Jump to content

This is a brave new world we're living in


alyster
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Buorhann said:

All one would have to do is search his old posts, especially the obsession of Seeker ones.

Of all the people who I'd thought wouldn't act like a little !@#$, it was honestly you.

Sad to see.

For all of you 'guys' out there who like to think that just because someone plays a 'role' on the internet means they need to stay married to that specific role, you're absolutely wrong. Some people actually play this game for shits and giggles. When you become engulfed into a role and into the culture and world of where that role takes place - you become part of something. When you remove yourself from that culture and place, you are no longer part of it. This is my case with not being on the TKR side of the war... like I have pretty much my entire existence here in PW.

The fact that y'all have to stoop low enough to call that particular item out, that I, someone who propagandized against IQ previously in my life here, is now on 'IQ's' side and seemingly see that as some type of victory to cheers with your pals just goes to show how pathetic most of your side of the game really is.

Coalition B might be a mix of crazy ass mf'ers with a touch of autism, but at least these guys know how to have fun...AND we aren't tied to known racists who've been reported multiple times by multiple people. But I mean thats cool right?

 

#HIPPOTRASH

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Malal said:

"Sulla was a fool when he gave up the dictatorship." 

Caesar was power hungry sociopath, he sided with the populares because he saw it as the easiest route to power. He attempted to crush the power of the senate and stacked it with men loyal to him. Calling his consolidation of power "reform" is disingenuous at best, he was a tyrant hell bent on destroying the oligarchy and instituting a monarchy, a task which cost him his life.

Your observation of the time period lacks much basis or reference to context.

First of all, the economic inequality within the Republic had grown out of control and had been doing so since the end of the Punic wars. The small landowners who traditionally formed the basis of the Roman army had lost their lands due to two reasons. The first being their term of service for the army had been extended beyond the traditional seasonal time period when their farms lay dormant and instead now consisted of years spent outside of Italy. As a result their small farm holdings were left untilled and therefore unprofitable rendering these small landowners unable to purchase their own equipment and serve in the legions in the traditional manner. The second reason was the sheer destruction of the Second Punic war within Italy which many small landowners never recovered from. Both of these reasons contributed to many small landowners being forced to sell their farms, with these farms usually being merged together into giant estates owned by a few aristocratic worked by slaves whilst the former owners became part of Rome's urban poor, the plebs. This occured to such an extent that by the time of the German invasions which Marius repelled, there were simply not enough small landowners to supply the necessary manpower for the armies the the Senate was forced, albeit against its own will by Marius, to recruit and equip the urban poor and form them into legions. There was no going back from this development, these urban poor performing a service in service of Rome needed some form of payment for their service which both Julius Caesar and Augustus supported. This included settling these veterans on land outside of Italy, a proposal the optimates opposed Julius on this later, much as they had against the Gracchi 70 years before who proposed a similar solution within Italy. The optimate faction in the end killed the Gracchi for supporting reform which would lead to the loss of land for the wealthy aristocratic landowners. This opposition to a policy which would cost them their vast estates was also a considerable basis for their opposition to Julius who openly advocated for resettlement of his veterans on public land. In that sense, we can clearly see that the previous economic policies for land settlement which applied to a small Italian city state had been broken by Rome's growth in territory and reform was required at the expense of the wealthy optimates. Julius supported this reform, the optimates did not. It's no surprise that Augustus made land settlement a key policy of his administration.

Secondly, the republic had been wracked by civil conflict for nearly 50 years by the time of Julius Caesar's invasion into Italy. Even a cursory look at a history book can quite quickly show the reasons why, the mistreatment of Italian allied states and denial of citizenship despite serving in Roman armies being one. A second reason would be the increasingly factional appointment of governors and legates for legions with these factions in turn deploying these legions against opposing factions all too readily. The deploying of these governors and legions outside of Italy only made the problem worse as these legions were relatively free from total Roman control and could, and did, go rogue. If I remember correctly there were 7 civil wars alone within a 50 year time period before Julius invaded Italy. If that isn't indicative of an underlying structural problem which needed rectifying, then I don't know what is. Again we can lay the blame of this as being a failure to change the policies which governed an Italian city state into one which governed a state spanning multiple continents. Julius was quite open about rectifying this and again, Augustus'. changes also indicate as much due to the granting of imperium and provinces with a focus on limiting factional power and preventing civil war.

Thirdly, to state that Caesar was intent on crushing the Senate is simply incorrect. The senate had long since been broken, the wealthy optimates had damaged it just as much as Caesar with both sides not being innocent. The optimates wished to retain it in a traditional manner in the style suited for a small city state , denying Roman citizenship to all but a few and keeping most of the lands for themselves at the expense of the plebs serving in the army. Caesar opposed this and the optimates had long since been attempting to have him stripped of imperium and likely exiled. Caesar out of sheer self-preservation had no choice but to invade Italy and for close to a year sent repeated ambassadors to the senate to prevent a civil war. Not the actions of a tyrant bent on power at all and need I remind you, it was the actions of the optimate controlled senate expelling members supportive of Caesar which led to Caesar crossing the rubicon. Caesar's veterans followed simply because if Caesar surrendered into exile, the legions would simply receive no lands as a form of pension which had become somewhat the norm by this stage of history.

In regards to the Sulla quote, Sulla was the fool. Sulla, much like caesar, implemented reforms to prevent another civil war occurring. Sulla's flaw was thinking that his reforms would last after he stepped out of office and in that regards, Sulla was a fool for not retaining power and ensuring his reforms lasted. As you can see, Augustus did not make this same mistake.

Also, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate Caesar wanted to reform a monarchy. Caesar was dictator, a position appointed by the senate and one which had existed long before him. Granted he did extend his powers but there is no indication he wished to destroy the senate. Many of his opponents from the civil wars were freely pardoned and invited back to the senate with no penalties imposed. Caesar even expended the senate after taking control of it to include new members from across the republic outside of Italy. Again, not the mark of a tyrant at all.  Caesar would have no clue what Augustus would eventually do and to think that Caesar by nominating a teenage Octavian as his heir was him attempting to form a monarchy doesn't grant the necessary justice to Augustus' own efforts and actions over a twenty year period.

Augustus himself wasn't a monarch and neither was the Roman state which he presided over, it is known as the Principate and distinguished from the style of government which occurred after the death of Marcus Aurelius which became more akin to a monarchy. Under the Principate, the senate still held a large amount of power and Augustus made great effort to act in compliance with the Senate's in a general manner. Granted he still held executive power but the constant civil strife did cease as a result of his reforms.

I suggest you read more than just Suetonius, who largely felt about Caesar the same way as you do, and instead read some of Adrian Goldsworthy's books on Caesar and the fall of the republic ( his works on Augustus and Julius are quite authoritative.) I also highly recommend H.H. Scullard's work titled from the Gracchi to Nero for the failings of the late republic in general.

I'm on my phone so forgive the grammar but I'm sure you get the point.

Edited by Charles the Tyrant

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mad Max said:

Of all the people who I'd thought wouldn't act like a little !@#$, it was honestly you.

Sad to see.

For all of you 'guys' out there who like to think that just because someone plays a 'role' on the internet means they need to stay married to that specific role, you're absolutely wrong. Some people actually play this game for shits and giggles. When you become engulfed into a role and into the culture and world of where that role takes place - you become part of something. When you remove yourself from that culture and place, you are no longer part of it. This is my case with not being on the TKR side of the war... like I have pretty much my entire existence here in PW.

The fact that y'all have to stoop low enough to call that particular item out, that I, someone who propagandized against IQ previously in my life here, is now on 'IQ's' side and seemingly see that as some type of victory to cheers with your pals just goes to show how pathetic most of your side of the game really is.

Coalition B might be a mix of crazy ass mf'ers with a touch of autism, but at least these guys know how to have fun...AND we aren't tied to known racists who've been reported multiple times by multiple people. But I mean thats cool right?

 

#HIPPOTRASH

 

You seem like quite the whiny sack of salt here for talking about people being too butthurt, lol.

Also it should be noted AK has had members banned for Nazism and there's supposedly a server related to them dedicated to exactly that which everyone who talks about it seems to afraid to show.

But hey, keep pretending you're moral purity and not butthurt ?

Edited by Akuryo
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2019 at 8:43 AM, Curufinwe said:

You realize the war is still ongoing, right?  Cuz your use of the past tense suggests you're confused on the matter.  If so, that would explain a lot actually...

Leo even needs meat shields on the forums? Anyway since you've forgotten, we hit you, you countered with everything you had and were still losing. You needed the other half of your former bloc to show up to have a chance. Keep giving it big though, you all are amusing. 

Edited by Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

image0.png

Seeing as I’m still listed as Arrgh on the Order of Fallen Discord & mine according to Buorhann; I’ve decided it best I run their FA again. If those fighting OFA don’t want to see to OFA change to a policy of no retreat, no surrender maximum damage campaign without helping the enemy under any circumstances; suggest they contact me with 24 hours or so. I do think they can get more organized and stronger during the war.

OFA will win if they stay in & I help fix their FA. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mad Max said:

I guess I just don't get butthurt like y'all.

 

4 hours ago, Mad Max said:

The fact that y'all have to stoop low enough to call that particular item out, that I, someone who propagandized against IQ previously in my life here, is now on 'IQ's' side and seemingly see that as some type of victory to cheers with your pals just goes to show how pathetic most of your side of the game really is.

Coalition B might be a mix of crazy ass mf'ers with a touch of autism, but at least these guys know how to have fun...AND we aren't tied to known racists who've been reported multiple times by multiple people. But I mean thats cool right?

tenor.gif

  • Haha 1

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>kerchtog makes racist remarks about coalition B 

>Coalition B calls them out 

>Kerchtog attacks people because they were previously on opposite sides even though they took in multiple alliances from "IQ" 

>kerchtog claims they got people triggered. 

Clearly y'all read my post with a butthurt mindset therefore you assumed my tone was that of a small triggered man. Calling y'all pathetic in your attempts to actually justify your own grounds doesn't mean someone's triggered, just means they can clearly see that being on both sides of the political spectrum in this game, your side is trash and mines ain't. 

?

Not my fault y'all side with racists. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

Secondly, the republic had been wracked by civil conflict for nearly 50 years by the time of Julius Caesar's invasion into Italy. Even a cursory look at a history book can quite quickly show the reasons why, the mistreatment of Italian allied states and denial of citizenship despite serving in Roman armies being one. A second reason would be the increasingly factional appointment of governors and legates for legions with these factions in turn deploying these legions against opposing factions all too readily. The deploying of these governors and legions outside of Italy only made the problem worse as these legions were relatively free from total Roman control and could, and did, go rogue. If I remember correctly there were 7 civil wars alone within a 50 year time period before Julius invaded Italy. If that isn't indicative of an underlying structural problem which needed rectifying, then I don't know what is. Again we can lay the blame of this as being a failure to change the policies which governed an Italian city state into one which governed a state spanning multiple continents. Julius was quite open about rectifying this and again, Augustus'. changes also indicate as much due to the granting of imperium and provinces with a focus on limiting factional power and preventing civil war.

The Social War, Marius and Sulla, and what were the other five? Slave revolts aren't civil wars but I suppose you can add one if you really wanted to since everyone loves Spartacus. Unless you're trying to split up Marius and Sulla's civil war into multiple ones, you aren't going to get seven even if you argue that the Hispanian holdout should be counted as separate rather than a continuation. I do agree that the Republic was doomed though since Pompey "Stop quoting laws to us. We carry swords." Magnus was the one ultimately leading the defense of it.

 

Quote

Thirdly, to state that Caesar was intent on crushing the Senate is simply incorrect. The senate had long since been broken, the wealthy optimates had damaged it just as much as Caesar with both sides not being innocent. The optimates wished to retain it in a traditional manner in the style suited for a small city state , denying Roman citizenship to all but a few and keeping most of the lands for themselves at the expense of the plebs serving in the army. Caesar opposed this and the optimates had long since been attempting to have him stripped of imperium and likely exiled. Caesar out of sheer self-preservation had no choice but to invade Italy and for close to a year sent repeated ambassadors to the senate to prevent a civil war. Not the actions of a tyrant bent on power at all and need I remind you, it was the actions of the optimate controlled senate expelling members supportive of Caesar which led to Caesar crossing the rubicon. Caesar's veterans followed simply because if Caesar surrendered into exile, the legions would simply receive no lands as a form of pension which had become somewhat the norm by this stage of history.

