|
I like this ruler. He seems like a nice chap.
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Oh, yeah. It's on.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2011 00:27
|
|
|
Aww, seveners are the coolest. They get to follow around an invincible warlord at the end of the day. Until he gets defeated and it turns out they were wrong and everyone gets kind of 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
So, who's going first? Jerusalem or Georgia?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
Yeah, just murdering people is usually the safest way of dealing with this kind of thing. Also, I hope you freed Medina?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2011 17:55
|
|
|
thark posted:Well, you COULD build a castle-from-hell up on some mountain off in the rear end-end of nowhere, and anyone who wanted to conquer it would be in for a nightmare. However, nobody would want or need to. The point is to have it in the vinicity of (or encompassing) the poo poo you actually want to protect. I seem to recall that rather a lot of really massive fortifications have been constructed way up in the mountains? Like, I think the Cathars built enormous castles in the Pyrrenees that were a complete bitch to conquer during the crusades against them. Also Krak de Chevaliers. Not all wars are fought simply for land.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2011 15:58
|
|
|
What the hell is going on up in Scandinavia anyway? First Sweden completely fractured for a while, now Norway's disappeared. Also, al-Andalus. Hurrah!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
Ouch
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2011 13:09
|
|
|
 A and A.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Maoists seek to bypass the phase of bourgeois domination in capitalist society with a revolution led by the peasantry, and the Soviets broadly speaking succeeded in industrialising a late feudal rural Russia without going through capitalism. That really isn't much the case, though. The Soviets' industrialisation has been characterised by many contemporary and later Marxists as state capitalism - see for instance the 1953 essay by Bordiga, The Spirit of Horsepower. History tends towards capitalism in some form being necessary for industrialisation, given a lack of friendly societies. Also, post-International Lenin was madly in love with a post-Hegelian reading of Marx, claiming that he didn't "get" Marx because of a lack of familiarity with Hegel is ridiculous. Lenin was even the bloke what coined the term "Material dialectic", specifically to illustrate Marx' thought processes as opposed to Hegel's. He spent a lot of time in the early years of WWI just plodding through all the material he could find with regards to Feuerbach and Hegel's writings, whereupon he declared that nobody who hadn't read and understood Hegel really understood Marx. ...but, yes, this is a derail, sorry
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2011 12:54
|
|
|
oh what the hell did Norway go and lose their royal independence again I swear, my country never does anything interesting, even in these LPs. Always getting conquered or becoming vassals or something. Frustrating, is what it is!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
Is that the Royal Lion Rampant dual-wielding an axe and a sword? Because that is some serious business. Might want to make it yellow, though. Norway's lion is definitely yellow, and I *think* that the Dutch counterpart is, as well. e. Flanders has a sable lion, according to wikipedia.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
 Seriously, we've got christians and foreign cultures out of the wazoo. Bill of Rights is *a lot* more handy than a little more efficient diplomacy in this situation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 13:10
|
|
|
 Our problems have been manpower problems. Levying additional peasants to die for us seems about par the course for the current Shura's lines of thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
To be fair, that should only serve to illustrate the point all the more poignantly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
cwDeici posted:Oh, so you're Icelandic, not West Coast Norwegian? That makes more sense, I would have thought most West Coasters were still at least slightly icked by eating horse meat. West-coast here. Horse-meat isn't common, but nobody outside of maybe prepubescent girls or horse-boys would be squeamish about it. Also, lay off the Nynorsk, it's a wonderful and poetic language and I'll hear no ill of it or of Ivar Aasen, the bloke who basically invented it and was one of the country's principal intellectuals in his day. Also, there's a pretty wicked poem about that mentioned battle, the battle of Svolder, in said Nynorsk. Because Nynorsk is awesome. Tangentially related fun fact: The bard was called Einar Tambarsskjelve, which basically means Einar Bellyquiver. Apparently he was a portly sort of chap, though monstrously strong and a really good shot with the bow. A lot of the old norse poets were also dead'ard warriors, with Eigill Skallagrimsson coming to mind as a particularly vicious chap. He had a big head, making people laugh at him, and he was a poetic prodigy. He also had a bad habit of murdering people. When a friend of King-to-be Eirik Blodøks (Literally Blood-axe) insulted him, he challenged him to a duel and killed him. When the queen sent her brothers to bring him in, he killed them, too. Then, when Eirik's father, the unifying figure of Norway, Harald Hårfagre (Fairhair), died, Eirik murdered his brothers and tried to banish Eigill. Eigill responded by murdering the man sent to chase him off and the king's son, and then fled to Iceland. So, yeah. Full of colourful characters, Norwegian history.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
Boys overly fond of horses. I live in Bergen, the principal city of Western Norway, and there are a lot of posh boys who love their widdle horsies in the south of this city. This is probably mirrored in the East, but I'm honestly not that familliar with horse-culture there. Here, it's basically synonymous with spoiled rich kids.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 00:54
|
|
|
are you suggesting that capitalism is nonideological like seriously That's almost as stupid as saying that marxism is a religion. And both are completely ridiculous. Marxism preaches (see what I did there?) a break with the entire concept of morality as bourgeois, and it presents an explicit rejection of utopianism. At its core, Marx presented an analysis of what he saw as capitalism's irreconcilable internal contradictions, and the way he reckoned they'd play out. In the end, there would have to be a violent clash between the forces of society (the classes, where the lower classes would be led by the proletariat and the upper by the bourgeois), and since the bourgeois cannot exist without a proletariat it stood to reason that eventually, the bourgeois would lose out and be destroyed. There's nothing utopian about it, and the whole "utopian" attack is probably the laziest bloody critique of marxism in the history of the ideology. Oh, Icelandic person, sorry about the whole Skallagrimsson thing. It's been a while since I read the sagas, and I remembered the role of Eirik Bloodaxe, who definitely was a Norwegian and I guess I just didn't really think it through.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 12:28
|
|
|
But then the exact same thing goes for literally every ideology and religion that's not absolutely centralised (anti-anti-anti-revisionist hoxhaism, anyone?) - even Catholicism, probably the most centralised of the major religious strains today, doesn't exert that amount of control over its subdivisions, as seen by for example liberation theology. Capitalism remains an institution, and a highly organised institution. re: Mayr's three religions, I'm not really decrying any comparison of ideology and religion, but then you draw the comparison to religion-as-ideology and vice versa. Of course, there are people who draw their ideologies into the religious, and certainly all religions that I'm familiar with have their ideological doctrines, but at a pretty basic level they're separate things. What Mayr's done, and I say this as a complete dilletante, seems to be to condense all religions into a single, general mystical world-view, then opposing it to capitalism and communism in a sort of triangle of hate. That really strikes me more as comparing them fundamentally as ideologies, and looking at mysticism as religion-as-ideology rather than looking at capitalism and communism as religions. It's an insightful statement, but not directly relevant to my point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
It takes one manifestation of an ideology as the sole form of said ideology. I honestly doubt most of the communist foot-troopers and intellectuals were fighting for the '50s and later Eastern Bloc, they were fighting for the global dictatorship of the proletariat and a resolution to the class struggle. What caused the "socialist" states to degenerate into party dictatorships rather than class dictatorships and how to avoid it is one of the biggest topics of modern socialist discourse, with a whole bunch of attempted answers - some even reckon that this isn't really possible, and one should simply smash the state. What is held as certain is that the marxist critique of capitalism, which is really the foundation of most socialist thought, holds. Basically, if you're attacking socialism, you want to engage its core assumptions and rationales. Anything else, and you're simply arguing against one implementation, and that's not going to convince, say, an anarchist or a syndicalist or a left-communist or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 20:10
|
|
|
Sure, Stalin used a lot of religious motives/rhethoric/whatever, to the point of pretty much deifying himself. This was pretty much a consequence of the "Democratic Centralist" theme that ran through the Soviet communist party, and is essential to an authoritarian regime. There's pretty much nothing inherent in socialism/communism (they are pretty much the same ideology, though some semantic distinctions are made by for example Marx) that mirrors religious structures (the morals are emphatically not an intrinsic part of communism) except where religion acts as ideology. I dunno, I don't quite get what you're going for here except possibly "authoritarianism is bad", which I think we can all agree on to a point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
Gladi posted:I have learned that there was quite difference between communist authoritarian regimes and the right-wing authoritarian. Where in right-wing regimes the membership in the parties was closed to most of the populace and political action was removed from the party. In Eastbloc the membership in party was open to everybody and was actively encouraged and party leadership trumped state authority in those cases where the two were not same (there were some). Well, yeah, because even at its most despotic communism has to at least pretend to be emancipatory. Hence the need for personality cults for people like Stalin, where (some; fascists didn't do this, for instance, being very much a mass-based movement) right-wing ideologies preach paternalism, rule of the experts, elites know best, et cetera. I dunno, your comparison of communism with religion just rubs me the wrong way. I mean, I can sort of see a point of comparing power structures that can arise in what is in principle a liberating phenomenon (like Christianity and communism), but saying "religion" really adds a metaphysic to it that doesn't belong, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
 I would really like reducing corruption and unfair exploitation of our serfs. Poor bastards can't seem to catch a break, really.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Mmh. So does Burgundy have missions encouraging it to form France? It seems that would be within range now that the UK has been kicked off the continent.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
