Posleen War: Sidestories The Tuloriad (48 page)

Lepanto (7 October, 1571, 17 October, by our calendar), near the mouth of the Gulf of Corinth and the site of several battles from Naupactus on, was a naval battle, the last really great battle of oar-powered ships, between the fleet of the Moslem Ottoman Empire and the combined, individually much inferior, fleets of the Papacy, Christian Venice, Spain, plus tiny contingents from various places like Malta and Genoa. The combined Christian fleet was outnumbered, both in terms of ships and in terms of soldiers—“Marines,” we would say today—who made those ships effective. Yes, they had half a dozen “super-weapons” in the form of what were called “galleasses”—bigger galleys (but much slower, they had to be towed into line by others, and one third of those could not even be towed into position), mounting more and larger guns, and carrying more Marines—but still the odds lay fairly heavily with the Ottomans.

Those odds ran about two hundred and eighty-six warships, some of them smaller (Turk), to two hundred and twelve (Christian), six of them larger. In soldiery the odds were similar. The Christians had a better than two to one advantage in artillery, yet this means less than we would think today, since the bulk of artillery on a galley was intended to be fired once, generally without careful aim, and then promptly forgotten as the ship-borne infantry took over the fight.

Worse for the Christians, the Ottomans had a much greater degree of unity of command. Indeed, for most of the larger individual sections of the Christian fleet, there were long-term, serious advantages to letting the other sections be crushed. It wasn't, after all, as if Spain and Venice were great friends.

Nor were the stakes notably small. The last jewel of the Byzantine Empire, its capital, Constantinople, had fallen the century prior (after, be it noted, having been badly weakened by being sacked by “Christians” two and a half centuries before that). Since then, the Ottomans had exploded across the known world. The Levant was theirs, as were Egypt and Mesopotamia, along with most of North Africa. The Balkans, too, had fallen to the crescent. Thousands in Italy had been killed or enslaved by Ottoman sea raiders. An almanac of Venice, for the year 1545, showed half a dozen Ottoman galleys, raiders, close offshore.

Times looked bleak, indeed, for Western Christendom. And yet, when the smoke cleared, the Ottoman fleet, despite exemplary bravery on the part of the men, was crushed, never really fully to recover. Christian losses in men had been severe, yet were only about equal to the number of Christian slaves liberated from Ottoman galleys.

It was a victory even an atheist might be inclined to call miraculous, with the Ottomans losing about fifteen ships for each Christian loss; over one hundred and eighty Moslem galleys to twelve.

Now let's suppose, just for the moment and just arguendo, that God doesn't exist, that He's a pure figment of the imagination. What then won the battle of Lepanto? No, back off. What got the Christian fleet together even to fight the battle, for without getting together to fight it it could never have been won?

The answer is, of course, faith, the faith of the Pope, Pius V, who did the political maneuvering and much of the financing, and also the faith of the kings, doges, nobles and perhaps especially the common folk who manned the fleet. And that answer does not depend on the validity of faith, only upon its sincere existence. Faith is, in short, a weapon, the gun you bring to a certain kind of gunfight.

They've taken to calling themselves “brights,” of late, those who disparage and attack faith. At least, some of them have. One can't help but note the prior but parallel usurpation of the word “gay” by homosexuals. And, just as gays do not appear notably happier than anyone else, one may well doubt whether “brights” are any smarter . . . or even as smart.

Example: The religious impulse is as near to universal a human phenomenon as one might imagine. Not that every human being has it, of course, but it has been present, and almost invariably prevalent, in every human society which did not actively suppress it (and some that did).

Now imagine you're a human being of broadly liberal sentiment, much opposed to religion and also much opposed to the oppression of women and gays, equally much against sexual repression, which, by you, and not without some reason on your part, religion is generally held responsible for. You are, in other words, a “bright.” Let's say, moreover, that you're a European “bright.”

What has been the effect of your, the collective “your,” attacks on and disparagement of Christianity? Did you get rid of religion? Yes . . . ummm . . . well, no. You got rid of Christianity for the most part. And left a spiritual vacuum for Islam. So, in lieu of one religion, a religion, be it noted, that has become a fairly live and let live phenomenon, you've managed to set things up nicely for a religion which is by no means live and let live. You've arranged to replace a religion that hasn't really done much to oppress women and gays in, oh, a very long time, with one firmly dedicated to the oppression on the one and the extinction of the other.

And you'll insist on calling this “bright,” wont you? Because it so cleverly advances your long term goals, right?

Christopher Hitchens even subtitled his recent book on the subject, “How Religion Poisons Everything.” Odd, isn't it, that the subtitle fails to note that with poison toxicity is in the dose? Or that some doses are worse than others. Or that, given that near universal religious impulse, to get rid of the non-poisonous dose sets things up for a poisonous one? Yet this is “bright.”

Ahem.

Did religion poison those Christian sailors, rowers, and Marines at Lepanto? No; it was not poison to them, but the elixir of strength that gathered them and enabled them to prevail against a religion that was poisonous to them and their way of life. And isn't that odd, too? That such a bright man as Hitchens should claim religion poisons “everything,” when the plain historical record, just limiting ourselves for the moment to Lepanto—something a bright man ought to know about—shows that this is not the case?

Hmmm. Perhaps “bright” doesn't mean, after all, what “brights” want it to mean.

Theft of the word “bright,” while it doesn't quite rise to the level of linguistic matricide (the malicious murder of one's mother tongue), so common in PC circles, is still an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. It's hardly the only one. For example, it is often claimed that there's not a shred of evidence for the existence of God. This is simple nonsense; there's lots of evidence, some of it weaker and some of it stronger. Some of it is highly questionable and other portions very hard to explain away. (And one of our favorite bits revolves around just when and how Pius V knew that the battle of Lepanto had been won, at the time it had been won, and in the absence of long range communications. Look it up. Really.)

Evidence, in any case, there is. What there isn't is absolute, irrefutable proof. To use the word “evidence,” when what you mean is “irrefutable proof,” is intellectual dishonesty of quite a high order, much worse, much more vile, than simple theft of a word. It's even worse, in its way, than the intellectual dishonesty of failure to note, when discussing poisons, that toxicity is in the dose.

But then if “brights” are not required to be “bright,” if a disliked religion must give way even if it opens up the world to a loathed one, how can we expect “evidence” not to mean “proof” or dosage to matter to toxicity?

And some would insist, still, that the contradictions claimed to be in the New Testiment render it invalid.

Ahem.

Note, at this point, that we have still not claimed that, in fact, there is a God. We may, and do, believe that there is, and believe that there is evidence that there is. But there is no absolute proof, a point we've already readily conceded, and we see no point in arguing for what cannot be proven.

Still, we can't help but note that much of what masquerades as disbelief in God is really just disapproval. Consider the following pair of claims on the subject, voiced, along with some others, by Hitchens during a debate with Dinesh D'Souza:

1) People are badly designed. No god could be so incompetent.

2) Earth is not paradise. Most of humanity has lived in misery for most of mankind's existence, though things are somewhat improved now. No god could be so heartless. No real god could have permitted Auschwitz.

Leave aside that people for whom evolution, biological and social, is an article of faith are therein complaining that a real god could never have permitted evolution, social and biological. That's funny enough, of course, being more reminiscent of some snake-charming cult in the backwoods than a new York salon, but not the point. The point is that, by those measures, a real god would be a eugenicist ala Heinrich Himmler, so that man would not have been or be so biologically imperfect, and, since most of mankind's self inflicted misery arises as a result of freedom to act, no real god would permit man that freedom. Rather, He would be a sort of benevolent Stalin.

These are the criteria by which a god should be measured, his similarity to Himmler, in some particulars, and Stalin, in others?

Ahem.

Never mind. Let “brights” be not very bright. Let dosage not matter to toxicity. Twist word meanings. Make Stalin a god, too. Why not; it's been done before and likely will again.

Even so, never go to a gunfight without a gun and, if you intend to win, never go to a religious war without religion. You'll lose.

Thanks to everyone: Miriam and Yoli, who put up with us, Belle Belle the Boxer, who keeps Tom company during the day, Toni, who—come to think of it—also puts up with us, the 'flies, Mike Schilling, who came up with the kosher Posleen joke, Sue Kerr, for test reading, and, last but not least, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins who, after a fashion, inspired us.

AID—Artificial Intelligence Device

Abat—A communal creature, similar to muskrats, origin unknown, that inhabit Posleen ships and spreads to any world colonized.

AS—Artificial Sentience. Posleen AID, usually less capable but often more independent.

Baselard—A Swiss short sword.

Big-big-pack—Brigade, 2–3,000 human soldiers or 7–21,000 Posleen

Champron—The armor covering a horse's face.

Cosslain—Posleen superior normal. Some, like Querida, approach sentience.

Eson'antai—Posleen: Primary genetic derivative, of kessentai quality. Son.

Esonal—Posleen. Ovipositor.

Five Percenter—Most Posleen kessentai are still fairly stupid. For reasons that are not entirely clear, about one in twenty is quite bright, and more trouble to those they fight than all the rest put together. These are the five percenters.

Forge—While the Posleen have genetically given skill sets, most of the manufacture is done by automated machines called “forges.” The machines cannot produce elements, but can alloy, form, create isotopes, etc., and form any design in their programming, more or less instantaneously, if the basic elements are given them. Forges are not usually very good with complex organics, but can produce relatively simple organic compounds.

Grat—A large, waspish, insect-like creature, origin unknown, that feeds on abat (q.v.). Where there are abat, there will be grat.

Kessentai—Philosopher

Kessenalt—Kessentai who has given up direct, active participation in war

KEW—Kinetic Energy Weapon

Normal—Typical Posleen, a reptilian centauroid, box of rocks stupid

O' Club—Officers' Club. In this context, though, it is a notional room composed entirely of programming that is Sally, the AID's, refuge.

Oolt—Posleen: Pack. A company sized grouping of the People. About four hundred members, usually, with, again, usually, only one kessentai.

Oolton—Posleen. A “big pack” or “command.” A battalion or brigade of Posleen.

Orna'adar—The Posleen Ragnarok, when population pressure and competition for resources devolves into a general war, waged with all available weapons.

Path of Fury—War

Posleen—Human approximation of Po'osleenar, the People of the Ships.

Roga'a—The central market and meeting place in the City of the People of the Ships, Posleen Prime

Stick—A Kessentai's sole badge of office. One who has “tossed his stick,” given up the Path of Fury, loses forever the title of “Philosopher” and is thereafter forbidden to fight except in point self defense.

Tank, the—Galactic Technology, a rejuvenation and restoration machine that happens to look a lot like a sarcophagus.

Tenar—Posleen flying sled

Thresh—Posleen: food. Damned near anything organic.

Threshkreen—Food with a sting. Soldiers, especially human soldiers.

Shlomit Bat Bet-Lechem-Plada Kreuzer (later “Kreuzer-Dwyer”)

Salem daughter of Bethlehem Steel, the Cruiser

[1] Christmas in the Trenches. © 1984, John McCutcheon

[2] “May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you; and by His authority I absolve you from every bond of excommunication and interdict, so far as my power allows and your needs require. Thereupon, I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen.”

THE END