Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Voices of the Past" channel.

Fewer people could read or write at all, but the ones who could were generally trained to a higher standard, starting with readings in the classics. You can sneer at the comments sections or rejoice at how far-reaching literacy is these days. Most of the stupid comments you read are people learning before your eyes. Writing your thoughts is a huge step for someone to take. I'm passingly familiar with the classics, but I'm more common than someone who attended Oxford or Harvard. But as a common man, I've read a lot of stuff - mind-bending stuff - that's more modern, and sits on top of those classics. Potayto-potahto. You'd be surprised at the insights you can find in a lot of "uneducated" places. Anyway, I choose to celebrate that so many can and do participate in written communications. I think it's pretty cool.
4
@billdeburgh Yes and no. I see a lot of smart people with a lot of ingenuity out there, and they communicate with each other and you and me in pretty unprecedented ways. One many's "deterioration" is another man's "progress." Have we gotten some things wrong? Yes. But the things we got right are great in quality and quantity, and there's more positive goin' on than negative. The negative just naturally runs outta steam after a while.
3
That's why I always look for insight into the way of life of the common people, which is the landscape upon which all the "glorious victories" take place. The landscape, especially technologically. Frank Herbert once called technology a race between innovation and extinction, concluding that humans MUST expand beyond the solar system, else blow themselves up, eventually. "It's not enough to fight. One much also learn to run!" or words to that effect. I'm not sure I subscribe to that, entirely, but I DO see a constant tension between technological advancement's empowerment of the individual (bottom up) versus its empowerment of the state (top down). You can bomb a country into dust, but can you rule what you bombed? Do you extract any value in return for the act? It turns out that, so far, those with the ability to destroy don't WANT to destroy. They want to RULE, which, so far, has kept a lid on the extent to which they will destroy. More importantly, though, is how the people live and how much functional freedom they actually exercise.
2
i'm partway through, and I expected a lot more about the plague of biting insects they must've had to endure.
2
As others have said, "very, very few" is a bit of an exaggeration. As to the second part of your statement, I imagine those who made it back were marked for privilege and promotion. Lots of respect for the survivors, and after what they went through, life in the ranks was luxury, especially compared to what they might have to return to in civilian life. There was undoubtedly a large proportion of soldiers who were very, very good at looting and taking advantage of chaotic situations. Some made MORE that way by their experiences. So I'm not sure how much of a punishment it was to be "pressed into service for the 1813 campaign," especially for officers, who were the most privileged of all. A lion's share of the loot and the finest accommodations.
2
@derpynerdy6294 "Had to?" It was the plan, and it's why his armies were so mobile. But it was their downfall in Russia and a big part of their downfall in Spain. Paying for everything and NOT taking from the locals was an intrinsic part of the British strategy in Spain. The guerrilla fighters in Spain were like Afghani rebels on steroids. In Russia, you can't forage for supplies if the enemy goes scorched-Earth on you. They still made it all the way to Moscow and captured it, which Hitler never did, 120-some years later. Some say the Soviets would've collapsed if the Nazis had taken Moscow, but I think it would've been much as it was for Napoleon, only there was a much bigger Soviet Red Army than the Czar ever had. Hitler didn't even account for more than half of what Stalin had just sitting in staging areas East of the Urals. Hitler also had the same problem as Napoleon with regard to the locals, who were universally hostile to the invader. He could've recruited, big-time from a lot of the nations he liberated from Soviet oppression. But he oppressed them even worse, and wanted their lands for HIS people, and couldn't be rid of the natives quickly enough to suit him. Napoleon likewise massacred entire villages, or rather, his marshals and generals did.
1