Talk:Kamehameha I/Draft

Military comments

I'm delighted to have the request; the lack of collaboration has been rather frustrating. On my first cup of coffee, I made a minor link change for a submarine and will fill in the link.

My basic problem is that I don't know why and how the Hawaiians fought wars. The fact of the Law of the Splintered Paddle, to which I'll return in another context, shows there was some sophisticated thinking about what the West called jus in bello within the broader context of just war theory. Indeed, while it may not have been considered, it could well have been input into the Lieber Code, Hague Conventions, and Geneva Conventions.

Some Pacific peoples, as I understand, fought wars more for manhood rituals, exchange of women, etc. Others fought wars for conquest. Not that it's specific to this article, but why did Hawaiians decide to go to war? What were their objectives? (This also reminds me that I need to work on Fred Ikle's book, Every War Must End).

I understand that some Pacific peoples had razor-edged spears and arrows for hunting, but blunted them for war — someone might get hurt. It doesn't sound like the Hawaiians were quite this symbolic.

In other words, from a military standpoint, a record of a battle or war, especially when considering the command aspects, is more than just that an engagement took place at a certain time -- although I disagree with a former Editor that the battles themselves are less important than the context. Both are meaningful. In this article or perhaps better in another one, I need to understand more about the Hawaiian concept of war before I can really advise on the content in these areas. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

More research will be needed for either of us to truly understand the why's and how's of Hawaiian warfare. I do know that, at least in Kamehameha's day, war was no joke. They used wood handled weapons with sharks teeth for the blade. They also used clubs, but I think they were usually used defensively. The aim was to take your opponents land by force. Human life was precious though, so if your opponent surrendered, he was spared.

Unfortunately, ancient Hawaiian warfare is rarely discussed beyond a timeline of events. I will look for more information on this, but I doubt I'll find much more.

All that aside, I'm not so sure this is the article to include that in. I understand your need to know before "passing judgement", but if I can't find sources, will speculation and theories work in it's place?Drew R. Smith 10:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth

Since the date of birth is not known (and the estimates are very different -- is 1937/38 a typo?) this should be reflected when his life dates are given. Moreover, this deserves - needs - a discussion in text and an explanation why 1958 is chosen. (Should not his "the Great" also be mentioned?) Peter Schmitt 00:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I left out "the great"!?!? Wow, how could I forget about that? Hmmm. Now where to put it...

As for the date, 1758 is chosen because that is the year Halley's comet passed over, and was visible from, Hawaii. When people told the legends, they improvised, as people do, and declared that because a great king was supposed to be born under a comet, and kamehameha was a great king, kamehameha was born under halley's comet. (hope I didn't lose you with that run-on sentence). As for the other two dates, I don't know. Several sources I've found mention them both, but I haven't found anything that says why they might be the correct date. I'm assuming science, or even common sense may have something to do with those other dates. I'm taking a trip to the public library mañana, so I'll see if I can't find anything better.Drew R. Smith 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are even more dates [[1]]. I first thought of typos (1737 instead of 1757). Peter Schmitt 11:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked out your link. The "read more" or whatever it was brought up this, which says "Kamehameha I (ca. 1758-1819)". Somebody needs to tell them to fix the discrepancies on their site. Again, I have no idea where 1737 and 1738 come from. Best guess? People thought he looked older and changed it themselves. Like I said, I'll look into tomorrow at the library.

As far as "the great" is concerned, I added it in the lede. I'm sure I could find something more about it, like who first used it, why, etc. The question is, where to put that info?Drew R. Smith 11:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Related articles

I have the impression that the list of "Related Articles" is too long. Not every topic that is linked from the page is also "related" (e.g., Halley's comet). Peter Schmitt 00:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh... I did related articles very late at night... It seemed like a good idea to just do all the links. It doesn't seem like such a good idea anymore. I'll go fix that.Drew R. Smith 11:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)