While We Wait: The Next Generation

[Birdjaguar]

You could write your paper on Agincourt, but approach it a bit differently:

I. The larger setting and context of the battle
II. The battle
III. Typical conclusions about it being a classic turning point
IV. New conclusions showing that it was not a turning point, but just an epic failure of command

The idea is to show that you choose it because you thought it was a significant turning point, but as a result of your research, you discovered that it was not and talk about why it was not.

 

[sp1023]

Which battle of Poitiers?

The one during the Hundred Years War, where king John of France was captured by the Black Prince.

...why would you?

Well, at first I was in awe of the extent of the Battle of Agincourt, till I did some reading. It is insignificant, the most major battle that had no strong and substantial impact on the Hundred Years war.

Poitiers WAS an immensely significant battle, but it was more notable for the decline of the European knightly tradition than anything else.

Is that it? No demostration of longbow power?

You could write your paper on Agincourt, but approach it a bit differently:

I. The larger setting and context of the battle
II. The battle
III. Typical conclusions about it being a classic turning point
IV. New conclusions showing that it was not a turning point, but just an epic failure of command

The idea is to show that you choose it because you thought it was a significant turning point, but as a result of your research, you discovered that it was not and talk about why it was not.

Thats not a bad idea, thanks BJ! I'll think about it.

 

[North King]

Well, at first I was in awe of the extent of the Battle of Agincourt, till I did some reading. It is insignificant, the most major battle that had no strong and substantial impact on the Hundred Years war.

...Obviously? I mean, seriously, all the major battles of the Hundred Years War were lost by the eventual winner of the war. Maybe that should cue the thought that battles generally weren't very important in medieval warfare?

 

[Thlayli]

Well, battles were significant in some sense. If the Battle of Orleans had been lost by the French it would simply have confirmed all the previous English victories.

 

[das]

Those particular battles were very important, though. Don't forget that the Hundred Years War was more like two different wars; and England completely won the latter and won the first phase of the former on account of some decisive battles (but also thanks to being able to exploit those victories; that much is true).

I honestly can't agree about battles being necessarily unimportant in medieval warfare - the Hundred Years War is if anything an argument against that, if an obviously flawed one (i.e. you could say that Poitiers would not have been so important had the king not been captured, and the second war was a much more modern one on England's side, so arguably it doesn't have anything to do with medieval warfare as such).

Well, battles were significant in some sense. If the Battle of Orleans had been lost by the French it would simply have confirmed all the previous English victories.

That much is actually more dubious; the French had more space to retreat to, and I am not sure if the English could've occupied southern France or even consolidated their hold on the north so as to make it impregnable. Winning Orleans would've been pretty good, though, inasmuch as it would've given a short-term strategic advantage that could be converted into something more lasting had England's leadership not been so disoriented by then.

 

[Thlayli]

On another note, who else thinks that the Black Prince is an incredibly cool historical figure? If only he had ruled England in his own right, he would have been The Black King. (tm)

Potential PoD idea? Hmm.

 

[das]

We should try and assemble the ultimate list of people who should've seized the throne (and stayed there for more than a year) in althistories. I have some ideas already (Vasily II seriously should not have been born, if by some bizarre accident you know what I mean).

 

[Yui108]

We should try and assemble the ultimate list of people who should've seized the throne (and stayed there for more than a year) in althistories. I have some ideas already (Vasily II seriously should not have been born, if by some bizarre accident you know what I mean).

I'd love to do a alt timeline where alexander's son wasn't murdered, and his wars attempting to reunify the empire.

 

[Thlayli]

We should try and assemble the ultimate list of people who should've seized the throne (and stayed there for more than a year) in althistories.

True, though in Edward's case he just has to not die for a little longer.

 

[das]

Well, yes, inheriting the throne usually dove have a lot to do with yourself not dying and people ahead of you in the line of succession (if any) dying before you or not being born at all.

 

[Thlayli]

Right. He was the Prince of Wales, so all that he needs is not to get whatever "wasting sickness" (probably dysentery) killed him before he could become King.

Also, the King of Rome, perhaps?

 

[Dreadnought]

Dr.NES is updated.

 

[carmen510]

I've been looking over Urban Dictionary and decided to search up all you NESers's names. I excluded names with numbers and symbols however.

Moderator Action: Linking to such material is considered as bad as posting it directly. I removed the links to spare you an infraction. This is probably not a good idea in general since it is very poster specific and not very civil.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I lol'd. Moderators, I'm not sure if some of these should be removed, so please rake through them if they should.

Warhead removed due to naughty stuff.

 

[Shadowbound]

Thlayli has an interesting definition.

EDIT: Joakim also does, in a way.

 

[BananaLee]

BananaLee still hasn't been defined, yet.

And speaking of which, why must I be registered to update my own entry in the Wiki? Stupid question, I know.. Heheh

 

[Dachs]

I vote we move this discussion to the relevant thread.

We should try and assemble the ultimate list of people who should've seized the throne (and stayed there for more than a year) in althistories. I have some ideas already (Vasily II seriously should not have been born, if by some bizarre accident you know what I mean).

Anastasios II kinda got the shaft. Too bad he was more competent than genial like Leon III. I guess there's Germanicus too, for the obvious, and Giorgios Maniakes. Bahram Chubin might've been cool. There's a really great point to insert Belisarios, too - have Ioustinianos die of the plague in the early 540s when he was ailing. Belisarios was actually having talks with his fellow commanders about having to seize the throne in the event of his death, to keep Theodora out of power. She pulled that stunt with Iakob Baradaios, which basically kept Monophysitism afloat for the next century...be interesting anyway.

I'd love to do a alt timeline where alexander's son wasn't murdered, and his wars attempting to reunify the empire.

That'd work better if he weren't so young when the struggles of the Diadochoi started.

 

[Angst]

We should try and assemble the ultimate list of people who should've seized the throne (and stayed there for more than a year) in althistories. I have some ideas already (Vasily II seriously should not have been born, if by some bizarre accident you know what I mean).

To this, I'd always reply "Any Effecient Ruler Of All The Kalmar Countries Other Than Margaret I".

 

[Luckymoose]

Would anyone be interested in another DwarfNES, funtime, adventure for all?

 

[Thlayli]

Sure. Go for it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Site going down at 7:00 ET as we move to a new server. See the notice at the top of the page.