Remove ads

Controversial Historical Opinions You Have

Eliar said:
Hmmm massive plague, said major Empires having just wrapped up WW1 2 and 3 and obviously because Deus Vulted? :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

IF HERACLIUS DIDNT WANT THE EMPIRE TO BE WEAK MAYBE HE SHOULDN'T HAVE KILLED MAURICE AND RENEWED WAR AGAINST THE SASSANIDS

Also tbh, I'm kinda tired of people using such excuses as the Arabs getting lucky with their timing, making the actual fighting as Arab forces "mopping up" Persian/Byzantine forces when in reality the Arabs were almost always outgunned and outnumbered. It's basically making the Caliphate the "lucky" ones, downplaying the tactical and strategic skills of the Caliphs and Arab soldiers.

It reeks of Orientalism, in a sense.
 
Hykal94 said:
IF HERACLIUS DIDNT WANT THE EMPIRE TO BE WEAK MAYBE HE SHOULDN'T HAVE KILLED MAURICE AND RENEWED WAR AGAINST THE SASSANIDS

Also tbh, I'm kinda tired of people using such excuses as the Arabs getting lucky with their timing, making the actual fighting as Arab forces "mopping up" Persian/Byzantine forces when in reality the Arabs were almost always outgunned and outnumbered. It's basically making the Caliphate the "lucky" ones, downplaying the tactical and strategic skills of the Caliphs and Arab soldiers.

It reeks of Orientalism, in a sense.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but "Oh, they were so lucky that they attacked right when their opponents were vulnerable to being attacked" is a really stupid way of framing that?

Like, give credit for correctly judging when it would be effective to attack? It's an important skill.
 
Hykal94 said:
IF HERACLIUS DIDNT WANT THE EMPIRE TO BE WEAK MAYBE HE SHOULDN'T HAVE KILLED MAURICE AND RENEWED WAR AGAINST THE SASSANIDS

Also tbh, I'm kinda tired of people using such excuses as the Arabs getting lucky with their timing, making the actual fighting as Arab forces "mopping up" Persian/Byzantine forces when in reality the Arabs were almost always outgunned and outnumbered. It's basically making the Caliphate the "lucky" ones, downplaying the tactical and strategic skills of the Caliphs and Arab soldiers.

It reeks of Orientalism, in a sense.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hey younger and more vigorous powers overthrowing older and more corrupt ones is the rule!

You dont want your empire falling to more capablenand compassionate powers?

Then dont be a warmongering idiot squizzing your people dry both economically and spiritually!

Oh and have a combination of Cyrus and Alexander the great on the other side obviously! :V
 
veteranMortal said:
Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but "Oh, they were so lucky that they attacked right when their opponents were vulnerable to being attacked" is a really stupid way of framing that?

Like, give credit for correctly judging when it would be effective to attack? It's an important skill.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The way I see it, and some other sites discussing the Arab conquests (a series of conquest, which was happening long before Muhammad and Friends joined the fray), I think there's some sort of belief that the strong Romans couldn't possible be invaded by a bunch of young upstarts from the desert. Despite the fact the Romans have been invaded and defeated by "barbarians" numerous times. Either or it's just very undertoned Islamophobia that "the West" still hold.

Yes it was important to note both empires exhausted themselves fighting each other, but the fact they were able to put a good fight and outnumber the Arabs means that they weren't as weak as some people make it out to be. They still had their legions, their veterans, Persia still had their elephants, the Byzatines still had their navy. This did not stop one of them being integrated into the Caliphate and the other from fighting the other defensively for the next few hundred of years.
 
Though admittedly the west Romans getting their wealthy north African cities devastated and farmland swamped by a massive Tsunami in the mid late 4th century plus a massive plague that century also killing a huge chunk of the population didn't exactly help their economic or manpower situation even before the vandals later took north Africa kicking off the dominoes that led to the west roman economy collapsing.

As for Justinian's plague it can't be denied it really did a good job of screwing people not just in the Persian and roman empires but as far as away as Gaul and Britain in some cases wiping out entire cities and settlements as it traveled along the trade routes but the East Romans and Persians fighting each other when their manpower was already depleted certainly didn't help their ability to resist invasion.
 
