At the Nieman Narrative Journalism Conference at Harvard University in 2002, Bob Giles moderated a discussion between eight writers on the best approach to creative non-fiction. Giles opened the discussion by asking a relatively simple and direct question: “What does it take to do fine narrative writing?”[1] Each practitioner answered differently, some have emphasized technique and theory while others have simply shared their experiences. However, I found a few answers that might be appropriate to describe and maybe help to define narrative journalism. Continue Reading »

test test test test test test

There are lots of things that need to be done so that the website can function without problems. Until then, this will serve as a test ground. In case you’ve stumbled upon Strategikon.org, please keep in mind that the posts available here are not relevant.

Strategikon.org will be launched soon!

Here’s some interesting reading material:

1. Top 5 Lies About Israel’s Assault on Gaza

What Israel says it does and what it really does. The article follows the official Israeli viewpoints of the attack on the Gaza Strip. In other words, this is how Israel justifies the war.

2. Israel’s War Crimes

Richard Falk, professor of international law at Princeton University and the UN’s special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, compares Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip with the Geneva Convention.

3. Israel has history of failure in ground attacks

I guess the title is quite true…

4. Escalation in Gaza

With no diplomatic solution on the horizon, Israel launches a risky ground attack.

5. Pacifying Gaza

See what the Israeli Noble Prize winners for Peace think about the attacks on the Gaza Strip.

And finally, I read everywhere in the news that Iran is smuggling weapons in Gaza, yet I never saw an in-depth article on this, only hollow official statements and information coming from the Israeli government. I never saw an article by an independent media outlet or journalist. Anyway, what weapons are they smuggling? If Hamas has Iran’s weapons, especially missiles or low-budget rocket launchers, why don’t they use them?

Battlefield archaeology is not a new discipline in any way. It probably started out the very same day archaeology began to investigate the material reminiscence of the past. However, the term ‘battlefield archaeology’ can be misleading and easily misinterpreted. That is because if we use the term ‘battlefield archaeology’ we distance ourselves from the main priority of the battle, that being the studying of the place (i.e. field) where the battle took place, and reach the edges of history by focusing on the event (in the paper below, the authors comment on the terminology). With a mind on this it is preferred the use of the term ‘archaeology of battle’. You can find additional information in the introduction and the first chapter of the paper below.

‘Battlefield Archaeology – A Guide to the Archaeology of Conflict’ means an introduction in the subject and presents the steps taken by archaeologists in studying a battlefield.

The paper offers a decent amount of examples with images attached to the text for a more comprehensive guiding to the archaeology of conflict. However, if you prefer other examples as well, I suggest you take a look at the discoveries and digging methods used in the Teutobugn Forest. There the researchers try to puzzle together the disaster of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD, where the Roman Empire lost three veteran legions and their commander. In fact, just a handful of soldiers survived to bring the news to Rome. The victory of the Germans meant the halt of Roman expansion beyond the Rhine.

Another great example worth pursuing is the famous ‘Custer’s last stand‘. For years archaeologists have dug in near region of the Little Bighorn river and with great success. Also, I believe Discovery Channel had a few documentaries about this and also you might be interested in viewing the Battlefield Detectives investigation into this matter.

Of course, through time humanity fought countless battles, thus we are not short of places to investigate. Anyway, those two examples mentioned above may represent also a guide to battlefield archaeology. The sites of the battles are relatively well known and research has proven to be fructuous.

‘Battlefield Archaeology – A Guide to Archaeology of Conflict” can be downloaded here (PDF).

The fortification of Arad dates back in the Medieval Ages as it was first built by the Turks in 1550. Later, however, by order of Maria Theresa of Habsburg the fortress was rebuilt in the Vauban style with battlements and bastions. Additionally, the fortress incorporates a number of baroque buildings within its walls. The construction work took more that 20 years to complete, from 1762 to 1783. Continue Reading »

General Leonard Mociulschi

More and more websites are created with a mind on presenting the Romanian military history to the world. In this matter, I recently discovered a website dedicated to General Mociulschi. The website offers detailed information about the general, his life before the Second World War and his work during as well as other personal information.

