The History Thread!

Clay's VP? Daniel Webster I suppose.

How come The '70s and The Crusades both get one page each?

Considering how one was the defining event of a whole historical era, and the other was a mere decade, it seems a bit wrong.

edited 22nd Mar '11 11:06:28 AM by AlirozTheConfused

The Crusades were a bit... distasteful. I mean, religious wars, child soldiers...Most of the era wasn't exactly very nice. As opposed to the seventies, which is close enough to the present to avoid morality backlash.

"to wonder if Alexander Hamilton had chosen to convince the electoral college to vote for Aaron Burr instead of Thomas Jefferson:"

"•Hamilton and Burr wouldn't have hated each other enough to get into their duel, so Hamilton would probably have eventually become president."

You are overlooking something, Alizoz. Hamilton got the electoral college to vote for Jefferson because he already hated Burr on a level that dwarfed his rivarly with Jefferson.

But if distasteful events, morality backlash, and atrocities are the issue, then why is the holocaust and world war two portrayed so much in fiction?

You're right. I should have realized that. Still, Burr would have been either President or Vice President, and Thomas Jefferson as president was probably more dangerous to Hamilton's goals and politics than a president Burr.

edited 22nd Mar '11 11:12:59 AM by AlirozTheConfused

Evidently, Hamilton disagrees.

And who am I to disagree with one of the most brilliant legal and financial minds of his, or any, time?

Still, it was likely a poor decision in retrospect.

edited 22nd Mar '11 11:19:38 AM by AlirozTheConfused

Why? All things considered Jefferson was not a bad president, and not the extreme radical Hamilton had feared most. And with Jefferson you knew where he stood. Burr was "bankrupt beyond redemption except by the plunder of his own country. His public prinicples have no other spring or aim than his own aggrandizement... If he can he will certainly disturb our institutions to secure himself permanent power and with it wealth. He is truly the Catiline of America."

Because a newly healed wound hurts more than an old one, if both were of the same severity.

And at least you could argue that the players of the Crusades didn't partake in conscious genocide.

edited 23rd Mar '11 6:38:00 AM by Kinkajou

Not to mention at that time apparently whoever is the One True God (TM) is utterly, undiluted, unadultered SRS BSN. It comes with the era.

You could argue that the question of how many gods were there was settled then; all that was left to argue was said God's nature.

Which could lead to very long, drawn-out conflicts.

And let's not get down to further subdenomination. Which can lead to clusterfucks like the Hussite War, for instance.

Nah, the Hussites were proto-Protestants, as well as the Lollards.

It's notable that the proto-Reformation coincided with the increasing urbanization of Europe, the decline of the Eastern Roman Empire and the plundering of its physical and cultural capital by the Italians, and the Second Babylonian Captivity.

Well, I've always think the 4th Crusade is equivalent, in today's term, to some psycho PMC or terrorist group bombing the living hell out of Moscow, then rounding up all the precious artifact and loot and sell them off.

You forgot the part about said PMC being hired by Russia.

For me 1204 marked the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire; in fact the Empire from that year on was a shuffling corpse.

Post 1204 Byzantine Empire:

Me: "Empire? What empire?"

Exactly.

The Palaiologos were pretty decent at making sure Byzantium didn't fall that easily, though.

Plus, there's a reason Constantine XI has a Doomed Moral Victor mythos in Greece.

I very often analogize him with the last emperor of the Ming dynasty. They both are decent as persons and maybe even as rulers. Given a better setting, they might have even done well and be remembered as such.

Unfortunately, being only decent when their respective empire demanded a great ruler to even hope to turn back the tide is not enough.

Like Blessed Karl of Austria, too. Decent folks who just had to be the wrong people at the wrong time; they could have done well in a stable environment.

Thought: What if Hamilton had supported Adams during his attempt at reelection.

^How would John Marshall have reacted to that?

I've always wondered how Germany can keep its territories east of the Oder.

New topic: gladiator types.

Well, some of them do correspond to Roman military units...

That's like, giving Spartacus more toys to experiment with.

The Retiarius is totally a Fragile Speedster type.