Wars where the "wrong side" won

[English assassin]

History, as they say, is written by the victor.

I am currently reading the History of the Peloponnesian war. (as you do). Possibly because Athens was a sea power (like Britain), possibly because she was a democracy, possibly because she left lots of elegant ruins, the conventional schoolboy view in the UK was generally in favour of Athens and against Sparta. Or it was at my school anyway.

Alas, history does not share our prejudices, and oligarchic and oppressive Sparta won that war convincingly. Poor Athens never recovered her glory. (I did actually know that before starting on Thucydides never fear)

Which got me thinking. Realising its not a very serious historical question, what other examples are there of wars where the "wrong" side won? Ideally they should involve a clear dichotomy between two very different cultures, one of which (the loser) should seem very much preferable to modern eyes? Ie notwithstanding history being written by the victor, which wars would you like to have seen go the other way, and why?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nam . Nuff said. ~;)

[Colovion]

Rome and Carthage.

:(

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

The Hundred Years War ~D

Louis,

[Gawain of Orkeny]

*cough*Another one: The American Civil War.

I don't think it would have been better off if the South had won, per se, but the utter annihalation of the CSA has led to an ever-increasing down spiral in State's Rights--which is the issue it was fought over in the first place. I think that it would have been best if the CSA surrendered in the end, but only after some reforms were enacted to ensure the proper near-autonamy of the States.

Well its nice to see there are some things we totaly agree upon :bow:

[Kagemusha]

Native americans vs.white settlers. ~D

[cunctator]

Rome vs. Germans 9ad.

[Kagemusha]

Rome vs. Germans 9ad.

Agreed. :bow:

[Red Harvest]

Well its nice to see there are some things we totaly agree upon :bow:

It reflects poorly on both of you. With the South wanting to cut up the United States into pieces, and spread slavery through more of North America. I have a hard time seeing the U.S. Civil War as the wrong side having won.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It reflects poorly on both of you. With the South wanting to cut up the United States into pieces, and spread slavery through more of North America. I have a hard time seeing the U.S. Civil War as the wrong side having won.

The south didnt want to spread slavery through more of North America. In fact it would have ended there also later than sooner to be sure war or no war.

[Red Harvest]

*cough*Another one: The American Civil War.

I don't think it would have been better off if the South had won, per se, but the utter annihalation of the CSA has led to an ever-increasing down spiral in State's Rights--which is the issue it was fought over in the first place. I think that it would have been best if the CSA surrendered in the end, but only after some reforms were enacted to ensure the proper near-autonamy of the States.

The problem was that the South was unwilling to compromise over slavery, and hiding behind the guise of States Rights. If you read the history, the problem was that the South wanted to extend slavery, and they seceeded because they were not able to extend it as they wanted. Bleeding Kansas was an example of how fanatical they had become. The Southern states seceeded even before Lincoln took office. Lincoln had said he would not allow slavery to be extended to the territories, but he would still have had to contend with a very fractured govt that would have greatly limited his power. Ironically, Secessionists gave him exactly the kind of power they feared.

It was the South that drove the country away from States Rights. Even R.E. Lee felt that secession was fundamentally wrong, " Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution." Robert E. Lee, letter, 23 January 1861

Most of the drives I see in modern times for States Rights are regressive ones (not to mention the ACW.) As such I oppose them. If States Rights were used for noble causes I would likely feel differently. At the moment I have a hard time attaching States Rights causes to much of anything I support.

[Red Harvest]

Rome vs. Gaul and the Celts.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How can we dissagree so in that other thread? ~:confused: Some people here just dont want to know the truth it seems . At the time of the ACW slavery was being done away with in most of the western world. Americans living in the South were no different. Sometimes your just brilliant Cube. And sometimes not so. ~D

[Red Harvest]

The south didnt want to spread slavery through more of North America. In fact it would have ended there also later than sooner to be sure war or no war.

Wrong. History is certain on this one. The slave states wanted to maintain their senatorial power balance (or increase it) by admitting as many slave states as possible into the U.S. They blocked the admission of Free States and worked to rig elections in free leaning territories.

Ironically, one big problem the free northern states had was with the "Fugitive Slave Act" which trampled on their own States Rights. It was an example of slavery being forced down the throats of those who found it morally repugnant. Also ironic is that some of the opposition to slavery in the North was because of job concerns...particularly if the South had its way extending slavery to populous northern states. I don't think any of us want to compete for wages and benefits against slaves... ~;)

The South had itself locked into a spiral with slavery. It had so many slaves and its economy had become so based upon slavery, that it had no easy way to withdraw from it. Plus slavery was being justified on religious and racial grounds.

The humorous part today is the South projecting itself as being morally superior in all of this.

[Red Harvest]

Of course you won't like some of it, you could always move somewhere else. I would rather move to a state that agreed with my political ideas than live in a country where half the population disagrees with the national laws.

This is getting way off topic. I've discussed this falacy before. No, many of us can't simply jump careers because some in the state have gone extremist on me. We move states to follow careers, not change careers because of state politics. The Federal system is a *moderator* to some of the whims of states. Having to pull up roots every twenty years or so because of extremists is a lousy way to run a country.

What it boils down to is that my allegience is to my country, not my state.

[Marshal Murat]

The Civil war was essentially states rights.
Most are focused on the slavery issue that they forget the.

Taxes and tariffs imposed by the North on the South that would ruin their cotton inudstry, while it benifited the north, and the companies.

Slavery would have died anyway. England would have taken Egyptian and Indian cotton, and the South would have nowhere to sell their cotton. Thus they would have to industrialize.

Slavery is also a somewhat non-profitable buisness. The owner must.
Buy
Clothe
Feed
and house a slave.

