Pisces Axxxxx

Movies and games make the tactic of feigning a retreat only to turn around and then suddenly counterattack an enemy completely off-guard because they were so busy pursuing you seem so easy as 1-2-3. However stuff I read state this is very difficult and only a unit of the highest calibre of Discipline can commit this tactic. For example in Hastings the Normans are typically praised for using this tactic. But stuff I read state its an incredibly risky tactic that was terrifying for the Normans to perform and several times using this tactics, groups of Norman Knights were almost caught and could have been slaughtered. Paul Cartledge in his book "The Spartans" states: P.127-128 "The Spartans added to the Persian forces' discomfiture by deploying the sort of tactics that only the most highly trained and disciplined force would have been capable of even contemplating-a seriesof feigned retreats followed by a sudden about-turn and murderous onslaught on their over-confident pursuers". So how difficult is it to do a simple hit-run strategy?Games and movies make it seem so simplistic!!! I mean even hunters who are not trained for war can do this to animal, what makes it so hard to do this in war?

I notice there is a strong tendency in the Military Community-especially Veterans and civilians with relatives in the military to scoff at the general public because they don't revere veterans. They seem to really hate how celebrities who make a living off "useless" things like movie stars, professional athletes, divas, musicians, and artists make sooooooo much money that are often in the thriple digits or for top stars like Brad Pitt, JK Rawling, and Muhammad Ali, made millions for a single work from their occupation. In their eyes, "soldiers sacrificed everything for our freedoms" and they deserve much more than celebrities of various things get paid. That its unfair a civie who never served like Tom Cruise get paid millions of dollars for one movie or Selena Gomez gets paid at least $35,000 for doing one episode of Wizards of Waverly Place. In their eyes, soldiers should get paid that much because they risked death everytime they fight in the battlefield and they have the hardest and most dangerous job in the world. That soldiers as the embodimment of virtues are much more noble people than any of these celebrities can ever hope to be. Here are some such posts online. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071023231357AAVAIbo http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhDK6q.5BWgyD4Ae5YEn8w0jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20130110124345AADWLem http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aqcc28n_5b4TdWptoc1ChEYjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20070226145056AAaOHkb In my opinion this is OVERROMANTICIZING the Military. To begin with, most soldiers don't join out of civic duty but they do so because they couldn't get a job elsewhere or to avoid a prison sentence. Secondly most soldiers don't even go fighting in the battlefield but are back safe in bases. Thirdly these professional Athletes, Movie Stars, musicians, and so-their jobs aren't EASY. I won't go into details but a lot of the things and stress they face in the job would be enough to break most people in the Military who aren't in combat units esp. reserves. They do a lot of stuff for example professional athletes do a lot of physical activity that makes basic training a joke and would make most Reservists and non-combat soldiers cry and break apart. I won't go into details because each of these profession are VERY stressful in different ways. But just to leave on more example, when Victor Fleming was filming Gone With the Wind, he was so stressed he passed out and had to rest for several days that other people had to temporarily take over to direct the movie. YES it can be that stressful especially in big budget production. Furthermore even among combat units, most soldiers ARE not the noble embodiment of virtues like many civilians with relatives who were in the MIlitary worships them to be. Many of them are madmen thugs and crooks-bad bad people prior to enlisting. A lot of them actually enjoy violence long before they joined and they excel as soldiers because their personality is so much in tuned with this life style, Yes they fight hard and are comparable to the average professional athlete in physical vigour but they are NOT noble citizens. And they pale compared to the star stars of sports like Usain Bolt in physical conditioning. Furthermore a lot of these celebrities HELP civilians so much, many of them much more than the typical Combat soldier could ever hope to in their life time. For example Bill Gates and Michael Jordon donated MILLIONS to charity. Muhammad Ali inspired millions of Americans to get into Boxing and become in better shape for the rest of their life as a result. And my personal role model as far as Hollywood goes, Katharine Hepburn, served as a role model for millions of women around the world to follow and look up to because she was such a DISCIPLINED and FIERY woman. And rightfully so because she really was a woman of such self-restraint, more so than the average soldier could ever hope to become in her life time. Civilians often contribute much more than soldiers do. So I think its deserving that the average soldier get such low pay than civilian Celebrities do. Esp. when you consider most people can become soldier very few people have what it takes to become a Movie Star or professional athlete. What do you think? Agree?Disagree? I notice its even bigger in the History community esp.among enthusiasts of Military History who all too offten moan and complain many soldiers who died in past wars are barely remembered. They complain most civilians don't even know the famous military figures of history who gave their lives for their country or for "Freedom" like David Crockett, Stonewall Jackson, and Roger Vandenburg. All over-romanticizing the soldier IMO and forgetting the contribution other aspects of society gave to history esp. history other than Military History like Cultural History, Social History,etc.

I agree with you to an extent. But the point of this question is not so much about the Civil War but I am interested in what people think of the two extremes in history. The more and more I read civilization's downfalls, the more I ntocie figures very similar to Rhett Butler and Ashely Wilkes. That when a civilization is in a brutal war or on the verge of collapse, there are "Gentlemen" (or Caballeros, Knights, or other cultural equivalents) who are so conservative and stuck in tradition they cannot get past that their old world is disappearing. Often these "Gentlemen" make up the bulk of the resistance that comes after a the civilization collapses (or at the very least make up many of its leaders). Examples are the Anglo-Saxons who continued riots and uprising after William was crowned king of England, the Zealots raiding Roman Legionnaires,etc. Ashley Wilkes joined the Ku Klux Klan after the war because so many Southerners wanted to continue the war behind the door so his honor compelled him to do so. Even those "Ashleys" who don't partake in such uprisings attempt to live in the rules of the old days-which is precisely what Ashley does. He is literally the worst farmer in the county Tara (Scarlett's plantation) is in, being unable to produce descent crops. When he moves to Atlanta, his honor makes him too generous he has to help others at the expense of his familiar and he practically sucks at every job he gets. The "Rhetts: on the otherhand adapt to the times, going as far as cheating and lying their way through and performing illegal means such as murders, bribery, fraud, and so on to not only survive but flourish in the new world. In fact they often played a major role in the collapse of a civilization (or if the civilization they're from manages to survive the war, the Rhetts betrayed their side and aided the enemy in the war that lead to a lost battle,failed operation, enemy conquest of territory,etc). Even the "Rhetts" who only aided their side were primarily concerned with profits and while they may have helped changed the tides for their side (which Rhett manages to do as blockade runner for the 1862-63 period), they did not help as much as they COULD have and only gave enough aid to gain a big profit. Rhett Butler did sell weapons to the Confederacy but he also sold other luxuries that did not aid in the Southern Cause such as dresses from Paris, perfumes,etc. There was a remark that he could have filled his ship entirely with weapons rather than luxuries and that would have helped the Confederates and he replies he's only doing this for money not out of patriotism. These same Rhetts aid the invaders after the collapse of civilization, and takes advantage of the poverty for unscrupulous business for wealth. Anything they do, even if it seems patriotic, they only do because they can milk cash. They're willing to sellout their entire nation to become rich. An example is Ephimates who led the Persians through the Goat Pass at Thermopylae. Thats what I meant by which do you find more respectable in history-characters like Rhett Butler or Ashley Wilkes.

One of the most powerful story elements of Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind is the striking differences (yet similarities) between 2 of the main characters, Rhett Butler and Ashley Wilkes. For those who never read the book, these characters are polar opposites that however share some things in common. To start off with their similarities. Both men are well-educated, highly intelligent, and very courageous. Both had their lives affected by the Civil War.Both ABSOLUTELY thought the war was sheer stupidity. Both were outstanding soldiers in the war. However here is where the similarities end. Ashley Wilkes was a patriot at the core. Even though he opposed slavery enough that he would have freed all his slaves upon his fathers death had the war had not come and even though he knew that the Confederacy would have ultimately lost the war, he still volunteered to fight from the moment Georgia decided to enter the war. After the war ended, Ashley continued to try to live under the Southern code of honor. He did so much to live as the ideal Southern "Gentleman" before the war that he ended up living in poverty and his family suffered as a result. He was that patriotic, refusing to adapt to the new world if it would require him to breach "Honor" and he was nostalgic for the days of antebellum South later on by the time the story was in its final stage. During the War, he was captured as PoW at one of the worst Civil War POW camps (can't remember the name). The conditions was such in the camp troops were starved and living under conditions comparable to a concentration camp. Mortality rates were high. Ashley Wilkes was given the choice to give up his loyalties to the Confederacy and instead fight for the Union in the West against Indians (which he had a much better chance of surviving). Ashley was so patriotically loyal he refused the offer and stayed in the camp until the war's end. After the War, Ashley's spirit was destroyed when the Confederacy collapsed. Rhett Butler was the exact opposite. He absolutely despised the South and its customs and mocked the Confederacy in front of patriotic citizens whenever he could. He committed acts of fraud on both the Union and Confederate sides to make a profit. While its true within the context of the story, some of his actions actually helped the Confederacy such as his acts of illegally bringing in weapons and necessities to the Confederacy during the Blockade, he openly admits the only reason he did such acts was to make a profit and if he could make more money by aiding the Union he would have sided with them instead. Rhett before the war was an utter thug who murdered several people for fun and already committed acts of fraud for profit. He could care less about the Confederacy's fate and never thought of fighting for the Confederacy until the very end when he departed from Scarlett after the burning of Atlanta. Even there I suspected his reason for joining the remnants of the Confederacy army to serve as an artilleryman in the last months of the war was motivated not out of patriotism but out of self-interest. Even more striking differences come after the war. Where as Ashley's spirit was killed post-civil war, Rhett's spirit was more enthusiastic than ever. He thought the fall of the Confederacy and the Reconstruction was a blessing, and opportunity to make profits and become rich. Which is exactly what he did through a combination of deceit, fraud, and shrewd business skills. In addition its later revealed in the story that Rhett took a large portion of the Confederate's last gold reserves before it collapsed and hid it somewhere. Other Confederate veterans did the same but they honestly returned it to the now-sovereign Union government after the war. Rhett did not-after being released from prison for several more murders, he got his hidden gold and used the almost all of it to invest and make even more profits and put into his savings accounts. His life took a different direction from Ashley- he would become one of the RICHEST men in the South because of his disregard for honor and patriotism. As you can see the characters are polar opposites-patriots and traitor, thug and law-abiding citizen, traditional and revolutionary. Just in the final chapter of the story, when Scarlett told Rhett how weak she discovered Ashley was, Rhett told Scarlett:

