The Forge - Lesson 2.1: The Metaphor

Now that I've got everyone sufficiently up to speed, at least regarding the historical background, lets start taking apart the metaphor.

But before I get into that, let's review the text first:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might.  Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.  For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.  Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.  Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace.  In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.  Eph 6:10-20 (ESV)

Ready?  Let's go.

There should be no doubt (especially after everything we've gone through) that the image St. Paul is using is of the classic Roman soldier, though pared down.  Why?  Well, lets look at why I think he listed what he did.

And, yes, this is just opinion.  I've really got nothing other than my overactive imagination and a healthy dose of military history to back up my hypothesis.

What do we have in the kit of the "Christian soldier?"

• Belt of truth
• Breastplate of righteousness
• Readiness given by the gospel of peace (as shoes)
• Shield of faith
• Helmet of salvation
• Sword of the Spirit (the word of God)

Its a pretty light kit, as I've noted before.  More appropriate for a skirmisher or scout, not a line infantryman.  In American football, the guy described by Paul is most likely a receiver, not a linebacker.

But why would the illustrious writer of half the New Testament not advocate for greater armaments and armor in spiritual warfare.  After all, this is the guy who wrote "we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." v. 12

The answer is simple: the war is over.

The war, which began in the Garden at the roots of a tree, ended on the branches of a tree placed on a hill just outside Jerusalem.

When Jesus received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished," and He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.  John 19:30

But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.  He is not here, for he has risen, as he said."  Matthew 28:5-6a

And while they were gazing into heaven as He went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven?  This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him go into heaven."  Acts 1:10-11

So, then, the war is over.  Why then do we need armor?  The war may have ended, but the enemy still prowls about.  What we have is an odd mix of "stay-behind" operations, collaborators, and occupation force.

We live in occupied territory.  Since the fall, the "prince of this world" has held sway over us, with collaboration from our own nature.  But the enemy was defeated, yet still holds control over at least this small territory.  Which means we, who know the rightful king, are not members of the regular military, but resistance fighters.

(Its kinda like that, except the enemy is hyper-competent, and none of the guards can be bribed with pastries.)

Now, I'm not saying we are to be performing combat against the enemy.  We are not that well armed or armored.  A better parallel would be the White Rose, a non-violent anti-Nazi protest in Germany during WW2.  They "fought" with words, images, publications, and even graffiti.

The Greek word κῆρυξ - "proclaimer, herald" - fits our duties better than soldier.  We are not to be liberators, combat engineers, or warriors.  Instead, our duty is to run town-to-town with news of the victory.  Think the first marathon runner, just without the pass-out-dead ending.

Consider the final verse of the song "In Christ Alone," especially the second to last line.

No guilt in life, no fear in death—

This is the pow’r of Christ in me;

From life’s first cry to final breath,

Jesus commands my destiny.

No pow’r of hell, no scheme of man,

Can ever pluck me from His hand;

Till He returns or calls me home—

Here in the pow’r of Christ I’ll stand.

Our duty is to stand firm, at all times, as St. Paul extols in his letter to Timothy.

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.  For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.  As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.  2 Timothy 4:2-5

As a side note, Paul is telling young pastor Timothy that he is to (1) preach the Gospel at any and all times, (2) keep from bending to society's whims, (3) keep from telling people what they want to hear, (4) stand firm in the truth taught in Scripture.

Back to the metaphor, and more specifically why St. Paul chose the pieces he did to represent the aspects listed.

We'll start passively, with defensive gear and work up to the "fun stuff."  And, since the order Paul used basically follows that, I'll stick to it.

The "Belt of Truth" is first.  We've looked at the leather belt-like device worn by the Romans and Greeks, as well as the "lower extremity" armor from the Middle Ages.  The purpose and concept of this piece of kit in part falls under the same sort as, to be blunt, the jock strap and the cup worn by male athletes.  The other major purpose is mobility.  Remember, most people wore floor-length tunics in St. Paul's time.  When going into battle, soldiers would "gird their loins:" pulling the extra material up to create shorts.  The Art of Manliness has a short little blurb on it, along with a decent step-by-step image on how.

So why is "truth" protecting a soldier's soft bits?  Consider.  As a Christian, we are to adhere to the Truth.  By turning from said Truth, we risk our most vulnerable assets taking control: our Emotions.

(Okay, enough giggling, lets move on.)

Next in the kit is the "Breastplate of Righteousness."  This is the only piece of armor Paul allows us (unless you count the helmet and shield, and I'll get to why I'm not).  And nothing says its a full torso armor, the cuirass.  Which means we only have armor protecting our front half from the waist up.  That's not a lot of protection.  How does Paul expect us to fight like that?  Oh, that right, we're not the ones fighting.

("I mean, sure, its a bit boilerplate, but the darn thing works like a charm.  Gonna split the royalties with Marty once we get the patent." - Dr. E. Brown, 1885)

So the breastplate is only for defense, and passive at that.  And what does it protect?  Our heart.  Now, we are not saved by our righteousness, but it works in conjunction with the Law to keep us "in line."  That would be the Third Use: the curb.  As a Christian we are now free to be able to follow God's Law, though due to our sin we will continue to fail.  And that is where the righteousness comes in.  It isn't our's that we wear, but Christ's.

The "readiness provided us by the Gospel" rounds out the apparel side of the kit.  Boots can be argued to be the most important piece of a soldier's uniform.  Being able to protect your feet is spectacularly important, especially to infantry.  Think about it.  Marching, running, standing patrol.  You feet take a beating, and need protecting.  Not just from combat, but terrain, injury, and disease.  And you need the right footgear for different scenarios.  Flip-flops are for the coast of Hawaii, not the coast of Norway, for example.

(Having breathable clothing makes sense in the desert, but not so much a few miles away from Siberia.)

