Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Helios 68 - Nulli secundus

  1. #1
    grouchy13's Avatar TW Mercenary Veteranii
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    East Midlands, UK
    Posts
    2,280

    Default Helios 68 - Nulli secundus



    Contents
    Pluto and the Dwarf Planets, The outer reaches of our Solar System by grouchy13
    The British Empire in South Africa: The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Kingdom Part One by Shackleton
    The Bush Doctrine by Audacia
    On Separatist Nationalism in the American Antebellum South by Legio Italica
    Cultural diversity in Pre-Roman Italy by Lyra

    From the Editor:


    “One swallow does not make a summer,
    neither does one fine day;
    similarly one day or brief time of happiness does not make a person entirely happy.”


    Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics


    When we consider the words of Aristotle we must ponder makes a summer?, the warm glow of the sun?, the refreshment from a cool Breeze or a drink with Ice, Vacations and the Beach?

    At The Helios the summer means only thing, that it is high time for our summer special. Despite The Helios writers grueling schedule, Vacations and other endevours I'm happy to present our summer special for your consideration. We have real mixed bag of article topics for you here and like a proud father I'm happy to present 2 awesome new History writers to our ranks in the form of Legio Italica and Shackleton. Their works chart 2 periods of the past relatively close but contrastingly different, In America brother fought brother for the soul of a Nation, whilst a little later in Britain thoughts were turned to expanding the Empire, but all did not go as planned and in the Zulu War fate proved once more no Empire is invincible!

    Elsewhere Helios stalwarts Audacia and Lyra as always give us articles that provide food for thought, with what we have we hope this edition of The Helios the perfect companion for a warm afternoon in the Sun.

    Enjoy your reading!

    grouchy13
    In this article I continue The Helios exploration of space with a look at what lies at the outer reaches of our Solar System and how much do we know about these distant regions, join me as we look into Pluto and the Dwarf Planets!

    Pluto and the Dwarf Planets, The outer reaches of our Solar System

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Pluto and the Dwarf Planets, The outer reaches of our Solar System



    During the last century Astronomers have made a number of advances in discerning what lies at the edge of our Solar System, Objects that will be familiar to even the astronomical novice such as Pluto have been discovered, classified then reclassified whilst recent discoveries such as Eris and MakeMake have caused Astronomers to come up with a whole new classification of Celestial Body, the Dwarf Planet. But what are the Dwarf Planets and what actually lies on the outer reaches of our Solar System?

    Pluto for over 70 years after its discovery stood as the 9th Planet within the Pantheon of Planets within our Solar System, Pluto is an incomprehensively distant Planet discovered by Clyde Tombaugh in the 1930’s using pioneering Blink Comparator photographic techniques where multiple pictures of a geographic region of space are compared to search for passing celestial bodies.




    Press release of the Blink Comparison plates utilized in Pluto's discovery


    Pluto is roughly a sixth of the size of our own moon and is primarily made up of rock and ice with a very thin atmosphere comprising Nitrogen, Methane and Carbon Dioxide. However despite its status as the 9th Planet many Astronomers were acutely aware of how different Pluto actually was. Pluto’s small size and the fact it has one of the proportionally largest Moons to its own size, the Moon Charon were just some of the Planets anomalies, it biggest difference to the other 8 Planets of Solar System is its inclined and eccentric Orbit, Pluto has a lengthy obit of 248 Earth Years not remarkable when you consider its distance to the sun however instead of a having a conventional circular Orbit like our own Pluto has an eccentric orbit which resembles more an egg shape that of circle.




    Pluto's eccentric orbit in comparison to the other inner Planets


    This orbit ensures that Pluto crosses gas giant Neptune’s orbit and jumps in order essentially becoming the 8th Planet as it is closer to the Sun than Neptune, the last time this anomaly occurred was in 1979 when Pluto Crossed inside Neptune’s orbit, the event known as the Pericenter or point of closest approach when Pluto was inside Neptune’s orbittook place a decade later in 1989 before Pluto returned outside Neptune’s orbit in 1999.



    Picture showing path of Pluto's crossing of Neptune's orbit

    Along with this abnormal ecliptic orbit Pluto also has a major incline in terms of its celestial position to the other planets, who sit on a nearly 90° horizontal plane to Sun whilst conducting their ecliptic orbits. Pluto’s orbit however see’s it transgress this plane with its position being offset by around 17° to the 90°Horizontal ecliptic Plane of the other Planets.



    Pluto's abnormal orbit in relation to ecliptic orbits of the inner Planets

    It would not be these peculiarities that would lead to Pluto’s reclassification; this would be driven by a better interpretation of the immediate neighborhood around Pluto classified as the Kuiper Belt.

    The Kuiper Belt

    Following the discovery of Pluto Astronomers pondered on the possibility of the existence of similar bodies on the outside of our Solar System, many astronomers were confident that in time other bodies would indeed reveal themselves in the meantime a school of thought began to gain some credence that in the region beyond Neptune was in fact a disc of Asteroids and smaller Planetary bodies that were the remnants and debris of Planetary material left over from the Solar Nebula or in laymen’s terms the great clouds of gas and dust that formed the major planets within our Solar System. One of the chief architects of this hypothesis was the Astronomer Gerard Kuiper whom published his hypothesis in the early 1950’s.




    Gerad Kuiper, proponent of the outer Belt theory

    Subsequent generations of Astronomers built on Kuiper’s hypothesis and using continually sophisticated Blink Comparison technology began to add credence to it with the discovery of more and more evidence that indicated that such a body of material existed beyond Neptune. It would be in the latter part of the 20th Century when the computer age ushered in advances in digital image capture that allowed Astronomers to fully comprehend the size and breadth of objects that actually made up what would become known as Kuiper’s Belt in honor of Gerard Kuiper.

    In the late 1980’s the Astronomer David Jewitt and his assistant Jane Luu began a search for objects within Kuiper’s belt utilising the advanced telescopes of the Maunu Kea facility in Hawaii in conjunction with improved computerised Blink Comparison techniques. After 5 years of searching the pair discovered in quick succession the celestial bodies of (15760) 1992 QB1 abbreviated to QB1 and (181708) 1993 FW six months later.




    Image highlighting the density of Kuiper Belt objects in relation to the inner Planets


    The discovery of (15760) 1992 QB1 and (181708) 1993 FW proved that in line with Kuiper’s hypothesis smaller bodies did exist beyond Neptune, further exploration extending into the beginning began to yield other Trans-Neptunian Objects that inhabited the Kuiper Belt region of our Solar System, over a thousand trans-Neptunian objects were discovered between 1992 and 2006, the volume of objects and the ability of Astronomers to interpret their often abnormal orbits over a period of time led Astronomers to further sub divide the areas of Trans Neptunian Space incorporating the area of Kuiper’s Belt, an area outlying Kuiper’s Belt known as the Scattered Disc and finally the immensely distant Hypothetical Oort Cloud believed to be a light year from our own Sun (roughly a distance of around 6 trillion miles!) and a quarter of the distance to closest star to our System, Proxima Centauri.




    The Hypothetical and distant Oort's Cloud

    The Dwarf Planets

    As we have seen Modern Astronomical methods increased the volume of TNO discovery, one of the most notable Astronomers in this field was Mike Brown whose discovery of a number of large TNO’s such as Eris and MakeMake in 2005 began the debate that would see Pluto eventually lose its Planetary Status and see the implementation of the Dwarf Planet classification that large TNO’s such as Pluto, Eris and MakeMake would now fit into.

    The size of Eris, roughly equal to that of Pluto, and the confirmation that Pluto inhabited the Kuiper Belt led for some to call for Eris to be recognised as the 10th Planet of our Solar System; however the International Astronomical Union, the IAU, controversially decided to instead reclassify what constituted as a Planet. A number of precursors were placed on what actually constituted Planetary Status in 2006, unfortunately for Pluto it failed to meet the IAU’s new criteria and instead became a Dwarf Planet along with a number of similar sized TNO’s such as Eris and MakeMake.

    Of the notable TNO’s so far only Pluto, the large Icy Asteroid Ceres, the extremely elongated Haumea, the Kuiper Belt object MakeMake and the distant Scattered Disc Object (Currently the furthest recognised Dwarf Planet from Earth) Eris have received recognition as Dwarf Planets

    Ceres



    Image of Ceres captured by the Hubble Telescope


    Discovered by the Italian Giuseppe Piazzi in 1801 Ceres is the smallest Dwarf Planet and only non TNO to be recognised as a Dwarf Planet, Ceres inhabits the Inner Belt and is the largest Asteroid within our Solar System orbiting the Sun as the largest body within the Asteroid belt permeating Space between Mars and Jupiter. The Cerian surface is a mixture of Water and Ice, differentiated into a rocky core with an icy mantle that possibly may harbour an ocean of liquid beneath its surface.

    Haumea


    Artists impression of Haumea and its twin moons, Hiʻiaka and Nāmaka

    Perhaps the most controversial of the Dwarf Planets if only for the controversy surrounding the contested discovery between Spanish Astronomer J.L Ortiz and CalTech’s Mike Brown. Despite this controversy Haumea is also remarkable for its elongated ellipsoid shape believed to have been caused by a giant collision, making it the largest body within a collisional family of several other TNO’s, it is believed due to its distant location in the Kuiper Belt to have an extremely cold and barren surface. Haumea inhabits the Kuiper Belt with its 2 moons Hiʻiaka and Nāmaka, its orbit is similar to that of Pluto being rather eccentric with Haumea’s orbital inclination steeper than that of its sister Dwarf Planet Pluto at around 28°. Haumea’s orbit takes 283 years and its last recorded Perihelion occurred in 1992, it’s next closest pass will take place next century in 2133!



    MakeMake




    Artists Impression of Makemake

    Makemake stands as one of the largest Dwarf Planets at around2/3 the size of Pluto it is also reckoned to be the largest Kuiper Belt Object where it keeps a solitary orbit lacking any satellite’s, a rarity in terms of large TNO’s. Makemake was discovered by Mike Brown and his CalTech team alongside sister Dwarf Planet Eris in 2005, Makemake shares many features with Pluto in terms of its transient Atmosphere and surface conditions as it conducts it orbit of the sun however this orbit has more in common with that of Haumea having a high orbital inclination of 29° and an orbit time of 310 years, its Perihelion is due to take place in 20 years’ time in 2033.

    Eris




    Image of Eris and its Dysnomia captured by the Hubble Telescope

    The Dwarf Planet Eris holds a number of notable titles, it is the most massive known Dwarf Planet in the Solar System at around 27% more massive than Pluto led to it being touted by many as the 10th planet upon its discovery whilst its location in the Scattered disc make it and its satellite moon Dysnomia the most distant known natural objects within our Solar System. Eris was discovered in 2005 by Mike Brown and his Caltech team, its size believed to greater than that of Pluto was as afore mentioned one of the fundamental causes of Pluto’s reclassification and the introduction of the Dwarf Planet classification of the IAU.
    At this time due to its extreme distance from our own Planet we can only speculate on the surface conditions of Eris as Science has yet to produce any instrument capable of providing with more than speculator date, it is believed however that is shares some of Pluto’s surface characteristics but the almost grey appearance of Eris as opposed to the reddish appearance of Pluto mean Eris extreme distance and orbital pattern may have a differing effect upon it.




    Artist's impression of Eris

    Eris orbital inclination of 44° mean Eris has one of the most highly eccentric orbits of any celestial bodies, its Perihelion will take place in somewhere within the 24 Century!, however during this phase of its orbit and in conjunction with the eccentricity of Pluto’s orbit in Around 800 years Eris will spend a period as the 9th Planet in relation to the Sun.

    Sedna



    Image of Sedna captured by the Hubble Telescope

    Whilst not classified as a Dwarf Planet or officially recognised as the most distant natural object object within the Solar System it is only fitting that we consider the TNO known as Sedna, an object so unimaginably distant that it is believed to reside within the Hypothetical Oort Cloud.

    Sedna’s highly eccentric orbit has by far the largest orbital period of any TNO at around 11,400 years, the enormity of this figure is likewise matched with its Perihelion distance likewise the greatest of any within the Solar System, Its enormous Perihelion distance means that when at its closest point of approach the Sun would appear merely as a very bright star in its sky, only 100 times brighter than a full Moon on Earth, and too far away to be visible as a disc to the naked eye.




    Sedna's collasal orbit in relation to the Planets of the Inner Belt

    Despite its enormous distance observations of Sedna have shown it to be one of the reddest objects within the Solar System, nearly as red as our sister planet Mars. As with Eris the distance of Sedna means we have very little data on the conditions prevalent upon the Planet


    Further Exploration of the outer regions

    In our search for understanding of the outer Planets perhaps the most important mission is that of New Horizons, In 2006, NASA dispatched the Space Craft to study Pluto and it’s moons. The New Horizons spacecraft is now halfway between Earth and Pluto, on approach for a dramatic flight past the icy planet and its moons in July 2015. NASA may then also attempt flybys of one or more other Kuiper belt objects, if a suitable target can be located. New Horizons has already captured some astonishing images of Jupiter of its collection of satellite Moons, from the quality of these images there is huge anticipation of what New Horizons will transmit back to Earth of this distant corner of our Solar System.




    Image of Jupiter captured from the New Horizon Space Craft


    Alongside the amazing potential of the data that can be gained from New Horizons perhaps the most amazing achievement of Man in the outer reaches of the Solar System was the arrival of Voyager 1 in the region known as the Heliosphere, a realm of space beyond the influence of our Sun. Launched in September 1977 the probe was sent initially to study the outer planets, but then just kept on going. The mission is currently moving more than 18 billion km from Earth, or 123 times the distance between our planet and the Sun however NASA says that it regards the probe as still being inside the Solar System.




    An artist's impression of Voyager 1 as it passes across the Milky Way

    Wherever Voyager 1 may now reside it is only fitting that we close our study on the outer reaches our Solar System with recognition for the 1st object created here on Earth to have potentially passed out of the influence of our Solar System.


    Shackleton
    The Zulu War, as a Brit I can tell those of your not from our shores the massive cultural resonance this conflict still has upon our collective pysce, I think it's fair to say the conflict is one of the first that springs to mind when one considers the British Empire in the Victorian Period. But what were the seeds of this conflict and what was the British involvement in South Africa prior to Boer War join our awesome new History Writer Shackleton as he explores this conflict in detail.