I'm watching a documentary right about the Battle of Marathon. In this documentary, The Persian lines pushed through the Athenian center but it was a trap and the Athenians on the far right and left flanks suddenly enveloped the Persians now in between them. The Persians then were sorrunded and the Athenians counterattacked them. This reminds me of a documentary I watched of Hannibal years ago. In this documentary, they show cased the battle of Cannae in which Hannibal intentionally ordered the center of the Cartheginian forces to fall back. The documentary showed a computerized image of a line gradually become a crescent shape formation as the Romans pushed through. Once it fully formed into a crescent, the documentary states the Cartheginans flanked the Romans and slaughtered them in this battle. The movie Kingdom of Heaven depicts a Cavalry charge between the Muslim and Crusaders. Numerically outnumbered, the Crusader cavarly were able to crush the center of the Muslim cavalry but immediately the Muslim cavalry enveloped the Crusaders and formed a crescent formation and flanked the Crusaders, winning the battle. Granted in this example (and yes the stuf I read on the real battle this scene was based on), the Muslims really outnumbered the Crusaders by a large margin abd trying to gain a momentum with a direct charge so typical of Western armies was probably the Crusaders best chances of winning this battle because even if they tried some other tactic, the Muslims would have ended up sorrunding them with their numerical superiority any way. I am very curious. When the Hannibal documentary showed the Crescent diagram, it seemed such an obvious trap. Why did military commanders including highly competant genrals time and time again for fall such an obvious movement?Why do they insist on attacking the center despite even in cases where they tended to have far more troops than their opponents who used the Pincer Movement like in Marathon and Cannae? It should be obvious they'll be flanked if they only push through the enemies' center formations!

Hhhhhmm did this battle have any effect on British Economic History? Or British Law History?

The Americans have done the same to Indians. Honestly I'd have no remorse for shooting German soldiers too. But the sight of noncombatant women and children getting killed no matter what side they're from. Hey some of the most brutal acts by the Allies were done by the French and that includes gang rape of Italian women,etc. So I'm not bashing Americans exclusively. But I am disgusted with the portrayal of all American soldiers as a mystique figure who's the embodiment of virtues and thats not just World War 2 but wars in general. A lot of American soldiers are utter rogues, if not criminals, and many who are of combat MOS were bad bad people before enlisting. I SEEN it myself first hand as I live near a military base. Which is why I enjoyed the insights of this article-it exposes many soldiers as thugs and not as heroes (I'm not saying all American soldiers were like this and its more like shades of gray but we need to hear more about American attrocities). Why I heard of American soldiers coercing women in Korea and Japan into sexual slavery post-world war 2. All this hero-worship of soldiers (especially in America) has to stop.

I've read on the Battle of Allia and apparently a major cause of defeat was the fact that the Gauls were yelling out terrifying war screams that played a major role in breaking the Roman Phalanx. However this was before the Marian reforms and was at a time when the Romans were farmer-soldiers so this did not surprise me. However I also read years after the Marian reforms, when the Roman Legions were confronted with the Gauls and other "Barbarians" there are descriptions of Roman soldiers shaking in fear at the initial phases of the battle when the Barbarians were yelling out their fierce war cries. In some cases Roman Legions were paralyzed according to various stuff on the internet that they cannot move or maintain ranks. I am curious what makes hordes of screaming Barbarians so scary to even train soldiers like the Romans? Modern military standards would consider the thoughts of fearing an enemy force simply because it screams and yells so much as a mark of poor discipline!

A while back I published this thread. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121014114420AAZvm2n I've been reading more and more into Military History and in fact I just finished reading Gone With the Wind. One of the protagonists, Rhett Butler, received praise for being an outstanding Artilleryman during his service in the Civil War but he is an utter thug who lacked moral discipline. This topic came into mind because I keep hearing stuff like "X Unit" and "Officer X" praised for having the "Highest Calibre of Discipline" for a certain operation, war, battle, etc.... But when I read the lives of soldiers in praised unit or praised individual, they lack any self-restrained and are found indulging in Alcohol, unable to handle basic finance, hiring prostitutes,etc. And many are often outright criminals, being wife beaters or thieves or so. Unless they continued on as soldiers or moved on to another equally violent and/or physically invigorating career like police man, farmer, or prize fighter, many soldiers who were in top shape when they were in the military cannot even merely maintain their physical health enough to at least be appear lean when I read the personal lives of soldiers in Military History. This is a topic I wish t discuss because I am truly disgusted and nervous with all the praise soldiers frequently get not only at the present but soldiers who fought in wars that ended centuries ago like Confederate veterans. They get worshiped like they're the embodiment of virtues by people without even a study of their lives outside the war. I learned so many soldiers both present and past are thugs and lacking in self-restraint.

