History What are some of your most contraversial takes on history?

Doomsought

Well-known member
On the contrary: modern capitalism tends to just make slavery obsolete... because slaves are simply too expensive. So freeing them and then hiring them back for a pittance is just cheaper than keeping them as your property.
Peace actually, the only form of slavery that is economically viable without being subsidized by war is serfdom. You need to either offload the cost of raising the slaves to a useful age by taking them in as plunder or allow the slaves to own enough to take care of their own subsidence.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Peace actually, the only form of slavery that is economically viable without being subsidized by war is serfdom. You need to either offload the cost of raising the slaves to a useful age by taking them in as plunder or allow the slaves to own enough to take care of their own subsidence.
Feudalism is an interesting system.

At the top you have the lords and knights. At the bottom you have the peasants. The former gets - and keeps - their privileges and monopoly on violence by providing the latter with a guarantee: you can go about your day-to-day business without being unnecessarily hassled and, if you do get hassled, call us, we'll get rid of the troublemakers.
 
Ha, history says otherwise. The "deal" is we will hassle you as much as we please, we will help ourselves to the best of the literal fruits of all your labor, and if you don't like it, we'll murder you and your entire family.

Protection? Ha.


yeah I'm with Shadow, I think I'd rather make a deal with a street gang or militia before going back to Feudalism. At least a gang does not have a monopoly on violence.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
yeah I'm with Shadow, I think I'd rather make a deal with a street gang or militia before going back to Feudalism. At least a gang does not have a monopoly on violence.
Shadow described what actually happened most of the time because, welp, people are assholes and will go "fuck you, I've got mine" at the drop of a hat.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
yeah I'm with Shadow, I think I'd rather make a deal with a street gang or militia before going back to Feudalism. At least a gang does not have a monopoly on violence.

Neither did the feudal guys in practice.
But "Feudalism" is something we call it with hindsight - it was never one thing throughout Europe, implemented out of a textbook.
In origin it was more along the lines of:
"Here's the deal: the Roman Empire is gone, me and my lads rule this area now. So you pay us some of the produce of your fields, and we'll let you keep living and farming here."
Only gradually did it evolve into anything more complex and formalized.

The good part of it was that the taxes that your local Barbarian Lord Humongous would be demanding tended to be a lot less than what you'd been having to pay as a subject of the Empire.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
The good part of it was that the taxes that your local Barbarian Lord Humongous would be demanding tended to be a lot less than what you'd been having to pay as a subject of the Empire.
At the end, that is.

Early Rome was very low tax, and low regulations. Very Late Rome was so far the other way that being conquered by a barbarian tribe was a serious step-up.
 

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
My controversial opinion is that Prussia is overrated. Frederick II does not deserve the admiration of him and the title of Great, it should read Gambler. Because he had more luck than sense. And his influence on the world was greater than his skill. If anything his father was the Great.

And another one, PLC partitions do not have to happen every time. I say this honestly, as I look at most althistory world maps I catch myself seeing how much people make this mistake. If anything Prussia should be annihilated much more often because such a miracle of the House of Brandenburg is damn rare.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
It is not controversial here, but the view is that the USSR should have cut off the more troublesome countries, like Poland and Hungary, and focused on China-style economic reform, and it is pretty common, btw.

Simeon being a bad tzar by being obsessed with the Byzantines and trying to push too deep into their territory instead of going after easy pickings to the north and north-west.

Boris holding out and playing the Byzantine patriarch against the pope to get more western support and a more autonomous Catholic church into the country.
 

ATP

Well-known member
It is not controversial here, but the view is that the USSR should have cut off the more troublesome countries, like Poland and Hungary, and focused on China-style economic reform, and it is pretty common, btw.

Simeon being a bad tzar by being obsessed with the Byzantines and trying to push too deep into their territory instead of going after easy pickings to the north and north-west.

Boris holding out and playing the Byzantine patriarch against the pope to get more western support and a more autonomous Catholic church into the country.

1.That is what Beria wonted.Fortunatelly for world and little girls,Chruszczow killed him,not otherway.We would live in soviet world now,if he succed.

2.Yes,i agree here.

3.To be honest,he should become catholic.Pope do not have armies,Byzantium have.
So,as catholic he would be more free as long as he would support popes against HRE emperors.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top