Your RDA of Irony

Esprit de Corpses

Posted in General on February 8th, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 1 Comment

Obituary I:  February 8, 1265

Thanks to Marco Polo’s gossip and Sam Coleridge’s opium dreams, we all know Kublai Khan. Ironically, the Arab World is more familiar with Kublai’s younger brother Hulagu. Hulagu may sound like a dance from the Sixties, but he would not rate highly on Arabic Bandstand. On the other hand, Hulagu was the man whom any American President would want to be. The Mongol commander had to contend with two challenges: terrorists and pacifying Baghdad.

The terrorists were the Assassins, a murderous cult named for its one of its fringe benefits. (The Medicare Drug Prescription program should be so efficient.) The Assassins scanned the social pages of the time to see who was worth extorting and killing. They would have known how to deal with Kim Kardashian.

Hulagu scoffed at this boutique approach to terrorism. He found mass-murder more effective and gratifying. Since his big brother lent him an army, Hulagu decided to apply his managerial principles to the Middle East. He first demonstrated his entrepreneurial flair throughout Mesopotamia, massacring everyone who did not immediately surrender. His approach was so impressive that the Assassins decided to surrender. Hulagu killed them in any case, reasoning that they wouldn’t be missed.

Next on his itinerary was the glorious city of Baghdad, the cultural capital of the Moslem world. Hulagu and his army arrived in 1258. Unfortunately for the city, the reigning Caliph was a little slow in surrendering, and Hulagu was pathologically impatient. The city was destroyed. Most of its population was murdered. The city was stripped of everything that would appeal to a Mongol’s sensibilities. The rest was destroyed. The priceless scrolls of Baghdad’s fabled library, the last extant collection of the ancients’ writings, were dumped in the Tigris River. The city was uninhabitable for years.

But Baghdad was definitely pacified.

Hulagu had plans to visit Syria, Palestine and Egypt but Big Brother needed the army for a little family civil war. Baby Brother had to be content being only the Khan of Persia and Mesopotamia. The relative inactivity may have killed him; he died his day in 1265 at the age of 47.

But Baghdad still remembers him.

Obituary II: February 8, 1587

On this day in 1587, Mary Queen of Scots was subjected to an experiment in sensory deprivation. In one of the BBC’s first science series, “A Ration of Bacon”, host Francis Bacon answered a viewer’s question, “How long can a Stuart live without a head?”

The public was curious as to whether a decapitation would deprive Ms. Stuart of any vital organs. She did have difficulty leaving the scaffold; so her eyes had proved useful. She did not seem to miss her nose, however. Let’s face it: nothing was worth smelling in the 16th century. (From the fifth century until the late nineteenth, western civilization was in The Dank Ages). The absence of taste buds was actually considered an improvement when you are dealing with British food.

So Mary could have enjoyed a long and fairly unencumbered life without a head. Unfortunately, Elizabethan doctors treated decapitations by bleeding the patient. If the shock didn’t kill her, the doctors’ lack of hygiene did.

King of Kings

Posted in General on February 5th, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – Be the first to comment

McConnell Claims Larry King Is ‘Better’ Than U.S. Interrogators At Questioning Terrorists

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) today denigrated U.S. counterterrorism officials:

MCCONNELL: This was a person who was trying to blow a plane out of the air from Nigeria. It’s clearly a case for the military and for our intelligence people, not for the U.S. court system. What happened? He was given a 50 minute interrogation, probably Larry King has interrogated people longer and better than that. After which he was assigned a lawyer who told him to shut up. That is not the way to deal with someone in the war on terror.

After 50 minutes with Larry King, the terrorist would certainly divulge his five favorite June Allyson movies.

Several years ago, the  American Public had the privilege to eavesdrop  on two of the most profound theologians of our era: Larry King and Cathy Lee Gifford.

In a discussion of Mel Gospel’s “The Passion”, Cathy Lee said, “I have a gay Jewish friend and he didn’t have a problem with the film.” Cathy Lee then reassured Larry, “I don’t blame you for killing Jesus.”

No, more likely Larry King would have driven Jesus to murder. Just imagine the interview:

Larry King: Now, I understand you turned water into wine at a wedding. How was the food?

King of Kings: Well…

Larry King: Given your all-knowingness….

King of Kings: Omniscience….

Larry King: My point exactly! So, who’s funnier? Shecky Greene or Don Rickles?

And who can forget King’s interview with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, especially since I won’t let you forget it.  Here from the archives….

In celebration of Larry King’s 800th anniversary in show business, CNN will attempt to compile an hour’s worth of coherent sentences. 

For example, who can forget his insightful questions when he moderated the Lincoln-Douglas debates.  Apparently, neither candidate could satisfactorily explain “Why does pastrami cost more than corned beef?” 

Yet, my all-time favorite was Larry’s interview with Donald Rumsfeld.
Larry King: You know that Rumsfeld sounds Jewish.

Rumsfeld: Please, I’m from Kenilworth.

Larry: Well, you know that Madeleine Albright didn’t realize that she was Jewish.

Rumsfeld: How did she avoid looking in mirrors? Couldn’t we talk about the Middle East?

Larry: Sure. Did you ever see “King Richard and the Crusaders“? Why doesn’t Hollywood nowadays have actresses like Virginia Mayo?

Rumsfeld: Well, she was a Republican….

Larry: You know, Mayo sounds Italian but it’s Irish.  On the other hand, Robert Stack really was Italian but he didn’t look it.

Rumsfeld: About the Middle East…

Larry: Did you ever see “Omar Khayyam“?

Rumsfeld: Yes, and this administration is fighting Michael Rennie’s terrorist organization to ensure that Raymond Massey, Cornel Wilde and Debra Paget can live in a free and democratic Iraq.

Larry: Cornel Wilde was Jewish, too.

 

The Straight and Narrow

Posted in General on February 4th, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 5 Comments

For too long, the young and impressionable members of our armed forces have been molested by a flamboyant, theatrical clique known as officers.  Adorned in ribbons and spangles, these strutting coxcombs routinely accost the enlistees, demanding unnatural acts of submission and degradation.  No one willingly does 50 pushups.

And for too long, we have tried to ignore the brazen, outlandish conduct of officers.  Liberal etiquette tells us that it is only a matter of lifestyle and that we should judge the officers solely on their military ability.  But that is the problem!  Officers are inherently incompetent.  History proves it.

In the annals of war, victory has often been determined by which side had the fewer officers.  Consider these examples: 

Agincourt, 1415: 6,000 Englishmen confronted 30,000 Frenchmen.  But the French force was chiefly comprised of knights.  That is the equivalent of an army of second lieutenants.  How do you coordinate 30,000 megalomaniacs?  They were preoccupied with their appearance, not with such mundane drudgery as tactics.  The English massacred them.

English Civil War, 1642-1649:  As the axe descended on his neck, the soon-to-be-late Charles I had the consolation that his cavaliers were quite good poets.  Unfortunately, while finding rhymes, they lost battles. They had been defeated by dour farmers who had no panache but knew the lay of the land from plowing it.  (Yes, the Roundheads had poets too, but John Milton had no delusions of military ability.)

American Revolution (you should know the dates):  By this time, the British Army had abandoned any hope or pretense of competence.  Its officers had achieved their commissions by buying them.  The classic example was General John Burgoyne.  When he surrendered at Saratoga, Burgoyne had with him 30 carts of luggage, a wine cellar, someone else’s wife, and what was left of 9,000 men. The general had simply intended to march his army from Canada to Albany, N.Y., but he had chosen an itinerary through forests, swamps and 20,000 American troops-led by amateurs.  

French Revolution, 1789-1815: Taking the guillotine as a hint, most of the French officer corps fled the country.  Led by its more assertive sergeants and corporals, the French army soon overran most of Europe.  Unfortunately, those sergeants and corporals then promoted themselves to Dukes, Princes and-in one case of overreaching-Emperor.  They stopped thinking like soldiers and began acting like officers, invading Spain and Russia without any idea how to win there.

World War I:  According to the laws of physics, a machine gun bullet is faster than an infantryman.  The officers of Europe spent five years testing that axiom.  At least, the British officer proved that he could still write good poetry. 

Viet Nam:  Modern technology-and PhD. programs– produced a new species of officers.  Military consultants have all debilities of traditional officers and do not even have the physical ability to do chin-ups.  They wage war with flow charts.  The military consultants were certain of victory because they went to Ivy League schools and Ho Chi Minh did not. 

And Afghanistan/Iraq:  See Viet Nam. 

