OOTS #1216 - The Discussion Thread

[Ryekhvek]

Spoiler: France

Show

Well that's fine and all, but if the sun never sets on the French Empire, why can't they send me replacement grates for my Franco Belge coal stove?

[Fyraltari]

Well that's fine and all, but if the sun never sets on the French Empire, why can't they send me replacement grates for my Franco Belge coal stove?

Because the French Empire has been replaced by a republic 150 years ago?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Because the French Empire has been replaced by a republic 150 years ago?

(And then another 100 years ago, and another 80 year ago, and another 60 years ago)

GW

[JessmanCA]

Sorry if it's already been asked but I didn't want to read all 20+ pages

Can the dwarves heal themselves while they're inside the stone like that?

Why didn't they heal themselves while running, they don't have any instant cast heal spells?

[Fyraltari]

(And then another 100 years ago, and another 80 year ago, and another 60 years ago)

GW

None of these replaced an Empire. Also, I think you meant 80 years ago (arguably, please let's not argue about it), 76 years ago and 62 years ago.

[understatement]

Sorry if it's already been asked but I didn't want to read all 20+ pages

Can the dwarves heal themselves while they're inside the stone like that?

Why didn't they heal themselves while running, they don't have any instant cast heal spells?

The dwarves can cast spells inside the stone, but only on themselves.

They didn't have time to heal, not when Team Evil's right behind them.

[Petrocorus]

Well that's fine and all, but if the sun never sets on the French Empire, why can't they send me replacement grates for my Franco Belge coal stove?

It's half-belgian.

None of these replaced an Empire. Also, I think you meant 80 years ago (arguably, please let's not argue about it), 76 years ago and 62 years ago.

Well, we still used the expression "French Empire" even during the 5th Republic.

[Fyraltari]

The dwarves can cast spells inside the stone, but only on themselves.

They didn't have time to heal, not when Team Evil's right behind them.

They can't run and cast at the same time ?

It's half-belgian.


Well, we still used the expression "French Empire" even during the 5th Republic.

Shhhhhhh.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

None of these replaced an Empire. Also, I think you meant 80 years ago (arguably, please let's not argue about it), 76 years ago and 62 years ago.

Nah, I was just eyeballing. And the idea was that you're just laying republics on top of the Empire to make sure it is not just buried, but really buried.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Nah, I was just eyeballing.

You eyeballed WWII at 1920?

And the idea was that you're just laying republics on top of the Empire to make sure it is not just buried, but really buried.

How I wish that were true.

[pendell]

Nah, I was just eyeballing. And the idea was that you're just laying republics on top of the Empire to make sure it is not just buried, but really buried.

Grey Wolf

An Empire doesn't need a monarchy or one-person rule to be an Empire. My history books speak of the Athenian Empire, and the city of Athens proper was a democracy.

The reason we call it an Empire was because it waged campaigns of military conquest, established democracies in the cities they captured, spread their own ideology, and kept the captured cities in subjection. They dictated the foreign policies of their clients, levying tribute from them and using their own armies in their own further wars. When cities rebelled against them, they sent armies to teach the rebelling colonials the error of their ways. One such case gave us the Melian Dialogue . Melos, a neutral city in the war between Athens and Sparta, was attacked without provocation by Athens, who dismissed their appeals to justice with an answer repeated by Lawful Evil tyrants everywhere: "the right, as the world goes, is only in question between equal power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

The city was afterwards taken by siege, the men put to death, the others sold into slavery, and the site re-inhabited by colonists from Athens. In the name of Freedom and Liberty, of course. Have to burn the village to the ground to save it, don't you know. Can't break an omelette without smashing a few thousand eggs under a jack-heeled boot sandal.

An Empire is what you get when you have a single powerful nation which dominates and governs other nations as puppets. That's why an Empire can exist regardless of the form of government of the dominant nation which is its heart.

Happily, its ancient history. It's a good thing humans are so different today so the lessons of the past have nothing whatever to teach us .

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[Ryekhvek]

It's half-belgian.

maybe the Belgian half can send me one of the pair I seek - {my mock protest would be more informative if I'd gotten my US location into my details when I registered} - seems the parts sellers on the Continent aren't rolling out the welcome mat for dollars from the Yanks (not that I can really blame them)

[hroþila]

An Empire doesn't need a monarchy or one-person rule to be an Empire. My history books speak of the Athenian Empire, and the city of Athens proper was a democracy.

The reason we call it an Empire was because it waged campaigns of military conquest, established democracies in the cities they captured, spread their own ideology, and kept the captured cities in subjection. They dictated the foreign policies of their clients, levying tribute from them and using their own armies in their own further wars.

By this definition, the Roman Republic was an empire.

[Fyraltari]

snip

Pendell, my « joke » was intentionally confusing the French (Colonial) Empire, which was a partly republican... endeavour with the successive states of the First and Second French Empire that preceded it.

By this definition, the Roman Republic was an empire.

By their definition the Roman Empire was a republic, so that checks out.

[hroþila]

By their definition the Roman Empire was a republic, so that checks out.

This is excellent.

[Fyraltari]

This is excellent.

Your approval fills me with pride.

[arimareiji]

Wrt all the confusion over definitions: It's very human to apply in-group and out-group bias in matters of "right" and "wrong", and of course this carries over to words with "positive" or "negative" connotations. Even "official definitions" will be shaded (if not determined) by which groups the authors consider themselves to be a part of.

And now I'm wondering whether this is part of the energy that leads to separate dialects and languages, as groups diverge. :-/

Finally, going way out there... what if part of what frustrates humans trying to understand how animals communicate, is the incorrect assumption they all share the same language / forms of expression? To us they're all X species (which is itself an out-group), but can't they say the same of us?

[Mic_128]

They can't run and cast at the same time ?

My assumption was they were sacrificing actions for extra move actions.

[Krakius]

Pendell, my « joke » was intentionally confusing the French (Colonial) Empire, which was a partly republican... endeavour with the successive states of the First and Second French Empire that preceded it.

Confusingly enough, historians often make a distinction between the First French Colonial Empire, the one mostly in North America which lasted until it either lost or sold off most of its territory, and the Second French Colonial Empire, the one mostly in Africa which lasted until colonialism was no longer fashionable.

By their definition the Roman Empire was a republic, so that checks out.

To elaborate on what Fyraltari said here, for the first few centuries of the Roman Empire's existence, the Principate, it basically pretended it was still a republic. The core institutions were largely kept, it's just that power was stacked in the emperor's favor, or as he was often known, the Princeps Civitatis (First Citizen): he effectively dictated legislation, either through controlling appointments to legislative offices or veto, had sole right to appoint the governor of an imperial province (in contrast to senatorial provinces, which were appointed by the senate), had the loyalty of the military, and held power for life before passing it off, usually to a son in the few cases he actually had one, or an adopted heir. See? He's not a king, he's just president-for-life. It was only the period after that, the Dominate, when they finally admitted the Republic no longer existed and the emperor started calling himself Dominus (Master), more than 300 years after what we consider the formation of the Empire.

[MilleniaAntares]

They can't run and cast at the same time ?

To the extent the comic adheres to D&D rules, Durkon and Minrah likely spent their turns Running in order to put as much distance between them and Team Evil as possible. They could have simply used their regular Move actions (typically, 20 feet) to, well, move, and their Standards to heal, but they would have covered about 25% of the distance. This probably would have meant they wouldn't have had the distance and time to reach the doors and perform the trick they tried.

[Fyraltari]

Finally, going way out there... what if part of what frustrates humans trying to understand how animals communicate, is the incorrect assumption they all share the same language / forms of expression? To us they're all X species (which is itself an out-group), but can't they say the same of us?

The existence of various « dialects » inside the cries of animal species depending on place and length of isolation is a well-known fact. Studies on the subject have mostly been carried out on birds and primates.

Confusingly enough, historians

Yes.

To elaborate on what Fyraltari said here, for the first few centuries of the Roman Empire's existence, the Principate, it basically pretended it was still a republic. The core institutions were largely kept, it's just that power was stacked in the emperor's favor, or as he was often known, the Princeps Civitatis (First Citizen): he effectively dictated legislation, either through controlling appointments to legislative offices or veto, had sole right to appoint the governor of an imperial province (in contrast to senatorial provinces, which were appointed by the senate), had the loyalty of the military, and held power for life before passing it off, usually to a son in the few cases he actually had one, or an adopted heir. See? He's not a king, he's just president-for-life.

I think I remember a text about Nero crowing a guy king of Armenia as part of a political play against the Persans and said guy mocking the Romans for acting like they don’t have a king when they totally do.

It was only the period after that, the Dominate, when they finally admitted the Republic no longer existed and the emperor started calling himself Dominus (Master), more than 300 years after what we consider the formation of the Empire.

But still not a king (rex)! That’s a bad word for foreign tyrants, the Master is a good ruler who only wants what’s best for his slaves people, yes.

