While We Wait: Part 6

[das]

Sweden had a tumultuous history to be sure, but not when compared to the Very Late Roman Empire, in any case. I suppose if they overthrew their kings more often for some reason (i.e. on a customary, semi-institutionalised basis, probably fortified through very powerful nobility early on) that might've been doable. Then again, no, I guess not really.

 

[Angst]

Please elaborate about Karl IX. I think I get the point, but still explain.

 

[Dachs]

Please elaborate about Karl IX. I think I get the point, but still explain.

Karl IX used a fake history of the kings of Sweden to assign himself his regnal name. In reality he was Karl III. The error has persisted; the current Karl XVI Gustav ought to be Karl X.

 

[Kentharu]

prat is used outside of Britain wut? I'm not American

How do you get attachments to work.

 

[Angst]

Karl IX used a fake history of the kings of Sweden to assign himself his regnal name. In reality he was Karl III. The error has persisted; the current Karl XVI Gustav ought to be Karl X.

Lol I get it. Thought it was something about that.

 

[Symphony D.]

I'm annoying and a few other things in tow.
You should be used to it by now .

There is a very large difference between being annoying and giving people an intellectual reason to ignore you, and giving them a hard physical reason in that they simply can't read a damn word you're saying.

@Symphony- Being a prat should be legal grounds for being hung.

I know this idea was beyond the mental faculties of Crezth, but maybe you can pick up on it: criticizing others for being "prats" makes you one too by your own standards--see you at the gallows' pole!

 

[Kentharu]

I'm not from Crezth O.o

 

[North King]

I know this idea was beyond the mental faculties of Crezth, but maybe you can pick up on it: criticizing others for being "prats" makes you one too by your own standards--see you at the gallows' pole!

I really can't see a legitimate reason for saying this. Criticizing another person for the manner of that person's criticism isn't hypocritical unless it's done in that manner.

(whoo, roundabout sentence)

 

[Angst]

I really can't see a legitimate reason for saying this. Criticizing another person for the manner of that person's criticism isn't hypocritical unless it's done in that manner.

(whoo, roundabout sentence)

I would just note that I was *this* close to continue this sentence, but I didn't.

-----------


Magic Workstation is awesome, but it's terribly difficult to install.

 

[Angst]

Sweden had a tumultuous history to be sure, but not when compared to the Very Late Roman Empire, in any case. I suppose if they overthrew their kings more often for some reason (i.e. on a customary, semi-institutionalised basis, probably fortified through very powerful nobility early on) that might've been doable. Then again, no, I guess not really.

... Ehm, if Sweden didn't overthrow their king every ten years they would still be a part of Denmark.

 

[Dachs]

... Ehm, if Sweden didn't overthrow their king every ten years they would still be a part of Denmark.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Don't you mean 'if the Danes hadn't done that stupid Stockholm slaughter'? Anyway, do take note that the Kalmerunionen wasn't ever official. So not only was Sweden not a part of Denmark, they didn't really even act as the same country...(EU III does a surprisingly decent job of simulating this, actually.)

 

[Ninja Dude]

Well, my NES has not been hit by a huge wave of fire or war gods....yet. There seems to be a very diverse group of gods, something that kind of suprised me.

 

[Symphony D.]

I really can't see a legitimate reason for saying this. Criticizing another person for the manner of that person's criticism isn't hypocritical unless it's done in that manner.

Which it was. Suggesting I die for the way I act is a pretty douche-esque move. As the supposed resident expert douche, I would in fact know. In fact, I have suggested that I would not mind people suffering grievous physical injury for their statements on this forum precisely once. Thus, even casual observation of the dialogue would prove the very exception you yourself noted was in play and immediately evident. It's called "hypocrisy." Thanks for playing.

P.S. Blatant lack of attention to even the most basic facts or situational parameters: one of the reasons I am inclined to be condescending and dickish. Direct causal relationship.

 

[Azale]

So how about India guys? Seriously, whats up with that?

 

[Angst]

That doesn't make any sense at all. Don't you mean 'if the Danes hadn't done that stupid Stockholm slaughter'? Anyway, do take note that the Kalmerunionen wasn't ever official. So not only was Sweden not a part of Denmark, they didn't really even act as the same country...(EU III does a surprisingly decent job of simulating this, actually.)

The problem with Sweden during the Kalmar Union was that the nation was practically unfond of any ruler they got hold off. Practically every Swedish historian today considers the Swedish revolts of that age a national revolution against the evil Danish surpressors, but I have investigated the subject and my conclusion doesn't quite approve that proclamation. First off, the Swedes didn't want to be ruled by anyone. At most of the time during the 100 years age of the Union, the Swedish nobles had a habit of simply removing any ruler from the throne. The wars in Sweden weren't only consisting of Danish Imperial Horde and Swedish Liberation Army as the Swedes might suggest today. When we Danes didn't interfere in their nation during the 20 year breaks or so that they got, they fought themselves instead. The nation was practically in civil war. Hence my comment. The Stockholm massacre was the result of the Swedes once again feeling like changing their government to the non-Danish side, and they would have been independent even if the Danes didn't interfere in it (I guess you know what it was about).

You could say that they revolted because of the Danish replacements of their nobles, but actually the Danish king removed a quite numerous number of Germans compared to the Swedes. The reason of this was to keep out German influence of Sweden, and the Swedes didn't want that either (They threw away German kings a few times if I recall).

Oh, and they were treated as being a part of a Union, actually quite like Slesvig-Holsten. Sweden was simply quite difficult to get hold of, compared to Norway fx, since Sweden was an elected monarchy just like Denmark, while Norway wasn't. The Danish king did do some activities in Sweden, but he didn't get hold of the nation long enough to maintain complete control.

... And if you'd like EU3 to be real about Sweden, make it bacon, -3 Stability and an angry vassal of Denmark (Although EU3 does start in 1492 right? If so, nevermind) without paying her master before the stability becomes positive.

My opinion at least.

 

[Masada]

So in short LJ, the nobles were sufficiently powerful to A) hate monarchs and B) to overthrow them

Makes more sense now that I think about it, the Union did appear to benefit them.

 

[~Darkening~]

There is a very large difference between being annoying and giving people an intellectual reason to ignore you, and giving them a hard physical reason in that they simply can't read a damn word you're saying.

.....I know this is the internet and everything, and there is no such thing as 'private', but could there be any chance that I honestly didn't care if anyone read that sentance? I wrote that original sentence for one person- Dachs- for a rebuttal about post editing. To prove my point I went and made sure that my edit could be noticed, which in my way was editing it to another font. I'm sorry if I did something that annoyed you and a few other people. I'll try to keep everyone possible in mind whenever I post something on these forums.

Besides, I like Pristina. Its my font of choice outside this forum, and I use it any time I work in OO or anything else. It actually resembles my own handwriting quite strikingly- which is, in fact, quite tiny by nature. Sue me if I don't care if someone can't read what I write. Be glad I don't italicize anything.

 

[Angst]

I'm not annoyed...

 

[Supermath]

I'm annoyed about petty arguments over a choice of font.

 

[Angst]

So in short LJ, the nobles were sufficiently powerful to A) hate monarchs and B) to overthrow them

Makes more sense now that I think about it, the Union did appear to benefit them.

True.

(Do though remember that quite a few of the battles of which the Danish could have won, with immense numbers and all, bad Danish leadership lead to the losses at the battlefield. I want an ordinary country with ordinary people who have ordinary brains )