Columbus Day

[rcfstl]

No reason for that....you're here now.

and with that, I'm going to bed. This has worn me out.

Good ngiht and nice to met you.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Maybe I am too tired to make any clear point.

And i dont know if I am answering this correctly.

The Europeans fought to win, the killed who ever got in their way and did it with superior weapons and armor.


It was not about religion was the point I was trying to make. It was about greed they came to take what they could from a weaker enemy.

And they had been waging war and every culture has for that reason among others among themselves for centuries.

And Roman tactics were a lot more flexible than just stand together pull out your sword and hack.

If you hang around here very much, you will find out I tend to ignore some arguments and get deeply embroile din others, but a lot of the time, I'll comment on faulty history. I wasn't commenting on Jagged's reference in a moral or philosophical mode. Had he expressed his point, in the manner you just did, I probably wouldn't have commented at all.

The Europeans fought to win, the killed who ever got in their way and did it with superior weapons and armor.

That's a pretty fair description of European warfare up to the time of Napoleanoic warfare. Argument canbe made it isn't applicable, but it's a fairly inassailable position.

That said, tactically, and in terms of wageing total war, Cortz and Pizzaro were not fighting in the traditional mode of the day. Even Leopold of Austria let Richard go after some measure of the ransom he demanded was provided for. I can't think of a single example of nobility whacking an aristocratic hostage after the ransom was paid off the top of my head, but in both cases I sited it occured in the new world. I know for a fact At Agincourt, Henry was appalled at the losses among the French, not because he liked them, but because sizeable ransoms were lost when they were killed rather than captured. That's 1415 so it's on the edge of the 100 year standard I asked for.

It isn't that you are tired, it's just that you are agruing a general thesis, while I am taking exception to a specific statement that I think is insuportable.


As to the Romans, their tactics weren't flexible. Witness Cannae, Cressus in Persia, Varius at Teutonburger wals, etc. Take them out of formation and they get punked. There are exceptions, Scipio Africanus was a great tactician and not wedded to doing it the old way, but in general, the romans used the same formula time and again. Shield wall, get close, disembowl. Or, after the philum, shiled wall, throw filums, get close, disembowl.

 

[amicus]

"Oh, my..." as the old man said in the film, "Logan's Run" (I think)...

Such a gamut of history and historionics...such a plethora of faith and belief and wish and desire....

"Revisionists" is what we are dealing with, those who wish to revise, not, 'correct' the history of Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci and Leif Ericksonn, or 'Eric the Great."

But I wish to welcome 'Jagged' and "by rcfstl.." and congratulate both for confronting the embedded haters of colonial americans. That is usually my province.

What Cloudy and Colleen Thomas and the other apologists for Amerinds, or Native Americans, do not acknowledge, is that they had ancestors also.

Be it Inuits, or Asians that first bridged the Bering landbridge, 15 or 30,000 years ago, (choose your archeologist), we all came from somewhere and we all survived by surviving the onslaught of 'barbarians' who were 'other' than 'the people', or the humans.

Believers, of all shades, Christian, Muslim, name your poison, and add to that, those of 'native american faith', always find a way to justify their failure to succeed.

Those who gain sustenance from the past, from the accomplishments of others, are losers, second handers, who have nothing to live for or by, but the past. They are to be pitied, but tolerated, as they have no life of their own.

Humanity is humanity; of all races and origins. We are what we are. That some succeed and some fail...is just the way it is.

To make it personal, so you can take a whack at me; I claim no heritage, ethnic nor racial. I do claim the pride of being human and rational as was Thales and Anaximander and Xeno and Aristotle and Socrates. Therein lies my claim to humanity, not ethnicity, but rationality.

I do not wish to downplay the faith of Native Americans, nor Africans, nor Hispanics, nor any other ethnic or racial identity that wishes to live in the past.

I rather suggest we place them aside, like 'Quakers', or 'Socialists', and study them, along with 'Inuits' and 'Inca's', as a thing of the past, of interest to historical scholars only.

But, I would like to applaud the historical knowledge expressed by several, concerning warfare and conquest in the written history of the world. Well done!

Amicus....(yeah, I know you missed me, sorry)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

"Oh, my..." as the old man said in the film, "Logan's Run" (I think)...

Such a gamut of history and historionics...such a plethora of faith and belief and wish and desire....

"Revisionists" is what we are dealing with, those who wish to revise, not, 'correct' the history of Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci and Leif Ericksonn, or 'Eric the Great."

But I wish to welcome 'Jagged' and "by rcfstl.." and congratulate both for confronting the embedded haters of colonial americans. That is usually my province.

What Cloudy and Colleen Thomas and the other apologists for Amerinds, or Native Americans, do not acknowledge, is that they had ancestors also.

Be it Inuits, or Asians that first bridged the Bering landbridge, 15 or 30,000 years ago, (choose your archeologist), we all came from somewhere and we all survived by surviving the onslaught of 'barbarians' who were 'other' than 'the people', or the humans.

Believers, of all shades, Christian, Muslim, name your poison, and add to that, those of 'native american faith', always find a way to justify their failure to succeed.

Those who gain sustenance from the past, from the accomplishments of others, are losers, second handers, who have nothing to live for or by, but the past. They are to be pitied, but tolerated, as they have no life of their own.

Humanity is humanity; of all races and origins. We are what we are. That some succeed and some fail...is just the way it is.

To make it personal, so you can take a whack at me; I claim no heritage, ethnic nor racial. I do claim the pride of being human and rational as was Thales and Anaximander and Zeno and Aristotle and Socrates. Therein lies my claim to humanity, not ethnicity, but rationality.

I do not wish to downplay the faith of Native Americans, nor Africans, nor Hispanics, nor any other ethnic or racial identity that wishes to live in the past.

I rather suggest we place them aside, like 'Quakers', or 'Socialists', and study them, along with 'Inuits' and 'Inca's', as a thing of the past, of interest to historical scholars only.

But, I would like to applaud the historical knowledge expressed by several, concerning warfare and conquest in the written history of the world. Well done!

Amicus....(yeah, I know you missed me, sorry)

I resent being called an apologist Amicus. At no point in this did I make any excuses for native american customs. I believe I was the one who noted thier fighting style was meant to incapaciate so they could sacrifice the conqueored. I also believe it was I who noted that the Spanairds used native auxillarys in most of their campaigns.

I do not believe that characterization of me was warranted.