Right Wing Discussion Thread IX: The Right Man's Burden

[Conserative Morality]

>Mathemagics

I am stealing this for sure. Though tbf this is one of my complaints, needs to more streamlined. Its a mill, no longer what it once was.

I will never be convinced that math is anything but the darkest sorcery.

[Hakons]

Because its their own problem they are poor. If they stay poor for me to stay powerful and well off, then it sucks to be them.

And if you were poor so that they could be powerful, I'm sure we'd hear you bitching nonstop about how you deserve wealth and power more than some dirty foreigner.

Don't moralize to me about that sort of thing Atheist.

TFW the atheists are somehow the ones doing the moralizing and the religious are the ones turning a blind eye to human suffering

>Religious people are more likely to be charitable

[Northern Davincia]

>Mathemagics

I am stealing this for sure. Though tbf this is one of my complaints, needs to more streamlined. Its a mill, no longer what it once was.

I will never be convinced that math is anything but the darkest sorcery.

Beware Al-Jebra, the ultimate terrorist organization.

[The Portland Territory]

Well nevermind. Apparently I already did the work

Hmmmm, to read or not to read

Yes. Reading is one of the best habits a person can have.

Currently, I'm reading Liberty or Equality by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Great read so far

[Senkaku]

>Mathemagics

I am stealing this for sure. Though tbf this is one of my complaints, needs to more streamlined. Its a mill, no longer what it once was.

I will never be convinced that math is anything but the darkest sorcery.

It is. Statistics are the only acceptable area of mathematical study, and only then under close supervision lest you journey down a darker path...

[Hakons]

Never effortpost, darling.

We are all shitposters in the hands of an angry mod.

Are you a child of APUSH?

[The Portland Territory]

Renewables aren't suitable for a baseload tho

Your non-humanities jargon won't sway my stubborn uninformed opinion.

>Not reading

How do you claim to be /lit/erati?

I coast on past readings. I haven't read a book in almost two months now. Fiction not for even longer. =^^(

tbh I'm not a big fan of fiction. Never have been, if I want entertainment I'll come here

[Aillyria]

Your non-humanities jargon won't sway my stubborn uninformed opinion.

I coast on past readings. I haven't read a book in almost two months now. Fiction not for even longer. =^^(

tbh I'm not a big fan of fiction. Never have been, if I want entertainment I'll come here

Sometimes fiction can be insightful and relevant to reality.

[Genivaria]

I will never be convinced that math is anything but the darkest sorcery.

Beware Al-Jebra, the ultimate terrorist organization.

Tfw you tell your math teacher "I don't negotiate with terrorists."
That detention was worth it.

[The Sauganash Union]

Jesus Christ my roommate is listening to the dumbest fuckin' history podcast. This guy is making the argument that Middle Eastern/Central Asians militaries haven't been as good as Western armies starting at around 1750.

It took him a half hour of weird boxing analogies and anecdotes about Roman generals to say "the Ottoman, Russian, and British Empires had guns."

[Bakery Hill]

Jesus Christ my roommate is listening to the dumbest fuckin' history podcast. This guy is making the argument that Middle Eastern/Central Asians militaries haven't been as good as Western armies starting at around 1750.

It took him a half hour of weird boxing analogies and anecdotes about Roman generals to say "the Ottoman, Russian, and British Empires had guns."

Dan Carlin actually knows how to talk. Idgaf about that fact shit.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Jesus Christ my roommate is listening to the dumbest fuckin' history podcast. This guy is making the argument that Middle Eastern/Central Asians militaries haven't been as good as Western armies starting at around 1750.

It took him a half hour of weird boxing analogies and anecdotes about Roman generals to say "the Ottoman, Russian, and British Empires had guns."

Can you clarify what you mean? I can't really tell what argument he is making.

[The Sauganash Union]

Jesus Christ my roommate is listening to the dumbest fuckin' history podcast. This guy is making the argument that Middle Eastern/Central Asians militaries haven't been as good as Western armies starting at around 1750.

It took him a half hour of weird boxing analogies and anecdotes about Roman generals to say "the Ottoman, Russian, and British Empires had guns."

Dan Carlin actually knows how to talk. Idgaf about that fact shit.

He's a good entertainer, sure, but his historical knowledge is pretty rudimentary. He also takes forever to get to the point and makes a bunch of dumb analogies.

[The Sauganash Union]

Jesus Christ my roommate is listening to the dumbest fuckin' history podcast. This guy is making the argument that Middle Eastern/Central Asians militaries haven't been as good as Western armies starting at around 1750.

It took him a half hour of weird boxing analogies and anecdotes about Roman generals to say "the Ottoman, Russian, and British Empires had guns."

Can you clarify what you mean? I can't really tell what argument he is making.

His argument is that Middle Eastern and Central Asian militaries were significantly better than Western armies until the 1700s. I suppose that's true, but he talks a lot of bullshit for 30 minutes only to come to a conclusion that could have been reached in a few minutes.

His entire conclusion after a lot rambling about boxing and Romans is "guns beat cavalry".

[Bakery Hill]

Dan Carlin actually knows how to talk. Idgaf about that fact shit.

He's a good entertainer, sure, but his historical knowledge is pretty rudimentary. He also takes forever to get to the point and makes a bunch of dumb analogies.

I wouldn't source him in an essay no. But I listen to him occasionally when I can't sleep.

His later stuff is better too.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Dan Carlin actually knows how to talk. Idgaf about that fact shit.

He's a good entertainer, sure, but his historical knowledge is pretty rudimentary. He also takes forever to get to the point and makes a bunch of dumb analogies.

Like Lindybeige.

[Minzerland II]

He's a good entertainer, sure, but his historical knowledge is pretty rudimentary. He also takes forever to get to the point and makes a bunch of dumb analogies.

Like Lindybeige.

I feel that if Lindybeige directed his passion for history towards studying the history, he could make some phenomenal videos.

[War Gears]

There were different reasons for the rise of Japanese imperialism, some of them secular, due to Japanese modernization in the face of a ruthless Western colonialism that had started the Opium Wars. Others were absolutely inspired by Buddhism, particularly the Nichiren school. The infamous Mukden Incident was caused by Nichiren Buddhists who thought that starting a war would result in a Buddhist world theocracy.

The characterization of Shinto as "the religion of the people" is a bit iffy.

Well it's definately the religion of the people when it's mixed with Buddhism.

To be fair, Folk Shinto has managed to exist in some forms independent of Shinto. One example would be a dog spirit cult that was incorporated in a shrine despite the disapproval of the Meiji authorities, who wanted to get rid of "superstitious" practices.

[The Parkus Empire]

Also this, radical specialization is absolute cancer. That's a major reason why I dislike neoliberalism.

Why do you hate the global poor?

You mean like the Zapatistas who rose up over NAFTA?

[Herskerstad]

Can you clarify what you mean? I can't really tell what argument he is making.

His argument is that Middle Eastern and Central Asian militaries were significantly better than Western armies until the 1700s. I suppose that's true, but he talks a lot of bullshit for 30 minutes only to come to a conclusion that could have been reached in a few minutes.

His entire conclusion after a lot rambling about boxing and Romans is "guns beat cavalry".

I mean it really depends from era to era and it quickly becomes subjective. There are local standouts, like the Hussites and Czech under Jan Žižka arguably was the most competent if we are to judge by efficiency and tactics. Cromwell's new model army pretty much out-phased all European counterparts on an organisational level, and by Molke's reforms you really had eclipsed any similarities between the old and new ways of war.

That being said, you'd have to go back to greek times to find any admiral that really outperformed his opponents to the degree of Yi Sun-sin in the Joseon dynasty and quite arguably had the finest naval defence, if not plain navy, and pretty much everyone got BTFO'ed by the mongolians, which was the most devastating force the world had seen aside from potential ancient Persian empires.

Though if we are talking 1750 itself, the world leader for pretty much all eras until then, China, was a pale shadow of it's former self. There is no real European counter to say the Tang dynasty at it's peak in virtually any regard, and the British empire is such a distinct force to even try to compare with. Clearly more modernised and competent than the Qing for sure, but aside from the vital projection of naval power, the chronic issue with the Qing troops was their anemic morale in firefights. An interesting note is that when they were losing the Taiping war, what turned it around really was the fillebuster mercenaries who had no end to their morale in such combat acting as a spear tip to their armies, which made them stick it out and eventually gain the upper hand. However, after that and the costly reconstruction war had become far more industrialised, so they would again lag behind militarily, but this time because of more logistical reasons which they would not see fixed until the rise of Communist china. Even under nationalist China the industry was legitimately incompetent compared to Japan, which had 1/30th of the industrial power of the US.

That being said, the contrasts would be equally ridiculous if not even more so if you tried to compare the Frankish empire with say the Tang Dynasty, and any Roman republic or empire would have had no chance with the logistics of that empire either if they had been neighbouring each other.

[Conserative Morality]

You mean like the Zapatistas who rose up over NAFTA?

"Anarchists throw fit over government becoming more or less controlling; news at 11."

[Conserative Morality]

I mean it really depends from era to era and it quickly becomes subjective. There are local standouts, like the Hussites and Czech under Jan Žižka arguably was the most competent if we are to judge by efficiency and tactics. Cromwell's new model army pretty much out-phased all European counterparts on an organisational level, and by Molke's reforms you really had eclipsed any similarities between the old and new ways of war.

That being said, you'd have to go back to greek times to find any admiral that really outperformed his opponents to the degree of Yi Sun-sin in the Joseon dynasty and quite arguably had the finest naval defence, if not plain navy, and pretty much everyone got BTFO'ed by the mongolians, which was the most devastating force the world had seen aside from potential ancient Persian empires.

Though if we are talking 1750 itself, the world leader for pretty much all eras until then, China, was a pale shadow of it's former self. There is no real European counter to say the Tang dynasty at it's peak in virtually any regard, and the British empire is such a distinct force to even try to compare with. Clearly more modernised and competent than the Qing for sure, but aside from the vital projection of naval power, the chronic issue with the Qing troops was their anemic morale in firefights. An interesting note is that when they were losing the Taiping war, what turned it around really was the fillebuster mercenaries who had no end to their morale in such combat acting as a spear tip to their armies, which made them stick it out and eventually gain the upper hand. However, after that and the costly reconstruction war had become far more industrialised, so they would again lag behind militarily, but this time because of more logistical reasons which they would not see fixed until the rise of Communist china. Even under nationalist China the industry was legitimately incompetent compared to Japan, which had 1/30th of the industrial power of the US.

That being said, the contrasts would be equally ridiculous if not even more so if you tried to compare the Frankish empire with say the Tang Dynasty, and any Roman republic or empire would have had no chance with the logistics of that empire either if they had been neighbouring each other.

Tell me more about how the Roman Empire didn't outproduce the Tang Dynasty at their peak despite 600 years of technological progress on the Tang's side. Tell me more about how studying Confucian classics prepared bureaucrats for actual administrative work. Tell me more about how the Tang's population wasn't even half of the Empire's. Tell me more.

Fact of the matter is that no state came even close to matching the relative or absolute might of the Roman Empire until the Mongols.

[Sanctissima]

I mean it really depends from era to era and it quickly becomes subjective. There are local standouts, like the Hussites and Czech under Jan Žižka arguably was the most competent if we are to judge by efficiency and tactics. Cromwell's new model army pretty much out-phased all European counterparts on an organisational level, and by Molke's reforms you really had eclipsed any similarities between the old and new ways of war.

That being said, you'd have to go back to greek times to find any admiral that really outperformed his opponents to the degree of Yi Sun-sin in the Joseon dynasty and quite arguably had the finest naval defence, if not plain navy, and pretty much everyone got BTFO'ed by the mongolians, which was the most devastating force the world had seen aside from potential ancient Persian empires.

Though if we are talking 1750 itself, the world leader for pretty much all eras until then, China, was a pale shadow of it's former self. There is no real European counter to say the Tang dynasty at it's peak in virtually any regard, and the British empire is such a distinct force to even try to compare with. Clearly more modernised and competent than the Qing for sure, but aside from the vital projection of naval power, the chronic issue with the Qing troops was their anemic morale in firefights. An interesting note is that when they were losing the Taiping war, what turned it around really was the fillebuster mercenaries who had no end to their morale in such combat acting as a spear tip to their armies, which made them stick it out and eventually gain the upper hand. However, after that and the costly reconstruction war had become far more industrialised, so they would again lag behind militarily, but this time because of more logistical reasons which they would not see fixed until the rise of Communist china. Even under nationalist China the industry was legitimately incompetent compared to Japan, which had 1/30th of the industrial power of the US.

That being said, the contrasts would be equally ridiculous if not even more so if you tried to compare the Frankish empire with say the Tang Dynasty, and any Roman republic or empire would have had no chance with the logistics of that empire either if they had been neighbouring each other.

Tell me more about how the Roman Empire didn't outproduce the Tang Dynasty at their peak despite 600 years of technological progress on the Tang's side. Tell me more about how studying Confucian classics prepared bureaucrats for actual administrative work. Tell me more about how the Tang's population wasn't even half of the Empire's. Tell me more.

