rather than make a
profit for shareholders. I am not happy about health systems that are run by
insurance companies.
> >If so, then it's actually free
> > healthcare, but in an irrational and inequitous manner.
> >
> Please, nothing is free except cheese in a mousetrap. There are simply
> "visible" and "invisible" payments.
Oh yes, I wasn't meaning "free" as in the sense of "perpetual motion" or
"grows on trees", but free in the sense that the patient doesn't have to
worry about money if he needs an operation. Of course, he might die on the
waiting list, but he doesn't have to sell his house to finance his cardiac
by-pass.
> > Everything was invented by Professor Popov.
>
> I suspect that this is a western invention because in Russian it would
> mean "power of the clergy" ("popvschina") :-)
Interesting. You could be right, since Popov is the sort of name
Westerners like to ascribe to Russians, vaguely comic in our ears -- though
better than Jerkov...... So this could be a Western story made up to
personalise the (very real) Soviet line on Russian science that you were
telling us about.
> Exactly. Not a head of the nobility of Moscow: politically, extremely
> important part of nobility. If, while visiting Moscow, Nicholas I got
> just a polite applause at his appearence in the theater, he would pay
> immediate attention.
Justinian in the Hippodrome -- a more democratic version of the same :-)
Yusuf B Gursey
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1108397139....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
well, if one means current Lebanon, coastal Syria, non-Turkish
inhabitants of Antakya (Antioch, the province now being called Hatay,
former Sancak / Sanjaq of Alexandretta) province of Turkey the
christian population is still near 50% to 40%. arabic speakers in
Turkey (incl. the whole border area to Syria stretching to Iraq) are
about 40% christian.
Yusuf B Gursey
>
> An interesting idea. Taking into an account their level of a
> technological development, this would probably mean ordering some
> unfortunate slave to put his finger into <whatever was a source of
the water
> flow> and stay in this position until it gets warmer....
>
called
> them IbnJobs in Nasrid Granada?)
>
>
> Sorry. Say, if the Old World doesn't exist any more, why do you
worry
> about its influence so? :-)
>
> Err.... this too. IIRC, the relationships in Alhambra's harem most
> of the time reminded those in a snakepit. OTOH, I'm not sure that
> the snake tend to develop that degree of a personal animosity to the
> other members of their species.
>
> I don't know anything about the Nasrid harem, but something I
read on
> the Topkapi harem certainly bears out your general principle. Put
lots of
> uneducated people in a confined space with nothing to do but compete
for
apart from perhaps those destined to remain chambermaids, and thus not
competing, the concubines got a fairly decent education for their time.
the report of the english ambassador confirms this. turkish, basic
arabic and persian, basics of religion, poetry, a musical instrument,
ettiquette (of course) ... (sex education was available in books called
bahname / ba:hna:ma
"book of coitus", I'm sure they read them!)
after all, soem did what some of their underage or idiot or crazed
offspring couldn't: actually run the country!
> attention, and what do you get? Apart from Hollywood, I mean.
>
> Actually, we managed to make a number of rather good shots before
> rain started.
>
David C. Pugh
news:1108955238.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Err.... this too. IIRC, the relationships in Alhambra's harem most
> > of the time reminded those in a snakepit. OTOH, I'm not sure that
> > the snake tend to develop that degree of a personal animosity to the
> > other members of their species.
> >
> > I don't know anything about the Nasrid harem, but something I
> read on
> > the Topkapi harem certainly bears out your general principle. Put
> lots of
> > uneducated people in a confined space with nothing to do but compete
> for
>
> apart from perhaps those destined to remain chambermaids, and thus not
> competing, the concubines got a fairly decent education for their time.
> the report of the english ambassador confirms this. turkish, basic
> arabic and persian, basics of religion, poetry, a musical instrument,
> ettiquette (of course) ... (sex education was available in books called
> bahname / ba:hna:ma
> "book of coitus", I'm sure they read them!)
I stand corrected!!! Thanks.
David
David C. Pugh
news:cvd37q$16i$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> In article <fU6Sd.9734$IW4.2...@news2.e.nsc.no>,
> solom...@online.no (David C. Pugh) wrote:
>
> > How were
> > they different from Byzantine soldiers in the era of the Comneni?
> > Dunno.
>
> money than recruits so made extensive use of mercenaries. I am not
I know, Kenney, I meant: how they were different man from man.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> How were
> they different from Byzantine soldiers in the era of the Comneni?
> Dunno.
Very different. By the Commeni the Byzantines tended to have more
money than recruits so made extensive use of mercenaries. I am not
sure how much of the Thematic system had survived but it was much less
important than prior to Manzikert. Unfortunately the Roman/Byzantine
organisation and recruitment system was far from constant over the
time period considered. For example there were major reorganisations
of the Byzantine military system under Leo and Maurice and again under
the Commeni.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1108924124.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Nah, that's the Penultimate Sign. Only after that will Inger
> > reveal her sources, and then the world will come to a
> >
> > You mean something along the lines of angel opening the book, 5th
> > rider of Appocalipsus, etc.?
>
> Yes, that's what I had in mind. War, Plague, Famine, Death and
> Scientistic Method.
With <you know who> representing Scientific Method, "now
we are in a real trouble!" :-)
>
> Companies usually have short- and long-term disability insurances
> > that provide payments to you if you can't work by some medical
reasons.
>
> So what happens when you leave the company? You lose it all, no?
If you fired, company usually offers you COBRA: medical
insurance which is cheaper than one over the counter and
lasts for 11(?) month or something like this (can't tell the
exact details because I never took it).
If you are leaving company on your own, it is your decision
and consequences but it has nothing to do with long-term
disability insurance - it will be paid. Late husband of
my wife's friend was getting it for few years before he died.
>
> > > Indeed. So it's OK that when things go south and an employee
is
> > laid off, he loses his healthcare?
> > >
> > It also is not OK for employee to loose his salary. After all,
medical
> > needs may or may not happen but a need to eat and to live somewhere
> > is clear and obvious.
>
> True. So, in Europe, I lose my salary, while in the US I lose my
salary
> AND my health insurance.
As I said, this is not correct factually.
>Please to explain why losing both is so much worse
> than losing just the one?
It is not better or worse because you can buy one. I already
mentioned my friend who did just this while on unemployment
(after his COBRA expired).
You may look at this issue under a different angle: you are
saving the money that you are _not_ paying in taxes for a
state-run medical insurance and you can use money saved in
the case of emergency.
>
> > Unlike many others, I'm talking from a personal experience. I was
> > brought into emergency with a broken leg and nobody asked me about
> > insurance until there was a time to discuss options of a
post-hospital
> > treatement.
>
> OK, I'll remember your example.
At least this is 1st hand experience and not a fancy story
told by a politician who has no clue about real life (being
rich and/or within a privileged system that our "servants"
are enjoying). :-)
>
> > Wrong. The expences will be passed to the paying people through the
> > raising premiums.
>
> Okay. They write off the cost and pass it on, understood.
Just as within any other system. It is just a question of
how exactly you'll be screwed. :-)
BTW, based strictly on the American experience, goverment-run
"free" Medicaid program (contrary to what you heard, there
_is_ a program for those who do qualify as "poor") was and
probably still is known for endemic frauds and the costs
spiralling out of control. To start with the "industrial-scale"
frauds when the service-providing companies had been billing
for non-existing services and equipment that was not provided,
inflated costs, etc. And all the way to the recepients
collecting stuff they did not really needed just because it
was "free" and the doctors would prescribe it without much
ado.
Not that I'm arguing against this program but it shows
one more time that state is not efficient. Extension of
this unefficiency to a whole country will be terribly
expensive and who will pay for it? Middle class.
Actually, even the big insurance companies, if they grow
big enough, start working in the state-like inefficient
fashion. But at least they have _some_ competition factor
built in and some responsibility to the share-holders, etc.
State workers simply don't care about the cost factor.
>
> > BTW, this is not too different from what you are calling "free"
sytem
> > in which the capable taxpayers will have to pay more to keep system
> > solvent if a number of unemployed workers would go up. You just
have
> > a state beurocracy vs the private ones.
>
> Ideally, though, the state system aims to break even
Yeah, sure.
>rather than make a
> profit for shareholders.
I don't see anything wrong with the profit issue because,
with the system of mutual funds in place, most of them are
the same middle class working people who will be eventually
getting something back as dividents and capital gain.
>I am not happy about health systems that are run by
> insurance companies.
>
I tried both and insurance version looks like a lesser of two
evils.
> > >If so, then it's actually free
> > > healthcare, but in an irrational and inequitous manner.
> > >
> > Please, nothing is free except cheese in a mousetrap. There are
simply
> > "visible" and "invisible" payments.
>
> Oh yes, I wasn't meaning "free" as in the sense of "perpetual
motion" or
> "grows on trees", but free in the sense that the patient doesn't have
to
> worry about money if he needs an operation.
In the case of insurance-run system patient does not have
to worry about this either.
>Of course, he might die on the
> waiting list,
AFAIK, this is more than a remote possibility in the
state-run system.
>but he doesn't have to sell his house to finance his cardiac
> by-pass.
I'm REALLY curious where did you get your information from.
Sorry, David, but it does not make a shred of a sense on
more than one account (not to mention that a merit of being
dead scenario eludes me :-)).
1. If you are REALLY poor, you'll get it for free.
2. If you are old, it will be covered by Medicare. The main
problem faced by the Medicare recepients is the cost of
drugs - some of them are only partially covered. AFAIK,
things are changing to the better in this area. I did not
pay too much attention to the details but there was something
about better coverage for the retirees.
3. If you have a _house_, surely you can put couple hundred
bucks aside to pay for a private medical insurance (friend
of mine whom I already mentioned paid appr $300 for a very
extensive one because he needed expensive drugs and he was
out of work for more than a year AND he did not sell his
house AND was not going hungry or in the rags; BTW, condo
in which we both live is expensive one so he did not live in
a hovel either). And if you have an insurance, you don't have
to worry about cost of your operation either. The same for
the post-operational treatement (unfortunately, I _do_ know
what I'm talking about).
3. Now, the worst case scenario: you do not have an insurance
AND you do not qualify as poor. You'll get surgery done but
then you may be _asked_ to pay at least part of the expences
(in the instalments).
System is far from being ideal and the brain-children of the
local proto-socialists like Ted Kennedy (HMO's) are making it
more expensive and cumbersome. But personally I don't have
any serious reason to complain.
>
>
> > > Everything was invented by Professor Popov.
> >
> > I suspect that this is a western invention because in Russian it
would
> > mean "power of the clergy" ("popvschina") :-)
>
> Interesting. You could be right, since Popov is the sort of name
> Westerners like to ascribe to Russians, vaguely comic in our ears --
though
> better than Jerkov......
It is much simpler. His family name indicates that his
ancestors belonged to a clergy. "Pop" - a priest. As a result,
term you used sounds like what I described. :-)
>So this could be a Western story made up to
> personalise the (very real) Soviet line on Russian science that you
were
> telling us about.
>
It's a distinct possibility.
> > Exactly. Not a head of the nobility of Moscow: politically,
extremely
> > important part of nobility. If, while visiting Moscow, Nicholas I
got
> > just a polite applause at his appearence in the theater, he would
pay
> > immediate attention.
>
> Justinian in the Hippodrome -- a more democratic version of the
same :-)
NOt to THAT degree because nobility of Moscow definitely
would not engage in any violent action like Bizantian crowd.
However, they were something like a barometer of a "public"
(aka "nobility") opinion of the Russian Empire and throne
could not be supported by a vacuum.
In this sense Moscow was more important than St-Petersburg
because, while St-P. represented beurocracy and top
aristocracy, Moscow represented nobility as a class. If Tzar
wanted to appeal to a nobility (as in 1812), he would go to
Moscow. As you understand, spokesman of these people should
be someone who would easily address the very top personages
of the Russian Empire.
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1108925490.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > I would certainly guess that the original citizen-armies did
feel
> > > involved in the government of the Republic, and another factor is
> > that the enemy was a lot nearer and sometimes turned up at their
> doorsteps. If the frontier of the Empire is a thousand miles away,
you don't
> feel the same imperative to help defend hearth and home. The
Nation-in-Arms
> structure requires a very clear and present danger.
> >
> > Well, they had been fighting in Spain and on Middle East, far away
from
> > their homes.
>
> Wasn't that *after* Marius had introduced the idea of rewarding
veterans
> with land, and, I think, paying for their equipment from public
funds? Late
> Republican armies weren't militia, they were long-service regulars.
Indeed. But at this time (and for quite a while afterwards) system
kept working by providing (or by promising to provide) a reward that
would compensate for an iron discipline. At some point this balance
ceased to exist (I don't know enough to tell when exactly and why)
and the Roman Emperors had to patch the gaps with the foreign
mercenaries and (IIRC) the whole barbarian tribes hired to Roman
service. Rather difficult to enforce discipline and Roman style of
a warfare on them but my impression that state simply did not have
enough resources to maintain the old Roman system.
> How were
> they different from Byzantine soldiers in the era of the Comneni?
Dunno.
Well, they arguably still were the best army in Europe while for the
army of Comneni few Norman adventurers were a deadly danger.
>
> > OTOH, I'll agree that there is no need to stress "citizen" aspect
of
> > it. It was helpful but probably no always necessary as long as
state
> > had enough finances to maintain a proper discipline and drill.
This,
> > however, was an expensive option available only to a
well-functioning
> > state with a healthy economy.
>
> Yeah, not that I've tried it but I understand that to get really
> "automatic" military behaviour you need a LOT of drill, ALL the time.
And, as The Dreadful One remarked, you have to provide enough of
a compensation that would make drilling acceptable for the
mercenaries. Guaranteed regular payments (as much later in
Netherlands). Who could afford them?
The medieval options were, AFAIK, the totalitarian states like
Mongolian and Ottoman Empire where drilling could be enforced on
at least some of the soldiers (like Janissares).
AFAIK, most of the time (at least starting with the Comneni)
Bizantians did not have enough money for the 1st scenario and
were not totalitarian enough for the 2nd.
>
> > However, by mid XVIII the Russian soldiers had been "easier to kill
> > than to chase from the filed" (don't remember which Prussian
general
> > said this). No change to the better in their social status but a
lot
> > of drill.
>
> I think Alexius had the problem that it's difficult to create
veteran
> armies from nothing with enemies coming at you from all directions
A distinct possibility. Peter at least had enough resources to keep
them pouring into the system until backbone of a new army was created.
>
> :-) This needs rephrasing, then. The Byzantines were doing stuff
that a
> boneheaded chivalric culture would consider dishonorable? And maybe
the
> boneheads would consider your guy dishonorable too. So maybe we have
three
> elements here: cunning, honour and zest for war. The Byzantines were
> cunning, dishonourable and un-zestful, a chivalric culture is stupid,
> honourable and zestful, the Mongols were cunning, dishonourable and
zestful.
>
The Bizantians had another economic options. Unlike the Mongols. :-)
> > Did not "live by war"? Like the guys from Catalan Company and
others?
>
> Huh? The Catalan Company were, well, Catalans, weren't they? Very
> zestful, just look at Tiggers. :-)
I'm not going into THIS area. :-)
>What do they have to do with the
> Byzantines c. 1100?
IIRC, they came after 1100, served to the Empire for a while,
ended up as the enemies and created their own state out of a chunk
of imperial territory.
David C. Pugh
news:1109011082.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > You mean something along the lines of angel opening the book, 5th
> > > rider of Appocalipsus, etc.?
> >
> > Yes, that's what I had in mind. War, Plague, Famine, Death and
> > Scientistic Method.
>
> With <you know who> representing Scientific Method, "now
> we are in a real trouble!" :-)
No, no, Scientistic Method isn't the same as Scientific Method!
> If you fired, company usually offers you COBRA: medical
> insurance which is cheaper than one over the counter and
> lasts for 11(?) month or something like this (can't tell the
> exact details because I never took it).
Interesting, didn't know about that. Acronym is a bit worrying. :-)
> If you are leaving company on your own, it is your decision
> and consequences but it has nothing to do with long-term
> disability insurance - it will be paid. Late husband of
> my wife's friend was getting it for few years before he died.
Good-oh.
> You may look at this issue under a different angle: you are
> saving the money that you are _not_ paying in taxes for a
> state-run medical insurance and you can use money saved in
> the case of emergency.
Most people think that Americans pay less tax than Yurrupeans, but I've
seen stuff suggesting that this isn't so, once you factor in property taxes.
AFAIK that is minimal here.
> At least this is 1st hand experience and not a fancy story
> told by a politician who has no clue about real life (being
> rich and/or within a privileged system that our "servants"
> are enjoying). :-)
All the other Americans I know on the same basis as I know you and who
have told different stories, are not politicans, or rich. But I promise you
that I *will* bear what you've told me in mind.
> Just as within any other system. It is just a question of
> how exactly you'll be screwed. :-)
kto-kovo......
> BTW, based strictly on the American experience, goverment-run
> "free" Medicaid program (contrary to what you heard, there
> _is_ a program for those who do qualify as "poor") was and
> probably still is known for endemic frauds and the costs
> spiralling out of control. To start with the "industrial-scale"
> frauds when the service-providing companies had been billing
> for non-existing services and equipment that was not provided,
> inflated costs, etc.
No doubt, but I would suggest that of the three possible systems: (1)
totally private, (2) state bureaucracy and (3) state buys services from
private players, the highest level of corruption will be found in the third.
All the privatisers seem to have forgotten why utilities and services were
nationalised in the first place. You know the "stately homes of England",
that tourists pay to traipse round? Quite a few, I gather, built by
18th-century military contractors.
> Actually, even the big insurance companies, if they grow
> big enough, start working in the state-like inefficient
> fashion. But at least they have _some_ competition factor
> built in and some responsibility to the share-holders, etc.
It's the responsibility to the shareholders that worries me. Every time
an insurance company finds an excuse not to pay indemnity, the shareholders
become that bit happier. The ideal insurance company, from the shareholder's
PoV, would charge huge premiums and never pay out, ever.
> State workers simply don't care about the cost factor.
They also have less reason to screw over the customer. I mean, often
they *enjoyed* it, but they didn't used to have a personal financial
incentive. :-)
> I don't see anything wrong with the profit issue because,
> with the system of mutual funds in place, most of them are
> the same middle class working people who will be eventually
> getting something back as dividents and capital gain.
What is below the middle-class working people? Non-working people?
Working un-people?
> I'm REALLY curious where did you get your information from.
Listening to Americans on Usenet, not necessarily on SHM. If you say I
shouldn't listen to them, then you got yourself a self-referential paradox
:-)
> 3. If you have a _house_, surely you can put couple hundred
> bucks aside to pay for a private medical insurance (friend
> of mine whom I already mentioned paid appr $300 for a very
> extensive one because he needed expensive drugs and he was
> out of work for more than a year AND he did not sell his
> house AND was not going hungry or in the rags; BTW, condo
> in which we both live is expensive one so he did not live in
> a hovel either). And if you have an insurance, you don't have
> to worry about cost of your operation either. The same for
> the post-operational treatement (unfortunately, I _do_ know
> what I'm talking about).
For the record, I myself would probably do OK under your system. I am
extremely organised financially, every month-end I transfer money to
separate accounts for tax, VAT and business reserve, then pay myself a
salary, then transfer from that salary to accounts or notional sub-accounts
for long-term savings, private pension, insurances, holidays, charities,
next pair of glasses, and all the various bills that come quarterly or
annually, and so on, so forth, etc und so weiter. For me it would be truly
trivial to calculate my medical insurance premium bill, divide by 12 and
earmark that every month. Just so you don't think that where I'm coming from
is feckless incompetence. :-)
> System is far from being ideal and the brain-children of the
> local proto-socialists like Ted Kennedy (HMO's) are making it
> more expensive and cumbersome. But personally I don't have
> any serious reason to complain.
Haven't heard much good about HMOs, true. As our evil socialist commie
system corrupts and degrades, we're getting something similar by the back
door -- a weird form of diagnosis coding in hospitals whereby medical calls
are distorted by budgetary rules. In both cases, treatment decisions seem to
be made by accountants rather than doctors......
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1109011082.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > You mean something along the lines of angel opening the book,
5th
> > > > rider of Appocalipsus, etc.?
> > >
> > > Yes, that's what I had in mind. War, Plague, Famine, Death
and
> > > Scientistic Method.
> >
> > With <you know who> representing Scientific Method, "now
> > we are in a real trouble!" :-)
>
> No, no, Scientistic Method isn't the same as Scientific Method!
Is it disturbing?
>
> > If you fired, company usually offers you COBRA: medical
> > insurance which is cheaper than one over the counter and
> > lasts for 11(?) month or something like this (can't tell the
> > exact details because I never took it).
>
> Interesting, didn't know about that. Acronym is a bit worrying.
:-)
Yes, it is.
>
> > You may look at this issue under a different angle: you are
> > saving the money that you are _not_ paying in taxes for a
> > state-run medical insurance and you can use money saved in
> > the case of emergency.
>
> Most people think that Americans pay less tax than Yurrupeans,
but I've
> seen stuff suggesting that this isn't so, once you factor in property
taxes.
Federal income taxes, state income taxes, federal sale taxes (including
services), in some states state sale taxes, city taxes: home and car,
social security tax, gasoline tax, in some states (like in MA) a hidden
tax on booze (AFAIK over 50% of initial cost), etc. List is far from
being complete.
One item you are going to enjoy: taxes on the cigarets. :-)
> AFAIK that is minimal here.
Lucky you.
>
> > At least this is 1st hand experience and not a fancy story
> > told by a politician who has no clue about real life (being
> > rich and/or within a privileged system that our "servants"
> > are enjoying). :-)
>
> All the other Americans I know on the same basis as I know you
and who
> have told different stories,
You mean some of them had been refused emergency treatement because
they did not have insurance?
>are not politicans, or rich. But I promise you
> that I *will* bear what you've told me in mind.
>
> > Just as within any other system. It is just a question of
> > how exactly you'll be screwed. :-)
>
> kto-kovo......
>
Neah, "kto-kovo" means "who will screw whom". It's quite clear who
will be doing what to whom. The question is how exactly.
> > BTW, based strictly on the American experience, goverment-run
> > "free" Medicaid program (contrary to what you heard, there
> > _is_ a program for those who do qualify as "poor") was and
> > probably still is known for endemic frauds and the costs
> > spiralling out of control. To start with the "industrial-scale"
> > frauds when the service-providing companies had been billing
> > for non-existing services and equipment that was not provided,
> > inflated costs, etc.
>
> No doubt, but I would suggest that of the three possible systems:
(1)
> totally private, (2) state bureaucracy and (3) state buys services
from
> private players, the highest level of corruption will be found in the
third.
I'm intimately familiar with option (2) and IMO this option can
compete with any other. In the SU it was clearly beating its
competitors (there were some payment-based options) in the terms
of corruption and incompetence.
> All the privatisers seem to have forgotten why utilities and services
were
> nationalised in the first place. You know the "stately homes of
England",
> that tourists pay to traipse round? Quite a few, I gather, built by
> 18th-century military contractors.
I have little to add to what had been said in the old Czechoslovakian
movie: "We don't have large-scale crimes like the West does. Our people
are stealing in the small quantities but all the time."
>
> > Actually, even the big insurance companies, if they grow
> > big enough, start working in the state-like inefficient
> > fashion. But at least they have _some_ competition factor
> > built in and some responsibility to the share-holders, etc.
>
> It's the responsibility to the shareholders that worries me.
As opposite to a complete irresponsibility? Judging by what I saw,
it is close to impossible to separate a well-trenched "public
servant" (esp. a high-placed one) from the system no matter what
his/her/its performance is.
>Every time
> an insurance company finds an excuse not to pay indemnity, the
shareholders
> become that bit happier. The ideal insurance company, from the
shareholder's
> PoV, would charge huge premiums and never pay out, ever.
I'm afraid that you are seriously confused. Not to mention the
numerous regulations, company like this will loose all the customers
and THAT will definitely make shareholders very unhappy.
>
> > State workers simply don't care about the cost factor.
>
> They also have less reason to screw over the customer.
That's _your_ opinion.
> I mean, often
> they *enjoyed* it, but they didn't used to have a personal financial
> incentive. :-)
It is amazing what sense of even a limited power does to the people
on all stages of an administrative ladder.
Not to mention that inability to perform in an efficient way _is_
a part of screwing you up.
>
> > I don't see anything wrong with the profit issue because,
> > with the system of mutual funds in place, most of them are
> > the same middle class working people who will be eventually
> > getting something back as dividents and capital gain.
>
> What is below the middle-class working people? Non-working
people?
> Working un-people?
IMO, definition of those depends on the political goals of a
particular speaker. AFAIK, in a liberal lingo "working class"
often (I can't say "always") means appr. the following:
1. _Unionized_ labor regardless of the specific of their activities
(teachers, policemen, firemen, truck drivers, etc.).
2. People on minimal wage or at least those with a really low pay.
Robert Reich was probably one of the few democratic candidates who
was foolish enough to spell threshold income out (peanuts by MA
standards) and lost gubernatorial primaries in MA miserably.
3. Sometimes non-working people with an explanation that they will
be working providing they had necessary training, guaranteed high
salary and preferably managerial positions.
Most of the rest of a "middle class" is not qualified as the "working".
Presumably we all exist on the inherited wealth.
>
> > I'm REALLY curious where did you get your information from.
>
> Listening to Americans on Usenet, not necessarily on SHM. If you
say I
> shouldn't listen to them, then you got yourself a self-referential
paradox
> :-)
No, I was just curious. Different people have different experiences
and opinions.
>
> > 3. If you have a _house_, surely you can put couple hundred
> > bucks aside to pay for a private medical insurance (friend
> > of mine whom I already mentioned paid appr $300 for a very
> > extensive one because he needed expensive drugs and he was
> > out of work for more than a year AND he did not sell his
> > house AND was not going hungry or in the rags; BTW, condo
> > in which we both live is expensive one so he did not live in
> > a hovel either). And if you have an insurance, you don't have
> > to worry about cost of your operation either. The same for
> > the post-operational treatement (unfortunately, I _do_ know
> > what I'm talking about).
>
> For the record, I myself would probably do OK under your system.
I am
> extremely organised financially, every month-end I transfer money to
> separate accounts for tax, VAT and business reserve, then pay myself
a
> salary,
A blood-sucking capitalist????
>then transfer from that salary to accounts or notional sub-accounts
> for long-term savings, private pension, insurances, holidays,
charities,
> next pair of glasses, and all the various bills that come quarterly
or
> annually, and so on, so forth, etc und so weiter. For me it would be
truly
> trivial to calculate my medical insurance premium bill, divide by 12
and
> earmark that every month. Just so you don't think that where I'm
coming from
> is feckless incompetence. :-)
>
OK.
> > System is far from being ideal and the brain-children of the
> > local proto-socialists like Ted Kennedy (HMO's) are making it
> > more expensive and cumbersome. But personally I don't have
> > any serious reason to complain.
>
> Haven't heard much good about HMOs, true. As our evil socialist
commie
> system corrupts and degrades, we're getting something similar by the
back
> door -- a weird form of diagnosis coding in hospitals whereby medical
calls
> are distorted by budgetary rules. In both cases, treatment decisions
seem to
> be made by accountants rather than doctors......
>
Yes. As Breznev put it, "Economy must be economical" even under
socialism.... :-)
David C. Pugh
news:1109012321.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
(snip, because I've got a lot to do and can't keep up, getting a cold
too....)
> > Huh? The Catalan Company were, well, Catalans, weren't they? Very
> > zestful, just look at Tiggers. :-)
>
> I'm not going into THIS area. :-)
>
> >What do they have to do with the
> > Byzantines c. 1100?
>
> IIRC, they came after 1100
well after!!!!
served to the Empire for a while,
> ended up as the enemies and created their own state out of a chunk
> of imperial territory.
Sure they did. Like the Norman adventurers earlier -- Russel Balliol,
and the Crusaders. But you originally used the Catalan Company to illustrate
something about the native Byzantines, what was it again?
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1109012321.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
>
> (snip, because I've got a lot to do and can't keep up, getting a
cold
> too....)
Too many diseases simultaneously. Some intensive manual labor (on BD)
would
strenghten your organism. :-)
>
> > > Huh? The Catalan Company were, well, Catalans, weren't they?
Very
> > > zestful, just look at Tiggers. :-)
> >
> > I'm not going into THIS area. :-)
> >
> > >What do they have to do with the
> > > Byzantines c. 1100?
> >
> > IIRC, they came after 1100
>
> well after!!!!
>
> served to the Empire for a while,
> > ended up as the enemies and created their own state out of a chunk
> > of imperial territory.
>
> Sure they did. Like the Norman adventurers earlier -- Russel
Balliol,
> and the Crusaders. But you originally used the Catalan Company to
illustrate
> something about the native Byzantines, what was it again?
That a big and presumably string state was successfully terrorized by a
band of adventurers (without no obvious technological advantage or any
advantage at all except their ferocity).
BTW, speaking of the citizens-soldiers (in the earlier posts), I'm not
sure
that this ever worked in a "pure" form: to be successful these citizen
armies
(Republican Romans, Mongols, etc.) usually had to pass through a
considerable
drill as well and the earlier successes of the not-so-disciplined
French
Republicans were at least partially due to a healthy numeric advantage
and
to the "old" units still being present at least as a backbone.
