site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for November 26, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, what are you reading?

I'm picking up Zurayk's The Meaning of the Disaster, which established the term Nakba (ie. the disaster) related to the Palestinians. I've seen it mentioned several times in articles by pro-Israel writers, typically to point out that the "disaster" was that Arab countries failed in their war against Israel, and not just the unprovoked displacement of the Palestinians. I wondered how the source text itself would read.

It is refreshing to read a foreign opinion on the topic, however dated. One does wonder if his take on international Jewry, which reads a lot like conspiracy theories of the West, was an indigenous one born from dealing with the West from the outside, or an imported one.

Also picking up Herzl's The Jewish State.

Goldsworthy's 'Rome and Persia'. Key takeaways:

  1. Armenia was ungovernable and a source of endless pain
  2. We know very little about Persia (especially in the Parthian period). Most of what we do know comes from Roman sources.
  3. Rome and Persia eventually converged to the same archetype - smallish field armies dominated by heavy cavalry, professional siege corps, long fortified borders covering a wealthy near-defenceless core territory, endless difficulties with invading nomads.
  4. Succession was really difficult for iron age empires.
  5. Nearly all Rome-Persia wars were limited wars, waged for loot, to gain prestige and avenge previous losses. Both Rome and Persia claimed to be paramount rulers of the civilized world, so they had to keep one-upping eachother. Complete destruction or subjugation of the enemy was too hard and too risky nearly all of the time.
  6. Sometimes relations were quite warm, with Roman emperors hosting Persian heirs and being pleasant to eachother. Trade flowed freely except in wartime, neither state really had an economic policy.

An interesting read, though it feels a bit like getting on a treadmill with all these names flying at you, only for them to disappear in a few pages.