Chrono Compendium
Enhasa Halls - Chrono Series Analysis => Reality, Real-World Connections, and the Supernatural => Topic started by: ZeaLitY on March 20, 2004, 07:16:35 pm
-
Finalized and Presented in Real World Influences
65,000,000 BC
Ioka has shades of meritocracy: didn't Ayla say that the strongest person would be the village leader? Then again, the average Iokan appears to be his/her own ruler, so to speak, and the meetings themselves would probably be more ceremonial than political.
Laruba is essentially identical, but perhaps its leader is chosen on the basis of age rather than might.
We the players witness only one instance in which Azala shows her (*shoots the fascists*) authoritarian leadership; that would be her commanding Nizbel to sic the party. There is nothing else to suggest how she actually governs the Reptites. There IS, however, a suggestion of "ancestor worship/respect/etc.": notice how several of the doors in the Tyrano Lair are made of dinosaur skulls.
12,000 BC
Zeal is an absolute monarchy with an "Enlightened" despot, though Enhasa and Kajar may hold the title of "free cities".
Algetty continues to function in the manner of Ioka and Laruba, albeit with better syntax in the leader's speeches.
AD 600
Guardia is your standard monarchy, neither autocratic nor figureheaded.
San Dorino has an elder; Porre, a mayor; Truce and Choras have neither. All four cities are more sophisticated versions of the two Stone Age settlements and the Earthbound village, basically.
Magus is Emperor of All Mystics. Enough said.
AD 1000
The trial scenes heavily suggest that Guardia has become a constitutional monarchy, especially "the elective process".
Truce now has a mayor; San Dorino has fallen to quicksand; Medina, the middle establishment, has an elder; Porre and Choras are unchanged. There doesn't seem to be much political change in any city.
AD 2300
Of the two domes in which some semblance of human civilisation survives, one is an anarchy, and the other is a pale copy of the pre-historic regimes.
As for the robots, well, let's just say that Mother Brain is a dictatrix (Latin suffixes > you) presiding over a mechanical society, in which pure communism has likely succeeded (machines are perfect, they say).
I would like to add that Porre later became a military state, and that the nature of the Central Regime is unknown, other than that it supposedly maintains a strong military (Chronopolis was called a military institute, it is revealed).
-
I would ask what El Nido would be considered, but I guess that might be a little complicated, with Porre taking over makes a difference, and if so, would they even take over in the ideal timeline?
I guess Termina and Viper Manor are ruled kinda like the way mentioned for Guardia, but it doesn't seem like Guldove or Marbule really answer to anyone...
-
What about the society of 1999 AD in the original Timeline? We see the Supervisor, Operator, and Director (of whom Doan is a descendant) managing the Info Center during the Day of Lavos. It is unclear whether this is a civil or military installation, but they wear similar uniforms to Guardian soldiers in 1000 AD. The Director definitely fulfilled some sort of leadership role and this tradition carried on well after the apocalypse. This could elude (certainly not intensionally) to the militant nature of the Porre empire which may have been in power. However, since Doan was a descendant of the Guardian royal line, I tend to think that Guardia maintained sovereignty in 1999 AD.
-
Keep in mind though, that by 1999, neither Guardia nor Porre may exist any more as a nation. The whole dome structure civilization had taken reeks of invididualised city states locked off or distrustful of the others. Chronopolis's nature of being disguised as a military research center (with a wing of fighter aircraft I might add) shows that whoever ran it was obviously distrustful of whoever else was around at the time.
By 2300 things had degenerated so badly into a separatist tribal or anarchist "government" that some of the locals seemed suprised there was anyone else out there when chrono and team showed up. Realistically, the people of Arris and Bangor domes should of had a completely different accent or even language from each other considering how long they had been separate.
-
The computers may have united them in that regard; static things around the dome would stick in English, and perhaps would maintain the language.
-
I would call Truce a facist state. Arresting a man for nothing. THats like state police! lol
-
Isn't Algetty as well as the Earthbound people ruled by Zeal?
-
I tend to think that America maintained sovereignty in 1999 AD and hold that the "dome city" was in fact a military base. I base this on my personal opinion that America kicks ass. That and my obsessive need to reconcile absolutely everything with reality.
However, there has been a trend lately that I find disturbing -- despite the U.N.'s status, there are a lot of people who are growing disillusioned with it and claiming that it's just a sequel to the League of Nations, which amounted to the most cosmic joke in our political history. The Central Regime could be the outgrowth of this anti-U.N. mentality, a much more conservative and jingoistic agency formed to replace the U.N. -- it certainly seems militaristic enough.
-
I base this on my personal opinion that America kicks ass.
Then how come your Special Forces are only third best in the world?
That and my obsessive need to reconcile absolutely everything with reality.
I'm with you on that one.
-
I base this on my personal opinion that America kicks ass.
Then how come your Special Forces are only third best in the world?
That's not even counting Canada's special forces, who are so good most people (including most Canadians) don't even know they exist.
-
Actually, I was including JTF2. A friend of the family is thinking of joining them.
-
How come every time I see a reference to the domes in 1999 that it is common knowledge that it is due to the fact that everyone hates each other? Maybe it was for environmental issues or just advanced technology. I say this because of what happens during the Lavos ending where the computer shows the numerous attacks across the world. I would be suprised if enemy domes would allow such information to be attainable so quickly.
-
if theres any reason why america dosent kick ass is because they exploit the working class, and poor people in 3rd world countries. They're also Capitalist complete opposite of leftism, which is what i believe in.
-
First of all, I fail to see how America has anything to do with this, and secondly, Capitalism > j00....sorry, just had to do that.
