Different Meanings of Water to Soldiers, Sailors

Gen. Douglas MacArthur was many things, but one thing he was not was closed-minded. I'm reading American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880 - 1964 by William Manchester and it is filling in a lot of history that I know little about in detail.

I came across an interesting discussion of how soldiers view bodies of water versus how sailors view the same. Here's what Manchester had to say.

Another commander would have been intimidated by the immensity of the Pacific, but the General, remembering the horrors of 1918, when the huge armies had been wedged against one another in bloody stalemate, regarded the vast reaches between Melbourne and Tokyo as opportunities. Despite his distrust of the navy, he was quick to appreciate the difference between soldiers' and sailors' attitudes toward bodies of water, and to come down hard on the side of the admirals. At West Point he had been told to regard rivers and oceans as obstacles along which men could dig in, forming lines of resistance. At Annapolis, he knew, midshipmen were taught that streams and seas were highways. By adopting their concept, he could open up his theater to some of the most stunning campaigns in the history of warfare.

Interesting concepts, and difference of views, no?

Here's another point of interest. Douglas MacArthur's father was a hero of the American Civil War, while MacArthur himself was a hero of World War II. Now, how can that be, when nearly 80 years separated those two conflicts?

Very simple. Arthur MacArthur was known during the Civil War as "the boy general." He was leading troops into battle at an age when most people today are graduating from high school. His son, Douglas, was himself a hero of World War I, and was actually retired from the army when World War II began. He came out of retirement to lead the battle in the Pacific.

Pretty dang interesting.

Was "Virginity" Over-rated?

Why the preoccupation with virginity? I mean like in ancient Rome and Greece, with examples such as the Vestal Virgins and all.

It occurred to me while reading about ancient Rome that the term "virgin" may have connoted something other than what we think of today.

Here's my thought: In reading John Lord's Beacon Lights of History, Vol. 3 he speaks of the sculptors and painters and their depictions of the beautiful "virgins" who were their models. For example, Lord writes "Zeuxis is said to have studied the beautiful forms of seven virgins of Crotona in order to paint his famous picture of Venus."

That's when it struck me that in those times, another word for women who were not virgins was commonly "mother."

Lacking birth control, having sex pretty much ensured pregnancy. And with pregnancy you generally get the loss of the flawless female form. Thus, if you're looking for the very picture of youthful beauty you perforce must look for virgins. It has nothing to do with a woman's sexual activity, but everything to do with the results of that activity. You might easily substitute the word "maiden" for "virgin" and retain the true meaning.

That puts a different spin on our understanding of what the ancients considered important. Her so-called moral character was not at issue, only her figure. Or maybe I'm totally off base. But I found it to be a pretty dang interesting thought so I figured I'd share it with you.

What Made Possession "Nine-Tenths of the Law"?

Remember how it bugged you when your brother took something of yours and when you demanded he give it back he would tell you that "possession is nine-tenths of the law"? Where did that come from? And who says it's nine-tenths as opposed to seven-tenths or something else?

I can't provide specific answers to those questions but I think I can shed some light.

In Beacon Lights of History, Vol. 3, by John Lord, the author discusses the concepts of ownership in ancient Rome. First off, at least in early Rome, the father was master of all, and his wife and children could not truly own anything; it was all his. This right of ownership included the family members themselves and the father could kill his son with impunity, if he so desired. Thankfully, over the course of centuries, the Romans moved away from that extreme.

As for property of the non-family-member type, ownership carried the implicit right to transfer the object to another. Two things were required for this to happen. First, the owner must consent to the transfer. Second, the actual delivery must be made. As Lord states, "Movables were presumed to be the property of the possessors, until positive evidence was produced to the contrary."

So clearly, if you had something in your possession, under the law you had the strong presumption that you were the owner.

But it goes beyond that. Lord also explains that the concept of prescriptive easement was in practice way back in those days:

A prescriptive title to movables was acquired by possession for one year, and to immovables by possession for five years. Undisturbed possession for thirty years constituted in general a valid title.

So you may have acquired something through shady means, but if you can hang onto it it becomes yours. There's nothing precise implied in the "nine-tenths" wording, but the gist is clear. You're in a much stronger position trying to hang onto something than trying to take something from someone else.