Wave 7 ( Began as Speculation Has been confirmed)

[Chimpy]

Originally Posted by Sweetcurse

This is why HS would be a better place if the Templars were Einar.

[Chimpy]

Originally Posted by Sweetcurse

This is why HS would be a better place if the Templars were Einar.

[jcb231]

Originally Posted by Chimpy

Maybe I should have been more frank. The colonials sacked Montreal. They put fire to Quebec. They were intentionally harming the non-military elements of the society. (Not that the Brits didn't do the same thing...)

The merchant ships did just as much business with the Caribbean and the colonies as they did with the English. In fact, they got more money from the colonies than they did from England proper! No, the ships were not stolen because the Americans were trying to destroy the British economy. They were stolen because the Americans needed war ships for their new Navy.

Any part of England's trade network impacted England when harmed. Did we need War Ships? yes, yes we did. Where else were we supposed to get them except from the two-fisted punch of stealing one from our opponent's network? They lose a ship, we gain a ship...it's like mind-shackle. (see, that was on topic!)

Of course the colonials sacked Montreal. They were in league with the enemy. Civilians were not specifically targeted, although their property was. Was that a noble campaign? No, but I doubt we had the resources to do much else at the time. The Brits were the main threat on the battlefield, the canadians had to be dealt with though as well.

[Chimpy]

Fair enough. You have stated that the seizure of British property and direct attacks on of non-military targets was a legitimate action by the Revolutionaries. Why then should the British go to Einar? Their actions were not any worse than the Americans. It is unfair to blame the reasons the war was fought- the average Redcoat was flung into a war they did not choose. Should they not go to Jandar?

[Dad_Scaper]

I argued elsewhere that Heroscape is a thing of whimsy and fantasy.

Historical arguments are all moot in a conversation about Heroscape. If the designers stay true to form, the 'historical' pieces are not reflections of *real* history. They are reflections of a romanticized, *fictional* history that has tended to emerge in the films, books, and comic books of the last few decades. They are creatures of pulp comic books. The historical characters are also by the nature of the game, historical *heroes*. A game of whimsy is not darkened by the long shadow of dark reality.

The cowboys are loners and unencumbered by the evils of the old west, the Airborn Elite get to drop onto a battlefield free from the deeply problematic Nazis. The knights get to be good guys because they are romantic, fictional knights, not real knights, raping and pillaging.

In other words, by talking real history, you are barking up the wrong tree.



edit: Not saying Templar = jandar, though it's what I strongly suspect, I am speaking instead to the implications of the debate about history.

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by DaddyScaper

I argued elsewhere that Heroscape is a thing of whimsy and fantasy.

Historical arguments are all moot in a conversation about Heroscape. If the designers stay true to form, the 'historical' pieces are not reflections of *real* history. They are reflections of a romanticized, *fictional* history that has tended to emerge in the films, books, and comic books of the last few decades. They are creatures of pulp comic books. The historical characters are also by the nature of the game, historical *heroes*. A game of whimsy is not darkened by the long shadow of dark reality.

The cowboys are loners and unencumbered by the evils of the old west, the Airborn Elite get to drop onto a battlefield free from the deeply problematic Nazis. The knights get to be good guys because they are romantic, fictional knights, not real knights, raping and pillaging.

In other words, by talking real history, you are barking up the wrong tree.



edit: Not saying Templar = jandar, though it's what I strongly suspect, I am speaking instead to the implications of the debate about history.

I agree DaddyScaper. Heroscape is more of the romanticized versions of historical figures. Knights are generally looked upon as being the good guys (except the Black Knight of course) and chivalrous through and through.

Americans may look at the Colonials as the "good guys" while the British may look at the Redcoats as the "good guys".

Vikings! Vikings good guys representing Jandar? Aren't they reknowned for their prowess of pillage and plunder?

I don't think we can look too deep at historical realities to figure out who are the "good guys" (Jandar) and who aren't such "good guys".

[kenjib]

Originally Posted by Sweetcurse

This is why HS would be a better place if the Templars were Einar.

[Sweetcurse]

I'M A WINNER!!!!!!

Kenjib said so...and that is WORD!

[philowar]

Originally Posted by DaddyScaper

I argued elsewhere that Heroscape is a thing of whimsy and fantasy.

Historical arguments are all moot in a conversation about Heroscape. If the designers stay true to form, the 'historical' pieces are not reflections of *real* history. They are reflections of a romanticized, *fictional* history that has tended to emerge in the films, books, and comic books of the last few decades. They are creatures of pulp comic books. The historical characters are also by the nature of the game, historical *heroes*. A game of whimsy is not darkened by the long shadow of dark reality.

The cowboys are loners and unencumbered by the evils of the old west, the Airborn Elite get to drop onto a battlefield free from the deeply problematic Nazis. The knights get to be good guys because they are romantic, fictional knights, not real knights, raping and pillaging.

In other words, by talking real history, you are barking up the wrong tree.



edit: Not saying Templar = jandar, though it's what I strongly suspect, I am speaking instead to the implications of the debate about history.

Beautifully put. Yes, real knights and Romans and just about any other warrior or soldier throughout history spent much of their time raping and pillaging and all that, and this includes fighting men of our time. The spoils of war have always been part of the "benefits package" as it were, especially in times past.

As for what Hahma said, yes, the vikings being a part of the "good" Jandar's army is a joke. Real vikings liked raping and pillaging even more than the knights and Romans. And why not? They were pirates.

We all tend to romantacize things (including the figures and events of our own history as well as the histories of other folk), and the winners get to write the history books, etc. Personally, I just wish that if they're going to make any more historical figures at all the just give them to Einar (like they did the Greeks and Romans and cowboys), even if it's more Minute Men or American GIs. But, hell, it's a kid's game in concept so what can one expect but fairy tale knights and GI Joe and such.

[1shot_1kill]

Originally Posted by RichardD

The military orders were not created FOR the Crusades, they were created BY the Crusades. Chiefly as organisations to promote the safety and well-being of travelling pilgrims - pilgrimmages which only really became possible after the crusaders took Jerusalem (in 1099, IIRC).

I agree RichardD, the original intention behind the creation of the military orders was a good thing, the protection and caring for of pilgrims ... what they eventually became during and after the crusades due to corruption, I think is what ArgosCap has the problem with. Throughout history those of great renown are also sometimes those of great failure. Not to bring religion into it, but the Bible states that King David was "a man after God's own heart"... yet he was guilty of adultery and murder in his relationship with Bathsheba. Noah was the only righteous man found by God worthy of being saved in the flood, and it was his faith in God that also saved his wife, 3 sons, and 3 daughters-in-law... yet when he got off the ark he built a vineyard and got drunk. All are less known or less thought of accounts of great people, it is up to us how WE choose to remember them. I choose to remember the glory and honor with which the Knights Templar were created... my

[jcb231]

Originally Posted by Chimpy

Fair enough. You have stated that the seizure of British property and direct attacks on of non-military targets was a legitimate action by the Revolutionaries. Why then should the British go to Einar? Their actions were not any worse than the Americans. It is unfair to blame the reasons the war was fought- the average Redcoat was flung into a war they did not choose. Should they not go to Jandar?

No, because they were the tools of a Colonial Power, a nation with Empire on it's mind. That fits in more with the Roman theme I think.

[RichardD]

Originally Posted by jcb231

I'd quote Richard D, but the quotes are just getting longer and longer...scroll up to read his post, then come back here if you want.

Don't put words in my mouth friend. I have not said Freedom fighter equals good

Actually what you said was " I think fighting for the liberation of your homeland is a good thing....it's not like the Americans then sailed across the sea to continue the war by invading England. I would put French Resistance Fighters in the same category as good guys fighting against a regime they didn't beleive in."

Now you can't deny that the Palestinians believe that they are fighting for the liberation of their homeland. So what they are doing must be "a good thing". Sounded quite a lot like "freedom fighters = good" to me. You just disagree with their tactics, not their motivation. And we've already established that good people can do bad things, in the pursuit of that which they believe to be right.

Were the French resistance fighters "terrorists?" Yes, of course they were, in the strictest sense of the word. But who were they causing "terror" to? A land-grabbing facist regime that organized an industrial slaughter of millions. I find it hard to feel sorry for the Nazis. As you yourself point out, the French also avoided French casualties as often as they could.

Not all French resistance movements did this. The communists were particularly fond of blowing up other Frenchmen when it suited them. And Lord help you if you were considered a collaborator. But I suspect that they were able to minimise civilian casualties precisely because their target was the Nazi war machine, and the way to get at it was to attack soldiers, officers and materiel.

From what I've read, they also tried to avoid German civilian casualties, although the number of true not-affiliated-with-the-army German civilians in France was obviously rather small in comparison.

Indeed. If they had had access to busloads of German civilians, I have no doubt that they would have considered them fair game if it helped bring about he withdrawal of Germany from France. The other allies were happy to do so - after all, the RAF rained fire on Hamburg knowing full-well that the civilian casualties would be enormous. And neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima could really be considered military targets. But that's what happens in Total War. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it WILL hapen, so long as your aim is to reduce the enemt's will to continue the fight.

World War II was fought to stop German/Japanese expansion, yes. I never said that the CAUSE of the war was a noble crusade to stop evil, but I think that stopping reckless expansion into other nations, ie stopping an invader, is often reason enough to give the non-invader the moral high ground. Add Germany's slaughter of millions and Japan's horrific mistreatment of the Chinese mainlanders and Allied POWs and I'm pretty darn sure it's a done deal that the Allies had the moral high ground there. Heck even Germany and Japan feel a little shame now and again for that war....it says a lot when you're embarrased about your country's actions during a period in history.

Germany's ongoing "shame" bugs me. As does their subtle blaming of the "Nazis" for all the attrocities committed. Just who were these "Nazis"? Ordinary Germans, for the most part. But they've learned from it (I hope). As have the rest of us (I hope). They can quit the breast-beating now. Just like it'll be a cold day in hell before I start apologising for slavery in the UK 300 years ago. It wasn't done in my name, it wasn't done to my benefit, so I'm not going to start apologising to anyone for it. But in the samevein, I am not about to start importing slaves to do my cooking and cleaning, either. It's by my actions, not by those of my ancestors, that I should be judged. Ditto for the Germans.

Though on the German topic, it seems to me that the Allies were largely ignorant of, oblivious to or apathetic towards much of what was going ion in Germany until it suited them to be otherwise. Take the USA - it joined only after Japan attacked; it wasn't hoing to war with Nazi Germany to rescue all those poor Jews. Take Russia - it's rulers proved extremely adept at carrying out their own repressions and exterminations immediately after the war, when it suited them (and involving many of the same minority groups). Take the UK - I can absolutely guarantee that it wasn't the Holocaust that motivated us during the war, it was the noble self-interest of survival.

I really hope your phrase "a later invention" is not a claim that the very well-documented Holocaust did not occur.

Have NO fear on that ground, my friend. It happened, and clearly on the massive scale that you refer to. Where I say "later invention" I mean ONLY that the Holocaust has been put forward by some as justifying the war against Germany; THAT is later invention/revisionism, plus to a limited degree it was used to motivate the populace at the time. Heck, you only have to read some of the harrowing accounts of (particularly US) soldiers discovering the death camps in the later stages of the war -they had NO IDEA what was happening, or the scale on which it was happening (thus making it all the more shocking). So although everyone, in every conflict, is fed the line that the war is about "good versus evil", WW2 was most definately NOT about stopping the Holocaust, or punishing the Nazis. The fact that our grandfathers managed to get rid of a particularly nasty regime is a Good Thing, but it's not what WW2 was actually about. Of course, if Hitler had bee "good", maybe he'd have realised that trying to subjugate most of mainland Europe was not a nice thing to do.

As for WWI....sure the Germans weren't burning people by the millions there, but they were recklessly expanding again. Pretty easy to give the moral high ground to the folks being attacked sometimes.

Nope. It started with an assasination. Or maybe an argument about telegraph poles. Either way, it was "some damn silly thing in the Balkans". But the major powers had bound themselves so tightly in various treaties, and were spoiling for a fight anyway, that war became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yup, Germany had designs on a small part of eastern France. For historical reasons that made perfect sense to them (not least in part because the French had treated Germany as their own little playground for a decade or more a hundred years before, carving bits up here, changing borders there, ruling this bit, invading that bit). But Germany's main thrust in WW1 was not designed as a land-grab - it was a plan to knock the French out of the fight as quickly as possible (no doubt to bring the French to the negitiating table as in 1870).

As for Mel...I mean William, I didn't learn my history from Mel Gibson movies, thank you very much. I think that you are beeing a little TOO Anglocentric here. What gave the King the right to interfere in Scotland? I never claimed the US had the right to interfere in Iraq, and think you've actually made a somewhat reasonable analogy there.

Because he was asked to "interfere" in Scotland, and had his own nation's best interests at heart (it's not good to have unrest - let alone a civil war - on your borders. I expect that Iran is thinking the same thing right now about the assistance it's not giving to certain factions in Iraq. Or the help that the West has given to all sorts of people down the years. Should the US have helped Israel? (My vote is yes, FWIW). What gave the US the right to meddle? I ask rhetorically, of course.

Fact is that meddling in their neighbours (near and far) is what nations do. All the time. The Scots meddled enough in England down the years (supporting the "losers" in a couple of Civil Wars/uprisings - hey, you can't blame me just because the Scots never knew which was the right horse to back).

But you're probably right on the "too anglo-centric" comment. I'm just trying (on the Wallace issue at least) to restore a little balance after the one-sided view given to us by Blind Harry and Gibson. Both presented fiction as fact, and give a particular perspective on Wallace that may well be extremely inaccurate. I'm not saying that mine is necessarily more accurate, mind you