Over at Novel Adventurers, you'll find me talking about how transport speed around the Mediterranean hasn't improved much in 2,500 years!
Yea, even unto the next generation
My younger daughter came home from school today with this week's class assignment. She has to write about some guy named...Pericles.
History's Best (or at least Greatest) Military Leaders
Purely for fun, I thought I'd talk about something that's long interested me. Who would you pick for the best military leaders of all time?
There are a lot of factors you can use to quibble with here. Someone might have been technically brilliant, and yet circumstances drew them a raw deal, so that they never got a chance to shine. You could argue some other guys lucked out; they were in the right place at the right time, so that they looked better than they were.
So to give it some context, here are the parameters: if Earth was being attacked by aliens and you could go back in time to pick out one leader to save us, who would be on your list of candidates?
I'll start with the no-brainers, in their chronological order.
1. Alexander the Great
2. Julius Caesar
3. Genghis Khan
4. Napoleon
You could make an argument that Caesar was a brilliant politician who happened to be an above average general, so that technically he doesn't belong. But the man was in the habit of winning, and that's what we're looking for; there've been periods in history when the best leader was the one with the organisational skills.
Onwards with the best of the rest:
5. Khurush the Great
Who? You probably know him as Cyrus the Great, but his real name was Khurush. He founded the Persian Empire by starting with a small client state and then conquering everyone in sight. He built the largest empire the world had yet seen. Alexander was fascinated by Khurush and studied him intensely. In turn, Caesar was fascinated by Alexander, and Napoleon by Caesar.
6. Charlemagne
You know it's tough company when the founder of the Holy Roman Empire can only get slot #6. Charlemagne often gets dropped off lists of great leaders, and I don't know why, because it's not like unifying Europe is easy. Maybe it's because he lived at a time when military technology had reduced the craft to a level of "see-enemy-hit-enemy".
7. Scipio Africanus
After the battle of Cannae, at which Hannibal's army slaughtered 50,000 Romans, including most of the leadership team, a junior officer named Scipio was given command, at the age of 25. At that time, Rome's control had been reduced to her city walls.
Scipio reconquered Italy. Then he reconquered Southern France. Then he reconquered Spain. Then he took back the Mediterranean. Then he invaded North Africa. Then he conquered Carthage.
Scipio never lost a battle, and he did it against Hannibal, widely considered the greatest commander since Alexander. There wouldn't be another such match of titans until Napoleon faced Wellington.
Speaking of which...
8. Hannibal
9. Wellington
10. I'm open to suggestions!
There are a lot of factors you can use to quibble with here. Someone might have been technically brilliant, and yet circumstances drew them a raw deal, so that they never got a chance to shine. You could argue some other guys lucked out; they were in the right place at the right time, so that they looked better than they were.
So to give it some context, here are the parameters: if Earth was being attacked by aliens and you could go back in time to pick out one leader to save us, who would be on your list of candidates?
I'll start with the no-brainers, in their chronological order.
1. Alexander the Great
2. Julius Caesar
3. Genghis Khan
4. Napoleon
You could make an argument that Caesar was a brilliant politician who happened to be an above average general, so that technically he doesn't belong. But the man was in the habit of winning, and that's what we're looking for; there've been periods in history when the best leader was the one with the organisational skills.
Onwards with the best of the rest:
5. Khurush the Great
Who? You probably know him as Cyrus the Great, but his real name was Khurush. He founded the Persian Empire by starting with a small client state and then conquering everyone in sight. He built the largest empire the world had yet seen. Alexander was fascinated by Khurush and studied him intensely. In turn, Caesar was fascinated by Alexander, and Napoleon by Caesar.
6. Charlemagne
You know it's tough company when the founder of the Holy Roman Empire can only get slot #6. Charlemagne often gets dropped off lists of great leaders, and I don't know why, because it's not like unifying Europe is easy. Maybe it's because he lived at a time when military technology had reduced the craft to a level of "see-enemy-hit-enemy".
7. Scipio Africanus
After the battle of Cannae, at which Hannibal's army slaughtered 50,000 Romans, including most of the leadership team, a junior officer named Scipio was given command, at the age of 25. At that time, Rome's control had been reduced to her city walls.
Scipio reconquered Italy. Then he reconquered Southern France. Then he reconquered Spain. Then he took back the Mediterranean. Then he invaded North Africa. Then he conquered Carthage.
Scipio never lost a battle, and he did it against Hannibal, widely considered the greatest commander since Alexander. There wouldn't be another such match of titans until Napoleon faced Wellington.
Speaking of which...
8. Hannibal
9. Wellington
10. I'm open to suggestions!
Jesus' Marital Status
I can't resist coming back to the subject of reliability of ancient documents, given all the interest at the moment about an ancient scrap of papyrus that mentions Jesus having a better half. The story goes that Harvard has translated a genuine fragment of 4th century Coptic that says, amongst other things, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...she will be able to be my disciple...'"
The excitement is something of a media beat up, because that scrap was first translated by a German scholar about thirty years ago. Nobody got too upset back then. In fact, he was totally ignored. I guess Harvard has a better PR department. Be that as it may, I thought it might be fun to look at this as if it were a bit of book research for one of my ancient murder mysteries...could I use this in an historically accurate novel?
First off, just because something was written a long time ago, it doesn't mean it's true! A lot of people assume that ancient writings are inherently credible.
The ancient world was as well stocked for crazies as the modern. If you were to collect random scraps of paper from our modern age, and accepted all of them as true, you would certainly come to the conclusion that people in the 21st century were regularly kidnapped by space aliens, that men never walked on the moon, and that 911 was a CIA plot. Imagine if someone in the future discovered a scientology text. How embarrassing would that be? So one possibility is we're looking at the 4th century equivalent of scientologists.
The provenance is unknown. The papyrus might be from a coffin (they often used old papers to build cheap sarcophagi), or maybe a rubbish tip. The papyrus appears to be a copy of an older text. The original could have been written any time in the previous three hundred years. How close the original dates to 30AD is rather important. (I once wrote an article about the degree to which I trust historical sources.) On the evidence, we just don't know. But the closer it is to the real event, the happier I'd be.
So the next question is, is there any cross-reference to corroborate? (I use this test all the time for book research.) The answer is no, not really. Plenty of speculation about that Magdalene girl, but nothing concrete.
How about archaeological evidence? No, zero.
Does the information look credible? Sure it does. The fact that it's written in Coptic gives it street cred. There were a lot of Bibles being written in Egypt at at that time in Coptic. We might be looking at something that got chopped in final revisions. You know how editors can be. Also, the original Bible was compiled in Koine Greek by scholars in Egypt who were probably the great great grand dads of the guys doing the Coptic versions.
The ultimate test for any historical novel is, does the idea break history? This idea doesn't, so it's fair game.
The excitement is something of a media beat up, because that scrap was first translated by a German scholar about thirty years ago. Nobody got too upset back then. In fact, he was totally ignored. I guess Harvard has a better PR department. Be that as it may, I thought it might be fun to look at this as if it were a bit of book research for one of my ancient murder mysteries...could I use this in an historically accurate novel?
First off, just because something was written a long time ago, it doesn't mean it's true! A lot of people assume that ancient writings are inherently credible.
The ancient world was as well stocked for crazies as the modern. If you were to collect random scraps of paper from our modern age, and accepted all of them as true, you would certainly come to the conclusion that people in the 21st century were regularly kidnapped by space aliens, that men never walked on the moon, and that 911 was a CIA plot. Imagine if someone in the future discovered a scientology text. How embarrassing would that be? So one possibility is we're looking at the 4th century equivalent of scientologists.
The provenance is unknown. The papyrus might be from a coffin (they often used old papers to build cheap sarcophagi), or maybe a rubbish tip. The papyrus appears to be a copy of an older text. The original could have been written any time in the previous three hundred years. How close the original dates to 30AD is rather important. (I once wrote an article about the degree to which I trust historical sources.) On the evidence, we just don't know. But the closer it is to the real event, the happier I'd be.
So the next question is, is there any cross-reference to corroborate? (I use this test all the time for book research.) The answer is no, not really. Plenty of speculation about that Magdalene girl, but nothing concrete.
How about archaeological evidence? No, zero.
Does the information look credible? Sure it does. The fact that it's written in Coptic gives it street cred. There were a lot of Bibles being written in Egypt at at that time in Coptic. We might be looking at something that got chopped in final revisions. You know how editors can be. Also, the original Bible was compiled in Koine Greek by scholars in Egypt who were probably the great great grand dads of the guys doing the Coptic versions.
The ultimate test for any historical novel is, does the idea break history? This idea doesn't, so it's fair game.
Gary's word of the day is: sudoriparous
While flipping through the dictionary on an unrelated quest, I came across this thing of beauty:
sudoriparous secreting sweat; pertaining to the secretion of sweat or to the sweat glands
Needless to say, this is going into my next book.
"His nine millimetre Browning he kept in a holster beneath his sudoriparous armpit."
The floor is now open for the most gratuitous use of sudoriparous.
sudoriparous secreting sweat; pertaining to the secretion of sweat or to the sweat glands
Needless to say, this is going into my next book.
"His nine millimetre Browning he kept in a holster beneath his sudoriparous armpit."
The floor is now open for the most gratuitous use of sudoriparous.