    The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Kingdom
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Kingdom



    Introduction

    To learn about the Zulu’s, we must begin with an overview of the people to which they belonged – the Bantu. It is generally thought that they originated from modern day Nigeria and Cameroon, and had waves of expansion starting several millennia ago. The Bantu were an agricultural people, who grew maize and raised cattle. Indeed, cattle were extremely valuable and were used as currency, their milk, but not for meat. A man’s wealth was seen in the size of his herd. Around 500 CE, Bantu from an area of modern day DRC and Zambia began to slowly spread east and southward eventually colonizing almost all of southern Africa. One tribe known as the Nguni settled the area now known of as Natal, while the amaXhosa tribe continued south getting to within 500 miles of the Cape coast itself. The Xhosa ended up colliding with the Dutch colonists know as Boers, with a very bloody struggle ensuing for the valuable pasture they both prized. Nine frontier wars were fought, eventually bringing the British Empires involvement after their acquisition of the Cape Colony. Though much could be said of the struggle between European and Xhosa, this is not the direct subject of this article, although as we shall see it eventually played a crucial part in the relationship between Europeans and the Zulu. The Nguni were sheltered from the first few decades of this conflict, but limited pastureland and growing populations gave rise to their own interior wars between rival chiefdoms. Arguably the most powerful of these was the Mthethwe under their chief Dingiswayo.

    Dingiswayo and the Mthethwe

    Unfortunately we do not have a great deal of information about Dingiswayo. He was born Godongwana, the eldest son of the Mthethwe chief Jobe. At some point during his father’s reign, Godongwana began to plot against him with his brother Tana. Theconspiracy was discovered, Tana was killed and Godongwana managed to escape albeit severely injured. Surviving after being nursed back to health by his relatives, he had to flee when Jobe learned he was still alive. Going south-west he met a white man on horseback and offered to act as his guide. Historians disagree about the identity of the white man, with some such as Adrian Greaves stating that we can never know who he was, while others suggest it was a Scottish explorer by the name of Cowan. Theophilus Shepstone, an administrator of the South African Republic and who was instrumental in bringing the Transvaal under British rule believed that Godongwana, who by now had changed his name to Dingiswayo (The Wanderer) spent between ten and fifteen years in the Cape Colony where he observed the white man’s standing army with its rigid discipline, regiments and officer corp. This was taken as fact but is now disputed as some believe that it was more likely he observed European custom from the Portuguese at Delagoa Bay. Regardless, in his ten to fifteen year absence, his white companion was killed by natives and Dingiswayo acquired his horse and gun. Word came to him that his father Jobe had died, and his brother Mawewe was now chief. Thinking his time had come, Dingiswayo slowly made his way north east into Mthethwe territory where he was met with amazement. His people had never seen a horse or gun before, and as he passed by kraals, word of his advance spread quickly. He was hailed as rightful king of the Mthethwe, and Mawewe was deposed without difficulty.

    Once he assumed leadership Dingiswayo immediately began military and social reform based on his observations of European customs. He prized furniture like chairs and tables, along with pillows, ladles and snuff spoons. The Mthethwe army was organized into regiments based on age groups (although it must be noted that the Ngwane and Ndwandwe who were their chief rivals initiated almost identical reforms during the same period) and were identified by the colour of their shields. New tactics were introduced and an aggressive campaign began against neighbouring chiefdoms. The Mthethwe were remarkably successful, and defeated clans were required to submit to Dingiswayo, although he did not assume direct control of them and his control was more through confederation than direct conquest. The Ndwandwe directly north of them were led by their chief Zwide who was defeated twice, and even captured although he was released without harm. Unperturbed by these events, Zwide eventually quarreled with his neighbours the Ngwane under their chief Sobhuza and after a brief war totally defeated them. The Ngwane fled inland to modern Swaziland leaving Dingiswayo and Zwide to battle for supremacy.

    Between 1812 and 1817 (different sources give different dates), Dingiswayo decided to bring the amaNgwane under their chief Matiwane under his control, and defeated them in battle. Matiwane submitted and the Mthethwe departed without much incident. However, almost immediately after being defeated the amaNgwane found themselves under attack from Zwide and they fled across the Buffalo river, driving the Hlobane before them (Some sources dispute this and claim that it was the Mthethwe that drove them across the river). It seems likely that this, if not the very beginning was a major instigator of the Mfecane. These were a catastrophic series of migrations resulting from the constant warfare in Natal that displaced many peoples, who in turn drove others before them in their flight. A large area was eventually totally depopulated, which had major implications for the near future.

    Not long after this, fortune turned against Dingiswayo, and during another conflict with Zwide he was captured by the Ndwandwe. It is not known why, but he was executed and the Ndwandwe attacked and routed the Mthethwe who were now leaderless. The majority of them fled to the tribe of the most famous military leader under Dingiswayo who was a chief in his own right to a tribe he had once been exiled from. His name was Shaka, chief of the Zulus.



    Topographic map of Natal / Zululand



    The Difficulty With a Study of Shaka

    As with much pre nineteenth century south African history, what we know of the origins of the specific Zulu tribe is gathered from interviews with native people in the nineteenth and twentieth century. While there is much romance and myth associated with oral history among some today, the accuracy and neutrality of the information that was gathered must by necessity be treated with skepticism. A favorite quote of mine comes from historian Dan Wylie in his book Man of Iron: Shaka in History, and it sums up the problem nicely. "What are we to make, for instance, of the fact that one informant says that Shaka had broad buttocks, 'showing he was a king' - but another, apparently no less reliable, claims they were narrow and honed, the buns of a compulsively athletic dancer? How are we to judge the reliability of the first informant, who is young, but intelligent and the son of one of Shaka's own warriors whose accounts he claims to be faithfully reproducing, as against the second who, though he was a tiny child at the time, asserts that he actually saw those regal buttocks with his own eyes? The short answer is that we probably can't trust either person. The question of the shape of Shaka's rear - let alone deeper and more complex issues - is never likely to be settled."

    Now that I have armed you, the reader, with this skepticism, I will dutifully plow ahead and draw up a narrative, however inaccurate it may be, of the history of the Zulu tribe and of Shaka kaSenzangakhona himself. I would like to reiterate that my goal with this thread is to inspire an interest among any of you who read it to take it upon yourself to dig deeper into this rich history, so that you may come back and challenge my own account. There is still much to debate and learn, and I in know way suggest that what I write here - even armed with tens of thousands of pages of information - is anything more than a sketchy, inaccurate account of history at best.

    The Origins of the Zulu Tribe

    In the late seventeenth century, a petty Nguni chieftain named Mandalela travelled south from the upper Natal into the coastal regions along the Mfkune River. Less than a hundred followers accompanied him and they finally settled down in an area next to the White Umfolozi river. Nothing else is known of this man, except that when he died his son Zulu (the Heavens) became chief, and it was under his leadership that the group truly became a tribe and adopted his name, amaZuluwhich means 'the People of the Heavens'. After Zulu came Punga, then Mageba, Ndaba, Jama, and then Senzangakhona.

    The Zulu came under the hegemony of the Mthethweduring the reign of Jobe, Dingiswayo's father. It was a peaceful process, with the Zulu numbering less than fifteen hundred they had no hope of resistance and submitted quietly and without incident. Local politics were much more important to them, and up until Senzangakhona they had successfully kept peace with their neighbors who were themselves small tribes. Under Shaka's father, Senzangakhona, small cattle raids did occur against tribes such as the Butelezi and eLangeni, but these were small especially when compared to the much larger political events of the time. It was from one of these neighbouring tribes - the eLangeni - that Shaka's mother Nandi came.



    A depiction of a standard kraal in the nineteenth century


    There are conflicting stories of how it was that Shaka's conception came to be, with different stories placing blame on different people, but it can be said with some semblance of confidence that at some point in time, the Zulu chief Senzangakhona had sex with Nandi who was a daughter of the eLangeni chief, without the knowledge of either tribe and without any kind of marriage contract having been initiated. It was with a sense of shock then, that the Zulu elders were told that Nandi was pregnant and the eLangeni expected the Zulu chief to come and fetch her. Embarrassed by their chiefs lack of judgement, they sent back a message that Nandi was clearly not pregnant, and that the symptoms were caused by iShaka - an intestinal beetle known to cause menstrual irregularities. When Nandi gave birth to a son, the Zulu were told in a rather amusingly dry message to come and collect Nandi along with her 'iShaka'. Senzangakhona did bring them to the tribe and the name for his son stuck, although he and his mother were never to be in good standing since they were both cause and product of a scandal. She was installed as third wife, but was very unpopular with the Zulu, as was her son Shaka. For six years they were shuttled from one kraal to another until finally sent off in disgrace back to the eLangeni.