Also they'd lost their main ally in Britain and everyone was basically against them and they were facing huge internal problems in the form of arab nationalism and everything was going to poo poo. Joining the Great War was basically an attempt at making the best out of a really bad situation. It didn't really work out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
Oh gently caress yeah Russian revolution on the roll! e. Germany isn't going to be much of a stabilising force with land tech 3... V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jan 29, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, that persua is bloody enormous!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
Gaj posted:I dont want to derail or slow the hist101 talk but how exactly do we know that the glass found in Korea featured last page was from Rome? Im not doubting it but how did they figure it out, extant copies in Rome, nothing like it locally, the make up of the glass Im just curious. Theoretically, this kind of thing is pretty easy to confirm by a minerals analysis. So, I dunno, probably looking at the general aesthetic, then testing the minerals or the glass against samples from the area we know similar stuff was produced. Most soils and ores have characteristic impurities (probably most famous is Ytterby in Sweden, which has like six elements named after it 'cos it's got so many rare elements in its soil), making identifying these things relatively simple. This is just a guess, though, I'm not a historian nor an archaeologist.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
Tulip posted:My undergrad was analytical chemistry, so the method i'd run to immediately would be Raman Hey, this is really neat! God, I love spectroscopy. It's so ridiculously primitive and at the same time so effective.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
Wait, you need to be Mongol tech group to form Russia? Also, is your capital not Moskva?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
Cowcatcher posted:That clearly means "I see a man with chopsticks eating bacon", ask for your tuition back Oh thank you now you made me laugh and I can't unsee it
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
rlloyd3 posted:I'd never noticed before that the actual, modern day Azerbaijan doesn't have Pretty Borders™. Ahahahahahahaha no it doesn't. Nagorno-Karabakh alone is a clusterfuck, both politically and geographically, and the whole situation otherwise is also completely ridiculous. It's actually even more weird than you'd think, since in a lot of places the exact border isn't agreed upon, or it wasn't some years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:I learned that it was less conquering and more diseases/luck. In my history classes in Norway, south america was literally not mentioned except as part of the Portugese and Spanish empires. In my graduate year of high school, our book had one chapter called "Asia and Africa". Norwegian history education is, uh, a bit eurocentric, you could say.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
meatbag posted:In Norway and WW2, this is handled by a disproportionate amount of time devoted to pretty small things. The effective dismantling of the military during the 30s is glossed over, as well as the generally bad performance by the army during the German invasion, but you sure as gently caress are going to spend two weeks learning about the Battle of the Drøbak sound and another six about the resistance movement hooray Norway rules go scrappy underdog! We didn't get this, honestly. I'm from the Western part of the country, though, from Bergen, the only major city whose police force was so totally on the side of the occupiers that there was no warning before the jews got rounded up and sent to be murdered in Germany. What we learn is basically "Here's a coastal fortress. It was armed with crappy torpedoes because of disarmament, and the tubes didn't actually work very well, so everything went to poo poo and Bergen got occupied with barely a fight" because seriously, I think the armed forces in Bergen caused like three casualties to the German invasion. It's funny, 'cos the German invasion of Norway was in a lot of ways the most ludicrously incompetently planned military action that the Germans actually carried out. Great, now you've occupied a large, poor, sparsely populated country with a downright enormous coastline. Good job. Now you have to send an enormous force of troops to occupy it, or the brits are simply going to chase you back out and completely strangle all overseas trade to an even greater degree than previously. And they couldn't even do it properly - through no credit to us lot, the gold reserves, government, royal family and a lot of the military establishment got away clean. Then follows weeks and weeks about insignificant resistance struggles, conveniently leaving out anyone to the left of Jens Christian Hauge. God, that bit is so pointless.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
cwDeici posted:If they hadn't freaked out at the resistance movement they could've garrisoned us with half of the 370k troops, and Britain was planning to invade the next day (which we would have only halfheartedly resisted) so they really did need to control the coastline. Possibly. It was still a horrendously poorly-carried out operation, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
No Radetskij-march in Vicky 2. This alone was reason enough for me to stick to Ricky.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
He is not aiming at academia, though, he's aiming at the man in the street it is pop history
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
I would also think that the Cherokee culture would be one very amenable to change - they did modernise dramatically and quickly enough to fend off the Europeans, and they were willing to institute a centralised state &c. Nothing to say they couldn't go through a parallel modernisation process again with regards to slavery and so on.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2012 09:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Should deffo give Cherokee a manifest destiny driver, poo poo would own
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2012 22:25
|
|