This is the one that connects back into the legendary founding of the marathon.  Think about it.  To prepare for the race, you need good running gear.  The whole story of the first man to run 26.1 miles was to deliver a message of hope and victory.  Likewise, we are equipped by the Gospel to go out into the world and proclaim the news that Christ is risen, victorious over death.

Next up: the "Helmet of salvation."  As anyone who's ever worked in construction can tell you, wearing protective gear on your head is more than just a good idea or fashion statement.  Cowboys wear stetsons to keep from getting sunburn on their squinted eyes.  Bikers wear helmet to keep from looking like they're in South Dakota.  NFL players wear helmets so you don't see their dumb haircuts.  (Seriously, why do football players have hair that would make Rapunzel jealous?)  Clearly headgear is important.  Why?  Because it protects your brain-box from getting squished.

(Especially is your friends ever elect to use you as a battering ram in a rescue attempt.)

I feel like this one should be really obvious as to why Paul picked it.  The helmet protects the mind.  Salvation is what we need after relying on our reason and strength.  Remember, it was a human mind that thought the idea of being smarter than God was a good idea.  Hence our need for Christ to come.

You may have noticed I skipped the "Shield of Faith" in the line-up order.  Why?

Because its important.

The "Shield of Faith" is the actual defense.  Remember, St. Paul is using a metaphor, based on the military of his time.  How did the armies of Rome enter battle?  In a line, shoulder to shoulder, with shields up.  Our faith is not just a individual, but corporate (group) as well.  Hence why we confess the Apostles' or Nicene Creeds at each worship service.

(You!  Shall not!  Pass!)

Think about it.  How powerful a defense is a single shield?  Quite a bit, especially in the hands of a trained warrior.  But how powerful is a wall of such shields?  No horde will be breaking through that line when someone calls "red rover."

And finally we come to the only offensive weapon in our arsenal (or rather, Christ's arsenal, since we are His servants): the "Sword of the Spirit."  You probably already noticed this one is explained by Paul as the Word of God.  So its the Bible.

Or is it...

The "Word of God," or, as is clearly expressed in the first chapter of John's Gospel, Christ Jesus, is the Sword of the Spirit.  Wait, Jesus is the sword?  But doesn't the Bible describe Him wielding a double edge sword (which may or may not be in His mouth)?

Well, yes.  Because the words are the weapon.  And if Indiana Jones has taught us anything, its that the pen is mightier than the sword.  Or at least mightier than Nazi eyes when you spray ink in their faces.

(Things Indy hates: 1- being called "Junior" 2- Grammar Nazis 3- Regular Nazis 4- Snakes)

But, remember, Jesus is the Living Word of God, so, Jesus is the Sword.  And since the Word of God is Scripture, the Bible is the Sword.

So the only weapon is Scripture.  Now that doesn't mean there are not other "weapons" in the Christian's arsenal, but that's for my metaphor, which is not inspired and inerrant, like St. Paul's is.  And I'll delve more into that later.  Be aware, it's my teaching tool, not official doctrine of any particular denomination, not necessarily guaranteed to be 100% in line with Scripture.  I hope it is, but I'll concede ahead of time a screw up is likely.

And there's my take/understanding on St. Paul's "Armor of God."  My spin on it soon to come.

(And, yes, it'll be multi-part, so I can focus on some aspects I think are of particular importance to the Christian Knight serving his King in this modern and depraved age.)

Just Testing Out Something (or) I Repeat, This Is Only A Test, Carry On

Just testing to see if I can upload unmodified audio files to the blog.  If necessary I'll have to pair this with an image or video, so as to appease the Google machine, but I'll jump off that bridge if I get there.

If this works, enjoy.  If it doesn't, I'll try again with a "video" version.  If that doesn't work, it'll get pulled before the end of the day, and never spoken of again.

[edit]  Oh, look, it works.

The Forge - Lesson 1.3: A Knights Tale

So I finally got those pesky Romans out of the way, only to trade them for the Holy Roman Empire.  Up next we're going Medieval.

But before I get into that, let's review the text first:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might.  Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.  For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.  Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.  Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace.  In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.  Eph 6:10-20 (ESV)

Now, on to the historic reality.

Granted, I am skipping some historic examples, such as the heritage of Japan, and the Renaissance-era.  That's in part for simplicity and in part because I'm sticking to the iconic and stereotypical image for later use.  And even then, I'm aiming for a narrow portion of the Middle Ages, since this is a thousand years (give or take) of dynamic history and if I don't I'll end up writing a doorstopper.  (Not that I'm opposed to that, but I've got other stuff to tackle too, and no one wants a "tl;dr" situation.)

Then again, I could just toss you over to the work of Mike Loades (among others) who researches this era almost exclusively. (Link to his special, Going Medieval, is here.)  His series on weapons will be used as resource later on as we dissect the image.  But enough of that, let's do this.

The Medieval period.  The Middle Ages.  The Dark Ages.  Whatever you call it, it was anything but boring.  This era saw:

• the chaos of the fallen Roman Empire in the west,
• the legends of the King of the Britons: Arthur,
• the histories (both real and mythical) of Charlemagne,
• the schism of the Eastern and Western church,
• the "game of thrones" as the Holy Roman Empire coalesced in Germany,
• the campaigns to conquer and reconquer the Holy Lands,
• the attacks of the "northmen:" the Vikings,
• the threat of the Mongols to the far east,
• the incursion of the caliphate in Spain, Italy, and the Near East,
• the War of the Roses,
• the "duel of fates" that the English and French were locked in for centuries,
• the joust,
• the might of the castle,
• the beauty of the cathedral,
• the feudal system of government and agriculture,
• the rise of Shakespeare,
• the dark legacy of tyrants like Vlad III: the "Impaler," 
• the voyages of Marco Polo,
•  the legacy and riches of the Silk Road,
• the power and prestige of the Church,
• and most ominous of all, the Black Death.

Now, that's a lot of history.  I can count no less than three classes I took in college on this era, and they barely scraped the surface.  I'll see if I can at least pare it down to the basics of the politics (both church and government) and the military of the "High Middle Ages" (11th, 12th, 13th centuries) through the Renaissance in the 1500s.

(The cheeky grin may not be historically accurate, but "A Knight's Tale" is still a good movie.)

In spite of being relegated (unfairly) to the trash bin of history as a backward and unintelligent age, the Medieval period still conjures up images of chivalric heroes fighting insurmountable odds to save the honor of a young maiden.  Our sense of honor, romance, and adventure lead us back to this time, at least in fiction.  Guided by giants like Tolkien, we see the lone knight on horseback as the apex of what a hero is.  And it is for this reason that I'm using it as a metaphor overall.  (If Fisk can have ninjas, and Rosebrough can have pirate, I can have knights.)

But before I dive into that, lets see if I can give y'all an explanation of 500-800 years of history.

Conventionally and classically speaking, the Middle Ages focuses on the so called "western world."  This means all the stuff from the border of the old Soviet Union to Spain, Sicily up to Sweden.  It it was once owned by France, Spain, Britain, Germany, Denmark, or Italy it is part of the "western world."

(Now that's not to say the "western world" doesn't encompass more area.  Poland, Ukraine, Greece, even Russia are the "western world," as opposed to the Middle East, the New World, Africa, or the Orient.  However, since the classic knight didn't live in these areas, we'll ignore them for today.)

With the fall of Rome in 476 to the Ostrogoths, everything east of the Oder river fell into tribal warfare and chaos.  The only unifying feature at that time, and the only authority that most were willing to follow was the Church.  The Christian world was divided into bishoprics, much like the Roman Catholic church today has diocese.  Above all the bishops (around 350 in the 4th century) were five archbishops in the five largest cities: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome.  Four of these were in the "Eastern Roman Empire" (caused by Constantine's administrative decision to divide the empire).  The bishop in Rome was in charge of the churches in Italy, Germany, Gaul (France), Iberia (Spain), and some of North Africa.  With this much power (for good or ill), it was clear that whoever wanted to control the western Roman world would need the bishop of Rome to be supportive.

The man who ultimately found that support was Charles the Great - Charlemagne.

(Yes, he's on your playing cards.  That's how influential he was.)

Now, before I get to Chuck, who gets his start in the 800s (ish), let me briefly set up a pair of substantial influences of the era: Islam and monasticism.

Islam was founded in the 600s by a failed and illiterate merchant in present day Saudi Arabia.  By the 800s the Umayyad caliphate controlled everything from Morocco to Pakistan.  All of North Africa and the whole Middle East except for Turkey.  This would put pressure on the Christian world in places like Spain, Sicily, and the Empire Formerly Known As The Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantines, in Greece).  This international threat would culminate in the Crusades.  But that mess is after Charlemagne, so be patient.

Monasticism should be a little familiar: monks living in austere conditions teaching secret and mystical things.

(I'm not sure if you are serious... or if you are trolling me.)

Okay, so what I described was a more "eastern" style of monasticism (which did influence the Star Wars universe).  In Christendom the idea of monasticism was fairly early, with Anthony being the "founder."  Certain people saw fit to remove themselves from society to spend time studying, praying, and providing works of service.  Quickly, though, this became a form of works-righteousness.  People began seeing monks (and nuns) as holier than thou, because they spent their whole lives praying and fasting.  A number of orders would be founded: Augustinians, Benedictines, Cistercians, Dominicans,  Franciscans, Hospitallers, Jesuits, Templars.  Some set up schools, while others worked hospitals.  Some would preach on street corners, while a few would fight pagans.  People would even "donate" children to the monastery.  The church became an industry and a world power thought this build-up.

This is the world of Charlemagne.

Gaul had been divided into three kingdoms, with plenty of in-fighting, back-stabbing, and horse-trading/stealing.  Princes, dukes, earls, counts, and other petty nobility ruled territories within.  The world was divided into manors, and each little town, territory, and county was as if its own small nation-state.  This is a very complex game of thrones that ends on Christmas Day, 800 AD, with the coronation of Charles the Great as the first Holy Roman Emperor.  He is seen as the father of Europe, and this is the turning point of the Medieval era.  Europe was united (mostly) and a renaissance of art and learning occurred.

(Charlemagne owned the orange stuff.)

The Carolingian empire would last until 888, when Europe was divided again, essentially into France and Germany.

In the British isles the Angles and the Saxons fought with the Picts and Celts, only to be fought off by the Norse, and later the Normans.  A lot of what is thought of as "knight classic" in England and America comes from the histories of the British isles (coconuts not included).

The Norse (better known by us as Vikings) played quite a role, and were very influential on history.  I'll probably do just a history post on them, since it is very interesting, and much less barbaric than we've been led to believe.  (They were still very barbaric, though, but they did have a reasonably sophisticated society.)

Things get complicated between 900 and 1100.  The number of kingdoms is greater, the Muslims (sometimes called Saracens or Mohammedans in older resources) had taken control of Spain and Sicily, the Viking threat was diminished but had damaged northern Europe (not to mention they'd explored all the way to Vinland).  The Byzantine empire was in dire straights, and sought help, even though the Great Schism had occurred in 1054 (which I alluded to earlier).  To aid fellow Christians, and defend the holy city of Jerusalem, not to mention get those knights doing something useful instead of pillaging like a bunch of gang members in a low-riding Cadillac, the papacy supported and even sanctioned crusades.

(He belongs in a museum.)

Now, I'm gonna take the lazy way out regarding the Crusades.  Not because it isn't an interesting and important topic, but because if I don't we'll never get to the kit of the classic knight.  So I'll defer to one of my old professors, Dr. Matthew Phillips, one of the history professors at Concordia University in Seward, NE (my school).  He was on Issues ETC discussing the Crusades and gave a very good primer covering them.  (It should be good, he teaches an entire course on the topic.)  So, if you've got the time or desire, give them a listen.  The Crusades (five parts)

The Middle Ages after the Crusades was dominated by the French, the British, and the Holy Roman Empire.  The French and British spent a lot of time fighting over what is now west France, which is why you see a bunch of Brits wandering around France in "A Knight's Tale."  This is the Hundred Years War.  It is this era, and the dynamic and rapid changes in technology, society, and even language, that brought about the Renaissance and Reformation.  If you've seen a Renaissance fair, or watched any of Mike Loades work, then you've at least a decent visual of what the era looked like.  Things like "The Tournament."

The Black Death was probably the "last straw" in the transition from the Middle Ages to the "modern era."  At that point things weren't going back.  The plague was brought into Europe due to the influx of trade, which had become the next "big thing."  Marco Polo is the most commonly seen instigator of the Age of Discovery, which ended up with a lost Italian in the Caribbean starting the Spanish conquest of the New World.

And in the midsts of all this was war.

Castles, archers, sieges, trebuchets ("which can launch 90kg projectiles over 300m"), jousts, and, most of all, knights.

So, I'm just gonna get right to it and skip all the other fun stuff.  (Don't worry, I'll probably revisit it later.  Or you can just do some digging yourself.)

(An example of a knight hospitaller from the Crusades.)

Where to start?  Weapons or armor?  Weapons or armor?  Well, being germanic of heritage, I'm nothing if not consistent.  So I'll let my compulsive Italian side lead the way.  Weapons it is.

The sword.

Oh, you wanted more?  Okay, then.

There are swords and knives (like the seax, dirk, dagger, longsword, short sword, claymore, arming sword, bastard sword, saber, falchion, and viking sword), pole arms (like the spear, halberd, pike, lance, glaive, and scythe), melee weapons (mace, morning star, flail, battle axe, quarter staff, maul, and war hammer), and ranged weapons (like the longbow, recurve bow, Mongol bow, crossbow, sling, francisca, javelin, and musket).  This doesn't include siege weapons (like trebuchets), warships (like carracks), and fortifications (like castles).  And that's just from Europe.  There's still all sorts of unique and interesting arms from every other continent (things like the katana, the atlatl, and the leiomano).

Since swords are the iconic weapon of a knight, I could (and probably should) go into great detail about them now, but I'll save that for later.  Same with shields, even though they took on a variety of roles in this era (heraldry, anyone?).

But the armor is where its at.  I will be going into greater detail as I dissect the metaphor (and take my own spin on it), but how about some "bird's eye view" history?  Ya know, since suits of armor haven't been in style since the 17th century.  (Unless you're a frequenter of Renaissance fairs.)

(The basic components of a classic suit of armor.)

Plate armor, specifically steel plate, wasn't easy to build early on.  Mail (worn over a gambeson or aketon) and scale armor shirts (called a brigandine or jack of plates) were the "cheap" version.  Padded shirts, like aketons, would be worn under later plate armor as well.  If you've watched "The Two Towers," specifically when Aragorn is getting ready for the battle, the way he dresses and the armor he wears is actually petty accurate, especially for the 10th-11th centuries.

Mail and scale were not defense against pierces, but blunt force and shrapnel.  Plate armor was developed to halt arrows, spears, and swords.  Late versions were designed to halt bullets as well.  In fact armorers would take practice shots against armor, then mark where the armor was proof against bullets.  (Bulletproof... get it?)

Not all plate armor was the same.  The armor on the chest and head was stouter than on the arms and lower legs.  The shoulders, elbows, and hands had multiple joints and bends to allow for movement, but these were also weak points.  And armor was heavy, but not so heavy as to make the knight immobile if knocked down.  Not more than the average total carried by the average American soldier (about 75 lb), though the weight was better distributed, instead of being primarily in a rucksack.

But, like past armors, this stuff was costly.  In the high Middle Ages (late 1200s until 1600s-ish) there were two types: Gothic and Italian.  The Gothic style was much more detailed, with Maximilian style being the most intricate and artistic.  Italian was simpler, thus a little less expensive.  Despite this, and the advancements made in metallurgy, the only people who could afford such military kit were the nobility.  Most soldiers would be lucky to have mail.  Few would have had swords, at least if the were peasants.  That's not to say all knights were of great wealth.  Many were what we would today call "upper middle class."  They can afford the new iPhone and a mortgage and go out of a fancy restaurant a couple times a month, but they don't drive Aston Martins to their third home in Beverly Hills.  Some knights would go on to become the nouveau riche who would provide substantial influence in the Age of Discovery, the Age of Enlightenment, and the Victorian Era.

I could go on, but then I'd just repeat myself when I over-analyze this stuff later.  And I will, since I'm taking the metaphor of "the Armor of God" and running with it.  So explaining the various parts of the kit, in detail, will be in the future.  Near future?  Maybe.

The Forge - Lesson 1.2: They Are The Legion

We got those pesky Greeks out of the way, now lets head to the center of the civilized* world: Rome.

(*snicker* "civilized...")

But before I get into that, let's review the text first:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might.  Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.  For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.  Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.  Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace.  In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.  Eph 6:10-20 (ESV)

Now, on to the historic reality.  This one is at least easier to grasp, maybe, since there are more fictionalized accounts of Rome.

(Is that not why you are here?)

Like the Greeks, the Romans present a very long, very convoluted, very colorful history.  A kingdom, then a republic, then an empire, then a divided empire, then it collapsed, with at least one successor state claiming the title.  Most of us are probably at least passingly familiar with "classic Rome" (republic through empire).  I'll try to encapsulate the history, then sum up the military, since this is the visual that St. Paul was working with.  After all, the soldiers were standing outside his cell when he wrote it.

There are three parts to Rome's history, though the last portion, the Empire, can be divided into multiple sections.  I'll deal with that kerfuffle when we get there.

The Kingdom of Rome ran from 753 to 509 BC.  The Roman Republic 509-27 BC.  The Roman Empire lasted from 27 BC - 480/1453 AD (depending on which version of the empire we're considering).

Rome's founding (not the myth regarding twins raised by wolves) was before 700 BC.  Greek historian Timaeus places its founding in the year 814 BC (38 years before first Olympics).  Others place it in the 750s.  So I'll just say the city of Rome was established between 850 and 700 BC.  The hilly location of a ford on the Tiber River made building a fortified city logical.  And anyone who controlled such a city would be guaranteed to grow and be powerful.

The Kingdom of Rome had (surprise, surprise) a king.  It wasn't a hereditary title, but rather elected for life.  But this king did have a lot of power.  There was also a chief priest, a chief judge, and a chief legislator.  The kingdom also had a senate, but don't go thinking that automatically means "democracy."  The senate had little power, and was comprised of noblemen appointed by the king.  So much for transparency or checks and balances.  There were six kings (not counting Romulus, who may or may not have been real) before the kingdom ended.  The story (how much is history and what is legend I'm not sure right now, I'll have to dig more) is that the son of the last king (Lucius Tarquinius Superbus) raped a noblewoman, who then begged her father and other noblemen of Rome to seek vengeance (then committed suicide, so as to give Shakespeare something to work with).  The senate then voted to abolish the monarchy and exile the king and his family.  In its place a republic was founded.

While the deposed king attempted a number of times to overthrow the new government, the Roman Republic would last nearly 500 years.  Instead of a king, elected for life, the citizens would elect two counsels each year.  In a way it was a form of proto-presidency.  The very same powers the king had, the counsels now had.  The senate was still a non-elected and weak body, but later they would gain in influence.

(The senate, in all its glorious chaos.)

The very chaotic nature of Republic politics led to a few prominent men to form an alliance to try to gain control.  (Hmm, sounds a bit familiar... to all of government history.)  The first triumvirate consisted of Pompey the Great, Marcus Licinius Crassus, and Julius Caesar.  The goal was simple: support each other to gain power and influence.  With Crassus's death in 53 BC, the triumvirate ended.  Pompey and Caesar started becoming more of rivals than partners.  With Caesar gaining popularity in the military, the senate picked Pompey to stand against him.  In 49 BC, Caesar crossed the "line in the sand" on his way to besiege and capture Rome.

(Hey, Julius!  I dare you to cross this Rubicon.)

Julius Caesar became a dictator, restoring order to the government.  In 44 BC, on the Ides of March, Julius was assassinated by a group of senators who feared (among other things) he'd reestablish a monarchy and take power away from land owners.  Their plan failed, since Julius's great-nephew Octavian teamed up with Marcus Antonius and Marcus Lepidus to take control of the government.  The senate remained basically powerless.  Lepidus wasn't as big a player in this trio.  Mark and Gus (Antonius and Octavian) would go on to fight for control.  If you want to know how that all went down, I know there's a documentary written by some Englishman named Willy.  Its supposed to be pretty good (even if the lead love interest wasn't that pretty).

(After Octavian took over, the streets were crawling with legions of soldiers.)

Octavian took the name Augustus, and the cognomen Caesar became a title synonymous with "emperor."  In fact, the title emperor in a number of languages, including German and Russian, is the name caesar (kaiser and tsar, respectively).  And from 27 BC until the fall of Rome to the Goths in 476 AD, the empire reigned supreme.

(An archive image of the caesar declaring the formation of the empire.)

Because of how especially long and complex the history of the Empire is (especially if we include the division set up by Constantine), I'm gonna take the lazy way out and skip it... for now.  I may deal with it later, especially if I want to talk about the Middle Ages, the Holy Roman Empire, and so forth.  Our goal here is the metaphor: the Roman soldier.

(Venimus. Videmus. Vincimus.)

I wish I could say that just looking at the Roman legions and their history simplifies things, but it doesn't.  The campaigns, techniques, and reforms are just as complicated as the rest of this train-wreck.  On the surface there seems to be no way to simplify this topic without leaving something important out.  But if I don't want to write a thousand page doorstopper on this, I'll have to find a way.

(Is it terrible that I want to write way too much on this since the history helps formation of fictional stories?  Is it terrible I don't care?)

For the sake of simplicity (in a way) and reducing the potential "tl;dr" commenting, I'll just stick to the army of the Roman Empire proper (27 BC - 400-ish AD).

The army was centered around the legion.  Similar to divisions or regiments in modern armies, the legion had between 3000 and 5500 men (give or take, depending on era).  Early on the legions were divided into centuria, each with 100 men and soldiers, and commanded by a centurion.  The legions were the elite heavy infantry soldiers, while the remainder of the army was made up of auxiliaries.  The auxiliaries were made up of non-citizens (unlike the legions) and provided a large portion of infantry and much of the cavalry force in Rome.  Other units existed throughout the history of Rome, performing different tasks and missions.

A decent comparison between the two is the US Army vs. the US Marines; how they fight, deploy, organize, and even train are different.  One is designed for hard-hitting, shock-and-awe expeditionary work, while the other is optimized for endurance fights, sieges, occupations and invasions using large stockpiles and resources.  Maybe a better parallel would be from Star Wars.  The Empire had the Army and the Stormtrooper Corps.  The stormtroopers were elite, loyal only to the emperor, and the most visible representation of the Empire's might.  The Army vastly outnumbered them, and had the resources (like AT-AT walkers) to back up that size.  The "bucket-heads" even were divided into legions, such as the 501st.

(Members of the legion escorting emperor Lucas.)

(Incidentally, the 501st has a pretty cool story, both the in-universe version and the real one.  That one from that galaxy far, far away is known for being Vader's personal legion, while the real one is even cooler thanks to being the inspiration for the fictional one, all while being a charitable organization.  And make movie-worth costumes.  Check them out here.)

(And, yes, I realize that this post is oddly Star Wars heavy despite not being about Star Wars.  Blame Mr. Lucas for that, since the history of Rome influenced his story.  I'll use more Star Wars metaphor in later posts on this subject anyway, since its such an easy visual to swipe.)

But we're here to focus on the "armor of God" metaphor, so we need to focus in on the kit of the average soldier.  Yes, yes, I've done a little of this already, but one of the winning teaching methods is repetition.

Soldiers that were equipped with armor wore lorica hamata (mail), lorica segmantata (the stereotypical armor that looks like a lobster), or lorica squamata (scale armor).  Officers often wore cuirass, the classic "muscled" breastplate, which was more costly than the other options and had less mobility to more protection.

The galea helmet was pretty well standard, with detail variations based on rank.  Other helmet were worn, too, but the classic helm is the one we think of, horsehair crest and all.

Arm and leg armor would be worn too.  The legs were protected by greaves, much like shin guards from football (better known as soccer in the States).  A variety of arm armor was available, from full metal sleeves to forearm guards and gauntlets.  Around the waist of the Roman soldier was the pteruges: a "skirt" of leather straps, which protected their upper legs and other sensitive bits.

The soldiers carried a sarcina, a rucksack, much like the MOLLE packs modern troops use to carry all their equipment.

A couple types of shields were common: the scutum and the parma.  The parma was a three-foot wide circular shield, built on an iron frame of wood construction with metal reinforcements.  They were replaced by the scutum, the classic shield we think of when we think of Rome.  They were three and a half foot by a foot and a half (on average) and curved slightly.  Lighter than the aspis, and providing larger protection, at the cost of strength, the scutum made the phalanx formation nigh unbeatable.  If you've seen a modern riot shield, you've seen a scutum, basically.

At this point the guys in the audience are probably shouting "just get to the fun stuff already!"  Obviously an army without weapons is just a group of men all dressed the same.

Spears were the main weapon (as you should see by now is the norm), and there were a few versions throughout history.  The hasta was basically Rome's version of the Greek doru.  There were javelins, which were the intended throwing spear.  But the stereotypical spear was the pilum, with its extended iron shaft making it so that once it was thrown, it could not be recycled by an enemy soldier (due to the shaft bending once it hit something, like a shield or a Celt).

Bows, crossbows, darts, and slings were used as well.  Often, as seen in other armies both before and after, these were used by "specialized" troops, though the sling was carried as a back-up weapon by all soldiers.  The ammo was made of lead, and often stamped with slogans, much like how pilots in WW2 would "personalize" bombs.

(Because "take that" is always in style.)

But what about the stuff that goes "stabbity stab stab?"  Well, obviously the spear should probably be here, since they stab, but I mean the close-in stuff.  Swords.  Rome had three kinds; well, technically two types of swords and a dagger.  Though if you're a hobbit, the pugio dagger would make a fine short broadsword.  The pugio was the dagger used by the conspirators who killed Julius Caesar.  I'll admit, I think it looks like a trowel.  Most of us have never heard of it, but we've probably heard of the gladius and the spatha.

The gladius is the traditional two edged short sword of the Roman Empire.  About 24 to 30 inches long, it looks very similar to Bilbo Baggins's sword Sting.  And, yes, Tolkien fans, I know that Sting is actually a dagger used as a sword.  Notice what I said earlier about the pugio.  But my comparison to Sting is mostly appearance.

The spatha, which seems to also be the generic term for "sword," describes a longer sword, about 30 to 40 inches.  The design of the spatha led directly to the Migration Period swords (think what LOTR's Rohan carried) and the classic swords of knights and crusaders.  I will go into detail later on those.

At the end of the day, the sword in the Roman army was for short range work.  It was for times the fighting was so close you could smell your opponent's breath.

(General Pompous Maximus preferred a more "personal touch" to subjugating barbarian tribes.)

There is one last piece of kit to mention.  And not because there aren't more items the average Roman soldier would carry, or because there aren't more weapons.  The last, and arguably most important, piece of Roman military technology was the caliga: boots.

Healthy feet are extremely important in the army, especially the infantry.  These things were pretty sophisticated.  Designed to reduce blisters while on march, the thicker sole had hobnails to act as cleats, and the open design kept the soldier from getting trench foot.  In fact, the patter the hobnails were placed in is almost exactly the same as the cleat pattern on cross country running shoes.

As a side note, Roman emperor Gaius Caesar, who reigned from 37 to 41 AD, is better known as "Caligula."  He gained this nickname when he was two or three while spending time with his father, a general, and the soldiers made him small boots.  He didn't like the name.

We'll look at Rome again once we dig back into the metaphor itself and try to discern why (or at least why I think) Paul used the details he did.  And, yes, I think each was intentional.

And there you have it.  Next up: the era of classic knights.

Coming Soon To A Blog Right Here (or) Getting In A Little Pre-Season Practice

So, among the many things I'm trying to tackle in the run-up toward seminary (official countdown pending), I am going to start looking at the upcoming readings for Sunday and write on them.  Maybe devotional format, maybe sermon like, maybe a simple Bible study.  Whatever comes out of this, it will be a chance to get into the word and work with it.  While there is much to draw from, my goal is to lean most heavily on the Gospel.

I'll be starting this after last Sunday the end of the year (Nov. 26th).  And I'll be using the One Year series instead of the Three Year, even though I grew up around the Three Year and the church I attend now uses it.  But since the One Year is "static," whatever I write will be in line with the readings next year.  I don't have a preference between the two, otherwise.

Until then, I hope to have the next bit of forge work done by Friday.

Don't Ya Wanna? (or) One Of The Few Good Things To Come Out Of 1940s Germany

(So, I'll be honest, researching the history of Rome is taking longer than I thought.  Don't know why I imagined it would be relatively easy.  I must be delusional.  Probably gonna be later this week, but I can't guarantee it.  Until then, there's this...)

Growing up, my family owned a convenience store, so my siblings and I got to be very familiar with a variety of snacks.  Among these were soft drinks (a.k.a.: soda, pop).

The Sioux City Sodas were among our favorites, with Sarsaparilla and Orange Cream Soda being tops.  Root beer has always been a go-to in the family, which led to us determining which of the "big 3" were best.  We've come to the conclusion that Barq's is best for straight drinking, and A&W was best for floats.  But, for me at least, two of the "curiosities" are among my favorites.

Squirt.

I have no idea why, or how, but there isn't anything better than a cold Squirt on a hot day.  Nothing else must be said about this oddball.

Fanta.

This one deserves greater mention, for a number of reasons.  One, the running gag regarding DAR, a coworker of mine.  I owe him a Fanta, in a glass bottle if I can manage.  My "forgetfulness" regarding bringing one has become a bit of a joke.

I had grown up enjoying orange sodas (with Sioux City Orange Cream being #1), so finding out that my wife like them too was great.  In fact, it was one of the few things we enjoyed about the resort during our trip to Jamaica.  The beach/resort scene just wasn't for us.  We had a great time with our friends, who were getting married, we just prefer "simpler."  But, we found that we both like orange sodas, and learned of a fun tv show.

The soda was Fanta, the tv show was Top Gear.

A few weeks ago I saw a review from a gun channel on the YouTubes.  These guys have a good grasp on the history, and make it entertaining.  But, in celebration of 75th years of Fanta, they tasted Fanta Klassik, using the original recipe.

Here's the thing, Fanta is a Coca-Cola product.  Coke's been around for a long while, and had/has factories worldwide.  For very obvious reasons importing the Coke recipe was not possible in the 40s (if you don't know why... we may need to have a talk).  You see, Coke is a secret recipe, to the point where even if you know the ingredients, the guys at the bottling factory don't know the amounts of what's what.  They just pour "ingredient mix A" into vat with "ingredient mix B" and ta-da.  (Okay, so I don't actually know, but that's the gist.)

Anyway, the factory in Germany wanted to keep bottling soft drinks, so they made their own.  After the war, they presented their product to the Coke execs and kept bottling it.

Watch the In Range TV taste testing.  And if you want, watch their mud tests as well.  AK-47 vs. AR-15 is the best.  Lots of interesting hands on history, same with Forgotten Weapons and Hickok45's channels.

So, DAR, don't ya wanna?

I'm A Classical Minimalist (or) Play To Your Strengths, Not The Other Guy's

(Today, in lieu of a theology related post, please enjoy this random rant on aircraft while I finish refreshing myself on the history of Rome.  We will return to our irregularly scheduled shenanigans soon.)

By now everyone should know I might be a bit mental when it comes to World War 2 aircraft.  Especially regarding my opinions.

Well, get ready for a doozy.

If I had been a pilot in WW2 for the Army, I'd have picked the Curtiss P-40 over the P-51.
(Obviously, if I'd have been Navy, I would have picked something better.)

Don't mind me, I'll show my self out to find the nearest straight jacket.

(An original Curtiss P-40B, in original colors.  If I remember right, this one was at Pearl that fateful Sunday.)

Seriously, though, you can't tell me that the Hawk doesn't look good.  On looks alone she beats the Mustang.  Now, I'm not bashing the P-51 (I already wrote about her, and she's great).  But thanks to hindsight, and knowing where I'd prefer to serve, the P-40 is better (and more readily available).

Mustangs were late to the Med, the Pacific, China, and India - all more "fun" and interesting that Europe in my opinion.  Who wants to babysit thirteen guys in a truck from Seattle anyway?

(A bit of a study in anachronism.  A later model Warhawk, with early US roundel.  It looks like a "K" or "M" due to the longer looking tail, though it might be an "E."  Probably should look up the tail number and find out officially.)

Compared to the Mustang, the P-40 was a brute.  And looked ready for a fight, even without the teeth.  With them... you get an iconic image no one forgets.  But the legend didn't start so boldly.

(The Seversky P-35 [well, technically an AT-12 trainer] and the Curtiss P-36 Hawk in period colors.)

The Army was looking for new fighters in the mid-30s.  They wanted something more European: monoplane, retractable landing gear, enclosed canopy.  Curtiss and Seversky both submitted aircraft. The P-35 was more expensive and underpowered, yet the Army bought almost 80 of them.  But the Army also ordered 210 Curtiss P-36 Hawks by 1937.

The P-36 (sometimes called the Mohawk), had a very low wing loading: 23.9 pounds per square foot.  In comparison the Spitfire Mk.V had 27 pounds, the Bf 109G had 40 pounds, and the Dewoitine D.520 had 34 pounds.  This meant the little Hawk, while still a bit underpowered, could out turn the best Europe could field in 1939.  (By comparison, the P-40 had 35 pounds and the P-51 had 39 pounds.)

Michale Bay, I really hope you read this post, 'cause you got it so very wrong.

The French ordered a bunch of the new Hawks, model number 75, and rather liked them.  They had range, firepower, armor, and agility.  The only complaint was they were a little short on power.  The Brits felt the same way.  So Curtiss looked to fit a V-type engine to their plane.

Now, it may seem kinda dumb to do this, simply swap an engine to improve a plane, especially when parts of the plane are still canvas and "old school" building styles.  But they did that with the Mustang.  And the Wildcat.  And cloth-covered control surfaces were the norm until late war.

The first attempts to fight the Allison V-1710 lead to a futuristic looking XP-37.

(Hmm... slick.  Paint it black and let Batman fly it.)

Putting the radiator behind the engine, next to a turbocharger, both of which are feed by air scoops on the nose did not work very well.  But work led to a successful fighter: Curtiss model number 81.

From the firewall aft the plane was identical to the P-36.  This was smart, since it would allow Curtiss to get to capacity quicker.  The nose was brand new and fitted with the V-1710 and the radiators in a chin scoop.  Originally this was beneath the wing, but was moved forward to allow better airflow based on NACA findings (though I heard a rumor that the marketing department suggested it, whichever you want to believe).

(They just can't get the nose right.)

Curtiss started cranking them out.  While the Allison didn't have the higher altitude power the Rolls Royce or the Daimler-Benz had, it was more than sufficient at low and medium altitude.  And having inherited the P-36's wing loading (though a bit higher thanks to more weight) the P-40 could out turn most opponents in all theaters except the Pacific.  There, her speed, firepower, and armor were of more use, since most of her opponents there had no armor, carried only two guns, and topped out between 300 and 350 mph.

The Warhawk (or Tomahawk or Kittyhawk, depending which Brit version was there) had a very high dive speed, and was considered a plane with "almost no vices" according to the top ace in the type Clive Caldwell.  The P-40 was designed to be rugged.  Its five-spar wing could take a beating, including mid-air collisions.  She was optimal for rough field operations, such as North Africa, Russia, and the Pacific islands, places where maintenance was limited.  Even transporting the plane was easy, since Curtiss made it easy (relatively speaking) to break down and put back together.

The P-40 did have a somewhat narrow landing gear, which due to being of rear-retracting design was a little flimsy.  The long nose was difficult to see past on the ground, leading to a number of accidents.  But, this was the best plane the US could field in any substantial number in 1941, and she was adequate to the task.  The P-40 wouldn't remain that way, and was probably produced for too long without substantial improvement, but planes were needed.  And a dozen P-40s on the front were better than a couple of P-51s at the factory.

The P-40s were part of America's first response to the attack on Pearl Harbor, with George Welch and Kenneth Taylor being the most notable.  They were also the plane of choice for the American Volunteer Group.

(The "old man" himself - Col. Clair Lee Chennault, commander of the AVG.)

The American Volunteer Group, under leadership of Clair Chennault, was "officially" in China to train pilots to fight Japan.  In reality, they took command of one hundred P-40B and P-40C fighters originally meant for the RAF.  The "B" wasn't too well liked for a number of reasons, including a lack of radio, no external tank, no bomb racks.  The "C" had the external tank, but was the slowest of the Hawks.  Chennault didn't like the liquid cooled, non-supercharged engine.  Worst of all, spare parts were not available.  But the Tomahawks of the AVG were rugged, faster than the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force fighters, better armed, and had better rate of roll.

In a slow speed dogfight (low end of 200-300 mph) the P-40 could not out maneuver the Nakajima Ki-27 "Nate" or Ki-43 Hayabusa "Oscar" favored by the IJAAF in China.  The same was true against the Mitsubishi A6M Reisen "Zero."

(The Nakajima Ki-43 - one of the many prey of the Flying Tigers.  Technical specs here.)

But at higher speeds, the Warhawk could outmaneuver them.  The problem was convincing the Japanese to play a game where they were at a disadvantage.  This is what hamstrung US pilots for a few years.  Americans kept trying to fight a "classic" turning dogfight a low speeds against aircraft sometimes half their weight.  In fact, the rigid 3-ship formation and slow turning dogfight was standard taught.

They were playing the other guy's game.

That's why P-39s were seen as lemons.  Why the P-38 was seen as too big for the job of day dogfighter.  Why the F4F was seen as unable to outturn a cloud on a windless day.  Why were we playing to the strengths of the other guys?

Chennault realized this, before the war even started, and his view was reinforced once he got to observe the Japanese in their attacks in China.  What he taught, and what got him in some hot water with the Army a few years before, was the diving attack.  British test pilot Eric Brown had this as one of his marks of a good fighter.  The tactic is simple: get above the enemy, dive and shoot, speed away, repeat.  Sometimes called "boom-and-zoom" tactics, this method worked in World War 1 and works even today.

"Never dogfight with a Zero."

(Or a Tie fighter, as Wedge Antilles demonstrates.)

Play to your strengths.

The P-40 would be an exceptional craft in a number of "lower profile" theaters, such as the Mediterranean.  There the Warhawk would do battle against Bf 109s and various Italian craft, such as the Fiat CR.42 and the Macchi MC.202.  Against these she was a fox in a chicken coop.  The rugged design lent itself to the forward operations of the Desert Air Force.  Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if the British had sent P-40s to Malta instead of Hurricanes or Spitfires.  (Maybe I'll write that story someday.)

Throughout the Pacific, the P-40 did yeoman's work, especially in the China-Burma-India theater.  Again, the rough conditions (jungles, swamps, lots of heat and humidity) didn't overwhelm the P-40.  Operating from cut-jungle strips and coral runways were no big deal.

The P-40 (or at least her reputation) ended up being on the chopping block of Congress after the war.  Truman's investigation rightfully questioned Curtiss's practices during the war, and for reasons like that, people started viewing the P-40 as less than stellar.  After all, who thinks recycling a ten year old design is a good idea.  (Remember, the P-36 was two years old when WW2 broke out.)  Her abilities compared with late war craft was less than stellar, but that's like comparing a present day Ford Mustang with one from the 1970s.  The new one should be much better.  So, yes, things like the P-51, the F4U, and others were superior.  But we needed planes, and a decent plane is better than no plane.

The air war in 1939 or 1940 was nothing like what it was in 1944 and 1945.  Of course, the P-40 would not have survived the legendary attack on Y-29, nor would it have been able to escort B-29s over Japan.  But her inability to serve in the more vicious environment later in the war should not detract from her success earlier.

That would be like comparing the F-4 Phantom to the F-22 Raptor and saying the former must have always been a "lemon" and how could they fly those things in Vietnam?  In the 1960s, the Phantom was cutting edge.  Today, she's been passed by thanks to better designs.  As it should be.   The Mustang wasn't king of the sky forever.  Not even five years after the war, the P-51 had to bow out and let the F-86 take the throne.  That's how progress works.

Yet some of us still think fondly back to simpler times, when you didn't need all the fancy bells and whistles.  When grit and guts meant more than graphs and algorithms.  A time when tenacity beat technology.

That's what the P-40 represents for me, and why she's my first choice for USAAF if I'd been there.

Granted, the Lockheed P-38 Lightning is a very close second.  Next time.