Book Review: Castles and Fortified Cities of Medieval Europe: An Illustrated History by Jean-Denis G. G. Lepage

Posted on April 22, 2013 by Patrick Shrier

Castles and Fortified Cities of Medieval Europe: An Illustrated History is a very interesting book. I picked it up because we had a three hour bus ride to get to my son’s football game and my wife was using my Kindle. I am certainly glad I did.

This is a well written 330 page book. It includes an index and bibliography, both unfortunately short. The book is organized chronologically in five chapters covering fortification and castles from the 5th to the 16th century A.D. Each chapter is further subdivided geographically and covers both eastern and Western Europe and the Middle East. There are many illustrations, both ground plans and sketches that help to illuminate the text. This is a very good introductory volume to medieval fortification.

I found the book to be both entertaining and informative. The author has a very readable writing style and except for using the unavoidable specialist vocabulary of fortification is easy to understand. For someone like me who finds the military aspects of castles fascinating it was quite illuminating to read. I already knew quite a bit about castles but I learned a few things myself. Of particular interest to me was the discussion of the development of the Trace Italienne fortifications of the 15^th and 16^th centuries. I was not aware that many of the elements of that style were not really developed in Italy, but instead were only perfected there. One of the most interesting things about this book is that the author deliberately chose to focus most of this work on less famous castles and forts. Everyone has heard of Carcassonne, Beaumaris, and Krak des Chavaliers. Most people have not heard or seen descriptions of such equally important castles as Helmond Castle in the Netherlands or Bellver in Spain. Many of these lesser known castles are fascinating in their own right and the descriptions cause me to add some of them to my bucket list of places to visit.

The only complaint I have about this book is that it does not include a glossary of terms which I feel would be extremely useful, especially for people unfamiliar with the technical terms for the parts of fortification It can become pretty confusing to keep the different elements in mind when the author continually throws around such terms as enciente, ravelin, keep, donjon, burgfried, bastille, bastion, etc. Overall this well-written and illustrated work about medieval European and Middle Eastern castles and frost is well worth reading. I highly recommend this work to anybody interested in European castles and how they developed over time.

Similarities Between the 1920′s and Today?

Posted on March 20, 2013 by Patrick Shrier

I am currently reading The Origins of the First World War (3rd Edition), during a pause in my reading I started thinking about not the origins of WWI but its results. To say that the peace of Versailles was flawed is an understatement. Given the unsettled economic situation of the Euro and the recently announced renunciation of deposit guarantees by the government of Cyprus I started to wonder if there are parallels between then and now despite the lack of a just concluded titanic war on the continent. I think that the economics are similar, even to the extent of the various crises being self-inflicted wounds.

There were many things wrong with the Treaty of Versailles but perhaps the most fundamental from my perspective was the regime of reparations and war indemnities imposed on Germany. The total of debt was equal to several hundred billion dollars at today’s rates. In fact, the German government finished paying off the last private investors who held bonds related to reparations in 2010. There is much debate about whether the reparations were too high, whether a price can be put on the suffering of war, but that is not the subject if this post. There is also plenty of debate about whether Germany could have repaid in a timely matter without destroying there own economy. I tend to think they could have, but it would have been painful. In any event, what the Germans did after Versailles was to progressiveness devalue their currency to the point of worthlessness alá Zimbabwe in the 90′s. They essentially inflated away their obligations until they eventually quit payments altogether under Hitler.

I just wonder if some of the other European countries are now doing the same thing to their economies in a back-door way to manage their own debts. How else are we to see the spendthrift policies of the PIIGS group of countries after the introduction of the euro in 2002?

Book Review: Anatomy of the Castle by John Gibson

Posted on February 2, 2013 by Patrick Shrier

Anatomy of the Castle by John Gibson is perhaps the best book describing Castles aimed at the general reader that I have ever read. The author manages to make the somewhat technical and dry language of describing castles and their construction lovely and entertaining.

It is a coffee table sized book that is jam packed with beautiful color photos of castles from all over Europe and the Middle East. There are 200 pages with a glossary, index, and bibliography. It is divided into 6 chronological chapters with a lengthy introduction that describes the development of the art of fortification up to the development of the first castles. He also includes a chapter describing what living in a castle must have truly been like. The glossary is short but helpful as it includes all the technical terms that are easily misused.

John Gibson has produced work about castles and their construction that is both informative and entertaining. He deftly covers the castles invention and development over a period of about 1,000 years and ties the castle into both hat came before and what came after in the art of fortification. Along the way he dispels some myths about castles, such as that they were dark dank places or the opposite that they were full of light and warmth. He gives the lie to both notions and establishes that the truth lay somewhere in between. He also points out that dungeons as described in popular literature did not really exist although there were some places in castles that were used as prisons including entire castle at times. What was good for keeping people out was also pretty good at keeping them in when used for that purpose.

Aside from the quality of the photos the thing about this book that I enjoyed the most was the quality of the writing. I never got bored while reading this book and the illustrations are well placed to illuminate the text. There are several fold-outs of significant castles that illustrate stages in castle development. This is a highly enjoyable read and I highly recommend it.

Women in Combat Part 2

Aside

Pentagon announces decision to lift ban on women in combat roles: How prescient I now feel given that less than a week after I posted about this the Defense Secretary announces an end to the female combat exclusion. I wish I had been wrong.

A couple of examples of the reaction in the press (I will only note in passing that most of those praising this decision have never served in the military or if they have were not Combat Arms): Women in combat: Let’s get real, Women will add combat strength: editorial, Women in combat — the controversy that wasn’t, Editors’ Roundtable: Women in combat?, Women in combat a dangerous experiment, Our View: Women in combat, Women in combat - The generals defer to political fashion in the Age of Obama, Women Have No Business in Combat.

Finally, the transcript of the SecDef’s Press Briefing where he announced the policy change.

Image credit CNN.com

Women in Combat

Posted on January 23, 2013 by Patrick Shrier

The role of women in combat has been much in the military press and civilian papers recently because of a lawsuit filed by several women who claim the military’s ban on women in combat positions is discriminatory. There are folks who argue that women belong in combat although those arguments generally boil down to it ain’t fair and it it’s sexists that women cannot be in combat. The amount of intellectual dishonesty around this debate is amazing and should stun any thinking person.

A picture is worth a thousand words or 1,158 in this case.

I will take the above pro-women in combat piece and debunk it as it is full of the kind of drivel that gets tossed around by the post-modern set when this subject comes up. I take the most umbrage with the first point as the last two are simply liberal tropes that really don’t even merit a response though I will give them a short one. His points, and he numbered them, are:

1. They can’t handle the physical strain

This one is easy to refute as it is straight physiology. I don’t think anyone is arguing that women are not mentally as capable as men. A simple look at the physical standards that currently exist show up the differences in physical ability between men and women.

A little aside about military fitness standards though. I will only cite the army minimums here as they are what I am most familiar with and represent the minimum physical abilities the army feels a soldier needs to have based on differing physiology. I will not debate whether the standards measure true fitness and will concede that they do not measure fitness very well. As a Master Fitness Trainer for ten years I will say that the Army PT Test is seriously flawed and I am not convinced the new standards and test being considered for roll out this year is any better. They are what we have though and so I will use them.

The Army physical training standards are to be found in FM 7-22 Army Physical Readiness Training. The requirements to pass the Army PT test are thoughtfully put right on the back side of the scorecard DA Form 705. The current army PT test consists of three events, all are timed and performance standards are adjusted based on age. They are 2 minutes of push-ups, two minutes of sit-ups and a timed two mile run. A minimum score of 60 points on each event is required in order to pass the test. The requirements for what constitutes a push-up or sit-up are pretty detailed and the run course must be generally flat with a slope not to exceed three percent.The relevant standards (minimum and maximum) for 17-21 year olds are below and here is the form DA 705-2 :

The Minimums (minimum equals 60 points)
- Push-up minimums male – 71 repetitions; female – 42 repetitions
- Sit-up minimums male and female – 53 repetitions
- Two mile run min. male – 15:54; female – 18:54
The Maximums (max equals 100 points)
- Push-up maximums male – 42 repetitions; female – 17 repetitions
- Sit-up maximums male and female – 78 repetitions
- Two mile run max. male – 13:00 ; female – 15:36

I find it significant, and always have that the female max for push-ups is the male minimum and the female max is so close to the male minimum in running. The sit-up standards are the same but that change is only about 5-6 years old, they used to be different as well until research said they should change.

Can anyone really argue that women are as physically capable as men? I think not, and I further think that everyone’s personal experience bears out the fact that women are in general not as strong as men. Sure, there are women who are just as strong as most men but they are tiny minority of all women.

One of the sub-arguments made in the current lawsuit is that women are already doing combat tasks as part of Female Engagements Teams (FET). This is bullshit, as anyone who knows anything about what a FET does can tell you. FETs do not engage in traditional infantry combat, they accompany infantry squads to help the all-male infantry avoid offending the cultural sensibilities of local cultures. FETs are not engaged in kicking down doors and taking hills, they are helping search women and talking to local female tribal members. Female MPs are not kicking down doors either, they are doing traditional MP tasks, which do not include ground combat except peripherally.

During my time in the army I was a Cavalry Scout and spent most of my career on M3 Bradley’s. I challenge anyone to find a female who can do the same thing. Typical tasks include moving 70 lb ammo cans in cramped quarters, pulling the 90 lb gun for maintenance, and doing just about anything maintenance wise on the vehicle from throwing around 100lb track sections to replacing 100+ lb road wheels. The tasks on a tank and the parts on a tank are even heavier. When deployed my OTV weighed roughly 60-70 lbs depending on the particular equipment mix I chose for the assigned mission. I question whether any but the most fit female could do the same things.

Another issue is hygiene, and females have more stringent hygiene requirements than males do to ensure their health. I don’t know for certain but am pretty sure that a female could not live for a week or two out of her vehicle without a shower without experiencing hygiene related health issues. When I deployed to Bosnia in January 1996 my entire platoon did not get the chance to take a real shower for 7 weeks when we finally took the opportunity to go to Tuzla and use the facilities there. Furthermore, we lived in our vehicles until May when our tent camp was finally constructed.

I simply think that females are physically incapable of performing most combat tasks of the combat arms soldier. If, as rumor suggest, gender-neutral standards are being developed, I wonder what the price in reduced combat capability we will suffer in direct ground combat units.

2. Men can’t handle fighting alongside women:

Bullshit, this is typical feminist/liberal/post-modern garbage they spout to try and shame the segment of society unable or unwilling to engage in critical thought. More need not be said.

3. Women don’t really want to be in combat, really:

This may or may not be true. To my knowledge no comprehensive study has been done on this issue. I suspect that it is a true assertion but absent a real study or poll I hesitate to approve or condemn it.

The push to allow women into combat units has less to do with combat ability, the currency of war, than an effort to once again inflict some social engineering goal on our military. I have confidence that the military will adapt as we always have, I just worry what the combat and death toll consequences of such a development will be when we have to fight a conventional opponent and are not just chasing insurgents around in the mountains or deserts. Women may be able to handle the physical stresses of continuous combat. I doubt it, and do not want to see, our soldiers, male or female, pay the price for the imposition of the post-modern agenda on our military. The argument may also be that other countries are doing it. Every time I hear that I hear my mother in the back of head asking me “if all my friends stuck their head in an oven would I do it too.” Because somebody else is being stupid is not a very good justification for me doing the same.

I would love to hear any comments in agreement or disagreement from my readers.