An email just rolled into my Inbox which looks interesting. A hypothetical invasion of Europe by Aztecs.
QuoteJust when Europe thought it was safe from troublesome Eastern foes, a new blood-curdling threat looms off the Western coast in Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion.
In the latest DLC for the critically-acclaimed strategy/RPG Crusader Kings II, Paradox Interactive and Paradox Development Studios pose the question – what would have happened if the Aztecs invaded 13th Century Europe?
For the first time ever, Paradox Development Studio is introducing a fantasy scenario in their strategy games. Introducing a wealth of new features to appease the angriest of sun gods, the upcoming Crusader Kings II DLC brings the savage, blood drenched Aztec civilization to European shores, determined to wreak carnage on its inhabitants. Cower in fear at the invaders strange gods and rituals including the potential peril of having your vital organs offered up to these vengeful deities in sacrifice. Anything to keep them happy!
It will be survival of the fittest to survive the onslaught of the menacing Mesoamerican warriors, bringing with them exotic and deadly diseases, and an appetite for destruction.
Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion arrives November 15th 2012 on all major digital download portals for 4,99 USD.
Laughable. What would have happened? All the aztecs would have died from small pox and typhoid. It would be a short invasion.
Sounds ridiculous. Wasn't that the plot of one of Orson Card's shittier novels?
LOLwut?
I checked the calendar to see if it was April 1st!
Why not make it Martians?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 31, 2012, 09:23:02 AM
Laughable. What would have happened? All the aztecs would have died from small pox and typhoid. It would be a short invasion.
Heh. That was precisely my first thought as well.
Quote from: tgb on October 31, 2012, 10:28:29 AM
Why not make it Martians?
That would be more believable!
Smallpox would have decimated them, with no immunities built up.
However, my bet is that they would have given the gift that keeps on giving.
Syphilis.
Arriving a century or so before Columbus' sailors brought it back, this could be the question to test in this new scenario.
I was stunned...wtf? Really...of all the possible ideas...including Historic and plausible historic, this is the one that stuck for the next DLC project? It is a half step ahead of Crusader Kings II "The Martian Invasion" pack...but thats about all I can give it. I will be skipping this one.
Odd choice for an expansion. I wanted the Mongol invasion.
^YES
Wtf? Well, the ones that survived the 3 month trip would have been mowed down by European cavalry before they got 1 mile off the beach. Who thinks of this stuff?
Quote from: TheCommandTent on October 31, 2012, 08:10:18 PM
Odd choice for an expansion. I wanted the Mongol invasion.
IIRC the Mongols weren't the most exciting faction to play. You'll spend centuries herding goats and then suddenly one ruler will get the bright idea to go west and plunder. Then you'll overrun every nation until your head of clan dies and then you'll start all over again.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on October 31, 2012, 09:56:23 AM
Sounds ridiculous. Wasn't that the plot of one of Orson Card's shittier novels?
Not sure about OSC but the idea did crop up in an alt hist SF short story a decade (or2)ago. Damifino who wrote it thought. I may have read it as a part of one of those 'What If?' Anthologies.
When I saw the title of the thread I thought they were adding South America conquest, not the other way around!
I think this is going "full reversal" here:
QuoteIt will be survival of the fittest to survive the onslaught of the menacing Mesoamerican warriors, bringing with them exotic and deadly diseases, and an appetite for destruction.
So the Aztecs bring diseases to Europe (rather than the other way around). I'm not really all that happy with this, given that it is a huge deviation from my field of study and why I find CKII interesting and fun. But I'm willing to give it a look.
I could, perhaps, see a separate campaign in the Americas at the time, or even an early landing situation in NA. But last I checked, the meso-americans weren't exactly deep ocean-farers, were they? :o
Quote from: Nefaro on November 01, 2012, 10:04:05 PM
I could, perhaps, see a separate campaign in the Americas at the time, or even an early landing situation in NA. But last I checked, the meso-americans weren't exactly deep ocean-farers, were they? :o
Not exactly, though there are theories out there that at some time some deep ocean farers were crossing the Pacific in the past.
