"Una quinta columna" was a phrase first 'coined' by General Emilio Mola in 1936 when describing fascist sympathisers in Madrid.
The subversive group worked against Republican authorities from within, and then joined the four columns of besieging Franco forces when Madrid came under attack.
Whilst Franco understood the importance of a fifth column when attempting to subvert, and then overthrow, the democratically elected government, it would appear that western leadership has failed to learn from history.
Today, saw Austrian authorities put a married couple on trial for having links to al Qaeda and posting a video on the internet threatening Austria and Germany with attacks. The couple, who are Austrian citizens, had been arrested in September with the video claiming that the two countries would be targeted if they did not withdraw military personnel from Afghanistan. The fact that neither country is contributing in a material way, to the War on Terror, seemed more than a little ironic.
Returning to una quinta columna. Sun Tzu had written in The Art of War that "... the enlightened ruler and the wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for purposes of spying and thereby they achieve great results. Spies are a most important element in water, because on them depends an army's ability to move."
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Monday, 3 March 2008
Monday, 28 January 2008
Dorset Casualties during the ECW
I've just completed reading Tim Goodwin's excellent book 'Dorset in the Civil War 1625-1665'. I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the Civil War, at more than a superficial level, as Dorset proved to be a county whose control mirrored the War in general.
Indeed, Portland was the penultimate garrison to surrender in the west country; a mere week before Exeter and just nine before Oxford.
Anyway, to the main point of the post. Goodwin maintains that Dorset casualties amounted to at least 3,000 and probably reached about 4,000. With a population of about 85,000, this amounted to a total loss of about 7%; a proportion twice as high as Britain's losses during the 1st World War. He also points out that losses during the 1st World War "were said to have destroyed a generation".
Notwithstanding, that British losses the Great War were mostly restricted to male losses (causing a demographic imbalance) his point is well taken. At even 5%, the consequences of such a population decrease in a rural county must have been horrendous.
Indeed, Portland was the penultimate garrison to surrender in the west country; a mere week before Exeter and just nine before Oxford.
Anyway, to the main point of the post. Goodwin maintains that Dorset casualties amounted to at least 3,000 and probably reached about 4,000. With a population of about 85,000, this amounted to a total loss of about 7%; a proportion twice as high as Britain's losses during the 1st World War. He also points out that losses during the 1st World War "were said to have destroyed a generation".
Notwithstanding, that British losses the Great War were mostly restricted to male losses (causing a demographic imbalance) his point is well taken. At even 5%, the consequences of such a population decrease in a rural county must have been horrendous.
Sunday, 23 December 2007
Queen Elizabeth, Longevity, and Success
Yesterday saw Queen Elizabeth II overtake Queen Victoria as Britain's oldest surviving monarch. The previous record being 81 years, seven months and 29 days.
However, her great-great grandmother Victoria will still hold the record as Britain's longest-reigning monarch, unless Queen Elizabeth II remains on the throne until 9th September 2015.
Putting aside longevity, it is interesting to note that the two queens managed to remain on the throne for so long whilst, some might argue, their somewhat weak successors remained on the sidelines until they too were advanced in years.
It is also of social interest that the two British Queens, and their English predecessor Elizabeth, count amongst the most able of British Monarchs. Since Tudor times, it is arguable whether any King has had such a positive effect on the Kingdom as the three women: much as the only woman British Prime Minister, since Churchill, has proved truly effective.
Then I think of Catherine in Russia, Christina in Sweden and, even, Golda Meir in Israel. All strong women who took their countries to the next level. Unfortunately, history proves that all were followed by mediocrity, which wasted much of the advancement under their respective leaderships.
However, her great-great grandmother Victoria will still hold the record as Britain's longest-reigning monarch, unless Queen Elizabeth II remains on the throne until 9th September 2015.
Putting aside longevity, it is interesting to note that the two queens managed to remain on the throne for so long whilst, some might argue, their somewhat weak successors remained on the sidelines until they too were advanced in years.
It is also of social interest that the two British Queens, and their English predecessor Elizabeth, count amongst the most able of British Monarchs. Since Tudor times, it is arguable whether any King has had such a positive effect on the Kingdom as the three women: much as the only woman British Prime Minister, since Churchill, has proved truly effective.
Then I think of Catherine in Russia, Christina in Sweden and, even, Golda Meir in Israel. All strong women who took their countries to the next level. Unfortunately, history proves that all were followed by mediocrity, which wasted much of the advancement under their respective leaderships.
Monday, 1 October 2007
Burma and a History of Massacres
As the bloodshed continues in Burma, I am minded by a section in 'Pirate King - Coxinga and the Fall of the Ming Dynasty', by Jonathan Clements. In it, he recounts the end of the Ming dynasty as told by "eunuch servant" Yang Deze. This was not in China, but in Burma.
Having spent almost 15 years on the run from the Mongolian Manchus, the last of the Ming had fled westwards, and by June 1659 had reached Sagaing in Burma. When King Bintale was murdered by his brother Pye Min, the Ming were doomed. In the following massacre of the Ming, Duke Mu and several thousand supporters were killed. With a late change of plan, the Emperor, his mother, wife, concubine, son, and Yang Deze were spared. However, these survivors were soon handed over to the Manchus who swiftly executed the Emperor and his young son. The wife committed suicide before she could be prevented.
As a footnote, Yang survived the massacre and wote an eyewitness account of the last days of the Ming Dynasty.
Having spent almost 15 years on the run from the Mongolian Manchus, the last of the Ming had fled westwards, and by June 1659 had reached Sagaing in Burma. When King Bintale was murdered by his brother Pye Min, the Ming were doomed. In the following massacre of the Ming, Duke Mu and several thousand supporters were killed. With a late change of plan, the Emperor, his mother, wife, concubine, son, and Yang Deze were spared. However, these survivors were soon handed over to the Manchus who swiftly executed the Emperor and his young son. The wife committed suicide before she could be prevented.
As a footnote, Yang survived the massacre and wote an eyewitness account of the last days of the Ming Dynasty.
Tuesday, 28 August 2007
History, Admiral Lord Nelson and General David Petraeus
This is not intended to be a comparison of the respective merits of two commanders. Rather, it is an observation on the similarity of events that saw Admiral Lord Nelson assume command of the British fleet in the Mediterranean and General Petraeus take command of the allied multinational force in Iraq.
What occurs to me is that national leaders sometimes consider it necessary to circumvent the accepted order of military command and protocol, when the situation demands. William Pitt was continuously thwarted by the 'old guard' in Whitehall. George Bush was badly advised, over a number of years, in how to obtain victory in Iraq. What is certain is that both resorted to hiring a relatively junior officer to expedite matters. Nelson went on to destroy the French fleet at Aboukir Bay, and Petraeus has stabilised the situation in Baghdad and the surrounding Sunni region.
What is also striking in it's similarity is how those with less talent take the earliest opportunity to strike at the successful. With Nelson, Whig Admiral Sir John Jervis was thought to have attempted to undermine Nelson. That the likes of abject failures such as General Wesley Clark should have 'sniped' at Petraeus is hardly surprising. What is, perhaps, more surprising is that ralative failure General George Casey should attempt to undermine Petraeus's plan by playing politics as US Army Chief of Staff. The reason why Petraeus was placed in command, in the first place.
What occurs to me is that national leaders sometimes consider it necessary to circumvent the accepted order of military command and protocol, when the situation demands. William Pitt was continuously thwarted by the 'old guard' in Whitehall. George Bush was badly advised, over a number of years, in how to obtain victory in Iraq. What is certain is that both resorted to hiring a relatively junior officer to expedite matters. Nelson went on to destroy the French fleet at Aboukir Bay, and Petraeus has stabilised the situation in Baghdad and the surrounding Sunni region.
What is also striking in it's similarity is how those with less talent take the earliest opportunity to strike at the successful. With Nelson, Whig Admiral Sir John Jervis was thought to have attempted to undermine Nelson. That the likes of abject failures such as General Wesley Clark should have 'sniped' at Petraeus is hardly surprising. What is, perhaps, more surprising is that ralative failure General George Casey should attempt to undermine Petraeus's plan by playing politics as US Army Chief of Staff. The reason why Petraeus was placed in command, in the first place.
Tuesday, 14 August 2007
Unhistorical Dramas
Today, I have been considering how perceptions of history have been distorted by the film world. Obviously, Hollywood has been the recent major Western culprit, albeit not in the same class as Eisenstein or Riefenstahl. However, the aim has been the same. To provide a political message in an entertaining setting that doesn’t ask too many questions of the viewer. As such, the viewer’s idea of history will be shaped by the filmmaker.
I’ve long been interested why history has been distorted, and as I’ve gotten older, tend to believe that this is not to allow a more enjoyable film but rather to ‘educate’ the viewer who will then unconsciously adopt the same viewpoint as the filmmaker.
John Wayne’s ‘Green Berets’ was the only major mainstream film to support the US troops in Vietnam, and was funded by himself in attempt to balance all the negativity emanating from Hollywood. More recently, we have seen Mel Gibson take part and finance projects for, what many consider, ‘vehicles’ by which he was able to express his anti-British and anti-Semitic views. Even more recently, we have seen two films (King Arthur and The Kingdom of Heaven), which I actually enjoyed by the way, distort social history by suggesting that Christians were generally venal and that the other side were generally justified and noble freedom fighters.
So, what has brought this particular post on? An interesting article in USA Today, on the new Hollywood historical drama 'September Dawn', as it happens. The link is:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/hollywoods-terr.html
The article expresses many of the concerns that I generally feel, and also raises a number of unanswered questions. Fortunately, the images portrayed by this latest Hollywood offering are for US citizens to ponder upon, as we have enough to worry about over here, without visiting the possible 'sins of the father' on Mitt Romney and his Presidential campaign. It is unlikely to prove a box office success over here!
I’ve long been interested why history has been distorted, and as I’ve gotten older, tend to believe that this is not to allow a more enjoyable film but rather to ‘educate’ the viewer who will then unconsciously adopt the same viewpoint as the filmmaker.
John Wayne’s ‘Green Berets’ was the only major mainstream film to support the US troops in Vietnam, and was funded by himself in attempt to balance all the negativity emanating from Hollywood. More recently, we have seen Mel Gibson take part and finance projects for, what many consider, ‘vehicles’ by which he was able to express his anti-British and anti-Semitic views. Even more recently, we have seen two films (King Arthur and The Kingdom of Heaven), which I actually enjoyed by the way, distort social history by suggesting that Christians were generally venal and that the other side were generally justified and noble freedom fighters.
So, what has brought this particular post on? An interesting article in USA Today, on the new Hollywood historical drama 'September Dawn', as it happens. The link is:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/hollywoods-terr.html
The article expresses many of the concerns that I generally feel, and also raises a number of unanswered questions. Fortunately, the images portrayed by this latest Hollywood offering are for US citizens to ponder upon, as we have enough to worry about over here, without visiting the possible 'sins of the father' on Mitt Romney and his Presidential campaign. It is unlikely to prove a box office success over here!
Saturday, 12 May 2007
Napoleon Always Lived Like An Emperor
The following is a reproduced article by Malcom Moore, for the Daily Telegraph on 12th May 2007 . In my opinion, this was a particularly interesting piece on the restoration of Napoleon's restored villa on the island of Elba.
"Napoleon's will to succeed even in exile and defeat has been revealed with the first full restoration with the first full restoration of his two villas on the island of Elba.
'The bedroom of one of Napoleon's restored villas'
Copy. 'Daily Telegpraph' 12.5.07 The French despot was banished to the island, 12 miles off the Italian coast, in 1814 after abdicating following his defeat by Britain and her continental allies.
Lord Liverpool, the prime minister, said Napoleon's exile had hit the Corsican "as hard as one can, and in the most vulnerable place". He tried committing suicide but failed, while one witness described him as a "wild animal in a cell" in his first months on Elba.
However, his delusions of glory and grandeur were swiftly recreated. During his nine-month stay he declared himself emperor of the island and set about building roads, passing laws and redesigning his residences.
Now, a £1 million restoration project on his two villas has stripped back layers of paint to reveal astonishing frescoes hailing Napoleon's victories at the head of the French armies.
Although his private home was a humble two-storey affair, he hired the court painter at Turin, Vincenzo Antonio Revelli, for a lavish decoration of the interior. In one room, Napoleon could remember his victories in Egypt 13 years earlier amid paintings of sphinxes and hieroglyphics.
In his bedroom, he could stare at a ceiling entirely covered in his personal symbol of the bee, alternating with the cross of the legion d'honneur. A list of furniture found in archives showed that the room was bare, except for a bed and an enormous free-standing mirror.
Although Napoleon at that stage was too poor to afford drapes and tapestries, Revelli simply painted the walls to look as if they were covered in expensive material.
Ever the soldier, Napoleon brought with him a canvas camp bed, which he set up in the garden to sleep on, and plotted over maps at his desk. It is said he forced his young son, Napoleon II, to sleep on the camp bed to instil soldierly grit at an early age.
Dr Roberta Martinelli researched and oversaw the renovation work after discovering the inventory of all the furniture in the two villas during Napoleon's stay. "It was sitting in the archive at Portoferraio [Elba's capital] but no one had ever bothered to look at it," she said. "When I first arrived, there was some distance between how the villas looked and how they would have looked in Napoleon's day," she said. "They were full of furniture and paintings from the century after, because they had been used as private houses." The residences have only been public museums since 1938.
Dr Martinelli wants the buildings to be perfectly restored by 2014, in time for the 200th anniversary of Napoleon's arrival. She was the driving force behind a pact signed between Romano Prodi, Italy's prime minister, and Jacques Chirac, the departing French president, which will see several pieces of furniture return from France to Elba.
She has also discovered a trove of letters written by Napoleon while he was on the island at the French national archives in Paris. The letters reveal his desire to control the island, as well as his softer side; some nights he would wander through the candlelit garden and sing.
Locals are enthusiastic about the project, which will hopefully swell the number of tourists who visit Elba. At present, around 200,000 visitors arrive each year.
"Napoleon was fundamental to this island, he created everything here," said Clyde Schiavo, a guide at the museum. "We still refer to him as our emperor."
Napoleon escaped from Elba in 1815, slipping past the British fleet and landing in France. However, after defeat at Waterloo he was exiled again, this time to St Helena in the south Atlantic, where he died."
"Napoleon's will to succeed even in exile and defeat has been revealed with the first full restoration with the first full restoration of his two villas on the island of Elba.
'The bedroom of one of Napoleon's restored villas'Copy. 'Daily Telegpraph' 12.5.07
Lord Liverpool, the prime minister, said Napoleon's exile had hit the Corsican "as hard as one can, and in the most vulnerable place". He tried committing suicide but failed, while one witness described him as a "wild animal in a cell" in his first months on Elba.
However, his delusions of glory and grandeur were swiftly recreated. During his nine-month stay he declared himself emperor of the island and set about building roads, passing laws and redesigning his residences.
Now, a £1 million restoration project on his two villas has stripped back layers of paint to reveal astonishing frescoes hailing Napoleon's victories at the head of the French armies.
Although his private home was a humble two-storey affair, he hired the court painter at Turin, Vincenzo Antonio Revelli, for a lavish decoration of the interior. In one room, Napoleon could remember his victories in Egypt 13 years earlier amid paintings of sphinxes and hieroglyphics.
In his bedroom, he could stare at a ceiling entirely covered in his personal symbol of the bee, alternating with the cross of the legion d'honneur. A list of furniture found in archives showed that the room was bare, except for a bed and an enormous free-standing mirror.
Although Napoleon at that stage was too poor to afford drapes and tapestries, Revelli simply painted the walls to look as if they were covered in expensive material.
Ever the soldier, Napoleon brought with him a canvas camp bed, which he set up in the garden to sleep on, and plotted over maps at his desk. It is said he forced his young son, Napoleon II, to sleep on the camp bed to instil soldierly grit at an early age.
Dr Roberta Martinelli researched and oversaw the renovation work after discovering the inventory of all the furniture in the two villas during Napoleon's stay. "It was sitting in the archive at Portoferraio [Elba's capital] but no one had ever bothered to look at it," she said. "When I first arrived, there was some distance between how the villas looked and how they would have looked in Napoleon's day," she said. "They were full of furniture and paintings from the century after, because they had been used as private houses." The residences have only been public museums since 1938.
Dr Martinelli wants the buildings to be perfectly restored by 2014, in time for the 200th anniversary of Napoleon's arrival. She was the driving force behind a pact signed between Romano Prodi, Italy's prime minister, and Jacques Chirac, the departing French president, which will see several pieces of furniture return from France to Elba.
She has also discovered a trove of letters written by Napoleon while he was on the island at the French national archives in Paris. The letters reveal his desire to control the island, as well as his softer side; some nights he would wander through the candlelit garden and sing.
Locals are enthusiastic about the project, which will hopefully swell the number of tourists who visit Elba. At present, around 200,000 visitors arrive each year.
"Napoleon was fundamental to this island, he created everything here," said Clyde Schiavo, a guide at the museum. "We still refer to him as our emperor."
Napoleon escaped from Elba in 1815, slipping past the British fleet and landing in France. However, after defeat at Waterloo he was exiled again, this time to St Helena in the south Atlantic, where he died."
Wednesday, 21 February 2007
Prince Harry to Iraq?
The Royal Family tend to get a pretty bad press in this country. However, unlike Tony Blair's eldest son, who has recently spent some fun time in the States working as 'a political intern', both Prince William and Prince Harry have gone through officer training at Sandhurst.
Now it looks like that Prince Harry will be accompanying his cavalry Regiment to Basra. If Prince Harry does accompany "A" Squadron, with the Blues and Royals, then he'll be closely following in his Uncle's footsteps who served in the Falklands.
His great-grandfather, the future King George VI, saw action during World War One, and his grandfather Prince George Duke of Kent died on active service, with the RAF, in 1942.
However, despite the 'minor' royals serving during times of conflict, long gone are the days when the reigning monarch took to the field. The last to do so was George II, who took command against the French at Dettingen in 1743. The Blues and Royals were actually present at this victory during the War of the Austrian Succession. As such, it would be highly unlikely that Prince William, as a future monarch, will be sent anywhere near the war zone.
Now it looks like that Prince Harry will be accompanying his cavalry Regiment to Basra. If Prince Harry does accompany "A" Squadron, with the Blues and Royals, then he'll be closely following in his Uncle's footsteps who served in the Falklands.
His great-grandfather, the future King George VI, saw action during World War One, and his grandfather Prince George Duke of Kent died on active service, with the RAF, in 1942.
However, despite the 'minor' royals serving during times of conflict, long gone are the days when the reigning monarch took to the field. The last to do so was George II, who took command against the French at Dettingen in 1743. The Blues and Royals were actually present at this victory during the War of the Austrian Succession. As such, it would be highly unlikely that Prince William, as a future monarch, will be sent anywhere near the war zone.
Tuesday, 20 February 2007
The Peasants are Revolting!!!
AD1381, and the peasants of England were getting a bit upset with their rulers. In the Essex village of Fobbing, they were so upset that they forcibly evicted the visiting tax collector. So started the Peasants Revolt.
Fast forward to today. An on-line petition, on the government's own web site, had over 1.6 million signatories rejecting the notion of even greater 'stealth taxes' intended for the motorist. Notably, that of charging the driver to use public roads. The Prime Minister has already made it clear that he will ignore the call from a sizeable proportion of the country, for no such tax, and that he will enforce any damn tax he choses to foist upon us.
Back to 1381 again. The taxes that had caused so much contention, went to the funding of the continuing war against the French. This might have gained some sympathy then, and probably would now, but the problem was that this particular tax was regressive in nature. The authorities had deemed it fair that the highest in the land should pay the same as the lowest. One shilling!
Any road charging, that this government intends to introduce, will mean that the richest can continue to travel with little meaningful inconvenience, whilst us mere peasants will have our travels restricted by the grasping minions of New Labour. We will all pay the same, despite income or need.
Once again, as I have written before, this government fails to learn the lessons of history. Those revolting peasants murdered the three establishment figures considered most culpable; Simon Sudbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Robert Hales (the King's Treasurer).
Now, I'm not advocating that we all descend on London and 'top' the Prime Minister and Chancellor in a fit of pique. But what is clear, from the ICM poll today, is that Gordon Brown's reign will be a short one indeed! No doubt, both Blair and Brown will be calling us, the plaebian electorate, revolting.
Fast forward to today. An on-line petition, on the government's own web site, had over 1.6 million signatories rejecting the notion of even greater 'stealth taxes' intended for the motorist. Notably, that of charging the driver to use public roads. The Prime Minister has already made it clear that he will ignore the call from a sizeable proportion of the country, for no such tax, and that he will enforce any damn tax he choses to foist upon us.
Back to 1381 again. The taxes that had caused so much contention, went to the funding of the continuing war against the French. This might have gained some sympathy then, and probably would now, but the problem was that this particular tax was regressive in nature. The authorities had deemed it fair that the highest in the land should pay the same as the lowest. One shilling!
Any road charging, that this government intends to introduce, will mean that the richest can continue to travel with little meaningful inconvenience, whilst us mere peasants will have our travels restricted by the grasping minions of New Labour. We will all pay the same, despite income or need.
Once again, as I have written before, this government fails to learn the lessons of history. Those revolting peasants murdered the three establishment figures considered most culpable; Simon Sudbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Robert Hales (the King's Treasurer).
Now, I'm not advocating that we all descend on London and 'top' the Prime Minister and Chancellor in a fit of pique. But what is clear, from the ICM poll today, is that Gordon Brown's reign will be a short one indeed! No doubt, both Blair and Brown will be calling us, the plaebian electorate, revolting.
Working Lunch Should Stick to Finance and Consumer Affairs
One of the big fallacies is that the first Viking raid, in England, was at the monastery of Lindisfarne. It doesn't help when the leading daily finance and consumer programme, on the BBC, helps to maintain such myths. I personally love 'Working Lunch', and is one of the few programmes on the BBC (Bloated Broadcasting Corporation) worth watching. Still, the subject of the BBC and 'stealth taxes' should be left for another day. However, 'Working Lunch' got it wrong yesterday.
Lindisfarne was attacked, and destroyed, in 793AD. This would make it the second known raid, as my home island of Portland was attacked some five years previous to this. The actual year is not known, although a span of four years is widely accepted, but what is known is that the King of Wessex's Reeve was killed in the attack at Church Ope.
The Reeve was a particularly important man in Saxon society, and was the King's representative in the community. In particular, the Reeve performed the function of judge in court cases, as well as over-seeing parish council meetings, etc.
Lindisfarne was attacked, and destroyed, in 793AD. This would make it the second known raid, as my home island of Portland was attacked some five years previous to this. The actual year is not known, although a span of four years is widely accepted, but what is known is that the King of Wessex's Reeve was killed in the attack at Church Ope.
The Reeve was a particularly important man in Saxon society, and was the King's representative in the community. In particular, the Reeve performed the function of judge in court cases, as well as over-seeing parish council meetings, etc.
Monday, 19 February 2007
The End of the Line
Our current government has a lot to answer for. One of those things is the way that they have trampled on our traditions. Whilst we have been settling into our new home, one of the events that didn't pass me by was the disbandment of a number of regiments; including the one from my own county.
In the name of rationalisation, the government chose to merge the Devonshire and Dorset Light Infantry, the Royal Gloucestershire Berkshire and Wiltshire Light Infantry, the Light Infantry, and the Royal Green Jackets. This new regiment will simply be called 'The Rifles'.
The original Rifles were a number of regiments that combined both Light Infantry and Rifle Regiments. These regiments were established, by General Sir John Moore (1761-1809), at Shorncliffe in the early 1800s. Whatever the government, and Ministry of Defence might say, the current regiment has no relationship to the original concept, and is merely an exrcise in cost cutting.
For 'The Dorsets', this is a particularly a sad time. This fine regiment dated back to 1689, as the 39th Regiment of Foot. Battle honours included Plassey, Gibraltar, Albuhera, Vittoria, Pyrenees, Nivelle, Nive, Orthes, Maharajpore and Sevastopol. In 1881 they were combined with the 54th Regiment of Foot where they saw action in South Africa during the Boer War, and in all theatres of the war during the 1st and 2nd World Wars. They were merged with the Devonshire Regiment in 1958, and were to suffer the first British Army mortality in Northern Ireland at the beginning of the 1970s.
So, a sad ending for the regiment that was 'Primus in Indis'!
In the name of rationalisation, the government chose to merge the Devonshire and Dorset Light Infantry, the Royal Gloucestershire Berkshire and Wiltshire Light Infantry, the Light Infantry, and the Royal Green Jackets. This new regiment will simply be called 'The Rifles'.
The original Rifles were a number of regiments that combined both Light Infantry and Rifle Regiments. These regiments were established, by General Sir John Moore (1761-1809), at Shorncliffe in the early 1800s. Whatever the government, and Ministry of Defence might say, the current regiment has no relationship to the original concept, and is merely an exrcise in cost cutting.
For 'The Dorsets', this is a particularly a sad time. This fine regiment dated back to 1689, as the 39th Regiment of Foot. Battle honours included Plassey, Gibraltar, Albuhera, Vittoria, Pyrenees, Nivelle, Nive, Orthes, Maharajpore and Sevastopol. In 1881 they were combined with the 54th Regiment of Foot where they saw action in South Africa during the Boer War, and in all theatres of the war during the 1st and 2nd World Wars. They were merged with the Devonshire Regiment in 1958, and were to suffer the first British Army mortality in Northern Ireland at the beginning of the 1970s.
So, a sad ending for the regiment that was 'Primus in Indis'!
Thursday, 1 February 2007
Captain Calthrop and the Art of War
Captain Calthrop is probably best known for the rather poor translation of Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’ in 1905, and subsequently revised in 1908. Whilst the Giles translation has become the standard text, Calthrop’s was the first. For that, we should be grateful.
Having become a little annoyed with all the criticisms of Calthrop, I wanted to find out more about him. To be honest, there doesn’t seem much to find. Everard Ferguson Calthrop served in the Royal Field Artillery (R.F.A.), during the Boer War, and then worked for the Foreign Service in Japan.
Calthrop’s translation of the ‘Art of War’ was written whilst he was in Japan, and was also to provide translations on Japanese military reports of the Russo-Japanese War for the Royal United Services Institute.
However, during the Great War, as Lieutenant-Colonel he was officer commanding of the 38th Brigade Royal Field Artillery (R.F.A.). He was killed in action at Ypres on 19th December 1915, and is laid to rest at Ypres Reservoir Cemetery.
Having become a little annoyed with all the criticisms of Calthrop, I wanted to find out more about him. To be honest, there doesn’t seem much to find. Everard Ferguson Calthrop served in the Royal Field Artillery (R.F.A.), during the Boer War, and then worked for the Foreign Service in Japan.
Calthrop’s translation of the ‘Art of War’ was written whilst he was in Japan, and was also to provide translations on Japanese military reports of the Russo-Japanese War for the Royal United Services Institute.
However, during the Great War, as Lieutenant-Colonel he was officer commanding of the 38th Brigade Royal Field Artillery (R.F.A.). He was killed in action at Ypres on 19th December 1915, and is laid to rest at Ypres Reservoir Cemetery.
Regionalisation and the The Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy
As the government continues in its attempt to push through their plans for Regional Assemblies, within England, they attempt to suggest that this is a return to some previous system of political representation. This is of course absurd, and demonstrates a distinct lack of historical nowledge.
By the time of the Roman invasion, Celtic Britain had reached the third stage of Adam Smith’s four stages of economic development; farming. Although the Celts, in Albion at least, had past the stages of hunting and pasturage, they had yet to develop the concepts of commerce. Ostensibly, Albion was a land settled by tribes, and would have had no concept of a greater community. After the Romans left Britannia, an agrarian society was subject to invasions by an assortment of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes from approximately 450A.D.
These newly colonised ‘regions’ were to form an Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy; independent kingdoms namely Cornwall, East Anglia, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex and Wessex. To further confuse issues, Angleland’s western kingdom of Cornwall was to remain predominantly Celtic in nature, whilst the eastern side of the country was to absorb Norsemen from a number of Scandinavian kingdoms.
The last successful invasion of Angleland by the Normans in 1066, and subsequent conquest and subjugation of the Anglo-Saxon peoples, saw the historic seats of power subjugated to an ever-increasing centralisation of power. So, when the government talks about returning power to the regions I ask myself, what the hell are they talking about.
By the time of the Roman invasion, Celtic Britain had reached the third stage of Adam Smith’s four stages of economic development; farming. Although the Celts, in Albion at least, had past the stages of hunting and pasturage, they had yet to develop the concepts of commerce. Ostensibly, Albion was a land settled by tribes, and would have had no concept of a greater community. After the Romans left Britannia, an agrarian society was subject to invasions by an assortment of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes from approximately 450A.D.
These newly colonised ‘regions’ were to form an Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy; independent kingdoms namely Cornwall, East Anglia, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex and Wessex. To further confuse issues, Angleland’s western kingdom of Cornwall was to remain predominantly Celtic in nature, whilst the eastern side of the country was to absorb Norsemen from a number of Scandinavian kingdoms.
The last successful invasion of Angleland by the Normans in 1066, and subsequent conquest and subjugation of the Anglo-Saxon peoples, saw the historic seats of power subjugated to an ever-increasing centralisation of power. So, when the government talks about returning power to the regions I ask myself, what the hell are they talking about.
Military Strength v The Will to Win
It is reasonable to assume that, in general terms, the country with greatest resources will invariably win a protracted war. The American Civil War instantly springs to mind whereby Federal resources, in conjunction with an ability to deprive the Confederacy of theirs, ensured an eventual win.
In cases whereby the sides were pretty much even, although resources may have not been, attrition is very much the name of the game. During the Napoleonic Wars, Britain was able to maintain trading links around the world. Despite the uneven resources in manpower, British economic might and geographical position allowed the continued ‘bank rolling’ of the war until the French war effort eventually collapsed.
However, sometimes it is necessary to set aside logic and wonder where things went wrong. During the American Revolution, Great Britain appeared to have all the things going for it. Wealth, manpower and support from a sizeable proportion of the population. But this brings in another factor; which sees the biggest side losing against all the odds. That of the ‘will to win’. There are times when the lesser power demonstrates that it refuses to be beaten, and that the larger protagonist decides continuation is not worth the cost.
During the American Revolution, such a time came during the winter of 1777 at Valley Forge. Despite, numerous losses in battle, from the cold, and from disease, an Army that should have simply ceased to exist was, by the summer of 1778, one to reckon with. I would argue that the Continental Army, in itself, was never particularly effective. But that is for another day. What is important is that a continued existence sent out a statement to the British government; “You can’t make us go away, and we’re not going to do so!”
The Americans were to find this out during the North Vietnamese Thet Offensive, in April 1968. Although the Thet Offensive was a military failure for the North Vietnamese, it sent a message to the American public. The same one sent to the British, some 200 years previously. “You can’t make us go away, and we’re not going to do so!”
Unfortunately, Allied Forces have now encountered the same problem in Iraq. Countries such as Spain and Italy had already made the decision that costs were too high. Now it appears that the United States has once again reached the same conclusion, that the costs are just not worth it, and is beginning to initiate the process of withdrawal.
In cases whereby the sides were pretty much even, although resources may have not been, attrition is very much the name of the game. During the Napoleonic Wars, Britain was able to maintain trading links around the world. Despite the uneven resources in manpower, British economic might and geographical position allowed the continued ‘bank rolling’ of the war until the French war effort eventually collapsed.
However, sometimes it is necessary to set aside logic and wonder where things went wrong. During the American Revolution, Great Britain appeared to have all the things going for it. Wealth, manpower and support from a sizeable proportion of the population. But this brings in another factor; which sees the biggest side losing against all the odds. That of the ‘will to win’. There are times when the lesser power demonstrates that it refuses to be beaten, and that the larger protagonist decides continuation is not worth the cost.
During the American Revolution, such a time came during the winter of 1777 at Valley Forge. Despite, numerous losses in battle, from the cold, and from disease, an Army that should have simply ceased to exist was, by the summer of 1778, one to reckon with. I would argue that the Continental Army, in itself, was never particularly effective. But that is for another day. What is important is that a continued existence sent out a statement to the British government; “You can’t make us go away, and we’re not going to do so!”
The Americans were to find this out during the North Vietnamese Thet Offensive, in April 1968. Although the Thet Offensive was a military failure for the North Vietnamese, it sent a message to the American public. The same one sent to the British, some 200 years previously. “You can’t make us go away, and we’re not going to do so!”
Unfortunately, Allied Forces have now encountered the same problem in Iraq. Countries such as Spain and Italy had already made the decision that costs were too high. Now it appears that the United States has once again reached the same conclusion, that the costs are just not worth it, and is beginning to initiate the process of withdrawal.
King Weiwang and the Implementation of Tax
Yesterday, I mentioned King Weiwang and his relationship with one of my favourite philosophers; Zhuang Zi. I thought I might mention King Weiwang again, whilst the subject was still fresh in my mind, and because he is of interest to me for several reasons.
King Weiwang was part of the Zhou dynasty, and reputedly ruled from 378-343 B.C in what is now Shandong Province. He is of interest to me because of his part in the Warring States Period, whereby the Warring States supposedly saw innovations in the fields of commerce, agriculture, and iron-working. It is interesting to see how often developments are achieved in time of war, despite the disruption that societies are forced to deal with.
King Weiwang’s particular contribution to the aforementioned developments was the overseeing of complimentary reforms in the tax system and the military. This, of course, is not without parallel in the western world. William Pitt ‘The Younger’ introduced fundamental tax reform by levying Income Tax to fund the war against France and her allies. Abraham Lincoln did likewise to help fund the United States in their struggles against the Confederacy. King Weiwang just happened to do it some 2,150 years earlier!
King Weiwang was part of the Zhou dynasty, and reputedly ruled from 378-343 B.C in what is now Shandong Province. He is of interest to me because of his part in the Warring States Period, whereby the Warring States supposedly saw innovations in the fields of commerce, agriculture, and iron-working. It is interesting to see how often developments are achieved in time of war, despite the disruption that societies are forced to deal with.
King Weiwang’s particular contribution to the aforementioned developments was the overseeing of complimentary reforms in the tax system and the military. This, of course, is not without parallel in the western world. William Pitt ‘The Younger’ introduced fundamental tax reform by levying Income Tax to fund the war against France and her allies. Abraham Lincoln did likewise to help fund the United States in their struggles against the Confederacy. King Weiwang just happened to do it some 2,150 years earlier!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)