Comments on WHAT GEORGE BUSH CAN LEARN FROM GHENGIS KHAN

Go to FLOTSAM & JETSAMAdd a commentGo to WHAT GEORGE BUSH CAN LEARN FROM GHENGIS KHAN

Fascinating parallels Cynthia

posted by Katray2 on February 3, 2007 at 7:09 AM | link to this | reply

Ariel, I know you are right, there are strong woman involved in War and
History, it's just not proportional to the numbers of men in the field.

posted by Cynthia on February 2, 2007 at 4:36 AM | link to this | reply

Maj, It's OK to say Smithsonian Institution...
I actually work directly with their Human Studies Film Archive all the time on projects.

posted by Cynthia on February 2, 2007 at 4:34 AM | link to this | reply

Cynthia

 

The British The Time, and the Daily Telegraph have had, and have now, some truly superb female war correspondents, one of whom ( whose name I forget right now ) covered almost every war from the Spanish Civil War of 1936/39 to Gulf War I.

The London Intitute of Stategic Studies also has its highly skilled female element. War is such an integral part of history that any who study the former can hard fail to become familiar with the latter

The current crop of British TV female correspondents are generally a pathetic, heavily biased rabble

posted by ariel70 on February 1, 2007 at 12:40 PM | link to this | reply

Lots of female military specialists, including weaposn expert at Smithsonia
Ops, sorry, didn't mean to say that name...

posted by majroj on February 1, 2007 at 12:22 PM | link to this | reply

I meant to say "know" not "now.

posted by Cynthia on February 1, 2007 at 4:23 AM | link to this | reply

Ariel, Rich and Maj, you guys clearly
are all well read in history, and now way more about the history of war than I. It really seems to be a male dominated field of interest. I get most of my historical knowledge from the Antiques Road Show on PBS;-)

posted by Cynthia on February 1, 2007 at 4:22 AM | link to this | reply

Warfare done right

Swiftly done, disasterously genocidal for your enemies, totally disabling, then followed by moderation.

He also had to have independent yet trustworthy local warlords, what with communication being as slow as it was. No occupation; as the Romans mostly did, move in and subborn the local people to police themselves and each other.

posted by majroj on January 31, 2007 at 6:49 PM | link to this | reply

cynthia,
the trouble is .. some people never learn!

posted by richinstore on January 31, 2007 at 6:44 AM | link to this | reply

Cynthia

 

Oh yes, indeed! For far too long had Temudjin, Genghis, had a bad press. He's been made a bogeyman.

He had a simple maxim ; anyone resists, slaughter them all, and make a pyramid of their heads. If they don't, tax them moderately, let them follow any religion that they like, and enforce equality among my subjects.

Oh, as well as having the first efficient postal system in history, that is.

The bow that you mention was the recurved type ; designed to overcome the unsuitability of the long bow for a mainly cavalry army. It is more powerful that any other bow, except the Welsh/English longbow of mediaeval times.

By coincidence, I've just posted an unfinished poem about the mysterious halt called to Mongol conquest in the 14th century. Historians now believe that the death of Genghis back in Mongolia sent all the claimants to his empire hastening home.

Interesting post, thank you

posted by ariel70 on January 31, 2007 at 6:34 AM | link to this | reply