I posted a topic yesterday. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiYHJoSeSc2p3fQJvuWN9_jsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20130213101824AATasNM Now I know Roman soldiers would beat anyone who fell asleep on guard duty to death. In today's politically correct Western Militaries, that is considered hazing. So I am curious more about specific Hazing that was typical among the Romans military.

I published this (rather long) question about why Farmer soldiers were so unconditioned for military tasks as basic as marching on Yahoo Answers last week. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aralsuo439x7.UU0QCiD_tYjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20130206060935AA6bSuI You noticed I posted that in addition to the Confederate Army example, that the Romans were also Farmer-Militia during their early days but fought with such tenacity and discipline that they were on par with a regular Army in the ancient world. So I am curious. What separated the Romans from other Farming Peoples that relied on a Militia that made them so successful in repelling invasions and later conquer nearby neighbors as opposed to the typical poorly trained militia forces mentioned in above question?

One thing that I'm incredibly curious about. Years ago when i first read about the battle of Thermopylae, I was like "Why didn't Xerxes send Scouts to explore the area and find the mountain openings?!!!" In fact in another "Historical Army X VS Historical Army X" that frequent the internet, and in this case it was "Spartans VS Romans", one pro-Roman guy stated "Ha if the Romans were fighting the Spartans at Thermopylae, they would have sent scouts before the battle's start and found the opening passage early on!!!". I too thought the same thing and that Xerxes was a fool. Until I saw a History Channel about the Spartans and Thermopylae. In the prelude of events prior to the battle, they showed Xerxes planning a way to send logistics into mainland Greece for his invasion. I was TRULY awed. Xerxes planned a brilliant infrastructure of using a series of wooden boats to create a temporary bridge that went for miles from the Persian Empire and into Europe. Practically the Historians in the documentary praised Xerxes ability to be able to manage such an ambitious project and it ultimately succeeded. Practically in less than 3 months they were able to send large numbers of troops into Europe. It was at that point I began to respect Xerxes' ability as a leader. The documentary brought me even more respect for Xerxes when they portrayed his childhood. Rather than being a pampered prince indulging in luxuries, he was trained under Spartan conditions from childhood until his adult years just before he took over the throne. He literally spent much of his life mastering the art of Warfare and using weaponry and they even showed the documentary of one of his final tests which was to take on some dangerous beast in an enclosed melee (I think it was a lion) all by himself just using a spear and wicker shield. So it wasn't like Xerxes was an ignorant pampered prince. He was trained in the art of war and as a soldier from childhood until adulthood and indeed if you read of his ability as a ruler before Thermopylae you'd realize he was a VERY COMPETANT ruler. So I'm really wondering. Why didn't Xerxes find the opening passage that would lead him to flank the Greeks early during the battle?I sincerely doubt a leader as competent and well-drilled as a warrior from childhood as Xerxes would be either too STUPID or too ARROGANT to avoid taking such a precaution as scouting the area (and indeed the novel "Gates of Thermopylae mentions his armies had scout patrolling the mountains of Thermopylae while the battle was occurring). What was so specific at Thermopylae that Xerxes scouts couldn't find the secret opening passage and that it was only information from a traitor that finally allowed Xerxes Immortal to find the opening and flank the Spartans?

In modern warfare today, the highest ranking gneral concentrates exclusively on planning, logistics, and the "Grand Strategy" of a war. It is up to the lower ranking generals to execute the lower levels of warfare such as fighting pitched battles and carrying out operations. In Ancient Warfare, the highest ranking general is portrayed as HAVING COMPLETE COMMAND and carrying out everything from big epic pitched battles to carrying out operations to handling logistics to the Grand Strategy and even PR,negotiations, and counseling the soldiers. This is especially true in movies like Gladiator (where Maximus is shown as doing everything from planning the battle to rallying his men and so-forth) and Spartacus (where Spartacus is portrayed even trying to negotiate his way out of Rome). Some movies like 300 go as far as showing the C-In-C in the frontlines with his troops. Now its not just Hollywood and Popular Media that portrays this. Even History books seem to portray Generals like Alexander the Great and Cyrus of the Persians as micromanaging everything from a tactical battle to logistics. I do read every now and then mentions of them having lower ranking generals-like one book mentions Alexander and his generals preparing before major tactical battles. However even in the articles and books that contain any mentioning of subordinate generals of leaders like Alexander and Leonidas don't put much details into the command of lower-ranking generals and overlooks the, making it seem like the C-In-C like Alexander and Ramses did everything else. As though the subordinate generals were more like the C-In-C's bodyguards or just the elites of his army. What were subordinate generals expect to do in ancient Warfare?If the top man was micromanaging everything, what was the purpose of Caesar having subordinate generals and so forth? Were subordinate generals more like officers who were expected to inspire men but nothing more and were expected to follow the C-In-C's orders with no initiative like Robots? I'm especially curious of how Alexander's generals operated as while the stuff I read neglect the details, they imply Alexander's generals were much akin to advisers in planning. In tactical battles, did such generals just blindly follow orders like many books imply or were they expected to take the initiative?How crucial were they to major victories like Marathon and Plateau?

