Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: POTF 31 - Nominations

  1. #1
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Civitate

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    7,528
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default POTF 31 - Nominations


    POTF is about recognising the very best posts, the best arguments and discourse in the D&D, and appropriately rewarding it.

    You shall progressively earn these medals once you achieve enough wins, but first you must be nominated in threads such as this one. And it works like this.

    Post of the Fortnight - Rules
    -Each user can nominate up to 2 posts per round, and the only valid form of nomination is by quoting with a link as shown below the chosen post in the PotF thread designated for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Looking forward to getting this kicked off for real!
    -Each 15 days there will be a new Nomination thread put up, and all the posts written during this period are considered eligible, if properly nominated. Exception are posts who are somewhat breaking the ToS; upon being acted by Moderation, they are always considered uneligible.

    - Remember: It is possible to nominate up to 2 posts each round of the competition; it is also possible to change a nomination anytime before the actual round of nominations ends.

    - There will be two competitions held every month, with a period for nominations followed by a period of voting. The submitted posts can be discussed in a dedicated space.

    - Only posts that have not participated in a previous poll and that have been published in the current period of given time in any section of the D&D area may be nominated.

    - The authors of the nominated post will be informed so they can withdraw the candidacy if that is their wish.

    - The maximum number of participating posts in the final vote will be ten. If more than ten nominations are submitted, seconded nominations will take priority. After seconded nominations are considered, earliest nominations will take priority. If the number of posts submitted to the contest is less than ten, the organizing committee may nominate posts if it considers it appropriate.

    -The members of the committee will never nominate a post belonging to one of them, but the rest of the users can nominate their posts (organizers posts), and vice versa.

    -In the event of a tie, both posts will be awarded and both posters will receive rep and 1 competition point.


    - Public or private messages asking for a vote for a candidate post are forbidden. Violators (and their posts) may not participate in the running contest.

    - People are expected to consider the quality and structure of the post itself, more than the content of the same. While it's certainly impossible to completely split the two aspects when making our own opinion on a post, it remains intended, as also explained in the Competition Commentary Thread, that commenting and discussing on the content rather than on the form/structure of the post is considered off-topic for the purpose of this competition. You are free to nominate and vote for whatever reason you want, but what happens in public has to strictly follow up with the competition rules.


    A nominated post should:

    1. Be focused and relevant to the topic(s) being discussed.
    2. Demonstrate a well-developed, insightful and nuanced understanding of the topic(s) it is discussing.
    3. Be logically coherent, well organized and communicate its points effectively.
    4. Support its contentions with verifiable evidence, either in the form of links or references.
    5. Not be deliberately vexatious to other users.


    Good luck everyone!
    Last edited by Aexodus; June 22, 2020 at 07:09 PM.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  2. #2
    Flinn's Avatar Addio, Maestro!
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Gaming Director Praefect

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    13,288
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default Re: POTF 31 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    I'm not sure if they discovered amber or gold at Troy. But I honestly have no idea.
    Troy being a major trade route along the Black Sea and for European trade has been suggested before. The amber trade is one that is put out there, but also the possibility that they were importing tin and copper from Europe as well. None of this has ever been confirmed and are largely theoretical. I am not up to date with any recent finds that might support these theories.

    What I do know that supports that Troy was at least somewhat important.

    For one there was a city the size of Troy in that region. If the Troad had nothing in it or was irrelevant, as one might think due to it being on the edge of civilization, then they wouldn't have built a city there, it would have been a smaller town or territory ruled by tribes.

    There were also ports and large towns along the coast of the Black Sea in Anatolia, which predate the Kaskan incursions in the 1300's BC. They were probably trading with other people on the Black Sea. The Troad seems like an obvious place to make a trade port but who could they have been trading with other than the Greeks and the Anatolians? Greece was not a particularly rich territory, and the Greeks frequently raided Western Anatolia. Did Troy become rich because they supplied the Greeks with Anatolian and Levantine goods? Wouldn't Crete and other Anatolian states be more obvious though?

    Homer and Greek myths claim that Troy was a very rich city. This is often repeated by the Greeks. What might support this claim is that in the Hittite texts the Ahhiyawan raiders (presumably the Greeks) are frequently mentioned to attack Western Anatolia. Specifically the Ahhiyawans attempt to conquer Milawanda and Wilusa. The Wilusan king goes to great lengths to form an alliance with the Hittites. What it notable is that the Ahhiyawans were interested in those areas. Even if the Ahhiyawans are not the Mycenaean Greeks it still shows that raiders were interested in attacking those areas. However Hittite texts seem to imply that their enemies were not mere raiders and were actually state actors fighting over territory. That and the fact that the Hittites bothered to sign the treaty and fight on Alaksandu's behalf. Had Wilusa been a worthless backwater then I doubt the Hittites would have bothered with a treaty when they could have just invaded. The Ahhiyawans would not have bothered either. But Wilusa actually provided a contingent for the Hittites at Kadesh. Meaning that Wilusa actually had something to offer.
    &
    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    "In one proclamation he extended the previously exclusive rights of civitas to nearly every free single person living within his realm"… Indeed linguistic studies show c7% of the free born changed their name to include patronage of the Emperor by inclusion of Aurelius, slaves zero, as being slaves they had no rights to tell their owners what to call them….So we return to you being, willing, nay eager to peddle false history, and when pressed willing to be post that which you know to be false. This is the second time you exhibit that character flaw.
    You conflate the argument I made, once again, to suit your purpose. As you can see here, I argue two different things you erroneously combine into one. First, I write:

    You claimed Diocletian was a free man and that I fraudulently say he started life as a slave. I gave you three quotes from two sources showing the freedman theory is just as valid.
    Your argument is that:

    No one born a slave, ever could be an emperor, roman law prevents that.
    But according to historians:

    The future emperor Diocletian was born on December 22. This detail is almost all that is certainly known about his early life. Everything else regarding his first forty years is generally obscure, deriving from thin and disputed evidence. Later estimates of his age at death suggest this year of birth was in the mid-240s, shortly before Rome reached her momentous yet troubled one-thousandth birthday in 248. His birthplace was in Dalmatia, almost certainly Salona (his choice of retirement home). His original name was probably Gaius Valerius Diocles. There were different traditions regarding his background. Thus he was either the freed slave of a senator, Anulinus, or else his father was a scribe, or clerk, which makes his father the more plausible freedman (Eutropius 9. 19. 2).
    t is also prudent to include a brief biographical sketch of Diocletian, the emperor at the center of the Tetrarchic imperial college. Very little is known about Diocletian’s early life, but Timothy D. Barnes and David Potter have narrowed the date of his birth to 22 December 243, 244, or 245.25 He was likely born in Dalmatia to a family of relatively low status and given the name Diocles. Ancient sources indicate that his father may have worked as a scribe, while others maintain that Diocletian may have even been a slave in his early life.
    Most of what we have of Diocletian’s background is a tradition, perhaps a fusion of two traditions, of modest reliability. He came from Dalmatia, and was probably born in 243, probably at Salona, where he grew up with the name Diocles. According to the sources, he was either a freedman himself, or the son of a freedman, in the household of the senator Anullinus; a contemporary senatorial family of that name is certainly recorded. It is also claimed that his father was a scribe. If Diocles was himself a freedman, then he would actually have been born a slave; if he was the son of a freedman, then he would have been of free birth but of the lowest social strata, the humiliores. Either way he would have received nothing of what Romans counted as education. At most, he would have acquired the practical skills of a servant and perhaps, if his father was indeed a scribe, an elementary literacy of the type appropriate to his station.
    Since historians hold the theory that Diocletian was born a slave and then was freed as valid, your assertion that no slave, ever could become emperor is proven manifestly false. If there was no way for a slave to become the Emperor, neither ancient sources would suggest it nor more importantly would modern historians re-confirm the theory. Period.

    Second, I argue Caracalla’s edict dissolved the in-between classes a free person had to go to gain the Roman citizenship:

    Caracalla's edict evaporated many of the in-between classes making it easier and faster for a non-Roman to ascent to the Roman citizenship.
    Which you can see by the edict itself. Its passing eviscerated the former in between stage of Latin Rights, for example. Its universal application to all foreigners caused an explosion of Aureliuses found after the edict was put to effect. You agree to that here:

    Indeed linguistic studies show c7% of the free born changed their name to include patronage of the Emperor by inclusion of Aurelius, slaves zero, as being slaves they had no rights to tell their owners what to call them.
    Combining (1) and (2) you can see how easy it became for an ex-slave to get the Roman citizenship after the edict. Especially in the times of Augustus, specific regulations were applied on granting the roman citizenship only for slaves who were considered worthy of it. This placed significant barriers to most freed slaves from becoming citizens, pushing them to be classified as foreigners instead. These people became citizens through Caracalla metaphorically overnight.

    Rome fell, as did had the Western Roman Empire. The ERE continued, but only Italy came under the code so no one in the WRE was ever under it. Muslim also term it a continuation of Rum, Europeans had divided in WRE and ERE for centuries, calling Byz a Greek empire, not least because 90% of its last 22 emperors were Greek, the earlier ones being much more diverse.
    The reason its majority of emperors were Greek towards the last centuries of the Byzantine Empire was because at that point the empire had been reduced to what is today a little more than Greek territory. Its emperors were indicative of the stock left in the empire to assume the throne, nothing else.

    Romans claimed descent from the sabine women, all slaves, so all Romans were descended from slaves on the female line.
    So, were the Romans the master race, yes or no? You contradict yourself here. If everyone were institutionalized racial supremacists since the enslavement of the Israelites, then the Romans could not possibly see themselves as a master race if they also saw themselves as descended from inferior slaves on the female line. Therefore, your assertion that Romans were the master race of antiquity is also proven manifestly false.

    Natural flow of time, the code is full of of anti Semitic legislation
    As compared to the pro Semitic legislation of Medieval Europe?

    Asked and answered.
    But you have not answered though. You vaguely said that it is who had the right that’s important. If they had the right without any barrier like, say, racism then there has to be at least one example to support this claim immediately after the 14th Amendment. Incidentally, if black people’s citizenship in America was universal in its application without back clauses on the 14th Amendment, there wouldn’t be necessary for them to have the Civil Rights movement either.

    If you can’t find a single example when the Romans who didn’t even have the societal pressure to change their treatment of slaves accepted ex-slaves as their emperors (like Pertinax), then I can’t see how you can argue that racism wasn’t the origin of slavery in north America. At best you can say religion was the real basis; but then I counter-argue it was the racist interpretation of said religion.

    Aside the above, the only thing you have succeeded with this post is giving me a headache trying to determine what you mean by the alternate use of singular and plural of the word ‘incompetent’ following my username as well as confuse me to how you’re still not penalized under the ToS for doing this.
    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 of the Imperial House of Hader

  3. #3
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,834

    Default Re: POTF 31 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    All nations are founded on a mixture of legend, luck and fact. American culture, American morals, American heritage, is vested in the self evident truth of “the inalienable rights endowed by our Creator,” and the journey to carry that mission statement to fruition. To dismiss this as naive or fanciful is a fairly generic critique of patriotism or the creation of nation states at a conceptual level. It also fundamentally invalidates the argument posed by those who attack American patriotism or naturalism on the basis of it being unjust, discriminatory or consequently unlawful, because like the abolition of slavery, female suffrage or other social progress, America’s journey to create “a more perfect Union” is predicated on the collective, codified affirmation of these God-given rights, and whom those rights apply to. America is not an ethnic nation, but a new nation in a new world, conceived in Liberty by the consent of the governed. As such, American identity is not passed in the bloodstream. We are a nation of laws, not men. If it is not cherished and affirmed today, it will cease to exist tomorrow. That is what is under attack and at stake.

    Thus, as summarized in the opinion piece, you can throw the baby out with the bathwater, but you cannot get rid of the bathtub, much as one might try. And so we are left with a “Revolution” that is a perverse, putrid slop of racial and ethnic tribalism, fueled by grievance narratives and recycled Soviet propaganda tactics. As such it is organized warfare upon the Republic itself, designed to divide and conquer Americans against one another and redefine our national identity as a massive fraud perpetrated by a vast, nebulous conspiracy of oppression. Not only is such a “Revolution” openly counterfactual and revisionist, the Politburo of yesteryear could only dream of such success.

    A people filled with introspective doubt, distrust and self loathing in place of national values, utterly demoralized by the endlessly shifting goalposts, manufactured conflict, vengeance narratives, puritanical inquisitions and revisionism cannot possibly unite to express our collective will, nor defend our national interests, let alone project power externally with any longevity or consistency. That is the endgame begun long before the opportunistic acceleration presented by the historic domestic crises in our midst; one seized upon by the foreign authoritarian antagonists of today. It has spread across the western world as the elites parrot political actors prodded by ideological activists. It is a crisis of leadership which believes in nothing in particular, as much as a crisis of a culture being purged of itself. It is the nation itself, often those among us who are the poorest and most vulnerable to instability and strife, who will pay the price for the Revolutionaries’ campaign of destruction for destruction’s sake, the harbingers of the state of our decline.

  4. #4
    Abdülmecid I's Avatar ¡Ay Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    5,192

    Default Re: POTF 31 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    All nations are founded on a mixture of legend, luck and fact.
    This is a confusing bit of nonsense. The US was founded by armed rebels: thats a fact. They declared independence and wrote a Constitution. There are some silly legends about all this, and some luck in the unfolding of events (eg George III was batty and the French helped) but the US is founded on some documents, and the military reality of French intervention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    American culture, American morals, American heritage, is vested in the self evident truth of “the inalienable rights endowed by our Creator,” and the journey to carry that mission statement to fruition.
    This sounds like utter rubbish. A small elite appealed to a mishmash of christian and classical ideas when they hurriedly cobbled together their paperwork. Their culture heritage and morals pre-existed the writing of the foundational documents: states joining the union later brought their own culture, morals and heritage, and there were people in the Americas included in the US at its creation and later who had no say in the foundational documents but whose culture, morals and heritage remain a part of the US and America. For example the indigenous nations, the Hispanic, Francophone and other non-British peoples annexed to the US. Culture, morals and heritage are constantly evolving, not some an antique inheritance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    To dismiss this as naive or fanciful is a fairly generic critique of patriotism or the creation of nation states at a conceptual level.
    But your opening statement appears extremely naive and fanciful, not to mention stupid. I mean you can't just give yourself a pass at this point, that's even more naive and fanciful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    It also fundamentally invalidates the argument posed by those who attack American patriotism or naturalism on the basis of it being unjust, discriminatory or consequently unlawful, because like the abolition of slavery, female suffrage or other social progress, America’s journey to create “a more perfect Union” is predicated on the collective, codified affirmation of these God-given rights, and whom those rights apply to.
    The CSA argument about abolition were not decided by the Constitution (which they held supported their position) or God (who does not forbid slavery) but by men on the battlefield. Indeed Lincoln used decidedly unconstitutional means to achieve his noble and just victory, and its possible to see the freeing of the slaves as a triumph of an un-Founding Fatherly act of violence against their intent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    America is not an ethnic nation, but a new nation in a new world, conceived in Liberty by the consent of the governed.
    This is a mishmash of terms. The US is not really a nation (a synonym of ethnos BTW) despite Lincolns' solemn (and most effective) rhetoric. Its a federation of states. Lincoln uses the term loosely as his hearers might understand it from its misuse in newspapers and his sloppiness can be excused because he was addressing a crowd on the subject of honouring war dead not Constitutional matters. Your rhetoric is less forgivable as you;re not president, its not solemn or well crafted and you are describing the US as an entity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    As such, American identity is not passed in the bloodstream. We are a nation of laws, not men. If it is not cherished and affirmed today, it will cease to exist tomorrow. That is what is under attack and at stake.
    There are competing visions of "American Identity" (as I imagine there were in all eras of US history). Its a shame the inalienable rights endowed by the creator are so easily alienated.

    The USwill cease to exist tomorrow? You seem to lack a coherent understanding tf the strength of the US system. I see the current unrest having a few obvious causes. 1. The US has unequal wealth distribution (I mean thats part of its success, the lure of wealth creating more wealth, but its been fairer in the past) 2. You have a troll president that spends more time troolling The People than leading them and 3. there's a plague on and the resultant deaths and economic impacts (including those from control measures) have led to more poverty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Thus, as summarized in the opinion piece, you can throw the baby out with the bathwater, but you cannot get rid of the bathtub, much as one might try.
    https://grist.org/living/what-should...y-old-bathtub/

    There are a number of sensible things to do with an old bathtub.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    And so we are left with a “Revolution” that is a perverse, putrid slop of racial and ethnic tribalism, fueled by grievance narratives and recycled Soviet propaganda tactics. As such it is organized warfare upon the Republic itself, designed to divide and conquer Americans against one another and redefine our national identity as a massive fraud perpetrated by a vast, nebulous conspiracy of oppression. Not only is such a “Revolution” openly counterfactual and revisionist, the Politburo of yesteryear could only dream of such success.
    I mean if we change a few words this could be a rant by Lord North against the rebellious colonials. Its not that coherent. You could just say "US politics includes some stupidity".

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    A people filled with introspective doubt, distrust and self loathing in place of national values, utterly demoralized by the endlessly shifting goalposts, manufactured conflict, vengeance narratives, puritanical inquisitions and revisionism cannot possibly unite to express our collective will, nor defend our national interests, let alone project power externally with any longevity or consistency. That is the endgame begun long before the opportunistic acceleration presented by the historic domestic crises in our midst; one seized upon by the foreign authoritarian antagonists of today. It has spread across the western world as the elites parrot political actors prodded by ideological activists. It is a crisis of leadership which believes in nothing in particular, as much as a crisis of a culture being purged of itself. It is the nation itself, often those among us who are the poorest and most vulnerable to instability and strife, who will pay the price for the Revolutionaries’ campaign of destruction for destruction’s sake, the harbingers of the state of our decline.
    Yes yes I see. Commies, the death of America, "our enemies are a mixture of dirty stupid and evil" and yet somehow also a threat. It sounds like you feel the People need to be protected from themselves.

    "Shifting goalposts" are a part of the US story (see Native American treaties). "Manufactured conflict" holy cow, from Iraq to 1812 thats been a mainstay of US foreign policy."Vengeance narratives" ditto. "Puritanical inquisitions" from Salem to the Patriot Act by way of McCarthy, thats practically a core American value. "Revisionism" welp you're doing it now ("racial and ethnic tribalism"-its the black people who are the racists!), I can only assume its a core American value as well.

    Its almost like you like these things when they are done by "your side" but not when "dirty commie racists and ethnic tribalists" do them.

    I have to say your posts seem like a complete waste of time. You've piled up silly rhetoric on malapropisms to deliver a poor and confused result.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    In other words, you’re aware the majority of the public opposes cutting police budgets, and you don’t like it, so you cherry pick polls from the source I provided in order to muddy the waters.
    Actually your own source shows majority support in one of the polls cited in the article. The one you left out on purpose.

    You could have easily quoted all of the polls in the article but you didn't. Only one muddying the waters here is you.

    The polls you cherry picked ask if police funds should be reallocated to things like officer training and community programs. Hence when people were asked if they want to “reduce the budget of the police department in your community” to fund community programs, housing and education,” aka “defund the police,” 60% of people said no.
    Like this one?

    For instance, when Reuters/Ipsos queried people about “proposals to move some money currently going to police budgets into better officer training, local programs for homelessness, mental health assistance, and domestic violence,” a whopping 76 percent of people who were familiar with those proposals supported them, with only 22 percent opposed. Democrats and independents supported these proposals in huge numbers while Republicans were split, 51 percent in favor to 47 percent opposed.
    Your own source says otherwise.
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; July 04, 2020 at 09:11 AM. Reason: Kritias had already been nominated.

  5. #5
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,758

    Default Re: POTF 31 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    So, naturalised immigrants appreciate the social welfare policies of the Democrats. No objections on that, but that's completely irrelevant to your earlier argument that newcomers from Latin America and Africa were more left-leaning than the average native. In fact, the opposite was true as my data demonstrated. Immigrants approve of moderate "wealth redistribution", because they, together with the poorer segments of the American society, benefit the most from such policies, not because they are indoctrinated with socialist principles in their home countries. On the other hand, if the Republicans concentrated their attention more on Christian and generally conservative values, instead of getting obsessed with racial purity, they could attract more votes, from those who felt alienated from the progressive wing of the Democratic party.

    Citation needed for that extraordinary claim. The Republican party is not dominated by racists, but them tolerating extremists calling for supremacism and closed borders is also a fact. Several loyal Republicans and determined conservatives have voiced their concern over the relatively recent cooperation between their favourite party and radical tribalism, at the expense of the traditional civic nationalism. In my opinion, this approach is short-sighted and is going to cost the Republicans severely in the long term, unless they finally realise the new circumstances that decide the outcome of the elections.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch

  6. #6
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,539

    Default Re: POTF 31 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    How many black people died at the hands of those other than the police in the past month due precisely to the civil unrest? The number is in the low 100s. BLM as the left would present it is nothing more than a weak facade to boost democrat fundraising for 2020. Just like in the 1850s, democrats seem unable to stop themselves from profiting off the death, suffering, and exploitation of the black race. Oh well, old habits die hard I guess. They are even resurrecting their old animosities in order to delude their victims into cancelling the very man that struck a decisive blow at ending the disgusting institution of slavery. But don't take my word for it. Take the words and actions of of Charlotte Scott, an emancipated and patriotic citizen of the United States who contributed the unbelievably large sum of $5.00 for the time in order to fund the memorial. I look forward to your well researched and logic based retort.
    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    That's not actually true. The IDF came from Haganah not Irgun. Beginning in 1920, a segment of the Arab Palestinian population, who were anti-immigrant before it was cool, started attacking and killing Jews randomly. Tensions were rising over the Balfour Declaration, although this wasn't exactly something new, there had been several pogroms against Jews in Palestine in the Nineteenth Century before political Zionism existed. Since the British authorities were failing to sufficiently protect the Jewish communities, Haganah, meaning "the defense" was formed in 1921. They maintained a policy of "restraint", meaning they only defended Jewish communities, they never attacked or actively retaliated against Arab militants. Although there was later a buildup in preparation for independence, restraint was more or less maintained until the 1948 war when they became the IDF. Because of the restraint policy, some hardliners split in 1931 to form Irgun, who from 1936 on were involved in revenge attacks against Arabs. Irgun also fought the British from 1944 to 1948. Shortly after Haganah became the IDF, the IDF forced Irgun to disband, killing 16 of them and arresting another 200. Although most were released a few weeks later because Israel needed anyone who was able to fight. Irgun was never more than 4,000 at its peak, whereas Haganah had 75,000 at its peak (30,000 on active duty).

    There are other issues you mentioned which you are somewhat misinformed about, but this is an odd thread for it.

  7. #7
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    12th Plane of Torment
    Posts
    14,109
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: POTF 31 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    Assyria is kind of a complicated subject because I don't think there is another empire that had so many resurgences and then ran back to hide in their corner. The original rise of Assyria happened during the 1200's BC as a result of the power vacuum caused by the Mitanni civil war against Tushratta, which also led to the conquest of Mitanni by the Hittite ruler Suppiluliumas.

    Assyria was not strong in the 1300's BC but as vassals of Mitanni they helped prop up the rebel regime of Artatama II and Shuttarna III. When the Hittites crossed the Euphrates, the Assyrians (ruled by Ashur-uballit I) were not willing to fight them and they made a strategic withdrawal towards the Tigris. Suppiluliumas put Shattiwaza into power as his vassal. Even after the death of Suppiluliumas and his sons, the younger son Mursili II inherited the throne and he was able to defeat an incursion of the Assyrians against Carchemish, despite being hard pressed by the Luwians and Kaskans in Anatolia.

    In the 1200's BC the Hittites were hard pressed due to domestic troubles as well as wars with all of their neighbors. In particular the incursions by the northern Kaska tribes, the Egyptians of the 19th Dynasty, the Ahhiyawans of the west, the Luwian coalition against the Hittites. During the reigns of Muwatallis II and his brother Hattusili II the Assyrians under Adad Nirari I invaded Mitanni. Although it appears that Adad Nirari was not strong enough to actually fight the Hittites, he was able to take most of Mitanni while the Hittites were busy fighting in other places. Adad Nirari kept the Mitanni king Shattuara as a vassal.

    However when Wasashatta become king he rebelled against the Assyrians and was quickly put down by Adad Nirari. For whatever reason the Hittites did not give support to Wasashatta, who was likely put to death. When Adad Nirari was succeeded in Assyria by Shalmaneser I, the Mitanni rebelled again, this time under a new leader who called himself Shattuara II. Shalmaneser defeated Mitanni and apparently annex that kingdom into Assyria, thus ending the Kingdom of Mitanni.

    It was also in the reign of Shalmaneser that Hattusili II and Ramesses II signed a peace treaty and eventually and alliance. Part of the treaty focused on containing Assyria and not allowing them to expand past the Euphrates. Both Adad Nirari and Shalmaneser had called themselves "Great King" and lobbied the Hittites and the Egyptians to be recognized as such. The four recognized great powers at the time were Egypt, Babylon, Mitanni, and Hatti, it is interesting that in the 1200's BC both of the rulers of "Ahhiyawa" and the Assyrians wished to be recognized as great kings and were therefore considered rogue states for waging wars and upsetting the balance. Shalmaneser had gone so far as to defeat the Hittites army in battle, a major defeat for the hard pressed Hittite Empire of Tudhaliya IV.

    Within the century it seems that Ahhiyawa (Mycenaean Greece?), the Hittite Empire, and the Kassite Dynasty of Babylon had all fallen. Egypt had survived under the 20th Dynasty but after the death of Ramesses III that empire had begun to stagnate. Tukulti Ninurta I succeeded Shalmaneser I and he managed to defeat the Kassite Dynasty in Babylon, temporarily seizing control of the south of Mesopotamia and even campaigning in the Gulf against Elam. However over the next 30 years it looks as if the Assyrians stagnated and many kings came to power one after another.

    During that time the Elamites somehow managed to take control of Babylon. They even marched up the Tigris as far as Arrapha and threatened the capital of Ashur itself. Ahur-Dan I was able to push the Elamites back into Babylon, he also spent much of his reign campaigning to secure cities in Upper Mesopotamia. After his death there was conflict between his sons, until the succession of his grandson Ashur-resh-ishi I.

    During the reign of this king the Assyrians were faced by an invasion of Ahlamu barbarians from the Western desert, which the Assyrians managed to defeat. Although the invasion must have been sufficiently shocking that Ashur-resh-ishi ordered the the walls of Ashur to be rebuilt. Ashur-resh-ishi also campaigned in Babylonia and in the Zagros mountains to the east against the Babylonian Isin Dynasty which had managed to chase out the Elamites. The Assyrian campaigns against Ninurta-nadin-shuma and Nebuchadnezzar I were not conclusive.

    Ahur-resh-ishi was succeeded by his son Tiglath-Pileser I. This king ruled from 1114 BC to 1076 BC. In his time he campaigned in Eastern Anatolia at the source of the Tigris and Euphrates. He also invaded Anatolia as far as Cappadocia and Cilicia, picking off Anatolian tribes and some of the Neo-Hittite states. He is also recorded to have invaded Syria and taken the coastal cities of Arvad, Sidon and Byblos. The rest of his rule saw him fighting off Aramean tribes which had invaded the Euphrates from the Syrian desert.

    Not long after the death of Tiglath Pileser I his other son Ashur-bel-kala gained the throne (he ruled 1074 BC to 1056 BC). It was this king who made a peace treaty with Babylon. He spent his early reign campaigning against Urartu and in the Euphrates against the cities there, who had joined the rebel official Tukulti Mer. These rebels also accepted the aid of the Aramean tribes in the west, those hordes crossed the Euphrates and overran Upper Mesopotamia as far as the Khabur River. Ashur-bel-kala was forced to campaign against them and push them across the Euphrates, reclaiming cities such as Carchemish.

    The end of the Middle Assyrian Period is generally considered to be with Ashur-bel-kala or later with Tiglath Pileser II (after 934 BC).
    &

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    You hijacked the evils of anti-Semitism to draw a false equivalence between it and anti-theism. The accusations you introduced are so generic that they could be levelled against any view or position you wished (ie. liberalism is akin to anti-Semitism, Islam is akin to anti-Semitism, monarchism is akin to anti-Semitism etc.). To this extent, your argument was nothing more than a sophistic ad hominem masquerading as a rational proposition (ie. anti-theists are as morally contemptible as racists).

    The source of your interlocutor's amusement (I found it depressing) came from following ironies: (1) your accusation that others are trying to "preserve the appearance of reason" in a diatribe which itself desperately attempted to preserve the appearance of reason; (2) your pining for respectable debate just moments after having derailed a discussion by comparing your interlocutors to racists.
    Last edited by Akar; July 09, 2020 at 08:02 PM.

    Want to play TWC D&D? Click here | Join the Thema Devia Discord here
    If you would like a TWC Wiki page made for you click here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan

    Proud Adopted Patron of Cope






Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •