PDA

View Full Version : Time-scaled Conflicts


Tyburn
10-27-2009, 09:11 PM
:ninja: do you know I'm actually disturbed by hearing so much that we should just pull out of places like Afghanistan because we dont appear to be immediatley winning, and its just a death toll.

In this culture of immediacy, I think that perhaps people ought to take a historical perspective on it.

For example...how long did Rome fight against Carthage?

ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS

and we've been in Afghanistan...what less then 10 :huh:

I think our problem is that our politicians are actually military quiters, and our Military men, dare not speak the truth about how long these sorts of campaigns usually last for fear of falling foul of public opinion due to rising soldier death tolls.

How many Soldiers do you think died during the Rome/Carthage conflict :huh:

Crisco
10-27-2009, 09:22 PM
:ninja: do you know I'm actually disturbed by hearing so much that we should just pull out of places like Afghanistan because we dont appear to be immediatley winning, and its just a death toll.

In this culture of immediacy, I think that perhaps people ought to take a historical perspective on it.

For example...how long did Rome fight against Carthage?

ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS

and we've been in Afghanistan...what less then 10 :huh:

I think our problem is that our politicians are actually military quiters, and our Military men, dare not speak the truth about how long these sorts of campaigns usually last for fear of falling foul of public opinion due to rising soldier death tolls.

How many Soldiers do you think died during the Rome/Carthage conflict :huh:

How many soldier died on D-day alone compared to the 10 yr conflict.

I think some people forget that when you join the military this is what you sign up for. You accept the fact that you can die and your not just getting a pay check.

I'm saying it's right that soldiers are dying it's just that is a side effect of being in the military.

Rome carried on because she needed too. If she stopped fighting the carthagenians would have done exactly what Rome did to Carthage it would have raped pillaged and burned her down.

Americans get tired of fighting these wars because we are not in immediate real danger. If we had to fight the Russians from coming through Alaska I think most Americans would fight tooth and nail.

The problem is the general public doesnt see the point in these conflicts so they tire of them.

Tyburn
10-27-2009, 10:15 PM
How many soldier died on D-day alone compared to the 10 yr conflict.

I think some people forget that when you join the military this is what you sign up for. You accept the fact that you can die and your not just getting a pay check.

I'm saying it's right that soldiers are dying it's just that is a side effect of being in the military.

Rome carried on because she needed too. If she stopped fighting the carthagenians would have done exactly what Rome did to Carthage it would have raped pillaged and burned her down.

Americans get tired of fighting these wars because we are not in immediate real danger. If we had to fight the Russians from coming through Alaska I think most Americans would fight tooth and nail.

The problem is the general public doesnt see the point in these conflicts so they tire of them.


The win over Carthage changed the Republic into a Dictatorship. :ninja:

...and its all about the "general public"

When Rome beat Carthage, they invaded, and enjoyed the spoils of the new land. Those who were Senators began to want bigger and better luxuries. So they began to take the land belonging to the Rural people of the Empire.

When Tiberius Cracus stood up for the rights of the people, AGAINST the rights of the Senate, The Senate tried to silence him, but he became known as someone who wanted to give the land back to the farmers in Rome, and a peaceful settlement with the new addition to the Empire, that of Carthage.

This got him ellected to a council which worked almost independantly of the Senate, and was based around the Roman Forum...this was Democrasy where the people voted on proposals for laws.

Tiberius came up with a land reform. But there were others on this council allied to the Senate, and they used their Veto to dissallow the public the right to vote. So Tiberius used his Veto to stop Rome from functioning...for example, the Forum Council had to allow the Markets to run, had to allow the Law Courts to Open...and Tiberius used His veto to bring Rome to a complete stop and force the other council members to allow the vote, which of course won approval, and the Senators had to give their land back.

So then the Senators started a slander campaign, saying that actually Tiberius was lying to the people and wanted to be the sole person of power. This to a Republic is blasphemy...Public mood became divided between those who supported Cracus, and those who supported the Senate, and Rome stood on the brink of Civil War.

When Tiberius Cracus used the people to try and get himself ellected for a second term on the council, which was not really allowed by law, but, if the democratic vote went ahead, it would become legal...there was a show down on ellection day in the Forum, when as Tiberius was being Ellected, the Senate en mass arrived and murdered him infront of the populas that was about to vote him in for a second term.

there was more then 100 years of civil unrest following that, which directly led to the instigation of the position known as "Emporar"

The problem is not with the Government, the problem is almost always with the people. In the US, just like in Early Rome, the people hold to a principle...a Noble Principle, a Just Principle...which is fine...until someone in your Government decides to be political rather then just...at that point, IF you have someone who dares to stand up to them...they risk actually losing...that is the case in England...Our Government dont hold to a noble Principle, so they hear from us enmass through the tabloids as public opinion...and often they are forced to change their workings based our wishes.

The problem is our wishes change. Half those people who supported the Senate WERE Cracus supporters originally. This is the main problem with democrasy that a dictatorship never carries with it.

The Government and The People are as fickle as one another. Whilst a Dictator is fixed, and remains fixed unless he is challenged and defeated. You can understand why running a dictatorship is more easy and, in essence more peaceful and stable for the regieme running it....the problem is thats seen as unethical...the only alternative is to remain with your principles as long as you can before public opinion takes over.

eric84
10-27-2009, 10:48 PM
I get this alot when talking to people about the war, "look how long we have been in there! ". The way things move today with instant gratification, people change their minds or get fed up really quickly, just because we are spoiled with all the quicker technology around us. I wish there wasn't anyone dying, but that is the tragedies of war, and compared to others, the number(atleast of America and its allies) are no where near the casualties in most other wars. I think most people are just too ready to give up that originally supported it, and then there are those that are turned off by the war in Iraq.

Tyburn
10-28-2009, 12:14 AM
I get this alot when talking to people about the war, "look how long we have been in there! ". The way things move today with instant gratification, people change their minds or get fed up really quickly, just because we are spoiled with all the quicker technology around us. I wish there wasn't anyone dying, but that is the tragedies of war, and compared to others, the number(atleast of America and its allies) are no where near the casualties in most other wars. I think most people are just too ready to give up that originally supported it, and then there are those that are turned off by the war in Iraq.


But Afghanistan is the Just War.

Perhaps if the United States had spent its time concentrating its effort on the Just War without suddenly switching gears and starting a contriversial campaign somewhere else...they might have covered more ground.

People forget why Afghanistan took place. Iraq was about a whole host of things...but it wasnt sparked by 9/11 directly, and it wasnt the conflict that resulted from a very reasonable request.

It doesnt help that the authorities set up IN Afghanistan are not really in corrupt and all ready accused of corruption :rolleyes:

eric84
10-28-2009, 03:59 PM
But Afghanistan is the Just War.

Perhaps if the United States had spent its time concentrating its effort on the Just War without suddenly switching gears and starting a contriversial campaign somewhere else...they might have covered more ground.

People forget why Afghanistan took place. Iraq was about a whole host of things...but it wasnt sparked by 9/11 directly, and it wasnt the conflict that resulted from a very reasonable request.

It doesnt help that the authorities set up IN Afghanistan are not really in corrupt and all ready accused of corruption :rolleyes:

I agree Iraq wasn't sparked directly by 9/11, and going there lost a lot of support for the war. Whether you agree to it or not though, I think it's a war we need to win, so to me, giving up is not an option. It's sad to see the corruptness in the government in Afghanistan too, but I never figured it would be easy for them. IF we can get stable governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think the world will be a much safer place. Of course anything can happen, so we just have to wait and see how things progress.

Crisco
10-28-2009, 04:53 PM
Your Roman history is a little off Dave. Ill expound later when I get home. Can't do it at work to much to type.

Tyburn
10-28-2009, 11:09 PM
Your Roman history is a little off Dave. Ill expound later when I get home. Can't do it at work to much to type.

My Roman History is not a little off :angry:

:laugh:

atomdanger
10-29-2009, 01:31 AM
Rome also fell....
So clearly they didn't do everything right?
I think we should learn from history though.

Are we doing good in Afghanistan? Maybe.
Are we doing everything correctly and as good as we can? No.
I think we need to sit down, look at everything and come up with a better game plan.

Tyburn
10-29-2009, 12:35 PM
Rome also fell....
So clearly they didn't do everything right?
I think we should learn from history though.

Are we doing good in Afghanistan? Maybe.
Are we doing everything correctly and as good as we can? No.
I think we need to sit down, look at everything and come up with a better game plan.

thats not entirely true.

First Romes Empire divided in two, and it was the break-away portion that got invaded by the Islamists who only made it as far as Greece, they never got to Rome.

Rome lost most of its northern Empire when it became literally to big to handle, and the retreat was gradual and slow. It was attacked afew times by a group called "Vandals" who were basically a resurgence from African Carthage...but after that successive rullers who conqured still considered themselves Romans until Basically the Eastern part of the Byzantium Empire, which was still Roman, reinvaded Italy in the Western part of Romes Empire...at that point they basically only had Italy, and Byzantium...but the point is, the Byzantiums WERE Roman, they just split the Empire before the West Naturally began to crumble. So its not like they were invaded by some foreign force, it was practically a civil war.

As I said, the East then Succumbed to the Islamists at the turn of the Middle Ages, but Italy remained. So infact Italy is still in essence Roman to this day except under the name given by the King put in charge of Rome when the Byzantium.

What truely made Rome become Italian, wasnt until after the Reformation. When Byzantium had gone, the Pope was all that was left of the Holy Roman Empire and he still asserted a lot of authority throughout what had been the Roman Empire, although not strictly governed by Rome...it still was Roman, the Roman Catholics basically reinvaded through missionaries after Byzantium reclaimed Rome...so in essence, the Empire never died at all. until about two hundred years ago, when the Pope got a battering first from the Reformation, and then from the Philosophical Enlightenment...how ironic that both those started in the northern Empire of what was Rome :laugh:

Just like England effectively still has an Empire, its called the Commonwealth, well Rome effectively had Spiritual and therefore Political Sway over Kings in Europe for hundreds of years after the withdrawal of the Empire in terms of Government.

Some Empires never died. Romes Did during the Enlightenment...The English will probably collapse upon Elizabeth 2nds Death...I think that could be disastor for the Commonwealth because they arent loyal to the Monarchy...they are loyal to a very particular Monarch.

They will probably reject Charles...we could infact see the end of the Monarchy if Charles doesnt play it right...Ironic again, as the Civil War which removed the Monarchy for nearly twenty Years happened with a King called...Charles :laugh:

Crisco
10-30-2009, 08:16 PM
If your into Roman History Dave any book by Adrian Goldsworthy is an excellent read. He's a prof at yale and I've read 2 of his books too date and working on his new one as we speak.

Excellent info and he avoids the artistic liberties that other scholars take when discussing the empire.

Crisco
10-30-2009, 08:31 PM
thats not entirely true.

First Romes Empire divided in two, and it was the break-away portion that got invaded by the Islamists who only made it as far as Greece, they never got to Rome.

Rome lost most of its northern Empire when it became literally to big to handle, and the retreat was gradual and slow. It was attacked afew times by a group called "Vandals" who were basically a resurgence from African Carthage...but after that successive rullers who conqured still considered themselves Romans until Basically the Eastern part of the Byzantium Empire, which was still Roman, reinvaded Italy in the Western part of Romes Empire...at that point they basically only had Italy, and Byzantium...but the point is, the Byzantiums WERE Roman, they just split the Empire before the West Naturally began to crumble. So its not like they were invaded by some foreign force, it was practically a civil war.

As I said, the East then Succumbed to the Islamists at the turn of the Middle Ages, but Italy remained. So infact Italy is still in essence Roman to this day except under the name given by the King put in charge of Rome when the Byzantium.

What truely made Rome become Italian, wasnt until after the Reformation. When Byzantium had gone, the Pope was all that was left of the Holy Roman Empire and he still asserted a lot of authority throughout what had been the Roman Empire, although not strictly governed by Rome...it still was Roman, the Roman Catholics basically reinvaded through missionaries after Byzantium reclaimed Rome...so in essence, the Empire never died at all. until about two hundred years ago, when the Pope got a battering first from the Reformation, and then from the Philosophical Enlightenment...how ironic that both those started in the northern Empire of what was Rome :laugh:

Just like England effectively still has an Empire, its called the Commonwealth, well Rome effectively had Spiritual and therefore Political Sway over Kings in Europe for hundreds of years after the withdrawal of the Empire in terms of Government.

Some Empires never died. Romes Did during the Enlightenment...The English will probably collapse upon Elizabeth 2nds Death...I think that could be disastor for the Commonwealth because they arent loyal to the Monarchy...they are loyal to a very particular Monarch.

They will probably reject Charles...we could infact see the end of the Monarchy if Charles doesnt play it right...Ironic again, as the Civil War which removed the Monarchy for nearly twenty Years happened with a King called...Charles :laugh:

I'm sorry Dave some of what you say is not entirely correct.

The western empire fell before the eastern. Oduvaca (i can't spell his name) and his army took over Rome and sent the imperial vestments to the Eastern emperor and informed him that a emperor was no longer needed in the west.

The Vandals did not originate from cartage they merely claimed the territory and used it as a home base for their wondering peoples. The vandal king married into the Roman line of emperor and formed the large nation of Vandalia in north Africa with the blessing of the Romans. Of course this would not last.

Rome fell for various reasons and the primary reason in my opinion is she was just too large to rule.

The size and wealth of the empire was hard to resist. As soon as a general gathered enough victories and wealth his troops decided to name him emperor thus starting a civil war. This happened with astonishing frequency.

Rome relied heavily on it's spoils of war and when nothing was left worth conquering she began fighting herself.

The religious loyalty felt to the ruling body of Rome completely disapeared and nothing was sacred anymore. after Caesar began his crusade. Marius and Sulla set the precedent for Caesar and Caesar brought about the slow death to the empire.

I rambled a bit but what I am saying is the comparison to Rome for long drawn out conflicts being the death of her was not the case.

Rome killed herself with her avarice and constant infighting. Change one or two of the power shifts in Roman history and things may have been much different.