To the extent the comic adheres to D&D rules, Durkon and Minrah likely spent their turns Running in order to put as much distance between them and Team Evil as possible. They could have simply used their regular Move actions (typically, 20 feet) to, well, move, and their Standards to heal, but they would have covered about 25% of the distance. This probably would have meant they wouldn't have had the distance and time to reach the doors and perform the trick they tried.

My assumption was they were sacrificing actions for extra move actions.

Ah, I suspected something along those lines, but I wasn’t sure.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

To elaborate on what Fyraltari said here, for the first few centuries of the Roman Empire's existence, the Principate, it basically pretended it was still a republic.

There is also the fact that for the last couple hundred years of the Roman Republic (since the end of the second punic war), it was an Empire without an Emperor.

In fact, I'd argue that the "Empire" ended with Trajan, when it became obvious Rome couldn't hold any more territory, and by that point the lands inside the borders where mostly culturally unified (with a distinct East-West divide that'd come back to haunt them, of course). After that point, Rome was just a big country whose main method of power transition was civil war.

By this definition of "conquer foreign cultures and subjugate them to the central authority" definition of Empire, therefore, the Roman Empire lasted for about 300 years, and had Emperors for less than half of that time.

But still not a king (rex)!

To be fair, they never did manage the whole "the son of the king becomes king on his father's death" bit of the Monarchy system of government beyond two generations*, so the Emperors where never really kings. Not for lack of trying on their part, mind you, but one suspects that part of the problem they encountered was that Rome, culturally, did not like to have families ruling them forever.

GW

*I'm sure there are a couple of exceptions, but not very many

[Fyraltari]

There is also the fact that for the last couple hundred years of the Roman Republic (since the end of the second punic war), it was an Empire without an Emperor.

In fact, I'd argue that the "Empire" ended with Trajan, when it became obvious Rome couldn't hold any more territory, and by that point the lands inside the borders where mostly culturally unified (with a distinct East-West divide that'd come back to haunt them, of course). After that point, Rome was just a big country whose main method of power transition was civil war.

By this definition of "conquer foreign cultures and subjugate them to the central authority" definition of Empire, therefore, the Roman Empire lasted for about 300 years, and had Emperors for less than half of that time.

That’s an interesting take. What about the Byzantine « Empire »?

To be fair, they never did manage the whole "the son of the king becomes king on his father's death" bit of the Monarchy system of government beyond two generations*, so the Emperors where never really kings.

Honestly it is kind of impressive how long they hold out without any system in place to choose their leader.

Not for lack of trying on their part, mind you, but one suspects that part of the problem they encountered was that Rome, culturally, did not like to have families ruling them forever.

Err... The Roman Kingdom/Republic/Empire has always been ruled by families (the whole « patricians » thing) and there have been various « dynasties » of Roman emperors : the Julio-Claudians, the Flavians, the Antonians, etc.

[hroþila]

I don't think not having formal hereditary succession makes the Roman emperors not kings. Non-hereditary elective monarchies were very common, after all, and to blur the lines even more for some time it was common for an emperor to legally adopt his heir apparent.

[KorvinStarmast]

After that point, Rome was just a big country whose main method of power transition was civil war.

Bingo. It is perhaps unintentional that Tarquin's schtick on the Western Continent is oddly similar to that model, with Tarquin and his compadres being mostly covert, not overt, beneficiaries of the civil wars. A rough approximation, not a sweet one for one. (Game of Thrones is a far better parallel, now that I think of it ...)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That’s an interesting take. What about the Byzantine « Empire »?

I know very little about it. Justinian obviously was a conqueror, but other than him (and Byzantium didn't manage to hold onto any of the lands he conquered, did they?), did anyone ever expand? Because the feeling one gets is of a very slow, drawn out decline.

Honestly it is kind of impressive how long they hold out without any system in place to choose their leader.

They did have a system. "Whomever most of the troops want" is a fairly straightforward system. It's just that it inevitable requires a big civil war every time.

Err... The Roman Kingdom/Republic/Empire has always been ruled by families (the whole « patricians » thing) and there have been various « dynasties » of Roman emperors : the Julio-Claudians, the Flavians, the Antonians, etc.

"Families" is not the same as "more than two generations". Other than the Julio-Claudians, and maybe a couple of other exceptions that don't spring to mind, I can't recall them ever having had an emperor who was both (biological) son of and grandson of emperors.

And during the Republic, sure, there were rich families that became consuls all the time, but that was because they had the money to buy the position. It wasn't just handed to them because of their name.

I don't think not having formal hereditary succession makes the Roman emperors not kings.

Of course not. But it wasn't kings in the sense the Romans understood them. "King" has a very fuzzy definition, and could mean any number of systems, but in Rome, "being a blood relative of a previous king" was a bit of an advantage, but not much of one, and as I say, I get the feeling that to a large part of the population, it might even have been a downside. You just don't see a lot of "he's the rightful ruler because his father was the rightful ruler" rhetoric, unlike in "traditional" medieval monarchies.

(That I can't think of an Emperor son of an Emperor who wasn't drunk on power & wine all the time probably didn't help matters. I think there was exactly one guy who was born to the purple who didn't turn out badly? But all the famous "mad" emperors were born when they father was already emperor, and it seems growing in those circumstances made for very poor emperors; heck, the defining characteristic of the "five" "good emperors" is that none of them were children of the prior)

Non-hereditary elective monarchies were very common, after all, and to blur the lines even more for some time it was common for an emperor to legally adopt his heir apparent.

I mean, the adoption thing is just messy in Roman times. They were all, after all, adopted into the line of Caesar and Augustus. Never been quite sure if it was a legal fiction, a PR move, or both in equal measure.

Was it Augustus that adopted his wife posthumously so she'd not lose her status?

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

I know very little about it. Justinian obviously was a conqueror, but other than him (and Byzantium didn't manage to hold onto any of the lands he conquered, did they?), did anyone ever expand? Because the feeling one gets is of a very slow, drawn out decline.

Yeah, I think, that's the gist of it. Well, territorial decline and stylistic stagnancy, I think the rest of their society was moving at about normal speed.

I know you meant decline as in "loss of territory" but "decline" as a connotation when talking about empires ('sepcially the roman one).

They did have a system. "Whomever most of the troops want" is a fairly straightforward system. It's just that it inevitable requires a big civil war every time.

That's not a system, that's the abscence of a system. the closest they had to a system was "the guy the senate, the army, the praetorians and whoever has some kind of political power agree on". Agreement generally happened at swordpoint, alas.

Though I never get tired of the guy who bought the Empire at an auction.

"Families" is not the same as "more than two generations". Other than the Julio-Claudians, and maybe a couple of other exceptions that don't spring to mind, I can't recall them ever having had an emperor who was both (biological) son of and grandson of emperors.

And during the Republic, sure, there were rich families that became consuls all the time, but that was because they had the money to buy the position. It wasn't just handed to them because of their name.

Which didn't stop Marius, Cicero and others from getting a lot of **** for being homines novi (new men), i.e. people who were the first of their gens to get into politic. How dare these people intrude on the playgrounds of respectable members of the nobilitas (nobility). Don't they know their place?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's not a system, that's the abscence of a system. the closest they had to a system was "the guy the senate, the army, the praetorians and whoever has some kind of political power agree on". Agreement generally happened at swordpoint, alas.

But that was the system. You were Emperor if you were hailed Imperator. I.e. the Emperor position was, legally, the elected leader of the troops by acclamation. Sure, it was mostly a fiction - they paid/threatened/bribed their troops to hail you, it was almost never true spontaneous acclamation {possible exception: Thrax?}. But it wasn't absent, that was the system. It was a very poor system, yes, since legions from separate geopolitical sections tended to hail different commanders, thus civil war, but on the other hand, it was closer to the reality that whomever controls the most troops, controls the country. What C.G.P. Grey calls "rule 0 [of politics]: keep the army happy".

(That said, I'm a bit concerned about how close we are getting to politics, so can we just agree we aren't really disagreeing and not get us all red-texted?)

GW

[Fyraltari]

But that was the system. You were Emperor if you were hailed Imperator. I.e. the Emperor position was, legally, the elected leader of the troops by acclamation. Sure, it was mostly a fiction - they paid/threatened/bribed their troops to hail you, it was almost never true spontaneous acclamation {possible exception: Thrax?}. But it wasn't absent, that was the system. It was a very poor system, yes, since legions from separate geopolitical sections tended to hail different commanders, thus civil war, but on the other hand, it was closer to the reality that whomever controls the most troops, controls the country. What C.G.P. Grey calls "rule 0 [of politics]: keep the army happy".

(That said, I'm a bit concerned about how close we are getting to politics, so can we just agree we aren't really disagreeing and not get us all red-texted?)

GW

Okay, I think I slightly misunderstood your position. We're fine.

[Petrocorus]

But still not a king (rex)! That’s a bad word for foreign tyrants, the Master is a good ruler who only wants what’s best for his slaves people, yes.

The Romans had a dislike for kings (Rex) because of a guy named Tarquin.
Of course it didn't take long for the Emperors to turn even worse.