It is the (often cynical) humour of the British "Tommy" that sees him through. I found this in a book I am currently reading ( "Gone for a Soldier, A History of Life in the British Ranks") and thought it might lighten the mood after my last post.And nothing changes!
As it was (60 AD)
And is now (2007AD)
12 comments:
Just to be totally inappropriately frivolous, I do like the shame of the tummy plate on the Roman armour; must allow for overindulgence of liquamen and stuffed dormice...
I guess you meant "shape", rather than "shame", Lucy! I can see where you are coming from, but it is actually his helmet hanging there!
Ah, they both look a tad uncomfortable don't they. although I know which one I think is more attractive.......but then that is the only thing attractive about war, isn't it. I have a son in the Marines....
Nea:
The glory and pomp of uniforms, bands, parades etc. That is the attractive bit - but one always has to remember that the prime duty of a soldier is legalised killing!
I think maybe there is more protection in non-bare legs, despite the armour!
I am waiting for a post about your Roman legion meet-up -- I've saved material for comment on re-enactments on both sides of the atlantic...
Avus
Yes, the pomp and circumstance is a wonderful thing and still sends shivers down my spine whenever I see a parade, even after being out for 11 years (was very fortunate not to be involved in the legalised killing bit).
Pete
Pete: When I was in "The Mob" I always loved drill and marching behind a band could almost bring one to orgasm (only almost!). I even liked the "bull" involved in cleaning the kit.
If only soldiering was just that!
Granny J:
For the lowdown on our "Roman Legion" go to:
http://www.erminestreetguard.co.uk/
we have finished displays for this year (weather too cold for those bare legs!)
"And nothing changes"
Well, unfortunately it does, but for the worse. We're now more easily able to kill far more people; we can destroy ourselves and the world we live in with relative ease compared to 60 A.D.
Any ideas about how that might be changed, or are we doomed — at least to perpetual pessimism?
P'pete:
I suppose, in Britain in 63 AD when the Roman Legions obliterated the Icenian tribes, led by Boudicca, the Icenians who remained thought that the end of the world had come. Hand to hand fighting was bloody, grisly and vicious. War and destruction was local and parochial.
As "civilisation" has progressed (?) it marches hand in hand with refined and extended killing methods. Our horizons and knowledge extend to a world view, wars now involve more populations. Man seems programmed to indulge in warfare for some reason. (Only man and chimpanzees seem to go out intending to kill their own species).
If there is any antidote to the "perpetual pessimism" I guess it is that we have had the means to obliterate civilisation for over 60 years, but having used it against Japan in 1945 and seen the result, we have never used it since.
How is it that nations sleep walk into conflict? No individual wants a war, but a few politicians can lead us into one. It is the sheep dog principle - a flock of sheep could trample a controlling dog, but allow themselves to be coralled by it.
I think the soldiers are slow learners!
Post a Comment