|
|
Post by alon on Nov 3, 2013 18:31:11 GMT -8
So, we know historians, as people, do not have to be perfect, nor do they have to write perfectly good historical facts, but what they do write tells us much, between the lines, about the society in which they lived, about the major events that they witnessed etc., and, with Josephus, some of the stories and gossip that was going around in his circles (did you read the story of the princess who thought she had been making a love to a god in a temple, only to find out it was a trick and the guy was just a stalker?). A lot of Jospehus' writings can be corroborated by other writers, or he offers a deeper insight to the writings of others, both in The Book and in some secular written works; remember - we do find errors or parts we do not understand properly, even in The Book! Because the guy was not entirely straight -forward in your eyes, it does not mean he was incapable of writing down what he saw and keeping a notebook or something to scribble bits down (so to speak). I think you do him a dis-service to throw out his words because he was a rogue, it seems. Feel free to moan about him as a person, but do not let that colour his writings - if he wanted to give you a slanted history to make himself look perfect, are you saying you would accept that un-critically? 1st off, that was an excellent treatise on why the Word (Bible) is believable. Thanks. Here's the problem with Josephus- he has been elevated to the position of historian when in fact he was only a witness. Historians (supposedly- I know this is the ideal not always the real) look at evidence and draw unbiased conclusions about past events. They also DOCUMENT whenever possible, not just tell their version of events they witness. We can learn much from Jo, but I just wouldn't give him the credibility of a historian. I once read a compilation of letters written during the American Revolution. It was compiled by a historian, and I learned a lot about the way of life, attitudes and events of that time. But none of the writers were historians. They were husbands, wives, sisters ... just ordinary people conducting the affairs of life at the time. They were the best kind of witnesses- candid, with no agenda and not writing for an audience. Josephus was neither a good person nor a good historian. He was not really that good a witness, since he always had an agenda. We may learn from him, but should take anything he says with skepticism unless otherwise corroborated by a credible source. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Nov 3, 2013 20:21:36 GMT -8
So, we know historians, as people, do not have to be perfect, nor do they have to write perfectly good historical facts, but what they do write tells us much, between the lines, about the society in which they lived, about the major events that they witnessed etc., and, with Josephus, some of the stories and gossip that was going around in his circles (did you read the story of the princess who thought she had been making a love to a god in a temple, only to find out it was a trick and the guy was just a stalker?). A lot of Jospehus' writings can be corroborated by other writers, or he offers a deeper insight to the writings of others, both in The Book and in some secular written works; remember - we do find errors or parts we do not understand properly, even in The Book! Because the guy was not entirely straight -forward in your eyes, it does not mean he was incapable of writing down what he saw and keeping a notebook or something to scribble bits down (so to speak). I think you do him a dis-service to throw out his words because he was a rogue, it seems. Feel free to moan about him as a person, but do not let that colour his writings - if he wanted to give you a slanted history to make himself look perfect, are you saying you would accept that un-critically? 1st off, that was an excellent treatise on why the Word (Bible) is believable. Thanks. Here's the problem with Josephus- he has been elevated to the position of historian when in fact he was only a witness. Historians (supposedly- I know this is the ideal not always the real) look at evidence and draw unbiased conclusions about past events. They also DOCUMENT whenever possible, not just tell their version of events they witness. We can learn much from Jo, but I just wouldn't give him the credibility of a historian. I once read a compilation of letters written during the American Revolution. It was compiled by a historian, and I learned a lot about the way of life, attitudes and events of that time. But none of the writers were historians. They were husbands, wives, sisters ... just ordinary people conducting the affairs of life at the time. They were the best kind of witnesses- candid, with no agenda and not writing for an audience. Josephus was neither a good person nor a good historian. He was not really that good a witness, since he always had an agenda. We may learn from him, but should take anything he says with skepticism unless otherwise corroborated by a credible source. Dan C Shalom Dan! I would have to agree with that position on allot of teachers, historians, and yes even Josephus. I have read all of Josephus's writings and I will say I learned some from doing so. I wouldn't build a doctrine from his teachings but rather they can be used as insight on the time surrounding his life. Have a blessed night, Yedidyah |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2013 0:15:13 GMT -8
So, we know historians, as people, do not have to be perfect, nor do they have to write perfectly good historical facts, but what they do write tells us much, between the lines, about the society in which they lived, about the major events that they witnessed etc., and, with Josephus, some of the stories and gossip that was going around in his circles (did you read the story of the princess who thought she had been making a love to a god in a temple, only to find out it was a trick and the guy was just a stalker?). A lot of Jospehus' writings can be corroborated by other writers, or he offers a deeper insight to the writings of others, both in The Book and in some secular written works; remember - we do find errors or parts we do not understand properly, even in The Book! Because the guy was not entirely straight -forward in your eyes, it does not mean he was incapable of writing down what he saw and keeping a notebook or something to scribble bits down (so to speak). I think you do him a dis-service to throw out his words because he was a rogue, it seems. Feel free to moan about him as a person, but do not let that colour his writings - if he wanted to give you a slanted history to make himself look perfect, are you saying you would accept that un-critically? 1st off, that was an excellent treatise on why the Word (Bible) is believable. Thanks. Here's the problem with Josephus- he has been elevated to the position of historian when in fact he was only a witness. Historians (supposedly- I know this is the ideal not always the real) look at evidence and draw unbiased conclusions about past events. They also DOCUMENT whenever possible, not just tell their version of events they witness. We can learn much from Jo, but I just wouldn't give him the credibility of a historian. I once read a compilation of letters written during the American Revolution. It was compiled by a historian, and I learned a lot about the way of life, attitudes and events of that time. But none of the writers were historians. They were husbands, wives, sisters ... just ordinary people conducting the affairs of life at the time. They were the best kind of witnesses- candid, with no agenda and not writing for an audience. Josephus was neither a good person nor a good historian. He was not really that good a witness, since he always had an agenda. We may learn from him, but should take anything he says with skepticism unless otherwise corroborated by a credible source. Dan C Hi there, with respect, you may be comparing the concept of being an historian in the 21st century with the very limited resources, and purposes, of someone like Josephus who obviously put a lot of work into noting the things that he saw. As for being objective, I'm afraid not one person on this earth can be truly objective about anything - stop and think that through  - it is true! I agree entirely with how you define an historian but I think it is stretching things quite a lot to expect our standards to be used by people in those days. I agree, also, that we must look to other sources to corroborate his writings as far as we can - that process is done in this day and age, it is called peer review; every good historian submits their work to peer review, but it would not have been possible in Josephus' time! I cannot agree that because someone is a rogue his/her writings should carry no weight - there are many people who write, or have written, on many historical issues but if you knew them you would, by your apparent reckoning, ignore their contribution to the world of history, or even some other discipline. BTW - the gospels were written for a purpose, with a particular theme (other than G_d, as such) and directed at specific audiences - does that rule out the writers? Mark's gospel is very selective, for example! One of my daughters is an historian and she often finds errors in what other historians have written in books, usually written as a result of their doctoral thesis. On that point, after I gained my Masters, I noticed an error in my thesis - quite a significant one, actually - but the Doctors / Professors who read it and passed it 'with Merit', did NOT see the error; it happens, always has and always will. I had no malice in my error, I simply missed two words in the sentence, but it made that sentence to be very wrong indeed, historically speaking! |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 4, 2013 19:31:22 GMT -8
Hi there, with respect, you may be comparing the concept of being an historian in the 21st century with the very limited resources, and purposes, of someone like Josephus who obviously put a lot of work into noting the things that he saw. As for being objective, I'm afraid not one person on this earth can be truly objective about anything - stop and think that through - it is true! I agree entirely with how you define an historian but I think it is stretching things quite a lot to expect our standards to be used by people in those days. I agree, also, that we must look to other sources to corroborate his writings as far as we can - that process is done in this day and age, it is called peer review; every good historian submits their work to peer review, but it would not have been possible in Josephus' time! You raise some very good points here. Definitely food for thought! More good points, however as to our "disagreement," I can only say that I am not the only one. For example, I found this on Wikipedia: "The historian E. Mary Smallwood writes:[Josephus] was conceited, not only about his own learning but also about the opinions held of him as commander both by the Galileans and by the Romans; he was guilty of shocking duplicity at Jotapata, saving himself by sacrifice of his companions; he was too naive to see how he stood condemned out of his own mouth for his conduct, and yet no words were too harsh when he was blackening his opponents; and after landing, however involuntarily, in the Roman camp, he turned his captivity to his own advantage, and benefited for the rest of his days from his change of side." My only disagreement with her is that I do not think his landing in the Roman camp was not entirely (or even mostly) involuntary. But I have to say up front there are many historians who defend him, both as a man and a fellow historian. I think that despite his Sacerdotal heritage (of which he was overly proud) Jo was a perfect example of a Hellenized Jew whose loyalties were compromised from the first Greek word he ever learned. The Rabbis of the time said "It is better to eat the flesh of swine than to teach a Jew to speak Greek." They were pretty smart fellers ...  Dan C |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 0:31:05 GMT -8