Last year in my last account I chatted with Caildrail about this. Suddenly after making a discovery about my bloodline, I'm inspired to post this here. I notice a tendency for so called "intelligent" young men to rant how easy and great things would be if they were in a position of Dictatorship in a country.More often than not,these (so they think so fully of themselves) men of "above average intelligence" seem to think being an Dictator would be fun and easy,often they rant how they would quickly make "change". For example one guy I need bragged how if he were Alexander the Great,it would be so awesome because he would be in glory, having sex with as much women as he want and conquering the world and creating a mighty empire. Another guy once posted if he were an absolute ruler,he would quickly overthrow world governments,via invasion, and then create an ideal "free-for-all" society where anybody can do anything he want. I remember hearing from one poster on the internet ranting how if he were a feudal lord in the Medieval Ages,he would have a huge harem of lady and easily be conquering much of Europe and becoming a glorious "Ruler". Hell in every history forum I went to,there seems to be so many young boys who never served a day in a political seat such a mayor of treasurer nor had they ever even enlisted in the Military who thinks being absolute ruler is an easy game of "Chess" where they get to do anything they want from having harems of women to having fun conquering the world to even creating society as they wish it to be. What do you think?I personally laugh at these people because IMO they're childish.They think being a ruler is the same as playing an Empire-Building Computer game as Civilization or simply as not making the same mistakes they read in History books such as those Xerxes of Persia made? It seems to me they FAILED TO READ MORE ON HISTORY-If they did,they would have realized that the rulers they boast they wish if they were in their place such as Caesar and Alexander of Macedonia COULD NOT SIMPLY DO ANYTHING THEY WISH even if they were under the title of "Absolute Ruler".More often then not they had to be wary of their actions which may anger and lost support of their people,nearby rulers,and even their armies. Not even Adolf Hitler could simply have ordered and have done anything he wanted to do(contrary to popular belief).Being a ruler is an extremely daulting and tiring job.Hell even just ruling a small parcel of land back in the Medieval Times as a noble was already exhausting enough to be comparible to that of a CEO especially with other nearby land-hungry lords eager to attack you any moment they see an oppurtunity to and take over your land as theirs!Add Military Campaigns which these guys think would be easy conquering the world because they "READ AND THINK THEY WON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES" or because they done so well ina PC game like Total War or Civilizations-ROFLOL just plain laughable that they act like its easy conquering the world XD! Add to the fact that these young guys NEVER SERVED IN A POLITICAL POSITION SUCH AS TOWN MAYOR let alone GOVERNOR or even PRESIDENT nor have they EVER EVEN STEPPED FOOT IN MEPS let alone PASSED BOOTCAMP AND SERVED THE MILITARY and I laugh at these guys comments.Shows their "intelligence". If anything,these guys who boast such stuff IMO are precisely the type that would get kicked out of their position of Absolute Ruler and possibly be killed by the conquering enemy armies as they make blunders in their rules that will probably anger their subjects and create wars in which the nations they rulle will lose and be conquered by nearby nations they angered! What do you think?Do you agree that guys who rant how they want to be a Dictator or Absolute Ruler like Saddam Hussein or Alexander the Great are precisely the type that won't last as Feudal Lords or Kings and will probably be quickly overthrown and killed by nearby hostile Feudal Lords or Kingdoms or Countries or even their own people? Caildrail told me that its desirable to be absolute ruler but few people have the both the intelligence and ruthlessness to make it to the top. In addition once you're king Caildrail states its very common to have paranoia to the point of extremity and making it up there is not as easy as staying up there.

I notice theres a trend in the West esp. Europe. Westerners now bash the Abrahamic religion esp. the Roman Catholic Church. They attack the Abrahamic Faiths for their bigotry and hatred towards the LBGT (esp. Homosexuals). They indeed now show a bias towards Eastern Religions-especially Buddhism-for their incredible accepting tolerance and openness towards the LBGT. In their eyes, Buddhism and other Eastern religions are more humane because they don't (at least in their view) have a single trace of anti-LBGT. In fact I remember in a chat room a Thai girl said she was Atheist but her family were Buddhists. A Portuguese man also in the chat room commented, saying that "Buddhism is the way to go". Prior to this chat in an earlier chat that took place about 5 months earlier, this same Portuguese guy took part in an anti-Catholic bashing discussion in the chatroom and he even told a guy who posted anti-Catholic things "Yes Preach". In his view Catholicism was all evil and one of the reasons I remember had to do with their intolerance towards LBGT (he also holds anegative opinion of Americans because of our we are not open of LBGT as in Europe). I don't know much about Buddhism nor its history but I'm taking the Western POV witha big grain of salt. Mainl because most Westerners I've met who hate the Abrahamic Faiths for anti-LBGT intolerance don't really have an understanding of Buddhism outside of popular stereotypes and cliches in the Media. Most of what they know about Buddhism comes from TV Shows and News Talk Shows. ALmost none of them have ever picked up one basic text of Buddhism and read it from start to end, none of them have ever visited a Buddhist Monestary, and not a single of them know anything about Buddhism's backstory and history outside of the basic story of Siddarhata Guatama abandoning all the fortune and his position as King to live a life of Austerity and later develop what we now know as Buddhism. They don't know any Buddhist practicse outside of meditation and chanting. The same can be said about their views on other Eastern Religions they claim that are far mooorrre tolerant towards LBGT than the Abrahamic Faiths ever were such as Shintoiism and Confucianism. They never read any text of this other lesser known Eastern Religions let alone visited a temple. I'm curious what was the reality?

Nonsense. Christianity had such a control over the average person by that time the knights as a class of champions made no difference whatsoever. In any case, many of those same knights - despite the extraordinary influence of christianity at the time - were very worldly, although some such as Tancred struggled (initially) with christian teaching on one hand and lifestyle choices/martial credibility on the other. After all, it was the missionaries that spread christian teaching into the pagan world and knights had nothing to do with that. Which wars were aimed at the Catholic Church? I can't think of one. I found the exact quote in the book yesterday.

I just finished reading "The Battle of Hastings" by Jim Bradbury. One of the things he dispels in his book about Hastings is the notion that the reason the Anglo-Saxons lost the battle was because Harold did a reckless forced march. He states that based on physical evidence, it would have been impossible for his force to have made it to Hastings within 4 days. Furthermore he reveals that while the Housecarls (many who fought at Stamford Bridge prior to Hastings) fought as infantry, they used cavalry to travel around rapidly and the trips to Hastings was no exception.Lastly most of the Fryds were not actually part of Harold's army when he fought at Stamford Bridge but he picked them up locally on the way as he and his Housecarls traveled to Hastings. In other words even if Harold did a forced march, most of his troops (the Fryds) wouldn't have been exhausted and would have been in good condition, if not in top physical conditioning, by the time the battle began because he mustered them locally on the way to Hastings. What do you think?

We often think of Shield Wall formations as being melee troops that are completely static and defensive. They are portrayed as staying in a tight formation safe in their shields and waiting for the enemy units to clash into them. This is especially true for Hollywood's portrayal of the Roman Tetsudo and Greek Phalanx in movies like Gladiator and The 300 Spartans. However I just finished The Battle of Hastings by Jim Bradbury and contrary to the popular notion that the Shield Wall is a static melee formation that "Stands the ground", he shows that at Hastings, even though the Saxons were static for much of the battle (especially at the beginning), they acted anything but defensive passive as. Even though they were in a static shield wall, when the battle commenced, they are shown throwing javelins at the Normans. In fact a big reason for William sending the cavalry charge after his Archers fired barrages in addition to the fact the Saxon Shield Wall proved unharmed by WIlliam's archers was that Harolds "Static" Shield Wall formation was counterattacking William's archers with javelins. Indeed when William sent his Knights to charge at the walls, they suffered casualties from thrown javelins. What do you think? I think this is another proof of how popular media inaccurately portray tactics in the battlefield and History.

In The Battle of Hastings by Bradbury, the author mentions that executing a Cavalry Charge required great training and strong levels of discipline for a number of reasons. Among the reasons that he mentions, the one that got my attention is his mentioned that one of the dangers of Cavalry Charges and indeed one of the primary reasons that training a Knight took so much effort was the big possibility of hitting a nearby Knight with your spear, sword, lance, etc just as a charge is gaining momentum. That you can accidentally hit a Knight next to you or in front of you as you beging to pull out and aim your arms. It is for this reason he states that you cannot simply just get trained infantry and put them on horse and expect them to perform effectively. He implies that soldiers not trained for cavalry warfare would end up inflicting friendly casualties toward other soldiers on horse. That a Knight or similar Cavalry would need to be trained in holding their arms and coordinating a cavalry charge so they don't accidentally kill nearby Knights in the charge. What do you think?

