• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

What is your favorite part of history

Well actually, i like late 19th century - mid 20th European history the most (inter-war, and post-war periods of both world wars)
 
pendrake said:
All this quoted material is from the brainstorming thread. I will sift through it paragraph by paragraph to Catalog the bits where @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl causes me to think, “Errrrr, what? wait, No...”

I’ll try to ignore most Warhammer universe aspects.

What I think I know about Warhammer-Albion is from the Albion campaign from the 5th or 6th edition of Warhammer when White Dwarf magazine was in the range of issues 259-268.

I contend that the human population of Warhammer-Albion (as written by GW) was primarily a bunch of primitives that made the Picts look clever and educated.

There were Giants, there were a tiny number of spellcasters (Truthsayers or Emissaries) and a bunch of wretched, cave dwelling mooks.
Click to expand...

According to a Warhammer Wikia, that same source said that there were still groups of “warring tribesmen” living alongside the cave dwellers, which I’m assuming are still reminiscent of Ancient Britons. Furthermore, the degeneration of the inhabitants was the result of the intrusion by Be’lakor and the rise of the Dark Emissaries - before this the inhabitants of Albion were groups of Celtic-type kingdoms, who were taught by the Truthsayers about the lore of the Old Ones. If we assumed that the Sea Elves helped the people of Albion settle in the new world before anything like this occurred, we can say that even if Be’lakor and his dark forces still corrupted the people of Albion itself even in the new timeline, they did not know of the new world settlers and didn’t corrupt them, meaning that any Albion settlers in the new world still retained their Celtic aspects.

pendrake said:
That paragraph is all speculation. Neither of us was alive then, so we don’t really how Hill Forts worked.
Click to expand...

We don’t, but we can use common sense to establish an educated understanding of what they were used for. I am just using the vast amount of information I’ve gathered from various sources to relay the most likely interpretation.

pendrake said:
Or the elaborate gates and multi-layered ramparts had other purposes.

Like controlling the movement of people and livestock on market days maybe.
Click to expand...

Multi-layered ramparts and networks of ditches and trenches of such scale as can be seen on British hillforts would hardly have had a main purpose of controlling people and livestock - what would the point of having such an intricate pattern of earthworks be if it was used for this relatively small purpose, or indeed any purpose other than defence? Trust me, I think I know what I’m talking about here.

pendrake said:
If the Celts had no experience with sieges why did they fortify? The whole point of building a fortification is to leave your opponent with no other option but to besiege you. If they had Forts and they warred with each other they had sieges.

The Romans were simply better at assaulting fortifications.

NB: ...siege means surround and isolate an enemy who is Forted up. Assault is the word for smash into the enemy fort.

Siege Warfare entails starving out the Foe or vanquishing an Invader by waiting them out. The Romans didn’t have time for that.
Click to expand...

The large majority of Celtic tribal wars consisted of small warbands going on raiding missions to steal livestock and possessions from their enemies, and hillforts were built to repel such attacks. Only by a concerted attack from an especially large opposing army from another tribe could such defences be overwhelmed. What I’m saying is that the Celts had little experience in the overall field of siege warfare, which encompasses assaulting fortresses as well - I wasn’t referring to the individual act of holding a long siege.

pendrake said:
I don’t think having Hill Forts means automatic superiority for those who are forted up. Without enough numbers to defend its perimeter it is useless.
Click to expand...

Useless? Hardly. It would still be incredibly difficult for any native invaders to first scale the very steep earthworks and then climb over the palisade without some form of ladders, which I don’t recall the Native Americans ever having. Even without defenders on the ramparts it would still provide a strong amount of protection for those inside against enemies with very little grasp of technology.

pendrake said:
Disagree. The Vikings did build places fortified with earthen ramparts. There is an example in Denmark.
Click to expand...

All right, but I didn’t know that these examples existed.

I’m surprised you show such an active disagreement towards my ideas even after you thought they were initially good.
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
Multi-layered ramparts and networks of ditches and trenches of such scale as can be seen on British hillforts would hardly have had a main purpose of controlling people and livestock - what would the point of having such an intricate pattern of earthworks be if it was used for this relatively small purpose, or indeed any purpose other than defence? Trust me, I think I know what I’m talking about here.
Click to expand...
Three rings would allow someone in charge to say: ...cattle to the left, ...pigs to the right, ...sheep to the top.

Market days or tax days or a yearly thing.

There comes a point in the annual calendar of an organized but agrarian society when it is time to gather the herds, decide which animals to butcher, corral the ones that need shearing, gather them all up, make a count, tax accordingly.

And then there is wintering. People, hay barns, and granaries on the top level. Sheep, Cattle, Pigs each in their own Zone/Level. Wolves and Bears on the outside...having a sad. :banghead: Poor wolves...:(

But those three-ish ^ paragraphs are me speculating. Just like all the archaeologists[?] you’ve been reading. But different ideas.

What do we really have for evidence? The remaining extant earthworks, one or two digs where numerous arrow tips (that looked like Roman kit) were found, the accounts left by Roman authors. Is there much else?

Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
I’m surprised you show such an active disagreement towards my ideas even after you thought they were initially good.
Click to expand...
I can see how you could think that. What I am guilty of is picking and choosing.

You had some excellent ideas mixed in with some (IMNAAHO) :shifty: dodgy ideas. In this thread I have :writing: noted the dodgy ones where I think we’re going to agree to disagree.

I still like the good ideas. :)
 
Does the part about Solo: A Star Wars story losing money at the box office count as history? Only ask because I liked that! :p
 
Aginor said:
The fun thing about it is:
It _is_ probably more significant than others. It is the first one that lost money. I'd call that significant - at least for movie historians)
Click to expand...
Obviously the most significant one would be A New Hope as it brought about all the others and changed the movie industry.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
I do agree that the Solo movie is pretty insignificant though!
Click to expand...

Aginor said:
The fun thing about it is:
It _is_ probably more significant than others. It is the first one that lost money. I'd call that significant - at least for movie historians)
Click to expand...

Agreed - As was the Last Jedi (albeit for generating so much fan hate).

Certainly of all the Disney ones (and perhaps all the films in general) you could argue that Episode VII is the least significant - it’s only real triumph being the first Star Wars film in 10 years.

Look at all the others:
Rogue One recreated the OT very well and fixed a 39-year old plot hole (and the biggest one in the franchise)
The Last Jedi accrued fan hate on a level not seen since Episode I (and even with Episode I people still loved the Maul Lightsaber fight)
Solo was the first Star Wars film to make a loss at the pictures (an ignominious achievement, but still an achievement none the less)
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
Certainly of all the Disney ones you could argue that Episode VII is the least significant - it’s only real triumph being the first Star Wars film in 10 years. Look at all the others:
Rogue One recreated the OT very well and fixed a 39-year old plot hole (and the biggest one in the franchise)
The Last Jedi accrued fan hate on a level not seen since Episode I (and even with Episode I people still loved the Maul Lightsaber fight)
Solo was the first Star Wars film to make a loss at the pictures (an ignominious achievement, but still an achievement none the less)
Click to expand...

I can't agree with that. Episode VII is also significant for making more money than any other Star Wars movie. The new Disney SW movies will have a hard time to dethrone it now that TLJ has created so much hate and negativity.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
I can't agree with that. Episode VII is also significant for making more money than any other Star Wars movie.
Click to expand...

Only because of the hype of it being the first Star Wars film in 10 years. Remember that before Episode VII, Episode I was the highest grossing of them all, I imagine again due to it being the first Star Wars film in a very long time (22 years in Episode I’s case).
 
Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
Only because of the hype of it being the first Star Wars film in 10 years. Remember that before Episode VII, Episode I was the highest grossing of them all, I imagine again due to it being the first Star Wars film in a very long time (22 years in Episode I’s case).
Click to expand...
That's fair, but the fact still remains.

Plus, TFA was still pretty well received by the public. We've definitely seen a shift away from that since TLJ dropped.
 
Can we please discuss Star Wars over in the other thread? I don't want to further dilute this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top