What you think of this strategy, what the advantages, what the flaws?
Nigga, you expect me to watch nine minutes of something?
Let me give you the standard answers, and see if they apply here.
>there was no realistic way for the Germans to extend their supply lines far enough to remove the USSR from play
>there was no realistic way for the Germans to eliminate England
>as long as America continues to exist, there's a likelihood that their overwhelming industrial power will arrive at England/France in time to skullfuck some Nazis
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
ITT: People who did nothing wrong.
Are the French Germanic or Celtic?
You are dropped off in a culture of your choosing before the year 1300AD. you are armed with nothing but a set of contemporary middle class clothing, perfect understanding of the languages in the area you picked, and nothing more.
Could you survive where you picked? what skills do you have that could be applied? Would you prosper with your unique knowledge?
My issue is that I'm mixed-race, so no matter how well I know the language or culture I will be instantly recognised as a foreigner of some sort and probably be questioned as to where I really come from.
Honestly not sure. Maybe al-Andalusia would be a good choice.
I'm mixed Asian and Hispanic. It's a pretty unique combination. The only societies I'd truly be able to blend into would be certain places in Southeast Asia (i.e. the Philippines), or maybe modern-day Hawaii.
>there was a fairly high chance you would be born anytime from 500bc to 1945ad and become a random soldier who throws his life away at some random pointless battle to become immortalized on a wikipedia page and have your death cited by sweaty shut-ins as a reason why one country/kingdom is was better than another
>you were not
There's a much higher chance I'd be born an animal, or a plant, or nothing at all.
Let's talk about historical plagues. I've been fascinated by how society changes when disease is rampant and of course, how their conception and treatment has changed over the years. I've been very interested lately in the theory many ancient epidemics might even have been diseases that no longer exist or that we haven't really encountered again, like for example that the plague of Athens was a now-unknown viral hemorragic fever.
So here I am, the year 867. And it struck me.. I should restore the Roman Empire. So now to the question that (may?) justify why this thread is about what culture I should go with in CK 2. Which one, greeks or italians can say they are "closests" to Romans?
Roman Empire, Caesar, muh rhine kind of romans
What do you mean restore? Have you not heard of the Eastern Roman Empire? The Byzantines? Constantinople, Miklagard? The empire is still there.
Is there any difference between a fictional character and a real person that has no physical body?
Was LBJ one of the greatest presidents in US history?
I don't know if this trash belongs here but give me all your clever history memes I can use to be clever in other threads.
Why are the historically significant activist groups always lead by people that stand to gain power from the proposed amendments/revolution?
I get that logically, you'd be more inclined to JOIN this sort of thing if you stand to gain, but what I don't understand is why this is seen as also morally or PR-wise better.
Surely someone that is driven solely by decency without any drive but justice is a nobler figurehead?
It's not a matter of convenience, all the big activism groups that actually had influence had supporters from both sides of the argument
Because the oppressed want to be led by their own. Otherwise the oppressors will take credit for the liberation later on.
Does free will exist /his/? I haven't found a good reason why it should yet.
How do I motivate myself to become extremely hard working when my massive brainpower allows me to clearly see the meaningless of everything, the impossibility of knowledge, and the triviality of all philosophies?
"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined."
Have Christians ever been able to rebut Hume? It seems to me like he dealt them a deathblow and they haven't recovered since.
It is a statement that, based on prior experience, certain things SHOULD be impossible. But just because that is the case in the past, there is no reason to assume that would be the case in the present, or the future, or at other points prior.
Secondly, it ignores the fact that miracles are, themselves, sensory experiences. If 5 men witness the appearance of the Virgin Mary, or see a man turn into a fox, or what have you, why should they disregard their senses based on induction?
Is Niccolò Machiavelli plebcore /his/?