#a great weapon that gets underestimated because its perceived not as noble or honorable

[holy-mother-of-whumpers]

About this post!

Tagging and not reblogging because it's long and I don't want to have people scroll forever to reach me (personal preference).

Summary of @katerinaaqu; Odysseus is associated with the bow, even though in battle he mainly uses the spear (against Sokos, against the boar, wielding two spears against Scylla).

The spear is the cheapest and a very effective weapon throughout history (gross generalization), it's the standard to-go weapon (generally).

Also swords kinda sucked at the time, I seem to understand. Menelaos' breaks in the duel of Paris for example (might be other examples). If we set the Iliad in the Bronze Age Collapse, bronze was getting less pure and more brittle, I read somewhere, I think it was because the tin supply was running out.

Axes weren't used as a weapon except in emergency situations, as in they are mentioned in the Iliad almost only at the battle at the ships, where the Achaeans are desperate (shout out to Franco Ferrari Italian translation of the Iliad, the absolute best that points out all the juicy details I'd miss like the absolute amateur I am🙏).

Knives weren't really a thing in battle either.

So I think the spear was just the usual weapon. You want to kill your enemy before he gets close and the spear keeps them safely away - again, generalization, if everybody has spears it's less so.

Even more when you are short or shorter than average, because it gives you reach, which is life or death in battle.

The og post makes associations between Odysseus the spear user, brave, on the hunt for glory and Odysseus the bow user, the schemer and survivor. They are neat, maybe check it out!

I like especially the association between bow and cowardice/bastard sons/'phrigians', which would have Odysseus not use it in order to maintain a reputation - in the classical plays he is called son of Sisyphus enough (thus a bastard, not Laertes') that he'd not want any more associations to bastardry even more... Though this whole thing seems to be more relevant for the classical plays than the Iliad, little disclaimer.

[vediosexmelayuucvf120-blog]

The Ugly Truth About perempuan melayu

However, you do not really have to sit back and see your sex life vanishing in thin air. I know, most men consider drugs like Viagra to help them sort out erectile problems, but such drugs are not advisable for men with serious problems like a heart condition etc.,

Natural penis pills are a perfect remedy for most men who suffer with erectile problems.

Such pills are made with some of the best and finest herbal extracts that have long been used as aphrodisiacs throughout the world. Some of them are brought in from countries like China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia etc., and a potent mix of such herbs is then used to formulate these natural penis pills.

Some of the well known ingredients used in such pills include ginseng, ginkgo biloba, tribulus terrestris, tongat ali, l-arginine etc.,

These pills are great for men since they do not have side effects and can ensure better performance in bed. They work upon increasing blood flow to the penis without affecting your blood pressure. Not just this, they also stimulate testosterone production in your body.

These pills not just help you get quicker and harder erections but also boost your ejaculatory control so that you enjoy longer lasting sex with your woman. sex melayu Premature ejaculation can be a big problem with most men and these pills can be an excellent remedy to help you overcome it.

Not just this, such pills can also tackle the issue of low semen volume and reduced sperm count. As men get older, they produce lesser and lesser semen. Sperm count also goes down that can give rise to fertility issues. However, natural pills can boost your semen production as well so that you can enjoy bigger, stronger and more youthful ejaculations that can intensify orgasms.

Though natural pills are highly effective, not all are at par in terms of results and effectiveness. Good quality ones are clinically approved and contain certain extras such as Bioperine. It is a black pepper extract that helps boost the absorption of other ingredients into your body leading to faster and better results.

So, If You Want to Get Harder and Stiffer Erections, Check out the Best and the Most Powerful Penis Pills that have Become a Massive Hit with Men.

Introduction: The full name of the book is "American Idol after Iraq" which is published by Blackwell - Wiley in 2009. The author of the book Nathan Gardels has been the editor of New Perspectives Quarterly since it began publishing in 1985. He has written widely for the daily papers and journals since mid 1980s and he has been a Media Leader of the World Economic Forum (Davos) as well. Apart, he has given speeches in Islamic Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (IESCO). Gardels holds degree on Theory and Comparative Politics from UCLA. His co-author Mike Medavoy has had a very active role in making large number of Hollywood movies. Throughout his career in Hollywood, he has been active in politics as well. In 1992 and 1996 he advocated Bill Clinton and in 2008 he was in favor of Barack H. Obama. He was born in Shanghai, of Russian-Jewish parents; he graduated with honor in History from UCLA.

Summary

In this must-read book the authors explain and mainly discuss the public diplomacy and Hollywood role in shaping it, mainly in the new era after 9/11 terrorist attacks. The foreword is by Joe Nye, Harvard Professor which is mostly well-known with his notion of "soft power". Once again, Nye asserts the importance of the soft power- Weapon of Mass Attraction- and recalls that not missiles and bomb but the American soft power was the key in collapse of Berlin Wall and consequently Soviet Union, the Evil Empire as Reagan called it. Nye believes that in wake of the new century American soft power is not as powerful as the past decades. It is because of the mistreatment of the prisoners in Gitmo and Abu Ghoraib prison by American troops. The world does not believe and trust America as before. Professor Nye puts forward that in the Information age success is not merely the result of whose army (hard power) wins but also whose story (soft power) wins. He recalls the US challenge and problem with Islamists hardliners and extremists in which hard power is needed to defeat them but WMA is needed to win the hearts and minds of the moderate Muslim which are the majority in the Muslim world. He accentuates the fact that democracy and human right could much more easily achieved with soft power with a long lasting effect. Obviously, the most important tool as soft power for America are its giant media-industrial complex and Hollywood which broadly discussed by the authors in their script.

HEARTS, MINDS AND HOLLYWOOD:

Hollywood, as the authors put forward has been the largest machine of dream making and storytelling in human history. Unlike most countries in the world America's image is based not only on who they are and what they do, but on how the Americans present themselves to the world through their global window. The most attractive and glamorous production of this machine has been the image of America as the promise land of infinite possibility and opportunity where individual liberty is in hand and the society is always on the move. In its 100 years it has opened a new window toward the world in which America has been seen through it and Americans has seen the world through it, as well. Some believe it has been truly and largely successful in telling and selling the American (version of) stories in past 100 years. "The dreams of America - individual freedom, middle class, prosperity, social mobility, the rule of law- which were made the dreams of the world, too, were pictured by Hollywood."

Other than that it has been used as a tool by the American Government fighting against "freedom" enemies, Fascism, Communism. Even the author argues that during the tensest day and peak of the Cold War, it was J.F.K who ordered the managers in the Hollywood that the Ian Fleming 007 espionage novels ought to be made into motion pictures. Other than that he mentions that to fight against Fascism and Nazism in the twentieth century Hollywood made the fist celebrity known globally, Charlie Chaplin who diminished and underestimated the power of Hitler in The Great Dictator. It followed the Wilsonian ideal in America's role in bringing democracy and self determination to the other parts of the world. These are samples which shows that Hollywood in its lifetime has used and been used as a tool and actor for America's political purposes. By creating roles known globally, like Rambo and James Bond, Hollywood has beaten its enemies, world foes and made it believable that the US is the ultimate savior of the world. Its values are absolute and universal and needed to save human and humanity. Accordingly, Washington eagerly sought to employ Hollywood's influence and soft power at home to make people in favor of his own foreign policy objectives.

But it could not be generally accepted that America's secret weapon, Hollywood, the biggest soft power tool is playing a positive role all the time. Not only foreigners criticize Hollywood to spreading violence, porn culture through its images in the world but within the US there are who reprimand and knock the film industry as well. To a great extent Fukuyama asserts that "It is perceived as the purveyor of the kind of secular, materialistic, permissive culture that is not very popular in many parts of the world, especially the Muslim world." It is living without any responsibility which is creating the greatest tragedy of our time. It is emptied of a spiritual dimension. Many believe that Hollywood is not doing a great job in elevating spirituality and morality of America in the world to win the hearts and minds of the people, but conversely Hollywood is sowing the seeds of loathing and hatred in the world generally and in the Muslim world particularly. Some, like Bill Bennett, Ronald Reagan's secretary of education openly and famously charged that Hollywood is undermining the America's mainstream values. This is much clearer when we take a look at the PEW foundation Poll in April 2005, which nearly 61% of Americans are concerned what their children see or hear on TV. Accordingly, "Soft power does not necessarily increase the world's love for America. Soft power is still power and still makes enemies". If there is a resistance to military presence and occupation, surely there would be an opposition and resentment to cultural invasion and occupation. For example even in Turkey which is America's NATO Ally, the most popular novel in 2004 which was sold more than 800000 copies envisioned a war between Turkey and the US in which finally Turkey wins. Even American brand of secularism which is pictured in movies has been the source of concern among the religious leaders in the West. Pope Benedict XVI carried forward the worry that aggressive secularism reflected in the media was eroding the religious Foundations of America. He told American bishops that "America's brand of secularism poses a particular problem. It allows for professing belief in God and respects the public role of religion, but at the same time can subtly reduce religious belief to the lowest common denominator. The result is a growing separation of faith from life."

Although the Noble poet Octavio Paz called America "the Republic of Future" which always eyes on future and new horizon in which Hollywood has been successful to create. But now due to democratization of digital media all around the world the future is not a Gospel for American soft power and its culture. For instance, although American soap operas largely viewed and seen from Malaysia to Canada, but in South Korea, for example 92% of TV and video games are domestically produced and are telling and selling their own stories.

In the age of globalization, we may be witnessing the end of "the end of the history"-which Francis Fukuyama stated after the end of the Cold War. Process and era of globalization, accelerated the modernity and post modernity and diversification around the world. The Singaporean diplomat, Kishore Mahbubani, makes this critical point in his book, "The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible shift of Global Power to the East" asserted that the great paradox about the failed Western attempts to export democracy to other societies is that in the broadest sense of the term, the West has actually succeeded in democratizing the world. One key goal of democracy is to empower its citizens to make them believe they are masters of their own destiny. The number of people of in the world who believe this has never been higher. Even in the undemocratic society of China, citizens have seized the opportunities provided by the economic freedom they enjoy to completely change their lives.... In the global term there has been a huge democratization of human spirit." Due to the point that some assert that in a democracy the voting booth and the box office share the same public. So, Hollywood has largely been considered to be the United States of America muscle in public diplomacy to win the hearts and minds of public as well as elites around the world. The trend of globalization and democratization of the media and the increasingly power sharing in many centers - the rise of the rest -as Fareed Zakaria calls it, results in an atmosphere in which Hollywood is not the expected and absolute winner. Apart, by the development of the communication technology mainly Internet and the emergence of Netizen (Network citizen) now everyone is their own story teller and filmmaker which is growing largely in numbers. It leads all people to move to the same neighborhood, more and more people want to see and hear their own stories on the screen, to see that their own ideas and cultures has been projected and reflected on the screen and then to enjoy the latest offerings.

CONCLUSION:

The authors assert that as Harry Warner, one of the founders of Hollywood believed "the movies should educate as well as entertain people". The author puts forward due to the change in challenges that the world and America are facing, the media and Hollywood strategy should be changed to meet the problems of the new era. Some recommendations are given on close cooperation of public diplomacy and mass culture. Some of them include the matter of sensibility which should be considered in media and Hollywood to promote the empathetic understanding of other civilizations and ways of life. It is insane to try to impose the American way of life and the liberal model of "good life" to the world. "To Be able to put oneself in another's shoes without prejudgment is an essential skill" as a Chinese cellist asserts. Among the recommendations is the breaking the American public narrow mindedness by promoting more cultural cooperation with other cultures, promotion of the exposure of the worthy American cultural products, elevating the level of exchange in students and journalists and cultural figures as well and creating a joint committee by Washington and Hollywood on cultural relations. They believe it may work to restore the American dream and stance in the new era again.

[katerinaaqu]

Ah someone got inspired hahaha yay! Thanks for the mention here!

Well of course as you see I focused more on the poetic aspects but you have brought forward the practical ones here hehe 😄

Of course a spear is a simple, effective and as you said daresay cheap way to make a weapon. All you need is a small amount of iron or in this case bronze or orichalchos and you have a deadly weapon especially given how you need more amounts of metal to make other weapons or armors (which is also the reason why we must assume a portion of armors had investment inside of cheaper and yet durable material such as leather or wool to stop the strike thus making the armor both practical to wear comfortable lighter and ultimately effective)

I would argue that the reason that the swords "sucked" was not necessarily all of them turning brittle (although of course we can speak about the reduction of resources which is a big reason why combats like the war implied with the Iliad were happening in the first place; to gain access to better resources or to gain passage to those resources. What is more we know Anatolia was on the way to generalize iron to warfare see the Hitites for example or even the dagger of Tutamkhamun which means that the technological knowledge of the making of iron was already spreading) that is because the sword was never a first weapon of choice in the first place in historical battles.

Swords were short especially in bronze age. You need to be DANGEROUSLY close to an opponent to use it. There is a misconception by modern media showing knights or samurai or even Greeks give the dramatic speeches to each other before fighting with swords (and Homer does too although he is much more realistic in actual battle scene vs his duel scenes) that rarely happened. Most knights and samurai fought from the horse and used other weapons like spears or sphere as battle weapon. The sword for most cultures was like the pistol in a marine belt. It was used as a last solution when your enemy was dangerously close to you and no other weapon was available or if you are chasing an enemy that is already running for it and you are basically slaughtering at this point. Swords were not used all the time in actual battle as movies show. In fact if you are in a position in actual battle that enforces you really use your sword then that means you are screwed in the first place like surrounded by enemies or you have nothing else to do but to engage in battle. That is not to say of course that Swords were not used in battle. They absolutely were but they wouldn't be the first or exclusive form of battle and usually it was reserved for when two opponents couldn't help but collide with each other.

In fact Homer speaks on moments in battle where Achaeans fight mostly from their chariots and the foot soldiers that use weapons usually they use spears or rocks which they throw to each other. Swords are reserved for these dramatic duels in between or for slaughter scenes hahaha 😆 so sword was not preferred as a main weapon for a large portion of history. Of course they were also expensive and hard to obtain and mostly linked to the elite but since we are speaking on elite here like the Greek kings then this doesn't seem a problem. Even smaller kingdoms like Odysseus's have access to wealth one way or another so Homer doesn't imply that any of them could not afford good weapons.

As for Odysseus being called a son of Sisiphus I have replied some asks in the past like this one

For starters yes it doesn't seem a homeric tradition but we also do not see it being irrefutable fact either given how even if a hero calls Odysseus "son of Sisiphus" and in Philoctetes for example we even have an extensive backstory on how Laertes allegedly bought Odysseus as a baby from him, the chorus still calls him "son of Laertes" and many other mentions. So it seems to me like the plays insert rumors to insult Odysseus (dunno like saying "son of a bitch" I guess 😆) rather than an actual lore for him there but that is up for interpretation.

Knives and axes were mostly tools and ceremonial items indeed. Just like with the sword you use them as you said if you do not have anything else to use or in desperate situations as you said when tools and even accessories were used as a weapon (see for example the large pins used to hold clothing in place sometimes used as a stabbing weapon). You would not see a battle axe so early and they were never THAT extensively used till medieval times as weapons unless of course we talk on lower classes that used everyday items they had as weapons every time they were assigned as foot soldiers at war (when they didn't use stones and such that is. The sling was much more preferred form of weapon for it could cause good damage if used properly and you could do so from a distance and you had unlimited supply of bullets hahaha)

There absolutely no doubt that spear was the most practical weapon of choice to use. That was not what the original post was about indeed.

Hahahaha "maybe" check it out? 😏 hahahaha kidding kidding! 🤣

Well the association with the bow is not necessarily a sign of bastardy although of course it was implied in many texts. It was mostly a weapon that was mocked by the Greek sources as cowardly or a weapon only foreigners would use associating it more with Amazon warriors or in this case Paris.

But again my post was more on the poetic aspect rather than the practical one and also my comment at how people most of the time design Odyssey with his iconic weapon but his weapon of choice were different throughout the poems and he used them almost exclusively even in cases such as the hunting of the boar where he could have used a practical set of bow and arrows to wound the beast but instead he seems to he chasing it on foot (in a way also winking to mythical boar hunts such as the Calydonian Boar and others) which I find interesting that his spear holding is not as projected in art.

(And you know if you wanna reblog and be long you can use the "read more" option hehehe but in this case is also very much valid and unique post that calls out the practical reasons behind the use of spear over the literally poetic ones)

About this post!

Tagging and not reblogging because it's long and I don't want to have people scroll forever to reach me (personal preference).

Summary of @katerinaaqu; Odysseus is associated with the bow, even though in battle he mainly uses the spear (against Sokos, against the boar, wielding two spears against Scylla).

The spear is the cheapest and a very effective weapon throughout history (gross generalization), it's the standard to-go weapon (generally).

Also swords kinda sucked at the time, I seem to understand. Menelaos' breaks in the duel of Paris for example (might be other examples). If we set the Iliad in the Bronze Age Collapse, bronze was getting less pure and more brittle, I read somewhere, I think it was because the tin supply was running out.

Axes weren't used as a weapon except in emergency situations, as in they are mentioned in the Iliad almost only at the battle at the ships, where the Achaeans are desperate (shout out to Franco Ferrari Italian translation of the Iliad, the absolute best that points out all the juicy details I'd miss like the absolute amateur I am🙏).

Knives weren't really a thing in battle either.

So I think the spear was just the usual weapon. You want to kill your enemy before he gets close and the spear keeps them safely away - again, generalization, if everybody has spears it's less so.

Even more when you are short or shorter than average, because it gives you reach, which is life or death in battle.

The og post makes associations between Odysseus the spear user, brave, on the hunt for glory and Odysseus the bow user, the schemer and survivor. They are neat, maybe check it out!

I like especially the association between bow and cowardice/bastard sons/'phrigians', which would have Odysseus not use it in order to maintain a reputation - in the classical plays he is called son of Sisyphus enough (thus a bastard, not Laertes') that he'd not want any more associations to bastardry even more... Though this whole thing seems to be more relevant for the classical plays than the Iliad, little disclaimer.