Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece

historytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 140 posts

Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece

#111

Post by wolverine876 »

corrral wrote: post #106
wolverine876 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there something I can read about that, especially the population of books (number, content, etc.)? > most people uninterested in history No need to denigrate people who don't know some things that you do! Thanks for sharing it.

I didn't read that as denigration at all—"uninterested" isn't disparaging, right? It's not even insult-adjacent-in-colloquial-use-but-not-elsewhere like "ignorant", is it?

IMHO the clear implication is 'ignorant' - that's what connects the dots of 'uninterested' and 'don't know this fact'. Also, for intellectuals / geeks / whatever, being uninterested in history is not a compliment!

Not the worst insult ever, but why even go to the place of presuming things about other people? Still, I hope I expressed my objection proportionally to the comment; sorry if I didn't.

Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece

#112

Post by robonerd »

jcranmer wrote: post #95
robonerd wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sparta is famous for having a really, really good PR agency. This is a very figurative claim, yes? It seems untrue otherwise. I've never heard of Sparta having a propaganda organization, least of all an outward facing one. Obviously their social structure indoctrinated their own into itself, but that's not the same thing as having a PR agency. As far as I'm aware, everything known/believed about the Spartans today…

The better sentence I should have written is "Sparta is famous because it had a really, really good PR agency," as opposed to "for having". The general point is that Sparta lived much more on its reputation (fueled by the likes of Xenophon and Plutarch) than its actual historical record.

I'm not really sure what distinction you're making between "reputation" and "actual historical record". When examining the military reputations of the ancient world, primary sources seem few and far between. So yes, those that are well reputed are so reputed because other people wrote about them. Or rarely, because they wrote about themselves.

The rare first hand accounts seem most suspect of them all; Julius Caesar's [ghostwritten?] Commentaries on the Gallic Wars is flagrant propaganda. PR in the truest sense possible.

On the other hand you have Scipio Africanus, who like Julius Caesar has a reputation for being one of the greatest generals ever. But anything he wrote about himself is long gone; his reputation was built by other people writing about what they think he said or did. The archeological record (the 'actual historical record'?) backs up some basic facts about the Second Punic War, but doesn't say much specifically about Scipio Africanus.

Which ancient men with lofty reputations can be said to have their reputations without "PR"?

Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece

#113

Post by boomboomsubban »

dotancohen wrote: post #67
tut-urut-utut wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How convenient to "forget" "western" factors and blame everyone else instead.

From the way I saw it the Western factors came later, mostly in response to Russian and ISIS involvement, and thus fall into the category of "the whole mess we see today". Though I do see your point, many people like to cherry-pick parts of conflicts that serve their worldview and ignore other parts, so it may appear to you that was what I did as well. Both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict love to discuss ce…

The Wikileaks diplomatic cables releases showed the US had been funding the opposition groups in Syria for years. Then, shortly after the war began CIA operation Timber Sycamore began supplying the opposition faction with weapons, supplies and training. Also, official US intervention happened before official Russian intervention.

While I won't deny the Russian or ISIS involvement, the US was also always involved.

Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece

#114

Post by OJFord »

corrral wrote: post #106
wolverine876 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there something I can read about that, especially the population of books (number, content, etc.)? > most people uninterested in history No need to denigrate people who don't know some things that you do! Thanks for sharing it.

I didn't read that as denigration at all—"uninterested" isn't disparaging, right? It's not even insult-adjacent-in-colloquial-use-but-not-elsewhere like "ignorant", is it?

I think it's only (unintentionally) mildly/potentially offensive to someone who's interested, but still ignorant of the fact, or under some misconception etc.

Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece

#115

Post by robonerd »

corrral wrote: post #109
robonerd wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sparta is famous for having a really, really good PR agency. This is a very figurative claim, yes? It seems untrue otherwise. I've never heard of Sparta having a propaganda organization, least of all an outward facing one. Obviously their social structure indoctrinated their own into itself, but that's not the same thing as having a PR agency. As far as I'm aware, everything known/believed about the Spartans today…

It's more that authoritarian elites in other city-states liked to write about how awesome Sparta was, than that Sparta had a good PR organization. [EDIT] Now that I think about it, it's got some parallels with some American and British elites' infatuation with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, at least until the wars started and/or the news of atrocities became irrefutable (and sometimes, even after that)

> It's more that authoritarian elites in other city-states liked to write about how awesome Sparta was, than that Sparta had a good PR organization.

Yes, that's my take as well. Xenophon particularly stands out in this regard. Xenophon's laconophilia was the result of his personal experience with the Spartans, not the product of Spartan propaganda.

> Now that I think about it, it's got some parallels with some American and British elites' infatuation with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia

Some parallels, however there is ample evidence that Nazi Germany did have an aggressive propaganda campaign (the Spartans may have, but there's no evidence for it.) The degree to which American/British nazi sympathizers were influenced by Nazi produced propaganda rather than their personal experiences with nazis is hard to ascertain. I think it was probably a mix of both.

Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece

#116

Post by robonerd »

baybal2 wrote: post #103
wolverine876 wrote: post #84

> In the mid-fourth century BC, an experienced Greek general decided to spend his retirement doing something different – writing a book sharing his expertise with the general public. In mid-fourth century BCE, was writing a book really sharing with the general public? They had no printing press. How many would read a book? Who was it really written for?

There were many more books historically than most people uninterested in history suspect up do deep antiquity. Books were very precious. A 5th century monthly salary of a scribe was enough to buy a house. Yet, 99%+ of written data from Greece, and Rome is lost. We lost both archival data, and literature. First to rot, second to book burning. Literature was state sponsored for most of classical period, and "casual" wr…

Luddites were not strongman elites. They were working class labor rights activists, protesting the grossly unfair balance of power induced by rapid industrialization.

Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece

#117

Post by dotancohen »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #113
dotancohen wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the way I saw it the Western factors came later, mostly in response to Russian and ISIS involvement, and thus fall into the category of "the whole mess we see today". Though I do see your point, many people like to cherry-pick parts of conflicts that serve their worldview and ignore other parts, so it may appear to you that was what I did as well. Both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict love to discuss ce…

The Wikileaks diplomatic cables releases showed the US had been funding the opposition groups in Syria for years. Then, shortly after the war began CIA operation Timber Sycamore began supplying the opposition faction with weapons, supplies and training. Also, official US intervention happened before official Russian intervention. While I won't deny the Russian or ISIS involvement, the US was also always involved.

Thank you for mentioning that. I do have some reading to do this evening.

Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece

#118

Post by dotancohen »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #77
dotancohen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They basically were friendly with all neighbors seeking to influence > internal policy. For example, all public works depend on a > sponsor (saudi, qatar etc), to fund the project. I had no idea! Was this because they were unable to collect taxes from the populace? Where could I read more. > When? I think Black september sealed the fate of lebanon. They had no internal > unity to reject the palestinian refugees lik…

>>>>I had no idea! Was this because they were unable to collect taxes from the populace? Where could I read more I don't know where this practice comes from or how long has it been around. I do know however the public works bidding is a cartel, and there is so much corruption at all levels, from deputies to private enterprise, that it would make Brazil's petrobras corruption scandal (lava jato) look minor in comparis…

  > Im not sure. Displaced populations had to go live somewhere.
This is the crux of the issue. Jordan was a strong nation that was able to protect its national identity and existing citizens by subjugating the refugees. Even today, two out of every three people in Jordan are descendants of those displaced in 1948-1949. We might not like what Jordan did to those people, but protecting its citizens is quite the major function of government, is it not?

Of course I am referring to the period up until 1967. The PLO actions after 1967 changed the dynamics of the situation and any rubric for judging policy in the period before that year is not valid for judging policy in the period after that year.

Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece

#119

Post by dotancohen »

hutzlibu wrote: post #80
dotancohen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They basically were friendly with all neighbors seeking to influence > internal policy. For example, all public works depend on a > sponsor (saudi, qatar etc), to fund the project. I had no idea! Was this because they were unable to collect taxes from the populace? Where could I read more. > When? I think Black september sealed the fate of lebanon. They had no internal > unity to reject the palestinian refugees lik…

"Was there no way to handle the palestinian refugees without authoritarian methods? " That is one if the ongoing big questions worldwide, isn't it? The EU solves it by paying Erdogan and co. to do most of the dirty work of keeping them away. There is no nice way, to turn someone desperate away. You can either integrate them well, or you push them out. Or you can work towards solutions, that bring prosperity to the po…

  > You can either integrate them well, or you push them out.
But what is "integration" when for every one of _your_ citizens, _two_ refugees are coming. At that scale one is not integrating the refugees, rather, one is simply giving the country to the refugees.

Of course, those refugees had to go live _somewhere_. The Egyptians rounded them up into Gaza, stuffing 250,000 people into land that could support 60,000 and already had over 100,000. That is why there are no real refugee camps in Egypt today, and why Egypt refused to take Gaza back after 1956.

Re: No Army? No Problem: Defending the Home Front in Ancient Greece

#120

Post by aerostable_slug »

kkfx wrote: post #3

The real interesting part is the Swiss model, or instead of having a big army a small one with heavy weapons and a popular conscription one month (paid) per year 18-28 years range, for the rest. That's interesting because: - it's not good to go to war OUTSIDE country borders - power are balanced: the State can count (perhaps) on army, but if it goes against the people they are trained and armed, with less heavy weapo…

Someone will always go to war outside of their borders.

This model works if you've got Team America: World Police keeping sea lanes of communication open and other things that require power projection. If Team America isn't doing it, someone else will step in. Like China.

Post reply on HN