I realize that some historians, military re-enactors and Jeopardy fans can think of competent, even excellent, officers.  Yes, I can name too:  Alexander the Great, Richard the Lion-Hearted, Frederick the Great and Lawrence of Arabia.   But they are the exceptions.

If only all our officers were gay.

The Name Game

Posted in General, On This Day on February 3rd, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 4 Comments

February 3, 1867:  Mutsuhito Begins His Nameless Reign

Happy 143rd anniversary to Japan’s Emperor Mutsuhito. He actually was the Mikado when Gilbert and Sullivan wrote the operetta. Aside from not ordering ninjas to assassinate the D’Oyly Carte Company, Mutsuhito should be remembered for two remarkable achievements.

First, during his reign (1867-1912), Japan transformed itself from a feudal backwater into a world power. It mastered four centuries of industrial developments and military advances in just four decades. In 1853, during his father’s reign, Japan had capitulated to a squadron of gunboats from a third-rate power known as the United States. By 1905, after humiliating China and Russia in a series of wars, Japan was the master of East Asia. And in 1941…well, that may have been overreaching.

Second, even more remarkably, Mutsuhito never married into Queen Victoria’s family. How many royal lines can say that!

So, why haven’t you heard of Mutsuhito? Because no one calls him that. It was his name but the Japanese have a strange custom. When an Emperor dies, his reign is given an official title and the Emperor is then known only by that name. Upon his death, he and his reign were named Meiji. It means “Enlightened Rule.” And historians refer to him as that.

Remember his grandson Hirohito? Well, you shouldn’t. He now is officially known as Showa, “Enlightened Peace.”

Imagine if we applied that custom to our presidents, renaming them for their era. So our last eight presidents would be officially designated as Watergate, Pardon, Hostages, Glasnost, Kuwait, Monica, Catastrophe and Hope Cleanup.

Tonight’s Schedule

Posted in General on January 27th, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – Be the first to comment

You may wonder what President Obama will say in his State of the Union speech?  I wonder how the Republicans will keep him from saying it.  Giving him the wrong location is worth a try.  However, the President might be suspicious about giving a speech from the top of a minaret. And even if he does make it past the changed locks and overwaxed floors of the Capitol, Mr. Obama still must contend with a hundred more Republican strategems.

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann will attend the session wearing only teabags, and she intends to do yoga.  That should preoccupy the video portion of the program.  However, there is still a risk that the President might be heard.  To prevent that, the Republicans will insist that the session begin with “The Lord’s Prayer”; Eric Kanter and Joseph Lieberman will be allowed to say it in Hebrew.  This will be followed by “The Pledge of Allegiance”, all four verses of “The Star-Spangled Banner” and the entire score of “Annie Get Your Gun” (According to Fox News, Irving Berlin’s tribute to Sarah Palin).

If, at anytime, the President attempts to speak, the Republicans will accuse him of being partisan.  They then will proceed to drown him out by singing “There’s No Business Like Show Business.”  No speech can compete with that.  After the closing musical number, the Republicans will announce that there has been a bomb threat.  Several congressmen will detonate themselves to prove it. 

Of course, the President will be blamed; and in view of the carnage, the State of the Union is much worse than the President would admit.  How dare he lie to the public!

And now back to your regularly scheduled programs….

My Epitaph

Posted in General on January 26th, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 16 Comments

January 26, 1987:  Alex Trebek Meets Me

January 26th could be remembered for the signing of the Treaty of Karlowitz or the birthday of Nicolae Ceausescu.  Of course, this day’s real historical significance occurred in 1987, when I played and won five games on Jeopardy!  This is the anniversary of my claim to fame and, it seems a codger’s prerogative to bore you with the details.  Here is my game show memoir.

 

Although I am not quite ready for the tomb, I already have an epitaph. “He was on Jeopardy!” is how I am often introduced and usually remembered. At a wedding, the bride herself was introducing me to guests as a Jeopardy! champion. Being on the prestigious quiz show does have an undeniable glamour. People will gather around me, craving to hear about show biz, Alex and how much I won. I am also expected to live up to the intellectual image of Jeopardy!; everyone feels entitled to try stumping me with trivia questions.

Of course, I enjoy the attention and I certainly didn’t mind winning $105,000. My greatest pleasure, however, is a personal satisfaction. I love Jeopardy!, and it has held me spellbound for years, enticing and teasing me with one irresistible challenge: “Am I as smart as I think I am?”