David Read
"David C. Pugh" <solom...@online.no> wrote in message
news:MI5Td.9913$Sl3.3...@news4.e.nsc.no...
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1109012321.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
> (snip, because I've got a lot to do and can't keep up, getting a cold
> too....)
>
>> > Huh? The Catalan Company were, well, Catalans, weren't they? Very
>> > zestful, just look at Tiggers. :-)
>>
>> I'm not going into THIS area. :-)
>>
>> >What do they have to do with the
>> > Byzantines c. 1100?
>>
>> IIRC, they came after 1100
>
> well after!!!!
>
> served to the Empire for a while,
>> ended up as the enemies and created their own state out of a chunk
>> of imperial territory.
>
> Sure they did. Like the Norman adventurers earlier -- Russel Balliol,
> and the Crusaders. But you originally used the Catalan Company to
> illustrate
> something about the native Byzantines, what was it again?
>
Coming into this thread rather late -
John Haldon observes of the Byzantines under Roussel de Bailleul's rule that
"his administration was certainly no less and was probably more popular than
that of Constantinople: local opposition to him is not recorded, whereas the
population of Amaseis were prepared to pay a considerable sum to the
representative of the imperial power in 1075 to save him from being blinded,
and showed a degree of hostility to the imperial forces."
I suspect that the dominant factors in the low numbers of native Byzantine
troops in the Comnenan army were less to do with any draft dodging, but in
the continuation and expansion of the foreign mercenary element in Byzantine
employ. That element, of course, had always existed, for hundreds of years.
But defence was, to use a modern idiom, increasingly being outsourced after
Manzikert and until the fall of Constantinople in 1204. Outsourcing appeared
to offer a cost benefit in providing good quality troops who could be
supported by the taxation of the working native population (who were thus
kept productive and generating of wealth), and by the billetting of
soldiers upon the local population. The anti-military discontent mostly
seems to have derived from objections to the effects of these policies,
including complaints against a central government which forced these
impositions upon the population, and from the ill-discipline of both foreign
and native troops in the midst of that civilian population.
If resentment could grow in such a way, then any change in the
administration, from Byzantine to Latin, for example, might have seemed to
provide some respite, in the short term, at least.
--
cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
I kept guessing when you'll be eventually tempted enough to join. :-)
OK, the obvious question is: _why_ did it became more profitable? As
with the
modern outsourcing, you have more than one factor to consider. For
example,
reliability of the mercenary troops, their tensions with a local
population,
their availability, etc.
Clearly, in a long run the system did not work as it supossed to:
wealth
generated by the natives was not enough to maintain enough of the
mercenaries
(and eventually, even for buying back the crown jewels), at least some
of the
mercenaries turned against the Bizantians, territory was almost
continuely
shrinking (with revenues), etc.
>The anti-military discontent mostly
> seems to have derived from objections to the effects of these
policies,
> including complaints against a central government which forced these
> impositions upon the population, and from the ill-discipline of both
foreign
> and native troops in the midst of that civilian population.
>
Yes, but were not some of these factors something like a "recognized
evil" in the rest of a civilized world? Ill-disciplined troops were,
indeed,
annoying but that's what was available in contemporary Europe and (most
of)
Asia. And I'm not sure that population always enjoyed presence of the
well-disciplined troops as well (unless reputation of the Mongols was
seriously distorted by the ...er... "victorian historians" :-) ).
How come that the Bizantians proved to be more vulnerable to all these
factors than their neighbours? Could it be due to the fact that the
militaries
were increasingly outsiders with the xenophobic factors being added?
> If resentment could grow in such a way, then any change in the
> administration, from Byzantine to Latin, for example, might have
seemed to
> provide some respite, in the short term, at least.
It does not look like Constantinople-based Latin administration
endeared
itself to the natives (but I agree that easiness with which it was
established tells us something) but, IIRC, it was more stable in some
other
Latin principalities.
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109275826.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> I kept guessing when you'll be eventually tempted enough to join. :-)
Real life intervention.
I'll try to stick for the time being with what can be roughly described as
the "Comnenan Period", and what typified the developments within the
Byzantine Empire between 1071 and 1204. The development of the army in this
period and its relationship with Byzantine society depends upon what had
happened at Manzikert and upon the perception of the army's performance in
that battle, and this led to new thinking as to how the defence of the once
again shrunken empire could be achieved. The old Thematic army, that is an
army composed of part-time soldiers who had tended to serve in the provinces
in which they were born had fallen into decline before Manzikert, (although
there was some revival in the years immediately preceding 1071), no longer
existed. The Tagmatic element of the army, that is, the regular part which
comprised many full-time professional native troops, had also been largely
destroyed. To revive the army of the reduced Empire along the old Thematic
lines would have risked repeats of the rebellions and factionalism which had
beset the Empire during the first half of the 11th century. The central
government at Constantinople of a weakened empire could not take that
chance. Loyalty to the emperor was at a premium. Part-time soldiers were
out of favour, and to replace them, professionals, largely foreign, but with
some natives, could be paid for with the intention of buying their loyalty.
Haldon makes the point that although foreign professional troops were often
resented by the native population, so were and had been professional native
troops , i.e., the old Tagmatic army. So, while foreign mercenaries often
got most of the bad publicity as far as the native population was concerned,
there is also considerable evidence that the native population resented the
presence and expense of *all* professional troops, foreign or indigenous.
To say that in the long run the reliance on largely foreign troops didn't
work is to miss the point that in earlier "long-runs", whatever one means by
that term, other setups in military organisation hadn't worked either. But
overall, the "long-run" for the Byzantines was very long indeed.
>>The anti-military discontent mostly
>> seems to have derived from objections to the effects of these
> policies,
>> including complaints against a central government which forced these
>> impositions upon the population, and from the ill-discipline of both
> foreign
>> and native troops in the midst of that civilian population.
>>
>
> Yes, but were not some of these factors something like a "recognized
> evil" in the rest of a civilized world?
I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
> Ill-disciplined troops were,
> indeed,
> annoying but that's what was available in contemporary Europe and (most
> of)
> Asia. And I'm not sure that population always enjoyed presence of the
> well-disciplined troops as well (unless reputation of the Mongols was
> seriously distorted by the ...er... "victorian historians" :-) ).
>
> How come that the Bizantians proved to be more vulnerable to all these
> factors than their neighbours? Could it be due to the fact that the
> militaries
> were increasingly outsiders with the xenophobic factors being added?
I think it is more to do with the conflict between the requirements of
central government --- which wanted an army that would be loyal to the
emperor, and which thus had to be well-paid for --- and the requirements of
regional populations and the provincial nobility --- which preferred an army
that was less of a financial burden upon them and which was more or less
tied to local interests.
>
>> If resentment could grow in such a way, then any change in the
>> administration, from Byzantine to Latin, for example, might have
> seemed to
>> provide some respite, in the short term, at least.
>
> It does not look like Constantinople-based Latin administration
> endeared
> itself to the natives (but I agree that easiness with which it was
> established tells us something) but, IIRC, it was more stable in some
> other
> Latin principalities.
Ah, but now you're talking of post-1204, when the Byzantines could perceive
themselves as having been treacherously and disastrously defeated by their
supposed former Christian allies, a relationship which had never been easy,
culminating in the loss of the imperial city and a huge blow to their Roman
identity.
--
cheers,
David Read
David C. Pugh
news:1109186860.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Most people think that Americans pay less tax than Yurrupeans,
> but I've seen stuff suggesting that this isn't so, once you factor in
property
> taxes.
>
> Federal income taxes, state income taxes, federal sale taxes (including
services), in some states state sale taxes, city taxes: home and car,
> social security tax, gasoline tax, in some states (like in MA) a hidden
> tax on booze (AFAIK over 50% of initial cost), etc. List is far from
> being complete.
Indeed. Now, I pay my equivalent of your federal income taxes, state
income taxes, city taxes, social security tax and property taxes all
together in one go. If I were on a salary, the first four at least would be
withheld and paid by my employer; being self-employed I pay all five
together, and don't take any interest in the precise breakdown. So when I
think "my taxes" I have I mind these five things as an indissoluble unity.
Now, when Americans point to how much taxes we poor liberal communist
socialist statist slaves pay over here, are they comparing this unity to the
total of their five direct taxes, or are they for example comparing this
unity to their income taxes alone and leaving their social security and
property taxes out of the comparison?
Because if so, it is no longer so self-evident that you pay less tax.
And if you actually do pay as many taxes as we do, it may be useful to ask
what you, and we, get in return.
> One item you are going to enjoy: taxes on the cigarets. :-)
Only two things are certain (Franklin?), and they get both Death *and*
Taxes. :-)
> > AFAIK that is minimal here.
>
> Lucky you.
I live in a <borettslag>, very roughly equivalent to your condos, and am
taxed on my share of the association's assets, but also get a deduction for
its debt, which is bigger :-) Property taxes on an apartment, zilch. I pay
something like 1% on my net assets in wealth tax, not a very big annoyance
in the scheme of things. When our interest rates were high, it was a bigger
annoyance to pay tax on the interest on my savings. (You'd think the gummint
would want me to save, wouldn't you? It's where the economy gets its
investment from.)
> You mean some of them had been refused emergency treatement because
> they did not have insurance?
Wooo, no, I don't think so. Not if we're talking a knife in the gut and
the ER says "go away, poor schmuck", no. But suppose an uninsured American
needs a cardiac by-pass, or else he will die in a year or two? What happens
then? Genuine question, not rhetoric.
> Neah, "kto-kovo" means "who will screw whom". It's quite clear who
> will be doing what to whom. The question is how exactly.
Hey, I was doing my best :-)
> I'm intimately familiar with option (2) and IMO this option can
> compete with any other. In the SU it was clearly beating its
> competitors (there were some payment-based options) in the terms
> of corruption and incompetence.
No doubt. The question is then whether Option (2) is inevitably more
corrupt than the other two, in every possible corner of the metaverse, or
whether particular Russian or Soviet factors were aggravating it.
> I have little to add to what had been said in the old Czechoslovakian
> movie: "We don't have large-scale crimes like the West does. Our people
> are stealing in the small quantities but all the time."
Sounds fair enough to me. The government hunts down criminals, until
these get so big that they become the government...... and I suggest that is
a constant, East or West.
> As opposite to a complete irresponsibility? Judging by what I saw,
> it is close to impossible to separate a well-trenched "public
> servant" (esp. a high-placed one) from the system no matter what
> his/her/its performance is.
Yeah, this is a problem. Some people say that too blatantly incompetent
officials do get "kicked upstairs" to grand-sounding but in reality
unimportant jobs. But remember that the Peter Principle applies in all
organisations, not just the State. What happens to a CEO who wrecks a
company? Why, he gets paid to transfer to another company to wreck it.
I'm afraid that you are seriously confused. Not to mention the
> numerous regulations
What!!!! You're relying on government regulations? Whatever happened to
(cue Mel) Freeeeeeeeeedoooooooom? :-)
company like this will loose all the customers
> and THAT will definitely make shareholders very unhappy.
Not if the insurance companies are cartelised.
> > They also have less reason to screw over the customer.
>
> That's _your_ opinion.
See below, I meant reason as in financial incentive: psychotic emotional
reasons are another matter. I wasn't very clear there.
> > I mean, often they *enjoyed* it, but they didn't used to have a personal
financial incentive. :-)
>
> It is amazing what sense of even a limited power does to the people
> on all stages of an administrative ladder.
Oh yes. When I was a kid in the UK we had a radio and TV actor who
specialised in the malicious petty official, he was called Derek Guyler. No
doubt William and Surreyman remember him. Wish you could have seen him, to
compare with his Soviet opposite number.
But are people with power on the rungs of a corporate ladder any better?
> Not to mention that inability to perform in an efficient way _is_ a part
of screwing you up.
True. So how do you get on with your ISP's helpless-desk?
> > What is below the middle-class working people? Non-working
> people? Working un-people?
>
> IMO, definition of those depends on the political goals of a
> particular speaker. AFAIK, in a liberal lingo "working class"
> often (I can't say "always") means appr. the following:
> 1. _Unionized_ labor regardless of the specific of their activities
> (teachers, policemen, firemen, truck drivers, etc.).
> 2. People on minimal wage or at least those with a really low pay.
> Robert Reich was probably one of the few democratic candidates who
> was foolish enough to spell threshold income out (peanuts by MA
> standards) and lost gubernatorial primaries in MA miserably.
> 3. Sometimes non-working people with an explanation that they will
> be working providing they had necessary training, guaranteed high
> salary and preferably managerial positions.
>
> Most of the rest of a "middle class" is not qualified as the "working".
> Presumably we all exist on the inherited wealth.
There's an interesting debate here, about how we should describe the
social stratification of our countries anno 2005. It's by no means obvious
that the tripartite scheme of the 19th century is applicable. However, I'd
like to take a raincheck on that, being swamped by work, mail, posts, a book
I'm writing, and some seriously screwed arm muscles..... Some other time,
Alex?
> No, I was just curious. Different people have different experiences
> and opinions.
Ain't that the truth!
> > For the record, I myself would probably do OK under your system.
> I am extremely organised financially, every month-end I transfer money to
> > separate accounts for tax, VAT and business reserve, then pay myself
> a salary,
>
> A blood-sucking capitalist????
Nope. Not an exploiter of labour :-)
> Yes. As Breznev put it, "Economy must be economical" even under
> socialism.... :-)
And he should know :-/
am...@hotmail.com
In other words, situation within BE was substantially different (if I
understand you correctly) from one in the rest of Europe (and probably
Bizantian neighbours in Asia):
BE was a "centralized" state in more or less modern sense of this word
(strong central goverment that was supossed to control the whole
country)
while most of her neighbours were in the different stages of ...er...
"feudal
anarchy" ("state" personified by a ruler controls mostly immediate
subordinates who control their subordinates, etc.).
I remember an old argument that this situation actually made BE weaker
because
there was no (western-style) bellicose "military class" and that, in
general,
centralization (or what passed for it at this time) had a negative
impact
on country's ability to evolve and progress. Probably this is a little
bit
too extreme but I repeat a comparison of pre-Peter Russian army with
its
Polish counterparts. Formally, in the terms of organization, Russian
army
was quite advanced: organization of artillery had been handled on
ministerial
level, regular infantry with the firearms, etc. However, this army was
almost
completely uncapable to fight much less "organized" Poles in the open
field
because it was seriously deficient in a military spirit and in
training.
Mercenary or allied foreign troops had been of a noticeably better
quality.
> To say that in the long run the reliance on largely foreign troops
didn't
> work is to miss the point that in earlier "long-runs", whatever one
means by
> that term, other setups in military organisation hadn't worked
either. But
> overall, the "long-run" for the Byzantines was very long indeed.
