|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 20, 2006 16:37:06 GMT
You might be right, Glance, but I'm not entirely certain. The battle of Stamford Bridge took place in the norhern part of Harold's kingdom, but I'm not entirely sure where Stamford is or was. Certainly, William had a far greater control over England as a whole than any king before him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Feb 20, 2006 17:12:29 GMT
About the French revolution; yes monarchy succeded to the empire but it was really not the same as the previous monarchies. The king had much less power and he had to deal with the changes and new social powers/ideas the Empire had brought up...That is true - it was weaker. It lasted until 1848 (2nd revolution) bringing about the 2nd Republic under President Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte (75% of the votes in a referendum^^). This republic lasted only 4 years before it became the 2nd Empire, which lasted 20 years until those darn Germans... (French viewpoint  ) I think the current French republic is classified the 5th (after the constitution changes by de Gaulle). While the 1st revolution propagated 'liberté, egalité, fraternité' - what a slogan! Wonderful marketing - neither of that really came into being by the revolution(s) within the 19th century, but by slow progess - as everywhere else in Europe. What I concede is that the revolution effcted the rise of people, that would not have risen in the Ancien Régime - notably Napoleon, Talleyrand (Foreign Secretary of the Republic, the Empire AND the restored monarchy, and Fouché, Police Minister of all three (he certainly was some grey eminence of power^^)
|
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Feb 21, 2006 6:18:44 GMT
@ Glance -> i don't know why but somehow that post of yours made me remember Monty Python's: Search for the Holy Grail movie.
"it is i, Arthur, king of the Britons, ...."
then came the question about the coconuts. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Feb 21, 2006 10:08:02 GMT
It's possible that I get carried away slightly when triggered with history |
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Feb 22, 2006 2:41:34 GMT
still, it makes interesting reading, Glance.  |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Feb 22, 2006 17:20:50 GMT
Can you explain me what were the means/strategies taken? And could these means be efficient in other situations as well? And to a further extend, do we always have a non-violent option? (could the French revolution have been achieved if there hadn't been that butchery?) Also, in addition to time/history/learning factor, could we say that the deepest the transformation (or change), the more violent it tends to be? As much as I hate to say it, we always have a non-violent option. Trouble is humanity never changes..Oh yes, they always buy into the lie eventually over a period of time that we will "learn to be non-violent" and that we will "evolve" enough to become similar to "Star Trek" federation type, but guess what? Even there there is always war with another "species"...the trouble is still....the human being is depraved and by nature - evil - and will eventually always follow his nature...notwithstanding, there are always those that try to combat it...problem is, they always lose...  I believe at the seeming pessimatic post, I don't really worry about it, but I don't expect much in the long run from humanity....unless it gets a "nature" change.. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Feb 22, 2006 17:35:09 GMT
The trick is that violence is the ultimate expression of displeasure and also the ultimate expression of survival. I think that the only way for humanity to get over it's violent tendancies is for society to advance so far (and technology too) that violences is almost completely assured to be MAD (Mutually assured distruction) or even better, to the point where the agressor is more likly to come off worse than the defender. An example would be if the US passed a law where everyone that could legally own a gun had to spend 3 hours a week at fireing range practicing their target practice, and was obliged to carry at least 1 hand gun at all times. I bet that in that case incidents of violent crime would plumet simply because the perps could never know if they were going to get shot, rather than the case it is now where the chances are that you are the only one with the gun in an encounter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 22, 2006 18:44:30 GMT
Funnily enough, DL, there is one town in (IIRC) Texas where it is illegal NOT to carry a gun - and because of that, the crime rate is very low. I remember reading about it a while ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Feb 22, 2006 18:52:27 GMT
aye, you told me about that town and the equalising factor that guns are having there. But equally I suspect that martial arts used to equalise things in the same way before the gun (at least in the east anyway) as people never knew if the person they were going to jump was sufficently proficent at martial arts to kick them into next tuesday.
|
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Feb 23, 2006 2:58:48 GMT
in such case then, should every country have its own nuclear arsenal? would that be the moot factor?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 23, 2006 4:26:09 GMT
Jang... Thet would indeed prevent any wars from ever happening - providing no country was ever ruled by a lunatic who didn't care who else died as long as he got Nation X first... And no nation has a monopoly on producing such leaders. Or an inability to produce them. It's not a safe proviso, as you see |
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Feb 23, 2006 6:25:51 GMT
& so the texas scenario isn't exactly applicable to all. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 23, 2006 14:47:45 GMT
No single scenario works over all the people in the world. We are far too diverse a species for that |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Feb 23, 2006 14:55:30 GMT
true, which is why the texas scenario reduced violent crime rather than eliminating it. The other thing is that WMD's are an indirect threat to most people and as such afforded a much lower threat rating than they actually warrent.
In fact the less obvious a weapon the less intimidating it tends to be even if it is more effective. e.g. a baseball club/sword/other large melee weapon is more intimidating than someone walking around with a gun, which is more indimidating than a fully trained martial artist walking around unarmed. However the effectivness levels may be very different from their intimidation factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Feb 23, 2006 19:33:11 GMT
Jang... Thet would indeed prevent any wars from ever happening - providing no country was ever ruled by a lunatic who didn't care who else died as long as he got Nation X first... And no nation has a monopoly on producing such leaders. Or an inability to produce them. It's not a safe proviso, as you see Yes, remember, the most "civilized" nation in the free world is the only one that dropped the bomb - no matter what the cause, any nation or leader will justify their actions if they want to do it bad enough, let alone despots....  So I agree with Elliot, Jang, would be better if NO-ONE and any nukes...  |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 23, 2006 21:20:28 GMT
I'd say there were at least a dozen countries who might dispute the use of 'THE' in that statement *** I also think that having no nuclear weaponry would land us right in it. I think the only reason WW3 was not fought in the 60s was because both sides (Nato & the USSR) had nukes. In a straight up conventional war, the USSR might have fancied its chances. And that's without taking China into account. They tried to invade India in the last century - would they have attacked other countries if not for the nuclear umbrella? Like so many other things, nukes are both good AND bad. They're fine as long as no lunatic gets near them. Big 'IF' I know... |
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Feb 24, 2006 3:31:36 GMT
so long as the self-interest involves fellow countrymen, those things will always be chess pieces lying in perpetual wait. of course, i dislike nuke too. |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Mar 6, 2006 5:35:55 GMT
 I'd say there were at least a dozen countries who might dispute the use of 'THE' in that statement *** I also think that having no nuclear weaponry would land us right in it. I think the only reason WW3 was not fought in the 60s was because both sides (Nato & the USSR) had nukes. In a straight up conventional war, the USSR might have fancied its chances. And that's without taking China into account. They tried to invade India in the last century - would they have attacked other countries if not for the nuclear umbrella? Like so many other things, nukes are both good AND bad. They're fine as long as no lunatic gets near them. Big 'IF' I know... What about the US dealing with India now to BUILD UP her arsenal, without doubt, as a buffer against China's southwest border...If China worries more about India, she is less threat to US...or so I think the Bush people figure that is the way it will work...  Trying to assure MAD principles to India and China whether or not they want it.. Could be interesting (or deadly)..
|
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Mar 6, 2006 6:44:43 GMT
India as the so-called balance factor to counter China's influence, well, in terms of economy, they can be complementary rather than antagonising sides as how Bush admin would like to play it.
somehow i feel that Bush admin is too much on the international scene for the wrong reasons: fear-mongering, in perpetual (& hopeless) love of uni-lateralism, hypocrisy, etc. all of these just to cover up how inept he is to manage his own country, let alone the whole world.
at least Blair isn't out to ruin other countries other than his own.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 6, 2006 10:00:16 GMT
Only because Blair doesn't have the power to back it up. He'd be at least as bad if he did.
Bush is trying to create anxiety because of the way the oil supplies are running out. China and India both need more oil year by year at a rate that's accelerating sharply, and the US economy is entirely dependent on cheap oil. Plus Bush himself is part of an oil dynasty, and it's always been obvious that's where his loyalties lie.
A competition for resources is on the horizon, and scare-mongering always helps to persuade the people that they really cannot co-operate with the other side, despite all evidence to the contrary.
|
|
)
.com
