abneo3sierra Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 It is ironic that he could view a "devastating victory" by Prussia over France, as evidence that the solution of diplomatic problems by warfare was obsolete..indeed, that war solved some Prussian diplomatic problems, and played a part in the union of Germany. Setting that aside however, he was "ahead of his time" on some things, but was inaccurate on others in a way often seen when amateurs try to best professionals who have studied tactics and warfare for years. It would be akin to my studying architecture and attempting to lecture architects on its theory. This is the reason the military professionals tended to dismiss him, not because of morale questions. A pretty intelligent man though, all things considered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Ogh yeah - like professional politicians. Most professions are designed to control numbers and therefore the wealth of its members. Who pushed for the tank? Who fought the concept of armoured divisions? Who was Jan Smuts? As for architecture: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/3670049/Architects-who-design-bad-buildings.html The most favourite buildings in the UK are Georgian style - by a huge majority. Is it just possible that the human eye knows a nice design when they see it. : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 a way often seen when amateurs try to best professionals who have studied tactics and warfare for years. A logical fallacy since it means there is no room for innovation or change, since the professionals would always be right. A contention even more likely to be wrong at points of great paradigm shift like WW1. The experts of long experience were the same ones who kept thousands of men and horses sitting around nursing a woody for the next big cavalry charge....since that was the way battles were won. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 A logical fallacy since it means there is no room for innovation or change, since the professionals would always be right. A contention even more likely to be wrong at points of great paradigm shift like WW1. The experts of long experience were the same ones who kept thousands of men and horses sitting around nursing a woody for the next big cavalry charge....since that was the way battles were won. Well, I am not disagreeing with either you or Diesel, here, just stating that THIS is the reason for not accepting people's work, nothing really to do with morale. That said though, still, *in general* those who practice and study something as their career over years, should also not be disregarded...this was the mistake Hitler made in WW2, to assume his amateur ability to be better than his generals who had trained for it...well, to be fair, it was ONE of his mistakes 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 We buried three paratroopers in the past ten years. The last post lost in dark echoing churches as you sit in your suit, damp from the cold persistent rain. The NCO from the regiment looking older each time, shaking hands with a different aunt. Their children my age or older, supporting their mum, taking on the burden of being the adults. Shock from the inevitable showing round their eyes. Grandkids fidgeting and kicking the pews ahead of them. Bored and uncomprehending. Dark, cold, final. Sad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Well according to the Wiki article, ACW KIA = Union 140,000 + Confed 72,500 = 212,500 Plus of course a lot of non-combatants. They list The Oxford Companion to American Military History as the source. The estimates vary widely though.. http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm uses very well researched sources and come up with totals Union 360.000+ and Confederate 258.000 This also comes closer to what I learned in classes at West Point. The further math this site goes in to, shows really how staggering these losses were as well, battles where 1 in 4 soldiers fell, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Well it's always very hard with the campiagns pre-20th century to assign casualties given the prevalance of disease attrition. Certainly there's also the civilian losses to consider too. Ans as somebody mentioned, the recovery rates from wounds. Loss of 'manpower' is also a long term effect. The guy who was a miner or a logger or a farmer who comes back home without enough limbs to return to his former profession. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Very true...was much harder for society to recover from war casualties due to that, in those days I imagine...probably indirectly a reason why so many scientific and other discoveries have been made in more recent days..many people who in earlier decades/centuries would have been casualties of war, now are not...not to mention that women for most of history were basically forbidden to think, so we gave up the benefits of that half of our population as well. Certainly, despite the many who think things have "never been worse" I would prefer to live in our current time, over any other time in history probably. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Certainly, despite the many who think things have "never been worse" I would prefer to live in our current time, over any other time in history probably. My wife is always mooning over Jane Austen type historical dramas and saying "I would have loved to live back then." I say, "Yeah, as long as you were not in the 99% of the population killing themselves to make a few pennies a day. Or you don't mind dying from something as simple as a tooth abcess. Or botulism from the canned ham you bought. Or the fact that you'd have to press out twice as many kids because half of them would die. Or else you'd beed to death delivering them. Oh yeah, and we wouldn't be having this conversation because as a woman you'd just have to STFU if I told you to." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 My wife is always mooning over Jane Austen type historical dramas and saying "I would have loved to live back then." .....Oh yeah, and we wouldn't be having this conversation because as a woman you'd just have to STFU if I told you to." hmm..maybe some isn't so bad ha..Ok, I will shut up 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 My wife is always mooning over Jane Austen type historical dramas and saying "I would have loved to live back then." I say, "Yeah, as long as you were not in the 99% of the population killing themselves to make a few pennies a day. Or you don't mind dying from something as simple as a tooth abcess. Or botulism from the canned ham you bought. Or the fact that you'd have to press out twice as many kids because half of them would die. Or else you'd beed to death delivering them. Oh yeah, and we wouldn't be having this conversation because as a woman you'd just have to STFU if I told you to." I always have to wonder about people who think that medieval Europe with all those knights in armor running around was beautiful and romantic. Those knights were mostly no better than barely legitimized thugs and brigands who made their livings through murder and extortion. Thank you, I'll pass. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Well I think the same about the whole pirate thing. What's so great about pirates? If you say to the mum of a toddler that it's a pirate themed birthday party, they will think it's cute and dress their little one up. But if you say it's a rape, murder, theft and slavery party they won't be so keen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 My wife is always mooning over Jane Austen type historical dramas and saying "I would have loved to live back then." Escapism is good I actually feed my wife those novels because they are good for the "soul". However there are people working for that simpler society now. Reduced Government intervention in all areas of life, minimal tax, no unions ...... The USA may yet reach that state. Whilst pouring scorn on previous eras as being dangerous I do wonder if people were more or less happy than now. Thinking solely of Western civilisation and taking into account that man is a relatively simple animal is modern society good. There is plenty of evidence on how many concepts man/woman can juggle. On what is greed. How you can manipulate humans by simple words, by temperature, by food etc. The only outcome of the research seems to be that people are using the knowledge to make money by better pressing of mankinds buttons. It would be nice if the information was actually used to improve peoples lives. This might be as simple as removing egregious button playing. The problem lies in who controls the agenda that might allow change. Simpler taxation would be mightily popular with everyone : ) *Societies with women empowered Celts in Europe The Iroquois Confederacy or League, combining five to six American Indian nations or tribes before the U.S. became a nation, operated by The Great Binding Law of Peace, a constitution by which women participated in the League's political decision-making, including deciding whether to proceed to war,[35] through what may have been a matriarchy[36] or "'gyneocracy'".[37] The dates of this constitution's operation are unknown; until written in "about 1880",[38] it was oral[38] and the League formed centuries earlier, approximately 1000–1450;[38] it still exists. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Well if you ignore the medical outcomes, the golden age for living in Britain would have been at the height of the Saxon period. say about 950 - 1050 AD. Low population density, good weather, no real shortages, no real need for money, enough food for everyone, no Normans bossing you round and telling you not to hunt deer in that forest over there... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Well I think the same about the whole pirate thing. What's so great about pirates? If you say to the mum of a toddler that it's a pirate themed birthday party, they will think it's cute and dress their little one up. But if you say it's a rape, murder, theft and slavery party they won't be so keen. tell them it's training for a career with a potential average $1.5 million annual income. It is piece work tho.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 You do wonder at the West and other shipping nations being so supine in dealing with the problem. Gunboat diplomacy, Q-ships, and mysterious sinkings at sea without the problem of courts and trials would speedily curb their enthusiasm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I think we're supposed to act better than them - moral high ground or something.... Mind you the US caught hose ones who killed the 4 ppl - a speedy trial and execution for murder would seem a reasonable outcome there - let justice be seen to be done. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Nations have always bent the rule of law whilst paying lip service to what is meant to happen. In this instance it is not as though "we" are invading a sovereign country or destabalising a regime - this is straightforwardly a war against pirates. In a war people get killed. Police operations are what happens within a state. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.