Folder Contents

Subject: Re: Shock'N'Awe Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:09:06 +0100 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. just a few comments re Rome and the Celts. The Legions were often vastly outnumbered and still won because of their discipline, training, drill, they were also paid troops armed with standardised weapons of proven deadliness. The pilum - a metal hafted spear that bent on contact gained in Spain from their contact with Spanish Scutarii. The sword, the gladius, a short stabbing sword, not a long slicing sword. After the pilum was launched, when the enemy came to about 20 metres, the legionairies used their gladius. The shield, a scutum, decorated with lightning bolt or star, a retangular shield to give cover from neck to thigh. The Legions were occassionally swept away by the fanatic charge of the Celts, though their fanaticism and bravery had waned since their early period of expansionism, as when they fought Caesar. By this time the only fanatics were the Chieftans gaesati bodyguard of naked fanatics, earlier armies contained vast numbers of (soldurii I think) fanatics, armed with oval shield, javelin or short spear, for throwing not close combat, and a long sword for hacking and slicing. Gallic armies also contained large numbers of heavy cavalry, small numbers of chariots, but many more chariots in the early period, and light infantry with javelins or sling, mostly teenagers. Celts in Briton mainly used light cavalry, Celts in Greece, Galatians, fought in close formation. So, that gives you some idea of the contrasts between Roman and Celt, but I don't think the analogy with present fighting is at all apt. The evolution of Roman Imperialism is very different from that of American Imperialism, which still disavows the title of an Imperialism, Rome never did this. Perhaps the election of Bush is strongly analogous with the anointment of Octavian as the first Emperor. But I do think that Bush's election is a sign of the decline of US Imperialism, as is this war, and the haggling over the Geneva Convention. ----- Original Message ----- From: John Foster To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 8:51 PM Subject: Re: Shock'N'Awe Subject: Re: Shock'N'Awe John Foster <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com> wrote: Bob wrote: the technology of this current war is stunning. right or wrong, it's rome and its engineering versus the celts and their bravery. John here, The problem is that the US is not fighting ancient celts. It is fighting people who are driven to protect their own lands from vicious invaders (many of whom are teenagers away from home for the first time). John, please pardon the 100-email backlog, but why do you keep emphasizing the fact that many of the U.S. forces are young? You mean from a Heideggerian perspective? Well it is due to 'inauthenticity' inherent in the lack of circumspection regarding the 'they' and the 'public' or everydayness. I watched a recent documentary about parent's attempt to prevent his son from joining US forces fighting in Iraq. Once you a man volunteers and becomes a private, it is difficult to get out of the service. Whereas, if a person is an ordinary employee of a company, a student enrolled into college, then it is easy to just quit. Not when you are a conscript is it easy to quit. There are over 70,000 US Vietnam Draft Dodges here in Canada. Dick Cheney and G. W. Bush are also draft dodgers. Whether you sign up or whether drafted, once in it is really difficult to get out quickly especially if it is intolerable. Here is what US and their Allies do in Afghanistan: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/deadtaliban.jpg Where is this guys pants? I don't understand how this exempts them from fulfilling their purpose as soldiers--as professional soldiers (to amplify Bob's suggestive mention of Rome)--or how this provides some moral perspective on the matter. You have to remember that the U.S. armed forces are as much a social program as a defense program; I've had a number of conversations with Army buddies re: Army-as-welfare. The armed forces provide professional training and educational support, so it should come as no surprise that many of the individuals are not of an advanced age (though why a 17-yr-old in battle is more disturbing than a 30-yr-old father of two is beyond me). Also, I'm not sure how many of the Iraqi people are, in fact, "defending" their land. This statement--which I certainly understand--seems tailor-made to a certain Western ideological background that might not apply here--"people," "defense," and "land" might be terms mitigated by perspective. Then again, they might not. Said and Spivak have been flogging this horse for years, I don't presume to speak for subaltern studies; but then, I don't presume to speak for the so-called "subaltern," either. In either case, the reaction of some Iraqis and some American Iraqi expat communities has, and will continue to be, instructive. JS --- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

just a few comments re Rome and the Celts. The Legions were often vastly outnumbered and still won because of their discipline, training, drill, they were also paid troops armed with standardised weapons of proven deadliness. The pilum - a metal hafted spear that bent on contact gained in Spain from their contact with Spanish Scutarii. The sword, the gladius, a short stabbing sword, not a long slicing sword. After the pilum was launched, when the enemy came to about 20 metres, the legionairies used their gladius. The shield, a scutum, decorated with lightning bolt or star, a retangular shield to give cover from neck to thigh. The Legions were occassionally swept away by the fanatic charge of the Celts, though their fanaticism and bravery had waned since their early period of expansionism, as when they fought Caesar. By this time the only fanatics were the Chieftans gaesati bodyguard of naked fanatics, earlier armies contained vast numbers of (soldurii I think) fanatics, armed with oval shield, javelin or short spear, for throwing not close combat, and a long sword for hacking and slicing. Gallic armies also contained large numbers of heavy cavalry, small numbers of chariots, but many more chariots in the early period, and light infantry with javelins or sling, mostly teenagers. Celts in Briton mainly used light cavalry, Celts in Greece, Galatians, fought in close formation.

So, that gives you some idea of the contrasts between Roman and Celt, but I don't think the analogy with present fighting is at all apt. The evolution of Roman Imperialism is very different from that of American Imperialism, which still disavows the title of an Imperialism, Rome never did this. Perhaps the election of Bush is strongly analogous with the anointment of Octavian as the first Emperor. But I do think that Bush's election is a sign of the decline of US Imperialism, as is this war, and the haggling over the Geneva Convention.

File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0303, message 415

HTML VERSION:

Driftline Main Page