-
Hadriel and I usually have the habit of connection most of the history of the Chrono world with our own. In our, or at least my, view, world history from 3,000BC through about 100AD was mostly unchanged, save for the existance of a great landmass in the central Atlantic. This is Guardia. By 600AD, world history has taken a radically different course. Although I suppose Hadriel believes that America would still rise, thus his comment, and my jesting counter-comment regarding their power (after all, my country does have, historically in the last hundred years, one of the best trained and bravest of armies, if small and ill-equipped by most measures.)
-
Okay, I'll bite. If America's special forces are only "third best," then I'm going to guess that Israel and the United Kingdom hold the first- and second-place honors respectively. Am I right?
-
Well, I'm not most people, I guess. I used the JTF2 as part of an RPG a while back. Got a free manga for that -- interesting story behind it.
I tend to hold that the landmass that Guardia and Porre exist on is that of the Western Hemisphere -- North and South America, respectively.
And yes, capitalism does rule. If it weren't for capitalism, there'd be no Pizza Hut. Though I don't want to get into a debate on the merits of capitalism, I do hold that America and the other governments that populate our world today will still rise if the history outside of that explicitly established by the games is left alone.
-
Okay, I'll bite. If America's special forces are only "third best," then I'm going to guess that Israel and the United Kingdom hold the first- and second-place honors respectively. Am I right?
Aha! Got one. Actually, no. I'm not quite sure where Israel places. They're good, I've heard, and ruthless against terrorism, but I haven't heard them as either of the top two. First is the British SAS. Second is JTF2 a few of us mentioned: Canadian special forces. Like I said, a friend of the family is joining them. He was once in the Army Reserves, and somehow managed to take part in an Ironman race against the U.S. special forces, and was able to outdo them.
The thing is, though, Canada has always had, per soldier, one of the best armies in the world, outdoing both the U.S. and Britain. The Americans tried to invade once, and actually got lost. And anyone know why the White House is white? It's because the Candadians - British at the time, I suppose - burned it, and they needed to paint it. I think it was in retaliation for a raid on some Canadian city, where the Americans had brought back a 'scalp' as proof of British barbarity... ie. the wig of the House Speaker. It's a funny story I always like to tell. In the first world war the British were often a little too, how shall we put it, sure of themselves? There's always the story of them kicking footballs as they walked across no-man's land at the Somme, thinking the artillery bombardment - something like 2million shells in a five kilometer stretch -had killed all the Germans... that is, until the machine-gun fire opened up. The Canadians, on the other hand, advanced cautiously. They were also one of the few groups to hold firm in the face of the first gas attack, while the British ran for it. The other group in the First World War that was known for holding their ground in the face of overnumbering odds are the ANZACS, the Austrailian/New Zealand corps. But even now things aren't much different. A while back I heard that the Canadians in their old Leopard II MBTs beat the American M1's in wargames.
Now, if only we could get some equipment so that our helicopters stop crashing...
-
I could probably make a fortune if I invented equipment to make our pilots stop getting drunk. Too bad somebody already invented the dai-katana.
-
I could probably make a fortune if I invented equipment to make our pilots stop getting drunk. Too bad somebody already invented the dai-katana.
How about something so they don't bomb their allies?
-
I think it is a bad idea to give amphetamines to jet fighter pilots.
-
I think it's a bad idea to give amphetamines to ANYONE.
Except maybe convicts as a method of execution. Inject enough steroids into them and their heart will start beating so fast it explodes.
This cruel method of execution has been brought to you by the voices in my head.
-
I think it's a bad idea to give amphetamines to ANYONE.
Except maybe convicts as a method of execution. Inject enough steroids into them and their heart will start beating so fast it explodes.
This cruel method of execution has been brought to you by the voices in my head.
lol another cruel method would be to cover their feet in salt water and tie them to a low table in a room with a pack of goats and goats love salt :twisted:
-
I think the worst of executions have already been devised and carried out througout the course of the ancient world: crucifixion, flaying, human torches (and by this I mean torches for Nero's garden parties...), impaling, etc...
-
of coarse america exploits people, who do u think owns coca-cola. chiquita, nike etc.
-
Okay, I'll bite. If America's special forces are only "third best," then I'm going to guess that Israel and the United Kingdom hold the first- and second-place honors respectively. Am I right?
Aha! Got one. Actually, no. I'm not quite sure where Israel places. They're good, I've heard, and ruthless against terrorism, but I haven't heard them as either of the top two. First is the British SAS. Second is JTF2 a few of us mentioned: Canadian special forces. Like I said, a friend of the family is joining them. He was once in the Army Reserves, and somehow managed to take part in an Ironman race against the U.S. special forces, and was able to outdo them.
I'm curious how that proves anything at all? Are they trained better in their respective mission profiles is what I'm concerned about. And you wouldn't have any way of knowing THAT. because that information is not given out to civilians.
The thing is, though, Canada has always had, per soldier, one of the best armies in the world, outdoing both the U.S. and Britain. The Americans tried to invade once, and actually got lost. And anyone know why the White House is white? It's because the Candadians - British at the time, I suppose - burned it, and they needed to paint it. I think it was in retaliation for a raid on some Canadian city, where the Americans had brought back a 'scalp' as proof of British barbarity... ie. the wig of the House Speaker.
It was a contingent of Royal British Marines that offloaded from a ship that burned the White House. And that was during the War of 1812. I'm not sure where you got this info that CANADIAN soldiers burned the White House.
By the way, citing American military performance from almost two hundred years ago doesn't prove anything about the state of affiars now.
