Post 205. Decisive and Determinate Action in War.

   Decisive  and  Determinate   Action  in  War.

 ( Note-:   The  following  quotes  are   from  an  article  I   wrote,   titled   'Armorica '.
Always  remember   Galatians   3:28   when  reading  this   article,  please. ).

A quote from Gibbon I, chapter xxxviii,note 142-:


Hoc anno [490 A.D.] Aella et Cissa obsederunt Andredes-Chester [ Newenden, Kent ]; et interfecerunt omnes qui id incolerent; adeo ut ne unus Brito ibi superstes fuerit ( Chron. Saxon. p.15, edit. Gibson );
an expression more dreadful in its simplicity than all the vague and tedious lamentations of the British Jeremiah.


Unquote.


My translation from Latin-:
In that year [490A.D.] Aella and Cissa placed Newenden, Kent under siege; and slaughtered all those living therein;    in such a manner that no British person would survive.


Unquote.


Note 142 is added here because I believe that a tribute must be paid to the vanquisced and persecuted originally   civilised Britons,  until   hybridicised  by  the invading  Barbarians,   those who died and are being forgotten by some of our modern, arrogant, biased, false scholars who, in our barbaric Era of Crap, of the Sewer, Ordure and Manure seem to find the Anglo-Saxons eminent.   I invite these type of individuals to humility, self-analysis and reformation, which are one of the ethical aim of this Appendix. 
 ............................................................................................
A quote from Gibbon, op.cit., I, p.629-:


The independent Britons appear to have relapsed into a state of original barbarism from whence they had been imperfectly reclaimed. Separated by their enemies from the rest of mankind, they soon became an object of scandal and abhorrence to the catholic world. Christianity was still professed in the mountains of Wales; but the rude schismatics, in the form of the clerical tonsure, and in the day of the celebration of Easter, obstinately persisted the imperious mandates of the Roman pontiffs. The use of the Latin language was insensibly abolished, and the Britons were deprived of the arts and learning which Italy communicated to her Saxon proselytes. In Wales and Armorica, the Celtic tongue, the native idiom of the West [of Britain], was preserved and and propagated; and the Bards, who had been the companions of the Druids, were still protected, in the sixteenth century, by the laws of Elizabeth............................. Liberty had peopled the mountains of Wales and Armorica: but their populousness has been maliciously ascribed to the loose practice of polygamy; and the houses of these licentious barbarians have been supposed to contain ten wives, and perhaps fifty children. Their disposition was rash and choleric: they were bold in action and in speech; and as they were ignorant of the arts of peace, they alternately indulged their passions in foreign and domestic war. The cavalry of Armorica, the spearmen of Gwent, and the archers of Merioneth, were equally formidable; but their poverty could seldom procure either shields or helmets; and the inconvenient weight would have retarded the speed and agility of their desultory operations ...................................................................................
 ( Note-:  I  believe that  the  author  is  referring   to   Cornwall   and  Gaul   when   writing  of  the  transportation  of   the  dead.)


By the revolution of Britain the limits of science as well as of empire were contracted. The dark cloud which had been cleared by the Phoenician discoveries, and finally dispelled by the arms of Caesar, again settled on the shores of the Atlantic, and a Roman province was again lost among the fabulous Islands of the Ocean. One hundred and fifty years after the reign of Honorius [ c. 553 A.D.] the gravest historian of the times [ See Procopius de Bell. Gothic. l. iv. c. 20, p.620-625   { ed. Paris; tom. ii. p.559 sqq., ed. Bonn }, the Greek historian is himself so confounded by the wonders which he relates, that the weakly attempts to distinguish the islands of Brittia and Britain, which he has identified by so many inseparable circumstances. ] describes the wonders of a remote isle, whose eastern and western parts are divided by an antique wall, the boundary of life and death, or, more properly, of truth and fiction. The east is a fair country, inhabited by a civilised people: the air is healthy, the waters are pure and plentiful, and the earth yelds her regular and frutiful increase. In the west, beyond the wall, the air is infectious and mortal; the ground is covered with serpents; and this dreary solitude is the region of departed spirits, who are transported from the opposite shores in substantial boats and by living rowers [ as the fulfilment of pagan beliefs in the power of the dead souls to vicariously occupy land ]. Some families of fishermen, the subjects of the Franks, are excused from tribute, in consideration of the mysterious office which is performed by these Charons of the ocean.................After this dream of fancy, we read with astonishment that the name of this island is Brittia; that it lies in the ocean, against the mouth of the Rhine, and less than thirty miles from the continent; that it is possessed by three nations, the Frisians, the Angles and the Britons.................

