• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Fall Event 2021


    Calling all Bakers! Read all about the Fall Event 2021 here!
  • Forum Contests

    Do you want to win great prizes? Don't forget to check out the current contest here.

Closed Week #4 2017-05-29

Status
Not open for further replies.

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%...
 
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.
 
Last edited:

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 ? ▶
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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. ▶
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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.
 

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.