It's a funny story I always like to tell. In the first world war the British were often a little too, how shall we put it, sure of themselves? There's always the story of them kicking footballs as they walked across no-man's land at the Somme, thinking the artillery bombardment - something like 2million shells in a five kilometer stretch -had killed all the Germans... that is, until the machine-gun fire opened up. The Canadians, on the other hand, advanced cautiously. They were also one of the few groups to hold firm in the face of the first gas attack, while the British ran for it. The other group in the First World War that was known for holding their ground in the face of overnumbering odds are the ANZACS, the Austrailian/New Zealand corps. But even now things aren't much different. A while back I heard that the Canadians in their old Leopard II MBTs beat the American M1's in wargames.
Are you kidding me? When the Americans arrived, the German 1917 gains in territory were wiped out instantly. Something the Canadians weren't able to stop. And when did the British ever do something that stupid? If they did, they did it once and once only. Being showered with bullets tends to learn a person up real well. I hope you aren't forgetting about the American stand at Bastogne when one American infantry division was under assualt by multiple converging SS Panzer divisions during the Battle of the Bulge. And if you want to talk about "holding their ground when vastly outnumbered" the Germans definitely deserve more props than anyone else. In WWI and WWII they would WIN when outnumbered, and they threw up the most tenacious defense imaginable.
-
The thing is, though, Canada has always had, per soldier, one of the best armies in the world, outdoing both the U.S. and Britain. The Americans tried to invade once, and actually got lost. And anyone know why the White House is white? It's because the Candadians - British at the time, I suppose - burned it, and they needed to paint it. I think it was in retaliation for a raid on some Canadian city, where the Americans had brought back a 'scalp' as proof of British barbarity... ie. the wig of the House Speaker.
It was a contingent of Royal British Marines that offloaded from a ship that burned the White House. And that was during the War of 1812. I'm not sure where you got this info that CANADIAN soldiers burned the White House.
More than half the British soldiers from that war were actually people from Canada. I don't know if those who burnt the White House were British or Canadian though.
And the renaming is an urban legend, the White House had already been painted in white many years before this attack.
-
of coarse america exploits people, who do u think owns coca-cola. chiquita, nike etc.
How is that the fault of America? It's the fault of people in America, but not of the country itself. Besides, judging an entire country based on a few bad apples, is silly.
Not to mention, that Nike has cleaned up their act. I never liked Chiquita, and I somehow doubt that about Coca-Cola. Wal-mart is the biggest evil.
As well, most sweat-shops are actually in small third-world countries.
-
It's more of an exploit of different economies. Well, sometimes. Sometimes it really is cruel sweatshops, but sometimes labor is simply cheaper in other countries, even if you pay a living wage.
A friend of mine served with the Peace Corps in Panama a couple years ago. He and his wife had a $100US per month budget. In his own words, "We lived like kings." That's about $1.50 per person per day to live like royalty in Panama. So paying someone 19 cents an hour for a forty hour work week would be quite good pay.
-
How is that the fault of America? It's the fault of people in America, but not of the country itself. Besides, judging an entire country based on a few bad apples, is silly.
Not to mention, that Nike has cleaned up their act. I never liked Chiquita, and I somehow doubt that about Coca-Cola. Wal-mart is the biggest evil.
As well, most sweat-shops are actually in small third-world countries.
[/quote]
WHO DO U THINK RUNS THEM
-
Reminds me -- besides in the Lavos timeline's 2300 A.D., we never see any truly poor people in the Chrono series. But they've gotta be there. I wonder how much economic considerations had to do with the Mystic War as opposed to simple racism. Poor conditions have been one of the primary factors in many revolutionary wars -- the Russian, Mexican, French, and American revolutions instantly come to mind. Hitler also used the poor economic status of the German state as part of the impetus for training the hatred of the German people onto the Jews in the years leading up to WWII.
American corporations may run sweatshops (one of the reasons I'm opposed to all the bloody outsourcing to third-world countries, besides the inferior quality of service) but this isn't representative of the entire population, obviously. I don't have a personal sweatshop.
-
How is that the fault of America? It's the fault of people in America, but not of the country itself. Besides, judging an entire country based on a few bad apples, is silly.
Not to mention, that Nike has cleaned up their act. I never liked Chiquita, and I somehow doubt that about Coca-Cola. Wal-mart is the biggest evil.
As well, most sweat-shops are actually in small third-world countries.
WHO DO U THINK RUNS THEM[/quote]
People that live in America, but this is not true of the entire country.
-
I'm curious how that proves anything at all? Are they trained better in their respective mission profiles is what I'm concerned about. And you wouldn't have any way of knowing THAT. because that information is not given out to civilians.
That family is not one of civilians, firstly. That soldier's father is in the military, and he himself is one of the better soldiers, and has actually risen through the ranks quite quickly, as he is apparently a very capable soldier, and a good leader. And what I've been told, yes, they are incredibly well trained. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'their respective mission profiles'; I'm assuming that you intend to say that each special forces has their own area of expertise, ie. Delta Force - counter-terrorism, SEALS - guarding ships in foreign harbours, Rangers - general special forces. That sort of thing. Well, as best I can figure, they're more like the SAS, who tend to do multiple things. Certainly it would not be specifically told to civilians, but I've heard that listing of special forces given in multiple sources, so I think it can be taken as reliably accurate. It also fits in more with the Canadian mindset. We know we're smaller, so we excel at smaller, more precise things, with better training. The Americans know they're big, and do things that way, with less training and more might of numbers. Canada as a whole, I think, had always been something of a general special forces army under the British, at least if WWI is looked at.
It was a contingent of Royal British Marines that offloaded from a ship that burned the White House. And that was during the War of 1812. I'm not sure where you got this info that CANADIAN soldiers burned the White House.
By the way, citing American military performance from almost two hundred years ago doesn't prove anything about the state of affiars now.
Well, it does, in some regard. The mentality of the American people hasn't really changed or, if it has, it stems from earlier ideas in history. To examine something earlier to make a judgement on something later is like looking at water upstream to have an idea of it downstream.
The point I was making is that the Americans were too expansionist and incautious, and could not take the territories it wished to in its 'Manifest Destiny'. The same thing happened in the south. They tried to march on Mexican territory, and Santa Anna struck back, the stand at the Alamo being one of the most remembered segments of that war - though one must remember that technically the poeple defending the Alamo were invaders. I'm not sure how far the Americans got in the south, but Mexico remained free, so they lost. Once again, the Americans seemed to be quite bombastic and grand in its military exploits, with great vision, but were thwarted. Later, it was only the overnumbering might of their armies, for the most part, that gave them victories. When the battle is in a terrain their straight-forward, direct assault tactics, are ill-suited for, such as in Vietnam, they lose. Americans have a lot of might, and a lot of drive and zeal with their armies, but aren't very flexible or inventive tactically. As a matter of fact, they're similar to the Romans in that regard. The Romans had a strong empire, but likely lost more battles than it won. Pyhrrus, invading from Macedonia on behalf of Greek holdings in Italy, soundly defeated the Romans twice. But Rome would not submit to any peace terms, kept fighting, and Pyhrrus withdrew, having lost 2/3 of his army in time, and being utterly spent. So I think that is how the Americans are, in some regard, and even as the Romans under Marius, are reforming their tactics a little. The major difference is that the Romans were mentally tougher than the Americans, as the latter are actually a quite easily frightened people. Celts invaded the Romans 300BC, and the Romans bounced right back; Hannibal marched upon Italy in 218, but the Romans would not submit. They were a stern and resiliant people, qualities the Americans lack. When the towers were destroyed in New York, it unsettled the entire nation. Two towers, the idea that they were NOT invincible, set fear upon the entire populace! What were to happen, as likely will in time - as all empires fall - if there is an actual war upon American soil? Will they be able to steel themselves up and bear the hardship? Look at the manifold bombings London encountered in WWII, but the British people were so stubborn-valiant, they essentially looked to Germany and said: 'do your worst!'. Yet the Americans are hit, by wartimes standards by an insignificant strike, and it is made the most terrible thing of a decade. That is why terrorism works, because the people are easily frightened. If they want to endure for centuries to come, they have to have less bravado, and more resiliance.
Are you kidding me? When the Americans arrived, the German 1917 gains in territory were wiped out instantly. Something the Canadians weren't able to stop. And when did the British ever do something that stupid? If they did, they did it once and once only. Being showered with bullets tends to learn a person up real well. I hope you aren't forgetting about the American stand at Bastogne when one American infantry division was under assualt by multiple converging SS Panzer divisions during the Battle of the Bulge. And if you want to talk about "holding their ground when vastly outnumbered" the Germans definitely deserve more props than anyone else. In WWI and WWII they would WIN when outnumbered, and they threw up the most tenacious defense imaginable.
That has nothing to do, however, with a matter of skill or bravery in combat. The war in Europe had come to a stalemate, for the most part. Even major conflicts like Verdun, the Somme, and Ypres, were doing very little. You cannot stop an army based simply upon skill, and there is no way the tiny Canadian army could have conclusively pushed things either way. THe reason that the isolationist America was able to shift the tides was because, at the suggestion of General Pershing, brought in a vast number of soldiers, with the purpose of being there 'to be killed', as Pershing said. Quite a gallant stroke on the side of the Americans, I suppose, to just throw themselves into the fray like that, but they were quite hands-off before. Had they joined in 1915, the great battles of the Somme would have been largely avoided. But it took an admission, from the German ambassador, that Germany was making a pact with Mexico to invade the US, and led the Americans finally into war. They've usually been like that: they only enter a war if they see some benefit for themselves, or if they themselves are threatened. Look at WWII.
And as far as the British doing something stupid... it was indeed times without count. Montgomery was not that brilliant a general, and one need only to look at the ill-fated assult upon the Dardanelles, upon Gallipoli, to see how the British were often tactically poor. How else could one country, Germany, hold back the onslaught of the allies for so long (their allies were very poor - Austria could not even defeat Serbia, and the Turks were ill prepared for war.) And almost victor! Hand Moltke not been a fool and followed the Von Schlieffen plan, the war would have ended in victory for them in a matter of months. A tactical error on pensive Moltke's part, to be sure, but the British were far worse in terms of battle-field tactics at that time - probably only the French had it worse. This is not to say the soldiers themselves were stupid, it was their generals and leaders, as is so often the case. For the British, their leaders were very often Lords, nobility with no battle-field experience. In such a scenario as that, you can expect a lot of stupid things to happen. Another reason, I think, that the Americans did so much better when they arrived. Unlike the Canadians who were being led by such British, the Americans were led by Pershing, who was, if I remember right, a capable and determined old soldier.
As far as Americans holding their ground... yes, it did happen, I know that. There were many courageous Americans, and many brave stands. But I'm talking the overall way in which they fought. The ANZACS and Canadians were particularally known for being sent on suicide missions by the British, and holding their ground to the last. The Americans... well, they've always been cowboys to some extent, a little more roudy and less diciplined. Their military works, to be sure - they're the most powerful in the world - but I wager had they more dicipline and the like, they would have equal power with half the numbers.
