StarDestroyer.Net BBS

CaptainChewbacca wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, the majority of the world's population throughout history has been accustomed to monarchy, and despite what you may think, most of them thought it was perfectly natural, just, and right that it should be this way. The population of Hell is going to be largely monarchist in terms of its political leanings. The idea of democracy is going to strike them as strange, and they will not have the reverence for dead American Civil War generals that a modern American does. Far more of them will recognize the name of Caesar.

While I agree the majority of the world in the past HAS been for monarchy, a large part of that acceptance was the influence of the Church (at least for the past 1700 years) and the belief in a divine right to rule. Will people who spent over a thousand years in hell still care if God ordained Henry V to rule?

I hate to break it to you, but Europe is not the entire world.

Monarchism thrived in many different places where there was no such thing as the Catholic Church. Our alpha-dog pack animal mentality gives us a certain natural inclination toward monarchism anyway, as evidenced by the number of people in America today who cheer on Bush every time he increases executive power or takes away individual rights.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:And we'll find out what really happens when you introduce William Tecumseh Sherman to nuclear weapons!

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, the majority of the world's population throughout history has been accustomed to monarchy, and despite what you may think, most of them thought it was perfectly natural, just, and right that it should be this way.

The teeming hordes of history aren't the problem. The problem is the living people armed with nuclear weapons. They aren't going to like the idea of becoming serfs in Ceasar's eternal dictatorship when they die and they're likely to be very sympathetic to whatever pro-democracy groups form in hell.

Starglider wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, the majority of the world's population throughout history has been accustomed to monarchy, and despite what you may think, most of them thought it was perfectly natural, just, and right that it should be this way.

The teeming hordes of history aren't the problem. The problem is the living people armed with nuclear weapons. They aren't going to like the idea of becoming serfs in Ceasar's eternal dictatorship when they die and they're likely to be very sympathetic to whatever pro-democracy groups form in hell.

There is more than enough room for more than one nation-state in Hell, and Caesar can't possibly control it all. I don't see why living people are going to give a shit, as long as they can carve out their own territory. Why the hell would they fight wars against billions of deceased humans in Hell in order to "spread democracy" there and change the way they think? That's retarded.

Darth Wong wrote: There is more than enough room for more than one nation-state in Hell, and Caesar can't possibly control it all. I don't see why living people are going to give a shit, as long as they can carve out their own territory. Why the hell would they fight wars against billions of deceased humans in Hell in order to "spread democracy" there and change the way they think? That's retarded.

It's already been hinted that in the current US Army lexicon, the phrases "bringing democracy" and "Good idea" do not exist in the same document. There's a reason for that

Caesar's probably the greatest politican-general there has ever been (there were greater generals but they were lousy politicians and there were better politicians but they were lousy generals). He was also a very superior strategist. Now, he may have antiquated military knowledge but he knows it. He's going to tread very carefully while he learns. The whole political-military set up in hell is going to take a lot of careful organization; like it or not there are people there with prior claims and who is going to decide which soul goes where? Do the souls get to choose? Or is there a sort of apres-life so that the dead French automatically go to apres-France and the dead Germans to apres-Germany - and if that's so, how are modern day dead Germans going to get on with 1930s/40s dead Germans? I'd guess the dead Romans would be quite happy to live under GJC in a reconstituted Roman Empire but what about their dead slaves? And how would Roman society function without them. then we have the time element - would the French from say 1500 be happy lumped in with the French from 1940 in the same apres-France? Or would there be a civil war while they tried to set up their own apres-France?

I think monarchies are probably going to outnumber democracies in Hell; people will instinctively look for a strong man to protect them and in most cases they'll be familiar with the concept. Democracy in the sense we understand it is very recent; there will simply be far more people happy with Monarchy than not.

For the answers to these and many other questions look forward to:

The Salvation War: The Lords Of War

America's long tradition of attempting to overthrow perceived dictatorships in far off lands?

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: It occurs to me that the sky-land may just be to far away for the demons to make out details of it without telescopes?

The gamer in me can't help but shake the feeling that the sky beyond the clouds in hell is a bitmap that looks pixelated when you get too close to it.

Stuart wrote: It's already been hinted that in the current US Army lexicon, the phrases "bringing democracy" and "Good idea" do not exist in the same document. There's a reason for that

I know that in the 2002-2003 timeframe at least, you were very supportive of invading Iraq on HPCA.

The gun-armed legions of Caesar battles Genghis Khan's Mongols... of Hell! Riding lobstrosities and strafing Legionnaires with their Tec-9s!

So, if this is going to turn into a published series, do all of us get $.03 for each book sold?

Cecelia5578 wrote:I know that in the 2002-2003 timeframe at least, you were very supportive of invading Iraq on HPCA.

I still am. It was the right decision then and it remains so now. The "nation-building" etc exercise was all screwed up but we were using Iraq as a testing ground for doctrines aimed at reducing manpower requirements (a key factor since demographics restrict the manpower we have available for the armed forces). Even allowing for the experimentalism and learning curve in the early years, the counter-insurgency early on was very badly planned. Be that as it may.

What my comment referred to was the perception that trying to force U.S. cultural norms and political structures on other countries has, at last, been recognized as a bad idea (we have General Petraeus to thank for that long-overdue insight). We don't have to turn a country into a clone of smalltown USA to fix all its problems, its a far more productive approach to work with the structures and norms thata re already in place.

CaptainChewbacca wrote:So, if this is going to turn into a published series, do all of us get $.03 for each book sold?

I don't know. What I thought of doing was sending Mike a check to cover (some or all of) the running of this site. That's after the up-front costs (proof reading, cover design etc) of the book have been covered. That way, everybody benefits from the income. That's what I do for HPCA; book income pays the running costs of the site.

Stuart wrote:

CaptainChewbacca wrote:So, if this is going to turn into a published series, do all of us get $.03 for each book sold?

I don't know. What I thought of doing was sending Mike a check to cover (some or all of) the running of this site. That's after the up-front costs (proof reading, cover design etc) of the book have been covered. That way, everybody benefits from the income. That's what I do for HPCA; book income pays the running costs of the site.

Sounds like a good deal. I will continue to offer my editing/proofreading services at the same rates. Its nice to get an advanced look at the book.

Even allowing for the experimentalism and learning curve in the early years, the counter-insurgency early on was very badly planned. Be that as it may.

Most counter-insurgency campaigns seems to go badly at the beginning. It took us twelve years to defeat the Communist Insurgency in Malaya, neither Iraq, or Afghanistan have lasted that long yet.
Once a winning strategy is developed the campaigns often end quicker than expected.

I don't know. What I thought of doing was sending Mike a check to cover (some or all of) the running of this site.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'll happily buy the books and I'm not looking for any financial reward for my very small contribution.
That reminds me I need to set aside some time for my current idea.

CaptainChewbacca wrote:So, if this is going to turn into a published series, do all of us get $.03 for each book sold?

I would prefer an Official Military Industrial Complex Gift Voucher, good for a few hours of consulting (expires 31/DEC/09 nominal value 0.000001KT void in the Axis of Evil). Because at some point it would be useful to have someone competent take a look at potential military applications of the technology my start-up is working on...

Starglider wrote:

EdBecerra wrote:In the USA alone, Robert E. Lee, Jeb Stuart, Nathan Forrest, Phillip Sheridan, William Tecumseh Sherman, P. G. T. Beauregard, and Ulysses S. Grant.

All of whom were quite keen on democracy, while Ceaser is notoriously destroyed the Roman republic in order to maintain and enhance his personal power. I am pretty sure that this will eventually become a serious problem.

I have no doubt that politicians the world over will be consulting Roman historians to refresh their knowledge of the guy as a matter of urgency should he continue to prosper, his reputation precedes him for a reason.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Starglider wrote:

EdBecerra wrote:In the USA alone, Robert E. Lee, Jeb Stuart, Nathan Forrest, Phillip Sheridan, William Tecumseh Sherman, P. G. T. Beauregard, and Ulysses S. Grant.

All of whom were quite keen on democracy, while Ceaser is notoriously destroyed the Roman republic in order to maintain and enhance his personal power. I am pretty sure that this will eventually become a serious problem.

I have no doubt that politicians the world over will be consulting Roman historians to refresh their knowledge of the guy as a matter of urgency should he continue to prosper, his reputation precedes him for a reason.

There is an interesting point buried in there (not to say that your main point is uninteresting): imagine the benefits to the study of history itself. It's been hinted at in a few chapters so far, but I would imagine that historians the world over would be just pulling their hair out waiting to get a piece of not only GJC, but anyone else who was on this side of the grass during various periods of interest.

SCRawl wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Starglider wrote: All of whom were quite keen on democracy, while Ceaser is notoriously destroyed the Roman republic in order to maintain and enhance his personal power. I am pretty sure that this will eventually become a serious problem.

I have no doubt that politicians the world over will be consulting Roman historians to refresh their knowledge of the guy as a matter of urgency should he continue to prosper, his reputation precedes him for a reason.

There is an interesting point buried in there (not to say that your main point is uninteresting): imagine the benefits to the study of history itself. It's been hinted at in a few chapters so far, but I would imagine that historians the world over would be just pulling their hair out waiting to get a piece of not only GJC, but anyone else who was on this side of the grass during various periods of interest.

To say nothing of the media, which will also be important, a lot of 'dead' people who were in power somewhere may find that dirty underwear can be a big problem.

I imagine there will be quite a booming talk-show industry in Hell once things get settled down.

Today on Larry King; Einstein and Issac Newton.

I'd shit my left nut to watch that show! Especially if Buddy Holly is the musical guest.

Assuming that Caesar is mostly only able to gain influence in hell (which to be fair might not be justified), wouldn't any undead empire he could construct still be at the mercy of the industrialized living world? To me, it seems that if he did anything to seriously offend the living he would most likely eventually meet the same fate as hell's current rulers. I think that it could even be argued that he would be even worse off due to the fact that his human armies would likely be using Baldrick level equipment, but would lack Baldrick levels of physical strength.

I would be surprised if even a leader as skillful as Caesar would be able to lead such a hopelessly backwards nation to the point where it could seriously oppose the living humans.

Mongoose wrote:Assuming that Caesar is mostly only able to gain influence in hell (which to be fair might not be justified), wouldn't any undead empire he could construct still be at the mercy of the industrialized living world? To me, it seems that if he did anything to seriously offend the living he would most likely eventually meet the same fate as hell's current rulers. I think that it could even be argued that he would be even worse off due to the fact that his human armies would likely be using Baldrick level equipment, but would lack Baldrick levels of physical strength.

I would be surprised if even a leader as skillful as Caesar would be able to lead such a hopelessly backwards nation to the point where it could seriously oppose the living humans.

On the one hand, the undead have, as you say, limited physical ability when compared with the Baldricks. On the other hand, they're effectively unkillable. In an operational sense I don't really know how much of an advantage this is, but this would be an army that you can't actually defeat, in any final sense. Sure, you could incapacitate them on a semi-permanent basis, but it hasn't been made clear that the undead -- which, by the way, seems to be the wrong word for these guys -- can be stopped in any final sense.

I'd shit my left nut to watch that show! Especially if Buddy Holly is the musical guest.

How about a Beatles reunion?

SCRawl wrote:On the one hand, the undead have, as you say, limited physical ability when compared with the Baldricks. On the other hand, they're effectively unkillable. In an operational sense I don't really know how much of an advantage this is, but this would be an army that you can't actually defeat, in any final sense. Sure, you could incapacitate them on a semi-permanent basis, but it hasn't been made clear that the undead -- which, by the way, seems to be the wrong word for these guys -- can be stopped in any final sense.

We saw one die from getting his head bashed in with a rock as I remember. They are quite killable, it's just a bit harder.

Junghalli wrote:

SCRawl wrote:On the one hand, the undead have, as you say, limited physical ability when compared with the Baldricks. On the other hand, they're effectively unkillable. In an operational sense I don't really know how much of an advantage this is, but this would be an army that you can't actually defeat, in any final sense. Sure, you could incapacitate them on a semi-permanent basis, but it hasn't been made clear that the undead -- which, by the way, seems to be the wrong word for these guys -- can be stopped in any final sense.

We saw one die from getting his head bashed in with a rock as I remember. They are quite killable, it's just a bit harder.

I guess I missed that one. In any case, I can't get my head around how an entity can be lying around in molten rock for centuries can still survive, but will die of a head wound.

Well, okay, let's reason it out. The "healing factor" -- Wolverine has made me detest that expression -- that the undead possess could keep their bodies at an even keel during their lava bath, keeping them from getting any crispier than we've observed. Sudden, violent, lethal trauma can "kill" them, though, if it's beyond their ability to heal. Does this make any sense?

Mongoose wrote:
I would be surprised if even a leader as skillful as Caesar would be able to lead such a hopelessly backwards nation to the point where it could seriously oppose the living humans.

Why would he oppose an earth nation when he is quite well aware of his limitations? Besides, GJC has an eternity up his toga to play for time to gain what he wants. Moreover, what right does the living have to dictate the affairs of the dead?

SCRawl wrote:Well, okay, let's reason it out. The "healing factor" -- Wolverine has made me detest that expression -- that the undead possess could keep their bodies at an even keel during their lava bath, keeping them from getting any crispier than we've observed. Sudden, violent, lethal trauma can "kill" them, though, if it's beyond their ability to heal. Does this make any sense?

I think that makes sense.