An Analytical Viewpoint

Gandhi's salt march Non-violent civil resistance is a wonderful idea whose utility cannot be underestimated.  In theory and practice, the authority which does not lead by consent will naturally lose its foundation.  If the non-violent civil resisters are brutalised , then the authority loses all vestiges of legitimacy since legitimacy stems from honorable action and popular consent. However, it is not a principle that can work universally.  Non-violent civil resistance worked well in India for a number of reasons. The first is the population in India outnumbered the British expatriate class and administration by over a thousand to one.  Secondly, the vast geographical expanse between India and England was a further deterrent to keeping India.  Keeping India could only be justified (from an economic perspective) if the risks and losses from such a distance could be mitigated or exceeded by the resources gained from ruling.  Furthermore, the adminis...

Bows have seen active service in armies for thousands of years prior to the introduction of gunpowder.  When Blackpowder weapons became prevalent, they quickly superseded and eventually replaced the bow as the missile infantry weapon.  How did this occur and why? Were there any battles in which the bow and musket competed against each other? Bowvsmusket.com is specifically dedicated to this topic, detailing the unnamed blogger’s views on why the bow was completely inadequate compared to the musket.  He cites battles, opinions by gunpowder era figures and uses these to form his conclusions on the matter.  The two myths that he declares busted are: ·        That bows outranged muskets significantly ·        That muskets replaced bows because they were easier to train with The first has reasonable credibility, within a certain context, while the second has no rational basis. Range of Muskets ...