In The Battle of Hastings by Bradbury, he stated that contrary to popular perception the Normans did not ingeniously develop the plan of sending cavalry to harass the Saxon and lure them out of their formations and then counterattacking them whent hey were out of their shield wall. The Normans actually used this tactic prior to Hastings. But in Hastings this was not part of the initial battle plan and the Normans eventual use of this tactic in the battle came out of accidental error. He states that the first time the Saxons break out of their shield walls to chase the Normans in their retreat, the Normans were genuinely fleeing out of fear. The Normans fled in such panic that William the Conqueror had to to rally his troops with much effort. That if WIlliam didn't portray charismatic leadership, at that moment the Saxons went out of their shield walls to chase the Normans would have routed the Norman cavalry. It was only after William rallied his troops that they committed a counter attack to strike down the now unprotected Saxons that chased them as William saw an oppurtunity. So it was after this first genuine retreat that William was inspired to try to send cavalry to harrass the Saxons and lure them out of their shield walls and then flee fora distance only to counterattack the unprotected Saxons. He would commit this tactic over and over in the battle. Howver despite now having developed an effective counter to the Saxon Shield Wall, Bradbury states that it was still incredibly close thing and that the Norman Tactic of luring the Saxons out of their shield wall WAS incredibly Risky. Anytime the Normans attempted this tactic, even when it worked it could have almost turned into a panick in which the Norman Knights lost their nerve abandon this plan and just retreat out of fear. Indeed there are accounts that mention just how close several attempts of this strategem was to getting smaller bands of Norman Knights to getting slaughtered by Saxon Infantry when they attempted this strategem. If it weren't for the leadership skills of some knights, some of the smaller bands of Norman Horseman would have been wiped out. What do you think? What exactly made the luring tactic so risky even though you were on horses?Computer games like Stronghold Crusader and Total War makes this tactic seem so easy to do!

We all know how Hasdrubal force intended to be sent as reinforcements to Hannibal was slaughtered by the Romans who now were better prepared and left defenses at the Alps. The Romans were not going to be taken by surprise this time so when Hasdrubal reached Rome, the Romans witht heir new defenses at the exists of the Alps were awaiting battle. The rest is history and Hasdrubal was slaughtered. When I first heard of this years ago during a documentary on the History Channel, my dad commented "Hasdrubal was stupid! He should have known that the Romans were not going to fall for the same trick again and were not going to leave the entrance to Rome from the Alps unprotected!!!". Indeed I do wonder. Common Sense should have told you that the Enemies were now aware of this opening and that they weren't going to let you exploit it once again. So why did Hasdrubal take the same path Hannibal did? Didn't he at least prepare for the fac that the Romans weren't going to stupidly leave the Alps unprotected this time?

I'm becoming quite more and more Romantic and indeed right now I've gone over 2/5 passed Doctor Zhivago, which is considered a prime example of Russian Romance literature. I intend to read Gone With the Wind afterwards, which is one of the great classics of both American Literature and Romance literature of all time. I intend to rewatch the movie adaptation of both love stories and indeed much of my to-watch list consist of Romance movies and my favorite music that I've listening to lately consist of love songs like Umberto Bindi's ll Mio Mondo" and the romantic music of classic movies like Gone With the Winds "Tara Theme" and Doctor Zhivago's "Lara Theme". So I'm really in such a romantic henge.Just to add the Moon was in Leo for the past couple of days.and I have a Moon in Leo and we CAAAAAAAAANNN be such romantics hence this longing for Romance. Back tot he topic. What History would provide the most extensive coverage of nonfiction love stories of people in the past? And by love stories, I mean all kind from the marriage between the average peasants living in China to the forbidden romance between aristocrats of rival countries and so forth. I really am eager to study whatever branch of history covers this!!!

One thing I notice popular media portrays missionaries They always portray them as physically low tier, often fat and rich, and sheltered from the hardships of the Medieval World. They are portrayed as such pampered people that when they move into unconverted areas that are being explored such as South America, they are offered the best living conditions under travel-they are given the best food, often given very fine tents, and they are always shown on donkeys safe from any dangers by Crusaders (or in the case of South America Conquistadors). They are shown so pampered they have jewelry and fancy expensive Bibles,Rosaries,and beautiful Crucifixes and other religious items made out of the finest and most expensive materials such as Gold or the finest wood, and embedded with jewelries such as diamonds. If tough times come, such as food supplies running out, they are shown as the first ones to die out of the expeditionary force. Heck even when forced to face conditions that are more descent than that the Conquistadors and Crusaders faced like all the finest food running out and the fancy shelters being destroyed, the Missionaries are shown as whining how hard things are and moaning the "low standards of livings" they have to face (even though the Crusaders have sacrificed the finest foods,tent, and so on and given them to the missionaries). Don't even get me started on how when Pagan Warriors come to fight the Christian missionary force such as the Aztec Warriors ,unconverted Germanic tribes in the Baltic,and Muslim Warriors during the Crusades, the Missionaries are always shown as cowering and are particularly the first to get killed in the middle of a chaotic melee. When Missionaries are doing work at home, they are shown living in very fine monasteries with the finest foods, fine bedding, and basically the highest standards of livings a person could dream of in the Middle Ages. Excellent examples of this portrayal is in the game Age of Empires 2 were Missionaries are portrayed on Donkeys as healers for the Spanish faction.They are the weakest unit in the entire game after the Monk unit. They can't even fight to defend themselves under attacks, something even the lowly peasants can do. Another example is most movie incarnations of Robin Hood where the Missionaries are portrayed as fat and pampered and often corrupt. They are portrayed as comic humor in the typical Robin Hood flick.Even Friar Tuck,one of the good guys, is often portrayed as this. However I was told that in actuality Missionaries were physically strong, if not then at least used to facing physically hardships.According what I was told, they had to because the regions they were going to like South America were often dangerous. Prior to even going to such regions for seeking converts, Missionaries were expected to live an austere life in Catholic regions that was pretty Spartan even when compared to what hardships peasants in the time period typically face. Even in our modern world, Missionaries going to places like India are expected to be austere and mentally tough for the hardships they'll face. Excellent example of this is in the novel Silence by Endo. The Missionaries, while having lived most of their life in Catholic Altair, were quite the mentally austere enough to have survived many of the hardships typical in Missionary Work such as hunger, passing through rough terrains such as mountains, and treachery. I've read that in the Middle Ages it was not uncommon for Missionaries to maintain physical fitness and even practice some form of Medieval Wrestling and Weapon Fighting. Of course this didn't mean they were conditioned to fight professional soldiers like Knights, but they certainly had much more knowledge about self-defense and hand-to-hand than the average peasants of the Middle Ages and I actually even read of accounts were missionaries beaten well-trained knights in wrestling matches. While I'm not sure if he was a missionary, in the older incarnations of the Robin Hood stories, Firar Tuck is also the epitome of how the missionary would have lived. In these incarnations, Tuck was a muscular man who was well-versed in swordsmanship and other fighting arts. I read of so many of the things missionaries faced in South America were the worst hardships in Spanish exploration of the region. It was not uncommon for them to be captured, and they faced the most desperate of situations that would break even elite battle-hardened warriors like the Knights Templar and Viking Berserkers. So what I read about Missionaries is that they were anything but fat and pampered. Their fortitude is on the same league , if not surpasses, those of Medieval Knights and while they were not trained for war, they were very fit for non-fighters and there is evidence of missionaries holding on their own against Knights in combat activities and even killing Warriors like Vikings in battles. So I'm curious which view is correct and where did this stereotype come from?

I've been reading Doctor Zhivago by Pasternak for the past few days. In addition to being much more historically accurate and politically themed than the movie directed by David Lean, what I've read so far reminded me of an overlooked fact about Russia. One of the major characters in the book is a Muslim (in fact during a battle scene in the Great War, he even yells "Ya Allah!" as the Russians went to attack German trenches). Mosques are described within the story and there are several other minor characters who are Muslim, Reading this reminded me of a fact I learned years ago back in Freshman High School. As I was looking through the World History textbook, there was a page showing the percentage of what religions where in each major country. For Russia it listed: Christian 35%, Muslim 35% and everything else Jewish, Animalistic Religion, local religion,and Other. I admit this isn't the first time I attempted to read Doctor Zhivago-the last time was about 6 years ago and when I was reading it that time, I was quite wondering "why is there a Muslim as one of the protagonists?Russia is a Christian nation!!!". I never got to finish the book as far as I could to see that Russia has a strong Muslim influence on its culture but seeing that page on World Religion statistics on the section on Russia's percentage it began to make PERFECT SENSE. I'm still have to read 3/5s of the book left but getting far as I did brought back this old issue I completely forgot about. I notice portrayals of Russia in movies and even Video games portray the country as though its a predominately Christian nation. From the brief scene of FedEx workers in Russia receiving orders in Castaway to the animated film Anastasia to the stage of the Russian girl Millia Rage in Guilty Gear (which has an Eastern Orthodox Church in it) and the Russian character Hyoga from Saint Seiya (who is portrayed as wearing a necklace with an Eastern Orthodox Crucifix and even later revealed as being an Eastern Orthodox Christian), I notice Russia is stereotyped as being predominantly Christian.by not only by the Western media but even non-Western fiction (which would include two mentioned examples, Guilty Gear and Saint Seiya). Even David Lean's movie adaptation,of Doctor Zhivago, which I watched 7 years ago and loved so much, altered the script not to include the main character who was Muslim. Only Orthodox Churches are portrayed, not a single Mosque (which are described in several chapters of the book) and NOT A SINGLE MUSLIM character from the book was even portrayed as a minor character. And David Lean's movie is the MOST FAMOUS incarnation of Pasternak's story. Reading Pasternak's incarnation of the story opened my eyes to how diverse Russia is. It isn't a merely Christian Orthodox nation but a country diverse of various religious groups and additionally various ethnicities and races( (which they also neglect to show in the film and only portrayed Russians as exclusively European-looking). As I dig deeper into lesser known Russian literature and art I see more and more Muslim influence as I search about specific regions. I'd (sadly) say that even most "Historical" works about Russia I read in the West (particularly in America) portray Russia as predominantly Orthodox Christian prior to the Revolution (with the exception being that World History textbook I read years ago). No mention of major Muslim figures or even Jewish figures and pretty much all Christian characters represented in Western histories of Russia. Why is this?

Yesterday I asked this question on the Phalanx. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtSDK5MpJ.lq1EZN6PJxqePty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20121224113629AA9NqSB I now stand corrected and learned it was the Roman Wedge formation I was referring to. So is such an offensive formation being triangular and shaped like an arrow really add on to the impact?To repeat part of my question: