"...one Ythrian slain was too many, Arinnian thought, and a million Terrans were too few." (XI, p. 563)
Bad views, Arinnian. The object should be to end the conflict with as few deaths as possible on either side. He wants a million of his own species dead just because there is a territorial dispute between the Empire and the Domain? With that attitude, there will always be territorial disputes. But how many people think like that now?
"'Luck fare beside you, Hrill.'" (III, p. 465)
"'Luck be your friend, First Marchwarden.'" (X, p. 550)
"'Thank fortune, no one wanted to question him.'" (XI, p. 564)
Ythrians, and Ythrian-influenced human beings, invoke luck, not a deity. God the Hunter does not direct the course of events or answer prayers like a providential deity so does it follow, effectively, that Fortuna, luck personified, is responsible for the course of events? Maybe but the Roman goddess, Fortuna, is not to be entreated or thanked, merely respected. A priestess maintained the Temple of Fortuna but no prayers were offered there or thanks given. Luck, whether good or bad, had to be accepted and Audentes Fortuna Iuvat, a proverb that should appeal to Ythrians of the New Faith in their struggle against God the Hunter.
15 comments:
I've always found it interesting that rather pagan attitudes were expressed in the Carmina Burana poems written in the 11th to 13th centuries. See especially "O Fortuna".
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: I suspect those Ythrians who invoked only "luck" were followers of the New Faith. I suspect pagan Ythrians still swore by their gods. Else why sacrifice to them?
Jim: There's also the much earlier THE CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY by Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, where we see philosophic meditations on Lady Fortune. But I would need to reread it before I could comment more adequately about Boethius' views about Fortune.
Ad astra! Sean
I think the Roman saying was "Fortune favors the bold".
Or as Marcus Aurelius said, "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity".
Or Louis Pasteur: "Luck favors the prepared mind".
(Of course that would be translated from French)
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Jim!
And I favor the quotes from Marcus Aurelius and Louis Pasteur. We should try to plan/prepare for the future while keeping in mind anything can upset our plans.
Ad astra! Sean
Theory is grey. Life is green.
Kaor, Paul!
Or life is simply chaotic.
Ad astra! Sean
That too.
von Moltke the Elder, the head of the German General Staff in 1870, summed it up when he said:
"Planning is everything. But the plan is nothing."
Fortunately (for us) his nephew wasn't nearly as wise in 1914.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
A good maxim, and one I agree with. But the younger von Moltke was not completely void of strategic sense. I think I read in Churchill's history of WW I of how, as the German offensive in France stalled in September 1914, he told the Kaiser "Majesty, we have lost the war." Germany's only real hope was a quick victory in France before turning east to deal with Russia. Von Moltke was so crushed that he soon resigned as chief of the General Staff.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: it would have been wiser to stand on the defensive against France and attack Russia.
But the Germans (and everyone else) didn't realize how much of an advantage defensive firepower would have on a narrow front packed with men and with good transport like France and Belgium.
Also they overestimated the Russians and underestimated the French, the opposite of their mistake in WW2.
Incidentally, these historical instances illustrate how human "agency" is largely an illusion.
Even very powerful people, who can take world-changing actions, don't get the results they want as often as not.
Eg., the German General Staff pushed hard to get war in 1914 -- because they were afraid that if they delayed any longer, Russia would be too strong to fight.
And they got war, as they wanted.
What they didn't want was the war they got!
The future is unpredictable and the consequences of your own actions are too. The most you can do is calculate probabilities.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
You made good points, and ones I want to comment on later, when I have time.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
You made an intriguing suggestion, that it would have been better for Germany to stay on the defensive in the west, focusing on defeating Russia in the east. If that had been the German plan, what might have happened? Would the UK have remained neutral? It was the German invasion of Belgium which provoked the UK into declaring war on the Central Allies. Also, would France had been tempted to invade Belgium, trying to get at Germany?
Another reason why the German plan for a quick victory in France failed was a sooner than expected Russian invasion of East Prussia. The Germans had expected that Russia would need possibly a month to properly mobilize and organize its armies for campaigning. Instead, however shambolic, hasty, and ill-prepared, the Russians invaded East Prussia at least ten to 14 days sooner than they expected. True, the Battle of Tannenberg (August 23-30) was a disastrous defeat for Russia, but it was a shock to the German High Command. It led to the GHC detaching two entire corps from the offensive in France and transporting them via railroads to East Prussia, too late to do any good against the defeated Russians. To say nothing of how the loss of two corps may have crucially weakened the offensive in France, where they might have provided the extra push needed for victory.
It's possible the Germans made another mistake after the offensive stalled in France, because they withdrew from some of the territory overrun, retreating to more tactically favorable ground more easily defended. Churchill discussed how the Kaiser's son the Crown Prince protested, that it was more strategically sound to dig in where the German armies had stopped, refusing to yield a single centimeter back to the French. Churchill believed the Crown Prince was right.
Rereading your BLACK CHAMBER books has gotten me thinking about WW I!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment