Obama was a supporter of gay marriage, but he only acted on it when there was a bandwagon to jump on. LBJ would sell the token reforms as efforts he made to African-Americans and sell killing the bills to southern whites, all crediting himself. That smacks to me of political advancement, not sincere belief. At the end of the day, he did literally push the Civil Rights Act of through Congress. And then sign it. This was an act of civil rights expansion that has taken the GOP literally generations to undo.
You can like it all you want, but the motivations and his conduct can still be criticized. Considering how Aegon V was despised by various lords throughout his troubled reign, why was the event that he died in labeled as a "tragedy"?
Did his reputation improve later on? To them, it probably looked like Aegon pursued some esoteric to utter ruin and disaster when Summerhall burned down. Oh, the attempt to hatch dragons was a known cause of the tragedy, not just among maesters but lords as well. This talk of a stone dragon… madness, I tell you, sheer madness. Did we learn nothing from Aerion Brightfire, from the nine mages, from the alchemists?
Did we learn nothing from Summerhall? No good has ever come from these dreams of dragons, I told Axell as much. Which is not to disagree with you about Southron Ambitions or the rest of what you said, mind you! I definitely phrased that wrong. Thanks for looking out Butterfly. Definitely my bad on the poor phrasing, and I should have been more careful. I love the old school Might and Magic games - just a big open world of dungeon crawls for you to play with. Xeen and MM3 have a fond place in my heart for all the fun I had with them.
We discuss the Revolutions of from the German perspective, the marriage of liberalism and nationalism, Otto von Bismarck, and some foundation of the idea of the German Question. Check it here. You recently mentioned some of the Russian unifiers in TNO and your thoughts about them. What do you think of Tsar Mikhail II? Mikhail II is a nice tragic story to him. That sounds maudlin, but home is a very powerful sentiment; it is a place of belonging as much as it is a place of safety.
Mikhail II is far from home, kept from it by men who seek to reclaim a home that they have repeatedly lost, once to the Reds and second to the Nazis. When he begins, Tsar Mikhail is a weak puppet and he knows it. All he wants to do is to return to Australia to his family. An impossible dream, given that the landlocked Transbaikal Prinicpality cannot even afford him to sneak home aboard a vessel. To the north, Yagoda and Sablin duke it out over being the heir to the Soviet Union. Plenty of other factions, should they best Chita, do not spare Mikhail, and he becomes one more tragic victim of the Russian anarchy.
Only the truly merciful among them understand him for what he truly is, a kidnap victim forced to put on a crown and play tsar. In that sense, Mikhail is one of the greatest tragedies of the Far East unification segment. If Chita wins, however, Mikhail starts to change.
The true problem is, if he lets things continue such as they do, then Boris Shepunov, proud collaborator of Japan and unabashed dictator, will be the one really controlling Russia.
That means the same pains that he experiences will be visited upon an entire country. This is where Mikhail starts to change, and embrace the idea of being Tsar Mikhail. Thrown into a nest of conspiracy, he starts to create a conspiracy of his own, using the power of the tsar to create inroads to loyalists, to slowly peel away support from Shepunov as they consolidate their holdings in the far east of Siberia.
If Mikhail fails, then Shepunov will replace him with a more pliable puppet tsar in Nikita, and works to establish his de facto military dictatorship. If he wins though, then Mikhail recognizes that he needs to establish something better in the place of the White army clique that controlled him. Hence, Mikhail goes to true believer of constitutional tsardom, establishing a civilian government to act for the people while using the symbol he provides as tsar - the very same symbols that maneuvered him to power over Shepunov - to work for the betterment of his broken homeland.
A Mikhail that succeeds ultimately learns that home is not just to feel safe and to belong, and the negative experiences he had when he was a puppet in Chita give him the sense that he needs to make sure he minimizes those experiences in those who he governs. Was Orys really his bastard half brother? He may have felt some kinship with Aegon due to similar interests or a formative experience in their childhoods.
I saw turtle-paced and racefortheironthrone talking yesterday here and here , respectively about Tywin taking Ice from the Starks and reforging it without publicly acknowledging that he had done so, and I wanted to add to their correct points:. The wedding would take place on the first day of not just a new year but a new century, a fresh start for this essentially brand-new dynasty exactly three centuries after united royal power had been established in Westeros.
The wedding was a Lannister-funded celebration beneath the crimson banners of House Lannister equal in pride of place with the banners of the nominal royal dynasty House Baratheon and the key marital partner House Tyrell ; Joffrey would use a Lannister wedding cloak to cover his new bride and then or so Tywin hoped , later, consummate the union to conceive a new Lannister heir. In that sense, I think Tywin wanted the two swords he had forged from Ice to represent the official dominance of House Lannister across the continent.
Free from the awkward implications of their true provenance, these swords would, so Tywin planned, underline the glory and majesty of House Lannister in its fresh new era as the sole reigning power in the Seven Kingdoms. Submit a post Archive. Christian Henry Tobler. Craig Peters. Gary Teuscher. Joined: 19 Nov Spotlight topics: 1 Posts: Gabriele A.
Stephane Rabier. Location: Brittany Joined: 13 Nov Posts: Jared Smith. Log in. Forum index. Spotlight Topics. This is a standard topic. Posted: Thu 08 Sep, pm Post subject: Difference between spear and lance? The recent research I have been doing is causing some questions to arise. Concerning the spear and lance, in the years around the 9th to early tenth century -- what exactly was different from a spear vs. Was the early lance simply a longer spear?
Or was it simply a case and point to swing it with as much momentum as possible? Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age. Posted: Thu 08 Sep, pm Post subject:. As far as i know there are little to no manuscripts that describe weapons such as the flail.
The only difference between "lance" and "spear" is modern convention. Period texts make no distinction. I Know they could be 6 or 8', but what would be the longest spear known? Christopher VaughnStrever wrote:. Posted: Fri 09 Sep, am Post subject:.
It is not until later we see specialized lances. The two words are sometimes distinct, but then imprecisely used. For instance, in Liechtenauer's prologue, he says to wield glefen sper swert vnd messer - "lance, spear, sword, and knife".
However, when we get to his mounted combat, he refers to the spear, with the commentaries often then specifying 'lance'. So at least in late medieval Germany there are separate terms, but their use is confusing. What lengths would spears be made? Posted: Fri 09 Sep, pm Post subject:.
0コメント