It may be profitable for cotton, but it would be easier to hire some local farmboys, give them a couple of cents, and they would get money.

Napoleon and Wellington

[Red Harvest]

You should start a new thread on this.

The fallacy in your argument is that you are worried a state will go "Exteme" on you. The Federal Laws are there to make sure no state get's out of hand. State's Rights are there for the little things, like Gun Laws, Abortion, Creationism in Schools, Environmental Laws, how punctilious they might be about Separation of Church and State, ect. And all only to a certain degree allowable by the National Laws, which serve as a fallback net.

I disagree. Too many individual rights are trampled by States. As such I oppose extensions of States Rights. I believe in protecting individual rights, not States Rights. Most of what I see are States making an end run around individual freedoms, and supporting business over the individual.

On a related note, environmental laws are definitely an area that should be federally controlled since they extend so deeply into industry. Trying to comply with 50 sets of enviromental standards is not practical, and it is anything but efficient. Not to mention that so many environmental regs are poorly crafted by technically incompetent legal types. Setting a detection limit of zero for instance...a limit that can't be proven to have been achieved.

[BDC]

Normans and the English. Oh how the world would be totally different.

Imagine a world of no British Empire!

[Husar]

Hmm,

Rome vs. Germans outcome was correct,
no Napoleon for me as well.

Maybe the american war of independence went wrong, because otherwise some people here would be less likely to highjack the thread with a stateright discussion. ~;) ~D

I agree on Nam.

The outcome of WW1 was wrong as well, another outcome may have prevented WW2...though the winning factions aren´t that wrong.

Byzantium 1453.

That´s all I can think of right now.

[soda]

So essentially everyone's going to put down all the wars their country lost.

[PanzerJaeger]

-World War One.

-Barbarossa. The world would have been better off if Germany had ended communism at its source. Hitler was close to death and I feel they would have moderated some.

Im sorry to say that 10 million Jews dead is preferable to the 100+ million deaths attributed to communism.

Also, if you look closely at history, the Final Solution was a direct response to Hitler's acceptance that the war was lost. If Germany had won the war... maybe, just maybe.. he would have allowed them to go to Israel or somewhere else, or at least not been so adamant about killing them.

Its all speculation and neither of those governments were good, but communist Russia was far worse.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I don't think Constantinople 1453 went wrong, it did help to spur the Renaissance...

WWI is a definate one though, if there had been a stalemate or an end that was less harsh for Germany it could have prevented WWII, though I wouldn't change it because who knows what would have happened...

[Husar]

So essentially everyone's going to put down all the wars their country lost.

No, Germany just had to lose WW1 because it was already stupid to start it.
The wrong thing was the burden that was put upon Germany and the land we lost, because these things were reasons for Hitler´s election and things he used to justify his war and occupations.


Also, if you look closely at history, the Final Solution was a direct response to Hitler's acceptance that the war was lost. If Germany had won the war... maybe, just maybe.. he would have allowed them to go to Israel or somewhere else, or at least not been so adamant about killing them.

I disagree, Hitler went mad and he wanted to kill all jews, he even made them responsible for everything. In his propaganda, they were responsible for the bad capitalism in the US as well as for the bad communism in Russia. :dizzy2:
He was completely crazy, his aim was to conquer a lot(the whole world?) and kill all the jews he could get his hands on, please don´t try to apply any sense to his actions or make him look better than he was, "Endlösung der Judenfrage"(the "Final solution" that is) means complete extinction of all jews and was already planned before the war even began, the first KZs were already built shortly after Hitler was elected, besides that, he could use their money and gold to finance his wars...

[King of Atlantis]

Gawain and cube i agree with you guys on the civil war. What most people fail to realize is that very few people in the south had slaves. Slavery would have ended just as it did else where.

[PanzerJaeger]

All the jews in the world wouldnt come close to the number of people killed under communism... not to mention the fact that many historians feel that Hitler was not long for the world anyway. The resulting power struggle could have produced a much less murderous Nazi or even the end of nazism.

Im not making Hitler into anything.

The final solution was planned in 1942 and ratcheted up after the acceptance of failure in Russia.

The destruction of the Jews was a secondary goal made primary when the war went against Germany.

[King of Atlantis]

Hitler wanted a perfect airian(sp) race. If he had succeded he would have wiped every other race off the earth.

[Steppe Merc]

Native americans vs.white settlers.
Agreed.

I would also like the throw out Rome vs. Carthage, Rome vs Gauls and other Celts, Rome vs Sarmatians. Probably missing a whole bunch more...

PJ, Hitler invented his whole crazy pagan ideology way before 1942, however. He stilled believed in all that crap, even if he had won.

[PanzerJaeger]

Allied propaganda still sticks apparently.

Ive learned not to try and correct such falsities however..

[Marshal Murat]

He would have killed the blacks, asians, arabians, mexicans, and Native Americans. He would want a white race, and the aryans would be the blue eyed, blond haired people would be superior.

[Kraxis]

He would have killed the blacks, asians, arabians, mexicans, and Native Americans. He would want a white race, and the aryans would be the blue eyed, blond haired people would be superior.
No, he would not. Not directly that is.

Even in Russia, the big Lebensraum for the master race was not going to be devoid of population. The master race got that name because they were going to be masters of the other races in their own world (after the Germans would have gotten the lebensraum wars wuld be fought to end opposition to Germany, not for conquest). True, they expected millions and millions of Russians to die of starvation but to eradicate them they knew was foolish, as who would then tend to their fields? There weren't enough people of pure blood for that, and besides they were meant to administer that production, not do it.

It is interesting that people believe that the Nazis truly expected to conquer the world and kill off all but themselves. While the top rung of the Nazis were truly despicable people for the most part, they were not commonly moronic. Many were highly gifted people that knew how the world worked, and that 100 million (at best) arians couldn't possibly control the entire world.

But back to the point.

The wrong side won the The Skåne War.
Not because Sweden won against Denmark, she had won before and would win again later, but because the people of Skåne, Halland and Blekinge were Danish to the core (it was in fact the first places the Danes settled after leaving their ancestral homeland). In the years to come that Danish identity was shattered, until now the people of Skåne, Halland and Blekinge actually to some extent believes that it had never truly been Danish possesions, but rather had been occupied by a foreign power and was finally absorbed into their true homeland after this last war over it. It is sad in my mind.

In the end, it is true that we are all slated in favour of our own countries (yet I'm half Swedish so I know both sides of the story).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I disagree. Too many individual rights are trampled by States. As such I oppose extensions of States Rights.

Nice to see you openly oppose the constitution.


Most of what I see are States making an end run around individual freedoms, and supporting business over the individual.

Thats not what states rights are about.


On a related note, environmental laws are definitely an area that should be federally controlled since they extend so deeply into industry. Trying to comply with 50 sets of enviromental standards is not practical, and it is anything but efficient. Not to mention that so many environmental regs are poorly crafted by technically incompetent legal types. Setting a detection limit of zero for instance...a limit that can't be proven to have been achieved.



THe federal government sets the minimum standarss on this. The states can only make the laws stricter. But i guess since your against states rights you oppose this.


Originally Posted by soda
So essentially everyone's going to put down all the wars their country lost.

Not me I oppsed one that we won. We shouldnt even have been there. We helped AQ take over a nation and then invaded Iraq. Go figure. Some war on terror.

[The Wizard]

I agree with Plato, really. Sparta was not the wrong side. It was just as democratic as Athens, and if you look at its policies towards its citizens and who it saw as its citizens according to what kind of terms, Sparta was far more democratic than Athens.

And Panzer, I cannot believe my eyes. Take a look at the statistics, eh? 10 million was, at the time, half of the entire Jewish people, if not more. This would amount to what? 2 billion? 2.5 billion human citizens killed by communism to equal the percentage of the Jewish people killed in relation to the total numbers, but then in terms of world population? 100 million is peanuts in comparison, especially when one remembers that the Holocaust was a state-sponsored, concerted effort at genocide while those 100 million are an amalgamation of political enemies of the communist regime, people killed in proxy wars by both commies as NATO troops, and on and on. The two are simply incomparable.



~Wiz

[King of Atlantis]

Allied propaganda still sticks apparently.

Ive learned not to try and correct such falsities however..



So the nazi's didnt go looking for the holy grail, evidence of the Airian race, etc...

The Nazis began to believe their own propoganda and if hitler had conquered europe and won the war he would have done some serious ethnic cleansing.

You have learned to say someone is completely wrong and back it up with no evidence what so ever :dizzy2: , yeah I hope i pick up such a great trait one day... :embarassed:

[The Wizard]

Take a look at my post, yes? If one takes the Spartan and the Athenian terms of being a citizen, then one comes to the following conclusion: Athenian citizens (which used slaves, I assure you) had to have lived in the city for an extended period of time, and had to live within Attica to qualify.

Meanwhile, Sparta saw as its citizens the Spartiates, those who's sons were entered into the agogè. And these people were all seen as equal, everyone -- provided they had not run from battle -- was allowed into the public mess, or the gymnasium, or the citizens' council (forgot the real name), regardless of age, family or wealth. Helots and other such peoples were not Spartan citizens, but conquered peoples. If you say their fate was a cruel one, I tend to agree. But if you say that Sparta was less democratical and even not democratical at all just because these people, seen by the Spartans themselves as inhabitants of another polis, then I say you are suffering from hindsight.



~Wiz

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by The Wizard
I agree with Plato, really. Sparta was not the wrong side. It was just as democratic as Athens, and if you look at its policies towards its citizens and who it saw as its citizens according to what kind of terms, Sparta was far more democratic than Athens.

Oh please Athens is the model for democracy whlie Sparta is the model for a Republic. We of course took the best of them both. ~;)

[King of Atlantis]

Oh please Athens is the model for democracy whlie Sparta is the model for a Republic. We of course took the best of them both. ~;)


Isnt a republic just a represnetative democracy. Thats what we got.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Isnt a republic just a represnetative democracy. Thats what we got.

No we are a democratic republic. Again its the republic part that garuntees the rights of minorities. The problem with democracy is its mob rule.

[Red Harvest]

Oy, State's Rights is all about more freedoms. Where did you get those ideas, Red Harvest?

From watching them in action...especially in the South. Jim Crowe laws would be a good historical example of States Rights in action. There are a lot of others, and they typically are ones that the conservatives are in favor of. It is the State laws that I've found more likely to hinder my individual liberties, rather than Federal.

Where did you get the idea that State's Rights were about more freedoms? That's not even logical. State vs. Federal does change WHO sets the regs and more importantly, the level of scrutiny. It's harder to push through discriminatory acts (economic, racial, religious) at a Federal level. It is easier at a State level where the checks and balances are weaker and (different models of govt.) and local majorities find it easier to engage in "tyranny of the slim majority."

Look at the most dysfunctional states by most measures: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama...

[Red Harvest]

Nice to see you openly oppose the constitution.



Thats not what states rights are about.





THe federal government sets the minimum standarss on this. The states can only make the laws stricter. But i guess since your against states rights you oppose this.



Not me I oppsed one that we won. We shouldnt even have been there. We helped AQ take over a nation and then invaded Iraq. Go figure. Some war on terror.

1. Nope, I oppose States infringing on my individual liberty, which is an important part ot the constitution.

2. Perhaps not, but that is how they are being used in the current context, and how they have been frequently used for the last 150 years or so...

