This is where I will take notes on what I am reading. May be a daily thing, or just haphazard thoughts and summaries. Spoilers will be in here.
Further information on the books themselves can be found at the Book List.
November 13th, 2024 |
The Making of the Atomic Bomb | The next chapter gets confusing with all the different people they introduce. There’s too much jumping around in people’s lives and the timeline gets all muddled. Moreso when you introduce 3 people, or reintroduce, since I think they all had small mentions earlier. Otto Hahn (German), Leise Meitner (Austrian), Henry Moseley (English) all feature in this chapter. And then there was Chaim Weizmann (Russian). I can’t remember what Hahn and Meitner did, chemistry in Berlin. Moseley was critical in accepting Rutherford’s atom. He used X-ray spectroscopy to prove something. Weizmann was a chemist who was able to distill acetone from corn starch, critical during the war. One of them, or none of them, distilled ammonia or nitrites from air or something like that. Weizmann’s service to English was critical in leading towards the Balfour Declaration and English Zionism. Hahn served the Germans in the poison gas usage. Moseley I believe was an engineer and sadly died at Gallipoli. There’s a long a depressing section on all the gases used during the war. Then it described the Germans using planes to bomb civilians in England, obviously a precursor to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Civilians were now proper military targets. Gas, bombing cities, all aims to “end the war faster”. |
November 11th, 2024 |
The Making of the Atomic Bomb | I have to admit that the Bohr chapter is not the most interesting. His task from Rutherford is to figure out how his atom is stable. We know it is stable because matter exists. Why don’t the electrons just fly out or in like a vortex? Mechanical physics fails to explain this. Bohr turns to a new field: quantum physics. Planck had invented the field to explain a problem in thermodynamics, I believe blackbody radiation. It’s something to do with certain frequencies and energies that are multiples of a constant, h, that we know now as Planck’s constant. Einstein used this to explain photon emission. Bohr then used quantum physics in the atom. The atom can only occupy certain energy levels, not a continuous spectrum. He more or less created the concept of the electron shells. All radical ideas at the time. |
November 8th, 2024 |
The Making of the Atomic Bomb | Time for the important experiments. Now J.J. Thomson had discovered the electron and described the “plum pudding” model of the atom. This was essentially a mass of positive whatever, the pudding, with little bits of negative, the raisins, oriented in a way so they don’t repel each other out of the atom. Thus, the idea the atom is one big mass. Rutherford and his students were firing alpha particles at an angle at some gold foil. If an atom was all pudding, there would be nothing to deflect the alpha particle. However, they found some scattering, with some particles deflected over 90 degrees. For that to happen, there must be a big mass concentrated somewhere in the atom. So the modern model of the atom was discovered. However, Rutherford wasn’t a theory guy, so he got Niels Bohr on the job. Chapter 3 talks about Bohr and his family, and at first it is very boring. It takes a long time to get Bohr into physics, but eventually he does and meets Rutherford at Cavendish. I forget most of it. |
November 6th, 2024 |
The Making of the Atomic Bomb | Now we’re talking about Ernest Rutherford, who I know as the alpha particle guy. He was mentioned as “Lord Rutherford” in the last chapter, but I didn’t put two and two together. He said it was impossible to extract energy from an atom, which inspired Szilard in his chain reaction thing. We’re given essentially a biography of Rutherford. From a humble New Zealand background, he make his name known in radio experiments. In London at university (whatever Cavendish is) he was persuaded to drop his pursuit of monetizing radio for helping someone Thomspon in nuclear experiments. He did some stuff here and there and discovered the electron and beta particles, and alpha particles, which he identified as charged helium atoms. However, he won a Nobel Prize in chemistry, not physics. There was some info on Rotigen/X-rays being discovered, glass tube experiments, and a bunch of other interesting steps along the way. |
November 5th, 2024 |
The Making of the Atomic Bomb | The rest of the first chapter doesn’t say much of note from a physics point of view. Szilard in London is busy helping people escape Germany. But one day as he walks around town it just occurs to him that nuclear energy could be feasible if something could cause a chain reaction. If hitting a nucleus with one neutron releases two neutrons, it would be exponential. The second chapter starts of kind of boring. It discusses the origins of the atom, from the ancient Greeks, to the mechanical atom of Newton. Then it goes on about a sort of philosophy of science espoused by a chemist, friend of Szilard, Polanyi, I think. Not super interesting. |
November 4th, 2024 |
The Making of the Atomic Bomb | Not much has been really said in the first 10 or so pages. It is talking about a physicist named Leo Szilard. I don’t know his relation to the atomic bomb other than that he is a nuclear physicist. It’s a nice little tale of his Hungarian origins at the start of WWI up to his studying in Berlin in the turbulent 20’s and early 30’s. A Jew, he leaves Germany once the Nazis start making headway in 1933. Something big happens when he moves to London, though I don’t know what yet. Clearly he was very smart and figured out something about thermodynamics that puzzled his professors, who happened to be Einstein and Planck. |
November 3rd, 2024 |
A Fan's Guide to Baseball Analytics | Finished the book over the weekend. There were only a few more stats left. There was xBA, xSLG, and most importantly xwOBA. That is the expected version of the standard stat, meaning what SHOULD have happened based on the way the ball was hit. It essentially removes luck. If a hit would have been a hit most instances but a rare catch was made, you wOBA will be lower than your xwOBA, showing you had some unfortunate circumstances. Then there was park factor, which just tells you whether a park is hitter friendly or batter friendly. Every park is different. WPA is Win Probability Added, which measures how much of the work towards a win a player did. As it accumulates over the seasons you can see which players were “clutch”, or just did a lot of the work. It’s not perfect because some great players may not alter the chances of a win and thus go unaccounted for. Last but not least is WAR, Wins Above Replacement. Everyone has their own secret sauce for this one, but it’s about how many more (or less) wins a player contributes than a AAAer would. The King of WAR is Babe Ruth, who has like half of the top 10 seasonal WARs of all time. It’s a good stat to review for the “one number” that summarizes a player. The book ends with a quiz. I think I got a C. |
November 1st, 2024 |
A Fan's Guide to Baseball Analytics | There’s two more team stats and then the final section, which I forget what the tying theme is. The first top is Win Probability, which I hate. It’s very annoying to watch a game and see that number jump around inconsistently. If it can jump from 10% to 90% from one hit, then it’s a piss-poor stat that doesn’t tell you anything. Maybe it’s fun for some, but I don’t like it. The next one is not really a stat but I will put it in the fun category: the Magic Number. How many games does the #1 team need to clinch the division compare? That’s all there is to it. It’s only really “fun” if your team is the one who is doing the winning. The last section starts with BABIP or batting average on balls in play. This is similar to OBP but only for balls that go into play, thus ignoring walks, strikeouts, and home runs. The average hovers around .300. This stat can also be used for pitchers to see how the offense does against them. A high/low BABIP season is generally abnormal and will typically return to close to the mean in following seasons. It’s not all luck though, some guys just have high BABIP based on their batting skill. Derek Jeter had a .350. It’s also dependent on the park and other defensive factors, but BABIP doesn’t take those into account. |
October 31st, 2024 |
A Fan's Guide to Baseball Analytics | Next section is about team stats. First up is pretty simple, DIFF or Run Differential. You take the runs scored by a team minus the runs given up by a team. This can be used to track the teams winning percentage and see if they’re inflated by small wins. A related stat, “Pythagorean Theorem”, or I’ll call it expected win percentage, is runs scored^2/(runs scored^2 + runs allowed^2). A team that wins by a lot of runs will generally win more games than one that wins by one or two, and these numbers will show you how to expect a season to go. Next is SRS, or Simple Rating System. I think this was just Diff divided by games or something and minus a SRS factor, which is based on how easy or difficult a team’s schedule is. Two teams with the same winning percentage but different SRS can tell you which one may actually be the better team. Last for today is DER, Defensive Evaluation Rating. This one is like a way to see how good the defense is at dealing with balls batted in. I guess you can think of it as hits per out or something like that. This can help with comparing pitchers, who have similar ERA but one could be aided by better defense. Likewise the pitcher can affect DER by the way some balls are hit and how hard. |
October 30th, 2024 |
A Fan's Guide to Baseball Analytics | The pitching continues with FIP, field independent pitching. This stat looks at things that really only the pitcher can control: HRs, Ks, BBs. It is then added to a “constant” that changes seasonally, which puts in on an ERA-like scale. Like ERA, lower is better. Though the pitcher has some control over whether a hit turns into a grounder or a fly, the data shows that what turns into a hit is pretty random. Plus it takes out the hurting or helping done by the fielders. It’s good for comparing with ERA. There are some other stats listed, like Fly Ball%, K%, K/BB, etc., that are all pretty self-explanatory.The main (if not only) defensive stats that matter are DRS, defensive runs saved, and UZR, ultimate zone rating. They’re essentially the same thing, with UZR being a slightly modified DRS. DRS comes from a company that was filming games and selling the data. DRS essentially looks at a play and what percentage of players can make that play. If 20% of players make that play, you get 0.8 points for getting it and -0.2 points for missing it. 0 is average, positive is a good player, negative a bad player. Errors can mask a good player getting near balls that a bad player wouldn’t even come close to. Then there’s a section about some other odds and ends stats. The one I’m noting is DEF, defensive runs above average. It’s essentially DRS, but DRS is only comparable between people who play the same position. Not all positions are equally difficult. DEF corrects that and makes it position agnostic. |
October 29th, 2024 |
A Fan's Guide to Baseball Analytics | The next section is on pitching and defensive stats. This is where it gets tricky to separate out the individual from the team. The batter is always alone, so that part was easy. The first is ERA+, which takes the ERA stat and normalizes it based on park location and the average ERA of the season. A low ERA when everyone has a low ERA is less valuable than a low ERA in a high run era. I think this is on Baseball Reference. I like WHIP, or Walks & Hits per Inning Pitched. It’s like OBP in that it’s good and simple, but loses some depth for clarity. It’s pretty self-explanatory. GSs, Game Score, is not a “real” stat but a fun one. It sums up a pitchers “events”, such as outs and Ks, subtracts Hs and BBs and whatnot and comes up with a score. A perfect game of 9 innings would be a minimum of 87. A perfect score with a perfect game and all Ks would be like 114. Some have gotten negative scores. Seems like a fun math game, however scores will decrease in the modern era of 6 inning pitchers. |
October 28th, 2024 |
A Fan's Guide to Baseball Analytics | The next section is on better offensive stats. I went through OBP, SLG, and OPS quickly. These are common knowledge at this point and even used by TV announcers. Note that OPS is most useful as a team stat as opposed to an individual stat. What’s nice is that this book provides some reference tables for what is bad, average, good, great, etc. The last one I read is on Runs Created. It’s the first stat covered that has a bit of a funky formula, but the point is that how many runs are, statistically, created by a batters actions. It counts the good, like hits and walks, and the bad, like caught stealing and double-plays. It is an accumulative stat, not a rate, so it’s not useful for comparing players who played a wildly different number of games. The author says this is mostly to prepare for wRC+, to come later. Read a bit more of the section and it delves into the “deeper” stats. ISO is isolated power. It is SLG – BA, so just removes the singles and looks at extra base hitting. wOBA is the weighted on base average, a step up from OBP. As expected, it assigns weights to different events depending on how much they are likely to impact the game. wRC+ and OPS+ are a mouthful. wRC+ is a Fangraphs stat, OPS+ is a Baseball Reference stat. wRC+ is a “step up”, but they are similar. They are weighted averages that take the park and state of the game into account. The weights change per season depending on how the “environment” is, such as high hits, park x being a pitcher’s park, etc. They are centered on 100, so >100 is above average and 100 is below average. BsR is base running and the most confusing of the offensive stats. I think it’s only on Fangraphs. It’s the sum of 3 different complex equations and really one applies to data that was available after 2002. It’s like steals and caught steals, extra bases, GIDPs 0 is average, positive is good, negative is bad. Lots of math, but it’s used in WAR. |
October 27th, 2024 |
A Fan's Guide to Baseball Analytics | I cruised through the opening section on “bad stats”. The other book I read covered this also so I knew what to expect. Batting average, RBI, wins, saves, and errors are all dud stats that either give misleading information or are downright counterproductive. |
October 25th, 2024 |
The Ancestor's Tale | I finished this book. Obviously, I haven’t written anything during my time reading it. Part of it was due to being busy at work and home, plus my computer being down initially. Another aspect is the book itself. It doesn’t seem very conducive to daily entries. It’s almost as if it is a series of short articles with a linking theme as opposed to a unified narrative. I did enjoy it for the most part. I think my ignorance on DNA and genes and whatnot cost me a bit and there wasn’t much help by the authors. Maybe some diagrams would’ve helped. Other than that most things were very interesting. |
August 28th, 2024 |
The Ancestor's Tale | Now we leave the branch that is solely human and meet the common ancestor of man, chimp, and bonobo. This creature was probably more “proper” ape than humans are since humans are very different from the rest of the ape family. It probably was a forest animal like the chimp, ate fruit and sometimes hunted, walked with the aid of hands, and maybe even used tools. Chimps use tools and the interesting thing is chimps in different locations in Africa use different tools, that is they have different cultures. Bonobos, less studied, have not been seen to use tools except when taught in captivity. Sometime 5-7 MYA, this animal became isolated in different groups, probably based on some geographical feature, and these two groups then developed into different gene pools that became different creatures altogether. The way to determine age is based on different mutations in the genes. It might just be our lack of understanding, but most of the DNA is unused. When this “useless” DNA mutates, it does not impact the creature and thus it can reproduce and spread this mutation. The rate of mutation and the number of mutations then gives us an approximate age of separation. The 5-7 MYA estimate comes from some sort of blood antibody test. The molecular evaluation gives us about 10 MYA, which the author says is a fine discrepancy. Something poorly explained about the genetic split point being older than the genealogical. I don’t understand that at all. That was the Chimp’s tale. |
August 27th, 2024 |
The Ancestor's Tale | I keep forgetting to write. Pretty busy and my home laptop is temporarily out of commission. We were at Neanderthals, then we jumped to 1 MYA for Homo Erectus. I don’t think anything interesting was discussed other than how fossils are made. Back to 2 MYA we see Homo Habilis and we discuss brain size. The idea is that for a sample of animals, be it vertebrates, mammals, or great apes, there will be a logarithmic trend for brain size and body mass (approximately 3/4 slope). Anything “above” this slope has a bigger than expected brain size for its mass. The average varies with the sample, and it should surprise no one that apes have larger average brain sizes per body mass than birds. Humans are above average and are practically at the same point as dolphins. Fossils are hard to get data from because we have few samples. It’s not good practice to use one skull for an entire species, but you have to use what you have. Over time, there is a fairly linear trend from Australopithenes through early Homo to us. I think we left Homo there and went to more ape-like men. This might be what I read today, not sure; I’m sort of cramming three days into one. I guess there are Australopithecus robustus and its cousins, robust ape-men, and more gracile ape-men who came before them. One of these slender apes was the famous Lucy. Her kind lived approximately 4 MYA and were short compared to us, but bipedal. There’s several famous gracile ape fossils, and I forget the name of the one we use to discuss bipedalism. Nevertheless, bipedalism is another mystery like brain increase. Why? We can only speculate. Odds are it has nothing to do with the motion itself; it’s not all that advantageous. Could be sexual. Could be for safety, i.e., you can see farther, though you can see far from a tree, too. One theory is that natural selection favored apes who could squat and forage more easily. This over time led to different skeletal features in which bipedalism was more comfortable. It definitely has negatives, like spine problems. This theory suggests that bipedalism precedes brain size increase. Bipedalism freed the hands, allowed food transport and tool use, etc. Some controversial fossils, Sahel tchadensis or something, may have been bipedal 6 MYA. This is when man and chimp when separate ways. A controversial theory is that chimps and gorillas “reverted” FROM bipedalism and our shared ancestor was bipedal. Or bipedalism evolved separately several different times. Who knows? Now we catch up with the chimps and bonobos. |
August 22nd, 2024 |
The Ancestor's Tale | The past couple days have been heavy on genes and DNA. I feel like there should have been some sort of primer chapter on the scientific details. As it stands, the descriptions and information are poor and haphazardly given, I’ll have to look up some of this stuff on my own. In Eve’s Tale, we discuss a lot about genes. Out of the many inherited genes, only two are gender-biased: mitochondria and the Y-chromosome. Mitochondria is inherited from your mother, always, and Y is obviously from father to son. All genes have only one parent, one grandparent, etc, so they are more traceable I guess. Since all women have a mother and all men have a father, you could trace these two genes back far enough until it unites with a single woman (Eve) or a single man (Adam). These individual titles could pass to a more recent ancestor is a male-to-male or female-to-female line ends. While interesting, using a single gene is not a good way to prove ancestry, says the author. Somehow I guess they use genes to try to estimate when modern humans left Africa by seeing how they mutate over time. Maybe it’s not mutation but random recombination through breeding. Enough about that. The Neanderthal genome, at the time of the writing in 2016, showed that around 1-2% of Eurasian genes were inherited by Neanderthal and that about 40% of the Neanderthal genome could be found in modern man. Then a little fingertip was found in Russia that turned out to be a big find. This was from a young Denisovan girl, who must have been a branch related closer to Neanderthals. The ground up finger tip was able to provide the entire genome. The odd thing is that we see almost 8% of their genes in modern individuals in Oceania. That’s about it. Now back to Homo Erectus/Ergaster. |
August 16th, 2024 |
The Ancestor's Tale | The next bit is about some recent milestones in humanity. The first is the agricultural revolution. Not much is said here that isn’t said elsewhere. Humans slowly progressed to pastoralism and farming as hunter-gatherers accidentally made certain crops grow or herded animals in specific locations. Breeding for domesticity (if that’s the right word) would be accidental without an understanding of genetics. The interesting point is that breeding to make animals tame has other consequences. Probably because certain genes go together. Compare dogs to their wolf ancestor; they hardly look alike. The author brings up an interesting point of how we humans may have genetically changed as we became sedentary and domestic. One noticeably one is cultures with lactose tolerance, a genetic mutation which many humans don’t have (including me). That’s not including the problems from the less-varied diet and illnesses from high population density. But nomads don’t have air conditioning and books, so who wins? Then there’s a couple pages on Cro Magnons, which is another revolution. It with these guys that humans leave an interesting archaeological record. They left cave paintings and more items than stone tools, like bone instruments and probably decorations. We don’t know what sparked this creativity. Now we will go back to more archaic humans. |
August 15th, 2024 |
The Ancestor's Tale | The first chapter talks about humans’ most recent common ancestor. First, we are all related. On the evolutionary timescale, you can go back to a single individual mammal and his descendants eventually turn into humans. Likewise, his brother could be the ancestor of all dogs, while another brother has no living descendants. The odds of two creatures following the same evolutionary path that create indistinguishable humans is practically zero. So humans have a common ancestor up to a point in recent human history. Mathematical models show that for an isolated island with a small population, like Tasmania before European colonization, would have a common ancestor about 12 generations ago. That is LOG2(population), where population is 5000. That’s just a couple centuries ago. If you go back further, eventually all humans from that time will be related to all living humans or none. That is to say that we would be related to every individual commonly or not at all. For this same population it was only about 22 generations, hardly 1000 years ago. At some point the number of grandparents, doubling by two with every great-, exceeds the living population and thus we must be interrelated. On Earth, it’s not so simple. Migration events and physical barriers prevent breeding. However, we come from the same heartland. Since Australia is the most isolated, I guess America was also, the models tend to show that the common ancestor is from south or east Asia about 10k years ago. Note that this is not to say we all have shared DNA. As the generation gap increases, the odds of our DNA being inherited becomes zero. It theoretically halves, but in reality it is random. However unlikely, it is possible that my child could get no DNA from my father and only the DNA I have from my mother. So though we have a common ancestor, we may not all even have his or her DNA. |
August 14th, 2024 |
The Ancestor's Tale | Started this book yesterday. It begins with a preface and a general prologue which explain the book. This will be a book that begins with the Homo sapien and goes backward in time. It will look at the evolutional changes that separate us from other existing species. Each chapter will be a rendezvous where two branches have split, starting with chimps but going all the way back to single-cell organisms. Written like Chaucer, all species are pilgrims looking for the common ancestor. Fossils and DNA are the major, and often redundant, sources of evidence. He talked about triangulation but I sort of zoned out by then. |
August 12th, 2024 |
Cicero | Finished the book. Things at first looked like they were going Cicero’s way. The Consuls met Antony in battle at Messina (or something like that) and drove him from the field. Unfortunately, both Consuls died in battle and the Republican government was then at a standstill. Antony was still at large and brought legions in the nearby provinces to his side. Octavian and Cicero were not as close as they may have seemed, and both were only using each other as needed. Octavian and Antony met and formed a new triumvirate with Lepidus. Part of this meeting was how to gain power and money: proscriptions. The irony seems to me that by killing Julius Caesar, the conspirators brought about a much worse and authoritarian outcome. At least Caesar was, and hopefully would have continued to be, a lenient man. Certainly on Antony’s list was his number one enemy in the Senate: Cicero. And that was it. Cicero and Quintus tried to flee the country but made some mistakes along the way. Quintus went back for money and he and his son Quintus were killed. Cicero went every which way except out to sea and was caught and killed. His head and hand were cut off and given to Antony, who displayed them on the Rostrum. That ends the story of Cicero. Brutus and Cassius commit suicide after the triumvirate win at Phillipi the following year. Octavian and Antony split the empire west & east for 10 years before another war, ending with Antony’s suicide. Little Marcus would be Consul and had a good career, like his father, though he was troubled by drink. Atticus would survive and eventually Cicero’s correspondences would be made public. His daughter, a favorite of Cicero, would marry Agrippa. Augustus, despite his hand in Cicero’s death, would speak positively of the man who once was his ally. |
August 8th, 2024 |
Cicero | Now we have a three-way rivalry for power: Octavian, Antony, and the Senate. All are competing for soldiers and the moderates. Antony is still Consul so has real power, while Octavian is illegally recruiting soldiers. The Senate has no one. The tide ebbs and flows and eventually Octavian tries to ally with Cicero and get the Senate on his side. It takes months for Cicero to agree to anything. Meanwhile, Antony is making for Italian Gaul before his Consulship is up to take over and get its legions from a conspirator. Technically legal as Consul, but questionable. The Senate is convened in December, against tradition, with Cicero speaking in favor of Octavian. Somehow he hoped this would lead to Senatorial strength. Brutus and Cassius had taken foreign postings and in theory had access to troops. Will a showdown happen? Octavian has little experience. He fought with Caesar in Gaul, but he is no soldier. |
August 7th, 2024 |
Cicero | There was no way out for Caesar. Some things were staged to make him look less the monarch, but the conspirators wanted him gone, permanently. Maybe a few years fighting the Persians would have lowered tensions, but we’ll never know. There were no compromises being made, so Caesar got got. The Senators did not have much of a plan for afterwards and thought everything would just go back to the old ways. Cicero would’ve killed Antony, too, as Cassius wanted to do. However, Brutus thought that was plain murder. The conspirators did little to quell the two big groups who favored Caesar: the loyal soldiery and the bureaucrats. Antony also neglected the bureaucrats in his aims to be Caesar’s political heir. Caesar’s actual heir, Octavius, was made public at the funeral, which was a big spectacle leading to rioting. Octavius came to get his rights, possibly urged by the bureaucratic camp. He was only 18, and his step-father was Cicero’s neighbor. |
August 5th, 2024 |
Cicero | The next chapter is about all the things Cicero wrote between 46 and 44 BC. It was a pretty boring chapter. He wrote mostly about philosophy and speaking. He wanted to remind people what a good orator he was and knock down the current trend of speaking plainly and correctly without emotion (aka boringly). The next few chapters will be solely about 44 BC and 43 BC, the years Caesar and Cicero are killed. Even in 45 there was some discussion of killing Caesar. Marc Antony was invited into a conspiracy and did not report it to Caesar. Very disloyal of him. Caesar had some major Senators in his camp while there was hope he would restore the constitution and their power. Caesar had other plans. He was the executive, but I guess his clemency was his undoing. If he had killed his opposition in the Senate he would have likely made it to his Parthian campaign. What happened after that is too much speculation, but it would definitely be a different history. Caesar was appearing more and more the monarch, which men like Brutus and Cassius could not stand. |
August 2nd, 2024 |
Cicero | Now Caesar administers. As far as Cicero goes, he and Caesar were still on friendly terms and he acted as intermediary between Caesar and the optimates. He still hoped for a return to Constitutional order. However, Pompey’s sons raised rebellion in Spain which Caesar barely crushed. Back in Rome, Caesar was planning to fight the Parthians next. It became clear by 46 BC that Caesar, now elected Dictator for 10 years, would not relinquish power. Cicero angered him by writing a book on Cato, and Caesar wrote one against Cato, which was bad PR. Sometime during this the worst thing that could happen to Cicero happened: his daughter died. Tullia had not recovered after giving birth and a few weeks later died, and the son only lived a few months. Cicero was destroyed and left Rome for his most secluded villa to hide in the woods. It took him months to have be able to act “normally” and reappear in public. Poor fella. |
August 1st, 2024 |
Cicero | Pompey did head to Egypt but never made it. He was deceived by the Egyptians and killed. They presented his head to Caesar, who allegedly wept. Then he and Cleopatra had their alliance and he spent half a year or more going native. The optimates were still organizing in Africa and Mark Antony was poorly managing Italy. Mithrandates son started another rebellion and Cicero was on house arrest, essentially, in Brundisium. Eventually Caesar returns, reconquers the Pontus in 5 days (veni, vidi, vici), and either goes to Africa or Italy, I forget which first. He meets Cicero and forgives him, and Cicero returns to Rome for some ennui. Caesar defeats the optimates in Africa, who allied with the Mauritians, and Cato commits suicide before bowing to Caesar. A huge blow to Caesar’s popularity. Caesar has his triumph and I guess gets to leading the government. Cicero turns to writing, as he has little to do and few friends in this post-Republic pre-Empire Rome. Oh, he got divorced, too. |
July 31st, 2024 |
Cicero | Cicero remained publicly uncommitted, hoping to broker peace, but privately was an optimate. Caesar was actively wooing Cicero, but Cicero still waivered and seems to have been quite useless to any sort of negotiations. Caesar took Rome without a fight and was lenient towards his prisoners, releasing them on parole. Most went right back to fighting. He did lose some face after taking the treasury. After a face-to-face meeting with Cicero, it was seen that any alliance was not going to happen. Cicero snuck off for Greece to meet Pompey, where he was again unhelpful and depressed. Caesar eventually took the fight to Pompey. Though Pompey had more men, he was not the better general. The Battle of Pharsalus was a total rout and Pompey fled. Quintus angrily went back to Caesar after following his brother and Cicero sulked back to Italy. Brutus was a Pompey man despite Pompey killing his father in the Sulla wars, plus he was a nephew of Cato. After this defeat, he went to Caesar who, awkwardly to me, used to bang his mom on the side. Regardless of the reason, they were close and Caesar was glad to have him. It was Brutus who told Caesar that Pompey would likely be in Egypt. The war continues. |
July 30th, 2024 |
Cicero | The rest of his governorship was less eventful. He mediated some conflicts between tax collectors and the populace. One shock was the outrageous moneylending schemes of Brutus, supposedly an up-and-up fellow, despite the prohibition on Senators from doing such. He expected Cicero to help him, and with rude letters. Cicero then sailed home and the situation in Rome was not good. The climax was coming to a head and the city was paralyzed. The Senate and Pompey were unprepared for Caesar’s armed return. He crossed the Rubicon in the night, “iacta alea est”, and was unopposed all the way to Rome. The Senate fled the city and Pompey had no army prepared. Cicero left for his villa and was tasked by Pompey with defending Campania, to his chagrin. Cicero was on team Pompey, and still on good terms with Caesar, but was disappointed with Pompey’s conduct after fleeing Rome. |
July 29th, 2024 |
Cicero | In the late 50s Cicero writes two books: De Res Publica and De Legibus. Both only survive partially. I thought they’d be interesting but the author makes them seem dull. It seems Cicero is more of an idealist in these books than a realist, discussing how great the Roman constitution and laws are in idea, but the don’t address the problems of his day. The main problems being the government-toppling strength individual generals have and the timebomb that is the rivalry between populari and optimates. Next chapter we see how Caesar and Pompey fall apart. Pompey, sole consul, gets some laws through that foil some of Caesar’s plans to become consul and keep his diplomatic immunity, namely forcing a delay from consulship to governorship of 5 years. He also marries a conservative senator’s daughter, tying him close to the optimate camp. Thus these two men are just another product of the century long battle. That 5-year law has the effect of making the planned governorships fall apart, and Cicero is called to govern in Asia Minor. He does this begrudgingly, especially since his predecessor is another Clodius. Cicero is successful, as in Sicily, because he does not abuse the people and is fair. He does have some Parthian problems on his hands and so brings Quintus and another guy for military knowledge. There are some fights and Cicero is hailed imperator, then I think he aids a vassal border king against rebellion. An interesting year. |
