Blasterbot
Well-known member
To be fair the UK’s political goals aren’t exactly subtle.
It’s even the point of a joke here:
kek I love that wit. wish more shows had it.
To be fair the UK’s political goals aren’t exactly subtle.
It’s even the point of a joke here:
Not many that are made today do.kek I love that wit. wish more shows had it.
The Yuan was a far better neighbor to the Philippines than any other dynasty save Tang. Every single other dynasty invaded the Philippines. 4000 years of Chinese Imperialism tends to impart a deep seated bloodlust against Chinese states in general.mongols
To be fair the UK’s political goals aren’t exactly subtle.
It’s even the point of a joke here:
Bruh, you were proverbially frothing at the mouth in that other thread and have such biased views that it makes an unhinged Lefty look sane. You're a fucking nut.Lol, I don't have a personal hate boner. The Brits haven't screwed me over THIS century. I just realize your people are disloyal rats who should not be trusted at all, and the weaker you are the better for everyone else.
True moving away from Church influence was bad, but they also had a few good things like getting rid of corrupt incompetent nobility and allowing a form of meritocracy. While the excess of the reign of terror were bad, the rise of Napeoleon was undoubtably a good thing.
That's not actually a bad thing, again Rome which I assume you like based on your avatar, conquered Europe. It depends on what that conquest achieves if it spreads a strong empire that generally improves things builds infrastructure even advances technology that would be a good thing, and as long as they aren't too brutal on the new subjects.
Ok, I have to amend a previous statement I made. The British did TWO good things they got rid of the horrid practice of Sati in India, AND they actually have some pretty good banter and comedy.kek I love that wit. wish more shows had it.
I mean I'm not that angry it's hard to tell on the internet when someone uses strong language what their actual tone is.Bruh, you were proverbially frothing at the mouth in that other thread and have such biased views that it makes an unhinged Lefty look sane. You're a fucking nut.
Or do you want me to quote that post that had you saying you want the UK and its people effectively destroyed and replaced by anything including communism and Islam?
Just... sigh.
No,feudals have honour and obligations to their serfs.They are both basically neo feudalism with a new coat of paint
After 1789/with possible exception of Napoleon/ - agree.No, I am talking about France
No, feudals have good PR. Greedy, cruel, self serving pedos the lot of them.No,feudals have honour and obligations to their serfs.
Rather bad PR.I am old enough to remember commie school,which showed our gentry as drunk monsters who do not cared about serfs.No, feudals have good PR. Greedy, cruel, self serving pedos the lot of them.
You really are just determined to be wrong about basically everything, aren't you?France has not fucked up Europe. There are only two nations you can accuse of fucking up Europe Germany and the UK. Their little shit fits have caused Europe into catastrophic wars. France not bowing to the US every whim is not fucking up Europe.
You really are just determined to be wrong about basically everything, aren't you?
Napoleon rampaged all across the length and breadth of Europe, and that's not even getting into how the seeds of socialism, communism, and first major European attempt at 'modern' secularization all came out of France.
Tell me are you just stanning for the English no matter what or because of some protestantism or they speak the same language or what?You really are just determined to be wrong about basically everything, aren't you?
Napoleon rampaged all across the length and breadth of Europe, and that's not even getting into how the seeds of socialism, communism, and first major European attempt at 'modern' secularization all came out of France.
No we shouldn't, Napoleon was a great man and if he stayed in control his empire would be great, as unlike Alexander he would be a more Caesar figure and not just let everything collapse. Also I would think you would be appreciative towards him since he brought many reforms that allowed Jews to live in Western European societies with less discrimination they could actually be citizens now.If it wasn't Napoleon it would have been some one else.
Napoleon was the point where an enlightment becomes modernity, he was the transition tyrant that led that change, just like Alexander was the transition for classical civilization. We should be thankful he wasn't nearly as competent as Alexander the great.
Tell me are you just stanning for the English no matter what or because of some protestantism or they speak the same language or what?
First of Napoleon did not rampage through Europe many of the European monarchies attacked France first to put the Bourbons back in power because at that point the monarchs were inbred and corrupt just like modern globalists. Napoleon was not some Mongol warlord who burnt everything around him. Many places welcomed him and the administration he set up, his legal code was still used even after his fall. So no the Napeleonic conquests changed things in a good way.
Also everything you posted about socialism and communism was wrong. Germany was where those ideas came from. As for secularization(while I do think French Laicite is far to extreme) aren't you American one that is a Neo Con at that who always gushes about the Constitution? I would think you would support separation of Church and state unless you are a hard core Catholic who think the Church should have secular power?
No we shouldn't, Napoleon was a great man and if he stayed in control his empire would be great, as unlike Alexander he would be a more Caesar figure and not just let everything collapse. Also I would think you would be appreciative towards him since he brought many reforms that allowed Jews to live in Western European societies with less discrimination they could actually be citizens now.
Ok this I will agree with you 100% he was too ambitious dare I say even arrogant. But I can think of very few great men in history who did not have this trait/flaw very few of the Great leaders/Kings/Warriors/generals/etc. of history were humble men. SOME were but most were not.I will give you this, Napoleon was a great man.
He ended the french terror which by itself alone is a great deed, he did help my people yes, but the problem was Napoleon was too ambitious, he didn't know when to cut his losses, and even if he was great there was no promise that his successors would rule nearly as well as he did, and I just dont think the contential system was going to last forever too many people with a vested interest in killing it.
Wasn't it well over by the time he siezed power?He ended the french terror which by itself alone is a great deed,
Wasn't it well over by the time he siezed power?
What do you mean Napoleon was not as competent as Alexander the Great?We should be thankful he wasn't nearly as competent as Alexander the great.
He lost. Alexander's empire only fell after his death.What do you mean Napoleon was not as competent as Alexander the Great?
Well I mean winning and losing is only looking at a basic level. You also have to look at what they fought and what resources they had. Winning all your battles when you grossly outnumbered the enemy is not as impressive as winning when you are outnumbered.He lost. Alexander's empire only fell after his death.
Well, there was that Russia/winter debacle which fucked him over so badly it was the first domino in his decline.What do you mean Napoleon was not as competent as Alexander the Great?
Arranging things so that you fight as often as possible with the advantage doesn't make you a less impressive leader, it makes you a smart one. Also, Alexander didn't exactly start out with a massive empire. Napoleon is often over rated, with a lack luster record on and off the battlefield. Even compared to contemporaries, such as the Duke of Wellington, who whooped his record and beat him directly.Well I mean winning and losing is only looking at a basic level. You also have to look at what they fought and what resources they had. Winning all your battles when you grossly outnumbered the enemy is not as impressive as winning when you are outnumbered.