    Life back with her old tribe was no better for Nandi and her son since they had disgraced the tribe and lost them the lobola (gift of cattle associated with marriage) that had been paid. Shaka spent ten years living among them herding cattle but was despised by the others and was mocked and bullied. Finally, during a heavy famine that occurred in 1802, the two of them were evicted from eLangeni lands and stayed for a brief period with a man from the Qwabi tribe, before finally going to stay with Nandi's aunt among the emDletsheni who were directly incorporated into the Mthethwe at that time. It was in that powerful tribe that they found acceptance, and Shaka's rise to prominence could begin.


    Audacia
    "The best defence is offence"

    This mantra has reverberated through Military doctrine since Man has dedicated thought into Military Tactics and Strategy. In this Article Audacia explores how it manifested itself in American Foreign Policy following 9/11 and whether the policy decision were actually a viable Policy or if they made the World a more dangerous place.

    The Bush Doctrine
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    The Bush Doctrine

    The dawn of the twenty first century brought about dramatic social and political changes throughout the world. The new millennium beckoned peace and prosperity. A new age, an era of technological advancement and global peace after the end of the Cold War, encouraged Americans and the global community. However, conflicts rooted in events that transpired throughout the nineties in the Middle East had failed to be resolved. Tyrants and radical regimes controlled erratic Middle Eastern nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. The American policy of “containment” following the Persian Gulf War failed to settle disputes in the region, allowing dictators such as Saddam Hussein to exercise their military arm freely and without consequence. Before long, an era that had promised peace and prosperity soon devolved into a decade of war, resentment, and bitter disappointment. Throughout the first eight years of the twenty first century, President George W. Bush led the United States and developed a series of distinct foreign policy agendas that would come to be known as the Bush Doctrine. Faced with the direst attack on United States soil since Pearl Harbor following the events of September 11, 2001, George W. Bush directed our nation down a path that has dictated the foreign policy of the United States since 2001.

    When George W. Bush assumed office in 2000 following a controversial election in which he lost the outright popular vote, he originally outlined an ambitious domestic agenda. “Bush sought to overhaul Medicare, Social Security and public education” (Milbank). He claimed he would cut taxes, reinvigorate the military, restore civility to the political system, and help the poor with tax credits for health insurance, assistance buying homes, and charitable-giving incentives (Milbank). “We will use these good times for great goals,” Bush claimed. “We will confront the hard issues” (Milbank). However, the events that transpired on that fateful day of September 11, 2001, transformed the goals of the Bush administration. From September 11, 2001 until the inauguration of Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, George W. Bush’s presidency mainly concerned itself with the implementation of the administration’s unique foreign policy that would come to be known as the Bush Doctrine.
    During the beginning of Bush’s presidency, even before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Charles Krauthammer coined Bush’s hard-nose foreign policy in reference to the president’s dealing with nuclear arms treaties with Russia as the “Bush Doctrine” (Krauthammer, Doctrine). Though the Bush Doctrine would come to be generally known as a concept entirely different from that of Krauthammer’s interpretation, largely due to the events of September 11, 2001, the doctrine would never assume any definitive shape. In fact, Krauthammer stated in 2008, “There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine” (Krauthammer, Gaffe). Throughout the course of Bush’s presidency, the doctrine would take many different shapes and forms, and never expressed itself in any sort of formal documentation. However, the Bush Doctrine ultimately entails all the foreign policy goals of the Bush administration. At its core, the doctrine always represented a unique position on foreign policy that defined the United States as the world’s lone superpower willing to exercise its unmatchable military prowess. As Krauthammer pointed out during the spring of 2001, “America is in a position to reshape norms, alter expectations, and create new realities…[through] unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will” (Krauthammer, Doctrine). This interpretation of America’s position in the world, Krauthammer stated, had not been perceived throughout the nineties, though it was the events and decisions of the nineties that shaped the Bush Doctrine we know today.

    “Near the end of the Cold War, Iraq, lead by dictator Saddam Hussein, invaded its oil-rich neighbor Kuwait” (The Bush Doctrine). The United States organized a coalition made up of its NATO allies and other nations including several Arab countries, and the conflict that ensued liberated Kuwait from Iraqi rule and came to be known as the Persian Gulf War. Following the Gulf War, “President George H.W. Bush decided to contain Iraq’s potential military threat” (The Bush Doctrine). Following the dated Cold War-era strategy of “containment”, Bush “stationed American military forces in countries neighboring Iraq” (The Bush Doctrine). He also urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam and his oppressive regime (Chronology). The minor insurrection resulted in Saddam’s loss of control over southern Iraq. However, within days the rebellion was crushed by Saddam’s forces. Bush ordered U.S. troops not to intervene, and “the failed uprising became the defining moment for neo-conservatives such as Richard Perle, William Kristol, and Paul Wolfowitz” (Chronology).

    “In 1992, Department of Defense officials Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby wrote a proposal for a new American military and political strategy. They concluded that containment and deterrence had become obsolete with the end of the Cold War” (The Bush Doctrine). The two men also argued three radical and revolutionary ideas. They felt “the United States must remain the world’s only superpower, unchallenged by any other nation (The Bush Doctrine). They also concluded “the United States may need to use pre-emptive force in self defense” and that “the United States will, if necessary, act unilaterally to confront and eliminate threats to American security” (The Bush Doctrine). The proposal sparked great controversy, and even prompted President George H.W. Bush to ask Defense Secretary Dick Cheney to revise the strategy and remove the points about pre-emptive and unilateral action. “Throughout the Clinton administration, the policy of containment and deterrence continued to dominate the American strategy” in Iraq and the Middle East and Wolfowitz’s and Libby’s controversial proposal was ignored (The Bush Doctrine).

    The Clinton administration witnessed ever-growing volatility throughout the Middle East. “In 1996 the Taliban, a radical Islamist militant group, seized control of Afghanistan." In Iraq, Saddam Hussein continued to resist Western attempts at regulating and limiting his development of weapons of mass destruction. “In 1998, Iraq expelled U.N. weapons inspectors” (The Bush Doctrine). A group of critics consequently began to publicly advocate for the forced removal of Saddam Hussein because of his potential use of weapons of mass destruction. Called “neo-conservatives” by the press, the group included “Libby, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and other members of the former Reagan and Bush administrations” (The Bush Doctrine). When George W. Bush became president in 2001, he appointed Rumsfield secretary of defense and Wolfowitz as one of his defense secretaries. “Vice President Dick Cheney appointed Libby his chief of staff” (The Bush Doctrine). “Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Libby, and Cheney formed the core of neo-conservative influence on national security matters within the Bush administration” (The Bush Doctrine). Their experience with the Middle East and foreign policy garnered during the nineties greatly impacted their role in Bush’s administration. In fact, the ideas of these men would significantly influence the entire premise of the Bush Doctrine. Thus, the conflicts in Iraq and throughout the Middle East severely contributed to the ideology of those who participated in the policies of the era. In turn, many of these people would help mold the Bush Doctrine.