July 26th, 2024 |
Cicero | Yesterday and today read the exile chapter, but he’s not in exile for long. He spends a year or so in Greece at a friend’s, but is pretty depressed and mopey. Not too interesting except a lot of his property is destroyed in Italy. In Rome it is chaos and Clodius and his gangs hold the city hostage. They even go against the triumvirate. Eventually some order is restored and new elections are held. With Pompey’s help, and Cicero’s friend Atticus’, Cicero is allowed to return. To his chagrin, Cicero more or less becomes a puppet for the triumvirate. If his goal is peace and order, I guess he didn’t have much choice. With some bloodshed, the gangs are dispersed. Cicero gains some influence on Pompey, but Caesar wins in the end. He comes up with a new scheme to keep the triumvirate together and it works. Some years pass (Clodius is killed in a highway brawl). Two big events lead to the destruction of the triumvirate. First, Caesar’s daughter, the wife of Pompey, dies. Second, Crassus, fighting in Parthia, dies. Now it’s Caesar and Pompey with no intermediate. A recipe for disaster. |
July 24th, 2024 |
Cicero | Cicero doesn’t do much as a Senator. He started to stay in the country and relax. I think this Pulcher fellow was one of Cicero’s followers at first, but Cicero prosecuted him and now there was bad blood. Cicero couldn’t keep his mouth shut with rumors about Pulcher and his sister, either. Pulcher was in the populares camp and wanted power. Caesar had use for him. Caesar became Consul and formed a secret alliance with the most important men in Rome: Pompey and Crassus. Cicero was approached, but declined, hoping to still save the Roman government from itself. The Triumvirate schemed to get their agendas through, succeeded, and then Caesar set himself up for a nice governorship, in which he will conquer Gaul. Before this he was governor in Spain and put down a rebellion, finding generalship natural to him. Meanwhile, Pulcher gave up his patrician rank to be a plebeian and run for Tribune. As Tribune, he target Cicero for his execution of Catilina’s conspirators. He essentially took over the city with gangs, a full time force. Cicero was forced to leave the city and go into exile. |
July 23rd, 2024 |
Cicero | No time to write yesterday. The consulship is essentially the highlight of Cicero’s life, especially the foiling of Catilina’s plot. Crassus came to Cicero with an unsigned, possibly forged, letter warning him of Catilina. Plus he had an inside woman, so he had plenty of information. My sequence of events is probably wrong. Cicero argued in front of the Senate, including Catilina. Something happened, maybe a lawsuit, and eventually Catilina left Rome and raised some forces nearby. Then his lackey tried to bribe some Gauls to attack Rome, who then went to their patron who sent them to Cicero. This was what he needed. Cicero arrested the men and there was debate about whether Cicero could have theme executed without trial. Only Caesar fought against the death penalty. Ultimately the Senate decided to execute them. An army was sent to fight Catilina’s ragtag group, and Catilina died fighting. Soon Pompey returned from war, with King Mithridates committing suicide. Pompey had spent some administrative time and created several governorships in the east. Returning to Italy, he disbanded his army and entered Rome as a private citizen. The Senate still feared him and fought everything he did, even though he leaned towards the conservative side. Things were not going well for Pompey, and though Cicero tried to have an ally in him, it was not reciprocated. Something else was going on with a Clodius Pulcher and his family, don’t remember, but he’s going to be a thorn for Cicero. |
July 18th, 2024 |
Cicero | His main competitor for Consul was Catilina. A lot of terrible things were said about Catilina, but most of it was probably exaggeration and propaganda. That said, he did commit murders in the Sulla purges, specifically a cousin of Cicero. His main platform was debt cancellation, since the economy was rough as Mithridates was rebelling again in the Pontus. Pompey was sent to deal with that. Crassus and his lackey, Caesar, were backing Catilina, though not very openly. The optimates begrudgingly backed Cicero since he was the only conservative leaning contender, though he espoused popular sentiments for votes. There was an alleged plot by Catilina to overthrow the government, but this one probably was not true. Cicero won the election along with an Antonius, who essentially let Cicero run the show in return for his future governorship (that is, free money). Caesar created a problem with some sort of show trial against a guy who allegedly killed someone back in the Sulla days or the class war. It was some strange ancient law and it kind of went nowhere, but I guess Caesar made his point. I think he became Pontifex Maximus at this time. The next year Cicero ran for Consul again and so did Catilina. Catilina lost again and now really plotted against the government. He was going to kill Cicero and other leading Senators. The plot was leaked by a woman to Cicero’s wife, but Cicero could not convince the Senate to act without more evidence. He started to wear a breast plate. The day for the killing was supposed to be election day, but that came and passed without incident. |
July 16th, 2024 |
Cicero | Cicero’s career was going well. He mostly defended but took a prominent prosecution case from the people of Sicily against their governor. Note that at this time, Sulla had reformed juries so that only senators could sit on them. Very corrupt. The governor was extorting and using his position for insane levels of monetary gain. He was well connected and things were being arranged so that the case would drag on until the new consul could take office and drop the charge. Cicero acted fast and aggressively and dominated the court case. The governor fled before he could be convicted, but he was declared guilty in absentia. Cicero would go on to defend men just like that, saying it’s the judges job to determine truth and that a defender must argue plausibility. He then was climbing up the ladder, becoming Aedile and then Praetor. His goal was to become Consul “in his year” and his chances were pretty good. |
July 15th, 2024 |
Cicero | Cicero gained fame and got more cases. In 79 BC, at age 27, he married. Soon after he and some dudes left for Greece. They spent a lot of time in Athens and then studied some rhetoric to improve his speaking. Cicero was a big fan of Athens. Soon after returning home he had a daughter, but when exactly is unknown. Once he turned 30 he ran for Questor, this being the minimum age set by Sulla (who died while Cicero was away). He won, presumably urging his friends, family, and the people of his rural hometown to vote for him. This did not have much power but allowed one to join the Senate. His position took him to Sicily while his family stayed in Rome. He was in charge of tax collection and he also did some advocating. Sicily owed 10% of its grain to Rome, with possible additional compulsory purchase as necessary. He planned ahead to get fair prices and didn’t skim off the top, earning him much esteem and respect from the locals. He also found Archimedes’ tomb. After his term he returned to Rome with the understanding that he needed to be seen. He would always be available and not take another foreign office. At this time, the Senate’s main adversaries seemed to be Pompey and Crassus. Pompey was a young general who gained fame under Sulla, was well liked and popular, and had just put down the rebellion in Spain. Crassus was a general in his 40s and seemed to not have real political convictions, just advancing himself. He used people as needed, and Cicero was not a fan of him. Crassus just put down Spartacus’ rebellion, but, to his chagrin, Pompey arrived in time to do little and get lots of credit. They did not like each other but teamed up to run as Consuls, knowing the Senate liked strong generals very little. They won, though Pompey was technically not qualified, being too young and not holding the correct offices. |
July 12th, 2024 |
Cicero | Back to this book. I’m not really reading at home anymore, so the dual book days are on home. I read the second chapter a while back but never wrote about it. It wasn’t so much about Cicero as about Rome when he arrived. Cicero was a teen and student in the era of Sulla’s dictatorship and all the uncertainty and violence that went with it. He was associated with some of the leading men at this time, though I can’t remember them. He would have leaned towards Sulla’s conservative ways, but did not approve of the violence and purges. Once he was older and Rome cooled down, he began his career as a lawyer. There was quite a bit about the cursus honorum and the Forum, but you can look all that up on Wikipedia. I didn’t retain much of it, but there were some nice maps and pictures of the Forum. Most of Cicero’s cases came through connections, since he was then an unknown. He gained some fame for one of his first cases, which was a a ballsy one. He defended a man who was a target of a conspiracy by one of Sulla’s leading men. Cicero persuaded the jury and thinks were set aright. What happened to those guys is lost to history, but at least Cicero did not get any retribution from Sulla. |
July 11th, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | The book ends with a chapter on “the future” and an epilogue. Not much to say here. The last chapter could have just said now that they have data, they will use it. Pretty dull end to the book. The data will be/is used to evaluate players and even determine if pitchers are fatiguing. The epilogue tells the author’s story as an analyst for the Blue Jays before Big Data and how nowadays he wouldn’t even get an interview for the job. Masters and PhDs are required for this work now. And anyone praising the RBI or the Win is a dinosaur.
Some bullet points for my future self:
|
July 10th, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | Next chapter is about Statcast, which was pretty new at the time of the book writing. Pretty interesting stuff. You watch a game now and you see all the pitching information and exit velocity from the bat. That’s all tracked by radar. It also tracks where the ball is essentially at all times. I didn’t know there was also an optical system that tracks player locations. The data can tell you accurately the range of a fielder or how fast someone was running. The machine learning can identify pitch style for each pitcher. Definitely a good asset for stats, providing terabytes of data. A lot of that is probably proprietary and does not get public release. I wonder if all data is available to all teams, or if there are limits for your players only. The latter seems more fair. |
July 9th, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | This last section of the book feels more like an appendix than something that’s part of the “narrative”. The next chapter is about scouts. The author says scouts use good stats but just spends a lot of time just describing what scouts do and how they choose who should be drafted. It’s interesting but doesn’t seem relevant to the overarching theme. Oh well. |
July 8th, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | The last section starts with a chapter about the baseball hall of fame. It’s mostly the author complaining about how certain people with poor “good” stats are in while people who deserve to be in are not and are no longer on the ballot. I’m sure the complaints are justified, but does the baseball hall of fame really matter? Just look up top X players by Y on Wikipedia. The author also likes to use WAR for this. |
July 3rd, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | The last chapter of the section is about WAR, wins above replacement. This is a metric, not a stat, that takes compares the player to a baseline, similar to UZR or dRS. Instead of a league average player, the baseline is a AAA player. If a player with a WAR of 2 is injured for the season and replaced by a minor leaguer, that team would be expected to win 2 less games in the season. For example, Bryce Harper is on the 10 day injured list and he has a WAR of 3.7 for 2024, let’s call it 4. With Kody Clemens in his spot for let’s say 8 games, the Phillies will win 8/162*4 or 0.2 games less that season. WAR is not a single calculation. Any institution can use their own public or private method to determine value. More or less you weigh everything they do (or fail to do), sum it and divide by the baseline. It’s more controversial for pitchers because there’s two schools of thought on how to value them. Do you value the pitcher who lets guys on base but doesn’t allow runs, or do you value the guy who keeps guys on base but has a few more runs? The runs prevented number can vary quite a bit depending on how you view this and there does not seem to be a peace treaty in the making. WAR is not an absolute but relative scale. I think of it like distance vs temperature. 20 feet is twice as long as 10 feet, but 70°F is not “twice as hot” as 35°F. Having a higher WAR is only valuable in the difference between two values. If you change the baseline, two players will still have a WAR difference of 2. |
July 2nd, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | Defense is a difficult thing to gauge, probably more difficult than pitching. The fact is that it is subjective because you need to decide if a player SHOULD have made a play. You need to determine how an average player would perform and whether the defender’s playing is helping or hurting the team. The book said this in many, many more words. While there is no perfect method, there are two decent ones that only improve as more data is received through modern play-by-play data. The two are UZR, ultimate zone rating, and dRS, defensive runs saved. They are different methods of doing the same thing. They divide the field into zones and assign a zone to position(s). It's a map that says whether someone should be able to get there and play or catch the ball. Obviously it is effected by positioning, which can be a managerial decision. Complex stuff, but maybe it’s useful. I can’t say I’ve seen it reported. Plenty of these other sabermetric stats at least make the jumbotron. I’ll have to look harder. I forgot to talk about catchers. Their job is hard to quantify because they tend to call the game and a catcher with a good reputation for throwing out stealers will eventually not have many steal attempts against him, thus dropping his numbers. The passed ball vs wild pitch can also be subjective, like the error. But I learned something very interesting: catcher framing. It sounds like cheating. The umpire cannot see the ball through the catcher, so the catcher can attempt to make a ball look like a strike at the edge of the plate by how he handles it, or frames it. That could explain a lot of bad calls by umpires. This skill would be completely obsolete if the computer were used to call the balls and strikes. I need to keep an eye out for this when watching a game. |
July 1st, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | The ERA chapter is a bit hard to follow. I think the trickiness comes from the fact that it’s hard to separate the pitcher from the defense. The pitcher controls his throws, but cannot control fielding. He can try to force a groundout, but the defense can err. He can strikeout and not walk, but even this is subjective to the umpire. Replace the umpire with a computer, please! ERA is a good comparative stat, but it doesn’t tell you enough about how good a pitcher is. The subjectiveness of umpires can make a pitcher look worse (or better I guess) and of errors can make a pitcher look better. There was something about BABIP (batting average of balls batted in play) but it made no sense. The other stat is FIP, field independent pitching, which ignores the results of balls batted in. It is based on HR, BB, HBP, and K. You probably need to use both ERA and FIP together to see how a pitcher did. It is a team game after. Very confusing stuff, no wonder people stick with the simple stats. |
June 28th, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | Read two short chapters, skipping the ERA chapter for Monday. The first one is about the attempt to make a “one number” stat that gives a view of a hitter. This has led to wOBA, which the author says he uses but never in isolation. It’s similar to OBP but it is weighted, similar to SLG but more precise. Walks and singles have a factor, HBP, etc. This factor changes depending on the environment, meaning how all players are doing. It’s scale is similar to OBP, so if the number looks good as OBP, it’s a good wOBA. (I pronounce it “whoa-buh”). I’ve seen xwOBA, too. The other stat is wRC+, and honestly I forget what it is. Weighted runs created? It’s similar except it adjusts the values based on the park played in and normalizes everything to 1. It’s probably fine but wOBA is easier to grasp. The other chapter was on WPA or win probability added. This is none a stat of skill but of circumstance. It says how useful a certain play was to winning a game. For example, a 2 run home run will have higher WPA in a 1-2 game than in a 6-0 game. The inverse is true: the pitcher who threw that would get negative WPA. The losing team ends with -0.5 and the winning with 0.5, and each player will have his own numbers that will contribute to that total. A neat way to tell the story of a game, but useless for prediction and comparison. It’s a narrative. |
June 27th, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | Now we get into slugging and OPS, but mostly slugging. It’s the same as batting average in that it only counts hits, but it weighs hits based on the total bases gotten. Thus someone who homers a lot will have a higher SLG than someone who rarely does. It doesn’t give the complete picture like OBP, but it does give a good idea of someone’s power. Thorough batter ratings give the triple-slash, or BA / OBP / SLG. Ops is OBP plus SLG, but this doesn’t make much sense mathematically (different denominators) and it muddies the water. If two batters have equal OPS but one has a higher OBP, than he is better. Getting on first is the hardest part of the game and whoever does it most is best. A point of OBP is at least twice as important as a point of SLG. However, OPS is a good team stat. For the team, it has a better correlation to runs than OBP and SLG individually. So it’s still good for something. |
June 26th, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | The first chapter of “good” stats is awarded to OBP. It’s already been discussed by this is superior to batting average. Hits are good, but if you consider a batter’s job as not getting an out, then the average is incomplete. OBP looks at the full picture. A career OBP above .400 is godly. Ted Williams had the best season at above .550 until Barry Bonds reached .600. Harper has batted above .450 and Juan Soto (now a Yankee) has a top 20 career above .420. The average in the past few seasons has been between .310 and .320. Next chapter adds some meat to OBP with OPS. |
June 25th, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | The last chapter of the dumb stats section is about “myths” in baseball. First was the concept of the clutch hitter. Data shows that a good hitter is just a good hitter, no matter the situation. Even the best like Jeter perform approximately the same in high-pressure situations or postseason. The point I had to make was that some people may crack under pressure. The author addresses this by stating that the majors would have weeded out these individuals. That very well may be the case in lower leagues where the skill ceiling is lower, but not for the MLB. Another myth was line protection. This is where you put a good hitter behind a good hitter so they don’t intentionally walk the first one. Using earlier data, putting someone on base is always a bad choice. Maybe before NL had the DH and pitchers had to hit it had uses, but not now. Again, this is for MLB. Not to mention that intentional walking is a bitch move. Another bad idea is the sac bunt. It’s just better to try to get on base because the extra out does not make up the odds for moving a player a base. This is a generalization and maybe there is a time for it, like the fielders left a big gap, but then the sac bunt is no longer a sac but just a hit. That’s the gist. |
June 24th, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | The next stat I’m not familiar with at all. Possibly the author’s wish came true and the stat is dead. This is fielding percentage. This is putouts + assists divided by P + A + errors. The author has two problems with this. Three, I guess. First, he does not like errors. They are dependent on one person’s judgment and thus not useful for mathematics. Not only are errors subjective, they are only counted for a play. Thus a player who does less is rewarded while player who tries something and fails gets an error. They encourage a lack of effort. That said, the fielding percentage only counts work done by the fielder. All they work they didn’t do is ignored. Again, it’s a partial stat. A similar stat, Range Factor, is P + A per inning played times 9, like an ERA. While the subjective error is gone, we still only see work done (that resulted in an out) and not total tries. Lastly, these stats view all plays as equal, which we know they are not. An easy fly ball is not the same as a jump and catch that prevents a home run, yet these stats do not weigh plays. So the fielding percentage is useless in determining defensive skill. It is a hard stat to create, but some efforts have been made. Some stats will be brought up later in the book. |
June 21st, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | I was confused when I saw the next chapter was on stolen bases. Stealing bases is cool. How can the author have a problem with them? Well, he doesn’t have a problem with stealing per se. The problem is that it’s half of a stat. The important stat is the ratio of stolen bases to times caught stealing. If a runner has 50 stolen bases but got caught stealing 40 times, he only has a 55% success rate. The other problem is with the decision to steal. It’s hard to get a runner on base. Losing a runner because of a failed steal is much more costly than the benefit gained from advancing the runner. It’s almost 4x more costly. That means for a runner to have gained anything from stealing, he’d need 4x SB than CS. Otherwise he was a detriment to the team. Plus, the decision has to be strategic. If you have a slugger who has a good chance of homering at bat, do not under any circumstances attempt a steal. If you have an inattentive pitcher and some weak hitters coming up, it may be worth the risk to get into scoring position. All good points that made me reevaluate the steal. |
June 20th, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | The author really hates saves. They don’t really make sense to me, but I never paid much attention to pitcher stats besides ERA. A save is credited to a closer, under some specific circumstances, who doesn’t lose a lead. It’s very arbitrary, as you need a certain lead or certain men on base, and you must be the last pitcher. If the two previous relievers don’t give up the lead, they get nothing. Thus it inflates the importances (and cost) of the 9th inning pitcher, even if he has an easier setup than earlier pitchers. The author really hates it because it led to managers not using their closer (often their best reliever) in non-save situations, even when it could turn the game around. In that case, it’s hurting the team. Not to mention it is not a stat of an individual’s, but a team’s, worth. You can also have crappy pitchers get saves just due to circumstance and thus have an inflated reputation, or a good pitcher kept out of the hall of fame due to low save count. It does seem like a bad stat. |
June 19th, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | As I thought, the dislike of RBIs comes from the fact that a player has no control over the team. Runs should be a team stat. A player has no control over the batting order, who is batting in front of them, who else advanced batters or who stole bases, etc. There are many variables which have nothing to do with the individual at bat. I do find RBIs to be an interesting statistic, but it is mostly a stat of chance and thus is mere trivia. The author says Runs Created have a higher correlation to Runs Created next season, but only 60%. I don’t know much about those and they don’t seem to have their own chapter in the “good” section. So I am now in agreement, down with RBIs. |
June 18th, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | The next chapter is on another dumb stat, pitcher wins. It never made any sense to me. Why does the pitcher get the credit and the blame? He doesn’t control fielding or runs scored. He doesn’t even bat anymore. Back in the day the pitcher played 9 innings, but even then it’s dumb. Pitching rotation has changed a lot, too. There are just less games played. ERA and walks thrown are much more important stats that tell you how a pitcher performs. Kill this stat. There’s a later chapter just for saves. The next chapter is on RBIs and I am curious as to the problem with those. They are probably useless because a batter cannot control how other players bat. It's interesting, but not defining like OBP. |
June 17th, 2024 |
Smart Baseball | Read the not very interesting introduction and the first chapter. The first chapter is on batting average and why it is not the super-important stat that many believe it is. It was a stat created in the early days (pre-modern), when the rules were not set in stone. Hitters could call pitch locations, walks and strikes varied in number, homers were rare. Batting average does not include critical items like walks, hits-by-pitch, and sac-flys. Walks alone take up a huge number of plate appearances. Thus the on-base percentage (OBP) has a higher correlation with runs earned. Slugging and OPS have a higher correlation, but the author doesn’t seem to think they’re as good as OBP. There’s chapters later on these stats, so we have to wait and see why. Tradition prevails, though, and people still get batting titles and MVPs for highest average, even if they were far from the best hitter and player. |
June 14th, 2024 |
Anarchism and Other Essays | The last essay is Modern Drama and comes off as Emma just discussing novels and plays she enjoys, which I though was nice. The point she is trying to make is that the dramatic piece has a power of changing public opinion that essays and speeches do not. They have the power to show, the pathos, that makes people see what they do not want to see. She goes through many different examples from different countries. I haven’t heard of most of the books or plays, but I agree with the core concept. It’s unfortunate, but reading terrible things happening to imaginary characters you have grown attached to is more powerful than reading the news about strangers. Human nature, I guess. A story sticks with you, possibly for life. It’s a good essay to end on. |
June 12th, 2024 |
Anarchism and Other Essays | Marriage and Love, in my opinion, is outdated, but I believe it was a pretty hot take in 1910. Like many people believe today, marriage is irrelevant to love. Many people get married who are not really in love, or they fall out of love and get divorced. Back then marriage was really a trap for women and mainly a legal agreement of economics. Now, not everywhere, women have an equal or stronger say in couples. But many people choose not to get married. People still do weird traditional things like ask the father for permission (disgusting) and refusing to live “in sin”. I would never get married (that is, sign a contract) to someone I never lived with. I don’t think anyone should get married. It’s archaic and inconvenient. Tradition is a bitch to break. |
June 11th, 2024 |
Anarchism and Other Essays | The Emancipation of Women is kind of boring. Maybe I was just tired, but it didn’t really capture me like some of the other essays. The gist of it is that women are celebrating “emancipation” and getting out of the house, having careers, etc. I think Emma says, that ‘s good and all, but that’s a step not a goal. Women are still more or less slaves in marriage, while many women who become professionals suppress their human feelings of wanting love and family more or less to prove a point. A women is not really free until she can truly express herself like any man can, without becoming his subject and secondary in marriage. It was okay. |
June 10th, 2024 |
Anarchism and Other Essays | Friday I read the essay on Puritanism. I don’t remember it, but I figure I agreed with most of it. Nothing too shocking, Puritans are dicks and lunatics. Then I started The Traffic of Women, or white slavery. Emma mocks the shock that people have at the idea of women being trafficked for prostitution and blames the system they promote for creating the traffic. The conditions that force women to work in horrible conditions for a fraction of what men make, poor home conditions, leads to vulnerable conditions. They also are treated as sex objects while at work, anyway, and are punished for resisting. Good points by Emma, attacking the system, the sexual double standards, and the trap that is marriage. Today I read Women’s Suffrage which has a very interesting take. It brushes past the idea that it is important for women to have equal rights as men and calls suffrage and voting a complete waste of time. Places that have women’s suffrage got no better through women voting, and in fact women often are behind some of the “moral” laws that invade people’s privacy. No, women have not improved the situation anywhere they can vote. It’s more of the same, oppressive laws, government intrusion, anti-labor. The vote accomplishes nothing and only direct action gets results. Maybe that’s true, I don’t know. I never really thought about it. I am a bit optimistic towards voting, if there were a fair voting system, like ranked-choice proportional representation. But would that help? Would you the majority oppress the minority? Silence the different? Maybe. Probably. |
June 6th, 2024 |
Anarchism and Other Essays | The next essay is on Francisco Ferrer and the Modern School. To be honest, it is not very interesting. We are pretty far removed from the church-run schools and education has changed significantly. What is tragic is that the Spanish government accused Ferrer of crimes he did not commit in order to execute him, which they did. Spain truly is a despotic place and is responsible for countless deaths. But he was an anarchist and promoted secular schools, thus the powers that be needed him dead. Obviously it did not work because their power is dwindled or gone. The liberal school has prevailed, though we still have the problem of religion trying to enforce its nonsense and lies in education. |
June 5th, 2024 |
Anarchism and Other Essays | Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty is another hit and definitely still relevant today. It’s slightly outdated, since the GI bill gave an incentive to join that will not leave the soldier skill-less and empty handed after their term, but many parts stand today. Patriotism is no different than nationalism; both are the belief that one’s own circumstance and location of birth is superior to another, and this is defendable to the death. It is a religion perpetuated by the government to control people and justify its own actions. The patriotic adult starts as a brainwashed child memorizing star spangled songs and learning revised history where his country is never the bad guy. The soldier today is still, generally, the country rube, the uneducated, or the without options, just as he was 100 years ago. The American soldier of today, though, is not sent to kill the protester or the striker or the innocent; that is now the job of the police, armed like the soldier. The soldier of today is sent far away to murder women and children who can’t protest in his language. Actually, that is very similar to Emma’s day. Back then it was Cuba and the Philippines. In my day it is Iraq and Afghanistan. Patriotism is causing genocide in Gaza, it is causing war crimes in Ukraine. It must be written out of human DNA. |
June 4th, 2024 |
Anarchism and Other Essays | The political violence essay is good. It seeks to get an emotional response from you and it succeeds. You sympathize with the people killing politicians and kings who let people suffer or cause their suffering, or even kill them. All that said, I don’t recall much of this type of violence in my lifetime. Maybe in some countries I haven’t paid attention to. Social democracy may have saved the politicians. The next essay is Prisons and must have been shocking back then, but today is standard affair for the left. Prisons are not good for society but are a social evil. They do not reform criminals but destroy them with starvation, torture, and inhumane conditions. They do not deter crime but have frequent repeat inmates. Most crime stems from social conditions and the way to prevent crime is to improve the conditions that lead people to crime. The rich and powerful get away with their crimes while the poor are punished in cruel and excessive ways. This is all good and and I agree, but Emma always seems to leave out the answer to the obvious questions. What would you do with violent criminals if there were no jails? Should a murderer be allowed on the streets because he has no money? I don’t have an answer either, but I’m not the one writing the essay. |
| Cicero | The book starts with a preface on why the author wrote the book and about his historical significance. An absurd amount of his letters have survived. Then it goes into a very dramatic account of the assassination of Julius Caesar, not bad. The first chapter describes the Roman government by the time of Cicero. The Roman system was very, very complicated and not always logical. The Republic was designed to keep a single man from amassing power. I’ve read about consuls and quaestors and what have you multiple times and I still don’t get it. It worked because nobody tried to break it, though it was impossible to change. With a static constitution, the government could not adapt to the large expansion out of Italy and the increase of plebians. There were layers of class tension, between rich and poor, citizen and non-citizen. The citizen soldier was dead by now, replaced by the professional. They wanted land in retirement, land the rich did not want to give. Reformers like the Gracchi were killed outright. A fire waiting to happen. The next chapter starts on Cicero’s family. His grandfather was a rich conservative local politician, not of Roman but Volscian descent. Thus Cicero had competing identities. His father was sickly and more studious. | |
