POTF 1 - Vote!
Post 1 - Dick Cheney Significance of Teutoburg Forest
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:I’m just going to come out and say it, but Teutoburg Forest has got to be one of the most overemphasized battles in human history (right up there with Thermopylae). The popular myth of course, is that Germanic Tribes (led by Arminius) banded together and soundly defeated three Roman Legions (led by Quinctilius Varus) at the Battle of Teutoburg Forest -during the height of Roman power no less-, thus permanently ending Roman plans for the colonization of greater Germania.
According to wikipedia, The Battle of Teutoburg Forest is comparable to Rome’s greatest defeat, “a turning point in world-history,” and one of the most decisive battles ever recorded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...utoburg_Forest
In reality however, the significance of Teutoburg Forest -including our interpretations of its aftermath and role in thwarting Rome’s expansion plans- must be balanced with the following questions:
- Did Arminius and the Germanic Tribes decisively turnback the Roman Army from Germania?
- Did the loss of three Roman Legions put an end to the supposed Roman conquest of Germania?
- And did the defeat at Teurtoburg lead to a decisive end of Roman dominance and influence over central Europe?
Quick overview of the battle (though not essential for discussion):
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Narrative: Arminius (a former auxiliary officer) betrayed the Romans and executed a perfectly -and meticulously- designed trap. Most tellingly, ambush and wooded terrain prevented the Roman army from forming organized lines, thus allowing the Germans to swarm in on isolated pockets of panicking legionnaires. Low visibility, climate, and rain also didn’t help. Many backup legions (who otherwise might have participated) were also tied down in the ongoing Illyricum revolts.
In all, the 17th, 18th, and 19th legions (20,000 men total) were completely wiped out, Varus committed suicide, and a grief-stricken Augustus is said to have remarked; “Varus, give me back my legions!”
#1 Did the Germanic Tribes (under Arminius) decisively defeat the Roman Army presence in Germania?
Short answer: no.
It’s easy to overstate the significance of Teutoburg Forrest because three whole legions were wiped out and never replaced. However, even with the massacre of 20,000 legionaries and temporary blow to army morale, the Roman military presence around Germania actually increased as a result of Teutoburg Forrest (up to 8 legions beginning with Tiberius) and incidentally led to the revenge campaigns of Germanicus Caesar, a true destroyer general and genocidal killer.
Campaigns of Germanicus Julius Caesar
The cruelty and depth of the Roman response should not be underestimated. In addition to capturing Arminius’s wife, enslaving the local population, and wiping out entire villages and farmland around the Lippe valley, Germanicus managed to goad Arminius into decisive battle, and defeat him at Weser River and the Agrivarian Wall. He even recaptured 2 of the 3 lost eagle standards form the 17th, 18th, and 19th legions. The totality of Rome’s revenge was thus complete, and what remained of Arminius extremely fickle coalition mostly fled across the Elbe. More important than regaining territory, Rome’s honor was restored, and in the years after Weser, Arminius himself would be disposed of by his own men, largely in attempt to appease the Romans.
#2 Did the loss at Teutoburg put an end to the supposed Roman conquest of Germania?
Again, this one is mostly false.
While it’s true major military incursions into Germania ended with the recall of Germanicus (and would not be seen again until the Marcomannic Wars), it’s also true that Germanicus had mostly pacified Germania up to the Lippe and North Sea, it was thus up to Tiberius to decide what to do next.
Rather than continue to push forward to the Elbe, Tiberius choose to withdraw. The reasons for this decision were possibly twofold:
- Fear of Germanicus's growing reputation in Rome and the possibility of being usurped.
- A cost vs. benefit decision that said the economic benefits of conquering Germania were not worth the effort.
In the end, many historians agree that Tiberius made the right decision based on the second reason. Germania, unlike Gaul, had few urban centers and little to no roads and infrastructure -which were needed to establish a reliable tax base. The German economy (according to Caesar and Tacitus) was also not significantly devoted to trade and agriculture, but instead to animal husbandry, raiding, piracy, and plunder. The Germans -according to archaeological grave sites- also significantly lacked in quality iron production and were dependent on Roman imports. In all, -right or wrongly- the Germanic tribes were mostly seen as uncivilized barbarians by their Roman counterparts and separate from the iron-working Celts in Gaul. Assimilating them and establishing Rome rule in the empty forests of Germania then was not worth the effort and may been the historical calculus for all future Emperors going forward.
#3 Did the defeat at Teurtorburg lead to a decisive end of Roman dominance and influence over central Europe?
