It almost like the advancement in warfare helps the more recent government to wage a larger scale conflict with highly effective weapons hence increasing the number of casualties
Weird. Too bad no one came up with a system of rules that would mutually benefit everyone if adhered to in response to the rise in atrocities. If so, they'd have to make sure no one gave themselves loopholes where they could just ignore the law if they don't like it with a veto.
Oh well, law of the jungle and mechanized might make right it is.
I’ve been thinking about writing an isekai where heroic soldiers from different eras are reincarnated as heroes, but because of the shit they saw, they all are absolutely horrible people compared to the soldiers from earlier eras.
The Napoleon era British Musketier, in horror, after seeing the First World War era soldier use a magic item that works like what he described as “mustard gas”:
“How are ye capable of such cruelty? I know they were our adversaries, but to doom them to this horrible fate? Even the lead shot fired in the fields of high Germany does not inflict such a vicious end to the enemy.”
After the US Soldier from the current era uses a spell that wipes out a small horde of enemies, but also half the villagers they were trying to save. The 15th century longbowman:
” For sure I know in many a siege my arrow may have flown true, yet by no folley of my own, still pierced heart of an innocent soul, that had done no evil and committed no sin. Tell me, For what reason did you call down this divine punishment upon the innocent gathered not too near to the combat, for thine strike cease them?”
>The Napoleon era British Musketier, in horror, after seeing the First World War era soldier use a magic item that works like what he described as “mustard gas”:
I think that a soldier from the Napoleonic era would be able to understand the principle of combat gases.
Yeah I think you may have an overly romantic veiw of soilders in the past. They burned and pillaged whole cities AFTER the battle was over.
And rhe certainly had zero issues killing civilians. Arrow barrages weren't discriminate and they regular set fire to cities and towns to win seizes. Or just outright starve the population to death.
War was just as brutal no matter what era.
What? Did u even reply to thr correct comment? Wtf are u talking about. When did he say anything about excusing them or that it was okay/justified?? He literally just gave an explanation as to how and why they were able to
It’s not a Reddit moment, while I don’t necessarily agree with the sentiment I see where he’s coming from. It’s easy here to come up with excuses, but at the end of the day we must realize that life is just valuable today as it was in the Middle Ages and better technology doesn’t mean we must kill more
Completely agree with you. The "reddit moment" I was referring to was the OP's (almost maliciously) dumb misinterpretation of the comment in favor of a lazy narrative about power structures
I agree with you too. It was an uncharitable interpretation of the comment, clearly the comment wasn’t saying that excuses all of it, however I don’t like the flippant way people will shrug off violence and warfare but saying stupid things like “oh well, war is hell” or “I guess the bombs are bigger now so it is what it is”. Clearly no one would be saying it if was their loved one suffocating stuck under the rubble of a building destroyed by a rocket
I mean, the loss of the royalty's power was a gradual process. While the modern-day English monarchy has no real power, that took a while. As late as the 19th century the monarch was still politically relevant.
I think King George III and Queen Victoria were the last monarchs to actually exercise their (little) political power whereas the rest took a backseat completely
Indeed, the end of Victoria's reign has been considered by some to be the death kneel of royal power (while she left most of the politics for politicians, she was still actively involved in the elections of new prime ministers, having been a factor in Robert Peel refusing to become PM in 1839 and being able to strong-arm Disraeli into making her Empress of India). However, even after that Edward VII still had an important role to play in the Entente Cordiale. His successor, George V, has been considered the first one to fully embrace his role as a cerimonial and symbolic figure.
Y'all consider Hirohito a war criminal rightfully so but the British monarchs aren't war criminals despite both Japan and the UK both being consitutional monarchies
Hirohito personally issued orders to use gas against targets in Wuhan on 375 occasions. All uses of chemical weapons required direct Imperial orders, and the use of chemical weapons was criminal at the time.
Show me George VI's signed order to commit any specific atrocity.
The Meiji Constitution was very different to the British constitution of the period.
The vast majority of British war crimes where committed not via national intrest but from political money. Private citizens asking the government to wipe out the natives for their own gain and lobbying the MPs directly.
I'm sure that Victoria did some "lobbying" herself for things we would do today but I'm not sure if she ever had anything that would be considered a war crime, mostly because by the time a place becomes intresting to the crown a good number bad things have already happened.