    As stated earlier, the term “Bush Doctrine” originally came into usage when journalist Charles Krauthammer first used the term in June of 2001 to describe the Bush administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty and the administration’s tendency to flex American military power (Krauthammer, Doctrine). Nonetheless, the doctrine described by Krauthammer would change numerous times following the spring of 2001. The initial change to the so-called doctrine would result from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. President Bush declared, “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime” (Krauthammer, Gaffe). “This ‘with us or against us’ policy regarding terror became the essence of the Bush Doctrine” of 2001 (Krauthammer, Gaffe). The United States had been rocked by the events of September 11, 2001, and the president took immediate action against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan that had harbored the terrorist group al-Qaeda responsible for the attacks. A very different definition of the Bush Doctrine emerged after September of 2001, a definition that differed greatly from the one described by Krauthammer in June of 2001. No longer could President George Bush focus mainly on his domestic agenda, for Americans wanted vengeance, and vengeance they would receive.


    One year after the attacks of September 11, yet another form of the Bush Doctrine would materialize. The Bush administration’s handling of tyrant Saddam Hussein and Iraq constituted an entirely new form of the doctrine. This third definition of the doctrine dealt with “pre-emptive strikes” and “downgraded containment and deterrence in favor of pre-emption”. “This is the idea that in a world of terrorist organizations, dangerous regimes, and weapons of mass destruction, the United States may need to attack first” (The Bush Doctrine). This definition of the Bush Doctrine would ultimately lead to a second war in Iraq after an invasion in 2003 and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

    In addition to the three previous definitions, a final definition of the Bush Doctrine supersedes the first three definitions during President Bush’s final term. “It is the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years” (Krauthammer, Gaffe). It involves the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. “It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address, ‘The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom too the entire world” (Krauthammer, Gaffe). [/FONT]
    “This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge in his inaugural address that the United States ‘shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty’. It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and Wilson’s Fourteen Points” (Krauthammer, Gaffe).
    President Bush truly hoped for the United States to be a beacon of freedom and liberty for all and an ideal representation of what it is to live in a free nation.

    While there are four very clear-cut and well-defined interpretations of the Bush Doctrine throughout the eight years of George W. Bush’s time in office, each interpretation reflects three major principles outlined in “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” a defense strategy document released by the administration to the public in September 2002 (The Bush Doctrine). These include the application of pre-emptive strikes, the willingness to act alone if necessary, and the goal to extend freedom. Each interpretation of the Bush Doctrine strives to abide by these major principles.

    The Bush Doctrine reflects the idea that in a world of terrorist organizations, dangerous regimes, and weapons of mass destruction, the United States may need to attack first. “The Bush Doctrine downgrades containment and deterrence in favor of pre-emption.
    The National security Strategy notes that international law allows nations to take pre-emptive action against a nation that presents an imminent threat. It also states that the United States has long followed this policy. Critics agree, but say that the Bush administration pursued a policy of preventive war, not pre-emptive war” (The Bush Doctrine).
    A pre-emptive war is one against an enemy preparing to strike right away; a preventive war is one against an enemy that will pose a danger in the future. “The distinction is important, because a preventive war is illegal under international law” (The Bush Doctrine). Because of this, the strategy caused much controversy. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 proved to be the only application of the pre-emptive strategy, though it was still a cornerstone of the administration’s foreign policy when discussing possible conflicts with Iran or North Korea (The Bush Doctrine).

    The second major principle reflects the idea that the United States will act unilaterally, if necessary. “The Bush Doctrine favors the United States acting in cooperation with allies and international institutions like the U.N. to deal with threats to world peace, though the security strategy states the United States ‘will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary” (The Bush Doctrine). Critics argue that the Bush administration reflexively resorts to unilateralism. They cite the administration’s withdrawal from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) its first year in office (The Bush Doctrine). This principle also applied to the administration’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court (The Bush Doctrine). The administration’s willingness to act alone provoked further controversy, demonstrating the possible flaws in the Bush Doctrine.

    The final major principle of the Bush Doctrine and the National Security Strategy was the administration’s goal to extend freedom. “The third major element of the Bush Doctrine is for the United States to ‘extend the benefits of freedom across the globe’ in order to build ‘a balance of power that favors freedom’ ” (The Bush Doctrine). This principle represents “the most idealistic part of the National Security Strategy” (The Bush Doctrine). “The security strategy states that the United States should extend freedom by championing ‘nonnegotiable demands of human dignity’ such as rule of law, freedom of worship, and respect for women” (The Bush Doctrine). Yet again, this principle of the Bush Doctrine had its share of ardent opponents. It was opposed by critics who consider the policy unrealistic. “They point out that it took centuries for democracy to take root in Western societies” (The Bush Doctrine). The administration applied this principle to Iraq and Afghanistan, where nation building there has been in an effort to establish stable democratic institutions.


    The implementation of the administration’s foreign policy has had an overall resounding impact on the United States as a whole. The principles behind the Bush Doctrine have led to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and withdrawal from three international treaties. “The doctrine has dramatically changed the social and political dynamic of the Middle East, and has strained international relationships with Muslim countries” (Duss). Trillions of dollars have been spent by the federal government due to the sheer cost of waging two wars concurrently (Duss). “Thousands of American soldiers have died fighting for the principles reflected by the Bush Doctrine” as well (Duss). Without a doubt, the doctrine has affected the people of the United States and of the entire world in both positive and negative ways, regardless of its success. However, the success of the Bush Doctrine is vital in assessing the Bush administration’s eight years in office.

    “The Bush administration intended to establish ‘political and economic freedom for all, peaceful relations with other states, and a respect for human dignity by all’ through the implementation of the National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (Bennett). “Was the Bush administration successful? The dominant answer seems to be no” (Bennett). Economic freedom was afforded to only those countries where the Bush administration believed the country to be beneficial to the economy of the United States (Bennett). The Bush administration forcefully installed a Western-style democracy in Iraq and “violently deposed of Saddam Hussein under the pretense of one of the doctrine’s conditions of applicability” (Bennett). “Societies such as Iraq, which have no democratic tradition critics argued, cannot be expected to form democratic institutions quickly” (The Bush Doctrine). “By going it alone in the world, critics said American power lost its legitimacy and America was perceived as a bully” (The Bush Doctrine). Peaceful relations with other states were never achieved, and the doctrine caused much strife with the United Nations and other foreign entities (Bennett). In the opinion of many American citizens, instead of creating more political freedom, the Bush administration created more problems than previously existed. The Bush Doctrine, in the minds of many, was simply too idealistic and controversial to be successful (Bennett).

    It must be noted, however, that the Bush Doctrine was successful in “removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and toppling the tyrant Saddam Hussein in Iraq” (Duss). Both the Taliban and Hussein had oppressed their people for years. “The removal of both regimes is perceived as a success because the United States liberated the people of Afghanistan and Iraq from the oppressive nature of totalitarian government” (Duss). Democratic institutions in both countries were established, though the success of those institutions is still in question and will be determined in the near future (Duss). Should democracy take hold in Afghanistan or Iraq, the Bush administration will have been successful in extending freedom and democracy to at least one small part of the world.

    The Bush Doctrine defined the foreign policy of the Bush administration for eight years. The doctrine directed the United States down a path of war and nation building, a path that many saw as controversial and inherently wrong. The doctrine evolved based on conflicts that were rooted in the nineties and manifested themselves in the twenty first century. Faced with the direst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, the Bush administration transformed its foreign policy and established the grounds on which the United States would conduct itself on the global stage. The Bush Doctrine changed the lives of millions of Americans and millions of global citizens. The doctrine’s successes and failure have helped reveal the flaws in America’s War on Terror so that these flaws may be examined and eliminated in order to help improve our world.


