| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Day Brown" |
| Date: |
22 Oct 2007 11:52:35 PM |
| Object: |
Gibbon, on the legions. |
"In the purer ages of the commonwealth, the use of arms was reserved
for those ranks of citizens who had a country to love, a property to
defend, and some share in enacting those laws, which it was their
interest, as well as duty, to maintain. But in proportion as the
public freedom was lost in extent of conquest, war was gradually
improved into an art, and degraded into a trade.
The legions themselves, even at the time when they were recruited in
the most distant provinces, were supposed to consist of Roman
citizens. That distinction was generally considered either as a legal
qualification or as a proper recompense for the soldier; but a more
serious regard was paid to the essential merit of age, strength, and
military stature.
In all levies, a just preference was given to the climates of the
North over those of the South: the race of men born to the exercise of
arms was sought for in the country rather than in cities; and it was
very reasonably presumed, that the hardy occupations of smiths,
carpenters, and huntsmen, would supply more vigor and resolution than
the sedentary trades which are employed in the service of luxury.
After every qualification of property had been laid aside, the armies
of the Roman emperors were still commanded, for the most part, by
officers of a liberal birth and education, but the common soldiers,
like the mercenary troops of modern Europe, were drawn from the
meanest, and very frequently from the most profligate, of mankind."
And now, we also have Blackwater.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibbon, on the legions. |
23 Oct 2007 10:49:34 AM |
|
|
On Oct 23, 12:52 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
"In the purer ages of the commonwealth, the use of arms was reserved
for those ranks of citizens who had a country to love, a property to
defend, and some share in enacting those laws, which it was their
interest, as well as duty, to maintain. But in proportion as the
public freedom was lost in extent of conquest, war was gradually
improved into an art, and degraded into a trade.
The legions themselves, even at the time when they were recruited in
the most distant provinces, were supposed to consist of Roman
citizens. That distinction was generally considered either as a legal
qualification or as a proper recompense for the soldier; but a more
serious regard was paid to the essential merit of age, strength, and
military stature.
In all levies, a just preference was given to the climates of the
North over those of the South: the race of men born to the exercise of
arms was sought for in the country rather than in cities; and it was
very reasonably presumed, that the hardy occupations of smiths,
carpenters, and huntsmen, would supply more vigor and resolution than
the sedentary trades which are employed in the service of luxury.
After every qualification of property had been laid aside, the armies
of the Roman emperors were still commanded, for the most part, by
officers of a liberal birth and education, but the common soldiers,
like the mercenary troops of modern Europe, were drawn from the
meanest, and very frequently from the most profligate, of mankind."
And now, we also have Blackwater.
Of course in the era you are discussing military might was in large
part the combined physical strengths of the men in the army. I would
say that military might in this day and age is considerably
different. So I am not so sure what analogies can be taken from your
dialog.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibbon, on the legions. |
24 Oct 2007 05:50:17 PM |
|
|
On Oct 23, 11:49 am, wrote:
Of course in the era you are discussing military might was in large
part the combined physical strengths of the men in the army. I would
say that military might in this day and age is considerably
different. So I am not so sure what analogies can be taken from your
dialog.
The diff is that the professional army is devoted to that institution,
whereas when an army is drawn from the farmboys, for a shorter
enlistment period, they expect to go back to where they have an
investment they expect to inherit, and take a far greater interest in
the stability of the republic that safeguards their rights and
ownership.
The professional soldiers take an oath as well, but their real
interest in the preservation of the army, not the republic. It has
become what Eisenhower feared: the military industrial complex using
the republic to protect its own interests, rather than the republic
using the army to protect its own interests.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibbon, on the legions. |
25 Oct 2007 11:29:07 AM |
|
|
On Oct 24, 6:50 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:49 am, wrote:> Of course in the era you are discussing military might was in large
part the combined physical strengths of the men in the army. I would
say that military might in this day and age is considerably
different. So I am not so sure what analogies can be taken from your
dialog.
The diff is that the professional army is devoted to that institution,
whereas when an army is drawn from the farmboys, for a shorter
enlistment period, they expect to go back to where they have an
investment they expect to inherit, and take a far greater interest in
the stability of the republic that safeguards their rights and
ownership.
The professional soldiers take an oath as well, but their real
interest in the preservation of the army, not the republic. It has
become what Eisenhower feared: the military industrial complex using
the republic to protect its own interests, rather than the republic
using the army to protect its own interests.
I'm sorry I totally misread your original statements.
But I am still perplexed. You are implying that the US armed forces
do not have the best interests of the country in mind, but rather the
best interests of their institutions in mind? Do you have any proof
of this? Are you attempting to smear all soldiers in the US armed
forces or only some of them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibbon, on the legions. |
26 Oct 2007 12:05:41 AM |
|
|
On Oct 25, 12:29 pm, wrote:
I'm sorry I totally misread your original statements.
But I am still perplexed. You are implying that the US armed forces
do not have the best interests of the country in mind, but rather the
best interests of their institutions in mind? Do you have any proof
of this? Are you attempting to smear all soldiers in the US armed
forces or only some of them?
The military is pretty diverse, only a fool would smear all of them.
But anyone who's read the studies on group think can see how the corps
could be manipulated. I thot Gibbon's point was fairly clear, that so
long as the ranks come from the farm, and know they will return to it,
they will act to protect the legal and property rights they hope to
inherit from their fathers. But when they dont, then they come to see
their security in the military, and will view the republic merely as
the means to support their entitlements.
Something both Gibbon and Machiavelli picked up on was how the
aristocracy encouraged immigration into Rome from tribes that lacked
strong republican traditions. They then funded campaigns of demagogues
pandering to ethnicity and religion while lowering the taxes on the
rich.
Part of what is going on is the impoverishment of the middle class,
who are the only people smart enuf to be paying attention to the
corruption of the republic's institutions. You'd think the aristocracy
would realize this leads to tyranny, but because of group think, they
dont ever get it. But Mach says, that since the government cannot tax
the rich to get the money to fund what we now call 'entitlements', it
*borrows* the money from them. This works until some creditor sees
that the middle class has become so impoverished that the remaining
tax base will no longer service the debt much less pay it off. At
which point he refuses to lend more, and there is financial crisis.
Now, in the case of Rome, when this happened, Caesar was just back
from looting Gaul, and had the money to pay the troops to go in and
restore order. But all any general now would have are nice lithographs
of dead presidents; not gold.
Robert Kaplan, in his study of the military, "Imperial Grunts" reports
that half the Green Berets grew up on family farms. Those boys will
still see an investment back home. But the other half? Now they are
starting to take in men who are not even citizens of the US? The Roman
legions did that too, filling the ranks with men who had no allegiance
to Rome, only to the army and whatever benefits it could provided
them.
Looking at the hometowns of the Iraq war dead, I notice that the great
metro areas, which have 80% of the population seem to have 30% of the
hits, while small podunk towns and rural areas nobody ever heard of,
2-3% of the population have 25% of the dead. If that represents their
enlistment, then the military- in an economic crisis, will be split
between those who feel they have an investment down home worth
protecting, and those whose only future lies in what the military can
get for them.
If things go on as always, the price of oil stabilizes, the national
debt gets under control... no problem. But I notice some states are
trying to create more powerful local militias; if for no other reason,
than to deal with the Mexican border. Last spring, Arkansas gov Beebee
announced that the state will take over the funding of the equipment
for the Arkansas National Guard, and that that equipment will not
leave the state without his consent. The AR national guard has spent
so much time and equipment in Iraq that he did not have the means to
deal with a string of tornados. People were pissed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibbon, on the legions. |
26 Oct 2007 01:33:58 AM |
|
|
On Oct 25, 10:05 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
On Oct 25, 12:29 pm, wrote:> I'm sorry I totally misread your original statements.
But I am still perplexed. You are implying that the US armed forces
do not have the best interests of the country in mind, but rather the
best interests of their institutions in mind? Do you have any proof
of this? Are you attempting to smear all soldiers in the US armed
forces or only some of them?
The military is pretty diverse, only a fool would smear all of them.
But anyone who's read the studies on group think can see how the corps
could be manipulated. I thot Gibbon's point was fairly clear, that so
long as the ranks come from the farm, and know they will return to it,
they will act to protect the legal and property rights they hope to
inherit from their fathers. But when they dont, then they come to see
their security in the military, and will view the republic merely as
the means to support their entitlements.
Something both Gibbon and Machiavelli picked up on was how the
aristocracy encouraged immigration into Rome from tribes that lacked
strong republican traditions. They then funded campaigns of demagogues
pandering to ethnicity and religion while lowering the taxes on the
rich.
Part of what is going on is the impoverishment of the middle class,
who are the only people smart enuf to be paying attention to the
corruption of the republic's institutions. You'd think the aristocracy
would realize this leads to tyranny, but because of group think, they
dont ever get it. But Mach says, that since the government cannot tax
the rich to get the money to fund what we now call 'entitlements', it
*borrows* the money from them. This works until some creditor sees
that the middle class has become so impoverished that the remaining
tax base will no longer service the debt much less pay it off. At
which point he refuses to lend more, and there is financial crisis.
Now, in the case of Rome, when this happened, Caesar was just back
from looting Gaul, and had the money to pay the troops to go in and
restore order. But all any general now would have are nice lithographs
of dead presidents; not gold.
Robert Kaplan, in his study of the military, "Imperial Grunts" reports
that half the Green Berets grew up on family farms. Those boys will
still see an investment back home. But the other half? Now they are
starting to take in men who are not even citizens of the US? The Roman
legions did that too, filling the ranks with men who had no allegiance
to Rome, only to the army and whatever benefits it could provided
them.
Looking at the hometowns of the Iraq war dead, I notice that the great
metro areas, which have 80% of the population seem to have 30% of the
hits, while small podunk towns and rural areas nobody ever heard of,
2-3% of the population have 25% of the dead. If that represents their
enlistment, then the military- in an economic crisis, will be split
between those who feel they have an investment down home worth
protecting, and those whose only future lies in what the military can
get for them.
If things go on as always, the price of oil stabilizes, the national
debt gets under control... no problem. But I notice some states are
trying to create more powerful local militias; if for no other reason,
than to deal with the Mexican border. Last spring, Arkansas gov Beebee
announced that the state will take over the funding of the equipment
for the Arkansas National Guard, and that that equipment will not
leave the state without his consent. The AR national guard has spent
so much time and equipment in Iraq that he did not have the means to
deal with a string of tornados. People were pissed.
Yeah.. what you said..
Foreign mercenaries allegiences lie with their pay and their personal
benefits.
Not with the nation under whose flag they supposedly fight.
Mercenary armies are dangerous for any democracies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibbon, on the legions. |
26 Oct 2007 02:01:03 PM |
|
|
On Oct 26, 2:33 am, wrote:
Foreign mercenaries allegiences lie with their pay and their personal
benefits.
Not with the nation under whose flag they supposedly fight.
Mercenary armies are dangerous for any democracies.
Polite discourse appreciated. But now that you mention it, the poor,
dispossessed, and those who see themselves as oppressed, when drawn
into the ranks have the same mercenary attitude. I am not judging
whether their rancor is deserved or not, only that it will be a tool
in the hands of demagogues telling them it is all rightfully theirs,
and under their leadership will be able to seize that which they
formerly were begging for.
The prices of gas, gold, and grain are all up. But you can eat grain,
and the US still exports it. So, there is ultimate support for the
dollar to keep grain exports going. But better management of the
economy would help.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibbon, on the legions. |
25 Oct 2007 01:57:53 PM |
|
|
On Oct 25, 12:29 pm, wrote:
On Oct 24, 6:50 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:49 am, wrote:> Of course in the era you are discussing military might was in large
part the combined physical strengths of the men in the army. I would
say that military might in this day and age is considerably
different. So I am not so sure what analogies can be taken from your
dialog.
The diff is that the professional army is devoted to that institution,
whereas when an army is drawn from the farmboys, for a shorter
enlistment period, they expect to go back to where they have an
investment they expect to inherit, and take a far greater interest in
the stability of the republic that safeguards their rights and
ownership.
The professional soldiers take an oath as well, but their real
interest in the preservation of the army, not the republic. It has
become what Eisenhower feared: the military industrial complex using
the republic to protect its own interests, rather than the republic
using the army to protect its own interests.
I'm sorry I totally misread your original statements.
But I am still perplexed. You are implying that the US armed forces
do not have the best interests of the country in mind, but rather the
best interests of their institutions in mind?
This is the nature of government bureaucracies Michael. Why are you
surprised?
Do you have any proof
of this?
You obviously don't follow these things or have any experience with
the services. At the moment, there is considerable jockeying between
Marines, Army, Air Force and Navy for funding. The Marines are trying
to bug out of Iraq leaving it to the Army---they want to go to
Afghanistan where they can justify their combined-arms force
structure. The Air Force is pushing to bomb Iran (and some in the Navy
are also pushing it) because that will justify their particular
emphasis on air superiority, so they can get money for 2 new fighters
instead of just one. They don't much care that the infantry grunts in
Iraq will suffer the consequences of that insanity.
This business has been true ever since there were armed forces---in
particular professional ones. Consider the Roman legions---they backed
whichever dictator gave them more benefits.
