Login

Goffredo · 06-26-2002, 07:02 AM

I think Hanson is being a little too brutal but the merit of such simplistic (reductionistic) approachs is that they start debates (like ours). I prefer them to over complex holisitc descriptions that try to account for everything. I suggest reading this book anyway even if the author can get annoying. 
 
I agree we should simply agree that we disagree, but not only on "religion" but on certain interpretations of history too. 
There are many minor points that the other considers major, and vice versa, and this wonderful debate could go on forever. 
History is telling a story, making strong connections while downplaying other ones. Facts, especially historical ones, are not objects that have an independent identity but are actually "arti"-facts that have in them, more or less hidden, the way they were gathered and are to be used. 
 
Actually this comment on facts being artifacts is very true also in obersvations of the physical world and this is why experimentation is so important. Visual and passive observation is extremely risky because the observer is not aware of his "manipulations". The human sensory and cognitive systems are not very "objective" and what "objectivity" means is not only a philosophical question but, in the physical sciences, it is an experimental one (Is the datum my apparatus registering a fluke? Is the apparatus fautly and do these numbers have any meaning? Is this experiment well designed? Am I being distracted by secondary and uncontrollable effects? Is what I learned from the data of any general importance what so ever or is it so particular, peculiar, of the specific apparatus or experiment to be useless? Does the model that I created, basing myself on the results of this HERE experiment, have anything to teach us about the real wonderfully complex world out THERE?) 
 
An artifact (like a tool or instrument) is useful if one has the instruction manual. Similarly a fact is useful only if it is accompanied by a description of how it was obtained [the word useful plays an important role here but not only in the materialistic way (as tools and instruments are)]. 
I am not a philosopher of science and maybe with much time and in an altogether different forum I would engage in the debate in trying to say what science is. I don't know how to do it now. But maybe the approach I would use is try to show you how science is done and point out where it breaks down rather than attempt a "definition". If you re-read closely what wrote above regarding "facts" you might be able to anticipate my approach. 
 
I need a capuccino. 
Ciao to all and thanks for the great exchange of ideas and comments. 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/27/02 11:15:51 am

Thiudareiks Flavius · 06-27-2002, 12:27 AM

Since this interesting discussion has strayed into the Middle Ages, excuse me if I make a couple of points: 
 
StrategyM wrote: 
 
 
But was it just chance that started this cycle of greater food production? IMO - yes; and it is actually possible to point to a specific time and place that may have caused the spur. The Black Death (which btw probably did more to break the control of the church than any intrinsic "western" cultural freedom wish). 
 
 
Two points here. Firstly, you mentioned this business of the 'control of the Church' before. By the Fourteenth Century the Church certainly did have a lot of influence but at no point in the medieval period did it have 'control' or anything like it. Despite a popular perception of the medieval Church as a monolithic and totalitarian theocracy, it was nothing of the sort. For much of the early medieval period it was marginal and depended on the support of magnates to survive. From then on the struggle was not one of medieval society to 'break free from the control of the Church' but actually a struggle by the Church to break free from the dominance of the State and the Church's dependence on the State for support and protection. 
 
The Church reached an high point in this struggle in the Thirteenth Century, but economic, social and environmental forces eroded these gains in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries and paved the way for the Reformation. The Black Death was only part of these forces. 
 
Secondly, the rise in food production, productivity, mercantilism, a middle class and agrarian and other technological innovation pre-dates the Black Death by several centuries. If anything, the loss of up to one third of the population of Europe retarded these things. The Fourteenth Century was marked by economic decline (as well as widespread famine and a drop in temperatures) compared to the boom times of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. 
 
 
The plague hit Europe particularly hard - much harder than it did in other parts of the world. It is a well-known fact that the plague caused serious manpower shortage in the Western world (basically forcing the survivors to be more productive). 
 
 
True, and this had a profound affect on the status and standards of living of the lower agrarian classes. 
 
 
At the same time - although classical universities close in droves - general literacy increased as local schools opened to fill the gap for the need of a new clergy. 
 
 
Universities closed in droves? Sorry? 
General literacy had been rising steadily for centuries before the Black Death. I've done a lot of reading on medieval literacy and on the effects of the Black Death and I know of no evidence at all that more schools opened to cope with the effects of 'the Dying'. What are you basing this on? 
 
 
The result: the years 1350-1500 see an unprecedented series of productivity-increasing inventions (particularly within agriculture) in Europe. 
 
 
I can think of few inventions of this kind which date from this period - all the many medieval innovations of this kind date to several centuries before 1350-1500. What inventions are you thinking of specifically? 
 
 
And once the cycle started, the cycle I speak off got well on its way - rising surplus production, rising literacy, and a resulting increase in knowledge discovery. 
 
 
As various historians of medieval science and the roots of the modern scientific method (Bernstein, Crombie) detail, this increase in knowledge discovery pre-dates the Black Death by at least 200 years, as does the beginnings of the use of experiment and observation in science. The stimulus seems to be more the influx of ancient Greek and medieval Arabic science that you mentioned in earlier posts rather than the Black Death. 
 
 
It is from this period as well that mercantilism (which led to capitalism), that Hanson seems to believe comes from the Greeks developed. 
 
 
It increased in this period, once it had recovered from the Black Death and from the other economic woes of the 'calamitous Fourteenth Century'. But it had been going strong since the Twelfth Century and was powering along in the Thirteenth - a period which saw European trade missions in Beijing and Italian merchants in Sumatra and Java. 
 
I haven't read Hanson, but reviews and analyses I've read elsewhere make him seem a bit keen on simplistic determinism, so I agree with most of your reservations about him. That said, your analysis of the impact of the Black Death seems to fall into the same trap - the picture was much more complex than you are making out. 
 
As for who 'invented' science - that depends on how you define the term. The 'scientific method' and 'science' are not always the same thing. 
 
PS Jared Diamond is definitely worth reading however. 
 
Cheers, Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 

Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project

06-27-2002, 01:06 AM

Goffredo~ 
 
I disagree with Tim on one point-- I absolutely HATED "Guns, Germs, and Steel." In all honesty, I would put it on the trash pile right next to other drivel like "The Valley of the Dolls." I think Diamond (who is an evolutionary biologist) has an understanding of HISTORY equal to that of a kindergartener. The entire book is an attempt to place all of human history (from the theory of evolution on to present) within a scientific framework of proveable hypothesis. In my opinion, this is unadulterated *CRAP*. He ignores PEOPLE. He removes humanity. People become little theorems floating around the world. Personalities are meaningless. I think that viewing history as science, as Diamond does, denies everything that is truly important about history. 
 
It is possible that I am so unremittingly hostile toward Diamond because of the circumstances under which I read his book-- I took a course built around it last fall. Actually, it was an writting class of all things, and was team taught by a Microbiologist and an English professor. We weren't free to discuss anything we couldn't add or measure. OOOH HOW I HATE SCIENCE!!!!! 
 
Also, for the aforementioned class, I wrote a paper closely related to what we're talking about. Oooh, did the teachers get angry. The assignment was to choose a scientic principle and relate it to a function or issue of society. I wrote a paper entitled "Charles Darwin Goes to War," about the impact of war on the growth and development of civilization as a whole, that is, techonology, organization, agriculture, etc. The teachers gave me a D and I think it was WHOLLY unjustified and that they were grading it based on their own personal opnions and not on the substance of the paper. I even went to my advisor and talked to her about petitioning to have my grade overturned, but I was worried about making people angry. Don't want to do that too much freshman year of college. I'll email the paper to anyone who might be interested, shoot me an email at [email protected] if you want to read it.

Thiudareiks Flavius · 06-27-2002, 05:39 AM

JC wrote: 
 
 
I disagree with Tim on one point-- I absolutely HATED "Guns, Germs, and Steel." .... The entire book is an attempt to place all of human history (from the theory of evolution on to present) within a scientific framework of proveable hypothesis. In my opinion, this is unadulterated *CRAP*. He ignores PEOPLE. He removes humanity. 
 