Indeed. But one thing is clear. The mercenary/allied troops usually
required cash or its equivalent, which required a well-developed and
properly functioning economy. A "pure feudal system" (if this animal
ever existed) relied on cash to a much lesser degree and, as a result,
was less sensitive to the various types of dysasters.
>
> >>The anti-military discontent mostly
> >> seems to have derived from objections to the effects of these
> > policies,
> >> including complaints against a central government which forced
these
> >> impositions upon the population, and from the ill-discipline of
both
> > foreign
> >> and native troops in the midst of that civilian population.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, but were not some of these factors something like a
"recognized
> > evil" in the rest of a civilized world?
>
> I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
>
That in most part of a contemporary world a low discipline of the
troops
was taken for granted and, except in some extreme cases, did not cause
any
serious backlash of a civilian population.
Can we assume that a "typical" situation in, say, Western Europe was
more or
less along the lines of a second scenario: most of the armed forces had
been
local and central goverment posessed only very limited force of its
own?
If yes, is it reasonable to assume that decentralized state at this
stage of
a development could be considered "better" (as better supported by
population)
than a centralized one? If yes, could we consider centralization as one
of
the Bizantian weaknesses?
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1109186860.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Now, when Americans point to how much taxes we poor liberal
communist
> socialist statist slaves pay over here, are they comparing this unity
to the
> total of their five direct taxes, or are they for example comparing
this
> unity to their income taxes alone and leaving their social security
and
> property taxes out of the comparison?
I have no clue who means what exactly. My cut on this is simple: within
the _existing_ American realities (multi-level structure of the "taxing
entities" with their huge overlaps of the services that will not go
away)
we are _already_ paying too much. The proposals of the sweeping changes
in the services provided (like in medicine) would make this tax burden
even heavier and will not provide anything worthy. At least as far as
I'm
concerned.
>
> > You mean some of them had been refused emergency treatement because
> > they did not have insurance?
>
> Wooo, no, I don't think so.
Then, what they are saying about _this_ subject is irrelevant.
>Not if we're talking a knife in the gut and
> the ER says "go away, poor schmuck", no. But suppose an uninsured
American
> needs a cardiac by-pass, or else he will die in a year or two? What
happens
> then? Genuine question, not rhetoric.
I have no clue but a proper question is: how does he/she/it knows that
this bypass is needed? AFAIK, most people, insured or not, don't visit
doctors with any degree of a regularity.
> > I'm intimately familiar with option (2) and IMO this option can
> > compete with any other. In the SU it was clearly beating its
> > competitors (there were some payment-based options) in the terms
> > of corruption and incompetence.
>
> No doubt. The question is then whether Option (2) is inevitably
more
> corrupt than the other two, in every possible corner of the
metaverse, or
> whether particular Russian or Soviet factors were aggravating it.
>
The factors added their share in the SU (can't tell about Russia) but
my experience with Soviet-style HMO here in the US did not make me
optimistic about the whole idea.
> > I have little to add to what had been said in the old
Czechoslovakian
> > movie: "We don't have large-scale crimes like the West does. Our
people
> > are stealing in the small quantities but all the time."
>
> Sounds fair enough to me. The government hunts down criminals,
until
> these get so big that they become the government...... and I suggest
that is
> a constant, East or West.
Errrr..... I'm afraid that you did not get it. In the case mentioned,
absense of few big-scale criminals and few big-scale crimes was
"compensated"
by the fact that _most_ of the population had been stealing (on a small
scale) something from the system all the time.
> a book
> I'm writing,
Can I get a free copy? [it does not matter what the book is about as
long
as it is free :-)]
David C. Pugh
news:1109348502.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Not if we're talking a knife in the gut and
> > the ER says "go away, poor schmuck", no. But suppose an uninsured
> American
> > needs a cardiac by-pass, or else he will die in a year or two? What
> happens
> > then? Genuine question, not rhetoric.
>
> I have no clue but a proper question is: how does he/she/it knows that
> this bypass is needed? AFAIK, most people, insured or not, don't visit
> doctors with any degree of a regularity.
1. David goes to doctor. "David, you need a heart operation, I'll put you
on the waiting list". "Thank you".
2. Alex goes to doctor. "Alex, you need a heart operation. It'll cost you
100,000 dollars." "That's OK, my insurance will cover it."
3. Joe Blow goes to doctor. "Joe, you need a heart operation. It'll cost
you 100,000 dollars." "I don't have that sort of money, the only insurance I
can afford won't cover that". What happens now?
> Errrr..... I'm afraid that you did not get it.
Could be, it's been a tough couple of days.
In the case mentioned,> absense of few big-scale criminals and few big-scale
crimes was> "compensated"> by the fact that _most_ of the population had
been stealing (on a small> scale) something from the system all the time.
OK.
> > a book I'm writing,
>
> Can I get a free copy? [it does not matter what the book is about as
> long as it is free :-)]
Huh? What kinda capitalist are you anyway?
My royalties or whatever are going to charity, so the serious answer is
no as well :-)
Anyway, it's in Norwegian. :-)
David Read
From: <am...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Byzantine draft-dodgers (was Re: Medieval places..... )
<snips for space>
If you want to grind it right down to the nitty-gritty, then the fall of
Constantinople in 1204 can be ascribed to little more than a case of point
d'argent, point de Suisse, with the "Suisse" in this case turning nasty.
However, I don't buy a theory which might claim that overcentralisiation and
the supposed lack of a military class made the long term fall of the
Byzantine empire inevitable. On the contrary, centralisation of power and a
well ordered military system, including not only foreign mercenaries but a
large and well-ordered indigenous military class. had kept the empire afloat
for many centuries. If the military disasters which punctuated late Roman
and Byzantine history are merely to be ascribed to centralisation and a lack
of fighting spirit, then how is one also to explain the longevity of the
empire, its successes in its periods of reconquest and expansion, unless one
also takes into account the military genius of the Byzantines, the
strategical and tactical acumen of some of its generals and emperors, and
the weaknesses of its enemies. The relative economic weakness of the empire
the decades after Manzikert, and the loss of territory and recruiting
grounds dictated how the Comneni were able to organise the empire's
defences, and less successfully, attempts at re-expansion. The empire was
now faced with , and eventually surrounded by, rivals and enemies who were
now generally at least as wealthy, technologically and militarily advanced
as it had once been. Internally, the empire continue to be divided by power
struggles and resistance to central authority. I don't see this so much as a
lack of a military class, but a lack of the discipline and unity that was
required amongst the elite in order to preserve and advance the interests of
the state. In other words, the Comneni failed to unify the nobility and the
peasantry behind them in a common cause.
>
>
> Indeed. But one thing is clear. The mercenary/allied troops usually
> required cash or its equivalent, which required a well-developed and
> properly functioning economy. A "pure feudal system" (if this animal
> ever existed) relied on cash to a much lesser degree and, as a result,
> was less sensitive to the various types of dysasters.
You can however also reward mercenaries with land, so cash rewards alone are
not necessarily the only incentive. The danger with such a policy is that
the new settlers can afterwards assert their independence, resulting in
increased tensions and fragmentation.
>> > Yes, but were not some of these factors something like a
> "recognized
>> > evil" in the rest of a civilized world?
>>
>> I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
>>
>
> That in most part of a contemporary world a low discipline of the
> troops
> was taken for granted and, except in some extreme cases, did not cause
> any
> serious backlash of a civilian population.
OK.
>
>
> Can we assume that a "typical" situation in, say, Western Europe was
> more or
> less along the lines of a second scenario: most of the armed forces had
> been
> local and central goverment posessed only very limited force of its
> own?
> If yes, is it reasonable to assume that decentralized state at this
> stage of
> a development could be considered "better" (as better supported by
> population)
> than a centralized one? If yes, could we consider centralization as one
> of
> the Bizantian weaknesses?
In the Comnenan period, yes, because the weak economy proved to be unable to
support the ambitions of central government, and provincial resistance to
the financial and political demands made by central government fundamentally
undermined those ambitions.
--
cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
?
> with the "Suisse" in this case turning nasty.
No, I was not really referencing to this event because afterwards much
weaker BE was able to resist the prolonged sieges and more formidable
opponents, like Bayazid. We can probably consider this as a fluke
caused
by unlucky set of the political circumstances.
> However, I don't buy a theory which might claim that
overcentralisiation and
> the supposed lack of a military class
Not "lack" but a low quality caused by the system. In the case of
Russia vs.
Poland Russia did not lack a military class, it was huge. The problem
was
that this class was not "bellicose" like Polish shljahta: very little
in
the terms of a personal honor and little interest to a military
training
but a lot of ebenrgy spent on petitions regarding salary and land
grants.
Polish shljahta of the same period was moving in an opposite direction
and
FOR A WHILE this direction was more "productive" military.
> made the long term fall of the
> Byzantine empire inevitable.
IIRC, I did not use word "inevitable" and, IMO, very few things ever
were
really inevitable.
The question is about strenghtening vs weakening system. I'll buy an
argument that with any other system BE would fell sooner rather than
later but my initial question was rather why BE's opponents suddenly
became comparably strong?
It is always convenient to blame everything on a single lost battle but
sometimes inability to recover after it is an indication that something
was going wrong.
> On the contrary, centralisation of power and a
> well ordered military system, including not only foreign mercenaries
but a
> large and well-ordered indigenous military class. had kept the empire
afloat
> for many centuries.
Yes, it did. But it looks like during the last 2 - 3 centuries of its
existence empire was living more or less on a "borrowed time" and that
a balanced system you described did not really work anymore. Or did not
work as it supossed to work.
>If the military disasters which punctuated late Roman
> and Byzantine history are merely to be ascribed to centralisation and
a lack
> of fighting spirit,
This would be a gross simplification. But late Roman Empire _did_ have
problems with raising the efficient armies and had growing problems
with
recovering after defeats.
>then how is one also to explain the longevity of the
> empire, its successes in its periods of reconquest and expansion,
unless one
> also takes into account the military genius of the Byzantines, the
> strategical and tactical acumen of some of its generals and emperors,
and
> the weaknesses of its enemies. The relative economic weakness of the
empire
> the decades after Manzikert,
Could it be that this weakness actually existed before Manzikert and
that
due to this weakness defeat had such heavy consequences?
>and the loss of territory and recruiting
> grounds
>dictated how the Comneni were able to organise the empire's
> defences, and less successfully, attempts at re-expansion.
True. However, the rootless adventurers like Robert Guiscard,
Catalonians,
etc. _seem_ to be able to pull impressive military forces practically
from
nowhere.
A little bit similarly to a situation of at least 1st period fo 30YW
when
all these adventurers were raising their own armies much easier then
some
presumably powerful states.
>The empire was
> now faced with , and eventually surrounded by, rivals and enemies who
were
> now generally at least as wealthy,
OK, how did they get wealthy? Or did BE became considerably poorer?
>technologically and militarily advanced
> as it had once been.
Basically the same question. All these Bulgars, Pechenegs, Kumans,
Iconian
Turks, etc., how did they got on the same technological level with BE?
>Internally, the empire continue to be divided by power
> struggles and resistance to central authority.
The same could be said about almost any medieval state.
> I don't see this so much as a
> lack of a military class, but a lack of the discipline and unity that
was
> required amongst the elite in order to preserve and advance the
interests of
> the state.
Are we talking about BE or, for example, medieval France or HRE? :-)
>In other words, the Comneni failed to unify the nobility and the
> peasantry behind them in a common cause.
Obviously.
> >
> >
> > Indeed. But one thing is clear. The mercenary/allied troops usually
> > required cash or its equivalent, which required a well-developed
and
> > properly functioning economy. A "pure feudal system" (if this
animal
> > ever existed) relied on cash to a much lesser degree and, as a
result,
> > was less sensitive to the various types of disasters.
>
> You can however also reward mercenaries with land, so cash rewards
alone are
> not necessarily the only incentive. The danger with such a policy is
that
> the new settlers can afterwards assert their independence, resulting
in
> increased tensions and fragmentation.
>
Indeed. Unless they are balanced by the natives, this can cause a
considerable
problem.
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109361006.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> David Read wrote:
>
> No, I was not really referencing to this event because afterwards much
> weaker BE was able to resist the prolonged sieges and more formidable
> opponents, like Bayazid. We can probably consider this as a fluke
> caused
> by unlucky set of the political circumstances.
Each siege and blockade of the city of Constantinople, whether it ended in
success or failure, is going to have its own explanation. The rump of the
empire was certainly not able to resist Bayezid, or Murad, whereas the city
of Constantinople itself was able to because the Turks did not have control
of its sea communications, and the siege was ultimately rised after Timur
captured Baghdad.
>
> The question is about strenghtening vs weakening system. I'll buy an
> argument that with any other system BE would fell sooner rather than
> later but my initial question was rather why BE's opponents suddenly
> became comparably strong?
Nothing sudden about it except for the defeat at Manzikert and the growing
numbers of westerners appearing in strength on the borders and within the
empire, or its recent former territories, still claimed by the empire..
>
> It is always convenient to blame everything on a single lost battle but
> sometimes inability to recover after it is an indication that something
> was going wrong.
True. But Manzikert was such a battle, and things had not being going well,
especially internally, for severa decades in beforehand.
>
>
>> On the contrary, centralisation of power and a
>> well ordered military system, including not only foreign mercenaries
> but a
>> large and well-ordered indigenous military class. had kept the empire
> afloat
>> for many centuries.
>
>
> Yes, it did. But it looks like during the last 2 - 3 centuries of its
> existence empire was living more or less on a "borrowed time" and that
> a balanced system you described did not really work anymore.
Indeed, but that system, i.e., the evolving system, if it can really be
described as such, which had existed between 1071 and 1204 was not the same
as that (if *that* can also be described as a singular system), which
existed between 1204 and 1453.
>Or did not
> work as it supossed to work.
Indeed.
>
>>If the military disasters which punctuated late Roman
>> and Byzantine history are merely to be ascribed to centralisation and
> a lack
>> of fighting spirit,
>
> This would be a gross simplification. But late Roman Empire _did_ have
> problems with raising the efficient armies and had growing problems
> with
> recovering after defeats.
Again, this was largely a result of economics and internal conflicts, as
well as growing external pressures. A state which is no longer expanding its
territory almost by definition is forced to become more reactive to the
aggressive intents and actions of its neighbours. This overall loss of
initiative dictates that not only must new strategies be devised, but that
sooner or later there will occur individual and cumulative failures in those
strategies which may or may not, through a whole variety of causes, be
catastrophic.
>
> Could it be that this weakness actually existed before Manzikert and
> that
> due to this weakness defeat had such heavy consequences?
Definitely. There certainly were weaknesses that existed before Manzikert,
not least those caused by internal conflicts and divisions.
> True. However, the rootless adventurers like Robert Guiscard,
> Catalonians,
> etc. _seem_ to be able to pull impressive military forces practically
> from
> nowhere.
From nowhere?
