Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 986 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Thucydides (864 D(B))
13 Nov 12 UTC
Just realized
The rhetoric of this website is so bombastic and antagonistic because that's how people who play diplomacy with each other inevitably end up feeling about each other. Duhhhhhhhhhh.

Add in your standard issue krellin, and agitate with a wooden spoon occasionally. Voila! gameID=696969
0 replies
Open
dubmdell (556 D)
09 Nov 12 UTC
What would the Founding Fathers be saying if they were alive today?
Hey, where did these 37 other states come from?
72 replies
Open
Lucid (155 D)
13 Nov 12 UTC
EOG Double CD for the loss
3 replies
Open
LakersFan (899 D)
12 Nov 12 UTC
EOG Trying Gunboat Again, Be nice
19 replies
Open
achillies27 (100 D)
04 Oct 12 UTC
ADVERTISE YOUR GAMES THAT NEED REPLACEMENTS HERE!
I assumed that since SG was banned... we would need this :)
163 replies
Open
ulytau (541 D)
09 Nov 12 UTC
Hey Draugnar MAN UP
DDoS this shit already!
12 replies
Open
Zmaj (215 D(B))
12 Nov 12 UTC
EoG: Bloodhounds
Jagermaister, explain yourself!
2 replies
Open
Moondust (195 D)
10 Nov 12 UTC
New Gamer Questions
Hi! I'm new here. I bought the board game before realizing it takes 7 players to play. I watched several youtube videos on how to play and one directed me here.

17 replies
Open
Moondust (195 D)
10 Nov 12 UTC
Sending Private Messages
Hi! I sent several private messages to a player that is starting games, and that person was flagged as being online. The messages were successfully sent. If they were to have replied back to me, where would I receive those replies? thanks!
7 replies
Open
Spell of Wheels (4896 D)
09 Nov 12 UTC
Rule question Re: convoyed army cutting support
I should know better, but does a convoyed army cut support to the province it is attempting to reach? I want to support hold the fleet that is next to the province, so I don't want to use my fleet, but I've got an idle army that I wouldn't mind convoying if it will cut supported action by the unit in the province I am convoying to.
11 replies
Open
Putin33 (111 D)
11 Nov 12 UTC
The "Prohibition Didn't Work" Myth
Laws work
76 replies
Open
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
12 Nov 12 UTC
EOG: gunboat game-26
gameID=104042

I always thought it was common knowledge to assume people knew where the draw button was when they've played for years.
16 replies
Open
Moondust (195 D)
12 Nov 12 UTC
Kansas City Are Diplomats
Hi! I'm from Kansas City. If there are other Diplomats in the KC area, please let me know. I have the board game and we can have a real life game day.

:)
0 replies
Open
redhouse1938 (429 D)
11 Nov 12 UTC
Socialized Medicine
People who defend communism often take Cuba as an example and in particular the Cuban health care system. I once saw this movie by Michael Moore which I found manipulative, and I don't want to use it as a direct source, but it did inspire me to think about this subject.
19 replies
Open
PunxsutawneyPhil (382 D)
12 Nov 12 UTC
New game - PPSC - anon - classic map - 25D
Join if you like.

http://95.211.128.12/webdiplomacy/board.php?gameID=104062
0 replies
Open
Al Swearengen (0 DX)
09 Nov 12 UTC
Genghis Khan
As per below.
Page 2 of 2
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
ghug (5068 D(B))
11 Nov 12 UTC
Putin, I am probably one of the few people on this site who doesn't hate you and actually agrees with you a good amount of the time, but right now you're being a dumbass.

"So we're going to play this game where nobody except the overrated Mongols are 'great conquerors'"
I said that Trajan wasn't a great conqueror, because he wasn't. He was decent by Roman standards, just as he was a decent emperor, but Rome grew very slowly over time, and he just got it very close to its peak and added a little to put it over the top. If Hadrian had chosen to be the conquering type too, he would have brought the empire to its greatest extent instead, but that wouldn't have made him any more of a great conqueror than Caesar.

"the crimes of the Mongols are diminished while that of everybody else are exaggerated"
History is generally written by the victors, who make a point of diminishing their crimes and exaggerating those of others. None of the histories of the Mongolians were actually written by the Mongolians, and that has to be considered when doing analyses of those histories.

"one of your beloved skull stacking Mongols?"
When did I ever say that I loved them, or even liked them or respected them? They were horrible people, I'm not denying that, I'm just saying that others were too. I even gave examples of how your chosen conqueror was a horrible person, but instead of responding to them, probably because you knew you couldn't argue against the actual facts that I presented, you made ad hominem attacks and focused on something I said that didn't even contribute to the point I was making. Nice job.
ghug (5068 D(B))
11 Nov 12 UTC
"And if the Dacians were so brutally treated why were they able to rise up on three different occasions to fight the Romans, pray tell? Could the exhaustion not have been from the fact that the Dacians were a small province that fought three wars?"
You're poorly attempting to refute the exact same argument that you yourself make against the Mongols. They fought. The Dacians lost. A lot of them died, and not just the men who did the fighting. I'm asking you how this is any different than what the Mongols did, and you're still avoiding the issue.
Putin33 (111 D)
11 Nov 12 UTC
Who qualifies as a great conqueror that isn't a Mongol? I'm not dodging the question if we can't even agree on common terms.
Putin33 (111 D)
11 Nov 12 UTC
"They fought. The Dacians lost. A lot of them died, and not just the men who did the fighting. I'm asking you how this is any different than what the Mongols did"

Because when cities lost to the Mongols, they were utterly destroyed. There was no chance of a second war with the residents of Nishapur. Please explain to me how anything any other conqueror did compares to that?
Putin33 (111 D)
11 Nov 12 UTC
"History is generally written by the victors, who make a point of diminishing their crimes and exaggerating those of others."

The Mongols were the victors, so how are they being abused by historians? The field is replete with Mongolian apologists. Alexander Nevsky is one of the greatest 'heroes' of Russia and he is famous for completely kowtowing to the Khanate. Barely a mention is made of the Mongolian devastation of China under the Yuan Dynasty. Nobody talks about the Mongolian destruction of Persia and central Asia.
ghug (5068 D(B))
11 Nov 12 UTC
Attila the Hun, Octavian, Caesar, Napoleon to name a few. And yes, you are dodging the question, because I gave you evidence of your claim despite my not considering Trajan a great conqueror, and yet you chose only to argue my definition of "great conqueror," which was not even pertinent to my argument.
Putin33 (111 D)
11 Nov 12 UTC
No, I addressed the point directly by comparing the fate of Dacia in the first Dacian war with the people of Nishapur, Baghdad, Kiev, and other places devastated by the Mongols.
Was Sarmitegatusa destroyed after the 1st Dacian war? Not even close. Were the inhabitants annihilated? Not even close.
ghug (5068 D(B))
11 Nov 12 UTC
"The Mongols were the victors, so how are they being abused by historians?"
I've made my opinion on this quite clear several times. I know that you're intelligent enough to understand that, which makes me think that you're asking this question because you don't like my answer. I'm not saying that they were abused by historians, I'm merely saying that not all contemporary historians were heavily biased in their favor, as is true of many other conquests.

The fact that some people were apologists does not at all affect the fact that there are very clearly many who weren't. Notice that you, me, and pretty much everyone else have knowledge of the atrocities they committed.

I'm not saying that they weren't bad people, because they were. I'm just saying that they weren't uniquely bad, and you don't seem to be getting that.
ghug (5068 D(B))
11 Nov 12 UTC
The first Dacian war being an indecisive war fought by a different emperor that ended with a mutual peace that was very much more favorable to the Dacians to the Romans? Definitely a fair comparison.

Or are you talking about Trajan's first Dacian war? Oh wait, that one also ended with a peace, albeit one more favorable for the Romans.

The final Dacian war ended with the Romans finally having conquered the Dacians, and all of the Dacians seemingly dead. The fact that the Dacians were able to put up a strong resistance to the Roman legions in each war seems to suggest that their demise was more than just a slow loss of population through repeated warfare.
orathaic (1009 D(B))
11 Nov 12 UTC
Fasces, to avoid derailing this thread, my responce to your point is here: threadID=944903
Fasces349 (0 DX)
11 Nov 12 UTC
I'm actually going to partially side with Putin on this one.

Trajan is my 2nd favourite emperor of one of the greatest civilizations ever. He wasn't as perfect as Putin is making him out to be, but then again neither is Genghis Khan perfect and his hoarde.
Putin33 (111 D)
11 Nov 12 UTC
"I'm just saying that they weren't uniquely bad, and you don't seem to be getting that."

I understand full well what you are saying. I don't agree that the annihilation of Nishapur and its people is "just as bad" as anything the Romans did. Debate with my argument not what I'm not saying, please. Also, the idea that the Dacians were all wiped out is not true, since the Romans faced rebellions throughout the early stages of their occupation of that province.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Dacians

Also, the Romans had control of the capital after the 1st Dacian war enough to dismantle the city's fortifications. Not sure why then they wouldn't also have enough control to do something to the population.
ghug (5068 D(B))
11 Nov 12 UTC
@Putin The Free Dacians existed outside of Roman control and regularly made incursions inward. They too were eventually wiped out by the Romans.

Can you please define what you're calling the first Dacian war? The first Roman war with Dacia ended with a Roman loss.

@Fasces "He wasn't as perfect as Putin is making him out to be, but then again neither is Genghis Khan perfect and his hoarde. [sic]"
Thank you, that is what I have been saying.
Putin33 (111 D)
11 Nov 12 UTC
For the love of Tengri that's *not* what I have argued for the last upteen posts now (re: that you love the Mongols, I've been saying that you're engaging in false equivalence which effectively trivializes the crimes of the Mongols in the name of phony balance).

The First Dacian war I'm talking about took place from 101 to 102 AD. The Romans defeated the Dacians at Adamklissi and then took two of the fortresses surrounding the Dacian capital. The peace treaty was highly unfavorable to the Dacians.
Putin33 (111 D)
11 Nov 12 UTC
I see no evidence whatsoever that the Dacians were 'wiped out'. Kind of strange that the Romanians claim to have descended from them if that were actually true.
ghug (5068 D(B))
11 Nov 12 UTC
"For the love of Tengri that's *not* what I have argued for the last upteen posts now"
Are you just repeating this because it makes you feel good now? You've made the argument twice since the last time I accused you of doing so. Not only that, but you *are* saying that I love the Mongols. I hate them just as much as you do, but you insist on making me look like an evil apologist in the hopes of invalidating my argument.

"The First Dacian war I'm talking about took place from 101 to 102 AD. The Romans defeated the Dacians at Adamklissi and then took two of the fortresses surrounding the Dacian capital. The peace treaty was highly unfavorable to the Dacians."
I've been referring to that as Trajan's first Dacian war. It was in fact the second Dacian war. Perhaps that's been the cause of some confusion.

"Also, the Romans had control of the capital after the 1st Dacian war enough to dismantle the city's fortifications. Not sure why then they wouldn't also have enough control to do something to the population."
Again, I don't see how this furthers your argument. If they chose to annihilate them in a time of peace rather than in battle, doesn't that make them even worse?

"I don't agree that the annihilation of Nishapur and its people is 'just as bad' as anything the Romans did."
What about the brutal sack of Carthage, or all of the Gauls Caesar killed for no reason other than to make himself look good?
Putin33 (111 D)
12 Nov 12 UTC
"Not only that, but you *are* saying that I love the Mongols. I hate them just as much as you do, but you insist on making me look like an evil apologist in the hopes of invalidating my argument."

No I'm not. I'm arguing against false equivalence & phony balance. The effect of false equivalence is to absolve the Mongols of any kind of special guilt or special status as the worst villains in history. But I'm rather tired of having you distort my argument while claiming that's what I'm doing to you.

"I've been referring to that as Trajan's first Dacian war. It was in fact the second Dacian war. Perhaps that's been the cause of some confusion."

Ok.

"If they chose to annihilate them in a time of peace rather than in battle, doesn't that make them even worse?"

I'm having a hard time understanding what it is you're saying. The Romans could have simply refused any offer of peace and leveled the city, murdering its inhabitants, like the Mongols did. Instead they accepted peace & let the Dacians rebuild their fortifications to fight them again.