Hi there, with respect, you may be comparing the concept of being an historian in the 21st century with the very limited resources, and purposes, of someone like Josephus who obviously put a lot of work into noting the things that he saw. As for being objective, I'm afraid not one person on this earth can be truly objective about anything - stop and think that through - it is true! I agree entirely with how you define an historian but I think it is stretching things quite a lot to expect our standards to be used by people in those days. I agree, also, that we must look to other sources to corroborate his writings as far as we can - that process is done in this day and age, it is called peer review; every good historian submits their work to peer review, but it would not have been possible in Josephus' time! You raise some very good points here. Definitely food for thought! More good points, however as to our "disagreement," I can only say that I am not the only one. For example, I found this on Wikipedia: "The historian E. Mary Smallwood writes:[Josephus] was conceited, not only about his own learning but also about the opinions held of him as commander both by the Galileans and by the Romans; he was guilty of shocking duplicity at Jotapata, saving himself by sacrifice of his companions; he was too naive to see how he stood condemned out of his own mouth for his conduct, and yet no words were too harsh when he was blackening his opponents; and after landing, however involuntarily, in the Roman camp, he turned his captivity to his own advantage, and benefited for the rest of his days from his change of side." My only disagreement with her is that I do not think his landing in the Roman camp was not entirely (or even mostly) involuntary. But I have to say up front there are many historians who defend him, both as a man and a fellow historian. I think that despite his Sacerdotal heritage (of which he was overly proud) Jo was a perfect example of a Hellenized Jew whose loyalties were compromised from the first Greek word he ever learned. The Rabbis of the time said "It is better to eat the flesh of swine than to teach a Jew to speak Greek." They were pretty smart fellers ... [img src=" ![]() ![]() .gif" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.synagoguechm.com/images/ .gif"] [/img][/img] Dan C[/quote] I think our 'disagreement' is one of definition and understanding each other. I would not class Josephus as a great historian, but simply as 'an historian of his time and place in the world', certainly not the historian. As to his conduct in life - he will have had to sort that out with his Maker and, to be honest, we do not know whether he confessed and repented of his actions before he died - if he did then he may better than us, now, at the end of his life. We may not approve of what he did but we have to study his writing, not his character, if we are looking to find out what life and society were like in that time span; eat the meat and spit out the bones. Looking back into history there are many people who, in their private, or working, lives were a far call from being believers, as we would see that word, but their legacy is their historical writings of the times in which they lived. Again, look to the example of Paul and his writings - we find a man who stalked people, took them from their families and presided over their most painful of deaths: stoning. We have much historical writing from him, we find out how far the gospel spread, how people hated him in various places and, on occasions wanted to murder him, almost none of which tells us of his former life. He doesn't give any details of how many murders he presided over, how many families that wrecked, how much persecution he put people through and, possibly, lower down the scale, how many beatings were hand out by him and his religious thugs against his own people - that is a mighty cover up and yet, G_d forgave all that and used him in amazing ways! We have to separate the character of the person from their historical legacy if we are to be true historians, in much the same way that we separate Paul's former life and character from his post-Damascus road life (though many people are still anti-Paul for much the same reasons you are anti-Josephus!). Just food for thought |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 5, 2013 17:13:32 GMT -8
I think our 'disagreement' is one of definition and understanding each other. I would not class Josephus as a great historian, but simply as 'an historian of his time and place in the world', certainly not the historian. As to his conduct in life - he will have had to sort that out with his Maker and, to be honest, we do not know whether he confessed and repented of his actions before he died - if he did then he may better than us, now, at the end of his life. We may not approve of what he did but we have to study his writing, not his character, if we are looking to find out what life and society were like in that time span; eat the meat and spit out the bones. Looking back into history there are many people who, in their private, or working, lives were a far call from being believers, as we would see that word, but their legacy is their historical writings of the times in which they lived. Again, look to the example of Paul and his writings - we find a man who stalked people, took them from their families and presided over their most painful of deaths: stoning. We have much historical writing from him, we find out how far the gospel spread, how people hated him in various places and, on occasions wanted to murder him, almost none of which tells us of his former life. He doesn't give any details of how many murders he presided over, how many families that wrecked, how much persecution he put people through and, possibly, lower down the scale, how many beatings were hand out by him and his religious thugs against his own people - that is a mighty cover up and yet, G_d forgave all that and used him in amazing ways! We have to separate the character of the person from their historical legacy if we are to be true historians, in much the same way that we separate Paul's former life and character from his post-Damascus road life (though many people are still anti-Paul for much the same reasons you are anti-Josephus!). Just food for thought Probably a lot of truth in what you say there; except I'd say Paul had a complete change of heart and repented while it still mattered. Meeting God face to face tends to have that effect on a person ... but I digress. I suppose in the end it does all come down to "degrees." To what degree do we trust his writings? Your more excellent degrees in subjects more conducive to things "priestly" vs. my technical degree. ; Still, I've known too many men like ol' Jo, and have little use for them. I'd certainly never trust their word. Dan C |
|
Torah Lishmah
New Member
Study of Torah for its own sake
Posts: 37
|
Post by Torah Lishmah on Nov 6, 2013 0:43:59 GMT -8
Based on what I see in this script, I'd have to question his authority as a creditable historian. Smart Man! I'd also have to question the credibility of those historians who hold him in high regard as a source for their opinions on history. Well, that's the reason why Josephus was "invented" in the first place.  Shalom aleikhem, glad to be back my friend. I've had major computer issues that got pretty expensive, with little cash on hand for such a luxury. But I'm back up and running better than ever, so I guess it was a blessing in disguise...sort of. Gave me a chance to catch up on some reading too. Shalom |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 6, 2013 4:57:10 GMT -8
Based on what I see in this script, I'd have to question his authority as a creditable historian. Smart Man! I'd also have to question the credibility of those historians who hold him in high regard as a source for their opinions on history. Well, that's the reason why Josephus was "invented" in the first place. Shalom aleikhem, glad to be back my friend. I've had major computer issues that got pretty expensive, with little cash on hand for such a luxury. But I'm back up and running better than ever, so I guess it was a blessing in disguise...sort of. Gave me a chance to catch up on some reading too. Shalom Hey! Good to see you back old friend! Hate it when computer problems happen  . I sometimes think they were invented by a modern day Josephus ...  But where'd we be without 'em now?  Hope yer all sorted out now. Glad to have you back! Dan |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Sept 18, 2019 12:48:05 GMT -8
Good discussion. My impression of Josephus was that he was a Nazarene from Galilee because for example of his sympathetic passages on John the Baptist, Jesus, and James. I know that most scholars would disagree because Origen claimed that Josephus wasn't Christian, so it creates a weird dilemma. I think that as a Nazarene he didn't deeply believe in insurrection against Rome, because eg. When faced with the issue, Yeshua said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's. So when the revolt happened he wanted his forces to be not revolting, but when they did fight Rome he wasnt go to openly oppose his own forces. But then when the Roman's had practically overwhelmed his forces, the mysterious cave event happened where alot of soldiers killed themselves instead of surrendering, but he chose not to kill himself, so the Roman's got him, and he was okay with being captured by the Roman's because he looked at their victory as kind of like divine fate. He defended Judaism against paganism, but when it came to war he had something like a fatalistic or resigned attitude. He didnt think that there was much real point in revolting and that the revolt was doomed, and therefore stupid and wrong. He didnt prefer for Judea to be a puppet state under Rome, but as long as Rome was much stronger and generally allowed them to follow  , he didnt see a need to revolt and therefore concluded that revolt was doomed and thus wrong. It would be like kayaking to an island to fight a lion on the island that wasnt much of a problem for you. I said that the event in the cave was a mystery because we only have his version of events, and the outcome for his person was okay for him. So it makes me question if they were scared of what the Romans might do to them, or too ashamed to surrender, or got attacked and killed actually by the Romans, or actually surrendered and then were killed etc. Josephus' version is logical, but also hard to confirm and open to bias or covering up by him. Something similar can be said for his account of Masada. You would need archaeology to really know what happened. I dont think you can easily categorize him as a pro Roman propagandist historian because he says plenty of bad things about the Romans so that the audience comes away blaming both sides. He tends to not seem to like it when the forces abused POWs on either side. Slaughtering villages sounds bad. I can understand if someone would be more sympathetic to a writer who openly wanted the revolt because the rebels wanted independence. But in that case how would that look in terms of Yeshua's teachings and his followers? Repeatedly Yeshua seems to deliberately avoid the path of earthly revolt like in his dialogue with Pilate, although there are a few places like where he says to get daggers that he could be retroactively interpreted reading through the lines as if he secretly wanted it. Yeshua seems even critical of the religious establishment, so on some ways there is even seeming likely overlap with Josephus' policies in terms of standoffishness, neutrality, pacifism, lack of interest in revolt, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Sept 18, 2019 14:28:14 GMT -8
Yeshua was responding to a trap. And as long as Rome was the authority they made the laws and everyone followed them. He was for maintaining order. BUT; and this is a BIG BUT- Yeshua was no pacifist:
Luke 22:36 (ESV) He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
He also in an act of protracted violence made a scourge then cleared the Temple. So the assumption that He was a pacifist is entirely wrong.
Next what makes you think the Nazarenes were pacifists? They were a huge part of the Bar Kochba Revolt until they were required to acknowledge him as Messiah.
Nowhere are we commanded to allow corrupt and evil governments to exist unopposed. In example after example we were shown in the OT that we were responsible for what our gov’t does!
And Josephus was NOT a Nazarene! There is no evidence he believed in Yeshua or that he followed Nazarene halacha. But at the time the Notsarim were just another branch of Judaism. They worshiped with other Jews and shared a common heritage. So being well disposed to them was no big deal. Jo was a politician, so he made nice with everyone.
Actually, in the beginning he called on his contacts and got an appointment as a commander in the rebel army. He didn’t trade sides until after his incompetence cost that army a crushing defeat. After that and then the duplicity in the cave, he completely went over to the enemy.
He was ok with saving his own hide, and no more. Looking at it as divine justice was no more than a cop-out. An excuse for his own treachery.
It was more like going lion hunting with friends, but running away with the guns when they found the lions. Then putting on a lion skin that someone else killed and declaring yourself to be a lion!
There is actually a mathematical problem named for him because it addresses this very problem: how do you ensure you are the one left after a suicide pact. It is possible to do it.
I just came away blaming Jo. The Romans were like lions or any other animal; they were going to do what Romans did. The Jews wanted to be left to worship their God as they saw fit, and without interference by a conqueror. They also wanted to govern themselves.
Yeshua avoided conflict because He was meant to die for our sins, not lead a revolt! He came first as the Suffering Servant, Ha’Moshiach ben’Yoseph. He will return as the conquering God, Ha’Moshiach ben’Dovid. And if you still believe God is a pacifist, reread Revelation!
Yeshua’s criticisms of the religious establishment was not that they wanted revolt. It was because they misled their (His) people.
Also you seem to think any revolt against Rome was doomed. But Bar Kochba almost won. Two Roman legions were utterly destroyed and several others severely mauled. But when it was decreed everyone fighting had to bend the knee and declare Bar Kochba ha’moshiach he probably lost close to half his army. But that is the ONLY reason the Notsarim left. So the Jews came within a hair’s breadth of winning, only to be defeated by the arrogance of a few made in the self-aggrandizing image of Josephus.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Sept 18, 2019 15:30:03 GMT -8
Another point that I wanted to make was that Josephus felt he was living in a period of fulfillment of major Biblical prophecy from Daniel 9 and bookends it with the Maccabean period in the 2nd cent. BC and desecration of the Temple then to the 70 AD destruction of the temple. He seems to see two fulfillments of Daniel 9 over a century separate, or else sees one as related to the other event. He starts and ends his Wars of the Jews with these two fulfillment events. His motive seems to include recording the period he finds so important for Jewish history.
Mainly I was looking to read Josephus for factual and spiritual information. I did not even expect to conclude that he was a believer, rather I expected him to be a nonbeliever. I dont know for sure that he was one, but that is how he looks to me.
Regarding his books, he has alot of helpful and spiritual information, so I think it's good to be familiar with them, but I am skeptical about his accounts of his capture and Masada. My general thinking is that I would support self determination for Judea, and would be fine with a revolt or support it, but don't like it when either side did war crimes. It's kind of hard for me to be judgmental of Jews who were neutral or even surrendered and advocated surrender, because of the early Christian/Nazarene peace principles, which included dealing with Rome.
I don't mean to be inconsistent here. Take the Civil War. From the Southern POV, There were generals on the side of the South who surrendered and then wanted their side to surrender. It's not a perfect analogy to Josephus, but one can see some similarities. Or from an Abolitionist POV, ending slavery, like the Jewish nation's self-determination, was a good cause for humanitarian or modern enlightenment reasons, but having what, hundreds of thousands of soldiers dying is not great.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Sept 18, 2019 15:57:31 GMT -8
And as long as Rome was the authority they made the laws and everyone followed them. He was for maintaining order. BUT; and this is a BIG BUT- Yeshua was no pacifist: Luke 22:36 (ESV) He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
Yes, this was what I was talking about with the episode with the dagger. One could see in this potential support for revolt. But then again it could be interpreted as more to do with prophecy fulfillment, which was the official reason that He gave in the text. I am curious in finding details on this I would guess that some were involved in the revolt, but I dont know if there is direct evidence. I remember reading the claim in modern sources agreeing with what you just said. Maybe. I remember reading him teach things to his forces when he trained them that sounded pro-Roman. It sounds like he got appointed as a commander over forces that were part of the Judean client state but then the forces chose to revolt against his private preferences. In this thread I mainly aim at sharing my impressions. I am necessarily not an apologist for Josephus. It sounds like it would be a tough situation for someone like me. I dont know if you are familiar with Boudicca's revolt, but the English Celts tried really hard and killed a legion or two about the same time as the Judean revolt, but tons of Britons got wiped out. Defeating Rome was really really hard. The best chance anyone had was the Parthians, who may be alluded to as a major antiRoman force in Revelation, and yet even their capitol near Babylon got captured by Rome several times in the first couple centuries AD. I dont mean it was theoretically impossible, but really really unlikely. It's kind of like Poland vs Germany in WWII or some other extreme odds. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Sept 18, 2019 17:28:53 GMT -8
No one likes war, and they tend to like war crimes even less. On the other hand, we must judge them by the time and circumstances in which they fought. Killing prisoners is a bad thing. However when you cannot keep them and you know they will only be back to kill you tomorrow, well, sometimes you do what you have to. Killing them out of hatred would be a hard thing to defend at the final judgement, however. Also in different times and places what we would consider war crimes were just how wars were fought, and everyone accepted it.
Again, neither Jews nor Nazarenes (who were Jews themselves) were pacifists. And Christians didn’t use to be.
I don’t know what history books you were reading, but Southern Generals tended to fight on when any sane leader would have surrendered. At times all the south had to throw at the superior numbers of Union troops advancing on their positions were rocks and insults. So that’s what they did!
Wars are not great. But sometimes they are necessary. We should never make light of those who sacrificed for a cause they believed in, even when they lose. But neither should we glorify those who fight for evil, nor the evil committed by either side.
And by the way, our Civil War was not about slavery, nor did anyone North or South think it was. That was one of many issues, and a minor one at that. If you’d asked the typical Yankee what he was fighting for, he’d have said “Preservation of the Union.” Ask the typical Rebel and he’d say “Self determination, States Rights, and preservation of a way of life.”
I shoot black powder, and I can tell you the concussive force of one gun being fired is gets your attention. I cannot imagine lining up and exchanging volleys with a few hundred men all bent on killing me! I have a lot of respect for those men who served, North and South.
You mean like the American colonies winning freedom from England?
I am familiar with Boudicca’s Revolt. And hers was a righteous cause. She too lost all, along with her people. But at least they stood up to the tyranny that was Rome and the injustices done her and her daughters. And if Rome could do that to a queen, they could do it to anyone. Which was the message they wanted to send. That was not however the reaction they wanted!
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Sept 19, 2019 5:39:57 GMT -8
You mean like the American colonies winning freedom from England? Yes, but with Rome vs Judea, Germany vs Poland there was a technology and military quality gap. The Americans had fought the French not long before. If the British wanted to enough, I think they could have subjugated the US, but instead they were okay with having in them independent as they didnt pose a threat, were fellow Englishmen, there were sympathizers among the English, and other factors. I feel there are some similarities to WWII but not exactly so the outcome was different. Britain vs Ireland seems like a better comparison. |
|
- there are 70 faces to 
- it is true! 
.gif
