 |
|
 |
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:57:26 -0500, erilar <...@chibardun.net.invalid
In article <...@eu.Usenet-News.net SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
The writings of sedentary peoples survived better?
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:14:30 +0100, "John Briggs" <...@ntlworld.com
There is a Secret Official History of the Mongols - the very title may give
ome insight into the problem...
--
John Briggs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 11, 3:14 pm, "John Briggs" <...@ntlworld.com
AFAIK, there is no 'Official' in the title and one of the possible
reasons for it being 'secret' is, as was pointed by Gumilev, a
possibility that it was written by _opposition_: the members of the
old Mongolian aristocracy who were not too fond of Ghengis' reforms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 11, 9:57 am, erilar <...@chibardun.net.invalidMary, Lev Gumilev was a sedentary person and so was Vernadski. Did you
read any of them? (unlike many other writers, they knew the subject)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:49:35 -0500, erilar <...@chibardun.net.invalid
In article
It was a surmise. And no. There are so MANY books I have yet to read
that I will never live long enough for 8-(
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 11, 10:49 pm, erilar <...@chibardun.net.invalidMy advice, read if you can get them: they are quite entertaining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:38:08 -0700, "J A" <...@re.com
"SolomonW" <...@NoEmailAddress.com news...@eu.Usenet-News.net...
How many Mongol historians writing in western Euopean languages, were there?
Besides, people who smell bad and wipe out entire cities and regions, tend
to get bad press. How many mongol Karl Roves would it have taken to spin
that into favor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:31:40 +1100, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
In article <...@earthlink.comsays...
So you are saying that the rule should be
"History is written by historians writing in western European languages"
Indeed.
Another example might be the Western slave traders of African slaves
from about 1500 to the late 1800s. These traders were also winners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:01:18 -0700, "J A" <...@re.com
"SolomonW" <...@NoEmailAddress.com news...@eu.Usenet-News.net...
No. The rule is that favorable history in a culture, only comes down if
somebody pleased about how things went, writes in a language that gets some
exposure in that culture.
Actually, everybody who posts in here SHOULD be pleased about the Mongol
invasions, becasue they greatly reduced Islam's ability to make incursions
into Europe. Alas, like the Hitlerites who reduced the expansion minded
Stalinists, they just weren't lovable..
If the Mongols are exalted in Chinese history (where they did some pretty
horrific things, but actually ruled for a while), then would any of us even
know it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:56:54 -0700, "a425couple" <...@hotmail.com
"J A" <...@re.com
Ohh, I don't know, , , how about emphacizing
1. Freedom of Religion
2. Establishment of meritocracy
3. Welcome Assimilation - melting pot
4. Protection of Diplomats (one I like)
Case A - Subutai sent emissaries to the Slavic princes calling for a
separate peace, but the emissaries were executed. -- Battles --
The Russian princes then sued for peace. Subutai agreed but was
in no mood to pardon the princes. As was customary in Mongol
society for nobility, the Russian princes were given a bloodless death.
Subutai had a large wooden platform constructed on which he ate his
meals along with his other generals. Six Russian princes, including
Mstislav III of Kiev, were put under this platform and crushed to death.
Case B - In the early 1200s, the Khwarezmian Dynasty was governed
by Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad. Genghis Khan saw the potential
advantage in Khwarezmia as a commercial trading partner, and, instead
of sending an invasion force, he initially sent a 500-man caravan to
establish trade ties with the empire. However, Inalchuq, the governor
of the Khwarezmian city of Otrar, attacked the caravan that came from
Mongolia, claiming that the caravan was a conspiracy against Khwarezmia.
-- more complicated -- Genghis Khan then sent again a second group
of ambassadors to meet the Shah himself. The Shah had all the men shaved
and all but one beheaded. This was seen as an affront and insult to Genghis
Khan. Outraged, Genghis Khan planned one of his largest invasion
campaigns --
defeating small fractions of the Khwarzemi forces instead of facing a
unified defense.
Genghis Khan ordered the execution of many of the inhabitants and executed
Inalchuq by pouring molten silver into his ears and eyes, as retribution for
his actions.
-- Shah fled rather than surrender. Genghis Khan charged Subutai and Jebe
with
hunting him down, -- The Shah died under mysterious circumstances
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:45:31 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
SolomonW <...@noemailaddress.com
History is not written by the winners. Indeed, the aphorism
was written by the losers in order to explain why they lost.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:08:37 +1100, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
In article <...@reader1.panix.com
So history becomes the continuation of Politik by other means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:08 am, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
What's new about THIS?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:54:19 -0700, "a425couple" <...@hotmail.com
"SolomonW" <...@NoEmailAddress.com Re: History is written by the winners????
I pretty much agree.
It certainly helps if:
1. One can write-- (somewhat Viking problem)
2. In a language others will read - (sw Genghis Khan's p.)
(also somewhat between both - Attila the Hun's problem)
3. Documents survive (how much was lost at Alexandria?)
4. And if these 'intelectual writers' support their leaders. *
* For at times the "inteligencia" for their own motives
chose to leave a "turd in the victor's punchbowl".
(thinking about what USA public schools teach -
A. Hiroshima, well publicized now while Nanking not.
B. US Japanese Internment camps taught big time
((22,000 interned - death rates same as overall population,
govt. apoligized & gave compensation))
while Japan's treatment of Allied POWs ignored
((of over 140,000, about 1/3 brutally killed, never apology)).
C. Gulf War of 1990-91 little praised.
D. US ((following UK's)) successful assistance to Greece
in defeating communism 45-51, is never mentioned.
E. Nor is USA's giving independence to Cuba,
Phillipine Islands, Japan, South Korea etc.
F. Vietnam ((noting - no "winners")) is much more known
by the horrible My Lai Massacre ((mass murder of 347 to 504))
than it is for Massacre at Hu? ((summary executions and mass killings
conducted by the Viet Cong and North Vietnam during their capture,
of city of Hu? during the Tet Offensive, -- dozens of mass graves were
discovered -- containing 2,800 to 6,000 civilians and prisoners of
r.)) )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:40:33 -0700, "a425couple" <...@hotmail.com
"a425couple" <...@hotmail.com
Self correction - I had not checked all figures.
While walking my dogs, I suddenly rethought!!!
Correctly the below should be:
Rest snipped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 12, 12:54 pm, "a425couple" <...@hotmail.com
This was not, actually, a problem for Ghengis because he employed
Chinese, Uigur and Muslim beurocratists. And, IIRC, Atilla had Roman
secretary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:54:55 -0700, "a425couple" <...@hotmail.com
<...@hotmail.com-"a425couple" <...@hotmail.com---
-This was not, actually, a problem for Ghengis because
-he employed Chinese, Uigur and Muslim beurocratists.
Thank you.
I accept what you say, but how much of the above
languages have really effected Western European
(& USA) educational institutions & mainstream
thoughts?
-And, IIRC, Atilla had Roman secretary.
And somewhat similarly, were the 'intelectuals'
as interested in promoting these as they were
'Ceasars' Conquests in Gaul'?
Seems to me, there are reasons to consider
that they might have a bias, Ceasar over Attila.
As I stated, my points 1-4 "help",
but certainly the filtering of the "inteligencia"
educators matters a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 12, 4:54 pm, "a425couple" <...@hotmail.com
Well, a simple search on Barnes and Noble gives approximately 200
title. Actually, more but I suspect that 'Living with pugs' is a
little bit off subject.
Can't tell anything definite about mainstream thoughts of the Western
European and American institutions on this subject (probably Paul and
Larry can shed some light on this) and not sure why educational
insitutions of some other areas should be discounted.
AFAIK, Atilla's secretary was not writing history so there is nothing
to compare. However, 'The Secret History...' got enough attention to
be used as a basis for at least 2 (very bad) Hollywood movies (Ghengis
being Mr. Good Guy in both), couple more quite recent movies (one,
IIRC, made in Japan and another by Russian director was, IIRC,
nominated for Oscar) and the endless (30+ parts) Chinese-Mongolian
"Life of Ghengis Khan" closely following "The Secret History...".
Nothing, AFAIK, based on the "Gaul Wars" so, in the terms of
promotion, Ghengis is a clear winner. :-)
Still, Atilla made it reasonably well in the movie history and even in
literature (especially, if you count Nibelungs). Of course, Ceasar
beats him castronomically because I don't recall any dish related to
his name.
I think that much more 'intellectuals' (does this mean that only those
in education and liberal arts posess 'intellect'?) in, say, China or
Russia tend to pay much more attention to Ghengis and his successors
than to Caesar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:51:59 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines" <...@excelsior.com
Good Points All.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"a425couple" <...@comcast.com...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:49:57 -0700, "God's Creator! " <...@Always.Bro.ke
Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*
---
(Video) - U.S. SUPPORT OF ZIONIST/JEWS OMITTED IN (9/11) REPORT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------
---
God's Creator!
( Well, we all make mistakes... Sometimes.)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Why does the world shed crocodile's tears over the
richly merited fate of a small rich Jewish minority" ?
--- Adolph Hitler ---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:31:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
SolomonW <...@noemailaddress.com
All nations use history to further their own national myths.
Nothing wrong with that as long as we are aware of it.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:50:58 +1100, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
In article <...@reader1.panix.com
As do government organizations racial groups, companies, universities,
families etc
It is because the community think it important.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I just came back from a trip to Israel and Palestine. In the process, I
had several discussions with several Palestinians. I left very much with
the feeling that less history (national myths) might be better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:29:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
SolomonW <...@noemailaddress.com
Sure, but folks will never agree.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:55:59 +0100, "William Black" <...@hotmail.co.uk
"SolomonW" <...@NoEmailAddress.com news...@eu.Usenet-News.net...
Some groups take more interest in their 'national legend' than is good for
them.
The Irish and the Arabs are two of them.
The US national legend is very odd indeed.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:33:22 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
William Black <...@hotmail.co.uk
Well, it doesn't go back very far. For many years it was
based on imagined military prowess (we never lost a war,
it was said) and on imagined moral superiority (we never
do the wrong thing, such as shoot prisoners, torture, etc.)
Still there was enough truth to it so that for a fair
number of years we did have a large amount of moral
clout.
Sadly, the worst President (so far) in US history has
put paid to all that.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:55 am, "William Black" <...@hotmail.co.ukwrote:
And so is Brittish .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:21:12 +0100, "William Black" <...@hotmail.co.uk
<...@y79g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 13, 10:55 am, "William Black" <...@hotmail.co.ukwrote:
And so is Brittish .
-----------------------
Well, no it isn't.
We get beaten now and again, and we're very very sorry about the empire and
slavery and stuff, but, as a general rule, we're not too irrational about
our past...
Any nation who has killed its various heads of state by cutting off their
heads, shooting arrows into them, tripping one up with a passing mole and,
in one famous case, getting their wife's lover's pal to stick a red hot
poker up the bum, tends not to be too picky about making stuff sound good.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:51:07 +0100, "John Briggs" <...@ntlworld.com
Sober historians have now decided that the last one is just a myth :-)
--
John Briggs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:40:26 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
John Briggs <...@ntlworld.com
I've seen that ebb and flow all my life. Whichever group is
"in" has an opinion. The upcoming group then naturally takes
the other side.
What *is* known that there were no external signs of injury
reported on the body. Clever folks could have found a way
around that.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:12:25 +0100, "William Black" <...@hotmail.co.uk
"John Briggs" <...@newsfe10.ams2...
I seem to remember that, many years ago, I dug the trial accounts out for
one Paul Gans who expressed a similar sentiment.
But as I've now sold the book that contained the account you'll have to take
my word for it.
Anyway, a couple of unpleasant characters were found 'guilty as charged' of
killing the king at a trial organised by his son, so I'm inclined to believe
that it may well have happened.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:02:22 +0100, "John Briggs" <...@ntlworld.com
There's not much doubt that he was murdered, but no-one seems to know who
did it, or how. Roger Mortimer was executed for the murder of the king.
--
John Briggs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:42:11 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
John Briggs <...@ntlworld.com
No, for *organizing* the murder of the king. I don't recall
there being any evidence that he was present, and in any
case, I think he was way too shrewd to be present.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:36:43 -0500, Larry Swain <...@poetic.com
Sobriety has nothing to do with and no, no one has decided it is just a
myth. Whether it can be established as historical fact is a different
question, and the debate shifts sides continually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 13, 2:21 pm, "William Black" <...@hotmail.co.ukwrote:
If you are sorry about loosing all these things, this is
understandable. If you are sorry about having them in the past, you
are irrational because you are trying to evaluate past based on
today's criteria.
You aren't? I wonder how many Brits could, at any point of SHM
existence, discuss Agincourt (not to mention the whole 100YW)
rationally? :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:11:05 +0100, "William Black" <...@hotmail.co.uk
<...@h60g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
You aren't? I wonder how many Brits could, at any point of SHM
existence, discuss Agincourt (not to mention the whole 100YW)
rationally? :-)
-----------------
Google is your friend.
There have been many discussions about Agincourt and the 100 Years War over
the years.
Most are rational.
Virtually none have any emotional content, except for some jokes and the
ramblings of the creature Hines.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:26:31 -0500, erilar <...@chibardun.net.invalid
In article
Well, he did say "as a general rule".. . . And how many Frenchmen
could discuss those subjects rationally? loud giggles!!
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:52:09 +0100, "William Black" <...@hotmail.co.uk
"erilar" <...@news.airstreamcomm.net...
My experience of the French and the 100 Years War seems to indicate that
they have a reasonably rational but very French approach to it.
The do tend to feel that it was a war fought by the French aristocracy on
one side and on the other by the English fighting as a nation, and that the
French aristocrats, being aristocratic in their approach to the war,
refused to change and assumed that their social superiority would bring them
victory.
The French also show a marked fascination with longbows, and with the
knight as an individual, much like any other group of people who get
involved with the history of that particular war.
However, like the English, the French are fully aware that the 100 Years
War was a very long time ago and aren't terribly concerned with playing mind
games with people over it.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:08:13 +0100, "John Briggs" <...@ntlworld.com
What is the problem with Agincourt? It is well understood.
--
John Briggs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:44:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
John Briggs <...@ntlworld.com
Some of us, followers of Delbruck, can't accept the story
as usually told.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:44 pm, Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
If it was only me, I wonder why did it end up as The 1st Battle That
Shall Not Be Named?
[BTW, who is itching for fight NOW? :-)]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:58:53 +0100, "John Briggs" <...@ntlworld.com
Can you be more specific?
--
John Briggs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:29:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
John Briggs <...@ntlworld.com
No.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:14:33 +0200, Thomas Zahr <...@zahr-mail.de
SolomonW schrieb:
They were written after the end of the mongol empire ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:31:41 +1100, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
In article <...@mid.individual.netsays...
Yet many histories today are written of empires long since gone.
Another interesting example, Jewish history would be an example of
history written by losers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:48:17 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
SolomonW <...@noemailaddress.com
So is the history of the Vikings...
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:20:11 +1300, Eric Stevens <...@sum.co.nz
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:48:17 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.comwrote:
Eventually, everyone loses.
Eric Stevens
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:08:59 +0100, "Kathy" <...@somewhere.else
"Paul J Gans" <...@reader1.panix.com...
Now here's an interesting point to consider.
In Britain we are taught that the Vikings were pirates who attacked without
provocation, despoiling church institutions, raiding villages, killing
menfolk and enslaving women and children, either for themselves or to sell.
In time they started to stay on the land they raided, taking it over and
imposing their ways on the local indigenous population. We are taught from
an early age to dislike, if not hate, them.
I once worked with a Scandinavian teaching assistant, who was gobsmaked by
this, because she had been taught that the Vikings were brave adventurers
who traveled the world, making friends everywhere and taking their superior
culture to those in need. They also settled land for their Kings. She was
taught to love and revere them.
So, who was taught the truth? Anyone care to attempt an answer? I already
have formed mine :-}
--
Kathy
It's pointless to try and discuss ethics with a spider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:08 am, "Kathy" <...@somewhere.else
Would you be surprised to find that the Spaniards have view on Drake &
Co substantially different from one adopted by the English? Or, if you
consider Elizabethian age from the Spanish point of view, how Phillip
was suppossed to react on the unending English provocations including
open state support for the anti-Spanish piracy and support of
rebellion in the Netherlands (Dutch _were_ Phillip's subjects after
all)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:06:18 -0400, James Beck <...@yahoo.com
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:08:59 +0100, "Kathy" <...@somewhere.elsewrote:
Neither.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:10:16 -0500, Larry Swain <...@poetic.com
Both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:08:01 -0500, erilar <...@chibardun.net.invalid
In article <...@comcast.com Larry Swain <...@poetic.com
And both at the same time 8-)
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:32:02 +0100, "Kathy" <...@somewhere.else
"Larry Swain" <...@comcast.com...
I'd go along with that. My own view is that History is written not only
from different perspectives, but with a certain audience in mind.
--
Kathy
It's pointless to try and discuss ethics with a spider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:10:32 +1100, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
In article <...@somewhere.else says...
Indeed. Often today based on sound financial reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:37:54 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
Kathy <...@somewhere.else
There is no truth in history. In this case, both sides are right.
It depends on which activities one wants to emphasise.
Look at what the Vikings accomplished that we all know about,
the places they went, the cities they founded, the nations they
founded, the trade routes they built, etc., etc.
My feeling is that the Northern trade routes that led eventually
to the Hanseatic League owes a lot to the Norse and their fellow
adventurers.
Ethics are, in my opinion, an outgrowth of living in social
groups. Spiders don't and it would seem that they have little
use for ethics.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:03:54 -0700 (PDT), "wag...@yahoo.dk" <...@yahoo.dk
On Oct 13, 3:37 am, Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
Sometimes I get the feeling when I see an discussion like the above
that it is like the readers arguing on the letter pages of a comic
book
about the krypton origin of Superman.
At one point the editor will write a comment outlining Supermans
origin
and declare that all other versions are myths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:14:42 +0200, "Tron" <...@frizurf.no
Hi,
<...@j68g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 13, 3:37 am, Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
He still has to explain how Superman could be allergic to his own home
planet ... hah!
T
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:45:28 +0200, "Tron" <...@frizurf.no
Hi,
"Kathy" <...@registered.motzarella.org...
Well, it doesn't have to be the truth to perform the function that we
require of knowledge;
re Nietzsche's "Vom Nutzen und Nachtheil der Historie fr das Leben".
Although Scandinavian myself, I'd probably reserve judgement on the "making
friends everywhere",
even for the most chauvinistic of history books. Like for Ghengis, being
feared was part of the cool,
making friends is some later christian invention....
At the moment I'm translating five UK/US-produced "infotainment docudramas"
(...) about the "Vikings", probably for some CD box edition... very high
squirm factor... no attempt to distinguish between vikings and the Norse is
the proton pseudos... They certainly quote history written by the victims.
Uses of history ... Springing to mind here is the debate between Renia and
Vincent, between Renia and mr. Black in the thread on roots of british
decay. There, the theories of epistemologists are shown up as useless, as
people could not even agree to the entities of history - what is a ntaion, a
country, a culture?
What are history's principle agents influencing the individual.
Here the question is: Who is history for? And what is it for?
For fun and entertainment, I looked up "History" at wiki. Not helpful.
What makes something eligible as part of history, as distinguished from
merely the past?
I.e., what is history? Really?
T
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:53:12 +0100, "William Black" <...@hotmail.co.uk
"Tron" <...@telenor.com...
History is a view of the past interpreted in such a way as to make it
understandable to the people of the present day.
EH Carr's 'What is history' is always worth a read...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:20:31 +1100, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
In article <...@reader1.panix.com
Why do you define the Vikings as losers?
I would say that they and their descendants did quite well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:56:27 -0700 (PDT), "wag...@yahoo.dk" <...@yahoo.dk
On Oct 13, 1:20 pm, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
I think the point is, that the vikings did well, but it was mostly
their victims
who wrote the history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:25:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
SolomonW <...@noemailaddress.com
I don't. You misread me. The Vikings were the winners, but
they did NOT write their history. That was left to the people
who felt savaged by the Vikings. Those folks were the losers.
Thus we have an instance of the losers writing the history
and denigrating the winners.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:00:24 +1100, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
In article <...@reader1.panix.com
After they became Christians did not they not write their sagas from
their oral culture? Are these not today our best source of Norse society
of this period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:16:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
SolomonW <...@noemailaddress.com
There, in a nutshell, is one of the major problems of history.
The simple answer to your question is yes.
The more complex one is to note that when they wrote down
the sagas, they christianized them. That removed one important
cultural layer. Secondly, most were written down a century or
more after they were composed. That's a second problem. And
third, we don't know what was lost.
There are other sources for the Vikings, but of course they
too are more or less biased.
Extracting what most probably happened from all this is very
very difficult and different historians will extract different
things.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:59:19 +1300, Eric Stevens <...@sum.co.nz
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:25:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.comwrote:
... and who wrote the history of the Normans?
Eric Stevens
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:21:11 +0100, James Hogg <...@SPAM.gmail.com
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:59:19 +1300, Eric Stevens
<...@sum.co.nz
Some Dude from Saint-Quentin (the French town, not the living
hell that Merle Haggard experienced).
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:34:20 +1300, Eric Stevens <...@sum.co.nz
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:21:11 +0100, James Hogg
<...@SPAM.gmail.com
Dudo covered only the early years up to 1015. As is well known a lot
more happened after that.
Eric Stevens
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:13:10 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
James Hogg <...@spam.gmail.com
Dudo, if I recall correctly, was commissioned to produce a
history of the Normans. That should be kept in mind when
reading him.
A very complete study of all this is Emily Albu's "The Normans
in their Histories", Boydell Press, 2001.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 03:25:14 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines" <...@excelsior.com
Gans has a definite conflict of interest every time he recommends a
Boydell Press book.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Paul J Gans" <...@reader1.panix.com...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:39:14 -0500, Larry Swain <...@poetic.com
No he doesn't, and Boydell happens to be one of the better publishers of
things medieval out there, a lot of good stuff is published by them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 11, 6:20 am, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
But there are many reasonably modern history books with the reasonably
'positive' views on this subject. Did you ever read Vernadski or
Gumilev? Or what Montgomery (Monty) wrote about their military
organization and conquests?
Actually, Gumilev's view was more complicated: his sympathies were
with the _nomadic_ Mongolian Empire but his asessment of Khubilay and
the turn from Mongolian to Chinese culture was negative (he was much
more fond of the nomads than of Chinese).
Negative views are reasonably easy to explain and they do have certain
foundation as for any empire built on conquest. Of course, the
contemporaries who complaint about the Mongolian cruelty usually were
not a single bit better, just less organized. OTOH, this was one of
the few empires with a total religious and ethnic tolerance: big part
of the Mongolian armies consisted of the conquered people who were
fighting loyally and efficiently under their new masters and all
religions had been protected by state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:01:19 +1100, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
In article <474ea126-55a0-4230-8d55-3981399578b4
@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com
Actually I have read little on them. Please suggest something.
All true but the popular perception is that they were bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:01 am, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com Gumilev - titles:
http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/english.html
Not sure what is available in English
http://www.coldsiberia.org/webdoc2.htm
Vernadsky, George: "The Mongols and Russia," Yale University Press,
1953. Apart from the mistake the author commits on page 19 on
supernatural birth, where he ascribes certain elements to Christian
influence, thereby failing to understand that this is in fact a common
feature in many mythologies, this is the book among those read by me
that best describes the nature of the Mongol Empire. The first 150
pages are nearly indispensable to any student of Mongol history who
wants to understand its philosophical and spiritual foundations.
Vernadsky, George: "The Scope and Content of Chingis Khan's Yasa."
Printed in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Volume 3, 1938, pages
337-360.
And as far as Monty is concerned, it is History of Warfare by
Montgomery of Alamein.
'Popular perception' is totally worthless because most of the people
who have it don't have any clue on the subject. Posts by "JA" would be
a perfect illustration.
How many empires had been built without an extensive bloodshed?
Charlemagne is suppossed to be 'good' (according to a popular
perception) but I strongly suspect that the contemporary Saxons did
not share this 'perception'. Warfare methods of the time of Louis XIV
included intentional devastation of the whole areas. The British
Empire was 'good' (at least quite a few Brits thought so) but they
killed quite a few people in a process of building it and even had
been engaged in a state-sponsored drug trafficing on the top of all
these killings. We can go case by case and many of them would be worse
than the Mongols. BTW, before the Mongols started their conquests,
goverment of the Northern China was conducting regular manhunts on
their territory, killing males, just as a prevention measure.
Of course, many contemporaries had a negative view because they saw
their world being destroyed by the invaders: in many cases _their_
world was a result of the earlier invasion. However, after initial
debacle, things went back to normal in most places and the scope of
destruction was often exagerrated to an absurd level like ALL
population of Baghdad being exterminated or million people being
killed in the city that never had anything close to this number and on
the top of a recorded fact that all 'useful' people (those with
skills, simply able-bodies males, merchants, artisans, etc.) were NOT
killed. Or complaints of the Russian chronicles that ALL territory was
totally destroyed and population killed. A little bit at odds with the
fact that most of the cities never ever been attacked by the Mongols
and that 2 most powerful princes of the time made alliances with the
invaders (or rather acknowledged themselves as tha vassals) and one
of them even helped Batu to crush anti-mongolian rebellion of his own
brother.
Not to mention that Emperor Friederich II did not feel any serious
anymosity against the invading Mongols and, quite possible, was
willing to ally with them against the Pope.
One thing should not be forgotten: a big-scale massacre was almost
inavoidable attribute of a greatness in the eyes of the ancient and
medieval writers and some of the sources that describe all these
killings were written on the orders of the Mongolian rulers (IIRC,
Rashid al Din wrote one of these accounts on Ilkhan's order) because
'the more corpses, the greater the conqueror'. To think about it, you
don't have to go back to the middle ages to find this attitude:
'Napoleonic' writers did not walk too far from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:30:43 +1100, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
In article <e1f9b461-39c7-419a-84f9-510a4274dcae@
2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com
This one looks good!
The Devil's Horsemen
Out of print
???
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:30 am, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
If you REALLY want it, it is available (used) on Amazon (and probably
on ebay as well). The same for Lev Gumilev (S'earches for an Imaginary
Kingdom ...')
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:41:18 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines" <...@excelsior.com
I used Vernadsky in my undergraduate and graduate History studies.
Useful fellow.
One of his works, two volumes, is on the shelf just beside my desk --
six feet from me as I write.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:30:27 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
SolomonW <...@noemailaddress.com
Sure. But good and bad are value judgements and raw history
isn't about that. Each student or reader can make up his or
her own mind, but the historian shouldn't do it for you.
Certainly, the Mongols as a group profited greatly by their
activities.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:30 pm, Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
I suspect that most of the profit was close to the top. An ordinary
Mongol had to provide his own equipment, food, horses and to give the
best 20% (IIRC) of the loot to the Great Khan (probably something to
his tribal leaders and military commanders as well. At least part of
the personal loot, especially the slaves, he would probably have to
sell right away simply because he would not be able to guard them.
Which means that they would be sold at a fraction of a market price (I
suspect that this changed in 'Tatar' times when the long campaigns of
conquest had been replaced with the fast looting raids).
At the same time, shortage of the males at home meant dififculties
with the tending for the herds. One of the writers on the subject
attributed conquest of the Tangut Kingdom to a need to get fresh
livestock because the Mongolian herds by the end of Ghengis reign had
been depleted due to a shortage of the herders. At least as a theory,
this looks not totally absurd.
So, an ordinary Mongol may, quite well, end up with close to nothing
besides glory. Well, so did most of the French by the end of
Napoleon's reign but this did not have a noticeable negative impact on
his 'cult'.
BTW, when we are talking about the 'Mongols' in this context, it
should not be forgotten that many of these people were not the Mongols
but the soldiers recruited from the conquered nations: IIRC, even
during conquest of the Northern China some Chinese troops changed
sides (not a big surprise because the NC had been ruled by the foreign
invaders), armies of Batu had been packed by the defeated Kipchaks and
other nomads from Euro-Asian steppes and even with the contingents
from Russia. Gumilev's description of the composition of Khubilay's
army that defeated Arik-Buka's Mongols looks like 'who is who from
Pacific to Baltics' and the 'Mongols' defeated by the Mameluks in
Syria were predominantly native (and to a big degree Muslim)
contingents from the Northern Caucass and Volga-Don steppes lended by
the Khan of Kipchak (Golden) Horde to Ilkhan and placed under command
of the Mongolian generals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
In article
China at the time of conquest was split into North and South. The South
had a a native dynasty the North was under Jurchen rule. Genghis
conquered North China but was unable to conquer the South. That was done
by Kublai who according to at least one biography had to import Muslim
engineers from the West.
The biggest difference Genghis made to the Mongols was introducing the
notion of conquest as opposed to raiding and extracting tribute.
Conquest required the setting up of a bureaucracy hence the conscription
of educated settled people.
Ken Young
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
With the help from SC and with many NC troops switching sides (why
would they fight to death for the foreign dynasty).
It started before Khubilay but he finished the job. His army was
rather 'international' in its composition with the Mongols not being
even a dominant component (at least according to Gumilev) because most
of them sided with Arik Buga. Contingents came from as far as Rus (at
least one tumen) and definitely from the parts of Muslim Asia so I
would not be surprised.
"We conquered Empire sitting in the saddle but we can't rule it from
the saddle".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:20:35 +1100, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
In article <...@reader1.panix.com
You want raw history read tables of values, I bet you will stop from
boredom after awhile.
Actually they do. Try submitting an essay in university stating a view
your professor does not agree with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:43:33 -0500, erilar <...@chibardun.net.invalid
In article <...@eu.Usenet-News.net SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
Depends on the professor. If you do it well, some will admire your
nerve 8-)
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:28:43 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
SolomonW <...@noemailaddress.com
Not at all. Most good history is written with an attempt to
not make value judgements.
But making such judgements does make a work of history much more
fun to read -- as long as one agrees with the judgements. "The
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" is an excellent example.
It is totally biased by the notion that the Catholics caused
the whole thing to happen.
It is, in fact, fairly easy. All you have to do is support
your arguments.
I know that you position on this is generally held, and I know
that many students believe it and so slant their papers. I also
know it does them little good gradewise.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:59:40 -0400, James Beck <...@yahoo.com
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:28:43 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.comwrote:
Mixed. It depends on how self-impressed the prof is, I think. The more
they like hearing themselves think, the better the strategy works.
I remember one exasperated outburst after an exam when I was doing my
Masters: "The answer to every question IS NOT arbitrage or
disintermediation!" (Expletives deleted) Those were his two favorite
subjects, so most of the students assumed that that was what the test
would be about. The grades were pretty terrible.
As far as I was concerned, brilliance was always better than
parroting. Too bad it's not more common. There's nothing worse than
reading the lecture notes 50 times, but I suppose it does give some
insight into the workings of human memory...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:01:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
James Beck <...@yahoo.com
Yup. Folks is all different. Which is why the word of mouth
on a given prof is sometimes very helpful.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 14, 10:01 pm, Paul J Gans <...@panix.comA recepie that worked for me was simple: say (almost) whatever you
want but try to make impression that you got this information from the
lecturer. As far as the non-technical disciplines are involved, I
applied it successfully to the course of a military history (so
successfully that the lecturing colonel later was quite lenient to my
lapses in the technical parts of a military education :-)) ,
and ....er.... 'scientific communism' (name is _not_ mine so I'm not
going to have any responsibility for an obvious oximoron): not
starting answer with "all this is a total nonsense and you are a
fool" (or a more polite equivalent of the same) later helped to pass
through exam within few minutes. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 13, 7:20 am, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
I doubt that Paul is talking about the tables of data. Historian can
make in-depth analysis that would not necessarily boil down to 'good
guy'/'bad guy' scenario. Actually, the more in-depth is analysis, the
less (except in the cases like Nazism) is a chance of a simplistic,
one-sided outcome.
As if life stops after graduation .....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:35:46 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
Exactly.
I also tend to make a distinction between "history" and
"memory". The Vietnamese war, for example, exists in too
many (conflicting) memories to be good history, while the
US Civil War is now enshrined in history.
Interestingly, the Second World War is right now making the
transition from memory to history.
I don't know. I've never left school.... ;-)
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:35 pm, Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
You see, I can read your ...oops... almost said 'mind', quite
well. :-)
Very interesting observation. "Lies as eyewitness".... OTOH, with the
eyewitnesses out of the picture, the history writers are free to
exercise, shall we say 'creative approach' to the history. So we have
a choise between abd and bad. :-)
You are one of the lucky 'chosen few'.... :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:26:00 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
The problem arises every time there is eye-witness testimony.
Unit histories were compiled after WWII for the US military.
They ran into huge amounts of trouble. The official writers
had access to the commanders and their orders and understood
what was being attempted in a particular action.
The troops on the ground saw it all totally differently. And
different groups of them, often in different places on the
battlefield, had totally different notions of what was going
on.
More to the point, a number of years ago I found myself
chairman of the undergraduate curriculum commitee in my
school. It was our job to vet all new courses.
One day we had a young fellow wanting to teach a course on
the 1950's. He had a most impressive list of books and
magazine articles, some of which he brought to us.
I was far from the oldest person there, but most of us
easily remembered the 1950s. The poor guys "historical"
viewpoint agreed with *none* of ours at all. The entire
flavor of the period was gone.
I tried to learn from that.
Perhaps.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:50:16 +1100, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
In article <...@reader1.panix.com
I remember one historian saying that many of the British unit histories
were done by amateur historian. May used used the official history and
embellishing them. Often they copies each other without much checking.
As such they were dubious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:23:58 +0100, "William Black" <...@hotmail.co.uk
"SolomonW" <...@NoEmailAddress.com news...@eu.Usenet-News.net...
There are no British 'official unit histories'.
There are a number of volumes of official history of WWII, all have been
written by distinguished historians.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:35:16 +1100, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
In article <...@hotmail.co.uk says...
I suppose we are going to get into a discussion of what exactly official
means but such books certainly exist.
http://www.war-art.com/regimental_histories.htm
Indeed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:19:18 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <...@panix.com
SolomonW <...@noemailaddress.com
I'm on shakey ground here, but I recall that, after WWII,
what we now call the Defense Department[1] hired a bunch
of civilian historians to go forth and do unit histories.
Perhaps someone here will know more (or better.)
[1] We did not go in for silly euphemisms in the old days.
It was called the "War Department" and it was headed by the
Secretary of War.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:36:28 +1100, SolomonW <...@NoEmailAddress.com
In article <...@reader1.panix.com
Actually one of best histories of WW2 was and still is "The two Ocean
War by Samuel Morison". It was written by a professional historian hired
at the start of WW2 for this very purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:38:01 +0100, "Kathy" <...@somewhere.else
"SolomonW" <...@NoEmailAddress.com news...@eu.Usenet-News.net...
This might help
"Each unit and formation of the army was obliged to maintain a daily
record of its activities, called the War Diary. The entries in the diaries
vary from very terse, simple statements like 'Continued training' to very
detailed explanations of actions which can run to several pages. Officers
are frequently mentioned by name, men of the 'other ranks' much less so
unless they did something remarkable. The original diaries are kept at
National Archives in Kew, in the category WO95."
Not so much "Histories" as running commentaries.
--
Kathy
It's pointless to try and discuss ethics with a spider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|