Grand unified books thread

[jimmy olsen]

For 19th century warfare, I recommend "Mother, May You Never See the Sights I Have Seen: The Fifty-Seventh Massachusetts Veteran Volunteers in the Army of the Potomac, 1864-1865" by Warren Wilkinson

Saw ridiculous heavy fighting in the Overland Campaign, particularly at Spotsylvannia Courthouse IIRC. Around 20% of the regiment was killed in battle, and of the rest only ten soldiers escaped the war without being wounded or dying of disease.

https://www.amazon.com/Mother-Never-Sights-Have-Seen/dp/0060162570

[11B4V]

Eh, nothing matches the Brits in form and style.

'Where the devil are you going to, sir? Form on the left of the Grenadiers!'

[The Brain]

So I'm reading The Wooden World: An Anatomy of the Georgian Navy, by N.A.M. Rodger. I know it's 30 years old, but still his description of homosexuality in the navy seems a bit limited even for the 1980s. He treats it strictly as a crime, and bases his results on the number of cases brought to trial, and some handwaving that there wasn't a lot of privacy on board. He would have to elaborate a bit on that last bit to fully convince me. Even if you don't consider those officers who had their own cabins I can imagine that there were some nooks and crannies available on a 74, and even without physical privacy a ship was a place where men often spent time in extreme physical proximity to other men, I wouldn't be surprised if buttcheeks could be grabbed etc. Where there's a gay there's a way. And of course the author completely disregards the non-physical aspect of love that surely could exist without ever finding its way to trial. His final sentence on the subject sounds more like he is trying to convince the reader and/or himself:

"The Eighteenth century Navy was largely populated by young single men of vigorously heterosexual inclination, with a relatively small proportion married, but very few indeed who were not interested in women."

"Vigorously", really? That wasn't at all gratuitous. I like how he also deftly moves the goalpost, surely a number of men with some interest in women could consider batting for the other team while at sea?

[crazy canuck]

Has anyone read Homo Sapiens or Homo Deus?

[Malthus]

Has anyone read Homo Sapiens or Homo Deus?

I read Sapiens, a while ago. I quite enjoyed it, as far as meta-history stuff goes; some of the points were a bit of a stretch, but he certainly has a way with synthesizing stuff. I really liked his section on the importance of the intangible for social cooperation. 

[jimmy olsen]

"Vigorously", really? That wasn't at all gratuitous. I like how he also deftly moves the goalpost, surely a number of men with some interest in women could consider batting for the other team while at sea?

Especially since the belief in heterosexual/homosexaul dichotomy did not exist yet.

[Razgovory]

Finished Fire and Fury.  It's like an ode to Ratfucking.  The book only cover the period up to August 18th, when Bannon gets fired.  I have a feeling that Bannon could have been credited with co-writer.  Mostly it's just gossip, there author really doesn't seem to care much about policy or politics one way or the other.  It's never clear what people are actually doing, as it what their jobs are.  That may be because nobody was actually doing anything.  For instance, I was kinda curious what Sebastian Gorka was being payed to do, but he wasn't even mentioned.  I don't do celebrity gossip, so the book was kinda weird to me.

All incoming administrations have problems with staff at first: you gets lots of hangers-on who can't do their job or are actively destructive.  This is different in that there was nobody but useless people or people who are actively destructive.  Example:  One of the first things they do is try to write up the Muslim ban EO.  Steven Miller is ordered to write it up.  Steven Miller is not a lawyer, so they direct him to go online to find out how to write this.  You know, I'm sure they could have asked around D.C. for some lawyer working at a think tank or something to come in and write this.  The order was released without any warning or instructions, so naturally there was chaos as nobody in the airports knew what they were suppose to do.  Protests occur and a judge blocks the EO.  Bannon considers this a win.  He wants there to be chaos.  He wants protesters in the street. He wants to bring the whole system down.  Anyone like this isn't serving the President's interests unless the President happens to be a super villain.

[Oexmelin]

"The Eighteenth century Navy was largely populated by young single men of vigorously heterosexual inclination, with a relatively small proportion married, but very few indeed who were not interested in women."

"Vigorously", really? That wasn't at all gratuitous. I like how he also deftly moves the goalpost, surely a number of men with some interest in women could consider batting for the other team while at sea?

Yes, it shows much more Rodger's own discomfort with the topic (and own "vigorous" sense that he should provide a denial to the stereotype) than actual engagement with the topic.

Ongoing research from a grad student at Johns Hopkins shows precisely the construction of intimate spaces on the wooden ship, a much richer literature than Rodger allowed for. Rodger seemed to believe that the harsh punishment (death) prevented men from engaging in sodomy, but it now appears much more believable that the harsh punishment prevented actual denunciations (why lose able-bodied seamen over this?). Slightly related, Paul Gilje, in his recent "Swearing Like a Sailor" briefly follows the fortunes of "bugger" as an insult, as a proxy to the issue.

[11B4V]

Finished Fire and Fury.  It's like an ode to Ratfucking.  The book only cover the period up to August 18th, when Bannon gets fired.  I have a feeling that Bannon could have been credited with co-writer.  Mostly it's just gossip, there author really doesn't seem to care much about policy or politics one way or the other.  It's never clear what people are actually doing, as it what their jobs are.  That may be because nobody was actually doing anything.  For instance, I was kinda curious what Sebastian Gorka was being payed to do, but he wasn't even mentioned.  I don't do celebrity gossip, so the book was kinda weird to me.

All incoming administrations have problems with staff at first: you gets lots of hangers-on who can't do their job or are actively destructive.  This is different in that there was nobody but useless people or people who are actively destructive.  Example:  One of the first things they do is try to write up the Muslim ban EO.  Steven Miller is ordered to write it up.  Steven Miller is not a lawyer, so they direct him to go online to find out how to write this.  You know, I'm sure they could have asked around D.C. for some lawyer working at a think tank or something to come in and write this.  The order was released without any warning or instructions, so naturally there was chaos as nobody in the airports knew what they were suppose to do.  Protests occur and a judge blocks the EO.  Bannon considers this a win.  He wants there to be chaos.  He wants protesters in the street. He wants to bring the whole system down.  Anyone like this isn't serving the President's interests unless the President happens to be a super villain.

Nice wrap up Raz.

[grumbler]

Has anyone read Homo Sapiens or Homo Deus?

I also read Sapiens.  Lots of great questions in there that I hadn't considered, but which in retrospect seem like they should have been obvious.  I think he overstates his answers (which are generally plausible, but rely too heavily on his own assumptions).  In sum:  fun and thought-provoking, but not really informative.  Highly recommended for what it is, and not spoiled by what it isn't.

[crazy canuck]

Thanks to both of you.  I will give it a read.  Your thoughts are consistent with the Guardian review.

[11B4V]

Sorry had to share
From Give Them a Volley and Charge: Battle of Inkerman.

The 55th were only a handful but they had been horribly embarrassed. Added to which, still standing on the spot where they had been overrun was Colonel Warren, untouched by the Russians who flowed around him and in a towering temper! There could be no better incentive for the 55th for they were under the eyes of Raglan and their furious brigade commander was waiting impatiently amongst the Russians to be rejoined by his men. Only a matter of minutes after they had been forced out, the 55th counter-attacked the parapet and, after a number of grisly combats where the bayonet was freely plied and officers used both swords and pistols, the Russians retreated. Indeed, it was in this fight that Lieutenant-Colonel Daubeney was crossing swords with a Russian officer when a soldier of the Rifle Brigade dashed up and ran the Russian through with his bayonet saying, 'There you are, Sir!'7 as he did so. The Russians did not go far, however, for they had tasted victory and they knew that there was plenty of support to hand with which to attack again.

[Gups]

I liked Sapiens too and am pleased it's become such a huge best seller here. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on how wheat had domesticated humans rather than the other way round. The strident chapter(s?) on vegetarianism while well-written seemed our of place to me.

[grumbler]

I'm reading a narrowly focused but still fascinating book called Agents of Innovation: The General Board and the Design of the Fleet that Defeated the Japanese Navy by John T. Kuehn. It describes the role of the US Navy's General Board in determining the characteristics of the US Navy's ships and bases from 1900 to 1950.  While that's a pretty specific topic, it hasn't been dealt with in any detail in any other works I have seen.  What's really interesting, though, is the book's depiction of how an organization deals with change and how it interacts with other "players" who have a voice in the same matters it deals with.

The General Board had an interesting composition; while it's membership included the expected Commander in Chief of the Fleet (the unfortunately-named CinCUS), heads of ship design, intelligence, aviation, engineering, and gunnery, it also included the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the head of the War College, and two to four (it varied over time) Commander or Captains fresh from command at sea (they were generally seen as the "up and comers"), so it had a very diverse set of viewpoints - far more so than any equivalent in other navies.  The idea was the the CinC would come up with strategic missions, the War College would determine the strategies that could fulfill the missions, and the General Board would both provide guidance on the capabilities the Navy needed in its ships, aircraft, and bases, and then pick the best options from the designs presented to them.

Outside of this, the Fleet Commanders had a lot of say, and CinCUS had to over-rule the board at times.  In general, time proved that the General Board was more forward-thinking than the fleet commanders or CinCUS.  The Board was wrong about airships (they proved far too fragile in practice), but was right about the Standard Battleships, the need for small carriers, and the need for mobile bases.  Small carriers were never built until WW2, but it is clear that they could have, and should have, been built then the Board wanted to  (the GB's preference would have been for the Brooklyn class to sacrifice 6 of their 15 six-inch guns to carry, instead, 12 fighter and 12 scout bombers).

The details of the projects are of interest only to the naval enthusiast, but the broader strokes might be of interest to anyone interested in how large organizations deal with uncertainty and constraints like the naval treaties of the 1930s.  The history of the General Board (and especially their interactions with the war College) shows the value of getting the widest possible input while not getting bogged down in petty details or assuming that old answers were still the right answers.  Lots of the GB's decisions were made based on recommendations by its most junior members, or the even more junior students at the War College.

[grumbler]

BTW, has anyone read Thomas Ricks's Churchill and Orwell: The Fight for Freedom, and would they recommend it?  I am leery of books written by think tank employees, but I like the idea of the book.  Anyone?  Bueller?