SeanF

Agreed. Prohibition of drug possession has not been notably successful. All that happens is that distribution of the product passes into the hands of criminals. And, it’s quite illiberal.

Often, a "tyrant" in the Greek world was someone who did terrible things like freeing slaves, or proclaiming debt relief, and based his political power on lower class supporters, at the expense of decent, landowning, slave-owning folks.

MTG will rant and rave.

I do think the fall of the Western Empire was bad news, for the next 4-500 years. Trade slowed to a trickle, warfare was endemic, populations declined, livestock became smaller, literacy became less widespread (even if serious historians now dismiss the notion of the Dark Ages). But, by 1200, the standard of living in England, France, Italy, the Low Countries was well above where it had been 1,000 years previously, and societies were somewhat freer (being a villein beats being a chattel slave). The sheer inventive cruelty that the Roman elite devised for the lower classes who stepped out of line makes their medieval counterparts seem liberal by comparison. Gibbon’s claim that the best time to be alive was the 2nd century could be only be made by a man who envisaged himself as a senator, rather than a peasant, a slave, a woman, or a religious dissident. To paraphrase Brett Devereaux, your chance of being a senator would be 1 in 19,200. Your chance of being the latter would be 9 in 10.

I agree that it’s my favourite, too. Cosca, Friendly, and Morveee, the ethical poisoner, are just hilarious.

Brett Devereaux is recommended by so many people, and of so many different political persuasions. The only other person who can explain operations, battles, tactics as well as he does is Bernard Cornwell.

Dune (like ASOIAF to some extent), relies on the trope that a harsh environment creates almost unbeatable warriors (Sardaukar, Fremen), who can rout ten times their number of soft, “civilised” peoples. Whereas in reality no army is that good. And civilised peoples are actually pretty good at inflicting lethal violence. In reality, Paul’s military dominance comes down (as in real life), to logistics. He has a monopoly of spice, the Universe’s equivalent of petrol.

Zorral, this is in response to the piece you linked to on the Ukraine thread. Since, I'm dealing with Rome, I'll post here. Thanks. That's interesting, but I disagree with a lot. I think the section on Rome is weak. Rome's most "native" soldiers - the Praetorian Guards - were repeatedly disloyal, and venial, and increasingly despised as parade ground soldiers by the legions. Conversely, many German tribesmen took their oaths of loyalty to the Emperor extremely seriously. I don't actually think there was very much wrong with the Western Roman Army in the Fifth Century. Stilicho, Aetius, Majorian, Aegidius were all able to pull off comfortable victories over "barbarians". And, or course, Eastern Rome survived intact. What destroyed the Empire was endemic civil war. The first three were murdered, for the crime of being competent. Tribes like the Goths, who were not badly disposed towards the empire, were repeatedly fucked over by imperial authorities, and made into enemies. There's nothing at all wrong with training up local forces, provided they have something they feel is worth fighting for. Kurdish and Shia militias in Iraq had every reason to fight Islamic State. The ARVN and Afghan army simply had no commitment to governments that lacked any real support among the wider population. The Taliban are abysmal, but their cruelty is directed at women, and religious minorities, and most powerful Afghans are untroubled by that. The Viet Cong were nationalists, more than they were communists, to most of the South Vietnamese population - unlike say, the insurgents in Malaya. Nationalism is way more popular than Communism.

I thought it an interesting piece, but I disagree with a lot. But, rather than derail the Ukraine thread with my comments on Rome, I thought I'd post my response to the History in Books Section, as well as PM you.

I think it's a reasonable assumption that Aegon will take Kings Landing with the Dornish and Golden Company. Likely he weds Arianne, and they enjoy a honeymoon period. But, I expect that Jon Connington and the Sands will be out for revenge. That means that Tommen, Myrcella, and Margaery will be put to death, creating enemies in the West. Euron will also be raiding the West, and who knows if he takes Kings Landing. The North will be controlled by Stannis or Jon, and who knows who the Vale will side with? By the time Dany arrives, I expect the Seen Kingdoms to be in a state of anarchy.

Her readiness to sacrifice her own children for gain is disgusting.

Unfortunately, it’s probably the only way of getting aid to Ukraine through Congress.

Tansy the prostitute was once intended to be Hoster Tully’s illegitimate daughter. Had the five year gap been implemented, Pretty Meris would have been Brienne, after years of brutalisation. Val is related to the Others.

A standing army is hugely expensive, and most of the time, it’s idle. Only the mightiest empires would consider that the expense justified it - because mighty empires need to maintain garrisons, use soldiers to extract taxes from subject populations, and to repress insurgencies. Imperial armies (eg Rome, China, the East India Company), are just as much gendarmeries, as forces intended to fight external enemies. That simply does not apply in Westeros. Nobody views the Kings as a foreign imperial power. And the free cities aren’t empires either, although Volantis is the closest to one, and their tiger soldiers likely are a standing army. What Westeros does have is a standing navy, and that makes sense as piracy is a constant menace.

I think that Russia has already lost, at a strategic level. The costs, in terms of loss of men, equipment, control of the Black Sea, foreign exchange reserves, loss of prestige, far outweigh the gain of some devastated provinces. At the same time, NATO has gained two new members, and has been revitalised.

After Florida voted to enfranchise felons, Trump’s lead rose in 2020. No doubt felons saw him as a kindred spirit.

The well-born Meereenese, who offer to sell themselves to the Qartheen trader, or Xaro’s friend, no doubt expect it to be like a form of indentured service, with people who may in some cases be their relatives. Essentially their service is payment for free passage out of the city, and a payment to their families, who were pillaged by the slaves.

There were even cases of people selling themselves into slavery, to wealthy Roman citizens. Intelligent slaves had good prospects, as scribes, doctors, accountants, business managers. And if freed, they would be Roman citizens. In the Imperial period, Imperial freedmen could rise very high. I’m sure these slaves/freedmen have counterparts in Essos. And, probably slave soldiers and overseers have privileges. But, the vast majority (as in Rome), are fieldhands, bed slaves, miners, millworkers, menial servants, dung collectors etc. who are worked to death. So to paraphrase Devereaux, your chance of being a privileged slave is perhaps 1 in 10, your chance of being worked to death perhaps 8 in 10. I’m sure that people like the Starks, Tullys, Tyrells, Martells, are good to their servants. People like the Lannisters, Freys, and Boltons, much less so. I’ve always thought Tyrion musing that the slavers aren’t that different to Westerosi lords says a lot about the Lannisters. Tywin’s organising Tysha’s rape would be called Tuesday, in Meereen. But, it would disgust someone like Ned or Edmure.

Post WRT the bias towards elites which (in my view, informs quite a lot of discussion about Slavers Bay), this is a good tweet from military historian Brett Devereaux. To paraphrase him, the chance of you being a slave, about 9 in 10. The chance of you being a Great Master, about 1 in 19,200. Bret Devereaux @BretDevereaux The chance of you being a poor peasant farmer? About 9 in 10. The chances of leading a legion in battle? About 1 in 19,200. That's the thing about people imagining the past: they always imagine they'd be a noble. You'd be a peasant.

The notion that one does not possess any rights unless one is represented by a sovereign government is ludicrous. Israel can be a Jewish-majority State, in which case, the West Bank Palestinians must be given freedom. Or it can incorporate Judaea/Samaria, in which case, the new Palestinian citizens will form a vast voting bloc.

Sure, you’re never getting originality with Joe Abercrombie. What you get is loads of black humour, hilarious dialogue, and much fun.

Has Ukraine yet received the artillery shells that the Czechs sourced?

That’s very bad news. Race for the Iron Throne, and Laboratory of Politics, were excellent. His analysis of the Slavers Bay arc was especially good.

What I would expect to see, in the wake of the slavers’ defeat, and Volantene revolt, is an end to the vast disparity in numbers between free and slave. Meereen, Volantis, and their hinterlands would have millions of freedmen, ranging from very poor to very rich. Some of the very rich freedmen might well wish to acquire slaves as status symbols, but they can’t re-enslave the majority, and they can’t import the vast numbers needed to restore the proportion of slaves to 75-80% of the whole. So, you might see up to 5% of the population, able to afford at least one slave, although some would refuse on ethical grounds, and slaves being 10-15% of the population, but the vast majority of people being free. Most likely, the freed fieldhands would be mainly sharecroppers, or smallholders. I'm guessing the big landowners will be Dothraki nobility, Shavepates, some survivors of the Old Blood/Great Masters, freedmen who have made good, the Red Temples, and the government.

A free company isn't a company in the modern sense, with shareholders who own it. It's more a case of a captain, or captain-general if the company is big enough, who's acquired a reputation as a commander. He might be a nobleman, like Federico de Moltefeltro, or a professional soldier who rose from the ranks, like Sir John Hawkwood. Essentially, he signs a contract with a lord, or free city, to fight for a fixed term, and to bring a fixed number of cavalry and infantry. His employer makes him a down payment, and then various stage payments, during the course of the contract. The captain then enters into contracts with his lieutenants, to supply soldiers in turn. They then negotiate contracts at the individual level with the serjeants, and ordinary soldiers. Think of it as being similar to a major building contract, today. The main contractor sub-contracts.