Make that 601 years..!

Liberty enlightens the world (Is the name of the actual statue), is French and is a symbol of the shared ideologies between the two countries. In her right hand she lifts a torch to enlighten the world of the concept of liberty. In her left she holds the date of American independence. Around her ankles are the broken/shattered chains of oppression and slavery.
lady_liberty_i_by_hellslord.jpg


...and if she knew what those who hold money and power have done with our wonderful democracy.
http://1.bp.########.com/-8cUSbmuzgQA/VfcWrtRALrI/AAAAAAAABJM/xYfQz_5aBQg/s1600/Statue-of-Liberty-crying-628x356.jpg
 
plinker 777 said:
You will agree that only radical revolution will unseat a well entrenched tyrant?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Look at history. Many tyrants simply died. Tyrants are nothing compared to the tyranny of ideas, the tyranny of the many, but even they pass their best before date: the Soviet Union collapsed, partly for economic reasons, partly because the fire went out: remember the eight KGB/MVD officers who were successively called in to lead the coup and who each successively refused? When the Praetorians refuse to guard, then the game is up.

plinker 777 said:
Whether French Kings, Russian Czar's, or contemporary North African Dictators acting as though he were the right hand of the almighty himself. Foreign governments can't be relied on to assist the people with their misery; their stoic silences will be purchased by the offending state. You mention how the French Revolution was the catalyst for bloody revolution throughout the 19th and 20th century. However, you forget the American Revolution which most scholars agree, was the philosophical birth place of the French Revolution. The American Revolution showed the world that a Kings influence can be forcibly removed. The fundamental difference between the two being (as you have pointed out), that the French Revolution was driven by Jacobin agenda and the American Revolution was driven by a capitalist one.

My point is that it is the common people that fought and bled for a change from tyranny. They may gather under a banner, they may collectively espouse an ideology, but that doesn't discount them as the common people. In my mind, it enforces the fact.

...except these my joints! :)
Click to expand...

Kings had been forcibly removed many times before the American and French revolutions. Rome began as a republic on the Greek model and degenerated into a monarchy. The force of her ideas and technology as compared to her neighbors carried her along for centuries even as a monarchy. Of course her monarchy was not strictly lineal, which left some room for the injection of fresh blood.

The philosophical origins of the American and French revolutions lie elsewhere, but we needn't get into that. Burke and others laid it all out long ago. Economics was a factor in the American case, but not the prime mover IMO. In France the state had intervened and participated in the economy for centuries, as it had in may European countries, and as it did again under Napoleon and continues to do to this day. A kind of "socialism"?

Marxist labels like "capitalism" are just silly, the author was an intellectual fraud among other worse things, and attempting to discredit private enterprise and the fundamental freedom it represents is a hallmark of fools at best. Applying such labels to history retroactively is plain silly. Read "The Red Prussian" by Schwarzchild for a start; it was published over 70 years ago. Iniquity is iniquity, dictatorship is dictatorship; they need no other labels.
 
There was a very interesting article in The Telegraph this time last year, written by Bernard Cornwell. Cornwell is the author of the "Sharpes" novels about the Napoleonic Wars ("Sharpe's Waterloo", "Sharpe's Trafalgar", et al) as well as many other works of historical fiction. Some may recall the BBC television mini-series, 'Sharpe', shown here about ten years ago
What follows here is a comprehensive piece expressing the author's considered opinions of the Agincourt battle, and the events surrounding it. Included are some good maps and illustrations. The article is linked to the post I made last year:
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...y-Battle-of-Agincourt-Band-of-Brothers-speech
 
Last edited:
Battle of Castillon is even more relevant, for the use of French cannon en masse for the first time in a major European engagement, using 300 guns in a massed entrenched position against the English. The French positionned their artillerie in a devastating killing field during a faint retreat just as the English appeared to be upon the French camp.
Jean Bureau was the first field artillerie tactician who came up with the strategy.
English casualties were above 4000 for 100 French
This was in effect the battle of Crecy in reverse, 100 years later.
 
Last edited:
mikethebike said:
Battle of Castillon is even more relevant, for the use of French cannon en masse for the first time in a major European engagement, using 300 guns in a massed entrenched position against the English. The French positionned their artillerie in a devastating killing field during a faint retreat just as the English appeared to be upon the French camp.
Jean Bureau was the first field artillerie tactician who came up with the strategy.
English casualties were above 4000 for 100 French
This was in effect the battle of Crecy in reverse, 100 years later.
Click to expand...

Interesting, that must mark one of the first triumphs of firearms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Bureau

If he placed his cannon with interlocking fields of fire he anticipated Vauban and others by centuries, although the concept pre-dated artillery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom