Innumerable as the Starrs of Night,
Or Starrs of Morning, Dew-drops, which the Sun Impearls on every leaf and every flouer Milton |
||
Impearls | ||
NGC3132 © |
Beauty is truth, truth beauty,
— that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. Keats
E = M
Energy is eternal delight.
|
What wailing wight
© Copyright 2002 – 2009
|
Impearls: 2003-12-28 Archive Earthdate 2003-12-28
Sarmatians: “horsey” Vikings — exploring origin of the “Rohirrim” in The Lord of the Rings
A few chums and I went to see The Return of the King — third film in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy — last week, and a good time was had by all. Over the Thanksgiving holiday, Tamara and I got to see material from the The Two Towers (the second film) enhanced-edition DVD, whereupon we learned that the memorable folk known as the Rohirrim, the people of the kingdom of Rohan in the series, were conceptually developed by the filmmakers from ideas of “horsey Vikings” — people conceived of as basically like the Vikings but with a prevalent horse-and-plains, rather than longship-and-sea, orientation. Rohan and the Rohirrim were very well done in Jackson's LOTR, in my view, including the latest released film, but while musing over the concept it occurred to me there are perhaps less artificial models from history, even European history, that could have been used in building the people of Rohan, than simply grafting the sea-oriented Vikings onto horseback. No criticism of the approach the series actually took is intended (which I think is perfectly fine), but it is fascinating to take a look at some of the alternate historical analogues from whom the people of Rohan might have emerged. I'll discuss one such — the historic Sarmatians — here, and in the future perhaps go over one or two other potential historical sources for a folk like the Rohirrim. Originally an Iranian people and speaking an Indo-European tongue, the folk known to history as “Sarmatians” (Sarmatae in Latin) were nomadic horse warriors related to the Scythians of ancient fame, originating to the east of the latter and ultimately displacing them. During the later Roman Republic and through most of the Empire period (and even later, in some regions), the Sarmatians occupied the area off the northeastern borderland of Empire known to the Romans, after them, as Sarmatia. The Sarmatians' domain during much of this epoch extended east of Germania, occupied by the Germans, from approximately the line of the Vistula River in present-day Poland (“Sarmatia” is sometimes used today as a literary term for Poland) to points east through the Ukraine and southwestern Russia into the Caspian and Aral Sea regions of Central Asia. The “Alans” (Alani) whom one runs into occasionally in the history of late and post-Roman times were a Sarmatian people. Historian T. Peisker, writing in The Cambridge Medieval History, points out that for Scythians and Sarmatians, “both names covered the most medley conglomerations of nomads and peasants.” 1 The Sarmatians' nomad empire was eventually eclipsed in the 3rd century AD by the Gothic eruption from Scandinavia across the Baltic Sea and thence into eastern Europe, whence many Sarmatians enlisted as associates of the new Gothic confederation.
A portion of the Sarmatian people, who became known as “free Sarmatians” (Sarmatae Liberi), continued for some time in what is approximately modern Hungary, independent of the Goths to their east in the Romania/Ukraine region.
What remained of Sarmatia eventually succumbed, after about 370, to the Huns, though many Sarmatians escaped west to join other elements of the barbarian wanderings of late and post-Roman times, after which Sarmatians (and Alans) are no longer heard of.
It is the Sarmatians who must be credited with introduction of the armored horse warrior — i.e., the knight — to the medieval West! As Arnold Toynbee explains, in his book Mankind and Mother Earth: 2
Encyclopædia Britannica's article ”Sarmatian” describes Sarmatian religion, art, and culture: 3
(Emphasis added to an interesting point.) One correction to the foregoing: Attributing spurs and stirrups to the Sarmatians, as the Britannica article claims to, appears incorrect, best I can make out. Scholars seem to be basically in concurrence that the Sarmatians lacked the stirrup, and it was probably through the Avars — who we met in Impearls' article Crusades IV (permalink) — that this device was introduced somewhat later to the West. Spurs too appear to have been already known to Gauls and Romans. With that caution, we'll continue….
History is composed of real, not ideal, peoples, and many aspects of human cultures in history fail to meet modern-day egalitarian and human rights tests. As with other past societies, this was so for the Sarmatians. Horse nomads lived a pastoral (animal herding) existence, and as a result of their riding-the-whirlwind lifestyle, tended to be extraordinarily contemptuous of the farmer's settled way of life, seeing them basically as fit only for slaves. Nomads created their empires by lording it over legions of conquered serfs and slaves, who were usually treated as inherently inferior. During the Mongol conquest of northern China, as an extreme case, settled Chinese peasants were regarded by those nomad warriors as hardly worthy of life, and were massacred in large numbers; few nomads, however, were as senselessly destructive (by civilized standards) as the Mongols. The Vikings — used by the makers of the LOTR films as models for their Rohirrim — weren't nomads but farmers; nevertheless they captured, kept, and sold hosts of captives and slaves. Slavery, in fact, was pervasive in most societies, particularly commercially active ones, until quite recently. This story from the remaining so-called “free Sarmatians,” decades after most of the rest of the extensive Sarmatian dominion had been overrun by the Goths, illuminates a moment in this age-old master-slave conflict (as related by historian Herwig Wolfram, in his History of the Goths): 4
Accompanying the Vandals, Sarmatians eventually made their way to north Africa, where they became an honored part of the kingdom they and the Vandals carved out of Roman Africa. The ex-slaves of the “free Sarmatians,” the Limigantes, a quarter-century following their liberation were exterminated by the Romans, when they treacherously attacked the Emperor after having been granted entry and the right to settle in the Empire. 5 History isn't a story book, and doesn't have to live up to our hopes and aspirations.
References 1 T. Peisker (Ph.D., Privatdocent and Librarian, Graz), Chapter XII: “The Asiatic Background,” Volume I: The Christian Roman Empire and the Foundation of the Teutonic Kingdoms, edited by H. M. Gwatkin and J. P. Whitney, The Cambridge Medieval History, planned by J. B. Bury, 1911, Cambridge at the University Press; p. 349. 2 Arnold Toynbee, Mankind and Mother Earth: A Narrative History of the World, 1976, Oxford University Press, New York and London; p. 441. 3 “Sarmatian,” Encyclopædia Britannica, Britannica CD 1997, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 4 Herwig Wolfram, History of the Goths, Second Edition, 1988, University of California Press, Berkeley; p. 63.
5
Norman H. Baynes (M.A., Oxon., Barrister-at-Law), Chapter III: “Constantine's successors to Jovian: and the struggle with Persia,” Volume I: The Christian Roman Empire and the Foundation of the Teutonic Kingdoms, Op. cit.; p. 71.
UPDATE: 2003-12-29 18:00 UT. Thanks to the University of Texas for its beautiful Sarmatian art images, linked to at this U.T. site (since it appears not to be fully operational, also check out this location). Note that this page indicates the Sarmatians didn't advance into southeastern Europe until the 3rd century AD, which as far as I know is incorrect (correct date is 2nd century BC). UPDATE: 2003-12-30 00:30 UT. Lynn Sislo at Reflections in d minor has posted a link to this piece. UPDATE: 2003-12-31 21:00 UT. Prof. Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy has linked to the article, producing The Conspiracy's version of “instalanche.” Thereafter, Prof. Stephen Bainbridge picked up the thread in a rebuttal called “Were the Rohirrim Sarmatians? No.” (More on that later [see Update below].) Meanwhile, I've been taking a beating from e-mail (I got one) informing me that it's “Rohan” the nation (which I knew) but not “Rohan” the people: rather, in Tolkien's books, according to my correspondent, the people are called Rohirrim. What can I say? It was quite a few years ago that I read Tolkien! (Actually, I was thinking the Rohirrim was the name of Rohan's cavalry corps, but then maybe I just wasn't thinking.) Now, I'm about to surrender on this point (and I've modified the article accordingly), but I'll make a brief defense of not (necessarily) calling people by their own name! We speak English; the “Rohirrim” spoke another language. Professor Bainbridge maintains that, according to a note of Tolkien's, the “Rohirrim” spoke Old English! Now, I disagree about that, which I'll explain elsewhere, but even if granted, Old English isn't (Modern) English. Old English can't be understood by a modern English speaker (Middle English is hard enough to try to comprehend), and therefore they are different languages. Different languages very often (usually!) use different terms to refer to the same things, including nations and peoples. In English, for example, we refer to the Italian city of “Florence”; in Italian it's called Firenze. It's not ”Ugly Americanism” to do this, it's what all languages do. Spanish speakers call the United States “Estados Unidos” — are Americans to be offended by that? Not at all. Similarly, it's perfectly acceptable to call a people — who might call themselves, say, Rohirrim — in English something like “Rohanese” (by analogy with Japanese). (Bleh!)
On second thought, let's just call them Rohirrim!
Fortunately for us, English is beautifully tolerant.
UPDATE: 2004-01-02 21:30 UT. Several additional blogs have linked to this article or to those who've pointed to it. “De Doc” at “De Doc's Doings” has linked to Eugene Volokh's post with a reply called “Sarmations, Norsemen, and Rohirrim, oh MY!,” commenting:
Mitch H. at Blogfonte discusses another aspect of mock criticism of The Lord of the Rings, then turns to this, what he calls, “kerfluffle about who the Rohirrim are supposed to be,” writing:
Both Goths and Avars are excellent candidates, in my estimation, in addition to the Sarmatians already noted.
Goths though as well as Sarmatians seem to precede the era when stirrups (which I regard as largely irrelevant to this contest) were known — Avars, however, definitely do not antedate stirrups, and are likely the origin of them.
Whether the candidate folk is Germanic in language or origin or not is also basically irrelevant, in my view.
As a result, Avars, as well as the Goths, must be rated highly as historical peoples rather like the Rohirrim.
Finally, Steve at The Modulator in a piece called “Rohan Sources,” compares Impearls' article with Bainbridge's response:
I appreciate Steve's comments, and certainly agree with his interpretation. As he notes, I plan to post more on other societal models for the Rohirrim shortly. I can't close here, however, without gently pointing to Modulator's misspelling of Sarmatian (as “Samartian”), which I think is hilarious.
Now I hate spelling flames, and I'm not flaming; I'm sure it's just a typo, which everyone does (once I misspelt the name “Pelagius” the same way throughout an entire article devoted to same, and I've had to catch myself in this one to avoid spelling them as “Samaritans”!).
But it's funny thinking of the “Samartians” as horse warriors originating on the war-god planet Mars — perhaps from John Carter's Barsoom!
UPDATE: 2004-01-07 17:30 UT. A follow-up piece, known as Horsey Vikings II (permalink) has been posted, responding to Professor Bainbridge's rebuttal called “Were the Rohirrim Sarmatians? No.” The new article discusses half a dozen likely models among “horsey” historic peoples for the Rohirrim. UPDATE: 2004-01-09 14:00 UT. Prof. Stephen Bainbridge has linked back to this series with a note titled “More on the Rohirrim,” calling it, in an e-mail, “Great stuff!” UPDATE: 2004-01-16 14:15 UT. Geitner Simmons in his Regions of Mind blog has enthusiastically linked to this ‘Rohirrim’ series of articles, commenting:
Impearls: 2003-12-28 Archive Earthdate 2003-12-24
BBC3
The discussion on a space science discussion list has continued concerning Impearls' earlier pieces on the BBC and the anniversary of flight (permalink) and BBC2 (permalink). Our previous correspondent has proceeded as follows:
The difference in perception between broadcast vs. written media had occurred to me too.
Thanks! Glad to learn of the group, actually. I'll try not to get into too much extraneous argumentation….
I haven't read the book, just noted its existence in Britannica's short biography of Richard Llewellyn. I did see that it's available for as little as about $2 on the Advanced Book Exchange (world's best used bookstore, IMHO).
(Choke! gasp.) Prime Minister Tony Blair wishes the BBC were pro-British, much less pro-American. That's not much exaggerated, I'm afraid, as I suspect Blair would ruefully admit in a moment of candor. The BBC is pretty much completely independent of government control, and shows it by attacking the government vigorously. It used to be expected they would treat Conservative governments that way; now they do it to Labour too, more or less coming from the far left. During the aftermath of the Iraq war the media furor reached such a crescendo in attempting to depose Blair as to resemble an attempted coup by this pseudo-governmental agency.
I agree with you on that.
No doubt. And you're right — in the case of a Columbus' discovery anniversary, for instance, just running an alternative discovery of America feature at the time wouldn't qualify that as being “anti-Columbus” at all. (Let's continue the Columbus analogy a little longer, I think it's instructive.) When one looks at recent Columbus-day anniversaries (not just the 500th, but annual), that's not what's happening. I haven't tried to accumulate statistics, mind you, though I have tried keeping an eye on Columbus' media coverage during recent years, and what I recollect seeing is media piece after media piece — not showing alternatives who might have gotten to America before, that would be interesting — instead they typically rake Columbus over the coals: he's a slaver, he's a terrible administrator, he's held personally responsible for the large die-off of native Americans (mostly due to disease) following European contact (darling of the left Venezuelan president Chavez made that accusation recently), etc. etc. It's even gotten to the point where Columbus is called a lousy navigator. This is very different from what historians were saying only a few decades ago. Renowned historian Samuel Eliot Morison, for example, wrote a fascinating two-volume history on the European Discovery of America, as well as another book on Columbus himself. Besides being a respected historian, Morison was a deep-water sailor who followed Columbus' and some of the other New World explorers' routes in his own sailing ship. Morison points out that Columbus was not only a master mariner but was personally responsible for discovery of more territory (miles of land and coastline explored) than any other explorer, including Magellan, in history. As Morison wrote: 1
You see what I'm talking about. Coverage of Columbus in the last few decades has changed — almost like a bright light being turned off, and a dark light darkly illuminating him and his times turned on. Is this new paradigm constantly being preached any more likely to be correct, or true, than the old? Considering what I see as the change originating more or less in intellectual fashion (an anti-exploration fashion) rather than scientific historical results, I have severe doubts about that. Getting back to the Wright brothers, had the BBC done a show on the pathos of Santos-Dumont as an aviation pioneer who did his work thinking (before the Wrights' flights had become widely known) that he was first to fly, then I could have had no complaint. Had they shown how Alberto's aircraft compared with the Wrights' and how he solved the same problems as they but in a decidedly different way, that would have been fascinating. (Correct me if I'm wrong somebody, I don't recall the BBC showing what Santos-Dumont's airplane even looked like; instead they displayed the box Alberto's heart is supposedly locked up in.) More significantly, rather than showing him figuratively standing alongside, and a little behind, the Wrights' achievement, they explicitly tried to knock the Wright Brothers out of the way by claiming that their achievement was invalid, erroneous, for a couple of different (spurious) reasons — as if the Wrights ought to be disqualified like an athlete who'd cheated or used steroids. And then the BBC showed nothing of the (convincing) other side of the story. That's what, in my view, turns the BBC piece into an anti-Wright Brothers slam.
The “coincidence” of the date merely adds reason to believe it's no accident.
Reference 1 Samuel Eliot Morison, The European Discovery of America: The Southern Voyages (1492-1616), 1974, Oxford University Press, New York; p. 267.
Impearls: 2003-12-28 Archive Earthdate 2003-12-21
BBC2
A discussion on a space science discussion list has arisen concerning Impearls' earlier piece on the BBC and the anniversary of flight (permalink). The thread, entitled “Beware Consensus Science,” began this way (links converted): Thanks to the poster for the link to the BBC article, which I hadn't seen. What I'd viewed was the BBC broadcast, and since I didn't tape it at the time, nor (since I hadn't initially planned to respond to it) did I think to take notes, reviewing the BBC written piece provides a good sanity check. It's clear that the indicated article in Impearls was in essense correct (the Brazilians/BBC considered the Wrights' flight to be invalid for two reasons similar to what was described), with a minor difference: Impearls' piece said they regarded the Wrights' flight as invalid in the second instance because the flight took place under “ideal conditions” (i.e., taking off into a headwind), whereas the BBC article actually said “favourable weather conditions” — not a significant distinction. Having the BBC article allows its words to be considered in detail. Here's the gist of their argument:
As mentioned before, it's true the Wrights' first flights in December 1903 took off into a headwind — just as all airplanes try to do today. It's still flight. (The Wrights did take off from a stationary start though; compare with the Smithsonian's funded attempt at flight: launching from a powerful catapult!) Beyond that, however, as previously noted, during 1904 the Wright brothers performed 105 flights, including takeoffs into still air, and in one case flew 5 minutes 4 seconds over a circular course of 2.75 miles (or 4.43 km). The Wrights performed further experiments in 1905. During that same time period (up to 1905, according to Encyclopædia Britannica), Alberto Santos-Dumont worked in France on gasoline-powered airships. 1 When he did migrate to heavier-than-air craft, his first flight (in October 1906) according to the BBC spanned a mere 60 meters, and while Britannica reports the next month he managed 220 meters in 21 seconds, that's still far short of the 2.75 miles in 5 minutes 4 seconds that the Wrights had already accomplished more than two years earlier. It's no contest. Here's what a follow-up poster had to say, in reply to the previous poster's “Case in point”:
I quite disagree. The BBC piece gave no indication of the slightest criticism or condescension towards Santos-Dumont or his modern-day Brazilian enthusiasts. Rather it's the Wright brothers who are explicitly criticized for deigning to work in secret, as indeed the poster above buys into in his argument below. This aspect of the development and demonstrated capabilities of the Wrights' aircraft is irrelevant to the question of who flew first?
According to the BBC piece itself, in 1908 Wilbur Wright flew rings around Santos-Dumont, i.e.: “He proceeded to break many of the Brazilian's aviation records.” As Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith put it, writing in Britannica: 2
Such stunning achievements, plus the Wrights' clear priority in time, possibly did disconcert Alberto somewhat — but as Britannica notes, not so much as to prevent him from producing, in 1909, “his famous ‘Demoiselle’ or ‘Grasshopper’ monoplanes, the forerunners of the modern light plane.” One discrepancy in the BBC's account: Whatever were Santos-Dumont's reasons for going back to Brazil (whence he'd hardly lived his whole life), Encyclopædia Britannica indicates that his return to that country didn't occur until 1928, whereas the BBC report in question says he went back in 1914. Doesn't look good for the BBC's accuracy in reporting!
Santos-Dumont was also, as the BBC article notes, “The flamboyant son of a coffee baron”; he was educated and lived in France nearly his whole life — while the Wrights were a pair of self-taught bicycle mechanics. The kind of selfless, apparently magnanimous gesture “progressives” delight in is oh, so much easier when you're independently wealthy, and not trying to make a living (around the turn of the 20th century yet) along with trying to realize one of mankind's oldest dreams.
There's also a fictionalization of Alberto Santos-Dumont's life by Welsh novelist Richard Llewellyn, entitled A Night of Bright Stars (1979).
It's true I wasn't familiar with Alberto Santos-Dumont, and lacking a reference then yes, there is initial room for doubt. Now I realize he was an authentic aeronautical pioneer — just not yet, however, even in the heavier-than-air flight field during the years the Wrights were performing their critical experiments. And that's why the wording the poster objects to above is still appropriate: because if Santos-Dumont's feat follows the Wrights' chronologically in time — as it evidently does; and if the Wrights' accomplishment is authentic — as it indubitably is; then it doesn't matter how real Alberto's results might be, he's not first! Ultimately it's not even necessary to consider the reality of his flights, which is why I didn't look into that aspect of the matter further at the time.
Oh ho, so we're “conspiracy theory” mongering here, are we? Rather, it's the claim the Wrights weren't first and the real pioneer's story has somehow been covered up that's the conspiracy theory — which the BBC (by its own abdication of any journalistic investigation) is implicitly buying into. As with many extant conspiracy theories, this one's disprovable, at least to the mind of intelligent observers, merely by examination (as demonstrated before), no big investigation required. As for the BBC's reason for buying into the story, or at least pretending they did, that too isn't difficult in the answering. The orgy of anti-Americanism the leftist-dominated European and British media, including especially the BBC, have indulged in since the run-up to the Iraq war has been noted by many observers, European as well as American. It fits perfectly into this syndrome for them to try and stick it to American admirerers of the Wright brothers on the one hundredth anniversary of the Wrights' famous first flight. Why else run it on this particular day: the BBC didn't just discover the story last week! Brazilians celebrate Santos-Dumont's birthday on July 20; Alberto's first flight took place sometime in October, and since this is very old news, either of the foregoing would have been appropriate dates, on the merits of the case, to broadcast such a story. Anybody who believes the BBC broadcast this piece exactly 100 years after 1903-12-17 just by accident, please raise your hand! Beyond that, the story wonderfully illuminates leftists like the BBC's multicultural, postmodern paradigm: “Everything's relative, every culture has its own ‘truth’ (don't forget the scare quotes), each of which has its own validity independent of any factual or historical verification. You silly Americans, you just think your Wright brothers were the first to fly. Brazilians have their own idea, and their hero has as much right and ‘truth’ behind him as your myth.” Add to this mix the modern leftist's distain for all technological developments since the stone age (no matter that flight's been a dream of humanity since long before Daedalus and Icarus), plus their hatred of everything military — the Wrights built planes for the United States Army; Santos-Dumont apparently committed suicide over military use of aircraft (though being disheartened during the long run-up to World War II makes a certain sense) — and you arrive at the contemporary leftist myopic fantasy world. How could the BBC resist? As I say, broadcasting such a story on the centennial of flight is offensive (as it was intended to be, I believe), but nicely illustrates the BBC's ideological proclivities. Think I'm reading too much into it?
I don't.
References 1 “Airship,” Encyclopædia Britannica, Britannica CD 1997, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
2
Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith (Research Fellow, Science Museum, London, 1976-81; Keeper, Public Relations and Education Department, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 1947-71; author of The Wright Brothers and others), “Wright, Orville and Wilbur,” Op. cit.
UPDATE: 2003-12-24 20:20 UT. The discussion on a space science discussion list has continued concerning Impearls' earlier articles on the BBC and the anniversary of flight (permalink) and this one. Here's my reply (perma).
Impearls: 2003-12-28 Archive Earthdate 2003-12-17
BBC and the anniversary of flight
The left continued its “Bah, humbug!” response to the great events of the age when BBC World broadcast an amazingly insulting (to Americans) and bizarre “tribute” to the hundredth anniversary of the Wright Brothers flight last night by questioning its authenticity. They unearthed an old, spurious claim that a Brazilian, not the Wright Brothers, was the first to fly — not in 1903 or sometime before, but 1906! How can a flight — even if it took place — happening in 1906 possibly beat out a first flight occurring in 1903? Why, the Wrights' claim is supposedly spurious, because: 1) The Wrights did much of their work in secret. (To which an appropriate response might be, what in the blazes does that have to do with the Wrights having actually accomplished the mission? It just shows the brothers were serious about protecting patentability of their invention. Besides, their flights were thoroughly witnessed.) And 2), the Brazilians also claim that, supposedly, the Wrights' first flight in 1903 took place under “ideal conditions,” by which I presume they mean that the Wrights' flight initially took off into a headwind (just as all airplanes do today, if they can). The BBC reporter and their interviewees went on and on about how the flight in 1903 was invalid because of these conditions. It's astonishing (or perhaps not, considering that this is the BBC) that no one interjected at any point, “What about the years 1904 and 1905?” Even if the Brazilians' (and the BBC's, by defection of journalistic responsibility) second critique of the Wrights' 1903 flight were admitted to have validity, during 1904 the brothers accomplished much more, as Professor James E. Vance, Jr., describes, writing in Encyclopædia Britannica: 1
That should dispose of any illusions that powered flight wasn't invented until 1906! A remarkable characteristic of the Wright Brothers' fabulous achievement is the quality science they performed in making their dream a reality. In approaching the critical problem of designing an efficient propeller, for example, they discerned that a cross-sectional slice of the propeller is actually equivalent to a piece of wing. They developed and built a new, much lighter engine to power the craft — weight also being of vital concern. The Wrights realized that control of the plane in flight was essential, both for success and pilot survivability, and came up with means (described above) to maneuver the craft along all three axial dimensions. Attempts by others toward attaining powered flight during this same time frame were notably deficient in any number of these areas — and as a result they failed. For the BBC to step into this centennial occasion — celebration of realization of one of mankind's oldest dreams — broadcasting their usual supercilious sneer is quite offensive.
But good going BBC in confirming my previous estimations of them!
Reference
1
James E. Vance, Jr. (Emeritus Professor of Geography, University of California, Berkeley), “Transportation: … Aviation: … The Wright brothers,” Encyclopædia Britannica, Britannica CD 1997, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
UPDATE: 2003-12-18 16:00 UT. Rand Simberg posted a link to this piece in his Transterrestrial Musings. Thanks Rand, and to Mike Daley who passed this along to him. I certainly agree with Simberg in one of his postings earlier that a major factor in the Wrights' success is their having taken an incremental approach to testing and solving problems piecemeal, rather than jumping straight towards a total perceived “solution.” UPDATE: 2003-12-21 23:00 UT. A discussion on a space science discussion list has arisen concerning this article. I've posted a follow-up piece in Impearls here (permalink) with my reply.
Impearls: 2003-12-28 Archive Earthdate 2003-12-12
Geitner Simmons, writing in his blog Regions of Mind, has followed-up on Donald Sensing's and my earlier Crusader articles (after linking to them) with a piece called “The first crusader.” Geitner points out that the crusades could properly be said to commence early in the 7th century, with the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius and the Persian invasion of the empire — and thus began neither with the Spanish Reconquista nor the Western numbered Crusades starting in the late 11th cent. This is quite a reasonable point of view historically, and the story Simmons refers to is indeed terrific: total victory over the Persians (and Avars) by Emperor Heraclius after the former had initially conquered almost all the Roman Empire's Asian and African territories, at the same time that the barbarian nomadic Avars occupied and threatened most of Byzantium's remaining European possessions. The book review that Geitner quotes from, however, is unfortunately quite unsatisfactory (no fault of Simmons, he pointed to what he had) in communicating the enormous scale of Heraclius' astonishing achievement, which without hyperbole can be said to rival the exploits of Alexander. Here's what historians Donald MacGillivray Nicol and John L. Teall, writing in Encyclopædia Britannica (we'll give folks a break from The Cambridge Medieval History), had to say in this regard: 1
Heraclius accomplished all this not only by superb generalship, but with also a great dash of personal valor. As historian Enno Franzius writes in his biography of Heraclius in Britannica: 2
Heraclius fought his “crusade” very differently from the sort of general mayhem and massacre which later western European-organized crusades acquired a reputation (not entirely warranted) for. As Franzius wrote:
Heraclius' more humane treatment of helpless prisoners and captured cities may reflect yet more of the supreme qualitative chasm in education and culture separating the medieval East Romans from the western European states and their knights (as Impearls' earlier piece Crusades II attests). In this regard, it's worth looking at application of the death penalty in medieval Byzantium, which is quite at variance from ordinary perceptions of the brutality of the Middle Ages. J. B. Bury writes: 3
Revisit that last bit again: in a cosmopolitan, sophisticated state whose capital city incorporated hundreds of thousands of residents — empire as a whole, millions — over a reign (Emperor John II Comnenus) of 25 years, there were no executions. However one feels about applicability of capital punishment in the present day, such a record cannot but convey a certain culturally-based merciful attitude by medieval Byzantium towards offenders that ought to give us pause today. Are we really so sure, for example, that locking up criminals for years or decades of time — or executing them — is more humane than just cutting off a nose? If deterring crime is the goal, loss of a nose (with more to follow if one persists in one's crimes) might be a greater deterrent for many a potential criminal (as well as pragmatically solving the problem of “community notification”) than vague prospects of prison. While not seriously entertaining such punishments for the present day, I do emphasize that our own conventions of what's humane and what's not aren't unchallengeable. In my view, East Rome has a decent claim to having been, in reality, basically a moral as well as cultured civilization, and very far indeed from what some might propose as the necessary character of such a Christian theocracy: a kind of Christian Taliban — that's manifestly not medieval Byzantium. One other thing: we've focused here (as does Geitner) on the crusade of Heraclius in the early 7th century, and what that tells us about the medieval Byzantine world — however, there's plenty else in the history of the East Roman state warranting the appellation of “crusade.”
After the Muslim irruption from Arabia, commencing near the end of Heraclius' life, for many decades the Byzantines were forced into a struggle merely to survive; a large part of their territory was stripped from them, and central Anatolia became the residual core of the empire.
Throughout the 10th and much of the 11th centuries, however, East Rome rebounded to the extent of undertaking quite a Reconquista of her own, recovering from Muslim rule the pirate-nest islands of Crete and Cyprus, most of eastern and southeastern Anatolia, the important city of Antioch in Syria, even threatening Jerusalem — all this, though, is a tale for another day.
It was only after the empire's defeat and even more disastrous aftermath of the epochal battle of Manzikert in 1071 (caused, as Bury notes, by the execrable judgment of the emperor in command) that the Byzantines were driven to the desperate and dangerous expedient of appealing to the West for aid.
The rest, as they say, is history.
References
1 Donald MacGillivray Nicol (Koraës Professor Emeritus of Byzantine and Modern Greek History, Language, and Literature, King's College, University of London) and John L. Teall (Professor of History, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts), “The History of the Byzantine Empire: The Heraclians and the Challenge of Islam,” Encyclopædia Britannica, Britannica CD 1997, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 2 Enno Franzius (author of History of the Byzantine Empire), “Heraclius,” Op. cit.
3
J. B. Bury (M.A., F.B.A.), “Introduction” to Volume IV: The Eastern Roman Empire, edited by J. R. Tanner, C. W. Previté-Orton, and Z. N. Brooke, The Cambridge Medieval History, planned by J. B. Bury, Cambridge at the University Press, London, 1923; p. xiii.
UPDATE: 2005-07-29 10:00 UT: An article The Arab Admiralty – and an Arab naval view of the Crusades by Ibn Khaldûn has been posted. See also the associated piece Ibn Khaldûn – Master Historian of the Arabs. UPDATE: 2003-12-14 12:30 UT: Geitner Simmons responded to Impearls' article above with a link and some very kind words: “What worthwhile examinations of history Michael McNeil provides at Impearls. […] Now a new post at Impearls delves deep into the story of Heraclius' “First Crusade,” yielding many great historical nuggets. […] The post shows the fine work that the history-blog universe, at its best, is capable of.” Eric Scheie also commented in an e-mail: “That is a wonderfully written, thoughtful, well-researched piece.” UPDATE: 2003-12-15 19:20 UT: Eric Scheie linked to this article from his blog Classical Values, calling it “a real gem!” and some other praise that I blush to repeat except say that I'm not “a genuine scholar of the Byzantine period” — or of much else actually — just a guy who's read some books, and remembered oh-too-tiny a bit of what I've read. (Keeping a big, fat tome or two in the bathroom does wonders, I find: a page or couple at a sitting out of a history book eventually covers a lot of temporal-spatial territory!) I do appreciate the compliments, though, and they make nice decoration for these updates! (In response to Eric's question, I do have something to post on that, but I'm not quite ready to do so — have to look up some stuff then think about it — and in the meantime the link his reader dropped off seems to provide more than a good start, much of that material I'll also have to absorb, so let's keep the topic in mind as an article idea for the future.) Labels: crusades, East Roman Empire, medieval history Impearls: 2003-12-28 Archive Earthdate 2003-12-05
Why people like the occidental coast
A quote from Encyclopædia Britannica tells it all: 1
Halifax, Nova Scotia's latitude of 44° 39′ N crosses the eastern U.S. some miles south of Bangor, Maine, and on the west coast passes just north of Albany, Oregon — about 20 miles south of Salem, and way way south (more than 850 miles or 1,370 km in latitudinal north-south distance) from Sitka.
Reference
1 “The United States of America: The Pacific Coast,” Encyclopædia Britannica, Britannica CD 1997, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. Impearls: 2003-12-28 Archive Earthdate 2003-12-04
Canada and Sweden vis-a-vis the United States
Jeff Jarvis, writing in Buzz Machine, has a piece “A non story, overplayed, eh?” concerning news from the New York Times that Canada and the U.S. are different. As Jeff says:
American leftists' concept of Sweden and some other European nations as epitomes of socialist perfection has always mystified and astounded me. A perfect comeback to this conceit (bringing Canada into the relative mix as well as Sweden) was offered, not by a conservative, or a “capitalist,” but by one of the most respected of American socialists, Michael Harrington, via an interview broadcast shortly after his death, in 1989, on the MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour. Here's what Harrington had to say (I'll include his whole interview for context; it's not very long): 1
So, American leftists and socialists, when one of America's best respected socialists declares that from his point of view, “I think America is the most socialist country on the face of the earth right now […]; in a crazy way — socially — I've always thought that America is really much more socialist than Sweden!”, what then does this imply for those European (and Canadian) socialist wonderlands?
As for Canada latching more strongly onto those European models, from Michael Harrington's viewpoint this merely means Canada is getting back to its inegalitarian roots.
Reference
1
Robert MacNeil interview with Michael Harrington, PBS MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour, broadcast 1989-08-02.
UPDATE: 2003-12-11 20:30 UT: Mark Steyn had a reader inquire of him concerning the very same New York Times article that Michael Harrington's words were turned into responding to above. It's interesting, I think, how Steyn's reply extends and amplifies Harrington's, even though Michael's an American socialist, speaking a decade and a half ago, whereas Mark is a modern-day Canadian conservative. Steyn doesn't provide permanent archival links to his articles (tsk tsk), so for context I'll include the full text of his piece, which is called “The Great Divide” (love that title!). Mark's reader asked him: “I know what all the manifest differences are [between Canada and the Europeans versus the United States] (the nanny state, PC, foreign policy, etc) but what is really at the heart of this fundamental (and historic) split in the Western world? I realize that the same split also divides the USA itself in many ways. If you had to sum it up in a paragraph, what would it be?” In reply, Steyn wrote:
Impearls: 2003-12-28 Archive Earthdate 2003-12-03
The Cause of the Crusades (to be specific, the cause of the First Crusade) was explored in an earlier article, as was the civilizational relationship between the East Roman Empire and the states of the medieval West. Once the Crusades were launched, they continued intermittently in progress for centuries. It turns out that the original cause of the (First) Crusade differs from the reasons why they continued on for so long, and why they came to an end is for a different reason yet. What were those causes? Since we've been using The Cambridge Medieval History as a major reference to the Middle Ages, it's worth noting that one can take an overall view of the whole of the medieval period by simply reviewing the titles of the (originally) eight volumes in the set, which summarize in a nutshell the (its) story of the Middle Ages in the West, to wit:
Notice that the overall story of the later medieval period, revealed by the names of the volumes of The Cambridge Medieval History, is a long-drawn-out contest between the Papacy and the Western (or Holy Roman) Empire, in which the Papacy was for a time victorious, but after which both Papacy and Empire declined. Recall the questions of why, once launched, the Crusades became a movement which continued for centuries, and why they ultimately came to an end. While for the Eastern Empire, as previously noted, the Crusades were “simply a series of barbarian invasions of a particularly embarrassing kind,” for the West the Crusades served as a key instrument in the great play during the Middle Ages by the Papacy for ultimate power. The Crusades thus continued so long as they proved to be a source of increased power and influence for the Papacy; they came to an end when the “sacred office” became so corrupted in view of the public by secularizing influences resulting from its acquired Imperial role that that power base evaporated. Here's how historian E. J. Passant, writing in The Cambridge Medieval History, described the matter: 1
Reference
1
E. J. Passant (M.A., Fellow of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge), Chapter IX: “The Effects of the Crusades upon Western Europe,” Volume V: Contest of Empire and Papacy, edited by J. R. Tanner, C. W. Previté-Orton, and Z. N. Brooke, The Cambridge Medieval History, planned by J. B. Bury, Cambridge at the University Press, London, 1926; UPDATE: 2003-12-13 12:00 UT: A supplemental article Crusades IV – the Byzantine Crusades, concerning crusades undertaken by the Eastern Empire itself, has been posted. Labels: crusades, Holy Roman Empire, medieval history, Papacy
|
2002-11-03 2002-11-10 2002-11-17 2002-11-24 2002-12-01 2002-12-08 2002-12-15 2002-12-22 2002-12-29 2003-01-05 2003-01-12 2003-01-19 2003-01-26 2003-02-02 2003-02-16 2003-04-20 2003-04-27 2003-05-04 2003-05-11 2003-06-01 2003-06-15 2003-06-22 2003-06-29 2003-07-13 2003-07-20 2003-08-03 2003-08-10 2003-08-24 2003-08-31 2003-09-07 2003-09-28 2003-10-05 2003-10-26 2003-11-02 2003-11-16 2003-11-23 2003-11-30 2003-12-07 2003-12-14 2003-12-21 2003-12-28 2004-01-04 2004-01-11 2004-01-25 2004-02-01 2004-02-08 2004-02-29 2004-03-07 2004-03-14 2004-03-21 2004-03-28 2004-04-04 2004-04-11 2004-04-18 2004-04-25 2004-05-02 2004-05-16 2004-05-23 2004-05-30 2004-06-06 2004-06-13 2004-06-20 2004-07-11 2004-07-18 2004-07-25 2004-08-22 2004-09-05 2004-10-10 2005-06-12 2005-06-19 2005-06-26 2005-07-03 2005-07-10 2005-07-24 2005-08-07 2005-08-21 2005-08-28 2005-09-04 2005-09-11 2005-09-18 2005-10-02 2005-10-09 2005-10-16 2005-10-30 2005-11-06 2005-11-27 2006-04-02 2006-04-09 2006-07-02 2006-07-23 2006-07-30 2007-01-21 2007-02-04 2007-04-22 2007-05-13 2007-06-17 2007-09-09 2007-09-16 2007-09-23 2007-10-07 2007-10-21 2007-11-04 2009-06-28 2009-07-19 2009-08-23 2009-09-06 2009-09-20 2009-12-13 2011-03-27 2012-01-01 2012-02-05 2012-02-12 |