Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1116916Again, "Dark Lord Zolgoroth" type territory. Not saying their conquest machine wasn't well lubricated, well maintained or well built: I'm saying it was still primarily a conquest machine powered by devouring what others had built. The bigger it got the more violently it would have imploded eventually.

Its impressive, but also terrifying. But I will fully admit that being Ukrainian (The Russian Kingdom before Moscow), I kinda am tinged with disgust at Mongols on a....everything else level. Not to say that Ukrainian Kings and queens didn't have their fair share of "Built on Blood" mentality.
Id say in a way Russia inherited the Mongols pragmatism, but it's a dark depressive culture.

Russia in a way is a culture that's emotionally BROKEN. There is a deep and painful BREAK in the people. Its people that don't want to live in a way. I can't laud that broken child. I can't laud what the Mongols did. Not even on a conceptual level.

If there is a hell, I hope their rotting in it for all eternity.

edit: Your post to me reads something like "Isn't it interesting that what happened to Russia could have happened to the rest of the world as well?"

I again find it less interesting than horrifying.

Greetings!

Hey there, Shrieking Banshee! Yeah, I can't disagree with you with much vigor about the Mongols embracing a machine of conquest that was more bent on destruction and slaughter than building anything. I am merely reminded that Ghengis Khan possessed a grand vision of building the Mongol nation, and the Mongolian Empire, with a number of elements that were visionary, in the sense that he wanted extensive, free trade; an empire ruled by laws; an empire that embraced religious freedom. He had some greater plans, but much of which was not really understood or embraced by his descendants. In addition, Kublai Khan desired to blend Mongolian and Chinese civilizations, and actually built numerous city improvements, sponsored temples, trade, laws, art, and education, land development, amongst many other things that reflected his desire to build a flourishing and successful empire. In fact, a civil war that broke out between Kublai Khan and his relative that ruled Mongolia was in some real ways because many traditional Mongols in the *north* felt that Kublai Khan was unworthy of rule, because he had become "too Chinese" and had forgotten the ways of the Mongols.

I agree, the Mongol campaign against Russia was savage and terrible. My mind is boggled by the wholesale slaughter of populations for example, in Ukraine, but also Hungary. It is a grim and horrifying tragedy, Shrieking Banshee. On a historical note, a happy one, I think, well, more of a "silver lining" kind of thing. In Hungary, apparently, after the Mongols had wiped out 50% of the entire population, in the ensuing years, the Hungarian king met with several Central Asian nomad tribes that were fleeing from the Mongols, as they had become enemies. The Hungarian king embraced these Asian tribes, befriended them, and made deep alliances with them. Part of the alliance required that both Hungarian peoples and these Asian peoples would purposely welcome intermarriages between the two societies, and the nomad tribes were given the same rights, as Hungarians, as well as special rights in regards to keeping pasture lands and raising their horses. Long story short, the Hungarians were very prominent in all of European history to establish forms of democracy, equality, and a kind of open-minded, refreshing culture, that most in the rest of Europe would not really begin to grapple with and engage with for another 500 years, or more in many ways.

I find the Mongol conquests to be terrible and savage, but in a military and social way to be ironic. So many arrogant, proud Muslims, Chinese, and Christians mocked the Mongols, and were then absolutely wrecked in lightning speed. I find it to be tragic that much of the slaughter which would be brought upon so many peoples by the Mongols is directly at the feet of so many stupid, proud, arrogant kings and generals of the *civilized world* Time and time again, they would make the same stupid battle plans, using forces equipped in the same stupid ways, and fight against the Mongols in the same, stupid tactics and organization that got others annihilated so easily. It's like they somehow insisted that their religious faith, or their civilized "virtue" would be sufficient to gain them victory over the Mongols. All the while, of course, being entirely arrogant and blind and deaf to listening to anyone wanting to do something different. No, no, we can just keep doing what we have always done. No need to change troop formations, units, or tactics. No need to look at these Mongol invaders in any kind of different way. We've got this easily won!

And their armies--many times very large armies--of valiant, loyal soldiers--were just marched into a slaughterhouse. Once they were crushed, of course, there was nothing left to protect the civilian populations.

Sadly, it took a long time for many peoples and civilizations to learn, to grow, to think differently.

I have a bit of credulousness and harsh, ironic amusement, in the sense that all of these peoples were so ignorant. There were considerable lessons that had been learned and taught from far back as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and the Emperor Trajan, as well as the great Byzantine general, Belisarius. All of which embraced a variety of troop organization, tactics, and most important, *thinking* that everyone seemed entirely oblivious to in the 13th century, some 600 years after Belisarius, and many more years than that from the others. It isn't like the knowledge, the tactics, the flexible thinking wasn't there, because it was. It existed, and it was even in books. All of the Christians, and the Muslims possessed these books. The Chinese didn't, of course, but they had similar history and lessons going back over a thousand years as well, to the Tang Dynasty, and to the great Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi.

None of them had learned the hard lessons from history, you know? That's what makes me shake my head and laugh, as in battle after battle, the assumptions made by the Chinese, the Muslims, the Christians, are always the same, with the same horrifying results. After three, or four, or a dozen battles, it makes me wonder geesus, what the fuck is wrong with these people?

It's interesting how the whole "authoritarian" thing has been interpreted in the West, as regards to Russia. I have always found that attitude of the West also being dismissive f the Russian experience as being smug and arrogant. It's like, well, dumbasses, maybe the Russians think differently about authority, obedience, freedom, and philosophy in general, because they were conquered by the Mongols for over 200 years? Maybe that might have something to do with some of the philosophical differences between the West and Russia, you know?

What is this about the Russian culture being emotionally broken, my friend? I definitely want to hear your thoughts more about that! It's deeply fascinating to me, but also important to understand the Russians, and to embrace empathy and friendship with them.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1116920None of them had learned the hard lessons from history, you know?

What is this about the Russian culture being emotionally broken, my friend? I definitely want to hear your thoughts more about that! It's deeply fascinating to me, but also important to understand the Russians, and to embrace empathy and friendship with them.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Im not Russian but Ukrainian. Its a weird thing but the "Russian" empire was more called the "Russ Kingdom" (Is the closest way I can call it), after its destruction at the hands of the mongols, it reformed with moscow being its central capital instead of Ukraine and is what we know as the "Russian Empire". In Russian, it's not even pronounced "Russia" but "Rossea". This isn't be being all "YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BIGOT" but me explaining stuff I like to explain. Anyway back to the main point:

And I can see there being satisfaction in seeing people BTFOED in believing their inherent virtue had some kind of power, that the very path they walked made them holy and so they didn't need to learn "tactics" or "Adapt to an Enemy". There is some satisfaction in such a humbling.

But it's like "A feminist from Sweden was raped and had her organs stolen in an African Nation after insisting she would be safe hitchhiking" kind of satisfaction. Because yeah there is a rise and a fall, but there are real people involved, and you could say yes their biggest sin was pride, but it was pride IN virtue. Pride in a sense of conduct and pride in a belief in a better tomorrow. And them being brutalized for it has some dark comedy, but sadly a level of condemnation of what humans actually are. That maybe evil is intrinsically stronger than good.

Like before I really understood Russia (And Ukraine), I never understood why "Faith" was a virtue in the monotheistic religions (or at least Judaism and Christianity, but some expression of it I see aspects of in most religeons). Because Russia, and to a much stronger extent Ukraine are completely faithless nations. Oh there is some national zeal sometimes, and some religious folk dwells there. But the soul of the nation is dead, and most of that is play-acting, like a couple pretending there is still energy in their marriage. Like Tyrants are Russia and Ukraine's coping mechanism because without them they just can't will themselves to live. And Ukraine is Russia on crack when it comes to this
You just watch people with glassy eyes, with no love to anything around them. Ukraine actually BEATS Japans negative growth rate. It shares that spot with other east block nations like Latvia. People like that just wish they never were born. They watch the world crumble around them and secretly hope for death.
Again, not the worst living conditions, or mass starvation or something. People just wish they don't wake up after falling asleep. Ukraine is also ranked I believe the unhappiest nation in europe. So I believe that's the only other record it holds outside of military dissertation in modern naval history.
Again Il end this with a #notall. Ultimately these are my experiences.

Maybe I guess to me, modern times have very little value in "Faith". They think it holds them back and is what stupid people cling too.....But when I think of ideologies that truly embrace faithlessness I more think of Corporations (My Dads is an Exec for an advisory company, and even he gets creeped out by the stuff they can predict, see and do) and Socialist Megastates (How interesting that those spaces popped up in Mongol thrashed areas).

I guess I read about the Mongols before, and their efficiency and smarts, but the way you laid them out, It made it sound like hey truly embraced BEING demonic. And yeah I guess being demons over a slave caste was great for the demons, but even as you pointed out there is no going back from being a demon once you become one.

In conclusion, I have no idea what I just rambled about. Probably a whole bunch of garbage. =P

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1116921Im not Russian but Ukrainian. Its a weird thing but the "Russian" empire was more called the "Russ Kingdom" (Is the closest way I can call it), after its destruction at the hands of the mongols, it reformed with moscow being its central capital instead of Ukraine and is what we know as the "Russian Empire". In Russian, it's not even pronounced "Russia" but "Rossea". This isn't be being all "YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BIGOT" but me explaining stuff I like to explain. Anyway back to the main point:

And I can see there being satisfaction in seeing people BTFOED in believing their inherent virtue had some kind of power, that the very path they walked made them holy and so they didn't need to learn "tactics" or "Adapt to an Enemy". There is some satisfaction in such a humbling.

But it's like "A feminist from Sweden was raped and had her organs stolen in an African Nation after insisting she would be safe hitchhiking" kind of satisfaction. Because yeah there is a rise and a fall, but there are real people involved, and you could say yes their biggest sin was pride, but it was pride IN virtue. Pride in a sense of conduct and pride in a belief in a better tomorrow. And them being brutalized for it has some dark comedy, but sadly a level of condemnation of what humans actually are. That maybe evil is intrinsically stronger than good.

Like before I really understood Russia (And Ukraine), I never understood why "Faith" was a virtue in the monotheistic religions (or at least Judaism and Christianity, but some expression of it I see aspects of in most religeons). Because Russia, and to a much stronger extent Ukraine are completely faithless nations. Oh there is some national zeal sometimes, and some religious folk dwells there. But the soul of the nation is dead, and most of that is play-acting, like a couple pretending there is still energy in their marriage. Like Tyrants are Russia and Ukraine's coping mechanism because without them they just can't will themselves to live. And Ukraine is Russia on crack when it comes to this
You just watch people with glassy eyes, with no love to anything around them. Ukraine actually BEATS Japans negative growth rate. It shares that spot with other east block nations like Latvia. People like that just wish they never were born. They watch the world crumble around them and secretly hope for death.
Again, not the worst living conditions, or mass starvation or something. People just wish they don't wake up after falling asleep. Ukraine is also ranked I believe the unhappiest nation in europe. So I believe that's the only other record it holds outside of military dissertation in modern naval history.
Again Il end this with a #notall. Ultimately these are my experiences.

Maybe I guess to me, modern times have very little value in "Faith". They think it holds them back and is what stupid people cling too.....But when I think of ideologies that truly embrace faithlessness I more think of Corporations (My Dads is an Exec for an advisory company, and even he gets creeped out by the stuff they can predict, see and do) and Socialist Megastates (How interesting that those spaces popped up in Mongol thrashed areas).

I guess I read about the Mongols before, and their efficiency and smarts, but the way you laid them out, It made it sound like hey truly embraced BEING demonic. And yeah I guess being demons over a slave caste was great for the demons, but even as you pointed out there is no going back from being a demon once you become one.

In conclusion, I have no idea what I just rambled about. Probably a whole bunch of garbage. =P

Greetings!

The "Russ Kingdom." Yes, indeed. That's very interesting, Shrieking Banshee! Oh, and thank you. No offense taken my friend! It's always good to learn deeper details of history! I think it is interesting as you mentioned, how the rise of Muscovy really got going after the Mongol conquest. Before that, Kiev was the main focus. Unfortunately, the Mongols totally destroyed Kiev. I also think the huge slaughter of the Ukrainian population had a powerful effect in changing the political and cultural focus further to the north, in rising Muscovy. It's probably because there wasn't many people left, you know? Not in an organized manner like there existed before, I imagine. The old Kievan Rus of Vladimir was gone.

"...but there was pride IN virtue. Pride in a sense of conduct and pride in a belief in a better tomorrow." That's very important to remember, Shrieking Banshee. I like that. Faith is very important, and meaningful, Shrieking Banshee. You are right. It has always been embraced as a powerful and noble virtue.

"Like Tyrants are Russia and Ukraine's coping mechanism..." Damn, that's neat, and funny, too. It goes back to the ancient Western European assessment of how "Russia" loves authoritarianism. I think it is very interesting thinking about how and why this propensity for such a philosophy has seemed to have such a hold in Russia and Ukraine for so long. It is interesting to see how considerably *divided* the whole region was, politically and such, before the arrival of the Mongols. It doesn't seem to me that the Russians, Ukrainians, and other Slavic tribes of the region had any particular favour towards authoritarianism before the Mongols. They seemed as fractious and loud as any other kingdom or peoples throughout Northern and Western Europe, you know?

Hey, Shrieking Banshee, not "a whole bunch of garbage" at all, my friend! I love learning, and studying history and cultures. I think it is valuable and meaningful for you, me, for everyone to learn, and think, and consider history, cultures, and conflicts. To ponder, and reason, and wonder at the glory, as well as the stupidity of our ancestors.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Spinachcat;1116520Why did no later army emulate their success?

Because you need a society of nomadic horse archers to begin with for that. That's a pattern you see through the ages: Fighting style, tactics and technologies are a product of society, and you can't just copy a successful model if your society doesn't provide the basis.

The tried and true method to fight an army of nomad horse archers was to hire your own tribe of nomad horse archers to do the fighting for you, and the Mongols often won their battles by bribing or otherwise convincing those tribes to join them instead. Their success is deeply rooted in successful diplomacy.

I was being a bit melodramatic before, I was fighting a nasty tooth graft infection. Im better now.

I still stand by what I said before, just I should have been less melodramatic

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1116940I was being a bit melodramatic before, I was fighting a nasty tooth graft infection. Im better now.

I still stand by what I said before, just I should have been less melodramatic

Greetings!

Damn, Shrieking Banshee. That doesn't sound fun at all. I hope you are feeling better soon with that.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

No Genghis Khan thread is complete without:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4043[/ATTACH]

The Duke never dies - of course the Mongols were unstoppable.  

I read and enjoyed a biography of Genghis Khan called Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World.  

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4044[/ATTACH]

In addition to providing the biographical information about who Temujin was, it posits that a lot of the foundations of a mutli-ethnic/multi-religious state were developed by the Mongols.  Allowing 'foreigners' to achieve high office based on their loyalty and contributions and a focus on trade-based wealth accumulation are a couple of the oft-overlooked hallmarks of the Mongol Empire.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1117077No Genghis Khan thread is complete without:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4043[/ATTACH]

The Duke never dies - of course the Mongols were unstoppable.  

I read and enjoyed a biography of Genghis Khan called Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World.  

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4044[/ATTACH]

In addition to providing the biographical information about who Temujin was, it posits that a lot of the foundations of a mutli-ethnic/multi-religious state were developed by the Mongols.  Allowing 'foreigners' to achieve high office based on their loyalty and contributions and a focus on trade-based wealth accumulation are a couple of the oft-overlooked hallmarks of the Mongol Empire.

Greetings!

You know, DeadDMwalking, the book, Ghengis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, by Jack Weatherford, is an excellent book. I entirely agree. Jack Weatherford's also done some other books, one about the Mongol queens, that is also an outstanding and illuminating work. I highly recommend Jack Weatherford.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1116847His descendants were pretty tough. Kublai Khan was no slouch, for example. It is probably a lot more to do with fragmentation of the empire and over-extension (it was an enormous empire).

Greetings!

You know, BedrockBrendan, that's an important point. Large empires are not impossible to manage and run, after all, but there is the central point that the larger an empire is, the more difficult it becomes to manage. It seems to me that there are more "moving parts" to deal with, and there is not enough organizational and administrative talent to go around in which to address all of those different "moving parts"--thus giving rise to stronger, growing problems. Such problems then mushroom, and spiral out of control. It's an interesting viewpoint to see the whole tapestry of the Mongol Empire, when for example, you have a huge campaign going on in the West, conquering Russia and Eastern Europe. Simultaneously, there is an enormous campaign going on with Mongol armies fighting against the Muslims in Anatolia and Syria. Then, there are rebellions popping up in southern and eastern Persia. Then, you have a huge war going on against the Song Empire in Southern China.

And, of course, there are scheming going on and intrigue between the different Khan's Imperial Courts. I have found also that it is not always directly attributable to some particular strife between a pair of Imperial Khans, brothers or cousins they may be, but also oftentimes enmities, jealousies, and rivalries between various courtiers, generals, their wives and concubines, and other advisors and court officials, one or more of which, are opposed to some second-rank general, family relative, or advisor of some other Khan. That kind of intrigue and rivalry festers and grows, and contributes to suspicion, miscommunication, social backstabbing, and eventual civil war between gathered armies. It's a very dangerous sequence of events and relationships.

It's true that many of the primary Khans were heavily involved with this rivalry or that dispute, but sometimes even they can be otherwise taken by surprise by some emerging conflict between family members or court officials, and they themselves are kind of propelled along with the flow of events and growing animosity. Very interesting!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Greetings!

BedrockBrendan, I have recently received the Legend of the Condor Heroes books, which I ordered from Amazon. They should be interesting reading!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1118154Greetings!

BedrockBrendan, I have recently received the Legend of the Condor Heroes books, which I ordered from Amazon. They should be interesting reading!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Hope you enjoy it! If you like it, there is a series of movies based on it (should be on Prime) called Brave Archer. Tons of TV series with like  50 episodes too.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1118170Hope you enjoy it! If you like it, there is a series of movies based on it (should be on Prime) called Brave Archer. Tons of TV series with like  50 episodes too.

Greetings!

Awesome, BedrockBrendan! I am looking forward to it. Fascinating stuff! I also recently got The Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

I think the culture and history of Ancient China is so interesting. I love how they have dealt with various challenges and problems, sometimes with brilliant solutions. And yet, disturbingly, they also have with the perennial *cycles* seem to have the exact same problems of jealousy, hatred, love, rivalries, corruption, idealism, and tyranny that have plagued every major government and culture in the West as well. Scheming empresses, proud emperors, treacherous eunuchs, sons all vying for their father's love and favour, the whole human pathos on full display!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark,

Here's a sad commentary on the state of academic studies of the Mongols these days:

Call for Papers: Chinggisid Crises & Eurasian Responses International Medieval Congress, University of Leeds, 1-4 July 2024 [Announcement]
Geoffrey Humble
Location

United Kingdom

The theme for IMC 2024 will be 'Crisis'. Hoping to repeat the success of the IMC 2023 Chinggisid Ripples sessions we invite paper proposals relating to a very broad conception of crisis relating to any period and aspect of Mongol conquest and rule within and across Eurasia. Here the concept of crisis is not limited to the mid-fourteenth-century upheavals affecting imperial Mongol political formations. Crisis should absolutely be taken in its broadest form, including impacts of conquest and empire at any level, location or period.

We are particularly keen to involve PhD students and early career scholars. More senior scholars are also very welcome, and we are very happy to involve session moderators and round-table participants.

You can find the IMC Call for Papers, with links to practical information on session submission and attendance, at https://www.imc.leeds.ac.uk/imc-2024/.


Topics of interest may include, but are not limited to:

-       Institutional precarity, fragility and failure

-       Problem-solving, durability, adaptation and opportunity

-       Trauma, emotion and mourning

-       Memory, forgetting and erasure

-       Community, communication and interaction

-       Home, migration, uprooting and exile

-       Food, provision, shortage, hoarding and profiteering

-       Agriculture and land use

-       Language, translation and (mis)understanding

-       Coping, continuity and (re-)construction

-       Gendered roles and their disruption

-       Injury, ill health, healing and recovery

-       Disability, infirmity and support strategies

-       Scapegoating, blame and condemnation

-       Conspiracy, plot and exposure

-       Slavery, kidnap and forced migration

-       Economic crisis and indebtedness

-       Political economy, taxation

-       Infrastructure development and decay

-       Inequalities, and the unequal impacts of crises

-       Religious and or spiritual crisis and change

-       Prayer and appeals for divine assistance

-       Narrating crisis and historiographical responses

-       Changing, evolving and disrupted forms of office holding

-       Elites, patronage and charity

Note what you don't see here is any reference to actual military affairs, conquest etc.  Next these idiots will be convening panels on Mongol DEI

Greetings!

Wow, Persimmon!

That is very sad! A mixture of laughably pathetic--and stunning disappointment.

No military topics, of course. History is all about DEI. And FEELINGS.

When I was in college, I had the misfortune of being saddled with several courses by professors--women--that studied say, the Early Middle Ages, or America in the 1930's and 1940's. Both classes, as I recall, focused greatly on "Society", women, minorities, religion, and sex--and provided only the briefest study of anything to do with the military or warfare.

I had to slog through some obscure, pathetic period books, as well as modern historiographical analysis of such tepid books. The material in every sense, whether primary sources or modern historiography--was mind-numbingly boring, and so *niche* historically speaking, I often marveled at what was the whole point of anyone studying any of this? It all seemed so entirely personal, emotional, stuff involving some woman author's emotional state and feelings, her being oppressed by the men around her, and her contributions to quilting, creating women's clothing, and writing newspaper articles championing women's issues and feelings. Blah, blah, blah.

It is like there are some of these terrible professors and academics that sit around and ponder how they can take a huge, fascinating period of history--and somehow make discussion of it as boring, meaningless, and irrelevant as possible.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on October 09, 2023, 07:54:35 AM
Greetings!

Wow, Persimmon!

That is very sad! A mixture of laughably pathetic--and stunning disappointment.

No military topics, of course. History is all about DEI. And FEELINGS.

When I was in college, I had the misfortune of being saddled with several courses by professors--women--that studied say, the Early Middle Ages, or America in the 1930's and 1940's. Both classes, as I recall, focused greatly on "Society", women, minorities, religion, and sex--and provided only the briefest study of anything to do with the military or warfare.

I had to slog through some obscure, pathetic period books, as well as modern historiographical analysis of such tepid books. The material in every sense, whether primary sources or modern historiography--was mind-numbingly boring, and so *niche* historically speaking, I often marveled at what was the whole point of anyone studying any of this? It all seemed so entirely personal, emotional, stuff involving some woman author's emotional state and feelings, her being oppressed by the men around her, and her contributions to quilting, creating women's clothing, and writing newspaper articles championing women's issues and feelings. Blah, blah, blah.

It is like there are some of these terrible professors and academics that sit around and ponder how they can take a huge, fascinating period of history--and somehow make discussion of it as boring, meaningless, and irrelevant as possible.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Indeed, Shark. 

Academia has been a Leftist echo chamber for a long time, but it's just getting worse.  This past Friday I was at a meeting for those of us teaching Honors classes.  And the topics of most of the other classes were a sad reflection of the state of the profession.  Courses on "The Philosophy of Bad Movies," and shit like that.  One guy discussed how "problematic" it was that not all his students outright hated the Jesuits for their racist portrayals of (Asian) Indians in the 16th century.  Another one, teaching musical theatre, talked about how difficult it was to show students musicals from other eras because of their racist and homophobic depictions.  Really?   Musical theatre was homophobic in the 1980s?  Other professors apologized for teaching from a position of white privilege.  And the Dean of the Honors College, a woke female English professor,  apologized for the "problematic optics" of only having men teaching Honors this semester.  Ughhh...

My Honors class this semester has nothing to do with military history (it's about Heian Japanese court culture), but I give it to them straight, no anachronistic women's rights B.S.

And next semester, when I teach Modern Military History (1775-present) the students are going to read the classics: Clausewitz, Mahan, Van Creveld, Mao, Che Guevara, etc. and they will be forced to apply these teachings to the studies of actual battles & campaigns, not fucking knitting.