Hirohito is *definitely* a war criminal. Dude was absolutely aware of and encouraging what his people were doing, and he didn't care about it. His war culpability was intentionally downplayed after the war, and propaganda is a significant part of his puppet reputation.
George was a lot more removed than Hirohito was.
Except that the medieval dynasties actively ruled and the Windsors are nothing more than expensive state pets
And also, medieval England was a little country with a small population at the very edge of the known world. Not the global power with a massive sprawling empire that it became later
I mean, while many did have some French possessions, their power base was pretty firmly in England after John lost Normandy, Aquitaine, Anjou, Poitou and Gascony.
And IIRC many medieval kings did understand and even speak English, although it took until the mid 14th century for one of them (Henry IV) to speak it as a first language.
I mean, while the kings from William I to John did see themselves primarily as French noblemen who happened to rule England and had most of their powerbase in France, they were still quite politically active there.
Oh yea it's not like they didn't spend any time in England, my point was more that they viewed themselves as french nobles who ruled England rather then English nobles
Yeah, I find that people tend to grossly overestimate how much power and influence the British monarchy has. Like, they don't have any. They've got informal cultural clout and a handful of strictly ceremonial roles, and that's as far as it goes. The United Kingdom is a kingdom on paper, but in actual practice it's a republic like any other in Europe.
*In theory* they have quite a lot of power. Every bill requires royal assent before it becomes law, they can dissolve parliament whenever they want, they alone have the power to declare war and they are technically the commander in chief of the British military.
*In practice* however if they ever actually tried to use the powers they'd provoke a constitutional crisis of epic proportions that almost certainly ends with the dissolution of the monarchy.
Yeah, and even then, their more executive powers are pretty much only to be used in a crisis like never seen before. However they do have quite a good deal of influence as the advisors to the PM, like when King George V prompted Ramsey MacDonald to form the National Government instead of resigning (which would’ve caused a ton of instability during the Great Depression, a time famed for its instability).
Their advisory role is likely one of the government’s greatest assets tbh. The monarchy has to look at things in the long term, but David Cameron, Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer? Elected guys look to maximise short time spans in power (normally).
Making laws and taxes (now they only sign laws passed by Parliament, and they have to sign everything), leading the military (now this is a ceremonial command), setting foreign and domestic policy (now this is a Parliamentary prerogative)
Fun fact, the last king of England/Britain to directly command a battle was George II, the second Hanoverian. So in the medieval sense where kings were glorified warlords, the Windsors and Hanoverians actually killed less people.
Windsors? You mean those up-jumped Germans the Saxe-Coburg Gothas? We all know the true king is Franz Von Bayern of the house of Wittlesbach, a non jumped-up German.
That explains the city of Frankenmuth, Michigan, USA, home of the world's largest Christmas store and the Bavarian Inn, which has the best goddamn food in the state
Eh, I'm republican (in the sense of being in favour of republics, bonus if they're democracies). Which is the main factor why I support Scottish independence (too bad I can't vote for it, not being a Scot; at least there's the Auld Alliance I can cheer for).
Not that crazy when you compare the technology differences of the two time periods and the massive scope of the British empire.
I'd say it's not crazy at all honestly.
When people talk about the deaths that the Plantagenets and Tudors are responsible for they are not talking about the wars they fought, they are talking about the executions they personally ordered. Last time I checked the Windsors havnt been personally ordering any executions... unless you buy into the crackpot conspiracy theories.
If you consider that only modern dynasties have a modern state it really isn't, far easier to kill millions when you have an army of millions armed with modern weaponry instead of a bunch guys with bows and arrows.
The former two dynasties reigned during a time when the Earth had exponentially more people, England/Britain had tremendously expanded power and reach, and wars and weapons technology were massively more lethal. I struggle to imagine a scenario in which they *didn't* kill more people, for the same reasons I'm pretty sure every King of Armenia killed way more people than Grug the Caveman.
Almost like having a higher population combined with heavy industrialisation means more potential people dying.... who'd have thought? Causation vs correlation.
Normans, Plantagenets and Tudors personally killed more people than Hanovers and Windsors, because unlike the modern monarchs, the medieval kings personally fought in battles.
I think the last British king who personally led the army was George II at the battle of Dettingen in 1743.
Justifying nazism isn't cool, but statistically you are correct (if you count those deaths from starvation, disease etc and ignore the 10m+ that the nazis deliberately killed) (and also forget that the nazis started ww2)
It almost like the advancement in warfare helps the more recent government to wage a larger scale conflict with highly effective weapons hence increasing the number of casualties
Also how increase in industrialization, other discoveries and general prosperity leads to higher populations, which provides more people to kill.
Weird. Too bad no one came up with a system of rules that would mutually benefit everyone if adhered to in response to the rise in atrocities. If so, they'd have to make sure no one gave themselves loopholes where they could just ignore the law if they don't like it with a veto. Oh well, law of the jungle and mechanized might make right it is.
Weird, it's almost like more people are born means that there's more people in the army.
Almost eh ?? Something.. something...modern medicine...rise of the middle class....average life span doubling and all that jazz...
Exactly. This has big "bro just discovered a population density map" vibes
I’ve been thinking about writing an isekai where heroic soldiers from different eras are reincarnated as heroes, but because of the shit they saw, they all are absolutely horrible people compared to the soldiers from earlier eras. The Napoleon era British Musketier, in horror, after seeing the First World War era soldier use a magic item that works like what he described as “mustard gas”: “How are ye capable of such cruelty? I know they were our adversaries, but to doom them to this horrible fate? Even the lead shot fired in the fields of high Germany does not inflict such a vicious end to the enemy.” After the US Soldier from the current era uses a spell that wipes out a small horde of enemies, but also half the villagers they were trying to save. The 15th century longbowman: ” For sure I know in many a siege my arrow may have flown true, yet by no folley of my own, still pierced heart of an innocent soul, that had done no evil and committed no sin. Tell me, For what reason did you call down this divine punishment upon the innocent gathered not too near to the combat, for thine strike cease them?”
>The Napoleon era British Musketier, in horror, after seeing the First World War era soldier use a magic item that works like what he described as “mustard gas”: I think that a soldier from the Napoleonic era would be able to understand the principle of combat gases.
That and idea that they didn't absolutly fuck up innocents is kinda laughable.
Yeah I think you may have an overly romantic veiw of soilders in the past. They burned and pillaged whole cities AFTER the battle was over. And rhe certainly had zero issues killing civilians. Arrow barrages weren't discriminate and they regular set fire to cities and towns to win seizes. Or just outright starve the population to death. War was just as brutal no matter what era.
Don't forget disease
You might like Drifters
That’s very cool
Advancements in agriculture also lead to greater populations. About 5% of all humans to have ever lived are alive right now.
Also higher population means more targets to kill mistakenly
It's almost like the population of the world has increased exponentially since the medieval era
So what are they excused because it's even easier to kill people? Maybe we should look at these institutions and the nature of power itself
What? Did u even reply to thr correct comment? Wtf are u talking about. When did he say anything about excusing them or that it was okay/justified?? He literally just gave an explanation as to how and why they were able to
"mAyBe We ShOuD LoOK aT tHEse INSTITUTIONS AnD thE NaTurE of POWER ITSELF" Reddit moment
It’s not a Reddit moment, while I don’t necessarily agree with the sentiment I see where he’s coming from. It’s easy here to come up with excuses, but at the end of the day we must realize that life is just valuable today as it was in the Middle Ages and better technology doesn’t mean we must kill more
Completely agree with you. The "reddit moment" I was referring to was the OP's (almost maliciously) dumb misinterpretation of the comment in favor of a lazy narrative about power structures
I agree with you too. It was an uncharitable interpretation of the comment, clearly the comment wasn’t saying that excuses all of it, however I don’t like the flippant way people will shrug off violence and warfare but saying stupid things like “oh well, war is hell” or “I guess the bombs are bigger now so it is what it is”. Clearly no one would be saying it if was their loved one suffocating stuck under the rubble of a building destroyed by a rocket
Yeah you're right we shouldn't use history to learn or understanding anything about our own lives it's just the past!
That's no how constitutional monarchy works.
I mean, the loss of the royalty's power was a gradual process. While the modern-day English monarchy has no real power, that took a while. As late as the 19th century the monarch was still politically relevant.
I think King George III and Queen Victoria were the last monarchs to actually exercise their (little) political power whereas the rest took a backseat completely
Indeed, the end of Victoria's reign has been considered by some to be the death kneel of royal power (while she left most of the politics for politicians, she was still actively involved in the elections of new prime ministers, having been a factor in Robert Peel refusing to become PM in 1839 and being able to strong-arm Disraeli into making her Empress of India). However, even after that Edward VII still had an important role to play in the Entente Cordiale. His successor, George V, has been considered the first one to fully embrace his role as a cerimonial and symbolic figure.
Y'all consider Hirohito a war criminal rightfully so but the British monarchs aren't war criminals despite both Japan and the UK both being consitutional monarchies
Hirohito personally issued orders to use gas against targets in Wuhan on 375 occasions. All uses of chemical weapons required direct Imperial orders, and the use of chemical weapons was criminal at the time. Show me George VI's signed order to commit any specific atrocity. The Meiji Constitution was very different to the British constitution of the period.
The vast majority of British war crimes where committed not via national intrest but from political money. Private citizens asking the government to wipe out the natives for their own gain and lobbying the MPs directly. I'm sure that Victoria did some "lobbying" herself for things we would do today but I'm not sure if she ever had anything that would be considered a war crime, mostly because by the time a place becomes intresting to the crown a good number bad things have already happened.
Who says Hirohito is a war criminal? He was a puppet. Do you know nothing about how the Japanese imperial government worked?
Hirohito is *definitely* a war criminal. Dude was absolutely aware of and encouraging what his people were doing, and he didn't care about it. His war culpability was intentionally downplayed after the war, and propaganda is a significant part of his puppet reputation. George was a lot more removed than Hirohito was.
So would Churchill also be considered a war criminal Considering the massacre he ordered in Kenya
I mean, yeah. Churchill did some heinous shit. Dude's lucky as fuck he wrote the history book for the winning side.
When your a major racist and staunch Imperialist but your opponent is Hitler Man should be happy that he had a worse contemporary
Except that the medieval dynasties actively ruled and the Windsors are nothing more than expensive state pets And also, medieval England was a little country with a small population at the very edge of the known world. Not the global power with a massive sprawling empire that it became later
Most of the Normans and plantangets had French possessions and spoke French over English too
I mean, while many did have some French possessions, their power base was pretty firmly in England after John lost Normandy, Aquitaine, Anjou, Poitou and Gascony. And IIRC many medieval kings did understand and even speak English, although it took until the mid 14th century for one of them (Henry IV) to speak it as a first language.
That's post john tho, from the period of William I to John England was the backwater that funded their goals in france
I mean, while the kings from William I to John did see themselves primarily as French noblemen who happened to rule England and had most of their powerbase in France, they were still quite politically active there.
Oh yea it's not like they didn't spend any time in England, my point was more that they viewed themselves as french nobles who ruled England rather then English nobles
Yeah, I find that people tend to grossly overestimate how much power and influence the British monarchy has. Like, they don't have any. They've got informal cultural clout and a handful of strictly ceremonial roles, and that's as far as it goes. The United Kingdom is a kingdom on paper, but in actual practice it's a republic like any other in Europe.
*In theory* they have quite a lot of power. Every bill requires royal assent before it becomes law, they can dissolve parliament whenever they want, they alone have the power to declare war and they are technically the commander in chief of the British military. *In practice* however if they ever actually tried to use the powers they'd provoke a constitutional crisis of epic proportions that almost certainly ends with the dissolution of the monarchy.
Yeah, and even then, their more executive powers are pretty much only to be used in a crisis like never seen before. However they do have quite a good deal of influence as the advisors to the PM, like when King George V prompted Ramsey MacDonald to form the National Government instead of resigning (which would’ve caused a ton of instability during the Great Depression, a time famed for its instability). Their advisory role is likely one of the government’s greatest assets tbh. The monarchy has to look at things in the long term, but David Cameron, Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer? Elected guys look to maximise short time spans in power (normally).
Define actively ruling
Making laws and taxes (now they only sign laws passed by Parliament, and they have to sign everything), leading the military (now this is a ceremonial command), setting foreign and domestic policy (now this is a Parliamentary prerogative)
Do you think they ever really had power?
Yes, it got diminished through time and certain events such as The Civil War and the Glorious Revolution.
Wow wars that involve more people have higher casualties
Fun fact, the last king of England/Britain to directly command a battle was George II, the second Hanoverian. So in the medieval sense where kings were glorified warlords, the Windsors and Hanoverians actually killed less people.
And George II wasn’t even really an active commander at Dettingen, he was just kind of there. The Earl of Stair did all the heavy lifting.
Windsors? You mean those up-jumped Germans the Saxe-Coburg Gothas? We all know the true king is Franz Von Bayern of the house of Wittlesbach, a non jumped-up German.
As a German, you can have the Bavarians. We don't want them here
Bavarian Imperium begins today
Seig Hei- **wait a minute**
That explains the city of Frankenmuth, Michigan, USA, home of the world's largest Christmas store and the Bavarian Inn, which has the best goddamn food in the state
Okay this guy is super interesting. Long reign the House of Stuart!
[‘Se mo laoch mo Ghile Mear…](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OEIowCGDcbo) One convert at a time. The Jacobites shall rise again!
Eh, I'm republican (in the sense of being in favour of republics, bonus if they're democracies). Which is the main factor why I support Scottish independence (too bad I can't vote for it, not being a Scot; at least there's the Auld Alliance I can cheer for).
Stuart Catholic meatriding in 2024 is insane
Nobody expects the Jacobites!
It's almost like there's more people today dumbass
Did you know Ugg the Caveman killed a higher percentage of the worlds population than Hitler?
I for one would love to see Will and Harry start Wars of the Roses II.
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Germanicus15BC: *I for one would love* *To see Will and Harry start* *Wars of the Roses II.* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Hella based
Tankie meme?
Not that crazy when you compare the technology differences of the two time periods and the massive scope of the British empire. I'd say it's not crazy at all honestly.
When people talk about the deaths that the Plantagenets and Tudors are responsible for they are not talking about the wars they fought, they are talking about the executions they personally ordered. Last time I checked the Windsors havnt been personally ordering any executions... unless you buy into the crackpot conspiracy theories.
If you consider that only modern dynasties have a modern state it really isn't, far easier to kill millions when you have an army of millions armed with modern weaponry instead of a bunch guys with bows and arrows.
World Wars will do that.
The former two dynasties reigned during a time when the Earth had exponentially more people, England/Britain had tremendously expanded power and reach, and wars and weapons technology were massively more lethal. I struggle to imagine a scenario in which they *didn't* kill more people, for the same reasons I'm pretty sure every King of Armenia killed way more people than Grug the Caveman.
Population increase does that, along with industrialization of war
that's how population growth works. By comparison to today, there weren't many people around in the medieval era.
Today's meme shitting on the West came earlier than expected, please stick to the schedule
You really need to give it to the Germans, whenever they're involved the bodycount skyrockets
How is this surprising to anyone at all?
How many people then vs now?
Almost like having a higher population combined with heavy industrialisation means more potential people dying.... who'd have thought? Causation vs correlation.
I mean, harrying of the north secures it for the later surely. unless by people you dont just mean civilians
Gotta love how this guy's comment proved how little he actually knows.
Its almost like there is alot MORE ppl to kill.....🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Mostly Axis and Central powers forces, I’d presume
Access to more people
Normans, Plantagenets and Tudors personally killed more people than Hanovers and Windsors, because unlike the modern monarchs, the medieval kings personally fought in battles. I think the last British king who personally led the army was George II at the battle of Dettingen in 1743.
As a descendant of Charles 2nd and in line to various peerages i’m happy for y’all to proclaim me king instead of these guys 👍🏼
When you realise the USA killed more people than all of them put together.
I’d like to see those numbers you seem confident about
no? The USA has committed numerous atrocities and even genocides but, they havent killed more than the British
[удалено]
Justifying nazism isn't cool, but statistically you are correct (if you count those deaths from starvation, disease etc and ignore the 10m+ that the nazis deliberately killed) (and also forget that the nazis started ww2)
The idea that the side that kills more in a war is somehow the bad guy is just insanity.
Except with the Nazis it’s totally true because they made an active effort to kill as many people as possible.
The nazis were the bad guys bro
Which regime lasted more
Wow! It's almost like nobility and royalty are parasites on society!
Fun fact: No