 
That may have been the way the book was presented to you in the course you mention (and nothing will kill your enthusiasm for virtually any book faster than having it form the basis of a freshman course!), but I don't think that is what Diamond's book sets out to do at all. His reference to the book being a 'history of the last 30,000 years' is meant as a joke. Perhaps if you re-read the book outside of the framework of that course, which sounds like it was misrepresenting or at least skewing Diamond's thesis substantially, you'd get a different picture. 
 
As for 'removing humanity', I'm afraid I can't see this at all. 
 
But this is getting way off topic, so perhaps we should continue this discussion on the 'Off Topic' section. 
 
I just had a look at the listing for Diamond's book on Amazon.com and noticed something interesting while reading some of the 400+ reviews. Most were very positive, but most of the negative ones derided it as 'liberal propaganda' and asked if 'race' wasn't a factor in the historical dominance of Europeans 'why do all the African nations have a lower IQ' etc. You can almost hear the burning crosses in the background as you read those reviews. Interestingly, one of these 'Neo-Nazi/White Power' reviewers cites Hanson's book as a 'better' analysis. 
 
Hmmm .... 
 
Cheers, 
 
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 

Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project

Goffredo · 06-27-2002, 07:10 AM

Regards Diamond and Hanson I found both authors interesting and worth reading because both started interesting debates. But I am not sure they are incompatible (even though Hanson attacks Diamond in his "Carnage and Culture"). 
 
Cultures reflect a way of adapting, surviving and using an environment which also includes interactions with other cultures. But I think most of the mechanisms that Diamond considers have a time scale that is longer than those of recorded history and the coming and going of ephimeral cultures are affected by large scale forces but not in clear cut ways, leaving plenty of room for short time scale forces to work in unpredictable ways. So it is possible that the incompatibility is more apparent than substantial. But maybe Diamond's mechanisms, active thousans of years ago, are actually obsolete now that cultures exchange ideas and interact in ways that make the world much more complex than it was thousands of years ago. Hanson describes the military evolution of Japan as a counter example of a Diamond-like analysis. But I honestly think this is over-kill. One thing is to explain the origin and implications of farming in the fertile middle east thousands of years before recorded history and another is Japan in recent times. I personally would never have thought of using a Diamond-like approach to recent events. So the two approaches become incompatible if one sets out intentionally on a collision course and overstates his case. 
 
p.s. I read that in some cases in the U.S. Hanson was criticised from the right. 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/27/02 11:16:31 am

StrategyM · 06-27-2002, 02:21 PM

Hi Flavius, 
 
My memory still insists that the real advances in agriculture happened after, not before the black death. Can't remember where I read this, though. And I don't think we mean the same thing when talking about "church control". 
 
So I still think it's a good theory. Of course its very simple right now, but I'm pretty sure that if I were to write 400 more pages about it, I could make it sound very convincing. 
 
Anyway, enough on that. As mentioned, my "theory" was thrown out on the spur of the moment and without any vetting of the facts other than from memory - so don't take it seriously. 
 
The main reason why I haven't bothered getting hold of Carnage and Culture is mainly because from what I've read, the core of his hypothesis - in my opinion - is completely false. "Western" culture of today (if such a thing can even be identified - there's a heck of a lot of difference btw e.g., danish culture and America) is extremely far removed from the Greek culture that Hanson adores. 
 
"Western Way of War" was the first of his books I read. Very, very interesting, but ultimately flawed (1- his model of hoplite fighting is just one among many, the other models will not support his basic premise, 2- has he ever heard of Assyria; developer of close-formation infantry, combined arms, and psychologocial warfare; and as undemocratic a state as one can imagine? Evidently not). Still, I liked his ideas enough to read "Soul of Battle" which, IMO, is pure claptrap. Builds on the flawed ideas of WWoW, and then adds even more flawed ideas. In general, it sounds like "Carnage and Culture" continues this trend. 
 
Flavius wrote: 
Quote:<hr> Interestingly, one of these 'Neo-Nazi/White Power' reviewers cites Hanson's book as a 'better' analysis.<hr> 
 
This is another of the reasons why I haven't bothered to consider placing the book on my reading list prior to now. It may not be the effect he intends, but I see his theories being very easy to pervert for "Cultural Imperialism" and simmilar things ODE EM . I don't mind that he writes what he does, but his absolute conviction that he is right and his lack of ability to address contradicting evidence properly (the comment in the review I posted above "Citizen soldier states win even when they lose" is a typical Hanson-ism, IMO ) is supremely irritating, and has lowered my estimation of him considerably. 
 
The Hanson book that is coming out later this year "An Autumn of War: What America Learned from September 11 and the War on Terrorism", looks set to continue this trend. From the (positive) reviews I've read about this books, I'm only left with one burning question: how is Hanson's literary work, justifying American policy by drawing parrallels to the glories of Classical Greek civilization any different from 1930s Italian literary work, justifying Italian fascism by drawing parrallels to the glories of Roman civilization? (Note, I have no intention of equating American policy with fascism - but I do think that Hanson's works are beginning to approach border-line idealogical propaganda rather than sober scientific/philosophical thought). Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of RomeEdited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ustrategym.showPublicProfile?language=EN>StrategyM</A> at: 6/27/02 5:39:48 pm

06-28-2002, 04:35 AM

You may be right, Tim. Maybe I'll give it a re-read this summer. That class certainly was "skewed" as you put it! E EM

Goffredo · 06-28-2002, 07:01 AM

I finished the book yesterday. The final chapter on the TET offensive is probably going to raise a big debate and I am going for reviews on the web. I too, thruout the book, kept smelling the smoke of a political agenda and the smell is very strong in the TET chapter. Jane Fonda's an Arnett's ears must have rung quite a bit while Hanson was typing away (again too many repeats). But I must admit that some of his comments about Vietnam and other remote episodes in history are interesting and I did resonate with them (I am obnoxious but not a fascist!). But regards Vietnam maybe not enough of time has to passed to be able to understand what happened in a "neutral" way. But no historian is without political agendas. 
 
p.s. good point about the Assyrians! I didn't think about them. Does anyone know of an up-to-date book on the Assyrian Army?

StrategyM · 06-28-2002, 08:33 AM

I think many of Hanson's ideas are good - I resonated a lot with many of his ideas in WWoW (which seems to be the core that he builds upon). Unfortunately he takes his ideas to extremes - a common failing for many writers of his genre. 
 
The world is a complex place with no simple explanation. 
Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of Rome

08-07-2002, 03:31 PM

IMHO Hansen's theory on classical hoplitic warfare maybe only one of several theories, but it's certainly the most plausible. I believe too that it was a very scary and very brutal push, shove, punch and stab affair 
Of course, his explanations as to the whys of hoplitic warfare are Hansen's own.. 
My two cents worth: according to Arther Ferrill's "History of War", military organisation, that is the rank and file system and hence the phalanx pre-dates any form of government, dictatorial or not. 
And I don't very much see what else a phalanx of people carrying shields and spears can do, besides closing in and trying to clobber the enemy in the face, or punch holes unto him, or maybe scare the hell out of him and make him run before things get really nasty. 
Just like the Greeks did, and the Sumerians, and the Egyptians, and the Assyrians, and so on until the advent of the machine gun. And even then some people were folish enough to try doing it anyways...

StrategyM · 08-13-2002, 01:41 PM

Have you read any of the alternate theories that challenge the hoplite scrimmage idea? 
 
For example: 
A.D. Frazer, ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“The myth of the hoplite scrimmageÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢, CW 36 (1942), 15-16 
A.J. Holladay, ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“Hoplites and heresiesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢, Journal of Hellenic Studies 102 (1982), 94-103 
A. Goldsworthy, ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“The othismos, myths and heresies : the nature of hoplite battleÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢, War in History 4 (1997), 1-26 
 
There is one main difference between the two camps. The anti-othismos camp are able to argue that the othismos is unrealistic both physically and unsupported by the numbers quoted for ancient battles (especially in terms of casaulties). They are able to argue that there are many other useful reasons why you might want to form a deep formation. 
 
The othismos camp have only the arguement that because the Greeks use a word to describe a battle, this word must be being used literally. 
 
God knows what future historians will make of the phrase "driving the enemy before us..." Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of Rome

08-13-2002, 11:20 PM

StrategyM wrote: 
 
 'God knows what future historians will make of the phrase "driving the enemy before us..."' 
 
...which would then spark a heated academic debate on what sort of vehicle was used to drive said enemy. M

08-14-2002, 01:53 PM

I haven't read all these. The titles sort of put me off. The "myth" and the "heresy" don't fit my picture. 
I would have been more interested if the titles had been: "new theories about the othismos", or something like that. But there, judgement, apparently, has been made beforehand. Like: "let's decide it's a myth and let's try to prove it". 
Not good. 
But well, there are still people who are "able to argue" that Alesia was not where it is, and that the war of Troy never happened. That sells books... 
Maybe someone could tell us briefly what the counter-othismos theories suggest as an alternate theory? 
Doesn't Hansen writes that there were several words in greek describing the shock of the two phalanxes? 
If I recall, Hansens talks also about the intense fear before battle. What were they afraid of, then? 
What is it that the greek vases describe when they show two groups of hoplites walking against each other, spear at the ready? 
I am very suspicious about new theories that tend to dispel completely the previous ones, instead of adding new elements. 
But well, I am open to suggestions..

StrategyM · 08-16-2002, 11:45 AM

Quote:<hr> I am very suspicious about new theories that tend to dispel completely the previous ones, instead of adding new elements.<hr> 
 
New? :-) As you will note, the case against the Othismos was made as early as 1942. It's just that historians like Hanson tend to ignore counter-arguements. 
 
As far as I know, there hasn't been a single paper - including Hanson - who has addressed the valid problems raised in that paper. The Goldsworthy paper is mainly a reiteration of all the reasons why the Othismos/rugby scrum theory makes absolutely no sense. 
 
Quote:<hr> If I recall, Hansens talks also about the intense fear before battle. What were they afraid of, then?<hr> 
 
Wouldn't you be afraid if you were going into stabbing range of a bunch of looneys with long pointy sticks? I would. 
 
Quote:<hr> What is it that the greek vases describe when they show two groups of hoplites walking against each other, spear at the ready?<hr> 
 
Combat, what else? 
 
Sorry - I don't have the time and energy for a lengthy discussion about this right now. Get the Goldsworthy paper or any of his books; they usually explain his view of warfare. 
 
Or check the AncMed mailing list on Yahoo - there was a long discussion on "Energy use in battle" and "The Push Theory" back in February. The arguements essentially boiled down to: 
 
Othismos/Push Theory Proponents: Ordinary Humans are so stupid that they will willingly walk into a wall of sharp pointy objects. This is where Hanson wants us to believe that the Greeks were a "special" people because they were "free" men(and interestingly, he wants us to believe that the Western world has retained that same "special" quality down through the millenia). 
 
The Anti-Push Lobby:Ordinary Humans are too damn scared of losing their lives to be that stupid; WW1 notwithstanding (there is a difference between walking unto a pike and walking in a lead-filled space). 
 
As usual, the Push theory proponents failed to explain a whole bunch of things; like just how an ancient army avoided having most of its front line killed within a few seconds of combat starting, and other tiny details like that. Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of RomeEdited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ustrategym.showPublicProfile?language=EN>StrategyM</A> at: 8/16/02 2:34:30 pm

08-16-2002, 12:19 PM

Salve, 
 
There is an interesting pic in one of the articles in War and violence in ancient Greece that seems to show a file of hoplites, the front two of which are standing up in a fighting position with those at the rear kneeling and crouching. There would be a Roman parallel for reserves sitting in wait for their turn ( Livius, 8.8 and a Roman play (admonition to the public: 'Now let's sit down as the triarii do')). 
 
Wees, H. van (ed.), War and violence in ancient Greece (London 2000) 389p. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me