More bounce in California

In case anyone was wondering why I had been making the odd trip to Los Angeles for the mysterious "major project", I can now divulge the reason:

To take the California bar exam, purported to be the toughest bar exam in the country.

Last night, I found out that I had passed the California bar exam, so I will soon be licensed to practice law in California.

Latest addition to my book rotation (finally)

Saratoga: A Military History of the Decisive Campaign of the American Revolution, by John F. Luzader.

I'm a little discouraged by my initial read because it seems Luzader is something of a defender of American General Horatio Gates. Pretty much everything I've read on Gates is down on him, considering him more of a political general who alienated everyone around him, especially Benedict Arnold. My understanding has been that Gates nearly cost the Revolution the Saratoga campaign because out of pique he ordered Arnold to stay clear of the battle area. Arnold disobeyed orders and helped save the day for the Americans. Gates' shabby treatment of Arnold played a large role in Arnold's later treasonous turn.

Luzader at least acknowledges these views of Gates. I'm interested in seeing how he handles them.

I suppose, though, I should be happy I got the book at all, since it took them three months to get it to me.

Oil piracy

Piracy off the coast of Somalia has become a significant threat to shipping off the Horn of Africa. Now the pirates have moved outward:

Pirates operating off the coast of east Africa have hijacked a Saudi supertanker fully laden with an estimated 2m barrels of oil in an attack that marks a significant escalation in the scope of banditry in the region.
The pirates, believed to be from lawless Somalia, seized control of the Sirius Star, which is owned by Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil company, on Saturday, 450 nautical miles south-east of the Kenyan Indian Ocean port of Mombasa.
It is estimated that the tanker was holding more than a quarter of the daily exports from Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter. The oil would have been worth about $100m (€79m, £66.5m) at Monday’s market price but is probably of little interest to the pirates.

Ed Morrissey comments:

The Financial Times speculates that the pirates will demand a ransom, the usual end result of piracy in the region. They may have a difficult time getting to the cash, however. The pirates usually seize cargo ships and not tankers, which are more difficult to captain and cannot use the normal docks frequented by the pirates. The tankers ride low in the water, and the danger of grounding is very real, especially for inexperienced pilots. The ecological destruction could surpass that of the Exxon Valdez, which had about half of the capacity of the Sirius Star.
That assumes, of course, that these pirates want this tanker for ransom. It seems strange that the same pirates that target food aid closer to shore would go this far out of their way for an oil tanker. The value is much higher, of course — one expert says they “hit the jackpot” — but crew safety rather than cargo value is the main driver for ransoms. They’d probably get the same amount of money, while taking a much higher risk with a ship they can’t maneuver as well. Does that make any sense?
So for what other purpose could pirates use a massive oil tanker? They could have seized it as a terror weapon. Sailed into a harbor and detonated, a tanker this size could do massive damage, especially to an oil-exporting port — and it could send shock waves throughout the energy industry for months, if not years. Just sinking it could block exports for weeks while salvage crews cleared the wreckage.
Hopefully, the US Navy or other forces can intercept the Sirius Star before the pirates attempt to navigate it anywhere close to a port and negotiate for the release of the crew and the ship. With rumblings of al-Qaeda plots coming from Yemen, this particular act of piracy bears close watch.

From Information Dissemination:

[T]his past weekend saw a jump in the Somali piracy targeting with the capture of the Saudi-owned Very Large Crude Carrier MV Sirius Star, which was seized over 400 nm southeast of Kenya, somewhere southwest of the Seychelles. As has been pointed out, this is a bit of a jump in their takings. For one thing, the Sirius Star is huge; for another, it offers a somewhat disturbing opportunity for ecoterrorist extortion if it is carrying cargo and if the pirates choose to take that route. It seems unlikely on the face of it, since reports are that they're sailing it towards the haven of Eyl, and they would be unlikely to risk their home waters. However, watch for reports that this ship is being 'shadowed' much like the MV Faina - supertankers are much closer to 'national security risks' for large-navy nations, and large-scale spills are something nobody wants to have happen on their watch or their coast.

This bears watching. The Somali pirates may have decided they need an increase in cashflow to fund their own wars in Somalia.

Rethinking Carrhae

Last weekend while I was in the Apex of Western Civilization (except for that whole banning gay marriage thing; dumbasses), I found the World's Greatest Ancient Book Section™ at the Barnes & Noble in La Costa. I promptly purchased most of it, including a new book on a neglected subject: The Defeat of Rome in the East: Crassus, the Parthians, and the Disastrous Battle of Carrhae, 53 BC, by Gareth C. Sampson.

Carrhae was every bit as disastrous as the more famous Roman defeats as Caudine Forks, Cannae, Teutoburger Wald and Adrianople, and its strategic consequences overshadowed only by Adrianople. Rome's advance in the Middle East was stopped just as cold as its advance across the Rhine was at Teutoburger Wald. However, analysis of the battle and the campaign in which it was fought has been largely absent (in contrast to the numerous analyses done on Cannae and Teutoburger Wald). The reason for this neglect probably has something to do with the genral opinion of the Roman general and triumvir Marcus Licinius Crassus. This synopsis of the Battle of Carrhae is typical:

Hoping to outshine Julius Caesar and Pompey, Marcus Licinius Crassus used his wealth and Influnece to gain the proconulship of Syria In 53 BC. Here, he believed, he was in the position to win the greatest glory. The Roman Senate did not want a war with Parthia. Indeed, there was a neutrality treaty with the Parthians. But Crassus was intent on taking control of their empire. After defeating Spartacus' slave revolt, he had developed an over inflated idea of his own rather meager military abilities.

Crassus began with 7 legions, about 4,000 auxiliary light infantry. 1,000 crack Gaullic horsemen, 3,000 western Asian horsemen. 6,000 Armenian cavalry arrived with Artabazes, their king. Artabazes implored Crassus to take the army through his own country, which would provide them with ample provisions and suitable terrain as defense from Parthian cavalry. The priests in Crassus' troupe implored him not to go at all. However, Crassus, desiring a more direct route foolishly choose a path strait through Mesopotamia with Seleucia city and Ctesiphon as his objectives. At this, the Armenian and his cavalry returned home.

That spring Crassus took his army across the Euphrates River near the town of Zeugma during a heavy thunder storm. Scouts found none of the enemy, but noticed numerous horse tracks. He was then joined by 6,000 Nabataen Arab cavalry. Their chieftain, Ariamnes, was actually in the employ of the Parthians. Ariamnes lied, saying that Parthian forces were currently fleeing the area and the only resistance might come from an advance guard under the general, Surena. Crassus was convinced of the need for haste and decided to continue along the less secure desert route. In actuality the Parthian King, Orodes II (or Hyrodes), had split his army in two. The king lead a attack on Armenia as punishment for mobilizing with the Romans. Surena (one of the senior members of the 7 great clans of Parthia) was sent to attack the Romans. His army was comprised primarily from men from his own clan. The horse archers were from the Saka and Yue-Chi people. It is believed this force was only intended to delay the Romans as Orode finished his punitive attack and returned from Armenia.

Ariamnes lead the Romans away from the river. At first the march was pleasant and easy, but they soon were amidst the featureless desert. They continued through the treeless, waterless waste. At this point of low morale, they received messenger from Armenia informing them that it was impossible for Artabazes to send any help as he was too busy defending his own country. His advise was for Crassus to turn back and join forces in Armenia, or at least leave the desert for the defenses of more mountainous ground. Crassus, however, was only angered by this and swore to punish Artabazes for this. A staff officer, Cassius, and other officers suspected Ariamnes' treachery and began to argue with Crassus, but this only angered him more. The Arab stayed long enough to convince Crassus to quicken their pace. Then he and his cavalry left the Romans claiming they intended to find ways to disrupt the enemy.

As the Romans approached the town of Carrhae (modern-day Haran) their scouts raced back, saying that most of their fellows had been killed and the Parthians were at hand in full force and preparing to give battle. Astonished at this, Crassus scarcely knew what to do. His troops were in disarray as they had been marching at such a great speed. Cassius advised the panicked general to open up the ranks and form a line across the plain, placing the cavalry on each wing to prevent them from being surrounded. As this order was being carried out Crassus changed his mind and decided to form a giant hollow square with 12 cohorts on each side with cavalry and light infantry support. Cassius commanded one wing, Cassus' son, Publius another and Crassus himself went to the middle of the square. They marched forward and as they approached the Ballisur stream Crassus was advised to make camp, rest his men and wait till day to assess the strength of the enemy. He would have none of this, giving his troops only enough time to eat before charging them forward at the enemy. When they did see the Parthians they were not impressed. Surena had ordered his main force of heavy cavalry behind the front ranks and told them to hide their armor under coats and skins. When the Romans were about ready to engage the Parthians gave the signal for battle and the dreaded cataphracts uncovered their magnificent armor.

Surena's first plan was to break the Roman lines with his 1,000 cataphracts, but when he realized the depth of the Romans he called back the cavalry. At this the Roman light infantry rushed out only to be chased back by a hail of arrows. The Parthian horse archers began to surround the square, pouring a steady stream of arrows into the densely packed ranks. The arrows were of such strength that they could punch through armor and shields. The Romans waited for arrow supply to run out. This hope was dashed when they saw Surena had brought a camel train carrying a great quantity of arrows.

Crassus saw that his rear was about to be attacked. He ordered his son, Publius to take 1,300 Gaulic horsemen, 500 archers and 8 cohorts to attack the Parthian archers. The Parthians galloped away with this Roman attack force in chase. Once Publius was far enough away from the main body of Romans, the horse archers wheeled about and were joined by a larger number of Parthians including the cataphracts. Publius lead his Gauls on the cataphracts. Because their spears could not penetrate the cataphract armor, the frenzied Gauls grabbed on the enemy lances, pulled them to the ground, and also leaped underneath the Parthian horses to attack their exposed bellies. They even drove their own horses onto the lances. Most of the Gauls lost their mounts and were forced to retreat with Publius to a small hillock where they were surrounded. Publius ordered his armor-bearer to kill him. After the fighting the Parthians took Publius' head and 500 prisoners.

All the while Crassus was pleased that the attack on his rear had slackened. He order his men to form up in a conventional battle formation and relocated his army to sloping ground. He then got word of what was happening to his son's force. He sent no support, but began to advance. This was when the Parthians rode in with his son's head on a pike. The advance was stopped by the archers and cataphracts. Crassus had completely lost his senses by now. His lieutenant Octavius and Cassius took over and decided to retreat that night, leaving the wounded behind. When the cavalry heard this they left immediately, stopping at Carrahe long enough only to tell the men there that Crassus had fought a great battle. They then raced on to Zeugma. The Parthians watched the retreat and waited till daybreak to ride in and slaughter the Roman wounded. Plutarch wrote that no fewer than 4,000 died in this way. Some time later, A lieutenant, Varguntinus, and his 4 cohorts had strayed from the main body of Romans and were surrounded. All were killed with the exception of 20 men who were allowed to go for showing such courage in trying to fight past the Parthians.

Surena soon learned that Crassus and his men had reached the safety of the Carrhae town walls. The next day when the Parthians arrived there, Crassus again decided to retreat at night. Again, a spy lead the Romans through the worst possible route. They were trapped in marsh. Surena offered peace to the Romans if Crassus came to parlay. Tired and afraid, the legions demanded Crassus go, threatening his life if he did not. At the meeting there was a scuffle and Crassus was killed. Some of the Romans surrendered most were hunted down and killed. In the end 20,000 Romans died and 10,000 were taken prisoner and settled in the territory of Sagdia. The captured Legionary standard were held as prizes in the temples of Parthia.

This account, like many of the others, is based on the ancient accounts by Plutarch and Dio Cassius, with Plutarch taking a particularly dim view of Crassus.

To be sure, there is much reason to take a dim view of Crassus. He became Rome's richest citizen by ruthless and unethical tactics. Crassus seized for himself the property of those to be executed ("proscriptions") by the dictator Sulla. He had his own private fire department, which he also used to purchase people's property at what were literally firesale prices. He had his own insurance company which set the standard for insurance fraud.

However, Sampson asserts that the Carrhae campaign was not just cause for the ridicule of Crassus. In Sampson's view, Crassus conducted the campaign with the requisite skill, care and caution, only to be outdone by a truly brilliant Parthian general whose exact name is unknown but who has become known as "Surenas," "Surena" or "the Suren."

In the process, Sampson attempts to correct the record of the "Plutarchian" record on behalf of Crassus:

• Contrary to the Plutarchian view, Crassus was not a military neophyte, but had significant military experience, including commanding Sulla's troops at the Batttle of Colline Gate putting down the slave revolt led by Spartacus. Crassus actually had much more experience than the supposed Cassandra of this particular tragedy, the quaestor Gaius Cassius Longinus, who would later become one of the chief plotters in the murder of Caesar.

• Crassus' invasion of Parthia was in response to a plea for help from Mithradates III, a contender for the Parthian throne in a civil war with his brother Orodes II.

• Crassus' invasion was indeed not instigated the Senate, but the Senate did give him the discration to invade Parthia. In fact, an earlier invasion in support of Mithradates III was to have been conducted by the Roman governor of Syria, Aulus Gabinius, but at the machinations of Gnaeus Pompeius (Pompey) and Julius Caesar, Gabinius' invasion was called off in order to allow Crassus to conduct the campaign. Gabinius instead went to Egypt to reinstall Ptolemy XII as pharoah of the Egyptian Ptolemaic dynasty.

• Because of the Parthian civil war, Crassus expected some disarray in the Parthian dispositions. However, by the time Crassus crossed the Euphrates from Roman Syria into Parthia, Mithradates had been defeated by Orodes.

• Crassus actually carefully planned his route into Parthia. He refused to take his army through Armenia because he did not trust the Armenian crown -- with good reason, as it never supplied the cavalry it had promised and later sided with Parthia. Armenian perfidy would also figure in the later failed Parthian campaign of Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony). Crassus did indeed lead his troops into the arid desert, away from the Euphrates -- on a caravan route, constantly in range of supplies of water for his troops. You do not ever want to take water for granted in a desert campaign (see, e.g. the Horns of Hattin).

• There is no evidence that the alleged treacherous Arab (whom Plutarch calls Ariamnes; Dio Cassius calls him Abgarus) played any signifciant role in the defeat, as he had left the Roman camp well before the battle. Furthermore, Crassus wasn't known to trust anybody in Rome, let alone outside it.

• Orodes never intended for Surenas to defeat Crassus' expedition, only to delay it until Orodes' main force could arrive. Surenas had other ideas. One might infer that Orodes actually had hoped Surenas would be killed in the action. Surenas was executed about a year later out of a fear he would make a play for the throne.

• Surenas was well aware of the power of the Roman legionary infantry -- and the weakness of the Roman cavalry -- and specifically designed his force to counter it. Heavily armored cataphracts to stop the cavalry and keep the legionaries pinned in place. Horse archers to engage the legionaries from a distance -- and ample supplies of arrows.

• Upon sighting the Parthian cavalry, Cassius suggested forming a long battle line to prevent encirclement. Crassus instead formed an open square with cavalry screening each of the four sides. Crassus' idea here was the more correct, as cavalry would have easily encircled the force no matter the formation.

• The real secret to the Parthian victory was their arrow and composite bow, the design of both of which remains a mystery. The movie 300 might give a decent idea of the ineffectivenes of arrows against shields. The Parthian arrows, however, penetrated armor and shields. Stories about concerning Romans who were pinned to the ground by Parthian arrows. The Romans weathered the barrage in the hopes that the Parthians would run out of arrows and withdraw, as archers usually do. But Surenas had anticipated this problem and kept camel trains nearly with fresh arrows.

• The attempted breakout of Publius Crassus, Marcus Crassus' son and also an experienced army officer, was tactically correct, though one wonders why he did not try to attack the camel trains with the spare arrows.

• The death of Publius Crassus did not, as is geenrally claimed, break the spirit of Marcus Crassus. It did, however, break the spirit of his troops. Crassus actually tried to butress their spirits during the fighting and rally his troops, to no avail.

• During the retreat, Crassus was specifically targeted for death by Surenas as a way to end Roman aspirations in Parthia permanently. Cassius ultimately but probably unintentionally betrayed Crassus to Surenas.

• The remaining Roman troops did indeed force Crassus to meet with the Parthian. Crassus agreed to do so in a forlorn efort to save his troops, even though it meant certain death for himnself. It was during this attempted parley where Crassus was killed, apparently in a dispute over a horse. The Roman legionaries did not cover themselves in glory during the battle and retreat.

Sampson's analysis is well-researched and thoughtful. I highly recommend The Defeat of Rome in the East: Crassus, the Parthians, and the Disastrous Battle of Carrhae, 53 BC.

Where have I been?

Here:


More importantly, here:

Obama wants to make energy prices "skyrocket."

Don't believe me? Listen to the audio, the one the San Francisco Chronicle sat on since January:

The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.
You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.
If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.

This came in the same interview where Obama said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry:

So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

This man is vile. He doesn't care that you need electricity to power and heat your home. He doesn't care if it's so expensive it bankrupts you and leaves you out in the cold -- literally. As POTUS he is supposed to be protecting you, but he will be working against you.

Because he is an Environmental Underpants Gnome.

1. Stop using fossil fuels
2. ?
3. Clean energy

Ed Morrissey:

Coal provides 49% of domestic electrical power, and any rise in the cost of producing that energy will raise its cost to consumers and reduce the amount produced.

This comes as no great shock, pun intended. Obama already called for a 15% reduction in demand for electricity — at the same time he and his allies want transportation to switch from gasoline to electricity. Obama never explained this particular contradiction. How does one switch tens of millions of vehicles from gasoline to electricity while not Increasing demand, let alone by cutting it 15%? And when trying to break free from a recession, the nation will need greater production in energy, not a reduction.