No, the senate had amassed vast swaths of power during the 2nd Punic Wars and it continued to gain more at the expense of the Plebeian Assembly(will get back to this at the next quote). Exile from Rome does not strip you of your wealth so Caesar could have lived a life of luxury in a nice Mediterranean villa rather than spend it all paying legions to spill the blood of his fellow citizens. While I do empathize with the soldiers who may very well have been shafted, I don't think money is enough of a reason to kill fellow citizens.

 

5 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

In regards to the Sulla quote, Sulla was the fool. Sulla, much like caesar, implemented reforms to prevent another civil war occurring. Sulla's flaw was thinking that his reforms would last after he stepped out of office and in that regards, Sulla was a fool for not retaining power and ensuring his reforms lasted. As you can see, Augustus did not make this same mistake.

Sulla did stick around though, he lived in a villa not far from Rome upon his resignation and it wasn't until his death that everyone ignored the policies he forced upon the Republic. There was no way Caeser wouldn't have fared differently if he lived and if that was his goal, which it wasn't. He famously spared enemies lives because he thought it would limit the likelihood of counter revolts and assassinations, nothing more.

Going back to the point about the Plebeian Assembly, if Caeser had any intention of "fixing" the Republic rather than setting up a system for him to appoint a heir to take over upon his death, he would have vastly increased the powers of the Assembly to a point just under checking his own power (since dictators, by definition, can't be checked beyond the 6 month term limit that he so conveniently got rid of). So what did he do? Ah yes that's right, he instead gave himself the power to appoint all Consuls and Tribunes instead, how very republican of him.

 

5 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

Augustus himself wasn't a monarch and neither was the Roman state which he presided over, it is known as the Principate and distinguished from the style of government which occurred after the death of Marcus Aurelius which became more akin to a monarchy. Under the Principate, the senate still held a large amount of power and Augustus made great effort to act in compliance with the Senate's in a general manner. Granted he still held executive power but the constant civil strife did cease as a result of his reforms.

While I made that monarchy statement as a bit tongue in cheek, a monarchy is any form of a hereditary transfer of power, regardless of the trappings and contexts of it. Since Augustus transferred power to Tiberius, who transferred power to Caligula, and so on and so forth, the republic was essentially a monarchy from that point on. Caeser very likely was planing to do the same thing before he was assassinated and even adopted Octavian in his will, he probably would've done it (or perhaps kept looking for a better heir considering how sick Octavian always was) before his death to begin a hereditary transfer of power.

The senate was a puppet of Augustus and never went against his will, the only thing of note the senate did for the first 60 years of the empire was orchestrate the assassination of Caligula. And what did the Senate do once they were free from a single individual holding all the political, marital, and spiritual authority in the state? Ah yes, that's right, they voted to grant all the powers to Claudius because they were not independently elected but approved by the emperors. I don't know about anyone else but that sounds exactly like what would happen in a monarchical nation to me.

The fact of the matter is that the Principate was just the fun PR term Augustus used to try and hide the fact that there was once again a King of Rome for the first time in 400 years.

Edited by Malal

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dio Brando said:

Charles... why in the *** would you write all that for under on mobile?

One day you too may receive a wall of text written on a handheld device that includes a voice-to-text feature for faster composing. Until that day comes keep arguing about popular topics like WWII, Rome, or American History.

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
7 hours ago, Miller said:

Leo even needs meat shields on the forums? Anyway since you've forgotten, we hit you, you countered with everything you had and were still losing. You needed the other half of your former bloc to show up to have a chance. Keep giving it big though, you all are amusing. 

So you are confused about whether the war is ongoing?  Your answer doesn't really clarify that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TheNG said:

This thread is not yet dead!

The Implication, starring BK and TCW (inspired by this)
C9MudxZ.jpg

*TCW and BK meet at the start of the war*

TCW: What do you mean, what do we need a meatshield for?

 

BK: Why in the hell do you think we just spent all political capital on a sphere? The whole purpose of forming a sphere in the first place was to get the micros all nice and treatied topside so we can take em down to a nice winnable war in the midtier… and you know they can’t refuse – because of the implication.

