(10-04-2019, 12:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, you asked what makes a sacrifice successful or a failure. A true sacrifice is always successful. So yeah.. true sacrifice=honor. As to "throwing Bergdahl in there" I leave it to you to figure out.
Sounds like a circular definition.
How can you tell if a sacrifice is "successful"? Ans: If it's "true."
How can you tell if it is "true"? Ans: If it's "successful."
Custer made a "true sacrifice" you'd say? Or an unnecessary one? The answer maybe gets us out of the circle
(10-04-2019, 12:57 AM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like a circular definition.
How can you tell if a sacrifice is "successful"? Ans: If it's "true."
How can you tell if it is "true"? Ans: If it's "successful."
Custer made a "true sacrifice" you'd say? Or an unnecessary one? The answer maybe gets us out of the circle
Same question for the Light Brigade.
I most likely doubt that....but I do see you keep changing the criteria. It's when from successful, to honorable, to unnecessary..who knows where it will go next.
Remember this all started with your questioning the success of King Leonidas' sacrifice and just kinda morphed from there.
But my answer to your question remains unchanged. The "success" of a sacrifice is measured simply on the sacrifice. How dare you to call one unsuccessful.
(10-04-2019, 12:33 AM)Dill Wrote: I used to live there, at the Crow Agency. Went back for my HS reunion last month.
When I was in HS kids used to drive up there and park.
Now you have to pay to get onto the battlefield and it's closed at night.
We, today, don't really have a concept of what the West was like back then.
People in government were pretty frugal. After the Civil War, they had a massive draw down of the military. Particularly the Army. The size of the Army went from just over one million in 1865 to 58,000 in 1866. During most of the 1870's and 1880's, it was half that size (@28,000). We didn't see any real land-borne threats. The Indian "Wars" were actually viewed more as police actions rather than actual wars.
So, you had a small force (maybe one third of the total force of 28,000, or 10,000... about the size of a single small infantry division) charged with covering a massive frontier (probably in excess of two million square miles of more). And in that frontier, you probably had several million native Americans. Additionally, you had tens of thousands of white settlers moving West.
Considering the disparity of numbers, you might get a sense that this was a hopeless job. But our soldiers had a few things going for them: good leadership, planning, logistics, experience, discipline and the horse. The soldiers that came out West after the war were mostly veterans of the war. Hardened veterans. Most had been in the cavalry during the war they knew how to ride and shoot and how to operate under fire. The veterans would have been in their 30's in the 1870's and their 40's in the 1880's. Their leaders (Sherman, Crook, etc.) were also experienced. And they, Custer included, understood the importance of logistics. Hence one of the first items was constructing forts to operate out of and to protect supply lines settler trails. This was the same basic plan which the crusaders had used to set up their kingdoms in the Levant seven hundreds years earlier. And they, in turn had learned it from the Romans.
The plan to deal with the Native tribes was pretty simple: negotiate with them so that they would stay in their areas and leave the other areas alone (namely, the other areas were the settlers wanted to settle). At the time, no one knew exactly how many people in the East would eventually move West. It was a thing that was happening before their eyes. Therefore, it was initially felt that the number of settlers would eventually slow down. Hence the "you stay in your yard and we'll stay in ours" ideology sort of made sense. But as more folks moved West, encroachments started happening and lawmakers, under political pressure, began breaking deals. And, as we know, some of the natives didn't take this too well.
As I noted before, our military force was pretty darn small. In most major engagements, they were far outnumbered. But they usually won. This was primarily due to their experience, discipline and tactics more than anything else. They were a professional force.
(BTW- cavalry soldiers in the West almost always dismounted to engage an enemy. Accuracy and disciplined fire and cover and concealment where available were considered crucial to to winning a fight. Plus, horses make big targets and you risked injury and death from getting thrown if your horse was shot. The horse was merely a conveyance or vehicle to get them to the potential battlefield quickly.)
With some of the tribes getting angry, a new strategy was needed. The new plan was somewhat simple: keep the natives from assembling in large groups (i.e. disperse). The strategy latter would be to keep natives on negotiated reservations (i.e. containment). But during Custer's time, the mission was very much to disperse. Dispersal is an offensive action. In order to do this when you were outnumbered, you needed some solid tactics.
One of the more popular tactics at the time (particularly championed by Custer) was to feint an attack in one direction and have another group swiftly ride into the Native encampment, seize the women and children (large native assemblies almost always brought their women and children with them), and hold them hostage until the Native leaders negotiated and dispersed. And this tactic was popular because it almost always worked. One of the reasons it worked was because it was used against different tribes at different times scattered across the West.
The Battle of Little Bighorn was different, however. The size of the Native assembly was far, far larger than anything they had ever seen. Custer knew it was large. Archeologists and historians now believe that he not only planned for the initial feint, but also included two other feint attacks by the troops with him as he rode the ridge. But it is doubtful that he realized exactly how large the assembly was. It is pretty clear from the battlefield remains that he felt he could find some place to turn left, cross the river and move into the camp. There was no place. I suspect the Natives got wind of the cavalry tactics and did something they normally didn't do, divided their forces. In any event, as Custer and his troops rode the ridge line north looking for a place to cross, Native warriors followed and were able to assemble in force each time to cavalry tried to feint or cross.
(10-03-2019, 11:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Mary, Mary, quite contrary, who won the effing war? Leonidas stayed behind after being betrayed and delayed the Persians. He could have retreated with the vast majority of his forces, that he ordered away. He fought a delaying action at the cost of his life to protect his people.
It's rather telling that two of our farthest left leaning posters view such an intentional sacrifice as a "failure".
I didn't say he wasn't brave. I said his mission failed.
There's a difference.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(10-04-2019, 12:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, you asked what makes a sacrifice successful or a failure. A true sacrifice is always successful. So yeah.. true sacrifice=honor. As to "throwing Bergdahl in there" I leave it to you to figure out.
Not if the mission fails and the person who sacrifices himself is around to fight bravely another day. Who was saved is a better test of whether a sacrifice was successful in my book.
But bringing up someone who deserted seems to add nothing to the discussion about sacrifice. No one on "the left" as you bff would say was a successes or honorable in this discussion.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Still talking about the guy in a good way 2500 years later. Not talking about Anatole the gyro maker, so that's a measure of success.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(10-04-2019, 09:26 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Still talking about the guy in a good way 2500 years later. Not talking about Anatole the gyro maker, so that's a measure of success.
We talk about pontius Pilate too. Still talking about Hitler, Benedict Arnold, etc.
Good stories get shared.
This is starting to remind of Lt. Dan talking about his family's proud military history.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(10-04-2019, 09:29 AM)GMDino Wrote: We talk about pontius Pilate too. Still talking about Hitler, Benedict Arnold, etc.
Good stories get shared.
This is starting to remind of Lt. Dan talking about his family's proud military history.
I really don't care about the argument going on, but he did specify talking about him in a good way.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(10-04-2019, 01:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I most likely doubt that....but I do see you keep changing the criteria. It's when from successful, to honorable, to unnecessary..who knows where it will go next.
Remember this all started with your questioning the success of King Leonidas' sacrifice and just kinda morphed from there.
But my answer to your question remains unchanged. The "success" of a sacrifice is measured simply on the sacrifice. How dare you to call one unsuccessful.
Oh! So you are just saying he wanted to die and did. Nothing to do with the mission. Got it.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(10-04-2019, 10:18 AM)GMDino Wrote: Oh, I didn't realize this was a semantics argument.
My bad. lol
We talk in a "good" way about a lot of people who failed. "At least they tried." lol
Well for warriors in antiquity all the way through the middle ages, reputation and glory were everything. I'd say he achieved that.
How many people did their small number kill and wound that wouldn't go on to fight tomorrow?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(10-04-2019, 10:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I guess we need to add "semantics" to the list of words you don't understand.
Anyway:
Lt. Dan talked about all of his ancestors who died in every single war in a "good way". Did they MEAN to die? Was their PLAN to sacrifice themselves? Or were they unlucky? Bad at what they did?
In the movie it is set up as it was his "destiny" to die.
So "success" for him was not winning the war, or completing a mission but to get killed trying.
I guess if your plan is to get killed and you do, no matter what else you did it can be a "successful" plan. I don't think the Spartans plan was to get killed though.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(10-04-2019, 10:36 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well for warriors in antiquity all the way through the middle ages, reputation and glory were everything. I'd say he achieved that.
How many people did their small number kill and wound that wouldn't go on to fight tomorrow?
I dunno how many they killed but they must have been "successful" too since they died, or something.
Again if the goal is to win or die trying then dying is successful I guess. I'd say that's more of a personal success than one for the team though. Especially since the Spartans didn't stop the Greeks like they wanted to. They did delay them...but it doesn't seem that was the plan.
Edit to add I only responded to this:
(10-03-2019, 10:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it didn't. He accomplished his goal and delayed the Persians long enough for the successful naval action that prompted the Persian's retreat. I suppose if you think dying to prevent the enslavement of your countrymen a failure then sure, he failed.
Because that was not his goal according to the link I shared.
No one said he wasn't brave. (No was said he was either to be fair.) What was said was he was not a failure for being killed during the mission. My point was the mission was a failure based on what I shared. I mean maybe the mission changed when everyone else ran off? Sure then he sacrificed to delay the inevitable and the Spartans lost a lot of good fighters and a leader for nothing other than a "delay".
I think we've gotten WAY off topic though about invading the homes of gun owners because they have guns.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(10-04-2019, 01:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I most likely doubt that....but I do see you keep changing the criteria. It's when from successful, to honorable, to unnecessary..who knows where it will go next.
I haven't changed any criteria. How can an unnecessary sacrifice be a "successful" one--unless the point of the sacrifice was ideological, i.e. unless sacrifice was the point.
You are clearly dodging my question about Custer. Was disobeying orders and leading hundreds of men to their death in a quest for personal glory a "true sacrifice" or not?
(10-04-2019, 01:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Remember this all started with your questioning the success of King Leonidas' sacrifice and just kinda morphed from there.
LOL didn't realize I was NOT supposed to do that.
You seem pretty uninterested in the historical record and what can or cannot actually be inferred from it.
Someone said "sacrifice" and you saluted. How dare someone else not!
(10-04-2019, 01:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But my answer to your question remains unchanged. The "success" of a sacrifice is measured simply on the sacrifice. How dare you to call one unsuccessful.
Your answer to my question remains a non answer and a dodge.
And I do "dare" to call some sacrifices "unsuccessful," and most especially where judged simply on the sacrifice--from Custer to Kamikaze pilots to Tamil Tigers to a variety of contemporary suicide bombings.
The advantage of a circular definition of your sort is that people can deploy it according to all manner of ideological criteria, and defend it the way ideological criteria are usually defended----appealing to historical record when it suits them and trying to shut the other guy up when it does not. Historical comparisons tend to bring out the real ground of definition, as sacrifices for the wrong cause are deemed not really "true sacrifices." even when they are truly sacrifices.
(10-04-2019, 10:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: I dunno how many they killed but they must have been "successful" too since they died, or something.
Again if the goal is to win or die trying then dying is successful I guess. I'd say that's more of a personal success than one for the team though. Especially since the Spartans didn't stop the Greeks like they wanted to. They did delay them...but it doesn't seem that was the plan.
Quote:No, it didn't. He accomplished his goal and delayed the Persians long enough for the successful naval action that prompted the Persian's retreat. I suppose if you think dying to prevent the enslavement of your countrymen a failure then sure, he failed.
Because that was not his goal according to the link I shared.
No one said he wasn't brave. (No was said he was either to be fair.) What was said was he was not a failure for being killed during the mission. My point was the mission was a failure based on what I shared. I mean maybe the mission changed when everyone else ran off? Sure then he sacrificed to delay the inevitable and the Spartans lost a lot of good fighters and a leader for nothing other than a "delay".
I think we've gotten WAY off topic though about invading the homes of gun owners because they have guns.
You must have never been in on a firearms discussion before then. They always end up discussing the Battle of Thermopylae.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(10-04-2019, 10:36 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well for warriors in antiquity all the way through the middle ages, reputation and glory were everything. I'd say he achieved that.
How many people did their small number kill and wound that wouldn't go on to fight tomorrow?
Not sure rep was supposed to trump survival of one's city state. The Greek hoplites who stood at Thermopylae were more citizen soldiers than "warriors." Not like the petulant, erratic and untrustworthy "heros" of Homeric legend.
But rep likely played a role at Thermopylae. 10 years earlier the Spartans, after much big talk, had arrived late to Marathon, leaving the victory largely to the glory of Athenians. Hence some motivation to make a show this time. Though honorable retreat would not likely have hurt their rep much. As I say above, the last stand may have bought time for a retreat of the (small) bulk of the Greek forces, but it played no discernible role in the later Greek victories which counted. It's not even clear a last stand was intended. It might have been a holding action, with Greeks surrounded before they could pull out of the trap.
Some place Persian losses as high as 20,000, but that's the damage of the entire Greek force of 7,000+ over the first two days.
The last stand on day three was probably about a thousand men, plus some 400 Theban "hostages" who may have surrendered rather than fight.
Interesting to me is how the story of this one group of Spartans lived on to be integrated with nationalist ideologies in the 19th-20th centuries. In American versions, the Spartans are often imagined as defenders of "freedom" (not really a Lacedemonian value) and the Persians of despotism.
(10-04-2019, 11:16 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You must have never been in on a firearms discussion before then. They always end up discussing the Battle of Thermopylae.
Weird! Usually I only hear such discussion being yelled between two men sitting in those trucks with the six foot lift kits installed.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(10-03-2019, 05:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nope. Even in every attempt I have made at trying to resolve these issues, I have avoided the idea of a registry. I also don't like being licensed to own a firearm. I don't have any objections for a permit-to-purchase, which is different, or even a permit to carry in public, but a license to own should not happen.
What is your problem with being licensed to own a gun? And this is aimed at not just Bels, but everyone else who said they would not. (Harley, Dill, Mmichaelsean, Cupcakes, Bfine, etc)
Right now when the police encounter a person with a gun they have no idea if that person is a violent convicted felon or mentally unstable. And if that person has no ID on them it is impossible to find out.
Then there is the issue of people who have no clue how to safely use a gun possessing one.
Seems to me anyone who cares about keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, people who are mentally unstable, or people who have no idea how to safely use a gun would be in favor of a gun license.
![[Image: BpbFPh6CAAAGR-j.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpbFPh6CAAAGR-j.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 416686247_404249095282684_84217049823664...e=659A7198]](https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/416686247_404249095282684_8421704982366424390_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=p8hMrwwk1IoAX8mnFLJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBXs4gKHr4knFejO874dfV3zzLd_bq4GiUqHxGWFlwbug&oe=659A7198)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
