Hulver's site || Better foreign policy?

Better foreign policy?

Tony Blair	3 votes - 75 %
Gordon Brown	1 vote - 25 %

4 Total Votes

Part of the furniture | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Barbarians by Vulch (4.00 / 1) #1 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:46:14 AM EST

Terry Jones did a TV series and accompanying book which said much the same about the Celts.

Anyone who didn't speak Greek was a barbarian by lm (4.00 / 1) #2 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:52:27 AM EST

The words comes from those strange sounds non-Greek speakers would make when they tried to talk, `bar bar bar bar.' I suppose this may have weakened a bit after Rome conquered most of the various Greek city states so that the Latin rulers would be considered to be real men and not uncivilized simply because they didn't speak Greek.

It's refreshing to hear of someone using something close to the original definition.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic

Apparently when Romans used the term by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #3 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:02:30 AM EST

They basically just meant "foreigner": it didn't really have a negative connotation.
--
Butch and Petey are harsh and unforgiving in their estimation of female beauty.
[ Parent ]

: Although there is always by wumpus (4.00 / 1) #11 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:57:39 PM EST

the "they who are to be conquered" connotation.
Wumpus

[ Parent ]
: In general, the Romans were less xenophobic by lm (4.00 / 1) #12 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:04:26 PM EST

Perhaps, in part, because according to the Roman national myth, they were once strangers, being the descendants of Troy, who migrated to a strange land. Whatever the cause, Roman citizenship was viewed as a political designation that could be gotten by birth, by money, or through merit. While a few folks were made honorary Greeks, they were rather exceptional. You had to be born a Hellene to be a Hellene, even if you spoke Greek.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

I was going too do a list of recommended books by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #4 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:26:24 AM EST

But I'll do a diary instead at some point.

I'll look forward to the manifesto

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

I think the later Empire by jump the ladder (4.00 / 1) #5 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:55:01 AM EST

Had the problem of the rise of Sassanid dynasty in Persia on the eastern frontier who were the most serious ideological and military threat that they faced since the Carthaginians. The crisis of the third century was basically caused by this.

As the economic gravity of the Empire was increasingly moving towards the East, thev tendency was to defend the east and let the west cope for itself. The barbarianisation of the army was basically a Western phenemonium, the Eastern army evolved but remained a recognisibly professional force.

Well by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #6 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:07:58 PM EST

I think it's partly the old question of where you draw the dividing line between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire.

But even if you look at the army of Belisarius under Justinian, they relied on the cataphract heavy cavalry: the same units as had been used by the Eastern "barbarians" for a while.

Basically his thesis is that the barbarian armies had become professionalized due to Rome; both from the necessity to stand up to Rome, and their employment by Rome. For centuries Rome had been hiring nomads to patrol the East for them.

He reckons that one of the reasons the early Islamic Arabs were militarily successful is that the Arabs had been employed in Roman armies and knew what they were doing.
--
Butch and Petey are harsh and unforgiving in their estimation of female beauty.
[ Parent ]

Also, it's pet theory time! by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #7 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:13:49 PM EST

The "Great Battles of the Ancient World" course pointed out that nobody really knows how the Roman Legions managed to fight with just short swords instead of spears, or how their system of line relief worked.

Also, when they tried to revive those kinds of tactics in the Renaissance, they couldn't figire out how to make them work either.

So maybe sometime in the Third Century Crisis, they just forgot the great secret of how to fight as a classical Roman Legion, and never recovered it.
--
Butch and Petey are harsh and unforgiving in their estimation of female beauty.
[ Parent ]

Didn't the legions also have by jump the ladder (4.00 / 1) #9 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:06:27 PM EST

Pilums ie: javelins. I thought they hurled them into massed ranks of infantry and broke them up. Also didn't they use their massed shields as a sort of battering rams.

Wikipedia has a good article on Roman legionary tactics.

[ Parent ]

: Yes by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #10 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:19:21 PM EST

Practically every military historian has a confident explanation of Roman legionary tactics.
The problem is they tend to say very different things about the specifics. Some say they advanced in close formation, some say they were ten feet apart. Some say the line relief operated constantly, so a phalanx would constantly advance a retreating legion, but be constantly faced with fresh troops. Others say the line relief would only have operated after a while, when one group would be replaced by another.
Another thing that puzzles me. The Macedonian Phalanx the early Republic faced had evolved from a long period of competition. It could operate in close coordination with cavalry, and it relied on professional soldiers: amateurs couldn't hack it. Yet the early Roman Republic relied on citizen-farmers doing temporary military service. How come those amateur sodbusters managed to frequently kick the arses of the professionals?
As I said, this is just a pet theory not something that has academic support. But it seems to me there must be some crucial detail that's just missing from the record.
--
Butch and Petey are harsh and unforgiving in their estimation of female beauty.
[ Parent ]

Olympics by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #8 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:25:33 PM EST

My wife and I were noticing a trend where athletes from small countries live and train in the US. In some cases, it appears they've never lived in the country they represent.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}

Scolarships. by Tonatiuh (4.00 / 1) #13 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:53:59 PM EST

US Universities go all around the world looking for good sports people to offer them scholarships.

I believe it is highly lucrative for the Universities to have these kind of people enrolled with them (there are big bucks to be made in US University sports).

I think you are exaggerating your claim about US based people not knowing the countries they are representing.

In the case of Mexico scores of sports people (swimmers, tennis players, a few track athletes) go to study to the US in the back of a scholarship. It is very rare that they have never been to Mexico and most of them are 100% Mexican.

[ Parent ]

: Well by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #14 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:10:08 PM EST

I'm thinking of Becky Hammon in particular but there's also Milorad Čavić who while at least of Serbian citizenship, was born in the US and as far as I can tell, has always lived here.
But I'm more thinking just that it is sad that so many are forced to essentially leave their countries to be competitive.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

Olympic swimmers by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #15 Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:15:48 PM EST

I was thinking about it a bit more, and I suspect the reason that the US does so well in swimming is that most non-inner city high schools have large swimming pools.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}

If you remove Michael Phelps' little contribution, by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #17 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:54:42 AM EST

the US only won one gold medal in the pool (Natalie Coughlin in the 100m backstroke); the UK won two (same girl both times, though). That's not to say that your point is wrong (the US has a very strong history in Olympic swimming), but one freakish statistical outlier does not a Summer make. Besides, most UK schools have access to decent pools.

----
Done.
[ Parent ]

: OK, four then. by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #18 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:59:02 AM EST

but the general point stands.

----
Done.
[ Parent ]
: I meant more by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #20 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:39:57 AM EST

The decades of swimming history.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

It occurs to me that the Times article may by yicky yacky (4.00 / 2) #16 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:43:33 AM EST

be putting the cart before the horse to some extent.

Is it not more likely that the proletariat of the United Kingdom is effectively competing against the proletariat of the world, whereas the bourgeoisie of the UK is competing solely against other bourgeoisie?

Take running, for example. What does one need in order to run? A pair of legs, essentially; maybe some decent shoes. Contrast this with sailing, or rowing (two of the sports that have brought many of the UK's medals). Isn't it more likely that the competition is fiercest (in terms of numbers) in those sports with the most open levels of access - i.e. that the UK is biased towards winning medals in those areas where the competition is greatly decreased, and available only to a few? By concentrating on the gold medal haul a distorted picture can emerge. I'd wager most of our state school entrants got knocked out in qualifying rounds, precisely because the sports most accessible to them are more heatedly contested.

----
Done.

Your manifesto by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #19 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:59:23 AM EST

I look forward to reading it.

Not being a partisan sort of chap, feel free to nick any policy I stated, or nick the basics and modify it. That is of course, if you can find one you like...

I will be genuinely interested in reading it.

Part of the furniture | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback


Make a new account
Username:
Password: