He brought enough of it back to carry on fighting for another 3 years. He lost enough of it to lose his reputation for being unbeatable especially amongst the Austrians and Prussians who were never enthusiastic backers of him.
History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VIII
- Thread starter Flying Pig
- Start date
He brought enough of it back to carry on fighting for another 3 years. He lost enough of it to lose his reputation for being unbeatable especially amongst the Austrians and Prussians who were never enthusiastic backers of him.
I do not think it is very complicated, and it is well summed up by this graph:It is a bit complicated and clearly off topic here. I will tag you with a response in a better thread; probably tomorrow.
Ferocitus
Deity
He came back with a few troops at most. Russians chased him all the way back to Paris. See:
The Battle of Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Paris_(1814)
Discuss more in Birdjaguar's thread when it appears.
Except your own sources don't support that.
stfoskey12
Emperor of Foskania
I just remembered that the book I was thinking of was The Velveteen Rabbit and the disease was scarlet fever. That doesn't fully answer my question, but provides more guidance to anyone who is interested.
Ferocitus
Deity
Which part? Russian troops did end up in Paris (along with Austria, Prussia, Great Britain, Sweden, and Spain)
The Russian forces then assailed the Montmartre Heights in the city's northeast...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Paris_(1814)
Snowygerry
Deity
They even came here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscou,_Ghent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent
We still have a city block called Moscou here today :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscou,_Ghent
Last edited:
I was obviously particularly argumentative last night. Why change the habits of a lifetime?
I feel chased him back to paris is an exaggeration. It took them 2 years and some hard fought battles for them to get there.
That was a slow and mournful chase.
Ferocitus
Deity
Sorry to mislead. I was using it figuratively in a short post to Henri to tell him it was
better discussed in another thread. Ofc I didn't mean they ran after him and tried to
rugby tackle him all the way to Paris.
Where did Corporate personhood come from?
Lexicus, who tends to have an idea when it comes to US history said this:
But on the El Reg forums they said this:
Lexicus, who tends to have an idea when it comes to US history said this:
But on the El Reg forums they said this:
The only reason companies have the same rights as a person is because some stupid judge way back when was bought and ruled in their favor and since, nobody has challenged that.
In France (and, I presume, much of Europe), companies do not have a person's rights. They don't need that to do business. There is no tax issue, companies have their income tax level set by law, period. A company has a manager, the law says that said manager needs to be declared in the company statutes. Everything a company can or needs to do is allowed by commercial law.
A company can run ads, a company does not need Free Speech.
Free Speech is for individuals, not corporations. I doubt any Founding Father would think differently.
And:In France (and, I presume, much of Europe), companies do not have a person's rights. They don't need that to do business. There is no tax issue, companies have their income tax level set by law, period. A company has a manager, the law says that said manager needs to be declared in the company statutes. Everything a company can or needs to do is allowed by commercial law.
A company can run ads, a company does not need Free Speech.
Free Speech is for individuals, not corporations. I doubt any Founding Father would think differently.
IIRC*, it actually derives from a note added to the decision by a clerk. This was later turned into a precedent and expanded to the "Corporations are people".
* Note that I do not personally Recall this, as it happened in the 19th century in a case involving a railroad (High tech at the time). Even I am not old enough to recall it in person.
Side Note, what really seems to chap some folks hides is that a corporation is a person in regard to rights, but not in regard to responsibilities. The "owners" are shielded from the effects of law breaking. LL stands for something.
What is the truth? What is the history behind corporations being people? Did corporations work perfectly well without personhood before "some stupid judge/clerk" decided they were people, or do they inherently need to be? Does anyone know what cases they are referring to?* Note that I do not personally Recall this, as it happened in the 19th century in a case involving a railroad (High tech at the time). Even I am not old enough to recall it in person.
Side Note, what really seems to chap some folks hides is that a corporation is a person in regard to rights, but not in regard to responsibilities. The "owners" are shielded from the effects of law breaking. LL stands for something.
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
So, both of these things are true in different ways.
What I said refers to this concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juridical_person
What the person on the El Reg forum is referring to is the idea that juristic persons should enjoy many of the same rights as natural persons. In the US the jurisprudence holding Constitutional protections to apply to certain kinds of juristic persons stretches back to the 19th century - it is a mistake to blame it all on the Citizens United case.
This link provides a good background to this as it applies to the United States: the key case is the 1886 Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Co. which applied Fourteenth Amendment protections to corporations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#In_the_United_States
Samson, corporate personhood has existed in some form or another since the bronze age at least. Already the concept of an institution being more than a single person, who just occupies the post, can be stretched to include organised religious posts as well as state bureaucracies (the two, e.g. in Egypt, were often interlinked).
In US law, many conservative federal judges were appointed who set out to defeat the rise of the labor movement and the first gasps of the regulatory state. So they created this body of case law which resulted in corporate personhood. It was all about judicial activism in pursuit of crony capitalism.
Absolution
King
I was reminded of the iconic depiction of Xerxes in 300, and wondered -
While this depiction is outrageously unhistoric, can in be somewhat realistic from the point of view of the average Greek or the time?
Is it possible that this is how they viewed Persia?
As an empire of dark overpowered barbarians?
While this depiction is outrageously unhistoric, can in be somewhat realistic from the point of view of the average Greek or the time?
Is it possible that this is how they viewed Persia?
As an empire of dark overpowered barbarians?
Herodotus admired the Persians, Demokritus travelled to Persia to study architecture and astronomy.
Some Greeks regarded them as a "slave" people because they had kings and hostility undoubtedly grew in the period of the wars between Greece and Persia
Lexicus
Deity
The best part of 300 is when Xerxes tells the Spartans they didn't build that and that they cling to their guns and religion
sophie
Break My Heart
I don’t think there is very much at all to be gained by watching fascist cinema
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
On the contrary, I think there is much to be gained by watching ridiculous movies because it lets you know how ridiculous that whole fashy stuff looks.
SPIEGEL Interview with Mel Brooks: With Comedy, We Can Rob Hitler of his Posthumous Power
Jewish comic actor Mel Brooks talks about Hitler as a comical character, the limits of humor and his latest film The Producers, which hits screens in Germany and other European countries this week.
www.spiegel.de
Similar threads
