Former Marine and current foreign service diplomat in Afghanistan says it's futile over there: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009102603447. I thought the interview was interesting in that former Captain Hoh doesn't appear to be one of those vets who turned on his service--he remarked that he fully supports the good guys killing the bad guys. His problem with the whole enterprise is that he thinks we're stirring up hornet nests wherever we tread at to an uncertain end.
Also, last night read an update on the ongoing scholarship of Henry V's campaign in France, climaxing at his victory at Agincourt http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world/europe/25agincourt.html?ref=europe&pagewanted=all. It seems some scholars are revising estimates of British troop numbers upwards, from the accepted six or ten to one advantage thought held by the French at the time of the battle to more like four to one or so. I don't know--I'm wading through Juliet Barker's treatment of the battle right now and I'm inclined to go with her estimate of six to one, as Barker is thought by pretty much everyone to be the world's authority on the battle. Funny how an English mother of two can tell you all about the English longbow and the rate of fire of a competent archer (15 to 20 accurate shots per minute to an effective range of two hundred yards) but there you have it. Makes me wonder what a Napoleonic battle would have been like had archers marched instead of infantrymen armed with smooth bore muskets, accurate to only about 50 yards with a good infantryman getting off a shot or maybe two a minute.
Okay, there's your assignment--read these over your next session in restroom stall #2--you know, the one where you can assume a wider stance. After recess, we'll discuss flatulence and naked women.
No comments:
Post a Comment