June 3rd, 2024 |
Anarchism and Other Essays | The Psychology of Political Violence is the next essay. It is a response to people who condemn a political act of violence without asking the question: why? Something must have motivated this person. Emma says it is an intense feeling of sympathy for one’s fellow humans and outrage at the conditions being perpetuated. I can see and agree with this. If conditions were to improve, if people were not being abused, then there would be no incentive. There would be crazies every now and then, like the guy who shot Reagan. Hard for me to say how I’d really feel. The US at this time is not a big country for political violence. Lots of other violence, but not so much political. You have mass shooters and cops killing people, both who should be considered terrorists. This should be a point Emma makes but so far hasn’t: violence against innocent people should have no sympathy. Lynchings are political statements, too. She then says a lot of things are attributed to her and anarchists which have nothing to do with either. Apparently the guy who killed McKinley was not an anarchist. News to me. She spends a lot of time talking and quoting a Frenchman named Vaillant, who bombed some building, but I don’t think he killed anyone. He was an anarchist and he was executed. There’s still a few pages left. |
May 31st, 2024 |
Anarchism and Other Essays | Yeah I’m not sold on the anarchism thing. There’s probably better introductions, but it comes down to what a lot of other ideals want: individual liberty. The difference I guess is what is the incubator of liberty. For anarchists, it is nothing. All structures are in the way of individual liberty. I don’t agree and don’t see how a stateless society can be anything other than despotism and might-makes-right. I have a low opinion on human nature. The next essay is Minorites versus Majorities is more interesting, but takes a much more negative view of the populace than you’d expect from the idealistic previous essay. This one says that it is individuals and non-conformists who improve and change the world, while the majority despise them and change and desire to be passive and led. I agree with this line of thought. The masses are generally ignorant and allergic to critical thinking, and the powers that be like it that way. Emma ends say she sympathizes with the plight of the masses, but does not count on them for political action. The Anarchism essay extolled direct action as a tool to improvement, not waiting for the government or by voting it in. Amen to that. And yet Emma cannot count on the majority to join this, as they blindly follow laws, become cops and lawyers, and criticize the minority. Not sure if there was a call to action or any silver lining in this one. Maybe better education, but many people are inherently limited in intellectual ability. Who will care for them in an anarchist society? They would be taken advantage of. |
May 30th, 2024 |
Anarchism and Other Essays | There’s a little preface by Emma where she defends the written word over the spoken word, saying that any buffoon will go to a speech, but only people with interest will seek out a book on the topic. She then cuts it off saying the works will speak for themselves. She already let the cat out of the bag that her essay Anarchism doesn’t actually explain how anarchism would work in reality. The justification is that it is not up to the people of the present to tell the people of the future how to live. This is very disappointing. I don’t need fiery rhetoric about how things are oppressive. What’s the alternative and how will it work? Socialists of different varieties provide an answer to both. To her first point, I don’t agree that the people of the present shouldn’t listen to the people of the past. Improvements are built on knowledge of the past, and much of that gets forgotten as things get more complicated. It seems anarchism is exactly what everyone thinks it is: a complete lack of law and order. Without state and property, what is there other than a base existence? If there is now law to protect my home, or even my life, then that is the life of an animal. Yes, she is right that laws CAN be oppressive. But the struggle should be for a system that does not oppress, not no system at all. I only got through half, so maybe she will win me over, but I doubt it. |
May 29th, 2024 |
Anarchism and Other Essays | The biography was not the most interesting. She ran in a lot of circles and was the target of police. It would be better if it were post Russian Revolution. It’s funny that the author refers to the 1905 revolution as THE revolution. Little did he know. But it seems Emma did some good work and only got arrested and went to prison for 1 year, at the age of 25 in 1893, under some garbage charges of inciting a riot. But she gained a lot of fame. She may not be a household name today, but she is definitely remembered. Now to the meat of the matter. What is anarchism? |
May 28th, 2024 |
Anarchism and Other Essays | This collection starts with a biography on Emma Goldman, which I read half of. It’s from 1910 and biographies from older periods are written in a very different style. I feel modern biographies don’t assume the reader already knows everything and provides some background information when something is brought up. No so here. There are lots of names and events dropped with no background. Emma was a Russian Jew in Prussia and from a German culture. Her family moved to St. Petersburg in the wake of the assassination of Alexander II, a highly politicized and revolutionary environment. She worked in some factory and eventually moved to the US with her sister. She found America at the end of the 19th century to be a land of worker oppression and abuse. This is the America of the Haymarket murders and active fighting with police and militia. Anarchists soon assassinate the president. It hasn’t really discussed why she fell in with anarchism. Not too informative so far. |
May 25th, 2024 |
Zero-Point Universe | The book ends with a chapter on the weak force and a conclusion. Apparently the weak force has been downgraded to an “interaction”, and this chapter lists different interactions and how they can be explained. First, he dismisses the W and Z bosons because they should not be able to appear in the proton and live long enough to escape it without violating conservation of energy. Beta decay, neutron decay, and various other electron emissions are due to zeptons. He compares it to the theory of Hawking radiation, where a virtual particle appears at the event horizon. One of the pairs is pulled in, while the other escapes. The black hole then radiates some stuff to keep up the conservation of energy. Imagine a zepton appears in the neutrons “event horizon”. The positron-electron pair meet an electron, and the neutron decays with a proton appearing and an electron. The neutron’s electron annihilates the positron and the virtual electron survives. All the other weak interactions are explained this way. The conclusion wraps everything up, reminding us that everything is easily explained with mechanical interactions through the mattermagnetic force, which means the only force in existence is the electromagnetic. The zepton sea and the zero-point field provide the mechanism for all movements in the universe. Pretty interesting concept. |
May 24th, 2024 |
Zero-Point Universe | Read two chapters today. The first concludes the gravity section by discussing the established “tests”. First he comes up with his own tests which he passes and relativity fails. Then the established tests, which relativity passes, the zepton theory passes too. Congratulations. I really think the author needs to provide some proofs or an appendix. The other chapter was about strong theory. We know the author does not buy gluon theory and I don’t think he believes in quarks. I agree that some of the quark theory is hard to swallow. There was something about beta decay and protons become neutrons and vice versa. They exchange mesons and there’s some funny equations that some seem logical, assuming the author is giving them fair representation. The strong force brings protons together in close proximity and overcomes electric repulsion, but at very close distance they repel again. For the second part is unexplained, but the first part the author takes some equations from some papers about the Casimir force. It is about 3x stronger at the strong force distances than Coulomb repulsion. That’s good enough for the author, but he still talks about his proton “shells”, whatever they are. |
May 23rd, 2024 |
Zero-Point Universe | Another chapter to take on relativity. Why is there a redshift from gravity? Why does light slowdown when traveling near the sun? Why does it bend? All these have a simple answer, and it is now space-time contraction. As discussed in the previous chapter, the presence of matter increases the van der Waal torque, which was seen in slowing clocks. This same force causes the speed of light to change near matter. A photon emitted by the sun, or passing by, is slower near the sun and increases speed once it is distant in “free-space”. Matter changes the permittivity and permeability of space. As the speed changes, the wavelength increases. This is confusing when you think of the equation c = lambda * nu. For c to increase and lambda to increase frequency must be stay the same. Or they can both change in proportions that lead to the same change in c. The author needs to address this. The bending caused by permittivity change was also poorly explained. I guess it is supposed to bend, according to Newton, but the fact that it bends more is “relativity”. Why does it bend in the first place? Just gravitational orbit, like a comet? So the fact that it bends more is because it slows down and is in the orbit longer? Again, poorly explained. Some more equations would help, too. He kind of just talks in paragraph form about math which would be easier to understand if shown with equations. |
| This Time is Different | Finished the book today. The conclusion ends with a discussion on “graduation”, which really only applies to default. All countries have banking crises, regardless of stability. The graduation is essentially marked by a countries ability to pay debt and the world’s confidence in the country to do so. Once a rating is achieved, as long as the trajectory is positive, a country can be considered graduated. The last bit is kind of a repeat of earlier, with the “this time is different” syndrome. It calls for more transparency and whatnot. I wonder what the authors have to say about things 15 years later? | |
May 22nd, 2024 |
Zero-Point Universe | In this chapter the author is on a mission to tear apart special relativity. I think I barely touched on this in college, so I’m definitely out of my wheelhouse. But the author says it is illogical and just cannot be. Special relativity came out of an attempt to come up with a solution for a non-mechanical universe, but as the author has shown there is a medium (“aether”) for all things to propagate. Space dilation and time dilation do not exist because space (the aether, the zepton sea) does not contract. Time dilation as seen is not true either, clocks are not time and clocks are effected by travelling near the speed of light due to the van der Waal torques. The speed of light changes depending on the reference frame. Unlike special relativity where there is no absolute frame of reference, the zero-point field is the absolute frame of reference. If you are moving away from a photon, its speed is c+v, but on its return it is c-v, and thus the total average is c. Other stuff like that. |
| This Time is Different | I read some yesterday but it was boring. I finished the 16th chapter today and most of it just talks about what makes a crisis global vs regional and shows some more charts. They compare 2008 to the Great Depression a lot, and the charts show why. It was the worst crisis in the post-War world. I don’t know how Covid compares, but that was a bummer for stock markets, too. They create a “prototype” for a financial crisis. After financial liberalization, banks and institutions have access to foreign credit. At some point they get in trouble and the central bank has to provide loans. They usually choose to keep the currency exchange up as they can, but it leads to a currency crisis. This worsens the loans that are in foreign credit and may lead to default. The final chapter summarizes everything. It hopes that people will use metrics to monitor the state of financial markets and look for warning signs like housing prices. They can’t predict when a bubble will burst, but the information may cause people to rethink actions, though as noted many times, “this time is different”. They also want the IMF and a new institution to monitor national debts and stuff like that. This will create transparency that could prevent or diminish crises. Only a bit of book left. | |
May 21st, 2024 |
Zero-Point Universe | We got through two chapters: one on the speed of gravity and the other on the speed of light limit. Gravity is fast. It has to be much faster than the speed of light, or gravity would not be affected by the location of a body but by the PAST location of a body. Then orbiting planets would be pulled not to the sun but parallel and orbits would be done for. Fatio-Casimir gravity, the van der Waals force, is caused by rotating dipoles. A zepton rotates a distance d =lambda = c*nu and then I guess it annihilates. At the speed of light, a zepton rotates 180 degrees maximum. But there is so much energy in the zero-point field that only a small rotation produces huge EM fields. And that’s all it comes down to. Small rotations of zeptons propagate down the line, so the EM fields travel much faster than light, as much as 10^20 times faster. There was also something about double-slit experiments proving that EM fields and photons travel faster than light, but I’m not familiar with that.Then the author discusses how Dirac and Einstein were wrong in stating that the speed of light is fundamental. It is derived, the author claims, by how fast the zepton can rotate in a medium. Zepton rotation has to overcome the inertia of the zero-point field; there is a van der Waals torque working against the rotation. This is part of dipole interaction. The permittivity and permeability of free space are derived ability for the vacuum to be polarized, again dependent on the van der Waals torque. Speed of light is then derived from permittivity and permeability. The speed of light slows down in other media because matter interacts with the zepton and increases the amount of torque the rotation must overcome. It actually makes sense. |
| Zero-Point Universe | Now we talk about the aether. The author says the Michelson-Morley, which disproved the aether, was nonsense. I don’t know all this stuff so it didn’t really click with me. There was a lot of talk about aether streams and a photon in a stream would be impacted in its speed, but MM showed that c is constant. The author says that the aether is quantum fluctuations as described in the entire book, and thus are have no kinetic effect with matter. Things don’t slow don’t from friction with the aether. Stuff like that. | |
May 20th, 2024 |
Zero-Point Universe | Yesterday we learned about gravity and today we learned about why gravity is distance limited. Gravity is essentially the Casimir Effect on a larger scale. Fatio in the 17th century suggested a push-theory of gravity, in which particles are pushing on objects on all sides. When two objects are near, they begin to shield each other from certain particles. That is when the push from outside particles is stronger and brings the two objects together. Bring that to a quantum point of view, the random jitter of quantum fluctuations is pushing on matter, instead of Fatio’s kinematic theory. Thus Casimir proved Fatio correct, in a way. The author calls this Fatio-Casimir gravity. Why does gravity fail at large distances, leading to the expansion of the universe? First, gravity is due to random fluctuations from induced dipoles, London-van der Waals forces. The repulsion of the mattermagnetic force is due to polarized matter fields and the matter version of Coulomb's Law. Random fluctuations should lose out to polarization over distance. The other big reason is that the further objects are from each other, the less “shielding” of each other there is. The blocked fluctuations in between are no longer blocked and can cancel out the pushing from the other side. Plus apparently gravity is inelastic, meaning it does not transmit the force through media. If rocks and dust and other things are between two objects, that blocks the zepton push. |
| This Time is Different | The next chapter was short and talked about what makes crises become global. I got nothing from it. The next one will create an index based on the types of crises discussed in the book: default (domestic and foreign), banking, currency, and inflation. Then different countries and events at different times will be scored 0-5 based on what events were experienced. Obviously this doesn’t show the scale, since each occurrence is binary, but if more things are going on then it is clear it is a worse crisis. | |
May 17th, 2024 |
Zero-Point Universe | The next three chapters take up 12 pages or so and are pretty much a waste of time. There’s a couple pages on magnetic fields from planets and stars. What makes the molten rock and plasma circulate? Mattermagnetic force, of course. Then there’s two chapters that repeat equations from before and “combine” them but nothing of significance is accomplished by this. It’s just Maxwell’s equations with little m subscripts and then he sums the two. Hopefully the author steps it up from here. |
| This Time is Different | Where chapter 13 was about the lead ups to a bank crisis, chapter 14 is about the aftermath. Almost all of this was already said in chapter 10. There were a bunch of charts comparing different countries in the post-war years plus the US and some other countries after the depression. The trend is that house prices tank and stay low for 6 years or so, equity tanks more but has faster recovery due to more liquidity. Unemployment increases for a couple years, though emerging countries have less unemployment, possibly due to the low wages and efforts to keep jobs due to lack of safety nets. GDP drops, lots of things drop. The depression years are generally much worse with longer durations because there was a laissez-faire attitude by the government. | |
| Zero-Point Universe | The next chapter is on mass and it doesn’t explain a whole lot. It’s safe to say that the author does not buy the current theory that protons are made of quarks. His theory says that protons are shells. Shells made of what? I find it easier to believe a particle is made of smaller particles than the shell theory. Any way, mass is energy. Where does the energy come from? The shell is of a certain diameter and certain thickness. Some quantum fluctuations have a wavelength that fits in the shell and some fit outside the shell. The shell itself excludes a certain number of wavelengths. These absent wavelengths somehow become the energy for the mass. It’s poorly explained. Maybe it’s like water. You put something in and all that water spills over the side. Somehow that’s mass. | |
May 16th, 2024 |
Zero-Point Universe | Next is a chapter on astronomical bodies. Why does gravity work at galactic distances but not over bigger distances? Because Newtonian gravity is not really one force, but the summation of an attraction (gravity) and repulsion (mattermagnetic). At some point one becomes stronger than the other. Back to rotating bodies, they cause zeptons to move in the opposite direction. This then acts on an orbiting body. A CCW body has CW zeptons, with a Bm force out into the page. A body at 0 degrees and rotating CCW has a velocity pointing in the y direction. The cross-product Force would then be towards the rotating object, thus attracting it. What is not spelled out is why the attraction does not pull the body in, but that would I guess just be velocity based, classical mechanics. A few other topics discussed are synchronous orbits, precession of elliptical orbits (Mercury), and spiral arm galaxies. Instead of tidal forces, which the author calls nonsense, the moon is locked to Earth because of a braking effect. Again picture the orbiting object at 0 degrees. It is spinning and has its own zeptons. If it is rotating in the same direction, then the spin between these bodies is additive. However, the forward velocity has zeptons spinning in the opposite direction between the bodies, while in the same direction beyond the bodies. Since gravity is based on the distance, the force from the main object is stronger in between the bodies and thus slows down this spin. Or something like that. There should be more equations. I’ll skip over the ellipse part because its explanation is wanting. Essentially the mattermagnetic force, perpendicular to velocity, would push towards the center object in a circular orbit, but pushes in odd directions in an elliptical orbit. The spiral arm thing says that Newtoninan physics has no rotational force, so all galaxies should be disks. The magneticmatter force is proportional to velocity, and the stars on the far end of the galaxy have greater velocity than the inner stars. These fields are additive and attractive, like two parallel wires carrying current in the same direction. So the outside stars are brought in. |
| This Time is Different | I am trying my best to pay attention but it’s pretty dry. It continues with some warning signs, comparing the US in the 2000s to the “Big Five” crises of the post-war (Japan in the 90s and some European countries at other times, I think) and also to the average banking crisis, which has much milder results. I don’t remember the details but it followed the trends, more or less. The only thing that the US had in its favor was no inflation crisis. I wonder if we are going to a crisis soon? My stocks are the best they’ve ever been, up 11% from a year ago. I read an article about heavy US borrowing for investments (instead of just raising taxes). Is this the sign of a coming recession? Should I pull out of the stock market? | |
May 15th, 2024 |
Zero-Point Universe | Next is another small chapter which discusses inertia. The author says that there is no Newtonian explanation for the causes of inertia, that is what makes a body stay at rest or stay in motion absent external forces. It’s obviously zeptons. It seems the train of though of this book is that for a EM force, there is an equivalent force acting on neutral matter. He brings up the current causing zeptons to spin, which I complained about earlier, and states that matter in motion also forces zeptons to spin. These spinning zeptons will push the matter along until another push stops it. A body at rest is like an electron, with lines of force pointing at it to keep it from moving. So there is some attraction between matter and zeptons that “push” it in place radially. Will he discuss where these forces come from? |
| This Time is Different | The next section is on the 2008 financial crisis. The whole first 200 pages are background for understanding what happened and if it was predictable. I only got through half the first chapter. It talks about some previous bank crises and then shows some graphs about percentage of the world (based on GDP) were in a crisis at any given year since 1900. The 2007 crisis peaks almost as high as the Great Depressio. Another graph shows the rapid increase in home prices, which had a small 30% or so rise from like 1891 to 1970 and then shot up 3x until the housing bubble burst. I could be wrong about the 1970 year, but that’s when deregulation started to happen in the economy and has continued ever since. The bit I stopped on talks about the “this time is different” syndrome. I guess what was happening was a lot of “saver” countries were looking for safe investments for their savings accounts and then invested in US things. So all this foreign capital was flowing into the US and there was some sort of mismatch between this and some other thing that should not have been so mismatched. I guess with so much more money flowing, they could do riskier things, even though these are savings accounts. Some people thought this couldn’t last and it would hit a wall before crashing, but most leaders thought it was fine and everything was safe and calculated. | |
| Zero-Point Universe | Like an electric dipole, the author seeks a matter dipole. We know gravity attracts (although gravity hasn’t been explained yet), but the universe expands due to “dark energy”. Something must be repelling and nothing accounts for that in the classical theories. There is another important dipole in with zeptons, the matter-antimatter dipole. Matter then acts just like an electromagnetic force. An object at rest has the antimatter end of the dipole pointing at him. Objects push apart like two positive charges, the zeptons repelling and the “void” filled with new zeptons providing pressure. Moving matter causes zeptons to spin, like current in a wire. A rotating object causes zeptons to spin in the opposite direction. A key point is that this matter is electrically neutral. The zeptons then must be of different types. For example, we can have electron-positron pairs, with negative matter, or proton-antiproton pairs, with positive matter. If they are side by side and the antimatter sides line up facing the matter, then the electric charges cancel. Likewise if they the negative charges face a proton, then the matter charges cancel and there’s no mattermagnetic field. Now it kind of reads like a textbook. The student can’t really prove anything so everything is taken on faith. | |
May 14th, 2024 |
Zero-Point Universe | The next chapter is short and seems kind of odd to include. It’s a continuation of the mattermagnetic force with flywheels and gyroscopes. There was a guy who took two flywheels separated by 1/16” and rotated one with a motor. The second one then spun in the opposite, an induced spin. Then when the other flywheel stopped, there was a “back spin” force and the passive flywheel spun the other way. Almost sounds like an electric motor. Except the author then says he tried to recreated it but couldn’t get it to work. You think if you’re this passionate about your theory you would try to make it work before including it in your book. He says it did spin but it may have been due to vibration. When isolated better, there was no spin. I’m starting to go from open-minded to critical. |
| This Time is Different | I couldn’t really pay attention to the rest of the chapter. I don’t know if it’s me or the material. The rest was I think about currency crashes and dollarization. Once a government inflates their money and there is no confidence in it, people use foreign currency for transactions and debts. Once the foreign currency takes hold, it’s near impossible to get rid of it. Even reducing inflation to low levels has no impact, unless it lasts a very long time. Only four countries on the list had succeeded, often with some sort of buyback plan or “punishment” for using foreign currency, like when Israel made putting foreign currency in the bank un-withdrawable for 1 year. Mexico did a buyback, or some forcible conversion. This ends the section. | |
May 13th, 2024 |
Zero-Point Universe | The next chapter is on the electro-magnetic force and some things I have forgotten are coming back. Now the topic is moving charges (not counting current as a moving charge). First, a static charge deflects a like moving charge. The polarized zeptons from each charge form a pressure and the charge is pushed away as it moves closer. The opposite is true for opposite charges, the negative dipole attracts the positive dipole and deflects it towards the stationary charge. Now for the magnetics, which I complained about previously. The force from a magnetic field only operates on a moving charge, which I forgot. The other right-hand rule gives the vector product for the force, since it is not intuitive like which electric charges. The middle finger points in the direction of the B-field, the index finger points in the direction of the charge velocity, and the thumb then points in direction of the force, all in perpendicular directions. Now picture the B-field of a wire, with conventional current flowing to the left. At the 90 degrees point around the wire, the field will point into the page. From the last chapter, this means we will see the zeptons spinning counterclockwise in the plane. Now if a positive charge approaches from the right traveling left, the right hand rule will say the charge will experience a downward force. I’ll have to look at this again, because it seems opposite. The ccw motion means the charge would come head-on to the zepton spinning upward. My intuition says this would push the charge upward, but I could be wrong. I still don’t understand how the direction of the B-field originates, unless the direction can be seen as a derivative of the force-velocity cross product. Then it talks about Maxwell’s Equations, which don’t need much discussion since whether you see “field-lines” or zeptons, the concepts are the same.Update: My intuition was right, he draws the charge moving up with turning zepton. So his explanation does not follow Lorentz’s law. He must be confusing electron flow and conventional current flow. This pretty much drops any confidence I may have had in the guy. |
| This Time is Different | There’s a short chapter on currency debasement, the pre-paper era method of inflation. It doesn’t specify but I assume this mostly effected silver coinage than gold. Gold coins you can change the diameter a bit and save money, but the common method of debasement is to just use less silver. Even in the 19th century this happened, such as the UK going from pure silver coins to sterling (.925) silver. Henry VIII lost so much money somehow (war I guess) that he removed 50% of the silver out of the coins. Thus a coin with less value had the same face value, which would actually be a good thing if prices stayed the same. 1lb, with half the silver, should be worth half a pound, but could buy 1lb. The assumption would be that people get wise and raise prices to cover that difference, but the government still pockets the real value of the silver. This type of this impacted every country everywhere for the 7+ centuries on record. The next chapter is on modern inflation of fiat currency. I didn’t get very far and it didn’t provide any conclusions yet. The data shows that in the past 200 years or so, like debasement, there has been significant inflation episodes at one time or another, with multiple years of +20% or more. The US had almost 200% in 1779. | |
| Zero-Point Universe | I should drop this after the magnetic fiasco, but I want to see where it goes. Now it gets really weird. The author defines a mattermagnetic force, a force that acts like a magnetic force but is derived from matter. He discusses the case of spinning top as why there is a need for another force. There is no velocity or angular velocity factor in Netwon’s laws, so why should a top stay up because it’s spinning? The usual explanation is angular torque and I don’t remember any of this stuff from school. But anyway he uses the torque of magnetic law and derives an equivalent force based on mass. It’s a very strange chapter. | |
May 10th, 2024 |
This Time is Different | The rest of chapter 10 talks about banking crises and real estate. It seems that there is a link between real housing prices and a crisis. The prices run-up and peak shortly before a crisis and then bottom out shortly after. This is roughly a 4-6 year event and happens in countries of all status. This may be why it takes longer to recover, whereas “non-tangible” bubbles like stocks or the dot com bubble had short recoveries. Then it talks about the costs of a banking crisis. The main two are that the government takes on a huge amount of domestic debt, average 86% more than at the start of the crisis, and a decrease in GDP. GDP goes from positive to negative and takes 3 years (or 2 years in developing countries) to become positive again. Note that this positive percentage is smaller since it based on a lower income. The other note is that a lot of crises occur after a market liberalization or a reduction in oversight/deregulation. The chances increase dramatically after such an event. |
| Zero-Point Universe | Now we get into something I have some background in: electromagnetics. Of course I’m very rusty, but I remember the concepts. First the author uses zeptons to explain electrostatics. Picture Faraday field lines. The lines emanating from a stationary charge were just a concept, but may have root in reality. A free electron, with its negative charge, will orient the zepton dipoles such that the positive end faces the electron and the negative end faces away. These affect nearby zeptons and so on as the strength of polarization decreases with distance. Two like charges attract like the Casimir effect. Since zeptons are virtual and must annihilate, there will be a void between the charges. The outside pushing force is stronger than the inside and the charges move together. Like charges repel as the dipoles eventually come to a point where negative meets negative. These then push up and away, creating a “hole” in between the charges where unpolarized zeptons and blip in and out of existence. All of this seems pretty sound based on the foundation so far.What I don’t get, and I don’t think it is me, is the author’s magnetism explanation. A magnetic field is due to current, or a moving charge. A single moving electron would orient the dipoles towards it and they would swivel as it passed. I imagine this like a drag race, where you watch the car come and then turn your head as it passes. The author then says a series of electrons, or a current, will continuously affect the surrounding zeptons and cause them to spin. I assume this would be due to the high speeds involved that the zepton cannot just reverse angular direction, so the electron then repels the negative side of the zepton, forcing it to continue moving in that angular direction. The problem I have is that this spinning is in the same direction as the current (or opposite, if you use conventional “positive” flow”). The magnetic field from a current is radial around the wire, not in the direction of it. He never really explained how the magnetic force works in this case. How do the spinning zeptons interact with matter? How do B-fields from parallel wires interact? Then he said that the inverse is true and spinning zeptons induce current. This does not make sense because only a CHANGING magnetic field induces current. Not a good explanation. | |
May 9th, 2024 |
Zero-Point Universe | Next is a short chapter in which the author claims the photon is not a fundamental particle. The photon is in fact a collection of quantum particle pairs, not strictly the electron and positron, but could be any. This accounts for the wide variety of energy levels available for a photon. The author, to avoid confusing stable, resting electrons and positrons with these pairs, uses the term zepton. The central zepton and its EM field induce neighboring zeptons, which continues to induce others. This accounts for the photon’s wave-like features, and if the central zepton interacts with matter, that accounts for the particle-like features. I think that covers it. |
| This Time is Different | The next section is on banking crises and inflation. The main idea so far is that while many advanced economies have “graduated” out of defaulting, no country has graduated out of banking crises. The data shows that the developing world and the advanced economies are both, and nearly equally, plagued by banking crises. The book mentions two types of crises. The first, which I’m not sure if it is covered much more, is under a repressive economic system. For example, the government limits what people can do with their money, and thus they are practically forced to keep it in banks. Then the government gets low interest loans from the banks; this is essentially an indirect tax. The government can also increase inflation beyond the allowed earned interest and inflate their debt away. The more typical crisis the bank run, which most of us will be familiar with. The short-term deposits are used to back long-term loans. Runs are about confidence in the bank and can be caused by completely false information, which I recall an episode like this in The Jungle. The bank then has to get rid of assets at cheap rates. If multiple banks have to get rid of similar assets at the same time, then what should have been liquid assets now become illiquid and unsellable as the market saturates. | |
May 8th, 2024 |
This Time is Different | Chapter 8 and 9 give some data about domestic debt. At the time of default, it is usually several times larger than external debt. It is also a significant burden when high inflation events occur. Lots of graphs and charts, but other than that, not very interesting. That ends the section. |
May 3rd, 2024 |
Zero-Energy Universe | Now some of the real attacking begins. This chapter is about virtual photons, and the author does not like them. In fact, they do not exist. I still don’t fully get the “virtual” particles concept. It is difficult to grasp matter coming from no matter, except I guess energy is matter, so enough energy could become matter. I guess. The author says death to the virtual photon. What is real is the virtual electron and positron pair. Dirac predicted the positron in 1928 and postulated the “Dirac Sea”, where electron and positron pairs floated endlessly in the vacuum. Instead of the neutral photon, you have the charged electrons and positrons. And what do they form? Yes, a dipole, just like the Casimir Effect would expect. So the vacuum is filled with virtual dipoles that WILL interact with matter through the EM field. The author then says that energy-time constraint from Heisenberg is Et = h/2. Since E = h*frequency=h*c/lambda, a single wavelength has E*t = h. I take all this on faith and do not know these equations, but the unit analysis works. To disprove the virtual photon and antiphoton, we use this equation. To travel one wavelength and back, per particle, that would be 4*h. This exceeds the he energy from Heisenberg’s uncertain principle by a factor of 8. To get ½, each particle has to go 1/8 out and 1/8 in to meet and annihilate. They would not travel a full loop, so they’d have to be “bounced” back on the same path and thus canceled out. Whatever that means. Moving on, it somehow already regarded as accepted under Feynman to use a positron-electron pair in place of a photon, so there it is. The vacuum is full of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs with charge. |
May 1st, 2024 |
This Time is Different | The next chapter starts on internal domestic debt and default. There was a little background but mostly charts and data, so not much to summarize. Lots of tables, too. Charts and tables are very helpful. Apparently economists mostly ignore domestic debt, assuming that it is not significant and will always be paid off, or it can be inflated away. The authors show that throughout history that this is not true. Domestic debt across 64 countries has varied and probably averaged slightly above half of all debt, more so in developed countries. They also noted many instances of default or things that should be considered default. The idea that the government doesn’t have to pay its domestic debt has some logical foundation, but in reality it’s hard to the believe the government can afford to anger the wealthy and powerful lenders, especially when a government can be voted out of office. |
April 30th, 2024 |
This Time is Different | Chapter 6 ends the section on external debt default. The chapter reiterates that even a rescheduling must be considered at least a partial default. This is because the rescheduled debt often has a lower interest rate and longer term, giving the lenders a high risk illiquidity with a low rate of return. The return is comparable to bonds in a low-risk nation, not at all comparable to the high risk returns of venture capitalism. The chapter gives a history of default through different continents and different centuries. The summary is that repeated defaults are not a new phenomenon and they are not confined to Latin America. They happened everywhere for hundreds of years. Over the centuries, some emerging markets like France and England graduated to advanced economies, but they had plenty of issues in the past. |
April 29th, 2024 |
Zero-Point Universe | It’s already starting to get denser. The author now tells us what the zero-point is. It is essentially a vacuum with no particles, no EM field or light, and at absolute zero. Yet there is not nothing here, it is teeming with energy. The energy density of the vacuum is 10^94 g/cc, which the author compares that to the 1 g/cc mass density of water. I’m assuming the vacuum density has been converted to mass already by E=mc^2. This energy is the product of vibrations or the quantum field, which are very small individually but the aggregate is unfathomable. The energy is undetectable and thus must be smaller than Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle allows us to measure. Such large energy must not interact with regular matter, which I forget what the justification was. If the universe is infinite, is the zero-point energy infinite? Since we are not crushed by the force from such an energy, we can assume it is only nearly infinite. Many modern theories are not able to deal with this energy and thus ignore, so the author says they must be rewritten. The vacuum is full of energy and our “matter” realm is insignificant in comparison. The universe must be viewed starting with the zero-point. |
| This Time is Different | The chapter continues showing different correlations with external defaults. A major one is the correlation with banking crises. These lead to the advanced economies contracting and not loaning any more money. This prevents principal rollovers and some other stuff. In earlier periods but still relevant today are commodity prices. If commodity prices fall, defaults rise since the emerging markets can’t get enough money to pay the debt. There was one more but I didn’t understand it. There was a side box about restructuring the debt, using something called the Brady program, which actually saw that most the restructured countries defaulted or had worse debt ratios. This is because they did well and then borrowed more, creatin another scenario of default. | |
| Zero-Point Universe | Read another chapter. My physics is very rusty. I remember some things from college, but not much. The author talked about van der Waal forces, which have to do with dipoles. There’s different types of dipole interactions, but we are concerned only when dipoles are induced, such as when a hydrogen atom becomes a dipole under an electric field. I’m not smart enough for this, but I think the van der Waal force is about the interaction between different dipoles. If the dipole moment, distance between charges, increases, it will interact with nearby dipoles and this will reduce the repulsion. There’s other cases, but more distance equals more force. The Casimir Effect looks at induced (London) van der Waal forces at the quantum level. Quantum fluctuations, or temporary random energy changes, act as induced dipoles and can be a Planck length or a universe length. The bigger it is, the weaker it is and less energy it has. Van der Waal forces are insignificant at a distance. Now say there’s two parallel plates in a vacuum. The quantum fluctuations between the plates creates a pressure, but so do the external ones, and the net force is zero. As the plates are brought together, more “sizes” of fluctuations are excluded. Even at millimeter distances, the energy and pressure from the small fluctuations inside the plates is strong enough to keep them separate. At sub-micron distances, however, too many fluctuations are excluded and the plates are pushed together. Yes, the vacuum itself pushes the plates together. This has been experimentally proven, and I’ll have to look it up separately. So the vacuum can be treated as a polarizable medium with dipoles and van der Waal forces. These forces can interact with everyday matter. If the vacuum can push matter, what else can it do? | |
April 26th, 2024 |
Zero-Point Universe | I read the intro and first chapter. From my understanding, the author wants to apply classical mechanics to the quantum realm. That is, there must be some simple mechanical action to create forces, not free-flying particles in a vacuum. He scoffs at the idea of bosons (gauge bosons), with their gluons and color charges and vast memory of where they came from and what they are allowed to do. Instead of considering all the old theories “closed” and unquestionable, he wants to re-open them. Zero-point energy, a.k.a. the quantum field, permeates the vacuum and thus is the only possible mechanism for motion. This is a pushing force that pushes things away, and any attraction is due to a stronger pushing force from elsewhere. I’m sure all this will be explained in depth in the next 26 chapters. Side note, this looks like one of those print-on-demand books that they make from e-books. Sad. |
| This Time is Different | The fourth chapter ends with a bit on domestic debt, which I didn’t really follow (surprise). Where does domestic debt come from? I guess bonds and apparently when I put money in my bank, the bank can loan that to the government. Makes sense. I only ever thought about private loans like for houses and businesses, but don’t see why a government couldn’t borrow from a bank. Turns out governments default on domestic debt, too, but the data is much harder to get a hold of. Then there was something on odious debt, like giving dictators money to commit war crimes like Israel and Russia.I only read a little of chapter 5, which shows charts of countries in default since 1800. The real interesting part was a side box on the history of external debt. Since the church banned usury, there were “work arounds” like paying the loan back not with interest, but with a stronger currency, i.e., one that hasn’t been debased. Eventually the backdoor stuff went away and it was all open. One of the best examples is Edward III getting loans from Italians for his war with France. England was a developing country, which made money from its wool industry. When Edward lost some battle, it caused a bank run in Italy and 2 banks went bankrupt over a couple years. There were more defaults and England didn’t cross the threshold to “developed” until after 1688 and Parliament had a tighter control on finance. Then there was Spain with its American silver, but Spain and France defaulted 6 or 7 times in the 17th century. War is a big reason for default. | |
April 25th, 2024 |
This Time is Different | Now begins Part II, Foreign Debt, and chapter 4 mostly raises questions about it. The first is: why do lenders loan to foreign governments? There is nothing they can do to force a repayment. Back in the old days, a country could and would invade another for debt repayment. This is now seen as too costly and unrealistic, given that debt owed is often split among countries and continents. A country pays back its debt because it wants access to the capital markets. I don’t really know what that means, but I guess the government does not want to be on some sort of blacklist that will make them persona-non-grata and unable to trade in certain countries. But since we’ve seen that governments default at percentages much lower than their income, we know that default is a choice. They are not companies who cease to exist when they cannot pay. It is a political decision that payments up to X are endurable, but after that it is unreasonable. Unless you want to be shot like Ceausescu, you won’t make your people starve to pay foreign debt. The government usually will negotiate terms rather than refuse to pay altogether and I guess that should make everyone happy. Then there was a section about illiquidity vs insolvency. Illiquidity is the problem of short-term debt where for some reason when the debt term is over, the lenders lack confidence in the government and do not allow a rollover of principal. Even if the government could and would continue paying the debt, they cannot now because no one will give them the loan. Nowadays the IMF would step in and give a bridge loan. Note that “lenders” may be an aggregate of small lenders who cannot individually meet the loan value, thus a consensus among lenders is required. Insolvency is when the government cannot or will not pay, which is another confidence crisis. It becomes hard to tell which is which and thus loans can be given to insolvent governments, which leads to more default. The short-term loans are given as a way to “force” governments to pay. Since there is regular rolling over of principal, they need to keep confidence high. In return they get lower interest rates. I think. |
April 24th, 2024 |
This Time is Different | This chapter talked about sources for data used in the analysis. It was incredibly boring and I got nothing out of it. |
April 23rd, 2024 |
This Time is Different | Continued the second chapter. Note that debt here refers to government debt, public and private, external (to foreigners). Note that in general, private debt in these cases is very small compared to public and often becomes public after buyouts. The authors use the ratio of debt to GNP or exports and something called the IIR, which I think stands for international investors rating. A high rating means they are unlikely to default. Using these numbers, the authors split the countries into clubs, split by the average IIR plus/minus 1STD. Above a sigma, the countries are in Club A and are the least debt intolerant. Below a sig, they are in Club C and have practically no access to foreign loans. In between in Club B, it is broken down by 4 types. If they are above the mean (I & II) or below the mean (III & IV), and if their debt ratio is below 35 (I & III) or above it (II & IV). As Type number increases, the intolerance to debt increases. This group is the least understood and the focus of the next chapters. |
April 22nd, 2024 |
This Time is Different | The first chapter ends with the author’s definition of “this-time-is-different” syndrome, which essentially is that people always assume that bad things happen elsewhere to other people and that we are so much more advanced and immune. The second chapter is on “debt intolerance”, which I think means why less developed countries cannot handle the debt levels that advanced countries do. Where a country like Japan can go on with a debt equal to its GNP, the less developed economies seem to start defaulting at around the 40% mark. I think that’s as far as I got. |
April 19th, 2024 |
This Time is Different | There was a preamble that I read yesterday that explained some things but I forget it. The first chapter defines some terms and concepts that will used throughout the book. I guess the first three are more “symptoms: inflation, currency crisis, debasement. An inflation crisis occurs when it exceeds 40% per year, and hyperinflation is 40% per month. Pre-WWI periods did not have such high inflation, so 20% is used as the limit. A current crisis is when a currency, compared to the dollar or whatever strong currency of the era, drops by 15%. I don’t really know how that works. Old style debasement is when the government would use less precious metal in their coin, but give it the same value. The modern version is something like where the government changes the currency. Like if $1 becomes so worthless that they make new currency, the &, and &1 is now worth $1000. Then there’s three more crises: banking crises, external debt, domestic debt. Banking crises are determined either by a bank run which leads to closure, or a situation which leads to the public takeover of one or more financial institutions. A lot of these start and end dates are murky and the reasons are hidden since banks often fudge the books. They don’t exactly advertise they’re doing poorly and have risky investments. External debt is when the government owes money to foreign creditors. When the government misses a payment and defaults, it’s highly advertised and thus well studied. These seem to be not so big a deal since the foreign creditors have no jurisdiction in that country and better terms are usually worked out. It will affect their ability to get future loans, though. Domestic debt is the murkiest of all because the government hides everything. It’s like the above but when the government defaults on debt to locals. |
April 17th, 2024 |
This Time is Different | This is going to be a tricky book. It seems very technical and data heavy, but appears to have a good number of graphs and charts to aid understanding. I thought it was pretty long but a third of it is appendices and notes. I only got through the preface today and that was no small task for me. I’m already lost at the concept of “default”. It talked a lot about governments in default either to internal or external lenders. Then there are banking crises to discuss. The data I guess will reveal that default and banking crises are not just something emerging economies go through and grow out of. 2008 showed that the complex US economy could go into a banking crisis. But I think the first good bit of it is “sovereign debt”, or how countries go into default. |
April 16th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | Augustine is a guy who helped propagate the Jesus-freak non-sense. His father a pagan, his mother a Christian, he grew up in Africa and went to study in Carthage. He did some sins and tried different beliefs. Then in Rome, he became a die-hard Catholic, the kind that had no respect in other beliefs and is okay with violent repression. He argued the trinity non-sense, really it makes no sense. If you believe in it, you are just a stupid person. Then he became bishop of Hippo and wrote that City of God book after the Arian barbarians sacked Rome. He died during a siege by the Vandals. I don’t like him. Same goes for Leo the Great. He was a hard-line Catholic who became pope. Many of his letters survive and he essentially did all he could to make papal authority absolute, though he held little sway in the east. He allegedly convinced Attila the Hun to turn around, though that is probably made up and he left for logistical reasons. What is good is that he convinced the Vandals, fellow Christians of the wrong branch, to not murder or rape as they sacked Rome. Priscus was an eastern empire bureaucrat. He was sent on some missions and wrote an interesting journal on them later in life. He saw some strange things in barbarian lands, and even Roman cities completely abandoned after invasion. He went to the court of Attila, but no deal could be worked out. Lucky for him, he attacked west. Consentius brings us the last slice of life. By the 5th century, Italy sucked and Gaul was cool. He was a Gaulish aristocrat and must have lived a pretty sweet life. During the reign of one of the later emperors, they did an amateur chariot race. This was deadly as chariots were cheap and light, but professionals made millions. The races had insane fans, see the Nika riots. Anyway, this guy got his color and raced and lived. The story survives in a poem by a friend who witnessed the race. The End. It’s questionable if Romulus Augustulus was ever really emperor, but it is poetic to end Rome with another Romulus. This teenage boy might as well have been a doll since his father is the real story. Orestes was a general, part barbarian, and had a history on both sides of the battlefield. By this time the army was mostly Germanics. Orestes used his leadership to promise land for the soldiers if they overthrew Julian Nepos. They marched on Ravenna and deposed the emperor. Orestes never delivered the land, and a few months later there was another revolt. Odoacer led the barbarian soldiers, killed Orestes, and sent Romulus to retirement. Odoacer ruled Italy as king, though in theory he was subordinate to Nepos and then to the eastern empire. Then Theodoric would murder him. But the empire was over. The Germanic kingdoms had taken form, and soon Arabic kingdoms would follow. |
April 15th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | Julian is the emperor who we were robbed of. A half-nephew of Constantine and thus marked out for the purges by Constantine’s successors. Somehow he was passed over and sent to exile, where he lived isolated with teachers and a lot of Christian garbage. He was a smart guy and eventually married the emperor’s niece or daughter, thus joining the close family. He was sent to fight barbarians and was a good general. He was made a Caesar and then Augustus after all Constantine’s sons died. He was a pagan (neoplatonist) and return to the tolerant pre-Christian era. All the old temples were open. I’m sure he did other cool stuff, too. Sadly, he ruled only for two years, dying in battle with the Persians. After Julian and his commander Jovian’s short reign, there was an emergency meeting to choose a new emperor. Valentinian was capable and on-hand, so he was chosen. He then gave his brother Valens the second Augustus title. Now they split the empire, and never will it be whole again. Valentinian ruled the west and interacted rarely with his brother. He refused to interfere with church business and spent most of his reign fighting barbarians. He built forts and kept the Germans, Britons, and Africans in line. It was hard work, but he was from the sticks and could put up with constant warfare. He was probably a bit of a dope, but he preserved the status quo for his 10 year reign. Stilicho is known as the last great general. A half-Vandal, half-Roman, he served the Theodosian dynasty and fought the barbarians who regularly invaded Rome. He probably bought off Alaric a few times, which is shady but may have been necessary. When Theodosius died, Honorius was a boy and Stilicho was his regent. Stilicho probably used this to enrich himself and he did some things to the pagans that are unacceptable, but he still kept the barbarians at bay. He had his daughter marry Honorius, but she died eventually. It was thought that he was plotting to replace Honorius with is own son, and Stilicho was executed without trial. This led to a genocide of Germanic peoples in Rome. Soon after, the Visigoths would sack Rome for the first time in 800 years. I remember reading about Hypatia in Gibbon’s book. She was an intelligent woman in Alexandria, a leading scientist/astronomer/astrologer, but not a Christian. People thought she was a witch just for being a woman, but as militant Christianity was spreading in the region, her Neoplatonist beliefs were a death sentence. One day she was abducted and skinned alive, then burned in the streets. A very Christian thing to do. Soon after, anyone of intelligence would see that Alexandria was no longer a center of intellect and it was time to leave it forever. Vettius Agorius Praetextatius was a wealthy aristocrat and senator, and what is interesting is that he was a pagan when the Christians were taking over. His tomb has his religious and his secular roles and honors inscribed, and it’s a long list. He was clearly successful and well-liked. He advocated for the rights of pagans to worship and protected them and their things from fanatical Christians. Solid dude. Issac of Armenia seems like a smart guy. The Armenian kingdom adopted Christianity before the Romans did and thus had an established church by the time it was permitted empire wide. The Persians and Romans often fought over Armenia, though the Armenians wanted independence. By Issac’s generation, the current state of peace gave Persia 3/4 of it. The Persians banned Greek in their territory and the Romans banned whatever Persians spoke back then. Issac came up with the idea of just using their native language, and after that they had to find a way to write it down. They borrowed some alphabet from an old dead language and it was a huge success. |
April 14th, 2024 |
A Farewell to Arms | The last book is a bummer. Everything is lovely in Switzerland and they spend the winter in some little town as boarders in little mountain house. Fred and Catherine are a cute couple. March arrives and Catherine will soon have the baby. Once the rains clear up and the roads can be traveled, they head to the big town where the hospital is. They live in a hotel and one night the baby starts to come. They go to the hospital and everything seems to be going normal. Then every family man’s worst nightmare happens. Hours pass and the labor does not progress. The doctor says they must use forceps or do a cesarean. They choose the later and Catherine goes into surgery. It goes badly. The baby had the cord around his neck and is stillborn. Fred can accept this as long as Catherine lives. But she hemorrhages and starts to die. Fred and Catherine have one last moment together. The book ends with her death and Fred going out into the rain. I didn’t think it would be such a depressing ending. Good book, but Hemingway's others are better. The Sun Also Rises is a better romance, For Whom the Bell Tolls is a better war novel. But it’s good. They also never addressed the murder of the sergeant, and not a lot of people seem to discuss it online. It seems completely out of character. It is a black spot on the story. A comment about the book I read. It was a “good” copy from Thriftbooks, which can have some highlighting. This book was completely highlighted and had a shit ton of notes from some teenage girl. And the notes were terrible. That girl is such a bitch. I never knew I could hate someone so much from their notes. Anyway, I ripped out the pages and recycled them. No one will ever read that brat’s notes again. |
April 13th, 2024 |
A Farewell to Arms | The fourth book is not as tense as the third, but there is a sort of thriller-type tension. Fred gets off the train at Milan. He goes to the hospital but the porter tells him Catherine and Ferguson are away north on the lakes. He goes to a cafe and the owner can tell he is a runaway and offers some help. Fred goes to a friend’s for civilian clothes. He boards a train to the town Catherine is at, which he has visited before on leave. It is November and the town is mostly abandoned for the season. He knows the bartender and they’ve been fishing together before. This guy has a lot of friends. He finds Catherine and Ferguson rips into him for knocking her up. Anyway, the plan is to make it to Switzerland eventually. He has an American passport and Catherine a British passport, so no problem. However, the police recognize him from his earlier trip and know he’s a runaway. The bartender tells Fred in the middle of the night that he must leave now or he will be arrested in the morning. He gives him his fishing boat to row down the lake to Switzerland, though the water is rough from a storm. It is not easy and some 20 miles of rowing, but they get to the Swiss side by morning. They go ashore, have breakfast, and return to their boat to find a Swiss soldier. He arrests them and they make up a story about being cousins on vacation looking for winter sport. Once the Swiss see their passports and find out they have plenty of money, they become very cordial and accommodating. They need to report their whereabouts at all times, but they’re free to travel the country. |
April 12th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | A couple small names. Symmachius was a gladiator who did well and had a little engraving dedicated to him. Aurelia Amimma and her husband got divorced and the author discusses their names, which shows when their ancestors probably got Roman citizenship (they lived in Syria). Julius Terentius was a aristocrat I think and fought the Persians, and died. There is something talking about him and then a separate artifact discussing the battle in which he died in, defending Roman territory. Ammianus Marcellinus was a soldier who didn’t enjoy that life and turned historian. He was a pagan and did not Christians, and was a friend of emperor Julian. The emperor Constantine does not need much background, everyone knows he (and his co-emperor) did the Edict of Milan and he was baptized at death. He was probably a dick and murdered his family. St. Alban, like the town, was a martyr Roman soldier who was executed in place of a monk. Offa built a church to him at the site of his execution. Diocletian was an interesting emperor. He came from nothing, brought about stability after many years of crisis, and then left. He created the short-lived Tetrachy, with two emperor Augustuses (Augusti?) and two junior emperor Caesars. One set ruled the west, the other the east, unofficially. Diocletian was at home in the east, wore royal purple and was a god-like autocrat. He stayed in his comfortable villas, with Milan being Maximus’ place in the west, and Rome increasingly becoming irrelevant. After a successful career, he retired and his Caesar became Augustus. This system lasted until Constantine declared himself the successor to his father Constantius’ throne (not inheritable) and Maximus un-retired. Nobody trusted Diocletian to stay retired, though he probably intended to. Instead of waiting for assassination, he committed suicide in his villa. |
April 11th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | The section ends with Didius Julianus. After him is the fall of the empire, down to final western emperor. After Commodus was assassinated in 193, there was a bit of a civil war as to who would rule next. Pertinax was proclaimed emperor by the Praetorian Guard, only to be killed by them shortly after. Didius Julianus, possibly a friend, then essentially bought the empire. There was a bidding war in the camp of the Guard, and Julianus won. He was probably good at the job, a fine governor and general. However, the idea of buying the empire did not sit well. There was rebellion and riots. Septimius Severus led his Syrian army on Rome and took control. He disbanded or unempowered the Guard. Julianus was executed, though exile would have been more just. The provincial armies were now the tool to decide emperor. Clodia Laeta was a vestal virgin, which is a big deal. The whole cult of Vesta depends on the purity of them, and they were trained since the age of 6 to be a priestess. If they were unpure, banging, they and the man were killed. Cloda Laeta was buried alive for this, though she was probably innocent. The ruthless emperor Commodus attempted to have her and failed, so several Vestals were executed by him. He couldn’t be assassinated soon enough. After the war of 193, things were weird. The Syrian Severan dynasty took the throne. In this dynasty was Elagabalus, a teen boy whose mother and grandmother were powerful aristocrats and relations of the Severans. He was raised to be a priest of El Gabul, the local sun god, so this was a hard right turn. It was a bit of a usurpation, as someone usurped the throne after Carcalla was killed. The family went to Rome and the women ruled a few years, while Elgabalus brought his son god with him, naming him Sol Invictus. He apparently was a bit gay and liked to dress like a lady. Eventually the grandmother and mother fell out, the grandmother chose another Severan to rule, and Elgabalus and his mother were killed and thrown in the Tiber. Pretty sad end. Postumus was a general in Gaul during the reign of Gallenius, circa 260. Emperor Valerian was taken by the Sasanian Persians, leaving Gallenius to defend Rome while Postumus defended Gaul. This was no easy task, as Valerian had taken many troops from these regions with him to Persia. Postumus drove back the Germans and decided that he would be emperor of Gaul. The people were happy, since no one would leave them undefended to fight foreign wars or tax them for things they’ll never see. Gallenius sent troops, but Postumus just avoided him. It went on for many years and a status quo was accepted. It was a good time for Gaul. However, nothing lasts forever. Postumus was killed by his troops when he forbade them from sacking a Roman city. At the same time Postumus was leader of Gaul, there was a new leader of in the east, Odaenathus. A top aristocrat from Palmyra, he was stuck with the job of pushing back the Persian advancement that had killed his emperor. As a reward for doing so, Gallenius gave him the title of “Defender of the East”, thus making him higher than the governors. He ruled as a king and styled himself as one, preparing his son for the job also. He seems to have been successful and well-liked by his fellow locals. Of course he pursued Palmyrene interests, but Rome benefited also. His second wife, Zenobia, was jealous and wanted her son to rule, so she killed Odaenathus and his son. She led a rebellion to make her son king, but it was crushed and she was taken to Rome as captive. |
April 10th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | I haven’t heard of any of these people except the emperor. Apollodorus was a famous architect in the court of Trajan. He designed the bridge to cross the Danube which stood until it had to be destroyed in modern times. He also did lots of work in Rome, as Trajan used his war booty to glorify himself and the city. He famously told another architect that his dome-roof designs were garbage and dismissed him. That man was future emperor Hadrian. Safe to say when Hadrian was in power, Apollodorus was not favored. He was later sent to exile where he died. There was a surprisingly long entry on Antinous, the boy lover of Hadrian. Hadrian was a Grecophile, so naturally wanted to bang a tween boy. He was in love with this kid who became part of his court after a trip to Syria or Asia Minor. 5 years later or so the kid died in the Nile and Hadrian was devastated, named a city after this kid, and deified him. Metila Acte was a (head?) priestess of the Magna Mater. Not interesting. Aulus Gellius was a grammarian who wrote rambling books on grammar and trivia as a hobby and to entertain his family. It’s very self-aware and not in the standard verbose, over-the-top Latin. Seems interesting to read, if I knew the vocab. Herodian was a civil servant and amateur historian. At the turn of the 3rd century, he could sense that things were going downhill after the death of Marcus Aurelius and the rise of Commodus. He was not much of a writer or historian, but his insight as a government worker is important. His is one of two surviving histories of the post-Good Emperor era. Marcus Aurelius needs no introduction. Most famous to posterity as the writer of the Stoic work Meditations, a personal diary that was meant to be burned, he was the last of the “Good Emperors”. His father died and his mother raised him, giving him a good education and access to great teachers and philosophers. Adopted by Antoninus Pius, he co-ruled with Pius’ real son Lucius Verus. While Aurelius wanted to rule with wisdom, he unfortunately lived in a time of war. He let Verus run the war with the Parthians, but this resulted in plague returning to Rome. Verus died a couple years later and Aurelius ruled alone. He then had to be the military ruler and run the war as Germans invaded across the Rhine. There was no peace for Aurelius. He unfortunately caused many problems for the country by not adopting an heir and letting his son Commodus come to power after his death. Despite his wisdom, he was blind to how bad his son would rule. |
April 9th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | This next group are mostly “slice of life” stories about regular people. Larcius Macedo was a freedman who became a cruel master. He was so hated that he was killed by his slaves in his bath, according to a letter by Pliny the Younger. Minucius Acilianus is from another letter of Pliny the Younger. Pliny was asked by the recipient to find a husband for his niece, a common task for the older generation. He was flattered and thrilled and described the success, good father, and wealth of Minucius. Plus he was handsome. Tiberius Claudius Maximus was a career cavalryman who had all his deeds on his tombstone. He was proud of his career in fighting across the Danube and he was rewarded by Domitian, though this stunted his career. Trajan later recognized his good work and gave him more promotions. Blandina Martiola has a touching epitaph from her husband. She was 18 when she died, and they were married for 5 years. Just regular people, Celts probably, in Gaul. Her love and kindness were praised by her grieving husband. Claudia Severa was a Roman woman in Britain, up near Scotland, at the forts with her husband. Two letters from her to a friend survive, one being an invitation to a birthday party. This shows even at the ends of the empire, civilization and friendly society were still pressent. When I hear the name Domitian, I feel the impression of a bad emperor. I don’t know why or remember anything about him; maybe that’s how Gibbon described him. Compared to father Vespasian and brother Titus, he was less personable and less soldierly, but probably more intelligent. When his father declared himself emperor from Judea, Domitian was still in Rome and had to go into hide or risk execution. When Titus was on his deathbed, Domitian was with the Praetorian Guards to ensure he would be declared emperor next. He was paranoid and always afraid of assassination, though his kill count of rivals is surprisingly low for a nearly 15 year reign. He was tough and tried to improve Rome after the deconstruction of 69. He also liked weird games, staging fights between women and dwarfs. He led the troops in battle across the Danube against the Sarmatians and Dacians. He went on defense on all other borders to save money. But he was controlling. He had no trust in the Senate and they despised him in return. They eventually got him in the bath. I kind of feel bad for him. Everything we know about Agricola comes from Tacitus’ biography. The son-in-law wrote about his father’s military career, which I believe is most famous for his role in Britain. It’s not really THAT interesting. He had a successful military career and prospered under Vespasian, who he backed in the civil war. He quickly became consul and then govenor of Britain. He moved Rome further into Wales and Scotland. He was smart not to try to alienate the locals, which he saw the results of with Boudicca, but to Romanize them. He sailed around Britain and thus proved it was an island. Domitian recalled him from Britain after a long career, and he retired and then died shortly after. |
April 8th, 2024 |
A Farewell to Arms | The men continue on foot. Rumor had it that the enemy who broke the line were Germans, and here Fred sees a car of Germans. They try to cross a railroad bridge and see more Germans on the main bridge, left intact by the Italians. The Germans probably see them but pay the four men no mind. It is when they are marching and close to Italian territory that disaster strikes. One the men is shot from across the river, certainly by an Italian, and dies. The Italians are shooting anything that moves. The men recoup and go to a barn to wait for dark. The two remaining Italians go out to find food, but only one returns. The other, who killed the sergeant, went over to the enemy to surrender. He was sure of their death. The other two eat and sleep, and when dark comes they have an uneventful walk to the surrendering column. When the other calls Fred “lieutenant”, soldiers freak out. There is a mutiny against officers, some have been shot. They speed away and the column comes to a bridge. Here there are men with flashlights. They are waving any officer to the side. There is a tribunal and each officer is sentenced to death. Very dark stuff. Fred tries to fight them but is outnumbered. While he waits his turn, he sees the guards are distracted and runs for the river. He avoids getting shot and lets the river take him. He clings to some wood and floats far away, later risking drowning by swimming ashore. He cuts off the stars of his uniform and considers his service terminated. Now all he wants to do is survive. He finds a train and hops on, hiding under some canvas with the guns. The book three ends how it started, on a train, but in very different circumstances. |
April 7th, 2024 |
A Farewell to Arms | Fred arrives back in his old town and reports to the major. Tomorrow he’ll go to the front and take over the ambulance group. Tonight, he rests and lays down in his old room, waiting for Rinaldi. The old friends greet each other and Rinaldi gets a little drunk, though Fred can’t drink much because of the jaundice. They go to the dining hall and it is quiet. It’s the 3 of them and then the priest arrives late. Rinaldi tries to bust the priest’s balls but there’s no one to join in and he gets frustrated. He’s very stressed from all the surgeries he has to do, plus he thinks he has syphilis. Fred and the priest talk in Fred’s room for a bit, but then Fred must sleep. On the front there is constant talk of attacks, though the season is rainy and the river is high. No one believes there will be an attack. But that night, the Croats attack their section and are repulsed. Up north, however, the empire breaks through. The line is turned and must retreat. Henry with his 3 ambulances must evacuate supplies from the hospital. They rest in town one last time and then are stuck in a long queue for retreat. It is a crawl that stops constantly. There are cars and trucks, horses and carts, civilians and soldiers. One ambulance picks up two lost sergeants, while another picks up two teen girls whose dialect nobody can really understand. Fred decides to take side roads. He is afraid that they will be sitting ducks for planes once the rain stops. It turns out to be not such a great idea as they get stuck and lose an ambulance in the mud. The sergeants start to leave and Fred tells them to help push the car. They refuse and Fred orders them to do it, as he is a lieutenant and they are sergeants. They still walk away and Fred fires his pistol at them, hitting one. The one driver takes the pistol to finish the job. They lose two more ambulances and have to walk to Udine.The shooting of the sergeant really bothers me, and it probably is meant to. However, it’s an extremely nonchalant event in the book. I doubt it will ever get brought up again. Has Fred killed before? These guys have no problem killing an Italian. It doesn’t seem like something a real soldier would do. Did Hemingway see or hear about events like this? I want to read about it but I don’t want to spoil anything. |
April 6th, 2024 |
A Farewell to Arms | The second half of book 2 does not have much going on, though there is a big reveal. Fred and Catherine continue their relationship and Fred continues to improve. They spend a day at the horse races and lose money. One night Catherine tells Fred that she is 3 months pregnant, but neither of them seem too worried about it. I guess they don’t know who will still be living in a month, what countries will or will not exist, etc. Very hard to plan a life at a time like that. It seems neither of them cares to go their own home. Fred comes down with jaundice and does not get the convalescent leave he was planning on. The head nurse Van Campen, who hates him, finds the booze bottles and is thrilled. She revokes his leave and makes sure he returns to the front once he is cured. The section ends with Fred and Catherine spending their last night together in Milan. They do some shopping, he buys a pistol for him and a nightgown for her, then go to a hotel where they have dinner in their room and who knows what else. Then they get a cab in the rain and he goes to the train station. There is no dramatic goodbye, and Catherine rides off to the hospital while Fred rides the crowded train. It is fall, so the fighting season should be ending. |
April 5th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | Josephus was an Israelite. He lived in a time of trouble, as Jews and Greeks and Romans all agitated each other for the region of Judea. It was an important land route to Africa and the east. Things boiled over in the 60s and the Jews rebelled. Josephus was an aristocrat who avoided the radical Jews, but joined the cause when war broke out. His men lost their battle and were committing suicide by lot, with one man killing another. Josephus and another man were the last two and decided to surrender. The general Vespasian used Josephus as a tool and brought him to the siege of Jerusalem. Afterwards, he was brought to Rome. He was now a full Roman ally and friend of Vespasian, emperor. He was a writer who defended and explained the Jewish culture to Romans. Seems cool. Amazonia has an inscription somewhere in Greece. She was apparently a very-good gladiator. So good, that her fight with another woman left with both women leaving the ring alive. The crowd was so entertained that they carved something to remember the fight. Epictetus was a Stoic philosopher. I never heard of him, though that’s not surprising. He was a Greek freedman who turned to philosophy and lived in Rome until Nero kicked out the unproductive types. He returned to Greece and was well-known. His Stoicism would be an influence to people like Marcus Aurelius.Martial can go without description. He’s one of the most famous Romans (of Spain). I’ve always meant to read his epigrams. Pliny the Elder was a smart and scientific man. He died trying to rescue refugees from Pompeii. Like most Romans, he started as a soldier and fought in Germany. He became a governor and military commander, and in his free time he wrote. His famous work, Naturalis Historia, has many volumes on natural history and other scientific interests. Most of it was published by his nephew & adopted son Pliny the Younger. As a naval commander, he used his ships to try to save people from Vesuvius, having witnessed the eruption from a distance. He died while en route, possibly from a heart attack, possibly from noxious fumes. The volcanic clouds are called Plinian after him. |
April 4th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | Pallas was a freed slave of Antonia and served Claudius as a financial secretary. He was apparently good at it, and honest to boot. He did become very wealthy, but not through stealing. He was quite powerful and helped organize the marriage of Claudius and Agrippina. He is accused of helping her kill Claudius. Who knows what is true. He was defended by Seneca, so maybe it’s all nonsense. He was likely killed by Nero, who would have gained much of his money with his death. Agrippina granddaughter of Agrippa and a great-granddaughter of Augustus. Through her first marriage she was the mother of Nero. After her husband’s death and her brother Caligula’s, she was convinced to marry her uncle emperor Claudius. She manipulated things so that her son would reign instead of Claudius’, Brittanicus. She is accused of poisoning Claudius with poison mushrooms. Nero then distrusted her, and she was famously assassinated by him, telling the centurion to stab her in the womb first. Locusta was a famous poisoner and was allegedly (or maybe it’s confirmed) involved in the poisoning of important imperial men, such as Germanicus, or Tiberius’s son, or Nero’s stepbrother. I think she was “exiled” under Nero, since she was caught after he insisted for an instant poison, though she lived freely in Gaul. Then Vespasian had her executed. I lost the name of the guy who ran some Greek games in Corinth, to show a slice of life in the festivities people of the empire may have enjoyed. Numerius Quinctius was a freedman actor, who left a tomb for himself and his wife. Quintus Petillius Cerialis was a lucky general who survived some run-ins with the Batavians and also with Boudica. He married Vespasian’s daughter and was thus involved in the Civil War of 69. Antonia Caenis was slave of Antonia and a top woman. She was intelligent and could read, and she wrote letters for Antonia. She may have had photographic memory. For her loyalty in all the drama that Antonia went through, she was freed. She became the lover of Vespasian, who we know becomes emperor after the civil war. She then essentially became a negotiator and envoy for him. What a career. Frontinus seems like a good guy, if not a bit dull. He had some prominent roles as consol and governor of Britain. He was a general in Germany and Britain as well. As an engineer, he did a lot of work with the aqueducts and left a lot of technical writing on them. He also wrote Stratgems about military tactics. Solid dude. |
April 1st, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | Now we are fully in the empirical years, spanning the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the civil war of 69, up to Vespasian. The post Augustan years cement the end of the Republic, but continue the stability and peace of his reign. To note the relation of these emperors: Tiberius, a Claudian was the step- and adopted son of Augustus. Caligula was the grandson of Tiberius’ brother and great-grandson of Augustus’ sister. Claudius was Caligula’s uncle, Caligula’s nephew and Claudius' adopted son. Sulpicia was a probably a teen girl whose 6 love poems survive. She may have been the daughter of a close associate of Augustus, and in my opinion, would belong in the previous section. Antonia Augustus was the niece of Augustus, youngest daughter of Mark Antony. She married Nero Claudius Drusus, the step-son of Augustus and had two sons, Germanicus and Claudius. Drusus died and she refused to remarry. Their daughter, Livilla, was caught in a plot to murder Tiberius (her brother-in-law) and Caligula (her grandson) to steal usurp the throne for Sejanus (see below). Antonia allegedly starved her daughter to death for this. She was not very nice to Claudius, who had some disablilites, it seems. Both Caligula and Claudius honored her while emperors. Sejanus was a real schemer. With him, the Praetorian Guard from a bodyguard unit to an arm of government. Under Tiberius, he consolidated power, allegedly murdered Tiberius’ son. Tiberius trusted him, and leaned on him more after the death of his mother. Tiberius, however, did not allow him to marry into the family. Tiberius was not in public much and Sejanus was treated like the emperor. Suddenly, he was executed in some confusing backdoor political actions. Pontius Pilate is probably the most famous guy in the book after Caesar himself. He spent a decade as the governor of Judea, but there is not a whole lot of information about him. His importance obviously comes from the New Testament, which was not so known until long after his death. He got into a tiff with some Samaritans and was removed from office after killing them. He drops from history after that. Caligula, son of Germanicus, was emperor for only 4 years after Tiberius before being assassinated at age 28. He’s famous for being a whacko, but this is probably mostly propaganda. While the empire and death of the republic was a reality, he was the one who stopped tip-toeing around the fact. He was killed by the Guard and Senators, some hoping to reestablish the republic, but the Praetorians chose Claudius as emperor. He did some crazy things, like build a pontoon bridge so he could ride his carriage across it out of spite, thus wasting lots of money, and wanted to be treated like a god, but its unlikely he really tried to make his horse a senator and did all the ponro stuff like the movie. Maybe he would’ve done some real crazy stuff if he lived long enough. |
March 29th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | This is the last batch of period from the Social War to the death of Augustus. There’s a few boring ones, but Agrippa is not one of them. Agrippa is probably one of the coolest so far, and it’s very shocking to realize he and Augustus were on 20 or when Caesar was assassinated. Caesar cried that he was no Alexander the Great, but these two conquered Rome at such a young age. Agrippa was Augustus’ general and the reason Augustus won the wars. They were friends from a young age. Augustus was no military commander, but with Agrippa they stopped the Pompeys and fought barbarian uprisings in Gaul and Aquitaine. He crossed the Rhine, like Caesar, to fight Germans. To aid his friend Augustus, he learned how to command a naval force. As admiral, he defeated Antony at Actium in 31BC, leading to Anthony’s suicide. He married Augustus’ daughter, was consul, and was a wealthy and successful man. He donated much of his money to improve the city and roads around it. He was made an heir Sadly he died around 50 years old, but he was buried in Augustus’ family mausoleum. Livy is a very famous historian who wrote a ton. His history of Rome, Ab Urbe Condita, is a frequent reference, though it only partially survives. He had to be careful not to offend Augustus and was familiar with the man himself. He may have written a history of the Roman Republic, but it has not survived. Virgil is the famous poet who wrote the Aenid which he never finished. His life is not actually all that interesting and he died before he finished the poem. But boy is he famous. Augustus loved him. Here are some people who were boring. Eumachia was a rich lady priest in Pompeii. Hilarion of Oxyrhynchus was an Egyptian who wrote his letter to his sister/wife (?) about how if she has a girl, to leave it to die from exposure. Julius Zoilos and Nonius Balbus are two guys I forget about. I think they were regular dudes on team Augustus and heavily rewarded, with the addition of competence and good leadership in their local areas. |
March 28th, 2024 |
A Farewell to Arms | Frederic Henry (we finally learn his name, though he’d been called Federico) arrives at the hospital in Milan, but they weren’t expecting any patients. There’s no doctors and limited nurses, so he makes is lugged painfully to an empty room. He and the one nurse become friendly, but he does not make a good impression on the head nurse. Catherine is not there, but arrives a few days later. Fred suddenly falls in love with her. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. They seem truly in love and call each other husband and wife. She does night nursing so she can be by his side the whole time (banging). There are few other patients. Henry does not trust the doctors there because they come as a pack, signifying a lack of confidence, and because the surgeon is only a captain. The surgeon wants to wait six months. Fred requests a second opinion from the Italian hospital and the surgeon, a major, says he can operate right away. He does and eventually Fred can walk on crutches and then a cane. There’s lots of love between Fred and Catherine and they’re totally co-dependent. She reveals she’s afraid of rain because she sees their deaths in it. Odd. |
March 27th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | We’ll dealing with the big dogs now, guys who have thousands of books written about them. First up is Gaius Julius Caesar. Even if you haven’t read about him, you know his story. He does not seem like a very likable guy. He wanted to be an orator and was apparently pretty good at it. I guess this is evident from his writings. He survived Sulla through the intervention of others and bribed his way to top priest. Then he became consul. He, Crassus, and Pompey formed the first triumvirate where they agreed to not harm each other’s careers. Then he went to conquer Gaul to get money and did this for a decade. In the meantime, Crassus died and Pompey became an enemy of Caesar. The Senate told him to disband his army and come back to Rome, but he crossed the Rubicon with is army. Then there was civil war, which Caesar won. Somehow Egypt and Marc Antony got involved, then he was killed by the Senators. Hail Brutus, descendant of Brutus. Horace was a very famous poet during the civil war era and fought for the Republicans at Phillipi. After that defeat, he dropped all that stuff. He pursued pleasures and was the greatest poet during the reign of Augustus. The emperor himself was a big fan and they were quite close. Horace became very rich and Augustus was his heir. His pursuit of pleasure probably did him in and he died at only 57. His many works still survive Augustus seems like a pretty decent guy. He made an impression on his great-uncle Julius Caesar, since he was an intelligent child and good orator. His father died young and his mother remarried. He joined Caesar on his Spain campaign, but later sent him to Illyria. This was a safer location to be when it came out that he was made Caesar's heir and adopted son. He sailed to Italy in a bold move. He and Marc Antony and Lepidus formed the Second Triumvirate against the assassins, which saw success at Phillipi. They split their domain and Augustus got Italy. This lasted a few years before Augustus and Antony came to blows, with Antony and Cleopatra committing suicide. Augustus was sole ruler of Rome, but he never called himself emperor. He became consul and rule was returned to the Senate bit by bit, but Augustus was smart and kept certain powers and loopholes for himself. He seems pretty cool after that. |
March 26th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | Catiline was much worse that Verres and has remained infamous to history thanks to Cicero. He was very ambitious and I believe was a Sullan. He had no issues with torture and murder, even slowly killing his brother-in-law and parading his severed head around. He wanted power and he wanted to follow in Sulla’s footsteps. He was enraged when he lost the election for Consulship to Cicero and planned to seize power. He ran off to work with some Gallic tribes, but Cicero had an informant and eviscerated him, executing the plotters without trial. Catiline then openly rebelled and was died fighting. Sallust did not succeed as a politician and became a historian. He tried to follow the success of corrupt politicians and leave Africa with nothing and was a backer of Caesar. But his career was a failure so he abandoned it. His histories are looked at skeptically by modern historians, but at least they survive.Tiro servus Ciceronis fuit. I guess it’s just a nice story about a slave who was well loved and respected by his familia. Many writings about Cicero came from him. He was with Cicero at his death and maybe he was free after that, since he lived comfortably to nearly 100. Clodia was a bad, bad girl. Rumor has it she was banging people left and right. A lot of this comes from Cicero, who seems to have hated her. Instead of arguing in court against some guy (a lover?), Cicero talked trash on her and how she murdered her husband. The guy was acquited. She may have been a poet and the famous Lesbia of Catulus. Atticus played politics well, despite avoid politics. He was charming and amassed a lot of wealth over the years. He was against Sulla, but exiled himself and Sulla respected him for that. He jumped around different sides of the civil war, backing people discreetly, and when they came to power they owed him. Everyone seemed to love this guy. Despite all his clandestine involvement in politics, he lived to an old age and died in peace. Servilia was a woman tangled up in Caesar’s war. She was the mother of Brutus from one marriage. She was also the lover of Caesar. Her one daughter was married to Cassius and rumor had it was also a lover of Caesar. Another daughter was the wife of Caesar’s commander-in-chief. Politics were really screwy back then and there was so much marrying and remarrying that it’s practically a familial war. |
March 25th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | The Republican era ends with two less-than-interesting fellows. Staberius Eros was a Greek slave turned teacher, who taught some well-bred students, even for free after the purgings of Sulla. He may have taught Brutus. Pasiteles was a famous sculptor who blended Greek and Roman styles. But now we enter an era of chaos and the death of the Republic. It covers from Sulla’s dictatorship and through Augustus’ reign, 88BC to 14AD. This is an era of Roman against Roman, corrupt leaders, power grabs and summary executions. This is the low-point for Rome. The first man is Hortensius, an excellent lawyer who is more on the side of corruption than good. He had an animated way of speaking that influenced juries (made of Senators, probably bribed), and seems to me that today he would’ve been a corporate lawyer. He became very wealthy and Consul, defended Verres (see below) and was the frenemy of Cicero. I have a book on Cicero that I’ve yet to read. He’s probably the most famous orator of all time, though he was probably a bit bipolar and weepy. He defended the Republic against Catiline and exposed his plot to take over the government, then as Consul had the conspirators summarily executed. He argued against the corrupt Verres, who probably bribed the Senators and was well connected, so well that Verres exiled himself before the verdict was up. Cicero was loved by the Sicilians who he governed very fairly for a stint. He then got on the wrong side of Marc Antony, who made Octavian remove his protection of Cicero. For angering Antony, Cicero was beheaded and his head displayed in Rome. Verres seems like a real POS and the epitome of the corrupt official. He bribed his way up the ladder, extorted the people he was meant to govern. The system, of course, aided this. He was never punished for the decades he was stealing money from Rome and the people. He stole art and probably had people killed. The Sicilians complained of this corruption to their friend Cicero and it was brought to trial. Instead of the sure victory he was expecting, Cicero destroyed him and he went to Gaul in self-exile. He lived a luxurious life on his stolen goods there, though he may have been killed by Marc Antony who in turn coveted his works of art. |
March 24th, 2024 |
A Farewell to Arms | The Book 1 section continues with Henry visiting the front. He then comes back and wants to see Catherine, but gets drunk with his the officers instead and misses her. He comes by the next day to tell her he’ll be at the front for a few days and she gives him a Saint Anthony medal or statue. Henry and four drivers go to the front and wait in a dugout. The Italians discuss war as a concept and whether it is more disastrous to fight or to surrender. Henry goes to the major to get some food for the guys and is informed the attack moved up in time. A bombardment begins and the Austrians start shelling the Italians. Henry runs back to the dugout with some food and they talk and eat. A large trench buster hits them and destroys the dugout. Henry wakes up and can’t move. His legs are damaged and probably partially buried. He wakes up to hear one of the drivers dying nearby. Soon two of the others pull Henry out. They are okay for the most part, and the third has a wounded shoulder. Henry has a quick operation and some British ambulance drivers manage to get him out and to the hospital. Here he is visited by Rinaldo and later Rinaldo and the captain. The Americans have declared war on Germany, so there will be an American hospital built in Milan. Henry will be transferred there. They need room at this hospital for the upcoming battle. The good news is that Catherine is being moved away from the front to Milan also. The priest visits Henry as well. Book 1 ends with Henry’s trip to Milan. |
March 23rd, 2024 |
A Farewell to Arms | The book starts off in a weird way that’s a bit off-putting. The location is described by an unknown narrator in long, boring run-on sentences. We learn very slowly about the location, situation, and narrator. I read almost 30 pages and I don’t think we even know the narrators real name. What we learn is that the narrator, American Mr. Henry, was in Italy when they joined the war (WWI) and volunteered as ambulance driver. They are up in the northern mountains fighting Austrians, but there doesn’t seem to be much action here yet. The village they stay in has not been evacuated. We know the winter is ending and it is after the Somme, so it must be 1917. Henry’s roommate, an Italian doctor named Rinaldi, introduces him to a nurse at the British hospital named Catherine Barkley. They hit it off well, so Rinaldi relinquishes his claim to the nurse. Catherine’s fiance died in the Somme. Henry is clearly just trying to bang her, and she seems to know it, but they get off to some strange romance after a few days of knowing each other. Things move fast with so much death, but their relationship is just odd. Maybe it will turn into something of a traditional love. The Italian offensive is thought to be starting soon. They have crossed the river and are building a road. |
March 22nd, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | Laelius was a friend of Scipio Africanus and commanded the fleets that fought in Carthaginian Spain. He then fought with him in Africa against Carthage in their Numidian allies. His friend helped him in a political career, but he was snubbed of command in Greece. Both men embraced Greek culture to the disdain of Cato the Elder. Laelius’ son Laelius with another Scipio fought in the Third Punic War, and was named “the wise” for abandoning senatorial reforms that would cause problems. The Gracchi had no such problems. Spurious Ligustinus was a (probably fictional) centurion who represented the modern army man. In the old days, many centurions were farmers who campaigned in the summer months. With war in Africa, Spain, Greece, and Asia, this was no longer realistic. Spurious started out as the lowest centurion and fought for 20 years, reaching the highest honor and still volunteering to fight more. Rutilius Rufus was not very interesting. He fought some corruption in Asia Minor when governor but was then accused by the people he was persecuting. He was exiled from Rome. Before that he fought in Numidia, where Marius usurped control. Cornelia was the daughter of Scipio Africanus, but more importantly she was mother of the Gracchi. This was really a passage about Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. Tiberius, a veteran of the Third Punic War, he became a tribune of the plebs, a powerful position that could stop legislation. He stopped all political business until his agrarian reform law was passed by the Senate, which redistributed land from the aristocrats to public use or for small farmers. He was assassinated for this. The younger brother Gaius followed in his footsteps. He became tribune and tried to pass further laws for reform in the provinces. He was also assassinated. Civil unrest was on the horizon. Cornelia lived out her days in isolation, but her house was a well-known gathering for intellectuals. Sulla was a Roman general, ruthless and ambitious. He fought in Numidia, against invading Germans in North Italy, and against Italians (non-Romans) when they rebelled in the Social War. He fought an unsanctioned war in Greece and Asian Minor and conquered Rome during a popular rebellion. He installed himself as dictator and passed a bunch of reforms. He weakened the tribune of the plebs and killed any of his opponents. The above-mentioned Marius was one of the enemies of Sulla. He died shortly after he ended his dictatorship. Caesar would later emulate his style of coup, even though Caesar was originally on Sulla’s hit-list. The Republic did not long out-live Sulla. |
