Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Helios 69: Phoenix

  1. #1

    Default Helios 69: Phoenix




    The Lyon Tablet by Audacia
    Crossroads at Antietam: An Exploratory Narrative by Legio_Italica
    Émile Durkheim: Society and the Individual by Hobbes
    Is This the End? by Karamazovmm


    From the Editor:

    The Helios has returned to us again as surely as the rising sun. May it engage, entice, and enthrall as you take part in this new journey with us. So be sure to spread the word about your favorite article or articles, and come see us again soon.

    Enjoy!




    Letters from the Editor:

    Asking the questions you didn't want answered



    Economics, Ethics, and the Consensual Sale of Sex

    Economics, Ethics, and the Consensual Sale of Sex



    To approach the ethics of “right or wrong” in the sale of sex, one must first define “wrong” and “sex.” In theory, trade in goods and services makes both or all parties better off by granting to each a profit in terms of value at the end of the transaction; ie allowing people to get rid of what they don't want in exchange for what they do. But even that does not seem sufficient to define “right” and “wrong,” especially in terms of sex trade. Is it important that trade always be conducted between fully willing and able parties? Can there be such a thing as “ideal trade,” and what might that look like? Consider the following parameters of an “ideal trade” as a concept which:


    1. Relies on property rights; all parties unconditionally own whatever they are selling.
    2. No one is coerced to trade based on fear of direct consequences if they do not trade.
    3. No one has any regrets as a direct consequence of the transaction.


    Now, if this were an easy policy to establish with perfect accuracy in the real world as a legally definitive basis for commercial regulations, the discussion could realistically stop here. Under such circumstances one would have great difficulty finding any empirical reason to intervene in any transaction. Yet there are innumerable externalities that make “ideal trade” impracticable. Still, I think the basic principle is a sound guideline to define “wrong” when talking about the sale of sex. It may be difficult to define what exactly “ideal trade” is, but it's certainly easier to decide what aspects of a transaction may be decidedly less than ethical based on such a standard.

    For the purposes of this inquiry, one may define "sex” in the context of purchase as consensual interaction between competent human parties of legal adult age up to and including intercourse; interaction that does not include undesired phenomena in the case of any concerned party. When discussing the economic questions of buying sex, this inquiry will avoid addressing the Third World for two reasons. First, it is virtually impossible to assess the sale of sex as a stand-alone concept in a situation where the next best options include literal starvation and homelessness, and second, most debates surrounding whether or not to “ban” the sale of sex seem to involve only wealthier countries capable of collecting aggregate national data and enforcing uniform legislation.

    Is it unethical to buy sex? Well, if an unethical trade is one which is not voluntary, let alone ideal, then the practice itself cannot be inherently unethical, rather a practice in which trade of the particular product may involve significant risk of unethical behavior. If one supposes that third-party gubernatorial/regulatory intervention in a transaction involving the sale of sex ought to be limited to the previously defined parameters, then it follows that a discussion of “right and wrong” in the sex trade ought to begin at that margin. It is also by this essentially non-economic consideration that the more economic variety should abide if one is to maintain the stated function of trade.

    Even without moral constraints, the sale of sex is different from a “typical” or “textbook” market, if only because of the high levels of occupational risk incurred by producers/suppliers and the very personal nature of the transaction. Even in within the sex market itself, it may be easier to call into question whether any transaction is truly voluntary based on the statistical evidence. Studies of prostitutes from countless locations in the US and around the world record subjects having experienced physical, verbal, and sexual assault at least once while working at a rate of 60-80%; at least half of these at the hands of customers. At least half meet the criteria for PTSD. More importantly, upwards of 70% report being coerced into the sale of sex by substance addiction.

    Given the levels of occupational harm inflicted by customers, and a strong suggestion that a statistically large number of sales in this market may be performed by less-than-voluntary suppliers, a case exists for third-party intervention based on the criteria established above. It is also reasonable to expect that the benefit of doubt regarding what counts as “voluntary” or “ideal” ought to ideally fall to suppliers on a case by case basis, as they incur risk as a matter of occupational existence, whereas the consumer has a choice about whether to engage in an individual sale.

    Having established ethical parameters for the sale of sex, as well as a rationale for third-party intervention, consider a few basic outcomes of regulation. For example, the stated goal of a landmark Swedish law banning the purchase of sex seeks to protect producers from the aforementioned hazards by discouraging consumers from seeking product. If that is the criteria for legislation, then it seems proponents of both a complete ban or a complete deregulation of the sale of sex encounter serious logical problems; the former because it often fails to achieve its stated objective by a large margin for reasons stated above, and the latter because of the results seen in the current “illegal” sex market; also described above.

    Proponents of legalization can reject the idea that prostitution is necessarily an act of sheer desperation. For example, a 2007 study of sex workers in Chicago alleged a wage amounting to $25 an hour, nearly 4 times higher than the minimum wage, and as much as 5 times more cash value than a single-person household can get from social welfare programs in the US. Also compelling is the fact that under regulated circumstances similar to those in certain counties in Nevada, all the factors listed above are virtually non-existent, occurring at a rate of less than 5% of total subjects. All prostitutes are independent contractors, negotiate their own prices, monthly STD examinations are required as is condom use, and a prostitute may refuse a customer service and seek legal protection. 95% report having a love interest outside of work.

    The trials experienced by prostitutes in the black market are a cost of the moral prevention of the sale of sex. At the same time, legalization faces ethical challenges, exemplified by Dutch and German examples. Legalization in those countries has been linked to increased demand for and the incidence of the purchase of sex, which has its own social implications. Also notable is the apparently increased incidence of human trafficking for the purpose of the sex trade in these countries. However one may answer the question, “Is it wrong to buy sex,” an argument for the empirical definitions of “wrong” and “sex” exists. More importantly, so does a basis for third-party intervention and regulation. While economic considerations may be bound by the aforementioned moral ones, the former may indeed hold an equitable solution beneficial to both producers and consumers of commercial sex.

    Sources:


    1. “An Empirical Analysis of Street-Level Prostitution,” Steven D. Levitt and Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh, September 2007, (link)
    2. “A giant Teutonic brothel: Has the liberalisation of the oldest profession gone too far?” The Economist, 16.11.2013 (link)
    3. “Legislation on the purchase of sexual services,” Swedish Government Release, (link)
    4. “The Viability of Nevada's Legal Brothels as Models for Regulation and Harm Reduction in Prostitution,” David H. Rodgers, Florida State University, 20.10.2010 (link)






    The Lyon Tablet

    The Lyon Tablet
    The Lyon Tablet




    The Lyon Tablet, a bronze tablet upon which a speech of Claudius, the fourth Roman emperor, is transcribed, offers scholars a unique opportunity to compare a primary speech with an account of that speech by a Roman historian. Tacitus, a famed historian of the first century, delivers an account of Claudius’ speech in his Annals (Mellor). His account considerably differs from the text transcribed on the Lyon Tablet. Tacitus manufactures a much more potent and articulate speech that delivers a powerful punch. However, portions of Tacitus’ depiction correlate with the details of Claudius’ discourse, and its structure somewhat resembles the pattern of speech Claudius employs. The similarities between the texts imply that Tacitus had seen Claudius’ speech and at least partially derived his account from it. He certainly bolstered the contentions of the authentic speech, and may have done so in an effort to paint the emperor a positive portrait (Griffin). Nonetheless, the discrepancies between Tacitus’ depiction of Claudius’ speech and the Lyon Tablet only reaffirm the notion that Roman historians often refined or nearly concocted whole speeches in an effort to add a dramatic element to their prose. The speech inscribed upon the Lyon Tablet is markedly more Claudian and, thus, is the more accurate of the two accounts (Mellor).

    Inscription on the Lyon Tablet Claudius: "It is surely an innovation of the divine Augustus, my great-uncle, and of Tiberius Caesar, my uncle, to desire that particularly the flower of the colonies and of the municipal towns, that is to say, all those that contain men of breeding and wealth, should be admitted to this assembly."

    [Interruption, perhaps Claudius to himself]: "How now? Is not an Italian senator to be preferred to a provincial senator!?"

    Claudius
    : "I will soon explain this point to you, when I submit that part of my acts which I performed as censor, but I do not conceive it needful to repel even the provincials who can do honor to the Senate House. Here is this splendid and powerful colony of Vienna [Davis: modern Vienne in the South of France]; is it so long since it sent to us senators? From that colony comes Lucius Vestinus, one of the glories of the equestrian order, my personal friend, whom I keep close to myself for the management of my private affairs. Let his sons be suffered---I pray you--- to become priests of the lowest rank, while waiting until, with the lapse of years, they can follow the advancement of their dignity. As for that robber, Valerius Asiaticus from Vienna, I will pass over his hateful name. For I detest that hero of the gymnasium, who brought the consulship into his family before even his colony had obtained the full rights of Roman citizenship. I could say as much of his brother, stamped as unworthy by this unlucky relationship, and incapable henceforth of being a useful member of your body."

    [Interrupting shout, again perhaps Claudius to himself]: "Here now, Tiberius Caesar Germanicus! It's time to let the Conscript Fathers understand what your talk is driving at---already you've reached the very limits of Narbonnese Gaul!"

    Claudius: "All these young men of rank, on whom I cast my glance, you surely do not regret to see among the number of the senators; any more than Persicus, that most high-born gentleman and my friend, is ashamed when he meets upon the images of his ancestors the name Allobrogius. And if such is your thought, what would you desire more? Do I have to point it out to you? Even the territory which is located beyond the province of Gallia Narbonnensis, has it not already sent you senators? For surely we have no regrets in going clear up to Lugdunum [Davis: Modern Lyons in France] for the members of our order. Assuredly, Conscript Fathers, it is not without some hesitation that I cross the limits of the provinces which are well known and familiar to you, but the moment is come when I must plead openly the cause of Further Gaul. It will be objected that Gaul sustained a war against the divine Julius for ten years. But let there be opposed to this the memory of a hundred years of steadfast fidelity, and a loyalty put to the proof in many trying circumstances. My father, Drusus, was able to force Germany to submit, because behind him reigned a profound peace assured by the tranquillity of the Gauls. And note well, that at the moment he was summoned to that war, he was busy instituting the census in Gaul, a new institution among them, and contrary to their customs. And how difficult and perilous to us is this business of the census, although all we require is that our public resources should be known, we have learned by all too much experience."

    The speech presumably continues on a second bronze tablet...

    From: William Stearns Davis, ed., Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, 2 Vols. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1912-13), Vol. II: Rome and the West, pp. 186-188


    The speech transcribed upon the Lyon Tablet details a discourse delivered by the fourth Roman emperor, Claudius. In the speech, Claudius advocates for the admittance of landed and wealthy Gallic nobles from further Gaul, which was beyond the Roman province of Gallia Narbonensis, to the senatorial class (Mellor). The text of the Lyon Tablet reflects the unique personality of Claudius. In the pedantic speech, Claudius departs from the matter at hand on numerous occasions. Initially, he establishes the foundation of his plea: that the Roman state has continuously experienced political transformation, and that the admittance of the Gallic nobles to the senate reflects yet another political reform. However, in an effort to substantiate this claim, Claudius enters into an extensive and academic lecture on the Roman monarchs. He denotes that the first rulers of Rome were aliens to the city and, thus, that the admittance of Gallic nobles to the senatorial class would not be without precedent. However, Claudius’ apt contention is effectively buried under irrelevant historical references. He examines the ancestral lines of Tarquinius Priscus and mentions whom the Caelian Hill is named after, neither of which add to his claim (Mellor). After this departure from the matter at hand, Claudius returns to the core of his plea and references the frequency at which Roman political offices were transformed in another attempt to demonstrate that the admittance of Gallic nobles to the senate would not be without precedent. However, once more the essence of his contention is muddied, this time by too many examples of political reform and an irrelevant reference to Roman military prowess (Mellor). Throughout the rest of the speech Claudius continues to depart from the matter of Gallic nobles. He even poses a rhetorical question to himself in a failed attempt at humor. The result is a speech that is most definitely Claudian in that it reflects his unfocused, pedantic tendencies (Mellor).

    Tacitus' Version of the Speech
    In the consulship of Aulus Vitellius and Lucius Vipstanus the question of filling up the Senate was discussed, and the chief men of Gallia Comata, as it was called, who had long possessed the rights of allies and of Roman citizens, sought the privilege of obtaining public offices at Rome. There was much talk of every kind on the subject, and it was argued before the emperor with vehement opposition. "Italy," it was asserted, "is not so feeble as to be unable to furnish its own capital with a senate. Once our native-born citizens sufficed for peoples of our own kin, and we are by no means dissatisfied with the Rome of the past. To this day we cite examples, which under our old customs the Roman character exhibited as to valour and renown. Is it a small thing that Veneti and Insubres have already burst into the Senate-house, unless a mob of foreigners, a troop of captives, so to say, is now forced upon us? What distinctions will be left for the remnants of our noble houses, or for any impoverished senators from Latium? Every place will be crowded with these millionaires, whose ancestors of the second and third generations at the head of hostile tribes destroyed our armies with fire and sword, and actually besieged the divine Julius at Alesia. These are recent memories. What if there were to rise up the remembrance of those who fell in Rome's citadel and at her altar by the hands of these same barbarians! Let them enjoy indeed the title of citizens, but let them not vulgarise the distinctions of the Senate and the honours of office."

    These and like arguments failed to impress the emperor. He at once addressed himself to answer them, and thus harangued the assembled Senate. "My ancestors, the most ancient of whom was made at once a citizen and a noble of Rome, encourage me to govern by the same policy of transferring to this city all conspicuous merit, wherever found. And indeed I know, as facts, that the Julii came from Alba, the Coruncanii from Camerium, the Porcii from Tusculum, and not to inquire too minutely into the past, that new members have been brought into the Senate from Etruria and Lucania and the whole of Italy, that Italy itself was at last extended to the Alps, to the end that not only single persons but entire countries and tribes might be united under our name. We had unshaken peace at home; we prospered in all our foreign relations, in the days when Italy beyond the Po was admitted to share our citizenship, and when, enrolling in our ranks the most vigorous of the provincials, under colour of settling our legions throughout the world, we recruited our exhausted empire. Are we sorry that the Balbi came to us from Spain, and other men not less illustrious from Narbon Gaul? Their descendants are still among us, and do not yield to us in patriotism.

    "What was the ruin of Sparta and Athens, but this, that mighty as they were in war, they spurned from them as aliens those whom they had conquered? Our founder Romulus, on the other hand, was so wise that he fought as enemies and then hailed as fellow-citizens several nations on the very same day. Strangers have reigned over us. That freedmen's sons should be intrusted with public offices is not, as many wrongly think, a sudden innovation, but was a common practice in the old commonwealth. But, it will be said, we have fought with the Senones. I suppose then that the Volsci and Aequi never stood in array against us. Our city was taken by the Gauls. Well, we also gave hostages to the Etruscans, and passed under the yoke of the Samnites. On the whole, if you review all our wars, never has one been finished in a shorter time than that with the Gauls. Thenceforth they have preserved an unbroken and loyal peace. United as they now are with us by manners, education, and intermarriage, let them bring us their gold and their wealth rather than enjoy it in isolation. Everything, Senators, which we now hold to be of the highest antiquity, was once new. Plebeian magistrates came after patrician; Latin magistrates after plebeian; magistrates of other Italian peoples after Latin. This practice too will establish itself, and what we are this day justifying by precedents, will be itself a precedent."

    The emperor's speech was followed by a decree of the Senate, and the Aedui were the first to obtain the right of becoming senators at Rome. This compliment was paid to their ancient alliance, and to the fact that they alone of the Gauls cling to the name of brothers of the Roman people.


    From:
    Tacitus: Annals, Book 11., Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb.


    Tacitus’ depiction of Claudius’ speech is markedly different. He vastly improves the speech and makes much more pointed contentions. His account differs from the text transcribed on the Lyon Tablet from the outset. In Tacitus’ version, Claudius commences his speech with the claim that his own ancestor Clausus earned admission to the senate despite the fact that he was from Sabinium. He also adds that members of the Julian family and other noble families came from outside Rome and earned admission to the senate. Claudius concludes the first portion of his speech by alluding to the recent admittance of Italians, southern Gauls, and members of the Balbi from Spain to the senatorial order (Tacitus). The Claudius of Tacitus delivers a much more potent initial contention than the Claudius of the Lyon Tablet. The precedent he provides for the admittance of Gallic nobles to the senate is much clearer than the precedent provided by the actual Claudius.

    This pattern continues when the Claudius of Tacitus delivers the second portion of his speech. He draws his audience’s attention to the people of Sparta and Athens, “who spurned from them as aliens” the people they had conquered and were consequentially ruined. He then contrasts this practice with the actions of Romulus, who “hailed as fellow citizens” people he had previously conquered that day (Tacitus). This sharp contrast employs examples that are far more relevant to the matter of Gallic nobles than the examples provided by the Claudius of the Lyon Tablet. Tacitus’ Claudius then addresses the opposition’s contention that the Gauls recently opposed Rome and even sacked the city in the distant past. He counters this with the fact that peoples that had opposed Rome in the past now provide the state with senators and, furthermore, that the Gauls have preserved an unbroken and loyal peace. Finally, Claudius concludes with a succinct and appropriate explanation of Roman political reform in the past that he contends provides sufficient precedent for the admittance of Gallic nobles to the senatorial class (Tacitus). His short and finely tuned explanation contrasts the unpolished and clunky explanation on political reform delivered by the Claudius of the Lyon Tablet.


    Nonetheless, Tacitus’ account resembles aspects of Claudius’ actual speech. Tacitus’ Claudius, like the Claudius of the Lyon Tablet, attempts to validate the admittance of the Gallic nobles to the senatorial class by looking to the past in order to establish precedent. Both Tacitus’ Claudius and the Claudius of the Lyon Tablet reference the inclusive nature of Roman politics in the past, albeit with different examples. Both also reference major political reforms of the past, like the reform that permitted plebeians to run for offices. Finally, both versions reference Rome’s past conflicts with the tribes of Gaul. The Claudius of the Lyon Tablet contrasts the ten years of war in which Julius Caesar clashed with the Gauls to one hundred years of “faith and loyalty” (Mellor). Tacitus’ Claudius makes the same claim nearly verbatim. He states that the war with the tribes of Gaul lasted for a short period of time compared to the subsequent period of peace (Tacitus).

    The similarities between the texts imply that Tacitus derived part of his version of Claudius’ speech from the speech itself. In writing a finely tuned version of Claudius’ speech, Tacitus may have appreciated the value in Claudius’ contentions. He understood the precedent that Claudius attempted to establish, for the method of looking to the past for precedent is prevalent in Tacitus’ depiction of the speech. Tacitus simply expands on Claudius’ historical references and employs more persuasive examples. He also removes Claudius’ irrelevant rants from his version of the speech, which he understandably decided were not worthy of inclusion. Tacitus may have altered the speech in an attempt to provide his readers with a positive depiction of Claudius (Griffin). He may have decided that a more accurate depiction of Claudius’ speech would have harmed the portrait of the emperor. However, Tacitus’ attitude toward Claudius throughout the rest of Annals does not correlate with his positive report of Claudius’s speech. Claudius does not play a major role in Annals; the work even lacks a summary of his reign (Griffin). Tacitus may have only altered the speech to eliminate Claudius’ personality from it. This would be consistent with Tacitus’ approach toward Claudius in other portions of Annals (Griffin).

    The Lyon Tablet provides Roman historians with a rare opportunity to substantiate the claim that Roman historians often wholly concocted or altered historical speeches. The considerable differences between Claudius’ actual speech and Tacitus’ version of the speech reaffirm the creative license Roman historians often employed. Speeches provided Roman historians with an opportunity to express their personal biases or political convictions. Many historians leapt at this opportunity. Because of this practice, speeches written by Roman historians are only valuable in that they offer modern readers a chance to deduce the moral or political aims of the writer. For example, Tacitus’ depiction of Claudius’ speech does not, in truth, represent the authentic primary source. However, modern readers may conclude that the discrepancies between the texts insinuate that Tacitus hoped to eliminate Claudius’ personality from the speech, as mentioned previously. Additionally, speeches offered historians the chance to infuse an element of drama to their otherwise dry historical narrative. For example, a speech prior to a battle could add an element of suspense.

    The speech transcribed upon the Lyon Tablet is undoubtedly the more plausible depiction of the speech that Claudius delivered to the senate in an effort to convince them that Gallic nobles should be admitted to the senatorial order. Scholars identify that Claudius was “humane, pedantic, unfocused, and complacent” (Mellor). The text of the Lyon Tablet reflects each of Claudius’ well known characteristics. His irrelevant departures from the matter of the Gallic nobles reflect his unfocused nature. His detailed history of the Roman monarchy reflects his tendency toward pedantic discourse in which he simply had to inform his listeners of how learned he was. His rhetorical question posed at himself, while not particularly humorous, reflects the humane side of the emperor. The speech transcribed on the Lyon Tablet is markedly more Claudian than Tacitus’ depiction of the speech. Tacitus’ Claudius is far too direct and focused on the matter at hand.

    The value of the Lyon Tablet cannot be overstated. The bronze tablet has provided scholars with a rare opportunity to compare the work of a Roman historian with the primary source the historian referenced. It offers substantial acuity when evaluating the historicity of other speeches written by Roman historians, especially given the patent differences between the text of the tablet and the speech in Tacitus’ Annals. However, Tacitus’ account of the speech resembles his primary source in a number of ways. The similarities insinuate that Tacitus worked from this account, but that, despite its influence, he still decided to alter it. Finally, the fundamentally “Claudian” nature of the text transcribed on the tablet indicates that Claudius probably uttered its words when he attempted to convince the senate to admit members of the Gallic nobility to its ranks.

    Works Cited

    Griffin, Miriam. “Claudius in Tacitus.” The Classical Quarterly. Cambridge University Press, 1990. 482-501. Web.

    Mellor, Ronald. "Speech of Claudius on Gallic Senators." The Historians of Ancient Rome. New York: Routledge, 1998. 6-8. Print.

    Tacitus. "Tacitus." The Historians of Ancient Rome. By Ronald Mellor. New York, NY: Routledge, 1998. N. pag. Print.




    Crossroads at Antietam: An Exploratory Narrative

    Crossroads at Antietam: An Exploratory Narrative


    Crossroads at Antietam: An Exploratory Narrative


    The Battle of Antietam Creek, or Sharpsburg, represented a crucial turning point in Lee's Maryland Campaign. Fought between the Union Army of the Potomac and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, the costly and hectic clash at this small creek in western Maryland officially denied Lee the chance to wrest Maryland from the Union and turn Northern popular support against continuation of the war. Yet, McClellan's numerous failures of initiative before, during, and after the battle meant Lee's army would retreat to fight another day and continue to protect Richmond.

    The 1862 campaign season began well for the Union. McClellan had enjoyed success in his Peninsula Campaign into Northern Virginia, and menaced the Confederate capital with his Army of the Potomac by early June. However, the increasingly famous Confederate commander, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson had skillfully outmaneuvered and defeated three separate Union armies in the Shenandoah Valley in the month prior, threatening Washington itself. Lincoln personally ordered a consolidation of the defeated Union forces to protect the capital, dubbed “The Army of Virginia,” under the command of John Pope.

    In June, Robert E. Lee assumed command of the Confederate forces protecting Richmond, and by the end of the month, aggressively attacked the cautious and flighty McClellan in a series of battles now known as the Seven Days' Battles or Seven Day's Campaign. At the cost of 16,000 Union troops and 20,000 Confederate, Lee removed the threat to Richmond and drove McClellan back to Harrison's Landing on the James River. Soon after, Lincoln recalled the Army of the Potomac to aid the Army of Virginia in defending Washington and the Shenandoah Valley.

    In a masterful campaign that arguably cemented his reputation as a great commander, Lee advanced north after leaving a token force to guard Richmond. Together with his corps commanders, Jackson and Longstreet, Lee engaged Pope's army in a series of battles that culminated in the grand contest at Second Bull run, where the Confederates outflanked the numerically superior Union forces and drove the latter back to Washington in late August.

    Union defeat was largely due to the fact that McClellan had almost deliberately failed to link up with Pope's army in time. The people of Washington DC nearly panicked en masse, and several Union commanders, Pope and McClellan among them, were “reassigned” to other posts as punishment for the defeat. Lee observed these events and saw a golden opportunity. Seizing upon many of the same conditions that would press him to embark on the infamous Gettysburg Campaign less than a year later, Lee informed Confederate President Davis of the former's decision to invade Maryland.

    Lee's decision was not altogether spontaneous. He would launch his campaign in coordination with Confederate raids into Kentucky under Kirby Smith and Braxton Bragg. These two operations respectively sought to bring Kentucky and Maryland into the Confederacy by popular revolt. If successful, these actions would cut off Washington DC from the rest of the Union, bring the invaluable resources of the remaining “Border South” into the Confederacy, turn Northern popular sentiment decisively against the war, and force the Federal Government to recognize Confederate sovereignty and sue for peace. If all else, Lee hoped a decisive Confederate victory in a Union state would convince foreign powers, namely France and Britain, to take the rebels seriously and recognize the Confederacy as a nation.

    Lee also had his own pragmatic reasons for invading Maryland. His army had suffered heavy casualties in the Northern Virginia Campaign, and was suffering from a grievous lack of supplies. To fall back on his supply base at Richmond would mean forfeiting all the gains he had just won at such great cost. Yet, he could not hope to attack Washington, now defended by the combined forces of the Armies of the Potomac and Virginia. Moreover, an attack on Maryland would deter this huge army from attacking Richmond. So, on September 4, 1862, Lee crossed into western Maryland, hoping to resupply and reinforce his army in the welcome arms of the local population before embarking on further operations against Union forces.

    Unfortunately for the Confederates, Lee's army suffered severe setbacks from the beginning. Many of his exhausted troops were incapacitated by disease, and thousands more deserted or refused to fight, often because of personal moral reservations about “invading” another state. Thus, Lee's force quickly diminished from 55,000 to 45,000 troops as he ventured into Maryland. Another problem for Lee was that he had entered a section of Maryland friendly to the Union, and received no real support from the locals. In fact, the Confederates were seen as hostile invaders by the majority of Marylanders, even in Baltimore, formerly a secessionist stronghold.

    Undaunted, Lee ordered Jackson to seize the US Army arsenal at Harper's ferry while JEB Stuart and DH Hill moved to defend the South Mountain passes to the rear of Lee's army. After hearing reports of Union army activity in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania to the northwest, Lee sent Longstreet to occupy Hagerstown, Maryland, less than 25 miles south of Chambersburg. Having divided his forces in such manner, Lee established a base of operations at Frederick, Maryland. There, he worked to coordinate the strikes on Hagerstown and Harper's Ferry, even contemplating an invasion of Pennsylvania. He had no idea that McClellan was moving to intercept him at the head of some 75,000-80,000 Union troops. Lee left Frederick, intending to rendezvous with his corps commanders at Hagerstown and decide whether to invade Pennsylvania.

    McClellan and his army arrived in Frederick just two days after Lee had left. Here one may make a curious observation regarding the primitive state of communications and military intelligence during the Civil War. Even at this point, neither McClellan nor Lee had any idea where the other was located. Lee assumed McClellan would remain in Washington on the defensive, and McClellan imagined Lee to be preparing for a vast encirclement of the nation's capital. Thus, Lee set off to execute his plans, unaware of McClellan's presence, and McClellan positioned his army along a 10-16 mile front as he continued to move forward in search of the Confederate army. As McClellan occupied Frederick, though, he received a piece of paper wrapped around two cigars, originally discovered by Corporal Barton W. Mitchell of the 27th Indiana Volunteers in the ruins of a Confederate camp. Now known as the famous “Lost Order,” this fateful document detailed the outline of Lee's entire campaign plans.





    McClellan's and Lee's Respective Operations Prior to Antietam


    Despite this windfall of opportunity, McClellan remained true to form. When he finally, slowly, mustered his forces and left Frederick, he moved directly to attack Hill's and Stuart's positions on South Mountain at Crampton's Turner's and Fox's Gaps on 14 September. Surprised by this rather direct maneuver, Lee had learned by 13 September that his entire operation had been compromised. Confederate defenses at South Mountain held long enough for Lee to issue new orders calling for his forces to regroup. Lee considered withdrawing completely and returning to Virginia, but a bizarre determination to capture Harper's Ferry, coupled with a disregard for McClellan's abilities, convinced him to rally at Sharpsburg, Maryland, and wait for Jackson to return. Lee assumed McClellan too cautious to attack him, and felt confident that Jackson could take Harper's Ferry while the rest of the Confederate army marched on Hagerstown, salvaging the campaign. McClellan did his best to comply with this idea, stalling in the unoccupied South Mountain passes all of 15 September, saving Lee's incomplete force of just 18,000 men from certain destruction. Hearing of Jackson's impending success at Harper's Ferry, Lee decided to form a defensive position west of Antietam Creek, north of Sharpsburg, and offer battle.

    McClellan, still believing the enemy to possess a “massive” force, commenced skirmishing with the rebel forces on the afternoon and evening of the 16th. Little Mac continued to position his forces throughout the night. He planned a grand assault for the following day, wherein his right, under Burnside, and left, under Hooker, would fall upon the Confederate flanks, rolling up the enemy line, at which point McClellan would order a full attack on the rebel center, breaking Lee's army completely. McClellan's indecisiveness and poor leadership, as well as that of some of his corps commanders, however, would produce a much different course of events. In the meantime, his delays allowed Jackson to rejoin Lee after taking Harper's Ferry before the main battle began on the 17th.

    Commanders at Antietam


    Union:

    Maj. Gen. George McClellan, commander of the Army of the Potomac
    Maj. Gen Joseph Hooker, commander of the I Corps
    Maj. Gen Edwin V. Sumner, commander of the II Corps
    Maj. Gen Fitz John Porter, commander of the V Corps
    Maj. Gen Wlliam B. Franklin, commander of the VI Corps
    Maj. Gen Ambrose Burnside, commander of the IX Corps
    Maj. Gen Joseph Mansfield, commander of the XII Corps

    Confederacy:

    General Robert E. Lee, commander of the Army of Northern Virginia
    Maj. General James Longstreet, commander of the I Corps
    Maj Gen Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, commander of the II Corps
    Maj. Gen JEB Stuart, commander of the cavalry corps and reserve artillery







    Phase I of the Battle, Assaults by the I Corps, 5:30 to 7:30 AM


    On afternoon and evening of the 16th, McClellan had ordered Hooker's I Corps to begin an assault on Lee's left flank. If Hooker met success, McClellan planned to then execute his grand flanking maneuver, with Burnisde attacking Lee's right and McClellan then committing the remainder of his troops to the center for the “final blow.” However, McClellan deemed it unnecessary to let Hooker in on this secret, so as Hooker's corps marched on Lee's left upon the road approaching Hagerstown to the north, the typically aggressive corps commander decided to take cover in the “North” and “East Woods” and await reinforcements. Hooker believed he was attacking alone, unaware of McClellan's plans. Therefore, the Union attack on Lee's left stalled and would not resume until the following morning.

    At dawn on the 17th, Hooker and his I Corps moved to attack Jackson under early morning fog. Hooker's goal was to gain the high ground near a church building to the South which ironically belonged to a group of German pacifists known as the “Dunkers”. He was supported by the XII Corps in the East Woods, protecting his flank, and the I Corps artillery and the Union rifled field pieces commanding the heights east of Antietam Creek. The Union artillery inflicted stiff punishment on Jackson's position, but by the time Hooker's corps emerged from the North Woods into the cornfield to the south, the Confederate artillery began returning fire. Soon, the cornfield, stalks some six feet high, was engulfed in what Confederate Colonel Stephen D. Lee later described as “artillery hell.” Both sides suffered horrendous casualties, and the Union advance became bogged down and disorganized as communication between divisions and brigades within the I Corps fell apart. Because of this, Union divisions of the I Corps failed to advance in unison, and were individually repulsed by Confederate troops under Maj Gen Alexander Lawton.

    Within two hours, over half of Jackson's officers had perished, and his line nearly broke under fierce Union assaults as the latter sought to win the Dunker church ground. Jackson called upon John Hood's division for support. Hood soon arrived in force, and a fearsome clash between the blue and the grey again erupted in the cornfield. Horrific carnage ensued as one side drove the other out of the cornfield only to be driven back themselves. After both sides suffered terrible casualties, the contest ended in stalemate, though Hooker had failed to gain any ground, much less turn Lee's flank. Hooker brought up reinforcements from the XII Corps, over 7,000 men under Maj Gen Mansfield and Brigadier Gen Greene. Mansfield's division was composed of raw troops and quickly stalled under staunch resistance from Hood's division, but Greene successfully outmaneuvered the latter, vanquished the Confederate artillery that had been shelling the cornfield, and captured the church. Hooker moved to support Greene and continue the attack, but was wounded by a rebel sharpshooter and carried from the field.

    Command of the I Corps then fell to second in command, George Meade, but he was unable to bring order to the Union's chaotic position. Unsupported, Greene was driven back from the church by Hood's men, who had regrouped in the West Woods. Hence, some 3 hours after Hooker's original attack, it appeared stalemate loomed again. Two divisions from the Union II Corps, under Maj Gen John Sedgwick and Brig General William French rushed forward to maintain the pressure of Union assault. However, the two divisions became separated in the confusion, and Sedwick ran headlong into a barrage laid by the Confederate artillery, together with reinforcements from Lee's right. The result was a Confederate attack from three directions on Sedgwick's division, roughly comparable a small-scale version of Hannibal's double envelopment of Varro's legions at Cannae. Sedwick was himself wounded, and his division repulsed, suffering some 40% casualties. Finally, further reinforcements from the XII Corps engaged the Confederates near the West Woods around 10 AM, some 5 hours after the battle began. Union reinforcements under Greene, who had captured the Dunker church earlier, arrived and helped push the rebels into the West Woods.




    Phase II of the Battle, Assaults by the XII and II Corps, 9 AM to 1 PM


    By midday, the Confederate left had been pushed back into the West Woods, where heavy fighting raged on. Brig Gen French's division from the Union II Corps had ventured far to the south after losing Sedgewick's men, bumping into DH Hill's battered troops who had launched attacks from the West Woods into the cornfield all that morning. The rebels took up solid defensive positions along an old wagon road that would come to be called “Bloody Lane.” This road ran through the center of Lee's line, and the battle would soon become concentrated there as both sides sent reinforcements in a hellish contest for the road. French ordered a series of assaults on Hill before falling back in costly failure. Union reinforcements from the II Corps supported French, even as Lee committed his reserves to aid Hill and try to outflank French.

    Fierce fighting over the Lane ensued until after noon, when the “Fighting” 69th New York Irish Brigade arrived, outflanking Hill's position, and turning the Lane into a death trap for the rebels. By this time, both sides had lost several officers, and a botched Confederate order resulted in the entire defensive force at Bloody Lane withdrawing in confusion. The Union forces gave chase, and might have collapsed the whole Confederate center had not Longstreet's artillery driven them back. Even still, the rebel center was threadbare, and numerous Union officers, including commander of the fresh VI Corps, William Franklin, asked McClellan for permission to launch a full assault. However, the carnage at Bloody Lane had unsettled Little Mac, and he declined, squandering yet another opportunity to destroy Lee's army.




    Phase III of the Battle, Operations Surrounding "Burnside's Bridge," 10 AM to 4:30 PM


    With fighting on Lee's center and left stalled, attention turned to the right, where Ambrose Burnside had been ordered to attack. Remember, all these attacks on Lee's right, center, and left were supposed to have been conducted simultaneously. However, it would be 10 AM before McClellan's order to attack reached Burnside, five hours after Hooker had first marched on Jackson. Even then, Burnside took plenty of time to organize his attack. Burnside and his IX Corps would need to cross a bridge over Antietam Creek to the south end of Lee's line in order to attack. Burnside's insistence on capturing the bridge itself is a source of great controversy, with various sources arguing over whether Burnside's men could have forded the river downstream and avoided the bridge altogether. Additionally, Burnside felt slighted by McClellan, who had temporarily demoted him to IX Corps commander in order to give command of the I Corps to Hooker. In any case, Burnside reluctantly opted for the bridge, and he demonstrated this reluctance thoroughly.

    Though the Confederates only had some 300-400 men of the 2nd and 20th Georgia regiments to defend the bridge under Robert Toombs, Burnside was wary about risking his 12,500 men in a direct assault on the bridge. Toombs commanded a series of bluffs overlooking the bridge, giving him ideal cover to rain fire down on anyone who crossed. Though Burnside's artillery and vastly superior manpower could easily have taken the bridge, he elected to skirmish with Toombs, then launch a series of small attacks. After Burnside finally began coordinating artillery attacks on Toomb's position, the latter withdrew following reports of Union troops approaching his flank. Finally, Burnside's troops rushed across the creek and attacked Lee's right flank. Once again, Lee's entire army seemed on the brink of collapse. Yet, two serious Union blunders and one great stroke of fortune saved him again. First, Burnside's debacle at the south bridge had taken 3 hours, giving Lee's army a few more precious moments of life. Second, by the time Burnside moved to attack the rebel flank across the creek, McClellan and Maj Gen Fitz John Porter of the V Corps decided against sending the latter to aid Burnside and finish Lee. Thus, Lee was able to resist Burnside's IX Corps long enough that, in combination with the 3 hours wasted that morning, Confederate commander AP Hill arrived on Lee's right from Harper's Ferry just in time to save the Army of Northern Virginia.

    Hill's men had traded their tattered grey homespuns for fresh blue uniforms at Harper's Ferry. Thus, when Hill's fresh forces slammed into Burnside's flank, the latter was thrown into confusion. Burnside's entire corps then beat a hasty retreat back across the same bridge that they had spent so much time and lives to capture. Finally, darkness fell on the day of 17 September, 1862. Some 23,000 men lay dead or wounded, including 10,000 Confederates. Union reinforcements continued to pour in all night and the following day. On the morning of September 18, Lee braced for the final, crushing attack he was sure would come. Yet, Little Mac seemed convinced that Lee commanded some unimaginably vast army. The former launched a half-hearted assault on AP Hill's position before calling a truce to bury the dead. Lee and his army would quietly escape back into Virginia that night, concluding the second bloodiest battle of the war up to that point.

    Reactions to the battle were mixed. Most, including President Lincoln, berated McClellan for his conspicuous failure to destroy Lee's numerically pitiful force. Little Mac himself wrote the President, calling it a “glorious victory.” While certainly disheartening for many in the Union, Antietam would later prove to be a strategic success for many of the same reasons that Gettysburg would. It ended Confederate hopes of taking Maryland, even as Smith and Bragg's Kentucky campaign fell apart. As Lee returned to Virginia to lick his wounds, President Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Set to take effect in January of 1863, the Proclamation freed all slaves in Confederate territory. This reasserted Lincoln's refusal to recognize Confederate sovereignty by claiming executive control over “insurrected” states. Coupled with news of Lee's failure to capture Maryland, it helped to discourage European powers from recognizing Confederate sovereignty in a war that now, politically at least, appeared to be waged between the anti-slave North and the pro-slave South. It also represented a growing development of total war against the Confederate insurgency on American soil.

    On the home front, dying and wounded men continued to pour into the surrounding communities during and after the battle. Like the little village of Gettysburg less than a year later, many small towns became sprawling, makeshift hospitals, with casualties filling the buildings, streets, and open spaces. As lists of the dead and dying, along newspaper images and reports, rushed off to cities and towns across the nation, both sides received a rude awakening to the horrors of the war. Coupled with the still-fresh wounds of Second Bull Run, the carnage at Antietam would remind people of the reality of a long and bloody war, previously believed by many to be a brief and decisive contest. These grim effects on the public sphere augmented those of a more political and military nature regarding the battle itself. Thus, while McClellan's failure to rout Lee allowed the latter to fight on for two and a half more agonizing years, the grand strategic Union victory at Antietam represented a crucial turning point in the war.





    Émile Durkheim: Society and the Individual

    Émile Durkheim: Society and the Individual
    Émile Durkheim: Society and the Individual


    In this article I will be giving a rough outline of Durkheim's views on the individual and his place in society. Bear in mind that this is not critique, however I would encourage viewers to draw their own conclusions and read the sources I will be providing, in order to have a better understanding of Durkheim's views. Before we deal with the main subject, it's the writer's opinion that we must firstly consider who Durkheim was: humans are historical (he himself held this view as well, after all), they are a product of their time, thus their opinions are also such products, and Durkheim was no different in that aspect.

    Durkheim was born in France, in 1858: to give an understanding of the period let's say that Auguste Comte, the father of positivism (the philosophy that advocates using purely scientific methods to examine social phaenomena, based on the conviction that the scientific method is the only one capable of pointing out the truth-Durkheim was very influenced by this), died only a year later and his work was already affecting the minds of contemporaries; The Capital was published in 1867, the Second French Empire was to fall and be replaced by the Third Republic in 1870 (after its establishment in 1852). Needless to say, it was a time of great changes and instability for Durkheim's country. Many other events also occurred, including the rise and fall of the Paris Commune in 1871, arguably the first example of socialism in practice. New problems arose, previous forms of organization were now being viewed as problematic, and people were looking for a new order, with more stable, and if possible, natural foundations. Durkheim's belief was that social science (there were not many branches at the time) should look for the rules that govern, or should govern, society, so that the new society that was to be established would be able to do so based on these rules, thus minimizing risks. His attempts have resulted in some people viewing him as an idealist but also a materialist that viewed human activity and thoughts as a result of social realities, the latter deriving from matter (M. Emirbayer, Emile Durkheim, Sociology of Modernity, Oxford, Blackwell, 2003). Many of his final works echo his views on the organization of the Third Republic (which he very much supported), and specifically how sociology would help, in his opinion, with the realization of moral and political goals.

    One of the central subjects that Durkheim dealt with, was the individual and his relation to society. Durkheim was against individualism, and sought to fight it through his work. For him individualism was the path to capitalism while focus on society as a whole meant socialism. He chose the latter, advocating that individualism and individualistic ethics are very much dogmatic and that society precedes the individual; in other words people are the result of society, and the view that humans are autonomous individuals is a product of historical process and it is a recent phaenomenon, that can be attributed to the division of labor (see Durkheim, De La Division du Travail Social, 1893). Social interest is above the limited personal interests, and thus opinions regarding interpersonal relationships, social order and prosperity should be formed under this light. This means that balance between the general social good and individual freedom, is only possible in the context of ethics that are social in nature: ethics that bind the individual and practices based on social institutions. Durkheim believed that these social institutions could be based on traditions of society, and that they could be established through accepted social beliefs and emotions, which constitute the social framework in which humans live. Much emphasis was placed on the social functions of education, the moral reshaping of professional associations, state policies and reforms, while having in mind that the state should not completely dominate social life, as it should be a servant of society. This position has been described as a "communitarian support of liberalism" (W. Watts Miller, Individualism and Human Rights in the Durkheimian Tradition, Oxford, Center for Durkheimian Studies, 1993). Durkheim's view on man is that he is a social being; the individual is an inseparable part of the society in which he is born. The latter permeates him from everywhere: to isolate or separate oneself from society is equal to neutralization.

    In Sociologie et philosophie, published posthumously (1924), Durkheim states that man is not a sacred being, that historical analysis leads to the conclusion that man is a historical being; there is nothing innately sacred about him but man has been made the center of social consciousness amongst European peoples and has acquired incomparable value. It's society has made man sacred. In Durkheim's own words: "very far from there being the antagonism between the individual and society which is often claimed, moral individualism, the cult of the individual, is in fact the product of society itself. It is society that instituted it and made of man the god whose servant it is". This means that moral individualism is just a set of views representative of modern European society, something that can have both positive and negative sides. For Durkheim, the latter are intrinsically related to egoism, which without proper social moral instruction and social institutions (essentially the state as a whole, as it's the state that must provide for the common good) may create what Durkheim refers to as "social pathologies", which cause social instability and ultimately disintegration of society.

    Durkheim's thought has definitely challenged many wide-spread beliefs regarding the individual and society, and continues to do so. His view that our concept of ourselves, our society, and our place in them are the result of history is now shared by many, in politics and science, and is especially important to modern anthropology. While there have been numerous criticisms, it is a fact that he stands next to Marx and Weber, as a sociologist who was tremendously important in shaping social sciences, with impact witnessed even outside of his field.



    Is This the End?

    Is This the End?
    Is This the End?


    Beautiful friend, my only friend the end... thats how it goes a very famous song from a very good band. Why am I using it you ask? Its because finally we will see the end of one of the longest project to rearm the Brazilian Air Force, or not.

    Since the fall of the military dictatorship in 84 there were no costly weapons purchase programs, it was 94 when the them President Itamar Franco in an effort to appease the military started thinking about rearmament with the project being known as Fenix, the study from COPAC (Comissão Coordenadora do Programa Aeronave de Combate - Coordinating Commission of the Program to Purchase new Combat Aircraft). The process took a life of its own, during the next government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, it got shot down and revived by Lula and was probably finalized by Dilma Roussef on the 18th december of 2013, almost 20 years after the first proposition. However one may ask the purpose of the expenditure for the rearmament of a country armed forces that wasn't involved in a war since World War 2, that has a fairly reasonable relationship with its neighboring countries, that isn't involved in the major or minor terrorists attacks from the recent years, the answer lies in a Security Council seat. Let's why those programs took so long and why this is important for the country.

    In 91 during the Fernando Collor presidency the air force started the COPAC with the intention of buying new jet fighters to replace the old F5 and phantom F4 that we used, the main project name was Fenix which involved the total rearmament and reconfiguration of the country air force, involving new aircraft and systems. This was a dead end given that we had no economy to speak of, with rampant inflation (477.3% in 1991) and thus no condition to even think about purchasing anything costly.

    With the impeachment of the president his vice takes place, and that one is Itamar Franco. Thus in a bid to legitimize his power, he took some measures to appease certain parts of the population, one fairly known is the relaunch of the Beetle from Volkswagen, that goes by the name of Fusca here, on the military front there was the COPAC and other commissions vying for rearmament budget; he started succumbing to the pressure of the military for new equipment, the demands ranged from submarines, being at least 3 nuclear, a new aircraft carrier that was to be built from scratch and modernization and purchase/build of frigates and cruisers for the navy, new tanks, artillery, portable missiles and helicopters for the army, new jet fighters and helicopters for the air force.

    That list was a fairly long one, the usefulness of it is debatable and the cost is enormous, since what the military wanted was the total rearmament of the forces. The troublesome part is that, the military dictatorship was dismissed not even a decade before all those demands appeared, his inability to outmaneuver any demands is notorious, at the time the military junta couldn't sway the population to support its demands, specially after such a bloody and painful regime, coupled with the several popular movements happening, like the elections movement and the impeachment of the President Fernando Collor.

    Thanks to the implementation of the Real Plan from the economic team of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (FHC), the them minister of fazenda (treasury), we could satisfy some of the demands, so we restarted our nuclear project, restarted the project of the submarines and looked for new tanks to buy. The economy was fairly stable and we started to see some growth that was long missed. Though that expansion isn't related to the military expenditure, it never is related to that, in our case.

    However those good winds in the economy with the stabilization of the inflation and the growth of industry and the commodities was, as usual, short lived. In 98 we suffered the first hit with the asian collapse, followed by the 2000 market crash. That meant that the policy of cambial parity with the dollar was gone, and fluctuation bands were implemented, that brewed a turmoil in the economy with the lowering of the price of the needed imported goods. Leading to a contraction of our industry and the expansion of the commodities market.

    At the start of his 2nd mandate, FHC started a major investment in the protection and securing of our borders against real menaces, international drug cartels and contraband. We created a new radar system that covered our borders, we rearranged the army so that it would cover our borders and not our major population areas and we gave the navy some "needed" presence with PT boats in the amazon area.

    The fighter chosen for the duty? Our own home made Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano. The choice was obvious and the reasons solid. For the simple matter that a fighter that operates at a higher speed and costs a lot more to maintain would perform worse than a cheaper, readily available, job raising, growth inducing, that can bombard and intercept the designated targets (propeller craft). It was the perfect plane for the job. Consequently the jet fighters got out of the picture.

    However in july of 2001, nearing the end of his 2nd mandate, FHC launched the project called FX, which was the purchase of new fighters for the air force. This can arguably be considered the start of the process, but if we look at the movements, it clearly isn't.

    The reasons for the project was a solid one, the navy did get its aircraft carrier purchased from France, along with some A4 skyhawks, to replace the outdated and completely useless Minas Gerais (a WW2 aircraft carrier), and they also got the nuclear submarine, at least the project of building 1 and 4 other being conventional diesel vessels. The army did get some new helicopters and various equipments and fundings for the reorganization, and our jet fighters were entering the end of their lives, with several F4 phantom crashing due to parts fatigue.

    In the reorganization project it demanded a stronger and more able meet the threats armed forces, But the security of our borders could be met with what we had along with some purchases like those helicopters and Super Tucanos, so why is the author claiming that the reasons were solid?

    For the simple demand that we have since the birth of the UN, a seat in the security council. And that is the guideline for the next president.

    In august 2001 the participants were finalized. We had the Russians with the Sukhoi 35 and MIG 29, the French with the Mirage 2000c, the US with the F18 and F16, the EU with the Eurofighter and the Swedish with the SA 39 Grippen. Due to end of the term nothing could be done, thus the determination of the who is in, was merely for show and a bid to win votes for the FHC candidate, the them minister of health, José Serra. And thus the project is shelved for another time.

    By january 2003, when Lula came to power, he declared that the project was to be shelved indefinitely given that to fight hunger is a priority. With this populist speech the project was back on track again, when in october of 2003 the new bidding process started.

    We know that the Lula presidency was marked by a good period of growth, the market distrustful at the start was blow by good winds of continuity, the policies left from his rival FHC and the expansion of the wealth distribution program that his predecessor implemented along with the astounding boom of the commodities market, things were looking favorable to spend on new toys meanwhile gaining hard power in the international scene.

    Those same winds governed the health of the project suffering drawbacks and move forwards, thus on april of 2004 the project is shelved again, however that brings us to another delay of an already old demand from the air force, and as we know we had a problem of extremely old fighters. Due to the inability of the chief of staff to construct a consensus, we purchase 12 second hand with long mileage mirage 2000c/b so as to not leave our air space "undefended", and proceed to create the new FX-2 program in february of 2005

    In 2008 in a bid to gain votes for his candidate, the now President Dilma Roussef, Lula moves to accept bids on the "new" revitalized program. But as we know due to budgetary restrictions it can't move forward. The participants were the Saab Grippen NG, the Boeing F18 and the Dassault Rafale.

    In 2009 the air force makes a dossier pointing that the Grippen NG is their favorite, in an astounding move, Lula announces the finalization of the partnership with France, they would cooperate in the Embraer KC 390 our in development military medium transport and would buy some of them when it was done, in exchange we would buy the Dassault Rafale along with some helicopters, a very fair and even trade in the mind of the president.

    This was met with a major backlash that was ruthlessly quelled by the them chief of staff and future president Dilma Rousself. The antidote was simple, Lula was joking around and the most expensive offer with the most major drawbacks wouldn't move forward.

    Boeing noticing our desire to sell that cargo plane at any cost, makes a bid to sell the aforementioned plane, thus taking a supposedly lead in the bidding.

    However its past time that the bids are known and what they represent.

    The Boing F18 Super Hornet is a renowned killing machine, proving its effectiveness numerous times in combat, it comes with an average (between the bidders) cost of operation along with an average cost of purchase. The main drawback of this purchase is that nothing, absolutely nothing is gained from the purchase of the fighter. No technological transfer, no possibility of construction in national territory, and no assurance that we would actually be able to fire missiles and bombs from it, since the purchase of the missiles and bombs wasn't in the package and would need congressional approval.

    This is such a serious issue, given that despite our armed forces having operated so many fighters from the US, and being an ally for centuries, we haven't been able to purchase armament for our craft. Thus we would need a revamp on the avoinics and targeting system to operate a craft that is being replaced everywhere in the world.

    The Dassault Rafale, was the most expensive competitor, with the highest cost in terms of operation, while performing similarly to the F18. We wouldn't still be able to produce it in here, but we did have some not so hard agreement on transferring part of the technology and we would sell some of those cargo planes.

    The Saab Grippen NG is an in project aircraft, much like the F18 hornet to Super Hornet, its a variation of a pre existing craft to make a 4th generation fighter a 4.5 one. Its smaller, can operate on those smaller landing strips, or even roads, which is tactically beneficial to us, and has the lowest cost of purchase along with operation. The major draw is simple, we will build most of it here, we will be able to export it, and it won't be a transfer of technology, but rather a cooperation, add to that we will probably participate in the Sea Gripen project we would have lower costs of maintenance and synergy of the forces.

    The drawback is that its an unproven craft, with no combat record or reputation, and it carries US based patents on some parts, special case is the engine. One of the looming threats in this process is the US congress not approving anything ranging from armaments to any patent that is tied to the project, this is a recurring issue being the latest one the purchase of Super Tucanos by Venezuela that was forbidden by the US congress. However with it being still in project, this can be circumvented.

    With that information we can balance how the Boeing F18 was deemed favorite by parts of the press (even claiming that the president was in favor), while the Saab Grippen NG remained favorite of the air force.

    In economical terms, the swedish fighter is a better buy in every single and possible angle, as was pointed out before local production, possibility of exportation and technological partnership will possibly trickle down great economic benefits, with the acquired expertise and product.

    Reviewing the PND (Plano Nacional de Defesa - National Plan of Defense) from 2008, we see the consolidation of the desires from the numerous projects of the armed forces, interesting to note that in the 2009 PEMAER 2010-2031 (Plano Estratégico Militar da Aeronáutica - Estrategic Military Plan from the Air Force) the proposition is much of what was discussed here the need for a better hard hitting armed forces. As I brushed in the finer point of the why we will purchase something so costly and not fitting in the general strategy of securing the borders against non military threats, why is there a need for it?

    Reviewing the requirements from our forces, one would simply divide the tasks in strategical terms:

    - Defense forces, with attack helicopters (MI 35), fighter planes (EMB 314 Super Tucanos), PT boats, corvettes, frigates and ground troops.
    - Supply and Rescue Forces, transport helicopters (UHL 60 and EC 725), air cargo (KC 390), boat transport and frigates

    - Intelligence and Reconnaissance, with drones (various models from Israeli and national manufacturers), Air Recon (P3B and EMB 145 AEW&C) and intelligence operatives.

    There is no fit for the higher cost purchases like the Aircraft Carrier, air superiority fighters and submarines in the grand strategic planing of the forces. Some vocal defense experts colleagues see the need for those in the possible event of a war against unstable neighbors, for example Venezuela (highly unlikely) and others see the need for more hard power and thus more power in the sum zero game, vying with this strategy the unattainable seat of the Security Council. I see this as Brazil trying to be more active in military affairs in the world, and with the somewhat successful mission in Timor East, we may participate in this new french led international interventions, to which I see a good justification for the expense that the armed forces are.

    This is the high politics explanation for the purchase, however the real reason for the delays was as usual our economy not doing as well as it could and should. With the 2nd term of FHC being filled with one economic crisis after the other, and them with Lula showing his usual lack of tact and long term planning it was left for Dilma at the 11th hour to finish an almost 20 year old project and the now only non met want of the military.

    Now while the announcement is met with enthusiasm by the armed forces, we are still not at the end of journey, we are still missing the presidential seal on the contract. Waters may still flow under that bridge.


    Sources:

    PEMAER 2010-2031
    COMAER
    PND
    Decisão sobre compra de caças para FAB se arrastava desde 2001; entenda o caso - Folha de São Paulo 18/12/13
    http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2...a-o-caso.shtml
    O projeto FX: a mais longa novela já escrita no Brasil
    http://jbitten.wordpress.com/2011/02...ita-no-brasil/
    http://www.defesa.gov.br/






    Once again, I thank my excellent team of writers and artists for their invaluable dedication and effort in this endeavor, 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.



    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

  2. #2

    Default Re: Helios 69: Phoenix

    Hi all. Please do leave a comment if you like what you see, or even just to say hi. The Helios Staff values our readers and we look forward to bringing you all excellence in academic journalism.

    Special thanks to y2day for the awesome graphics
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; March 10, 2014 at 04:02 PM.
    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
    ggggtotalwarrior's Avatar hey it geg
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,200

    Default Re: Helios 69: Phoenix

    I'l begin reading now. Thanks for the work guys.

    Edit: I very much liked the Claudius and Antietam articles. Very interesting reads all around.
    Last edited by ggggtotalwarrior; March 10, 2014 at 03:49 PM.
    Rep me and I'll rep you back.

    UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF THE KING POSTER AKAR

  4. #4
    Diamat's Avatar VELUTI SI DEUS DARETUR
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    My Mind
    Posts
    10,742

    Default Re: Helios 69: Phoenix

    This new edition has been blessed with a true Avian name, the name of the Urbird. Well done ya'll.

  5. #5
    Audacia's Avatar Give Life Back to Music
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,948

    Default Re: Helios 69: Phoenix

    Awesome issue, I'm glad we got it out! Great work bringing the Helios back again Legio. I look forward to continue to work with you.

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





Posting Permissions

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