"A Terrible Love of War"

[dragonfly]

This is one of the books I am currently reading, written by James Hillman, who is a psychologist and author of more than 20 other books. If you don't like psycho-babble, skip it. If you don't mind scanning through the opinions and ideas of several cited individuals on both sides of the issue, you may enjoy it. I'm still early in the book, but it seems to be addressing the question of why humans seem to love war and uses examples dating back through all of recorded history of wars. Theh primary question he seems to address is whether it's innate in humans individually, or if it is more of a trait in group behavior.

[Eaglerock]

People Read still?

[tecumseh]

quaint huh eaglerock...

this subject dragonfly would sound to be something akin to the question of 'the leaver and the takers'.

j. diamond suggest that the modern day idea of war (ie dying for some cause greater than self) never existed prior to the creation of church and state. this suggest that some programming or brain washing is required for man (as he existed in some natural state) to buy into the idea of war.

for myself... even in high school history class the time line of history as always being primarily denoted by this or that war seemed a bit flawed. I mean it always appear like nothing much happened in between?

dragonfly... curious side note... one of those little tid bit I caught while taking a military science course (many decades ago) was that a great number of modern day breakthroughs in medicine are directly related to warfare.

[NeilV]

Tecumseh,

I suspect that people have had religions since they had enough mental capacity to qualify as people, and people have certainly at least had a tribe at least that long. If warfare grows out of religious and social affiliations, then it just grows out of something deeper in human nature that cause us to also have tribes/states/nations and religions.

For that matter, it does not take human level intellect to engage in what amounts to warfare. I remember seeing a documentary where one band of chimps ganged up on and killed a weaker band of chimps and took over the weaker band's territory. Same thing happens with packs of wolves.

Maybe what separates people from other forms of smart, social animals is that we have the instincts to engage in group fights but sufficient intellect that we could avoid it if we tried.

[tecumseh]

neilv writes:
I suspect that people have had religions since they had enough mental capacity to qualify as people

tecumseh:
this was jared diamonds take on the subject from the view of an anthropologist. I was simply repeating what he suggest. the leavers and the takers suggest we came to a fork in the road long ago and took the wrong path.

then neilv writes:
I remember seeing a documentary where one band of chimps ganged up on and killed a weaker band of chimps and took over the weaker band's territory. Same thing happens with packs of wolves.

tecumseh:
usually something extemely unusual is happening in these cases. I am very much aware of exactly the detail you specify.... the first event was reported by a not so casual associate of my wife (and undoubtly my wife real life role model) and mizz tecumseh is considered a world authority on wolves (the two ladies have appeared on stage together).

your last sentence... well I am with you there brother .

[SantaCruzBee]

War, clearly been around a long time... What is interesting to me is that peaceful trade between disparate groups of human beings has been around for what appears to be at least as long. So, while we are clearly capable of being warlike, it is not as if that is the only path we can, do, or have take(n). And, contact between differing groups of Homo sapiens hasn't inevitably led to war.

It is clear that we will take the path that appears to be in our self-interest, but it depends upon the perception of that interest, or how the options of our interests may be presented to us. Such as the war in Iraq. Many people were opposed to this 'war.' However, it was presented to the American public as if it was the only sound and logical option. That was a lie, but most Americans accepted what the Bush Administration, the Republican contolled congress, and the cowed, lilly-livered, poor excuse for an opposition party Democrats presented to them. Who can blame them? When everyone is falling in line, for whatever reason, you get garbage like our 'war' in Iraq.

Anyhow, you will hear from lots of people how the Middle East has 'always been at war' and other garbage. The facts are actually quite different. While over the last 2,000 years, there has been plenty of war there, reality is there have been significant periods of peace, notably under the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were muslims and had their good and bad moments, but mainly, different peoples of different religions got along under the Ottomans. That 'getting along' fell apart as pressures from the West, ie., Europe (with some American activity), increased.

It appears as if the 20th century was, and possibly 21st century will be, the most war-like in history. Certainly in numbers of humans killed, the 20th century out does all previous centuries. Of course the population is bigger too...

Doug

[JPK1NH]

It appears as if the 20th century was, and possibly 21st century will be, the most war-like in history. Certainly in numbers of humans killed, the 20th century out does all previous centuries. Of course the population is bigger too...

Doug

Along the same lines its easy to for people to remember the big wars of the 20th c but it should be of interest that over 260 Million Citizens were killed by their own Governments during the 20th Century (Democide)

China (PRC) over 76 Million Killed
USSR over 61 Million Killed
Colonialism over 50 Million Killed
Germany (Nazi) over 20 Million Killed
China (KMT) over 10 Million Killed

Not to mention a whole boatload of smaller 1-5 million citizen exterminations in Turkey, Mexico, Cambodia, Poland, Pakistan, Japan and others.

The number of people killed by their own governments in the 20th Century exceeds by a significant number the number killed in all of the noteworthy wars of the 20th Century yet it receives almost no recognition.

The premise in the OP is one of a love of war, I would argue that its not a love of war as much as a desire to eliminate competition/opposition.

[tecumseh]

nicely written santa cruz... for certain my long standing bias is there is a great deal of economic reasoning (or lack thereof) in the making and selling of war.

[dragonfly]

People Read still?

I don't know if people do, but I do.;)

[dragonfly]

If warfare grows out of religious and social affiliations, then it just grows out of something deeper in human nature that cause us to also have tribes/states/nations and religions.



That's great food for thought. It's a different line of thought than the book takes, but of great interest to me.:)

[dragonfly]

The number of people killed by their own governments in the 20th Century exceeds by a significant number the number killed in all of the noteworthy wars of the 20th Century yet it receives almost no recognition.



Good point in and of itself, and deserves its own analysis. I really haven't considered that aspect of human behavior in comparison to war.



The premise in the OP is one of a love of war, I would argue that its not a love of war as much as a desire to eliminate competition/opposition.

According to Hillman's views (and I highly recommend the book if you are interested in mythology, religion, and their relation to causes of war), it's much more creative an enterprise than elimination of competition and opposition.

[JPK1NH]

Good point in and of itself, and deserves its own analysis. I really haven't considered that aspect of human behavior in comparison to war.

Do a google search for Democide, there is a surprising amount out there.

According to Hillman's views (and I highly recommend the book if you are interested in mythology, religion, and their relation to causes of war), it's much more creative an interprise than elimination of competition and opposition.

Based upon the people that I have known socially and via school I have very little respect for the current state of Psych. Without exception each of the individuals I have met socially and via school have been complete loons...frightening to think that these people are actually treating people with issues.

DSM-IV and its predecessors is a frightening piece of work and the overall maturity of the field can probably best compared to 17th c medicine...at best.

Some of it and related fields can be entertaining reading but I find it very difficult to give it any real degree of credibility.

Individuals/groups/tribes/countries enter into conflict/war because they have interests and because there is insufficient deterrent to prevent conflict.

The best way to maintain peace is to prepare for war.

Too many people, particularly Liberals view foreign powers/individuals through their own rosy lenses and that is why they fail to understand the actions of other players in the world. We tend to value the individual for better or worse...its both our strength and our weakness.

The Russians historically understand little but the implicit threat of force. They STILL to this day believe that a Nuclear War is survivable for them as a Nation. The Russians seek a return to their former power as the USSR and the little incident in Georgia was nothing more than a test of what the rest of the world will do when their tanks roll across the border into Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine and even possibly Finland and beyond.

The Chinese do whatever the chinese want and ignore the rest of the world...they generally speaking have a 20+ year vision instead of 4 year plan that we have in the US. The Chinese are currently propping up a large number of dictatorships in Africa because they have an economic interest in the raw materials that exist there...the Chinese have little concern for their own people and even less for foreigners. The Individual has little if any value in their culture.

Iran is building a bomb and developing and testing longer range delivery systems for their nukes. They have repeatedly called for the destruction of Isreal and supported both Hamas and Hezbollah for YEARS to achieve this end.

Syria was caught building a clandestine nuke facility which the Isrealis took out...interestingly they were building it with the assistance of the North Koreans...

As to the United Nations and the liberal love of the organization I would urge each of you to look at it for what it really is....a group of representatives largely from dictatorship/totalitarian/oppressive regimes that get together and vote on issues that are largely decided by a simple majority. The priciple of having an outlet where countries can air their issues is a good one but the notion that Countries cede authority/sovereignty/power to the UN via treaties is pure insanity.

If people continue to overlook current events, new russian missiles and nukes, new expansion of military, the chinese creation of a blue water navy and shooting down satellites in orbit we are doomed to repeat the lessons we failed to learn in the 1930's

I cannot help but be reminded of people like Neville Chamberlain and hope that people start opening their eyes before its too late to avoid the next global war

[dragonfly]

DSM-IV and its predecessors is a frightening piece of work and the overall maturity of the field can probably best compared to 17th c medicine...at best.



Well, when you are dealing with the relative unknown, I would say that is to be expected. You can discover all the neurotransmitters and neural receptor sites you want, but it's still dealing with the human personality. It's probably much more complex than most realize, and it's not as simple as straightforward science.



Some of it and related fields can be entertaining reading but I find it very difficult to give it any real degree of credibility.



It all depends on what you expect of it. If the goal is to make everyone "normal" and "intellectually intact", then it's not credible. If it is to help individuals who don't fit the accepted mold function in a more realistic way, it can be very beneficial.



Individuals/groups/tribes/countries enter into conflict/war because they have interests and because there is insufficient deterrent to prevent conflict.



That's a part of it. The larger part is insecurity based in fear, and a need to feel "right". There's as much a psychological component as a physical geo-political one. At least that's how I see it.



The best way to maintain peace is to prepare for war.



There's a really interesting thing that Hillman had to say about peace, and I would love to quote it, but I don't have access to it right at the moment. When I can, I will post it for you. I would be interested in hearing your take on it. I'll get back to you on it later.

[sqkcrk]

This is one of the books I am currently reading, written by James Hillman, who is a psychologist and author of more than 20 other books. If you don't like psycho-babble, skip it. If you don't mind scanning through the opinions and ideas of several cited individuals on both sides of the issue, you may enjoy it. I'm still early in the book, but it seems to be addressing the question of why humans seem to love war and uses examples dating back through all of recorded history of wars. Theh primary question he seems to address is whether it's innate in humans individually, or if it is more of a trait in group behavior.

Here we go again down the same path together, d'fly. I just got my local library to order this book. I haven't yet begun to read it.

[dragonfly]

Here we go again down the same path together, d'fly. I just got my local library to order this book. I haven't yet begun to read it.

I would be happy to send you mine, but it would be a good addition to the library for a very limited audience.

[Scrapfe]

Along the same lines its easy to for people to remember the big wars of the 20th c but it should be of interest that over 260 Million Citizens were killed by their own Governments during the 20th Century (Democide)

China (PRC) over 76 Million Killed
USSR over 61 Million Killed
Colonialism over 50 Million Killed
Germany (Nazi) over 20 Million Killed
China (KMT) over 10 Million Killed

Not to mention a whole boatload of smaller 1-5 million citizen exterminations in Turkey, Mexico, Cambodia, Poland, Pakistan, Japan and others...

JPK1NH, isn't the "Turkey" you just mentioned the same as the "Ottoman" Empire SantaCruzBee just mentioned as being so peaceful? Isn't this the same "Ottoman" Turks who’s wonderfully peaceful ruler sacked Constantinople 1n 1453, and who extended their rule to Vienna, Austria by force of arms before being driven back by the Polish army? Yea that is the Ottoman Empire I though he was talking about and their peaceful leader Mohammad the Conqueror.

http://www.roman-empire.net/constant/constant-index.html

Isn't this the same Ottoman Empire that went into WWI looking to recover territory lost in the Balkans/Adriatic to ethnic groups who failed to recognize how well off they were under Ottoman rule? SantaCruzBee, are you saying the &%$@ non Muslim Armenian ingrates had it coming to them?

Wasn't the Ottoman Empire using WWI as an excuse to expand its empire Eastward at the expense of Russia and Iran? Real humanitarians those Ottoman Turks. I suggest SantaCruzBee ask the Greeks, Egyptians, Cypriots, Rumanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Arabs, Syrians, Iraqis, etc. about how beneficial they found Ottoman rule. BTY, most of these ethnic gropes are Muslim. Why King Saud, the first Arab ruler of Saudi Arabia murdered the Ottoman governor of Riyadh while he slept in his wife’s arms during a revolt that occurred before Western powers had an interest in the Arabian Peninsular

Don't take this as a denunciation of SantaCruzBee and tecumseh, it is really a denunciation of Homo sapiens, but I would like you to get your facts straight.

[Scrapfe]

This is one of the books I am currently reading, written by James Hillman, If you don't like psycho-babble, skip it...it seems to be addressing the question of why humans seem to love war and uses examples dating back through all of recorded history of wars. Theh primary question...is whether it's innate in humans individually, or if it is more of a trait in group behavior.

I am re-reading A HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES
THE BIRTH of BRITAIN Volume 1
Written by the greatest person ever to speak the English Language, Winston Churchill.

Even though Churchill seemed partial to the Roman invaders, Churchill had this to say about Princess Boadicea’s Icenian Army's unspeakable slaughter of 80,000 Quisling Brits.

“…This is probably the most horrible episode which our island has known. We see the crude and corrupt beginnings of a higher civilization blotted out by the ferocious uprising of the native tribes. Still, it is the primary right of men to die and kill for the land they live in, and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invaders’ hearth.” –W. Churchill
The Birth of Britain 1956 page 27.


IMO there is nothing to love about war. War is a waste. I subscribe to Mark Twain's view of war. If you want to see what war is like read Numbers 31 the whole chapter. Why even God got some virgins out of this dust up. :no: Read Twain's excelent after action report. He puts it in human terms.

Man usualy engages in war for self preservation or group improvment, not for religous reasons.



http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm)

here is the Twain link to numbers 31 scroll down to letter XI (11)

[dragonfly]

IMO there is nothing to love about war. War is a waste.

I agree. Either I didn't explain what the book is about adequately, or you didn't understand. Either way, it doesn't matter. His book is not in praise of war, but rather explaining (from his perspective) why humans have a love for war. It is not a book in support of war, but rather an explanation on the psychological components and western mythologies that preclude us to love war.

[Eaglerock]

I don't know if people do, but I do.;)

http://uploads.pacifica.edu/gems/slattery/HillmanTerribleLoveWar.pdf

Does this about sum this book up. I am going to get it. Amazon has it cheap I am sure.

[dragonfly]

Yes, it's a good summation overall, but Hillman's ideas will be difficult to grasp for most people imo, and the author of the critique seems to be more interested in using Hillman's ideas to bolster his own anti-war beliefs. If you guys have any Half Price Bookstores in your part of the country, you can probably pick one up there. That's where I found mine.

[Galaxy]

The Ottomans were muslims and had their good and bad moments, but mainly, different peoples of different religions got along under the Ottomans. Scrapfe covered this well in his "get it right" post above. But, here is some more evidence of how Christians "got along" under Ottoman rule.
Greece under Ottoman rule » Disadvantages for non-Muslims

In keeping with Islāmic tradition, members of the Greek millet enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy in conducting their religious affairs. They were nonetheless at a disadvantage in a number of ways in comparison with members of the ruling Muslim millet. A Christian was not allowed to bear arms and was disbarred from military service (although this latter disability was in many ways a privilege), in lieu of which he had to pay a special tax, the haradj. In a court of law, a Muslim’s word was always accepted over that of a Christian, although disputes between Christians were generally settled in courts under the control of the millet. A Christian could not marry a Muslim woman, and there was a strict prohibition against apostasy from Islām. Indeed, Christians who had embraced Islām and then reverted to Christianity, were, until well into the 19th century, invariably punished by death. These “neomartyrs,” however, helped sustain the faith of the Orthodox populations during the centuries of Ottoman rule.

