Saturday, March 17, 2007

Just a Thought...

Who's got better combat ability? God and his army, or four humans in a tank?


Judges 1:19: Yahweh was with the men of Judah as they took possession of the highlands but they could not conquer the people from the plains because they had iron chariots.

Think this would be any good against iron chariots?

Yeah, I think so, too.

9 comments:

Blake Stacey said...

I believe it was a Hittite king who once distracted the horses which pulled Pharaoh's chariots by deploying mares in heat. If the Israelites had been paying attention. . . .

Tom Foss said...

Of course, God's army would only use Abrahams tanks.

Akusai said...

Blake,

That's not as good, in my opinion, at least, as the tale of the Persians taking over Egypt by strapping cats to their shields and thus winning without a fight.

But, hey, we have Iron Chariots on our side, too!

kevin said...

I'm putting out a challenge to God right now - a bare knuckled boxing match between me and him. The winner gets the universe.
If he doesn't show up, he's a coward.

Bronze Dog said...

I think you could take him.

Randy Kirk said...

What are we learning in Northern Ireland, Israel, Spain, and Iraq? Assymetric warfare can exact huge tolls on things like tanks. History also shows that the heart, training, talent, etc., of 300 soldiers might hold off hoards for a very long time.

Bronze Dog said...

Yeah, I recognize that clever, unconventional tactics can make a huge difference.

I think we've moved beyond the era of easily identifiable enemies and massed warfare.

The era of mass lightsaber battles between giant robots ended before it began. So sad.

Anyway, the iron chariot pretty much qualified as the ancient equivalent to a tank: Armored, mobile, and visually intimidating.

And of course, to make it explicit, this post is a jab towards the more extreme literalists just for the sake of a laugh.

Randy Kirk said...

My son and I were just discussing an issue that bothers me from time to time. How does one respond to the bully. Does the desert dwelling, 12th century, tribe have a moral duty to protect their kin by using terror when faced with missles, modern tanks, and armed drones?

Bronze Dog said...

Didn't expect this topic to come up, but yeah, they are pretty much are limited to the less "honorable" methods, since they can't win the perfectly straight fight.

They get to look like the badguys by doing things like having children working as spotters, and we get to look like the callous "shoot the hostage" sort. War's always been ugly, but it's ugly in a different way, now.

Disclaimer about the linked image: I don't intend to associate the current US administration with the concepts of "lawful" or "good".