>
> OK, how did they get wealthy? Or did BE became considerably poorer?
How do states get wealthy ? And the empire was certainly poorer after the
loss of so much territory after Manzikert.
>
> Basically the same question. All these Bulgars, Pechenegs, Kumans,
> Iconian
> Turks, etc., how did they got on the same technological level with BE?
I meant western Christendom and the Seljuq Turks, who were the two biggest
threats to the integrity of the empire during this period.
>
>>Internally, the empire continue to be divided by power
>> struggles and resistance to central authority.
>
> The same could be said about almost any medieval state.
But not every medieval state was surrounded by enemies with a large and
wealthy fortified city at its heart , strategically importantly positioned,
and which was an almost irresistible and prestigious prize for anyone
ambitious enough to try to take it.
>
>> I don't see this so much as a
>> lack of a military class, but a lack of the discipline and unity that
> was
>> required amongst the elite in order to preserve and advance the
> interests of
>> the state.
>
> Are we talking about BE or, for example, medieval France or HRE? :-)
We're talking about the Byzantine Empire - including Constantinople.
>
>>In other words, the Comneni failed to unify the nobility and the
>> peasantry behind them in a common cause.
>
> Obviously.
>>
>> You can however also reward mercenaries with land, so cash rewards
> alone are
>> not necessarily the only incentive. The danger with such a policy is
> that
>> the new settlers can afterwards assert their independence, resulting
> in
>> increased tensions and fragmentation.
>>
>
> Indeed. Unless they are balanced by the natives, this can cause a
> considerable
> problem.
And vice versa. Because with native troops who might have loyalties to one
political, regional or aristocratic faction rather than to central
governemnt, then mercenaries are useful to central government and the ruling
dynasty, (which itself might have come from a usurping aristocratic family)
so long as they can be paid.
--
cheers,
David Read
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk (David Read) wrote:
> True. But Manzikert was such a battle, and things had not being
> going well, especially internally, for severa decades in
> beforehand.
According to all reports Manzikert was lost because of internal
differences. Half the army (the second line) was taken from the field
by an Imperial claimant. People are still putting forward various
reasons for the fact that the battle was fought after the Turkish
leadership had made it clear that they were ready to be bought off.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
am...@hotmail.com () wrote:
> We can probably consider this as a fluke
> caused by unlucky set of the political circumstances.
The difference between most sieges and that of 1204 was that the
Crusaders were in a position to attack the sea walls. These were
considerably weaker than the land defences and depended on keeping
attackers out of the harbour. There were chains mounted to block the
entrance to the Golden Horn and the Marmorea, but these are not much
use when a hostile force is already inside them. The political
situation was also a factor of course.
Yusuf B Gursey
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <1109361006.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> am...@hotmail.com () wrote:
>
> > We can probably consider this as a fluke
> > caused by unlucky set of the political circumstances.
>
> The difference between most sieges and that of 1204 was that the
> Crusaders were in a position to attack the sea walls. These were
> considerably weaker than the land defences and depended on keeping
> attackers out of the harbour. There were chains mounted to block the
> entrance to the Golden Horn and the Marmorea, but these are not much
there was a chain across the entrance to the Golden Horn. was there
another across the entance of the Bosphorus to the sea of Marmara (a
considerable distance)?
Yusuf B Gursey
well, loss of Syria, Egypt and N. Africa was fairly sudden.
Yusuf B Gursey
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <cvocca$302$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk (David Read) wrote:
>
> > True. But Manzikert was such a battle, and things had not being
> > going well, especially internally, for severa decades in
> > beforehand.
>
> According to all reports Manzikert was lost because of internal
> differences. Half the army (the second line) was taken from the field
> by an Imperial claimant. People are still putting forward various
> reasons for the fact that the battle was fought after the Turkish
> leadership had made it clear that they were ready to be bought off.
>
muslim sources point out that the Saljuks co-opted much of the Pecheneg
auxillaries (though not their king) to their side, appealing to similar
language and culture.
Yusuf B Gursey
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <cvocca$302$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk (David Read) wrote:
>
> > True. But Manzikert was such a battle, and things had not being
> > going well, especially internally, for severa decades in
> > beforehand.
>
> According to all reports Manzikert was lost because of internal
> differences. Half the army (the second line) was taken from the field
> by an Imperial claimant. People are still putting forward various
> reasons for the fact that the battle was fought after the Turkish
> leadership had made it clear that they were ready to be bought off.
from what I had heard from a specialist in this field was that Saljuks
merely wanted to teach the Byzantines a lesson not to disallow the
turkish nomads trickling into Anatolia, and were not expecting a
Byzantine collapse. the proffesor also had said that the prince leading
the expedition was regarded by the ruling family as expendable (the
prince himself, of course, may have had other thoughts).
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> there was a chain across the entrance to the Golden Horn. was there
> another across the entance of the Bosphorus to the sea of Marmara (a
> considerable distance)?
I am not sure about the exact positioning but all the harbours could
be blocked off. I have maps somewhere, will have to check.
am...@hotmail.com
David Read wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109361006.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > David Read wrote:
> > The question is about strenghtening vs weakening system. I'll buy
an
> > argument that with any other system BE would fell sooner rather
than
> > later but my initial question was rather why BE's opponents
suddenly
> > became comparably strong?
>
> Nothing sudden about it except for the defeat at Manzikert and the
growing
> numbers of westerners appearing in strength on the borders and
within the
> empire, or its recent former territories, still claimed by the
empire..
I was under impression that most of the enemies were not westerners:
Bulgars, Pechenegs, Turks, etc.
However, what _did_ strike me is an impression (perhaps a wrong one)
that,
while being reasonably successful in the field against the non-western
opponents, the Bizantian troops had serious problems while facing the
westerners. If true, why such a difference?
Was there:
(a) clear advantage in the tactics?
(b) clear advantage in a weaponry?
(c) advantage in a fighting spirit? (I noticed that you "bypassed" my
Polish-Russian comparison illustrating such a possibility)
[]
>
> Again, this was largely a result of economics
This is one of the directions in which I'm trying to steer. :-)
If a military system is based on extensive deployment of the
mercenaries,
the employer should have a steady source of a _monetary_ income to pay
them (problems with the early modern mercenaries are well-known). Now,
if and until Byzantian economy is capable to provide state treasury
with
enough cash, mercenary system should work fine. However, ability to
maintain this cash flow would be crucial.
OTOH, less "developed" systems (surrounding BE) had a much lesser
_cash_ dependency and this sometimes may provide them with a certain
advantage in the terms of a mobilization, etc.
IIRC, later BE more or less switched to something similar: troops
raised
by a military aristocracy. But this could be "too little, too late".
OTOH, BE outlived most of it (temporary successful) opponents: by the
time
when Constantinople fall to the Ottomans, all (or almost all) of the
"traditional" Byzantian neigbours/opponents were already defeated
(well,
Hungary was still holding but no for too long).
> >
> > Could it be that this weakness actually existed before Manzikert
and
> > that
> > due to this weakness defeat had such heavy consequences?
>
> Definitely. There certainly were weaknesses that existed before
Manzikert,
> not least those caused by internal conflicts and divisions.
What about economy?
>
> > True. However, the rootless adventurers like Robert Guiscard,
> > Catalonians,
> > etc. _seem_ to be able to pull impressive military forces
practically
> > from
> > nowhere.
>
> From nowhere?
>
_Practically_ from nowhere: the Normans had been newcomers in the area,
with no local roots.
> >
> > OK, how did they get wealthy? Or did BE became considerably poorer?
>
> How do states get wealthy ?
This is what _I_ am asking. Don't just repeat my question. How all
these
Bulgars, Pechenegs and Turks got wealthy enough to start fighting
against
BE? Or perhaps their wealth was not a factor because, having much more
primitive economies they did not need too much wealth to maintain a
military
effort?
>And the empire was certainly poorer after the
> loss of so much territory after Manzikert.
>
Well, if you compare with the territories hold under Justinian, the
loss
would be even greater. But was it really critical?
> >
> > Basically the same question. All these Bulgars, Pechenegs, Kumans,
> > Iconian
> > Turks, etc., how did they got on the same technological level with
BE?
>
> I meant western Christendom and the Seljuq Turks, who were the two
biggest
> threats to the integrity of the empire during this period.
>
IIRC, Serbs and Bulgars also were a major danger and so were Pechenegs.
"Western Christendom" on the early stages was more or less limited to
the
Sicilian Normans.
> >
> >> I don't see this so much as a
> >> lack of a military class, but a lack of the discipline and unity
that
> > was
> >> required amongst the elite in order to preserve and advance the
> > interests of
> >> the state.
> >
> > Are we talking about BE or, for example, medieval France or HRE?
:-)
>
> We're talking about the Byzantine Empire - including Constantinople.
But scenario you described would fit France or HRE just fine...
Yusuf B Gursey
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <1109568191....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote:
>
> > there was a chain across the entrance to the Golden Horn. was there
> > another across the entance of the Bosphorus to the sea of Marmara
(a
> > considerable distance)?
>
> I am not sure about the exact positioning but all the harbours could
> be blocked off. I have maps somewhere, will have to check.
>
hmm ... I just found an old post of mine quoting islam Ansiklopedisi
"Bogazici" p. 682 of the relevant volume
that the Byzantines ahd a chain across the northern
mouth of the Bosphorous that may be even wider, between
present Rumeli KavagI and Anadolu KavagI (they also had
fortifications)
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109601491.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> David Read wrote:
>> <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1109361006.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > David Read wrote:
>
>> > The question is about strenghtening vs weakening system. I'll buy
> an
>> > argument that with any other system BE would fell sooner rather
> than
>> > later but my initial question was rather why BE's opponents
> suddenly
>> > became comparably strong?
>>
>> Nothing sudden about it except for the defeat at Manzikert and the
> growing
>> numbers of westerners appearing in strength on the borders and
> within the
>> empire, or its recent former territories, still claimed by the
> empire..
>
> I was under impression that most of the enemies were not westerners:
> Bulgars, Pechenegs, Turks, etc.
If you are trying to make the point that the Byzantines' enemies (as well as
allies and mercenaries) were predominantly horse archer based throughout the
empire's existence, then I agree with you. The point that I was making
however, and am continuing to make, is that westerners had also become an
increasingly important factor in Byzantine strategic calculations during the
eleventh century and, especially after Manzikert and into the 12th century,
with the coming of the crusades.
>
> However, what _did_ strike me is an impression (perhaps a wrong one)
> that,
> while being reasonably successful in the field against the non-western
> opponents, the Bizantian troops had serious problems while facing the
> westerners. If true, why such a difference?
Imperial overstretch is probably the biggest single factor in a shrunken
empire surrounded by potentially or actively hostile enemies.
> Was there:
> (a) clear advantage in the tactics?
Probably not in theory, although the practice would depend more upon the
skill of individual commanders.
> (b) clear advantage in a weaponry?
A growing advantage in levels of armour in particular for westerners is
noticeable throughout the 12th century.
> (c) advantage in a fighting spirit?
Since Byzantine armies usually included a significant number of non-native
mercenaries, who varied widely in tactics, weaponry and fighting spirit in
both time and space, as did the Byzantines themselves, this question is
virtually impossible to answer.
> (I noticed that you "bypassed" my
> Polish-Russian comparison illustrating such a possibility)
Indeed.
>
> []
>>
>> Again, this was largely a result of economics
>
> This is one of the directions in which I'm trying to steer. :-)
>
> If a military system is based on extensive deployment of the
> mercenaries,
> the employer should have a steady source of a _monetary_ income to pay
> them (problems with the early modern mercenaries are well-known). Now,
> if and until Byzantian economy is capable to provide state treasury
> with
> enough cash, mercenary system should work fine. However, ability to
> maintain this cash flow would be crucial.
Indeed. Central government was often faced with resistance from amongst its
own population to tax gathering to pay for mercenaries.
> OTOH, less "developed" systems (surrounding BE) had a much lesser
> _cash_ dependency and this sometimes may provide them with a certain
> advantage in the terms of a mobilization, etc.
>
> IIRC, later BE more or less switched to something similar: troops
> raised
> by a military aristocracy. But this could be "too little, too late".
If you are talking about the pronoia system of raising troops, and are
saying that this has some resemblance to a western "feudal" system, then
this itself is dubious. Mark Bartusis, in his analysis of the Byzantine army
after 1204 sums up his argument thus:
"In sum, the late Byzantine army was no feudal army. Moreover, it
contributed little to the "feudalization" of Byzantine society. Pronoia
reflected the decentralization of the fiscal authority of the state and was
a logical response to the state's inability to collect its own taxes. To the
extent that the part of the army composed of pronoiars reflected
"feudalizing tendencies" of late Byzantium, pronoia had a deleterious effect
on the ability of the Empire to defend itself. But it was hardly the
principal factor in undermining the strength of the Empire."
>
> OTOH, BE outlived most of it (temporary successful) opponents: by the
> time
> when Constantinople fall to the Ottomans, all (or almost all) of the
> "traditional" Byzantian neigbours/opponents were already defeated
> (well,
> Hungary was still holding but no for too long).
Although the empire had only continued to survive after 1204 as a shadow of
its former selves.
>
>
>> >
>> > Could it be that this weakness actually existed before Manzikert
> and
>> > that
>> > due to this weakness defeat had such heavy consequences?
>>
>> Definitely. There certainly were weaknesses that existed before
> Manzikert,
>> not least those caused by internal conflicts and divisions.
>
> What about economy?
I don't see the Byzantine economy as being a significant factor in the
defeat at Manzikert.
>
>>
>> > True. However, the rootless adventurers like Robert Guiscard,
>> > Catalonians,
>> > etc. _seem_ to be able to pull impressive military forces
> practically
>> > from
>> > nowhere.
>>
>> From nowhere?
>>
> _Practically_ from nowhere: the Normans had been newcomers in the area,
> with no local roots.
So where is the "practically from nowhere" that these impressive military
forces were pulled?
>
>
>> >
>> > OK, how did they get wealthy? Or did BE became considerably poorer?
>>
>> How do states get wealthy ?
>
> This is what _I_ am asking. Don't just repeat my question.
Generally, states grow wealthy through the successful application of various
combinations of exploitation of natural resources, trade, and conquest.
Since the Byzantine empire had become poorer after the loss of Manzikert the
balance of wealth between the empire and its neighbours had been altered,
generally to the detriment of the Empire.
> these
> Bulgars, Pechenegs and Turks got wealthy enough to start fighting
> against
> BE?
You don't need to be wealthy to *start* fighting. Indeed, poverty, envy and
greed are excellent motivators.
>Or perhaps their wealth was not a factor because, having much more
> primitive economies they did not need too much wealth to maintain a
> military
> effort?
Are you talking about raiding, or deeds of conquest achieved as a side
effect of perhaps unexpectedly successful raiding, or deliberate acts of
conquest? Give some examples and dates of what you mean.
>
>>And the empire was certainly poorer after the
>> loss of so much territory after Manzikert.
>>
>
> Well, if you compare with the territories hold under Justinian, the
> loss
> would be even greater. But was it really critical?
Yes, in terms of the resultant permanent losses in territory, it was
critical in its effect on the way that the army could subsequently be
organised and recruited.
>
>
>> >
>> > Basically the same question. All these Bulgars, Pechenegs, Kumans,
>> > Iconian
>> > Turks, etc., how did they got on the same technological level with
> BE?
>>
>> I meant western Christendom and the Seljuq Turks, who were the two
> biggest
>> threats to the integrity of the empire during this period.
>>
>
> IIRC, Serbs and Bulgars also were a major danger and so were Pechenegs.
> "Western Christendom" on the early stages was more or less limited to
> the
> Sicilian Normans.
OK.
>
>> >
>> >> I don't see this so much as a
>> >> lack of a military class, but a lack of the discipline and unity
> that
>> > was
>> >> required amongst the elite in order to preserve and advance the
>> > interests of
>> >> the state.
>> >
>> > Are we talking about BE or, for example, medieval France or HRE?
> :-)
>>
>> We're talking about the Byzantine Empire - including Constantinople.
>
> But scenario you described would fit France or HRE just fine...
And yet, strangely enough, I was talking about the Byzantine empire between
approximately 1071 to 1204...
--
cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
Thanks. :-)
BTW, I'm not sure if the Bulgars and Serbs were mostly horse archers:
IIRC,
the Serbs ended up as the Ottoman heavy cavalry. Taking into an account
that
they and Bulgars were "clear and present danger" as long as they
managed
to maintain any degree of <whatever state> integrity, this probably
gives an extra weight to your stress on the danger from the west: IIRC,
at least Serbs had been using more or less "western-style" warfare.
> The point that I was making
> however, and am continuing to make, is that westerners had also
become an
> increasingly important factor in Byzantine strategic calculations
during the
> eleventh century and, especially after Manzikert and into the 12th
century,
> with the coming of the crusades.
I don't argue with this (it would be rather foolish). My (lost
somewhere
in the beginning of this thread) question was why the Byzantians ahd so
much troubles with the repulsing westerners. Some definite advantage in
a
style of warfare? some extra "militant spirit"?
> >
> > However, what _did_ strike me is an impression (perhaps a wrong
one)
> > that,
> > while being reasonably successful in the field against the
non-western
> > opponents, the Bizantian troops had serious problems while facing
the
> > westerners. If true, why such a difference?
>
> Imperial overstretch is probably the biggest single factor in a
shrunken
> empire surrounded by potentially or actively hostile enemies.
Yes, but my question is different: why more problems with western
rather than
eastern style of a warfare?
>
> > Was there:
> > (a) clear advantage in the tactics?
>
> Probably not in theory, although the practice would depend more upon
the
> skill of individual commanders.
>
> > (b) clear advantage in a weaponry?
>
> A growing advantage in levels of armour in particular for westerners
is
> noticeable throughout the 12th century.
OK, this is something. But this western armour is still predominantly
mail, not plate? What was on Byzantian side?
>
> > (c) advantage in a fighting spirit?
>
> Since Byzantine armies usually included a significant number of
non-native
> mercenaries, who varied widely in tactics, weaponry and fighting
spirit in
> both time and space, as did the Byzantines themselves, this question
is
> virtually impossible to answer.
>
>
> > (I noticed that you "bypassed" my
> > Polish-Russian comparison illustrating such a possibility)
>
> Indeed.
So you don't consider "social theory" as a meaningful one?
Don't be a spoilsport! :-)
Very close to the old article I was referencing to. Whatever little I
remember was author's statement that at this point "feudal" society
was more robust than Byzantian system. Which went a little bit against
the
general grain of a marxist history with it mostly negative view of a
"feudal anarchy" (and "centralized state" being the next stage of a
social development) - the main reason why I remember the whole thing.
Another reason why I'm curious (as you probably noticed, BE is not my
area of interest/knowledge) is that recently I read a book on the
post-Manzikert (and till the end) period of Byzantian history where
author stresses two factors: post-M loss of the territories and
political/strategic mistakes of the emperors.
Of course, these are important factors but I'd like to have more
insight
on economic side of a story.
>Pronoia
> reflected the decentralization of the fiscal authority of the state
and was
> a logical response to the state's inability to collect its own taxes.
To the
> extent that the part of the army composed of pronoiars reflected
> "feudalizing tendencies" of late Byzantium, pronoia had a deleterious
effect
> on the ability of the Empire to defend itself.
Interesting. Any details on why? I remember at least two
mutually-contradicting
opinions on this issues so the deeper analysis would be useful.
>But it was hardly the
> principal factor in undermining the strength of the Empire."
>
Ok, and what was the principal factor?
> >
> > OTOH, BE outlived most of it (temporary successful) opponents: by
the
> > time
> > when Constantinople fall to the Ottomans, all (or almost all) of
the
> > "traditional" Byzantian neigbours/opponents were already defeated
> > (well,
> > Hungary was still holding but no for too long).
>
> Although the empire had only continued to survive after 1204 as a
shadow of
> its former selves.
Of course, and at least for a while emperors had been Sultan's vassals
and
it can be argued that Tamerlan was also a factor, etc. However, they
_were_
practically the last bastion of Christianity in the region.
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > Could it be that this weakness actually existed before Manzikert
> > and
> >> > that
> >> > due to this weakness defeat had such heavy consequences?
> >>
> >> Definitely. There certainly were weaknesses that existed before
> > Manzikert,
> >> not least those caused by internal conflicts and divisions.
> >
> > What about economy?
>
> I don't see the Byzantine economy as being a significant factor in
the
> defeat at Manzikert.
Not as a factor in defeat itself but a factor in defeat having such
serious
consequences.
> >
> >>
> >> > True. However, the rootless adventurers like Robert Guiscard,
> >> > Catalonians,
> >> > etc. _seem_ to be able to pull impressive military forces
> > practically
> >> > from
> >> > nowhere.
> >>
> >> From nowhere?
> >>
> > _Practically_ from nowhere: the Normans had been newcomers in the
area,
> > with no local roots.
>
> So where is the "practically from nowhere" that these impressive
military
> forces were pulled?
That's what I'm curious about.
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > OK, how did they get wealthy? Or did BE became considerably
poorer?
> >>
> >> How do states get wealthy ?
> >
> > This is what _I_ am asking. Don't just repeat my question.
>
> Generally, states grow wealthy through the successful application of
various
> combinations of exploitation of natural resources, trade, and
conquest.
> Since the Byzantine empire had become poorer after the loss of
Manzikert the
> balance of wealth between the empire and its neighbours had been
altered,
> generally to the detriment of the Empire.
>
> > these
> > Bulgars, Pechenegs and Turks got wealthy enough to start fighting
> > against
> > BE?
>
> You don't need to be wealthy to *start* fighting. Indeed, poverty,
envy and
> greed are excellent motivators.
Yes, they are. I was just curious why you mentioned wealth of B's
neighbours.
>
> >Or perhaps their wealth was not a factor because, having much more
> > primitive economies they did not need too much wealth to maintain a
> > military
> > effort?
>
> Are you talking about raiding, or deeds of conquest achieved as a
side
> effect of perhaps unexpectedly successful raiding, or deliberate acts
of
> conquest?
Short of some outstanding personalities like Guiscard or Dushan the
Strong,
it is rather hard to tell when the raiding was a part of a premeditated
grand strategy.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
am...@hotmail.com () wrote:
> OK, this is something. But this western armour is still
> predominantly mail, not plate? What was on Byzantian side?
It varied allot but there is a distinct trend to reduce coverage from
the Cataphracts of late Imperial Rome to the time of the Commeni. From
memory a lot of use was made of scale and splint armour. Compared with
the almost complete coverage of a Norman or Frank, three quarter
length hauberk, pus possible mail trousers worn over padding, the
Byzantine armour tended to be restricted to the chest with limb
protection being by leather reinforced by metal splints.
I will have to check but I think this is the period when the West
started to adopt plate reinforcement, for the knees, elbow and breast.
Certainly the coat of plates came in sometime around then. (Plates
riveted between two layers of a surcoat)
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
am...@hotmail.com () wrote:
> he Bizantian troops had serious problems while facing the
> westerners. If true, why such a difference?
>
> Was there:
> (a) clear advantage in the tactics?
> (b) clear advantage in a weaponry?
> (c) advantage in a fighting spirit? (I noticed that you "bypassed"
> my Polish-Russian comparison illustrating such a possibility)
There was certainly a difference in tactics. The Franks relied on
charging to contact, as opposed to most of the other mounted enemies
relying on horse archers. The Franks were also described as more
heavily armoured than Eastern troops (including the Byzantines at that
point). There is the comment by Anna Commenai about a charging Frank
and the walls of Constantinople.
On the other hand it is clearly shown that if the initial charge
failed to go home for any reason the Franks were sitting ducks with
usually blown horses. Byzantine tactics against the Francs was to
avoid or break up the initial charge (caltrops, spearmen or anything
else they could think of), if this failed the Byzantines were in
trouble.
Actually this applies to most battles fought by the crusaders. If
they could charge home they could scatter the enemy but if they failed
in that they were in trouble. They had most trouble with the Turks,
they had to rely on their infantry to hold the field until the Turkish
cavalry was bunched enough for a charge to work, see Arsouf. The
Fatimids seem to have been less of a problem as their tactics were
closer to the crusaders with lighter horses and armour.
Fighting spirit is far harder to evaluate. Byzantine military manuals
make it clear that battles are so unpredictable, that they should be
avoided if possible, and if not the odds should be stacked. Western
commanders seem to have been much more willing to risk a fair fight.
Of course this does not imply anything about the fighting spirit of a
trouper.
am...@hotmail.com
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <1109601491.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> am...@hotmail.com () wrote:
>
> > he Bizantian troops had serious problems while facing the
> > westerners. If true, why such a difference?
> >
> > Was there:
> > (a) clear advantage in the tactics?
> > (b) clear advantage in a weaponry?
> > (c) advantage in a fighting spirit? (I noticed that you "bypassed"
> > my Polish-Russian comparison illustrating such a possibility)
>
> There was certainly a difference in tactics. The Franks relied on
> charging to contact, as opposed to most of the other mounted enemies
> relying on horse archers. The Franks were also described as more
> heavily armoured than Eastern troops (including the Byzantines at
that
> point). There is the comment by Anna Commenai about a charging Frank
> and the walls of Constantinople.
IIRC, Byzantians had been more than once successfully dealing with
the Hungarians and Serbs who were by this time pretty much
"westernized"
in their warfare.
I remember reading description of a battle against Hungarians (have no
clue which one) which had something along the lines that initially
Hungarians with their long lances had an advantage but in a
hand-to-hand
combat Byzantians with their maces got an upprehand, etc.
OTOH, quite recently I read a description of the battle fought against
Guiscard. It looks like a striking force were Variangian Guards who
eventually became too successful for their own good, were separated
from the main army, surrounded and exterminated. After which, the rest
of Byzantian army fled. An obvious question is why Byzantians did not
act on this initial success and let Variangians became isolated?
>
> On the other hand it is clearly shown that if the initial charge
> failed to go home for any reason the Franks were sitting ducks with
> usually blown horses. Byzantine tactics against the Francs was to
> avoid or break up the initial charge (caltrops, spearmen or anything
> else they could think of), if this failed the Byzantines were in
> trouble.
OK, this is not that different from the tactics used by the Ottomans.
>
> Actually this applies to most battles fought by the crusaders. If
> they could charge home they could scatter the enemy but if they
failed
> in that they were in trouble. They had most trouble with the Turks,
Seldjuk Turks?
> they had to rely on their infantry to hold the field until the
Turkish
> cavalry was bunched enough for a charge to work, see Arsouf. The
> Fatimids seem to have been less of a problem as their tactics were
> closer to the crusaders with lighter horses and armour.
>
> Fighting spirit is far harder to evaluate. Byzantine military
manuals
> make it clear that battles are so unpredictable, that they should be
> avoided if possible, and if not the odds should be stacked. Western
> commanders seem to have been much more willing to risk a fair fight.
> Of course this does not imply anything about the fighting spirit of a
> trouper.
Indeed. However, I was talking about a little bit different thing.
"Military classes" in most of the Western (and later not only Western)
Europe had been brought up in the understanding that fighting is a
matter of a honor. This is, of course, a gross simplification but
uphelding of one's individual honor was vitally important, sometimes
even all the way to absurdity. IIRC, before battle at Nikopol the older
French commanders were inclined to follow Sigizmund's proposals but
a challenge from the young hotheads resulted in them agreeing to a
plainly suicidal scenario.
Stupidity on such a scale was, of course, one of the extreme examples
and I'm using it just as an illustration of a principle: with honor
being one of the supreme values, the western military classes tended
to be more "bellicose" or risk-prone. Of course, this does not mean
that all western nobility were suicidal maniacs but the notion was
there
and culminated in a duel craziness of XVII-XVIII.
On the other extreme was a system where "honor" was something
controlled by the state. In the example of Russia (I simply don't know
enough about Byzantian system to judge if this _is_ applicable), the
issues of "honor" had to be solved by goverment. Instead of a duel,
the quarelling sides had been writing petitions to Tzar. Small wonder
that on a battlefield these people tended to be much more timid.
David C. Pugh
(...)
> OTOH, quite recently I read a description of the battle fought against
> Guiscard. It looks like a striking force were Variangian Guards who
> eventually became too successful for their own good, were separated
> from the main army, surrounded and exterminated. After which, the rest
> of Byzantian army fled. An obvious question is why Byzantians did not
> act on this initial success and let Variangians became isolated?
Because you're remembering it wrong, at least relative to Anna.
Dyrrachium 1081. It wasn't that the VG actually defeated anyone -- they
charged prematurely and too far, thus succeeding in both getting totally out
of touch with their line and also badly winded. Robert saw how knackered
they looked, and took advantage.
Moreover, the rest of the army didn't break at once; and the collapse
was aided by Constantine Bodin switching sides.
> Indeed. However, I was talking about a little bit different thing.
> "Military classes" in most of the Western (and later not only Western)
> Europe had been brought up in the understanding that fighting is a
> matter of a honor. This is, of course, a gross simplification but
> uphelding of one's individual honor was vitally important, sometimes
> even all the way to absurdity. IIRC, before battle at Nikopol the older
> French commanders were inclined to follow Sigizmund's proposals but
> a challenge from the young hotheads resulted in them agreeing to a
> plainly suicidal scenario.
Something similar led to Hattin, IIRC.
> Stupidity on such a scale was, of course, one of the extreme examples
> and I'm using it just as an illustration of a principle: with honor
> being one of the supreme values, the western military classes tended
> to be more "bellicose" or risk-prone. Of course, this does not mean
> that all western nobility were suicidal maniacs but the notion was
> there
> and culminated in a duel craziness of XVII-XVIII.
> On the other extreme was a system where "honor" was something
> controlled by the state. In the example of Russia (I simply don't know
> enough about Byzantian system to judge if this _is_ applicable), the
> issues of "honor" had to be solved by goverment. Instead of a duel,
> the quarelling sides had been writing petitions to Tzar. Small wonder
> that on a battlefield these people tended to be much more timid.
Your thesis seems plausible to me. I don't know of much private warfare
in Byzantium; local warlords in times of central weakness, yes, and
pretenders marching on the capital, definitely, but not a continual ferment
of feud and chevauchee between equals and people going apeshit over being
"dissed".
The question might be, if we went up to a Byzantine general in a staff
meeting and suggested that he was being cowardly, would he then feel himself
obliged to do something rash and possibly suicidal merely in order to redeem
himself in our eyes? I rather doubt it. Not that every Western leader would
react like that, of course, I guess it depended on their sense of emotional
and political security.
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109616839....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > David Read wrote:
>
> BTW, I'm not sure if the Bulgars and Serbs were mostly horse archers:
> IIRC,
> the Serbs ended up as the Ottoman heavy cavalry. Taking into an account
> that
> they and Bulgars were "clear and present danger" as long as they
> managed
> to maintain any degree of <whatever state> integrity, this probably
> gives an extra weight to your stress on the danger from the west: IIRC,
> at least Serbs had been using more or less "western-style" warfare.
The majority of Serbs were light infantry, the majority of Bulgars were
horse archers. Byzantine and then western influences ensured that the
nobility of both cultures tended to increasingly adopt heavier styles of
cavalry warfare.
>
>> The point that I was making
>> however, and am continuing to make, is that westerners had also
> become an
>> increasingly important factor in Byzantine strategic calculations
> during the
>> eleventh century and, especially after Manzikert and into the 12th
> century,
>> with the coming of the crusades.
>
>
> I don't argue with this (it would be rather foolish). My (lost
> somewhere
> in the beginning of this thread) question was why the Byzantians ahd so
> much troubles with the repulsing westerners. Some definite advantage in
> a
> style of warfare? some extra "militant spirit"?
I'm not convinced that the Byzantines found westerners more difficult to
defeat during this period. They found everyone difficult to defeat during
this period, making most of their mistakes through poor leadership.
>
>> >
>> > However, what _did_ strike me is an impression (perhaps a wrong
> one)
>> > that,
>> > while being reasonably successful in the field against the
> non-western
>> > opponents, the Bizantian troops had serious problems while facing
> the
>> > westerners. If true, why such a difference?
>>
>> Imperial overstretch is probably the biggest single factor in a
> shrunken
>> empire surrounded by potentially or actively hostile enemies.
>
> Yes, but my question is different: why more problems with western
> rather than
> eastern style of a warfare?
Only in the short term, I think. Western styles of fighting attracted the
attention of Anna Comnena for example because they seemed novel to her.
Alexius was defeated in open battle time and time again. He got knocked
down, but he got up again...
It is therefore true to say that Alexius in particular had difficulty
defeating westerners in battle, and here we must primarily mean Norman or
Frankish cavalry. But Alexius can hardly be described as not being militant.
If anything, on campaign and on the battlefield he frequently displayed a
lack of caution and some rashness, untypically Byzantine, and perhaps
almost "western" in its boldness. In other words he was not following best
Byzantine practice in dealing with an aggressor, and was duly punished for
it. When he was finally convinced that his own forces could not stand up to
western knights on the field of battle, he reverted to tried and tested
methods of dealing with the invader. It was by such methods that he ejected
Bohemond from Thessaly in 1083, through harassing and skirmishing with the
Normans wherever they were.
Obviously, western knights made a big impression upon the Byzantines as
formidable battle cavalry, (their own heavy battle cavalry having been
destroyed, never to be reformed, at Manzikert) and they were not only eager
to seek their services as mercenaries and allies, but later sought to
emulate them themselves.
>
> OK, this is something. But this western armour is still predominantly
> mail, not plate? What was on Byzantian side?
The favourite Byzantine armour was lamellar, but the real point is that
developments in western mail armour during this period tended to ensure that
more and more parts of the body were being protected.
A state of constant warfare or preparedness for was a drain on the economy
and divisive inasmuch that it was difficult for central government to raise
and maintain large enough armies from a small population.
>
>>
>> So where is the "practically from nowhere" that these impressive
> military
>> forces were pulled?
>
> That's what I'm curious about.
Robert Guiscard's army at Dyrrachium in 1081 included Normans, Italians,
Arabs, Greeks and Slavs. At the same battle, Alexius's army was made up of
Byzantines, Franks, Serbs, Slavs, Turks and Varangians. For both generals,
but especially Alexius, it must have been extraordinarily difficult to get
their disparate forces working coherently. Guiscard outgeneralled Alexius,
and Guiscard's Norman knights were the decisive element in his victory.
>
> Yes, they are. I was just curious why you mentioned wealth of B's
> neighbours.
Between 1071 and 1204 the main external threats were not from nomadic horse
archer societies, but more settled and wealthier societies, some of who had
nomadic horse archer origins and who retained much in the way of horse
archer tactics if not so much of the nomadic way of life. In this regard,
there is little difference between Byzantine military culture (inasmuch as
the Byzantines favoured horse archery themselves) and that of most of its
closest neighbours, with the new presence of western military styles and
tactics increasingly making themselves felt in both their threat and their
influence upon moethods of warfare in the region.
--
cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
>
> (...)
>
> > OTOH, quite recently I read a description of the battle fought
against
> > Guiscard. It looks like a striking force were Variangian Guards who
> > eventually became too successful for their own good, were separated
> > from the main army, surrounded and exterminated. After which, the
rest
> > of Byzantian army fled. An obvious question is why Byzantians did
not
> > act on this initial success and let Variangians became isolated?
>
>
> Because you're remembering it wrong, at least relative to Anna.
I was referencing to a description given in Norwich's book on BE.
As I understand, he is far from following Anna 100% (and makes some
rather
critical comments about her personality as well).
> Dyrrachium 1081. It wasn't that the VG actually defeated anyone
Did I use word "defeated"?
> -- they
> charged prematurely and too far,
How this disagrees with what I wrote unless you are implying that they
had been charging against an empty space and not an opposing force?
>thus succeeding in both getting totally out
> of touch with their line and also badly winded. Robert saw how
knackered
> they looked, and took advantage.
IIRC, Norwich's description, it was rather Robert's wife (who was in
command
of this wing).
>
> Moreover, the rest of the army didn't break at once; and the
collapse
> was aided by Constantine Bodin switching sides.
>
> > Indeed. However, I was talking about a little bit different thing.
> > "Military classes" in most of the Western (and later not only
Western)
> > Europe had been brought up in the understanding that fighting is a
> > matter of a honor. This is, of course, a gross simplification but
> > uphelding of one's individual honor was vitally important,
sometimes
> > even all the way to absurdity. IIRC, before battle at Nikopol the
older
> > French commanders were inclined to follow Sigizmund's proposals but
> > a challenge from the young hotheads resulted in them agreeing to a
> > plainly suicidal scenario.
>
> Something similar led to Hattin, IIRC.
And to numerous other cases, all the way to Jena-Auerstedt where one of
the Prussian commanders stated that, instead of looking to the right,
to
the left and to the rear, he is going to march forward and defeat the
enemy. Which proved to be a little bit counterproductive against the
French
who _did_ attack him from the flanks and rear. :-)
A by-product of a permanent feuding and a greater "individualism"
within the
less settled (or advanced?) societies was a great number of the people
trained to use their arms because their everyday life required it (just
as
"Wild West" vs. more "civilized" states of the same period). While this
could be of no primary importance in the cases of the well-drilled
regular
armies of modern age, in the medieval armies individual prowness with
the
arms was important and the same goes for individual's "spirit". In the
extreme cases it could result in an outright lunacy but quite often it
was benefitial when an opponent was less "bellicose" and did not have
too
many other advantages (superior generalship, advanced drilling,
advanced
weaponry, better tactics, better position, etc.).
IIRC, jousting was not very popular in Byzantian Empire and considered
rather "western" habit. I don't remember which emperor was rather fond
of
it, but my impression was that it never became a popular sport.
>
> The question might be, if we went up to a Byzantine general in a
staff
> meeting and suggested that he was being cowardly, would he then feel
himself
> obliged to do something rash and possibly suicidal merely in order to
redeem
> himself in our eyes? I rather doubt it. Not that every Western leader
would
> react like that, of course, I guess it depended on their sense of
emotional
> and political security.
And brains. Even an "ideal knight" like Bayard would try to avoid an
engagement
that involved BOTH high risk AND little glory (because of a low status
of
the opponents), providing he could come with "honor-saving" excuse, as
at
Mantua.
To rephrase your question a little bit, would a beaten Byzantian
general
console anybody with a statement that "everything is lost except the
honor"?
David C. Pugh
news:1109778667....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> David C. Pugh wrote:
> > <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > > OTOH, quite recently I read a description of the battle fought
> against
> > > Guiscard. It looks like a striking force were Variangian Guards who
> > > eventually became too successful for their own good, were separated
> > > from the main army, surrounded and exterminated. After which, the
> rest of Byzantian army fled. An obvious question is why Byzantians did
> not act on this initial success and let Variangians became isolated?
> >
> > Because you're remembering it wrong, at least relative to Anna.
>
> I was referencing to a description given in Norwich's book on BE.
Don't know what other sources for this battle there are.
> As I understand, he is far from following Anna 100% (and makes some
> rather critical comments about her personality as well).
"ball-breaker"......? ;-)
> > Dyrrachium 1081. It wasn't that the VG actually defeated anyone
>
> Did I use word "defeated"?
Almost. "Too successful for their own good". As I read Anna's account,
they didn't achieve a damn thing.
> > -- they
> > charged prematurely and too far,
>
> How this disagrees with what I wrote unless you are implying that they
> had been charging against an empty space and not an opposing force?
Actually, that's almost the way she tells it. They never got up close
and personal in their charge, for the Normans legged it until rallied by
Sichelgaita, by which time the VG was exhausted, having run too far.
> >thus succeeding in both getting totally out
> > of touch with their line and also badly winded. Robert saw how
> knackered
> > they looked, and took advantage.
>
> IIRC, Norwich's description, it was rather Robert's wife (who was in
> command of this wing).
Synergy. Gaita rallied the runners and Robert threw in some other
forces.
> And to numerous other cases, all the way to Jena-Auerstedt where one of
> the Prussian commanders stated that, instead of looking to the right,
> to> the left and to the rear, he is going to march forward and defeat the
> enemy. Which proved to be a little bit counterproductive against the
> French> who _did_ attack him from the flanks and rear. :-)
Cheats!
Yes, another way of saying what I had in mind.
> IIRC, jousting was not very popular in Byzantian Empire and considered
> rather "western" habit. I don't remember which emperor was rather fond
> of it, but my impression was that it never became a popular sport.
That was Manuel I Comnenus, and no, he does not seem to have had many
imitators. Indeed, the population's Latinophobia increased greatly under his
rule, they perceived him as favouring the Latins over themselves, and thus
the stage was set for Andronicus.
> > The question might be, if we went up to a Byzantine general in a
> staff meeting and suggested that he was being cowardly, would he then feel
> himself obliged to do something rash and possibly suicidal merely in order
to redeem himself in our eyes? I rather doubt it. Not that every Western
leader would react like that, of course, I guess it depended on their sense
of
> emotional and political security.
>
> And brains. Even an "ideal knight" like Bayard would try to avoid an
> engagement> that involved BOTH high risk AND little glory (because of a
low status> of> the opponents), providing he could come with "honor-saving"
excuse, as> at> Mantua.
>
> To rephrase your question a little bit, would a beaten Byzantian
> general> console anybody with a statement that "everything is lost except
the> honor"?
I very much doubt that. Heard that quote before, who was it again?
David Read
"David C. Pugh" <solom...@online.no> wrote in message
news:epnVd.376$ai7....@news2.e.nsc.no...
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1109778667....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> David C. Pugh wrote:
>> > <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
>> >
>> > (...)
>> >
>> > > OTOH, quite recently I read a description of the battle fought
>> against
>> > > Guiscard. It looks like a striking force were Variangian Guards who
>> > > eventually became too successful for their own good, were separated
>> > > from the main army, surrounded and exterminated. After which, the
>> rest of Byzantian army fled. An obvious question is why Byzantians did
>> not act on this initial success and let Variangians became isolated?
>> >
>> > Because you're remembering it wrong, at least relative to Anna.
>>
>> I was referencing to a description given in Norwich's book on BE.
>
> Don't know what other sources for this battle there are.
Neither do I, and Lord Norwich gives no indication of what his other
sources, if any, might be.
>
>> As I understand, he is far from following Anna 100% (and makes some
>> rather critical comments about her personality as well).
>
> "ball-breaker"......? ;-)
>
>> > Dyrrachium 1081. It wasn't that the VG actually defeated anyone
>>
>> Did I use word "defeated"?
>
> Almost. "Too successful for their own good". As I read Anna's account,
> they didn't achieve a damn thing.
Anna says that the "infantry and cavalry of Amiketas's group charged ahead
of the main body in an assault on the extremity of the line where Nampites
was". That is, the right wing of Robert Guiscard's army under the command of
Amiketas, (according to Anna, but not according to Norwich who has Gaita
herself commanding Guiscard's right), hit the Byzantine first line,
(composed of the Varangians under Nampites) on the left. The Varangians
drove Amiketas' attack into the sea, until Bohemond's wife, Gaita, rallied
them, while the entire Varangian force advanced too far and too fast in
pursuit and in their eagerness to engage. Bohemond counter-attacked the
tired and breathless Varangians and defeated them with some infantry.
So, as I see it, after defeating the attack on its left, Alexius' first
line, composed of the Varangians, advanced along its whole length, eager to
get to grips with the enemy, and discipline and order broke down. Hardly
surprising, perhaps. The ranks of the Varangians at this time were replete
with exiled English, who can only have been too eager to avenge themselves
upon the Normans. Some people never learn...
---
cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
Not to my recollection. He just describes events with (IIRC) no
reference to
any source. Taking into an account his rather disparaging remarks on
Anna,
contradictions between these two are not a big surprise. Of course,
it's an
open question if Anna's history is correct on every twist and turn...
Ditto
for Norwich.
However, the important thing is that his account supports my point
(don't
remember what it was exactly but I definitely had one) better. :-)
> >
> >> As I understand, he is far from following Anna 100% (and makes
some
> >> rather critical comments about her personality as well).
> >
> > "ball-breaker"......? ;-)
> >
> >> > Dyrrachium 1081. It wasn't that the VG actually defeated anyone
> >>
> >> Did I use word "defeated"?
> >
> > Almost. "Too successful for their own good". As I read Anna's
account,
> > they didn't achieve a damn thing.
>
> Anna says that the "infantry and cavalry of Amiketas's group charged
ahead
> of the main body in an assault on the extremity of the line where
Nampites
> was". That is, the right wing of Robert Guiscard's army under the
command of
> Amiketas, (according to Anna, but not according to Norwich who has
Gaita
> herself commanding Guiscard's right),
His account being more politically correct on at least two accounts
(gender
AND "gravitationally challenged"), is undoubtedly one to follow. :-)
>hit the Byzantine first line,
> (composed of the Varangians under Nampites) on the left. The
Varangians
> drove Amiketas' attack into the sea,
Which means that, contrary to David's statement, they did not simply
run
into a nowhere until they found themselves out of breath.
>until Bohemond's wife, Gaita, rallied
> them, while the entire Varangian force advanced too far and too fast
in
> pursuit and in their eagerness to engage. Bohemond counter-attacked
the
> tired and breathless Varangians and defeated them with some infantry.
>
> So, as I see it, after defeating the attack on its left, Alexius'
first
> line, composed of the Varangians, advanced along its whole length,
eager to
> get to grips with the enemy, and discipline and order broke down.
Hardly
> surprising, perhaps. The ranks of the Varangians at this time were
replete
> with exiled English, who can only have been too eager to avenge
themselves
> upon the Normans. Some people never learn...
Something along the lines of "learning an important lesson" according
to Cohen the Barbarian.....
David Read
"David Read" <davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d0535u$ov9$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Anna says that the "infantry and cavalry of Amiketas's group charged ahead
> of the main body in an assault on the extremity of the line where Nampites
> was". That is, the right wing of Robert Guiscard's army under the command
> of Amiketas, (according to Anna, but not according to Norwich who has
> Gaita herself commanding Guiscard's right), hit the Byzantine first line,
> (composed of the Varangians under Nampites) on the left. The Varangians
> drove Amiketas' attack into the sea, until Bohemond's wife, Gaita, rallied
> them, while the entire Varangian force advanced too far and too fast in
> pursuit and in their eagerness to engage. Bohemond counter-attacked the
> tired and breathless Varangians and defeated them with some infantry.
>
> So, as I see it, after defeating the attack on its left, Alexius' first
> line, composed of the Varangians, advanced along its whole length, eager
> to get to grips with the enemy, and discipline and order broke down.
> Hardly surprising, perhaps. The ranks of the Varangians at this time were
> replete with exiled English, who can only have been too eager to avenge
> themselves upon the Normans. Some people never learn...
Apologies and correction. For Bohemond, read Robert Guiscard throughout.
Bohemond, Robert's son, was at the battle, commanding the Norman left.
--
cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
> > To rephrase your question a little bit, would a beaten Byzantian
> > general> console anybody with a statement that "everything is lost
except
> the> honor"?
>
> I very much doubt that. Heard that quote before, who was it
again?
Francouis I after Pavia.
David C. Pugh
news:1109791891....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Anna says that the "infantry and cavalry of Amiketas's group charged
> ahead
> > of the main body in an assault on the extremity of the line where
> Nampites
> > was". That is, the right wing of Robert Guiscard's army under the
> command of
> > Amiketas, (according to Anna, but not according to Norwich who has
> Gaita
> > herself commanding Guiscard's right),
>
> His account being more politically correct on at least two accounts
> (gender
> AND "gravitationally challenged"), is undoubtedly one to follow. :-)
>
>
> >hit the Byzantine first line,
> > (composed of the Varangians under Nampites) on the left. The
> Varangians drove Amiketas' attack into the sea,
>
> Which means that, contrary to David's statement, they did not simply
> run into a nowhere until they found themselves out of breath.
Maybe I misread it, I have been trying to get back into the saddle after
some really busy and then some really bad days. Monday was one of those days
I should have stayed in bed.
Let's see. Anna says:
Both sides then indulged in some moderate skirmishing, but Robert was
quietly following these horsemen and the gap between the two armies was
already diminishing, when the infantry and cavalry of Amiketas' group
charged ahead of the main body in an assault on the extremity of the line
where Nampites was. Our men resisted bravely and the enemy turned back (they
were not all picked men). They threw themselves into the sea up to their
necks and when they were near the Roman and Venetian ships begged for their
lives - but no one rescued them. There is a story that Robert's wife Gaita,
who used to accompany him on campaign, like another Pallas, if not a second
Athena, seeing the runaways and glaring fiercely at them, shouted in a very
loud voice: "How far will ye run? Halt! Be men!" - not quite in those
Homeric words, but something very like them in her own dialect. As they
continued to run, she grasped a long spear and charged at full gallop
against them. Meanwhile the axe-bearers and their leader Nampites had
advanced a fair distance from the Roman line, carried away by their own
inexperience and hot temper; they had gone too fast, eager to clash with the
Kelts who were just as eager themselves. Robert noticed however that they
were already tired and short of breath; their rapid advance, the distance
they had covered and the weight of their arms were enough to convince him.
It seems that in their tired condition they were less strong than the Kelts.
I think it's unclear whether the VG actually caught up with anyone on
their charge. I did in fact read it as a charge that ran out of steam and
got counter-attacked, but I shan't insist that this is the best or only
reading.
Note that Anna calls the VG "inexperienced", which might mean that the
other David's point about them being survivors of Hastings is incorrect, or
that she is being supercilious, as she often is.
David Read
I suspect that Anna means they were inexperienced in the Byzantine art of
war, as the other epithets she ascribes to them fit well enough with the not
too inaccurate Byzantine topos about the fighting characteristics of
westerners in general.
Thus Maurice's Strategikon:
"... In combat they make the front of their battle line even and dense.
Either on horseback or on foot they are impetuous and undisciplined in
charging, as if they were the only people in the world who are not cowards.
They are disobedient to their leaders. They are not interested in anything
that is at all complicated and pay little attention to external security and
their own advantage."
And so forth.
We might also note that Alexius had ordered them to be prepared to open and
close their ranks to allow (horse ?) archers through to attack Guiscard's
army. This seems to have been a plan that was too complicated to carry out
after first contact with the enemy, and the Varangians, who were perhaps
mostly English, reverted to type.
If as Anna describes the Varangians made up the first line of the army, but
with the Amiketas's attack only upon their left, then the subsequent
forward movement by the Varngians leads one to expect that the forward
movement is best interpreted as a pursuit by the Nampites' left flank
against Amiketas's men, with the rest of the first line of Varangians moved
forward towards the rest of the Norman army opposite them, conforming with
the pursuit being made by the left wing.
--
cheers,
David Read
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
am...@hotmail.com () wrote:
> Seldjuk Turks?
At that time period yes. Of course the Ottomans started as a Seljuk
succession state, though their military methods changed.
David C. Pugh
news:d06inm$egj$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> In article <1109688134....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> am...@hotmail.com () wrote:
>
> > Seldjuk Turks?
>
> At that time period yes. Of course the Ottomans started as a Seljuk
> succession state, though their military methods changed.
I'm wondering something here. The Ottomans are way after my period, but
I remember hearing that they claimed their dynasty founder was the son of a
Byzantine princess or something. As Mandy Rice-Davis might say, "Well they
would, wouldn't they?" -- OTOH the Byzantines certainly did do princess
diplomacy and even in my period there are loads of Turks and Turcopoules in
high places -- Tatikios and Axoukh to mention just two connected with the
early Komnenoi. I've also been reading about Emir Tzachas (Chaka) of Smyrna,
whom secondary sources describe as a pirate but whom Anna clearly portrays
as thinking of himself as a pretender to Alexius' throne. Note too that
Madden and wossname treat 1204 as appearing initially to the Byzantines as a
re-run of 1081, which is why they didn't fight to the last man in the
alleyways as the Crusaders feared. And remember the "Better the turban than
the mitre" thing. So I'm thinking that we might not see these guys the same
way they did at the time -- we have our neat categories, the Greeks versus
the Turks, whereas the locals appeared to have been a bit more flexible.
My question is, then, whether the Ottomans saw themselves as a Seljuk
successor state or a Byzantine successor state?
Yusuf B Gursey
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> skrev i melding
> news:d06inm$egj$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> > In article <1109688134....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > am...@hotmail.com () wrote:
> >
> > > Seldjuk Turks?
> >
> > At that time period yes. Of course the Ottomans started as a
Seljuk
> > succession state, though their military methods changed.
they were among the many principalities that arose on wake of the
Saljuk disapearnace, and the most successful.
>
> I'm wondering something here. The Ottomans are way after my
period, but
> I remember hearing that they claimed their dynasty founder was the
son of a
> Byzantine princess or something. As Mandy Rice-Davis might say, "Well
they
Orhan (Orxan / Orkhan) did marry a Byzantine princess and their son did
succeed on the throne. also Bayezid married a Bulgarian princess (that
was teh only one Turks made an issue of as undue foreign "infidel"
influence at court).
what you are refering to is the rumor that Mehmed the Conqueror let
around through a chronicler that theit tribe originated with a Byzanine
noble prisoner and convert. it was circulated mainly amongst christians
and picked up by Europeans.
they didn't find any contradiction in being both. only Mehmed the
Conqueror actually used the title Kaysar (arabic qaySar) and he
justified his westward ambitions to the West thus. others were more
quiet, they let themselves be called Basileus by their Greek subjects
and Czar by their Slavic ones, and particularly when dealing with the
church Patriarchs. qaySar had a prestigious standing in Arab lore (for
obvious reasons) and passed into muslim lore so this didn't pose any
dilemma.
OTOH this was not the thrust of their propaganda among Turks and
muslims. for Turks they presented themselves as the Great Khaqan, and
Mehmed the Conqueror pushed this with at least equal zeal to the East.
they maintained they were most deserving of the grand throne of the
Turks because they were from the primary Turkmen KayI tribe while the
Saljuks were from the KInIk, second tier, and therefore usurpers. they
maintained that their ancestors came to Anatolia fleeing the Mongols
from Central Asia. also historians note that Saljuks were ruling
theoretically on behalf of the Abbasid Caliph, while Ottomans were
ruling on their right and thus used high faluting titles more readily.
for Arabs, they were defending Islam, they were the Caliphs, and for
good measure at one point added a Qureishi (i.e. from the Prophet's
tribe) to their genealogy by one of their court historians.
so they claimed to be a lot of things suited for the occassion. as long
as it made good propaganda, it was fine.
Yusuf B Gursey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> David C. Pugh wrote:
> > <ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> skrev i melding
> > news:d06inm$egj$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> > > In article
<1109688134....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > am...@hotmail.com () wrote:
> > >
> > > > Seldjuk Turks?
> > >
> > > At that time period yes. Of course the Ottomans started as a
>>>Seljuk
> > > succession state, though their military methods changed.
>
> they were among the many principalities that arose on wake of the
> Saljuk disapearnace, and the most successful.
>
what distinguished these states was that they were headed by Turkmen
tribal chieftains after a fresh influx from the East. they used Turkish
at court and promoted Turkish literature (Arabic and especially Persian
literatue was admirred, but it wasn't their principle literary
vehicle). the Saljuks OTOH valued the Turkmen tribal organisation as a
useful military tool. while there are snippets of them using Turkish
coming down to us, their official language was at first Arabic (after
all they ruled in the name of the Abbasid Caliph until the Mongols
came) and then Persian. Turkish, of the Western variety, did not
develop as a literary language until the late 13th cent. although there
are a few poems left by the Ghaznawids (territory of modern
Afghanistan). in the final years of Saljuk rule there was a coup by the
Beg of Karaman in which Turkish was declared the official language and
the Persian secretaries were executed (they were also the liason with
the Ilkhanids, and thus disliked). the coup was soon reversed, and a
short while after the Saljuks died out entirely. nevertheless the
general linguistic policy of using Turkish was carried out in the
principalities that followed. these were headed by Turkmen (a Turkmen
is a western Turk following tribal customs, which remained the norm in
southwestern Central Asia, i.e. Turkmenistan) tribal leaders which were
intially not very educated and not at home in Persian to start with.
then between Murad I and until the end of the reign of Bayezid I Slavic
crept in, wityh Slavic firmans isuued (but with the Arabic script
monogram of the Sultan). then the Ottoman court realized it had
alienated the Anatolian gentry which had resulted in their defection to
Timur and the loss of their mobile striking forces. so a "romantic -
nationalistic period" followed which saw the permanent disapearance of
the use of Slavic for official court purposes and the promotion of
"nationalistic" epics, with some exception smade for christian
audiences as was discussed just before.
Yusuf B Gursey
roughly this is how the traditional account of Ottoman origins (parts
purely legendary)goes:
Oghuz Khan is a descendant of Japheth through Gog or Magog (forgot
which one). He establishes Monotheism (the worship of one Tengri) among
Turks and builds a vast world empire based on it. his sons, Sun (Gu"n
in old turkish, now "day"), Sky, Star etc. inherit the realm with a
division of labor. Sun is the eldest son. the sons of these are the
ancestors of the leaders of the Oghuz Turkish (i.e. Turkmen) tribes.
the eldest son is KayI and the realm is deserving to him and his
descendants, but lesser tribes usurp it (i.e. the Saljuks). meanwhile
the Prophet (or the Caliph) sends an emmissary {the ruler of Bitlis, a
Kurd, sucking up to Suleyman I, makes this character Kurdish} inviting
Turks to Islam, who are monotheist anyway, accept it gladly.
fast forward: Suleyman Shah (but is it Gu"ndu"z Alp ("daylight -
hero")?; the editor is confused!) of the KayI tribe (but again the
editor gets confused: of the Sky Turks?! so he lists both) is escaping
the Mongol onslaught in Central Asia. on the way crossing the Euphrates
in N. Syria he falls from his horse and drowns. with him is a rag-tag
band of nomads of a few tents. his son Ertog~rIl (Ertug~rul) is given a
frontier principality on the NW corner of Anatolia on the Byzantine
border by the Anatolian Saljuk ruler. afterwards his son Osman takes
over. eventually the Saljuk ruler, shortly before its dissollution,
grants him independence presenting him with a drum, standard and flag.
a local sufi has a dream about Osman's descendants having a vast empire
and marries his daughter ot him. their son, Orhan succeeds his father
(and the rest is history). the dream is fullfilled and KayI legitimacy
is restored.
anyway, the moral of the tale is that Ottomans were good Turks, good
monotheists all along, and good muslims.
the evidence? two recent coins saying Osman son of Ertog~rIl (or
Ertug~rul ; depending on the way you feel vowels were pronounced at the
time) son of Gu"ndu"z Alp . and that's all!
anyway, for next time some modern source criticism of this.