New NESes, ideas, development, etc

[LittleBoots]

You are aware that some people find that term deeply offensive perhaps on par with "Jap" and "Ch*nk" even if we're rather apathetic when called that by other Asians right?

No Chinese person I've ever talked to found it offensive. My godmother is Chinese, my grandparents both speak Chinese and were university liaisons to Beijing in the 80s, and my roommate is Chinese and does not find it offensive. They've all thought it was a rather funny word. I had thought it was akin to "Jew" or "Cracker" in that, if it was offensive, it was only very vaguely offensive. However, if you find it offensive (and, if, in fact, these are simply exceptions to a more general rule), I won't use it again. Still, words like that... ah, but thats a different discussion.

Religion can be said to be the "opium of the masses." People AREN'T supposed to think about why they do it but to just do it! Of course being a practical and rather down to earth person, I find most philosophies too idealistic in their goals; living in an ideal world. Organized religion seems to be much more capable of instilling peace/serenity/etc in the great majority of people than the great philosophies since their scope is somewhat limited at times.

I should really go work on Epoch stories...

I'm not faulting the peasants for accepting what they are told without reflection (well, given their circumstances, I'm not faulting them), simply saying that many Greek and Roman peasants (although they aren't exactly analogous to what we mean when we say Chinese peasants) had many Stoic or Epicurean or Cynic ideals in their heads that they accepted without thinking too much about the philosophy itself.

In any case, the main reason I wanted philosophies like those included was to reflect their popularity among the literate (philosophically, not simply literally), who are, despite their inferior numbers, at least as important as the masses in terms of what the country is going to be doing. And some of them became quite prevalent (Epicureanism in Rome) among all but the lowest classes. There is something to simply putting "Other" as a category, though, as they do not share the vaguely uniform canons and organization of actual religions. If I had my druthers, as they used to say, I'd have the prevalent philosophies of the ruling classes listed though.

@NK & das: When did the Greeks war over their gods? I'd agree that the Mesopotamians did, but to a lesser extent than the Jews. However, I would definitely say the Jews and then the Romans when demanding Emperor Worship fought over religion, but the Roman version is obviously a little political.

 

[alex994]

Considering my own origins and my parents being first generation immigrants I'm simply more sensitive to it than other more "white-washed" Asians as they're called

I do agree with you on having the prevalent philosophies of the ruling classes listed but could we not just rename "religions" into something else and then attach it on?

 

[jeps]

Culture works, because culture is greatly influenced by religion.

 

[LittleBoots]

Considering my own origins and my parents being first generation immigrants I'm simply more sensitive to it than other more "white-washed" Asians as they're called

I do agree with you on having the prevalent philosophies of the ruling classes listed but could we not just rename "religions" into something else and then attach it on?

Well, my Godmother didn't move to America until she 22ish, but I understand and apologize for my insensitivity.

As to renaming Religions, I suppose we could change it to something else, but for the sake of understanding, we could also simply bastardize its meaning a little bit. Reflection on that sentence is not encouraged.

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[a_propagandist]

How so? (tencharacters)

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[LightFang]

Exactly. In band at school, we even nicknamed one of the freshmen from last year "Chinaman". And pretty much the entire trumpet section is Asian.

 

[fantasmo]

Because chinamen isnt offensive, if you call some guy from france a Frenchman he aint going to be offended.
Jap and Ch!nk are more offensive the latter more so then the former.

Right you are. Englishman, Frenchman, Chinaman, Ger-man, they all rank the same, if you ask me, so if you get offended by being called a Chinaman, you're being hyper-sensitive.


On topic, however, I like the idea of replacing Religion with Philosophy or Guiding Ideals in an ancient era NES. It does make more sense, given that in my small amount of study into the ancient era (I'm more a Napoleonic man, myself) they seem to war less on account of religion than in later times. I know I'm making a sweeping generalisation, but it seems that religion doesn't seem to become too much of a casus belli until the time of Christianity.

 

[Birdjaguar]

On topic, however, I like the idea of replacing Religion with Philosophy or Guiding Ideals in an ancient era NES. It does make more sense, given that in my small amount of study into the ancient era (I'm more a Napoleonic man, myself) they seem to war less on account of religion than in later times. I know I'm making a sweeping generalisation, but it seems that religion doesn't seem to become too much of a casus belli until the time of Christianity.

I would agree.

 

[jeps]

Religion? Judaism was always good for religious wars. One god vs multiple.

There were the romans, amalek, egyptians, assyrians, babylonians, who all thought the jews heathens for only one god, and so on and so forth

 

[LittleBoots]

Religion? Judaism was always good for religious wars. One god vs multiple.

There were the romans, amalek, egyptians, assyrians, babylonians, who all thought the jews heathens for only one god, and so on and so forth

True, but the best wars were the ones where the Jews were owning the heathens... huzzah Maccabbees.

In any case, I disagree. I think the first religion after Judaism to bring widespread warfare for the religion would be Islam.

I suppose a case could be made for some Roman emperors, but I would maintain that those were far less connected to Christianity than the Muslim conquest of damnneareverything.

 

[bombshoo]

Seems like in ancient times they actually tended to combine religions somewhat even. Didn't Alexander the Great give the Egyptian Gods Greek equivilents? Were the Persian Zorastrians fanatics?

 

[LittleBoots]

Seems like in ancient times they actually tended to combine religions somewhat even. Didn't Alexander the Great give the Egyptian Gods Greek equivilents? Were the Persian Zorastrians fanatics?

Nah, the Greeks can be said to have gotten some of their gods roughly from Egypt through Crete. Paganism has a tendency to represent some of the same aspects of the human experience though, which is why the Romans could superimpose their gods on the ones they encountered in other areas and so could culturally assimilate better than more or less everyone else. Alexander did rebuild/visit some of the oracle sites in various places in Greece and Egypt (Zeus-Ammon at Siwa, Zeus at Olympia, and one other Zeus shrine that starts with a D somewhere in Greece).

 

[fantasmo]

In any case, I disagree. I think the first religion after Judaism to bring widespread warfare for the religion would be Islam.

I dunno about that. From what I've read, a lot of the focus of the continued resistance by English Kingdoms (Wessex, Anglia, Northumbria and the like) against Viking invasions was a matter of God, not of sovereignty. Much the same could be said with a number of campaigns throughout Europe and North Africa, and there's the whole Christianity as a destabilising influence in the Roman Empire argument to be made. Islam certainly made it more widespread, but I'm inclined to believe that Christianity brought enough chaos to beat out Islam for the first since Judaism to cause widespread religious warfare.


But, you know, I have a low opinion of Christianity in general.

 

[LittleBoots]

Thats unfortunate.

Anyway, I disagree. Fighting against Vikings is a matter of surviving and ruling your own lands, not Christianity. As to the other campaigns, please elaborate.

 

[fantasmo]

In the case of the Vikings, it took on a large element of fighting for beliefs, as well as sovereignty. Keep in mind that when the Vikings turned up, they started killing of priests and monks. They raided monasteries and so forth, and stole relics. Pagans were picked on by the Poms more and more during the Viking Age, because other pagans were invading England and picking on the Christians. I do agree, fighting against the Vikings was a matter of surviving and self-rule, but I stand by my statement that a lot of the focus shifted onto the interplay of pagans and Christians.

Do you want campaigns before or after the founding of Islam? Because if you include after, you open up things like the northern crusades, the Wendish Crusade, and so on, and so forth. Bloodthirsty types, them Germans.


But this really is the wrong thread, and possibly forum, for this debate.

 

[das]

Religion? Judaism was always good for religious wars. One god vs multiple.

Except that I don't remember any Israelite wars being fought wholly on account of religion. All were divinely-ordained, ofcourse, but technically the casus belli itself was inevitably either that of national security or that of vengeance (or, rather, both reasons were intertwined; "they attacked us before, they are attacking/about to attack again, so let's attack them ourselves").

I think the first religion after Judaism to bring widespread warfare for the religion would be Islam.

True, but what's a real damn shame is that the Indians lost out on the opportunity to rework Buddhism into a militant faith.

Seems like in ancient times they actually tended to combine religions somewhat even.

Precisely - religions were even more poorly defined and strongly intertied than they are now.

From what I've read, a lot of the focus of the continued resistance by English Kingdoms (Wessex, Anglia, Northumbria and the like) against Viking invasions was a matter of God, not of sovereignty.

What. the. hell?

I agree with LittleBoots here.

Christianity as a destabilising influence in the Roman Empire argument

is completely ridicilous. The Roman Empire couldn't really get any more unstable than it already was; the rise of Christianity was both a symptom and (at later stages) an attempt to stabilise it and revive it culturally. Which happened to succeed, as you would notice.

At any rate, Christianity wasn't of much importance as a casus belli this early on, though (as detailed in the Strategos' wonderful latest althist) it did eventually play into the various civil wars as well as Persian invasions (Persians naturally courted the heretics, just like Muslims did later on). But so what? It still wasn't a cause in and of itself, it was a factor.

 

[Dachs]

is completely ridicilous. The Roman Empire couldn't really get any more unstable than it already was; the rise of Christianity was both a symptom and (at later stages) an attempt to stabilise it and revive it culturally. Which happened to succeed, as you would notice.

Uh, the Roman Empire could have been a lot more unstable than it was (before 468 anyway)...but that's a different argument that I seem to have lost already.

But yeah, Gibbon was a fata*s idiot.

In any case, I disagree. I think the first religion after Judaism to bring widespread warfare for the religion would be Islam.

Darius' and Xerxes' brand of Zoroastrianism works there too. I'm ashamed of you - a Greek and subpar knowledge of the Persian Holy Wars!

 

[das]

Uh, the Roman Empire could have been a lot more unstable than it was (before 468 anyway)...but that's a different argument that I seem to have lost already.

It could've fallen apart, but that would've been stable disunity. Instead, it held together as an increasingly unstable and bloated empire; and it is true that it could've been worse, and it DID get worse, but at any rate, Christianity couldn't seriously be blamed for any of that.

Darius' and Xerxes' brand of Zoroastrianism works there too.

I'm pretty sure that whatever they had in the terms of religious fanaticism was mere posturing. It really was more about wholesome, old-fashioned imperial arrogance and world conquest.