If you have a pneumatic drill you might be able to chip a bit off -or some explosives!
I would have no problem with CCTV being set up around it to stop any graffiti and maybe a couple of 24/7 security guards.
It has been there for 5000 years or so and it is only now that it requires protection - sad state of affairs.
By the time I got around to see the Stonehenge in person, unfortunately, it has become just another tourist attraction. Far away and with loads of tourist buses. I still remembered the day I landed in London after a 13 hour flight from Singapore, I immediately picked up my rental car and drove to the Stonehenge. It was still amazing though to see them in person.
Yes. First, a shoutout to Babylon Berlin, one of the best TV series I’ve seen in quite a while. Season 1 especially.
Right, if we want to understand today’s world, we can start in 1914. If we want to understand 1914, we must begin…where? 1066. The Holy Roman Empire? It seems the European monarchies had found war a quaint way to rally their authority for a millennium or more. The Great War was their last gasp with a very ghastly conclusion. Most textbooks blame Germany for the war’s outbreak, but please show me the diplomatic efforts to stave off war. Britain and France wanted it as badly as Germany. What’s really unforgivable is Versailles. **
Anecdote this, but the Kaiser was in Norway when war broke out, with his large imperial retinue (not far from where I live, at least as the bird flies,our fjords can be complicated) and they had no idea that war was about to break out at that time, but knew that it migth come. Initially, he didn’t want to go to his annual Norwegian summer cruise, but was persuaded to go because it would “decrease tensions”. They had no idea that Franz-Ferdinand had signed the ultimatum to Jugoslavia before they had actually left for Norway (the emperor and his retinue left Germany on the 6th of July) . A telegram came and told them that Franz-Ferdinand had issued an ultimatum to Serbia on the 19th of July. They then understood that war may indeed come fast, and left towards Germany on the 25 of July, arrived in Kiel on the 27th.
These tend to be very good.
Britain were days away from joining the war on Germany’s side. The general public at the time felt Germans were very similar to British people and there was a genuine warmth between the two nations, in contrast to the French who were the still seen as a natural enemy. Had the German military not massively miscalculated British “honour” over the protection of Belgium, nor indeed the ferocity of Belgian resistance, then history might have been very different.
Modern textbooks really shouldn’t be laying much blame for WW1 at Germany’s door. No one is innocent in that mess but the idea Germany held responsibility is not historical concensus anymore.
?
Britain viewed Germany as its main antagonist that’s why it joined the Entente in 1907. Britain initially didn’t want to go to war, in fact it hoped that Germany wouldn’t participate in the confrontation between Austria and Serbia. Likewise Germany hoped that Britain wouldn’t honour the London treaty of 1839 which provided for Belgium’s neutrality with Britain as one of its guarantors.
In any case, the main reason that Britain intervened wasn’t the treaty itself, whose violation was used to ‘sell’ the war to the public, but the fact that a German victory, which would leave it in control of Western Europe, was viewed as extremely dangerous to Britain itself.
I probably wasn’t clear in my wording, by “joining” I do not mean that Britain would fight alongside Germany rather that they would sit the war out and therefore have sided with Germany de facto.
The Entente was not a strong alliance or mutual defence pact in the same way the Triple Alliance was, or the London Treaty. Britain were not legally required to fight or side with France and Russia just because of their Entente membership.
Although tension over naval superiority had been escalating between Britain and Germany, Britain had clearly won the arms race by 1914 and internally felt more comfortable with their position in Europe, as long as France remained a force. When it became clear that war was coming there were strong debates within the government about how to react and David Lloyd George claimed the majority in cabinet favoured neutrality until it becomes clear France would quickly lose a ground war. Germany were not a traditional enemy, they shared familial ties with the Royal Family and the public were generally sympathetic to German people. Germany were also by far the best army in Europe and getting into a land battle with them was not an attractive prospect for the small British army.
There were discussions ongoing between British leadership and Germany at the same time that British leadership was talking to France. In the case of joining Germany, this would not have taken the form of actually fighting but instead remaining neutral. Maybe “days” was hyperbolic of me but it certainly wasn’t a clear cut thing that we would fight with the Entente. Although it was always more likely, it wasn’t a WW2 style “good vs bad” and Britain could have decided that political expediency would lead them to side with Germany. If France had been able to defend itself then likely Britain would be little more than an interested observer, at least initially.
All very true.
The Kaiser was still a massive cunt though.
His generals were even bigger cunts though.
And the feeling of warmth towards Britain unfortunately wasn’t shared by large parts of the German population.
One last thing - I strongly recommend reading Heinrich Mann’s ‘Der Untertan’ (The Loyal Subject) - imo still one of the best political satires and a brilliant insight into the mindset of German Empire society right before WWI. In case you’re interested in such weird subjects.
Early medieval period
Just fascinating.
All aspects, not just the usual knights and castles ( but yes, mainly them)
How much of a superstar would William Marshall be in 2020.
Bet you he’d be a formula one winning, record mogul, film producing celebrity chef who also visits outer space on the weekends…
He’s got nothing on Walsingham.
Which one?
The elder one of course.
Joking aside, Marshall did lead an extraordinary life. It’s suprising that Hollywood hasn’t made a movie out of it yet.
Is war necessary to change society or political economy? In the U.S. we had a half century of tension over slavery finally erupt into a very deadly Civil War (more Americans died in it than in all our other wars combined). In Europe one had primarily a monarchist, militarist, colonialist political economy and culture which seemed at odds with developing technology and philosophy. Essentially, the old order destroyed itself across the World Wars (which are essentially a single event IMO). I would blame the order itself because the leaders and political class of all those countries was quite similar. They were unable to admit the war was a disaster which should be ended diplomatically after it became a trench stalemate. Just as Britain and France chose to inflict retribution on Germany after the war rather than attempt to build a cooperative foundation which would avoid future wars. That still might not have saved the situation in Russia, which WWI left even less stable than was Germany.
Would you count revolution as war??
Bearing in mind, the former very often leads to the latter…
Cardiff Pete, then.
In the case of Russia, yes. The Bolshevik Revolution is really just the collapsing of the old order which was weakened by WWI.
In the case of the American Revolution, also yes, but the American Revolution is less about conflicting philosophies and more about pure power over economic wealth.
Then what about the Iranian Revolution?
Good question.
I thought immediately of the French Revolution, which had descended into war by 1792.