And Philip Augustus of France. Can't forget King Philip Augustus.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Have an old video from 1961 about US Special Forces
"US Army Silent Warriors"
Shameful Display
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
They beat the French multiple times, plus they invaded Normandy during D-Day. The Pub landlord would count that as a victory.
Yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that the Duchy of Normandy beat them.
edited 23rd Apr '17 8:10:59 PM by SantosLHalper
Searching
Define "them". What continuity is there really between Godwinson's kingdom and the United Kingdom?
"It is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just."
Shameful Display
The continuity of an English pub owner wanting to claim they beat every country on Earth. These things are hardly logical. That and they took up the same space.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
Does anyone know of any multi-ethnic states that devolved governance to its embedded nations and survived?
Or in other words, states that made their provinces based upon internal nations (Yugoslavia, the USSR, Czechoslovakia, the prewar United States of Austria idea); or at least gave their ethnic groups substantial lawmaking power and did not collapse into ethnic strife...
I'm drawing a blank and can only think of the Achaemenind Persia.
Pretty sure Achaemenid Persia was putting out rebellions all the time like everybody else.
Honestly, I can't think of any country that hasn't had difficulties like that at some point.
edited 25th Apr '17 12:58:08 PM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
Shameful Display
I guess 2016 sort of counts as History Obama's prisoner exchange was a far bigger gift to Iran than he let on
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
Oh, I don't expect any country ever created a clime with no rebellion, just:
was there ever a state that was something like a federation of distinct ethnic groups that stayed stable and functional for some time?
edited 25th Apr '17 1:12:54 PM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
Shameful Display
Define some time. Yugoslavia was stable for as long as Tito was in charge, then immediately went to shit when he died. The UK is made up of different ethnic groups. India is very diverse, and many consider it a miracle it hasn't torn itself to pieces already.
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
For context: I was mulling over very distinct strands: the (potential) effects of UN-DRIP & CERD, the one Soviet who stated "[the] country resembled a chocolate bar [pre-cut into easy pieces], the Swiss' "nation of volition" from rather distinct cantons, and the idea of targeted universalism. It Makes Sense in Context...I swear.
I don't suppose there's a good time scale for staying stable, but that's a good point. Although that example lends more evidence to Yugoslavia being Tito's personal fiefdom than a stable enterprise—except that Yugoslavia existed before WWII.
I suppose the UK fits. I had wondered because of Scotland nearly withdrawing so soon after devolution (at least soon in terms of historical epochs), but as Terminus posted, there's strife like that in every past. Plus these are interesting times in any case.
Also, the elephant in the room. Somehow I forgot India, though tis an excellent case study that it ain't easy..
Searching
The Ottoman Empire's provinces and ethnicities had a large degree of autonomy for most of its history.
"It is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just."
Shameful Display
It had quite a bit of ethnic strife in it's last years.
Searching
So did pretty much every country in history. It still lasted quite a while.
"It is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just."
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
The Ottoman Empire seems like a good example. I've actually wondered for a while whether moving from the millet system to Ottomanism dealt them more damage than benefit.
Sure the idea was legal and (maybe?) social equality plus greater cohesion, but one can compare it to color blind policies stateside, accompanied by the dissolution of communal authorities.
edited 25th Apr '17 7:41:48 PM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
Shameful Display
Wasn't the Millet system what allowed Egypt to basically become an Independent country, and then a British colony?
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
No, that was geography and really bad oversight of provincial governors. (And of course the military weakness, but that was caused by the former).
The millet system, oddly, fits many of the criteria of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, with the glaring oversight of control over land but...
Searching
I was reading recently about Roman conceptions of race, partly to refute an argument I had with a friend that the Romans didn't have any. I thought these were interesting quotes to share:
Vitruvius, 1st century Roman historian, author, and military engineer:
"But although southern nations have the keenest wits, and are infinitely more clever in forming schemes, the moment it comes to displaying valour, they succumb because all manliness of spirit is sucked out of them by the sun. On the other hand, men born in cold countries are indeed readier to meet the shock of arms with great courage and without timidity, but their wits are so slow that they will rush inconsiderately and inexpertly, thus defeating their own devices. Such being nature's arrangement of the universe, and all these nations being allotted temperaments which are lacking in due moderation, the truly perfect territory, situated under the middle of the heaven, and having on each side the entire extent of the world and its countries, is that which is occupied by the Roman people. In fact, the races of Italy are the most perfectly constituted in both respects—in bodily form and in mental activity to correspond to their valour."
Dio Cassius, 3rd century Roman historian on Emperor Caracalla:
Julian, 4th century Roman emperor:
How times change. These days it's the southeners who're presented as dumb, lazy freeloaders 
Well, yeah, of course that the Romans (and pretty much every civilization on the face of the Earth) had ideas, perceptions and stereotypes of other peoples they deemed to be inferior to them. And I guess it's ok to conclude they had their racial views.
The problem comes when people in this day and age (both racists and those who valiantly fight against the current forms of racism) read those ideas that existed in the past with the perceptions of today (presentism).
However, it has to be said that the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines) during part of the Middle Ages were mostly ok with marriages between people of different races (they were not ok, however, with marriages between people of different religions and/or churches/denominations).
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
Today in people really invested in their jobs
“The effect is said to have been magical upon the soldiers, and to have saved the Patent Office from destruction. … When the smoke cleared from the dreadful attack, the Patent Office was the only Government building … left untouched.”
(From R. Beresford’s Brief History of the United States Patent Office From Its Foundation, 1886.)
Shameful Display
They probably just wanted to steal our trade secrets. Just about everyone wants to these days![[lol]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lol2v12_4863.png "[lol]"){kind=small}
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
That was actually funny.
Who watches the watchmen?
And the Afghans. The British are really good at getting their arses handed to them by Afghans.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.