Fact of the matter is that no state came even close to matching the relative or absolute might of the Roman Empire until the Mongols.

I'm not overly familiar with the specifics, but Ancient China in general was pretty... intense. To say the least.

This is a civilization that was literally melting mountains to make way for damming and irrigation projects as early as the 3rd century BC, after all. So despite being a Romaboo, I'd say the Tang, and Chinese in general, definitely held their own as far as civilizational development was concerned.

[The Parkus Empire]

You mean like the Zapatistas who rose up over NAFTA?

"Anarchists throw fit over government becoming more or less controlling; news at 11."

The movement is only ideological in the most cosmetic sense. It's mainly an indigenous concern.

[Herskerstad]

I mean it really depends from era to era and it quickly becomes subjective. There are local standouts, like the Hussites and Czech under Jan Žižka arguably was the most competent if we are to judge by efficiency and tactics. Cromwell's new model army pretty much out-phased all European counterparts on an organisational level, and by Molke's reforms you really had eclipsed any similarities between the old and new ways of war.

That being said, you'd have to go back to greek times to find any admiral that really outperformed his opponents to the degree of Yi Sun-sin in the Joseon dynasty and quite arguably had the finest naval defence, if not plain navy, and pretty much everyone got BTFO'ed by the mongolians, which was the most devastating force the world had seen aside from potential ancient Persian empires.

Though if we are talking 1750 itself, the world leader for pretty much all eras until then, China, was a pale shadow of it's former self. There is no real European counter to say the Tang dynasty at it's peak in virtually any regard, and the British empire is such a distinct force to even try to compare with. Clearly more modernised and competent than the Qing for sure, but aside from the vital projection of naval power, the chronic issue with the Qing troops was their anemic morale in firefights. An interesting note is that when they were losing the Taiping war, what turned it around really was the fillebuster mercenaries who had no end to their morale in such combat acting as a spear tip to their armies, which made them stick it out and eventually gain the upper hand. However, after that and the costly reconstruction war had become far more industrialised, so they would again lag behind militarily, but this time because of more logistical reasons which they would not see fixed until the rise of Communist china. Even under nationalist China the industry was legitimately incompetent compared to Japan, which had 1/30th of the industrial power of the US.

That being said, the contrasts would be equally ridiculous if not even more so if you tried to compare the Frankish empire with say the Tang Dynasty, and any Roman republic or empire would have had no chance with the logistics of that empire either if they had been neighbouring each other.

Tell me more about how the Roman Empire didn't outproduce the Tang Dynasty at their peak despite 600 years of technological progress on the Tang's side. Tell me more about how studying Confucian classics prepared bureaucrats for actual administrative work. Tell me more about how the Tang's population wasn't even half of the Empire's. Tell me more.

Fact of the matter is that no state came even close to matching the relative or absolute might of the Roman Empire until the Mongols.

Twice the population of the Tang which held around a third of the population of the world? Only if you go into the realm of romaboo fiction where two thirds of the world population would have to fall within it's borders in order to substantiate. Realistically Tang's peak would have around 80 million and Rome at it's peak around 70, which would have been around the quarter of the world at it's time. In terms of integration of territories Rome would lag considerably behind the tang, while they would hold administrations above Egypt, Carthage, areas which they would control, but not nearly act as integrated as the Italian peninsula to the empire, whereas Tang arguably held a considerably larger core despite it's infamous attempts at nomadic integration and still significant regional distinctions. Economically, contrasted by even the Han and Qin, Tang enjoyed a surplus labour which manifested itself in it's labour which is pretty significant historically for China, there's a good reason why most consider Tang the apex of their power. While Rome would enjoy by it's culture a more significant investments in monuments, including far more impressive engineering even in contrast to say the massive daiming palace, the major cities of Tang, though in good part because of the work of the Qin and Han prior, were significantly more impressive than European counterparts.

I did mention it specifically in regards to the military, and while I would argue Rome's greatest military accomplishments was at a time prior to when it's army size peaked, the armies between Rome and Tang could not be more distinct. While Rome would have an edge in terms of heavy infantry, Tang armies placed significantly more weight on cavalry and ranged weapons. Between the Han, Song and Tang, the Tang cavalry. (Though largely celebrated of such by Tang Taizong's exploits) is considered pretty much the high point, certainly numerically. Han generally had more emphasis on armour whereas the Tang cavalry was medium, but still in far greater numbers than roman armies.

Though Rome got the worst of asian warfare in the battle of Carrhae. Those where some good times.