Speaking of Christmas - there's a lovely little article in the STimes about the royalties from Christmas songs. The most popular ones earn about £180k-240k for the writer each year. Well worth reading it.
The plot of Hi-Fidelity was based on a single Xmas hit funding the character's lifestyle.
Any bets on who on the left will call low inflation "bad news" ?
High inflation reduces the value of low risk savings, so bringing slightly better off people to the level of the destitute who are more likely to vote Labour.
Left wingers want wages to rise rather than inflation to fall. An ideal left wing position is wages rising 15% with inflation of 10% rather than wage rises of 5% with zero inflation.
No doubt the overwhelming majority of Muslims are no more or less peaceful than the rest of society, but any one who doubts that most of the current terrorist acts are connected with Islam is stark raving mad.
There's a difference between "wicked loonies are claiming to embrace our cause" and "our cause is wicked". To give a different example, I've consistently defended UKIP from the allegation that being a Kipper means you're racist - I know lots of Kippers, many of whom don't seem at all racist. It is however probably true that if one is a racist in Britain, UKIP currently seems the least bad realistic option (hence Griffin's unhelpful endorsement). That doesn't mean that UKIP thereby becomes racist, but it forces UKIP to throw out candidates who sneak in with racist views.
In the same way, there is currently media mileage to be had if you're a loony and claim that you're a convert to Islam and think ISIS is a jolly good thing. That doesn't mean Islam is responsible for your views, merely that responsible Muslims should say you're a madman talking nonsense, which is exactly what they did after the Australia case. I don't even think that we should expect them to repeat it after every incident, any more than we expect Christian leaders to issue a statement after any loony self-labelled Christian attacks an abortion clinic.
Does that mean that Islam is wonderful? Not at all: people have all kinds of views on that. It merely means that it's not reasonable to tar them with the brush of nutters.
I note, Nigel Farage didn't remove Kerry Smith, Kerry Smith resigned.
No wonder Carswell warned UKIP yesterday about their racism and their attitude to second generation immigrants.
Reading between the lines, a hell of a lot of pressure was placed on him to resign.
He was deselected in the first place for the same reason that he resigned yesterday. In between the two likely candidates to replace him have been Neil Hamilton and Natasha Bolter...
Need I say more?
The whole incident doesn't reflect well on UKIP, and could well be why the polls aren't so good.. I have reconsidered my own willingness to stand on the back of this nonsense. But it does seem obvious to anyone who hasn't got it in for UKIP generally, that they are trying to prevent people like Smith, Hamilton and Bolter from representing them in South Basildon
Well said. And when news outlets avoid the M Word - it just causes readers and viewers to think the bien pesants take us for fools/then assume everything else they say is tripe.
No doubt the overwhelming majority of Muslims are no more or less peaceful than the rest of society, but any one who doubts that most of the current terrorist acts are connected with Islam is stark raving mad.
As with immigration, when politicians constantly make statements that directly contrast with what ordinary people are seeing and hearing in their daily lives/in the news, it feels like they are insulting our intelligence.. And it is this conflict between twist people are feeling and what they are good to think that makes people very angry
Constantly repeating that Islam is a religion of peace when quite large numbers are killed on a seemingly daily basis in its name just feels like propaganda... I am sure if politicians acknowledged there is a problem rather than made excuses it would not fuel anti Muslim feeling to more than its current level
"it feels like they are insulting our intelligence"
and then I don't check before posting and have written...
"And it is this conflict between twist people are feeling and what they are good to think that makes people very angry "
I note, Nigel Farage didn't remove Kerry Smith, Kerry Smith resigned.
No wonder Carswell warned UKIP yesterday about their racism and their attitude to second generation immigrants.
Reading between the lines, a hell of a lot of pressure was placed on him to resign.
He was deselected in the first place for the same reason that he resigned yesterday. In between the two likely candidates to replace him have been Neil Hamilton and Natasha Bolter...
Need I say more?
The whole incident doesn't reflect well on UKIP, and could well be why the polls aren't so good.. I have reconsidered my own willingness to stand on the back of this nonsense. But it does seem obvious to anyone who hasn't got it in for UKIP generally, that they are trying to prevent people like Smith, Hamilton and Bolter from representing them in South Basildon
They (UKIP) put these candidates forward before "trying to prevent people like Smith, Hamilton and Bolter from representing them in South Basildon" Is Hamilton still the deputy chairman of UKIP?
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
The Co-op Bank fails the BoE stress tests with Lloyds and RBS at risk. The stress tests were:
Sterling falls by about 30% House prices fall by 35% Bank rate rises to 4.2% CPI inflation peaks at 6.6% Unemployment rises to nearly 12% GDP falls by 3.5% Share prices fall by 30%
The other five banks: HSBC, Barclays, Santander, Nationwide and Standard Chartered all passed.
I note, Nigel Farage didn't remove Kerry Smith, Kerry Smith resigned.
No wonder Carswell warned UKIP yesterday about their racism and their attitude to second generation immigrants.
Reading between the lines, a hell of a lot of pressure was placed on him to resign.
It's a real shame you're not standing for UKIP next year.
You'd enhance UKIP's credibility overnight.
Thank you. I'd like to, but just don't have the time right now.
I understand, it was a shame you never become a Tory MP.
I know a few people who would like to stand as MPs but aren't primarily for the following reasons
1) Their lives are already hectic enough
2) They can't afford the salary drop
3) They don't fancy living their life under constant scrutiny.
What's the job of being a local party chairman like ? Presumably depends on your candidate and hence how often you get Central Office on the phone yelling at you to deselect them ;-)
Seriously, who cares ? He doesn't represent anyone in that role. If UKIP are happy to pay his expense claims that's their business.
When the public think UKIP is the most sleazy and disreputable party, having the face of 90s sleaze as your deputy chairman ain't going to help perceptions.
16.12.14 LAB 318 (319) CON 267(267) LD 31(31) UKIP 1(1) Others 33(32) (Ed is crap is PM) Last weeks BJESUS in brackets Last weeks BJESUS in brackets BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) Using current polling adjusted for 142 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer
Why do you always go AWOL on the days Ed makes big speeches?
Mondays are my AWOL day
His next one is on a Thursday .....you might have to rebook
Seriously, who cares ? He doesn't represent anyone in that role. If UKIP are happy to pay his expense claims that's their business.
When the public think UKIP is the most sleazy and disreputable party, having the face of 90s sleaze as your deputy chairman ain't going to help perceptions.
Agreed. Presumably they think he is worth that risk for some reason, the number of people they have around that have experience of government all the way up to the cabinet can't be that great. I still think its an internal matter for them.
I note, Nigel Farage didn't remove Kerry Smith, Kerry Smith resigned.
No wonder Carswell warned UKIP yesterday about their racism and their attitude to second generation immigrants.
Reading between the lines, a hell of a lot of pressure was placed on him to resign.
It's a real shame you're not standing for UKIP next year.
You'd enhance UKIP's credibility overnight.