    Works Cited:

    Bennett, Ann. "TNJN - "The Bush Doctrine": Success or Failure?" TNJN. 12 Nov. 2008. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

    "The Bush Doctrine." Constitutional Rights Foundation. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

    "Chronology: The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine." PBS. PBS. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

    Duss, Matt. "Redefining The Bush Doctrine As €˜Successful." Thinkprogress. 23 Dec. 2008. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

    Krauthammer, Charles. "Charlie Gibson's Gaffe." Washington Post. Katharine Weymouth, 13 Sept. 2008. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html>.

    Krauthammer, Charles. "The Bush Doctrine." Time. Time, 05 Mar. 2001. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

    Milbank, Dana. "From His 'Great Goals' of 2000, President's Achievements Mixed." Washington Post. Katharine Weymouth, 4 Sept. 2004. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.


    Legio Italica
    If ever a conflict or period in a nations History still remains a saw and contentious issue within a nations idendity, its undeniably the American Civil War. In this thought provoking article another new writer to The Helios fold Legio Italica explores some of the sentiments that led to the men of the South to desire to become masters of their own destiny and go it alone.

    On Separatist Nationalism in the American Antebellum South
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    On Separatist Nationalism in the American Antebellum South
    From 1861 to 1865, war raged on American soil in a civil war that shook the nation to its core. In the decades that followed, questions as to the origins, sociology, conduct, and long-term effects of the war have sparked tremendous controversy. Cast almost as a great theatrical tragedy upon the stage of history, it seems the politicians and generals played key roles in the coming, conduct, and outcome of the war. Yet, at times, ordinary Americans had equally significant influence. The storied portrayal of this great drama may appear thus because of the men and women who have recorded and re-recorded its significance again and again. Each time, the historian chooses what and whom to enter into the “historical chronology,” thereby shaping what becomes “history.” Perhaps the placement of players upon the stage of the American Civil War has as much to do with their respective roles as it does with the historians who continue to reinterpret the tale with each passing generation.

    One may wonder whether the slave question, in and of itself, had the power to so divide and so vex the nation as to produce Civil War. A simple answer may take that premise in the affirmative, however, a more careful exploration of Antebellum America may develop a more detailed response. Therein lies the impetus of the phenomena that created a sense of nationhood in the region of the country that would become the Confederacy. A social and political dichotomy had existed in America since before the Revolution that would manifest in the philosophy of governance of the young nation.

    Virginian planter, Renaissance man, and Founding Father Thomas Jefferson championed an individualistic social and political platform rooted in a sense of agrarian populism and property rights. The Jeffersonian vision for America told of a wealthy patriarchal society of gentlemen farmers, each of whom lived off the land in semi-autonomous family units, isolated from the aristocratic and industrial chaos of Europe. In opposition to this philosophy stood a man whose person and ideas set in antithesis to Jefferson's. New York political magnate and leading advocate for the Constitution and Federalism Alexander Hamilton strove to create a different sort of nation. Hamilton's America would utilize its abundant resources to build an economic and military power; one guided and protected by a strong central government. Upon this model, Hamilton's Republic would rise into its own sphere of power and influence, holding the expansionist nations of Europe in check.



    Jefferson Hamilton

    These two opposing worldviews would shape the nation's first political parties, and come to define, in some ways, a growing sense of sectionalism in America. As the first European immigrants settled along what would become the east coast of the United States, climate may have played some role in the economic and social future of the country. In what would become the southeastern US, a warm and balmy climate made agriculture an ideal economic foundation. This in turn elicited a demand for manual labor, one easily fed by the established African slave trade with Europe and the Caribbean. In the north, or “New England,” the advance of industrial production and chilly climate helped make agriculture less pertinent, and created a demand for skilled labor. An argument exists to the extent that climate not only influenced the country economically, but also socially and politically, helping to reinforce if not engender established differences between New England and the “Sunny South.” Jefferson himself had this much to say about the differences between people of New England and the South: “In the North they are: cool, sober, laborious, persevering, independent, jealous of their own liberties and just to those of others, interested, chicaning, superstitious and hypocritical in their religion. In the South they are: fiery, voluptuary, indolent, unsteady, independent, zealous for their own liberties, but trampling on those of others, generous, candid, without attachment or pretensions to any religion but that of the heart.”

    One might ask if these perceived differences, real or imagined, would have provided enough of an impetus to create Southern nationalism somewhat organically, or what role the slave question may have played. Indeed, Southern dependence on agriculture and slavery had become ingrained in the economy of the entire nation well before the eve of the Civil War. The “peculiar institution” had nearly prevented the formation of the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention, and only compromises on a “Fugitive Slave Clause” and the infamous “Three-Fifths Clause” secured the creation of a united republic. In a theme that would dominate the next eighty years of national politics, slavery became a virtual “elephant in the room.” This elephant continually stamped its feet on the Capitol and in the public dialogue, driving a wedge between states that depended on slavery, and those that did not.



    Geopolitical Developments on the Slave Issue in the Early Republic and Antebellum Eras


    While the South remained committed to the institution of slavery, one should not assume she did so out of any particular love for the practice. Rather, the development of the Southern ethos remained heavily rooted in Jeffersonian ideology. Jefferson himself treated slavery as a necessary evil; a belief shared by many Southerners. Yet, a profound belief in the virtues of agrarianism and rural life also became central to the structure of a developing “Southern” society. Jefferson had said that “Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God...whose breasts He has made His peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue...” The man from Monticello held a vision of the country shared by those who, like him, lived in and around the “plantation” lifestyle. The celebration of this lifestyle as a social and moral ideal would come to define a growing sense of Southern identity.

    The contrasts to life in the industrial North with that of the South helped to shape this identity. Politically and socially embodied by Hamilton's Federalists and the Whigs that succeeded them, the interests and growth of industrial capitalism seemed to flourish in New England. This seeming race to modernity threatened Jefferson's “agrarian utopia” in the eyes of many Southerners, and deepened the realization of social and political “sectionalism” between an industrial North and an agrarian South. Whereas industrialization mostly utilized free and skilled labor, agriculture merely required a large and hardy workforce, and slavery came to define the difference between the seemingly divergent economic systems.

    As America expanded westward, disputes over whether these new territories would become slave or free states become a topic of fierce contention. Despite an ability to compromise, Congress continued to reflect an expanding divergence on the slave issue that seemed to worsen with each passing year. A rising voice of abolition, primarily in New England, continued to flood Congress with anti-slavery petitions. This raised tensions to such a feverish pitch on the Capitol that in May of 1836, Representative James Henry Hammond proposed what became known as the “Gag Rule,” prohibiting any further mention of slavery in Congressional proceedings in a measure that would survive eight years. Each time slavery reared its head in matters of national policy, whether in regards to the expansion of western territories or fugitive slave laws, both public and gubernatorial relations between slave states and free states continually worsened. The growing demands of abolitionism in the North became increasingly visceral, portraying slavery as a national sin. Slaveholders, and by association, the Southern slave states, exemplified a base, evil, and corrupt society in the minds of many abolitionists. By compromising with the South in the creation of the Constitution, leading abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison decried the whole country and government as essentially complicit in the evil of slavery.

    The increasing tempo and prevalence of abolitionism in the North angered and alienated many Southerners, feeding and supporting the rise of Southern separatist nationalism. Many southern leaders felt driven to justify Southern culture and the institution of slavery. Arguably, South Carolina Congressman John C. Calhoun stood the foremost among these leaders. Calhoun, while willing to compromise to maintain the Union, clung to a Jeffersonian sense of state sovereignty that led him to question whether the South could remain part of the United States. He argued passionately for distinctly “Southern” interests in the expansion of slavery and balance of slave-holding representation in the government. His speeches on the floors of the House and Senate reflected the concerns of his constituents and his “section;” fears about the growing power of abolition and industrial capitalism, and what he considered attempts by these interests to “subdue” the Southern “section.” Calhoun's ability to delineate Southern social and political goals made him a hallmark of growing Southern nationalism.



    John C. Calhoun

    In the wake of the Mexican-American War, the Wilmot Proviso restricted slavery from the newly conquered territories. This enraged many in the slave states who had sought to establish land and plantations there. In another display of Southern nationalism, individual Southern states began organizing independent paramilitary expeditions to conquer lands in Latin America. One such prospective “filibusterer” voiced a popular refrain in the South, declaring ““We (the slave states) have been swindled . . . out of the public domain....(we must) strike with effect, after the fashion of Texas.” While none of these expeditions met lasting success, the fact that they took place, and the fact that the federal government seemed unable or unwilling to curtail them, exemplified the weakness of the national government and the growing boldness of the Southern nationalists.

    It seemed the ship of state had veered toward disunion. Men like Alabama Representative William Yancey and South Carolina Congressman James Hammond both encouraged and rose upon increasing extremes of Southern nationalism. An orator of famous ability, Yancey traveled throughout the South in the 1850s, fanning the flames of secessionism. Hammond became heavily associated with themes of scientific racism that had taken root in Europe, and promoted the institution of slavery on the basis that the latter represented a foundation of natural scientific order. Together, secessionists like Yancey and Hammond became known as “fire-eaters” by their opponents. This growth of Southern nationalism, fueled by abolitionist antagonism, sought to fuse Jeffersonian agrarianism and property rights with conceptions of Manifest Destiny, the “virtue” of slavery as a vital institution of “superior” Southern society, and an almost mythical sense of Southern ethics and heritage dating to the knights of the Middle Ages.

    Together, these factors, real or manufactured, served as the basis of an emerging “Southern identity.” Denigrated by abolitionist fervor, dismayed by the rapid expansion of industrial capitalism, and angered by the increasing hostility to slavery with regards to the western territories, a crucible of negative reinforcement seemed to drive the slave states together in common economic and political interests. This played into the hands of the “fire eaters,” who had worked for years to turn these economic, social, and political interests into marks of pride; Southern, nationalist pride.

    By 1860, the slave question had crippled the nation's two party system, allowing a new phenomenon to rise to power. Championing a platform of industrialization, free labor, public education, and the containment of slavery, the Republican Party had risen steadily throughout the 1850s and won the White House in the 1860 elections. It seemed the end of the Union had finally arrived in the eyes of many Southerners. When South Carolina finally seceded on 20 December, 1860, it seemed the floodgates of secession and strife had opened at last. When Fort Sumter fell in April of 1861 and Lincoln marshaled troops, a cascade of secessionist ecstasy swept the South, galvanizing what would become a new Southern Confederacy. In total, thirteen states would join this Confederacy, completing a sectional split at least thirty years in the making. Federal response vacillated between inaction and military incompetency, and when Federal troops finally met Confederate at Manassas, Virginia, in July of 1861, the resulting rebel victory cemented a jubilant Southern nation that would fight on for another four years.



    Firing on Fort Sumter

    Yet, one should not solely credit the “leading characters” in the creation of the seemingly organic developments within the abolitionist and Southern nationalist movements, respectively. Southern nationalists, observing the startling “liberal” trends of the North, reinforced their own sense of gentile and chivalrous ethics to distance themselves from the North. Thus, one may trace the elevation of Southern women within the Southern ethos to the latter's sense of nationalism and cultural identity. If Southern men became knights, their women became ladies; ladies whose sole sphere of action remained the home. Still, even within this sphere, the Southern woman became a cornerstone of the Southern nation, especially when war came. The women of the South rallied to the new Confederacy with fervor to match any man, organizing community groups, making uniforms, urging their men to fight, caring for the wounded, and holding hearth and home together while their “knights” battled the “Yankee invaders.” In such a way, one can see the ways in which Southern “knights” depended on their noble “ladies.”



    When one considers the development and growth of Southern nationalism in the antebellum period, topics like slavery or state sovereignty often seem to occupy a great deal of space. Traditional imagery might conjure images of a wild-hared John C. Calhoun delivering fiery speeches in the halls of Congress, or a distinguished gentleman planter standing gazing out across hundreds of acres of cotton. While these observations certainly have their place in the historical record, the historian must decide what, where, and when to look for facts and details when interpreting the past. After all, these interpretations define what becomes “history” and what becomes lost to time. Indeed, some of the more obscure features of the “ordinary folk” of history may only just have begun to find their place alongside the “Washingtons and Lincolns and Roosevelts” of history. In understanding the philosophical, pragmatic, and popular ethos of what became the “Southern cause,” one can gain a fuller picture of the phenomenon that continues to both inspire and intrigue modern observers.

    Bibliography

    1. David Donald, “American Historians and the Causes of the Civil War,” The South Atlantic Quarterly, vol. 49 (1960)

    2. E.H. Carr, What is History? (New York: 1963, Alfred A. Knopf)

    3. James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York: 1988, Oxford University Press)

    4. Alexander Hamilton, “Federlist No. I” (New York, The Independent Journal, 27.10.1787 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1404/...#link2H_4_0001

    5. Cash Koeniger, "Climate and Southern Distinctiveness," The Journal of Southern History, vol. 54, (February 1988)

    6. (U.S. Const. art. 4. sec. 2. cl. 3.), (U.S. Const. art. 1. sec. 2. cl. 3.)

    7. Edward L. Ayers, In the Presence of Mine Enemies, (New York: 2003, W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.)

    8. John C. Calhoun, “Slavery: A Positive Good.” (Speech delivered to the United States Senate, 06 February, 1837.) http://sciway3.net/2001/john-c-calhoun/Slavery.htm


    Lyra
    With the build up hype before Rome 2 hits the shops anything Roman is a hot topic right now, here resident language expert Lyra explores the many linguistic cultures that helped shape the language of the Romans, Latin.

    Cultural diversity in Pre-Roman Italy
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Cultural diversity in Pre-Roman Italy
    Rome 2 is almost here. Love it or hate it, it has brought with it an entourage of attention and new comers to our forum. Heads have now been turned to its setting, the Classical age wherein Europe saw a small Italian tribe rise above its neighbors and become the Empire we all have read about. It was an age of cultural clash as one expanded over the other. A mosaic slowly lost all its shades, to be then replaced by new ones. Many tribalistic and diverse lands fell under the growing centralism. And so with them, many languages too were lost, surpassed by the ancestors of the tongues we speak today. Even Italy, home of the Latins, was not a culturally uniform land. But how different really was it?


    From all the classical languages, Latin [1] can be considered the most important. One associates it with the great Roman Empire, obviously. But the thing to remember is that Latin commenced as a small language of a specific tribe; a minor language, not quite like the one we focus on today. Many take the Ecclesiastic or Classical Latin as the norm, but these are highly unnatural and formal languages. Deformed by their being a high registered speech, these couldn’t be farther away from an example as to how Latin sounded like. So let as take to the roots, from the beginning with Old Latin.

    Old Latin was an Indo European language of the Italic Family located in central Italy. This was the language of the Roman Republic, spoken by the likes of the Romans at Zama or Cato before the Empire. It was not too dissimilar from the later forms but some striking differences present themselves which sheds light on how Classical Latin came to be.

