Humanity labored for millennia in ignorance of the reality of war, and then the Great War happened, poets realized the lie of "Dulce et decorum est," and now the Truth of History can be laid bare before the god of Trauma.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @whsieh
So, I'm pretty all-in on the war-and-society school of things, but for sure we should always remember that our present view of war is just as subjective and contingent as Bertran de Born's
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 12 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @whsieh
And also that "who won and why?" is still an important question. Winning and losing in war have consequences. Go ask the Carthaginians how important it was to encourage good strategic&tactical thinking in a systematic way, rather than relying on a once-in-a-generation genius.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @whsieh
It seems to me that the maintenance of the so-called epikrateia for a couple centuries is good evidence that Carthaginians had decent strategic and tactical thinking. The war with Rome being as much a surprise for them as the Romans, I don't know what else they could have done?
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JoshuaRHall3 ja @whsieh
So obviously, I've got that article arguing that Carthaginian strategic thinking was, on the whole, reasonable and prudent. Which I think is true. On the flip side, Carthaginian generals seem to me - Hannibal excepted - to bat below replacement pretty consistently.
1 vastaus 1 uudelleentwiittaus 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @whsieh
Mmm, perhaps. Though I view Hannibal as a rather poor strategist, though good tactician. But I think it's difficult to universally declare them poor considering how long Carthage maintained a relatively large hegemony if not empire.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JoshuaRHall3 ja @whsieh
That's fair. Perhaps a poor choice of example. At the very least, Carthage's military capacity seems to me to have outstripped the abilities of any Greek-speaking state in antiquity.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
It just seems to me that Carthage was the only state to come close to having the institutional strength in resource mobilization to hold off the Romans, and more often than not it is one form of leadership failure or another that holds them back from doing that.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @whsieh
They certainly did have the ability to mobilize a considerable amount of power. Though, I don't think their failure in the wars against Rome can be entirely laid on leadership failures. What about the strengths of the Romans? Maybe I'm being too pedantic for Twitter
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystäKiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.