The Impressions of NESing

[das]

thats because in invests everything in his glorious leader...but alas no leader lives for ever and thats where the popping comes in.

Precisely. Actually, a close analysis clearly reveals that Alexander the Great was played by none other than silver2039 - the actions are utterly characteristic, all of them. Hurray, my support for the "Alexander-lives-longer-becomes-genocidal-maniac-destroys-pretty-much-everything-in-sight-leaves-the-western-world-in-a-greater-mess-than-even-OTL" theory (cause of a lenghty, inconclusive debate with Xen) is vindicated!

attacks from the east or the west can be easily absorbed

One must remember that only four proper invasions of Russia were staged from nearby, well-prepared positions by strong, close nations (Sweden, Poland, Germany). Admittedly, they all failed in the end, but they generally came closer to victory than Napoleon. Russia's strenght was not only in size or manpower, but also - as with all SUCCESFUL empires - in the weakness and fragility of its neighbours - Sweden, with its low manpoweder and growing instability, Poland, with its inability to reform, Ottoman Empire, with it being the Ottoman Empire which is an explanation in and of itself after a white, Persia with its backwardness, exposure to invasions and chronic civil wars, and lastly, China, which also often had much instability, problems with modernization and, above all, the logistical difficulty to effectively fight with Russia (same problems for Russia in that regard, but Siberia was generally easier to march across than the Gobi, given some basic infrastructure and native support). Our stronger, later neighbours - Germany, Austria and Japan - were notably rather harder to deal with, one of the reasons of Russian Empire's eventual stagnation and collapse...

 

[ThomAnder]

You forgot the mongols

 

[Disenfrancised]

You forgot the mongols

Hence specifing post-15th century Russia .

 

[das]

Indeed. If we go earlier, we should have to start with, oh, the Scythians and their defeat of the Persian invaders. Or at least with Kiy and the Alans. Or, at the very latest, with the Khazars (incidentally, a perfect example of conquest from the east, Russia's perpetual pre-Yermak problem) and the Varangians. Then we have the Cumans, then Teutons/Poles/Hungarians and Mongols, then Lithuanians (good conquest-from-the-west, stopped only by Mongol intervention)...

 

[Symphony D.]

I do not launch violent, treacherous all out invasions! I'm not an imperialistic aggressor!

It has occured to me to build very large, very well hidden arsenals and depots anytime you're somewhere nearby. In fact, I will probably start doing that regardless.

GoobNESes are generally very peaceful in any case.

People would have been dissuaded of that notion had the last one lasted longer.

Thats only happened with Dar-Al-Islam, and Fascist India to a certain extent. ANd Dar-Al-Islam would have lasted had I had direct control of it. Damn BT's.

And Bactrasha...

Interestingly I was on a bus numbered 2039 yesterday. It was rather disturbing because I immediately thought of silver.

 

[Azale]

GoobNES's are NOT peaceful. The first one was a bloodbath from start to finish if I recall...

 

[das]

COMPARATIVELY, min herz, COMPARATIVELY.

 

[Insane_Panda]

One must remember that only four proper invasions of Russia were staged from nearby, well-prepared positions by strong, close nations (Sweden, Poland, Germany). Admittedly, they all failed in the end, but they generally came closer to victory than Napoleon. Russia's strenght was not only in size or manpower, but also - as with all SUCCESFUL empires - in the weakness and fragility of its neighbours - Sweden, with its low manpoweder and growing instability, Poland, with its inability to reform, Ottoman Empire, with it being the Ottoman Empire which is an explanation in and of itself after a white, Persia with its backwardness, exposure to invasions and chronic civil wars, and lastly, China, which also often had much instability, problems with modernization and, above all, the logistical difficulty to effectively fight with Russia (same problems for Russia in that regard, but Siberia was generally easier to march across than the Gobi, given some basic infrastructure and native support). Our stronger, later neighbours - Germany, Austria and Japan - were notably rather harder to deal with, one of the reasons of Russian Empire's eventual stagnation and collapse...

Good thing I annexed Germany

COMPARATIVELY, min herz, COMPARATIVELY.

Indeed. The violence rather builds up and explodes in one or a few large moments, rather than in your NESes, whereas every turn was a war in NES2 VI IT I.

GoobNES was going to be a bloodbath, however. Too bad it never came to a conclusion

 

[Finmaster]

Hence specifing post-15th century Russia .

post-15th you say? I dare to claim Russia hasn't been that strong until the 18th century!

Sweden was much stronger than Russia in the 16th and 17th century, and slowly expanded deeper and deeper into Russian territory in a series of wars

During the Ingian War, fought in early 17th century, Sweden (in cooperation with Poland) did something what no other foreign power has ever done; they occupied Moscow. The city surrendered to the forces of general Jacob ("Jaakko") De La Gardie who, coincidentally, was a Finn.

The Swedes tried to set up some sort of a puppet government, placing a Pole related to the King of Sweden to the throne of Russia. Later - in 1612, if I remember correctly - a patriotic volunteer army finaly drove the puppet king away, and Romanovs took over.

So it wasn't that glorious for them. Until Peter the Great came along, after which Russia's defence capabilities have been quite exceptional.

EDIT: Wikipedia apparently sees the Ingrian war in a bit different light than I. Maybe I remembered something wrong, but I do believe Wiki is simplyfying the war greatly; especially regarding Poland's and Sweden's relations. Bottom line still is, Russia sucked during the 17th century

 

[North King]

During the Ingian War, fought in early 17th century, Sweden (in cooperation with Poland) did something what no other foreign power has ever done; they occupied Moscow. The city surrendered to the forces of general Jacob ("Jaakko") De La Gardie who, coincidentally, was a Finn.

I beg to differ. While Napoleon occupied the ashes of Moscow, it was still Moscow.

 

[Finmaster]

Oh, I misplaced my words; this was the only time when a standing Moscow surrendered to an enemy

 

[North King]

Bah. That only implies cowardly defenders.

 

[Disenfrancised]

We didn't say it was strong, just that post 15th century it could retreat into the east for as long as necessary for ultimate victory .

 

[Silver Steak]

This discussion is OT, guys. As much as an OT thread in the NES forum would be flooded over all too quickly with all sorts of discussions, I still feel that those should not be let into different threads.

 

[Reno]

Reno: Finn whose mouse hovers over the report button (just kidding )

Each time I have did that, I've had a legitimate reason for it.

 

[Kozmos]

Nay you just like being a pain in the ass.

 

[Reno]

Nay you just like being a pain in the ass.

Says the worst offender.

 

[Azale]

This thread is calling Impressions of NESing...the IMPRESSION is that Russia is easy to play and is easily defendable.

Therefore, we are NOT offtopic. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[Silver Steak]

This thread is calling Impressions of NESing...the IMPRESSION is that Russia is easy to play and is easily defendable.

Therefore, we are NOT offtopic. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Are you serious? Read the first post. That is what this thread is about.

 

[das]

slowly expanded deeper and deeper into Russian territory in a series of wars

They scarcely advanced, actually; their only trully major permanent gain, that of Novgorod, was soon reversed in any case.

The city surrendered to the forces of general Jacob ("Jaakko") De La Gardie who, coincidentally, was a Finn.

The Swedes tried to set up some sort of a puppet government, placing a Pole related to the King of Sweden to the throne of Russia.

With respect, the Poles were in charge of the whole thing back then, with Swedes on the sidelines. At least, that's the commonly-accepted version.

But as you yourself had mentioned... both Polish and Swedish gains were gradually reversed throughout the 17th century DESPITE Russia being ripe with chronic uprisings and near-civil wars all the time. So...

Russia sucked during the 17th century

Admittedly, yes, by comparison with the 16th and the 18th. But on the other hand, the 18th century only saw the very visible unleashing of the potential that had been building up for an entire century. Modernization under Peter I was sped up considerably, but it was going on even before - with the early German settlements, the flourishing of Arkhangelsk, the reitar corps (and other military reorganization), the conquest of Siberia, the subjugation of the Bashkirs, the eventual reconquest of lost lands (especially in 1660s), and - attention here! - the recognition of the Russian Tsar as an equal to the Chinese Emperor. Beat that.

But back on-topic now that I ranted out all this, so that you will have no chance to thwart my argument in any way. Russia is in a very good strategic position, at least after the final collapse of the Volga/Itil Turkic civilization (meaning not only my favourite Khazars, but also the Volga Bulgars and the later Golden Horde). That position is comparable with that of the USA after the Treaty of Paris; though it did not expand across the continent immediately, from then on that was pretty hard to stop. I don't recall any other countries with such possibilities, except perhaps ancient Persia, or, in Africa, Egypt (both ancient and modern), which alas had been thwarted time and again by varying causes. In LINES II, Gorin seems to be in a similar position if things go on as they do now.