Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Pisces Axxxxx

Plebes
  • Content Count

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pisces Axxxxx

  1. I notice so many civilians and even REMF who joined the Military only because they couldn't find jobs elsewhere and needed to put food on the table,for the free College , or because of mandatory draft (not in the US but in other countries) all seem to agree the Military is just a Tool that exists because it is a necessary evil. They (including Military personnel who are REMFs) all say the Military is a waste of budget spending. I remember a comment from a gaming forum of some people (who never served) stating that how great one day if no wars would happen so money could be spent on more important stuff like research for scientific advances. Another comment from the same forum stated how since United States, Russia, and other countries have now advanced into space maybe in the very near future the world will put away their arms and instead focus on space exploration. In a history forum, there was a guy who enlisted in the US Navy years ago and has become disillusioned. He stated his experiences showed him the US Military was not as great as he thought and it is "merely a tool." "Like all tools it can be used for good and bad" in his words. I even remember I got into an argument with a girl from Singapore last year over the importance of the Military. I didn't know she was from Singapore when we had the argument but I started bringing up facts like how the Military has some of the brightest minds in the country and how many people who join come out as better people. She laughed out so hard in the chat and began to call how ******* naive I am. When another user told me it isn't as glamorous as I'm making it out, this Singaporean girl responded "Let him join and find out. I attended ROTC when I was in College (in some Singaporean university). So many people think the Military is great" thats all I remember but she went stating about people who actually have enlisted int he Military (Singaporean Military anyway) know just how crappy it is and she speaks of some of her ROTC experiences to show how the Military is just a tool and all the bums and low lives (except for the Officers, Intelligence, and other people outside of Infantry) who can't find jobs to join. She never specifically stated the Military is a tool but her bitter statements about the Military in general you can infer this (even though she only attended ROTC in College and not even the American ROTC but Singapore's version and she is referring to her experiences of Singapore's military, not America's). This is the general feeling I get in many forums from people who never enlisted. Especially outside the U.S. . But it extends to real life and even Soldiers in non-combat roles-esp. those not RELATED at all with operations like a local base's accounting sector-seem to feel the same way that the Military is "just a tool". And this is coming from what my dad tells me about how the general feeling people in the nearby base feel about the Military (except for the Infantry who really LOVE the Military). He even tells me most of the non-combat workers have only enlisted for jobs or for the GI Bill and really do see the Military as a tool to use but nothing special. As soon as their contract ends, they intend to leave for good. To a former chat buddy who claims to be from Israel and is currently serving in the IDF ABSOLUTELY ******* hates having to waste 2 years of his life in the IDF, 2 years that can be spent on studying in College to gain credits for a Masters he says. He tells me the Israeli Army is HELL and so many Israelis who are serving only because of the Draft and would avoid it if they could are in low morale. Suicide rates is high. He tells me the Military is JUST a Tool to get rid off the criminals and crooks and make them fight. So many other uneager Israelis draftees agree too. Its only the Israelis who volunteered for the Infantry who take PRIDE in serving the Military and LOVE the Army lifestyle. Most other Israeli draftees think serving in the IDF is HELL.
  2. Two articles I found. http://couchtripper.com/rapedbysoldiers/?p=270 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/09/366078.shtml What do you think? I may be American and the American version of History they teach is that American Soldiers were Good Guys who were welcomed and beloved by the French and German populace. A friend of mine who was in the 173rd Airborne Brigade mentioned something about the 82nd Airborne tearing up a a Paris Hotel to shit so I decided to do research and was surprised how vicious and brutal American soldiers can be in WW2.
  3. We all know the criticism Vegetius gives on the late Roman Legions lacking the iron rigid discipline that earlier Legionnaires had and also how Vegetius criticizes contemporary Roman Infantry as being too lightly armored and lacking the heavy arms older Roman Infantry had.In Vegetius's view the late Roman Legions were a shadow of their former selves. However Oman, who wrote the classic Military History work "The Art of War In the Middle Ages", begs to disagree. He states that the reason for the changes from heavy infantry to lightly armed infantry was not out of decay but out of practicality. Rome was constantly fighting cavalry and the Roman Legions lacked the maneuverability and flexibility to counter them. In addition Oman states that throwing javelins were far more effective against the cavalry of the Goths and other barbarians. Basically Oman's views is that the transition from heavy infantry wielding gladius and rectangular shields to lighter infantry wielding oval shields and Javelins was one of practicality to counter new threats along with the gradual rise of elite heavy cavalry that would later become what we know as "Knights" near the end of the Roman empire. In addition, Oman states that Vegetius paints an incredibly Romantic, if not fantasist, view of the Roman Legions and is ignoring how different warfare has changed from older times. That Vegetius was not a Military man and lacked any real experience in warfare of the period and he was over exaggerating the Discipline and Fighting efficiency of the Roman Legions in the past. What do you think?Oman seems to be the more realist of the two and he gave a brief but convincing explanation of why the transition of the Roman Legions into lighter infantry and later Elite Heavy Cavalry (that would evolve into what was known as Knights in the Middle Ages) was not one of decay of the Roman Legions but one of absolute practicality and it was actually the right choice. Just a word of note, Oman is among the Classic scholars of the Medieval Ages and much of his knowledge of Roman Civilization seemed to be mostly around the late period when Rome was finally going to collapse and the Dark Ages were coming.
  4. I already posted this on the forums when it was down. ButI wish to continue the discussion. I remembered in reading The Western Way of War Victor Hanson, that when the Romans fought the Macedonian Phalanx in their invasion of Greece, many soldiers described it as the "most terrifying thing they ever witnessed". This really fascinates me. These Roman soldiers were battle-hardened warriors of earlier wars and fought against different enemies including Elephant Cavalry, blood-thirsty Gauls, and shock cavalry. In addition their formations and tactics were HEAVILY MODELED after the Greek Phalanx. Yet when they fought the Phalanx of the Macedonians and Greeks, they thought it was more frightening than anything they ever fought. I understand a wall of spears and shields is terrifying no matter who you are. But I am curious why Roman Legions who fought in earlier wars including seemingly more frightening opponents such as Elephants and heavy cavalry thought the Macedonian and Greek Phalanx was the most terrifying thing they ever faced in the battlefield! You can find the quotes here. http://books.google.com/books?id=JVp8PiK5EmUC&pg=PR19&lpg=PR19&dq=The+Western+Way+of+War+online+text&source=bl&ots=80b08N0kYQ&sig=vcwe-GnQyVat-9mBzzojCwfTvE8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=amZdUb_xGK614AOWvoD4Cg&ved=0CGIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=nightmarish&f=false
  5. Oh there is one passage I just love in Street Without Joy. Its too big to fit so I'll just link a page containing the entire passage. http://husarblog.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/street-without-joy/ My specific favorite passage from the whole book:
  6. I notice many movies portray spears as being a very easy weapon to use. You just hold the spear and wait for the enemy to stupidly run into it. The best example is the Stirling Battle Scene in which William Wallace's soldiers awaited for the English Heavy Cavalry to charge at the Scots. At the last minute, the Scots suddenly pulled out their large wooden stakes on the ground and angled it at the English Horses and they were slaughtered as they charged into it. So many other movies with troops using spears as their primary weapon portrays using spears in a similar fashion. You hold it and form whole wall of spears and just wait for your enemies to stupidly run into it and die. Even after the initial charge, using the spear to kill is portrayed simply as pushing it to the next guy in front of you, wait for that guy to be impaled and fall, then hit the next guy in line with it and repeat. 300 shows this perfectly in which for every Persian killed, the Spartan simply pulls the spear back and waits for the next Persian in role to appear and they suddenly push the spear into the next guy and kill him and keep repeating until an entire Persian unit was decimated. So its portrayed as so long as you don't lose your balance and remaining holding it pointed at your enemy on the defensive, you simply stay where you are and let your enemy charge you and the killing commences. Even martial art movies portrays spears int he same manner. Often the master martial artist awaits for his gang of enemies to run at him and suddenly he starts killing hordes of men with simple pushes of the spear as the come nearby with a fancy trick from staff fighting thrown in every 3rd or fourth bad guy. However I remember a martial arts documentary in which some guys were in Japan trying to learn how to use Yari. The weapon was heavier than many martial arts movie portrays them as. In addition the martial artist teaching them showed them just how clumsy using the weapon was if you are untrained as he made them hit some stationary objects. The martial artist even made the guests spar with him and he showed them just how goddamn easy it was to deflect and parry thrusts from a spear and he showed them just how vulnerable they were once a single thrust was parried. He also showed that spears were very easy to disarmed if you weren't train. So I am wondering after seeing this documentary. Movies show spears as being such simple weapons anyone can use them as I stated in my description above. But the Martial Artist int he documentary really makes me wonder how hard it is to simply just stand there and wait for your enemies to charge into your spear and also how simplistic it was to push your spear into new men repeatedly. Was using a spear much harder than movies portray and require a lot of training like the martial arts documentary I saw show?
  7. The reputation of the Phalanx is that of an impenetrable wall of shield and spears that cannot be broken by a frontal charge and can only be broken by an attack on its rear and its flank. However when I read The Western Way of Way by Hanson, he stated while its true the flanks of the Hoplites were weak (especially on the right side in which the Hoplite assigned there did not have full protection proveded by the shield of another man), this can be countered by a well-disciplined Hoplite unit with a certain formation that resembled a turtle and was round. In this formation, even the flanks and rear of the Hoplite was protected and even a heavy cavalry charge at the rear and flanks would be fended off successfully. Here is the formation in link. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_q45pzp0qhpM/TTDN1O5jR7I/AAAAAAAAALU/YV9lS0_H-uU/s1600/300+B&W.jpg In addition it provided near complete protection against archers. However what I read is that not all Hoplites can do this and only the most disciplined and well-trained such as the Spartans were capable of forming such a formation. In addition, the Hoplites was pretty static when in this formation. So I am wondering are the claims of Heavy Cavalry being the weakness of the Hoplites and Phalanx false (or at least over-exaggerrated)? Also what is the formation in the link above called?I know its a type of Phalanx but I'm wondering what was it called.
  8. Yesterday I was playing Shogun:Total War. In one battle I should have theoritically won because I had a combine force of one unit of archers and several units of Yari Samurai and Yari Ashigaru. The number of troops my enemy had were pretty much the same as me. However his army was compsed entirely of Samurai Archers. When the battle began, I sent my spearman right away to assault the enemy army. Going by the game's units system, my force of Yari Samurai and Yari Ashigaru should have lead me to victory as Samurai Archers are weak to melee units......... The whole battle turned out differently. My Yari Samurai and Ashigaru units fled collapsed early in the battle and retreated from what should have been an easy victory theoritically. GUESS WHAT? My Yari Samurai WAS actually VERY close to getting into contact with the Samurai Archers. As in, just a few feet away! Yet as the Samurai Archers continued to fire barrages, the whole Yari Samurai units collapsed apart and started fleeing the battlefield. THEY WERE JUST a FEW FEET AWAY and had they proceeded with the charge they would have DESTROYED the Samurai Archers and it would have been a complete victory for me. I should have won according to theory of gameplay mechanics........ So I am curios how terrifying would a barrage of Arrows be?STUPID question I know but the battle in Shogun:Total War got me curious about IRL battles. I remember seeing battles in Rome:Total War in which Roman Legions were in the Testudo formtion and completely protected by the Shield Wall. They were incredibly closee to reaching some horse archers yet they collapsed as they were marching midway from the enemy and the unit ran away. According to Gameplay Theory, the unit would have won this battle if they didn't collapse and abandon shield wall and they wouldn't have suffered casualties until they finally started swinging their swords at the horse archers. So I am very curious about this. I am esp. curious about how terrifying arrow barrages would be even if you were in a tight shielf wall formation and was not in risk at all of getting hit by arrows because of the Shield Wall. <iframe id="dmRosAd-1-north" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://dmros.ysm.yahoo.com/ros/?c=cbdde9a2&w=678&h=315&ty=noscript&tt=How+Terrifying+was+a+barrage+of+arrows%3F+Even+with+Shield+Walls%3F&r=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bing.com%2fsearch%3fq%3dterrifying%2barchery%2bbarrage%2byahoo%2banswers%26amp%3bqs%3dn%26amp%3bform%3dQBRE%26amp%3bpq%3dterrifying%2barchery%2bbarrage%2byahoo%2banswers%26amp%3bsc%3d0-0%26amp%3bsp%3d-1%26amp%3bsk%3d%26amp%3bcvid%3d2ba6698bc7684fb29f96b5df80520cb9"> </iframe>
  9. Of course we need military. The problem I have is when it becomes radical to the point people are literally obsessing over every moment. I understand getting upset over the guy opposing the Iraqi war, but is it fair to hit him? Especially in the middle of a college classroom???!!!!! How about wanting to bomb anti war protestors?Is that acceptable? I mean the French paratroopers literally began to bomb metropolis Paris late in the war and by the time De Gaulle granted Algeria independene they were literally executing a coup to overthrow the French government and a civil war nearly broke out in mainland France. I though their duty was to defend France? They are going to start bombing Paris to continue a useless war? Don't they understand the war was made in the first plae beause selfih European Algerians refuse to grant at least equal rights and access to public facilities to native Algerians if they weren't going to grant them citizenship? Have you ever read Jean Lartguay's works?
  10. I notice a very bizare tendency for Westerners to praise the Japanese military of WW2. I still remember how kids and even-mind you HISTORY TEACHERS with DEGREES-to praise the Japanese soldiers in WW2 for refusing to surrender and preferring to commit suicide. In their view, its the MOST OUTSTANDING act of bravery to believe surrendering is cowardly and instead to fight to the death. Even those who are familiar with the warcrimes of the Japanese still praise them for their discipline and insane reckless courage. So I am fascinated. The Japanese military of WW2 did some of the most horrific crimes in modern warfare. In fact despite all the criticism on the Germans for being so evil, Japanese soldiers on average did more terrible things. Hell they even RAPED Japanese women and massacred Japanese civilians during the final days of the war for the hell of it! But yet Muslim terrorists have the same mentality. They believe fighting to the death is glorious and most would rather commit suicide than surrender. There are cases of terrorists doing epic last stands and taking out lots of American soldiers in minor firefights. But these Muslims get nothing but contempt even fro historians. From a ratio basis the typical Muslim terrorist probably killed much less people in their life time than the typical Imperial Jpaanese soldiers so going by acts they commit less than the Japanese (even though its comparable in vileness). Update : The reason these Muslim terrorists get bashed as ABSOLUTE EVIL is because they target civilians. But wait didn't the Japanese army gunned down civilians for fun? Even formally capturing civilians and creating official games where Japanese soldiers get awarded for beheading the most number of PoWs in a contest? Update 2: So many of these guys even call Muslim terrorists COWARDS because their leaders like Bin Laden refused to commit sucide-ignoring the fact some leaders of the Imperial Japanese army ran away and tried to avoid punishment. Some such as Masami Kitaoka even pledged allegiance to Americans after the war and helped them. We're talking about guys who experimented on children who didn't follow the Bushido Code out of fear of death and giving up worldly pleasures. Update 3: In fact even when Japanese warcrimes are known by belligerents discussing history, they always still end up praising the Japanese soldiers immense professionalism and discipline in the battlefield. I seen experts in Westpoint praise Japanese soldiers for their performance in say the Battle of Singaphore. Update 4: Yet even Muslim terrorist groups show superb discipline comparable to armies of Western superpower such as the Mujahideen of Afghanistan, military historians don't even at least praise their fanatical discipline. I mean some of the Mujahideen that fought the Americans have shown such precision in timing their ambushes that only a profesionally trained army can perform. Even if they are the BAD GUYS can't we at least give credit due since the Imperial Japanese Army always get praised? Update 5: Yet in a twist of irony in wars before 9/11 I have read of statements by American military and Wetern historians PRAISING the PERFORMANCE of Muslim terrorists. For example Horne frequently states the FLN of Algeria have shown such superb patience in fighting their war against the French. When the Soviets were in Afghanistan, American SF commented on how its good the Mujahideen were our allies because they provided such SUPERB fighting abilities against the Soviet forces.
  11. What were you going to state?
  12. I remember a while back I read in the Boxer Rebellion, the Western armies eagerly engaged in mass gang rapes of local Chinese women. It was not only allowed but condoned to the point one officer praise French soldiers as "GALLANT" for raping hundreds and hundreds of Chinese women. It got so bad American and Japanese soldiers had to point their rifles at Russian and German soldiers to get them to stop. In World War II,Allied officers were well aware that Moroccan soldiers were raping Italian women in the thousands and they even raped French civilians (their allies) for the hell of it. Despite this, Moroccan soldiers got honored for their battlefield performance and in later colonial wars, Western officers even were grief stricken as they witnessed these WWII Moroccan vets suffer horrific deaths in colonial wars specifically in the Algerian Revolution. There is even a war memorial in France for Moroccans who died fighting in Algeria. THE SAME SOLDIERS who ENJOYED raping French civilians and later German civilians. One officer even cried seeing his Moroccan battalion screaming from pain due to losing limbs and facing decapitation. WAIT WAIT WAIT these soldiers had nor remorse gangraping ten year old Italian girls and even killing their fathers. More shockingly these officers know that these Moroccans RAPED FRENCH CIVILIANS (who they sworn to protect). WHY THE HELL are they in such agony for such thug soldiers? IMO these Moroccan soldiers don't deserve any pity. They got what they deserve when they lost their injuries for life in Dien Bien Phu or were slaughtered in Algeria (and even tortured to death). They are getting praised for fighting useless colonial wars and getting pity for suffering-BUT THESE soldiers had no remorse for murdering Italian families and gangraping the women 50 times for pleasure! Why should they be pitied and be given war monuments in France and Germany? What do you think? Do you think soldiers who perform excellent in the battlefield should be praised as gallant if they went around raping for fun? Do you consider them gallant for gangraping hundreds of civilian women? In fact I even openly praise their enemies for brutally torturing rapist soldiers. I cheer everytime I read Boxers skinning British soldiers (who raped Chinese women for fun) they captured alive, when Algerian soldiers slit the throats of Moroccans who are veterans of WWII, and when Soviets starved and even experimented on Nazis who raped Jewish and Russian girls to death.
