 |
|
Ethelred
|
|
The worlds oldest parliment is the Icelandic Allthing that met in 999AD. It was a representitive democratic gathering where each Allthing representitive chosen at local Things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:21
|
|
I define modern democracy as a political system where the leader is elected by the people. So the Brits have yet to achieve full modern democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
A rather eccentric definition by most standards. |
Hardly. Democracy is government elected by the people. The British system still relies on people having power by birthright.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:21
|
|
Ned, this is an interesting site on Roman slave revolts which bears out what I am saying:
http://departments.vassar.edu/~jolo...laverevolt.html
The story of Spartacus is disputed, and Hollywood probably has the most to do with his modern rep, but it does fit the peasant revolt pattern. Getting soundly trounced by Crassus, who later lost his head to the Parthians in leading one of Rome's greatest military disasters, hardly speaks highly of Spartacus's military skills, though he does seem to have been an able leader of the revolt whilst it lasted.
quote:
The Story of Spartacus' Revolt
One of the great frustrations of studying Roman slave revolts is the dearth of historical records on the matter. The rebellion of Spartacus is unfortunately no different in these regards. Our best source from antiquity is Appian, a Greek aristocrat writing forty or so years after Spartacus and his men took the field against the Roman army in 72 AD. Appian provides us with some tantalizing bits of information, though, and on their foundation we must fit our incorporating theories about the revolt.
Apian tells us that Spartacus was a Thracian and a veteran of the Roman army, who "had since been a prisoner and sold for a gladiator" (215). The mechanics of how Spartacus was taken as a prisoner--while he was in the Roman army, we assume--and then sold to a Roman gladiator school is difficult to understand. Appian does not elaborate, and we are left to our own devices. If indeed Spartacus was taken prisoner while he was in the Roman army and then sold into slavery in the Roman world, we have an excellent indication of slavery's encompassing nature in antiquity. Spartacus' veteran status did not prevent him from being enslaved after he was taken prisoner. Of course, a more likely scenario would seem to be that the Romans (Appian's sources) merely claimed that Spartacus was a veteran in order to explain his success.
Rebelling, Spartacus and some comrades fled to Mount Vesuvius, gathering more men as they went. Varinius Glaber and Publius Valerius were sent with small forces to subjugate the uprising, which was evidently thought to be quite small at this time. Spartacus and his men defeated them (215).
Following this victory we get our first sense of the size of Spartacus' army: "70,000 men" (215). Truly, this seems a large number. How could his numbers have swelled so quickly from when he revolted from the gladiator school? If this is true, then we must believe that the numbers of runaway slaves in the countryside was very great.
Facing two legions of Roman forces, Spartacus and his second-in-command, Crixus, apparently divided forces. Crixus was defeated and killed by one legion. However, individually Spartacus smashed both legions. Following this victory the forces of Spartacus now numbered 120,000. In another battle with the legions at Picenum Spartacus was triumphant (218-219).
Some details given to us by Appian here, bear mentioning: Spartacus "sacrificed 300 Roman prisoners to the shade of Crixus... burned all his useless material... buthered his pack-animals in order to expedite his movement. Many deserters offered themselves to him, but he would not accept them" (219). Clearly, Spartacus was a savvy military commander, choosing to make his army as fast as possible in an attempt to even the discrepancy in discipline between his own forces and those of the Romans. He was also intelligent enough not to add deserters to his own army, probably considering them likely only to desert again in the face of danger.
After this matters move more quickly. (It is surprising to note that three years had now passed since the beginning of the rebellion, according to Appian (219).) The Romans sent out six legions, plus the previous two, under the command of Licinius Crassus to put down Spartacus once and for all. In a series of smaller battles, Crassus trounced the slave army at every turn. Spartacus seems to have attempted to turn the war into more of guerilla fight, but Crassus kept him closed in. When Spartacus tried to make it to the sea and Siclily, Crassus threw him back again. Closed in, Spartacus finally engaged Crassus head-on, and was defeated. Appian says that he was killed, but his body was not afterwards discovered (220-221).
The holes in this story are obviously large enough to drive a monster truck through, but it gives us a place to start from. Perhaps, the most vital piece of information, is the sense of shock which Appian conveys; the Roman aristocracy was stunned by the success of the slave uprising. If nothing else it seems, Spartacus may have taught the Romans some humility.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheStinger
No it doesn't.
Although i don't think we sshould have a monarchy, it doesn't have any power anyway. |
I thought the House of Lords still had hereditary members.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:21
|
|
700 members in the House of Lords. Now there's a pork barrel. And I thought the Canadian senate was bad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
I am inclined to vote for Alexander mainly because I know about him in much more detail than I know about Ghengis Khan. There are many other good and great generals who have been mentioned. Julias Ceasar is certainly one of them, with several of his battles being worthy of mention as textbook examples of military brilliance.
I only tend to consider those generals who were able to show that that they had the complete package. Tacticians such as Rommel and Patton (or even Zhukov) don't make this very high level of discussion, as able as they were in their sphere. IMO the best have to show excellence in three areas to be considered:
Tactical skill
Strategic vision
Logistical excellence
I leave political skill out mainly because this is a thread about military leaders, and while political skill is often a crucial part of military leadership, it sometimes does not matter all that much. Ghengis Khan, Alexander and Julias Ceasar all make the grade IMO, and they all had not an inconsiderable amount of political skill to boot, which was important in their cases as they were also political leaders. Robert E. Lee is extremely overrated IMO, and doesn't belong here. Napolean was a brilliant tactician, but he overextended himself early and often, and was worn down by all the attention he managed to garner for himself and his nation. Shaka doesn't even belong in the poll IMO, this isn't just about whipping the locals but showing brilliance of a sort that attracts the attention of historians who have read hundreds of battle and campaign histories. Scipio Africanus belongs in the poll, but doesn't get my vote. Charlemagne is an interesting choice, and I admit that I would have to refresh my memory on his military exploits, but I tend to think that like Shaka the level of his opponents did not do him sufficient honor, and that a lot of his fame came for more political reasons than military.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Actually, there is a grain of truth in the "revisionist" description of the battle with Porus even if one assumes that Alexander won. Alexander may have lost so many of his quality cavalry and infrantry that he simply did not have the resources to carry on and defeat another Porus.
In other words, the battle of Jhelum was in a sense a Pyrrhic victory.
Just as you said, AH, Alexander must have now realized that a campaign in India was not to be more "mop up" as he had experienced in the Persian Empire.
But where is the truth? All we really know is that Alexander did not end up ruling Porus's kingdom and Alexander did leave India.
|
According to the sources I have found so far Alexander lost 300 cavalry and 700 infantry while Porus lost 12000 to 23000 men and two of his sons. He was captured as prison as well. This doesn't sound like a Pyrrhic victory to me. Though the number might not be true the most likely is that it was a great victory with much more casualties on behalf of Porus compared to Alexander. Alexander gave Porus his kingdom back and forced him to make peace with the king of Taxila, who had originally called Alexander to halp him against Porus, and gather his rest of his army to aid Alexander in a future campaign against other Indian kingdoms. He established two new cities, Nikaia (which means win in Greek) near the victorious battlefield and Voukefala (in the name of his horse which died from fatigue with the end of the battle) in the crossing point of the river.
He moved north to Kasmir to meet a king who had allied with Porus. He submitted without fight.
Then he moved east conquering without fight around 37 cities and many smaller towns and villages and gave them all to his new ally, Porus. After that he besieged - with fight this time - Sagaly (not sure for the spelling) which is beleived to be the current Lahore losing 100 men and 1200 wounded and killing some thousands and enslaving even more. He stopped in a river east of Amritsar where he had crossed 1500 Km since the day he cossed the Indian river. He was planning to attack another Indian kingom located in the Ganges river and much larger than Porus' kingdom. From local information he learned that that kingdom had around 250000 army and some thousands elephants but the king having encroached the thrown was not popular among his subjects. But rumors that his soldiers wanted to return home made him call his generals. He told his generals a beutiful story that their destination to fight and conquer hadn't came into an end and stuff like that. They answered that the army was exausted and they advised him to return back. Alexander got upset and remained under his tent for a couple of days. He adviced his astrologers who said to him that the gods where against this time. He was very disappointed and he decided to return. Three months after the battle with Porus he decided to return. Alexander deleived that his destiny was to conquer the world.
The truth is somewhere between I beleive. The army was tired indeed, the moral low, they were under severe rainfall for lot of weeks and - important - they were not permitted to loot the conquered lands that had submitted without fight (almost all). Not even Porus' kingdom.
From the above you can easily conclude that the only battle or war he lost was to convise and inpire his army and his generals to follow him. He never lost to Porus in any form.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
To help you better to understand the Mongols and their armed forces, please read:
The Campaigns of Chingas Khan Translated from Chiese text prepared during Kublai Khan's reign by Pelliot and Hambliss
Medieval researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources English translation of contemporay Chinese sources by Bretschneider
The Ancient art of warfare by Boudet
The Mongol Empire by Brent
The Mongols in Russia by Curtain
The military life of Gengis Khan:Khan of Khans by Dupuy
Decisive battles of the western world by Fuller
History of the Mongols by Howorth
The Devils' Horsemen by Chambers.
This should clear up some misconceptions you have about them and their way of war.  |
Chengis Khan was great indead but perhaps you should consider that the mongol empire during his rules was a little larger than Alexander's and he ruled the twice years Alexander ruled. The true is than during the first 10 years of Chengis Khan's rule his empire was significantly smaller than Alexander's while I think the Mongol lands before the expantion was also larger than Macedonia was before Alexander's expantion (not sure though about the latter).
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
paiktis: alexander indeed influenced lots of cultures. For example, in judea, people were honoured to call their children alexander, and the jewish writings respect him very much, because he gave the jews a religious autonomy, his name was "Alexander Mokdon", Alexander the Macedonian . Some Kings of the Hashmonaite dynasty that followed, after the jews revolted against the selecid greeks , that opressed them. As the ritual goes in jewish tradition, this revolt is depicted in grandeur , and is celebrated each year.
|
Interesting 
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
And while you are at it, stop claiming the works of the Macedonian Hero Alexander to be Greece's own. |
Here we go again... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheStinger
There are, i think 92 heriditaries left out of about 700 total members left.
Ive got more of a problem with bishops being allowed in.
The house of lords in any case can only delay an revise legislation and in connection with finance cannot do anything.
BTW I do not think the British system is perfect, but to say its not democratic is IMO wrong
|
As far as I know the Perliament of the Lords was abolished a couple of years during the service of the prime minister Blair or was removed as part of the ordinary parliament.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
Edit: I deleted my bull here... 
Last edited by Keygen on 15-08-2002 at 03:06
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-08-2002 09:24
Thanks for bringing him up.
|