And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Strauss writes well. He shows the strengths of each as well as their faults. They were all brilliant generals and led from the front not caring about the danger in such acts. Thus the men under their command were completely loyal, even unto death. Alexander conquered the most but had no talent for managing his vast empire. His affectation for the Persian lifestyle turned his original army (macedonian) against him and even though he raised others he never achieved the type of victory he had enjoyed in the past. He died young (32) from an infection (possibly from a previous battle wound.) Hannibal was the best field commander. He did more with less for far longer than the others. But he never received the support he expected from his home (Carthage in Spain). He also probably killed the most opponents in one day during his greatest victory over the Romans at Cannae. (maybe 50,000 to 55,000. men.) He committed suicide at age 65 rather than be captured by Rome. Caesar was the smartest. A brilliant thinker he both fought and governed well. He also was the only one to leave a written history of some of his exploits. His problem was he did not have the final say in how certain things were done in Rome at that time. His co-rulers were wary of his intentions and popularity, so they assassinated him. Today in 44 BC. Rome may have been very different if he had lived.
Some lessons are timeless. Others are obviated by change and technology.
ReplyDeleteStrauss writes well. He shows the strengths of each as well as their faults. They were all brilliant generals and led from the front not caring about the danger in such acts. Thus the men under their command were completely loyal, even unto death. Alexander conquered the most but had no talent for managing his vast empire. His affectation for the Persian lifestyle turned his original army (macedonian) against him and even though he raised others he never achieved the type of victory he had enjoyed in the past. He died young (32) from an infection (possibly from a previous battle wound.)
ReplyDeleteHannibal was the best field commander. He did more with less for far longer than the others. But he never received the support he expected from his home (Carthage in Spain). He also probably killed the most opponents in one day during his greatest victory over the Romans at Cannae. (maybe 50,000 to 55,000. men.) He committed suicide at age 65 rather than be captured by Rome.
Caesar was the smartest. A brilliant thinker he both fought and governed well. He also was the only one to leave a written history of some of his exploits. His problem was he did not have the final say in how certain things were done in Rome at that time. His co-rulers were wary of his intentions and popularity, so they assassinated him. Today in 44 BC. Rome may have been very different if he had lived.
Quick! Someone get a copy to Hegseth! He clearly has no idea what the fuck he is doing!
ReplyDeleteSeems to be doing splendidly, imo. So far, so good.
ReplyDelete