Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Conserative Morality]

perhaps an issue with this political order, hmmm? :^)

in fact, is there a mechanism for removing an imperator at all? term limits? actual elections? :thonk:

Order of the Senate.

So Tiberius was just into kid orgies but no throwing off cliffs then at least, cool

Even then that's only if you believe the rumors. And unfortunately, even if true, fucking pubescent boys wouldn't have been scandalous if they hadn't been Roman citizens.

I think I'm just marble-brained

So you're siding with Nea Byzantia on this? I thought this all started because you objected to the idea that democracies were violent, same as autocracies and oligarchies?

[Nea Byzantia]

perhaps an issue with this political order, hmmm? :^)

in fact, is there a mechanism for removing an imperator at all? term limits? actual elections? :thonk:

Order of the Senate.

So Tiberius was just into kid orgies but no throwing off cliffs then at least, cool

Even then that's only if you believe the rumors. And unfortunately, even if true, fucking pubescent boys wouldn't have been scandalous if they hadn't been Roman citizens.

I think I'm just marble-brained

So you're siding with Nea Byzantia on this? I thought this all started because you objected to the idea that democracies were violent, same as autocracies and oligarchies?

As if siding with me makes you the ultimate Evil

[Conserative Morality]

As if siding with me makes you the ultimate Evil

No, but it is a stark reversal of their previous position.

[Senkaku]

So you're siding with Nea Byzantia on this? I thought this all started because you objected to the idea that democracies were violent, same as autocracies and oligarchies?

I'm not siding with either of you lmfao I think Rome and Byzantium both fucking sucked as political and social models go and were violent and unpleasant places and that your arguing over which is better is silly bc they were both violent highly unequal premodern autocracies

[Conserative Morality]

I'm not siding with either of you lmfao I think Rome and Byzantium both fucking sucked as political and social models go and were violent and unpleasant places and that your arguing over which is better is silly bc they were both violent highly unequal premodern autocracies

That's moving the goalposts. Originally you said:

Political intrigue and power-plays are normal parts of History. What is RussiaGate and the Mueller Debacle in the United States, but a series of intrigues between the Republicans and Democrats?

As far as I know, no one's been stabbed to death, blinded, or exiled over it.

Only the naive believe that political stability and control can be eternal. Changes of Dynasty and Leadership are just a normal part of the ebb and flow of Civilizations. That's universal, regardless of what political ideology or system a given State functions under.

Yeah, but changes of dynasty and leadership don't have to involve killing/maiming/banishing your predecessors lmfao

When we got into the discussion of Rome, I pointed out that such internal palace coups and succession violence was largely a myth and typically no more significant than modern coutnries; you then used the point that external Roman policy tended towards violence; when I pointed out that no modern nation was free of that either in terms of scale or principle, and that it was invalid as a point of comparison in a discussion of the merits of Roman governance unless we were going to be marble-brained enlightened centrists, you said you supposed that made you an enlightened centrist.

Considering you're falling back on "Lol they're exactly the same" again, I suppose it does.

[Hanafuridake]

>when the republicans are let out of their cages

I love it when republicans concern troll about female succession despite wanting the position abolished altogether.

Because that's totally a sincere suggestion and not an attempt to further subvert the authority and dignity of the imperial house.

Broke: Porphyrogenitus

Woke: N O V U S H O M O

[Totally Not OEP]

Given our rather frequent alternate history discussions and historical debates, I thought that this might be of some interest.

Fallen Eagles: The Italian 10th Army in the Opening Campaign in the Western Desert, June 1940-December 1940 by Howard R. Christie, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Ft. Leavenworth Kansas. Master's Thesis, 7 Aug 98-2 Jun 99.

The Italian Army developed a new and revolutionary doctrine of combined arms warfare in 1938 based on the lessons learned from their experiences of the 1930s. The success from the use of Italian combined arm teams in Spain and in Ethiopia proved the concept of motorized forces and the natural follow-on of mechanization for the Italian Army. This doctrine was called the War of Rapid Decision. With this doctrine the Italian Army had developed a new and dynamic operational art of war. The Italian military in Libya had all the necessary elements to be successful utilizing this new doctrine. In addition it had a commander that already successfully used and demonstrated an applied motorized doctrine in the Italo-Ethiopian war where it proved victorious to him. Marshal Graziani didn’t utilize this new doctrine. The operational plan Marshal Graziani and his staff did execute was an advance in mass for the invasion of Egypt.

The operational plan Marshall Graziani and his staff should have developed was for a two-phase invasion, utilizing Italian mechanized doctrine, based on the forces available to him. This plan would have called for the stripping of all the trucks from the Italian 5th Army and using the just-arriving Italian M.11 medium tanks as the main mechanized striking force. The Italian army should have formed a mechanized force to invade Egypt, only followed by garrison troops to maintain the lines of communication. Based on the amount of transport available in Libya, his staff estimated they could have fully motorized two divisions and a brigade of Libyan troops (Knox 1982, 156). Combined with the available armor and motorized artillery forces, he would have had a potential mechanized force to invade Egypt with in August of 1940. The only realistic motorized formation that could have been formed is with the Comando Carri Armati della Libia, possibly three or four artillery Regiments, and one motorized infantry division.

The first phase of the operation would have been the Italian Army occupying the city of Sollum. This first phase would see them crossing the wire and occupying Sollum with the available infantry and artillery formations. This force would stay and garrison the city, protect the line of communication, and act as a reserve. This phase of the operation would see the Metropolitan Italian nonmotorized divisions advance along the coast and attack through Halfaya Pass and occupy Sollum. This would have allowed the Italian army to control this strategic terrain and use it has the starting point for the second phase of the operation.

The second phase of the plan would see two primary forces advancing on two separate axes of advance to Mersa Martuh. Two separate forces attacking on two separate axes of advance would make this attack. The slow moving foot infantry could advance along the coastal road. This would allow the Italian binary nonmotorized infantry divisions to utilize the only road network available to them and have some use in the campaign. The Metropolitan Italian nonmotorized divisions would advance along the coast and continue forward to an intermediate objective of Sidi Barrani and then on to the final objective Mersa Martuh. The southern column consisting of the Libyan Divisions and the armored Comando Carri Armati della Libia would advance on the Dayr al-Hamra–Bir ar Rabiyah–Bir Enba track to flank the escarpment, and the enemy, with the ultimate objective of Mersa Martuh. In this manner, the Italian army could have met the British at Mersa Martuh utilizing the non motorized Italian formations in a suitable role, and the motorized formations to flank their defense and cut the British line of communications defeating, them at Mersa Martuh.

This plan would have been an example of Italian mechanized doctrine utilizing the available forces. The combination of the advance of forces moving along the coast, pinning the enemy, and the Italian mechanized forces operating to turn the enemy’s flank followed Italian mechanized doctrine. This plan would have the Italian mechanized elements making long flanking movements through the desert. Such employment would have been ideally suited for the mechanized forces, according to Italian doctrine. Only under this concept and applying their mechanized doctrine would Italian forces have had a reasonable chance for success against the British. Since Marshal Graziani failed to apply Italian doctrine he was defeated in detail by a significantly smaller British force in the western desert.

Had the Italian Army and Marshal Graziani struck early in the desert campaign and in strength utilizing their new doctrine it is doubtful that the British could have stopped them short of the Nile river. Instead of pursing that goal the Marshal Graziani asked for more resources to accomplish that mission instead of acting. When Marshal Graziani was forced into action, the Italian Army in North Africa didn’t adopt a plan of an attack in depth but reverted to a plan utilizing an attack in mass. This failing caused the Italian army to be defeated during its invasion of Egypt. One can only speculate on the reasons for Graziani’s failure to employ the rapid decision doctrine. Surely one key factor was the Italian Army’s deficiency in the areas of the army leadership, training level of the different organizations, leadership of the organizations, unit cohesion, logistics, and armored vehicles. A combination of these factors made the Italian Army less effective then it could have been in the campaign.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Virtue ethics gang gang gang

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also the Diadochi would have probably beaten the Maurya in pitched battle, the main reason Seleucus made peace with them was that he was fighting a two-front war.

[Old Tyrannia]

So I hear that the Japanese Emperor has abdicated today.

Let's have a toast to the happy retirement of His Imperial Majesty the Emperor Emeritus, and the long reign of the new Emperor.

天皇陛下万歳！

[Novus America]

Given our rather frequent alternate history discussions and historical debates, I thought that this might be of some interest.

Fallen Eagles: The Italian 10th Army in the Opening Campaign in the Western Desert, June 1940-December 1940 by Howard R. Christie, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Ft. Leavenworth Kansas. Master's Thesis, 7 Aug 98-2 Jun 99.

The Italian Army developed a new and revolutionary doctrine of combined arms warfare in 1938 based on the lessons learned from their experiences of the 1930s. The success from the use of Italian combined arm teams in Spain and in Ethiopia proved the concept of motorized forces and the natural follow-on of mechanization for the Italian Army. This doctrine was called the War of Rapid Decision. With this doctrine the Italian Army had developed a new and dynamic operational art of war. The Italian military in Libya had all the necessary elements to be successful utilizing this new doctrine. In addition it had a commander that already successfully used and demonstrated an applied motorized doctrine in the Italo-Ethiopian war where it proved victorious to him. Marshal Graziani didn’t utilize this new doctrine. The operational plan Marshal Graziani and his staff did execute was an advance in mass for the invasion of Egypt.

The operational plan Marshall Graziani and his staff should have developed was for a two-phase invasion, utilizing Italian mechanized doctrine, based on the forces available to him. This plan would have called for the stripping of all the trucks from the Italian 5th Army and using the just-arriving Italian M.11 medium tanks as the main mechanized striking force. The Italian army should have formed a mechanized force to invade Egypt, only followed by garrison troops to maintain the lines of communication. Based on the amount of transport available in Libya, his staff estimated they could have fully motorized two divisions and a brigade of Libyan troops (Knox 1982, 156). Combined with the available armor and motorized artillery forces, he would have had a potential mechanized force to invade Egypt with in August of 1940. The only realistic motorized formation that could have been formed is with the Comando Carri Armati della Libia, possibly three or four artillery Regiments, and one motorized infantry division.

The first phase of the operation would have been the Italian Army occupying the city of Sollum. This first phase would see them crossing the wire and occupying Sollum with the available infantry and artillery formations. This force would stay and garrison the city, protect the line of communication, and act as a reserve. This phase of the operation would see the Metropolitan Italian nonmotorized divisions advance along the coast and attack through Halfaya Pass and occupy Sollum. This would have allowed the Italian army to control this strategic terrain and use it has the starting point for the second phase of the operation.

The second phase of the plan would see two primary forces advancing on two separate axes of advance to Mersa Martuh. Two separate forces attacking on two separate axes of advance would make this attack. The slow moving foot infantry could advance along the coastal road. This would allow the Italian binary nonmotorized infantry divisions to utilize the only road network available to them and have some use in the campaign. The Metropolitan Italian nonmotorized divisions would advance along the coast and continue forward to an intermediate objective of Sidi Barrani and then on to the final objective Mersa Martuh. The southern column consisting of the Libyan Divisions and the armored Comando Carri Armati della Libia would advance on the Dayr al-Hamra–Bir ar Rabiyah–Bir Enba track to flank the escarpment, and the enemy, with the ultimate objective of Mersa Martuh. In this manner, the Italian army could have met the British at Mersa Martuh utilizing the non motorized Italian formations in a suitable role, and the motorized formations to flank their defense and cut the British line of communications defeating, them at Mersa Martuh.

This plan would have been an example of Italian mechanized doctrine utilizing the available forces. The combination of the advance of forces moving along the coast, pinning the enemy, and the Italian mechanized forces operating to turn the enemy’s flank followed Italian mechanized doctrine. This plan would have the Italian mechanized elements making long flanking movements through the desert. Such employment would have been ideally suited for the mechanized forces, according to Italian doctrine. Only under this concept and applying their mechanized doctrine would Italian forces have had a reasonable chance for success against the British. Since Marshal Graziani failed to apply Italian doctrine he was defeated in detail by a significantly smaller British force in the western desert.

Had the Italian Army and Marshal Graziani struck early in the desert campaign and in strength utilizing their new doctrine it is doubtful that the British could have stopped them short of the Nile river. Instead of pursing that goal the Marshal Graziani asked for more resources to accomplish that mission instead of acting. When Marshal Graziani was forced into action, the Italian Army in North Africa didn’t adopt a plan of an attack in depth but reverted to a plan utilizing an attack in mass. This failing caused the Italian army to be defeated during its invasion of Egypt. One can only speculate on the reasons for Graziani’s failure to employ the rapid decision doctrine. Surely one key factor was the Italian Army’s deficiency in the areas of the army leadership, training level of the different organizations, leadership of the organizations, unit cohesion, logistics, and armored vehicles. A combination of these factors made the Italian Army less effective then it could have been in the campaign.

Certainly would have been better than what they did.
However if they got stopped at the Nile, as they probably would, it probably would not have changed the course of the war much.

[Totally Not OEP]

Certainly would have been better than what they did.
However if they got stopped at the Nile, as they probably would, it probably would not have changed the course of the war much.

Nile is proposed as the culminating point of the offensive, due to the need to rest and rebuild the logistics line as well as being the first point the British could hope to mount a defensive line. If the Italians have reached that, however, it's decisive; Alexandria has been taken and thus the Royal Navy have been removed from the Eastern Mediterranean. By extension of that, Suez is also likely shut down, while Cairo quite possibly has fallen into Italian hands. The success of the Italians might also provoke an Egyptian uprising, which much agitation for existed at the time, which would render the British, already on the backfoot due to the Italians, unable to hold anything West of the Sinai.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Honestly, give this Nova guy a break. He's been nothing but respectful towards "them". It looks like you're going out of your ways to attack him, searching for every last accusation that you can find. As long as he's using "they" (a "pronoun" that's been approved by the person that he's talking to), he's not doing anything wrong and he shouldn't be subjected to meaningless and empty critique from people who don't have anything to do with the conversation between the two of them.

This isn't the first time those two have tangled.

Anyways, can we move on from the character drama? Anyone off the top of their head think of successful countries you'd use as an example of something similar to your ideology?
I'd use Iran, Morocco, Imperial Germany, Liechtenstein, Francoist Spain, Chile under Pinochet and French second empire as some of the first examples that came to mind.

Khilaafatur-Raashidah, Ottomans, maybe Sokoto, A fair amount of the Muslim Indian states....dang, I need to reread my Islamic history...

Then you have the Ottoman Empire

They weren't even declared the heir to the Roman Empire by some Pope or something, they just conquered a city and said: "Fuck you, I'm Roman".

They didn't even hold the city of Rome, they just declared themselves Roman.

The Ottomans had literally ZERO relationship to the Greco-Roman Empire they conquered. They were nomadic Turkic hordes from the plains of Central Asia; who dressed like the Persians

X for doubt. Iirc they never ruled Persian land and I'm pretty sure Turkic traditional clothing exists.

worshipped like the Arabs

They weren't pagans.

and ruled their Empire with all the cruelty and eye for extortion of the Mongol Khans.

Depends on the ruler.

Oligarchs cannot exist under full democracy and taxation in democracy is legitimate.

>"Full democracy!"<

Also known as mob rule and one of the most destructive and illogical forms of government, "full democracy" cannot provide a nation with security, stability or prosperity.

^This. Khilaafah ftw!

Basil II receives a lot of (justly deserved) admiration, but it does seem wrong that it's to the extent that his predecessor is comparatively forgotten. John I Tzimiskes laid much of the administrative foundation that Basil built upon while also managing to take the fight to the Islamic foes to the East of the Romans, reconquering Syria and coming close to even retaking Jerusalem; his untimely death prevented the Byzantines from properly securing these conquests, alas, and Basil ended up more focused in European affairs. Despite his Eastern orientation, however, John was no slouch in Europe either and annexed Bulgaria. John also, as a last great act for his Roman subjects, posthumously bequeathed his personal fortune to the poor and sick.

reconquering Syria and coming close to even retaking Jerusalem

Wait what

To what are you referring to?

I mean, how many times has it been that you've referred to me as Tor (a f*cking browsing system) since I came out as trans, or Torrocca when literally next to nobody ever uses full nation names on this site?

That's what I'm talking about. I don't think these statements of respect are genuine because of that. But whatever.

Wait....I call you "Torrocca" all the time If I offended you by saying that I'm sorry.

... Not really though? That's not respectful at all if you're just referring to somebody as anything except what they prefer being referred to as.

Complaining about someone calling you Tor would be like me complaining about someone calling me OEP; it's just short hand for the full username and done for ease. Complaining about someone using your full username, despite the fact you literally picked that, is likewise bizarre; it's like complaining about someone using your first name.

Completely unrelated to the topic, but the would you agree that minors should call adults by their 1st name and get away with it?

[Hanafuridake]

Coincidentally we're talking about Tiberius and Caligula the same day that I rewatched Tinto Brass' Caligula.

[Novus America]

Certainly would have been better than what they did.
However if they got stopped at the Nile, as they probably would, it probably would not have changed the course of the war much.

Nile is proposed as the culminating point of the offensive, due to the need to rest and rebuild the logistics line as well as being the first point the British could hope to mount a defensive line. If the Italians have reached that, however, it's decisive; Alexandria has been taken and thus the Royal Navy have been removed from the Eastern Mediterranean. By extension of that, Suez is also likely shut down, while Cairo quite possibly has fallen into Italian hands. The success of the Italians might also provoke an Egyptian uprising, which much agitation for existed at the time, which would render the British, already on the backfoot due to the Italians, unable to hold anything West of the Sinai.

The British still Cyprus. They could operate from there until they drove the Italians back.
The British could send in more troops and tanks than Italy ever could.

Plus Italian logistics would be stretched thin. Your source says they only had enough for two mechanized divisions and a brigade. And each mile they advanced and city they took they fewer forces they would have to fight. Leaving behind garrisons and longer supply lines would sap their strength.

I doubt the the Italians could reach Suez in time, probably stop at the Nile at the farthest and then be facing several field armies.

An uprising would be the only hope, but there was no sign of one being likely.
The Egyptians would know Italian rule would be no better.

Also the source points out the issues with Italian training and communications.

Really I think the North Africa campaign was such a long shot, a more critical point of divergence is Italy does a Spain instead of getting involved in the war beyond sending some forces to support the Germans against the Soviets.

[Hanafuridake]

I selected Natural Law Theory.

[Totally Not OEP]

The British still Cyprus. They could operate from there until they drove the Italians back.
The British could send in more troops and tanks than Italy ever could.

Plus Italian logistics would be stretched thin. Your source says they only had enough for two divisions and a brigade. And each mile they advanced and city they took they fewer forces they would have to fight. Leaving behind garrisons and longer supply lines would sap their strength.

I doubt the the Italians could reach Suez in time, probably stop at the Nile at the farthest and then be facing several field armies.

An uprising would be the only hope, but there was no sign of one being likely.
The Egyptians would know Italian rule would be no better.

Really I think the North Africa campaign was such a long shot, a more critical point of divergence is Italy does a Spain instead of getting involved in the war.

Cyprus lacks naval facilities comparable to Alexandria and is far too distant from North Africa to provide air support. More importantly, with Alexandria in Axis hands it has effectively become impossible to sustain any sizeable force there. As for the British as a whole, they have absolutely nothing to send in 1940 and they cannot, in any reasonable timeframe, deploy more field armies; there's a reason they limited themselves to one in theater even into 1942.

As for the Italians, proper implementation of the strategy would've allowed them to reach at least to the Nile, which is the only natural obstacle the British could hope to rally their forces behind prior to the Suez. With Alexandria in Italian hands, and its high capacity capabilities, the Italians will rapidly be able to resupply themselves and continue the advance. As for the Egyptians, see the Abdeen Palace Incident.

[Minzerland II]

>when the republicans are let out of their cages

I love it when republicans concern troll about female succession despite wanting the position abolished altogether.

Because that's totally a sincere suggestion and not an attempt to further subvert the authority and dignity of the imperial house.

Broke: Porphyrogenitus

Woke: N O V U S H O M O

Isn’t that what the cadet branch is for? Do you still have those?

[Minzerland II]

I may shill for Divine Command Theory but my heart is really after Virtue Ethics.

[Kowani]

Virtue ethics gang gang gang

Nah.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I may shill for Divine Command Theory but my heart is really after Virtue Ethics.

Oh yeah, the poll. Forgot about that.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Someone explain to me the dif between divine command theory and natural law theory.

[Totally Not OEP]

On the matter of philosophies governing Monarchs, I look to three men for guidance: Constantine XI, Kaiser Wilhelm I, and Robb Stark.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

On the matter of philosophies governing Monarchs, I look to three men for guidance: Constantine XI, Kaiser Wilhelm I, and Robb Stark.

Not even Willie Stark smh.

I'm one of the King's men.

[Hanafuridake]

I love it when republicans concern troll about female succession despite wanting the position abolished altogether.

Because that's totally a sincere suggestion and not an attempt to further subvert the authority and dignity of the imperial house.

Isn’t that what the cadet branch is for? Do you still have those?

No. Those were abolished after the war unfortunately. But there has been talk about bringing them back, which would be a godsend.

Someone explain to me the dif between divine command theory and natural law theory.

From what I understand, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but Natural Law doesn't rely on Divine Command. Examples of religions with Natural Law but not a Creator God would be Stoicism, Buddhism, and Taoism.