    Rhotacism of intervocalic s

    That is, all ‘s’ between vowels (pronounced /z/) became ‘r’ in Old Latin. Thus Old Latin genitive plural suffix of the 1st declension ‘-āsōm’ became the now known ‘-ārum’. This even corrupted some of the base forms as in the Latin word for Honour ‘honor, honoris’ which came from Old Latin ‘honos honoses’.

    Other changes included /dw/ becoming /b/ such as duonos > bonus and duellom > bellum [2].

    Spelling was also a tad different, with c being used for q and g at many times (ecuos [3], Caius [4]) and the writing of vowels being a proper mess. As time went by it all got far more standardized. Or, actually, we don’t really know as Classical Latin was not colloquial. The commoners spoke Vulgar Latin, that is a general term for what the commoners spoke. This Latin could be called the true Latin, as it was free from the formalities and rigidity of the Classical. Non-standard Latin [5] was spread across the empire and spoken by soldiers and commoners in the end becoming the Romance languages; these being influenced by the tongues of the areas they encroached upon. Ah! But which were these other languages? What other languages were there?

    Well, before Latin came to dominate Italy, a bunch more people were doing their own thing on the peninsula and surrounding lands:


    Latin wasn’t even all that important. North Italy was dominated by Etruscan, a non Indo European language from a isolate linguistic family. It greatly influenced Latin as it was right next it. Etruscan was related to Rhaetic in the north as well as a language spoken on the island of Lemnos in the Aegean sea. This has led many to believe that Etruscan formed part of a larger Pre-IE family that could have comprised Mycenaean and whatever languages were spoken in the Balkan Peninsula.

    To the south were the other Italic Languages, relatives of Latin, spoken by the numerous tribes living in the Sicilies. The famed nemeses of the upstart Latins, the Samnites, were speakers of such languages; in this case Oscan. It seems that these languages were not fully suppressed by Latin for quite some time. They maintained a sense of ‘nationalism’ even after Rome’s borders spilled out of Italy. Archeologists in Pompey have found numerous Graffiti in these, non-latin, italic tongues, which is way into the 1 century AD.

    The southern coast of Italy was also dotted by numerous Greek ports. As the other nations under Roman control, their culture and language was eventually assimilated. Though, some bastions of Greek have survived till the present era in Calabria and Salento. Reason for this could stem from the fact that Greece had a great influence on Southern Italy, during Roman times and throughout the middle ages [6].

    The last major cultural group in Italy is quite well known. The Celts interfered numerous times with early Rome; scaring quite a few geese in the process. But these Celts inhabiting the Po Valley and surrounding lands were part of the greater Celtic sprachbund. Stretching from Iberia all the way to Moravia and even into Anatolia, the Celts, as a culture, were the most extence of all Europe. They were at their height when Rome still had not exited Italy. But, as one grew the other decayed and Celtic language and culture are but a ghost of their former self.

    The Celtic spoken in Northern Italy was of the continental variety and similar to Gaulish. Not much of the language is known save for a few inscriptions in an Etruscan-based alphabet Nothing else remain now if those people, as they too were assimilated by the Romans [7].

    But that is how the Empire was; Roman was used freely by Iberians, Gauls, Thracians, Illyrians and countless other nations under its fold. Citizenship was awarded to these people, citizenship to a greater thing than their city or tribe. And so they forgot their roots and embraced the benefits of the foreign sense. This unity was then broken again when the Empire fell, and again, the people of Italy and Europe found themselves in different and, somehow isolated, pockets. New cultures emerged and branched and then merged again. Such is the nature of Cultural, and thus also linguistic, contact: the circumstances between two will decide which one dominates the other. Because two languages of two different cultures rarely live in equilibrium or fill the same niche. It is a sort of survival of the fittest out there. Latin has lived on, as already mentioned, and will most certainly live on for quite a time; just look at the script used to write this article.



    [1] Hellenists be damned!
    [2] Though it was conserved as an archaism and found its way into Medieval Latin where it was applied the meaning of “a combat between two persons” due to the connotations with ‘duo’. Thus we have the word ‘duel’.
    [3] later spelt equus.
    [4] The name.
    [5] Vulgar Latin was never really one language but just the assortment of colloquial localisms of Latin that spread and diverged overtime as they were not bound by a central stabdard.
    [6] Byzantine control of that area and the fact that Greek was a very influential tongue for quite some time.
    [7] Inscriptions in another language, Lapntic, is thought to be the oldest form of Celtic before the gauls settled there. Otherclaim it is related to Ligurian, a Non-Indo European language spoken on the Genoese Coast.



    Once again, I thank my excellent team of writers for their continued hard work in making The Helios what it is, and your support as a receptive and interested readership.


    After reading this edition, now would be an excellent time to pay a visit to one of the other TWC publications, which can be done by clicking on any of the images below.
    See you in the Autumn!



    Last edited by Omnipotent-Q; July 21, 2013 at 06:22 PM. Reason: content pub links update
    Under the Patronage of the Venerable Jom Patron of the one true Shogun wealthmonger, Antipodean son IZob, Terrifying Sultan of the Blitz totalwar_legend & Warden of the Iron Throne Dux








  2. #2

    Default Re: Helios 68 - Nulli secundus

    Great work everyone. The talent at TWC never ceases to impress. Cheers
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  3. #3
    Hobbes's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hobs Crk
    Posts
    10,732

    Default Re: Helios 68 - Nulli secundus

    Good work everyone. I found Lyra's article a great read (he already knows though!). A small correction, as I am annoying and miserable like that:
    This has led many to believe that Etruscan formed part of a larger Pre-IE family that could have comprised Mycenaean and whatever languages were spoken in the Balkan Peninsula.
    Although numerous theories exist, we are certain that Mycenaean belongs in the family of IE languages.

  4. #4
    Lуra's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    BCN, Catalunya, ES
    Posts
    8,535

    Default Re: Helios 68 - Nulli secundus

    Quote Originally Posted by Hobbes. View Post
    Good work everyone. I found Lyra's article a great read (he already knows though!). A small correction, as I am annoying and miserable like that:

    Although numerous theories exist, we are certain that Mycenaean belongs in the family of IE languages.
    Mea culpa, confused Mycenaen with Minoan, always have
    And the older forms of Minoan at that, or, well, we really have little of an idea about the linguistics of Pre-IE Europe. Except for a few guesses by looking at sub-strata traces.


    ~Lyra

    The Dread Pirate Roberts IV

  5. #5
    Hobbes's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hobs Crk
    Posts
    10,732

    Default Re: Helios 68 - Nulli secundus

    Yeah, we know almost nothing about Minoan, it's a complete mystery. Etruscan inscriptions have been found in the island of Lemnos btw, so the family that Etruscan belonged to could have been very extensive before IE languages dominated Europe.

  6. #6
    Audacia's Avatar Give Life Back to Music
    Discontent Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,948

    Default Re: Helios 68 - Nulli secundus

    Another fantastic issue! To my fellow writers, I commend you on presenting such informative pieces.

    Under the patronage of Inkie Pie: Text Editor for The Great War
    Roma Surrectum II





  7. #7
    iWarsaw's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canada!
    Posts
    477
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Helios 68 - Nulli secundus

    I didn't read it all, mostly skimmed through it. To much text for me to read right now. My power was off, just came on so I got to go play some video games. However its amazing how sound your articles always are. Even your political articles are very well done!!! My favorite was the Zulu and pre-Roman. I love the Rome information as Roma Surrectum has made my lust for Roman Knowledge unquenchable, and I prefer not to be reading about politics on a video game forum. Anyway it's another fantastic addition. I'll probably not read it later, but maybe I will.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •