@Sonereal: I think that more people remember Jackson for New Orleans, actually. I'd say that the war ending in a draw, since the peace treaty basically restored things to the way they were before the war (technical term for such a treaty escapes me at the moment). U.S. capital was burned, but the U.S. won a surprising number of naval victories against the supposedly invulnerable British fleet. It's a very interesting war.
Ante-Bellum I believe. I will need to read more about it.
Regarding Korea, not sure why it's so forgotten. I know that it was not technically a "war," it was termed a "police action." Perhaps that is why? Perhaps because it was between World War II and the Vietnam War? Dunno.
It's
odd how unknown it is given that North Korea is the international form of the internet troll and it happened after the "That war that had nukes and Nazis and Call of Duty 2" and "That war where with hippies and drafts and the Beatles, right man?"
@ Ayra
Hmm sonereal finally something we could probably debate on in peace. I love history as well, although i am not as detailed overall as you seem to be. WW2 is where i normally focus when i read/search about history information. I also know a good bit about the hundred years war and the war of 1812. Maybe ill PM you about this sometime.
WW2 is where a lot of people get into. It's basically the very end of a long trend that started during the American Civil War. "Total War" was made possible on a grand scale during that war and is largely considered the first "modern" war as it shows what happens when modern weapons collide with antiquated tactics. Plus, Sherman's March to Sea was just....man. As such, the idea of total mobilization of all sectors of industry to go into a war was taken to the next step during WW1 and finally culiminated with WW2 which, in and of itself wasn't the "final" step but the final "reasonable" step as the Germans held back from using gas and the British held back from using anthrax.
I don't know enough about the Hundred Years War except that the English Longbow dominated the French Knights.
Lets let the history book decrsibe us shall we? And the only way we could have prevented that war would probably be by accepting OB when they offered them, but that was in Cull's term, out of my control and necassery at the time, although the point of it was prooved a moot point whwen LH settled the west coast of Iberia first, wher the lack of OB was meant to exploit the fact that we could put a city near the pyrenees and block off spain from rome and europe while we settled the rest of it at a later date. But otherwise, we did NOTHING to infuriate rome.
That's fair. But JC always came across as a jerk (or according to an interesting conspiracy theorist I meet, as Jesus Christ). We didn't do anything to infuriate them but they smelled the fact that we had nearly no army on the mainland somehow.
Also, you are under the impression that france is lost permanently and we are out of the war (from your posts this is what i gathered). but we are still at war with them, and i think every party/coalition (except GreenPeace) is fully commited to retaking it before we settle with a peace.
I don't think its lost permanently but I think it may be lost for the duration of the war but you're right, it's too early to comment since we don't have screens to show the visible damage done to the Roman Army.
You say i could have built more workers instead of those settlers. but then we would have 2 less cities right now, and limited extra infra to show for it. We would be unable to exploit the gold and silver in Iberia, and romans would have taken the low countries. I dont really see a better position in that area for the city so....
If we had placed Nottingham where Kent is now, I think things would've been easier for us. The Romans would've taken the Low Countries, sure, but we would have a solid hold in Iberia and pumping out workers and shipping them Iberia would mean the silver, diamond, and gold mines are exploited earlier. Not to mention it would be much easier to defend as we don't have to divert valuable troops and ships to the costly Low Countries.
And if you recognize that Iberia was in the process of being built upon, then dont say i failed to improve it. The 2 cities were founded at the very end of Cull's adminsatrtion, had no workers, were in a somewhat bad placing, and growth had been stunted with birmingham building a worker. I got LH to shift the placing to make more sense, brought in workers doing little good in england, and changed the builds. Iberia is finally looking like the beginings of the productive base it was meant to be.
And economic base. I'm sorry that I hounded you on Iberia. I'll admit that the base is there but after the war, I would care for massive worker spam in London save for building any new important buildings we get through new techs until we have all of Iberia built up and if we manage to get France back, all of that built up as well.
Then we'll disband like, 80% of the workers since I believe they cost maintenance.
I'm letting this war get to me too much. My bad.
@Ravus
Looks like someone realises the power of history books. I try to make sure to put a disclaimer in them stating they will be biased to my personal view but without an opposing book the other viewpoints will be lost in the back posts. I think when we passed the 3000# post mark we lost any chance of someone slowly reading through it themselves (am i wrong newcomers?)
That may be why I walked into the thread after reading the history books thinking that England was in great shape.
OT: On the value of what leaders get remembered for, i can't really state anything much on what is said with not being a american. But the things i most easily recognised and remembered were the JFK stuff, even the Cuban Missle crisis. I don't know wether that's because none-americans liked the guy better or just because he gets more screen time in cultural films/stories.
Some historians on the other board think that JFK, without the image of the assassination and his wonderful wife in the car with him, would've became less impressive looking as goes on. Right now, JFK is almost mythical like Reagan and Washington are. JFK spoke well, had a smoking hot wife, and just seemed like a guy you would want to hang around. And because Khruschev is a complete fool, JFK won the "Cuban Missile Crisis".
But there were cracks which for the most part never became noticeable because he lived so shortly and was so young when he died. Marilyn Monroe for starters and the failure called "Bay of Pigs" another. But who knows how things would be different?
)