And the Germans... well, I was speaking of the Allies. The Germans, I think, are naturally more warlike in their blood than are the British or French, or even the Americans. They have always seemed to have had brilliant commanders (though this should not belie the fact that there were some masterful tacticians for the Americans, as well), if inane political leaders - Göring, anyone? - fought stubbornly against all of Europe when outnumbered, and had far better technology, even if they did not have the infrastructure to support it. After all, a Tiger tank could, head to head, take on multiple Shermans - the shells of the lighter tank couldn't penetrate its forward armour. But the Shermans were built in such numbers, they just overwhelmed the enemy. The Germans built the first jet-fighters, and things of that sort, as well. In fact, one of the only reasons America was so technologically adept in the postwar period is that many of Germanies top scientists emmigrated there, and basically gave their skills in the service of that country. Things like the space rockets, and the B-2 Stealth Bomber, are inherently built with technology pioneered by the Germans or German scientists.
-
Yay for thread necromancy in this section. Besides, we don't have much else to talk about. Stupid Enix...
Guardian: This is probably the only time anyone's ever said this about you and history, but the circumstances you posted surrounding the Battle of the Alamo were nowhere close to correct. Texas is one of the only states in America that makes its students take its own history -- but Texas has a justification in that it was at one time a country unto itself, the Republic of Texas. It's also my place of residence, so I'm obligated to know a few things about it. The conflict at the Alamo did not take place during the Mexican War, but rather several years earlier during the Texas Revolution. Considering today's standards of politically flaunting military power rather than talking and acting in a manner that doesn't constitute bullshit, I'm impressed to no end at the valor displayed by the defenders of the Alamo. Fewer than 200 men defended that ancient mission, and yet Santa Anna paid for his assault on the fortress with nearly a thousand of his own personnel. The defenders of the Alamo took orders from Sam Houston, the leader of the Texas Revolution. Stephen F. Austin, the first true Texan empresario, led the American colonization of the then-Mexican-owned land as well as handling the negotiations with Mexico City -- the Mexican government allowed Americans to live on the land with the stipulation that they become Roman Catholics and adhere to that way of life. Many of them disliked this -- couple that with Mexican policies on economic issues, and you've got a ready-made rebellion. The motives of those behind the revolution were far from altruistic, but they were not invaders. In addition, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna committed at least one notable atrocity, the massacre of Colonel Fannin's 400-strong rebel unit at Goliad. This was murder, not the result of a military offensive -- Fannin's men had already been captured by superior Mexican forces. They were not treated civilly as POWs -- they were lined up and shot. At the Battle of San Jacinto, the Texan forces fought with screams of "Remember Goliad!" and "Remember the Alamo!"
The actual invasion of Mexico occurred during the Mexican War under James K. Polk. The dispute was resultant from the Texas Revolution. At first, some Texans wanted to wage war and get "revenge" on Mexico for killing [insert relative here]. Sam Houston, fortunately, was smart enough to realize that war with Mexico would mean a quick end for the newly minted Republic of Texas. Texas' application for statehood was a controversial issue in and of itself, being another factor in the slave-vs-free debates of which the Kansas-Nebraska incident and other sectional conflicts were a part. However, the actual Mexican War was set up because of the Nueces River boundary agreed upon by Sam Houston and Santa Anna. After Texas was annexed, a clear southern boundary was desired. The Rio Grande fit the bill, but Mexico refused to cede the land between the Nueces and the Rio Grande to the United States. Yet American President Polk still considered the disputed territory to be U.S. property. He sent representative John Slidell to Mexico City to negotiate this -- they didn't even let him in the door. When Mexican army personnel killed a band of U.S. soldiers in the disputed area for their territorial infraction, Polk declared that Mexico had "shed American blood on American soil" and asked Congress for a declaration of war against Mexico, and he got it. Sound familiar? It gets better...or worse, if your entire sense of morality isn't screwed up by prolonged servitude to the Sith. The war against Mexico actually went rather swiftly, and it was largely due to the U.S. forces' superior numbers. General Zachary Taylor, later a U.S. President, blitzed through Mexico almost unopposed, laying waste to Mexican settlements such as Monterrey and capturing Mexico City. As a condition of its defeat, the land of the Mexican Cession was granted to the United States, thus achieving most of its Manifest Destiny objective. Many had protested that the war was a thin excuse to get more land, and they were right. For some reason I can't quite figure out, the United States paid Mexico several million dollars in damages -- adjusting for inflation, that probably comes out to somewhere around the cumulative total of the entire videogame industry's profits. Reading that was a big WTF moment for me, since it isn't generally a practice to pay reparations in a war waged out of selfish egotism and greed.
The Mexican War was also followed by the occupation of the Philippines. Oh, and let's not forget the subjugation of the regime of Hawai'ian Queen Lilioukalani. That doesn't mean it's OK to just launch an invasion whenever you feel like it, but basing an argument on nonexistent principles not supported by fact is almost the definition of folly. This is why I find it incredibly humorous when ill-informed hyper-liberals in my country state that a unilateral invasion such as that waged against Saddam Hussein's regime is unprecedented in our history.
And yeah, it does kind of piss me off that people are afraid of terrorists. Either be militaristic or pussyfooted. Not both. Trying to do both is like being Good Charlotte. Wonder if any Mystics were pissed off at the reasoning behind "HEY LETS GO FUX0R UP TEH HUMANS LOLOLOLZ".
-
Well, my apologies, then. It is actually rather nice to be corrected on matters of history which, as you said, does not happen all that often (although, admittedly, my knowledge of history is more of the ancient sort, and not nearly so good of more recent years, ie. post 1500.) Plainly you know this very well, and I mixed up the Alamo with the period in which the US attempted to expand its borders.
Thank you for the correction, I shall attempt to remember this and make it part of my knowledge base.
-
Sorry, Zeality, but I think this right here is the crowning acheivement of the Compendium. Someone, on an internet forum, made a post containing erroneous information. He was correct, civiliy, on an internet forum, and was grateful for the new knowledge received, on an internet forum.
I don't think this have ever happened before.
-
You guys broke the internet.
I thought learning state history was common for every state. We have Vermont history too even pre statehood, manditory for every high school.
-
Dude, we broke the Internet! Awesome! We have accomplished a feat of awesomeness on par with the legendary Strong Bad!
*dances*
-
Sorry, Zeality, but I think this right here is the crowning acheivement of the Compendium. Someone, on an internet forum, made a post containing erroneous information. He was correct, civiliy, on an internet forum, and was grateful for the new knowledge received, on an internet forum.
I don't think this have ever happened before.
Especially in the last year or so of the Compendium, it has seemed to have taken an interesting turn. It seems, to my eyes, at least, not unlike the way in which the ancient Greek/Hellenic Natural Philosophers debated their views of the world. One brings forward a theory, and the next refutes it, bringing forward yet another. In time we get nearer the truth, and theories that are more difficult to disprove. That this all here concerns a video game, as opposed to the nature of the universe, is irrelevant: what is most important, more so than the subject matter that is being discussed itself, is the form and style of the discussions, and its focus on learning and understanding - discerning truth, and allowing for each to speak their part, and learning each from the other to a greater goal of knowledge. Philosophy, the Love of Wisdom, essentially. Just a parallel I've seen (and have before attributed to) the Compendium. One might also say in his treating of the theories for the Encylcopedia ZeaLitY is acting like Herodetus of Helikarnassus, who showed all viewpoints and decided on what was most likely based on these.
-
That family is not one of civilians, firstly. That soldier's father is in the military, and he himself is one of the better soldiers, and has actually risen through the ranks quite quickly, as he is apparently a very capable soldier, and a good leader. And what I've been told, yes, they are incredibly well trained. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'their respective mission profiles'; I'm assuming that you intend to say that each special forces has their own area of expertise, ie. Delta Force - counter-terrorism, SEALS - guarding ships in foreign harbours, Rangers - general special forces. That sort of thing. Well, as best I can figure, they're more like the SAS, who tend to do multiple things.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with their skills in combat, which of course has to do with their respective mission profiles. Is Lance Armstrong a better soldier because he can ride a bicycle very well? Then this person out-running soldiers doesn't have much to do with his ability to perform his mission, does it? Unless that mission has something to do with evasion and survival, an unlikely prospect for most soldiers. (You don't end up behind the lines as a matter of course.)
Certainly it would not be specifically told to civilians, but I've heard that listing of special forces given in multiple sources, so I think it can be taken as reliably accurate. It also fits in more with the Canadian mindset. We know we're smaller, so we excel at smaller, more precise things, with better training. The Americans know they're big, and do things that way, with less training and more might of numbers. Canada as a whole, I think, had always been something of a general special forces army under the British, at least if WWI is looked at.
That's a straw man argument, not borne out by any facts, but instead by mere supposition and arcane guesswork.
Well, it does, in some regard. The mentality of the American people hasn't really changed or, if it has, it stems from earlier ideas in history. To examine something earlier to make a judgement on something later is like looking at water upstream to have an idea of it downstream.
Everything changes. And how would you know, either being an American or not being an American? Unless you were alive then you couldn't realy judge that, and judging by history the mindset and mentality of "people" is a perilous exercise indeed.
The point I was making is that the Americans were too expansionist and incautious, and could not take the territories it wished to in its 'Manifest Destiny'. The same thing happened in the south. They tried to march on Mexican territory, and Santa Anna struck back, the stand at the Alamo being one of the most remembered segments of that war - though one must remember that technically the poeple defending the Alamo were invaders. I'm not sure how far the Americans got in the south, but Mexico remained free, so they lost. Once again, the Americans seemed to be quite bombastic and grand in its military exploits, with great vision, but were thwarted.
This is, as a previous poster pointed out, egregiously incorrect. I won't go into it, as he knows the specifics far better than I do.
Later, it was only the overnumbering might of their armies, for the most part, that gave them victories. When the battle is in a terrain their straight-forward, direct assault tactics, are ill-suited for, such as in Vietnam, they lose. Americans have a lot of might, and a lot of drive and zeal with their armies, but aren't very flexible or inventive tactically.
Straw man argument.
As a matter of fact, they're similar to the Romans in that regard. The Romans had a strong empire, but likely lost more battles than it won. Pyhrrus, invading from Macedonia on behalf of Greek holdings in Italy, soundly defeated the Romans twice. But Rome would not submit to any peace terms, kept fighting, and Pyhrrus withdrew, having lost 2/3 of his army in time, and being utterly spent.
Because Pyhrrus was a fool. The Selucid army was vastly outnumbered by Roman auxilia and Legionary forces in the region. The only thing that saved him was his skill at generalship. The thing to understand about the Romans was that they never excelled (with a couple of exceptions) at tactics. They were wizards at grand strategy and logistics, which is why they survived as long as they did under the pressure that they were under.
So I think that is how the Americans are, in some regard, and even as the Romans under Marius, are reforming their tactics a little. The major difference is that the Romans were mentally tougher than the Americans, as the latter are actually a quite easily frightened people. Celts invaded the Romans 300BC, and the Romans bounced right back; Hannibal marched upon Italy in 218, but the Romans would not submit. They were a stern and resiliant people, qualities the Americans lack. When the towers were destroyed in New York, it unsettled the entire nation. Two towers, the idea that they were NOT invincible, set fear upon the entire populace! What were to happen, as likely will in time - as all empires fall - if there is an actual war upon American soil? Will they be able to steel themselves up and bear the hardship?
This is another straw man argument. Where's your basis beyond personal obervation for this? Enlistment in the military jumped after 9/11, not declined. I wouldn't call that "quailing". And, by the way, the Romans as a whole were terrified of Hannibal. The Senate was fighting for it's LIFE against Hannibal's invasion. He probably could have invaded Rome itself at one point, but for reasons lost to us did not.
Look at the manifold bombings London encountered in WWII, but the British people were so stubborn-valiant, they essentially looked to Germany and said: 'do your worst!'. Yet the Americans are hit, by wartimes standards by an insignificant strike, and it is made the most terrible thing of a decade. That is why terrorism works, because the people are easily frightened. If they want to endure for centuries to come, they have to have less bravado, and more resiliance.
Except their generation already went through a previous world war. Kind of hardens you to destruction and death, doesn't it?
Are you kidding me? When the Americans arrived, the German 1917 gains in territory were wiped out instantly. Something the Canadians weren't able to stop. And when did the British ever do something that stupid? If they did, they did it once and once only. Being showered with bullets tends to learn a person up real well. I hope you aren't forgetting about the American stand at Bastogne when one American infantry division was under assualt by multiple converging SS Panzer divisions during the Battle of the Bulge. And if you want to talk about "holding their ground when vastly outnumbered" the Germans definitely deserve more props than anyone else. In WWI and WWII they would WIN when outnumbered, and they threw up the most tenacious defense imaginable.
That has nothing to do, however, with a matter of skill or bravery in combat. The war in Europe had come to a stalemate, for the most part. Even major conflicts like Verdun, the Somme, and Ypres, were doing very little. You cannot stop an army based simply upon skill, and there is no way the tiny Canadian army could have conclusively pushed things either way. THe reason that the isolationist America was able to shift the tides was because, at the suggestion of General Pershing, brought in a vast number of soldiers, with the purpose of being there 'to be killed', as Pershing said. Quite a gallant stroke on the side of the Americans, I suppose, to just throw themselves into the fray like that, but they were quite hands-off before. Had they joined in 1915, the great battles of the Somme would have been largely avoided.[/quote]
Tell me, what were any of the soldiers there for? In WWI, if you were an infantryman then you were basically a bullet sponge. Why would we join the war at 1915? Was it OUR war? Of course not. This kind of bitterness is ridiculous. Canada can continue kowtowing to Britain for as long as it chooses, sending soldiers to die in it's battles. But America doesn't need to fight for anything but it's own causes. If our cause coincides with your's, so be it. But enlightened self interest is what moves the world, not altruistic intentions.
But it took an admission, from the German ambassador, that Germany was making a pact with Mexico to invade the US, and led the Americans finally into war. They've usually been like that: they only enter a war if they see some benefit for themselves, or if they themselves are threatened. Look at WWII.
Personally, I don't think we should have gone to war over that. The Germans in charge during WWI were not all that bad of people, and a lot of Americans died (not as many as the French and British, but whatever.) for the right to also die in the second war that was caused by much worse people.
I'd call having our main naval base bombed without warning "threatened". Oh yeah.
And as far as the British doing something stupid... it was indeed times without count. Montgomery was not that brilliant a general, and one need only to look at the ill-fated assult upon the Dardanelles, upon Gallipoli, to see how the British were often tactically poor.
Actually, while I agree with you about Montgomery, nevertheless I disagree about Gallipoli. It was a brilliant plan that failed because of insufficently exectued battle plans. If it had worked WWI could have ended very differently indeed.
How else could one country, Germany, hold back the onslaught of the allies for so long (their allies were very poor - Austria could not even defeat Serbia, and the Turks were ill prepared for war.) And almost victor! Hand Moltke not been a fool and followed the Von Schlieffen plan, the war would have ended in victory for them in a matter of months. A tactical error on pensive Moltke's part, to be sure, but the British were far worse in terms of battle-field tactics at that time - probably only the French had it worse.
The reason the Germans were able to hold the Allies back is simple: A failure on the Allied side to learn new strategies that are applicable to this new type of warfare. Instead you had battles wherein 600,000 men would die pointlessly. The ration for winning a land battle in WWI was something like "3 to 1 on the sharp end". I don't know that the war would have been "over" had Moltke followed the Schlieffen Plan exactly, but he DID put too much emphasis on the left wing of the assault, which made him fail on the Marne just before he could reach Paris.
This is not to say the soldiers themselves were stupid, it was their generals and leaders, as is so often the case. For the British, their leaders were very often Lords, nobility with no battle-field experience. In such a scenario as that, you can expect a lot of stupid things to happen. Another reason, I think, that the Americans did so much better when they arrived. Unlike the Canadians who were being led by such British, the Americans were led by Pershing, who was, if I remember right, a capable and determined old soldier.
More that the German troops were extremely demoralized by the arrival of fresh Allied reinforcements, but yeah...
As far as Americans holding their ground... yes, it did happen, I know that. There were many courageous Americans, and many brave stands. But I'm talking the overall way in which they fought. The ANZACS and Canadians were particularally known for being sent on suicide missions by the British, and holding their ground to the last. The Americans... well, they've always been cowboys to some extent, a little more roudy and less diciplined. Their military works, to be sure - they're the most powerful in the world - but I wager had they more dicipline and the like, they would have equal power with half the numbers.
Straw man argument. Unless you have some kind of evidence for this don't even bring it to the table. It's way too OUT THERE.
And the Germans... well, I was speaking of the Allies. The Germans, I think, are naturally more warlike in their blood than are the British or French, or even the Americans. They have always seemed to have had brilliant commanders (though this should not belie the fact that there were some masterful tacticians for the Americans, as well), if inane political leaders - Göring, anyone? - fought stubbornly against all of Europe when outnumbered,
Not really. I don't subscribe to "racial" traits. There's no scientific basis for it. And yes, Hermann Göering was an idiot.
and had far better technology, even if they did not have the infrastructure to support it. After all, a Tiger tank could, head to head, take on multiple Shermans - the shells of the lighter tank couldn't penetrate its forward armour. But the Shermans were built in such numbers, they just overwhelmed the enemy. The Germans built the first jet-fighters, and things of that sort, as well.
They did have the infrastructure. The Allied Bombing Campaign specifically targeted the jet fighter airfields, to prevent the planes from taking off. This is why there were so few battles with the Me 262. The bombing campaign also targeted the German rail and transportation network. This prevented the Germans from moving their tanks and other weapons easily, and resulted in a general paralysis at home and an increasingly ineffective Wehrmacht at the front.
In fact, one of the only reasons America was so technologically adept in the postwar period is that many of Germanies top scientists emmigrated there, and basically gave their skills in the service of that country. Things like the space rockets, and the B-2 Stealth Bomber, are inherently built with technology pioneered by the Germans or German scientists.
Not the B-2. But close enough on the rest.
-
I've been watching this for some time and i think that i'm ready to make a post. I dont know this really has anything to do with it, but it really best fits here so here we go. 101 with Salvadeiro.
Nations of Chrono Trigger Related to Real Nations;
Let's start with Zeal, I see Zeal as a post-advanced nation in a time-period too primitive for its being. Because of this, It won't fit into any nation (lol waste of characters keep reading though.)
Getting to the good stuff, 600 A.D is when we see the Nations becoming, Our favorite, Guardia, can be constituted as many things.
The Kingdom of Guardia, Est. 1 A.D. (600 A.D.) [Roman Empire, Kingdom of France, United Kingdom]
Roman Empire ties in when Guardia begins in the B.C. era, I'm assuming some sort of Official from the fall of Zeal has followers and this line eventually moves north as lands shift, coming to the Guardia continent. Ultimately as the "Guardians" come to their land, they begin building Guardia. This would be estimated around one to two centuries before the actually date of establishment. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither was Guardia. The descendants from Zeal takes place and names his or her* nation, Guardia. Closer to one A.D. the first King of Guardia, King Guardia I, assumes his throne. Thats where rome comes in. Now on to 400 A.D.
In 400 A.D. Guardia fights a war against the Mystics. We're going to make Guardia the Frankish Kingdom, and the Mystics the Moors that were driven back to Spain. The Mystics would have entered through the south, through the Zenan Bridge, that ties Continental Zenan with Continental Guardia. They also could have arrived by boat, but I think they would have fought through the Zenan Bridge. Guardia being France and Zenan being Spain, the Moors infiltrated Spain (not their land) into France (not their land either). King Guardia the -insert number here- fought the war, and became the savior, who drove the Mystics back to Zenan, where they would be dealt with 200 years later.
600 A.D. is when they totally eradicated Moors from their lands, France owned Spain numerous times. Any Moor left in the land would be sold to slavery or hid well into the lands. This probably happened when the hidden Mystics hid in Guardia's Cathedral south of Guardia. If Crono (or even the Guardian Kingdom) hadn't gotten rid of them, the whole kingdom would have been Mystic and not Guardian. The same can be said (not to be racist or prejudice in anyway) If Charles Martel (King Guardia in this case) had not driven the moors(Mystics) back to Spain(Zenan) France(Guardia) and most of the rest of Europe(Guardian-owned lands) would have been Muslim(Mystic).
San Dorino of Zenan, Est. ??? (600 A.D.) [???]
Not much can be said other than the fact that it disappeared in Quicksand.
Porre and El Nido, Est. ??? (600 A.D. - Discovery of El Nido) [Portugal and The Azores]
Porre was always the small little nation on a large continent. (I think so anyway) the same can definately be said for Portugal (my heritage :)) Portugal discover 50% of world, I think Porre can definately fit (plus don't you think its weird how it kinda has the same introducing letters?) Porre (Portugal) is located on the Zenan (Iberian Peninsula) Spain occupies most of it, Portugal has a small little portion, sort of like Porre. Well I remember reading how Porre discovered El Nido somewhere. Kinda like how Portugal discovered the Azores. Porre also had many military personnel, which is like Portugal in the 15-18 century. I think Porre is responsible for the age of discovery in Chrono Trigger so yeah. And there are 9 Islands like in the Azores, i made a list to do counterparts:
El Nido Islands vs Os Acores
1. Guldove vs Santa Maria (Both Islands first found, closer to countries)
2. El Nido vs Sao Miguel (Both Large, Capital Islands)
3. Earth Dragon vs Terceira (Third Islands found?)
4. Gaea's Navel vs Graciosa (Both named after female things, Goddess/Ballerina)
5. Sky Dragon vs Sao Jorge (Both have weird shapes)
6. Water Dragon vs Pico (Both have mountain peaks)
7. Marbule vs Faial (both are large and are the farthermost towns in the region)
8. Hermits Hideway vs Flores (both are floral-like...well in one world anyway)
9. Isle of the Damned vs Corvo (both are affiliated with dark, Damned versus Island of the Crows (Corvo)
What Else?
ummm...will update?