3. I oppose the infringement of my liberties by the States, yes.

4. No we waited longer than we should have. Serbia created the conditions through their own terrorism in Kosovo. Now that they've created a mess with ethnic cleansing you blame the victims. What an idiot. You support genocide as long as it is by Christians. I don't.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

From watching them in action...especially in the South. Jim Crowe laws would be a good historical example of States Rights in action. There are a lot of others, and they typically are ones that the conservatives are in favor of.

Oh my . So now conservatives are in favor of Jim Crowe Laws. My you get more moderate everyday. These laws were clearly unconstitutional and struck down.


Where did you get the idea that State's Rights were about more freedoms? That's not even logical.

How about Californias medical pot law. Isnt that an example of a state granting more freedom and the federal government trying to deny it? And who on SCOTUS backed the states rights on this matter? The liberals or the conservatives?

[sharrukin]

Oy.. Hitler definately believed in the Final Solution the whole way through. The Nazis documented almost everything they did--alot of it even with Videos. It seems clear from the start that nothing other than total Aryan supremecy was on Hitler's mind.

I think it would have been nice if the last assasination attempt had worked. Most of the men who would have taken over were against the Final Solution.

Panzerjager is correct regarding the Madagascar plan.

This site is opposed to Holocaust denier's and has some info on it.
http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/evidence/pl112.asp

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

So essentially everyone's going to put down all the wars their country lost.

Not at all: I picked one my country won ~D

Louis,

[Ironside]

Also, if you look closely at history, the Final Solution was a direct response to Hitler's acceptance that the war was lost. If Germany had won the war... maybe, just maybe.. he would have allowed them to go to Israel or somewhere else, or at least not been so adamant about killing them.


Hitler built 5 deathcamps, that differented from the concentration-camps, as in the concentration-camps you worked yourself to death, while in the deathcamps you were killed almost immidiatly (unless you were very, very lucky). The names of these deathcamps is:
Chelmo, Sobibor, Treblinka, Belzec and Auschwitz-Birkenau (this one had a concentration part and a death part)

Chelmo began operations on December 7th, 1941 and stopped April 9, 1943
Sobibor operated from May 1942 to October 1943
Treblinka was opened for operation on July 23, 1942 and was finally closed in November, 1943 (although most of the operations ended after the rebellion 2 august 1943).
Belzec began operations March 17th, 1942 and ended operations December 1942
Auschwitz-Birkenau was established on May 31th, 1942 and liberated by Red Army soldiers on January 27, 1945

This only refers to the deathcamps dates, some was run as concentrationcamps before that.

As the Russian counteroffensive at Stalingrad began 9 november 1942, it shows clearly that the intent of extermination was there and had began long before Hitler accepted that the war was lost. Although losing the war seems to have increased his determination to get atleast one part "right" in his warped mind.

[King of Atlantis]

Im personally glad every war went as it did. Why? cause such a big change in history would mean that non of us would be here today. Think about in even a small war, thousands die. Those people would have married had different kids, their kids would have different kids etc..

[King Henry V]

Saxons vs Normans
Byzantines vs Crusaders 1204
WW1

[Geoffrey S]

Quite a few wars against Rome were lost by the "wrong" side: Rome against Carthage, Rome in the Gallic campaigns, Rome against the Dacians for instance. There were so many budding civilizations which were essentially destroyed by the Romans and replaced with their culture. In my opinion the world of that time would have been a more diverse place culturally speaking if there were more than just the Roman example.

[cunctator]

Quite a few wars against Rome were lost by the "wrong" side: Rome against Carthage, Rome in the Gallic campaigns, Rome against the Dacians for instance. There were so many budding civilizations which were essentially destroyed by the Romans and replaced with their culture. In my opinion the world of that time would have been a more diverse place culturally speaking if there were more than just the Roman example.



Why are so many people here romanophob?
This civilisations were more integrated into the roman empire than destroyed.
Many cities in northern africa had a carthaginian influenced constitution with sufets on the top after the roman conquest. The punic language was spoken in the region until the 5th century. Greek culture remained dominant in the east, egypt kept it`s own culture until after the arab conquest... Also the celtic culture was not destroyed and replaced, it merged with the roman in gaul. Celtic language was still spoken at least in 400ad and written Last wills in celtic languages were accepted by the roman law. Distances were still measured in the celtic leugae, Celtic and other cultures gods like the horse godess epona were commonly adopted by the romans The oriental mithras or egyptian isis cult were very popular in large parts of the empire.

The roman world was a very diverse and tolerant one for centuries until the rise of christianity to the sole official religion and the political crisis in the late antiquity changed it completly.

[Kagemusha]

I agree with cunctator.Romans didnt destroy cultures.They absorbed them.Many basic things in western civilization ar based on Roman culture. :bow:

[Kraxis]

I'm pretty happy that the Romans won.

Why you say. Because it has given us the common background that made Europe so dynamic for a long time. Now we are common due to our common beliefs. But previously we all tried to grow into successors to the Romans.

[English assassin]

Hmm. I'm having a bit of difficulty seeing the defeat of the slave owning south, or of Nazi Germany, as an example of


a clear dichotomy between two very different cultures, one of which (the loser) should seem very much preferable to modern eyes?

I wondered about the Romans and the gauls. Its certainly true the romans put an end to what would otherwise presumably have been a flourishing culture and empire in its own right. But is there any reason to suppose the Gauls would have been preferable to the Romans?

Alexander the great migfht be an example. Persia was a long standing and advanced civilisation, defeated by a yobbo who so far as I know neither improved the lot of the people in the lands he conquered not left behind any very meaningful or lasting political legacy. The sack of Persepolis says it all really.

[PanzerJaeger]

So the nazi's didnt go looking for the holy grail, evidence of the Airian race, etc...

The Nazis began to believe their own propoganda and if hitler had conquered europe and won the war he would have done some serious ethnic cleansing.

You have learned to say someone is completely wrong and back it up with no evidence what so ever , yeah I hope i pick up such a great trait one day...

I have learned that not accepting baseless propaganda about the nazis gets you called names. Luckily, Kraxis has more balls than me and stated the truth.


It is interesting that people believe that the Nazis truly expected to conquer the world and kill off all but themselves. While the top rung of the Nazis were truly despicable people for the most part, they were not commonly moronic. Many were highly gifted people that knew how the world worked, and that 100 million (at best) arians couldn't possibly control the entire world.

Ive said this before and of course people accused of being sympathetic with the nazis.

Who told you that Hitler planned to kill all non-aryans? Thats ridiculous and shows that you have swallowed the perverbial kool aid.

Most Germans were not even aryan. :dizzy2:

[Kraxis]

Actually the conquest by Alexander did a lot of good in many places. India got a golden age due to the influx of ideas, goods and people. While Persia had a destinctive culture the spread of the Greek culture and its mix with local ones was better. The Persian culture was really only confined to Persis and parts of Media. The west also benefitted from this in that goods and thoughts from India advanced the culture at home.

So while Alexander was a hooligan, his actions lead to things even he could not comprehend.

[Kraxis]

PJ, what are doing? Shoting yourself in the foot?

I was responding to this

He would have killed the blacks, asians, arabians, mexicans, and Native Americans. He would want a white race, and the aryans would be the blue eyed, blond haired people would be superior.

I was more or less on your side, but it seems you see nothing but opponents where ever you look.

[Gregoshi]

Please take the discussions on States Rights and what the Nazi did/didn't do to the Backroom. Thank you.

[lars573]

Biggest myth's about Nazi Germany
1.They wanted to conquer the entire friggin planet.
2.They would exterminate anyone who wasn't an Aryan in the places they conquered.
These are both propaganda myths created by the US to make the Germans seem a more credible threat to the US.
(as a note Iran means Aryan nation)

The Nazi's in their social Darwinsim thought that there were cetain groups of people who were best suited to lead, others to function, and others to work. And lastly there was the human garbage that needed to go.

Their heirarchy of groups are,
Aryans (the master race or leader race)
Germans (Nazi's regarded the UK as German)
Latins and Germano-celts (these 3 are the functionary classes)
Slavs (the working class)
Jew's and Gypsies (the human garbage that needs to go)

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ, what are doing? Shoting yourself in the foot?

I was more or less on your side, but it seems you see nothing but opponents where ever you look.



LoL i know, I used your example to back me up. I was responding to the same person you were but you worded my thoughts perfectly so I quoted you instead of reiterating the same thing. . ~:confused:

[PanzerJaeger]

I have learned that not accepting baseless propaganda about the nazis gets you called names. Luckily, Kraxis has more balls than me and stated the truth.

^see..

[Geoffrey S]

Why are so many people here romanophob?
This civilisations were more integrated into the roman empire than destroyed.
Oh, I'm not romanophob and I do appreciate the legacy they left behind. It's just when there are situations like Caesar attacking Gaul for no real reason other than personal gain and extinguishing a budding culture before it has any real oppurtunity to develop it does seem that there was a lot of potential which was never realised due to Roman conquests.

Many cities in northern africa had a carthaginian influenced constitution with sufets on the top after the roman conquest. The punic language was spoken in the region until the 5th century. Greek culture remained dominant in the east, egypt kept it`s own culture until after the arab conquest... Also the celtic culture was not destroyed and replaced, it merged with the roman in gaul.
It's not just a matter of keeping their own culture, it's also a matter of allowing that culture to develop over time. Once these regions were provinces of Rome they were allowed to keep a lot of their beliefs, but generally this seems to have been the case mainly to keep the peace. The final goal was to slowly Romanize conquered areas, a goal which was generally achieved. Once conquered by Romans the developement of a unique identity in many regions ground to a halt, to be combined with or replaced by Roman standards. An example would be the lack of development in Greek styled art or writing after Roman conquest; most artists followed the Roman aemulatio idea, not to innovate but to improve.

Just to make it clear, I'm no Rome hater; the above would apply to any one nation conquering another and actually staying there, it's simply that due to the enormous success of the Romans in this regard it's more readily apparent and the effects more noticeable.

Perhaps in this context my original post wasn't really justified. There wasn't a wrong side as such, it's simply a shame that one group came to dominate at the cost of so many developing cultures.

[Marshal Murat]

Rome wound absorb most idols and gods.
Has anyone ever read the Turtledove book
Gunpowder Empire?

This is a parallel universe story, that essential says that Aurelius lived, and led the legions into Teutoburger Forest and won.

In the period, one character goes to the main temple, and along the sides were Roman gods, Greek gods, Celtic gods, Mithades, Jesus, Ahura Mazda, etc.


I'm somewhat suprised no one has mentioned the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans and the Spanish.

Also, the
Charles and the Russians (Northern War)
Mohammed and the "others" (Mohammed was in a town, he converted them to Islam, and the "others" wanted him to stop, so they besieged him)

[conon394]

The Wizard


Take a look at my post, yes? If one takes the Spartan and the Athenian terms of being a citizen, then one comes to the following conclusion: Athenian citizens (which used slaves, I assure you) had to have lived in the city for an extended period of time, and had to live within Attica to qualify.

Meanwhile, Sparta saw as its citizens the Spartiates, those who's sons were entered into the agogè. And these people were all seen as equal, everyone -- provided they had not run from battle -- was allowed into the public mess, or the gymnasium, or the citizens' council (forgot the real name), regardless of age, family or wealth. Helots and other such peoples were not Spartan citizens, but conquered peoples. If you say their fate was a cruel one, I tend to agree. But if you say that Sparta was less democratical and even not democratical at all just because these people, seen by the Spartans themselves as inhabitants of another polis, then I say you are suffering from hindsight.

Even if you just compare the two groups of citizens, there is really to way to suggest Sparta was as democratic as Athens. First I don’t see what you mean “had to have lived in the city for an extended period of time, and had to live within Attica to qualify”
To be an Athenian citizen you had to have (during the period of the Periklean citizenship law) two Athenian parents (only a father before it was implemented or while it was suspended), in Sparta you have to have two Spartan parents. What the difference?
Second, Sparta was less democratic. If you could not pay your mess ‘fee’ you were dropped into the rather large class of disenfranchised Spartans. There was not broad freedom of speech, movement or economic activity (as there was at Athens). At Sparta there was no serious attempt to insulate the courts from corruption; and in fact the procedure for selecting magistrates was easily manipulated. There was no public archive, no procedure to audit the magistrates. Sparta retained two kings, who had fairly broad powers. There was no mechanism in the assembly to allow a citizen to either edit or introduce a motion, nor to guarantee one man one vote. At Sparta there was no legal framework of basic protections for metrics (not that there were any). Nor, as far as I know was there any possibility or example of a foreigner becoming a naturalized Spartan (Contrasted with the large number of mass and individual grants of citizenship that occurred at Athens). Sparta was a closed totalitarian oligarchy.

[Spino]

- Any and all wars where the Huns, their offshoots or their vassals were victorious. Yeah, I'm sure Asian and European civilization was much better off after these guys rolled through town...

- Any and all wars where the Mongols, their offshoots or their vassals were victorious. Again, what on Earth would we have done without the great contribution from those wacky boys from the steppes!
(Anxiously awaiting the onslaught from the Org's Mongolphiles :help: )

- Peloponnesian War - Sparta may have been the saviour of Greek and Western civilization in the preceding war with Persia but it really should have lost this war to Athens and its allies. It wasn't until the aftermath of the war that Sparta proved just how inept it was at doing anything other than waging war, running a modest agrarian based economy and creating the best heavy infantry in the world. One can make a strong argument that Athens with its democracy, institutions, infrastructure and massive naval and trade fleets was supremely qualified to carry the mantle of Greek civilization on its shoulders and spread its culture and advances to the rest of the western world.

[Meneldil]

The napoleonic wars
The Romans vs barbarians
Pretty much everyone defeated by Timur Leng
Vietnam
The russian revolutionnary war
The invasion of France in 1940

I fail to see why Germany, Austria and the Ottomans should have won WWI ~:confused:

[Steppe Merc]

Mongols helped spread different culture through out the world, as well as religon. Their empire allowed different places to trade. How would it have been better? Rome destroyed far more civilizations than the Mongols did. Most of the places that the Mongols took over, the civilization stayed the same. Russia was still Russia, the Il Khans became Muslims, the Persian Khans adopted Persian culture, the Chinese Khans became essientally Chinese.

[Meneldil]

I don't think the Mongols were that much different from the Romans. The main difference was that the Mongols allowed religious freedom, unlike the Romans.
They spread civilisations and culture in the same ways, and burnt some cities in the same way as the Romans did earlier. But then the Mongols came from Asia, and they are seen as invaders by the Western World, while the Romans (who invaded Asia) are proudly seen as our ancestors :rolleyes:

[Steppe Merc]

Well to me there was a small difference. For example, the places the Romans conquered where never really the same, whereas the culture of the people the Mongols conquered stayed pretty much the same, though some were inriched (like Mongolia), while others were lessened (like Persia and Russia, though later leaders made up for the original burning of mosques and churches).
Also, Mongols absorbed other cultures, wheras the Romans destroyed other cultures. For example, the Romans who lived in Gaul never became Gauls, they were still Roman like, correct? Whereas the Mongols who lived in Persia became Persian like.

[Meneldil]

Yeah, you're right on this. The main reason for this probably being that Mongols were what, 100K people ? They could never have imposed their kinda 'backwards' culture to Persians and Chineses.
But OTOH, Romans did not destroy conquered culture : the Gauls became Gallo-Romains, they still used to speak their native language, their ancient customs and so on. A lot of place in France are still called by their gallic names.

[conon394]

For example, the places the Romans conquered where never really the same, whereas the culture of the people the Mongols conquered stayed pretty much the same, though some were inriched (like Mongolia), while others were lessened (like Persia and Russia, though later leaders made up for the original burning of mosques and churches).

But then by your own logic Rome made up for say the conquest of Gaul by later building roads, establishing secure boarders, the Pax ROmana, etc.

[Steppe Merc]

But was Gaul ever the same, though? Did the Celt's culture continue to florish after being conquered? I honestly don't know, but I thought that it didn't.

[Kagemusha]

What Rome did during Barbarian invasions was that those Nations became affected with Creco-Roman culture.Without Rome while she was on her death bed the steppe people would have flooded over Europe.And bases of our culture would have been destroyed.Maybe Roma wasnt such a tolerant Empire.But they also introduced the legacy of hellenism.To those people who they conguered.There was a reason why historians call the period after end of the Western Roman Empire the Dark Ages. :bow:

[Steppe Merc]

Steppe people were hardly mindless, cultureless barbarians. They influenced the Western World's military far more than Rome ever did, and spread the whole idea of Feudalism, really. In many cases, steppe nations were more advanced than their settled rivals.
Oh, and the Dark Ages is a incorrect term. While some places were in a low, the Byzantines and the Muslims, and even many steppe nations were advancing rapidly.

[Kagemusha]

Steppe people were hardly mindless, cultureless barbarians. They influenced the Western World's military far more than Rome ever did, and spread the whole idea of Feudalism, really. In many cases, steppe nations were more advanced than their settled rivals.

Steppe cultures had an military advance.They were superior horsemen and they had the composite bow.But you cant seriosly speak about high culture and Nomadism.They just dont mix. :bow:

[Steppe Merc]

Well what is high culture?

[Kagemusha]

Well what is high culture?

Im not going into this trap.you know what high culture is.Romans had all the knovledge that Hellenist scientist had discovered.Most of the Steppe people couldnt read or write.It has been studied that during the Roman Empires reign average citizen was living a better life than in Middle Ages.And about Feodalism,Feodalism was a setback compared to Roman system. :bow:

[The Wizard]

Feudalism only became a setback for Europe once weak rulers let it spiral out of control. The Ottomans used exactly the same system that Charlemagne's successors had implemented, and it worked like a charm.

The Dark Ages, much like the term Middle Ages, is a misnomer. Much of our current uses, laws and technology find their foundation in the Middle Ages. You are influenced by an order of history quite outdated nowadays. Not only do you discount Celts and Germanics as "mere barbarians", you also see the medieval period as a most unfortunate intermezzo, a black hole in between the classical age and the modern age. And this is simply not true.

If not for the Germanic invasions, much of our current world would be radically different. I would simply not have it any other way.



~Wiz

[Marshal Murat]

Chinese Nationalist and Communist (Mao)

[Kagemusha]

Feudalism only became a setback for Europe once weak rulers let it spiral out of control. The Ottomans used exactly the same system that Charlemagne's successors had implemented, and it worked like a charm.

The Dark Ages, much like the term Middle Ages, is a misnomer. Much of our current uses, laws and technology find their foundation in the Middle Ages. You are influenced by an order of history quite outdated nowadays. Not only do you discount Celts and Germanics as "mere barbarians", you also see the medieval period as a most unfortunate intermezzo, a black hole in between the classical age and the modern age. And this is simply not true.

If not for the Germanic invasions, much of our current world would be radically different. I would simply not have it any other way.



~Wiz

Sorry Wiz but where did i say that Celts and Germans were mere barbarians.I was talking about Steppe Nomads.And yes i was talking about Europe.About Ottoman Empire,there was very strong central government also.Not like in medieval Europe where Kings usually had one or more vassals stronger themselves.About Dark Ages never happened,yes there are group of Scientist that try to deny that.But the fact is that After the crumble of West Roman Empire ,the center of progression as we see it in world History left Europe and returned only again with Reneissance. :bow:

[King of Atlantis]

I have learned that not accepting baseless propaganda about the nazis gets you called names. Luckily, Kraxis has more balls than me and stated the truth.

baseless? Hitler sent men to tibet to find evidence of the ayrian race and sent people into france to look for the holly grail. This stuff is documented. Hitler was one crazty dude. He did not only kill jews, he kille homo's and gypsies. Everything he did would suggets he would keep doing it and saying he would stop is a very baseless hypotheses.




Ive said this before and of course people accused of being sympathetic with the nazis.

I never accused you of being sympathetic.


Who told you that Hitler planned to kill all non-aryans? Thats ridiculous and shows that you have swallowed the perverbial kool aid.

Is aryan even a real race. He thought so though it isnt true, he though there was a large ayrian empire, but most ayrian blood was in noth-west europe. He probably wouldnt have killed white people, but anyhthing other would have been on the chopping block.

[Steppe Merc]

I disagree. It may have slowed in Europe, but certaintly not in Byzantium and the Middle East.

[caesar44]

It is very nice to see how people can find logic in Hitler .
He did this , he did that , he may have done this , ha may have done that...
In 100 years from now , we (our grandchildrens) are going to see status of him and people will say "He gave our people hope , ha gave our people jobs , he only wanted us to be better , he only wanted the Jews to go to Palestine , he was attacked by the West , he wanted to save the world from Communism , he ..." 100 years , no , we are hearing it now !!!!!!!!!

Please , people , stop trying to understand evil . evil its evil its evil . there is no excuse in the universe for killing even one baby . they killed millions and you are talking about fighting Communism...well your president , Johnson , was fighting Communism , you can tell that to 58,000 young Americans . :embarassed:

[Gregoshi]

Please take the discussions on States Rights and what the Nazi did/didn't do to the Backroom. Thank you.

Please take the discussions on States Rights and what the Nazi did/didn't do to the Backroom. Thank you.

Apparently some of you missed my previous post. Next time I close the thread.

[caesar44]

Read it , but could not help my self , no matter , Ok ? :bow:

[Franconicus]

Deleted this! I just saw the moderator's warning ~:eek:

[Bartix]

And Panzer, I cannot believe my eyes. Take a look at the statistics, eh? 10 million was, at the time, half of the entire Jewish people, if not more. This would amount to what? 2 billion? 2.5 billion human citizens killed by communism to equal the percentage of the Jewish people killed in relation to the total numbers, but then in terms of world population? 100 million is peanuts in comparison

:dizzy2:
Value of human life is directly proportional to total popolasion of that ethnisity?
That is very silly.
A life is a life, and 100 is ten times as many as 10.
But i think Stalin said something.
"Loss of one life is tragedy, loss of thousands is statistics."
So death of last of the Mohikans is same as exterminasion of all who live in India, to take an all Indian exampel to show riddicklusness of your "reasoning". :dizzy2:

Topic:
Most wars Romans won
Spanish civil war
War on Drugs :charge: :charge:

[cunctator]

The main difference was that the Mongols allowed religious freedom, unlike the Romans.

Before at latest 363ad the roman empire was a more tolerant place than any other state in europe before the enlighment in the 18th century. Everyone was allowed to admire the gods he want. The only main problems with religious freedom I am aware of were the ones with the monotheistic religions, because state authorities and large parts of the population did not understand them. While the ancient jewish religion was widely accepted the new christian one was suspicous for many people. Especially why they could not sacrifice to the official state gods and proove their loyality to the empire withthat. Also that they meet in private rooms to pry to their god increased their reputation as a kind of evil secret sect. But there weren`t any concentreted pursuits of christians before the end of the 3rd century only singular local suppression. I doubt that without the pax romana christianity could establish itself as a widespread mass religion.


Feudalism in Europe

For me a system were a few nobles ruled over all the others and are something better by birth is clearly a step backwards to a system where everybody has the chance to ascend in society.
Europe needed a few hundred years to reach the level it has had under roman rule again. I don`t think that this radically different world would be worse than the current.



I disagree. It may have slowed in Europe, but certaintly not in Byzantium and the Middle East.

Byzantium was only the surviving greek part of the former empire. There and in the middle east they could build on the ancient high culture demolished in europe. A still united and more peaceful mediterranean world with a more numerous population, more cultural diversity would has been a far better place for progress.

Ofcourse a culture devoloped in another way than before after it was integrated into the roman empire and became something different. Roman culture heavily influenced the celts while celtic culture also influenced the romans. Gaul with its Gallo-Romain population flourished and was one of the more properous regions of the empire.


If a native culture remained completly the same only shows that the conquerrors are not interested in properly integrating them into their empire and want only rule over this people or that their culture can`t offer very much.

[Advo-san]

:dizzy2:
Value of human life is directly proportional to total popolasion of that ethnisity?
That is very silly.
A life is a life, and 100 is ten times as many as 10.

Well, haven't you heard? According to some people's opinion, human life is not only a measurable quantity, whose value differs according to a nation's numbers, but even more: as long as a nation has a latino-vibe, it is ok to kill, supress and occupy other smaller nations, cause that is just politics and people are not to blame for their goverments
I get the feeling that some people, just because they r exellent programmers and they are constructing great mods, think they know everything not only about modding, but also about the history of a different continent. Well, they DON'T.

P.S. I ve written this post as neutral as possible, I hope I won't get another alert. :balloon2:

[Steppe Merc]

Will you stop, I don't want this closed.


If a native culture remained completly the same only shows that the conquerrors are not interested in properly integrating them into their empire and want only rule over this people or that their culture can`t offer very much
I don't get this. My point was that they didn't change the people's way of life, like the Romans did. They absorbed other cultures into their own, while allowing them to remain essentially the same.

[The Wizard]

:dizzy2:
Value of human life is directly proportional to total popolasion of that ethnisity?
That is very silly.
A life is a life, and 100 is ten times as many as 10.
But i think Stalin said something.
"Loss of one life is tragedy, loss of thousands is statistics."
So death of last of the Mohikans is same as exterminasion of all who live in India, to take an all Indian exampel to show riddicklusness of your "reasoning".

Oh, so you brush me into the same category as Panzer now? How nice.

If you read my post, you would notice that I am opposing the fact that Panzer proposes to wipe out half a people, comparing it to a hundred million on the world population. If you relatify that ratio, 2.5 billion people would have had to die to match the effect 10 million dead would have had on the Jewish people.

And yes, I do believe that if half a people is wiped out, or, to put this in modern, real terms: millions of people die in Darfur, then I find that worse than some three thousand in a building somewhere. Both are terrible, but what I oppose is that the immediateness of the killings in NYC are deemed much worse than those in Darfur.

But, we agree on an ethical level here. That means there is a very slight chance you and me will agree here. Therefore I propose we leave such debate to the Backroom, yes?

Oh, and Advo-san: I know exactly that you're talking to me. And indeed, a person should be judged on his own actions; the same goes for governments. Therefore people should not be judged on the actions of their nation in the past, for that is foolish and you surrender your own capability of thought, that which puts you above animals, to simple and animalistic fear.

Such an action would mean the Netherlands should pay reparations to each and every descendant of each and every person we ever wronged, and that each Dutchman should help pay those reparations. This includes all the slaves we ever traded, plus Spanish, Portuguese, English, Indonesians, and the list goes on and on and on and on. Completely useless. Preposterous to think that some people think that way.

But, I repeat what I said above. I will not go for any more baiting. Consider any more ethical debates (and indeed baits) to be ignored by me from now on.



~Wiz

[Orda Khan]

- Any and all wars where the Huns, their offshoots or their vassals were victorious. Yeah, I'm sure Asian and European civilization was much better off after these guys rolled through town...

- Any and all wars where the Mongols, their offshoots or their vassals were victorious. Again, what on Earth would we have done without the great contribution from those wacky boys from the steppes!
(Anxiously awaiting the onslaught from the Org's Mongolphiles :help: )



Before criticising steppe culture it is necessary to fully understand steppe culture.

.......Orda

[Meneldil]

I think SteppeMerc, Orda and I should open a 'Moderated Steppe People club' in the frontroom ~D

[Steppe Merc]

Angadil, Wizard, and Sharrukin should join as well. ~D

[Colovion]

I think SteppeMerc, Orda and I should open a 'Moderated Steppe People club' in the frontroom ~D

/join :bow:

[PanzerJaeger]

If you read my post, you would notice that I am opposing the fact that Panzer proposes to wipe out half a people, comparing it to a hundred million on the world population. If you relatify that ratio, 2.5 billion people would have had to die to match the effect 10 million dead would have had on the Jewish people.

You know.. for the sake of this thread im not even going to bother showing how completely distorted you've made my position out to be. It hasnt been overlooked though. :furious3:

[Gregoshi]

:disappointed: Moderator not happy. Topic closed.