This one should also be seen as mostly false. The narrative is that Arminius was a unifier and liberator for the German people, yet even after he was disposed of by rival chieftains, the Germanic tribes went back to fighting among themselves, which they were accustomed to do and the Romans happily encouraged. In addition, the Romans would construct the Limes Germanicus, the largest series of frontier fortifications ever constructed (after only the Great Wall of China). The Romans would use the Limes and the Rhine/Danube legions (usually 1/3 of the Roman Army) to literally dominate all major affairs in Magna Germania, including trade, border control, migration, agriculture, war, and regional politics. For the next two hundred years the west bank of the Rhine (along with Gaul) would actually remain relatively safe from German migration and influence, which may have been the principle aim of conquering Germania and wiping out the Germanic Tribes had the Romans done so anyway.
Post 2 - Abdülmecid I How did Italy lose against Ethiopia? First Italo-Ethiopian War
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:The main issue was the Kingdom of Italy barely met the requirements of the elitist "Great Powers" club. Italy could have been stronger than Portugal or Bulgaria, but she could never hope to compete, in financial, industrial and military terms, with the likes of France, Germany or the United Kingdom. These weaknesses were clearly reflected upon the efficiency of her armed forces, from an extremely fragile system of logistics to sloppily trained soldiers and an amateurish officer corps, completely unable to instill a vigorous filling of solidarity inside the regiments and to launch fruitful strategic and tactical operations. Superficially, the Italian army may have seem superior to the Hapsburg navy in Lissa or the Ethiopian army in Adoua, but reality proved otherwise. Even in neighboring Libya, the Italians effectively controlled only the coastline inside the artillery range of their fleet, while the skeleton Ottoman garrison and the Libyan irregulars demonstrated their flexibility in Tobruk and Sciara Sciat. In 1935, fascist Italy benefited a lot from technological advancement, unlike her adversary, which is why the conquest of the country and the expulsion of its royal dynasty became much easier. Lethal gas, especially, was particularly effective, as it decimated the men, destroyed their morale and disrupted their formations. In that case, Italy piously copied the methods of the Spanish during their struggle against the Rif Republic in Morocco.
Meanwhile, Ethiopia was an organised empire, with a long tradition of statehood, while also possessing a central authority (according to African standards), capable of mobilizing several institutions, in order to defeat various invaders. The Empire could deploy a numerous army, reinforced with modern weaponry and able to execute a demanding campaign and complex manoeuvres in the battlefield. Of course, it remained feeble, when compared to the possibilities of an industrialised power, while "feudalism" was far from being eradicated, but when all these factors are explained, as well as Oreste Baratieri's obvious mistake of dividing his forces, the disaster of Adua can be explained somewhat convincingly. In any case, the Ethiopian achievement should be recognized as great and remarkable, as, in contrast to Isandlwana, it involved a decisive victory of the entire European force and not the neutralisation of just a detachment.
Well, that's not correct, at least not for the relevant period. In fact, the opposite was true, as Italian nationalism was marked by a particularly aggressive spirit against France, despite the crucial role the Second Empire played at unifying the peninsula, contrary to the wishes of the Hapsburg monarchy, the Bourbon dynasty and the Papal domination. To be more specific, the Italians were furious (Tunisian bombshell) at the establishment of a French protectorate in Tunisia (which they bizarrely considered as Italy's "rightful territory), while some extremists (Garibaldi included) even advocated for the conquest of Corsica and Savoy. All this ideological "imperialism" was partially fueled by a remarkably jingoist press, whose influence on the electorate was so strong that it could determine foreign policy and the careers of ambitious politicians.France has always had colonial ambitions... in Italy.
Well, in addition to what I mentioned in my reply to Athanaric, Italy belonged to the Triple Alliance (together with Germany and Austria-Hungary), which was diplomatically hostile to the French-Russian alliance (the predecessor of the Entente in WWI). In what concerns East Africa, Russia's attitude was pure indifference (a small private colony named "New Moscow" had already been dismantled), but France certainly preferred an independent Ethiopia to an encirclement of the French dominion of Djibouti by the Italian colonies of Somaliland and Eritrea. However, that being said, I doubt global geopolitics played any significant role to the Ethiopian army being equipped by French and Russians. Such initiatives were very low priority, while their goals were generally defined as economic, opportunistic and comparatively short-term, namely the growth of the domestic arms industry, the increase of foreign political influence inside Ethiopia, the encouragement of investment and the opening of a new market for the industries of France and Russia. The consequent misfortune for Italy was essentially a coincidental byproduct (albeit not necessarily an unwelcome one), but it had nothing to do with the original objective.Any particular reason France and Russia in particular would help someone fight against the Italians? Were the Italians unpopular during this period?