I'm willing to suspend disbelief, but given the realm of possible expansions and the grounded nature of the Crusader Kings franchise, it is something of a surprising departure, no?
If by surprising you mean retarded, then I agree. It's devolving into "Deadliest Warrior" territory. What's next, Zulus vs. Samurai?
Quote from: LongBlade on November 01, 2012, 10:06:20 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on November 01, 2012, 10:04:05 PM
I could, perhaps, see a separate campaign in the Americas at the time, or even an early landing situation in NA. But last I checked, the meso-americans weren't exactly deep ocean-farers, were they? :o
Not exactly, though there are theories out there that at some time some deep ocean farers were crossing the Pacific in the past.
I'm willing to suspend disbelief, but given the realm of possible expansions and the grounded nature of the Crusader Kings franchise, it is something of a surprising departure, no?
The Pacific Islanders were indeed accomplished deep sea-farers. But it's believed they only showed up on the west coast of South America back in the Dark Ages, when the "native" americans already had civilization booming there, and integrated with them. The last mesoamericans I'd expect to sail to Europe would be those on the west coast of South America, on the west side of the Andes.
Quote from: LongBlade on November 01, 2012, 10:06:20 PM
I'm willing to suspend disbelief, but given the realm of possible expansions and the grounded nature of the Crusader Kings franchise, it is something of a surprising departure, no?
I think you've put your finger on why this new DLC bothers me so much: With all the rich historical material from this period to draw upon for interesting "what if" scenarios, why in the hell would you waste the time & resources on a scenario so ridiculously implausible?? It's beyond absurd.
I'd have an easier believing a "Celtic Rage" expansion, wherein an Irish or Scottish noble rises to conquer all of Europe...
Bah, wake me up when it's interesting...like Braveheart vs. Sun Tzu or something.
Quote from: Martok on November 02, 2012, 10:09:35 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on November 01, 2012, 10:06:20 PM
I'm willing to suspend disbelief, but given the realm of possible expansions and the grounded nature of the Crusader Kings franchise, it is something of a surprising departure, no?
I think you've put your finger on why this new DLC bothers me so much: With all the rich historical material from this period to draw upon for interesting "what if" scenarios, why in the hell would you waste the time & resources on a scenario so ridiculously implausible?? It's beyond absurd.
I'd have an easier believing a "Celtic Rage" expansion, wherein an Irish or Scottish noble rises to conquer all of Europe...
Even the Mongols would have been more believable, or perhaps a DLC based on a "what if Charles Martel lost the battle of Poitiers and France in 1066 was under Muslim control" - then you could play as rebellious Christian nobles trying an all-out
Reconquista of Europe.
I would even believe a "what if China went to the West rather than the West going to China (with Marco Polo)" scenario - although that is really just a Mongol scenario like I said above.
Heck, it would have been even cooler to play up some of the actual what-ifs of the era. What if Clovis had not converted and the Franks remained Pagan, so France in 1066 was a Pagan kingdom? What if the Vikings had conquered Europe or England instead of raiding it (so Normandy would be the overlords of all of France in 1066). What if the Pope had decided to be a warlord and expand the Papal States against the Holy Roman Empire following the Gregorian Reform and the Investiture Controversy? What if the Lombard league of Republican City-States had gathered support from ascending Florence and Genoa and taken the fight north against Barbarossa, freeing the German cities and creating non-feudal city republics? What if the plague had not happened, and European populations stayed high?
So much to work with that we really don't need the Aztecs. It feels intellectually dishonest to be so fantastic. Why did they not hire a medievalist (like me) and run through plausible and interesting scenarios before hitting the outlandish and idiotic?
