Closed Week #4 2017-05-29

[DeletedUser110195]

Further about the early, high, late thing, it would be awfully strange to call the height of the middle ages the middle middle ages.

 

[DeletedUser108047]

maybe we could have our own dark ages.... where tech tree disappears and we grope to battle with mystic and religious powers only for whole swathes of cities to be decimated by hordes of mongols... (actually I know a few guilds like that)

and on that point... why do we use decimated this way... Originally it was a punishment for the Roman Legions - 1 in 10 would be selected for punishment/execution so it originally meant reduce by 10% but now we mean the opposite - to only leave 10%...

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

It's a reference to the way the sun appears to move across the sky, same reason we call it 'high' noon.

That is high, as in peak or summit. Was the middle of the Middle Ages really its peak?

maybe we could have our own dark ages.... where tech tree disappears and we grope to battle with mystic and religious powers only for whole swathes of cities to be decimated by hordes of mongols... (actually I know a few guilds like that)

There are some neat ideas in there! Putting in research without knowing what the research might give you.

...and on that point... why do we use decimated this way... Originally it was a punishment for the Roman Legions - 1 in 10 would be selected for punishment/execution so it originally meant reduce by 10% but now we mean the opposite - to only leave 10%...

This common mis-use of the word 'decimated' often pisses me off. The distortion of language due to illiteracy or the desire to exaggerate everything dismays me.

I heard recently that the Mongol empire building reduced the global population by 11%, killing more people than ****** and Stalin combined.

 

[DeletedUser110179]

I heard recently that the Mongol empire building reduced the global population by 11%, killing more people than ****** and Stalin combined.

11% is an awfully big number. Sounds like a spot of hyperbole.

Over 60 million people were killed in WWII, which is about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion). That said, the Mongols are held responsible for the spread of deadly disease, likely the bubonic plague. In the 1300s, that disease wiped out approximately one-third of Europe's population in what is known as the Black Death.
Interestingly, a spell of wet weather may have prevented the Mongols from conquering the whole of Europe.

Why are China and India so densely populated ? ▶

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

11% is an awfully big number. Sounds like a spot of hyperbole.

I think it depends on which figure you take. On a quick search, I see estimates ranging from 1.5 million deaths to over 40 million deaths.

Some of the difference is direct and indirect deaths. Many were killed in war or slaughtered after a city fell to the Mongols; many more starved to death or died of disease as a direct result of treatment under the Mongols.

Likewise with the deaths during ww2. Is one counting the combatants only, the combatants + civilian war deaths (mostly bombing), or everyone including the holocaust and indirect deaths from starvation, homelessness and disease. I have even seen figures for WW2 deaths that included those who died of old age while the war was going on: clearly nothing to do with being involved in the global conflict.

 

[DeletedUser110179]

I think it depends on which figure you take. On a quick search, I see estimates ranging from 1.5 million deaths to over 40 million deaths.

I have even seen figures for WW2 deaths that included those who died of old age while the war was going on: clearly nothing to do with being involved in the global conflict.

I just meant that even at a possibly inflated figure of 60 million killed in ww2 ... it's still only 3% of global population. 11% killed due to Mongol "effects" may well be a little extreme.
Many elderly who died in ww2 may have died a bit prematurely ... compared to a more relaxed peacetime environment (children too).

WWII was the first war where citizens were both massively involved in production and as casualties.

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

WWII was the first war where citizens were both massively involved in production and as casualties.

I've heard that stated before but I think it is very questionable. American Indian tribes at war with the European casualties had fighters distinct from civilians yet the civilians were heavily involved in the manufacture of weapons and other war supplies and as casualties. The Zulus were similar in arrangement, with mining, smelting, wood-treating and other war productions being a prime concern of the civilian population as they fought for survival. The Zulus, too, were subjected to extinction attempts that involved many civilians as casualties. The Babylonian legal system might well have been formed just to handle the arrangements between its standing army's needs to orotect civilians and the civilians' duty to supply the army with what it needed.

WW2 was different only in that mass production of relatively complex war machinery was fairly standard, though the same might be said of WW1, by which time countries like Britain, France and Germany had well-developed industrial economies.

 

[DeletedUser110179]

WW2 was different only in that mass production of relatively complex war machinery was fairly standard, though the same might be said of WW1, by which time countries like Britain, France and Germany had well-developed industrial economies.

I can't imagine that WW1 relied any less on huge industrial support than WW2 ... but fewer citizens were caught in the crossfire (the war was more static and aerial bombing was very slight).

Perhaps I have a romanticized version of "knights of olde" who were mostly the wealthy aristocracy ... for the simple reason that a horse, armor and page cost good money. Maybe war has become more popular, inasmuch as, the entire population is involved in the final outcome.

I guess it's real democracy at work. Nobody is sidelined. ▶

 

[DeletedUser653]

got my gold GE award and added another 10 rogues to my 2000 rogues I already have

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Well if you don't need them I'd be glad to take those 10 rogues off your hands as I don't have traz yet to pump out bonus rogues from my hideouts.

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

I don't even have a hideout, let alone Alcatraz.

I think I deserve to win this competition, on pity-points alone.

 

[DeletedUser108047]

I think it should be judged on witty-points

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

That wouldn't be good for me since my friend keeps saying I'm only half way to being witty (I think that's what he means, anyway).

 

[Vesiger]

Originally the Middle Ages was called the Dark Ages ... partly because so little was known about the 500 years after the decline of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD.

I imagine they were originally called 'present times' or even 'the modern day'

 

[DeletedUser110195]

I imagine they were originally called 'present times' or even 'the modern day'

To them the 'Dark Ages' were the time before fire was invented.

 

[DeletedUser108047]

Does anyone know how to change the channel on the big screen in your tavern....mine's been showing Dancing with the Stars for months and its driving people away

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Fortunately for me mine is stuck on the all-sports channel, that place is packed 24/7

 

[DeletedUser109510]

Mine seems to be turned off completely

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

Does anyone know how to change the channel on the big screen in your tavern....mine's been showing Dancing with the Stars for months and its driving people away

Try banging it hard on the side.
If that doesn't work, call in a barbarian to smash it even harder.

 

[DeletedUser109510]

try this