  13. Read this thread I discovered. http://historum.com/war-military-history/69199-why-weren-t-later-battles-thermopylae-impressive-greco-persian-one.html I am curious can anyone post details about the Roman battle? Why didn't the Greeks inflict such an impression on the Romans as they did towards the Persians and later Celts as the linked thread states? How were the Romans about to win without suffering the casualties of the Persians and Celts and what did the Greeks lack that they were unable to repeat an impressive last stand like they did with the Persian and Celts (who the Greeks even beaten according to the link)?
  14. You totally missed the point of my thread Caldrail. What I am trying to tackle here is the double standards. So many young guys today and even high school history teachers think of the Imperial Japanese Army as a bunch of badass mofos because they refused to surrender and fought to the death or even committed suicide. Muslim terrorists have shown similar "valour" in recent years. From the Battle of EZ Street in which one terrorists kept on firing bullets as Americans raided his building instead of surrendering and took out a few American soldiers with him to the superb coordination of existing extremist tribes in Talbian in executing such well timed attacks that take out humvees (that only a disciplined unit could execute). But not a single praise goes to any of these terrorists' bravery. If Muslim terrorists are attacked for bombing civilians, why do so many people today (especially young American guys) respect the Japanese army simply because they committed suicide or charged into machine guns rather than surrendering? The typical Japanese soldier from the time period probably raped and killed far more person in his life time than Osama Bin Laden did directly! Shouldn't Japanese soldiers be attacked as cowardly using this logic? Furthermore, this is my BIGGEST GRIPE. When the Mujahideen were brutally bombing Soviet supply lines, American SF officers were sending out praises. In fact no on in Washington objected to how the Taliban tortured captured Soviet PoWs and if anything the white house was in joy when they heard Soviets abandoned territory-the same territory in which Taliban and such groups would MUTILATE Afghanis who lived in the area when the Soviets occupied it. These Afghanis DID NOT SUPPORT the SOVIETS but were raped and massacred for not supporting the Islamic resistance directly. Even though they actually rooted for the Soviets to be kicked out of the territory. Been reading A Savage War of Peace by Alistair Horne and he praises the FLN's patience and ability to adapt to the French army's movements. But I have not seen Horne make a single praise for any Islamic terrorists groups who been fighting the French recently such as Al Qaeda. Who have executed the very same qualities the FLN had, except to a more extreme level (particularly Al Qaeda's ability to hid in with the populace was superior than the FLN was when Al Qaeda operatives bombed France in the 80s and 90s). If the FLN, a terrorist group, is praised for its fighting qualities by a pro-western historian, shouldn't Al Qaeda, Hezbolla, and such group be PRAISED because they execute much of the same militarist valour and adaptability FLN did? Why single out the Taliban and so on as being cowardly terrorists who bomb civilians? That is what you totally missed in my post.
  15. Pisces Axxxxx

    Would you consider soldiers who are rapists heroes?

    OK first of all soldiers are not the only ones who "FACED THROUGH HELL". How about policemen who get fired upon while waiting in a barricade for hours, days, weeks, or in some extreme cases months? Certainly in North America most such cases would not be as brutal as defending a trench for months, but a layman's study of police and the most brutal riots and so forte shows its just as terrifying and exhausting as defending a building from German paratroopers or assaulting a Japanese bunker. Or how about being captured alive and sent to a torture facility where you seen some acquaintances in town being tortured brutally to death as frequently happens in South America (especially juntas)? And none of you are even personally involved with Castro's politics or so forte. Thats even more brutal to watch than seeing a soldier lose his foot from a mine (tenfold if you happened to survive out of a miracle from the torture chambers). I'm not trying to be rude but I seen my share of war vets acting all high and mighty about those who "never served" as being sheltered wen they call veterans who died for their countries as utter scumbags and losers and should not be honored because if they didn't die in war, they would be scumbags who continue swindling honest descent people or molesting their daughters,etc. Civilians can FACE and often do face just as much brutal hardships, if not more than soldiers do. I mean some of these "civilians" have even witnessed more combat than war vets from Iraq such as the child soldiers of Africa. Especially in war zones. I am currently reading A Savage War of Peace by Alistair Horne. This is where the topic came out. French soldiers were torturing random Algerian civilians with rapist-style methods in their arsenal. One incident that came to mind is a former French paratrooper TORTURES his children for fun and when asked, his response was that he got so used to torturing people back in the war its an ingrained hobbit. WHICH I CALL UTTER BS. Thats what I meant about raping in war. Even moreso when the victims are supposed to be your FUCKING ALLIES or are even CITIZENS of your own COUNTRY! For starters sake, what does torturing your family has to do with your past war experiences? Moreso, I cannot comprehend specifically why Moroccan soldiers went raping FRENCH CIVILIANS. Italians because they were enemies is understandable to an extent but raping the very people you swore to defend? And they are getting honored? I am even more at a lost of words how Japanese soldiers in World War 2 PAID brothels to rape PURE BLOODED Japanese women dragged from their homes and forced to work as prostitutes! And moreso how the Japanese military, who claim to be fighting for Japan's freedom, not only condoned it but they even profited from it as they earn a large percentage of the money Japanese soldiers paid to rape their own COUNTRYWOMEN! Rape as revenge towards your enemy (already vile in my opinion) is one thing (especially if they ravaged your hometown and tortured your whole family cruelly before they cut their genitals out and burned your homedown). BUT RAPE against your ALLIES and more importantly the people of your hometown? I read of cases of Turkish soldiers (who came from their specific Ottoman colonies) going around raping (and even enjoying it) the very people they grew up in not just in World War 1 but in the history of the Ottoman Empire! I am even more flabbagastered how Hirohito or the Ottoman sultans can consider such worthless losers as glorious heroes considering its their own CITIZENS-100% PURE BLOODED Japanese or Turks,etc sharing the exact same religion, and so forte, who were BRUTALIZED! Enemies are one thing but your own allies, countrymen, or even your directly related kin? I disagree the chief responsibility goes on the head of the teams (though they still cannot deny their neglect of the situation). It falls upon the individuals in the teams. I mean where is the responsibility of the sergeants in the first place for preventing this? And assuming there were criminal elements in every unit, I am at a lose of words how one privates beliefs can spread through the whole group like wildfire. He is practically as my father (in the army) is "WORTHLESS" and is just expendable. Why the hell would SGTs and such be so damn influenced easily? Your description makes me think as though in the first place the people who are being recruited and sent to such violent teams SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED into the military. It sounds like a bunch of frail minded individuals in that incident.
  16. A few months ago I made a blog statement about how a soldier isn't NECESSARILY a hero and some of them are such thugs that even if they "died for the country" they should not be honored but should be despised as loser thugs because if they didn't serve in the armed forces they would have wouldn't have anything to be praised for and some of them even CONTINUE their criminal acts while in service such as an incident a while back in which a former soldier who had a prior criminal record actually kidnapped an Iraqi girl and sold her into sex slavery. All I stated is that we should be careful about "honoring war veteran" and we should refrain from judging the vet because some of them are truly worthless scumbags. One guy who claims to have been a marine in Vietnam started attacking me, stating by my post he can tell I am "sheltered" and had been fortunate not to experience the "grim realities of life". He went praising such scumbags because "they died for the country" and ranted how disrespectful he found my post. He stated the military has the "BRAVEST" of the population even if they are scumbags because they are willing to fight wars most citizens are not willing to and thus they should be honored for dying for the country even if they were scumbags before enlisting and they continue war crimes while in uniform.WAIT WAIT WAIT so by using his logic, the Imperial Japanese soldiers who raped innocent teen girls like the Filipina Rosa Henson and Indonesian victim Ronasih ARE HEROES simply because they died for the country???!!! What the ****...... But back to the issue. This ex-marine didn't even know anything about me. I may not have been to war, but I am definitely NOT SHELTERED. I seen lots of terrible things that haunt me to this day and even experienced some myself and I do not WANT to talk about. But simply because I was stating a blunt truth some of these soldiers are not only immoral crooks, but they even participate in crimes against humanity.......... He's attacking me as SHELTERED???!!! I'm not going to use my own experiences because they are too personal but I'm NOT SHELTERED at all by Western standards. To use another example, I know of a guy who came from Cuba. Actually he is now upper class, considerably rich even in American standards. He is ANTI-MILITARY and HATES the US government and military and he openly admits he is anarchist. Even I initially thought he was sheltered because of his anti-military and anti-government rants. BUT I discovered HE LOST his entire family when he was trying to escape to America. His mama and papa DIED from exposure during the escape on an improvised raft and when he landed in Florida, he was ******* STARVING as in he hadn't eaten and drink for DAYS!!!! In addition his hate for soldiers and anti-military beliefs are not without justification. When he was in Cuba, the soldiers patrolling the country were known to bully the local populace and steal food, money, etc. In his case, the SOLDIERS forced his older sister to be pimped into prostitution just to put FOOD on the TABLE. This guy experienced firsthand how abusive soldiers can be. And he gained his wealth by WORKING his *** OFF as young as 11 13 around that age range and struggling to survive in his first 10 years of America. I disagree with lots of his opinion, but I can understand why he hates soldiers and government. By using the Vietnam war marine I argued with, this Cuban guy is sheltered and never had to live through the harsh realities of life???!!! In parts of South America, the national armed forces are HATED by the populace. Because not only have they committed acts of genocide/mass execution, but they frequently steal from the people and are known to kidnap locals for human trafficking. It gotten so bad in some countries in the continent, gangs and local armed militia will shoot you on sight if you are wearing uniform or kill you in your sleep if you reveal being a member of the armed forces. Are the populations of these countries sheltered because they ******* HATE their military and see them as worthless scumbags who deserve to be killed? Even when you don't state anything offensive but merely question things or state someone else's opinions, many military supporters and military personnel accused you of being sheltered. I remember I stated the US defense budget is WAAAAYYYYY too HIGH. I didn't state anything about cuts and some soldiers in Facebook start attacking me as being an ungrateful and that I should be deported to Iran and stuff like that so I can see the "REAL WORLD"............. What do you think of this? Being a pro-military and being sheltered HAVE NO CORRELATION. Additional DetailsIn addition to the examples I listed above, I know people in the military who despise some veterans despite "dying for the country" because these vets were pedophiles and some even committed identity theft that stole said guys actually in the military. If military personnel actually hate them, I don't see whats wrong with calling them losers despite dying for the country. 3 months ago In fact I can list as many people who are flag waving patriots who support high defense spendings who are "sheltered". I know one guy next doors who's approaching 25 and he's still living with his parents and is not studying nor does he have even a part time job. He spends his free time playing video games and sleeping. But he is all out on "supporting the troops" and he in local parades he's always out in front trying to send thank-you notes and yelling at soldiers how much he loves them and how grateful he is for their service to the country. 3 months ago So he doesn't get attacked simply because he kisses up to the military? Despite the fact he is "living in his parent's basement" (lol I don't know if he does but he's definitely "sheltered" by Western standards)? While all of use who actually have a life with jobs or currently studying in school get attacked as lacking real world experience and not experiencing the harsh realities of life simply because we don't blindly worship the military and we even give criticisms when they're due? What a load of BULLSHIT!!! 3 months ago In many cases its TRULY UNDERSTANDABLE why someone would hate the military. Who can blame the rich Cuban I mentioned? His sister had to go into PROSTITUTION to the local soldiers and he was so poor in Cuba because the soldiers often robbed the poor people of their property. Who can blame any of the comfort women for not eagerly supporting their country's military (some even being aggressively anti-militaristic) and hating the Imperial Japanese Army?These girls were so DAMMMNN young (some only reaching their teens at 13) when they were dragged out of their homes and sent to brothels to be repeatedly raped brutally everyday? 3 months ago By the Vietnam war vet marine's logic, Rosa Henson and Ronasih as well as the thousands of young victims of the Japanese army's comfort woman system are sheltered?DESPITE the fact they lost their virginity before they even had the chance to crush on some dreamy boy??!!!! 3 months ago
  17. Thing is the bias they have-if a civilian is kissing up to the military to the point of obsession (having posters of the US marines on his wall, buying Airforce toys,etc) they immediately praise him as though he is mature (ignoring the fact he may be abusive to his siblings and he never been outside his hometown his whole life). Yet if a storekeeper is complaining soldiers are scumbags for wrecking his store and robbing his property, soldiers attack him as being "sheltered" because he fails to appreciate the "sacrifices" the armed forces are making to defend his "freedom". WAIT you just violated his rights and you took away his freedom from fear by vandalizing his store! Furthermore this storekeeper is already living in borderline poverty and he has to work his ASS off VERY HARD just to pay off the rent. He is "sheltered" simply because he (rightfully) attack the soldiers as worthless scumbags despite the fact they later died in some other foreign war? I mean this storekeeper children starved to death because you just took away his only means of living by wrecking his store and stealing the property he needed to sell just to keep up with basic necessities! Or what if Japanese soldier gangraped you? Are you "sheltered" simply because you stated you were glad they died in the following battles as Americans freed the island? I mean even the American soldiers would despise these Japanese soldiers as utter scumbags who deserved to be shot! Yet simply because you openly expresses love for the military, you're immediately appreciated and you're praised as "mature" by military vets. I'm not lying my next door neighbor is approaching 25 but he still lives with his parents and he is literally leeching on them. Shouldn't he be bashed as sheltered? I mean he never worked once in his life and when I come home from work I can hear loud sounds from his home as late as midnight from his gaming! I admit I even woke up a few times and came to work late because I couldn't sleep early at night. This neighbor manchild of mine is even VERY FAT and BLOATED and he lives the life of a hedonist (I see him purchasing games using his parent's credit cards when I go to gamestop and even purchase jewelry to give to others using his parents money when he is flirting with others girls and so forte). So he fits "SOFTIE" by all definitions even civilian standards. Shouldn't the military bash him for being a fatso hedonist who can't even do a pushup by himself and leeching on his parents? Honestly like the Cuban I know, the correlation of anti-military=sheltered is VERY HAZY at best and it ignores many factors (you hate the American military but you LOVE the Vietnamese military and you're a citizen of Vietnam, etc).
  18. Pisces Axxxxx

    American Soldiers Rape of French and German High

    The second isn't an article but a letter. Anyone who's read a number of memoirs or even seen Saving Private Ryan or knows the story of Band of Brothers is aware that GIs often killed German or Japanese prisoners. Soldiers aren't angels, when is that news? To turn the argument around a bit I could care less about German or Japanese victims, by 1945 their nations had killed tens of millions of Chinese, Filipinos, Jews, Slavs & Gypsy civilians or caused the deaths of tens of millions of others etc., just for being who they were. I don't buy into the fiction that just because they weren't Nazi party members or were drafted or---name your argument--that they are innocents. Some of the most brutal massacres were committed by Wehrmacht units and tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians were systematically shot by German police battalions (called up police reservists) made up of non-party members. HOW THE HELL can you justify war rapes in Normandy???!!!! Especially when the victims were the FRENCH-OUR ALLIES WHO WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE LIBERATING!!!! Especially when some of the girls were only teenagers who were still dreaming about marriage????!!!! Its one thing for crimes to be done against the enemies (which has always gone for thousands of years). But you seriously are screwed up if you're going to try to justify rape of the faction who is supposed to be our allies! I mean you even wnet off topic and put the non-related topics of Japanese killing millions (totally different topic). And your ignorance astounds me. If you knew anything about the Japanese front, the Imperial Japanese Army even ABUSED their own country's citizens such as the mass shootings of whole village and wide looting of Japanese homes by low ranks. You could care less how many Japanese civilians were killed in the war? Are you even aware Japanese soldiers went around beating store owners and robbing them for fun? And its so off topic . You're trying to justify soldiers aren't angels as the reason why the rapes of French civilians isn't so bad? So by your logic if the National Guard started going around rampaging into American citizens home and raping little girls, hey should be excused because our enemies done far worse stuff and soldiers aren't angels? What the hell kind of world are you living in? Did your parents ever teach you manners to a girl?
  19. Pisces Axxxxx

    Top Soviet Afghan War Myths

    1)Soviets were in Afghanistan because they wanted to invade the country. Biggest myth comparable to Americans trying to imperialize Vietnam.The Russians were not in Afghanistan to conquer it. The Soviet Union had existed next door to the country for more than 60 years without any kind of invasion. It was only when the United States intervened in Afghanistan to replace a government friendly to Moscow with one militantly anti-communist that the Russians invaded to do battle with the US-supported Islamic jihadists; precisely what the United States would have done to prevent a communist government in Canada or Mexico. 2)The Russians were sent running from Afghanistan by the war's end after American aid was sent It’s not even precise to say that the Russians were sent running. That was essentially Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev’s decision, and it was more of a political decision than a military one. Gorbachev’s fondest ambition was to turn the Soviet Union into a West-European style social democracy, and he fervently wished for the approval of those European leaders, virtually all of whom were cold-war anti-communists and opposed the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan 3)The Afghanis were defeating the Soviets in battle. The next most famous myths of the Soviet Afghan War. Throughout the war the Soviets won every engagements in battle. Much like the American war, the Soviets constantly destroyed the Afghani bases and mountain strongholds by constantly bombing suspected areas in the country. In every major engagement, Soviet casualties were out of proportion compared to Afghani casualties. For example the overall Deadfor Soviets were no more than 75,000 while Afghan dead were around 800,000- 2 million. In every major battle Afghan casualties were 3-8 X larger than Soviet casualties. By the time the Soviet were leaving, it can be argued they were almost won the war. Former Soviet generals state had they stayed an extra few months to year, the Mujahideen would be wiped out and order and stability be brought to Afghanistan. 4)Most Afghanis supported the Mujahideen and Afghan rebels A big myth. The vast majority of Afghans didn't really care about the outcome of the war. A very large portion of the population of Afghanistan actually fled to nearby country as refugees to avoid getting involved in the war and suffering the hardships of the war.For example the population of Afghanistan's second largest city, Kandahar, was reduced from 200,000 before the war to no more than 25,000 inhabitants as most of the refugees fled from Afghanistan. Around a 1/4-1/3 (depending on your sources) even supported the Soviets directly as they saw Soviet forces modernizing Afghanistan and life under Soviet rule was more comfortable. Afghans who decided to join the Soviets were offered basic needs such as education and human rights. It was during the Soviet Afghan war that women in Afghanistan more rights and more people in Afghanistan were literate and educated than during anytime in Afghan history! The vast majority of the population that remained in Afghanistan during the war were neutral to the war and just stayed in their homes. 5)Soviet soldiers were ruthless and oppressed the population, terrorizing and massacring the local population for fun. A big myth created by American anti communist propoganda. Throughout the entire war, Soviet soldiers spared the lives of surrendering Mujahideen and Afghan rebels after battle. The Soviets treated enemy POW with care and respect and were far more noble than the Afghan rebels ever been. The Soviets never terrorized the Afghan population and massacred Afghani civilians for sadistic pleasure. Throughout the whole war Soviet Airforce avoided bombing heavily populated areas and villages where Mujahideen were suspected to be hiding in. The Soviet soldiers did their best to avoid harming the innocent civilian Afghans and in fact many soldiers actually gave their lives up to defend Afghan civilians from Mujahideen terrorism! The saddest part is that the many of the civlians Soviet soldiers fought and died to defend from the Mujahideen terrorists were indifferent to their sacrifices or actually supported the Mujahideen!Rambo and other American movies got the Soviet Afghan war all wrong. It can be argued that the Mujahideen were the bad guys and that the Soviets were actually the good guys!
  20. We often think of Shield Wall formations as being melee troops that are completely static and defensive. They are portrayed as staying in a tight formation safe in their shields and waiting for the enemy units to clash into them. This is especially true for Hollywood's portrayal of the Roman Tetsudo and Greek Phalanx in movies like Gladiator and The 300 Spartans. However I just finished The Battle of Hastings by Jim Bradbury and contrary to the popular notion that the Shield Wall is a static melee formation that "Stands the ground", he shows that at Hastings, even though the Saxons were static for much of the battle (especially at the beginning), they acted anything but defensive passive as. Even though they were in a static shield wall, when the battle commenced, they are shown throwing javelins at the Normans. In fact a big reason for William sending the cavalry charge after his Archers fired barrages in addition to the fact the Saxon Shield Wall proved unharmed by WIlliam's archers was that Harolds "Static" Shield Wall formation was counterattacking William's archers with javelins. Indeed when William sent his Knights to charge at the walls, they suffered casualties from thrown javelins. What do you think? I think this is another proof of how popular media inaccurately portray tactics in the battlefield and History.
  21. A month before the forums got down, I posted a thread about how many pro-military families and students of history complain how the general populace adores Celebrities (esp. Movie Stars) such as Brad Pitt and Taylor Swift while ignoring all the suffering and sacrifices Soldiers make. Some pro-military families even state that Soldiers are the ones who should be earning millions, not celebrities who never served such as Tom Cruise. Here is the link to the thread (on this site) http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/17340-pro-military-complain-celebities-not-soldiers-get-remember-in-history/ In addition, I published a thread that shows the many pro-military folks view of the Soldier. http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=Soldiers+love+to+switch+job+Yahoo+ANswers+were+not+volunteer&d=5031748445079777&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=1LqXnO-IiQPwLKthAhNbMjBHkeFqeD9Q As you can see, I stated in the above link: Quote I went on about how most Soldiers would have loved to switch to safer higher paying jobs and I even stated many Roman Legions joined out of financial incentive, not because of patriotism. I am curious about one thing though. I remember a few years ago I read a commentary by some Roman Legionnaire. This Roman Legionnaire was pretty much a career soldier and actually enjoyed indulging in violence. In today's standards, he would be a MADMAN. He stated something about how much he spat down on Gladiators and how Gladiators are a mockery to real soldiers and real fighting. Now I mentioned in the thread about Pro-Military people and Celebrities that among a force of reluctant enlistees, there are a few in the Military that joined voluntary and actually ENJOY FIGHTING and VIOLENCE These type of Soldiers are what you call MADMEN or SCOUNDRELS with Stripes .In civilian life, they were either criminals who engaged in violent activities or if they didn't have a record, they indulged in violenc behind the scenes such as hunting animals, going into bar fights, and even participating in violent sports and other violent hobbies. They enjoy Military Life for what it is-a life of hardships and violence, and they spit on Namby Bambies . Particularly the upper classes, the well-educated (as in Masters and PhD level education), the Aristocracies, the mega-rich (millionaires, billionaires), and celebrities in general like Movie Stars such as Tom Cruise and athletes like Muhammad Ali. They even spit upon military personnel who aren't in Combat Roles such as logistics and staff officers because in their eyes these REMFs (people who stay safe in bases) are a bunch of spineless cowards. In Civilian life, they are rough men with poor social skills (except among other equally violent men). They enjoy of boasting of their tales of killing enemies in war and their battlefield experiences. Caildrail himself told me in a PM his father fought in Malaya and was a typical Scoundrel with Stripes and such military decorations on his arms. Who looked on such Roguish characters as "Virtous" and looked down on those more Saintly. I knew my share of Madmen Soldiers and they really do have a "Mightier than thou" mentality to civilians and enjoy going into fights and openly mock civilians in public. They love Soldiering so much and cannot imagine working in another more respectable and higher paying occupations such as Doctor or Accounting unless the occupation was as hard and rough as Soldiering itself. If you met these guys, you'd agree they are insane warmongers and you'd be scratching your head why they aren't in prison for being such violent personalities. So I am curious-how did Roman Legions view celebrities of their time period? Was there many madmen who shared the same view as the example on Gladiators being fake combatants? How did they view in specific the upperclasses (like the Roman Senate)?
  22. I notice theres a trend in the West esp. Europe. Westerners now bash the Abrahamic religion esp. the Roman Catholic Church. They attack the Abrahamic Faiths for their bigotry and hatred towards the LBGT (esp. Homosexuals). They indeed now show a bias towards Eastern Religions-especially Buddhism-for their incredible accepting tolerance and openness towards the LBGT. In their eyes, Buddhism and other Eastern religions are more humane because they don't (at least in their view) have a single trace of anti-LBGT. In fact I remember in a chat room a Thai girl said she was Atheist but her family were Buddhists. A Portuguese man also in the chat room commented, saying that "Buddhism is the way to go". Prior to this chat in an earlier chat that took place about 5 months earlier, this same Portuguese guy took part in an anti-Catholic bashing discussion in the chatroom and he even told a guy who posted anti-Catholic things "Yes Preach". In his view Catholicism was all evil and one of the reasons I remember had to do with their intolerance towards LBGT (he also holds anegative opinion of Americans because of our we are not open of LBGT as in Europe). I don't know much about Buddhism nor its history but I'm taking the Western POV witha big grain of salt. Mainl because most Westerners I've met who hate the Abrahamic Faiths for anti-LBGT intolerance don't really have an understanding of Buddhism outside of popular stereotypes and cliches in the Media. Most of what they know about Buddhism comes from TV Shows and News Talk Shows. ALmost none of them have ever picked up one basic text of Buddhism and read it from start to end, none of them have ever visited a Buddhist Monestary, and not a single of them know anything about Buddhism's backstory and history outside of the basic story of Siddarhata Guatama abandoning all the fortune and his position as King to live a life of Austerity and later develop what we now know as Buddhism. They don't know any Buddhist practicse outside of meditation and chanting. The same can be said about their views on other Eastern Religions they claim that are far mooorrre tolerant towards LBGT than the Abrahamic Faiths ever were such as Shintoiism and Confucianism. They never read any text of this other lesser known Eastern Religions let alone visited a temple. I'm curious what was the reality?
  23. One thing that I'm incredibly curious about. Years ago when i first read about the battle of Thermopylae, I was like "Why didn't Xerxes send Scouts to explore the area and find the mountain openings?!!!" In fact in another "Historical Army X VS Historical Army X" that frequent the internet, and in this case it was "Spartans VS Romans", one pro-Roman guy stated "Ha if the Romans were fighting the Spartans at Thermopylae, they would have sent scouts before the battle's start and found the opening passage early on!!!". I too thought the same thing and that Xerxes was a fool. Until I saw a History Channel about the Spartans and Thermopylae. In the prelude of events prior to the battle, they showed Xerxes planning a way to send logistics into mainland Greece for his invasion. I was TRULY awed. Xerxes planned a brilliant infrastructure of using a series of wooden boats to create a temporary bridge that went for miles from the Persian Empire and into Europe. Practically the Historians in the documentary praised Xerxes ability to be able to manage such an ambitious project and it ultimately succeeded. Practically in less than 3 months they were able to send large numbers of troops into Europe. It was at that point I began to respect Xerxes' ability as a leader. The documentary brought me even more respect for Xerxes when they portrayed his childhood. Rather than being a pampered prince indulging in luxuries, he was trained under Spartan conditions from childhood until his adult years just before he took over the throne. He literally spent much of his life mastering the art of Warfare and using weaponry and they even showed the documentary of one of his final tests which was to take on some dangerous beast in an enclosed melee (I think it was a lion) all by himself just using a spear and wicker shield. So it wasn't like Xerxes was an ignorant pampered prince. He was trained in the art of war and as a soldier from childhood until adulthood and indeed if you read of his ability as a ruler before Thermopylae you'd realize he was a VERY COMPETANT ruler. So I'm really wondering. Why didn't Xerxes find the opening passage that would lead him to flank the Greeks early during the battle?I sincerely doubt a leader as competent and well-drilled as a warrior from childhood as Xerxes would be either too STUPID or too ARROGANT to avoid taking such a precaution as scouting the area (and indeed the novel "Gates of Thermopylae mentions his armies had scout patrolling the mountains of Thermopylae while the battle was occurring). What was so specific at Thermopylae that Xerxes scouts couldn't find the secret opening passage and that it was only information from a traitor that finally allowed Xerxes Immortal to find the opening and flank the Spartans?
  24. Pisces Axxxxx

    Books on Roman Astrology

    I'm going to be writing a bunch of Articles on the History of Astrology and in the future I hope to write a book on the History of Astrology and get it published. So I need help;can anyone here give academic recommendations on books specifically on Roman Astrology?
  25. I'm watching a documentary right about the Battle of Marathon. In this documentary, The Persian lines pushed through the Athenian center but it was a trap and the Athenians on the far right and left flanks suddenly enveloped the Persians now in between them. The Persians then were sorrunded and the Athenians counterattacked them. This reminds me of a documentary I watched of Hannibal years ago. In this documentary, they show cased the battle of Cannae in which Hannibal intentionally ordered the center of the Cartheginian forces to fall back. The documentary showed a computerized image of a line gradually become a crescent shape formation as the Romans pushed through. Once it fully formed into a crescent, the documentary states the Cartheginans flanked the Romans and slaughtered them in this battle. The movie Kingdom of Heaven depicts a Cavalry charge between the Muslim and Crusaders. Numerically outnumbered, the Crusader cavarly were able to crush the center of the Muslim cavalry but immediately the Muslim cavalry enveloped the Crusaders and formed a crescent formation and flanked the Crusaders, winning the battle. Granted in this example (and yes the stuf I read on the real battle this scene was based on), the Muslims really outnumbered the Crusaders by a large margin abd trying to gain a momentum with a direct charge so typical of Western armies was probably the Crusaders best chances of winning this battle because even if they tried some other tactic, the Muslims would have ended up sorrunding them with their numerical superiority any way. I am very curious. When the Hannibal documentary showed the Crescent diagram, it seemed such an obvious trap. Why did military commanders including highly competant genrals time and time again for fall such an obvious movement?Why do they insist on attacking the center despite even in cases where they tended to have far more troops than their opponents who used the Pincer Movement like in Marathon and Cannae? It should be obvious they'll be flanked if they only push through the enemies' center formations!
×