I fully concur with what you're saying,
SoM, so I'll merely confine my response to your (rhetorical?) question:
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 03, 2012, 10:27:41 AM
So much to work with that we really don't need the Aztecs. It feels intellectually dishonest to be so fantastic. Why did they not hire a medievalist (like me) and run through plausible and interesting scenarios before hitting the outlandish and idiotic?
It sounds like a fan first suggested the "Sunset Invasion" idea, and that it apparently resonated with the devs (or at least a few of them) so well that they took the ball and ran with it.
So in essence, we now have this Aztec DLC because (in all likelihood) two or three guys at Paradox were sufficiently enthralled with the idea, who then impressed their vision on the rest of the team... :-\
Ah well. As others have pointed out, at least I don't have to purchase it to still enjoy the game.
I just realized that the base game (without the CK+ mod) doesn't even have Judaism in the game. They should have at least worked on adding Jews (a hugely important European minority in the middle ages) before Aztecs, IMHO.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 03, 2012, 02:02:07 PM
I just realized that the base game (without the CK+ mod) doesn't even have Judaism in the game. They should have at least worked on adding Jews (a hugely important European minority in the middle ages) before Aztecs, IMHO.
Yes, but it wouldn't play too well from a PR perspective if they had had offered the ability to discriminate against them. Easier to leave it all out, I suspect.
Quote from: LongBlade on November 03, 2012, 02:10:37 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 03, 2012, 02:02:07 PM
I just realized that the base game (without the CK+ mod) doesn't even have Judaism in the game. They should have at least worked on adding Jews (a hugely important European minority in the middle ages) before Aztecs, IMHO.
Yes, but it wouldn't play too well from a PR perspective if they had had offered the ability to discriminate against them. Easier to leave it all out, I suspect.
Agreed.
The only thing you would regularly see would be christian europeans killing the minority Jews during every crusade and witch hunt. It was like a tradition at the time. ::) Not much enjoyment to be gained with that modelled in-game. :-[
So when is the "Gauls Gone Wild" DLC slated for release?
Quote from: Senex on November 03, 2012, 04:36:24 PM
So when is the "Gauls Gone Wild" DLC slated for release?
<chuckle>
Well played, sir.
Now, LB, it's not all that simple.
While to most people (westerners) the Jews were a minority with a distrusted religion, in the southern steppes of modern day Ukraine, was a vibrant, militarily significant, kingdom, the Khazars.
Caught between the strict Christians of the north and west, and the Muslims of the South and east, the Khazars found a middle path, they converted to Judaism. This greatly confounded their neighbors, as no other kingdom in history, was Jewish.
Not only that, but as firm allies of Byzantium, they helped keep the Arabs out of the steppes of Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars
i pass .. CK2 is a great game .. if i want fantasy i play torchlight ii
Quote from: Nefaro on November 03, 2012, 03:12:58 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on November 03, 2012, 02:10:37 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 03, 2012, 02:02:07 PM
I just realized that the base game (without the CK+ mod) doesn't even have Judaism in the game. They should have at least worked on adding Jews (a hugely important European minority in the middle ages) before Aztecs, IMHO.
Yes, but it wouldn't play too well from a PR perspective if they had had offered the ability to discriminate against them. Easier to leave it all out, I suspect.
Agreed.
The only thing you would regularly see would be christian europeans killing the minority Jews during every crusade and witch hunt. It was like a tradition at the time. ::) Not much enjoyment to be gained with that modelled in-game. :-[
It was also a tradition for Jews to be long-distance traders, members of royal courts, legal scholars, bankers, and productive members of society. The idea of constant and rampant Anti-Jewish violence in the middle ages is inaccurate (I'm not claiming it wasn't horrible when it happened, but that daily life was not always violent and unpleasant for Jews). To me, it is more of a PR blunder to leave out a religious group that was extremely socially and intellectually important to the middle ages.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 03, 2012, 10:26:12 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on November 03, 2012, 03:12:58 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on November 03, 2012, 02:10:37 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 03, 2012, 02:02:07 PM
I just realized that the base game (without the CK+ mod) doesn't even have Judaism in the game. They should have at least worked on adding Jews (a hugely important European minority in the middle ages) before Aztecs, IMHO.