 

TCW: Oh. Uhhhh ok. You had me going there for the first part, the uh second part kind of threw me.

 

BK: Dude, dude. Think about it, they’re out in the middle of nowhere with some alliance they barely know, you know, they look around and what do they see? Nothing but enemy alliances! ‘Ah, there’s no where for me to run, what am I gonna do, refuse to fight?’ *laughing*

 

TCW: Ok… that just seems really dark.

 

BK: No, no it’s not dark, you’re misunderstanding me bro.

 

TCW: I, I think I am yeah.

 

BK: Yeah, you are. Because if the alliance refused to fight, then the answer obviously is no. But the thing is, they’re not gonna say no, they would never say no, because of the implication.  

 

TCW: Now you…you’ve said that word implication a couple of times… what implication?

 

BK: The implication that things might go wrong for them if they refuse to fight for me. You know, not that things are gonna go wrong for them, but they’re thinking they will.

 

TCW: *quietly* But… it sounds like they don’t want to fight for you…

 

BK: Why are you not understanding? They don’t know whether or not they want to fight, that’s not the issue!

 

TCW: Are you going to hurt these alliances?

 

BK: *angrily* No I’m not going to hurt these alliances! Why would I ever hurt these alliances, I feel like you’re not getting this at all! Goddamn!

 

*pan to Fark staring at them*

 

BK: Well don’t you look at me like that, you certainly wouldn’t be in any danger! *laughs*

 

TCW: So they are in danger!

 

BK: No one’s in any danger! How can I make that any more clear to you? It’s the implication of danger! You know what, let’s drop it. Just sign your treaties and go!

 

Recommended soundtrack for this post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_PxgSQ9Vf4

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2019 at 6:18 AM, Curufinwe said:

Well you have us there.  If someone in a micro said something about politics, it must be true.  You win the argument, I guess.

More like, if someone who was allied to you said something about you when you should have had friendly relations with them, it's pretty likely to be true.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
17 minutes ago, Deos said:

More like, if someone who was allied to you said something about you when you should have had friendly relations with them, it's pretty likely to be true.

 

Last I checked, BK didn't have a tie to them, so okay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole "I'm above this game, I'm not actually a part of it because I just am on here for the lulz and don't really care" mentality is literally denial at it's finest. The fact that you play this game to begin with means you're a part of it. Can you completely change/switch sides/implode/rebuild and still be "a part" of the game? Uh yeah. But pretending you're somehow above it all, aloof in your tower of giggles and friendship with your buddies is delusional. If you're here and not playing the game, then why be here at all?

Most of the people in this game have changed into different people/characters. The irony is that the ones who haven't are the very same ones who pretend like they're above it all.

And to get back on topic, the whole Commerce Union thing absolutely needs to be addressed. The shady tactics going on as of late are the reason for this thread. Nobody in coalition B has denied any of these accusation and frankly, it will look very bad for you later on when you'll inevitably not be the largest Bloc anymore. Bare that in mind.

Edited by Toph
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Malal said:

Im just gonna reply to relevant parts below instead of having walls of text galore.

Quote

The Social War, Marius and Sulla, and what were the other five?

 

Social war, both of Sulla's wars, Hispanian war against Sertorius, Lepidus' rebellion, Third servile war (only because it's indicated some support was given by Italian cities, and finally the Cataline conspiracy. You can add to that to some extent the senate violence to that including the deaths of the Gracchi, Saturnius, Drusus' death, Publiis Clodius and the exile of Milo along with Fimbria. Not civil wars in the technical sense but  I suppose you could label them as civil disturbances.

Quote

No, the senate had amassed vast swaths of power during the 2nd Punic Wars and it continued to gain more at the expense of the Plebeian Assembly(will get back to this at the next quote). Exile from Rome does not strip you of your wealth so Caesar could have lived a life of luxury in a nice Mediterranean villa rather than spend it all paying legions to spill the blood of his fellow citizens.

The senate amassed great amounts of land within Italy in the aftermath of the Punic wars. This trend continued outside of Italy as the republic grew after the Punic wars ended. The gracchi were more focused on distributing land within Italy, this failed which eventually led to the need for the reforms under Marius (Marius is given far too much credit for the reforms however, there is evidence from the 2nd punic war of the maniple system being reformed, however the urban poor being equipped and formed into cohorts is a marian innovation). We know the wealthy aristocracy continued to amass land overseas since there was considerable senatorial debate over veterans being settled in Africa in the aftermath of the war against jugurtha.

Exile did not automatically mean you were stripped of your wealth, however, there were numerous persons sent into exile who were fined considerable amounts (Caepio as an example). It all depended on the make up of the court passing the sentence. 

Plus, this is Caesar we are talking about, he dedicated the majority of his life to the republic and believed it needed reformed. He had the means and ability to reform it and he chose to do it. If he hadn't done it and allowed the republic to slowly fester away, we would be sitting here having a different conversation about how Caesar was a coward who went into retirement and allowed the republic to implode.

Quote

 While I do empathize with the soldiers who may very well have been shafted, I don't think money is enough of a reason to kill fellow citizens.

I wonder if you would think the same if you had just spent a decade in Gaul fighting in terrible conditions against overwhelming odds, only to be told you don't deserve a pension settlement of land whilst Pompey's troops had received land after fighting in the east. All because of a senatorial factional rivalry against your commander aimed at robbing him of well deserved influence within the senate. You might change your mind then.

 

Quote

Sulla did stick around though, he lived in a villa not far from Rome upon his resignation and it wasn't until his death that everyone ignored the policies he forced upon the Republic.

Sulla retired entirely from public life after giving up the dictatorship. On top of that, it was the optimates who started to ignore and change Sulla's reforms.



Quote

There was no way Caeser wouldn't have fared differently if he lived and if that was his goal, which it wasn't. He famously spared enemies lives because he thought it would limit the likelihood of counter revolts and assassinations, nothing more.

This is simply not true and lacks logic. Caesar allowed his former enemies to resume their positions within the senate with no penalty at all as soon as he entered rome, it was a policy of his and all the evidence that we have indicates that up until the Spanish campaigns of the civil war, that he was most distressed by his opponents not taking him up on his offers. Plus, if you are worried about assassinations and plots, you don't invite former enemies to resume their positions of influence within the senate, tyrants 'remove' potential threats. All the evidence we have genuinely suggests Caesar wished for the senate to be reformed and assume a position of genuine prominence albeit under his temporary direction. We don't even know what his long term plans were besides a war against Parthia to obtain much needed funds for the treasury and acquire Crassus' lost standards.

Quote

Going back to the point about the Plebeian Assembly, if Caeser had any intention of "fixing" the Republic rather than setting up a system for him to appoint a heir to take over upon his death, he would have vastly increased the powers of the Assembly to a point just under checking his own power (since dictators, by definition, can't be checked beyond the 6 month term limit that he so conveniently got rid of). So what did he do? Ah yes that's right, he instead gave himself the power to appoint all Consuls and Tribunes instead, how very republican of him.

Sulla actually started this trend, and we simply have no idea what Caesar's long term plans were due to his death shortly afterwards. I doubt he wanted to create a state akin to what Augustus eventually created and I suspect he would have emulated Sulla eventually after he believed the state had been reformed. Augustus was the true reformer in this regards and went far beyond Sulla or Caesar in this regards. The proscriptions helped in this sense.

Quote

The senate was a puppet of Augustus and never went against his will, the only thing of note the senate did for the first 60 years of the empire was orchestrate the assassination of Caligula. And what did the Senate do once they were free from a single individual holding all the political, marital, and spiritual authority in the state? Ah yes, that's right, they voted to grant all the powers to Claudius because they were not independently elected but approved by the emperors. I don't know about anyone else but that sounds exactly like what would happen in a monarchical nation to me.

This is simply not true, the senate still retained enormous influence under Augustus and did regularly oppose him with Augustus abiding by its wishes. Don't ask me what these were since it's been a couple years since I read it but Goldsworthy's book on Augustus goes into detail about it. I think it has to do province allocation in the Balklans or Illyria along with questions on taxes and who would succeed Augustus due to the numerous deaths of Augustus' immediate family during his long reign as princeps.

It was under Tiberius that the senate began to lose much power due to the rise of Sejanus and the Praetorian guard. Indeed, the senate itself after the death of caligula went into discussions as to who the new princeps should be, it was the Praetorians who eventually forced Claudius upon them. This readily reinforces the notion that the senate still retained great power and influence during the early principate  and it was Tiberius and Caligula who were the main actors involved in the transition to an eventual monacrchy over the next 200 years.

  • Upvote 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, the idiocy in this thread is that ex-IQ did not want IQ to exist, and would have preferred different politics, even ones where BK and NPO are shooting each other. Unfortunately, the endless torrent of "IQ is ruining the game" by the most toxic people in PnW is pushing them to make IQ a thing.

 

This is like the Thomas Theorem; i.e, if people believe something to be true, it becomes true in terms of social fact. KERCHTOG, for whatever reason, wants IQ to exist so they can spend the rest of the game stabbing them. ex-IQ, on the other hand, wants to move on.

Oh, and for the endless misunderstandings of the how the Eastern Front worked:

5

The vast numerical superiority enjoyed by the Soviets

Nazi propaganda nurtured the image of Germans fighting against “innumerable masses from the East”, but this is just a racist propaganda. In actual fact, the war on the Eastern Front in 1941 was characterised by a Soviet inferiority in pure numbers. On 22 June 1941, the four Soviet western military districts between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea had 2.3 million men, opposed to nearly 4.5 million Axis troops. The Wehrmacht had amassed 3.35 million troops. To this the Romanian army contributed 600,000, and in the north, Finland had already mobilised its army and could muster 530,000 men.

When the Red Army counter-attacked at Moscow in December 1941, the Soviet numerical inferiority was even larger. Soviet strength returns in archives show that on 1 December 1941, the Soviets were able to muster 576,500 soldiers and 574 tanks against German Army Group Centre – which at the time had between 1.9 and 1.2 million troops with 1,800 tanks and assault guns. The Germans not only enjoyed a three-fold numerical superiority in tanks, but of the Soviet tanks employed against them at Moscow, only around 30 per cent were T-34s or KVs, with the remainder being completely obsolete tankettes.

As the war continued, the Germans gradually lost their numerical superiority – which reflects the greater Soviet industrial capacity – but their most brilliant victories in 1941 were achieved with a convincing numerical superiority.

 

 

https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/operation-barbarossa-9-popular-myths-busted/

 

What I personally find most disagreeable is the lying, basically. The attempts to shape narrative betray more or less a complete contempt of the opposition, as well as how the narrative is shaped (repeating something enough times may make people believe it true, but it's literally Goebbels).

Edited by Inst
  • Downvote 6

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except nobody said IQ was ruining the game until actions were taken which implied IQ existed.

And the politics that would result in BK and NPO shooting each other is microspheres, which they were both against, so you're full if shit again.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire microspheres idea is retarded, because if we see what BK-sphere has amounted to, it's basically posting a sign that says "Please r- me". Not all microspheres are created equal, and there's more to the game than just treaties.

 

The politics that WOULD stop the endless ex-IQ / IQ / not IQ fights is a TKR-NPO treaty that has substance on it beyond paper. From the looks of things, this probably won't manifest in the next war cycle.

  • Downvote 2

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

And the politics that would result in BK and NPO shooting each other is microspheres, which they were both against, so you're full if shit again.

When microspheres combine to hit another microsphere it kind of shits on the idea of microspheres. I'm not discounting that you teamed up due to common threats, but you can't sing and dance about microspheres and then carry on with the same kind of coalition building that has always existed.

Edited by Tiberius
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

When microspheres combine to hit another microsphere it kind of shits on the idea of microspheres. I'm not discounting that you teamed up due to common threats, but you can't sing and dance about microspheres and then carry on with the same kind of coalition building that has always existed.

BK/TC/Citadel was not a microsphere. Citadel had an MDAP with BK and so there was never any question. Including their protectorates that came in, is over 1000 nations. The microspheres that unified against them were 300 nations individually at most, and smaller than 200 in the case of Rose.

Now considering that 1000 nation 'microsphere' had the intent to attack one of the MUCH smaller, ACTUAL microspheres 1 on 1, outnumbering them at WORST 3:1, that the spheres numbering 250 and sub 200, might not be feeling very safe about that? Of course they banded together to attack a common threat to them. Even banded together it was still 2:1 against them.

Edited by Akuryo
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.