269 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2024
    1. I wave my hands over the text, say a few academic buzzwords (deconstruction! structure! gender! problematic!) and the text just vanishes into a smoke-cloud of confusingly overwritten sentences and tendentious conclusions.

      Probably the funniest portrayal of academia.

    1. Far more than Tinkerbell, regimes and governments need us to believe in them or they die.

      LOL

    2. These masterworks do indeed seem to project a world of enjoyment and artistic pleasure in utter disconnect with Bentivoglio’s despair.  Can this be the same Renaissance?

      I see where this is going. No, artistic development is not synonymous with overall prosperity. Especially with artists delivering work for only elites!

    1. Now, I didn’t lead with that because I wanted to attack this idea dispassionately, from a historical angle first – to present that case without first staining the idea by invoking Godwin’s Law. I wanted to show that this theory of history wasn’t sustainable, even on its own terms.

      Good instinct, Bret.

  2. Sep 2024
    1. People began cracking down on non-licensed medical practitioners. If these people were actually skilled in terms of medicine then for real, why TF was everyone dying on the regular? Soon laws began to propagate stating that only licensed, i.e. university educated physicians could practice medicine.

      What people? What laws? In what time period? This is remarkably unspecific.

    1. “I need a healing ritual performed,” she said. “On me.”

      Why does Yolanda need to be healed, and does the reader need to know?

    2. “Even stupid ones,” she whispered.

      Good dialogue.

    3. it

      Unclear what 'it' is here.

    4. Madero

      It is not common knowledge that Madero is in the state of Nuevo Leon, and some readers may be confused when you give two seemingly unconnected place names.

    5. the other did not

      Enrique's human form does not receive any description. Would he be naked? Would he be adorned with the knives mentioned previously?

    6. stilleto

      *stiletto

    7. he picked up a single large, blackfeather.

      Didn't you specifically mention 'flutter of feathers'? It makes sense that there would only be one-- but Yolanda would have to pick up those feathers and she'd have to leave one behind.

    8. gallo

      Was she speaking Spanish or English prior to calling Enrique 'gallo'?

    9. it

      If Yolanda went to the trouble of naming her rooster 'Enrique', wouldn't 'it' have male pronouns?

    10. he found no unusual sum of money, and so, gave itback to her.

      Ha! This is a good detail.

    11. who was sitting next to his mother with a bag of popcorn leftover from a matineemovie

      I'm leaning toward this being too much detail. This could be simply expressed as 'a boy with popcorn'

    12. not only becauseshe was wearing snakeskin boots and a miniskirt at six in the afternoon on a Sunday, but also because shecarried a large, glossy-feathered black rooster seated between her knees.

      Very suggestive straight away!

    Annotators

    1. behind by twenty strokes in crossing the river and back.

      No wonder he rejects the Vicario girl-- he's looking for nothing less than perfect in his wife.

    2. She seemed to have secretthreads of communication with the other people in town, especially those herage,

      The classic trope of prescient old ladies knowing everything.

    1. wearing a Sunday dress with blue flowers that she had puton in case the bishop came by to pay us a call, and she was singing the fado about invisiblelove

      That love is invisible, intangible, inconceivable...

    2. The only thing they knew for sure was that Angela Vicario'sbrothers were waiting for him to kill him.

      I bet Santiago took Angela's virginity.

    3. No one even wondered whether Santiago Nasar had been warned, becauseit seemed impossible to all that he hadn't

      Santiago really just ignored the letter on his floor telling him 'they're gonna kill you!' This mans is really just the easiest to kill person in the world.

    4. brahim Nasar boughtit at a cheap price in order to set up an import store that he never did establish, and onlywhen he was going to be married did he convert it into a house to live in.

      Must've been one of those rich Arabs.

    5. Victoria Guzman needed almost twenty years to understand that a man accustomedto killing defenceless animals could suddenly express such horror. "Good heavens," sheexplained with surprise. "All that was such a revelation."

      The nonlinear storytelling here is slightly annoying. Like, when the hell is this narrator telling this story?

    6. "He was the man in my life."

      What a delightfully nondescriptive phrase. sighs 'He was... a man in my life, I guess.'

    7. If it hadn't been for the bishop's arrival, he would have dressed in his khaki outfitand the riding boots he wore on Mondays to go to The Divine Face, the cattle ranch he'dinherited from his father and which he administered with very goodjudgment but withoutmuch luck.

      A very good exposition, tied in with his clothing. It tells us about the bishop, the cattle ranch, even Santiago's father.

  3. Aug 2024
    1. folks tend to assume that absent government structures, the little guy gets a fairer shake, but a big part of the development that we see in early civic governments (e.g. Solon’s reforms at Athens, or the Struggle of the Orders in Rome) is that the civic expression of the state tended to provide a mechanism by which the commons might demand better treatment than what came before.

      Too true. In some idyllic proto-society, maybe folks were treated better, but it doesn't take long for elites to build up suitable surplus to oppress the peasants. Especially in agrarian settled societies dependent on wheat production, a labour-intense endeavour.

    2. civitas

      I love how in Latin, this would be pronounced 'kiwi-toss'.

    1. colleague

      'colleague Cerbin'; Mastema did not miss her name.

    2. task forc

      'an alliance'

    3. thecouncil building

      'the stinking bog of Purgatory'

    4. Go us.And thus... Eden is born.THE END

      Maybe she should end it with a cheesy task force name?

    5. Ari

      Should she spaz about the fact that she's on an angel-demon task force now? Maybe we should make light of the fact that in their theoretical it would be Ari leading the task force, and he'd have to decide if Cerbin makes the cut.

    6. The

      Intro with 'Let me make this clear:'

    7. He snaps his fingers...BOOM

      Don't like this. The transition should be their palace falling into the mud flats.

    8. Looks like

      Delete this.

    9. like

      'approve of'

    10. slave

      'boy'

    11. (Like Rent is Due)

      Hilarious.

    12. bitch

      Idk...

    13. attracted by a gravitational pull.

      Love it.

    14. I assureyou,

      Repetition.

    15. An appetite satiated is amatter resolved.

      'An appetite satiated is a problem eradicated. And everyone knows this council only creates problems...'

    16. figets with a tea biscuit.LAMIAPerhaps we take but a portion ofits power and slowly divide it...She begins using her talons to cut into the biscuit... tomake a point.LAMIA (CONT'D)Piece by piece to the lower lifeand then...(She eats the biscuit)

      I trust the animators will find a way to make this cool, 'cuz I'm not seeing it.

    17. wreak havoc behind

      'Destroy'. Or is the alliteration too much?

    18. hands

      'Custody'.

    19. brought directly

      Find fancy way to say this.

    20. for lack of a better word–

      Do we want this repeated?

    21. my liege.

      'Your Grace'. Anael is not her boss or liege.

    22. I justwant to get this over with to getsome lunch.

      Do we really want to introduce Anael as a lunch-loving glutton? I want some unrealistic optimism, a charming smile.

    23. Ari, calm down.

      Must be sassier.

    24. youdon’t break it

      'it returns to me intact'.

    25. ellish looking dagger.

      What happened to the sword?

    26. The Gardens of Machanon, thirdHeaven.

      Since we introduced this place as 'Purgatory', what is Gadreel looking at? They must be higher above Ari and Elise. Have a transition where we see how Cerbin reaches Ari. Maybe have her diving off the roof and flying through a vacuum to the Purgatory realm. We should definitely also see Machanon as Gadreel mentions it.

    27. your namemeans ‘lion of God’

      Hmm, too obvious. Needs to be more subtle.

    28. BEHOLD PURGATORY! A vast mystical metropolis stretching asfar as the eye can see. It is a neutral ground for the forcesof heaven and hell. There is a clash of architecture styles,with Heaven made buildings glistening and golden, whilst theHell-Made buildings look like the drawings you'd in a schoolshooters notebook.

      I like it, clash of styles!

    29. He brews some tea and pours it into ato-go cup.

      Too mundane. Perhaps he should form a golden orb around the tea, and he can use it as a weapon later.

    30. This room is the exact freaking opposite of Ari's. It isdark, drab, and a complete wreck. The aftermath of a delugeof demonic debauchery. Graffiti dots the walls, furniture isoverturned, naked imps lie around passed out, some poorschmuck is skewered to the wall.

      Love the edit so far!

    Annotators

  4. Jun 2024
    1. This sparks a hilarious sequence in which Guicciardini starts sending Machiavelli letters with increasing frequency, and stuffing them with random papers to make the packages fat, to get the monks to think that some important political thing is going on.  At one point a letter arrives saying that Guicciardini instructed the messenger to jog the last quarter mile so he would be sweaty and out-of-breath when he arrives, and Machaivelli describes with glee the increasing hubbub and attention he receives in the monastery as people become convinced that something of European import must be stirring.  Unfortunately a later letter hints that Machiavelli thinks they are on to the prank, and the correspondence ends there.

      Hilarious indeed.

    2. Some presented pessimistic accounts (by theist authors) of the modern decay of morals as atheism proliferated, while others presented optimistic accounts (by guess who) of the progress of secularization.

      Theists believe only God can provide morals, while atheists believe that humans provide morals, and the progression of secularisation modernises morals.

    1. the council emerges and Julius II has persuaded every crowned head of Europe to join into a Holy League and help him attack Venice and take all the former Borgia territories and turn them into his new papal Roman Empire.

      Everyone vs. Venice!

    2. This is not a good consequence erasing an evil act, it is the argument that the act itself is not evil because of its good consequence.

      Important distinction here. The evil was never present because of its outcome; in a sense, the end justifies the means. But at the same time, no one knows the future. Who's to say that devious means are guaranteed to lead to virtuous ends? Perhaps Cesare's escape leads to even greater bloodshed because now he's out for vengeance.

    1. The systematiccolonization·of Andalusia was hardly begun until the time of Charles III. It was firstundertaken with German settlers

      Is there anywhere the Germans aren't?! You have German infusions in Poland, Hungary, Spain...

    2. in the great eastern plains of the Balkans, inBulgaria, Rumelia, and Thrace, in the grain and rice producing regions,the Turkish regime of large estates and serf-villages took strong root,whereas it more or less failed in the mountains of the West.

      Strange, given how mountainous that region is.

    3. In the Mediterranean rich and powerful landownershad an essential role to play, increasingly so as smaIl-scale improvementswere abandoned in favour of extensive, long-term schemes. The goalcould only be achieved by holding ranks under a discipline possible onlythrough a rigid social order.

      Because of how Mediterranean land works, improving it involves cash which only the big landowners have. Vicious cycle.

    4. The Spanish enquiry of 1547 256 on property in Lombardy indicates thatthe peasants possessed less than 3 per cent of the land in the fertile lowerregion, while the poor land on the hills was very largely in their hands.Nothing could indicate better than these figures the conditions of life inthe plain. Here the peasant lived off very little, in deplorable conditionsof health and hygiene. He had masters and what he produced went to them.Often a newcomer, a simple man from the mountains, he might be cheatedby the landowner or his steward. In many ways he was a kind of colonialslave, whatever his precise position in law.

      That's sad. All but serfdom.

    Annotators

  5. May 2024
    1. Perhaps it was because at .this time man was running ahead of the enemy.

      What enemy? The landscape?

    2. The plain will soon be reduced to itsoriginal marshy statc: it is an automatic counter-improvement.

      A very atrophic predicament. It seems malaria and still waters go hand-in-hand.

    Annotators

  6. Mar 2024
    1. There are — he said — three kinds of scholar.  There is the ant, who ranges the Earth and gathers crumbs of knowledge and piles them, raising his ant-mound, higher and higher, competing to have the greatest pile to sit and gloat upon–he is the encyclopedist, who gathers but adds nothing.  There is the spider, who spins elaborate webs of theory from the stuff of his own mind, spinning beautiful, intricate patterns in which it is so easy to become entwined — he is the theorist, the system-weaver.  And then there is the honeybee, who gathers from the fruits of nature and, processing them through the organ of his own being, produces something good and useful for the world.  Let us be honeybees, give to the world, learning and learning’s fruits.

      Beautiful metaphor. I see too many ants and spiders these days.

    2. God planned the Crucifixion and wanted His Son to be lawfully executed by all humanity, so the sin and guilt and salvation would be universal, so He created the Roman Empire in order to have there be one government large enough to rule and represent the whole world (remember Dante’s maps have nothing south of Egypt except the Mountain of Purgatory).

      In a very limited medieval worldview, Rome encompassed the entire world. Except for the Persians, the Germans, the Slavs, the Goths, the Indians, the Chinese...

    3. if the entire world is a temporary construct designed by an omnipotent, omniscient Creator God for the purpose of leading humans through their many trials toward eternal salvation or damnation, then it’s madness to look to Earth history for any cause-to-effect chains, there is one Cause of all effects.  Medieval thought is no more monolithic than modern, but many excellent examples discuss the material world as a sort of pageant play being performed for us by God to communicate his moral lessons, and if one stage of history flows into another — an empire rises, prospers, falls — that is because God had a moral message to relate through its progression.

      Really good insight on the medieval mindset. Very deterministic, everything based on the will of God. Basically, all material things are Plato's cave-- mere shadows playing upon a blank wall-- and our souls are the spectators who will eventually break free from the cave into the light (or further darkness, I guess, if thou art a sinner).

    4. In such a history whole eras can be dismissed as unworthy of study for failing to forward progress (The Middle Ages did great stuff, guys!) while other eras can be disproportionately celebrated for advancing it (The Renaissance did a lot of dumb stuff too!). And, of course, whole regions can be dismissed for “failing” to progress (Africa, Asia) as can sub-regions (Poland, Spain).

      Whig/liberal history is a lot of what we see in American textbooks. So often the narrative is 'Spain fought some dumb wars and declined', or 'Poland had a dumb government so it died'; always the focus was on the major players. Which makes sense from a patriotic American perspective-- we only like winners-- but not much sense from a genuinely historical perspective.

  7. Dec 2023
    1. Now as I look back on this post, before hitting ‘publish,’ I see that it comes in essentially two parts: a quite long and rather technical discussion (with diagrams that I spent far too much time making!) of shield coverage and formation spacing, followed by some rather briefer conclusions at the end about how these formations actually worked. I’ll not cut the technical stuff – we are here for pedantry, after all – but if you want to skip through it, the ‘how to actually shieldwall’ part of the essay is at the end, under the section heading, “How to Actually Shieldwall.”

      Bret knows his audience and what they want, but instead of chopping up a perfectly good blog post in order to adapt to audience taste, he sticks true to himself and keeps in the pedantry.

    1. Siegfried needs to liberate knowledge (Alberich’s Hoard), imagination (Alberich’s Tarnhelm), and the gift of thought itself (Alberich’s Ring) from the fear (Fafner) which religious faith engenders, and also to liberate it from Alberich’s threat to use it to destroy every noble, idealistic impulse in man, in order to free art from its servitude to religion, so that secular art (especially Wagner’s art) can restore lost innocence.

      How would art restore lost innocence? By killing the gods? I'm down with the metaphors for the Hoard, the Tarnhelm, and the Ring, but it's so unclear how art fits into this.

    1. Getting a wing that had broken through to turn on the enemy center rather than plunder their camp demanded discipline and command skill.

      Not as easy as a click of the mouse button.

    2. The general in campaign is thus not looking at an incomplete but secure picture of the war on a map, but rather trying to make sense of a cloud of verbal or written reports (delivered as words, with all of their shades of meaning and difficulties of interpretation) many of which are inaccurate and some of which are blatantly false.

      This is an important point. The general isn't hunched over a map, but puzzling out a variety of verbal and written reports, each with their own levels of meaning and subtext.

    1. Ptolemaic Egypt and Roman Italy had similar population sizes, but the best army Ptolemy XIII could muster at the Battle of the Nile (47), in Egypt, was probably just under 30,000 troops(and not very good ones at that) for a battle for his very crown.

      Whoa, that is some incompetence

    2. this is a question which is highly technical, deeply uncertain and also not actually very interesting or impactful.

      The only people coopting Cleopatra's race are people with their own agendas for doing so.

    1. Greek farmland isn’t particularly good – the rivers aren’t large enough to do large scale Near Eastern style irrigation agriculture and the rainfall is fairly low, even compared to much of the rest of the Mediterranean.

      It's fascinating how such marginal land can give rise to such a powerful civilisation. The Greeks had just enough going for them to establish their empire.

    1. And the Senate’s stubborn failure to address perceived economic problems and the boiling crisis over the status of the socii also seems to have degraded its auctoritas.

      Political deadlock endemic to difficult political issues results in degrading auctoritas, without legal authority to fall back to.

    1. The Valhallan gods’ conditional immortality, Wotan’s debate with Fricka over free will, Wotan’s need for a savior-hero who will take on the burden of the gods’ guilt in order to redeem the gods by restoring lost innocence, Wotan’s nihilistic longing for the end of the world to eradicate the sin of existence itself, these are all Wagner’s idiosyncratic versions of Christian issues which he has painted in pagan colors.

      Interesting. Seems a very romantic view of Christianity as well.

    1. Bruennhilde is his metaphysical mother, by virtue of the fact that Wotan inseminated Bruennhilde, Wotan’s wish-womb, with the seed of his unspoken secret,

      Yup, still weird no matter how many times Heise repeats it.

    1. proves that Wagner did not, after all (at least in 1879), regard the Jewish character as eternally fixed by blood inheritance, since he suggests here that the Germans, if allowed to develop, would have passed on the positive traits their culture acquired to the Jews.

      This is a cope. Wagner was antisemitic, no use hiding it.

    1. Wotan’s abhorrence of his true nature and origin as a Nibelung

      Siegfried is Wotan, Brunnhilde is Wotan, Alberich is Wotan, Wotan is Wotan, now Mime is Wotan... who isn't Wotan in this opera?

    1. only an artist-hero capable of unconscious inspiration, and thus worthy to woo the muse of art, Bruennhilde

      But Siegfried doesn't cross the ring of fire by virtue of his being an artist-hero (whatever that means): he crosses it by virtue of his fearlessness.

    1. Siegfried, who is Wotan himself, minus consciousness of his true identity, history, and purpose.

      In some interpretations, that could be terrifying. Wotan is a relentless wanderer, a capitalistic blazer of trails and a wrathful god. Imagine Wotan without a knowledge of his own identity and purpose, a hero acting heroically just for the sake of it with no sense of morality.

    1. However, Wotan is getting at something else. He’s suggesting that even the compassionate, self-sacrificial love for which Bruennhilde now says she lives, and which is the essence of the love which Siegmund and Sieglinde share, is itself self-delusion which ignores the egoistic basis underlying all human motivation

      Why does Wotan need to philosophically justify his antipathy for Brunnhilde's rebellion? It's a long way to go to make Wotan out to be a good god. It makes more sense to interpret him as a petty authoritarian whose antipathy come from an emotional place rather than perfect godly logic.

    1. Was it so shameful what I did wrong that you punish that wrong in so shameful a way? [[ #96a: ]] Was it so base what I did unto you that you seek to debase me to fathomless depths? (#96a; #89 repeated 5 or 6 times in following passage:) Was what I did so lacking in honour my lapse must deprive me of honour (:#96a; :#89)?

      This reversal of the sentences is an identical literary technique to what Wotan did earlier ('you were once my wish-giver, but against me you have wished!'). Wish I could remember what that technique is called.

    1. for art provides the feeling that paradise is regained here and now, employing natural means to grant man the feeling of transcendence rather than making false practical promises of eternal life which can’t be satisfied.

      Yet the gods' immortality is canon in the world of the opera! You can't have it both ways, Heise!

    1. which makes consciously accumulating Alberich’s hoard of objective knowledge of the world, of man and nature, a psychological impossibility, and prevents religious man from fully exploiting his mind (Ring) and imagination (Tarnhelm). Fafner sitting on the inert hoard, without using it for power’s sake, embodies the stranglehold of religious faith - and the ancient traditions created by man yet regarded as divinely sanctioned - on progress, which depends upon freedom of thought and uncensored acquisition of objective knowledge.

      All this makes good sense if you consider the Ring as Consciousness and the Tarnhelm as Imagination.

    1. the seed of his unspoken secret, his poetic intent, and by virtue of being the womb of his wishes, figuratively gives birth to Siegfried and is in this sense co-mother with Sieglinde, Siegfried’s literal blood-mother.

      That just makes their relationship even more incestuous. Why the hell is Wagner obsessed with incest???

    1. a change of heart inspired by sheer compassion for Siegmund’s brave defiance of the gods for the sake of love, but even perhaps more by her intuition that the greatest of heroes, Siegmund’s son Siegfried, will be born of Sieglinde.

      Or Siegmund is pulling a toxic move by threatening Brunnhilde's conscience with his and his sister-wife's deaths.

  8. Nov 2023
    1. it proves that man’s very longing to break his bondage to egoism is ultimately inspired by egoism.

      Wotan cannot make a free man to do his will without first acknowledging the paradox that this man is, by definition, unfree. Honestly, I don't know why Wotan needs a 'free man' to recapture the Ring when he could send a god or something; just how specific is his treaty with Fafner? So much depends on terms the audience is not privy to, a contract we never know the specifics of.

    1. By imparting the knowledge to Bruennhilde which her mother Erda imparted to him, Wotan represses this knowledge and loses consciousness of it.

      How is making a confession 'repressing' anything? This makes little sense.

    1. Siegfried, who, thanks to Bruennhilde’s protection, is freed from the knowledge which paralyzed Wotan into inaction, so that Siegfried can spontaneously, joyously create art without fear.

      Wagner romanticises ignorance here, positing that without the crushing existential Noth that suppresses Wotan-- a realistic thing to think about-- Siegfried is naturally superior.

    2. It appears that thanks to self-deception, the sort of self-blinding or madness called Wahn, the world-creator Brahma no longer foresaw the evil his creation of the world would bring about, and so he was able to freely, fearlessly create what previously, through his foresight of the terrible truth, he was too depressed to create.

      Interesting myth. There must be a reason why a 'Maya' figure would eliminate Brahma's knowledge of evil. Maybe she decided the net benefits outweighed the costs.

    1. What here I saw, was no longer the Figure of conventional history [say, Wotan], whose garment claims our interest more than does the actual shape inside; but the real naked Man [i.e., Siegfried]

      Rousseau's 'noble savage', the oldest, purest form of manhood.

    1. Thus Alberich says that the possessor of his Ring (of consciousness) will be wracked with care, yet those who do not possess the Ring (i.e., who do not yet possess a high degree of consciousness) will be driven by insatiable greed for it. This is not only a description of Wagner’s theory of evolution, that it is the natural drive to move from unconsciousness to consciousness, but this could well be Wagner’s poetical metaphor for historical man’s quest for that knowledge which, once found, will retrospectively make null and void the very value of the quest for it.

      Good interpretation. This makes logical sense to me: those without the knowledge (ie, the Ring) will be consumed with envy and greed, while those with the knowledge (ie, the Ring) will be consumed with existential Noth and paranoia.

    1. It is important to understand early on that Alberich’s threat to doom anyone to death who wears his Ring does not mean literally that the Ring’s owner will die the moment he takes possession of or wears it. It means that he will be troubled by the thought of the inevitability of his eventual death, and/or by the thought of the inevitability of the destruction of those ideals, values, and beliefs which are predicated on the illusion that man has transcendent value, or a special relationship with supernatural beings.

      So how does the curse have the power to break the Norns' threads? And how come Brunnhilde and Siegfried are totally unaffected by the curse? The curse, like many other things, has a very undefined value as a plot device.

    1. the very property of the human mind which grants man seemingly limitless power to shape his world, the foresight which allows him to plan ahead and accumulate knowledge of the world, also grants man the troubling ability to foresee his inevitable death, and is therefore the basis for man’s existential fear.

      A very compelling argument for 'Ring= mind' analogy.

    1. Wagner says the Jews’ very nature condemns them to the world’s reality, so that they are in effect irredeemable:

      Yay antisemitism /s

    2. for Nature is heartless and devoid of feeling, and every egoist, ay, every monster, can appeal to her example with more cause and warranty than the man of feeling.”

      Not even inaccurate. Mother Nature doesn't give a shit about your feelings.

    1. consoling, imaginary reality, in which, for instance, men can enjoy sorrowless youth eternal.

      But the gods' immortality is real in the canon of the Ring Cycle. Is this author saying that everything is just a metaphor, except for the things that aren't? In this conception, Wotan's construction of Valhalla as the greatest crime against nature... because it's false? Being false hurts Mother Nature?

    1. his greed for power can ultimately only be fully assuaged by objective contemplation of the natural and human worlds,

      Is this the same Alberich that Loge duped into turning into a frog? You know, that objectively bad move he did?

    2. objective scientific inquiry is not emotionless or without motive. He felt scientific endeavor was an aspect of man’s will to power, the power to control his world, and that its consequences for any kind of higher, humane culture, founded on the ideals of the good and the beautiful, would be catastrophic.

      Objective does not equal good. Just because something is truthful and professional-looking doesn't mean it's without an agenda. The nuclear bomb is a very objective instrument, for instance.

    1. Alberich has the courage of his convictions and willingly admits he is driven solely by loveless egoism (which is why he alone is truly worthy of the Ring’s full, objective power), whereas Wotan can only abide the Ring (loathsome egoism) in its sublimated form as the noble abode of the gods (and the foundation of man’s idealism), Valhalla.

      Good themes at work. Alberich is powered by hatred and powerlust and all sorts of negativity, Wotan is powered by hope. But hope was paid for by Alberich's sins.

    1. Wotan has continually resisted Loge’s suggestion that Wotan return the Ring to the Rhinedaughters, Wotan makes a case for the Rhinedaughters, proclaiming them the rightful owners of the Ring (since Alberich stole the gold from them from which he forged it). Wotan is a hypocrite

      Fully agree. Wotan wants to have his cake and eat it too, first judging Alberich for stealing the Rhinegold and then being like 'well it's mine now!' Two thefts apparently make a legal acquisition in Asgard.

    2. Alberich protests that the Ring and its power are Alberich’s very essence, his identity.

      He expresses it in a very visceral way: 'this Ring is just as much a part of me as my eyes, my fingers, my heart.'

    3. Alberich is confident that ultimately the Ring’s full power can never be co-opted by anyone else, for only he has the courage to acknowledge the truth, to accept the world’s lovelessness and suffer existential “Noth,”

      It is by Alberich's sacrifice of love that he earns essentially limitless power-- at the cost of suffering 'Noth' and being miserable all the time.

    4. It is the Tarnhelm (the human imagination, a product of the power of the mind, or Ring) which makes this distortion of the truth possible.

      Good connection. Das Rheingold makes the most internal sense in this summation. However, is Loge as the 'artistic consciousness' part of Alberich's microcosm, or Wotan's? Wotan as the 'spiritual consciousness' ordered his artistic consciousness to subvert the mind as a whole? The metaphor gets mixed sometimes.

    1. first elements – for as soon as an art or science achieves a high state of development, it ceases to be religion – were originally the concern of religion and its representatives, the priests.

      The first astronomers were priests, the first philosophers were priests, the first known artwork belonged to holy works... lots of evidence for this.

    2. Religion arises solely in the night of ignorance, in times of misery, helplessness, and rudimentary culture, when for this very reason the imagination overshadows all man’s other powers, where man entertains the wildest and most extravagant ideas. Yet it also springs from man’s need of light, of culture … ; it is indeed the first, still crude and vulgar form of human culture

      Good summation of the religious experience.

    1. Alberich’s host of night who labor in the shadows of the dominant religious society to reveal the secrets of nature.

      The slaves who are forced to obey Alberich's every whim?

    2. But if Alberich ever regained the ring, i.e., if objective thought ever gained control over mankind’s consciousness, as for instance if science supplants religion as an explanation of the world, Alberich would employ this knowledge to bring about a shameful end of the gods, in that Alberich would discredit faith by exposing the hypocrisy and self-deceit of religious man, and reveal the truths of nature which religious man had either ignored or censored.

      But in the text of the opera, the heroes of Valhalla have no reason to turn against their masters other than some vague Ring-magic. This over-analysis doesn't take into account that Wotan and the gods represent multiple things, and on an intellectual level, these Valhalla ghosts won't care about Alberich's 'reason' and 'science' because the current arrangement most benefits them!

  9. Oct 2023
    1. accomplished by assigned senatorial commissioners (called legati)

      Legati have lots of power as the mouth of the Senate

    2. It is frankly unclear how strong the legal basis for these assignments was and in any event it doesn’t matter: what matters is that the Senate advised the magistrates and the magistrates always acted accordingly.

      No oligarchy was more total and complete than the Roman Senate

    3. the Senate felt it necessary to yield – if only slowly – on proposals where it faced widespread popular opposition. One may, of course, immediately contrast the Senate of the late-second and early-first century, which squanders its auctoritas trying to stop proposals of this sort.

      They ruled by consensus, bending to the popular will from time to time and thus maintaining the goodwill of the people

    4. the order was up to the magistrate who might thus frame proposals tactically to achieve a given outcome.

      A very clever machination to manipulate a basic polling system. An intelligent consul could have lots of power over the 'opinion of the Senate'

    5. Cicero ends the Seventh Philippic with quibus de rebus refers, P. Servilio adsentior, “on the matters you refer [to the Senate], I agree with Publius Servilius.”

      That's hilarious

    6. Once the convening magistrate was done introducing the issue, the opinions of each senator, in turn, were sought. The order was set by the censors, but it was based on offices held and seniority, so while the censors could shift (‘movere’) a senator down in the order, they were expected to have a good reason (typically conspicuous moral turpitude). The order began with the princeps senatus, traditionally the most senior ex-consul, though ‘most senior’ here often meant both in age and in influence, so while the princeps senatus was never young, it might not strictly be the oldest senator.

      There's that strict hierarchy again

    7. the gods approved of the proceedings and its results. Consequently, the Senate always met in a templum in the sense of a consecrated space, but also it tended to meet literally in temples, with meetings in the temples of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the temple of Fides, the temple of Concord, and so on. Notably, two locations, the temple of Bellona and the temple of Apollo were also used and these sat outside the pomerium, enabling the Senate to meet with magistrates who, because of their active command of an army, could not cross the pomerium

      The 'consecrated place' is a hard and fast stipulation, no mere thing

    8. via inauguration (the taking of the auspices by the augurs)

      'The sacred chickens must eat from my palm before Senate can be in session!'

    9. where it is possible that quaestors were not automatically enrolled before Sulla, but were customarily chosen by the censors to ‘fill out’ the Senate.

      That's a clever workaround

    10. we have 8 quaestors a year elected around age 30 each with roughly 30 years of life expectancy3 we get a much more reasonable 240, to which we might add some holders of senior priesthoods who didn’t go into politics and the ten sitting tribunes and perhaps a few reputable scions of important families selected by the censors to reach 300 without too much difficulty. The alternative is to assume the core membership of the Senate was aediles and up, which would provide only around 150 members, in which case the censors would have to supplement that number with important, reputable Romans.

      Two very plausible solutions

    11. tribunes

      Military or plebeian?

    12. an institution so important that it is included alongside the people of Rome in the SPQR formulation that the Romans used to represent the republic, and yet also paradoxically it is an institution that lacks any kind of formal legal powers.

      What an interesting paradox

    1. we understand our society through past societies and war through past wars, simply because we can record the past but cannot see the future. But that memory, so important for our own decision-making, is transmitted primarily through popular culture. Popular culture is not bad (nor would an elite culture of the sort preserved from the pre-modern period necessarily be better), but it does distort our vision. I would hazard that for most folks, fantasy fiction like the Lord of the Rings remains the primary lens through which they interact with the pre-modern past. That alone makes it worthwhile to ask how much ‘truth’ there is in these representations, and what that means.

      Great conclusion

    2. It was not so large a force the Athenians could not have defeated it, but the Athenian soldiers thought it a fresh army (not realizing it was just part of the army they were already fighting) and panicked. The victorious Athenian right disintegrated into a rout almost instantly and Athens lost the battle on the very cusp of victory. Morale effects often outweigh physical ones.

      The dumbassery of the ancient world really benefitted cavalry charges

    3. Aragorn’s ships – when he reaches the Harlond – are not filled with the dead, but living men, most of them former captives of the Corsairs, along with tired fighting men from Lebennin and Lamedon. His first task is to stir their courage and motivation, because he needs them to row through the night (the wind only changes in his favor in the morning, RotK 168-9) to make it to the city.

      This is a big difference

    1. but not so strong as to be able to casually toss armored men into the air.

      Armour is never given the weight and strength it should be accorded

    1. While some riders with bold horses might be able to get close, most of the Riders of Rohan would find their mounts simply turning aside as the Mûmakil approached – or worse yet, panicking and throwing their riders.

      Those pesky horses

    2. The pounding of thousands upon thousands of hoofs from a cavalry charge is a deep, resonating noise (the pounding of the hoofs of just a couple dozen horses can be heard over a cheering crowd at a horse-race; consider the volume of 6,000).

      That would be impressive

    3. I just want to acknowledge the courage and stamina of the Rohirrim Propmaster who ran all this way with the charge so he could hand Eomer his spear that, I assume, Eomer accidentally left back up on the hill.

      Lol

    4. But in the books, the Rohirrim arrive with surprise because Théoden is a canny leader who knows when to use local knowledge. The orcs did have a rear-guard blocking the road – they had ditches and obstructions in place to prevent the classic Rohirrim cavalry charge – but these were bypassed by way of the forest trails.

      This makes the orcs so much smarter and more deadly

    1. Viewing them side by side immediately puts the lie to Saruman’s vain and arrogant notion that he could manipulate Sauron by joining him.

      'The flattery of a slave'

    2. where Jackson’s Siege of Gondor is about might, Tolkien’s Siege is about courage and despair – the question is not ‘can the men of Gondor resist’ but will they?

      Very interesting reframing of the movie. I think 'will they' is a more compelling conflict than 'can they'

    3. The ratio of the firing arm to the weight arm is off. Historical trebuchets have high ratios – from 1:3 to 1:5 – because the longer the firing arm and the shorter the counterweight arm, the more leverage the weapon can apply. Here, the firing arm seems quite short.

      I feel this catapult arm will only launch that boulder a few feet, beaning a nearby troll but not really accomplishing much else

    4. The evacuation of these people (along with their food stores) is witnessed by Pippin (Rotk 38). This is a smart move by Gondor – it limits the non-combatants in the city

      Where do they go if not Minas Tirith?

    1. The rearguard, one mile out is “a more ordered mass of men…marching not running, still holding together,” supported by Faramir’s cavalry (RotK, 102). Holding together a retreat like this is incredibly difficult – the inherent psychological urge in humans to run would be nearly overpowering – suggesting that Faramir really is the masterful captain he’s cracked up to be. The retreat, harried by enemy cavalry and ring-wraiths, finally breaks into a rout ‘scarcely two furlongs’ from the city (440 yards), when Faramir is injured.

      I love this fact, that Faramir is actually a competent captain in the books. He keeps his cool and holds his men together long enough to retreat in relative safety

    2. Denethor is instead sending Faramir out with what reinforcements can be spared to Osgiliath.

      This is an important distinction

    3. Each theme was a combined military and civil administrative district, with its own small field army that could respond to local raids – however a theme’s army would be insufficient to respond to a major invasion. In the event of a large attack, the beacons rippling back to the capital would bring the tagmata, the main imperial field army

      Good summary of the theme system

    4. Friction (pedantry note: here in the sense used by Clausewitz) is simply the tendency for things to begin to go wrong with that system as it moves and fights. As Clausewitz says (drink!), “Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is hard.”

      Good definition of friction: the inevitability of things going wrong

  10. Sep 2023
    1. he is rushing his offensive in an attempt to forestall Aragorn, who he suspects has taken the One Ring

      They make special note of this in RotK. Aragorn's gamble sped up the siege of Gondor considerably, in hopes of giving Frodo the time he needs to destroy the Ring

    2. one wonders if this column was intended as an exploitation force.  Once the orcs had taken Minas Tirith – or at least neutralized it via siege – the highly mobile Southron cavalry could scout and raid deeper into Gondor, exploiting the breach in the defenses at Osgiliath.

      Interesting food for thought. Did the Haradrim arrive near the time Aragorn did?

    1. Without the norms – norms that Sulla himself undermined – the laws were merely words on the page. With the norms, the laws were largely unnecessary. Share this:

      Romans had a robust tradition of hierarchy and social cohesion. Americans have no such tradition. This is why we're fucked

    2. In the case of senators, since the censors kept the Senate’s rolls, they could strike senators off of the list, generally for what was considered flagrant immoral behavior.

      Whoa. So these guys decide who gets into the Senate and who doesn't, every five years?

    3. The censors also as part of the process updated the rolls of the Senate, inducting new members – those who had held the quaestorship or other senior magistracies in the previous years – as well as establishing the precedent order, which determined the order in which senators spoke in debate. At the end of the census, the censors conducted an elaborate purification ritual which featured the sacrifice of a pig, a sheep and a bull to Mars

      This is such a stratified environment. There's literally a ranked system based on who can talk

    4. Citizens – or more correctly heads of households, meaning patres familias as well as (probably!) women who were sui iuris – were required to show up and register, making a declaration of the members of their household as well as their property. The censors were then responsible for assigning citizen households to census classes (as used in the assembly voting) and of course this was also the process that made an individual liable for conscription in the dilectus.

      A very rational way of organising a military system: base it on a census

    5. the core function of the censors was to take the census (lit, “census”), registering Roman citizens and their property.

      What a seemingly simple role

    6. Both groups would, of course, be well advised to avoid antagonizing the broader political order without a very good reason, the former because senatorial opposition could kill a political career and the later because they were always going to be a lot less powerful than the ex-consuls they might offend.

      It's amazing just how influential a bunch of men with no formal powers can be. All the Senate does is advise! Romans really took auctoritas seriously

    7. though the Romans only rarely punished generals legally for failures in the field.

      Likely they saw it as the gods' faults if a general lost. Can't argue with the will of the gods

    8. a tribune of the plebs could block a magistrate’s action by physically interposing themselves in the way; since they could not be moved, the action failed and was blocked.

      Wtf making a living wall works? If only Trump had made his wall out of tribunes of the plebs, no one would've crossed then

    1. The longest run I can think of in this period is that of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus who is privati cum imperio pro consule (‘private citizen with pro-consular imperium’) from 210 to 206, mostly as a product of his father and uncle having been the local Roman commanders in Spain and Scipio having taken over when they were both killed, leading to an irregular, emergency command. He’s then consul in 205, before having his command prorogued from 204 to 201 to complete his invasion of Africa

      Whoa

    2. Often the military problem from last year that was on-going would see its ex-consul prorogued to continue handling it

      I wonder if this would result in there being more proconsuls than consuls; like, would they prorogue an imperium-haver twice if necessary?

    3. if you really wanted to prevent your colleague from doing something he really wanted to do, you best be prepared to follow him around in person every day to keep vetoing it.

      Lol

    4. The praetor urbanus was primarily concerned with legal disputes involved two citizen parties, while any issue involving foreigners came under the jurisdiction of the praetor peregrinus, though the latter was sometimes also deployed out of Rome on special duties, at which point the praetor urbanus, who almost always remained in Rome, would handle both.

      Two people are the entire Supreme Court in Rome

    5. This is a real difference from the polis, where the standard structure was to take the three components of royal power (religious, judicial and military) and split them up between different magistrates or boards in order to avoid any one figure being too powerful. For the Romans, the royal authority over judicial and military matters were unavoidably linked because they were the same thing, imperium, and so could not be separated.

      Very interesting dissection of the differences between Greece and Rome. Romans literally didn't understand the difference between military and judicial areas

    1. And just a pronunciation note before we start that in English aedile is pronounced EEE-dial, even though in Latin aedilis (with a long-by-nature first i) would have been pronounced eye-DEE-lis.

      Ty

    2. received fines and guarantees for state debts, and auctioned property seized to satisfy unpaid debts or fines.

      These are a lot of responsibilities. How did they manage everything with just eight dudes?

    3. two quaestors are assigned the aerarium populi Romani (in Rome) as their provincia (read: ‘official assignment’ not ‘province’), while the other six were assigned the provincia of the supervision of Rome’s finances in the same places where a consul or a praetor was assigned the provincia of command.

      Everything circulates around the consuls and praetors. High-level finances don't even exist except in Rome and in the consul's immediate area

    4. attempting to codify and spell out what were traditional practices, like the generally understood minimum ages for the offices, or the interval between holding the same office twice.

      Like the informal rule that US presidents would only serve two terms, eventually made into law after FDR

    5. Rather each magistrate is an independent actor, granted certain powers to oversee the public interest in a specific field. This is perhaps even more true of Roman magistrates, who rarely function as ‘boards’ the way Greek magistrates often do (none of the senior magistrates in Rome function as a board, they are all individual actors). Instead of having an chief executive (like a president or prime minister) to coordinate the different actions of government, the Romans in the Middle Republic instead rely on the Senate

      The People and Senate of Rome trusted these magistrates to act independently, with their only oversight being the Senate

    1. ‘province’ (meaning ‘job,’ it’s not a formal province yet)

      Interesting. So the phrase 'the province of...' just means 'the job of...'

    2. Evidently the Romans could pull this sort of thing off at some scale and there is some reason to believe very large votes of the comitia tributa or the concilium plebis might be moved out into the campus Martius at least some of the time.5

      Interesting how the logistics of voting majorly impacts the vote itself. If lots of people showed up, the polling location just had to be moved

    3. with around 10,000 or so in each of the rural tribes and 12,500 in each of the urban tribes.

      Good numbers to keep in mind

    4. we have a lot of reasons to believe that turnout was low and perhaps intentionally kept low, in which case wealthier voters who could afford to take the day off to trek into Rome and spend a whole day casting his vote might still rule the day.

      Even in this most democratic institution, there exists whiffs of elitism

    5. the comitia tributa does not deliberate. It can only consider business put before it by a consul or a praetor in an up or down vote, constraining the opportunities to use the assembly to voice popular discontent with the ruling elite.

      Consuls and praetors have all the power to legislate. The most the comitia tributa (and all the other assemblies) can do is veto

    6. If you were rich enough to own a townhouse in Rome, you’d instead still register in your tribe as a resident of your rural estate; the wealthy thus inhabited the rural tribes. Indeed, as L.R. Taylor notes, the urban tribes were viewed as less prestigious – a bit downmarket and shabby – from an early point.

      Amazing how significant Rome is for political and religious reasons, yet the denizens of Rome themselves are denigrated.

    7. After this point, new land was apportioned into the existing rural tribes rather than assigned to new tribes, with the result that fairly quickly most ‘tribes’ consisted of several disconnected districts.

      Antique gerrymandering

    8. pagi, ‘rural district’

      'Pagan' originally meant 'rural'

    1. neo-realist international relations theory treats states as both unitary (that is, they act with a single will and a single set of interests) and rational (that is, they identify their interests and pursue them strategically).

      Good definition here. Basically assuming all states are run by cool, capable leaders.

    1. by the mid-1600s it obviously became clear to European monarchs and their generals that the destructiveness of these forces had become an intolerable hindrance, leading to the (re)establishment of centralized state logistics in Europe which would in turn both motivate and feed off of increasing administrative capacity which in turn leads towards the establishment of the modern administrative state.

      Were Europe's ambitions motivated by their oversized armies, or were the oversized armies borne of Europe's ambitions?

    2. who marches where? When? On what roads? How do you make sure they don’t run into each other and that there is enough food locally for each group? Who takes the front? At what rate of march? And what do you do when invariably units that you cannot directly observe (because the army is very big) move slower than you need or get lost? On top of this the general has to be managing the direction of march and also the supplies of food as well as the deployment of foraging parties.

      This accurately assesses the struggles of generalship.

    3. A steady supply of solidly adequate generals backed up by a superior military system – mostly superior in mobilization rather than actual fighting – was enough.

      This explains a lot of the Romans' strength.

    4. It takes only a brief glance at the difficulties of Marcus Antonius, Caesar’s protegee, to see why this was valuable: Antony tries again and again to pull off bold, Caesar-like campaigns and really only succeeds once (Philippi in 42). Antony has a reputation in the sources as bull-headed and impulsive in contrast to Caesar’s bold but calculating nature and it really comes out in their campaign abilities; Caesar’s dice always seem to come up just right (too many times to assign to pure chance) whereas Antony takes similar risks and more frequently fails. The difference between their decisions was often very small (indeed, in many cases Antony appears to be taking the exact same risks) but at the ragged edge of the possible in logistics, a slight miscalculation can bring catastrophe.

      This comparison does wonders in explaining the term 'genius' as Clausewitz uses it. Antony's risk analysis is just not on par with Caesar's.

    5. Caesar showed special attention to the days set for regular grain ration distribution possibly for this reason – knowing that missing a day might not cause instant starvation but would cause his soldiers to lose certainty in his leadership).

      A canny logistical leader as well as a strategic one.

    6. What will not work is overland external supply with more wagons; as discussed the animals eat food and so adding more wagons just slows the army down more and increases its food demands; that’s the tyranny of the wagon equation at work – the army cannot wagon its way out of a foraging pit.

      As Devereaux explains in the GOT season 8 loot train.

    7. they need time not merely to set up camp, but also rest, cook food, attend again to hygiene, the maintenance of weapons and equipment and so on. You can get more marching hours out of the day but only by eating up those rest hours which the army needs to be combat fit. This is why, as Moss (1917) notes, “forced marches seriously impair the fighting power of even the best troops” (1225).

      Keep in mind just how strenuous it is to walk for hours on end in hot conditions as a solo walker.

    8. famed military genius Julius Caesar got lost trying to find a 50 mile long river only about 150 miles away from Rome when he tried to cut cross-country instead of over the roads.

      Lol.

    1. the early modern period seems to represent something of a peak in the uncontrolled destructiveness of armies, a combination of the burgeoning size of field forces as compared to the Middle Ages with state finance and logistics systems unprepared to cope with the new larger armies. Medieval armies may not have been any nicer, but they were smaller which reduced their impact, while the armies of the 1700s and 1800s were increasingly better organized and supplied and as a result less logistically destructive.

      I appreciate the difference between ages. As much as the Middle Ages sucked, Early Modern Europe actually seems like hell on Earth.

    2. billeting was actually used as a tactic for domestic religious persecution , as with the French dragonnades, which permitted the billeting of troops in Protestant households to ‘encourage’ them to convert to Catholicism.

      What a devious tactic.

    3. 20,000 is normal, 40,000 is big, 80,000 is unusually huge and more than 80,000 is unsustainable in almost all circumstances.

      Good to keep in mind these numbers compared to the ridiculously inflated accounts of armies over 100,000.

    4. Roman armies, for instance, were mobilized in March (Roman Martius, the month of Mars, because the Romans are not subtle) for this reason; the general rule of thumb is that the campaigning season in Europe began with the Spring Equinox in late March. But this timing means that by the time the army is mustered and moving into enemy territory, the harvest is close.

      Important to keep in mind the timing of campaign season matters a lot.

    5. That lets Roman armies camp in their fortified camps away from civilian centers, with attendant advantages for discipline; and indeed, Roman armies typically avoid permanent or even temporary bases in towns, instead using the threat of billeting to get the supplies they needed to stay in regular camps and later permanent forts.

      Clever. The Roman army is always hyper-efficient.

    6. the army can send out messengers and riders who move faster than the army on its direction of march, making arrangements in advance for what the army needs, drawing supplies from the populace and (maybe) making arrangements to pay them either at the time or in the future.

      Definitely an advantage in Roman and Persian modes of army logistics.

    1. That gives us an army now of 19,200 soldiers, 4,000 non-combatants, 5,000 mules and 4,800 horses.

      Some very good numbers to remember.

    2. The (often elected) general’s ability to enforce any kind of uncomfortable discipline on such armies was extremely limited because the entire voting body was there; what the hoplites wanted (collectively), they largely got.

      I love democracy.

    3. banish women, slaves and most of the merchants from the camp, allowing only those who remain to conduct business directly with the army command (in Roman sources, through the quaestor alone).

      Can't give up the slavers.

    4. In Roman armies this was a regularized process, overseen by the quaestor (an elected treasury official who handled the army’s finances) assigned to each army, who conducted regular auctions in the camp.

      Incredible how normal and institutionalised this was.

    5. A pack-mule can carry a fair bit more, around 130kg (figure via Landers, op. cit.).  But mules have to eat and they have to eat quite a bit, around 2.25kg of barley per day in addition to grass or hay, which again one hopes is largely available roadside

      Good to consider the poor pack mules in all this.

    1. It turns out commanding an army is easier if you can just have your body from the chest up hover like a horror movie apparition 50 feet tall in front of your army and shout orders at them. Alas, not an option for most pre-modern commanders.

      Love how Devereaux combines his pedagogy with humour.

    2. the commonplace of the general signalling with hands or a shout to an army obviously too large to see or hear him, for instance.

      That is a very wacky trope.

    3. a plan which is perfect save that it cannot be communicated or executed isn’t perfect at all.

      Practicality= the #1 priority of generalship.

    1. I want to be clear here in a way that a still picture cannot that Valandil here is not pulled from his horse but in fact leaps off to tackle these fellows instead of, I don’t know, hitting them with a weapon.

      Whyyyyy

    2. But every single sail has a gigantic hole in the center because of the split mast.

      How embarrasing

    1. Or everyone just set their respawn point here (maybe that was the real peril and why the village needed to be defended – no one wants to be spawn-camped by orcs!)

      This joke never gets old.

    2. battles are only very rarely won as a result of clever plans or tricks. Indeed, as we’ve discussed, the ability of a general to pull off a complex plan was very limited; even ‘strategems’ (the term for actual ‘clever tricks’ in battle) are often very simple and common enough that even in the ancient world there were collected volumes listing them all

      When you're coordinating masses of hundreds of thousands of people (humans aren't always the brightest), the most reliable course of action is to keep it simple, stupid.

    1. This is awkwardly badly fitting (it looks to be a tough too big for him) and doesn’t feature any kind of extension over the groin

      It looks... so shitty...

    2. Her version is also the most blatant example of using flat, printed sleeves to appear to extend the armor over the arms. I am not sure why the showrunners thought that solution was good enough for a major character who gets lots of close-ups; it looks very cheap.

      That is blatant. It's as if costume designers dressed everyone in a Bond movie with those stupid tux t-shirts.

    1. we get a hunter-gatherer society that makes no sense and is also oddly willing to dispose of entire family groups if they fall behind rather than working together,

      What a terrible characterisation of proto-hobbits.