• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Galactus

  • Rank
    Devourer of Worlds, wearer of Purple Hats

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

7,871 profile views
  1. The Belgariad is quite good for the kind of YA fantasy (even though it wasnt branded that way) it is. The sequels are pretty bad though. Elenium has a few interesting bits and pieces, but is as a whole not as good, Iwould say.
  2. But Petersburg was eventually abandoned when holding it became untenable: It did not face the same issues as WWI. As said, siege warfare was nothing new. It was the wider strategic implications of it that made WWI special. (where siege warfare could basically be extended and reinforced indefinitely)
  3. [Pedant] That wouldn't be the Wehrmacht, the Wehrmach was the name of the combined german armed forces of 1935-45. The successor to the Wiemar-era Reichswehr. The army in WWI would be simple be the Imperial german army (Deutsches Heer) though that technically only includes the army and (nascent) air-force. And even that is a bit of a kludge, since the Imperial Army was really several different organizations (eg. Bavaria and Saxony technically still had their own armies)[/Pedant]
  4. That's not really the main thing, inept tactics is one thing, but more about the difficulty the early ACW armies had in moving, reforming, and generally acting on the strategic level. (generally only feasible becasue their opponents were equally new at this)
  5. The problem is that there is no "US police force" to reform: There are hundreds of them, with seemingly only loose relationships to each other. The Fed can probably prod and push, but ultimately it's going to be up to each individual state to handle training standards and such, and there is way too much incentive to just let it slide.
  6. Trump isn't really the issue. Congressional republicans are. The "Moderates" don't want the wall, and so don't want to trade anything for it, and the hardliners aren't amenable to compromise in the first place.
  7. Much as I detest Castro and think the US position during the Cold War was at least understandable, keeping the embargo up after the fall of the Wall has likely backfired in terms of the regime's longevity.
  8. It's also worth noting that the americans learned and learned fast during the Civil War. The armies that faced each other at Bull Run were *far* different than what they were later in the war. A lot of the stuff going on during the early parts of the Civil War were indeed quite farcical.
  9. Yep, and Grossman's point is something similar. I mean, I don't really mind either of these things, but clamping donw on Grossman for doing something and then lauding Cornwell for doing the exact same thing to a different set of stories is kind of silly. Also, your timeline is all wrong: Lancelot was created by Chretien de Troyes in the late 12th century: At this point the "english" were about to lose their territories in a series of humiliating defeats. (they'd come back, but not until about a hundred years later) More importantly, the arthurian mythos as we know it *is* a set of works of chivalric romance: Even the welsh stuff that we have (eg. Culhwch and Olwen) are heavily influenced by that kind of romance. (insofar as they even are older than Chretien's work, which is debatable)
  10. I'm kind of amused at people on the one hand complaining about Grossman artlessly taking a dump on Narnia/Harry Potter, while at the same time lauding Cornwell, considering what he does to some of the arthurian mythos I mean, I'm not huge Grossman fan, and there is plenty of things to complain about his writing, but Cornwell isn't exactly having any moral high ground here.
  11. It was kind of meh. It had some some good parts (Luke and Rey, Kylo, some gorgeous shots) stuff that was meandering or just plain bad. To be fair, a lot of the problems were less of TLJ's making, but stuff that TFA had already done, and they decided to lean into rather than fix. (eg. the complete lack of context for anything,) EDIT: Also, the speechifying. Star Wars didn't need that. The OT didn't have it, the PT was bad when it had it. Show, don't tell.
  12. Steal the chicken sandwhiches. Win-win.
  13. I just remember that it got *really* trippy in... The third book? And then it kind of ended on a cliffhanger and I never got to read the 4th. book...
  14. This one though, is completely wrong: For the simple reason that we have plenty of states without large domesticated beasts of burden. (See for instance: All of the Americas)
  15. The problem here is "earliest known". (and for that matter, the issue of what counts as a state) we "see" states in the archeological record when they start to a) Keep records (IE: With the development of writing) and Monumental architecture. However, other sources show that these aren't neccessary for state-like structures. (or at least, in the fairly simplistic developmental model, "chieftainships") eg. plenty of polynesian societies had fairly developed state-like structures without either of these things. (though others, eg. Easter Islands, certainly had the latter) It is also notable that when we *do* get written records: States are already, so to speak, "fully formed". We don't see the development but rather states already in existence starts utilizing writing. (for either recordeekping, like in the middle-east, or oracular functions, like in China)