Post 3 - cfmonkey45 “Gilets jaunes” protests in France.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:Because no one has actually provided any factual basis to the debates, here it goes. The Financial Times published an excellent article explaining how Macron's recent reforms have impacted the disposable income of French citizens.
France is currently one of the most highly taxed countries in the world, with taxation reaching about 46.2% of GDP, compared to Denmark at 46.0%, the OECD average of 34.2%, and the USA at 27.1% (this includes all levels of government). [Source]
France's Constitution has established the country as a heavily centralized state, with minimal Federalism. This means that most of the authority that local (rural) governments have is devolved. This has created a dynamic where virtually all of French politics is concentrated at the national level, which has led to a consolidation of power (and dissatisfaction) with the government in Paris. Contrast this with the United States (or Germany), where each individual state has explicitly guaranteed constitutional rights and power sharing agreements with the Federal Government.
Part of Macron's reforms were to initiate tax reform and broaden integration into the European Union. Tax reform in France is desperately needed, since high taxation rates to GDP are correlated with slower growth. Additionally, by broadening France's integration with the European Union, it will largely bolster future prospects of European and French economic growth and largely dampen the potential negative effects of a Brexit (of any kind). Due to widespread corruption scandals, Emmanuel Macron managed to coalesce a large, new coalition to attract disaffected voters to a new Centrist, Neoliberal coalition. This largely avoided the Populist effects seen in other countries (such as the US and UK) because of their multi-round electoral system.
Unfortunately for Macron, his coalition is dependent upon deals made in the French Senate. En Marche! controls a solid majority in the National Assembly, but only 6% of the Senate. Since Senators are elected indirectly by local legislatures and governments, En Marche! remains at a strong disadvantage, and it is required to make deals with other parties and Senators in government.
This required Macron to formulate his policies in response to the internal dynamics of the French legislature, rather than with the popular mandate he was given. Macron's fiscal reforms were to reduce distortionary taxes (particularly the wealth tax and corporate tax), and instead rebalance the tax reform to encourage economic investment. Additionally, he wanted to fulfill portions of the Paris Climate Agreement to include a Gas Tax as part of the Carbon Tax Scheme. While these effects were trivial at first glance, they expose significant flaws in France's political and economic system that requires more comprehensive changes.
Post 4 - Prince of Essling Was Vietnam’s sovereignty violated when the US entered and caused the Vietnam War?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:This air support was not a US military operation. It was a CIA operation through their "Civil Air Transport" bought from the Nationalist Chinese - "CIA's Clandestine Services: Histories of Civil Air TransportYes, it did. American military personnel directly participated at the battle of Dien Bien Phu, and some American pilots were shoot down, like James B. McGovern Jr.
This collection represents the public release for some of the most closely held activities in CIA history concerning one of the most controversial operations in American history. Within this collection, you will find excerpts of the CIA's Clandestine Services Histories of Civil Air Transport (CAT) - the precursor to Air America. The Histories were written by Alfred T. Cox who was named the President of CAT when CIA acquired it. He guided both the covert operations side and the public commercial side of the airline for a number of years. As the name suggests, these histories are normally not released in any form to the public. The booklet released along with this collection contains pictures of the men and women who dedicated their lives to keeping the airline afloat through good times and bad. These people became a family in the early days and, although many of the founding members have passed on, the CAT community remains committed to the memory of the enormous accomplishments they and their families achieved with this airline.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...rvices-cat.pdf "
Other redacted documents
Volume 1 https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...%20VOL%201.pdf
Volume 2 https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...%20VOL%202.pdf
Volume 3 https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...%20VOL%203.pdf
Volume 4 https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...%20VOL%204.pdf
Post 5 - Lord Oda Nobunaga Hyksos Origins & Culture
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:I am quite lost at the Sea People-Hyksos connection, but I don't want to strawman the fellow. Maybe there is something there? But I don't see it to be honest.
As for the Sea People which raided the Levant in the 1200's and 1100's... A lot of people make the assumption that they were actually one group of people but I have no idea why. Think about it, if the Turks invade Anatolia and then the Mongols show up, are they actually one people? No, the logical assumption is just that there were a series of mass migrations. How do we know? Because in the time span that western Anatolia was being invaded there were also simultaneous incursions into Egypt and the Levant. Something that seems rather impossible, one group splitting off into multiple groups to raid everything. The easy explanation is that these were multiple groups from various origins.
