The Japanese translated it based on "I despise the hardships of war" instead of the Elizabethan understanding of it.
Eh, Warspite means "One who spites war" anyway (well, that and Warpecker). "I despise the hardships of war" is her motto (Belli dura despicio), not her name.
I find it hard to believe Warspite's namesake is anti-war, even if it was her motto by 1913. It's a very old name and definitely predates any sort of anti-war ideal.
I find it hard to believe Warspite's namesake is anti-war, even if it was her motto by 1913. It's a very old name and definitely predates any sort of anti-war ideal.
Well, the man, Arthur Gorges, who named the original War-spite probably would've preferred to write poetry than to battle. He was probably better at the latter, however, which is probably why not much of his literature is available online, but the name War-spite survives to this day. He did do a translation of The Pharsalia, which is about as cynical a view of war as there is.
Eh, Warspite means "One who spites war" anyway (well, that and Warpecker). "I despise the hardships of war" is her motto (Belli dura despicio), not her name.
For the book Warspite by Ian Ballantyne: The origins of the name Warspite are not clear but the most popular theory is that it was a compound creation – ‘War’s spite’ embodies contempt for one’s enemies (an obvious reflection of English feelings towards Spain at the time). The word ‘spight’ was also a colloquial name for the green woodpecker. A ‘warspight’ would obviously be ready to ‘peck’ at the wooden hulls of opponents.
For the book Warspite by Ian Ballantyne: The origins of the name Warspite are not clear but the most popular theory is that it was a compound creation – ‘War’s spite’ embodies contempt for one’s enemies (an obvious reflection of English feelings towards Spain at the time). The word ‘spight’ was also a colloquial name for the green woodpecker. A ‘warspight’ would obviously be ready to ‘peck’ at the wooden hulls of opponents.
This interpretation sounds most likely. It is only in modern days do we install a conflicting anti-war mindset to our warriors and enforcers. Although indirectly, War Spite in the anti-war sense can be pretty badass. We hate war, so we are going to obliterate you with extreme prejudice out of our spite of it. Heh.
I suppose one could point out that hating the hardships of war (for example: death) goes back into prehistory. The Iliad, for example, contains many long lamentations on the topic.
Such was life in those days. No one was 'anti-war' because that was a nonsense position in a world where war was a regular and inevitable occurrence.
That said I still don't believe anyone would attach a lament to a warship. Warships names are, at the very least, meant to inspire. That's why you don't see ships named, like, USS Mortality.
This interpretation sounds most likely. It is only in modern days do we install a conflicting anti-war mindset to our warriors and enforcers. Although indirectly, War Spite in the anti-war sense can be pretty badass. We hate war, so we are going to obliterate you with extreme prejudice out of our spite of it. Heh.
Pacifism by way of force...sounds like Grade A hypocrisy.
Goes both ways. Good and evil are in a perpetual battle with the only differentiation of sides being the reasons for fighting. The act of fighting isn't immoral by default, just as the act of defending isn't always righteous.
Mamizou said: Hmm, this got me thinking and I never noticed the joke about woodpeckers and Warspite's name before now. Woodspite, Warspite.. Warpecker?
Pacifism by way of force...sounds like Grade A hypocrisy.
Disliking war doesn't really mean pacifism or being against the concept of war itself. It can just as well be hating war but doing what (you think) must be done or fighting so that others don't have to. I doubt that most people being involved in a war actually like war but that certainly hasn't made them all pacifists..
Peace and safety of one's land and people achieved through a powerful deterrent is a concept as old as the very notion of tribal society.
My personal nightmare is one day I wake up in the world of "Heavy Object" where borders shift hourly and people start needless conflicts with the assumption it won't get out of hand. There will be no loyalty to a country, no security, and casualties will simply be chalked up as inconsequential byproducts of inter-government bickering to never be remembered and we all are fighting a perpetual war without actually defending or upholding any concept or nation.
My personal nightmare is one day I wake up in the world of "Heavy Object" where borders shift hourly and people start needless conflicts with the assumption it won't get out of hand. There will be no loyalty to a country, no security, and casualties will simply be chalked up as inconsequential byproducts of inter-government bickering to never be remembered and we all are fighting a perpetual war without actually defending or upholding any concept or nation.
Oh boy, wait till you hear the stories about Somalia and Syria. Classical Libertarian-ism and Fascism, respectively, all ready to be analysed.
Oh boy, wait till you hear the stories about Somalia and Syria. Classical Libertarian-ism and Fascism, respectively, all ready to be analysed.
Well I don't believe in Libertarian-ism or Fascism, I believe the ideal form of government is a Republic (actually exactly how the US is run). Our only failings are when we fail to follow the law.. The advantage to the Republic is that it is neither pure Democracy where the majority can trample over the minority, and yet not a so distant government that the citizen has no influence in it. Somalia and Syria are a mess primarily because they really don't have law and order. The laws only apply to their citizens in order to keep them down, and no internal mechanisms built into the government to check the powers that be. Factions rise and fall, changing like socks, as a manifestation of the citizens frustration to have their opinions heard, and their lack of loyalty in a preexisting concept to defend it and bring stability to their territory. In the US we have separation of powers and a 2A armed citizen population. While it doesn't stop corruption, it serves to slow it's effects until the citizens act. Big reason why Obama was not able to do a lot of what he wanted since he didn't do it legally through congress, and why the next president can undo all of Obama's 2 terms in a week since nothing Obama has done is law, but interpretation that can be reinterpreted via the identical executive order.
aceofspudz said:
Libertarianism is in full effect in every savage jungle, but communism has never been tried.
Communism has been tried throughout history, but it has never succeeded. It would be a great system but it fails to recognize the potential for bad apples. Aside from being a system which does not intrinsically motivate (see Jamestown, Virginia early 17th century), the central organizers of the equal distribution have an extraordinary amount of responsibility, and with this high responsibility they start to think "why don't I get special treatment since I am so important?" and it just steamrolls from there. Same thing about monarchy or dictatorships. Heaven is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship run by God who is everlasting and absolute. If we were to find an immortal being who would never pass on and was incapable of being corrupted, definitely their judgement would be the best static force to check all powers of government. Unfortunately, reality does not have such people. Even the best of us fall when we are given extraordinary power.
Leaders like any part in a mechanism, have an expiration date, and a Republic is a finely tuned machine that requires the regular maintenance of its educated citizen's involvement.
Oh boy, wait till you hear the stories about Somalia and Syria. Classical Libertarian-ism and Fascism, respectively, all ready to be analysed.
Not that Classical Liberatarian-ism doesn't have it's own share of problems but portraying it as Somalia is dishonest. You're confusing it with Anarchism, which shares some traits, but even that is only an approximation.
Anyways, I think the the side swipe at (any) political theories is unwarranted in this context, especially if you intend to talk about it on the pop-science level.
EleganceYour Nickname Is?My name means disdainful of war, so, if you please,
Common mistranslation.How about I call you War-san, then!Uo-... supaito-san is sort of a mouthful--Nice to meet you, KONGO sisters!It would be ever-so slightly misguided to shorten it to just War.I am the Queen Elizabeth-class Battleship Warspite.Ieesu! Naisu tuu miito yuu!