-tg
Are you attempting to smear all soldiers in the US armed
forces or only some of them?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibbon, on the legions. |
23 Oct 2007 02:40:59 AM |
|
|
On Oct 23, 5:52 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
"In the purer ages of the commonwealth, the use of arms was reserved
for those ranks of citizens who had a country to love, a property to
defend, and some share in enacting those laws, which it was their
interest, as well as duty, to maintain. But in proportion as the
public freedom was lost in extent of conquest, war was gradually
improved into an art, and degraded into a trade.
The legions themselves, even at the time when they were recruited in
the most distant provinces, were supposed to consist of Roman
citizens. That distinction was generally considered either as a legal
qualification or as a proper recompense for the soldier; but a more
serious regard was paid to the essential merit of age, strength, and
military stature.
In all levies, a just preference was given to the climates of the
North over those of the South: the race of men born to the exercise of
arms was sought for in the country rather than in cities; and it was
very reasonably presumed, that the hardy occupations of smiths,
carpenters, and huntsmen, would supply more vigor and resolution than
the sedentary trades which are employed in the service of luxury.
After every qualification of property had been laid aside, the armies
of the Roman emperors were still commanded, for the most part, by
officers of a liberal birth and education, but the common soldiers,
like the mercenary troops of modern Europe, were drawn from the
meanest, and very frequently from the most profligate, of mankind."
And now, we also have Blackwater.
I think the analogy is false.
It is the common soldiers who deserve our respect for being upstanding
and of good character, if a little gullible. It is those that lead
them who are profligate and dishonorable. They are profiteering and
are shamefully recruiting the common folk from the poorest areas
whilst burning tax dollars in a feeding frenzy of shameful
proportions. This has been the case for generations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZerkonX" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibbon, on the legions. |
23 Oct 2007 06:59:04 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:40:59 -0700, chazwin wrote:
It is the common soldiers who deserve our respect for being upstanding
and of good character, if a little gullible. It is those that lead them
who are profligate and dishonorable. They are profiteering and are
shamefully recruiting the common folk from the poorest areas whilst
burning tax dollars in a feeding frenzy of shameful proportions. This
has been the case for generations.
Some things are the same others, different. I do not know what you mean by
"common" soldier. Is this one who works for the government or the
corporation?
I also think that before looking to those who lead them, it would be good
to look at who and how they got to that position to begin with. The armed
force of the US now are made up of mostly private contractors so the US
soldier is part of a military minority there. How, now, then can it not be
possible that this same arraignment of private contracted force become the
force that will make up the majority of the domestic police force?
I can guess how it will start because it has started. Through desperate,
understaffed, underfunded police chiefs and governors who will need help
with some sort of emergency situation. Like Katrina. Like the LA fires
I suspect.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibbon, on the legions. |
23 Oct 2007 03:06:51 AM |
|
|
On Oct 23, 5:52 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
"In the purer ages of the commonwealth, the use of arms was reserved
for those ranks of citizens who had a country to love, a property to
defend, and some share in enacting those laws, which it was their
interest, as well as duty, to maintain. But in proportion as the
public freedom was lost in extent of conquest, war was gradually
improved into an art, and degraded into a trade.
The legions themselves, even at the time when they were recruited in
the most distant provinces, were supposed to consist of Roman
citizens. That distinction was generally considered either as a legal
qualification or as a proper recompense for the soldier; but a more
serious regard was paid to the essential merit of age, strength, and
military stature.
In all levies, a just preference was given to the climates of the
North over those of the South: the race of men born to the exercise of
arms was sought for in the country rather than in cities; and it was
very reasonably presumed, that the hardy occupations of smiths,
carpenters, and huntsmen, would supply more vigor and resolution than
the sedentary trades which are employed in the service of luxury.
After every qualification of property had been laid aside, the armies
of the Roman emperors were still commanded, for the most part, by
officers of a liberal birth and education, but the common soldiers,
like the mercenary troops of modern Europe, were drawn from the
meanest, and very frequently from the most profligate, of mankind."
And now, we also have Blackwater.
PS.
Blackwater is a relatively recent term used to describe water
containing fecal matter and urine. It is also known as brown water,
foul water, or sewage. It is distinct from greywater or sullage, the
residues of washing processes.
Blackwater is heavily polluted and difficult to treat because of the
high concentrations of mostly organic pollution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZerkonX" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibbon, on the legions. |
23 Oct 2007 06:18:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:06:51 -0700, chazwin wrote:
Blackwater is a relatively recent term used to describe water
containing fecal matter and urine..
... or oil.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