The message historians give is really jumbled and dare I say incorrect. For instance there is the claim that the Sea People caused the collapse of Bronze Age civilization. But that can't be true at all given that they only successfully invaded Ugarit and Cyprus, and allegedly were the forebears of the Philistines. The biggest claim given is that the Sea People supposedly destroyed the Hittite Empire that isn't supported other than through mere coincidence. For starters there are no records of "Sea People" invading Anatolia and destroying Hattusa (or even close to it). Second, the destruction of Hattusa better coincides with Assyrian military activities of the same period, as well as the revolt of the Kaska tribes of the Pontic regions and civil conflict between the Great King Suppiluliuma II and some of his subjects (particularly the king of Tarhuntassa, likely of the Hittite royal house, descended from Ulmi-Teshup). Not to mention the obvious fact that the Sea People... WERE SEA PEOPLE, so they could not have caused a Bronze Age collapse if they just raided the coasts (Hattusa is quite landlocked I'm afraid). There is also the fact that in the past two centuries the Hittite Empire had been rather unstable with civil war, foreign wars, famine, tribal incursions and plague (which killed two kings no less).
Usually the evidence for the existence and activities of "the Sea People" is a bunch of occurrences which are then linked together by scholars. For instance the often cited Hittite records during the early 1200's which refer to the invasion of western Anatolia by a kingdom referred to as Ahhiyawa (usually taken to mean Achaeans). But that was during the previous century in which what we would assume was part of an Anatolian coalition (as it coincides with a large uprising in western Anatolia). The problem with drawing a connection between the Ahhiyawans and the Sea People is that the Ahhiyawans are never mentioned again after around 1260-1240. Another contemporary example is Ramesses II's defeat of the Sherden pirates in the Nile Delta at around the same time. The enemies are identified as Lykka (Lycians?) and Sherden (claimed to be Anatolian or Sardinian). As far as I know they are not referred to as Sea People. However in the reign of Ramesses III the "Sea People" are defeated at the Nile Delta, but here they are clearly identified as Sherden, Peleset, Tjekker, Teresh, Weshesh, Denyen etc. Moreover Ramesses III's inscriptions refers to them as an alliance, meaning that they are not one group.
Clearly then the Sea People are not a single group with a single origin. Most likely many of these were tribes from Anatolia as their depiction and names are similar to Anatolians. The idea that they may have been Mycenaean Greeks is unsupported. It is possible that this was part of a domino effect from the Ahhiyawan activities a century earlier or due to larger ecological changes which connects the two. But on the whole there seems to only be a larger pattern of migrations within Anatolia (presumably in the Balkans as well with the Pelasgians). At some point they formed raiding fleets and armies with peoples like the Libyans and Amorites, as Ramesses III states. If there is a connection between say the people that destroyed Hatti and the Sea People then it is only in so far as Anatolian migrations and invaders, not some pirates or raiders which somehow destroyed a whole empire. In conclusion there were no "Sea People" which caused the Bronze Age collapse. There was actually a larger trend of migrations in Anatolia and the Balkans (maybe in the rest of Europe) caused either by ecological reasons and famine or other migrations which had similar causes. The Sea People attacked and raided the coasts from Cyprus and Cilicia as far as Egypt, but in terms of actual destruction they didn't cause that much. Whether they "conquered" (which has not been defined in this case; did they take these places or merely sack them) Ugarit, Cyprus, Ashkelon, Hazor, Carchemish (supposedly survived the attack), Kizzuwatna (Cilicia) and Arzawa (western Anatolia).
I should note that the Egyptians claim "the lands were removed and scattered to the fray. No land could stand before their arms, from Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arzawa, Alashiya on being cut off" (quoted from Trevor Bryce). However I would suggest that the translation be more carefully examined for potential errors or that the exact meaning be carefully observed. The statement there does not inherently imply that all those lands were destroyed by the Sea People, but mentions clearly that they were cut off, as in the Egyptians lost contact with these places. That in itself does not mean that the Sea People conquered Hatti, which sounds rather implausible. If the Egyptians do mean that these Sea People conquered Hatti, then consider that they are wrong. Unless by Sea People they are using this as a general term to mean Anatolians.
Originally Posted by Himster
Pillaging and Plundering since 2006
