History questions not worth their own thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Basically, Israel doesn't like Arabs, and the British and the French still wanted to control the Arabs, so they were pretty much inevitable allies. Once it became clear that backing Israel would also mean backing the British and French, the Soviets backed out.
It was more complicated than that. In reality, Israel sided with the US - rather than the UK and France, though those two NATO powers came with their more powerful ally - in the Cold War for the same reasons many other nations did; the US was clearly the stronger of the two superpowers, posed less of a threat to Israel's national sovereignty and economic system than the communist USSR did, and it was willing to sell Israel weapons with which to fight off its Arab neighbours.

The USSR was also willing to sell Israel weapons and back them diplomatically, seeing that Israel was the dominant military power in the region, but since Israel wasn't willing to quid pro quo with the USSR in the same way it would with the Western powers, the Soviets jumped at Nasser's offer to give them a friendly state in the region. More specifically, the Soviets realised that backing Israel brought them few benefits, whereas backnig Egypt, though obviously the weaker party, gave them a great deal of 'cred' with the international anti-colonial movement.

Selling weapons to Egypt - and later, other Arab states such as Syria - also provided the USSR's sole thriving industry, armaments, with a willing and consistent buyer. Egypt was the first non-socialist nation to purchase armaments from the USSR post-WWII (though the first shipment came from Czechoslovakia, not the USSR itself) and the Soviets quickly grasped the economic benefits the international arms trade could bring them. When Egypt jumped in to the US camp during Saddat's rule, it was a significant blow to both the Soviet weapons trade and its diplomatic prestige.

Funnily enough, Czechoslovakia had also been the first nation to sell armaments to Israel in 1947, with Soviet permission. Without those armaments (which consisted mostly of captured German equipment, with an assortment of Soviet materiel added), Israel would have been thoroughly beaten in the first Arab-Israeli War.
 
It was more complicated than that. In reality, Israel sided with the US - rather than the UK and France, though those two NATO powers came with their more powerful ally - in the Cold War for the same reasons many other nations did; the US was clearly the stronger of the two superpowers, posed less of a threat to Israel's national sovereignty and economic system than the communist USSR did, and it was willing to sell Israel weapons with which to fight off its Arab neighbours.
While you clearly know more about this, didn't Israel aligning itself with America come after the Suez Crisis? Wasn't that when the Soviets dropped them?
 
While you clearly know more about this, didn't Israel aligning itself with America come after the Suez Crisis? Wasn't that when the Soviets dropped them?

And I seem to recall that France was Israel's primary backer until sometime in (I think) the 60s?
 
It was more complicated than that. In reality, Israel sided with the US - ...

Hm, yes, that´s one way of putting it. It seems to me that after the 1967 war Israel had little choice than to ´side with´ the US... A more interesting question would be why the US decided to become such staunch backers of Israel.

As to Israel not liking the Arabs, the feeling is quite mutual, I´m sure.
 
While you clearly know more about this, didn't Israel aligning itself with America come after the Suez Crisis? Wasn't that when the Soviets dropped them?
The Soviets had already switched to Nasser by the time of the Suez Crisis, though they didn't completely abandon Israel until it became obvious that an Israel-Egypt rapprochement was not on the cards. Israel, for its part, always favoured the Western powers over the USSR, even when the Soviets were their main backer - Ben-Gurion especially feared a communist uprising in Israel, a conclusion he jumped to based on absolutely zero evidence, which wasn't exactly uncommon for him. The US really began to push a pro-Israel policy - as opposed to their previous pro-anyone-who'll-work-with-us-in-the-region policy, which mostly involved giving the British materiel for re-sale to Jordan - under Eisenhower, and yes, after the Suez Crisis. But that was mainly because the UK and France were no longer in a position to support Israel in any great capacity.

And I seem to recall that France was Israel's primary backer until sometime in (I think) the 60s?
France became Israel's greatest backer sometime in the late '40s, after Warsaw Pact aid diminished. They kept that position until Charles De Gaulle returned to power, but they often re-sold US equipment to Israel. Oddly, French military support to Isreal actually increased dramatically during De Gaulle's presidency, but by that point the US had fully embraced Kennedy's practice of selling too many weapons to anyone that hated communism, so the US overtook France. This was helped along by Jordan leaving the US orbit in the same period.

Hm, yes, that´s one way of putting it. It seems to me that after the 1967 war Israel had little choice than to ´side with´ the US... A more interesting question would be why the US decided to become such staunch backers of Israel.
That is a very, very complex question, and to my knowledge has never been satisfactorily explained, though Stephen Walt, inventor of the "Balance of Threat" doctrine of Neorealism, had a crack at it a decade or so ago. Suffice it to say that Israel actively decided to court American support above that of all others after the Yom Kippur War proved that Arab states were still a potential threat, and the Americans were only too happy to support the relatively stable, pro-Western Israel over its more volatile, unpredictable neighbours.

As to Israel not liking the Arabs, the feeling is quite mutual, I´m sure.
Um, yes? I'm not sure why you even mention that. Of course they don't get along.
 
american attrition in Vietnam of Communist production was not enough so an Israeli attack -at the miserably capable Arabian militaries - seemed a good thing .
 
american attrition in Vietnam of Communist production was not enough so an Israeli attack -at the miserably capable Arabian militaries - seemed a good thing .
Vietnam and the Arab-Israeli Wars were completely unrelated. Unless you've discovered an exciting new conspiracy theory?
 
russian factories replacing the losses were "one and the same" though .

regarding conspiracies their discussion inevitably involve Johnson's great society , his being forced into reminding some governor - ı think the one of Mississipi- that he would end up in a ditch by some roadside if he kept opposing "emancipation" of the blacks and this oft repeated thing about people having some weight in the media . Anyone sees any of it here ? At least before post #1168 ?


edit: ı saw someplace that the primary thrust of Russian prucurement was T-64 and the T-72 was a cheaper option to make up the numbers yet both were delayed into production as the factories in 1975-76 were busy replacing the T-54s and 62s lost by the Arabs in 1973.
 
I'm looking for pictures from fortifications dating around 750 AD.
It's for a NES where I'm playing as a Visigoth nation situated in Southern Iberia.

I'm not looking for the basic army camps but fortifications that where meant to control a region. Does anyone know where I can find such pictures or how those fortresses looked? If not I'll just have to use my imagination ;)

thanks in advance :)
 
Does anyone have a pictures of a traditional Chinese pig farm?
 
Does anyone know if the Museum of Military History in Vienna has English translations, either written or oral, of the exhibits? I'm going to Vienna next year, and I'm planning to make it one of my first stops. For that matter, how prevalent are English translations over there, in general?
 
I can't speak for Austria, but my experience with Europe in general has been fairly positive.

Since they have an English website and they advertise that it is one museum with ten languages, I think you'll be OK with finding English translations of information.
 
Does anyone know if the Museum of Military History in Vienna has English translations, either written or oral, of the exhibits? I'm going to Vienna next year, and I'm planning to make it one of my first stops. For that matter, how prevalent are English translations over there, in general?

Most museums in Vienna have English audioguides or translated texts next to the exhibits. I dont know about the Military History Muesum in particular, but chances are good that there is some form of translation.
 
Thanks guys. I'm already planning to learn some German before I go there, but it's nice to know I won't need to rely on my horrible linguistic abilities.
 
how would the stern historians would react if they heard that during a TV debate of rewriting Turkish History the new elites in Turkey have just lauded Gavin Menzies [whom ı understand wrote 1421 and 34] as an example to follow as he was challenging established truths and semi-truths ?

(their point is of course the utility of the New Turkey is decreasing by the day and the there is obviously a master plan that has to kick in ; resulting the intelligentsia challenging the elites as if somebody in Europe made them so , just like they had opposed the newly deposed former elites . Alas had they read CFC they would have seen despite the tremendous exploits Zheng He would not be enough to save them .)
 
well , ı can't argue much against it . Should ı delete ?
 
I'm looking for pictures from fortifications dating around 750 AD.
It's for a NES where I'm playing as a Visigoth nation situated in Southern Iberia.

I'm not looking for the basic army camps but fortifications that where meant to control a region. Does anyone know where I can find such pictures or how those fortresses looked? If not I'll just have to use my imagination ;)

thanks in advance :)

No existing castle that I know of dates back to that period. The romans were builders of hastily thrown together (but lasting) masonry fortifications - city walls - during the late period of the empire, initially to counter raids from Africa. The passing of the Vandals through the peninsula probably spurred all major cities to do it afterwards. The Visigoths, when they were brought in by the empire, inherited those and I expect that they maintained them, and probably did no more. They based their political power in the existing cities and had a more or less centralized state. Regions were controlled from the cities like they had been in the roman period. I doubt that any other temporary fortifications with perishable materials were built at the time. Note that I am speculating from what small pieces of information I've picked, I never studied the period carefully and I'm not sure of this.

The next great wave of masonry fortification building starting around the end of the first millenium and was carried out by the muslim state(s) which controlled that region, as the caliphate there broke apart. Again, they were mostly city walls with an associated castle for the lord/governor and garrison of the city. Those might be an innovation relative to roman/visighotic times.
 
I'm looking for pictures from fortifications dating around 750 AD.
It's for a NES where I'm playing as a Visigoth nation situated in Southern Iberia.

I'm not looking for the basic army camps but fortifications that where meant to control a region. Does anyone know where I can find such pictures or how those fortresses looked? If not I'll just have to use my imagination ;)

thanks in advance :)

The Danevirke was built in several stages, between 737 AD and 968 AD, but it's not very well preserved. Offa's Dyke was constructed between 757 AD and 796 AD, but again is in poor repair today. Gotavirke is in even worse shape.

The Hexamilion falls outside your time-frame (405 AD to 450 AD) but was masonry construction instead of earthworks, and is in much better shape.

There really aren't many surviving fortifications dating from that period... one might almost say: none.
 
The Akkadian people and language are so-called after the city of Agade or Akkad, supposedly founded by Sargon the Great. However, they were around for a long time before then. So what did the Akkadians call themselves and their language? And what did other people at the time call them?

Akkadian was written down after Sargon conquered the Sumerians, installed an Akkadian civil service throughout Sumeria, and they decided to use cuneiform to write their own language (rather like Japanese being written using Chinese symbols). Throughout this whole period, both before and after the conquest, Akkadian and Sumerian both appear to have been widely spoken, with a lot of people being bilingual in both and a lot of borrowing between the two languages (even through they were apparently unrelated - again rather like Chinese and Japanese).

Now it seems to me that in that situation there should be some mention in some texts, whether in Sumerian or Akkadian, of the Akkadian language or people. There certainly are of the Sumerian language and people. We know that the Sumerians called themselves Ung Sang Giga, meaning "the black-headed people", their country Ki Eng Gur (meaning "civilised land"), and their language Eme Ngur or Eme Sal depending on which dialect you're talking about. So I'm wondering, if we know these things about the Sumerians, what are the equivalents for the Akkadians?

Just in case anyone else was waiting with bated breath for answers to this, I found out myself. It turns out that the ancient term for the Akkadian language (and also adjective for the Akkadian people) is Akkadum, and the name for the Akkadian region is Mat Akkade ("Land of Akkad"). (N.b. these refer to the language spoken in Mesopotamia proper, also known as Old Babylonian. The form of Akkadian spoken in Assyria, also known as Old Assyrian, was called Assuru.) But these names are known only after the time of Sargon and the founding of the city of Akkad and presumably derive from the name of that city.

The Sumerians called the Akkadian region Ki Uri ("Land of Uri", with uncertain meaning). But again that name is not attested before Sargon. A related name for the same area is Wari'um, which became the name of a later kingdom, but I'm not sure if that name was used at earlier times. I can't find any reference to pre-Sargon names for the people or the language. The former may not be surprising, as it seems that the Akkadian and Sumerian languages were both widely spoken over a similar area by people who were otherwise pretty much identical, but for the same reason it's surprising to me that there seems to be no known pre-Akkad name for the Akkadian language. So there you go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom