POTF 34 - Vote

[Lord Thesaurian]

POTF Voting Rules

- Public or private messages asking for a vote for a candidate post are forbidden. Violators (and their posts) may not participate in the running contest.

-Users have one vote each, and may vote for their own post.

-Use of alt accounts in the voting round is forbidden.

-Users may not reveal who they voted for in this thread or elsewhere in the POTF forum

-While explicitly asking for votes is not allowed, advertising the competition is permitted and encouraged.

Legio_Italica - Theistic evolution makes no sense

Post 1

That part only states that the humble one went straight to paradise. It does not say that the other one went to eternal torment without any possibility of repentance and redemption. The Church is pretty clear about what happens to unrepentant sinners: 1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."610 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.611 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell." 1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.612 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"613 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"614 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. 1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."616 Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."617 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;618 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":619 https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2O.HTM But for those who subscribe to the final authority of scripture, what does the Bible say about hell? What is Hell? There are numerous references to “hell” in the Bible, centered on the following words: https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...V#s=s_lexiconc ‎שְׁאוֹל, Sheol This is the Hebrew word translated as “hell” or “grave,” used throughout the Old Testament. It is literal in the sense that both “good” and “bad” people are referenced in this context; i.e. it is not a plane of punishment a priori, but a reference to the finality of death and separation from God. Examples: The first recorded use of the word is in the context of Jacob discovering that his son Joseph had been sold into slavery by his own brothers because they considered it more profitable than killing him. Here Jacob, as a devastated father, proclaims he will follow his son to the grave for grief. And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days. 35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave (שְׁאוֹל) unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him. 36 And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, and captain of the guard. ‎ שְׁאוֹל is first used in the context of divine judgement in the book of Numbers. And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind. 29 If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then the Lord hath not sent me. 30 But if the Lord make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit (שְׁאוֹל); then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the Lord. 31 And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that was under them: 32 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. 33 They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit (שְׁאוֹל), and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. 34 And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also. And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense. In Deuteronomy, God’s wrath is said to burn “from the lowest hell (שְׁאוֹל)” in response to wickedness. Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. 19 And when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters. 20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith. 21 They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. 22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell (שְׁאוֹל), and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. 23 I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. 24 They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. ‎ שְׁאוֹל is first used in the context of salvation through God in Psalms I will extol thee, O Lord; for thou hast lifted me up, and hast not made my foes to rejoice over me. 2 O Lord my God, I cried unto thee, and thou hast healed me. 3 O Lord, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave (שְׁאוֹל) thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit. A note on the word “soul.” Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  The word “soul” in the Bible comes primarily from the Hebrew נֶפֶשׁ and Greek ψυχή. It is used to describe the vital force within all living creatures, first seen in Genesis. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. The use of the Greek ψυχή is also consistent in the New Testament, again referring to the state of being alive. Jesus confirms this: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. 25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life (ψυχή) what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life (ψυχή) more than meat, and the body than raiment? 26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? 27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? 28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. The Greek terms whence “hell” is derived further affirm the context of hell/the grave. γέεννα, from the Hebrew בֶּן־הִנֹּם גֵּיא, Gehenna γέεννα is a direct reference to an actual place in the Bible: This then was the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah by their families; even to the border of Edom the wilderness of Zin southward was the uttermost part of the south coast. [....] And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom (γέεννα ) westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants northward: And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem. 2 And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the Lord. 3 And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant. [....] And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba, and brake down the high places of the gates that were in the entering in of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on a man's left hand at the gate of the city. 9 Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat of the unleavened bread among their brethren. 10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom (γέεννα ), that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech. Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: but he did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord, like David his father: 2 For he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also molten images for Baalim. 3 Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom (γέεννα ), and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel. γέεννα is a place of pagan sacrifice; death and physical destruction by fire, unholy, profane, utterly separated from God. This context is important to keep in mind as the word is used in the New Testament, beginning in Matthew, Chapter 5 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, [....] Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell (γέεννα) fire. [....] And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (γέεννα) 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (γέεννα) Here, Jesus references total separation from God in the context of γέεννα, a reference his Jewish audience would well understand. Mark’s interpretation is even more specific: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. What is this place of total separation from God; this place of unquenchable fire? The other keyword used for hell provides additional context. ᾅδης, Hades Paul writes to the Corinthians: 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave (ᾅδης) where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. Jesus claims victory over hell, the grave, through his second coming. This is consistent with what the Bible says about the fate of hell (ᾅδης) in Revelation: And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell (ᾅδης) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. As part of God’s final judgement of mankind, the dead are brought forth from hell, the grave, to be judged, whereupon the wicked and hell itself, the grave, are consumed by fire in the everlasting finality of the second death. According to the Bible, hell is the fate of unrepentant sinners Jesus warned about, Sheol, Hades, Gehenna; the final and total separation from God that awaits Satan, his angels and the wicked. It is this hell, grave, from which the wicked are not redeemed, and therefore are destroyed by the fire of divine judgement that is the second death, a death which is eternal and final. Much of the traditional Christian concept of an otherworldly plane of individual, amorphous spirits in eternal, fiery torment comes from Dante’s Divine Comedy, and Greco-Roman traditions and beliefs about the afterlife. That said, there is a firm Biblical basis for a hell that is the grave, and for the wicked, that grave is their ultimate fate. Jesus was clear: 1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. 5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. 12Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. Jesus is God and he is the only salvation from the fate of death in an eternal grave. Paul affirms this as well: And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat them. 23 And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: 24 Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. 25 And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. 26 And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed. 27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. 35 And when it was day, the magistrates sent the serjeants, saying, Let those men go.

irontaino - During Calls for Increased Mail-in Voting, New U.S. Postmaster General Decreases Post Office Activity

Post 2

You said Trump's appointee "gutted" USPS but neither of your sources proved that USPS was, in fact, "gutted". Partisan statements made by party brass are not evidence in themselves, even if you support the party in question. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  No, because this position has been a political appointment (spoils appointment really) since the inception of the Republic. addressed previously, it's an appointment every President makes. Trump's Presidency doesn't suddenly make it suspect until the DNC mobilizes it's mainstream media apparatus to shine a light on it and suddenly NPC/low information voters are hearing about the Postmaster General office for the first time. It's suspect when said postmaster begins sabotaging the post office so it's harder for people who don't want to vote in person during a pandemic to do so. 1. What attacks on the postal service? The kind where they cut funding and it results in chaos. 2. What shakey in person voting issues? It's said in one of the articles you posted when an overwhelming majority of voters are afraid to physically head to the polls. 3. The fact the dems would do whatever they need to do to regain power? No surprise at all. I mean, Trump wanted to delay elections, and repeatedly claims (without evidence) mail in voting increases voter fraud and is attacking the postal service, but sure, it's the Dems doing whatever they can for power. 4. Why do you think mail in ballots are the end all and be all? Addressed above, most people are a bit squeamish about showing up for in person voting during a pandemic. Maybe not the Trump supporters/Karens who think coronavirus is a hoax, but for those who aren't cultists, it's kind of an issue. A Mail in voting is the easiest possible method of voting to suppress. You've given examples of the USPS being overwhelmed with the amount of votes coming in. Now ask yourself why would the Trump administration want to kneecap the USPS and make it even harder for them to process the votes? As an side note, using Vox and Esquire opinion pieces as sources? He says as he cites Fox News in the same post

Iskar - Theistic evolution makes no sense

Post 3

That presumes that judgement is a point in time, with a distinctive "before" and "after". But since judgement, reckoning, parousia, second coming (call it what you will) is an act of God, who is above time and space, I think confining it such is extrapolating human limitations of thought in an inadmissible way. (Even the word "act of God" is somewhat inadequate, as "act" implies being bound by the passage of time.) If I had to approach it with human means, I'd rather seek the analogy from relativity: Just as the Big Bang is not the beginning of time, as beginning implies a relation to a preexisting timescale, the parousia would not be the end of time, but a point where all of time is concentrated. The Scripture was written by humans shaped by their particular experience of life and knowledge and understanding available to them and we must burn away the slag of that historical context to approach the divine truths they were inspired with to write down. Maybe people in 70AD Judea could not conceive of time being actually part of curvable spacetime, concepts of supratemporality etc., but we are, and we were given brains by God for a reason, to ever better understand his creation and ever closer approach the truths contained in Scripture, as buried as they may be below historical ballast and personal bias of the human writers.

conon394 - What Is ISLAM

Post 4

conon394, May I suggest you get hold of Robert V Gentry's Book called Creation's Tiny Mystery which is about his research into the atomic life of rocks whereby he proves that the earth is not as old as claimed by the establishment. He is recognised as the leading figure in his field which makes the book a need to read concerning the lifespan of this planet. We have been round this one before. He is an expert in a vary narrow field. Critically however he is not leading expert or even an expert in Geology. He is well published back in the 70s in his area of expertise in Physics and radioactive halos (although out of Oak-ridge looking for heavy elements for bombs not geology). Notably it should be pointed as part of team, often with co authors and peer reviewed... He flight of fancy into young earth creationism simply fails to pass muster as scientific and the lack of experts in the necessary fields as co authors should be a red flag - see below) Anyway back to what I already posted His work simply does not stand scrutiny. Many of his samples are taken out of geological context or not correctly sourced so his argument of finding the Halos only in 'primordial rock' are unfounded. Beyond that he demands special pleading that only one type of radioactive decay is constant but the others are altered willy-nilly by biblical events. That is the fundamental problem if you can just use the bible to adjust radioactive decay were you need it. You have not really developed a sound scientific explanation - but simply I found an anomaly in a few samples but not all and even my best ones don't really sustain scrutiny - when I even bother show my hand to allow replication. He has isolated possibly in some of his samples an interesting phenomenon, but his either careless or mendacious handling of his data and the addition of fairy dust to explain away contrary evidence is not impressive. You might also basics take the time to look up a few modern science papers. You might notice they often have 2, 3, 5 or more authors. There is a reason for that. In this a man with a MA in Physics is decidedly not as noted above an expert on geology his lack of co author in that field is telling. I would also expect an expert on Genetics and Coalescent theory to explain how it supports a young earth - oh wait I sorry it does not. Oh and he needs another expert to talk away 2.7 million years of ice core samples. By this I mean when you step out of your own area of expertise in modern science you very much need collaborators. If Gentry seemly cannot find a a solid Geologist to co author you should be skeptical. Do yourself a favor basics be true in your belief, but don't look to pseudo science. You might consider this. Very few scientists are avowed atheists. Very few less are like Richard Dawkins zealot like atheists who have achieved an almost religious belief. Many more may be Agnostic but that means you have an open mind. Most however I think you would find hold a religious belief of some kind. On the whole do really think any of them would not be quite happy to find proof of a god or their god or gods... In real science. The kind you get published and not a hack book, is hard, grueling, often not all that well paid. I really cannot think of any graduate student living on coffee and nicotine and little sleep who would not be delighted to know there was a reward in heaven for their work proved scientifically. But I am sorry to say that is not Gentry. Also here a couple of links on the problems with his work http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...-1368-36.3.161

EricD - Hannibal Barca: Leadership, not Tactics

Post 5

The name "Hannibal" is famous in the annals of military history. Hannibal Barca was one of the greatest commanders of Mediterranean Antiquity. His three crushing victories over the Romans at Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae are rightly renowned as some of the most tactically brilliant victories ever fought. Even in the long stalemate after Cannae, when Hannibal wandered with his army through southern Italy like wayward homeless bandits, the fact that he survived the overwhelming Roman resources and still managed to score crushing victories against the consular armies which still challenged him are testaments to his skill. Just holding his army together for such a long and hard campaign against such a formidable opponent as the Roman Republic and their Italian confederates is a testament to his strength of will and ability as a leader. It has often perplexed me how incapable Hannibal seems to have been at prosecuting sieges though. In comparison to his stellar record of victories in pitched field battles, his record for sieges was quite miserable. I don't think a lack of ability or education in sieges can explain this difficulty Hannibal had in Italy, given that he was successful against Saguntum at the beginning of the war, and appears to have been well-educated in military matters by his father Hamilcar and perhaps (We can guess) by the study of Hellenistic military history and texts. So why did Hannibal, the great genius Carthaginian general, have such difficulty in laying siege? His lack of success at sieges was really a critical failure in Hannibal's campaigns in Italy. Sieges were in many ways the truly decisive operation of ancient war. Being able to successful lay siege upon and take an opposing power's fortified places was the critical final step to truly subduing an opponent to your will. If you cannot win the siege, often the best you can do is lay waste to the enemy's lands and farms, loot and pillage, and hope to bring them to the negotiating table by winning in the field. If, on the other hand, this fails as it did against the Romans in Italy, then ultimately all your victories in the field will be irrelevant if you cannot in the final measure go against the opponent's fortified places and take them. Hannibal was often curiously inactive after his victories, taking long periods of time to recover after hard-fought battles like Cannae. So why was this? I think part of the answer to that question lies in the social nature of Hannibal's army, and more broadly in the social nature of armies in Antiquity in general. What motivates an army to fight? An army is after all nothing but a collection of hundreds or thousands of individuals, with their own agency, making their own choices to fight or not. There might be many causes which motivate a man to go to war in Antiquity. To defend your home or loved ones, to serve a leader you admire, to advance yourself socially and gain honour and glory, to pillage and plunder the lands of others and enrich yourself. There are many motivations, some noble and others less so. In all cases, one of the most powerful reasons why men remain in battle or on campaign is their horizontal social links: The links of comradeship between soldiers. Now, you may be motivated to go to war, but that does not necessarily mean you will accept the command of another. Obedience in the armies of the pre-modern world was not an automatic assumption as it has become in modern armies. This has several key impacts to how a commander like Hannibal must handle his troops. Why does a modern soldier obey their commanders? Many reasons. In many militaries they are volunteers who have chosen this as their vocation. A good officer or NCO is often highly respected by their troops. However, the troops are also inculcated with a habit of obedience and discipline throughout their training, before they are ever placed in an actual battle or on an actual campaign. A modern military, as in Canada or the United States, is in many ways close to a total institution, which in a regular unit can administer and order almost every aspect of its soldiers' lives. The military has an institutional identity within society, to which its members learn a culture of obedience. It is not just "the army" but "The Army". The modern military has many legal powers over its members, which its chains of command are empowered to enforce to ensure the discipline and good order of the military. Additionally: Desertion, though not unknown in modern times, is much more difficult to get away with now. Modern militaries have extensive military police branches, and the reach and capability of civilian police branches (Indeed their very existence) is a critical difference from the context of Antiquity. If you desert or go AWOL as a modern soldier, there's a very good chance you will be brought back to the military and be punished. Soldiers of a modern military force would seem miraculously well-behaved and well-disciplined in comparison to the armies of Antiquity. They also have very strong unit morale, very strong social bonds between service members. The situation in Antiquity was quite different. Many armies lacked the cultural or legal powers to punish disobedience at all, and many of the cultures of the Mediterranean region had no tradition of physical punishment for disobedience, or very limited versions of it. The militaries of Antiquity were, in most cases, not standing forces which were maintained as near-total institutions in the modern way. In most cases they were seasonal forces, raised for a given campaign, and generally maintained existing civilian social bonds. Time available for training was often very limited, and so maintaining peacetime social bonds meant essentially "instant" unit morale for a force in war without the necessity of long training periods to bond strangers together. This also meant that the elites of peacetime life, the nobles and aristocrats and big men of a community, often became the leaders in wartime of their own local communal unit. The companies of the Athenian army were based on the tribes of Athens, for example. These officers were also often (at least in the Greek armies) elected by their men, giving them an authority dependent upon their troops's acceptance of them and independent of their chain of command to the overall commander of an army. Other armies from more aristocratic or monarchical societies, like Thessaly or Makedon pre-Philip II, were based on the retinues of landowning noblemen, and the lesser aristocrats who served them. The overall army of a King would thus be a "retinue of retinues" (Your retinue of nobles, and their retinues, and so forth). Each leader within your army thus has his own independent power base, and at the same time is in his own way beholden to the men. Men who don't want to continue campaigning, because your discipline is too harsh or your leadership does not inspire confidence, can desert. They can pick up in the night and take off, and you have little to stop them from doing so and little means of bringing them back if they do. This is quite a different dynamic than how command works in modern armies. The ancient commander needs to rely even more on their own charisma, their oratory, and leadership by persuasion and example, because they lack the institutional supports to their authority which the modern commander has. A key point to understand here is the concept of "Leadership Capital". That can be defined as: Your ability to extract or enforce obedience to your command from individuals whom may not want to be doing the thing that you need them to do. Leadership capital is a renewable but finite resource. When you, the leader, are doing anything which builds your follower's trust or respect in you, you are building your leadership capital. When you demand that your followers do something which they really don't want to do, which in war means it is dangerous or unpleasant or may result in their likely injury or death, you are spending leadership capital. Fail to build enough of it, and spend it too much and too freely, and your followers' patience with and obedience to you will run out. This can cripple a commander. A modern military officer or NCO is invested with a certain amount of inherent leadership capital by dint of their position and rank within the modern institution, which they can then further build up with their personal ability, charisma, and prowess. However, in Antiquity, often leadership capital had to be entirely built by the individual commander, and any cultural or institutional leadership capital was much more comparatively limited in availability. I posted a piece before on TWC, The Disobedient Roman Soldier, which touched on some of the social aspects of an army in Antiquity through the lens of incidents of military disobedience in the Roman armies. Discipline in the Roman armies was seen as uncommonly harsh for the time, the Romans put people to death for desertion. Yet all the same Roman military history is full of anecdotes and incidences of Roman soldiers being disobedient and headstrong, disobeying the orders of the leaders they had sworn sacred oaths to obey. If the uncommonly harsh discipline of the Romans could not fully control their soldiers, how much more willful and headstrong would the armies of others with less harsh customs have been? It is often said of Alexander the Great that he achieved as much as he did because of the army his father built and bequeathed to him. Alexander was one of the great captains of military history to be sure, but he had the privilege of commanding perhaps the most professional army in the world at the time, and of commanding that army with the cultural and institutional expectation of obedience and deference which was due to him as the King of Makedon. As the King, he had a certain degree of leadership capital by dint of that. But even Alexander had to build his leadership capital, continually proving himself and his prowess to his Macedonians, riding and fighting in the forefront and thick of battle. But Alexander had the necessary leadership capital, both by his personal prowess and as the King of Makedon, to order an army to sit down and lay a siege and get them to do it successfully. This is a considerable feat of leadership. That brings us back to Hannibal the Barcid. What was the nature of his army? The Romans stood as the hegemon of a Italian confederation which Rome had led successfully in war for many decades, and the Roman consuls were legally vested with the imperium, the legal and religious right to demand obedience, which meant a certain degree of positional leadership capital. The Macedonians were the feudal subjects of their King, bound to him by ancient tradition and custom. Hannibal, on the other hand, was leading a very ad hoc and cobbled together multi-national force. He had Liby-Phoenicians from the Carthaginian homeland, he had Numidian cavalry, he had Iberians from the tribes and peoples his father Hamilcar had subdued during his campaigns in Iberia, he had Celts from his Gallic allies, he had men of the Balearic Isles, his troops were from many nations and peoples. In many ways it may have resembled a feudal "retinue of retinues", as Hannibal's Iberians, Gauls, and Numidians seem to have been led by their own chieftains and princes, whom Hannibal had swayed to his cause. His contingents spoke different languages, they had different customs, they worshipped different gods. Many of the contingents would have hailed from tribes which in other times had warred with each other. Those contingents may have had unit morale within themselves, but building those critical horizontal bonds of solidarity to hold the entire army together in battle would have been extremely difficult. Each contingent and company would have had its own leaders, its own officers, and like those men were prideful and self-aggrandizing elites. All of them had been welded together into Hannibal's army by different purposes and promises. Hannibal would have had to manage a massive amount of egos and personality and cultural conflicts within his army. Against this challenge he did not have the positional leadership capital which was granted to a King of Macedon or a Roman consul. He only had his personal authority, stemming from his own charisma, his ability to inspire, his intelligence, and his prowess, perhaps somewhat aided also by being the son of the famous Hamilcar Barca. Earning the respect and loyalty of such an army, managing its many inherent conflicts, and commanding it successfully (Indeed convincing it to follow commands at all, let alone complex battle plans), must have been an immense challenge to Hannibal, and it is a testament to his great ability as a leader that he was as successful as he was with such a force. So why was Hannibal unable to successfully lay sieges in Italy? Why could he not assault Rome? I would argue that a part of the reason lay in the social nature and the challenges of leadership in such a divided and socially cumbersome army. So long as he could keep his army moving, so long as there were Italian lands to plunder and a Roman consular army ahead of them to fight (An immediate threat, in other words), Hannibal could keep his army together. But asking an army to sit down, stationary, for the long and wearisome struggle of a siege? That is a different challenge entirely. It took Hannibal 8 months to take even the comparatively small city of Saguntum, how much worse could a siege of Rome have been? A siege is months or years of enforced inactivity, of long, boring, dreary waiting, and cruel and often attritional assaults and raids. Often in an ancient siege, the besiegers starve just as much as the besieged, as an army will exhaust the food resources of the local landscape. Hannibal may have had the leadership capital to make his men follow him all over Italy, fighting Roman army after Roman army, but he judged perhaps that the morale and obedience of his force was too fragile to risk against in a great siege of Rome or the other principle cities of the Italian confederation. This might have been especially the case as he was reliant on his Iberians and Gauls, who may have lacked a tradition or experience of prolonged sieges in their own cultures at that time. I think Hannibal was mindful of the limits of his leadership capital, and his often prolonged periods of inactivity after major and fierce battles would likely have been spent rebuilding his army's trust in him, and tending to their fragile morale. We remember Hannibal for his brilliant victories over the Romans, for the genius of his tactics. I think we should remember, however, that for the commander in a pre-modern army, command was more leadership than tactics, more art than science. Keeping an army together, keeping them on the campaign, managing the conflicts of proud and willful leaders, not having them all desert, making men obey orders when you don't have the institutional or cultural enforcement of obedience, these are considerable leadership challenges. That Hannibal was able to achieve what he did, with the handicaps he had in the social nature of his army, indicates his enormous ability and strength of character and I suspect that that was as much, or more, the cause of his successes than his genius for tactics. When you seek to understand the actions of ancient armies or ancient generals, you have to keep in mind the social context in which they lived and operated. Armchair commanders will often say "Well, obviously this loser would have won this battle if he had merely done this instead of that", and that's easy to say from an armchair. But remember this: Your troops, your followers, your subordinates (In any form of social organization with hierarchical leadership, not just an army) are not robots, they are not computer programs, they are human beings with minds of their own. Only by understanding this can you understand history.

Halie Satanus - Who killed Tony Soprano.

Post 6

I don't recall there ever being a thread for the Sopranos while it aired. I watched the series through recently and read a few theories on who killed Tony. All presuming Tony actually died. I remember being shocked at the end. Like everyone I tried to remember what had happened in the last few minutes, who could have done it. Below are the popular theories and my thoughts on why some of them don't fit. Theory 1: Little Carmine (Lupertazzi) had Butch Deconcini kill Phil (Leotardo) and Tony (Soprano). Little Carmine was the rightful boss of the Lupertazzi family but was outstead by Johnny Sacromoni and then Phil Leotardo. Problem here is Little Carmine had always got on well with Tony and had no reason to kill him, in fact Tony was one of the few mobsters who would have been happy to see Little Carmine as boss as Little Carmine was easily manipulated. Theory 2: Butch Deconcini had Tony killed to see through Phil's (Leotardo) plan of killing off the leadership of Jersey so the Lupertazzi family (under Butchie) could take over what was left of the Jersey crew once the Soprano's were gone. The problem with this theory is that it doesn't end the war. Butch already gave Tony the go ahead to kill off Phil and he was keen to make peace, he already had a lot on his plate not being killed himself for betraying Phil without having to worry about reprisals for killing Tony too. Theory 3: Patsy Parisi: Tony had Patsy's twin brother killed early in the show and Patsy had tried to kill Tony at his house, but bottled out. Patsy was definitely a killer and was scared his son (Jason) was following him into the Soprano crew and mob life. Jason Parisi was good friends with Jason Gervasi who was in turn the son of Soprano crew member Carlo Gervasi, who had flipped to the FBI. The problem with this theory is Patsy would have been painting a target on his own back and put his family in danger. To wait this long to take another shot at Tony doesn't make much sense. Theory 4: Eugene Pontecorvo's Brother: In the first episode of the last season 'Members Only' Eugene inherits $2m. He and his wife plan to move to Florida and he seeks permission from Tony to leave the Mob. After some pondering Tony refuses, which is told to Eugene through Sil. Eugene is distraught and takes his own life, presumably wanting a better life for his family but thinking his wife and kids will never be able to leave while he is connected to the Jersey crew. 3 o'clock: When Christopher is shot and coming out of his coma he tells Paulie and Tony of his near death experience and gives them a warning from dead associate 'Mikey Palmice.' The warning is 3 o'clock. In the final scene we see a man sitting at the counter wearing, the same members only jacket Eugene Pontecorvo was wearing in the first episode of the season. Later in the scene the man goes into the men's room, which is situated at Tony's right hand side, at 3 o'clock. Spoiler for Last scene:  Show creator David Chase later stated all the clues were in the last scene. I've watched the end scene many times and noticed the prominence of the number 3 throughout. There are 3 scouts. The guy has 3 creamers with his coffee. Tony only ordered 3 cokes, before being told Meadow will be late and before Carmella and AJ turned up. The song starts as Carmella walks in, which is the third time the door bell rings. Meadow takes 3 attempts to park her car. 3 is the first number on Meadow's number plate.

[Flinn]

Voted