History questions not worth their own thread V

[ReindeerThistle]

If rules only work when everyone follows them they aren't very good rules.

Precisely my point.

 

[Dachs]

I tend to agree with you. I think Sunzi gets a bad name for reasons beyond his control. He was clearly a military officer - probably a staff officer rather than a front-line soldier, assuming the story of his life is true, which is by no means verifiable - who was offering extremely basic instruction to people with no military background.

The author of the texts that were collected as The Art of War may have been those things. And since he was (or they were) writing one of the first texts on warfare as a thing in itself in the history of humanity, obviously it wouldn't be fair to expect the text to be anything more than a collection of aphorisms in unsystematic fashion, most of which are stupefyingly obvious or utterly pointless/misleading. It would be ridiculous to expect the work to be even remotely comparable to modern texts.

That's not the knock on The Art of War, though. It's not that it's held to an unreasonable standard by its critics, but that it's held to an unreasonable standard by the people who quote it. It was a nice little collection of fortune-cookie sayings back in the day, but someone unironically attempting to use a quote from it to make an actual point nowadays, or who brings up "Sunzi" as a military authority, merely demonstrates his or her own lack of knowledge about the topic.

 

[Lord Baal]

The author of the texts that were collected as The Art of War may have been those things. And since he was (or they were) writing one of the first texts on warfare as a thing in itself in the history of humanity, obviously it wouldn't be fair to expect the text to be anything more than a collection of aphorisms in unsystematic fashion, most of which are stupefyingly obvious or utterly pointless/misleading. It would be ridiculous to expect the work to be even remotely comparable to modern texts.

That's not the knock on The Art of War, though. It's not that it's held to an unreasonable standard by its critics, but that it's held to an unreasonable standard by the people who quote it. It was a nice little collection of fortune-cookie sayings back in the day, but someone unironically attempting to use a quote from it to make an actual point nowadays, or who brings up "Sunzi" as a military authority, merely demonstrates his or her own lack of knowledge about the topic.

That's a very good point. I do believe it is of some use as a document for those who are completely unskilled in warfare. It is not, however, the sort of thing that should be considered an authority in and of itself.

Isn't Sun Bin known - insofar as it is possible to know something from that period - to have existed by now? He's meant to have been Sun Wu's son.

 

[Dachs]

That's a very good point. I do believe it is of some use as a document for those who are completely unskilled in warfare. It is not, however, the sort of thing that should be considered an authority in and of itself.

Isn't Sun Bin known - insofar as it is possible to know something from that period - to have existed by now? He's meant to have been Sun Wu's son.

I don't particularly think that the arguments for Sunzi's historicity are very convincing. Sort of like Barry Strauss's efforts to use the Iliad in combination with archaeological work in western Anatolia to create a "real" narrative of the Trojan War.

 

[H4run]

The document that been thrown to Geniza, isn't it solely documents that the name of God written in it?

Or the document that been thrown in Geniza are the document that been written in Hebrew text? but if that so, why there are also Armaic, even Yiddish document inside the Geniza? Even they found piece of paper and doctor recipe inside it?

What is the rule or reason for the document to be thrown in this 'sacred trash-bin'? especially the Geniza of Ben Ezra in Egypt.

Sorry for keeping posting question, I have so many things to read and write, and this is one of the part of my paper that I must submit around 6 a clock tomorrow. Thanks for reading!

 

[otaman1]

What happens if Hitler invaded Switzerland?

 

[cybrxkhan]

What happens if Hitler invaded Switzerland?

Each Swiss soldier shoots five times, then goes home.

 

[Louis XXIV]

What happens if Hitler invaded Switzerland?

Apparently, Hitler did have plans to invade Switzerland since the country really irritated him. The plan called for four times the number of troops that were in the invasion of Norway (25 divisions and up to a half million men). I don't know what the expected casualties were, but I'd guess they were certainly higher than worthwhile for freakin' Switzerland

I found out about it through a Cracked article, but here's the Wikipedia page on Operation Tannenbaum.

 

[r16]

but we all come from a background of extensive training and firm theoretical knowledge which simply didn't exist in ancient China.

and

was offering extremely basic instruction to people with no military background.

once ı found a book on Mao and his life and a selection of his writings . ı gave up after page 50 because he was like repeating the same exact thing on every 3rd page and there was no sign of things like guerrillas being fish that swim in the sea of people .

 

[Lord Baal]

What happens if Hitler invaded Switzerland?

German victory, but the terrain is easily defensible and perfect for guerrilla operations, so there will be a long, bloody occupation with an effective insurgency. It would also detract from the number of troops able to be deployed elsewhere.

 

[Mouthwash]

German victory, but the terrain is easily defensible and perfect for guerrilla operations, so there will be a long, bloody occupation with an effective insurgency. It would also detract from the number of troops able to be deployed elsewhere.

But that Evil Empire solid map color is worth it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What happens if Hitler invaded Switzerland?

A lot of time, men, and materiel gets wasted conquering Germans that could be used more effectively elsewhere conquering non-Germans.

 

[Flying Pig]

German victory, but the terrain is easily defensible and perfect for guerrilla operations, so there will be a long, bloody occupation with an effective insurgency. It would also detract from the number of troops able to be deployed elsewhere.

That was Guisan's intention, and the main deterrent keeping the Germans out of Switzerland.

 

[Dachs]

and


once ı found a book on Mao and his life and a selection of his writings . ı gave up after page 50 because he was like repeating the same exact thing on every 3rd page and there was no sign of things like guerrillas being fish that swim in the sea of people .

Also, Mao's actual campaigns, and those of the embryonic PLA in general, rarely bore any resemblance to the guerrilla model that he propounded in his book.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

and
there was no sign of things like guerrillas being fish that swim in the sea of people .

"An army is to the people as the fish is to sea." Is the paraphrase I am most familiar with.

 

[Mouthwash]

Also, Mao's actual campaigns, and those of the embryonic PLA in general, rarely bore any resemblance to the guerrilla model that he propounded in his book.

Is there any era of history you are actually clueless about?

 

[cybrxkhan]

Is there any era of history you are actually clueless about?

To Dachs, there is no such thing as knowing history or not knowing history. There is only simply history. It is in Dachs' very soul and being.

 

[Wrymouth3]

To Dachs, there is no such thing as knowing history or not knowing history. There is only simply history. It is in Dachs' very soul and being.

You know, it's posts like these that really provide no productivity to this thread besides some bizzaro fascination with the very presence of Dachs in this thread where people are encouraged to ask questions about history. Dachs has in-depth knowledge of a handful of areas in particular eras of history, and a very good understanding overall of all eras. We as a community are getting nowhere by worship of one member of the community like he/she is some sort of Perun-esque deity. I, speaking as a member of this community, request that douchebag comments, name-calling, and wacko posts like this be reserved in jest. I can assure EVERYONE, that I am not the only one who feels this way about this.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Also, Mao's actual campaigns, and those of the embryonic PLA in general, rarely bore any resemblance to the guerrilla model that he propounded in his book.

That's interesting, since I have not read much of Mao's theory (save for his very useful Combat Liberalism, his short On Subjectivism and his "short course Hegelian" On Practice) and I have read none of his military writings. I only know what he and the survivors told Edgar Snow and Han Suyin. My impression of him was more of a political leader (like, didn't he drop out of the Army after six months?)

Question for Dachs: What do you think of Otto Braun/ Li De?

 

[cybrxkhan]

You know, it's posts like these that really provide no productivity to this thread besides some bizzaro fascination with the very presence of Dachs in this thread where people are encouraged to ask questions about history. Dachs has in-depth knowledge of a handful of areas in particular eras of history, and a very good understanding overall of all eras. We as a community are getting nowhere by worship of one member of the community like he/she is some sort of Perun-esque deity. I, speaking as a member of this community, request that douchebag comments, name-calling, and wacko posts like this be reserved in jest. I can assure EVERYONE, that I am not the only one who feels this way about this.

I was... jesting, do you really think I actually worship Dachs? That would be quite a literal interpretation.

Look, these posts are meant to be light-hearted; if Dachs is offended then we'll stop, otherwise I see no harm in them as long as we don't spam entire pages of threads with them.