Thank you. I'd like to, but just don't have the time right now.
I understand, it was a shame you never become a Tory MP.
I know a few people who would like to stand as MPs but aren't primarily for the following reasons
1) Their lives are already hectic enough
2) They can't afford the salary drop
3) They don't fancy living their life under constant scrutiny.
What's the job of being a local party chairman like ? Presumably depends on your candidate and hence how often you get Central Office on the phone yelling at you to deselect them ;-)
I know a few constituency chairmen and woman, it's not brilliant, everyone else in the seat thinks they have real power, but in reality, they don't.
No doubt the overwhelming majority of Muslims are no more or less peaceful than the rest of society, but any one who doubts that most of the current terrorist acts are connected with Islam is stark raving mad.
There's a difference between "wicked loonies are claiming to embrace our cause" and "our cause is wicked". To give a different example, I've consistently defended UKIP from the allegation that being a Kipper means you're racist - I know lots of Kippers, many of whom don't seem at all racist. It is however probably true that if one is a racist in Britain, UKIP currently seems the least bad realistic option (hence Griffin's unhelpful endorsement). That doesn't mean that UKIP thereby becomes racist, but it forces UKIP to throw out candidates who sneak in with racist views.
In the same way, there is currently media mileage to be had if you're a loony and claim that you're a convert to Islam and think ISIS is a jolly good thing. That doesn't mean Islam is responsible for your views, merely that responsible Muslims should say you're a madman talking nonsense, which is exactly what they did after the Australia case. I don't even think that we should expect them to repeat it after every incident, any more than we expect Christian leaders to issue a statement after any loony self-labelled Christian attacks an abortion clinic.
Does that mean that Islam is wonderful? Not at all: people have all kinds of views on that. It merely means that it's not reasonable to tar them with the brush of nutters.
You are proving my point for me.
I said "any one who doubts that most of the current terrorist acts are connected with Islam is stark raving mad"
Not that all muslims were.. but you choose to talk to me like a kid that doesnt get it yet.
The Australian incident was obviously a lone wolf madman, who just happened to be a muslim, but across the middle east and in Africa there are large groups of people who are not madmen in that sense, unless you are someone who classes all religious belief as madness
I didn't criticise Islam at all, I am criticising the people telling the public something that is manifestly at odds with what they are seeing & hearing with their own eyes & ears.. you are doing it too, comparing it to incidents that dont happen en masse, on a daily basis...so proving my point.
Your comparison with UKIP is awful because, when a lone UKIP nutter does something racist/sexist/homophobic, we are told that this is typical of UKIP by politicians and the media (not to mention on here).. that is the complete opposite of what they say about Islam when people are killed in their name.
Just back from my morning walk and I see I am just in time for the conversation on sausages.
I would put in the plug for my local butcher, the excellent Clive Miller of Hurstpierpoint, who does a wonderful range of excellent home made sausages. However, despite my constant nagging he still doesn't do mail order so do so would probably be a waste of time.
That said Herself came home from Aldi the other week with some of their pork and herb sausages, which were excellent (no fat or water leaked during cooking) and very cheap. Reading the label, they also had a better spec in terms of meat content and additives than Tescos' finest. Much to be recommended...
Honestly, take out the snob value and there is not much wrong with Aldi. Their wine range is also in my experience worth keeping under careful observation as they often have some very decent stuff and very reasonable prices (e.g. the Vinho Verde they had a couple of months back), but the good deals don't tend to last long.
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
His thesis - and I think it's well-argued -is that mindless religious bigotry was not why people Duke Godfrey, Richard III, and Saladdin massacred prisoners and sacked cities that offered resistance. It was far more calculating and cold-blooded than that. Sacking a city that offered resistance was standard operating practice, as it induced other garrisons to surrender on terms. Both sides were willing to accept ransoms for prisoners, but were quite prepared to kill them when ransom terms weren't complied with - and in the case of the Templars, they were such brave and fanatical fighters that it made more sense for the Muslims to kill them when they captured them.
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
His thesis - and I think it's well-argued -is that mindless religious bigotry was not why people Duke Godfrey, Richard III, and Saladdin massacred prisoners and sacked cities that offered resistance. It was far more calculating and cold-blooded than that. Sacking a city that offered resistance was standard operating practice, as it induced other garrisons to surrender on terms. Both sides were willing to accept ransoms for prisoners, but were quite prepared to kill them when ransom terms weren't complied with - and in the case of the Templars, they were such brave and fanatical fighters that it made more sense for the Muslims to kill them when they captured them.
Can you recommend to me some books to read on the Crusades?
Is one of those areas of history I want to learn more about.
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
His thesis - and I think it's well-argued -is that mindless religious bigotry was not why people Duke Godfrey, Richard III, and Saladdin massacred prisoners and sacked cities that offered resistance. It was far more calculating and cold-blooded than that. Sacking a city that offered resistance was standard operating practice, as it induced other garrisons to surrender on terms. Both sides were willing to accept ransoms for prisoners, but were quite prepared to kill them when ransom terms weren't complied with - and in the case of the Templars, they were such brave and fanatical fighters that it made more sense for the Muslims to kill them when they captured them.
Seriously, who cares ? He doesn't represent anyone in that role. If UKIP are happy to pay his expense claims that's their business.
It's a valid question. He's Farage's deputy and people are entitled to draw conclusions from that.
I dont disagree. But the implication was that he should be hounded out of that role in the same way that Smith was, probably quite rightly, hounded out. I think someone like Deputy Chairman is a roll internal to the party. Who they chose to fill it may indeed cause people to draw conclusions, as might the posters outside the Party HQ, or the haircut of the man that opens the door. If they are prepared to take the risk of him being seen unfavorably, and feel that whatever benefits he brings to the party organisation outweigh that, that is a business/political decision to make.
Suppose, hypothetically, Hamilton had contacts that could bring in a lot of funding to the party but wanted the DC job as recognition of that help, the party might feel the compromise was worth it.
More fun for the Russian central bank today. After boosting interest rates to 17% the Ruble recovered for 10 whole minutes, before resuming freefall. 13%14% down on the day so far and rumours of capital controls in the offing.
Russian traders shorting the national currency are likely to receive a visit in the small hours from people with unusually thick necks.
Any bets on who on the left will call low inflation "bad news" ?
High inflation reduces the value of low risk savings, so bringing slightly better off people to the level of the destitute who are more likely to vote Labour.
Left wingers want wages to rise rather than inflation to fall. An ideal left wing position is wages rising 15% with inflation of 10% rather than wage rises of 5% with zero inflation.
Discuss.
Pro: All Governments decry inflation. But when you have oodles of debt, high inflation is good news as your ability to repay the debt - all things being equal - rises as the real value of the debt falls. Con: As inflation rises, interest rates tend to rise so the cost of borrowing new money rises. And the value of Government Debt with low interest rates falls. So pension funds and banks etc take huge hit... The cost of replacing inventory rises so straining business cashflow. Wage rates rise withe the risk of a spiral... Individual savings tend to get wiped out. Asset prices rise..The value of your currency declines raising import prices and feeding more inflation.. see the 1980s...
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
His thesis - and I think it's well-argued -is that mindless religious bigotry was not why people Duke Godfrey, Richard III, and Saladdin massacred prisoners and sacked cities that offered resistance. It was far more calculating and cold-blooded than that. Sacking a city that offered resistance was standard operating practice, as it induced other garrisons to surrender on terms. Both sides were willing to accept ransoms for prisoners, but were quite prepared to kill them when ransom terms weren't complied with - and in the case of the Templars, they were such brave and fanatical fighters that it made more sense for the Muslims to kill them when they captured them.
Sacking a city that refused to surrender and forced an assault was standard in warfare for millennia; most certainly during the Medieval period and even into modern times (see the British army in the Peninsular war). Judging our forebears conduct by today's standards is not a useful habit but one that seems to be used by people trying to make a political point rather than understand history..
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
His thesis - and I think it's well-argued -is that mindless religious bigotry was not why people Duke Godfrey, Richard III, and Saladdin massacred prisoners and sacked cities that offered resistance. It was far more calculating and cold-blooded than that. Sacking a city that offered resistance was standard operating practice, as it induced other garrisons to surrender on terms. Both sides were willing to accept ransoms for prisoners, but were quite prepared to kill them when ransom terms weren't complied with - and in the case of the Templars, they were such brave and fanatical fighters that it made more sense for the Muslims to kill them when they captured them.
Can you recommend to me some books to read on the Crusades?
Is one of those areas of history I want to learn more about.
I haven't read very widely on them (McGlynn's focus is purely on atrocities and the reasons for them).
I do have Sir Steven Runciman's History of the Crusades which is very gripping, but pretty out of date now. I have John Julius Norwichs' Kingdom in the Sun, History of Byzantium, and History of Venice, which deal with the Crusades from the point of view of those powers. Geoffrey Hindley's Brief History of the Crusades gives a decent overview, but as its title suggests, it isn't all that detailed.
To the people (probably not on this site, I acknowledge) who have persistently laid 2.5 at Betfair on EdM next PM: thank you. Though I remain bemused at your determination not to simply take the evens PP is offering on Cameron being PM post-election, or at least offer odds a bit closer to the bookies.
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
His thesis - and I think it's well-argued -is that mindless religious bigotry was not why people Duke Godfrey, Richard III, and Saladdin massacred prisoners and sacked cities that offered resistance. It was far more calculating and cold-blooded than that. Sacking a city that offered resistance was standard operating practice, as it induced other garrisons to surrender on terms. Both sides were willing to accept ransoms for prisoners, but were quite prepared to kill them when ransom terms weren't complied with - and in the case of the Templars, they were such brave and fanatical fighters that it made more sense for the Muslims to kill them when they captured them.
Sacking a city that refused to surrender and forced an assault was standard in warfare for millennia; most certainly during the Medieval period and even into modern times (see the British army in the Peninsular war). Judging our forebears conduct by today's standards is not a useful habit but one that seems to be used by people trying to make a political point rather than understand history..
Therefore, you men of Harfleur, Take pity of your town and of your people, Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command; Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds Of heady murder, spoil and villany. If not, why, in a moment look to see The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters; Your fathers taken by the silver beards, And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls, Your naked infants spitted upon pikes, Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry At Herod's bloody-hunting slaughtermen. What say you? will you yield, and this avoid, Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?
Petrol anecdote; wife’s just come; £112.7 at the local Asda, £116.9 about half a mile away, but then £114.9 at the nearest Morrisons.
I just paid less than a pound a litre last night.
It felt wonderful
(Fuel is £114.9 but had a 20p of a litre offer with tesco)
Given the time lag between crude oil prices changing and pump prices changing, it's only a matter of time before the first (genuine) 99p litre.
You mean a week or two, involving the refinery process. Given that fuel duty is currently fixed at 58 pence per litre, I suspect the price of crude will need to fall a great deal further yet before there is any chance of the standard price of unleaded falling to below £1 per litre at the pumps.
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
His thesis - and I think it's well-argued -is that mindless religious bigotry was not why people Duke Godfrey, Richard III, and Saladdin massacred prisoners and sacked cities that offered resistance. It was far more calculating and cold-blooded than that. Sacking a city that offered resistance was standard operating practice, as it induced other garrisons to surrender on terms. Both sides were willing to accept ransoms for prisoners, but were quite prepared to kill them when ransom terms weren't complied with - and in the case of the Templars, they were such brave and fanatical fighters that it made more sense for the Muslims to kill them when they captured them.
Sacking a city that refused to surrender and forced an assault was standard in warfare for millennia; most certainly during the Medieval period and even into modern times (see the British army in the Peninsular war). Judging our forebears conduct by today's standards is not a useful habit but one that seems to be used by people trying to make a political point rather than understand history..
Well, we (by which I mean the allies) were hardly pussies in WWII. Curtis Le May's "burning a nation" and the ethnic cleansing of Germans from much of Europe would have been entirely understandable o our ancestors.
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
His thesis - and I think it's well-argued -is that mindless religious bigotry was not why people Duke Godfrey, Richard III, and Saladdin massacred prisoners and sacked cities that offered resistance. It was far more calculating and cold-blooded than that. Sacking a city that offered resistance was standard operating practice, as it induced other garrisons to surrender on terms. Both sides were willing to accept ransoms for prisoners, but were quite prepared to kill them when ransom terms weren't complied with - and in the case of the Templars, they were such brave and fanatical fighters that it made more sense for the Muslims to kill them when they captured them.
Sacking a city that refused to surrender and forced an assault was standard in warfare for millennia; most certainly during the Medieval period and even into modern times (see the British army in the Peninsular war). Judging our forebears conduct by today's standards is not a useful habit but one that seems to be used by people trying to make a political point rather than understand history..
Wasn’t it cheaper for commanders to allow victorious troops to sack a city, since that meant the soldiers weren’t so worried about being paid?
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
His thesis - and I think it's well-argued -is that mindless religious bigotry was not why people Duke Godfrey, Richard III, and Saladdin massacred prisoners and sacked cities that offered resistance. It was far more calculating and cold-blooded than that. Sacking a city that offered resistance was standard operating practice, as it induced other garrisons to surrender on terms. Both sides were willing to accept ransoms for prisoners, but were quite prepared to kill them when ransom terms weren't complied with - and in the case of the Templars, they were such brave and fanatical fighters that it made more sense for the Muslims to kill them when they captured them.
Sacking a city that refused to surrender and forced an assault was standard in warfare for millennia; most certainly during the Medieval period and even into modern times (see the British army in the Peninsular war). Judging our forebears conduct by today's standards is not a useful habit but one that seems to be used by people trying to make a political point rather than understand history..
Well, we (by which I mean the allies) were hardly pussies in WWII. Curtis Le May's "burning a nation" and the ethnic cleansing of Germans from much of Europe would have been entirely understandable o our ancestors.
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
His thesis - and I think it's well-argued -is that mindless religious bigotry was not why people Duke Godfrey, Richard III, and Saladdin massacred prisoners and sacked cities that offered resistance. It was far more calculating and cold-blooded than that. Sacking a city that offered resistance was standard operating practice, as it induced other garrisons to surrender on terms. Both sides were willing to accept ransoms for prisoners, but were quite prepared to kill them when ransom terms weren't complied with - and in the case of the Templars, they were such brave and fanatical fighters that it made more sense for the Muslims to kill them when they captured them.
Can you recommend to me some books to read on the Crusades?
Is one of those areas of history I want to learn more about.
Gosh, there is a request and a half. The Crusades were a series of wars that extended over several hundred years, if one counts the Reconquista of Spain as a crusade, which I think I would, to then end of the wars against Ottoman expansion in Europe you are talking about 700 years. That is, as you will appreciate, a period longer than that from the Black Death until today. Society, warfare, etc. changed dramatically during that period, as one would expect, and so the reasons for and conduct of the crusades changed accordingly.
Do you want to chunk it down a little? Which crusade or period are you interested in?
Sacking a city that refused to surrender and forced an assault was standard in warfare for millennia; most certainly during the Medieval period and even into modern times (see the British army in the Peninsular war). Judging our forebears conduct by today's standards is not a useful habit but one that seems to be used by people trying to make a political point rather than understand history..
Wasn’t it cheaper for commanders to allow victorious troops to sack a city, since that meant the soldiers weren’t so worried about being paid?
Storming a city often was extremely costly or the attacking forces - both in terms of time (breaching walls by catapult or artillery could take weeks), and in terms of dead and injured . Pretty hard to keep morale up in a long siege... if all you would do at the end is take prisoners and respect the property rights of the conquered.
But the prospect of largescale looting and rape - effectively condoned by your military commanders- could ensure your soldiers were pretty motivated to fight on....
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
His thesis - and I think it's well-argued -is that mindless religious bigotry was not why people Duke Godfrey, Richard III, and Saladdin massacred prisoners and sacked cities that offered resistance. It was far more calculating and cold-blooded than that. Sacking a city that offered resistance was standard operating practice, as it induced other garrisons to surrender on terms. Both sides were willing to accept ransoms for prisoners, but were quite prepared to kill them when ransom terms weren't complied with - and in the case of the Templars, they were such brave and fanatical fighters that it made more sense for the Muslims to kill them when they captured them.
Sacking a city that refused to surrender and forced an assault was standard in warfare for millennia; most certainly during the Medieval period and even into modern times (see the British army in the Peninsular war). Judging our forebears conduct by today's standards is not a useful habit but one that seems to be used by people trying to make a political point rather than understand history..
That all depends on whether you are a moral relativist or not. I don't believe right and wrong are defined by whatever the majority opinion is at the time.
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
His thesis - and I think it's well-argued -is that mindless religious bigotry was not why people Duke Godfrey, Richard III, and Saladdin massacred prisoners and sacked cities that offered resistance. It was far more calculating and cold-blooded than that. Sacking a city that offered resistance was standard operating practice, as it induced other garrisons to surrender on terms. Both sides were willing to accept ransoms for prisoners, but were quite prepared to kill them when ransom terms weren't complied with - and in the case of the Templars, they were such brave and fanatical fighters that it made more sense for the Muslims to kill them when they captured them.
Can you recommend to me some books to read on the Crusades?
Is one of those areas of history I want to learn more about.
Gosh, there is a request and a half. The Crusades were a series of wars that extended over several hundred years, if one counts the Reconquista of Spain as a crusade, which I think I would, to then end of the wars against Ottoman expansion in Europe you are talking about 700 years. That is, as you will appreciate, a period longer than that from the Black Death until today. Society, warfare, etc. changed dramatically during that period, as one would expect, and so the reasons for and conduct of the crusades changed accordingly.
Do you want to chunk it down a little? Which crusade or period are you interested in?
As discussed last night, the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation are about to do to Wimbledon what they did to F1, as only the finals have to be on terrestrial
Wasn’t it cheaper for commanders to allow victorious troops to sack a city, since that meant the soldiers weren’t so worried about being paid?
That may have been part of it, Mr. Cole, but I think a small part. Assaulting a defended city was always a bloody business for the attackers and men would have to screw their courage to the sticking place to do the job. Having done it I think the pure relief at having survived plus an anger at the people who, by refusing to surrender on terms, forced them into such an ordeal meant that the men were going to be out for revenge and uncontrollable even if the commanders wished to do so. So working on the principle that it is fatal for a leader to give an order than will not be obeyed, commanders just let the men get on with it.
There are counter-examples one can come up with both in terms of commanders trying to prevent a sack (e.g. Wellington) and commanders encouraging a slaughter of the worst kind (e.g The Black Prince) and there are examples of a bloody sack being and instrument of policy (see the career of Sir John Hawkwood in Italy), but I think my premise generally holds.
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
Sacking a city that refused to surrender and forced an assault was standard in warfare for millennia; most certainly during the Medieval period and even into modern times (see the British army in the Peninsular war). Judging our forebears conduct by today's standards is not a useful habit but one that seems to be used by people trying to make a political point rather than understand history..
That all depends on whether you are a moral relativist or not. I don't believe right and wrong are defined by whatever the majority opinion is at the time.
It's an interesting though-experiment to think what would we do if we lived in a world where violence is the norm. The mean age in most medieval societies was 18-21 and most people had ready access to weapons, or farm implements that could be used as weapons. Imagine if we lived in a world which was largely populated by teenagers who had easy access to guns.
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
His thesis - and I think it's well-argued -is that mindless religious bigotry was not why people Duke Godfrey, Richard III, and Saladdin massacred prisoners and sacked cities that offered resistance. It was far more calculating and cold-blooded than that. Sacking a city that offered resistance was standard operating practice, as it induced other garrisons to surrender on terms. Both sides were willing to accept ransoms for prisoners, but were quite prepared to kill them when ransom terms weren't complied with - and in the case of the Templars, they were such brave and fanatical fighters that it made more sense for the Muslims to kill them when they captured them.
Sacking a city that refused to surrender and forced an assault was standard in warfare for millennia; most certainly during the Medieval period and even into modern times (see the British army in the Peninsular war). Judging our forebears conduct by today's standards is not a useful habit but one that seems to be used by people trying to make a political point rather than understand history..
That all depends on whether you are a moral relativist or not. I don't believe right and wrong are defined by whatever the majority opinion is at the time.
Fair enough, Mr. Socrates, but where do you get your ideas on what is right and wrong from?
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
Sacking a city that refused to surrender and forced an assault was standard in warfare for millennia; most certainly during the Medieval period and even into modern times (see the British army in the Peninsular war). Judging our forebears conduct by today's standards is not a useful habit but one that seems to be used by people trying to make a political point rather than understand history..
That all depends on whether you are a moral relativist or not. I don't believe right and wrong are defined by whatever the majority opinion is at the time.
It's an interesting though-experiment to think what would we do if we lived in a world where violence is the norm. The mean age in most medieval societies was 18-21 and most people had ready access to weapons, or farm implements that could be used as weapons. Imagine if we lived in a world which was largely populated by teenagers who had easy access to guns.
I'd hope most of us wouldn't steal off the innocent or rape people just because we could get away with it. However, the English city riots of a few years ago makes it look like a lot of kids educated under New Labour seem to have very few moral qualms.
Mr. Punter, it's strange how atrocities and betrayals in the Crusades tend to get put on Crusaders' doors but not Muslims. Both sides broke faith, accepting surrender on condition of being allow to live, and then massacring prisoners.
Part of it was just due to the age. The medieval world was a cruel one.
The difference is, there are no crusaders conquering the Middle East today, but there is a so-called caliphate [and most of the people it's killed have been Muslim].
Except some believe there is a crusade going on at the moment.
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
Sean Mcglynn's book "By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare" deals very well with atrocities in the First and Third Crusades, and the reasons why both sides inflicted them.
Sacking a city that refused to surrender and forced an assault was standard in warfare for millennia; most certainly during the Medieval period and even into modern times (see the British army in the Peninsular war). Judging our forebears conduct by today's standards is not a useful habit but one that seems to be used by people trying to make a political point rather than understand history..
That all depends on whether you are a moral relativist or not. I don't believe right and wrong are defined by whatever the majority opinion is at the time.
It's an interesting though-experiment to think what would we do if we lived in a world where violence is the norm. The mean age in most medieval societies was 18-21 and most people had ready access to weapons, or farm implements that could be used as weapons. Imagine if we lived in a world which was largely populated by teenagers who had easy access to guns.
I'd hope most of us wouldn't steal off the innocent or rape people just because we could get away with it. However, the English city riots of a few years ago makes it look like a lot of kids educated under New Labour seem to have very few moral qualms.
Decent people wouldn't murder, rob, and rape, but might very well take cruel revenge if these things were done to them or those dear to them, particularly in the absence of a police force.
While you're giving out suggestions, what's the best history of the Eastern Roman Empire you've read? I feel my knowledge of its evolution is weak, relative to its importance. I find it shocking that so many people don't seem to know the Roman Empire continued through the Middle Ages, just because the Western half fell.
In that case as a primer book I would recommend Steven Runciman's History of the Crusades. A three volume work, a bit dated now, but it is by serious historian and will give the necessary basic facts and grounding to enable further study.
The first volume is, I see available on Amazon, for fifteen quid - a price well worth paying.
As discussed last night, the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation are about to do to Wimbledon what they did to F1, as only the finals have to be on terrestrial
Sack the diversity officers, health and safety officers, countless managers, countless idiots and overpaid "stars". Wimbledon must stay on free-to-air TV and the BBC must keep MOTD. They also need to work with Sky to get the Ryder Cup live on air again, maybe just the final day, but it is one of the key reasons Rory didn't win SPOTY. If the world of golf is upset by this and are upset that growth in people taking up the sport has gone in reverse then they need to stop suckling at the teat of Sky's big money and get regular people watching major tournaments other than The Open.
Fair enough, Mr. Socrates, but where do you get your ideas on what is right and wrong from?
Careful consideration of the act, the intentions of the person that carried it out and the effect it has on others. Discussion with others to see if they bring up points you haven't considered also helps.
In that case as a primer book I would recommend Steven Runciman's History of the Crusades. A three volume work, a bit dated now, but it is by serious historian and will give the necessary basic facts and grounding to enable further study.
The first volume is, I see available on Amazon, for fifteen quid - a price well worth paying.
As discussed last night, the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation are about to do to Wimbledon what they did to F1, as only the finals have to be on terrestrial
Sack the diversity officers, health and safety officers, countless managers, countless idiots and overpaid "stars". Wimbledon must stay on free-to-air TV and the BBC must keep MOTD. They also need to work with Sky to get the Ryder Cup live on air again, maybe just the final day, but it is one of the key reasons Rory didn't win SPOTY. If the world of golf is upset by this and are upset that growth in people taking up the sport has gone in reverse then they need to stop suckling at the teat of Sky's big money and get regular people watching major tournaments other than The Open.
They are likely to lose the MOTD highlights, because ITV want them, because ITV lost the champs league deal.
OT I don't approve of all the playing of geopolitical silly-buggers that's been going on lately and it could all easily end in tears, but it's worth mentioning the fact that the EU seems to be winning its first major strategic conflict: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4-fklhIEAAUJk_.png
While you're giving out suggestions, what's the best history of the Eastern Roman Empire you've read? I feel my knowledge of its evolution is weak, relative to its importance. I find it shocking that so many people don't seem to know the Roman Empire continued through the Middle Ages, just because the Western half fell.
I know you addressed you question to Mr. F but can I but in to recommend the works of John Julius Norwich. His multi-volume history of Byzantium is very, very good, though the amount of facts packed into it can mean it gets a bit confusing (I had to resort to producing my own family trees to sort out who was who, not helped by the Bazantine lack of imagination in naming their offspring). However, Norwich can also be read at a more superficial level and gives a good overview of a fascinating civilisation, not to mention the complex political intrigues, murders, blindings that in modern times has seen the word Byzantine used an adjective.
P.S. Morris Dancer put me onto Norwich on this site some years ago and may provide a wider review.
Mr. F, seconded, that book by McGlynn is very good indeed.
Mr. Eagles, I'd actually already read that piece. The EU #vatmess is epic in its stupidity. It's ****ing crazy.
One small example is that I've taken down my books from Smashwords, as a precaution. A beta-reader said she was enjoying my WIP so much she wanted to order my other books. And I had to explain why epubs aren't available anymore [for now, at least], and we're having a ridiculous conversation as Amazon is the only source to buy.
And the law was meant to get tax from Amazon, not hammer its rivals!
While you're giving out suggestions, what's the best history of the Eastern Roman Empire you've read? I feel my knowledge of its evolution is weak, relative to its importance. I find it shocking that so many people don't seem to know the Roman Empire continued through the Middle Ages, just because the Western half fell.
Judith Herrin has written a very good account of its history and politics, "Byzantium, the Surprising History of a Medieval Empire", and Cyril Mango of its society, culture and religion "History of the New Rome" They are both professional historians, but each book is well-written and accessible to the non-academic reader.
John Julis Norwich's History of Byzantium in three volumes is fun to read, but he is prone to treat a good anecdote as fact.
AHM Jones "The Later Roman Empire" is very strong on the early years of the Byzantine Empire, as it covers the period 284-602 AD in both East and West.
I also have Sir Steven Runciman's history of Romanus Lecapenus, the 10th century Emperor, which is an excellent read.
While you're giving out suggestions, what's the best history of the Eastern Roman Empire you've read? I feel my knowledge of its evolution is weak, relative to its importance. I find it shocking that so many people don't seem to know the Roman Empire continued through the Middle Ages, just because the Western half fell.
Judith Herrin has written a very good account of its history and politics, "Byzantium, the Surprising History of a Medieval Empire", and Cyril Mango of its society, culture and religion "History of the New Rome" They are both professional historians, but each book is well-written and accessible to the non-academic reader.
John Julis Norwich's History of Byzantium in three volumes is fun to read, but he is prone to treat a good anecdote as fact.
AHM Jones "The Later Roman Empire" is very strong on the early years of the Byzantine Empire, as it covers the period 284-602 AD in both East and West.
I also have Sir Steven Runciman's history of Romanus Lecapenus, the 10th century Emperor, which is an excellent read.
Mr. F, don't forget Ammianus Marcellinus' The Later Roman Empire, in which he excoriates Ed Miliband's ridiculous price-freezing policy [ok, he doesn't refer to Miliband by name, but he does criticise Julian the Apostate for commodity price fixing].
OT I don't approve of all the playing of geopolitical silly-buggers that's been going on lately and it could all easily end in tears, but it's worth mentioning the fact that the EU seems to be winning its first major strategic conflict: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4-fklhIEAAUJk_.png
Lets hope doesn't feel the need of a show of force to stiffen the patriotic sinews at home, and then remembers his 15,000 tanks (ie as many as the USA and China put together)
OT I don't approve of all the playing of geopolitical silly-buggers that's been going on lately and it could all easily end in tears, but it's worth mentioning the fact that the EU seems to be winning its first major strategic conflict: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4-fklhIEAAUJk_.png
It's been the US that's dragged the EU kicking and screaming to implement sanctions.
Mr. F, don't forget Ammianus Marcellinus' The Later Roman Empire, in which he excoriates Ed Miliband's ridiculous price-freezing policy [ok, he doesn't refer to Miliband by name, but he does criticise Julian the Apostate for commodity price fixing].
It's an interesting though-experiment to think what would we do if we lived in a world where violence is the norm. The mean age in most medieval societies was 18-21 and most people had ready access to weapons, or farm implements that could be used as weapons. Imagine if we lived in a world which was largely populated by teenagers who had easy access to guns.
I'd have to go up into the attic to dig it out but years ago I did some research into that very point. In brief, the murder rate in 14th century Yorkshire* was many times higher than that of the UK today. Indeed in absolute terms there were more people murdered per annum in Yorkshire then than there are in the whole of the UK today.
I find the middle ages, especially the 15th century fascinating. Soaring heights of civilisation and scholarship and a violent and brutal society combined in an era of such dramatic change that is probably not equalled until the 20th century.
* Before Morris Dancer and TSE beat me up, I have no information that suggests that Yorkshire was any more violent then than any other county. I chose it for the study simply because that is where the data was most available. am sure Sussex was as equally brutal and dangerous.
It's an interesting though-experiment to think what would we do if we lived in a world where violence is the norm. The mean age in most medieval societies was 18-21 and most people had ready access to weapons, or farm implements that could be used as weapons. Imagine if we lived in a world which was largely populated by teenagers who had easy access to guns.
I'd have to go up into the attic to dig it out but years ago I did some research into that very point. In brief, the murder rate in 14th century Yorkshire* was many times higher than that of the UK today. Indeed in absolute terms there were more people murdered per annum in Yorkshire then than there are in the whole of the UK today.
I find the middle ages, especially the 15th century fascinating. Soaring heights of civilisation and scholarship and a violent and brutal society combined in an era of such dramatic change that is probably not equalled until the 20th century.
* Before Morris Dancer and TSE beat me up, I have no information that suggests that Yorkshire was any more violent then than any other county. I chose it for the study simply because that is where the data was most available. am sure Sussex was as equally brutal and dangerous.
Your comment is even truer of the 16th century, which saw a huge advance in literacy and education, and the creation of many of the greatest works of art, architecture, and literature, combined with religious persecution and witch-hunts on an unprecedented scale.
I thought the TV show Game of Thrones in the last season did a very good job of showing what life would be like for regular people during medieval war time. The Riverlands and the North must have been very similar to Germany during the Thirty Years War.
OT I don't approve of all the playing of geopolitical silly-buggers that's been going on lately and it could all easily end in tears, but it's worth mentioning the fact that the EU seems to be winning its first major strategic conflict: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4-fklhIEAAUJk_.png
"Am sure Sussex was as equally brutal and dangerous."
Still is. ;-)
Thanks for the book advice. I'll get the three vols on Byzantium.
Never realised your name was a reference to your place of residence. You live near one of the prettiest racetracks in Britain, then? We must meet up there, or in one of the local hostelries.
OT I don't approve of all the playing of geopolitical silly-buggers that's been going on lately and it could all easily end in tears, but it's worth mentioning the fact that the EU seems to be winning its first major strategic conflict: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4-fklhIEAAUJk_.png
Lets hope doesn't feel the need of a show of force to stiffen the patriotic sinews at home, and then remembers his 15,000 tanks (ie as many as the USA and China put together)
Yup, seriously scary shit. But can they afford to drive the tanks anywhere?
When the Soviet Union tried to use force to reestablish control in Baltic states in January 1991, however, the reaction from the West–including from the United States–was fairly straightforward: “Do as you wish, this is your country. You can choose any solution, but please forget about the $100 billion credit.”
I thought the TV show Game of Thrones in the last season did a very good job of showing what life would be like for regular people during medieval war time. The Riverlands and the North must have been very similar to Germany during the Thirty Years War.
As do the books. And, they also portray sympathetic characters doing the sort of things we've been discussing on this thread.
Not in Japan, causing inflation is the main policy that the government just got re-elected on.
With the debts we've got we should be aiming for nominal GDP growth of 5%. Apparently inflation has dropped to 1% with the oil drop. I'm no expert but there's an idea called helicopter money. Last resort and all.
"Am sure Sussex was as equally brutal and dangerous."
Still is. ;-)
Thanks for the book advice. I'll get the three vols on Byzantium.
Never realised your name was a reference to your place of residence. You live near one of the prettiest racetracks in Britain, then? We must meet up there, or in one of the local hostelries.
I'd love to. A day at the races with you would I am sure be good fun and an education. There are some other Sussex PBers, maybe they would like to join in.
Very strange state of affairs in Germany where a tax ruling is likely to hit loads of companies, and no one seems to want the change except the constitutional court... Is this really a EU change they are trying really hard not to call an EU change, because its likely to cause them to have to abolish IHT.
As discussed last night, the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation are about to do to Wimbledon what they did to F1, as only the finals have to be on terrestrial
Sack the diversity officers, health and safety officers, countless managers, countless idiots and overpaid "stars". Wimbledon must stay on free-to-air TV and the BBC must keep MOTD. They also need to work with Sky to get the Ryder Cup live on air again, maybe just the final day, but it is one of the key reasons Rory didn't win SPOTY. If the world of golf is upset by this and are upset that growth in people taking up the sport has gone in reverse then they need to stop suckling at the teat of Sky's big money and get regular people watching major tournaments other than The Open.
They are likely to lose the MOTD highlights, because ITV want them, because ITV lost the champs league deal.
That makes it even more important to keep them. Limiting people's exposure to Adrian Chiles to just England matches would be a great win for the world of football.
Petrol anecdote; wife’s just come; £112.7 at the local Asda, £116.9 about half a mile away, but then £114.9 at the nearest Morrisons.
I just paid less than a pound a litre last night.
It felt wonderful
(Fuel is £114.9 but had a 20p of a litre offer with tesco)
Given the time lag between crude oil prices changing and pump prices changing, it's only a matter of time before the first (genuine) 99p litre.
You mean a week or two, involving the refinery process. Given that fuel duty is currently fixed at 58 pence per litre, I suspect the price of crude will need to fall a great deal further yet before there is any chance of the standard price of unleaded falling to below £1 per litre at the pumps.
Isn't there a delay anyway as companies buy ahead on wholesale markets?
All this chatter here today about Books and Historical Events, etc, it almost feels like Christmas Day. For a moment I was tempted to roll out my Kipper Tie joke, but will manage to contain myself until the big day.
Bloody hell! Check out the Russian Rouble today. 80 to the dollar. An astonishing collapse that may not end well for anyone.
Putin is reaping what he has sowed.
BBC reporting that “the rouble has lost more than 50% against the US dollar this year, hit by oil price falls and Western sanctions. - Both of these have weakened the economy.”
Yes, downing the Malaysia Airline jet MH17, has proved extremely costly for Putin.
All this chatter here today about Books and Historical Events, etc, it almost feels like Christmas Day. For a moment I was tempted to roll out my Kipper Tie joke, but will manage to contain myself until the big day.
Good man. Having the Kipper Tie joke early would be a serious breach of site protocol.
Very strange state of affairs in Germany where a tax ruling is likely to hit loads of companies, and no one seems to want the change except the constitutional court... Is this really a EU change they are trying really hard not to call an EU change, because its likely to cause them to have to abolish IHT.
Why do you obsess about the EU so? The FT says ''Following a 2009 reform, recipients of business assets are exempt from 85 per cent of inheritance taxes if the owners do not cut jobs and wages for five years. If after seven years there are still no lay-offs then the new company owners are not liable for any inheritance tax at all''
Unsurprisingly the law seems to have opened up a range of loopholes. '' “The level of exemptions for companies is excessive and I would be very surprised if the court did not share this view,” said Lars Feld, director of the Walter Eucken Institute in Freiburg and a member of chancellor Angela Merkel's panel of economic advisers.''
Comments
You'd enhance UKIP's credibility overnight.
The plot of Hi-Fidelity was based on a single Xmas hit funding the character's lifestyle.
Left wingers want wages to rise rather than inflation to fall. An ideal left wing position is wages rising 15% with inflation of 10% rather than wage rises of 5% with zero inflation.
Discuss.
In the same way, there is currently media mileage to be had if you're a loony and claim that you're a convert to Islam and think ISIS is a jolly good thing. That doesn't mean Islam is responsible for your views, merely that responsible Muslims should say you're a madman talking nonsense, which is exactly what they did after the Australia case. I don't even think that we should expect them to repeat it after every incident, any more than we expect Christian leaders to issue a statement after any loony self-labelled Christian attacks an abortion clinic.
Does that mean that Islam is wonderful? Not at all: people have all kinds of views on that. It merely means that it's not reasonable to tar them with the brush of nutters.
Need I say more?
The whole incident doesn't reflect well on UKIP, and could well be why the polls aren't so good.. I have reconsidered my own willingness to stand on the back of this nonsense. But it does seem obvious to anyone who hasn't got it in for UKIP generally, that they are trying to prevent people like Smith, Hamilton and Bolter from representing them in South Basildon
Is Hamilton still the deputy chairman of UKIP?
Remember George W Bush said the war in Afghanistan was a crusade.
Plus our recent history doesn't put us in a good light, for example most people in this country believe Tony Blair lied about the Casus belli for Iraq.
Britain has been the colonial power in that part of the world.
Not so long ago, we invaded a country in that part of the world for their oil.
The answer to which is a clear "yes".
It is to ask, "would depositors be safe if x happened?"
And in the case of all the British banks except the Co-op, the answer is "yes"
I know a few people who would like to stand as MPs but aren't primarily for the following reasons
1) Their lives are already hectic enough
2) They can't afford the salary drop
3) They don't fancy living their life under constant scrutiny.
It felt wonderful
(Fuel is 114.9p but had a 20p off a litre offer with tesco)
Could be some decent publicity in it.
I said "any one who doubts that most of the current terrorist acts are connected with Islam is stark raving mad"
Not that all muslims were.. but you choose to talk to me like a kid that doesnt get it yet.
The Australian incident was obviously a lone wolf madman, who just happened to be a muslim, but across the middle east and in Africa there are large groups of people who are not madmen in that sense, unless you are someone who classes all religious belief as madness
I didn't criticise Islam at all, I am criticising the people telling the public something that is manifestly at odds with what they are seeing & hearing with their own eyes & ears.. you are doing it too, comparing it to incidents that dont happen en masse, on a daily basis...so proving my point.
Your comparison with UKIP is awful because, when a lone UKIP nutter does something racist/sexist/homophobic, we are told that this is typical of UKIP by politicians and the media (not to mention on here).. that is the complete opposite of what they say about Islam when people are killed in their name.
I would put in the plug for my local butcher, the excellent Clive Miller of Hurstpierpoint, who does a wonderful range of excellent home made sausages. However, despite my constant nagging he still doesn't do mail order so do so would probably be a waste of time.
That said Herself came home from Aldi the other week with some of their pork and herb sausages, which were excellent (no fat or water leaked during cooking) and very cheap. Reading the label, they also had a better spec in terms of meat content and additives than Tescos' finest. Much to be recommended...
Honestly, take out the snob value and there is not much wrong with Aldi. Their wine range is also in my experience worth keeping under careful observation as they often have some very decent stuff and very reasonable prices (e.g. the Vinho Verde they had a couple of months back), but the good deals don't tend to last long.
His thesis - and I think it's well-argued -is that mindless religious bigotry was not why people Duke Godfrey, Richard III, and Saladdin massacred prisoners and sacked cities that offered resistance. It was far more calculating and cold-blooded than that. Sacking a city that offered resistance was standard operating practice, as it induced other garrisons to surrender on terms. Both sides were willing to accept ransoms for prisoners, but were quite prepared to kill them when ransom terms weren't complied with - and in the case of the Templars, they were such brave and fanatical fighters that it made more sense for the Muslims to kill them when they captured them.
Is one of those areas of history I want to learn more about.
How the EU is throttling online business with idiotic VAT reform
Do you enjoy shopping online with small businesses? The EU is poised to wreck it through sheer incompetence
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/11295953/How-the-EU-is-throttling-online-business-with-idiotic-VAT-reform.html
Suppose, hypothetically, Hamilton had contacts that could bring in a lot of funding to the party but wanted the DC job as recognition of that help, the party might feel the compromise was worth it.
Russian traders shorting the national currency are likely to receive a visit in the small hours from people with unusually thick necks.
All Governments decry inflation. But when you have oodles of debt, high inflation is good news as your ability to repay the debt - all things being equal - rises as the real value of the debt falls.
Con:
As inflation rises, interest rates tend to rise so the cost of borrowing new money rises. And the value of Government Debt with low interest rates falls. So pension funds and banks etc take huge hit... The cost of replacing inventory rises so straining business cashflow. Wage rates rise withe the risk of a spiral... Individual savings tend to get wiped out. Asset prices rise..The value of your currency declines raising import prices and feeding more inflation.. see the 1980s...
"He's Farage's deputy and people are entitled to draw conclusions from that"
So you are asking people to draw conclusions from a statement you have made, even though you don't know if it is correct?
Highly illogical
You can just say you are wrong here and now if you want it to be over quickly
Take pity of your town and of your people,
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod's bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,
Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?
bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pjrt5/the-richest-songs-in-the-world
Do you want to chunk it down a little? Which crusade or period are you interested in?
Landline 67%
Cell 52%
Text 39%
Email 40%
Social media 16%
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/12/public-confidence-in-the-security-of-core-communications-channels-is-low/ …
Seems about right to me, although Social media is about 16% too high...
Sacking a city that refused to surrender and forced an assault was standard in warfare for millennia; most certainly during the Medieval period and even into modern times (see the British army in the Peninsular war). Judging our forebears conduct by today's standards is not a useful habit but one that seems to be used by people trying to make a political point rather than understand history..
Wasn’t it cheaper for commanders to allow victorious troops to sack a city, since that meant the soldiers weren’t so worried about being paid?
Storming a city often was extremely costly or the attacking forces - both in terms of time (breaching walls by catapult or artillery could take weeks), and in terms of dead and injured . Pretty hard to keep morale up in a long siege... if all you would do at the end is take prisoners and respect the property rights of the conquered.
But the prospect of largescale looting and rape - effectively condoned by your military commanders- could ensure your soldiers were pretty motivated to fight on....
PS - Thanks to SeanF for his suggestions.
tl;dr The UKIP Chairman is Steve Crowther.
http://www.ukip.org/people_key
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/11295710/Wimbledon-could-go-to-pay-TV-as-BBC-considers-sharing-broadcasting-rights.html
There are counter-examples one can come up with both in terms of commanders trying to prevent a sack (e.g. Wellington) and commanders encouraging a slaughter of the worst kind (e.g The Black Prince) and there are examples of a bloody sack being and instrument of policy (see the career of Sir John Hawkwood in Italy), but I think my premise generally holds.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/12/exclusive-mrs-farage-is-still-paid-for-by-public-sector-despite-gogglebox-denial/
"Ukip has confirmed this morning that Nigel Farage’s wife is still in receipt of public money — despite an on air denial from her husband. "
Like his manifesto he is clueless to what reality is - still off down the pub for a pint eh ?
"Imagine if we lived in a world which was largely populated by teenagers who had easy access to guns."
You mean the USA?
While you're giving out suggestions, what's the best history of the Eastern Roman Empire you've read? I feel my knowledge of its evolution is weak, relative to its importance. I find it shocking that so many people don't seem to know the Roman Empire continued through the Middle Ages, just because the Western half fell.
The first volume is, I see available on Amazon, for fifteen quid - a price well worth paying.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4-fklhIEAAUJk_.png
P.S. Morris Dancer put me onto Norwich on this site some years ago and may provide a wider review.
https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/544832629343014913
"I have now officially given up on politics until the New Year."
A pity others who have done the same don't take similar action. Reading through the threads might be less like wading through treacle.
Mr. Eagles, I'd actually already read that piece. The EU #vatmess is epic in its stupidity. It's ****ing crazy.
One small example is that I've taken down my books from Smashwords, as a precaution. A beta-reader said she was enjoying my WIP so much she wanted to order my other books. And I had to explain why epubs aren't available anymore [for now, at least], and we're having a ridiculous conversation as Amazon is the only source to buy.
And the law was meant to get tax from Amazon, not hammer its rivals!
John Julis Norwich's History of Byzantium in three volumes is fun to read, but he is prone to treat a good anecdote as fact.
AHM Jones "The Later Roman Empire" is very strong on the early years of the Byzantine Empire, as it covers the period 284-602 AD in both East and West.
I also have Sir Steven Runciman's history of Romanus Lecapenus, the 10th century Emperor, which is an excellent read.
Mr. Llama, the Byzantium trilogy by John Julius Norwich is one of the few histories I've read twice, cover-to-cover. I heartily recommend it. A review I wrote from 2011 is here: http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/book-review-byzantium-by-john-julius.html
I find the middle ages, especially the 15th century fascinating. Soaring heights of civilisation and scholarship and a violent and brutal society combined in an era of such dramatic change that is probably not equalled until the 20th century.
* Before Morris Dancer and TSE beat me up, I have no information that suggests that Yorkshire was any more violent then than any other county. I chose it for the study simply because that is where the data was most available. am sure Sussex was as equally brutal and dangerous.
It's certainly an unexpected coincidence of theatre and politics.
I thought the TV show Game of Thrones in the last season did a very good job of showing what life would be like for regular people during medieval war time. The Riverlands and the North must have been very similar to Germany during the Thirty Years War.
EDIT: Oops. Must learn to read graph scales properly - can't really compare a day with a year!
"Am sure Sussex was as equally brutal and dangerous."
Still is. ;-)
Thanks for the book advice. I'll get the three vols on Byzantium.
Never realised your name was a reference to your place of residence. You live near one of the prettiest racetracks in Britain, then? We must meet up there, or in one of the local hostelries.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-16/billions-in-german-family-wealth-threatened-by-tax-ruling.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30491135
For a moment I was tempted to roll out my Kipper Tie joke, but will manage to contain myself until the big day.
Yes, downing the Malaysia Airline jet MH17, has proved extremely costly for Putin.
The FT says
''Following a 2009 reform, recipients of business assets are exempt from 85 per cent of inheritance taxes if the owners do not cut jobs and wages for five years. If after seven years there are still no lay-offs then the new company owners are not liable for any inheritance tax at all''
Unsurprisingly the law seems to have opened up a range of loopholes.
'' “The level of exemptions for companies is excessive and I would be very surprised if the court did not share this view,” said Lars Feld, director of the Walter Eucken Institute in Freiburg and a member of chancellor Angela Merkel's panel of economic advisers.''