tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691535.post4148492546466092415..comments2023-10-19T21:43:02.001+08:00Comments on Dunner's: "Bad, Democracy! Down, boy, down!"JDsghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04735390644321868222noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691535.post-43700242464006397092008-04-06T21:23:00.000+08:002008-04-06T21:23:00.000+08:00I noticed the update, in which you mentioned that ...I noticed the update, in which you mentioned that Atkinson feared "anonymous nuclear attacks against the USA". That means he must believe that the enemy (Muslims, presumably) is bent on genocide of Americans*. I'll prove it by eliminating all the non-genocidal applications of nuclear weapons:<BR/><BR/>1. <B>Deterrence</B> - someone owning nuclear weapons as a deterrent wouldn't actually <I>use</I> them.<BR/>2. <B>Warfighting</B> - this would mean using nuclear weapons against US military forces, not against civilians.<BR/>3. <B>Terrorizing the enemy into submission</B> - this is how the US used nuclear weapons against Japan in 1945, but it's kinda incompatible with anonymity because the enemy has to know who they're supposed to surrender to.<BR/>4. <B>Misdirection</B> - this implies that the attackers frame an innocent third party (eg Neo-Nazis nuke Israel and frame Muslims). Again, incompatible with anonymity.<BR/><BR/>*Ah, yes I overlooked that he did originally say "genocide or suicide". He didn't say "genocide or dhimmitude", which would be a much tougher choice...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691535.post-53669573527485286042007-08-28T10:21:00.000+08:002007-08-28T10:21:00.000+08:00I read an old book somewhere that suggested that t...<I>I read an old book somewhere that suggested that the Romans were half-hearted anyway about expansion beyond the Rhine and Danube, because these lands were too cold in winter.</I><BR/><BR/>Sounds somewhat plausible although one would think that the soldiers garrisoned along Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall were pretty cold in the winter.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I've also read elsewhere the suggestion that it wouldn't have mattered if the Muslims had won the Battle of Tours, because medieval Europe beyond the olive's northern limit was totally dependent on pork as a source of fat, and was thus uninhabitable for Muslims.</I><BR/><BR/>I haven't heard this at all. :) I'll have to give this one some thought.JDsghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735390644321868222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691535.post-69680201069073451412007-08-28T02:53:00.000+08:002007-08-28T02:53:00.000+08:00Yes, overstretch and a recognition that some enemi...<I>Yes, overstretch and a recognition that some enemies were formidable enough that it was prudent to stay behind certain boundaries (e.g., the Rhine-Danube rivers).</I><BR/><BR/>I read an old book somewhere that suggested that the Romans were half-hearted anyway about expansion beyond the Rhine and Danube, because these lands were too cold in winter.<BR/><BR/>I've also read elsewhere the suggestion that it wouldn't have mattered if the Muslims had won the Battle of Tours, because medieval Europe beyond the olive's northern limit was totally dependent on pork as a source of fat, and was thus uninhabitable for Muslims.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691535.post-61814207438337889452007-08-27T10:24:00.000+08:002007-08-27T10:24:00.000+08:00I was thinking that the reason why Roman expansion...<I>I was thinking that the reason why Roman expansion coasted to a halt was because the Imperial system distrusted any general who waged a successful war of conquest (because of how Julius Caesar rose to power in the first place). You seem to think it was more due to "imperial overstretch".</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, overstretch and a recognition that some enemies were formidable enough that it was prudent to stay behind certain boundaries (e.g., the Rhine-Danube rivers).<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't say that the Imperial system had a natural distrust of overambitious generals. A fair number of generals ultimately became emperor. Vespasian went straight from the siege of Jerusalem to claim the throne; likewise, his son Titus finished the siege and ultimately became emperor himself. Most emperors led their own armies. For example, I recently read Ammianus Marcellinus's history, and it seemed like the reign of Julian was one long battle, beginning in Gaul (especially the battle of Strasbourg) and finally winding up in modern-day Iraq, where he died.JDsghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735390644321868222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691535.post-45598798949274812752007-08-25T16:26:00.000+08:002007-08-25T16:26:00.000+08:00By the way, my point about "scalability" was basic...By the way, my point about "scalability" was basically about how Republican Rome was superior to the Greek city-states.<BR/><BR/>The largest army that Athens (for example) ever fielded was the one used to attack Syracuse, which was roughly equivalent in size to 3 Roman legions.<BR/><BR/>Because the Greek city-states had so few citizens, a single battle (Leuctra, for example) could change the entire balance of power in Greece. Only Macedonia had the demographic bulk to unify Greece somewhat, but was still not in the same league as Persia, or an Italy united under Rome.<BR/><BR/>And by the way, Alexander's Empire was built not on demographic bulk, but by superimposing Macedonian garrisons plus Alexander's own personality cult on top of the existing Persian bureaucratic machinery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691535.post-85738217745890163862007-08-25T16:19:00.000+08:002007-08-25T16:19:00.000+08:00I was thinking that the reason why Roman expansion...I was thinking that the reason why Roman expansion coasted to a halt was because the Imperial system distrusted any general who waged a successful war of conquest (because of how Julius Caesar rose to power in the first place). You seem to think it was more due to "imperial overstretch".<BR/><BR/>By the way, the reason why Crassus was defeated was because his army lacked archers, and thus had no counter to the Parthian mounted archers. Trajan would later correct this force procurement error, and thus conquer Mesopotamia (at least briefly).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691535.post-29166248460971498822007-08-25T08:30:00.000+08:002007-08-25T08:30:00.000+08:00I'm not quite sure where you're going with this ar...I'm not quite sure where you're going with this argument. Of all the external foes that Rome fully defeated, I agree that Carthage was by far the most difficult to subdue. (Been re-reading, off and on, Polybius' account of the Punic Wars.) However, Carthage was defeated by the Republic, almost 50 years before the birth of Julius Caesar.<BR/><BR/>By the time of Augustus, the boundaries of the Empire were mostly set. The two most important external foes to the empire were the various Germanic tribes to the north and the Parthians to the east, neither of which the Empire ever completely conquered (as opposed to Carthage). Was it the loss of robustness and scalability that caused the Empire not to conquer either the Germans or the Parthians? Neah. Both groups were just too strong, the Germans having large numbers and spread across an enormous frontier (from around the Belgium-Netherlands border to the Black Sea), and the Parthians were very resilient. I doubt any of the best Republican generals (say, Scipio Aemilianus or Julius Caesar himself) could have accomplished the task. Certainly Crassus couldn't; he lost his head over the affair.JDsghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735390644321868222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691535.post-38582119115503310202007-08-24T23:39:00.000+08:002007-08-24T23:39:00.000+08:00I was thinking of external foes rather than intern...I was thinking of external foes rather than internal ones - in particular how Carthage, the enemy which Rome found most difficult to defeat, was also the only other republic in that time period.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691535.post-63464468875604518312007-08-24T07:29:00.000+08:002007-08-24T07:29:00.000+08:00Well, by the time of the start of the Empire, ther...Well, by the time of the start of the Empire, there were very few foes within the boundaries to begin with. And what few foes that did exist within the Empire were put down ruthlessly (e.g., the First Jewish-Roman War of 66-73 AD). And even Augustus realized by the end of his reign that the Rhine/Danube frontier shouldn't really be crossed.<BR/><BR/>Of your two loss of advantages, robustness and scalability, I would agree with the first for the entire period of the Empire. For scalability, I think, yes, it lost quite a bit for the first few generations, but pulled back some by the time of the end of the Flavian dynasty/beginning of the Antonine dynasty (say, sometime between 75-100 AD). It probably lost that scalability once more toward the very end of the Western Empire.JDsghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735390644321868222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691535.post-53753393131514781422007-08-23T23:55:00.000+08:002007-08-23T23:55:00.000+08:00Didn't the fall of the Republic essentially elimin...Didn't the fall of the Republic essentially eliminate the main advantage that ancient Rome had versus its foes (ie a regime that was more robust than a tyranny and more scalable than a Greek-style direct democracy)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691535.post-90601226586088407602007-08-23T07:47:00.000+08:002007-08-23T07:47:00.000+08:00The cache of the article that I linked to seems to...The cache of the article that I linked to seems to have disappeared for some odd reason; as of two days ago, the cache was there. I referred to it frequently while writing the post. If you click on the <A HREF="http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2007/08/neocon-philosopher-wants-bush-to.html" REL="nofollow">Dirt Rhodes Scholar</A> post, he has a screenshot (three of them, actually) that shows the article in question. The other article that I mentioned (in the second post), that advocates the mass enslavement and murder of Mexican immigrants and the invasion of Mexico by the US, can actually be found on <A HREF="http://www.ourcivilisation.com/theend.htm" REL="nofollow">Atkinson's own website</A>.<BR/><BR/>No, this isn't any prank. This guy's the real deal - a certifiable loon.JDsghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735390644321868222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3691535.post-54130425212361846842007-08-23T02:16:00.000+08:002007-08-23T02:16:00.000+08:00First, not all traces of Atkinson have been elimin...First, not all traces of Atkinson have been eliminated from the FSM website. Second, there is no cache of the article in question.<BR/><BR/>Don't you even entertain the possibility that this is a prank? Everyone seems a little too credulous to me.DeaHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16128208852114775276noreply@blogger.com