Best military life & institutions books according to redditors

If you are looking at Rome at the 1st century B.C.E. you'd see that most roman soldiers (high officers like Generals excluded) were forbidden from getting married. In order to get married legally, you would have to gain special permission from either very high ranking people in the military, or a state official. Most soldiers refrained from this anyway, especially enlisted soldiers since they all signed 10 year enlistments initially, and most of them would be stationed far from Rome or the Italian peninsula for the duration of their time.

I'm pulling this from the textbook, The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History by Pat Southern
(http://smile.amazon.com/The-Roman-Army-Institutional-History/dp/1851097309/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395411038&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Roman+Army%3A+A+Social+and+Institutional+History) It's an expensive textbook, so I don't expect you to buy it, but if you are intrigued by the Roman military, there isn't a better book that I've come across that outlines everything so well.

>For infantry, right?

No, even on a ship in the Navy women are overwhelmingly unable to perform damage control duties (damage control is what they call the tasks needed to prevent a damaged ship from sinking).

http://imgur.com/VYVwrK4

99% of women are unable to carry a P250 pump down, even after training. Here's what a P250 pump looks like: http://isurplus.com.au/images/stories/virtuemart/product/Hale%20P250%201.jpg

So if our Navy ever fights a real war again (or hell, even if it just gets rammed by a container ship like one did a few months ago) the women on board are going to be completely useless for several of the tasks required to keeping the ship from sinking.

Source for the table is this book: https://www.amazon.com/Women-Military-Flirting-Brian-Mitchell/dp/0895263769

I can send this one to you, if you would like. But since you're reading a book every 3.6 days, supposedly, I don't think you'll have enough time to reflect on its contents. Anyone can read, we teach 5 year olds how to do it. The intelligence comes into play when you're trying to grasp what you've just read.

Ha thanks. At least someone is!

I'm applying Barbara F. Walter's credible commitment theory to current South Sudan documents (there isn't an agreement yet), as well as the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005.

The theory states that in order for a peace agreement to be successful, the agreement must have power-sharing provisions and a 3rd party security guarantee. Statistically, this has proven successful in every case except Angola. In practice, however, I do not foresee it being consistently successful due to United Nations enforcement issues, as well as issues with international law should that 3rd party not be the UN, and perhaps be another country or body. It is at this point that I started to lose my belief. Also, statistically, it is better to have a rebel military victory rather than to bother with peace agreements as they often fail.

You can read more about Walter's theory in her book.

Te ganaste karma solo por el hecho de haber hecho la búsqueda! Después sigo sosteniendo lo que dije antes, mi librito de Miguel Centeno sigue saliendo más caro.

I hear crickets...

You know what? You're right, primary sources can often be so unreliable... especially those sneaky Nazis - how about this passage from John Erickson's The Soviet High Command: a Military-political History, 1918-1941 describing Soviet reaction to their disastrous defeat in Kiev:

> While the Red Army launched attack after attack upon the German troops, the Stavka could not fail to draw two uncomfortable conclusions from this: that German losses had been grossly over-estimated and that the Soviet tactics and organization had been expensively deficient. The Russian attack method involved a three-minute artillery barrage, with the infantry attacking in a mass as much as twelve ranks deep, or else with riflemen on trucks driving abreast with the tanks in a frontal assault on the German firing-line. Securing the rear and flanks received much too little attention. Attacks were launched with inadequate intelligence of enemy dispositions and movements and in spite of what the regulation prescribed, with inadequate preparation, even 'rashness'.

I just read A military history of China. I'd recommend it.

No, I'm not. Women in the military is a subject I am very well read on.

Here are a couple of books to get you started:

Book 1

Book 2

Women should not be in the military.

Read the following books and I think you'd agree:

Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military

Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars

Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster

The Kinder, Gentler Military: How Political Correctness Affects Our Ability to Win Wars