MOD LEADERS BULLETIN-EDITION IV: The Map

[PikeStance]

India as emergent faction was not one united faction. these were rather two factions. india and pakistan.
if faction modders mean by "emergent faction india" the whole india(which britian ruled) then this emergent faction should have any other name like e.g. united india

There never was a "united India." The closets was the Mughal Empire. India today is a federal country with clear distinction of culture from North to South, West to East.

--

[Nelson1805]

well yes of course .... you can play the game more than once so you can change history many times over if you so wish - the choice is yours sir. With regards to "picking holes" I was mearly refering to the following replies to posts:-

It is too bad it doesn't start in 1860/ 1861- the outset of the American Civil War. It would make playing the US (or CS) much more interesting. With most of the native regions non- existent, there isn't much for the US to do. Even when it did flex its international muscle, it wasn't until the latter off and it was in the Pacific- again not represented.
---

The pacific is a pity....Just pointing out that the time period is probably the least interesting time period for US foreign policy until you get to the latter stages of the 20th century when we "wreak havoc" on Latin America.
----

My mistake, I mistook "Victoria" to mean the Victorian Age. If I am not then this is a deliberate instigation to start a political discussion in an inappropriate location???

Last word: Avoid being presumptive! It will serve you well!
-----

Tango, I was being facetious

Seriously, once you allow political discussion to enter the fray, it breeds idiocy.
As a rule I never get involve in political or religious discussion on anything other than on boards that deal with those specific topics. Any other place, the depth of knowledge is very shallow (usually incapable going beyond what they see and hear on pop media outlets).
---

Thanks PikeStance.

[PikeStance]

well yes of course .... you can play the game more than once so you can change history many times over if you so wish - the choice is yours sir. With regards to "picking holes" I was mearly refering to the following replies to posts:-
Thanks PikeStance.

I believe the expression is "poking holes" not picking, but be that has it may...

Anyway quote 1 &2 were comments expression how unfortunate the map doesn't allow the US faction to be more interesting. I suggested backing up time a bit to make it more interesting. I am sure some people would like to play the faction regardless. The intent of the post was to comment about the map, which is what I did.

Quote 3 & 4 Was a facetious response to an opp topic poster. It made "zero" reference to the mod or to the map.

---

[ScottishClansmen]

in regards to the comment about mayhem and the response "it was a quiet storm"...i object. here are two links, and while they are wikipedia, these are simply a list of wars in the 18th century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...0%E2%80%931899, and in the 19th century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...0%E2%80%931899 jsut by the scroller on the side you can tell that the 19th century was indeed a time of mayhem and open, bloddy war, not quiet brewing war.
NOTE: on the first link there are i believe 4 subsections, you must click on the 1700-1799 sections to see exclusivley the 18th century wars. that is if you care to look for yourself and not take my word for it.

[PikeStance]

in regards to the comment about mayhem and the response "it was a quiet storm"...i object. here are two links, and while they are wikipedia, these are simply a list of wars in the 18th century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...0%E2%80%931899, and in the 19th century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...0%E2%80%931899 jsut by the scroller on the side you can tell that the 19th century was indeed a time of mayhem and open, bloddy war, not quiet brewing war.
NOTE: on the first link there are i believe 4 subsections, you must click on the 1700-1799 sections to see exclusivley the 18th century wars. that is if you care to look for yourself and not take my word for it.

Ok, one question: Did you bother to actually read the wars in the list? Did you only consider the wars only in this era? My "mayhem" comment was specific about this specific timeframe?

I won't put a percentage to it, but most of the wars involved either the US battling Native American tribes or European power pacifying African states. The nest most significant event was the Boxer rebellion. Unfortunately, the result only confirmed the status quo and it takes place off of the map. This leaves us with the Boer War in South Africa (not on the map) The Seven Weeks War, the Franco- Prussian War and the Spanish American War. The nest significant event (you could argue) was Russian expansion to the south and southeast. Unfortunately, this listing as little relevance unless you consider it in relation to the 16th and 17th century. We also need to define the term "mayhem." It what context am I using the term?

Mayhem as I understand it, means chaotic change as a result of political, economic, and social change. For example, the early middle ages with the fall of the Roman empire. The entire social, political and economic system collapsed in Europe.

Let's just look at the 18th century for the moment. In one century, three states would fall from prestige; The United Provinces, Sweden, and Poland- Lithuania. Three states would rise; Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain (relative to the 17th century obviously). Three states would show signs of decline; Austria, The Ottoman Empire and arguably Spain and perhaps France. Additionally, you have two important revolutions that will change the status quo; The American and French Revolution. Let us not forget that there was significant philosophical developments; Liberalism and Nationalism.

I only scratch the surface. When I think of the Victorian Age, it is a time of intense conservatism and suppression of the old aristocratic order. European nations were united in their suppression of both liberalism and nationalism only succumbing to these forces at the end of WWI.


ADDENDUM
The term quietly brewing war was not a term to denote the non existence of wars, but rather that the social changes occurring in the time- frame will eventually erupt in a catastrophic war known as World War One. I think it goes without argument that WWI was a historical turning point in human history.

Please do not use wikipedia as your only source for information. It is an interpretation or an extrapolation of both primary (though not always) and secondary sources. I do not allow my students to use it as a source. While it is a good starting point, it should never be the ending point of your research. Moreover, simply listing it without using the source in your argument is not the proper way to use a source in the first place. It is clear you simply noted the number of conflicts within each century without analyzing how each conflict contributed to any "change."

FYI, I didn't compare the 17th century, because that would way too easy!

----

[ScottishClansmen]

you could have left it alone, alas...American civil war, shaped the America as it is today; Napoleonic Wars, shaped Europe into its pre-WW1 form; US vs. various Indian tribes, destroyed many cultures; there are a few revolutions in here, on of which that stands out is the Mexican Revolution, one of many Latin american revolutions, and many European revolutions of regime changes along with the Vienna Convention; The list goes on and on, most of which were not in fact american against native american engagements. please do not contest these statements any further as you will find it to be quite intellectually humiliating for you.

[ScottishClansmen]

my mistake, by the time this campaign starts the napoleanic wars and many revolutions are already over, but it is still the same century, which means the hangovers still exist, as well as the rebuilding and reprecussions. either way the 19th century was a very tumultuous time for the world.

[PikeStance]

you could have left it alone, alas...American civil war, shaped the America as it is today; Napoleonic Wars, shaped Europe into its pre-WW1 form; US vs. various Indian tribes, destroyed many cultures; there are a few revolutions in here, on of which that stands out is the Mexican Revolution, one of many Latin american revolutions, and many European revolutions of regime changes along with the Vienna Convention; The list goes on and on, most of which were not in fact american against native american engagements. please do not contest these statements any further as you will find it to be quite intellectually humiliating for you.

First: I am going to give you every single event you have mentioned.
Second: I going to explain a little bit about myself so that you will understand my opinions are not based on any false knowledge.
Third: I am going to "re- explain" my points so that you can understand.
I ask one thing: You must read them carefully.

I have a BA in History from University of Louisiana (earned in 1994)
I have over 50+ hours of graduate credit. I have been certified to teach secondary social studies in two different states (Louisiana & Illinois [current}
I have taught for over 12+ years. I have taught US History, African History, Asian History, World History (AP), Geography at all levels, IB Geography. IB History, Political Science, World Cultures (sociology/ anthropology), and Economics. In addition I taught middle school math, science and English.
As you can see I am well verse in many areas.

Many of the events you mentioned were certainly important events. The issue was it as "chaotic" as the previous century. Did they bring about great change and more importantly, did create uncertainty?

American Civil War
The American Civil War certainly a period of conflict. However, it was more internal than international. There were two areas in which "change" could be argued. The labor system- the end of slavery and the growth of the federal government at the expense of the states.

The end of slavery: Yes the were freed, but did it actually change anything? The simple answer is no. While they were granted freedom, politically, they were marginalized. Later they would be brutalized from exercising their rights. This would culminate in the Civil rights movement in the 1960s. Economically, the "freed" slaves were reduce to the life of sharecroppers where they would gradually become indebted to "white" landlord. Later, they would be force to serve on chain gangs (force prison labor) on the most minor offenses. Moreover, they would be further humiliated by segregation, both de jure (legal) in the South, and de facto (custom) in the North. While you could argue that political freedom is a great "change," there two significant counterarguments. One; The US was way behind Europe freeing the slaves. Two; it didn't create chaos in society. If anything, "whites" found a legel way to perpetuate the status quo that had existed. I would argue that the Boll weevil created more chaos in southern society than freeing of the slaves.

Growth of the Federal Government: Two things: One it only temporary increased its power during and immediately after the Civil War. Two; The growth was more rapid during the Great depression and during and after WWII making this period seem very slow.

Napoleonic Wars & The Congress of Vienna (not the Convention of Vienna)
You listed to wars. Wars themselves do not create nature, rather the after effect can cause chaos. However, I would argue they tend to end chaos, not create them. Be that as it may, let us examine the Napoleonic Era. Before the coup of Napoleon, France was very chaotic. The changes in France impacted French society in many areas. When Napoleon took power, he actually either "soften" some of the changes or completely reverse them. The most significant changing "event" was a concept: nationalism and liberalism. However, upon the defeat of Napoleon, the aristocratic powers of Europe "worked together" to suppress these ideas. There is only one instance when a period of Chaos did hit Europe and oddly enough, you didn't even mention it: The Revolutions of 1848!

The Revolution of 1848
The Revolution of 1848 was more or less a liberal revolution. It brought the Hapsburg (or Habsburg) Empire to its knees. In the end, it was defeated. While initially it did lead to some enactment of liberal ideas, it was more or less unsuccessful. However, the notion of nationalism and liberalism would "brew" throughout the century culminating in the early 20th century. I mentioned this in my first two responses which you failed to note.

Regime Changes?
I do not know what regime changes you are referring to.... Hohenzollern ruled Prussia until the unification of a united German Empire (minus Austria). The Hapsburg continue to rule the Austrian Empire (It was renamed the Austrian- Hungarian Empire- however, this denoted that Hungary was recognized as equal part of the empire, but still part of the personal union of the Emperor of Austria. Also, this is not a major change, because a legislature already existed in Austria.). The Romanov Dynasty would rule the Russian Empire. The House of Hanover will continue to rule the renamed United Kingdoms of Great Britain. Parliament would continue to expand its powers at the expanse of the Monarch, but this was gradual, not tumultuous. France, however, would prove to be the exception to the rule. The country will flip- flop between the house of Bourbon and Bonaparte throughout the century. Italy could be argued, however, the most tumultuous period was during the Revolutions of 1848. However, as previously discussed, this was the exception, rather than the rule.

Latin American Revolutions
Sure this is a chaotic period? Upon closer examination we will see this was a minor when considered with the global perspective. As we examine, we will see the regime changes were "cosmetic" rather than real changes in society. The Madrid government had very little direct control of their colonies. After all, it was a weakening power in the 19th century. The final blow would occur at the end of the century at the conclusion of the Spanish American in 1898. The revolutions were not about changing society. With the exception of Mexico which started out as a popular revolution, it was the creoles (South American born Spaniards) that led the revolutions. The "revolution" was the changing from one aristocratic group for yet another aristocratic group. The divisions within Latin America took place almost immediately. Simon Bolivar left Latin America in disgust because of the divisions. No real social or political changes took place; just changing the colors on the map from Spain. The ruling elites of South America still control Latin America today. Socialist movements were little more than well conceived faux popular elections that simply replace rule by one social elite with another. The changes, however, were localized and it had little or no bearing on what occurred outside of Latin America.

Final Analysis
I wished you had read my addendum. You once again simply listed events without providing any argument. Conflicts b themselves are not by themselves chaotic. It is the events that cause them and the effects at the their conclusion that determine if the event had any significant changes to society. You also failed to mentioned four of your best arguments; German and Italian unification and the Revolutions of 1848. You did mentioned the "effect" of the 1848 Revolutions, but fail to mention I did as well. The unification of Germany and Italy changed the balance of power in Europe and help set the course of history to its inevitable doom; World War One. This war would bring down the most of the Great houses of Europe. The fourth event (and one I doubt you would think was important) is the Crimean War. It had two effects; one: Austria and Russia were close allies. Austria's neutrality antagonized the Russians. It meant that Austria was force to become align with Germany. This put Germany's diplomatic situation on edge. Second: Russia became a huge thorn in Austria's Balkan ambitions. This will intensify when Austria was "removed" from Italy with the unification of Italy.

Macho Posturing
Please suspend from this. I seriously doubt I will ever "humiliate" myself. Everything I write can be fact checked. I also fact check everything I write. While you can argue with my analysis, my conclusions are not made in a vacuum. They are shared by renown historians.


Thank you for your attention.

Best Regards,

-----

[Tango12345]

And that I think is where both of you can stop on this. Calling it on-topic is slightly optimistic.

[Kraut]

Has been awfully quiet here for one and a half weeks... or is it rather "promising" quiet? "Promising" like in "all the guys are head deep working on this mod, no time to post anything, because you know, the last week before release is the toughest"?

[Tango12345]

It's quite because I don't bother reporting every little change we make to the db tables, or every model that we happen to be making.


Oh, and there isn't any chance of release until there are released rosters for each faction that will be in the first version.

[Kraut]

I knew I was right on the "promising" part

[StarkT]

Tango , you mean 1865 after civil war ? Confederate could be emergant ?

[Tango12345]

As I've said many times before, the Confederates will not be in the mod.

This has not changed, and it won't in the future either. If you want to play as or against the CSA, play ACW.

[Dhop]

Hi there will Mexico be a playable nation from the start

[Tango12345]

Certainly not in the first version of the mod. At some point it probably will be.

[Dhop]

Ok thanx for answering back . It looks great and i cant wait for it merry christmas to all involved and to all who read this

[tzarmarko]

Hello, I believe that you have a tiny bit wrong with your map. The small New Mexican region that belongs to the United States was actually half Mexico at the time before the Gadsden purchase. For gameplay's sake, and to not make Mexico a weak little protectorate, give the Santa Fe region to Mexico. This will give the United States something to strive for, as well as not making Mexico too underpowered.

[Tango12345]

I suggest you double-check your facts-the Gadsden Purchase was in the 1850's. This mod starts in 1865, so the US will retain that territory.

[tzarmarko]

Oops... Missed the 1865 part.... My bad lol