For example, the Song Empire sued for peace, but the Mongols refused, leading the unnecessary total slaughter of the people of Changzhou, among others.



ghug (5068 D(B))
12 Nov 12 UTC
Oh, your argument was unclear, I understand now.

I believe that Trajan cut off his first Dacian war because he didn't want to fight through the winter in unfavorable conditions, he went back to finish them off later.
Putin33 (111 D)
12 Nov 12 UTC
"I believe that Trajan cut off his first Dacian war because he didn't want to fight through the winter in unfavorable conditions, he went back to finish them off later."

The war ended in Spring 102 with Dacians suing for peace after the march on the capital. Trajan even sent money & equipment to help Dacia defend its border to the north after he won.
Putin33 (111 D)
12 Nov 12 UTC
"What about the brutal sack of Carthage,"

The surrendering population wasn't murdered.

"or all of the Gauls Caesar killed for no reason other than to make himself look good?"

What are you talking about? This is how Caesar treated the Gauls.

"The Helvetii, the Tulingi, and the Latobrigi to return to their territories from which they had come, and as there was at home nothing whereby they might support their hunger, all the productions of the earth having been destroyed, he commanded the Allobroges to let them have a plentiful supply of corn; and ordered them to rebuild the towns and villages which they had burnt. This he did, chiefly on this account, because he was unwilling that the country, from which the Helvetii had departed, should be untenanted, lest the Germans, who dwell on the other side of the Rhine, should, on account of the excellence of the lands, cross over from their own territories into those of the Helvetii, and become borderers upon the province of Gaul and the Allobroges. He granted the petition of the Aedui, that they might settle the Boii, in their own (i.e. in the Aeduan) territories, as these were known to be of distinguished valour to whom they gave lands, and whom they afterwards admitted to the same state of rights and freedom as themselves."

http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html

Even after the final conquest of Alesia Caesar did not murder the population, but sold them into slavery, even pardoning some. Nothing comparable to the Mongols.
Putin33 (111 D)
12 Nov 12 UTC
should read *He ordered the Helvetii, the Tulingi, and the Latobrigi to return to their territories from which they had come..."
ghug (5068 D(B))
12 Nov 12 UTC
Where are you getting that? I'm not an expert on the subject, but Wikipedia disagrees with you. If you have a better source, please share it.
Putin33 (111 D)
12 Nov 12 UTC
I did share it. See the link again:

http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html
Putin33 (111 D)
12 Nov 12 UTC
And wikipedia says the garrison of Alesia was:

" was taken prisoner as well as the survivors of the relief army. They were either sold into slavery or given as booty to Caesar's legionaries, except for the members of the Aedui and Arverni tribes, which were released and pardoned to secure the alliance of these important tribes to Rome."

How does that compare with the Mongol policy of murdering every inhabitant of any town that opposed them?
ghug (5068 D(B))
12 Nov 12 UTC
I was talking about the end of Trajan's Dacian wars.

As for Caesar though, Caesar isn't really the most reliable source when discussing Caesar's failings, wouldn't you agree? Have you actually read those books?
Putin33 (111 D)
12 Nov 12 UTC
Why would he lie about it if you're claiming he killed Gauls in order to "look good"? Shouldn't he be bragging about how many Gauls he killed?

"I was talking about the end of Trajan's Dacian wars."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan's_Dacian_Wars
http://www.geocities.com/cogaionon/article4.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/md/Orastie/Decebal.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Tapae

ghug (5068 D(B))
12 Nov 12 UTC
Caesar's Commentarii De Bello Gallico take a general tone of talking about how Caesar is the smartest, strongest, best person ever. When something goes wrong, he expected it and it was someone else's fault. When any of the Gauls might look too good, he goes off on a tangent about their barbaristic customs. When Caesar wins battles, he massacres his enemies humanely. When Caesar loses battles, he's alway off being a badass somewhere else, and the enemies are always depicted as inhuman madmen that thrive on trickery and destruction. It's excellent historical fiction, but nothing more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Dacian_War says that Trajan stopped short due to the oncoming winter.
Putin33 (111 D)
12 Nov 12 UTC
There were no significant battles in 102 AD other than the battle of Adamklissi in the spring.

That wiki article is confusing things. The Battle of Tapae wasn't the final battle of the war, as the wiki article claims, and it occurred in 101 AD, not 102 AD as the wiki article claims. Trajan did wait out the winter before attacking the Dacians in the spring of 102 AD after a failed Dacian attack.

"Caesar's Commentarii De Bello Gallico take a general tone of talking about how Caesar is the smartest, strongest, best person ever"

I think that's completely false but also irrelevant. Again I ask, why would Caesar lie about not killing Gauls - if he supposed "killed Gauls to make himself look good"? Which is outrageous on its face considering his enemies in the Senate (like Cato) were willing to hand him over to the Germans for killing Gauls when negotiations for peace were pending.


58 replies
Mujus (1495 D(B))
12 Nov 12 UTC
Happy Veterans Day!
--and Thanks to those who have served orare serving in the armed forces.
1 reply
Open
Zmaj (215 D(B))
11 Nov 12 UTC
EoG: Brutal Deluxe
...or, the rise and fall and rise of France.
3 replies
Open
President Eden (2750 D)
10 Nov 12 UTC
we imperial now
I know there's some EU3 fans in here so I thought I'd post my most recent achievement. France -> HRE, prior to 1450, and to top everything off, the ruler is named Charles (i.e. Charlemagne).

http://i.imgur.com/I9kTn.jpg
23 replies
Open
President Eden (2750 D)
11 Nov 12 UTC
CFB Thread 11/10: The "Lol Alabama" Edition
I'm holding off on celebrating too much yet. If Alabama drops the ball against Auburn and loses again, THEN I'll party. Still good to see the conference's offseason acquisitions were at least halfway a success... rankings to follow
2 replies
Open
shield (3929 D)
11 Nov 12 UTC
When I play Gunboat...
1. Everyone likes to attack Russia.
2. Austria always seems to attack Italy when I hear conventional wisdom is for them to team up.
3. In light of Austria attacking Italy, S01 A-Venice to Trieste works well for Italy despite conventional wisdom that says stay neutral, especially as Italy.
6 replies
Open
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
11 Nov 12 UTC
ALABAMA
FUCKIN LOST! YYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY
16 replies
Open
President Eden (2750 D)
04 Nov 12 UTC
ASDFGHJKL - College Football Open Thread 2012/11/3
About the only thing that makes sense about that game was the final score. I dunno whether to be ecstatic about LSU finding an offense or pissed that the same old coaching miscues cost the team the win.
6 replies
Open
The Czech (40398 D(S))
11 Nov 12 UTC
Any Mods online?
Let me know so I can send an email.
2 replies
Open
Draugnar (0 DX)
31 Oct 12 UTC
Former friends and foes and new folks who want to try and take out the Draugnar...
I need a new world game. One just wrapped and another is almost done. I enjoy world for the fun conversation and less intense play. So who is up for a 101 buy-in WTA 24-48 hour world game (anon or non is up for discussion).
127 replies
Open
twinsnation (503 D(B))
11 Nov 12 UTC
anc med fast game
please join, 15 minutes from now
1 reply
Open
Zmaj (215 D(B))
11 Nov 12 UTC
EoG: Partys Fun Palace-29
I already said this today, but it bears repeating: the Czech is a noob :D
3 replies
Open
flc64 (1963 D)
11 Nov 12 UTC
Roll Tide? Or Rolled Tide?
My condolences to all Alabama fans…the Roll Tide just got Manzieled and Swoped.
1 reply
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
10 Nov 12 UTC
How NOT to Air Your Post-Election Grievances
You can--and should--criticize the President if you want, however much you want, that's how a free democracy is kept free, but...DON'T wish the President dead, or sling racial slurs! Coarse, cruel, unworthy, uncalled for, and STUPID!
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Woman-fired-for-Obama-racial-slur-on-Facebook-4023129.php
23 replies
Open
EvW (261 D)
10 Nov 12 UTC
Replacements needed for world map
New Quebec and pacific russia needed: gameID=103719

Both hold very decent positions.
0 replies
Open
Page 986 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top