Hykal94 said:
IF HERACLIUS DIDNT WANT THE EMPIRE TO BE WEAK MAYBE HE SHOULDN'T HAVE KILLED MAURICE AND RENEWED WAR AGAINST THE SASSANIDS

Also tbh, I'm kinda tired of people using such excuses as the Arabs getting lucky with their timing, making the actual fighting as Arab forces "mopping up" Persian/Byzantine forces when in reality the Arabs were almost always outgunned and outnumbered. It's basically making the Caliphate the "lucky" ones, downplaying the tactical and strategic skills of the Caliphs and Arab soldiers.

It reeks of Orientalism, in a sense.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Khalid ibn al-Walid is one of most underrated military commanders in history, deserve to be ranked there with the very best.
 
Warning: With Sufficiently Advanced Rules
  • Staff Post
    • with sufficiently advanced rules
    V4Guss said:
    American Indians had their chance and they blew it. The best they could have had is if they had banded together but instead they were various mostly unintegrated tribals and civilizations that didn't work against Europeans. American Indians were not much further ahead than the stone age when Europeans came along. It has repeatedly shown the more technologically advanced culture always wins.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    While many others have managed to correct you on this notion in a far better way than I could, there leaves the fact that this is an inherently racist expression of opinion, and as such, it runs afoul of Rule 2.

    I'm going to give you a 25 point infraction and a three day threadban.

     
  • Staff Post
    • Alright were to start in the 1641 sectarian conflict between the Gael's and the planters we should have harried the planters more since the feckers manged to come back stronger with Cromwell and his ilk. By extension might not be as odd when looking abroad but said in Ireland might get some weirder looks but I would happily support the Royalists/Cavaliers over the Parliamentarians/Roundhead's and by further extension to that despite James the Shit being James the Shit I would back the House of Stuart/Jacobite cause every time over the House of Hanover can get fucked.
     
    Duke William was the rightful King of England: Harold Godwinson was an oathbreaking usurper, and Hardrada was just pathetically attempting to resurrect an "Empire" that should have stayed dead.

    On that note, the vikings continue to be horrendously overrated.
     
    Reveen said:
    It's literally impossible for a Christian post-Roman to be a rightful king of Britain. Thats like saying Florp-Flanglegorp from the planet Omnicron Persei 2 is the rightful ruler of pancakes.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    That's a bit of a nonsense argument. It's literally impossible for a human to be a rightful king of any nation, because it's all a social construct and we have no more inherent claim for rulership then a wolfpack does for its territory. But those social constructs do matter - especially in a historical context.
     
    comradepitrovsky said:
    That's a bit of a nonsense argument. It's literally impossible for a human to be a rightful king of any nation, because it's all a social construct and we have no more inherent claim for rulership then a wolfpack does for its territory. But those social constructs do matter - especially in a historical context.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    How can a Christian be a king of anything? They already have a king, they keep badly singing about him. So why do they keep going "actually there's also this guy who's totally the king of this one place because the actual king said so also my aunt is my mom lol".

    Hey, if you want to be king. Maybe don't worship gods that say "hey, I'm actually the actual king". What is that?
     
    Reveen said:
    How can a Christian be a king of anything? They already have a king, they keep badly singing about him. So why do they keep going "actually there's also this guy who's totally the king of this one place because the actual king said so also my aunt is my mom lol".

    Hey, if you want to be king. Maybe don't worship gods that say "hey, I'm actually the actual king". What is that?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Because to be King of Kings, there has to be like, other kings to be king of.
     
    Reveen said:
    How can a Christian be a king of anything? They already have a king, they keep badly singing about him. So why do they keep going "actually there's also this guy who's totally the king of this one place because the actual king said so also my aunt is my mom lol".

    Hey, if you want to be king. Maybe don't worship gods that say "hey, I'm actually the actual king". What is that?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Because a guy named the Lord of Hosts and King of Kings needs, yknow, to have hosts and kings to be lord and king of?
     
    It's actually a legitimate argument from theological grounds to say that to have human kings is unChristian- from the Christian reading of the Old Testament, it's very possible to see Ancient Israel's desire for a king 'like all the nations around us' as a sinful rejection of God as their king.
     
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top