Leonard Mociulschi participated in three of the 20th century wars (2nd Balkan War, World War I and World War II), being decorated with more than 25 high awards. In the First World War he had received the French “Cross of War “ (Croix de Guerre) from the general Henri Mathias Berthelot, the commander-in-chief of the French Military Delegation in Romania, according to Brevet No. 834 from the 13th of November 1918. He also received the Order of the “Romanian Crown” (Coroana Romaniei) with swords in the rank of knight, for his “bravery and skills proven in the fights of 1916” (according to the Royal Decree No.1416 from the 13th of June 1917) as well as the Order of the “Star of Romania” in the rank of knight (Steaua Romaniei), received on the 6th of August 1919 (H.D. No.3323). The major Leonard Mociulschi that time was awarded with the “Honor Sign” (Semnul Onorific) by the High Royal Decree No.2292 from the 4th of July 1932, occasioned by his 25th anniversary in the service of the nation. Later on, in June 1945, he received the same distinction for his many decades of active service in the Romanian Army, too.

Visit www.general.mociulschi.ro for more information.

The Vauban fortification of Alba Iulia,  Romania,  is impressive; however it was not the most impressive of its kind – another Vauban type fortification was established in Timisoara, with remarkable sizes that surpass the one at Alba Iulia.

Anyway, the fortress was built upon the site of two previous fortifications: the Roman fort that hosted the 13th Gemina Legion and a medieval rectangular castle. It was built following the designs sketched by the Italian architect Giovanni Morando Visconti and it incorporates a number of defensive trenches, remarkably high walls that have over 20 meters in elevation and superbly ornamented gates.  Forged by a team led by the famous artist Johann Koenig, the gates were decorated with sculptures and statues inspired from Roman antiquity.

As you can see from the image above, the fortress follows quite loyally the prescriptions of Seigneur de Vauban who designed this type of fortification (on this I will probably return with a more detailed article).

The fortress itself was built at the beginning of the 18^th century, between 1715 and 1738 to be more accurate.

On 27 July 1941, Hitler sent a letter to general Antonescu (he was promoted marshal a month later), in which he asked for the further cooperation of the Romanian troops beyond the Dniester River and the Romanian administration of the territory between the Dniester and the Bug rivers. Antonescu accepted on 31 July. In fact the 3rd Army had already crossed the river on 17 July.

Lt. general Nicolae Ciuperca’s 4th Army commenced the advance over the river on 3 August. The 5th Corps (15th Infantry Division and 1st Cavalry Brigade) forced the crossing between Tighina and Dubosari. During the night of 5/6 August, the 1st Armored Division joined the 5th Corps.

On 8 August, the Romanian General Staff issued the Operative Directive No. 31 stipulating that the 4th Army has to defeat the enemy between the Dniester River and the Tiligulskiy Bank and to occupy Odessa from the move. It was thought that

However, Odessa was a heavily fortified position, which, thanks to the superiority of the ChF (Soviet Black Sea Fleet), could not actually be completely surrounded. The defense was organized on three lines with trenches, AT ditches, pillboxes etc, etc. The first line was 80 km long and situated some 25-30 km from the city. The second and main line of defense was situated 6-8 km from the city and was about 30 km long. The third and last line of defense was organized inside the city itself. The forces that initially manned the fortifications were made up of the 25th and 95th Rifle Divisions, the 9th Cavalry Division, the 421st Marine Division, the 54th Rifle Regiment and an NKVD Regiment. In total some 34,500 men and 240 artillery pieces. Air support was provided by the 69 IAP, two seaplane squadrons and one bomber squadron. Later, other fighters joined the defenders, as did an Il-2 squadron (42 OShAE). Bombers from Crimea and Nikolaev also participated in the battle.

Read the full article on WorldWar2.ro

War means misery, death and destruction to some and endless business opportunities to others.

During an operation that targeted a Taliban militant, the coalition forces found 2.5 tons of marijuana stored in an Afghan school. Read the full article