Unquote.


Another interesting quote from Gibbon I,op.cit. chapter xxxviii, note 135, may help to understand, in view of the thorough ‘ ethnic cleansing ‘ that the Anglo-Saxons indulged with, the ‘ bastardised ‘ condition of the Britons of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall who wasted so many of England's resources, opposing perfectly viable governments, by perpetuating the feud between Normans and Anglo-Saxons. I am criticising these peoples ( those who for some unknown reason wish to identify with the barbaric Anglo-Saxons and hate anything Norman, catholic and roman ) for their distortions of history and for the perpetuation of lies which tend to sabotage to-day Great Britain's contribution to the great ideal of the European Unity, for their trying to pass, even to-day, through B.B.C.'s propaganda, as Britons, rather than Anglo-Saxons, which, per se, invalidates the claims of modern B.B.C.'s sponsored historians who idealise them (i.e., the Anglo-Saxon lobbyists) as freedom fighters, and I wish to revive the idea that ‘ Anglo-Saxon' may be a dirty word that is being wrongly used whenever‘ Britsh' should be rather used. That is why, in the Bayeux Tapestry, Harold is shown against the background of a broken flag, blazoning the golden dragon of the false Britons, i.e., the Saxons, and a standing flag, blazoning the red Welsh dragon ( the Pendragon of King Arthur, the roman-briton by excellence ), which represents the liberation of the authemtic Britons by the Normans. It is even possible that a contingent of Welsh levies in Harold's army may have turned against him toward the end of the battle of Hasting. The question is, oh B.B.C.'s historians--: "Why the golden and the red dragons on the same field, at the moment of defeat, the former broken down, the latter standing proud?


The truth that Cornwall was indeed bastardised by the Anglo-Saxons is confermed by Gibbon I, chapter xxxviii, note 135-:


Cornwall was finally subdued by Athelstan ( 927-941 A.D.), who planted an English colony at Exeter, and confined the Britons beyond the river Tamar. See William of Malmesbury, I, ii, in the Scriptores post Bedam, p. 50.............and another, note 136-:
The establishment of the Britons in Gaul is proved in the sixth century by Procopius [ Bell. Goth. iv.20], Gregory of Tours, the second council of Tours ( 567 A.D.), and the least suspicious of their chronicles and lives of saints. The subscription of a bishop of the Britons to the first council of Tours ( 461 A.D., or rather 481 A.D.), the army of Rhiothamus, and the loose declamations of Gildas ( alii transmarinas petebant regiones, c.25, p. 8), may countenance an emigrration as early as the middle of the fifth century. and another, note 145-:
In the beginning of the seventh century the Franks and the Anglo-Saxons mutually understood each others's language which was derived from the same Teutonic root ( Bede. l. i. c. 25, p. 60)
In 668 A.D., two missionaries were sent to England in order to convert, unite and reform-: Theodore of Tarsus, from Asia Minor and an african, named Hadrian of Carthage.
While the Britons were reverting to barbarism and isolationism, the Saxons, under the influence of Catholic Christianity were learning to become members of a wider community of nations, which to-day, is being exemplified by the European Community of nations. Bede, Aldhelm of Malmesbury and the west-Saxon Boniface, the Apostle of Germany, were products of the new Saxon, cultured society. However, the Saxons were too slow at their efforts at joining the fast pace of European civilization, and it was necessary to confront them with the dinamic, efficient, progressive, morally un-ambiguous, if uncomfortable guidance of the Normans. The history of Britain is one of a malevolent, unnecessary, silent, secret, revengeful re-assertion of the ancient British tribes, confused by their wrong identification, in a promiscuous alliance, with the memories of the wounded pride of their Anglo-Saxon persecutors, rebelling against a wrongly-perceived, European aggressiveness (i.e., the Romans and the Normans ). If anyone can be labelled an aggressor in the history of the world, the barbarians from the steppes have right of precedence, including the Celts and Britons. To my way of seeing reality, historical reality, right and legitimacy are represented, moral and ethical standards being the same, by righteous co-operation, efficiency and stability in policies, productivity, law and order, etc. The Anglo-Saxons and Britons were retrogressive and inefficient nations, and still suffered, in the days of the Norman invasion from their anscestral, congenital lack of profundity of character and low morality, caused, as a contrast to their Armorican kins, by insularity, isolation, inbreeding , the oppression of savage nations like Gothic Scotland, a ‘ bastardised ‘ Ireland, Sweden and Norway, etc.
Another issue worth clarifying is that the kinship between Scots and Celtic Irish is really a myth encouraged by the ancient Irish missionaries to Scotland. Both Gothic Scots and Celtic Irish had themselves invaded, conquered and subjected neolithic tribes of natives all over pre-roman Europe, in the days of the bronze Age, therefore proving my criterion in relation to the rights of occupation of productive land, and on the basis of the fact that they also were invaders and oppressors, their descendants have no right to-day to historically vilify Romans, Normans, Roman Catholics or the supporters of the ideal of modern United Europe. One can recurringly see modern English ( they are not however alone in suffering from this type of treachery ) treacherously ready to share in whatever good Europe may have to offer, withdrawing into their insularity whenever the time comes for loyalty and co-operation in relation to some difficult issue confronting Europe. In a way, they and the French have been responsible for both W.W. I & II. As an example of my way of thinking, the rebellions of the Scots against the Romans were totally pointless if one stops injecting Rousseaussian, Wagnerian/Neo-Nazi romantic idealism in the scenarios of the noble savage. In fact, a throw-back to the true Irish type, is probably to be found in Brittany, rather than in Scotland or Ireland. Moreover, Anglo-Norman achievements in the character building of the British people have been slowly disappearing since the advent of the Tudors, as time shall unfortunately tell, unless reformation in relation to a closer unity and co-operation, is embraced by all peoples dwelling in the British Islands, including Ireland, and a correction be made to the false idealisation of the Anglo-Saxons to the exclusion of other tribes who really contributed to the greatness of England, i.e., the Normans, etc.. Moreover, in my opinion, in relation to the islamic theocratic threat to the western civilisation, member-nations of United Europe should either reinforce their ties with existing monarchies ( whose prerequisite for their being adopted or accepted should be their being and remaining absolutely christian) or adopt again, if republics, superseded monarchies or even adopt entirely new ones for the sake of providing a permanent constitutional barrier to possible future take-overs by Islamic fifth columns obsessed with a theocratic religious ideology. In fact, the fundamental weakness of the Anglo-Saxon democracies to-day, that may eventually destroy our power and civilization base, is in their abuses of the idea of freedom, which has replaced in their idolatrous democracies, the christian God.
In this atmosphere in which the worship of the god of freedom distorts all traditional moral balances (i.e., the concept of the balance required by human right and human duty ) it has become impossible for our politicians and leaders to think about the necessity that certain fundamental issues should be classified by professionally trained experts chosen for their expertise in relation to each particular issue, as " not-politically-negotiable ", "to- be-debated-and-decided-upon by experts only ", and not by the masses etc.
 


Let me quote here an interesting note from Gibbon I, chapter xxxviii, note 154-:


The life of Wallus, or Cambricus, homo, who possessed a hyde of land, is fixed at 120 shillings, by the same laws ( of Ina, tit. xxxii. in Leg. Anglo-Saxon. p.20) which allowed 200 shillings for a free Saxon, and 1200 for a Thane ( see likewise Leg. Anglo-Saxon, p. 71).


Unquote.
........................................................................................................


As we well know, paradoxically enough, the descendants of the ancient Britons never ceased from stolidly opposing whoever attempted to rule England, even when coming as a liberator or wishing to rule in the best interests of England, as was the case of the Norman and Plantagenet dynasties. Henry VII and the House of Tudors were in fact related to the ancient welsh rulers, and did not see Norman and Plantagenet ( i.e., Angevin, Lancaster, York ) dynasties with the equanimity due to the descendants of those who had liberated Britain from barbaric rulers,   the  latter  having  been  making a mockery of the christian faith and of feudal ethics, in the days of William the Conqueror. One would have expected the Britons to have co-operated with the Normans, since, from a religious point of view the barbarian conquerors of Britain had come as pagans , had acted with extreme and unforgivable barbarity and, even after their conversion to   Roman    Catholicism, had found the British Church unwilling to join together in worship, a rift that remained latent until coming to the surface in the days of King Henry VIII. In fact, paradoxically enough, even from a purely religious perspective, the Britons ( or whoever happened to absorb and corrupt them in the course of their exile in the uplands of Britain ) have always been arrogantly against centralised Roman Catholic guidance, owing to primitive Hibernian influence of the monastic rule of St. Columba, in spite of the orthodoxy of the ancient missionaries to Hibernia, i.e., St. Patrick, who was a Roman Briton born in the Severn Valley, on english soil, and later-on St. Augustine, Paulinus, Theodore of Tarsus and Hadrian of Carthage.
For example, St. Augustine organised two conferences with the christian British Bishops on behalf of Ethelbert, the King of Kent, who had married Bertha the sister of Clovis, the Catholic King of the Franks, but Ethelbert rejected pleas for christian unity on trivial, cosmetic differences.
Paulinus, a member of Augustine's previous mission to England, as the new papal Legate, and the new converted Edwin, the Saxon King of Northumbria, who had married a christian princess of Kent, made overtures for christian conversion and unity to Penda, the King of Mercia ( modern Midlands ). The latter's reaction was that a heathen English King Penda, for the first time in history, accepted in A.D. 633, the offers of an alliance with Cadwallon, the christian british King of North Wales, in order to fight a Catholic englishman.
Edwin sadly lost both kingdom and life.
The christian Britons then savagely dedicated themselves to unrestrained revenge.
Both Roman and Celtic missionaries kept on evangelising the english north, in the midst of wars between pagan and christian English and between the latter and christian Britons.
English pagans were eventually routed and converted, and, quoting from Churchill's work, " A History of the English Speaking People ". vol I, p.63-:


To the ferocious British-English racial feud there was added a different view of Church government, which sundered the races almost as much as the difference between Christianity and heathenism.
Henceforward the issue is no longer whether the Island shall be christian or pagan, but whether the Roman or the Celtic view of Christianity shall prevail. These differences persisted across the centuries, much debated by all the parties concerned.


Unquote.
.............................................................................................................




Conclusion-:   All  people   have   been    responsible   for    cruelties  in  War.    Napalm,   a   150  mm.   artillery  shell,    chemical   bombs,   phosphor  bombs,  carpet  bombing,     anti-personnel    mines,   etc.   are  all   cruel    weapons   of   destruction.
War   is   as  inevitable  as  mental   illnesses.   What   counts  as  a  criterion   for   a   choice   between,    acceptance  and  toleration   of  the  inevitable(s),    is   the  attitude  of  the   winner   in  the   peace   following    the   cruelties  of  war,   'winner'   being    a  bad   word   for    success  in  war,   since  no  one   really    ever   wins,    but  I  cannot  think  of   a   better   word   and  the search   would  be  irrelevant   to  my  aim   here.
What   counts  is   wether  the   winner  is   culturally   flexible   enough   to   integrate    with  the    looser   without   humiliating,   vilifying    the  looser,    fagocitating     the    looser,    erasing   the   looser's   culture,  religious   beliefs,   culture   ethnicity  as,   for   example,  I  am  not   afraid  to  say  it    as  it    is   the   truth,     Islam  has   always    done  in  History,   in  Asia   and   in  the  Middle-East   where   entire  ethnic   populations    became  first  minorities,   eventually   totally  disappearing.       In  most   lands  conquered   by  Islam   even  monuments   and  records   disappeared.   See  the  recent   further  damage  by   the  Talibans  to  Bhuddist  monuments   they  have  been   unable   to    erase   due  to   their   sheer   size,   in  Afghanistan   which  are   still   reminding  the  world   this   land   was   once    invaded   by   islamic  hordes    as  a  prelude  to the  invasion  of  India   by  the   Moguls.    Where   are   the  land-titles  of  the    Greek,   Hebrew,    Roman,    Armenian,  etc..   owners of  land  and  property  in    the  Middle  East,  after the  Islamic  invasions    since    700 A.D.?
In  my  personal   case,    where  are  the   burial   places/remains  of   the   anscestors  I  left  in  Cairo's  Christian   Cemetery,  in   Egypt,    since   just   recently............1850?
Where  are  the  remains  of  my  brother   Claude,   died  as  a baby  and  buried   in  Cairo  in   1944?
Letters   for    information   to  the  Egyptian  Government   were  not  even  acknowledged.
To   a  Mohammedan,  a  Christian  or  a   Jew  is   just  vermin.
Beware of  God's   wrath   you  mongrels,  liers,   scorpions  and   hienas!
With  the  Pagan (   at  best   Arian)  Anglo-Saxons   and   their   allied  Barbarians   in   England,    they practiced    ethnic-cleansing  and  genocide  on  the  Britons.   The  Britons  became   enslaved    during    any  peace   following   the   massacres  and  were  forced  to  intermarry   against their   will.   Taxation   was   all   on  the   shoulders  of  the  vanquished   whose  lives  were   valued   at   one  half  of  that of  a   winner.
Yes  there  were  exceptions   biased  in  favour  of  the    high  status  persons (   whose  lives  were  valued   20   times  that of  a  Briton )  but    that  was   a  universal  and   common   custom    then.    As  a   contrast,  in  relation   to   the Normans'   rule,   the   first   decision   by   the   Normans  in  the  peace   following  their   war-cruelties,    was    to   compile   Domesday  Book   so  as   to   know   the    wealth   of    the    nation   so   as   to   equanimously  tax   all.
   Law  and  Order   not   the  anglo-saxon-haphazard-laissais-fairism   appeared   over  all   the  land  allowing   development  and   improvement  and  civilisation.     Most    importantly,    whilst   the   Barbarians   and   the  Britons    had  never  been  able  to   stop    the   continuous   invasions  of  their    kins   from  Scandinavia  and  the  Continent,    unable   as  they  were   to    create   a    financial   surplus   to   build  and  maintain   a  standing    Navy,  after  the    wearing-out  of  the  Navy  the  Romans   had  left  there,   the  Normans  finally  put  an  end  to   invasions.
These are  the   criterions   and  ways   one  should   analyse   and   judge   about    war   cruelties  even  in  our  modern  times   too,   avoiding   waffling  like  a  two-bob    washer-lady,    my respect  due  to   the   washer lady   and  to  her   washing    machine   and  to  Omo   soap,     and   shutting  up,    reading   my  Posts   for   enlightenment.