Enjoy!
By SaintCast
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Monday, October 05, 2009
For the Eagle Has Landed
I missed the 40th Anniversary of Neil Armstrong’s all too short walk on the moon, but then I just found the right video. Better late than never, which is a good comment about our next visit to the moon and beyond. And it's much more overdue than this post.
Lyrics: Leslie Fish
Vocals: Julia Ecklar
Video: Vu Trong Thu
Lyrics: Leslie Fish
Vocals: Julia Ecklar
Video: Vu Trong Thu
Monday, September 28, 2009
What Kind of Reader Are You?
| What Kind of Reader Are You? Your Result: Dedicated Reader You are always trying to find the time to get back to your book. You are convinced that the world would be a much better place if only everyone read more. | |
| Obsessive-Compulsive Bookworm | |
| Book Snob | |
| Literate Good Citizen | |
| Fad Reader | |
| Non-Reader | |
| What Kind of Reader Are You? Quiz Created on GoToQuiz | |
I must be slowing down.
HT: Roger A Payne’s Blog
Monday, September 21, 2009
Book Review: Rome's Greatest Defeat
Two thousand years ago this month the Roman Army in Lower Germany, three legions strong with auxiliaries, was was wiped out, almost to a man. The battle of the Teutoburg Forest is one of Rome’s largest and most famous defeats. Until recently very little was known about the battle, even it’s exact location, except for a few second hand reports from Roman authors. Recently a number of archeological discoveries have shed light on this battle.
Rome’s Greatest Defeat: Massacre in the Teutoburg Forest
Adrian Murdoch
Sutton Publishing, 2006
Murdoch's Bread and Circuses Blog
The Blog's Teutoburg Posts
Imperium Konflict Mythos Official 2000th Anniversary site.
Kalkriese Museum
Adrian Murdoch describes the tangle of political, cultural and military affairs that led to this battle and the consequences. The account of the battle is just a chapter but with a judicious reading of the ancient sources and modern research he presents a very common sense account of the events leading up to the battle , the battle, and it‘s consequences.
Lower Germany was in the process of being integrated into the Empire. Murdoch describes this process, involving a forced change in the culture politics and economy of the province. It was always complicated with winners and losers at many levels of socity and sometimes resulting in a revolt, usually defeated with much bloodshed. He tells the story of Sextus Quinctilius Varus a proven governor, able administrator, and competent general who was apparently under orders to speed up the process; and Arminius a German noble, an officer in the Roman army, and secretly a leader of the anti-Roman faction. Arminius managed to set up an alliance of several tribes, despite opposition in his own and the other tribes, while convincing Varus of his loyalty and preparing a trap for the Roman Army. There was a report of a revolt and Varus and the Army set off to deal with it and marched into the carefully laid trap, for three days they fight to escape and are finally annihilated at the recently discovered battle field at Kalkriese. The defeat rocks the Roman world, and the resulting Roman punitive expedition wrecks the hostile tribes for generations. The Romans make no effort reestablish a permanent presence on the east side of the Rhine. The impact of the failure to Romanize German culture has been debated for centuries. Much later Arminius becomes a hero in the development of German nationalism. Arminius gets the rare distinction of being a general who defeated the Romans: but is not killed by Rome or dies in their captivity.
Defeated generals are always easy targets for blame, Murdoch shows that despite the accusations of incompetence heaped on Varus, he was in fact a competent governor and general, selected for both ability and loyalty the Emperor. He had extensive experience as governor of the tumultus province of Syria. Many of the criticisms of his action are based on 20/20 hindsight but his actions were quite reasonable in the circumstances.
Arminius had learned soldiering from the Romans, but a was also master of the German tribal politics. There were many in the tribes, including members of his own family, who favored cooperation with Romans, ether because they saw an advantage or it was the lesser of two evils. Arminius managed to convince enough of the leadership in the tribes to join him. Since Arminius was a central contact for Roman contact with the Germans he controlled much of the information going to Varus. Murdoch thinks that Varus dismissed the reports that got to him as attempts to draw him into the internal politics of the tribes, which he declined.
Murdoch’s encyclopedic knowledge of the classical world, his easy writing style and common sense analysis provide a clear explanation of the events that is assessable al l readers. This is by far the best of the recent books on this battle that have been published in English. Strongly Recommended.
See Also
Book Review: The Battle That Stopped Rome by Peter Wells
Book Review: Quest for The Lost Legions by Tony Benn
The Advance Guard Fiction
Related
Book Review: Eagle in the Snow
Book Review: The Fall of the Roman Empire
Analysis and opinion.
What happened, this is my assessment.
One thing is certain is that Varus did not get his route from Google Maps, but it is a close approximation and gives an idea of what was involved. He was moving to put down a revolt was in what is now the northern Netherlands or extreme northwest Germany. It is sixty kilometers from Minden to Kalkriese and another ten to Bramsche. 100 kilometers more to the legionary fortress at Haltern or 150 kilometers to the base at Xanten on the Rhine, He would have been expecting to march for about six hours 20 to 24 kilomters a day with column of about 12,000 solidiers, about the same number of camp followers and 5000 horses or oxen. Quite possibly the advance guard would be marking the evenings camp as the rear guard was exiting last nights camp. Given the large amount of equipment they carried they would have at most five days of food.
This is the shortest route with the least hills, we forget how important that was when everything moved by sore muscles and aching backs. The route is mostly open farmland making it possible for the Army to get at least some of it’s food locally. Tactically it is reasonable ground, with only one real choke point, the narrows at Kalkriese. The other possible routes were longer, had less farm land and more obstacles. I think that the first leg of his march was to the area of modern Bramcshe, where the army would have to spend a day on river crossing. From there he could send his excess baggage back to Haltern or Xanten with a small escort and the tactical part of the Army would move to suppress the revolt. He would have made a prior announcement that he will be buying food at Bramcshe for the next leg of the march. All this assumes he believed he was marching through friendly territory.
The tactical system of the Roman army was a combination of heavy and light infantry supported by cavalry. The legion provided the heavy infantry. The legion can be compared to a steam roller. Nothing could stand in front of it. But it was slow and awkward to move, subject to flank attacks and required an enemy who was willing or forced to stand in front of it. Rough terrain could break it’s formation reducing it’s effectiveness. If the enemy had fortifications the legions engineers would overcome them with time. The other half of the team was the light infantry. This was either Roman auxiliary cohorts or forces provided by allies. They would scout, protect the flanks, clear enemy scouts, and with luck push the enemy under the steam roller. The light infantry would guard the legions march into hostile territory where the legions would attack a political, cultural or economic location that the enemy must defend. The important thing is that the legions of this period could not act alone they needed their light infantry support. The light infantry could operate alone but they would seldom be able to defeat an enemy unless they out numbered them or they had some unusual advantage. It was the team effort that make the Roman armies formidable. A common statistic in Roman history is the light and heavy forces were approximately equal strength. Varus’s Army did not have enough auxiliaries to provide the light infantry part of the team. The other auxiliary cohorts were garrisoning forts throughout the province. Varus was depending on his German allies to provide the light infantry.
In August Varus received word of the revolt. He started his preparations and called back his scattered garrisons to Minden, which is a good concentration point and possibly his headquarters. I think, since the route was known he had engineers out improving the road and had his German allies secure the route and occupy critical points such as the narrows at Kalkriese. The word was sent out where he would be buying food along the route. The Allied tribes were called to come join him, either at Minden or Bramsche. The warnings he had received probably seemed to be part of the background noise that happens in any occupied province, but nothing so significant as to arouse suspicion, or make him distrust Arminius.
The Army moved out. I would think they would have made twenty to twenty four kilometers, and built a camp. The next day the advance guard had moved another twenty to twenty four kilometers and was at or close to it’s intended camp for the night when the attacks started. The front of the Army started to set up a camp and the rest closed in on it. There would have been hundreds of little attacks, each not causing much damage but the total would add up. The ground was still open enough that the Romans could move off the road and clear flanks. The baggage trains were probably hurt worse than the troops. This would be a nightmare for Varus and the senior commanders, the Army was spread out along the road there was little they could do to influence the battle. It was a centurions and soldiers battle, if the army was not well disciplined and trained it might not have survived the first day.
In the camp they got ready for the next day. The Army was in trouble but it was not defeated. Wagons and excess baggage were burned. This shortened the length of the column and make it eaiser to bypass obstacles. To make matters worse the fierce autumn German thunder storms started soaking every thing and making the roads much less usable. The Army rested as much as it could, reorganized and came out fighting. They moved a lot slower because the Germans destroyed advance work of the engineers, the rain, and fighting off constant attacks. By nightfall they would have been lucky to have advanced ten kilometers. they established a new but a vary hasty and improvised camp. The Army knew it was not going to get home. Varus and his top commanders committed suicide, the cavalry tried to ride out, some tried to surrender. In the morning the Army moved out in a forlorn hope on broken ground and came to the ambush at Kalkriese. Most of the army perished here. Only a handful got back to Roman territory.
Once Arminius united the tribes and attacked the Army, the Army was lost, every thing else was details. The Army was, at best, seven to ten days march on half rations from nearest fort. The closest possible relief force was at Mainz a months march away. The tactical system was broken, without light infantry the legions would be would be worn down in a series of small actions. They were north of the Wiehengebrige ridge and their bases were on the south side. Forcing any of the gaps in the ridge would require light infantry. A wall had been constructed at Kalkrese, the engineers could defeat it with time, but a retreating army on half rations does not have time. A Gaius Julius Caesar might have brought that army home, but Sextus Quinctilius Varus was simply a competent general in a situation where genius might not have been enough.
The defeat was more political than military. The credit is Arminius’s as a political leader for uniting tribes and the defeat is Varus’s as governor for failing to prevent it.
Note: The exact size of the Army and how much road space it took, can’t be determined from the existing data. I made a number of assumptions, but small changes make big changes in the result. The Roman legions were probably between 2000 and 4000 men present for duty, I think closer to 3000. The auxiliaries were probably another 3000 men. The number of camp followers was usual about the same as the number of soldiers. They other big factor is how wide was the road. I am assuming it was wide enough to march four abreast, which would also be wide enough for a wagon. There would be an interval (size?) between units, necessary to keep the army from bunching up an spreading out on hills and turns. While the Romans were masters at it, moving an Army this size was difficult to manage under the best of circumstances.
For those who want to crunch their own numbers.
Field Manual 21-18 - Procedures and Techniques of Foot Marches
The March
Rome’s Greatest Defeat: Massacre in the Teutoburg Forest
Adrian Murdoch
Sutton Publishing, 2006
Murdoch's Bread and Circuses Blog
The Blog's Teutoburg Posts
Imperium Konflict Mythos Official 2000th Anniversary site.
Kalkriese Museum
Adrian Murdoch describes the tangle of political, cultural and military affairs that led to this battle and the consequences. The account of the battle is just a chapter but with a judicious reading of the ancient sources and modern research he presents a very common sense account of the events leading up to the battle , the battle, and it‘s consequences.
Lower Germany was in the process of being integrated into the Empire. Murdoch describes this process, involving a forced change in the culture politics and economy of the province. It was always complicated with winners and losers at many levels of socity and sometimes resulting in a revolt, usually defeated with much bloodshed. He tells the story of Sextus Quinctilius Varus a proven governor, able administrator, and competent general who was apparently under orders to speed up the process; and Arminius a German noble, an officer in the Roman army, and secretly a leader of the anti-Roman faction. Arminius managed to set up an alliance of several tribes, despite opposition in his own and the other tribes, while convincing Varus of his loyalty and preparing a trap for the Roman Army. There was a report of a revolt and Varus and the Army set off to deal with it and marched into the carefully laid trap, for three days they fight to escape and are finally annihilated at the recently discovered battle field at Kalkriese. The defeat rocks the Roman world, and the resulting Roman punitive expedition wrecks the hostile tribes for generations. The Romans make no effort reestablish a permanent presence on the east side of the Rhine. The impact of the failure to Romanize German culture has been debated for centuries. Much later Arminius becomes a hero in the development of German nationalism. Arminius gets the rare distinction of being a general who defeated the Romans: but is not killed by Rome or dies in their captivity.
Defeated generals are always easy targets for blame, Murdoch shows that despite the accusations of incompetence heaped on Varus, he was in fact a competent governor and general, selected for both ability and loyalty the Emperor. He had extensive experience as governor of the tumultus province of Syria. Many of the criticisms of his action are based on 20/20 hindsight but his actions were quite reasonable in the circumstances.
Arminius had learned soldiering from the Romans, but a was also master of the German tribal politics. There were many in the tribes, including members of his own family, who favored cooperation with Romans, ether because they saw an advantage or it was the lesser of two evils. Arminius managed to convince enough of the leadership in the tribes to join him. Since Arminius was a central contact for Roman contact with the Germans he controlled much of the information going to Varus. Murdoch thinks that Varus dismissed the reports that got to him as attempts to draw him into the internal politics of the tribes, which he declined.
Murdoch’s encyclopedic knowledge of the classical world, his easy writing style and common sense analysis provide a clear explanation of the events that is assessable al l readers. This is by far the best of the recent books on this battle that have been published in English. Strongly Recommended.
See Also
Book Review: The Battle That Stopped Rome by Peter Wells
Book Review: Quest for The Lost Legions by Tony Benn
The Advance Guard Fiction
Related
Book Review: Eagle in the Snow
Book Review: The Fall of the Roman Empire
Analysis and opinion.
What happened, this is my assessment.
One thing is certain is that Varus did not get his route from Google Maps, but it is a close approximation and gives an idea of what was involved. He was moving to put down a revolt was in what is now the northern Netherlands or extreme northwest Germany. It is sixty kilometers from Minden to Kalkriese and another ten to Bramsche. 100 kilometers more to the legionary fortress at Haltern or 150 kilometers to the base at Xanten on the Rhine, He would have been expecting to march for about six hours 20 to 24 kilomters a day with column of about 12,000 solidiers, about the same number of camp followers and 5000 horses or oxen. Quite possibly the advance guard would be marking the evenings camp as the rear guard was exiting last nights camp. Given the large amount of equipment they carried they would have at most five days of food.
This is the shortest route with the least hills, we forget how important that was when everything moved by sore muscles and aching backs. The route is mostly open farmland making it possible for the Army to get at least some of it’s food locally. Tactically it is reasonable ground, with only one real choke point, the narrows at Kalkriese. The other possible routes were longer, had less farm land and more obstacles. I think that the first leg of his march was to the area of modern Bramcshe, where the army would have to spend a day on river crossing. From there he could send his excess baggage back to Haltern or Xanten with a small escort and the tactical part of the Army would move to suppress the revolt. He would have made a prior announcement that he will be buying food at Bramcshe for the next leg of the march. All this assumes he believed he was marching through friendly territory.
The tactical system of the Roman army was a combination of heavy and light infantry supported by cavalry. The legion provided the heavy infantry. The legion can be compared to a steam roller. Nothing could stand in front of it. But it was slow and awkward to move, subject to flank attacks and required an enemy who was willing or forced to stand in front of it. Rough terrain could break it’s formation reducing it’s effectiveness. If the enemy had fortifications the legions engineers would overcome them with time. The other half of the team was the light infantry. This was either Roman auxiliary cohorts or forces provided by allies. They would scout, protect the flanks, clear enemy scouts, and with luck push the enemy under the steam roller. The light infantry would guard the legions march into hostile territory where the legions would attack a political, cultural or economic location that the enemy must defend. The important thing is that the legions of this period could not act alone they needed their light infantry support. The light infantry could operate alone but they would seldom be able to defeat an enemy unless they out numbered them or they had some unusual advantage. It was the team effort that make the Roman armies formidable. A common statistic in Roman history is the light and heavy forces were approximately equal strength. Varus’s Army did not have enough auxiliaries to provide the light infantry part of the team. The other auxiliary cohorts were garrisoning forts throughout the province. Varus was depending on his German allies to provide the light infantry.
In August Varus received word of the revolt. He started his preparations and called back his scattered garrisons to Minden, which is a good concentration point and possibly his headquarters. I think, since the route was known he had engineers out improving the road and had his German allies secure the route and occupy critical points such as the narrows at Kalkriese. The word was sent out where he would be buying food along the route. The Allied tribes were called to come join him, either at Minden or Bramsche. The warnings he had received probably seemed to be part of the background noise that happens in any occupied province, but nothing so significant as to arouse suspicion, or make him distrust Arminius.
The Army moved out. I would think they would have made twenty to twenty four kilometers, and built a camp. The next day the advance guard had moved another twenty to twenty four kilometers and was at or close to it’s intended camp for the night when the attacks started. The front of the Army started to set up a camp and the rest closed in on it. There would have been hundreds of little attacks, each not causing much damage but the total would add up. The ground was still open enough that the Romans could move off the road and clear flanks. The baggage trains were probably hurt worse than the troops. This would be a nightmare for Varus and the senior commanders, the Army was spread out along the road there was little they could do to influence the battle. It was a centurions and soldiers battle, if the army was not well disciplined and trained it might not have survived the first day.
In the camp they got ready for the next day. The Army was in trouble but it was not defeated. Wagons and excess baggage were burned. This shortened the length of the column and make it eaiser to bypass obstacles. To make matters worse the fierce autumn German thunder storms started soaking every thing and making the roads much less usable. The Army rested as much as it could, reorganized and came out fighting. They moved a lot slower because the Germans destroyed advance work of the engineers, the rain, and fighting off constant attacks. By nightfall they would have been lucky to have advanced ten kilometers. they established a new but a vary hasty and improvised camp. The Army knew it was not going to get home. Varus and his top commanders committed suicide, the cavalry tried to ride out, some tried to surrender. In the morning the Army moved out in a forlorn hope on broken ground and came to the ambush at Kalkriese. Most of the army perished here. Only a handful got back to Roman territory.
Once Arminius united the tribes and attacked the Army, the Army was lost, every thing else was details. The Army was, at best, seven to ten days march on half rations from nearest fort. The closest possible relief force was at Mainz a months march away. The tactical system was broken, without light infantry the legions would be would be worn down in a series of small actions. They were north of the Wiehengebrige ridge and their bases were on the south side. Forcing any of the gaps in the ridge would require light infantry. A wall had been constructed at Kalkrese, the engineers could defeat it with time, but a retreating army on half rations does not have time. A Gaius Julius Caesar might have brought that army home, but Sextus Quinctilius Varus was simply a competent general in a situation where genius might not have been enough.
The defeat was more political than military. The credit is Arminius’s as a political leader for uniting tribes and the defeat is Varus’s as governor for failing to prevent it.
Note: The exact size of the Army and how much road space it took, can’t be determined from the existing data. I made a number of assumptions, but small changes make big changes in the result. The Roman legions were probably between 2000 and 4000 men present for duty, I think closer to 3000. The auxiliaries were probably another 3000 men. The number of camp followers was usual about the same as the number of soldiers. They other big factor is how wide was the road. I am assuming it was wide enough to march four abreast, which would also be wide enough for a wagon. There would be an interval (size?) between units, necessary to keep the army from bunching up an spreading out on hills and turns. While the Romans were masters at it, moving an Army this size was difficult to manage under the best of circumstances.
For those who want to crunch their own numbers.
Field Manual 21-18 - Procedures and Techniques of Foot Marches
The March
Saturday, September 19, 2009
We Did It To Ourselves
Joe Bethencourt mostly sings traditional American music. And sometimes songs with a message.
From Leslie Fish's new CD Lock And Load
Saturday, September 05, 2009
James Chapter Two: Show No Partiality
In the New Testament reading for this Sunday James takes the Church to task for showing partiality.
My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man with gold rings and in fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "Have a seat here, please," while you say to the poor man, "Stand there," or, "Sit at my feet," have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brethren. Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him? (James 2:1-5)
I can see it now:
James visits a modern American parish. A couple comes in wearing nice suits and the usher takes them to a pew in the front of the Church. Some people come in wearing faded and ripped blue jeans and the usher puts them in the dark corner in the back.
James starts off with “show no partiality!” Some one points out, “Uuuggghh, excuse me Jimbaby - the couple in the front is barely getting buy and got there suits from the St Vincent DePaul Society. The ones in the back are the richest people in town wearing pre-faded and pre-ripped blue jeans bought at Needless Markups”.
When James the Righteous recovers his poise, he intones: “Show no partiality!”
James is challenging us several ways.
First there is: Justice the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the "virtue of religion." Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. "You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor." (Lev 19:15) "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." (Col 4:1)Catechism 1807
Notice that Justice is an attitude, a disposition not a state of being or program. The ushers show justice when they show no partiality because wealth or race or irrelevant categories. Of course some categories are relevant such as seeing that a family sits together. How could there be an objective state of being where it could be measured because some people come later and earlier and the ushers could not be expected to know that much detail about every one in the parish. A program that said we will sit the same number of poor middle and wealthy in every pew would require showing extreme partiality and be unjust to families since it is there due to be able to sit together. Showing partiality against the poor, by those in authority, is especially unjust.
Second we are also called to a preferential love for the poor.
In its various forms—material deprivation, unjust oppression, physical and psychological illness and death—human misery is the obvious sign of the inherited condition of frailty and need for salvation in which man finds himself as a consequence of original sin. This misery elicited the compassion of Christ the Savior, who willingly took it upon himself and identified himself with the least of his brethren. Hence, those who are oppressed by poverty are the object of a preferential love on the part of the Church which, since her origin and in spite of the failings of many of her members, has not ceased to work for their relief, defense, and liberation through numerous works of charity which remain indispensable always and everywhere.
Beginning with the Old Testament, all kinds of juridical measures (the jubilee year of forgiveness of debts, prohibition of loans at interest and the keeping of collateral, the obligation to tithe, the daily payment of the day-laborer, the right to glean vines and fields) answer the exhortation of Deuteronomy (15:11): "For the poor will never cease out of the land; therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor in the land.'" Jesus makes these words his own: "The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."(John 12:8) In so doing he does not soften the vehemence of former oracles against "buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals . . .," (Amos 8:6) but invites us to recognize his own presence in the poor who are his brethren.Catechism 2448 -9
This not to be partial to the poor but to see that first that they have what is justly theirs and refrain from doing things that will hurt the poor. Secondly because we are brothers and sisters in Christ and we help the poor as we can but never by committing an injustice against another.
Remember:
Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him?
See also:
What is Social Justice
Scripture Posts
Social Justice Posts
My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man with gold rings and in fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "Have a seat here, please," while you say to the poor man, "Stand there," or, "Sit at my feet," have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brethren. Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him? (James 2:1-5)
I can see it now:
James visits a modern American parish. A couple comes in wearing nice suits and the usher takes them to a pew in the front of the Church. Some people come in wearing faded and ripped blue jeans and the usher puts them in the dark corner in the back.
James starts off with “show no partiality!” Some one points out, “Uuuggghh, excuse me Jimbaby - the couple in the front is barely getting buy and got there suits from the St Vincent DePaul Society. The ones in the back are the richest people in town wearing pre-faded and pre-ripped blue jeans bought at Needless Markups”.
When James the Righteous recovers his poise, he intones: “Show no partiality!”
James is challenging us several ways.
First there is: Justice the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the "virtue of religion." Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. "You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor." (Lev 19:15) "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." (Col 4:1)Catechism 1807
Notice that Justice is an attitude, a disposition not a state of being or program. The ushers show justice when they show no partiality because wealth or race or irrelevant categories. Of course some categories are relevant such as seeing that a family sits together. How could there be an objective state of being where it could be measured because some people come later and earlier and the ushers could not be expected to know that much detail about every one in the parish. A program that said we will sit the same number of poor middle and wealthy in every pew would require showing extreme partiality and be unjust to families since it is there due to be able to sit together. Showing partiality against the poor, by those in authority, is especially unjust.
Second we are also called to a preferential love for the poor.
In its various forms—material deprivation, unjust oppression, physical and psychological illness and death—human misery is the obvious sign of the inherited condition of frailty and need for salvation in which man finds himself as a consequence of original sin. This misery elicited the compassion of Christ the Savior, who willingly took it upon himself and identified himself with the least of his brethren. Hence, those who are oppressed by poverty are the object of a preferential love on the part of the Church which, since her origin and in spite of the failings of many of her members, has not ceased to work for their relief, defense, and liberation through numerous works of charity which remain indispensable always and everywhere.
Beginning with the Old Testament, all kinds of juridical measures (the jubilee year of forgiveness of debts, prohibition of loans at interest and the keeping of collateral, the obligation to tithe, the daily payment of the day-laborer, the right to glean vines and fields) answer the exhortation of Deuteronomy (15:11): "For the poor will never cease out of the land; therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor in the land.'" Jesus makes these words his own: "The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."(John 12:8) In so doing he does not soften the vehemence of former oracles against "buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals . . .," (Amos 8:6) but invites us to recognize his own presence in the poor who are his brethren.Catechism 2448 -9
This not to be partial to the poor but to see that first that they have what is justly theirs and refrain from doing things that will hurt the poor. Secondly because we are brothers and sisters in Christ and we help the poor as we can but never by committing an injustice against another.
Remember:
Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him?
See also:
What is Social Justice
Scripture Posts
Social Justice Posts
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Senator Edward Kennedy - A Dirge
Eternal rest give unto Edward O Lord: and let yoyr perpetual light shine unto him.
Edward M. Kennedy, 1932 - 2009
Oh LORD, look not upon Edward's faults but on his faith, grant him a place with the maryters and saints, and bring peace and comfort to his family.
Ant:Direct (Latin: dirge) O Lord God my way in thy sight.
Psalm 5
Give ear to my words, O LORD; give heed to my groaning.
Hearken to the sound of my cry,
my King and my God,
for to thee do I pray.
O LORD, in the morning thou dost hear my voice;
in the morning I prepare a sacrifice for thee, and watch.
For thou art not a God who delights in wickedness;
evil may not sojourn with thee.
The boastful may not stand before thy eyes;
thou hatest all evildoers.
Thou destroyest those who speak lies;
the LORD abhors bloodthirsty and deceitful men.
But I through the abundance of thy steadfast love will enter thy house,
I will worship toward thy holy temple in the fear of thee.
Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of my enemies;
make thy way straight before me.
For there is no truth in their mouth;
their heart is destruction,
their throat is an open sepulchre,
they flatter with their tongue.
Make them bear their guilt, O God;
let them fall by their own counsels;
because of their many transgressions cast them out,
for they have rebelled against thee.
But let all who take refuge in thee rejoice,
let them ever sing for joy; and do thou defend them,
that those who love thy name may exult in thee.
For thou dost bless the righteous,
O LORD; thou dost cover him with favor as with a shield.
Ant: Direct O Lord God my way in thy sight.
Eternal rest give unto Edward O Lord: and let your perpetual light shine unto him.
Ant: Direct O Lord God my way in thy sight.
NOTE: A different translation of the Dirge (Matins and Lauds for the Dead). This is an all night vigil service for the day before the funeral, I skipped the other 30 some psalms and readings
Edward M. Kennedy, 1932 - 2009
Oh LORD, look not upon Edward's faults but on his faith, grant him a place with the maryters and saints, and bring peace and comfort to his family.
Ant:Direct (Latin: dirge) O Lord God my way in thy sight.
Psalm 5
Give ear to my words, O LORD; give heed to my groaning.
Hearken to the sound of my cry,
my King and my God,
for to thee do I pray.
O LORD, in the morning thou dost hear my voice;
in the morning I prepare a sacrifice for thee, and watch.
For thou art not a God who delights in wickedness;
evil may not sojourn with thee.
The boastful may not stand before thy eyes;
thou hatest all evildoers.
Thou destroyest those who speak lies;
the LORD abhors bloodthirsty and deceitful men.
But I through the abundance of thy steadfast love will enter thy house,
I will worship toward thy holy temple in the fear of thee.
Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of my enemies;
make thy way straight before me.
For there is no truth in their mouth;
their heart is destruction,
their throat is an open sepulchre,
they flatter with their tongue.
Make them bear their guilt, O God;
let them fall by their own counsels;
because of their many transgressions cast them out,
for they have rebelled against thee.
But let all who take refuge in thee rejoice,
let them ever sing for joy; and do thou defend them,
that those who love thy name may exult in thee.
For thou dost bless the righteous,
O LORD; thou dost cover him with favor as with a shield.
Ant: Direct O Lord God my way in thy sight.
Eternal rest give unto Edward O Lord: and let your perpetual light shine unto him.
Ant: Direct O Lord God my way in thy sight.
NOTE: A different translation of the Dirge (Matins and Lauds for the Dead). This is an all night vigil service for the day before the funeral, I skipped the other 30 some psalms and readings
Friday, August 21, 2009
In Defense of Medical Malpractice Law Suit Abuse. (Repost)
Note: This is a repost from November 2005 which seems very relevant to the current debate on the National Health Care. Like any law it is not just the text of the law that will matter, but also the administrative and judicial atmosphere in which it will be executed and interpreted. The intent of the sponsors is really unimportant, the pressure to contain costs when there is minimal or no penalty for immoral or even illegal cost cutting will produce the sort of situation noted. This has nothing to do with ideology, it is simply normal organizational behavior.
Dr. R.J .Rummel, Professor emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, (his Power Kills web site) is one of the world leading experts of mass murder by governments, including but not limited to Genocide. His research has shown the the primary predictor of government sponsored mass murder has is not ideology but simply the unchallenged ability to do it. This proposal will give whom ever administers vast effectively unchallenged authority. My review of Dr Rummel’s indispensable Book Death by Government
In Defense of Medical Malpractice Law Suit Abuse.
Say, after years of giving premiums to your favorite insurance company, you need an operation on your prostrate, the doctor knowingly gives you an anti-biotic with known serious side effects, when other antibiotics are available, and he does this without your knowledge to reduce his costs. He does this in response to your insurers policies. The result is you are deaf for the rest of your life.
What happens?
You suit!
First there is no informed consent.
Second the doctor’s duty is to the patient not the insurance company.
Third giving the wrong medicine was a willful act.
Why is it that this seldom happens?
Because the damages that will be awarded far exceed any additional profit the doctor or insurer would receive. Hopefully most do not need this kind of threat to insure reliable medical care, but the threat of a suit tends to keep even the corrupt in line.
Granted there are problems with malpractice suit system, certainly in Illinois where I live. Any thing that can be receipted produces damages for the receipted amount When the question of “mental anguish” or punitive damages is in question there are no receipts and the amount of the settlement is often made by emotion rather than some sort of rational analysis. This produces highly inflated settlements, which is raising the overall cost of medical care. But is also makes it even more imperative that the medical provider run a clean operation. In the example above, since it is a willful act punitive damages are proper. I am not in favor of lawsuit abuse; it should be prevented and punished where it happens. But it is clearly better to have the malpractice suit system even with abuses than the alternatives that are used elsewhere.
Paul Belien of The Brussels Journal tells the story of his grandfather who went to the hospital for prostrate operation in May, was knowingly given the cheaper anti-biotic which left him deaf. What our courts would call “mental anguish” left him despondent and he was dead by November.
So what happened to the medical “practitioners.” Well, I’m sure it was just another forgettable day at the office.
How is the Belgium system different than ours. Basically it is a department of the government not medical persons in private practice. In the US one pays premiums to the insurer, when on gets sick the insurer pays the doctor. The role of the government is the honest broker between the patient and the provider if there any disputes. The government through programs like Medicare is becoming more of an insurance provider than before, but all most all medical personnel are not government employees. There is still enough differentiation of roles that the government, at least in court system, can still be an honest broker. In Belgium the provider of the insurance and the medical personnel is also the honest broker. Since the government also controls the right to suit, the government can just refuse to take the role of honest broker . Paul in his article notes that in Europe like the US the cost of providing health care is rising as a percentage of GNP. Where there is a major cost, there is a need to minimize it. Under a malpractice suit system the way to do this is work smarter and more carefully. With a system with no effective honest broker it is just so much easier to deny the care promised or use second class drugs, equipment and practices.
I do not support lawsuit abuse, but if that is price for a medical system where the goal is to treat the patient, not save the government money, I’ll take it
Related posts
Cause not Harm
Blessed Clemens August Cardinal von Galen
And many more.
From the Holocaust Museum
Handicapped
Dr. R.J .Rummel, Professor emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, (his Power Kills web site) is one of the world leading experts of mass murder by governments, including but not limited to Genocide. His research has shown the the primary predictor of government sponsored mass murder has is not ideology but simply the unchallenged ability to do it. This proposal will give whom ever administers vast effectively unchallenged authority. My review of Dr Rummel’s indispensable Book Death by Government
In Defense of Medical Malpractice Law Suit Abuse.
Say, after years of giving premiums to your favorite insurance company, you need an operation on your prostrate, the doctor knowingly gives you an anti-biotic with known serious side effects, when other antibiotics are available, and he does this without your knowledge to reduce his costs. He does this in response to your insurers policies. The result is you are deaf for the rest of your life.
What happens?
You suit!
First there is no informed consent.
Second the doctor’s duty is to the patient not the insurance company.
Third giving the wrong medicine was a willful act.
Why is it that this seldom happens?
Because the damages that will be awarded far exceed any additional profit the doctor or insurer would receive. Hopefully most do not need this kind of threat to insure reliable medical care, but the threat of a suit tends to keep even the corrupt in line.
Granted there are problems with malpractice suit system, certainly in Illinois where I live. Any thing that can be receipted produces damages for the receipted amount When the question of “mental anguish” or punitive damages is in question there are no receipts and the amount of the settlement is often made by emotion rather than some sort of rational analysis. This produces highly inflated settlements, which is raising the overall cost of medical care. But is also makes it even more imperative that the medical provider run a clean operation. In the example above, since it is a willful act punitive damages are proper. I am not in favor of lawsuit abuse; it should be prevented and punished where it happens. But it is clearly better to have the malpractice suit system even with abuses than the alternatives that are used elsewhere.
Paul Belien of The Brussels Journal tells the story of his grandfather who went to the hospital for prostrate operation in May, was knowingly given the cheaper anti-biotic which left him deaf. What our courts would call “mental anguish” left him despondent and he was dead by November.
So what happened to the medical “practitioners.” Well, I’m sure it was just another forgettable day at the office.
How is the Belgium system different than ours. Basically it is a department of the government not medical persons in private practice. In the US one pays premiums to the insurer, when on gets sick the insurer pays the doctor. The role of the government is the honest broker between the patient and the provider if there any disputes. The government through programs like Medicare is becoming more of an insurance provider than before, but all most all medical personnel are not government employees. There is still enough differentiation of roles that the government, at least in court system, can still be an honest broker. In Belgium the provider of the insurance and the medical personnel is also the honest broker. Since the government also controls the right to suit, the government can just refuse to take the role of honest broker . Paul in his article notes that in Europe like the US the cost of providing health care is rising as a percentage of GNP. Where there is a major cost, there is a need to minimize it. Under a malpractice suit system the way to do this is work smarter and more carefully. With a system with no effective honest broker it is just so much easier to deny the care promised or use second class drugs, equipment and practices.
I do not support lawsuit abuse, but if that is price for a medical system where the goal is to treat the patient, not save the government money, I’ll take it
Related posts
Cause not Harm
Blessed Clemens August Cardinal von Galen
And many more.
From the Holocaust Museum
Handicapped
Monday, August 17, 2009
Town Halls: Winning the Crowd
It seems a number of Congressman and women who are having problems with unfriendly crowds at Healthcare Town Hall Meetings. Turning an unfriendly crowd is an art of considerable difficulty. In the spirit of being helpful here is a You Tube demonstrating how to do it.
Marlon Brando as Marc Anthony in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.
It would help if the the congressmen and women can find a speech writer of Shakespeare’s caliber and develop the stage presence of a Marlon Brando.
Remind people of something they know, don't try to convince them of something they reject.
Some good starting lines:
Friends, Americans, Countrymen and Women, lend me your ears.
I have not come praise Obamacare but to bury it.
The good the current health care system does will soon be forgotten, the results of a Obamacare will haunt us forever.
Yes, Obamacare is ambitious, but the noble Obama is an honorable man.
Just trying to help.
Updated 9/14/2009
Marlon Brando as Marc Anthony in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.
It would help if the the congressmen and women can find a speech writer of Shakespeare’s caliber and develop the stage presence of a Marlon Brando.
Remind people of something they know, don't try to convince them of something they reject.
Some good starting lines:
Friends, Americans, Countrymen and Women, lend me your ears.
I have not come praise Obamacare but to bury it.
The good the current health care system does will soon be forgotten, the results of a Obamacare will haunt us forever.
Yes, Obamacare is ambitious, but the noble Obama is an honorable man.
Just trying to help.
Updated 9/14/2009
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Year of the Priest
Pope Benedict the Sixteenth has declared this the Year of the Priest
On the forthcoming Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Friday 19 June 2009 – a day traditionally devoted to prayer for the sanctification of the clergy –, I have decided to inaugurate a “Year for Priests” in celebration of the 150th anniversary of the “dies natalis” of John Mary Vianney, the patron saint of parish priests worldwide.[1] This Year, meant to deepen the commitment of all priests to interior renewal for the sake of a stronger and more incisive witness to the Gospel in today’s world, will conclude on the same Solemnity in 2010. "The priesthood is the love of the heart of Jesus”, the saintly Curé of Ars would often say.[2] This touching expression makes us reflect, first of all, with heartfelt gratitude on the immense gift which priests represent, not only for the Church, but also for humanity itself. I think of all those priests who quietly present Christ’s words and actions each day to the faithful and to the whole world, striving to be one with the Lord in their thoughts and their will, their sentiments and their style of life. How can I not pay tribute to their apostolic labours, their tireless and hidden service, their universal charity? And how can I not praise the courageous fidelity of so many priests who, even amid difficulties and incomprehension, remain faithful to their vocation as “friends of Christ”, whom he has called by name, chosen and sent?
.
Catholic Culture has many links and resources.
Smile
From donjojohannes who has many more short humorous videos.
On the forthcoming Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Friday 19 June 2009 – a day traditionally devoted to prayer for the sanctification of the clergy –, I have decided to inaugurate a “Year for Priests” in celebration of the 150th anniversary of the “dies natalis” of John Mary Vianney, the patron saint of parish priests worldwide.[1] This Year, meant to deepen the commitment of all priests to interior renewal for the sake of a stronger and more incisive witness to the Gospel in today’s world, will conclude on the same Solemnity in 2010. "The priesthood is the love of the heart of Jesus”, the saintly Curé of Ars would often say.[2] This touching expression makes us reflect, first of all, with heartfelt gratitude on the immense gift which priests represent, not only for the Church, but also for humanity itself. I think of all those priests who quietly present Christ’s words and actions each day to the faithful and to the whole world, striving to be one with the Lord in their thoughts and their will, their sentiments and their style of life. How can I not pay tribute to their apostolic labours, their tireless and hidden service, their universal charity? And how can I not praise the courageous fidelity of so many priests who, even amid difficulties and incomprehension, remain faithful to their vocation as “friends of Christ”, whom he has called by name, chosen and sent?
.
Catholic Culture has many links and resources.
Smile
From donjojohannes who has many more short humorous videos.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Book Review: The Drillmaster of Valley Forge
In June 1778 George Washington’s Continental Army tried to destroy the rear of the British Army near Monmouth NJ. An indecisive battle of little note except for the first time Washington’s Continentals met British Regulars; held their own and gave as good as they got. What caused the transition of the Continentals from semi-disciplined amateurs to a trained army able to fight on the regular’s terms?
The Drillmaster of Valley Forge: The Baron de Steuben and the Making of the American Army
Paul Douglas Lockhart
Publisher: Collins (September 9, 2008)
Frederich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerard Agustin von Steuben was born on September 30th 1730, among the godfathers for whom he was named was King Frederich William I of Prussia, with his permission. His father was an engineer in the Prussian Army a holder of the Pour le Merit a soldier of great reputation and no wealth. Steuben joined the Prussian army at fourteen and followed the usual steps of a regimental officers career for ten years until the Seven Years War. He distinguished himself as a regimental officer, in an elite light infantry battalion, and then in a number of staff positions from brigade to the Army Staff. Near the end of the war Frederick the Great selected him for advanced training. But at the end of the war, despite being known as an up and coming officer he was discharged for reasons that are not entirely clear. He was employed as the Court Chamberlain of the minor German State of Hohenzollern-Hechingen until his efforts to find military employment let him the American side in the Revolution. While Chamberlain he was awarded the title the Frieheer, loosely equivalent to a British knighthood, but translated into French as Baron. Thus he was Baron de Steuben. But not “Baron von Steuben” which would represent a very different position.
Benjamin Franklin got him an appointment to the Continental Army. Washington appointed de Steuben as Inspector General with the rank of Major General. At that time this position was more similar to a G-3, operations, than the ombudsman and administrative inspector of the modern army. The biggest problem at the time was the Army had no consistent method of training drill or discipline. Each regiment followed the drill of the commanders drill book (there were several in publication) and this was done to varying levels of commitment and success. His solution was to form a model company to teach a basic drill then send it’s members back to their units to act as instructors. He established a through inspection program to see that it was done. He cut quite a figure, riding through camp with the pomp of a Prussian General and major nobility, on the drill field, personally demonstrating and correcting, swearing like a trooper, and always, when inspecting putting the welfare of the soldiers on the same basis as drill. In three months, even after the devastating winter of 1777/78 the Continentals were a disciplined and trained army with confidence in there own abilities.
That spring of 1778 the British retreated from Philadelphia to New York by land, Washington set off to intercept him, knowing he could not defeat the larger force he planned to cut off and defeat the rear of the British column. The lead of the attack was entrusted (by seniority and politics) to General Horatio Gates whose poor planning and execution caused the attack to stall then he ordered the army to retreat. However with there new found confidence and training individual regiments held together as disciplined units, they knew they hadn’t been defeated and wanted to fight. Washington came up, rallied the Army and turned the retreat into a defense and then counter attacked. Something the Continental Army could not have done a few months earlier. De Steuben commanded the reconnaissance forces for the Army and provided Washington with excellent intelligence on where the British were and what they were doing. He also played a key role in turning the retreat around.
After this he continued to serve as Inspector General, made a number of reforms, and served as a temporary field commander when Washington needed someone with special abilities. An outsider with no alliance to the many factions he could accomplish this where other officers would have had their efforts lost to politics. But this also denied him an assignment to a major command. He wrote the Army’s first Drill Manual which remained in effect until 1812, while the tactical parts are long outdated, the section on leadership is still good guidance.
In 1780 de Steuben was appointed second in command for Nathaniel Green’s campaign to recapture the southern colonies. Green left de Steuben in Virginia to organize a base, forward supplies and recruits, and then follow Green. However, the British landed an army in Virginia, under Benedict Arnold, giving him the responsibility to defend Virginia with the forces at hand. Not quite the way de Steuben wanted it, he had his major command. This campaign is often cited as criticism of his actual battlefield generalship as opposed to his drill field leadership. Lockhart makes a good case that de Steuben did as well as anybody could in the circumstances and better than most, though his lack of tact in dealing with local politicians hurt his efforts. With an army of changing and occasional militia, a battalion of newly recruited continentals, hardly better trained than the militia, never totaling more than a fraction of the enemy, he prevented the British from capturing Virginia or using it to support the Southern Campaign. Notably, he fought two successful delaying actions against larger forces, saving his army and critical war stocks.
There are many controversies about the veracity of De Steuben’s credentials. Lockhart establishes the he was in fact a member of the minor nobility at birth and entitled to use von Steuben. This brought him no land or income but gave him the social status to be commissioned in the Prussian Army. Baron de Steuben certainly did not discourage people from thinking “baron” was the equivalent of a British Barony. Foreign officers had by this time, a poor reputation in the Continental Congress. Benjamin Franklin and Silas Dean, the American representatives in Paris, decided that de Steuben with experience and abilities beyond his status a former captain in the Prussian Army, needed to have his credentials enhanced, reporting him as owner of massive estates and a former Lieutenant General in the Prussian Army. This was apparently not his doing, though he went along with it, and quietly let on after he was accepted as a Major General in the American army that this was inflated. Also de Steuben was prone to be ambiguous inexact and expansive in personal correspondence leaving the impression of much greater position than he had.
De Stueben's personal life was a shambles, he could not manage his personal finances, popular but with no intimate friends, charming or tactless, loyal to a fault but never letting go of a grudge. His reputation is clouded by rumors of all sorts, which if true, no primary evidence survives. As a soldier brilliant, a failure at every thing else. But it was the mess of his personal life that led him to serve in the American cause, a man with badly needed talents and abilities. Truly he helped make the American Army.
A good book for readers of all levels of interest. The authors explanations of the how and why of de Steuben’s reforms is good background for any reading on 18th Century warfare. Interesting illustrations and adequate small scale maps, some large scale maps of individual battles would be nice. Strongly Recommended.
Related: The Year of the Hangman, George Washington’s Campaign Against the Iroquois
The Drillmaster of Valley Forge: The Baron de Steuben and the Making of the American Army
Paul Douglas Lockhart
Publisher: Collins (September 9, 2008)
Frederich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerard Agustin von Steuben was born on September 30th 1730, among the godfathers for whom he was named was King Frederich William I of Prussia, with his permission. His father was an engineer in the Prussian Army a holder of the Pour le Merit a soldier of great reputation and no wealth. Steuben joined the Prussian army at fourteen and followed the usual steps of a regimental officers career for ten years until the Seven Years War. He distinguished himself as a regimental officer, in an elite light infantry battalion, and then in a number of staff positions from brigade to the Army Staff. Near the end of the war Frederick the Great selected him for advanced training. But at the end of the war, despite being known as an up and coming officer he was discharged for reasons that are not entirely clear. He was employed as the Court Chamberlain of the minor German State of Hohenzollern-Hechingen until his efforts to find military employment let him the American side in the Revolution. While Chamberlain he was awarded the title the Frieheer, loosely equivalent to a British knighthood, but translated into French as Baron. Thus he was Baron de Steuben. But not “Baron von Steuben” which would represent a very different position.
Benjamin Franklin got him an appointment to the Continental Army. Washington appointed de Steuben as Inspector General with the rank of Major General. At that time this position was more similar to a G-3, operations, than the ombudsman and administrative inspector of the modern army. The biggest problem at the time was the Army had no consistent method of training drill or discipline. Each regiment followed the drill of the commanders drill book (there were several in publication) and this was done to varying levels of commitment and success. His solution was to form a model company to teach a basic drill then send it’s members back to their units to act as instructors. He established a through inspection program to see that it was done. He cut quite a figure, riding through camp with the pomp of a Prussian General and major nobility, on the drill field, personally demonstrating and correcting, swearing like a trooper, and always, when inspecting putting the welfare of the soldiers on the same basis as drill. In three months, even after the devastating winter of 1777/78 the Continentals were a disciplined and trained army with confidence in there own abilities.
That spring of 1778 the British retreated from Philadelphia to New York by land, Washington set off to intercept him, knowing he could not defeat the larger force he planned to cut off and defeat the rear of the British column. The lead of the attack was entrusted (by seniority and politics) to General Horatio Gates whose poor planning and execution caused the attack to stall then he ordered the army to retreat. However with there new found confidence and training individual regiments held together as disciplined units, they knew they hadn’t been defeated and wanted to fight. Washington came up, rallied the Army and turned the retreat into a defense and then counter attacked. Something the Continental Army could not have done a few months earlier. De Steuben commanded the reconnaissance forces for the Army and provided Washington with excellent intelligence on where the British were and what they were doing. He also played a key role in turning the retreat around.
After this he continued to serve as Inspector General, made a number of reforms, and served as a temporary field commander when Washington needed someone with special abilities. An outsider with no alliance to the many factions he could accomplish this where other officers would have had their efforts lost to politics. But this also denied him an assignment to a major command. He wrote the Army’s first Drill Manual which remained in effect until 1812, while the tactical parts are long outdated, the section on leadership is still good guidance.
In 1780 de Steuben was appointed second in command for Nathaniel Green’s campaign to recapture the southern colonies. Green left de Steuben in Virginia to organize a base, forward supplies and recruits, and then follow Green. However, the British landed an army in Virginia, under Benedict Arnold, giving him the responsibility to defend Virginia with the forces at hand. Not quite the way de Steuben wanted it, he had his major command. This campaign is often cited as criticism of his actual battlefield generalship as opposed to his drill field leadership. Lockhart makes a good case that de Steuben did as well as anybody could in the circumstances and better than most, though his lack of tact in dealing with local politicians hurt his efforts. With an army of changing and occasional militia, a battalion of newly recruited continentals, hardly better trained than the militia, never totaling more than a fraction of the enemy, he prevented the British from capturing Virginia or using it to support the Southern Campaign. Notably, he fought two successful delaying actions against larger forces, saving his army and critical war stocks.
There are many controversies about the veracity of De Steuben’s credentials. Lockhart establishes the he was in fact a member of the minor nobility at birth and entitled to use von Steuben. This brought him no land or income but gave him the social status to be commissioned in the Prussian Army. Baron de Steuben certainly did not discourage people from thinking “baron” was the equivalent of a British Barony. Foreign officers had by this time, a poor reputation in the Continental Congress. Benjamin Franklin and Silas Dean, the American representatives in Paris, decided that de Steuben with experience and abilities beyond his status a former captain in the Prussian Army, needed to have his credentials enhanced, reporting him as owner of massive estates and a former Lieutenant General in the Prussian Army. This was apparently not his doing, though he went along with it, and quietly let on after he was accepted as a Major General in the American army that this was inflated. Also de Steuben was prone to be ambiguous inexact and expansive in personal correspondence leaving the impression of much greater position than he had.
De Stueben's personal life was a shambles, he could not manage his personal finances, popular but with no intimate friends, charming or tactless, loyal to a fault but never letting go of a grudge. His reputation is clouded by rumors of all sorts, which if true, no primary evidence survives. As a soldier brilliant, a failure at every thing else. But it was the mess of his personal life that led him to serve in the American cause, a man with badly needed talents and abilities. Truly he helped make the American Army.
A good book for readers of all levels of interest. The authors explanations of the how and why of de Steuben’s reforms is good background for any reading on 18th Century warfare. Interesting illustrations and adequate small scale maps, some large scale maps of individual battles would be nice. Strongly Recommended.
Related: The Year of the Hangman, George Washington’s Campaign Against the Iroquois
Friday, July 24, 2009
Al Stewart: Hanno The Navigator
When the Phoenicians ruled the waves.
From his CD Sparks of the Ancient Light Google Music Sampler
HT: Gates of Vienna
From his CD Sparks of the Ancient Light Google Music Sampler
HT: Gates of Vienna
Friday, July 17, 2009
Fireworks: Fourth of July 2009
The War on Terror must be going well. For the second year in row the Great Lakes Naval Base has resumed it’s annual Fourth of July fireworks display.
Music
Entertainment
A crowd of thousands.
The best fireworks in Lake County
And more pictures Enjoy
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Book Review: The Fall of the Roman Empire
Why did the Western Roman Empire fall? The rise of Christianity, corruption, the decadence of the ruling classes, over taxation, changes in military policy? Or was it simply the Barbarian invasions?
The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians
Peter Heather
Oxford University Press, 2007
Peter Heather attributes the primary cause to exogenous shock caused by the barbarian migrations into the Empire in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. If these shocks had occurred earlier the Empire would have fallen and if they had not come the Empire would have lasted several more centuries. The Empire was a stable entity, with internal problems, as has any political entity, but they were within the outer limits of what it could manage and still function. The rise of the Persian Empire in the East in the third century had created a superpower challenge that required heavily reinforcing the eastern borders. This was successfully done, but doing so greatly stretched the resources of the Empire so that it had little surplus resources to handle a new crisis. The migration and invasion of the barbarians provided that crisis.
Heather sees the Empire as a symbiotic relation of several components:
The Landowners were Roman citizens who had a common education and culture that provided a homogeneous “Romanness”. They, more than the residents of the City, were the Romans. Whether they were of the old Roman families or provincials from cities that had obtained Latin rights they spoke and wrote common “Classical Latin”, shared common values provided the civil and military officers that staffed the empire, and provided leadership at the middle levels of society.
The Central Government taxed trade and land and used the revenues to pay and equip the Army. The Army protected trade and agricultural activities against outside threats and internal disorder. With an assurance of safety against outside threat and internal disorder agricultural activities and trade could produce enough wealth to provide higher standards of living and pay the taxes to support the Army. While the system primarily benefited the landowners there it must have also produced enough safety and income to be preferable to the alternative for most of the population.
The Army saw (as did most every one else) it’s first job was to defend the Empire against the Persia. During the fourth century 20 to 25 percent of the Army was directly deployed opposite Persia. The rest of the Army was either in border garrisons defending the long frontier or in the field armies that constituted a reserve to reinforce against attacks on the border or counter attack. While the total army was probably about 600,000 men the maximum field army that was available west of Constantinople to deal with the invasion on the Rhine-Danube line was about 80,000 spread among several field armies belonging to both parts of the empire. When matched against the nations migrating with their full strength, as opposed to raiding and border skirmishes, the numbers available to both sides were similar, and until reinforcements could arrive, could favor the invaders.
The Exogenous Shock.
The Germanic Tribes in the 1st Centuries BC and AD that the Romans came in contact with were economically hunters and “slash and burn” farmers. Every ten or twenty years a village would exhaust its fields and move. Heather thinks that the real reason for the Romans stopped at the Rhine was not the defeat of Varus in 9 AD at Tueutonburger Wald but that the region could not produce enough taxes to support the Army. Though not conquered the Germans learned from the Romans. They developed a stable agriculture, which supported a much larger population than slash and burn farming, and permitted the development of trade and manufacturing. This improved economy allowed them to field larger and better equipped armies. The service of many Germans in the Army had taught them the military skills to use the larger force. In the Late 4th Century the Huns started to invade the homelands of these nations forcing them to migrate and the only place they could go was into the Empire.
The Huns were a warlike tribe of nomads that came off the steppes and invaded the area of the German tribes forcing them to migrate. The Hunic economy and political structure did not allow them to settle in one location; they kept attacking westward forcing more dislocations until they were fighting the Romans themselves, though eventually defeated by the Romans the damage had been done.
The Migrations of the Germanic tribes into the Empire to escape the Huns in the 376 and 402-10 started the unraveling of the relationships that held the Empire together. War and invasion would put farms out of production temporarily or permanently depriving the Government of the taxes to support the Army. This made it harder for a reduced/weakened Army to recover lost lands or protect those that were left. Which would result in more land going out of production. The loss of this protection made it expedient for landowners to support the invaders to keep their lands rather than support the central government. Slowly over about 100 years the Western Empire unraveled.
The result
A controversy in recent years asks was The Fall really a fall or just a change in the political arrangements with life going on pretty much as before. Some point out that many institutions survived, there was a definite Roman characteristic in the successor states and there were people who called themselves Romans for a long time after the fall. Heather argues, I think successfully, that while it was a process over time with important survivals, The Fall was really a fall and a hard fall. While for most any one other than poor Romulus Augustus, the last emperor, who was removed on September 4, 476, September Fifth was not much different than September Third; but the Western Europe of 576 was vastly different from the Western Europe of 376 when the migrations started. While some people must have come out ahead the vast majority of the reduced population was much impoverished with far less physical and economic security.
Analysis
This is a well written book explains the story of the Fall of The Roman Empire in a way that treats both the available data and the persons involved with respect and reaches conclusions without forcing the data. While he gives a varied review of the different explanations for the Fall of Rome many support his explanation as part of the reason the Empire was overstretched. Unlike most commentators he believes the economy was able to support the Empire so long as it did not have to deal with extraordinary events. He tells the story of people with ordinary ability trying to control and reverse events that were to large for them to control. One thing I liked was his account ties together the different parts of my limited knowledge of the Roman Empire into a coherent whole.
It will certainly not end the debate over the causes of the Fall of Rome but it is a major contribution to the discussion, whether future historians agree with him or not this is an explanation that cannot be ignored. The book has good pictures and maps that support the text. Strongly recommended.
Related: Eagle in the Snow by Wallace Breem. Review of a fictional account of the Barbarian invasion across the Rhine in 406/407
Topic: All my Rome posts
The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the BarbariansPeter Heather
Oxford University Press, 2007
Peter Heather attributes the primary cause to exogenous shock caused by the barbarian migrations into the Empire in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. If these shocks had occurred earlier the Empire would have fallen and if they had not come the Empire would have lasted several more centuries. The Empire was a stable entity, with internal problems, as has any political entity, but they were within the outer limits of what it could manage and still function. The rise of the Persian Empire in the East in the third century had created a superpower challenge that required heavily reinforcing the eastern borders. This was successfully done, but doing so greatly stretched the resources of the Empire so that it had little surplus resources to handle a new crisis. The migration and invasion of the barbarians provided that crisis.
Heather sees the Empire as a symbiotic relation of several components:
The Landowners were Roman citizens who had a common education and culture that provided a homogeneous “Romanness”. They, more than the residents of the City, were the Romans. Whether they were of the old Roman families or provincials from cities that had obtained Latin rights they spoke and wrote common “Classical Latin”, shared common values provided the civil and military officers that staffed the empire, and provided leadership at the middle levels of society.
The Central Government taxed trade and land and used the revenues to pay and equip the Army. The Army protected trade and agricultural activities against outside threats and internal disorder. With an assurance of safety against outside threat and internal disorder agricultural activities and trade could produce enough wealth to provide higher standards of living and pay the taxes to support the Army. While the system primarily benefited the landowners there it must have also produced enough safety and income to be preferable to the alternative for most of the population.
The Army saw (as did most every one else) it’s first job was to defend the Empire against the Persia. During the fourth century 20 to 25 percent of the Army was directly deployed opposite Persia. The rest of the Army was either in border garrisons defending the long frontier or in the field armies that constituted a reserve to reinforce against attacks on the border or counter attack. While the total army was probably about 600,000 men the maximum field army that was available west of Constantinople to deal with the invasion on the Rhine-Danube line was about 80,000 spread among several field armies belonging to both parts of the empire. When matched against the nations migrating with their full strength, as opposed to raiding and border skirmishes, the numbers available to both sides were similar, and until reinforcements could arrive, could favor the invaders.
The Exogenous Shock.
The Germanic Tribes in the 1st Centuries BC and AD that the Romans came in contact with were economically hunters and “slash and burn” farmers. Every ten or twenty years a village would exhaust its fields and move. Heather thinks that the real reason for the Romans stopped at the Rhine was not the defeat of Varus in 9 AD at Tueutonburger Wald but that the region could not produce enough taxes to support the Army. Though not conquered the Germans learned from the Romans. They developed a stable agriculture, which supported a much larger population than slash and burn farming, and permitted the development of trade and manufacturing. This improved economy allowed them to field larger and better equipped armies. The service of many Germans in the Army had taught them the military skills to use the larger force. In the Late 4th Century the Huns started to invade the homelands of these nations forcing them to migrate and the only place they could go was into the Empire.
The Huns were a warlike tribe of nomads that came off the steppes and invaded the area of the German tribes forcing them to migrate. The Hunic economy and political structure did not allow them to settle in one location; they kept attacking westward forcing more dislocations until they were fighting the Romans themselves, though eventually defeated by the Romans the damage had been done.
The Migrations of the Germanic tribes into the Empire to escape the Huns in the 376 and 402-10 started the unraveling of the relationships that held the Empire together. War and invasion would put farms out of production temporarily or permanently depriving the Government of the taxes to support the Army. This made it harder for a reduced/weakened Army to recover lost lands or protect those that were left. Which would result in more land going out of production. The loss of this protection made it expedient for landowners to support the invaders to keep their lands rather than support the central government. Slowly over about 100 years the Western Empire unraveled.
The result
A controversy in recent years asks was The Fall really a fall or just a change in the political arrangements with life going on pretty much as before. Some point out that many institutions survived, there was a definite Roman characteristic in the successor states and there were people who called themselves Romans for a long time after the fall. Heather argues, I think successfully, that while it was a process over time with important survivals, The Fall was really a fall and a hard fall. While for most any one other than poor Romulus Augustus, the last emperor, who was removed on September 4, 476, September Fifth was not much different than September Third; but the Western Europe of 576 was vastly different from the Western Europe of 376 when the migrations started. While some people must have come out ahead the vast majority of the reduced population was much impoverished with far less physical and economic security.
Analysis
This is a well written book explains the story of the Fall of The Roman Empire in a way that treats both the available data and the persons involved with respect and reaches conclusions without forcing the data. While he gives a varied review of the different explanations for the Fall of Rome many support his explanation as part of the reason the Empire was overstretched. Unlike most commentators he believes the economy was able to support the Empire so long as it did not have to deal with extraordinary events. He tells the story of people with ordinary ability trying to control and reverse events that were to large for them to control. One thing I liked was his account ties together the different parts of my limited knowledge of the Roman Empire into a coherent whole.
It will certainly not end the debate over the causes of the Fall of Rome but it is a major contribution to the discussion, whether future historians agree with him or not this is an explanation that cannot be ignored. The book has good pictures and maps that support the text. Strongly recommended.
Related: Eagle in the Snow by Wallace Breem. Review of a fictional account of the Barbarian invasion across the Rhine in 406/407
Topic: All my Rome posts
Friday, July 03, 2009
Happy Fourth of July
The Declartion of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events,
snip
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
.
That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
--
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established
should not be changed for light and transient causes;
and accordingly all experience hath shewn,
that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they re accustomed
snip
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,
and accordingly all experience hath shewn,
that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they re accustomed
snip
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;
snip
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The Declartion of Independence
snip
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The Declartion of Independence
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Just Another Diamond Day
Written and performed by Vashti Bunyan from her CD Just Another Diamond Day
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Happy Birthday US Army
Today is the 234th Birthday of the United States Army.
The United States Army Ceremonial Drill Team performing at the Edinburgh Military Tatoo.
Be all you can be!
The United States Army Ceremonial Drill Team performing at the Edinburgh Military Tatoo.
Be all you can be!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
