Longturn Forum

maho wrote:

Corbeau wrote:Plague killed more people than Ghengis Khan.

And influenza killed more ppl than I World War. Does it mean that IWW was insignificant in greater scheme of things?

The importance of WWI wasn't the amount of people it killed, but the political changes caused by economical factors and social disruption.

But even more died daily of regular diseases. No, Maho, the Khan was insignificant in the greater scheme of things.

Oh, ok. Khan and his heirs conquered and ruled China, Russia and India for ages, threatened half of Europe and made serious political and geopolitical turbulences. Mongol settled in world iconography, legends and culture as ruthless, bizzare plunderer. They even inspired Japanese behaviour in IIW.

Quite insignificant in greater scheme of things.

So, to conclude, Mongols started making a difference only *after* turning from destroyers and plunderers into rulers. However, once they were gone, things continued as usual. They didn't cause a downfall of any empire, they merely created a hiccup in history that got washed down pretty soon.

And if you think the Vandals destroyed Rome, you should read a book occasionally

If you think that I think that (asuming that Rome == Roman Empire), then you should read post you're replying to. Occasionally.

You said "And, when we say "vandalism" we mean bizzare, violent and destructive behaviour, not building state in northen Africa. If destroying Roman Empire is not significant, then there are no significant things in our history. "

On a second reading, I'm not sure what you actually meant, but one thing is definitely wrong. Roman Empire wasn't "destroyed". It collapsed on its own. The fall of borders and the repeated ransacking of the city of Rome were just consequences.

Corbeau wrote:

maho wrote:

Corbeau wrote:Plague killed more people than Ghengis Khan.

And influenza killed more ppl than I World War. Does it mean that IWW was insignificant in greater scheme of things?

The importance of WWI wasn't the amount of people it killed, but the political changes caused by economical factors and social disruption.

It's you who depreciate destructive "events" by comparing number of victims.

But even more died daily of regular diseases. No, Maho, the Khan was insignificant in the greater scheme of things.

Oh, ok. Khan and his heirs conquered and ruled China, Russia and India for ages, threatened half of Europe and made serious political and geopolitical turbulences. Mongol settled in world iconography, legends and culture as ruthless, bizzare plunderer. They even inspired Japanese behaviour in IIW.

Quite insignificant in greater scheme of things.

So, to conclude, Mongols started making a difference only *after* turning from destroyers and plunderers into rulers. However, once they were gone, things continued as usual. They didn't cause a downfall of any empire, they merely created a hiccup in history that got washed down pretty soon.

And if you think the Vandals destroyed Rome, you should read a book occasionally

If you think that I think that (asuming that Rome == Roman Empire), then you should read post you're replying to. Occasionally.

You said "And, when we say "vandalism" we mean bizzare, violent and destructive behaviour, not building state in northen Africa. If destroying Roman Empire is not significant, then there are no significant things in our history. "

Note new paragraph between "Africa." and "If".

On a second reading, I'm not sure what you actually meant, but one thing is definitely wrong. Roman Empire wasn't "destroyed". It collapsed on its own. The fall of borders and the repeated ransacking of the city of Rome were just consequences.

History of second part of Empire shows that this death could be delayed by many ages.


Anyway - to not prolong that nowhere-leading topic and conclude, I strongly disagree that history is written <strongly>only</strongly> by builders, which is what you meant few comments ago. End. Dot.

Oh, it wasn't me, it was Evan, but I agree 100% on it. The thing is, destroyers can't write.

maybe the roman empire should have built more colleseums and temples.. back then they didn't have elvis specialists like now - and also no cathedrals

"Do you mean situation 6allies vs 1 survivor? Who would betray alliance with such proportions?"

I don't know who would be the traitor but it would be nice to have the possibility for having just one free traitor or a vassal state. Some people say that even one survivor is too much. Anyway, this sounds better than having 10+ "free" survivors.

Of course we could simply decide that that everyone alive (if not a space race victory) in the end must be allied or the game would end without winners. This however sounds slightly too limiting to me. The alliances sizes have also been quite small if the intention is to have quick games. This rule has been abused (?:) with having lots of survivors.

I'll post a proposition about the number of the winners.