The Logic Off Topic list

Dogs of War by Pink Floyd...

> Hitler would have taken over
> Europe. Even the French didn't put up much of a fight.


I think you need to watch "Allo, Allo" a bit more (zie French 
rezistaance etc :-)))). ;-)

> It was the scrappy
> Brits which held the line,

Yeah, some 40km from my house there are thousands of English graveyards. 
:-(((

> and the later the US and Canada which made it
> possible for Western Europe to prosper and have the security it now 
> enjoys.
> In the same way, if not for the US and England and a dozen other 
> countries to
> smaller extents,  Korea would have been unified under communist 
> control in
> 1950. Yugoslavia would be ethnically cleansed in the 1990's, Iraq 
> would now
> control Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and 1/4 of the worlds oil. And Europe 
> would
> be speaking  Russian had the US not provided the backbone to Nato for all
> these decades as you grew up in a safe Europe.

Probably many of these are very correct indeed!!

> Do you see what is wrong with your pacifist-supporting statement?

As for me personally, I'm no pacifist, but the _right_ actions have to 
be taken. It is my _personal opinion_ that these bombings on Afghanistan 
are a bad decision. I think small commando teams are the best way to 
deal with it in the military way. This combined with additional support 
to the people of Afghanistan would give better results in the long run 
imo. You need inside powers to make the Taliban implode.

> but these wars have not been wars of conquest - they have been in 
> defense of
> freedom

I'm not so convinced about this fact....

> Of course, there are many things to argue about these matters, but I am
> concerned not only about the complete lack of gratitude, but the open
> hostility toward the US on the basis of these incorrect revisionist 
> views of
> the past. 

I haven't read all mails yet, but I still think there's some sort of 
misunderstanding: I don't think there is hostility towards the US (I 
mean from Europe). I'm convinced though that many Europeans do not agree 
with the decisions made by the US government. Those are two different 
things imo.

-- 
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

In a message dated 10/10/01 12:17:49 PM, joeri@... writes:

>As for me personally, I'm no pacifist, but the _right_ actions have to
>
>be taken. It is my _personal opinion_ that these bombings on Afghanistan
>
>are a bad decision. I think small commando teams are the best way to 
>deal with it in the military way. This combined with additional support
>
>to the people of Afghanistan would give better results in the long run
>
>imo. You need inside powers to make the Taliban implode.


Thats almost exactly what they are doing. The bombing raids have been very 
small actually - compared to Yugoslavia or Iraq. The bombing is pinpoint 
accurate bombing of electric power grids, radio, command and control and 
airstrips. I saw the photos on tv - the airstrip was amazingly accurately hit 
so that runway could not be used. They are not bombing civilians 
indiscrimately. Some US warplanes returned without dropping their bombs 
rather than risk civilians.

The next step is to send in special forces, and the Northern Alliance 
fighers. Something like 25% of the landmines in the world are in Afanistan. 
The UN was hiring locals to remove the mines which maim a few people a day on 
average, but on the news today was that Taliban supporters were beating these 
other Afgans who were hired by the UN.

The US is already dropping food, and organizing a broad based new government 
with promises of support for the new era.

In a message dated 10/10/01 12:50:37 PM, vincent.k@... writes:

>>The US in particular, and to a lesser extent England, Canada, Australia
>and
>>others have paid the price - not only in money but in the deaths of their
>>young men (55,000 of my generation in Vietnam, 30,000 in Korea, 300,000
>in
>>WWII, etc)- to make the world how it is today
>
>Thank you very much America, especially considering how the world is 
>today :-(((


Imagine how worse it might be if Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Krushev or Mao had 
fullfilled their wishes. Instead of working on music, you might be working 14 
hours days in an armament factory for the glory of some great leader or 
another. 



>Seriously... A country declares war for expanding or protecting its 
>economic power, the rest is propaganda. You should read Kool Musick's 

Its dangerous to generalize to all peoples, in all situations, in all wars. 
Thats like saying all men and women enter into relationships to get sex. Its 
an oversimplification which ignores a wide range of variation in human 
thoughts and needs. 


>post more attentively. All the refutations to your fairytales are 
>there, in a brilliant synthesis.

I take a personal affront to labeling the deaths of half a million Americans 
fighting wars which were started by others, as fairytales. The US used to be 
a very isolationist country in first half of this century. Even in 1940 about 
90% of the people were opposed to going to war - hoping that somehow the war 
in Europe and Asia would not affect us. It was the same for WWI. We tried the 
'bury your head in the sand' approach but it didn't work.

>  >Seriously... A country declares war for expanding or protecting its
>  >economic power, the rest is propaganda. You should read Kool Musick's
>>post more attentively. All the refutations to your fairytales are
>  >there, in a brilliant synthesis.
>
>I take a personal affront to labeling the deaths of half a million Americans
>fighting wars which were started by others, as fairytales.

I certainly don't want to affront you. There's a misunderstanding, 
maybe my English is inadequate, what I'm reffering to as fairytales 
is stories which tend to make people believe that politics can be 
altruistic, that (for example) USA fought in Europe, Vietnam, Iraq, 
etc. for freedom, or that Belgium colonized Congo to liberate the 
natives from Arab slavery and cannibalism, or that USSR bought sugar 
cane to Cuba at twice the market price because they liked Fidel 
Castro and his beard. Etc etc.

>The US used to be
>a very isolationist country in first half of this century. Even in 1940 about
>90% of the people were opposed to going to war - hoping that somehow the war
>in Europe and Asia would not affect us

Then the American government realized the huge economic and political 
profits this action would bring in the long run.  The Americans 
soldiers were told they were defending freedom, but in reality they 
fought so that Coca Cola, which tasted like medicine to my 
grandmother, would taste like freedom to their children... Anyway 
that's the fairytale _I_ believe. Again, no offense intended.

> As for me personally, I'm no pacifist, but the _right_ actions have to
> be taken. It is my _personal opinion_ that these bombings on Afghanistan
> are a bad decision. I think small commando teams are the best way to
> deal with it in the military way. This combined with additional support
> to the people of Afghanistan would give better results in the long run
> imo. You need inside powers to make the Taliban implode.
>

I think it makes a lot of sense to strike the Taliban's military capability
from above - this will spare many commandoes lives.  One of the things you
have to consider is that helicopters at some point have to go in as well as
other low-flying aircraft.  The near-ground military capability has to be
diminished to lessen the destruction they can/will do to those close to
them.  It will also help the Northern Coalition/other fighters.

Well ... if people are going to speculate about who fought what war and 
why, then it's as well to do so with some background. And ... what the 
study of war has shown is that if it has one constant then it is that those 
who fight give one set of reasons why they fight ... that those they fight 
against give another set of reasons why they fight ... and that those who 
study warfare give yet another set again.

Gets a bit hard to tell whose right, really!!! If anybody actually wants to 
be right about such a thing.


The first military campaigner we have any information about was Aha, more 
fully known as King Menes of Memphis (Ancient Egypt). He was the founding 
king of the 1st Dynasty. Originally born in Thinis, Menes successfully 
unified the Upper and Lower Egypts into one kingdom. Ancient Egypt proper 
dates from the day he was crowned. He really started something. Menes 
called the city he proceeded to found in order to oversee his empire "White 
Walls" or Memphis. He created it by diverting the mighty Nile to create an 
island -- no mean feat. He chose its location specifically because it would 
be easy to defend. From his city of Memphis Menes oversaw numerous raids by 
his fine Egyptian army. His principal enemies seem to have been the 
Nubians, Africans, to the south.

Menes might be the first military campaigner we have any substantial 
knowledge of, but in fact the first actual BATTLE we know anything about 
was fought by one of his descendants: the Battle of Megiddo, 1469 BCE.

For the first 20 years of his reign Pharoah Thutmosis III had been little 
more than a figurehead alongside his more famous co-ruler, and his aunt, 
Hatshepshut. When Hatshepshut died, the tribes of Palestine and Syria, who 
had long wanted to secede, started a revolt. They had decided that 
Thutmosis, who had shown little interest in affairs of state, was weak and 
uninterested and that this would therefore be a good moment to get their 
independence.  Starting in 1472 BCE the Hyskos King of Kadesh (northern 
Palestine) led a series of highly organized uprisings. After three years or 
so of this Thutmosis had had enough of his enemies thumbing his nose at 
them and, as is common with the rulers of great nations, he decided that 
the time was long overdue for him to stamp his authority on the known 
world. Thutmosis duly gathered 20,000 of his well-trained soldiers together 
and embarked on a very sudden and very rapid march into northern Palestine. 
The King of Kadesh, along with the varied rebellious chieftains, gathered 
at Megiddo, just north of Mount Carmel. Three passes led there from the 
south. Since the rebels did not know exactly which pass Thutmosis would 
take they were obliged to attempt to secure all three. Since this was 
impossible, they left skeleton forces at each one and gathered in the main 
valley beyond.

Undaunted, by the forces facing him at the Megiddo Pass he chose, Thutmosis 
III decided on a frontal assault. The records state that this was a 
skirmish that he personally led at the head of his troops. He successfully 
scattered the defenders. The way was now clear to the main valley 
containing the rebel army which still commanded by the King of Kadesh. 
Those forces, gathered near Megiddo itself, had had the good military sense 
to take command of the higher ground just outside the city. The 
disadvantage, though, was that it put them some distance away from the main 
city itself and its fortress. Observing their dispositions Thutmosis 
decided on a plan. He instructed his army to adopt a concave formation. He 
then ordered his southern wing to engage with the enemy in a holding 
attack. He then personally led the northern wing. His plan was simple. He 
wanted to force his way between the rebel army and their main stronghold 
which was the fortress located in the city. Thutmosis was able to complete 
his envelopement ... and the Egyptians secured an overwhelming victory.

There was another historical constant about Thutmosis. He did not stop with 
Megiddo. He felt obliged to go on to many more campaigns ... 17 in all. And 
with that string of victories Menes not only achieved his initial objective 
of subduing the rebels of Palestine and Syria, he carried the Egyptian 
sphere of influence as far as the edge of the Hittite Empire in Asia Minor. 
Thutmosis, therefore, successfully expanded into northwestern Mesopotamia. 
Not only that, but the ships throughout his fleet could sail wherever and 
whenever they wanted for he also managed to wrest complete control of the 
eastern Mediterranean. The Ancient Egyptian civilization that he and Menes 
put together was as glorious as any other and lasted for many millennia 
.... but eventually fell to the sword of one Augustus Caesar.

Menes, Thutmosis III, Augustus Caesar ... they all lived long ago. 
Historians, military and otherwise, are therefore able to study them 
reasonably objectively and wonder about why they did what they did. They 
are in pretty unanimous agreement that those wars were for very simple 
reasons: to extend spheres of influence and to gain control over people and 
their resources. That's the common consensus amongst the students and 
teachers of warfare.

Funnily enough, a very similar consensus exists even about wars fought as 
recently as 200 years ago. It is hard to believe that much has changed 
since then ... although one can only speculate what historians of the 
future will make of the wars being fought today.

But ... if people are going to speculate about such matters then it's 
surely wisest to keep an eye on all the wars that human beings have fought 
and not just one or two of them -- most especially when those one or two 
are still very fresh in people's memories.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

I do not know, through all the quotings and requotings, who said this

>Imagine how worse it might be if Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Krushev or Mao had
>fullfilled their wishes.

They are simply the they who lost. And what did these theys who lost do but 
try to remake the world in their image? And ... what of the theys who won? 
What did those theys also do but try to remake the world in their image?

To the victor goes the luxury of remaking the world in their image. That 
remaking never involves heaping praise upon the they they have defeated. 
Nor does it involve awarding them medals for their gallantry, writing songs 
about their uplifting presentations of humanity nor for their clear 
thinking and vision.

If the they who lost had instead been the they who won then would we not 
all now be debating just how lucky we were that the they who lost won while 
the they who won lost instead of us debating how good indeed it is that the 
they who won won and the they who lost lost.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

At 8:37 PM -0700 10/10/01, Kool Musick wrote:
>I do not know, through all the quotings and requotings, who said this
>
>  >Imagine how worse it might be if Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Krushev or Mao had
>  >fullfilled their wishes.
>
>They are simply the they who lost. And what did these theys who lost do but
>try to remake the world in their image? And ... what of the theys who won?
>What did those theys also do but try to remake the world in their image?
>
>To the victor goes the luxury of remaking the world in their image. That
>remaking never involves heaping praise upon the they they have defeated.
>Nor does it involve awarding them medals for their gallantry, writing songs
>about their uplifting presentations of humanity nor for their clear
>thinking and vision.
>
>If the they who lost had instead been the they who won then would we not
>all now be debating just how lucky we were that the they who lost won while
>the they who won lost instead of us debating how good indeed it is that the
>they who won won and the they who lost lost.

Nice thoughts.   One pretty big detail is worth taking into 
consideration though.  Stalin was on that list and he didn't lose. 
In fact he consolidated control over a pretty vast empire.  Even 
victorious as he was, he didn't manage to remake the world into his 
own image, and not for want of trying either.  He did manage to kill 
a lot of people and is pretty universally regarded as evil by the 
very people your theory suggests should see him as a hero.  In a 
general sort of way I think your theories are right on the money but 
conflicts like people are not all alike and each one has its own 
history and motivations.

As for wars generally being conducted for the purpose expanding 
spheres of influence.  Who could deny that Bin Laden has expanded 
his?  As for wishing for the wars not to be fought?  Of course we all 
wish for peace but should we apologize for defending ourselves simply 
because we are strong?   Would it be better not to try to defend 
ourselves when there are people dedicated to our destruction?

I enjoyed your post and thoughts very much.  But lest we all give in 
to the "Hamlet syndrome" it is worth considering that we Americans 
were the ones who were attacked on this particular outing and options 
for a peaceful resolution were shall we say somewhat limited from the 
beginning.
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

                  check out  MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
                                                    info at
                        http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

At 05:10 PM 11/10/01 +0900, Dennis Gunn wrote:

>Nice thoughts.   One pretty big detail is worth taking into 
>consideration though.  Stalin was on that list and he didn't lose. 
>In fact he consolidated control over a pretty vast empire.  Even 
>victorious as he was, he didn't manage to remake the world into his 
>own image, and not for want of trying either.  He did manage to kill 
>a lot of people and is pretty universally regarded as evil by the 
>very people your theory suggests should see him as a hero.  

I think he did make a pretty good fist of remaking the world within the
borders of the territory he controlled. It is simply that after he died
others took over and rewrote the book on Stalin and his rule.

Some believe that Stalin was murdered or that medical assistance was
withheld so that his death would be hastened. Those that followed him
denounced him and revealed gradually over time some of what went on under
Stalin's tyrranical regime. 

So you could say that those who followed him revised the assessment of
Soviet history in their own image. That he is now regarded as evil is due
to the actions of those within and without the Soviet Union who opposed
him. He eventually lost the battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics
as will we all.

At the time of Stalin's death it is said that even in the gulags people wept.

Regards,
Murray

> For the first 20 years of his reign Pharoah Thutmosis III had been little
> more than a figurehead alongside his more famous co-ruler, and his aunt,
> Hatshepshut. When Hatshepshut died, the tribes of Palestine and Syria, who

I saw a pretty interesting documentary by Egyptologist Bob Brier in which
thy pointed out that Hatshepsut actually took the title of king (there being
no other applicable title or precedent for a female ruler).  In fact her
likeness was engraved as pharaoh on many buildings and wiped out for unknown
erasons by Thutmoses III.  We know that Thutmoses and Hatshepsut seemed to
have a good relationship during her life (in fact he did run the military
even during that time, giving him something to do and preparing him for his
later great campaigns), so there is some surprise that he (or someone whom
he didn't stop) was so avaricious in destroying all traces of her rule.  In
fact her name was literally struck from the roster of pharaohs where it did
appear for a brief time.

Perhaps her likeness was a reminder of better times for the Egyptian
populace; then again that's quite a leap because although we know the
Egyptian public was capable of revolting and thereby at least influencing
pharoah policy, that was a rare concern for pharaohs.  Perhaps she was
closer to the religious rulers and they needed to be chastened.  Anyway,
that's all speculation.

What's interesting is that for a long time, until something like the
beginning or middle of this century, Hatshepsut wasn't even known to exist,
and for a long time after the discovery of her rule we called her a regent
and thought that Thutmoses III was the pharaoh.  He wasn't, she was.  She
was the only Egyptian female pharaoh in history (Cleopatra had some other
title).  She went so far as to wear her hair in a masculine manner and put
on decorations resembling the traditional Egyptian male beard.

Megiddo is not the first battle we know; the battle of Kadesh we know a good
deal about as well.  See
http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fww
w.reshafim.org.il%2Fad%2Fegypt%2Framseskadeshcampaign.htm

Just a nit-pick - the numbers of soldiers is often debated because we only
know that the historians of those times exaggerated, for political as well
as story-telling reasons.  But as I recall there's pretty good evidence that
it was qtuie a sizable army from surviving records of what it took to feed
them and such.

> Funnily enough, a very similar consensus exists even about wars fought as
> recently as 200 years ago. It is hard to believe that much has changed
> since then ... although one can only speculate what historians of the
> future will make of the wars being fought today.
>

I think though what this misses is that many wars have had a sense of moral
imperative and this sense has been a key determinant in the results of those
wars.  The consensus that historians and the like have about the "real"
purpose of wars isn't wrong but it's a view informed by factors the
participants themselves were often only dimly aware of.  Almost every (if
not every) war can be seen as the extension of power by the participants;
for the winner of the war this is the by-product even if it wasn't the
intent going in.  Almost every war can be seen to occur for either economic
or social reasons that related to long-term changes in  how people conduct
their lives, as well as influencing those reasons in turn.  Yet none of this
changes that the people engaging in such conflicts may have had a "good" or
"moral" reason (whether one agrees), nor does it change that even thousands
of years later we often see a "good guy" in a conflict.  And more
importantly, this moral component to war is in fact what motivates countries
to fight and is what reflects the national or tribal or organizational
conscious at that point in time.

Personally I don't see American military history as fueled by any sort of
altruism.  Rather I think we have engaged in wars as a combination of the
expression/consequence of our increased power in the world geopolitically
and our need to protect American business interests (as they say, the
business of America IS business).  But that doesn't mean that we haven't
fought some good fights and that the consequences of our actions have been
in my opinion far better than the alternative of us not acting.  I think
that's simply because our government and economic system are still founded
in some pretty good principles and are still linked together.  And our
morale approach to war reflects these principles often.  (By "morale
approach" I simply mean the morales we use to justify/wage war, not that we
wage war in a morale way; in other words in a generic way I mean the morale
approach every group takes).

In the Arab world there is an increasingly serious struggle as the
fundamentalists see a world turning its back on traditional values and
moreover changing the lives of Arabs; someone in a post a while ago
indicated they didn't see the Arab governments doing much to increase their
lot and diversify their economies.  Yet the green belts being developed
(contrary to the Israeli belief that they made the desert bloom ) and the
universities and the attraction of non-energy businesses are symptomatic of
changes occurring in the Arab world.  And much like in the West there's a
struggle between those who wish to see the old world's ways continue and
those who believe their religion is more flexible than requiring that.  And
of course as has been mentioned in the Arab world the have-nots can identify
more easily with the fundamentalist claims as in fact they are not
benefiting from these advances and they are powerless, thus to the extent
they work with the fundamentalist cause they gain power.  (Of course the
experience of the Taliban points out that the have-nots get abandoned pretty
darn quickly once the fundamentalists gain power, much as in any movement;
the Afghan people were pretty enthusiastic about a devout religious
government until that government proved itself as corrupt, violent, and
self-serving as prior rulers).

So this pan-Arab conflict will draw in the US; we have economic interests
there, both as a resource and as a market.  Instability is dangerous for us,
both in business and now we see personally as well.  The polarization that
bin Laden wants is ironically something we ALSO see as in our interest.
Why?  Because to polarize means we also get moderate/progressive Arabs on
"our" side, or at least on a side that has economic interests which, while
potentially hurting us, we can negotiate with and keep the Middle East
marketplace open.  Until this polarization reaches its logical conclusion,
we have many fence-sitters who aren't willing to help us any more than
they're willing to help the terrorists.

So I expect we're going to see an active taking of sides throughout the
Middle East in the next few years.  Iran has to make a choice, and
regardless which way they choose their leaders know well they will be
embroiled in conflict, later if not sooner.  Countries like Egypt and Jordan
long ago rejected fundamentalism and will be sorely tested by that choice.
Saudi Arabia has to choose as well,  a particularly difficult choice being
the home of Mecca and Medina.  And of course Israel and the American
relationship with it complicates things incredibly.

Well, that's further than I intended to get in this, anyway, just some
thoughts.

This is more than a little unfairly relativistic.

Look, I think we can agree that there are forces in history that even when
they won we have looked back over time, even people in their time saw, that
it was "bad".

Hitler winning would be viewed as bad except in the official schools.
Outside that we'd all be whining and fighting to change things.  The
ethnically pure extremism had a real consequence.

In China the "regular" folks know the Cultural Revolution was overall an
atrocity.  They don't speak of it much and of course many will defend it but
most people know it for what it was.

Pol Pot's Kampuchea was reviled even in his time.  The Taliban's Afghanistan
is not happy with their regime.

In the big picture yes I agree that many of those villified because they
lost would be heroes had they won.  Yes, the victors do write the history
books.  But there are those who even victorious are not celebrated even in
their time or those we cannot pretend would be able to write off their
excesses.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kool Musick" <koolmusick@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [L-OT] European "Friends" / Contributions to Peace


> I do not know, through all the quotings and requotings, who said this
>
> >Imagine how worse it might be if Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Krushev or Mao had
> >fullfilled their wishes.
>
> They are simply the they who lost. And what did these theys who lost do
but
> try to remake the world in their image? And ... what of the theys who won?
> What did those theys also do but try to remake the world in their image?
>
> To the victor goes the luxury of remaking the world in their image. That
> remaking never involves heaping praise upon the they they have defeated.
> Nor does it involve awarding them medals for their gallantry, writing
songs
> about their uplifting presentations of humanity nor for their clear
> thinking and vision.
>
> If the they who lost had instead been the they who won then would we not
> all now be debating just how lucky we were that the they who lost won
while
> the they who won lost instead of us debating how good indeed it is that
the

> they who won won and the they who lost lost.
>
> Kool Musick
> Keep Musick Kool

Hi WIlson,

Thanks for your post. I had originally decided to say nothing further on 
this matter ... but ...

Regarding Hatshepshut -- what Bob Brier had to say is still regarded as 
unsettled and is still being debated by Egyptologists. Therefore, and in 
order to keep an already long post shorter, I decided to omit discussion of 
her 'true' role.

On a personal level, though, I must say that I side with the more feminist 
interpretations of history which basically make the point that if both a 
man and a woman do something and the man can avoid giving the woman proper 
credit then that is what he will do! I therefore belong to the group of 
those who say that Hatshepshut, along with many other powerful women in 
history, has been given the short end of the stick by the men who 
accompanied and followed her!! As you say, however, Hetshepshut's 'real' 
role can be nothing but speculation at this point ... although people are 
digging away hard to get more information.


Regarding Kadesh and Megiddo -- you point about Kadesh is well taken. 
However ... the page you gave a link to, when discussing Kadesh itself 
admits the following:

"The battle of Kadesh was not a battle in the strict sense of the word, but 
only the preparation for the decisive battle which never took place".

It also further says:
"...  Nevertheless, Muwatalli was able to rob his opponent (Rameses) of the 
initiative and to eliminate about a third of his troops".
"The failure of Rameses' campaign was a result of his tactical mistakes ... 
Still, the king blamed his troops"
"Rameses described the campaign as a splendid victory, while in reality 
Kadesh remained in Hittite hands, Amurru fell to the Hittites and the 
Egyptian losses were substantial."

In the first place, therefore, even though it was far from being a victory, 
Rameses (and his immediate successors) talked Kadesh up to be something far 
bigger and far more glorious to them than it actually was.

But ... the central issue here is not so much about who won, but about 
whether or not it really was a 'battle'. This boils down to what one 
considers a 'battle', in the strict military sense, to be.

>Just a nit-pick - the numbers of soldiers is often debated because we only
>know that the historians of those times exaggerated, for political as well
>as story-telling reasons.  But as I recall there's pretty good evidence that
>it was qtuie a sizable army from surviving records of what it took to feed
>them and such.

Yes ... human beings did fight each other long before Megiddo ... and also 
long before Kadesh. The problem here is that if Kadesh is to be included in 
the definition of 'battle', then there are in fact several other ... 
'confrontations?' .. for which strong arguments could be made. It is not 
really anything to do with the size of the army for it takes a bit more 
than lots of people to make something a 'battle'. This requires a far more 
tactical and strategic perspective upon what is happening. Once again ... 
since I did not want to debate those kinds of issues in an already lengthy 
post, I again felt it best to stick to the stricter, more military, and 
also more accepted interpretation of the word 'battle' ... and this, by 
common consensus amongst military historians has Megiddo as the first 
'real' battle in history.

Thank you very much for the link, though, and for the site, which I did not 
know about.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> Regarding Hatshepshut -- what Bob Brier had to say is still regarded as
> unsettled and is still being debated by Egyptologists. Therefore, and in
> order to keep an already long post shorter, I decided to omit discussion
of
> her 'true' role.
>

Totally fair although from what I'm seeing on the web more and more
Egyptologists are now embracing this, so I tend to think it's "becoming
fact" (so to speak).

> But ... the central issue here is not so much about who won, but about
> whether or not it really was a 'battle'. This boils down to what one
> considers a 'battle', in the strict military sense, to be.
>

Again a fair point.  Yup.  But to your point below, I tend  to think Kadesh
"deserves" the monicker "battle" because at least one side attempted to
orchestrate it.  It wasn't just a bunch of guys running at each other.  Now
of course we all know orchestration must have been attempted earlier, but at
least in this instance it survived into the history books and was a credible
effort.  But you have a fair point about military historians.  For what it's
worth when I did read any military history (which was coincidental to
playing board tactical/strategy games when I was a kid in the '70s and into
the '80s) I heard of Kadesh as the first but yeah, I think your point is
probably more valid upon reflection.

Kool Musick wrote:

> > Regarding Hatshepshut -- what Bob Brier had to say is still regarded as
> > unsettled and is still being debated by Egyptologists.

Wilson Zorn wrote:

>... from what I'm seeing on the web more and more
>Egyptologists are now embracing this, so I tend to think it's "becoming
>fact" (so to speak).

I am glad to hear that for that is surely a good thing. Just my opinion, of 
course.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com