March 21st, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | We’re still in the Punic War era. Plautus seems like a cool guy. He was, more or less, Rome’s first playwright. I don’t think he was really a writer until he was middle-aged, having worked various jobs and losing lots of money before that. He may have been a freedman. His plays were essentially Greek plays and were often set in Greece, but the characters were really Romans. In the uptight and serious Roman society, especially during the wars with Carthage, it was a way to mock everything. They were immensely popular, and people started to put his name on plays that he didn’t write so people would see them. Cato the Elder seems like a prick. He’s essentially the stereotypical codgety (no idea how to spell this) old conservative. He fought in the First Punic War as a young man and moved up the ladder to Consul and Censor. To summarize, he opposed anything that was against traditional Roman values and despised all things Greek. He fought in the war against the Greeks after the Second Punic War. He ended all of his speeches with “Carthage must be destroyed”. Seems like a very close minded man. Up next are a few leaders from the Second Punic War. Fabius Maximus was known as the Delayer, but also the Shield. He was often viewed as a coward because of his harrying tactics to weaken the enemy, instead of full battle. However, he was well respected. He was Consul and Dictator during the Second Punic War. While Rome was being defeated, he remained calm. His harrying tactics, along with Macellus’ brute force, and scorched earth policy weakened Hannibal’s army. The slow system of winning is called Fabian, as can be seen in the socialist Fabian Society. Claudius Marcellus was another Roman general, more of the blood and guts kind than Fabius. He won Rome’s highest honor (the third to do so) by killing an enemy king (a Gaul?) in a victorious battle. He led the invasion of Syracuse and his army struggled against the machines or Archimedes. They threw Archimedes from a window after taking the city. In battle against Hannibal, he fought hard and well, and Hannibal even mourned his later death. Marcellus died in battle against the Carthaginians while doing recon with Crispinus. He was known for having slaughtered some surrendering Sicilians after taking a city, so he probably had it coming. Quinctius Crispinus was another general and consul who fought in the Second Punic War. He is known for campaigning in Capua, whose inhabitants had rebelled against Rome and sided with Carthage. Crispinus had a hospitium relationship with a Capuan, and this friendship was made difficult by the war. During a siege, often friends will meet during a cessation of hostilities, despite being on opposing sides. This time, however, the Capuan friend challenged Crispinus to a duel to the death, Capuan style. Romans did not like single-combat, but engaged in it with permission from the commanding officer. They charged each other on horseback and Crispinus unhorsed his friend, who fled for his life. Crispinus later died with Marcellus in the war. |
March 20th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | We’re still in turbulent times as we jump to the invasion of Italy by the Gauls, circa 400BC. The Italians were losing consistently and the Gauls sacked Rome. The only remaining spot in Roman hands was the Capitoline Hill. It was steep and had high walls, so was presumed safe. Marcus Manlius, who owned property there near the temple of Juno, was awakened by geese. The Gauls found an opening. His household then held on to the pass as reinforcements arrived. He was a hero, but with power he became an agitator for more plebeian rights. After the Senate had enough of this, he was tried for treason and thrown from the Tarpeian Rock to his death. Geese, however, became sacred to the temple of Juno. A relation a couple generations later, Titus Manlius Torquatus was a warrior known for killing a Gaul in single combat and taking his torque. Years later, a war with the Latins led to a military dictatorship and strict discipline, as the armies were so similar. Torquatus was consul and general. His son broke rank to emulate his father and fight a Latin in single combat. He won, but was executed by his father for breaking military law. Harsh. A plebiean family, the Mus (mouse), also gained glory in this war. Publius Decius Mus was known for his great sacrifice. During the war with the Latins, an omen said that one side would lose a general, one side would lose an army. His father died fighting the Gauls, and due to the omen the Gauls fled. Now, Publius had a turn. He charged into the army as suicide and the Romans won the war. In a future war in Epirus, the Greeks purposely avoided killing a Decius general to avoid the omen. A century later, Rome is no longer just a city-state. It is the Italian state and a Mediterraenean power. This brings them in competition with the other powers, Carthage and the Greeks. Regulus was a general in the First Punic War to take Sicily from Carthage. Rome did very well and Regulus led an army to North Africa, taking one of their cities. He held it while the fleet returned to Rome and advanced on Carthage when his luck turned. He was taken prisoner and was sent back to Rome to get peace terms or prisoner swaps, but on the condition he returned to Carthage. In Rome he advocated for a continuation of the war. Against all pleas, he returned to Carthage as promised and was executed, possibly crucified. Fabius Pictor fought in the Second Punic War and was at some of the lost battles against Hannibal. Instead of returning to fight, he went to Greece as some sort on envoy. Here he learned that the Greeks were on the Carthaginian side. He then decided to play the propaganda war. There was no written history of Rome, so he became their first historian. |
March 19th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | The end of Tarquinius Superbus (509 BC) was brought about by a man named Lucius Brutus. Superbus killed his father and brother and Brutus came to the court as a child ward, a playmate for Tarquin’s sons. Years later during a war, Brutus was the second-in-command, despite being a dumb “brute”. During the boredom of the siege, Tarquin’s son Sextus raped the pure woman Lucretia, also the wife of Sextus’ cousin, who publicly committed suicide. Brutus then led an insurrection that drove the royal family out of Rome, establishing the Republic. A long war followed and he died a year later, if he existed. Lucretia was the next person, and as mentioned above, she was the model woman. She was so perfect that the depraved Sextus had to defile her. At quite the cost! The last person related to the war is a woman named Cloelia. The royal family hid out with an Etruscan king to wage war and reclaim Rome. The Romans fought hard and impressed the king. There was the guy who held that bridge, and another guy who was going to be burned to death and stuck his own hand in the fire first. A truce was agreed upon. The king demanded 20 hostages, 10 men and 10 women. Cloelia was one of the women, and she organized an escape with the other women. They fled raining arrows across the Tiber, but the king demanded them back. Cloelia, knowing she’d be killed, agreed to return in order to prevent war from breaking out. Instead, the king was still impressed and rewarded her. Eventually he would switch sides and expel the Tarquin family. There was another woman who did some escape on horseback, but if they didn’t have a name in big bold letters, I forget it. I lied, there was one more guy from the war. A slave named Vindicius overheard a plot in his master’s home to restore the Tarquin family to power. Part of these conspirators were Brutus’ owns sons. The slave would be executed by his master if he spoke out, but he went to an upright aristocrat and told the story. This man hid the slave in his house and brought the story to light while it was being investigated. The master demanded the slave to no avail. Eventually the truth was known, and Brutus had the men, including his sons, executed. Vindicius was thus vindicated. A few decades later there was internal turmoil in the Republic. The patricians and plebians were at each other’s throats. The tribune of plebians wanted a written Constitution and patricians opposed this, though the laws would be written. Cincinnatus was a patrician who came out on the losing end of this and retired a pauper across the Tiber to farm. During a war and with Rome still in turmoil, Cincinnatus was requested to return as dictator for the year, which he regretfully agreed. After the issue was resolved, he returned to the farm. The decemvirs were the council for writing the laws, but this quickly turned into an illegal dictatorship. Cincinnatus was again called in to save the city. Or something like that. During this time, a decemvir desired the plebian woman Verginia (or Virginia). He declared she was an escaped slave of his pawn and brought her to trial. Her father, Verginius, a centurion, quickly returned from the war to the court. Knowing that he could not win in this court, he killed his daughter to save her virtue. This led to an uprising and the return of the Republic. |
March 18th, 2024 |
Ancient Rome in 100 Lives | The introduction explains the concept of the book. It will go through the various eras of Roman history, from the beginning to the last Western emperor, telling tales of lives big and small. It starts of with the founding of the city and the kingdom, which I don’t know much about. First is Faustulus, the shepherd who found Romulus and Remus on the shores of the Tiber. He raised them, the sons of a princess and Mars, and when they saved Alba Longa from the corrupt king, they founded a city. He got between the brothers who were fighting over the name and location of the city and was killed. Another legendary man was Titus Tatius. He was general or king of a Sabine city and after the abduction of the Sabine women, the men came to him to fight the Romans. He took too long preparing and they went and died fighting. Tatius’ siege of Rome was successful, though. To end the siege, a Roman woman opened the gates and betrayed the Romans, to which the Sabines killed her anyway. The fighting in the city was brutal and was only stopped when the Sabine women interfered, preventing their husbands and fathers from killing each other. Tatius was made co-king of Rome with Romulus and the Sabines joined the Romans as one people. He was assassinated when in another city. The more historical kings are next. The first woman on the list is Tanaquil, who was quite a powerful woman. She was from an Etruscan city and her husband was foreign, thus he was treated poorly. She decided to move to the new city of Rome. Here an omen of an eagle removing his hat and then placing it back on his head showed a good future. The husband adopted a Roman name of Tarquinius and became a close associate of the king (4th king of Rome?). When the king died, he was regent for the kings sons, but ended up sending them away and becoming king, the first Etruscan king of Rome. When he was assassinated, Tanaquil announced he was only wounded and that Servius Tullius would rule temporarily. Thus she chose two kings of Rome, and married her daughter to Tullius to cement the dynasty. Servius Tullius may have been a servant in the king’s house, but legend has it that his father was a king of another city and his mother became a Roman captive once he was killed in battle. As a boy, the legend says he was sleeping when his head was on fire. The household went to put it out, but Tanaquil stopped them and recognized it as a sign. He woke up and the flame went out. As shown above, he became king with the death of Tarquin. Servius did some strange things as king, like created the “centuries”, where 5 tiers of citizens, based on wealth, were required to do some sort of service. The richest provided their own weapons and shields and armor, while the lowest had slings and rocks. The egalitarian days of Rome were over. He married his daughters to Tarquin’s sons or grandsons, which seems like that is incest. Either way, it didn’t work. Tarquin’s son or grandson, Tarquinius Superbus, and Servius’ daughter plotted the king’s death and the usurpation of the throne. So he was murdered by family. Superbus would become the last king of Rome. |
March 17th, 2024 |
Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World | The book finishes with two more peoples. I’ve read so much English history that I find it hard to consider the Jutes forgotten. I remember learning the name at least in elementary school. Maybe the Frisians would have been a better forgotten tribe. The Jutes, from Jutland, were one of the main Germanic tribes to come to the British Island. They ended up establishing the kingdom of Kent, the legendary Hengist was founder. Aethelbehrt, a few generations later, was the first Christian king. The Jutes were probably the most Romanized and literate. Dynastic struggles allowed the Saxons to become supreme and make Kent a vassal. Of course, any differences in the Germanic tribes that may have existed vanished as a single English people rose up. The Hephthalites, or White Huns, are completely new to me. They have mysterious origins and may not be Huns at all. More likely it seems they were Bactrians, but who knows. What is known is, like Huns, they could fight. They were organized and not very nomadic. They gave the Sasanian Persians a run for their money, which gave the Byzantines a reprieve from fighting their border enemy. The Persians then learned to use the Hun for their own ends and had them fight in dynastic struggles and against the Gupta Indians. However, the Persian king then made it a goal to massacre the Huns while they were in India. This was a mistake, and he lost 3 separate times before being killed. The Huns controlled what they took and had a large swath of Central Asia and India. They were not pleasant overlords and were repelled as soon as the Turks came into the picture. Their empire shrank quickly and it did not last more than a century. Good riddance, it seems. An epilogue ends the book, reminding us how all cultures have a time and place before disappearing, including our own. |
March 16th, 2024 |
Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World | The Ostrogoths are a pretty likable tribe. Instead of crossing the Danube into the Empire like the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths stayed in the east and surrendered to the Huns. This was a better deal than mistreatment by the Romans, as the Huns mostly left them alone (assuming tribute was paid) and continued west. Once Attila died, the Ostrogoths and other tribes banded together to throw off the yoke. This tribe came to shine (really the only time they shined) under Theodoric. He grew up as a hostage in the court at Constantinople and learned much about the ways of the Empire. Once king of the Ostrogoths, he was recruited by emperor Zeno to march on Rome, which was held by the barbarian Odoacer. Theodoric played a deceitful move by inviting Odoacer to a banquet at Ravenna and then killing him. Theodoric essentially became king of the West, a subject to Zeno, and this relationship worked. Theodoric was able to outmaneuver the other barbarian tribes, forged marriage alliances, and essentially reassembled the western empire. This didn’t survive the deaths of Theodoric and Zeno. Theodoric’s successors were not so able and Zeno’s successor tried to invade Rome for his direct control. This lasted many years and the Ostrogoths were weakened while Rome’s population dwindled. The Lombards took northern Italy and Ravenna, while the Byzantines kept southern Italy. There was nothing left for the Ostrogoths. But we do enjoy their name in Gothic architecture, though there is really no correlation. The Alamanni or Alemanni are a Germanic tribe that stem from the Suebi, but the name “all men” they were a conglomeration of Germanic tribes. They were very Romanized and peaceful subjects of the Empire. The emperor Carcalla, however, decided to stage a massacre of them in the early 3rd century. After that, they were a peaceful tribe no more. They fought the Romans every chance they could and were a fierce enemy. The Alamanni even joined the Huns during their attack on Rome. At the end of the 5th century, towards the end of Roman rule, the Alamanni were not so formidable. They became a subject of the Franks. To this day, the French call Germany “Allemagne” after the tribe, and their dialect still lingers in parts of Germany such as Swabia. Not such a bad ending. |
March 15th, 2024 |
Uneasy Street | Finished the book with the conclusion and appendix. The conclusion, as most conclusions, doesn’t add much but restates what you should have already picked up on. I didn’t pay much attention to it, to be honest, but it was not very long. The appendix explains the background information on setting up the book and interviews, the interview process, and comments on what may or may not have been wrong with the process. This was a bit more interesting and shows how much of a pain it was to get a bunch of rich people to talk about money. What’s really interesting is the author essentially reveals herself to be a product of privilege, meaning she was a rich girl and went to fancy schools. That definitely helps get your foot in the door. |
March 14th, 2024 |
Uneasy Street | Finished the last chapter. I don’t want to call these parents hypocrites, but there is some level of hypocrisy. Maybe self-deception is more accurate. A lot of it comes from the parents wanting their children to seem “normal” but not be “normal”. They want their children to understand public school but not go to public school. They want their children to be aware of how the poor live but still live a rich life. They want their children to understand hard work, but go to clubs and camps instead of having a job. Ultimately, they have these ideas in their head about ways to make sure their children are not entitled, but their children are entitled. That’s just the way it goes. When you grow up with something, that’s what you’re used to and that’s what you expect. Even if you gain it later in life, you get accustomed to it. Comfort is hard to give up. |
March 13th, 2024 |
Uneasy Street | The last chapter is about parenting privileged children. Not that I have f-you money, but this is something I think about as well. I’m doing so much better than my parents did that I need to stop and think about how to instill good work ethic and sympathy for those with less. I’m not the hardest worker in the world, but I make enough to live comfortably and I have a good situation where the company needs me (said the delusional man). So when your child doesn’t have to struggle like you did, how you make sure they don’t become a dick and a bum? The rich people have a harder time with this than I do. Kids flying first-class are sure going to know they’re privileged. At the same, you don’t want to be a bad parent and deprive your child for the sake of deprivation. It’s a fine line, and it probably depends on the kid as much as the technique. |
| Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World | We’re in the last section, the fall of Rome. I think I like the Germanic later barbarians to the Celtic earlier ones, but that may be just due to ignorance. They have better names, at least. I’m not sure if I’ve ever really heard of the Alans. Their name is possibly a corruption of Aryan, and they were a steppe people. They were better horsemen than the Sarmations and took some of their land on the Black Sea. Like most nomads, the men hated farming and only cared for war. That was well and good until the Huns became the supreme steppe people. The Alans broke loose and went in all different directions. Some went to the Caucus, others took a long journey west into Spain. There they allied with Vandals and merged into that group. Some were found in Brittany for some time, and may be the the etymological root for Alain, thus Alan also. The ones in Russia and the Caucus had a kingdom that lasted into medieval times. The Alans still have a bit of identifying the independence seeking Ossetians. We are team Ossetian here. Now we’ve all definitely heard of the Vandals. I even learned the etymology of vandal in elementary school. But other than a name, I guess they really are forgotten. The only place I heard of them in-depth was in Gibbon’s (abridged) Fall and Decline of Rome. They may have been Swedish in origin, but emerged out of Poland around 200AD. They charged into Dacia and whatnot but came to terms with the Romans. The real problem came when the Huns were on the move. The Vandals were desperate to move west, but were stopped at the Rhine by the Franks. After a slaughter, the Vandals came back with friends (Goths). This time they made it through, and were harried into Spain. Here Vandals and Alans formed an alliance, but were again harried by Romans and Visigoths. They fought back and took some Spanish port and its navy. Now in the later decades of Rome, the Vandals sailed to Africa to take the land there, eventually becoming kings of Carthage. Rome lost its breadbasket and tried to marry a princess to the king of the Vandals. The emperor died and the successor reneged, so the Vandals sacked Rome. The pope asked them to play nice, and being Arians, they did. Eventually the Romans took Carthage back and the Vandals lost their kingdom, though the Muslims would sound conquer it all. What is there to say about the Visigoths? I can’t consider a Gothic tribe to be forgotten, though they are good to read about. The Goths were also possibly Scandinavian and had pushed their way into Dacia also. They fought with Romans until a settlement was agreed to, but the Huns pushed them across the Danube as refugees. The Goths were allowed to settle in return for service, but the Romans did not deliver the promised food and seed. These abuses led to a revolt and the Goths crushed the Roman army and killed emperor Valens at Adrianople in 376. Then they got the land and seed that was agreed to, but now Rome really needed men. The settled Goths became known as Visigoths (western Goths). The Visigoths became the army and for 20 years or so things were good. Then a new emperor killed a half-Goth general Stilicho and purged some Goths. The Goths rebelled and under their king Alaric sacked Rome, the first sacking in 800 years. The Visigoths went off to Spain to form a kingdom, which was lost to the Muslims around 800. | |
March 10th, 2024 |
Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World | The Iceni are more famous to me, though I didn’t know their name. They are known for the queen Boudicca, who led a rebellion against the Romans. The Iceni lived in what was later East Anglia (the Catuvellauni were more Middle Saxon region). They were initially warm to the Romans to spite their neighbors and were happy to share a border with the Romans. The Romans, however, wanted complete subjugation. The Iceni fought back and lost, with a puppet king installed. At the death of this king, he left the kingdom to his daughters and Nero. The emperor demanded the everything and Queen Boudicca was flogged and her daughters raped. All this was done while most of the legions were in Wales. Word of this spread quickly and all hell broke loose. The Britons rose up and started slaughtering Romans in their cities. The Roman general had a choice of taking strong ground or saving London. He chose the ground. London was destroyed, but when the Britons came for the legions, they were between two hills and the Britons were slaughtered. The general then went to genocide the Iceni before being recalled. There were possibly only a handful of Iceni left a few decades later. The name of the Batavi are known to people who have studied the French Revolution. The Dutch were subjugated under the Batavian Republic. The real Batavi were a Germanic tribe living on an island between the Rhine and Waal rivers in the present-day Netherlands. It is thought they took this island sometime in the early 1st century AD, since Cesar made no note of them. They had a reputation as extremely fierce fighters and were excellent as fighting across a river. The Romans wanted them as allies, for sure. There were many Batavian legions, because the Romans did not tax them with money but with soldiers. Batavians were all over the empire, but like the Iceni, the Romans made an error. A leading Batavain, Gaius Julious Civilis, was accused of treason by Nero and brought to Rome. Long story short, it was the year of four emperors and very unstable. The Batavi were not happy with their treatment and rebelled, bringing some Germans and Gauls to their side. Eventually the emperor Vespasian restored order and pardoned the Batavi. With the fall of Rome and arrival of other Germanic tribes, the Batavi are lost to history. The Dacians are pretty much Thracians beyond the Danube. They also have the Carpathian mountains as extra protection. Romania can trace its history to the Romanization of Dacia. Like Thracians, they weren’t a people to mess with. Also like the Thracians, they were not a unified tribe and fought each other regularly. Once the Romans were in Thracia, the Dacians put up a united defense. There were a few instances of them being under a single leader. They raided far into Roman territory. Eventually the Romans got the upper hand and crossed the river. They forced a peace treaty on the Dacians. Years later the Dacians fought again and Trajan brought the region under the empires control. It lasted about 150 years. As the Germanic tribes started moving in, the empire did not have the resources to defend it. The Dacians blended in with whatever Goth or Vandal tribe came to stay. |
March 8th, 2024 |
Uneasy Street | This chapter was indeed boring. All the people tend to fall into the expected stereotypes. The stay-at-home mothers resent the control and distrust of their money earning husbands. The husbands are controlling of money but don’t want to deal with the things that cost money. Households with two earners are more amicable, though women still tend to do the “women’s work” of running the household and kids. People with inheritance end up being more dominant and put their foot down with the money. Men who are married to female inheritors feel insecure. All of them need to just quit complaining and enjoy being rich. I do not sympathize. |
March 7th, 2024 |
Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World | The Galatians are known to many from the epistle from Paul in the Bible. A big surprise to many is that Galatians are indeed Gauls, the same culture known from France. The Gauls held sway over continental Europe before Rome, though of course the Gauls were many different tribes that often fought each other. Some Gauls wanted to go raid the Greeks in the 3rd century BC or so, while some tagged along looking for somewhere to settle. The raid failed, but the settlers made it to Macedonia and were driven off further east. An Anatolian king wanted some mercenaries, so he invited them in. They were hired and fired, used and abused, moved here and there. Eventually they settled somewhere in the middle and farmed the mediocre land pretty well. They got tough and did the usual Celtic raiding of neighbors. They took part in all sides in various power struggles of Greek Anatolia. They also fought with and for the Romans in various wars and the civil war. Eventually they would be subjugated and Galatia would become a Roman province. Their language and culture would be lost a century or two later. Representing the core Gauls are the Arverni. This is one of several tribes from modern France. They and the Aedui were the top two tribes when the Roman Republic came to notice them. Rome wanted the southern coast open so it could get to Spain easily. Various alliances wound up with Rome and Aedui vs Arverni and other Celts. The Arverni were decimated, Rome won and the Aedui were the top dogs. Several generations later, some Celts allied with some Germans for a fight, and then the Germans deceided they didn’t want to back. Then the Romans were invited to drive out the Germans, and then THEY didn’t want to go back. This is the war that Cesar fought. Now the Arverni, under a nobleman Vercingetorix, formed a Celtic coalition to drive the Romans out. It was tough fighting with wins and losses on both sides. Eventually, Rome triumphed, Vercingetorix was a prisoner in Rome for years until his execution. Like the rest of Rome’s conquerees, they melded into the Latin world. Now we enter Celtic Britain with the Catuvellauni. I never heard of any of these British tribes; they were just “Britons” to me. It looks like these guys were from around East Anglia and became dominant, expanding into Kent. Cesar may have met this tribe on his expedition. They put up a hell of a fight, and the Romans were not interested in fighting so hard for the little that Britain offered them. It was a century or two later, under Claudius I think, that the Romans launched a full invasion. By then, the tribe was led by Caratacus. He led a guerrilla-style war against Rome for years, but eventually defeat caught up to him. He fled to a neighboring tribe, but was handed over to Rome. Before his execution, he gave an impassioned speech to Claudius defending his right to the war and was spared, living out his days in Rome. The last we hear of the Catuvellauni is that they were among the soldiers helping to build Hadrian’s wall, fully Romanized and keeping out the wild Celts. |
March 5th, 2024 |
Uneasy Street | I have a feeling the next chapter is not going to be very interesting. It looks like it’s about stay-at-home mothers and the conflict that their unpaid labor brings with their husbands. There’s some controlling husbands and some women who spend too much money and all the permutations. Hard to like anyone in this situation. You have lots of money, use it and quit bitching. |
March 4th, 2024 |
Uneasy Street | Like I thought, a lot of these people think that donating to a (rich) school or their alma matter is charity. There’s nothing really charitable about it. A lot of the stay-at-home moms volunteer their time for their kids school, which is fine. It seems only the “downward” looking richies tend to donate to the actual poor. The problem with them is that they suffer from analysis paralysis and never end up donating. They also hate “looking” rich, so they don’t donate significant amounts of money. Regular people used to pay 10% of their income as a tithe. These people are afraid if they spend $1k then their children won’t have a future. Lot’s of delusional thoughts, heads up their asses. |
| Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World | Up next are the Nabataeans, who I absolutely never heard of. What I have heard of was the city of Petra, which was their desert stronghold. I thought Petra was really old, but the Nabataeans don’t really enter the scene under after 500BC. They were very good at farming and intensely irrigate the little arable land. With population growth, they expanded and controlled the vital oases, and thus the trade routes to the east. This made them a wealthy people, and a target for the Seleucids. Fortunately, the Nabataeans were also fierce fighters and fought on camel-back, repelling the Greeks. They did adopt much of Greek culture, which explains the columns and look of Petra. They also fought of the Romans, but eventually it became too much and the King agreed to let the kingdom become a Roman province after his death. The spread of other Arabs and Islam wiped out their identity around 600AD. The tribes that Rome encountered always confuse me. There’s so many and none of their names really stick in your head. In the Iberian peninsula, the tribe that one should remember is the Celtiberians. Romans though they were Celts, but no one knows if there was really any connection. The tribes of Iberia fought with short stabbing swords to brutal effect, and the Romans quickly adopted it as a weapon for their own. They lived in the center of Spain between the different mountain ranges. Carthage tried to conquer the peninsula and completely ignored the Celtiberians, finding them too hard to fight. Once Carthage was destroyed, the Romans felt Hispania was theirs automatically. They too struggled against the Celtiberians. The war lasted for a long time, possibly a couple centuries. I believe it was in 144BC that a Roman general was able to hole the tribe in the fort city and besiege them. Those that didn’t starve to death chose suicide, and thus ended the Celtiberians. | |
March 3rd, 2024 |
Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World | Possibly no group is more famous than the Samaritans, all because of one good one Jesus told about. Samaritans come from Samaria, or the northern Jewish kingdom that was conquered by Assyria. According to the Old Testament, the Jews here were exiled elsewhere and are the Lost Tribes. According to Samaritans, that’s false and they were there forever. It’s probably a mix of old Jews and people who filled the void. Samaritans are Jews but do things a little different, which led to a strong dislike of each other throughout history. This dislike makes the Good Samaritan all the better, since he overcame his natural prejudice to help the injured Jew. For example, when the Maccabees rebelled against the Greeks, the Samaritans wrote a letter to explain their own neutrality in the matter. They also did fine under the Romans. The Christian Byzantines were less tolerant and slaughtered them after a Samaritan rebellion. Today, there are still some 700 left and still following their old religion. There are two African peoples who share a chapter and, to be honest, I don’t remember much about them. The Garamantes were a Saharan people before it got super arid. I think they acted as a link between the sub-Saharan people and the Mediterranean people, trading gold and Ivory and whatnot from the heartland. Climate change did them in and their cities are now deep in the desert. They may have also been involved in the Punic wars, but that might be the next group. The Numidians come from what is essentially now Algeria and were a bunch of Berber tribes. Now these guys definitely traded with Carthage, since that pretty much forced them to unify, or at least make the multiplicity less. Different groups took different sides in the Punic wars, so the ones that joined Rome came out on top and became kings. They did fine for a bit but eventually became a Roman province. A rebellion was crushed and then the province was erased, merging into Maurentania and Africa. The Sarmations (not to be confused with Samaritans) seem pretty cool. They were a steppe people beyond the Scythians, from around Crimea to who knows how far west. The Greeks said their women fought, which may have led to the legend of the Amazons. The Sarmations were good horsemen and charged with spears, like knights. The Romans were unable to conquer the Sarmations and peace treaty was agreed to, with a dedicated no man’s land between them. The proximity to Rome civilized the Sarmations and they formed a kingdom. Some were employed by Rome as mercenaries, and they were known to be in Britain (and were left there). By the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the waves of Germanic took a toll on the Sarmations. The Huns did them in and the Sarmation people were dispersed, blending into whatever culture they ended up in. Slavs took their former territory. |
March 2nd, 2024 |
Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World | The next section is mostly about the peoples encountered by the rising Romans. The first up are the Thracians, named after Thrax, son of Ares. Thrace was roughly the south-eastern two-thirds of Bulgaria. This region was rich in gold and jewels, but had little interest in urban life. They were horsemen, fighters, and a pain for the Greeks. Homer says they fought in the Trojan War on the side of Troy. They must have had some taste for aesthetics if they were working gold. They lived as independent tribes in Thrace for centuries until the coming of Persia. Then either Phillip II or Alexander the Great brought them under the Greek fold with their war on Persia. It wasn’t long after that that the Romans came and took over, absorbing Thrace into the empire. Even an emperor or two would come from this region. The Slavs would take over in the 6th century and Thracia would be no more. The Epirots come from Epirus, the mountainous region of northwest Greece and southern Albania by the sea. This land was not good for farming, so the people had to be herdsmen and hardy mountain men. Without any urban development, the southern Greeks viewed them as barbarians. They did have the Oracle of Zeus, so there was a good reason for people to visit. Their pre-Roman claim to fame is that the mother of Alexander the Great, the princess Olympias, was an Epirot. Somewhere, maybe through this link, they became part of Alexander’s and then the Seleucid Empire. Their less enjoyable claim to fame is from their war with Rome. King Pyhrrus had won several victories against the Roman invaders, but at huge costs which may as well as been defeats. This is where Phyrric victories come from. I guess after Greek became Roman, the Epirots ceased to be a separate entity and were absorbed as Romans. The Sabines are as Roman as Rome. The likely story is that the Sabines were the original inhabitants of the hills and the Latins sent colonists to build the fortified town of Rome. The Sabines must have been their since the beginning, since the 2nd king of Rome after the mythical Romulous was Numa, a Sabine. He is credited with a lot of good stuff. The cognomen Sabinus was also very prominent. Rome is nothing without the Sabines, espeically after “The Rape of the Sabines”, where the first colonists abducted Sabine women to wed under the guise of a festival. This is apparently where carrying the bride across the alter comes from. Sabine and Latin melded into Roman after that. |
February 29th, 2024 |
Uneasy Street | Chapter 4 is about people feeling the need to “give back”. Every individual has their own idea of giving back. Some people think the fact that they work is a contribution to society and that’s all they need to do. These types are called idiots. Some volunteer their time, though they do not always specify how. Volunteering to help at a $20k/year private school is not the same as a soup kitchen. This sounds very judgmental from me, but it needs to be judged. Money is power and power must be used for the betterment of society. That means helping people who don’t have enough. Taking your maid to lunch is nice, but not a significant contribution. I’d say pay more taxes, but we don’t have a government that would use them for good. So I guess they feel bad they are part of a system that they can’t change. Give the socialists a million and see if they can produce a viable campaign. Or buy off a politician for electoral reform. That would actually be a good idea. Buy off the politicians to make improvements. It’s the only way. |
February 28th, 2024 |
Uneasy Street | I tried to write about what I read yesterday, but I honestly couldn’t remember. Today I realized I chapter 3, which I finished today. This chapter is about spending habits, and it was pretty boring. It comes down to these rich people spend a lot of money but try to justify by comparing it to some more extravagant spending. They give themselves arbitrary limitations like not flying first class to an expensive vacation. They seem to have a lot of conflict when it comes to just enjoying their wealth. Get over it. They still buy the stuff they want anyway, they just call it a birthday present or some justification like that. I get it in a way; once you start living a higher lifestyle, there is no going back. I could never go lower than what I have now, and I started pretty low. So I guess if you start buying Lambos, then I guess there’s no going back. You have to put limits up early. |
February 26th, 2024 |
Uneasy Street | I haven’t written but read a couple more times. There was a bit about the “downward” looking wealthy, who acknowledge that their huge incomes are ridiculous when compared to the average or median income. They are more likely to be sympathetic to those with less and are more likely to have a diverse network of associates, both economically and culturally. I think most of them are still economically conservative, but not all. The next chapter is about merit. These rich people really need to feel like they deserve to be rich. They justify by saying they earned it with hard work. If I were extremely rich and were asked whether I deserve it I would see it two ways: either everyone deserves it or nobody deserves it. Those who have it, it’s not about desert; they just happen to have it. It’s luck, really, and that’s okay. I have a pretty good living (really good, maybe) and I feel lucky, but I don’t feel bad about being lucky. These people also feel the need to work. Not me. If I had $2 million, I’d live off dividends and interest and never work another day in my life. I’d live for enjoyment. Everyone deserves to live for enjoyment, but not everyone is so lucky. It’s kind of a spit in the face to have millions of dollars and feel the need to work and complain about having to work so hard. |
February 21st, 2024 |
Uneasy Street | The first chapter gets into the interviews. I’m not going to remember any of these names; there are a lot of them. The focus is on whether these people are “upward” or “downward” looking. People with wealth who look downward tend to feel that they are well off and can vocalize some guilt about having so much more than others. The upwards will more often feel “middle-class”, especially in NYC, because there are people with much more. These people are certainly in the top 1% of the country, if not the world. The lack of self-awareness that can allow them to feel middle-class is insane. I have significantly less money than these people, but I still think I’m pretty damn rich. Maybe it all comes from your roots. Also I WANT to view myself as rich because it feels good, and these people DON’T want to see themselves as rich because it comforts them. As expected, they all are fiscal conservatives and think the system can’t change. It can’t change because they actively avoid tax increases. They think they’re on a precipice staring down at poverty. Just sell your second house and you will make more money than the average American makes in 20 years. |
February 20th, 2024 |
Uneasy Street | The author went on about the types of people she chose to interview for this book and it wasn’t that interesting. The lower limit was $250k per year, which is surprisingly low for the upper 5% of households. Most people, however, were far above that. Unsurprisingly the people in general did not like talking about money, as it is taboo in this country. They’re all nouveau riche, with wealth beginning within the last 2 generations. The author wants us to be open-minded and try to read without all the prejudices we tend to have about the ultra-wealthy. That’s going to be hard. They may all end up “liberal” Democrat voters, but I’m sure they are fiscally conservative. Prove me wrong. |
February 19th, 2024 |
Uneasy Street | Still working on the introduction. It opened with a bit about a couple in which the husband inherited much wealth and the wife married into money. For him, it was a sore spot growing up and he just wanted to appear “normal”. The wife, not raised rich, also wants to appear “normal”. I’m sure normal is not blue collar. It’s hard to define normal. Is a $200k household normal? $500k? It’s relative, of course. Regardless of their desires to seem normal, they spend $600k-$800k a year. That’s more than many see in 20 years. After that the author talks about the growing inequality in the country and the things causes and symptoms of it. Working wages are stagnant, welfare was torn apart, the rich avoid taxes and benefit from deregulation. All good stuff and hopefully educating to new readers of such topics. Then the author starts into why she wrote to the book: to see how the people who benefit from this growing inequality view themselves and their lifestyles. |
February 18th, 2024 |
Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World | I finished the second section of cultures. The next up was the Medes (MEEDS) who are different from Persians but pretty much were Persians. They were an Iron Age people from west of the Tigris who, like many others of this era, came under Assyrian control. Like others, they rebelled regularly and were part of the rebellion that destroyed Nineveh and thus Assyria in 600 something BC. After that the Medes had it good, but we don’t know much because we don’t have any written records. Their close neighbor and cultural cousin, the Persians, gained in strength and importance and there was intermarriage. The king of the Medes had his daughter marry the king of Persia (Cambyses II?), who had a son Cyrus. This Cyrus the Great rebelled against the Medes and installed himself as the dominant king. The Medes and Persians melded together then. It is still not known how much the Kushites influence the Egyptians, but it is probably more than they are given credit for. This people from the south of Nubia, around modern Sudan, had had kingdoms since 3000BC. It was possibly their strength and aggression that led the two Egypts to unite. They stayed independent of Egypt their entire run and after the New Kingdom, when the Sea Peoples had exhausted Egyptian cash, came to dominate Egypt as a new dynasty (25th maybe). They spread themselves too thin by going into the Levant, and the Persians rolled over them, taking Egypt in the process. The Kushites abandoned their old capital and moved to the 2nd city of Meroe, where they may have overtaxed the environment. Eventually, the Axumites of Ethiopia destroyed the city and dominated the region. The Chaldeans, as it sounds, come from the Persian Gulf area around the city of Ur. Obviously there are another Iron Age newcomer to very old lands. They also had problems with Assyrians, but once that empire was weakened the Chaldeans became dominate. They conquered the city of Babylon and became absorbed into that ancient culture, hence the name Neo-Babylonian Empire. This is the famous empire that took the Jews to Babylon, had the caste of Magi, and the famed Nebuchadnezzar, though I don’t remember why he’s famous or if I only think he is because of The Matrix. Like the Assyrians, they Chaldeans annoyed their vassals and were in turn crushed by the expanding Persians. I’ve heard of the Bactrians, but I knew nothing about them before reading this. By the time of Alexander the Great, the city of Bactra was already ancient. To secure the borders of his new empire, Alexander kept on conquering. This brought him to the Bactrians of modern-day Afghanistan. The cultures were not very compatible. The Bactrians worshipped fire and earth and were disgusted by the Greek cremation and burying of dead. Insurrection was inevitable, and Alexander married a local princess Roxanne to cement an uneasy alliance. He, and his “heirs”, forced a number of Greeks to stay in the region as colonists. Eventually the Bactrians separated from the Seleucids and formed their own kingdom. With Greek and Indian influence, it was a unique culture. Buddhism grew in the area, and here is where the famed giant Buddhas were that the Taliban destroyed. I forget how it fell. Maybe to Islam. |
February 17th, 2024 |
The Making of Europe | I finished the last chapter in non-working hours. It’s nice to start a new book on a Monday. The last chapter is about the “Political Sociology” after the expansion of Europe. I guess it’s kind of a summary of previous topics. In general, things were different. Former frontiers, where Christians were victims of pagan or Muslim raiding and pirating, were now safely in the heartland of Christian Europe. Unlike later colonization, this had very little to do with the King and government. The church, merchants, and crusaders (volunteers, if you will) paved the way for this expansion. Often during this times, the heads of states were busy expanding their personal holdings at the expense of their fellow European. Knights conquered the Wends, Italians forced a foothold in far foreign markets, and monasteries spread like wildfire. Not everything was equal everywhere. In Celtic lands, colonization came directly at the expense of the locals, and they became second class citizens. In Muslim lands, they also became second class but held on to their right to religion. Muslims were not pagans; they had a complex culture with a deep and written religious scripture. Muslims were there to stay or they were moving out, and they had the benefit in the Levant of being surrounded by fellow Muslims. The pagans of the Baltic region did not have such a network or culture, so conversion was not a big deal. It often came with benefits. Some, like the Lithuanians, held on to their beliefs and became a massively powerful pagan kingdom with new imported German technology. That’s pretty much it. Not bad, a bit dull. |
February 15th, 2024 |
The Making of Europe | Another indicator of Europanization was the spread of silver pennies and charters. Silver coins can be seen to have a initial minting in the Carolingian empire in the 10th century and spread outward from there. English and Germanic lands, followed by Slavic, created their own mints. Celtic lands did not really create mints and were dependent on the English, though Scotland did set up its own. Scotland, of course, had also imported Normans en masse. Charters showed a path of land grant by papal bull or similar, then creation of bishoprics, then secular creation of ecclesiastical lands, then secular chanceries period. This spread quickly and can be seen in Bohemia and Slavic lands that over two centuries or so went from illiterate to writing native charters. One last section is on universities, which France and Italy had a strong grip on. Outside of these areas and somewhere like Oxford, there was nothing for centuries. This caused people on the peripheries to travel to these lands to become educated and thus came to be part of a shared culture despite diverse origins. They returned home and brought their Latinized education with them. |
February 14th, 2024 |
The Making of Europe | The 11th chapter is about the Europeanization of Europe. How did Europe become homogenized after the fall of Rome? It first discusses names and saints. Names are very malleable and a sign of cultural change. Prior to the 11th century, names tended to be very localized. Duncan was a Scot, Edward was English, William was French. After 1066 and a generation or two, the English names were old-hat and there were plenty of Williams and Roberts. People wanted the names of the upper class, and this was also seen in the east, where Slavs were taking German names. The choice of saints also became contentious. Saints were also localized, so the Normans had no respect for English saints and often replaced them. On the other hand, some saints were so loved that culture did not matter. Norman king Henry III named his son an English name, Edward, after Edward the Confessor. But key at this time was the increase in worship of “universal” saints: Peter, Paul, Virgin Mary, etc. This is the time when dozens of “Notre Dames” sprang up. It also made it easier for Crusaders to found churches after saints everyone knew. A new popularity for these saints meant that more people were given their names. You had Peters and Johns from Spain to Poland, further reflecting a unified Christian culture. |
| Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World | The Lydians have a name that is familiar and yet I don’t know anything about them. I thought they were Greeks, but they are an Anatolian people with a unique language. They’re another one of those groups that filled the void after the fall of the Hittite Empire. They had good flat farmland and were wealthy. Midas’ legendary river of gold flowed into Lydian lands, and the Lydians were the first to make gold coins. Not coins as we know it, but stamped pieces of electrum. As mentioned earlier, they expanded in Asia Minor, taking over the Phrygian kingdoms. I don’t think it was very long after that before the Medes/Persians (who are different people) swept in and took control. The Sicels, as the name may suggest, are known as inhabitants of Sicily. Legend has it they originally came from Italy and their first king was Italus. It’s possibly they were the Shekelesh, a Sea People noted by Egyptian text. Either way, they moved into occupied Sicily and shoved the natives to slightly worse land. There was a lot of open space, it seems, for there was little violence. There they existed as a pastoral folk on the center of the island until the arrival of the Greeks. The Greeks founded a trading post that became Syracuse, and from this base weaseled their way onto the island. The Sicels benefited from trade with the Greeks. There were some Phoenicians from Carthage on the island, but their relationship is little known. Around 450BC, the Sicels formed a type of kingdom and became more urban. After this development, relations with the Greeks soured. A Sicel leader Ducetius led an uprising to drive the Greeks from Syracuse, but it failed. The Greeks sent him to Corinth with a stipend as exile, but 10 years later he returned. Though he died shortly after, the Greeks were fed up and took over the entire island. The Sicels were absorbed into Greek culture entirely. | |
February 13th, 2024 |
Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World | Continuing the Iron Age peoples is the Philistines. Goliath and some of his ilk are well known over the world thanks to the Old Testament, but the real Philistines are more unknown. There are theories that they were one of the Sea Peoples based on an Egyptian text, some think they are from Crete. Possibly they were Neo-Hittites. Regardless, they made their appearance in the Levant after the collapse and became a thorn in the side of Israel. The had 5 main cities, not always friends, and the word Palestine probably comes from their name. They left extremely little writing, thus little is known outside of archaeology. The Assyrians mention them a bit, and of course they would become a vassal of Assyria. Either they were absorbed or, in Assyrian fashion, scattered and the Philistines are lost to time. I’ll have to look into this next one more. Greece always confuses me. The Dorians are apparently a Greek branch from the southern Peloponnese and Crete, and their name has word “spear” in it. Long thought to have invaded during the Greek Dark Age, it’s more likely it was not so violent. I don’t know a Dorian from an Ionian, but they’re all Greek and by Alexander’s time they were a fairly unified Greek culture. They have some columns, too. I’ve heard of the Phrygians, or maybe of Phrygia, but don’t know who they were. Famous for King Midas and the Goridan Knot of Gordium, they were a people in Anatolia who spread into the Hittite void and ultimately formed a kingdom for a bit. Their culture long outlasted their kingdom, as the language was known to have been spoken until the 6th century AD. The Phrygian kingdom eventually fell into smaller warring kingdoms, which made them prey for Lydians. Then a series of conquerors came: Persia, Macedonia, Rome, Turk. As a power, Phrygia ended in 600BC, but as a region and people, they had a good 1500 year run. I’ve heard of Illyria a thousand times, but I do not know who an Illyrian is. On the west coast of the Balkans, these different tribes (grouped as one by the Greeks and the rest of history) lived since before history began. Probably Indo-European, their language is unknown outside of some names and places. The Greeks hated them and the Illyrians were famous for raiding and pirating. The Liburni were famous for their raiding and had a special boat for it, which the Romans later adopted for upriver warfare. The Dalmatae seemed to be pastoral and low on the cultural ladder. Eventually someone organized these groups into a kingdom, which would occasionally ally with Macedonia to plunder Greece. This mountainous region took until the age of Tiberius for Rome to conquer, and lived on as Illyricum. Many later empowers came from these region, showing how the backwards mountain region became fully Latinized. After the fall of Rome, the Illyrian Justinian was emperor of the East. Just as they were once barbarian, soon after they were invaded by the barbarian Slavs who have been in the region since. |
February 12th, 2024 |
The Making of Europe | The rest of the church chapter talks about monks and knights. Monasteries evolved over the centuries to become more complex and bureaucratic structures. The Benedictines in the 10th century started living in monasteries, but there was no link between them. Later, Cluny started the model of a mother house, and its daughter houses reported directly to Cluny. This did not expand far beyond France. The Cistercians then started the chain of command. Each daughter house that sprang from another house reported to the house it sprang from. These expanded rapidly all over Europe. The Franciscans were similar, except they did not tie a monk to an abbey. The Franciscans were allowed to travel and be moved between houses. Or maybe that was the Dominicans. They all sound the same. The next bit was about military religious orders. The Templars were first and were formed as a result of knights vowing to protect pilgrims in Jerusalem after the Crusade. Then there were Hospitalers and Teutonic Knights and others, all the same thing. The success of the First Crusade changed the whole thought process of Europe. Everything became a crusade and crusading became a family tradition. God knows how many crusades were in the Middle East, but the crusades into the pagan east were just as big and bloody. Then you have Spain, and later against heretic Europeans themselves. Kill for Christ. |
| Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World | I forgot to write about the end of the Bronze Age. The two groups discussed are familiar to those with some Egyptian history under their belts. The Middle Kingdom came to an end and Upper and Lower Egypt split. History long said the Hyksos then conquered the Nile delta and ruled. In reality, it seems they were merely one or multiple immigrants to the region and were not exactly unwelcome. There is no evidence of a conquering and the Hyksos, maybe a Semitic people, brought lots of technology from the Middle East. They had chariots, superior axes (weapons), better irrigation. A couple centuries under Hyksos rule was actually a boon. Yet Egypt only loves Egypt and eventually Upper Egypt took back control of Lower Egypt, sending the Hyksos back to obscurity. Next are the Sea Peoples, who are mired in controversy. First, this is a name given by modern archaeologists; Egyptian writing names the tribes themselves. Long blamed for the Bronze Age collapse, in reality they are more likely a symptom of the collapse, pushed from their unknown homes into the Levant and Egypt. There is evidence of warfare, but they were not pure raiders. They had women and children with them, which is a sign they wanted a place to live. Whatever it was, the civilizations of the Mediterranean fell, except for Egypt. Egypt, with their new tech, fought of the invaders for many years until the raids just ceased. That’s the last we hear of Sea People. After the collapse, the trade routes disappeared and the region lost all its tin sources. Egypt still had African tin and kept using bronze. The rest eventually switched to smelting iron. An accident of nature turned iron to steel when charcoal fires infused carbon into the iron. Steel was strong and flexible and thus a great weapon. With the ending of many civilizations in the Middle East, there was room for previously tangential peoples to expand. The first section is on the lost tribes of Israel, which can hardly be a forgotten people. Just read the Bible; that’s where all the info comes from. The books of Kings are actually one of the parts worth reading. The next group are the Arameans, which I never really thought about. If there is an Aramaic language, then of course there should be Aramean people. They were pastoral people on the sidelines who swept into the empty fields and lands. They were not exactly conquerors and seem to go with the flow wherever they ended up. They formed small kingdoms and did the usual fighting with their neighbors. They were a thorn in the side of Assyria because they blocked trade routes to Babylon. Fighting them went nowhere, since the Arameans still had the pastoral culture where they could easily pick up and move. Eventually, the Assyrians gave up and “absorbed” the Arameans, making Aramaic an official language of the empire. This replaced Akkadian and stayed an important language (it had an alphabet), even in the time of Jesus. So it worked out for them and they are still around, with a small population of Aramaic speaking people in the Middle East today. | |
February 10th, 2024 |
Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World | I read about another three cultures. The Canaanites are certainly not forgotten to anyone who has been in proximity of a Bible. They were famous for being slaughtered by Joseph or Jacob or whoever led the Hebrews after Moses. It seems there is not much data for a violent takeover. In reality, the Iron Age people of the region, Hebrews, Phoenicians, maybe others, descended from a more unified Canaanite Bronze Age culture. Canaan was a cross-roads between the big empires of the Hittites, Assyrians, and Egyptians and they often fought for control of the region. The Battle of Qadesh was a huge battle between the Hittites and the Egyptians under Ramses II. The book ends Canaanite culture around 700BC, when the Assyrians tore it apart, but definitely by then the culture had splintered. The Elamites seem to have been another nomadic tribe, maybe pastoral people from the Zagros mountains, who stumbled upon some cities in modern Iran and decided to stay. Like the Amorites, they adopted Akkadian language (Elamite appears to be a language isolate), but eventually began to write in Elamite. They grew in power, sacking Babylon and stealing the stele of Hammurabi, but never grew far beyond Susa and Anshan. The stele was not found until 1901. Like most civilizations, trouble with neighbors led to their downfall. There were the Iranian Medes nearby, but ultimately the Assyrians did them in as well. Ashurbanipal led an army and slaughtered and destroyed, enslaved and exiled. The Hittites I think have become fairly well known. They’re interesting because they are truly a forgotten people, only rediscovered in the 19th century after their language was deciphered as an Indo-European language. Their origins are obscure, but they came to relevance around 1700 BC and took the city of Hattusa as their capital. From their they pretty conquered all of Anatolia and as mentioned above, went toe-to-toe with the great empires of their day, including the Mycenaeans at sea and giving Ramses II a run for his money in Canaan. But their success did not last forever, and after 500 years they fell victim to an expanding Assyria. |
February 9th, 2024 |
The Making of Europe | I finished the 9th chapter on race and whatnot but can’t really remember the rest of it. I think the first part was the interesting part. The 10th chapter is on the church again, which I usually find dull. This is no exception. The point seems to be to discuss how the Latin church went from its Early Middle Age state of diversity to its High Middle Age uniformity. Pope Gregory VII appears to responsible for a lot of reforming and unifying, in a tyrant sort of way. Christendom started to mean physical land instead of an idea, and the Christian became a people. The border situation became severe when Latin meant Greek. In the earlier era, a gradient was accepted and a mixture of rites was normal. Once uniformity was demanded and tolerance was diminished, the Latin-Greek frontier became a strict border, each side wanting additional land and souls. |
February 8th, 2024 |
Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World | This book is broken down into eras and it seems there will be little passages of 6 pages or so about each culture. It’s sort of like an encyclopedia. First, I have to talk about the physical book. It looks cool and feels pretty good and uses colored paper for different eras. But not to sound like a wimp, the pages are sharp as hell. You need to be careful with this one. Anyway, after an introduction to the book begins an introduction to the region, which of course the first is Mesopotamia and its surroundings. The first culture we encounter is the great Akkadian empire. Before Sargon the Great conquered his neighbors around 2330 BC, the functioning governments were city-states. The Sumerian cities of Uruk and Ur were already 1000 years old by Sargon’s time. From the lost city of Akkad, Sargon conquered an empire from the Persian Gulf to the Levant. Akkadian replaced Sumerian as the language of prestige. The peak may have been under his grandson Naran-Sin (maybe known as Nimrod). The fun only lasted a couple hundred years, as people hated being ruled by Akkad. Once climate change stressed the irrigation system, the government collapsed and we seem to return to city-states and nomads for a bit. One thing to note about Akkad is that their government was a government of the priests, not the bureaucrats of what we call typical government. Thus the temple was the center of power.The next culture is the Amorites, a nomadic people who moved into Akkadian territory after their power waned. The Akkadians looked down on Amorites as they did on all nomads, or possibly Amorite was just a derogatory term instead of an actual people. As is often the case with nomads, once they got a taste of city life, they were all in. The Amroites adopted Akkadian customs and language and set up their own little spheres of power. Babylon, an old city already, was conquered and became the seat of an Amorite empire. It is curious that the Amorites apparently came from the northwest and ended up as far southeast as they could get, but I guess it took about 200 years before we enter the Babylonian period. From about 1900 to 1600 BC, they held sway over Mesopotamia, but not the far reaching area of the Akkadians. The most famous of the kings if Hammurabi, who expanded into Assyrian territory and wrote his famous law code. Hammurabi essentially popularized rule by law, as opposed to the priestly system of Akkad. By the end of the period, Babylon had trouble with the new Hittites and I think the Elamites and their territory shrank to nothing. |
February 6th, 2024 |
The Making of Europe | The next chapter is a continuation on racial concerns. Where the previous chapter was more about friendlier interactions and changes, this one is about power and control. The first section is on the most powerful organization in Medieval Europe: the Church. The struggle comes down to the fact that the locals want bishops and whatnot who are of their race and language. They want to confess in their native tongue and don’t want to go through an interpreter. Early and often this was not a problem; there would be bilingual priests or two priests or two parishes in a single location. But diversity brings complexity, and at the end of the day, a church seat is a position of power. The colonizers would lobby for their own men and once in power would see that many of the colleagues were of their race, especially in the more oppressive locations like Ireland. |
February 5th, 2024 |
The Making of Europe | Been a couple week since I touched this one. I think I read a bit on the 17th and forgot to write about it, but I don’t remember the topic other than the main heading. There were some bits about the importance of language and how someone who could act as a translator and interpreter was highly valued. I don’t remember much about culture and customs, but it is plain to see that over time the colonizer culture was to supplant the native culture. In some instances this was welcomed by the natives, but that may be more regarding laws. There was a lot written about laws, with different codes existing side-by-side. Initially there were courts for Slavic law and German law, or Muslim law and Spanish law, and a person would use their appropriate system. The colonizer generally had favorable terms legally, the worst case being not in a land of crusading but in Ireland. In Ireland, an Irishman could not bring an Englishman to court, period. Over time, the colonizer would change the system piecemeal to unify the legal system, but racial law was widespread in this era. |
February 3rd, 2024 |
Nickel and Dimed | The last section is the author’s evaluation of her work and it’s the best part of the book. As far as work itself went, she did fine. She worked hard and did well at her jobs. The problem then comes from the fact that doing her job well was not enough to keep her head above water. The cost of rent significantly outpaces wages and a plurality, if not majority, of someone’s wages go to their living accommodations. A single person often cannot afford an apartment and must rely on someone else to meet the rent. Worse, people cannot afford to save up for the safety deposit and are stuck living week to week for more money or daily at a motel. A second job is required to get ahead. While wages have technically gone up, they are still below their peak in the 70s when adjusted for inflation. 25 years later, little has changed. It must be worse, since wages are stagnant and everything has gone up. The author didn’t talk about food much, and at this period of time it seemed that spending on food as a percentage of income has gone down. Some foods are expensive, but I think food can still be bought fairly cheaply. A box of pasta costs $1. One problem that the book made me aware of is that some low income housing lacks a kitchen. Especially if you’re in a motel, all you have is a microwave, if that. This country needs subsidized housing like some places in Europe, such as Vienna, not to mention health and child care. There’s no reason for anyone to struggle to survive in this country. |
February 2nd, 2024 |
Nickel and Dimed | The last trip to Minneapolis is not as interesting as the first two. The first half of it was spend on looking for a job and a place to live, which was the interesting part. All the lodgings were terrible and too expensive, and this will be her downfall. She even kind of cheated at first and spend the first week rent-free, bird-sitting for a friend. Jobs were hard to get, but she ended up with an interview at Wal-Mart and at some Home Depot type store. Both jobs were contingent on a drug test, and she was worried she may not pass. Luckily for her and the book, she passes. There is no “job offer”, just immediate orientation. The hardware store is weird since someone tells her $10 an hour, which would have been great, but someone else contradicts it. It’s shady so she goes with Wal-Mart at $7. From here, it gets dull. I think we all have seen enough about Wal-Mart to know that it sucks to work there, the customers suck, the pay sucks, etc. All that said, her job is just boring. She puts clothes back on racks and that is it. Nothing interesting happens. If she had made enough money doing it to get a place to live and some decent food, it would be fine. However, $7 an hour does not get you those things. She keeps trying different places but they are all full and the one she lives in is sketchy. She tries a motel, but daily rates are ridiculous. At this point, she runs out of her allotted funds and has to call ti off. |
February 1st, 2024 |
Nickel and Dimed | I'm burning through this book pretty quickly. Not that I don't like it, but it's just a very simple and easy read and doesn't give one much to think about it. It's just a personal story about something we all (well, not all) know: being poor sucks and low-paying jobs suck. The author spends a month in Portland, Maine because, as she explicitly points out, it is extremely white. In Florida, she was ushered away from certain jobs which were delegated to minorities, like room-keeping. Here in Portland, white people got all the jobs, so a white lady in a crappy job doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. She jumps out the gate trying to get two jobs to afford rent, and affordable housing that isn't abysmal is hard to find. One job is a weekend job in the cafeteria at a retirement home on the Alzheimer's ward. She doesn't dwell on this one much other than the fact that sometimes it's understaffed and that she was able to get a job like this, with medically dependent people, with no qualifications and essentially just walked in from the street. The main gig is a maid service. I was trying to think where I saw one of these on TV, and now I think it was a Nathan For You episode. The author is one of those maids who drive around in a team of 4 to wealthy people's homes and clean. It's back-breaking work. The vacuum is strapped to one's back, like a Ghostbuster I guess. They get no mops and clean the floors on their hands and knees. They work longer than the advertised hours and get no overtime for this. The girls and women she works with are better off than the Florida people, in the sense that there is less car-living, but still a good number of living at home or with an absurd number of co-inhabitants. The owner man seems to have some sort of cult of personality, where the maids seek his approval. They work through pain and illness. The author says she gets treated like a second-class citizen when in public in her uniform. At the end she tells her team that she is leaving and it was all for a book, and the reaction is lukewarm and mostly uninterested. Obviously, it is a rough life as a maid. That's why I just never clean. |
January 31st, 2024 |
Nickel and Dimed | This book is pretty much about a white woman writer/journalist who goes "undercover" and works crap jobs for crap money after Clinton's welfare reforms in the late 90's force many welfare recipients, especially single mothers, back to work. The author outright admits she cannot fully emulate being in this situation because of several reasons. First, the mental stress of this being your life is not really there; it is only temporary and her real life is still waiting for her. Second, she is not raising any kids. I think she could have simulated this by buying additional food and whatever for a pretend child and just donating it, though this is only monetary and does not take into account the time and presence requirements of raising a child. Third, while being a woman brings its difficulties, being a white American does not. She does one month in 3 locations and I personally do not think one month at a place is long enough. You barely have to pay rent. She admittedly starts off "cheating", using her real life savings for a down payment for rent. Some people she works with in Key West (near her own Florida home) do not even have that much. While the idea of the book is nice, the first part in Florida is more like a novella about how much being a waitress sucks. It was surprisingly difficult for her to find a job, since many of the "wanted" ads were just placeholders without a real open position. She describes her coworkers and work conditions of two different restaurants and her one day as a hotel room cleaner. She ended up walking out on the restaurant after mistreatment, which she takes as a defeat. I don't see it that way; quitting a job out of spite is a wonderful feeling. Maybe not so much when you're struggling to make rent. I'm not sure if she would have even made rent, but we'll never know because she moves on to the next town. |
January 25th, 2024 |
All Quiet on the Western Front | Life has kept me very busy, but I did finish this book. It’s very good. I won’t give an in-depth overview. Westhus seems to be the only “main”character to die in action until the end. Most of this book does not talk about the action of fighting on the front, and when it does it is sort of vague and not specific. I assume that is on purpose, as the action is the same to the soldier whether it is a major battle or not and regardless of location. Most of the interesting parts of the book occur outside the front, when Paul has time to think. One of the main parts of the book is when Paul gets leave to go home. It’s a terrible experience for him as he can no longer relate to anyone or anything back home. He misses his friends at the front terribly. His dad tries to talk to him about the war but has no understanding of it and an old teacher has the audacity to tell Paul he does not know enough to talk about strategy. Kantorek, the professor who inspired them to join, ended up drafted and one of Paul’s classmates enjoys messing with him as the superior officer. The only real connections Paul has is with his mother, who is likely dying from cancer, and the Russian POWs. His mother just saddens him, but it seems the love is still real. The Russians he relates to more than any of the townspeople and talks to the ones who know German, sometimes gives them cigarettes. He knows they are peasants and have as little interest in the war as he and his friends do. Then Paul is back in action and waits for his friends to return to the front. They then get good duty of guarding a depot as the town gets shelled. They live like kings for a few days while supplies are evacuated or destroyed. On the way back, the civilian train is shelled and Paul and Krupp are wounded. Krupp will lose his leg and contemplates suicide, while Paul, in better shape, bribes several people to stay by Krupp’s side on the wounded train. They end up in a Catholic hospital, which is decent. Some guys get wheeled away to the “dying room”, and its a hard thing to read. Krupp does lose his leg here while Paul recovers and must leave him. Then it’s all downhill from him. As the war comes towards the end, Paul’s friends begin to die. Mueller is killed and Paul gets Kettermich’s boots. Detering goes AWOL and is caught, but is never seen again. I think Tjaden survives. Kat gets a his shin destroyed and Paul carries him for what seems a very long time to a clinic. Unfortunately, along the way Kat got a splinter in the back of the head and is dead. Losing his best friend, Paul is just a shell of himself. In October 1918, he is killed on a day that is “all quiet on the Western Front”. He is said to look peaceful. Great book and it really saddens you to know that millions of people really went through this. Men and boys sent to the slaughter, many dying due to lack of training or just the general unwillingness to give up the war. People to this day still have pro-war attitudes. Fight it yourself, then. |
January 16th, 2024 |
The Making of Europe | The book talks about the spread of laws. As towns sprout up, they inherit the law structure from their mother city. There was an interesting bit about the spread of Italian merchants. Over the centuries Italians, especially Venetians and Genoese, established critical trading routes in the Mediterranean and practically formed colonies in their locations. This ranged from Spain and Morocco to Egypt, Israel, Constantinople, and even the far end of the Black Sea. The Venetians and Genoese fought each other for primacy. Germans had some big trade routes up north and had similar colonial structure, with Riga on the Baltic as an example. Then the 8th chapter talks about race. I didn’t get very far into it, but the general idea is that race was viewed differently than the way we view it genetically today. It was essentially what we would call culture: language, customs, and laws. Language is the big one, even today people are more sympathetic and tolerant to those who know their language. |
| All Quiet on the Western Front | For the first half of the book, Paul and the guys are mostly behind the front. It sort of lulls you into a fall sense of comfort as the soldiers try to keep themselves occupied. There was the stint with barbed wire bombardment, but that was the real “action”. In spite of this, there is still a general sense of unease as Paul deals with his thoughts and describes things that happened in the past. The boys lament the fact that there is nothing for them back home; they have no wives, kids, or jobs. There is no way they can just go back to school and pretend to be normal after this. Their youth is destroyed. No one knows what they will do after the war, if there is an after for them. Then their old training camp commander Himmelstoss comes to front, kicked out for going too far, and Tjaden and Kropp can’t wait to give it to him. They both get an easy jail sentence, “open” prison, for insubordination. Then, they get sent back to the front. It’s dangerous, but the psychological horror is nearly as dangerous. They are under bombardment for days with no signs of an attack. Many recruits don’t know how to find cover or can’t handle being underground for so long. Food runs short. Gas attacks leave newbies dead. Then the attack comes and it turns out to be French. Machine guns and hand grenades leave the attack force limited by the time they reach the defenses. The counterattack regains the front trench. Paul finds Himmelstoss cowering and forces him out to fight. I think one of the gang, Haie or something, gets injured, but no deaths are reported. After what may be a couple weeks of this, they are sent back to the reserves. From maybe 150 men, 32 return. | |
January 13th, 2024 |
All Quiet on the Western Front | Kemmermich was the guy who died in the hospital. The main cast seems to be Paul, Katczinsky, Tjaden, and Kropp. There are others mentioned, like Mueller. I think they’re Paul’s classmates, except Kat. He’s an older man who has been in the war longer and seems to know a lot. He always finds a way to get food or bedding. I think the third chapter is more character building. There’s new recruits, 2 years younger than Paul, and this makes them feel like old veterans. In the next chapter, they are sent to the front for barbed wire duty. Now that they’re upfront, things get serious. Kat believes there’s going to be a bombardment. They gather their things and start working when Kat is proven right. They hit the deck and Paul tries to help a recruit who has lost his helmet. The kid shit his pants and Paul tells him that’s normal for new guys and to toss his drawers in the bushes. Nearby got hit hard and now all they can hear is dying and screaming horses, which they find worse than men. Then they start walking back to the trucks. Kat seems off and another bombardment happens, this time right on top of them. They take cover in a graveyard, but trees blow up and send shards all over. They try to hide in a shell hole, since the odds of it hitting two places twice is low. Then they hear gas and put on their masks. The gas sinks into the holes and each man waits for death if his mask is on wrong. The bombardment begins again and one guy in the hole gets his arm smashed when a coffin lands on it. They make a splint from coffin wood and bandages and soon the ordeal is over. They see a guy without his mask and follow his lead. Walking, Paul and Kat find a wounded guy, his thigh a complete mess at the joint. They try to patch him up and Paul realizes it’s the recruit from earlier. They consider shooting him, since he will probably die in the hospital in agony, but people come with stretchers. Everyone is then driven back in the rain. |
January 12th, 2024 |
The Making of Europe | I read a bit but haven’t written because it’s kind of dull. The sixth chapter was more of the same, new settlements and how to get people there. There were often guys named locators who would attract people there. As mentioned, there were benefits given to attract people. The seventh chapter is about towns. The author breaks it down into two types, the economic town and the legal town. A town is a relative concept based on the population and surroundings. A town could be a town in theory and not in name if it is an economic hub, and a town could be a town in name but little more than a farmstead. The economic benefits a town brings was, in this era, crucial to the development of a ruler’s territory. In order to develop towns, the ruler would give the inhabitants, or “burgers”, benefits that could not be found elsewhere. Later in history, these benefits would be the source of tension between a ruler and his subjects. But now, the independence of the town was a sacrifice that brought enough benefits. |
| All Quiet on the Western Front | I read the first two chapters and it’s a very good book so far. I’m going to struggle remembering the German names though. Paul Baumer is the narrator. The book starts with him and his friends returning to the rear after being on the front. They are happy because there are rations for 150 men of the company, though only 80 of them returned. Everyone gets a little extra, demands a little extra. Paul then jumps around to how he and his friends were convinced by their teacher to sign-up for the war. One boy hesitated, but didn’t want to appear to be a coward. He was the first to die. Paul jumps to training camp and how they were abused and nearly killed; one of his classmates did die. Then it seems to come back to the present, and Paul and his friends go to visit one of their classmates in the infirmity. He has lost a leg and it is obvious to them that he will die. One of them, Mueller, asks him for his boots, since he will be “going home”. The boy refuses, and the group wishes him well. Outside, they mourn that he will die, but also mourn that some random orderly will get his things. Later, Paul goes back to watch him die. It seems the boy had realized he won’t make it, and Paul remembers how his mother begged Paul to watch over her son. Now he thinks about the letter he will have to write her. The boy dies with tears streaming down his face and Paul gathers his things. The body is quickly removed, as the bed is needed for others. | |
January 9th, 2024 |
Edible Economics | I finished the book today. It’s not the best ending, in my opinion. The spices chapter is interesting, but the rest is meh. Spices led to the creation of the LLC. Prior to that, if you were an investor in a company that went belly-up, you had to pay off the debts, no matter the cost. With an LLC, you are only liable up to what you invested. You lose your shares, but that is all. This encouraged people to invest in risky enterprises, such as sailing around the world for flavors. Now, the LLC has become a bit of a liability itself. With minimal regulation, people buy shares and sell them ASAP for quick gains, thus leading corporations to think quarter-to-quarter instead of long term. If regulations encouraged or forced holding shares for longer terms, thus creating a true investment in the company and a concern for its future, then we may have better outcomes. Less companies would be shut down because they aren’t “profitable enough”, less people would be let go to meet the year’s target, more investment would be made in the company itself instead of sending 80% of profit to shareholders. I say this as someone trying maximize my dividends. A hypocrite, maybe, but not a day-trader. First, I hate strawberries. Second, I don’t fully agree with this chapter, though I am likely just uninformed. The strawberry is easily bruised and thus must be picked manually, while other fruits could be picked/harvest with automated equipment. This is done by immigrants making less than $20k a year. Once there is an automated system, these immigrants will be out of a job. The author says that automation is not so bad and that it creates other jobs. I don’t think they create enough jobs that way and not for the same demographic. These immigrants are not going on to build or design robots, whereas the college student who was going to be a mechanical engineer may choose strawberry robot engineering instead. If a fast-food joint replaces its staff with robots, it needs someone to maintain those robots. In reality, the 5 employees replaced by robots will be maintained by 1 employee. What about the people making the robots? They’re going to be Chinese. Tough luck, burger flipper. I really don’t see how it would end up any other way. The last chapter is more about food than economics. It goes on for a really long time about chocolate, which obviously leads to the Swiss. Essentially the whole bit is about how the Swiss are assumed to be the perfect post-industrial society, but in reality they are the most industrialized society per capita in the world. Their persona is services and finance, but they make a lot of stuff that may not be seen by consumers, such as industrial equipment and chemicals. So their success as a country is because they are VERY industrialized. Bad news for the UK and US. Not the deepest way to end a book, but it’s a good, short read. |
January 8th, 2024 |
The Making of Europe | The book discussed how the expanded Europe was populated. There was a large amount of land being claimed but not enough people to turn it into farms, and thus rent money. The marshes and forests needed a lot of labor to convert to tillable land. The lords then made it worth the peasants while. What could convince someone to leave their family and life for an unknown land, possibly a completely different climate? One was freedom from rent and other dues for several years. Another was the promise of the land being inheritable. Another was a sort of judicial freedom. Certain settlements were allowed to have their own judge, or to go directly to the duke for judgment. And of course, land itself was a good promise. In England, holdings could be 25 acres. In Picardy, half an acre. These would shrink more as population grew. In new lands, individuals were getting 40 to 80 acres. Pretty enticing. |
| Edible Economics | I hate spicy food. There was a chapter on chili that was actually pretty good, though the tie-in I can’t remember. The chapter was about equality and fairness. It complains about the Soviet concept of equality by telling the story of how a vegetarian requested something other than chicken on a flight and was told that everyone gets chicken. That equality makes no sense because everyone has different needs. The counter to this is the right-wing view of fairness. They think letting everyone do anything is fair since everyone has the same opportunities. But not everyone has the same opportunities because not everyone has the same starting points. Even if they do, they do not have the same capabilities or abilities. The welfare state helps give people the same starting point that ensuring all children get the necessary care needed for proper development. Then it allows all to access good schools and from there one’s abilities can lead to their level of success. I strongly believe in this view. Bring the few at the top down a few pegs to bring the many at the bottom up a few pegs. Once everyone has achieved a level of comfort and fairness, then the competition that life inevitably becomes and be conducted in good faith. The chapter on chicken was okay. It was stretched from the meat everyone is indifferent to to the work that everyone is indifferent to: domestic. GDP does not consider things that are not marketable, like child-rearing or taking care of the elderly, and these women (mostly) do not earn a pension and often end in poverty. Essential workers during the pandemic, sans doctors, were also extremely underpaid and thus their contributions are not weighed appropriately in GDP. These jobs are also mostly female held. The history in the lime chapter was more interesting than the meat of it. The British Empire, masters of the sea, had a scurvy problem and had no solution. Once ocean sailing became common, people began dying from lack of vitamin C. 18th century scientists started to believe this was related to certain acids, and thus thought acid fruit could help. Limes were used, after lemons, since they were more acidic (though lower in vitamin C) and grew in the Caribbean territories. The government mandated its use in the navy and forced soldiers to drink the juice by making it a part of the grog ration, thus saving many lives. This was done solely due to government intervention. Then it goes into the need for the government to intervene in green-technology. Only the public sector can be so long-term thinking. The private sector is unfortunately only concerned with near-term gain and will kill itself next quarter to make more money in the third quarter. It amazes me how short sighted boards of directors can be. | |
January 7th, 2024 |
Edible Economics | Banana: The banana is a notorious fruit. How can something coming 3000 miles away cost 14 cents? When I think of the banana, I think of the banana republics of Central America. Instead of a government, these countries were essentially controlled by the United Fruit Company or the other one. It’s like a coal company town, but on a larger scale and more brutal. The author then goes on to contrast this by saying global corporations are capable of bringing benefits, if they are controlled the right way. Instead of having free reign, they need to give some percentage of ownership to locals and use some percentage of its supply from local vendors. Once in the country, an entirely new industry can open up in the host country and bring brand new technologies. Think of Korea, who never would’ve been able to build cars or semiconductors (Hyundai and Samsung) without foreign corporations. Coke: We all know Coca-Cola used to be made from the coca leaf. Apparently it also used to be (until 2016) made with kola nut, whatever that is. It apparently still has coca leaf, with the cocaine extracted, for flavoring. Coke is the symbol of America, though its main ingredients are foreign. Being anti-Coke is a symbol of rejecting Americanisms. In the last couple decades, there was a “Pink Tide” in Latin America, where neoliberal policies were shot down and socialist policies were on the rise. I think the best example of this was Bolivia. They increased tariffs a lot, nationalized some industries, and increased social spending. Instead of crashing and burning, like Washing Consensus (US Treasury, IMF, and World Bank) claimed they would, the economy grew and inequality decreased. Suck it, neoliberals. Rye: I can’t say I’ve eaten a lot of rye. Maybe I have without realizing it. It’s big in eastern Europe. Russia is the biggest consumer, Germany is the biggest producer. Bismark was famous for uniting “rye and iron”, that is the Prussian landowners and the Rhineland factory owners. Bismark, a staunch conservative, is shockingly the inventor of the welfare state. He created the first insurance program for workers, among other things I forget. This was not because he was a bleeding heart, but because he wanted to weaken the appeal of socialism. Socialists were pissed and were opposed. But it worked, and as years went by, the revolutionary fire died and the socialists wanted to fixed the system instead of destroying it. Thus was welfare created by a right-winger. Welfare is never free, of course, as we pay for it in taxes. It is not just paid for in income taxes, but in tariffs, sales taxes, VAT, etc. About 1/3 of taxes are collected through these latter methods, which are more burdensome on low-income people since they are a flat tax. The benefit of welfare and things like a nation heath care service are the convenience and the economy of scale. It is much cheaper for every hospital in the country to buy equipment and medicine from a single source than for each individual one to make small orders. That’s ignoring the for-profit local insurances as well. Welfare is a good thing. |
January 5th, 2024 |
The Making of Europe | I forget most of what was left of chapter 4. The main thing I remember is the usage of the term “Frank”. The peoples of the east came to use Frank as general term for westerner, with all the negative connotations that come with that. In west and central Europe, this was not the case at first. Eventually, Frank could be used as a catch-all term in Europe. Obviously this had to be in only the broadest meanings; an Italian would not call a Dutchman a Frank. The term could be used to describe Latin Christendom, probably with exceptions of the Celtic lands being invaded. It could also be used as a general term when people of different ethnic groups were fighting together, such as in the crusades in the Middle East or Spain. Chapter 5 starts talking about demographics. There are no censuses or really any baptismal records, so it is all guesswork. The author uses the Domesday Book to get a rough min-max in England around 1100 (1086?) and then a later work for around 1370, which would have been after the main plague devastation. The point is that it was a million or so and then up to a few million people. Another part talks about migration and uses Flanders as an example. The Flemish ended up going everywhere, which could be told by surnames or place names as many places from England to Hungary. Don’t remember much else. Flemish possibly became a synonym for foreigner in some places. |
January 3rd, 2024 |
The Making of Europe | The fourth chapter looks like it is about the image of the warrior or conqueror. It’s mostly about the intentional savagery of the Franks to instill fear in the Italians, Greeks, or Muslims. They also were notorious for their reasons behind fighting. The Franks did not have a goal, they just wanted more. They came for wealth and land, and they would only leave to acquire more of it. They would write charters making deals and giving away land which they didn’t even own yet, or may not ever. The time of conquest also became the beginning of a new era and kind of a foundational myth. People dated things “since the taking of Jerusalem” or whatever, and landholdings and descendants that can be traced to the time of conquest were given a special kind of privilege. They did not hold land by the gift of a king; they took it for themselves, alongside other conquerors and the ancestor of the king. |
| Edible Economics | Carrots: the author does not dwell on them long. He says that the orange carrot is only a creation of the 17th century, and they are naturally white. The orange carrot is a miracle plant, however, because they contain beta carotene. This is processed into vitamin A in the body, but not in excess so it does not lead to poisoning. Around 2000 or so, some scientists created Golden Rice, a yellow looking grain that contains beta carotene. Asians tend to have a high vitamin A deficiency and this would have helped them. However, this cannot be sold by the scientists because a grain of this rice uses 70 patents. The author then talks about the issues about patents and how it could be changed. Giving a 20 year monopoly is not very reasonable in the fast changing world. If the idea of a patent is to make innovation public, it is not very useful if nobody can use it. Using a new innovation can lead to more innovation, but letting 20 years go by is not helpful. In previous generations, a government prize would be given for certain inventions. British Parliament offered 3 million pounds (in today’s worth) for someone to invent the chronometer. Likewise, Napoleon offered a prize for food preservation that led to canning. I also read Beef. This one goes heavy on information about Uruguay, who apparently has the most cattle per capita or land mass or something. They had a big leather industry before refrigeration, but also marketed the beef bullion cube thing early. We all know about the downsides to the beef industry, such as deforestation and whatnot. The main point comes down to free trade and how it is usually not very free for the weaker countries. Once Latin America became independent, Britain and others forced “unequal treaties” on them, which guaranteed low tariffs for sellers in Latin America among other unfavorable things. The same was done in Asia. Once these treaties expired, these countries jacked up tariffs to aid their own industries. The World Bank and some other international agreements also force free trade on these countries, even to their own detriment. Milton Friedman and his ilk praise this free trade and mark the repeal of the UK’s Corn Laws as the ushering of a new era. However, Britain still had a thousand tariffs other than corn and only became a superpower after centuries of high tariffs allowed their industries to grow. Pretty narrow minded guy, that Friedman. Interesting note, there was a bit about corned beef hash. The “corn” aspect is that the beef was preserved with large grains of salt, or “corns” of salt. | |
January 2nd, 2024 |
Edible Economics | I read a few chapters in the last couple days. Let’s see what I remember. The last chapter of “prejudice” sections (I couldn’t think of that word last time) is on coconuts. Coconuts are apparently an amazing food. Not only are they widely used in culinary, but the husky hair bits have uses for ropes and whatnot, the unripe fruit has water that can be drank, and the insides have an oil that was used widely for lubrication before petroleum took over. This miracle fruit (nut?) is a reason why “tropical people” are widely seen lazy since they have no need to work hard, and that is why they are poor. The author then goes into stats that show that people in poor countries work more hours than those in rich and work for many more years than those the rich. They also have to work harder due to having poorer equipment. I think most people realize this and the stereotype of a lazy third-worlder fairly archaic. The next chapter, I forget the section, is on anchovies. I enjoy a good anchovy, but not many Americans or Anglos seem to like them. Apparently they’re an ingredient in Worcestershire sauce. Had no idea. But the anchovy segues into birds of the South American Pacific coast, then to guano. This was a huge market for South America because it was used as fertilizer and also in gunpowder (so was coconut) due to its rich nitrates. Of course it was overused and supply was affected. The big problem for the market was that the Germans created an artificial fertilizer and then the need for guano was done forever. This was a common trend of rich countries, lacking a primary resource, creating an artificial and destroying the market. This happened to dyes and others. The chapter on prawns discusses their culinary uses and why many find eating bugs disgusting, though shrimp and prawn and not much different. I don’t remember what else it talked about. It did talk about how bugs are eaten often in Asia and are a more efficient source of protein than mammals and birds, since they use less land, water, and feed per gram of protein. Now I remember, it talked about infant industry protection. Silk worm pupae were a big snack in Korea because it was something that gets leftover from the silk industry. Other industries in countries like Japan and Korea were essentially created out of thin air because of government controls. Let’s say its about cars. They would place high tariffs on imports and essentially force banks to lend for this industry. Over time, they lessen the protection so that the industry can become competitive on foreign goods. This is what America, the bastion of free trade, did as advocated by Alexader Hamilton. It’s only bad for countries who want to export to that market, hence why advanced countries force “free trade” on weaker countries. Then there’s a chapter on noodles. I love noodles, especially Asian noodles. Asian food sometimes is too spicy, unfortunately. Italians are also big noodle lovers. I forget the transition, but the chapter moves on to Hyundai-Kia. This is another case of infant industry protection, as there was no auto industry in Korea at the time. Hyundai was already a big company, but worked in other industries. They sued the profit of those other industries to shore up the weak car industry. Look at it today. Now it’s bigger than GM and Ford. |
| The Making of Europe | It continued to talk about warfare and the diffusion of technology. The main point was a topic of invitation as opposed to invasion. In the 1100s, the Scots invited many Normans with promise of land holdings to fight for them. This, of course, led to tension with locals, but brought the Scots lots of technology. At the same time, the Anglo-Normans were building castles in Northumbria. Instead of the old-time raids, there was now a reason to take land and hold it. The other benefit of invitation is that the newcomers are dependent on the king and must stay loyal, or else they may lose out to the locals. It creates a mercenary caste, essentially. |
You can talk to me about books, if you want. Email
Updated 11/14/24