The most serious disability to which Christians were subject, until the practice died out toward the end of the 17th century, was the janissary (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/300350/Janissary) levy (paidomazoma). Christian families in the Balkans were required, at irregular intervals, to deliver to the Ottoman authorities a given proportion of their most intelligent and handsome male children to serve, after being forcibly converted to Islām, as elite troops or civil servants. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/244421/history-of-Greece/26403/Disadvantages-for-non-Muslims#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=history%20of%20Greece%20%3A%3A%20Disadvantag es%20for%20non-Muslims%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia Yes, it was just a quite, peaceful "getting along" that the non-muslims were blessed with throughout the Ottoman Empire. :no:That 'getting along' fell apart as pressures from the West, ie., Europe (with some American activity), increased.


DougIt never ceases to amaze me the distortions that creep into one's veiw of the world when one is steeped long enough in the "Marxist/The capitalist West is the root of all problems" dogma that is apparently so typical in sociology and other departments of universities like UC Berkeley.

By the way the Ottoman's Siege of Vienna in 1529 was due to "American activity" also. :no:

Let's just all go back to those good old days of the Ottoman Empire where each new ruler, as his first act, routinely killed all his brothers to prevent any competition. Life must have been nice unless you were a prince, a woman, a non-muslim, etc. :D

[beegee]

[QUOTE=sqkcrk;363824 I just got my local library to order this book. I haven't yet begun to read it.[/QUOTE]

Funny, when I want to read a book, I don't get the taxpayer-funded public library to buy it for me. I buy it myself, spending my own money.

[sqkcrk]

Funny, when I want to read a book, I don't get the taxpayer-funded public library to buy it for me. I buy it myself, spending my own money.

Well bless your heart.:) Do you then donate the book to your local public library so other folks can have the chance to read what you found interesting enough to purchase?

I donate money to the library so they can buy books. Other than the ones that they purchase at my request I have no idea what other books they buy w/ my donation.

When I don't find a book available through my local library, which can request books from any of the 65 libraries in the system, I request it's purchase so I can read it and so others can read it too.

[Scrapfe]

Scrapfe covered this well in his "get it right" post above... :no: It never ceases to amaze me the distortions that creep into one's veiw of the world when one is steeped long enough in the "Marxist/The capitalist West is the root of all problems" dogma that is apparently so typical in sociology and other departments of universities like UC Berkeley...By the way the Ottoman's Siege of Vienna in 1529 was due to "American activity" also. :no:

Galaxy, :scratch: I seem to remember the siege of Vienna taking place in 1683, but that is still 100 years before Britain acknowledged American independence.

[Scrapfe]

I agree...I didn't explain what the book is about adequately, or you didn't understand...an explanation on the psychological components and western mythologies that preclude us to love war.

I feel I understand all to well after reading Eaglerock’s click and paste review of Hiller’s book. The real thrust of this book is likely a thinly veiled attack on "Western" society. I purposely did not use the word "values" because I feel every ordinal society, North, South, East, and West share the same "values". Therefore I reject the notion that any society composed of Homo Sapiens is inferior, or superior to any other society of Homo sapiens regardless of which society first views the Sunrise each day. Anyone who feels otherwise is a racist, IMHO.

Chinese fought Chinese but they both followed the same religion. Greek fought Greek but they shared the same gods, mythology and oracles. Native American tribe warred against Native American tribe, often on a more or less permanent basis but their religions were similar, Roman killed Roman before the Republic, during it, while the Empire existed, after Rome fell and all the way up to Garibaldi, and they were all Universal Christians. Ancient Jew killed Ancient Jew over perceived insults and slights not because of religious misunderstanding. Hindu gleefully killed Hindu for political or personal gain not for religious reasons. Pagan German killed pagan German with gusto despite shared religious traditions, not because they were divided by religion, ditto for the Maasi, Zulu, Celts, Gauls, Micronesians, Berbers, Kasyap, Tatars, and various other tribes spread over the whole surface of the Earth.

Lets examine history for real religious wars. Yes, many wars were fought over religious differences. The majority however tend to involve combatants of the same religion, (at least the same religion when viewed by an unbiased outside observer) not between vastly differing religions.

Two differing sects of the same religion, warring against each another (Catholic v. Protestant) (Shea v Sunni) ect. are common. Wars fought between vastly different religions for purely religious reasons are uncommon. However, nobody ever looks far to see now these conflicts benefited the secular powers, either political or commercial.
In addition, no one considers whether the kings and great princes involved could have prevented these wars, and if the victor prince's society, economy or power base ultimately benefited from them.

The thing that recommends religion and condemns religion at the same time is the human race’s tendency to experience renewed energy following significant religious events. This tends to jump start human society and to start the members of human society thinking in new and different directions. Unfortunately war is a hard wired human activity and when the dice are rolled often enough you are sure to roll snake eyes. The explosion of Portuguese and Spanish exploration commenced immediately after the conclusion of the wars between the Moorish Moslems and the Iberian Christians is a good example, as is the rapid spread of Islam during Mohammad’s lifetime. This energy culminated in the conquest of Constantinople by Mohammad the Conqueror in 1453 and ebbed with Kara Mustafa’s defeat before the gates of Vienna in 1683, and his death via the green cord. The reconversion of Europe to Christianity following the West’s rise out of the Dark Ages sparked the Crusades. More examples are possible, but I don’t have a publisher …yet.

[dragonfly]

I feel I understand all to well after reading Eaglerock’s click and paste review of Hiller’s book. The real thrust of this book is likely a thinly veiled attack on "Western" society.

Not exactly. That's what I was referring to when I responded to ER's post with the link in it. The reviewer's explanation included his own anti-war ideas. Hillman does focus on western thought, and he states so in the book, but it's because western culture is the basis of his own understanding, not because he is "anti-western". Imo, he has a pretty balanced view, and he also takes a short excursion into his thoughts on the existence of the state of peace, which surprised me. I intended to post it for JPK, but it appears his interest in the thread stopped, so you may be interested in it:



Not only does "peace" too quickly translate into "security", and a secularity purchased at the price of liberty. Something more sinister also is justified by peace which de Tocqueville superbly describes as a "new kind of servitude" where a "supreme power covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered but softened, bent and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes and stupdfies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrial animals, of which government is the shepherd.

[Galaxy]

Galaxy, :scratch: I seem to remember the siege of Vienna taking place in 1683, but that is still 100 years before Britain acknowledged American independence.The Battle of Vienna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna), where the Ottomans were finally defeated, occurred in 1683.

The Siege of Vienna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna), which was the Ottoman's first attempt to capture the city, occurred in 1529.

The 1683 Battle of Vienna may have introduced coffee to Europe.


Several culinary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culinary) legends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend) are related to the Battle of Vienna:

One legend is that the croissant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croissant) was invented in Vienna, either in 1683 or in an earlier siege in 1529, to celebrate the defeat of the Turkish siege of the city, as a reference to the crescents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent) on the Turkish flags. This version is supported by the fact that croissants in French Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Language) are referred to as Viennoiserie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viennoiserie) and the French popular belief that Vienna born Marie Antoinette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Antoinette) introduced the pastry to France in 1770
Another legend from Vienna has the first bagel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagel) as being a gift to King John Sobieski to commemorate the King's victory over the Turks that year. The baked-good was fashioned in the form of a stirrup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup), to commemorate the victorious charge by the Polish cavalry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry). The truth of this legend is very uncertain, as there is a reference in 1610 to a similar-sounding bread, which may or may not have been the bagel.
After the battle, the Austrians discovered many bags of coffee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee) in the abandoned Turkish encampment. Using this captured stock, Franciszek Jerzy Kulczycki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franciszek_Jerzy_Kulczycki) opened the third coffeehouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffeehouse) in Europe and the first in Vienna,[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna#cite_note-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna#cite_note-9) where, according to legend, Kulczycki himself or Marco d'Aviano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_d%27Aviano), the Capuchin friar and confidant of Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_I,_Holy_Roman_Emperor), added milk and honey to sweeten the bitter coffee, thereby inventing cappuccino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappuccino).
It is also said that when the Turks were pushed away from Vienna, the military bands left their instruments on the field of battle and that is how the Holy Roman Empire (and therefore the rest of Western countries) acquired Cymbals, Bass Drums, and Triangles.