Jeopardy! tests, taxes and occasionally confounds my intellectual pretensions. Each show confronts the viewer with 61 answers, and the exertion is to come up with the right questions. Consider this example: “This country is the most populous monarchy in Asia.” The correct response is–and remember to phrase it as a question–“What is Japan?”

The questions run the gamut of human knowledge. A typical Jeopardy! match might cover rock ‘n’ roll, presidential middle names, baseball, children’s television, inventions and famous Academy Award losers. If any subject is worth five coherent questions and can pass the censors, it would make a suitable category for Jeopardy!

Why would I want to submit myself to this intellectual gauntlet five times a week? First, it is therapeutic. After a typical day as a public relations writer, playing Jeopardy! is the only assurance that I still have a mind left.


Second, I am genuinely good at it. I have an unnatural aptitude for information. Do you know the name of the song that Major Strasser was bellowing in “Casablanca”? Do you even care? Evidently, I do: it is “Die Wacht am der Rhein.” I was born to be a Jeopardy! Jock.

My passion for Jeopardy! began some 50 years ago. One summer day, a listless school boy was playing roulette with the television dial. Daytime programming offered me ample number of soap operas. A 12-year-old, however is not interested in adultery or detergent commercials; but with one more spin of the dial I found myself immersed in questions about history, movies, “colors of the map” (Greenland, Orange County) and 10 other topics that allowed me to test my wits against my vanity. I began watching Jeopardy! whenever I had the chance: on holidays, during vacations and as often as I could persuade my mother that I was too ill for school. The onslaught of puberty did not dilute my devotion. I was perfectly capable of thinking about both naked cheerleaders and the Punic Wars.

In the late ‘60s one went to college to “find yourself.” I found myself in front of the dorm television watching Jeopardy! I scheduled my classes so that I would never have to miss my obsession. There were others who shared my intellectual pallor and passion. We gathered Monday through Friday to shout answers at the television set. Among that shrieking intelligentsia, my voice was usually first, most frequent and loudest. My less envious rivals urged me to try out for the show. It was certainly a tantalizing thought, but I didn’t think that I was ready, yet. I intended to wait until I “grew up.”

Unfortunately, the show was cancelled before that happened. Jeopardy! became a memory, one of the great “if only’s” of my life. Because my theology does not include belief in resurrection or reincarnation, I did not expect a second chance. But, oh, ye of little faith.

Jeopardy! returned to the air and my life in 1984. The format had been updated from New York Talmudic to California Sly. The clues no longer appeared on sensibly priced cardboard. Now they were flashed electronically amid a barrage of neon. Whatever the show’s cosmetic changes, its intellectual allure was as seductive as ever, and I no longer was content to love Jeopardy! from afar.

I had to try out and in 1986 I did. My first step was to make a pilgrimage to Los Angeles. The show is based there, and it conducts contestant tests several times a week during the television season. On my date with destiny I found myself one of 43 aspiring contestants outside Merv Griffin studios in Hollywood. We were ushered in and then confronted with a 50 question test and a deadline of 13 minutes. As you would expect from Jeopardy! it was an eclectic inquisition, with topics including William McKinley, the Green Bay Packers and the Taj Mahal. Of the 43 initiates, only eight of us passed the test.

The survivors then underwent a simulation of the game. As we played, we were scrutinized and dissected by the production staff for “speed, accuracy and personality.” By personality it was meant that we projected our voices, seemed reasonably animated and actually enjoyed answering questions about Uriah the Hittite. Evidently, I was quite gleeful about Uriah; so were three others. The other four received perfunctory condolences and left.

I was a finalist. However, that did not guarantee my being on the show. There are twice as many finalists as contestants. In the words of the chief contestant coordinator, “We can call any of you, all of you or none of you.” The fate of the finalist is to buy an answering machine and wait. I spent five months dusting cobwebs from the telephone before Jeopardy! deigned to call.

The trip to Los Angeles was at my own expense but I was too infatuated to care. I had been told to bring along three changes of wardrobe. Although Jeopardy! tapes five shows a day, the fiction is devoutly maintained that each show is filmed on a different day. A victorious contestant has no time to savor triumph; you have 15 minutes to rush to the other end of the studio, change clothes and rush back. The frantic pace takes its toll. You can never look as good by the fifth game as you did in my first. In my case, my hair began to look like a very bad toupee.

I was one of 11 intellectual gladiators summoned to the show. A stage manager instructed us in the terrain and equipment of the set: where and when to walk, how and when to use the buzzer, how to speak into the microphone. We were at the studio for almost three hours before the staff was ready to trust three of us for the first taping. I was one of the three.

At this time we met Alex Trebek. Since you are eager to know, I will tell you: What is he really like? Even when the cameras are off, Alex is suave, clever and sly. He takes great pride in Jeopardy! and he understands that intellectual vanity rather than greed motivates the contestants. In fact, he seemed so much like a kindred soul that we were willing to overlook that he was so much better looking than the rest of us.

My first game began and I can recall every detail of it, including my nerves. (In a calm state, I would not identify Mexico as a European country.) Yet, somehow I won. My next four games are more of a blur. Without the benefit of my VCR, I would only remember the more obnoxious competitors. Although I did win five games, the maximum number permitted at the time, I was not some intellectual juggernaut, reducing my competition to tears or catatonia.

In one game, I actually was trailing in second place as we went into Final Jeopardy. The clue was “The century that the largest number of elements on the periodic table was discovered.” I didn’t know the answer but I could make an intelligent deduction. I assumed that it couldn’t be the 18th Century because Priestley was considered a genius for discovering oxygen, an element that everyone now takes for granted. Mendeleyev created the periodic table in the 19th Century, and I doubted that he had a number of blank spaces with the note: “Coming soon, an element near you.” I wrote down, “What is the 19th Century?” My two opponents, infatuated with 20th Century technology, picked that era. I was right.

As a five-time on Jeopardy!, I was invited to the annual Tournament of Champions, where the year’s 15 best players would compete for additional glory and a $100,000. As if I needed further incentive, the show now provided airfare and hotel accommodations. How did I prepare for the tournament? I didn’t. My more reckless admirers, most of whom were options traders, advised me to quit my job and spend months memorizing encyclopedias. That seemed a bit drastic. What I had yet to learn in a lifetime of reading, I was not likely to pick up in a few months of cramming. Furthermore, you cannot predict what you will be asked on Jeopardy! A clue could just as easily be about Howdy Doody as the French Revolution.

How did I do? I met my minimum standard for vanity. I won my quarter-final and semi-final games but I learned some humility in the finals. (Not really, I learned to hate Daily Doubles and not to wager $3000 on them.)

All in all, I have had a gratifying adventure on Jeopardy! My dream had been realized. Of course, dreams can recur. If Jeopardy! ever wants to have a tournament of now geriatric champs, I am available. Oh yes, I also am available as a “phone-a-friend” for that other game show.

Eugene’s Guide to Social-Climbing

Posted in General, On This Day on January 23rd, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 3 Comments

January 23, 1719:  The Fun of Being a Hapsburg

Anticipating the need for a Jeopardy category, Emperor Charles VI created the principality of Liechtenstein on this day in 1719. Even if the Holy Roman Empire was–in the words of Voltaire–neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire, its Emperor still had an important and unique prerogative. He alone could create titles.

In case you were wondering or were nurturing megalomaniacal ambitions, you can’t just declare yourself a King or a Grand Duke. The title has to be officially established. So, who can you charm or bribe? Well, no one now. Even the Pope does not have that authority, although he certainly could add some prestige to your coronation. While the Holy Roman Empire existed, the Emperor alone had the power to create a title.

For example, the de Medicis had more money than God and proved it by buying a Papal election. Yet, they couldn’t get themselves declared Dog Catchers of Tuscany without the consent of the reigning Hapsburg. In fact, when Medici were opposing Emperor Charles V, their social standing was stuck at “upper-middle class.” Once, however, they learned to grovel, the Emperor rewarded their kneeling by elevating them to Grand Dukes of Tuscany.

At the onset of the War of the Spanish Succession, Emperor Leopold I wanted the assistance of the Prussian army. He secured that aid in 1701 by elevating the rank of the Prussian ruler from elector to King. The newly crowned Frederick I proved that one could social-climb and goosestep at the same time.  (The crown did come with a catch;  Frederick was “King in Prussia” and he could only be royal sovereign of those territories not formally part of the Holy Roman Empire.  Within the Empire, Frederick was still a glorified Drill Sergeant.)

The Holy Roman Emperor did not have the power to abolish a title once conferred, but he could always change his mind about creating a title. Charles the Rash (1433-1477) was NOT content to be a mere duke. Ruling an area encompassing modern Belgium and Holland, Charles thought that he had the land, wealth and power worthy of a king. So, in a campaign combining pleas, bribes and military threats, the Duke sought to be elevated to a king. In 1473, Emperor Frederick III finally agreed and arranged to invest Charles at the town of Trier. Meeting the Duke on the eve of the ceremony, the Emperor found him unbearable. Rather than spending another moment with Charles–and making him a King, the Emperor slipped out of town that night. So Charles never got to be a King.

(Ironically, the only child of the Duke ended up marrying the oldest son of the Emperor. However, it was not an awkward wedding. Charles was already dead, having proved his rashness in one battle too many.)

Only one man did not respect the prerogative of the Holy Roman Emperor. Napoleon made himself an Emperor in 1804.

So, perhaps there is still hope for you megalomaniacs.

Spam and Curry

Posted in General on January 22nd, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – Be the first to comment

First, my RDA of Spam:

Dear Sir/Madam,  (Alas, I am at the age when the difference is becoming negligible.)

We have visited your website (www.finermanworks.com) and discovered that your product has amazing business potential through the website.  (Yes, it isn’t amazing how many MBAs act Byzantine without the least idea who the Byzantines were.  But, now with Finermanworks, major corporations can justify their incompetence and malfeasance with historical precedence.  John Mack of Morgue Stagnant can compare himself to King John II at the battle of Poitiers:  “I had no idea that the English knew archery.”)

But we found that your website is not registered in most of the leading search engines and directories, which is a great disadvantage.  (Unfortunately, when potential customers do a computer search for “hot Swedish teenagers”, they rarely want discussions of Charles XII.)

We at Opal Infotech offer professional services to market your website.  (Both my mother-in-law and my Rabbi tells everyone that I was on  Jeopardy.  I don’t see how you can do better than that.) 

Thanking you
Ms. Madhu Jaggi

Madhu, by a remarkable coincidence, today’s RDA of Irony explains why your letter was not in French:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/01/22/etiquette-and-empire/

Patrician Noster

Posted in General, On This Day on January 21st, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 3 Comments

January 21st, around 304: Agnes Lives Up To Her Name

This is the feast day of St. Agnes, virgin and martyr.  (Yes, the two are often synonymous).  Agnes was a young Roman patrician…and so were Saints Agatha, Lucia, Cecilia, Catherine, etc.  Why must they always be young Roman virgin aristocrats?  Was the Early Church so snobbish that it would not let a shepherdess or fishmonger throw herself to the lions?  And the stories are always the same: rather than marry a pagan, the young lady chooses death.  Well, a Church that needs four Gospels to tell the same story is not blessed with originality; and the redundancy of these martyred debutantes might suggest why plagiarism is not a cardinal sin.

Ironically, the very triteness of these stories proves that they are reasonably true.  (We still might doubt that, when threaten with rape, Saint Agnes immediately grew billows of body hair that deterred even Latin men.)  All this incredulous repetition is the fault of the Romans.  The Empire was specifically persecuting Christian patricians.  Pagans are usually quite tolerant; what difference is one more God in the pantheon?  In fact, the imperial authorities were quite prepared to accept Christianity within certain constraints.

The evangelists were welcome to preach sufferance to peasants and slaves.  Sedating the lower classes did the Empire a favor.  (What a pity Jesus missed Spartacus by some 90 years.)  Furthermore, Christianity seemed a very nice religion for women.  Virtue, mercy and charity are delightful household precepts; but they are no way to run an empire.  The Christian principles might undermine the martial ardor that built and maintained Rome.  The religion could not be allowed among patrician males.

By the third century, many patrician families kept a theological balance.  The women were permitted to be Christian while the men were required to be pagans.  The women’s Christianity was not even a secret.  Consider the names Agnes, Agatha, Lucia and Catherine.  They were not traditional Roman monikers but reflected the Christian policy of naming a child for a virtue. Their names respectively mean chaste, good, light and pure.  (Cecilia must have had a domineering conservative father; her name adheres to Roman custom and identifies her as a member of the Caecilii family.) 

So long as Christianity remained a woman’s fad, there were no problems.  Unfortunately, some dogmatic maidens did not know their place.  Agnes, Agatha, Lucia and Catherine revolted against all propriety by refusing to marry eminently eligible pagans.  That was a scandal.  And Cecilia was worse; she actually tried converting patrician males.  That was a crime!  Since these young ladies demanded attention, they got the most fatal form of it.

Agnes died during the last major persecution of Christians. It was in the reign of the Emperor Diocletian, who incidentally had a Christian but discreet wife.  In 304 there was an up-and-coming Roman general named Constantine.  He, too, grew up in a theologically mixed household, with a pagan father and a Christian mother; in his case, however, Constantine turned out to be a a mama’s boy.  If only Agnes had shown a little patience and tact, she could have been persecuting pagans.

Why You Shouldn’t Hurt Genghis Khan’s Feelings

Posted in General on January 19th, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – Be the first to comment

 If you have never heard of the Khwarezmian Empire, that was Genghis Khan’s intention and the measure of his success.  Yet, in the early 13th century Khwarezmia was the greatest nation in the Islamic World, a Persian empire that encompassed modern Iran, Afghanistan,Turkmenistan and several of the other ‘stans.  To put it in our own parochial context, this empire was equal to one third the size of the United States–yes–including Alaska.

 Its Shah was Ala ad-Din Muhammad II.  (We’ll call him Muhammad because–as he demonstrated–he wasn’t an Al type of guy.) Although the Mongol Empire extended to the northern border of his empire, the Shah dismissed any threat posed by Genghis Khan.  After all, the Mongols were thousands of miles away fighting in China.  (Although the Mongols consistently won, conquering an empire of 120 million people is a full-time job for even the most ruthless Horde).  Furthermore, the Shah had an army twice as large as the Khan’s, so he felt no need to be diplomatic when an Mongol embassy called upon him in 1219.  A Mongol caravan had been seized by a Persian governor, and the Khan’s representatives demanded the punishment of the felonious official.  The Shah’s response was to have the Mongols’ translator beheaded.  That effectively ended the conversation and started a war. 

Genghis Khan suddenly decided that massacring the Chinese had become monotonous, and the Persians offered an interesting alternative.  Although at the other end of Asia, the Horde could move at a routine pace of 80 miles a day.  Modern armies would find that a challenge.  It was also winter in Siberia but that never was a deterrent to the Mongols.  With 200,000 horsemen under his command, Genghis Khan was on his way to Khwarezmia. 

The Shah belately realized what he had done, and he prepared his empire for the Mongol onslaught.  He stationed nearly half of his army on the northern border, along the Syr Darya River.  However, a thinly spread army was not much a deterrent against the best cavalry in history.  In February 1220 a Mongol force of 20,000 men crossed the eastern end of the river, outflanking the Persian defenses there.  As the Shah’s main army marched to meet that threat, a larger Mongol force forded the western end of the river.  Caught between the river and the Mongols, the enveloped Persian line collapsed…and the Mongols were not taking prisoners. 

The two Mongol forces united and moved toward the great city of Bukhara.  Now the Shah could anticipate the invaders’ objective, and he met them with an army of 200,000 men.  In fact, the Mongols had maneuvered him into a trap.  A third Mongol force, personally led by Genghis Khan, had moved through a desert and evaded Persian attention, taking the circuitous route to Bukhara.  The Shah thought that he was facing the entire Horde only to discover 50,000 Mongol horsemen behind him.  Surprise!  Most of the Shah’s army died on that battlefield.  Some of the troops did find sanctuary behind the walls of Bukhara.  It was a short respite; the Mongols took Bukhara and massacred the population.  Not much of a Shah now, Mohammed did manage to escape but spent the remainder of his wretched life on the run from Mongols.  He died a year later of disease and exhaustion.   

The great Khwarezmian Empire dissolved in a campaign that lasted less than six months.  Although always ruthless, Genghis Khan was especially vindictive; the great cities of the empire–Bukhara, Samarkand, Herat, Merv and Urgench–were destroyed.  You have never heard of Merv and Urgench because the destruction was that thorough.  (Shiraz and Kabul survived by prompt and groveling surrenders. The cities still suffered pillage and rape, but not leveling and extermination.)  A town in northern Iran became so crowded with refugees from the Mongols that it grew to some prominence: Tehran.

While the Khwarezmian Empire is not remembered, Genghis Khan’s visit there is.  It still is studied in military science as the inspiration and prototype of modern mechanized warfare.  Blitzkrieg should be a Mongolian word. 

p.s.  Today marks the death of King Dagobert I:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/01/19/your-rda-of-medieval-plumbing-2/