For whatever reason I've been thinking about counterinsurgency recently, which has been calling to mind the refrains of our contributors such as /u/bernardito and /u/blindingpain about how succesful counterinsurgencies (such as the Malaya Emergency and US-Philippine War) rely on removing the base of support among the population, while unsuccessful ones (Vietnam, Algeria, probably Israel in Lebanon, etc) treat the war as a conventional one and to an extent the population as enemies to be defeated rather than as potential allies to be won over and protected. One counter I often hear about this is that the Western powers are simply too gentle--if they were willing to use the same sort of tactics as (who else?) the Romans these wars would be over easily and we could all go about our business with the ends having justified the means. I definitely heard this a lot back in high school when the Iraq war was at its fiercest. So you know what?? I decided to test that.

One problem is creating neat parallels between modern insurgency and whatever its ancient equivalent was. The big obvious problem is that technology differentials were simply not as stark--the difference in material and resources between the Viet Cong and the US Army is vastly greater than even if a hypothetical Bronze Age army appeared to challenge Rome at its height. This means that insurgencies were far more likely to turn into conventional wars. On the other hand, if you are looking for premodern examples there are few better than Rome, because it exerted a sort of military dominance over its neighbors that is unusual for the period--even the "civilized neighbor" Parthia could only really stave off Roman invasion by engaging in a sort of guerrilla warfare and harassing supplies and ambushing small parties. So the Romans still had the quality that when it came to a "fair fight" they tended to win regardless of numbers.

But it was still nothing close to advantage modern first world powers have in sheer military might, so the first step would be to limit ourselves to wars that look like modern insurgencies, which means ignoring things like Vercingetorix and Boudicca's revolts and Arminius' wars in Germany. In fact, it is probably best to look at three notable examples: the Sertorian War in Spain (80-72 BCE), Pompey's campaigns against the pirates (66 BCE) and the conflicts in Judea (culminating in 66-70 CE, but more important are the decades of conflict before that).

Sertorian War: Quintus Sertorius was a Marian general who fled to Spain after the victory of Sulla in the civil war and carved out his own realm for almost a decade. he did this by "going native"--already popular with the Iberians due to his lenient governorship, during the course of the war he adopted more and more "native" trappings, including a pet albino deer identified as sacred to the local gods (it is worth noting that there is a debate about whether this is all a post facto smear campaign, I personally do not think so). Arrayed against him were two very capable generals: at first Quintus Caeilius Metellus Pius who was later joined by a young Gnaeus Pompey. Unfortunately we do not know as much of this campaign as we would like, as what little evidence we have tends to focus on the set piece battles which usually went to the Romans, but from the incidental mentions it seems that Sertorius was hardly harmed by these, as he set traps, raised soldiers from "pacified" regions, and cut off Roman forces from supplies in ways familiar to a modern guerrilla campaign. But he was eventually defeated, but notably not in battle. Rather, Pompey was able to exploit divisions with the Sertorian leadership and bribed his allies to assassinate him. And the Iberians themselves were not brutally treated--perhaps taking a cue from the recent Social War there was a generous granting of citizenship and inducement for rebels to lay down their arms.

Pirate War: I am with Philip De Souza in that the designation of this war as being against "pirates" is essentially propaganda, because piracy was a perfectly conventional form of warfare at the time. In many ways this was rather a war against Cilicia and the local leaders there. these leaders were able to raise powerful conventional fleets to the extent that they even raided the Tiber port of Ostia, but their primary activity was raids on shipping and coastal settlements. Pompey's was not the first campaign against them, as only a few decades earlier Marcus Antonius the Orator had led celebrated a triumph over the pirates, although it is rather questionable whether he really accomplished anything. So what Pompey faced was a Mediterranean that was substantially out of Roman control. Pompey's course of action was two-fold: he first divided the territory into fourteen segments and assigned each to a legate to carry out conventional naval warfare, such as destroying fleets and attacking coastal settlements. In many respects however this seems to have been largely a show of force, because after little more than a month of this he opened up negotiations, resettled the pirates on land and concluded agreements with their leaders. As De Souza points out this by no means ended the pirate threat, which was not really controlled until the establishment of dedicated Augustan fleets, but on the other hand the pirates never again raided Ostia. An interesting footnote is that Sextus Pompey several decades later was seemingly able to call upon Cilician allies to make up his fleet during the resistance to the Triumvirs.

Judean War: The most famous part of this is the brutal conventional war between 66-70 CE. However, this proceeded in a fairly unsurprising manner: the Jewish rebels were able to catch a Roman army off-guard and cut it up badly, but the Romans regrouped and under the capable leadership of Vespasian steadily rolled back Jewish resistance. This culminated in the terrible siege of Jerusalem and the "final" destruction of Jewish resistance at Masada. More interesting, perhaps, are the decades preceding it, in which the Jewish sicarii carried out low level resistance, including attacking small Roman bands and assassinating those friendly to Roman occupation. What I find telling is that there seems to have been no Roman attempt to offer carrots, rather the Roman authorities used brutal methods which eventually provoked the outbreak of full scale rebellion. On the other hand, the brutality of the Romans did eventually bring pacification (for a time). It would then seem that the most modern seeming insurgency was also the one brought down by the most brutal methods. That being said, I would love to hear the perspective of someone actually familiar with Jewish studies, as this is well outside my wheelhouse.

There are other examples to support my case (the aftermath of the Boudiccan revolt, pacification of the Brigantes and suppression of Tacfarinas in Africa to name three), but it seems that the Romans, in suppressing rebellion and insurgencies, relied on practices that would be looked upon favorably today, They exploited divisions in enemy commands by inducing treachery, liberally handed out citizenship to supporters and did not engage in pointlessly vindictive actions. The exception would be in Judea, but that may be one that proves the rule, as rebellion in Judea popped up twice again and it became a famously "failed province". So next time somebody says if only the US had the willingness to engage in the useful brutality of the Romans, recall that it may not have been their brutality that undergirt their success.

For the upcoming semester, I was accepted into a scholarship program, for which I have to read a book/week all semester, and attend discussions on those books. I got the book list yesterday, was wondering if I could get some opinions from people who've read them! I realize not all of these are history books, and the ones that are...vary in quality.

The Great War and Modern Memory by Paul Fussel

Neither Liberty Nor Safety by Robert Higgs

Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes

Empire by Niall Ferguson

The Face of Battle by John Keegan

Henry V by Shakespeare

Depression, War and Cold War by Robert Higgs

Achilles in Vietnam by Jonathan Shay

The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien

The Social Dilemma by Gordon Tullock

After War by Chris Coyne

No Place to Hide by Glenn Greenwald

Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card

I just posted this in /r/MapPorn, but Harvard Magazine had a recent exhibit of maps from World War I called From the Alps to the Ocean: Maps of the Western Front. The online article links to images of some fantastic maps of the trenches of the Western Front. The exhibit is unfortunately over, but I thought the online images were great and would hopefully be enjoyed by anyone interested in World War I.

In Canada, there's a lot of busy work going on to prepare for the 150th Anniversary celebrations in 2017 (Canada having been founded in 1867). One group called SirJohnA2015 is trying to popularize the story/history of our first Prime Minister, John A. MacDonald. His 200th birthday is next month in January 2015. I found seems a bit hokey, but I liked their mandate:

We use theatre, digital media and an innovative, interdisciplinary approach to engage Canadians, and particularly youth, in a conversation about our history, heritage and the way we are governed. We are committed to the belief that engagement in the arts and history can help to cure the political apathy afflicting young Canadians. You can't know where you're going unless you know where you've been.

Seems like an interesting use of history to me, though I wonder about accuracy. Still, can't protest if people are getting interesting in Canadian history from it! At least it's not boring, which is a common stereotype about Canada's history...

Which makes me wonder - what stereotypes are there about your history? Either by country or by field. Here in Canada, most people know about the big wars and everything else is boring political stuff (to their minds).

I started reading Chris Wickham's Inheritance of Rome this week. What is r/AskHistorians' opinion of the book? I'm enjoying it a lot so far.

There's a time capsule which was unearthed in the Massachusetts state house today. Are any of our illustrious contributors able to elaborate a bit on this story:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/11/us/boston-time-capsule-paul-revere-sam-adams/

Hi all. Can anyone recommend a book about the Wars of the Three Kingdoms? Couldn't find one in the book list.

Here's a minor question... When do you allow the use "Victorian?" Part of me cringes every time I hear it in the context of US History, yet it's undeniably part of the American lexicon. We use it to describe the architecture, the fashions, and the semi-fictional image of late 19th century culture (especially the sexually and emotionally repressed new-middle-classes). It's perfectly understood to refer to these things, yet it just seems wrong to apply the term anywhere outside the British Empire. Does using "Victorian" in this context mark someone as having no interest in history, or do any of you find yourselves using it to be understood?

so in doing research for my blog on the history of pornography and obscenity last week I stumbled across this fascinating PhD Thesis: German Hercules: The Impact of Scatology on the Image of Martin Luther as a Man, 1483-1546 [PDF].

I quoted some of its arguemnts along with some other discovries I made, in making the argument that Martin Luther used the obscene as a way of insulting and humiliating his enemies, but especially the Pope and the Catholic Church.

My favorite excerpt:

Gently, dear [Pope], dear donkey, don’t dance around! Oh, dearest little ass-pope, don’t dance around—dearest, dearest little donkey, don’t do it. For the ice is very solidly frozen this year because there was no wind—you might fall and break a leg. If a fart should escape you while you were falling, the whole world would laugh at you and say, “Ugh, the devil! How the ass-pope has befouled himself!”

Martin Luther would be responsible for the Council of Trent, of course, and this was the council that regulated marriage and created one of the first official banned books lists (and then leading on to pornography).

Best fake rejection letter from the Smithsonian!

http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/smithsonian.asp

Any details on the game of baseball before 1845? Seems like the history of that time is spotty :(

Just wrote a short paper on battery monitoring. They had electric cars in the 19th century?

Did they have Lithium chemistries back then? Were they aware of them and just didn't use the, because.....well they catch fire?

I've sortof become "the electric race car guy" in my MSc class, so I'm feeling obligated to go find out as much as possible about batteries and holy hell it's confusing. A crashcourse in their development and use history would be real nice.

Recently, I had been thinking about the contact with extra terrestrial life form, and some like Stephen Hawking didn't like the idea of it, at least in the case where it has much higher technological advantages, due to historical events on earth with the European imperialism and stuffs. But I wonder though, is it really that useful to compare such future scenario with historical event? What pit falls you historians would warn against such assumptions?

A new series just came out on Netflix called Marco Polo. I was wondering what you folks thought of it.

I'm just going to assume that since its a TV show it is hardly accurate but my fingers are crossed.

I just finished reading (Or rather listening to, as I have some excessively long commutes as an adjunct) William Manchester's three part Churchill Biography. I very much enjoyed it but as I am not a historian I was wondering what people's opinions on it are.

Also, it intrigued me to continue reading about Churchill. Any suggestions? I am a Political Scientist, so anything that leans in that direction is welcome.

I've been digging up information about my grandfather who served (I think as MD) in a hospital in WWII. Anyone with any information on him has also passed. I have basic records but no other information. I have a whole scrapbook of things (soldiers pay books, my grandmother's passes to visit US base, foreign money, newspapers) and it seems he lead an interesting story, but I have no details. The only detail I know is he once saved a young Polish boy and they kept up a correspondence for awhile after the war (also in the scrapbook).

I've googled and found the main things - send money for official records etc. I don't know how much information I'll get from official records that I don't already have, but it seems like anytime anyone asks a question on reddit about "What can you tell me about these details?" people seem to dig up pertinent information.

(From his discharge/demobilization paper) Robert Warren Smith born 7/1/1919, Elgin IL, army serial 16 001 760, SGT, MD, Component RA, 48th General Hospital, Enlistment 9/17/40, Discharge 9/21/45

All of this just to ask -- is there anyone who can use the details I have and try to help me piece together this part of my family history?

And is there anybody who would be interested in seeing the scrapbooks, just because it's a piece of history and they're awesome? I have pages and pages of photos like these: http://imgur.com/a/MDdJM, not to mention all of the clippings and various records and mementos. I'm happy to share because I was geeking out over them myself.

Can anyone recommend a good book about European history from the fall of the western Roman Empire to somewhere around the tenth/eleventh-century?

Can I get any book recommendations that cover lengthy wars in antiquity or the medieval eras in depth? The Mongol conquest of Song, the last Byzantine-Sassanid war, and the Long War between the Habsburgs and the Ottomans are the three I'm most interested in, but I'm sure my interest will be piqued by plenty of other things. Just no "wars" that are long because they're really several wars sharing a name.

I'm interested in how states cope with the extended struggle, so while books that limit themselves to explaining that X Commander took Y men to sack Z city will help a bit, the more they focus on the leader and the politics the better.