Yes, but it wouldn't play too well from a PR perspective if they had had offered the ability to discriminate against them. Easier to leave it all out, I suspect.
Agreed.
The only thing you would regularly see would be christian europeans killing the minority Jews during every crusade and witch hunt. It was like a tradition at the time. ::) Not much enjoyment to be gained with that modelled in-game. :-[
It was also a tradition for Jews to be long-distance traders, members of royal courts, legal scholars, bankers, and productive members of society. The idea of constant and rampant Anti-Jewish violence in the middle ages is inaccurate (I'm not claiming it wasn't horrible when it happened, but that daily life was not always violent and unpleasant for Jews). To me, it is more of a PR blunder to leave out a religious group that was extremely socially and intellectually important to the middle ages.
Yes, I know. Although whenever luck went bad, we know who would be the first to get the blame and somewhat regularly the violence & killing whenever large groups gathered.
I also think the Jewish religion should be in the game but mainly for the aforementioned Khazar reason. I just can't see many Jews being given regular positions in the higher nobility, in these violently Christian kingdoms of the time. Since the tiny middle-class isn't modelled in CK2, I'd think that aspect would have to be added to the whole system before being able to do so.
Would also like to see the Jews be able to play an in-game role with respect to the politics & dimplomacy with the Crusader states. Surely they had to have had a good amount of influence in the region.
Quote from: HG Erzherzog Josefs on November 03, 2012, 07:08:53 PM
i pass .. CK2 is a great game .. if i want fantasy i play torchlight ii
Heh.
Welcome to Grogheads!
Looks like a resounding 'NO' from our community.
What is the CK+ mod?
Quote from: jomni on November 04, 2012, 06:14:47 AM
Looks like a resounding 'NO' from our community.
Yup...and not just here either.
Of the gaming sites I've visited in the last few days since
Sunset Invasion was announced, far & away the biggest response has been one of bafflement and/or derision. There are some who are intrigued/enthralled by the idea, but they're clearly a minority.
I am just now getting into CK2.
No mods.
The premise of the game really intrigues me, but I find the myriad of buttons you can click on make it very hard to focus on the important stuff.
I mean, with all those options presented, there are bound to be a lot of menu's or parts of menu's that are only really relevant in certain situations or otherwise not used very often.
I am ploughing through the Tutorial, but if it's as non-informative as the one in EU3 I don't think I will become much wiser as to how the game works.
The manual isn't too helpful either; it only tells you which button is labelled what and opens which menu, but it doesn't go very much into what makes the game tick.
Granted, I am still in the 'Basic' tutorial section of the game, I do wonder wether the tutorial is any good later on? For now I have only seen pretty much what is in the manual; telling me which button opens which menu screen. :)
One of the things that help getting around are the tooltips and expanded tooltips. A game like this really needs something like it. So that helps a little at least.
Any tips to getting started from you guys, please?
Yskonyn - I found the Crusader Kings 2 - Guide For Newbies by SeeKayEm99 a very good if lengthy place to start, part 1 is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMzAXqOqV5k&feature=plcp
Quote from: Yskonyn on November 04, 2012, 07:17:44 AM
I am just now getting into CK2.
No mods.
The premise of the game really intrigues me, but I find the myriad of buttons you can click on make it very hard to focus on the important stuff.
I mean, with all those options presented, there are bound to be a lot of menu's or parts of menu's that are only really relevant in certain situations or otherwise not used very often.
I am ploughing through the Tutorial, but if it's as non-informative as the one in EU3 I don't think I will become much wiser as to how the game works.
The manual isn't too helpful either; it only tells you which button is labelled what and opens which menu, but it doesn't go very much into what makes the game tick.
Granted, I am still in the 'Basic' tutorial section of the game, I do wonder wether the tutorial is any good later on? For now I have only seen pretty much what is in the manual; telling me which button opens which menu screen. :)
One of the things that help getting around are the tooltips and expanded tooltips. A game like this really needs something like it. So that helps a little at least.
Any tips to getting started from you guys, please?
you could read the AAR on the front page, some awesome writer guy is adding to it as we speak :P
undercovergeek.. hmz who would that talented writer be, I wonder. ;) Thanks I will check it out.
Wolfe, thanks for the video link. Surely going to check that out as well.
You guys will probably hear from me here. :)
I wonder if I could trace my lineage back 1000 years if I could trace it to the Khazars. I am part Ukrainian.
SoM is correct above when he states that it wasn't always horrific for Jews in Europe for the last 1000 years.
One of the areas where Jews thrived the most was Germany.
All that said, I bet that Judaism is left out of CKII for the same reason that slavery was left out of Colonization...too complicated and too easy to be miscontrued/misunderstood in its representation.
Quote from: Gusington on November 04, 2012, 11:18:10 AM
I wonder if I could trace my lineage back 1000 years if I could trace it to the Khazars. I am part Ukrainian.
SoM is correct above when he states that it wasn't always horrific for Jews in Europe for the last 1000 years.
One of the areas where Jews thrived the most was Germany.
All that said, I bet that Judaism is left out of CKII for the same reason that slavery was left out of Colonization...too complicated and too easy to be miscontrued/misunderstood in its representation.
I figure if we trace my family roots back far enough we'll find we were peasants who were abused by various powers at various times. It would not surprise me at all to find I have some Mongol blood in me somewhere.
Quote from: NefaroI just can't see many Jews being given regular positions in the higher nobility, in these violently Christian kingdoms of the time.
This was an extremely common practice throughout Europe, in particular in the Mediterranean south. There were even Jewish noble landowners in Spain (before the 16th century anyway). Jews sat as the kings' advisers and were often treasurers (part of where the Jewish stereotype of being connected to money originates). It changes by the 14th century, but in Marseille, there was a synagogue, many prominent Jewish businessmen, and cohabitation between Jews and Christians all the way until Marseille's entrance into the Kingdom of France in the late 1400s. Much of the religious violence happened in the Imperial territories in the German east, but even then you have to think that it wasn't the kingdoms who were violent it was localities - centralized power was not existent in the middle ages.
Quote from: Longbladefigure if we trace my family roots back far enough we'll find we were peasants who were abused by various powers at various times. It would not surprise me at all to find I have some Mongol blood in me somewhere.
If you have anyone connected to Spain, you likely have Muslim and Jewish roots. Also in Germany. The idea that the religions didn't mix is ludicrous, we all know people love to... *ahem*... "connect" with one another frequently and regardless of personal beliefs. The red hair of the Irish comes from Vikings (I think everyone probably has at least a drop of Viking DNA, even as far as North Africa).
Quote from: TGBWhat is the CK+ mod?
They were talking about it on Octopus Overlords. It really adds a TON of stuff while still keeping the mechanics and flavor of vanilla. The Jews and the Khazar are in there, for instance, and there are a much wider variety and frequency of heresies. Also more realistic and accurate counties, duchies, and kingdoms. I haven't gotten to play with it much yet, but what I saw looks stronger than the base game without being something completely new and game-breaking. It also works with all of the DLC. The only problem is keeping it updated, as they update very actively.
Check it out at the Paradox Forums here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?587854-WizCK2-Balance-improvements-more-kingdoms-and-empires-more-ambitions-and-plots&p=13460212&viewfull=1#post13460212
You do need to sign in to the P-dox forums to see it and DL it.
EDIT: I do have to wonder about the philosophy of "sanitizing" history in order to be more politically correct. How is it right to add a bloodthirsty Aztec race that can fantastically make it to Europe and take captives and sacrifice them to their gods on altars but not put in the Jews because they really went through these things? Does it not, in a sense, led to forgetting the importance of a marginalized, mistreated, but also extremely important group? I guess I have a problem with the idea that you can have an execution button in CK2, where - if you wanted to - you could personally massacre characters that have rudimentary artificial intelligence, personalities, and pictures, but it is too sensitive to put Jews in - even as a just characters - because people might do bad things to them.
When you send your knights to crush a peasant rebellion and the numbers drop in the combat dialog, what do people think is happening there? They aren't being patted on the back and sent home with a "good show." When you click the "Missionary" button on your court chaplain and send him to a place and you get the "Inquisition Starts" event, what do people think is happening there? He isn't giving them candy to love Jesus.
To me, sanitization of history is a grave insult to the people that actually had these things happen to them. I would rather have a game where the social cost of using violence is high (and CK2 has mechanisms for this) so that people realize it was an option for medieval leaders but not the only or best option. Removing a key racial group from a game is, to me, more insulting than putting them in.
Yskonyn, you will not find very much help in the Tutorials. Your best bet is to dive in, start pressing buttons and trying things. The tooltips help immensely.
I haven't played until 1453 yet, but my current game, starting as the Count of Breifne in Ireland, is at almost 1200 A.D. and humming along. I am King of Ireland with all the Counties of Ireland under my direct control or vassallage. I am trying to involve myself in Brittany. A Muslim Kingdom from Spain has recently conquered the entire Kingdom of Brittany except for the County of Vannes, which belongs to my vassal. Said Sultan declared war on me and attacked Vannes. His troops outnumbered me ~ 25, 000 to ~ 10,000. Much to my delight, the Kings of England and Scotland, along with assorted independant Counties and Duchies, offered to join my Crusade Against the Infidel! When I stopped for the night, the Sultan had offered me peace along with Prestige gains and a large sum of money, but if I accept, the progress I have made in besieging his lands in Brittany will come to naught. It will be status quo antebellum. I'm going to go back and play it out until I get 100% warscore and see if my gains are more substantial. If not, I will reload and accept peace now.
Sorry about the tangent. A few things I learned the hard way were:
County sites, your Castle (which is usually the capitol), your city, (Oxford comma) and your Bishopric can be upgraded. Just click on them to open the menu.
Succession Law, if it not already Primogeniture should probably be changed to it a.s.a.p. And a Tax boost of one level can probably be borne by your vassals, but don't upset them. They produce the bulk of your troops and revenue.
A positive relationship with your family, your courtiers and your vassals is VERY important. For example, unless you have a positive relationship with the Mayor of your city, he will refuse you his revenue and troop levy. Another example is the relationship with the Bishop of your Church. If he likes the Pope better than you, he will deny you his revenue.
In order to declare war, you must have a Casus Belli. You gain them through 1) marriage, 2) fabrication, 3) de Jure or 4) pressing the claim of a Courtier. If you right click a characters portrait, a set of options becomes available to you. If you have a Casus Belli with that character, you will be able to see the icon that represents a declaration of war. Clicking that will bring you to the Diplomacy screen which will lay out your options and the associated costs in Popularity, Prestige and the like. You can gain an understanding of what you are up against in war by clicking an opponents county, then his fiefs. It will tell you how far along the research trail s/he is at that moment.
There are numerous ways to each of your options with the characters you interact with. Try to familiarize yourself with all of them. Find the one that works for you, but be aware of how to get to all of them. For instance, if you right click a character portrait and select the option to get them married, the list of available spouses is confined to your present pool of courtiers in your court. But if you go to that character's information screen, you will find the gold wedding bands as its own option and clicking it will open a pool of eligible spouses from all over the world.
There is a myriad of other things, like your advisors, have them be as high a number in their requisite stat as possible. The highest I have employed so far is a Chancellor wirh a 29 Diplomacy score. And there are ways to improve your relations with those you interact with. Giving them lands of their own, giving them titles, like Master of the Horse or Cupbearer, and gifting them Gold, all work. Some better than others.
Hope this is helpful to you. Sorry for highjacking the thread. And if you're up for some MP, my Steam moniker is stophro.
Much appreciated, MetalDog! ;D
That's a great post up there on the sanitization of history SoM.
Thanks for the tip on the mod, SoM. I haven't been particularly interested in the official DLC, so that may revitalize the game for me. Being of Hebraic heritage, I'd love to play a Jewish faction.
As to the other issues, just have the Aztecs sacrifice the Jews and all bases are covered.
Quote from: tgb on November 04, 2012, 07:31:36 PM
Thanks for the tip on the mod, SoM. I haven't been particularly interested in the official DLC, so that may revitalize the game for me. Being of Hebraic heritage, I'd love to play a Jewish faction.
As to the other issues, just have the Aztecs sacrifice the Jews and all bases are covered.
Maybe the Aztec-Jew Alliance to wipe Christianity out of Europe? Should we add in the Martians, when that DLC hits?
Thanks Gus, for the good word. I feel fairly strongly about this, as I think textbooks tend to take the sex, violence, and scandal out of the narrative - which pretty much takes out a lot of motivations and activities throughout history. We say we shouldn't forget the horrible things that have happened, but then seem too squeamish to talk, think, or learn about them.
Quote from: Wolfe1759 on November 04, 2012, 08:45:24 AM
Yskonyn - I found the Crusader Kings 2 - Guide For Newbies by SeeKayEm99 a very good if lengthy place to start, part 1 is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMzAXqOqV5k&feature=plcp
These videos are superb, Wolfe! Thank you very much for sharing. The game is starting to make sense now and as I hoped, looks to be quite interesting and fun to play. :thumbup:
Keep that history dirty SoM...without knowing true history it gets that much harder to progress.
Quote from: Gusington on November 05, 2012, 01:56:05 PM
Keep that history dirty SoM...without knowing true history it gets that much harder to progress.
Today was a particularly dirty day. We talked about naughty stories on par with the Canterbury Tales or worse. Look up Berenger of the Long Arse and see..
I always liked George MacDonald Fraser's article in the Mail.
The last testament of Flashman's creator: How Britain has destroyed itself
by GEORGE MACDONALD FRASER
05 January 2008
When 30 years ago I resurrected Flashman, the bully in Thomas Hughes's Victorian novel Tom Brown's Schooldays, political correctness hadn't been heard of, and no exception was taken to my adopted hero's character, behaviour, attitude to women and subject races (indeed, any races, including his own) and general awfulness.
On the contrary, it soon became evident that these were his main attractions. He was politically incorrect with a vengeance.
Through the Seventies and Eighties I led him on his disgraceful way, toadying, lying, cheating, running away, treating women as chattels, abusing inferiors of all colours, with only one redeeming virtue - the unsparing honesty with which he admitted to his faults, and even gloried in them.
And no one minded, or if they did, they didn't tell me. In all the many thousands of readers' letters I received, not one objected.
In the Nineties, a change began to take place. Reviewers and interviewers started describing Flashman (and me) as politically incorrect, which we are, though by no means in the same way.
This is fine by me. Flashman is my bread and butter, and if he wasn't an elitist, racist, sexist swine, I'd be selling bootlaces at street corners instead of being a successful popular writer.
But what I notice with amusement is that many commentators now draw attention to Flashy's (and my) political incorrectness in order to make a point of distancing themselves from it.
It's not that they dislike the books. But where once the non-PC thing could pass unremarked, they now feel they must warn readers that some may find Flashman offensive, and that his views are certainly not those of the interviewer or reviewer, God forbid.
I find the disclaimers alarming. They are almost a knee-jerk reaction and often rather a nervous one, as if the writer were saying: "Look, I'm not a racist or sexist. I hold the right views and I'm in line with modern enlightened thought, honestly."
They won't risk saying anything to which the PC lobby could take exception. And it is this that alarms me - the fear evident in so many sincere and honest folk of being thought out of step.
I first came across this in the United States, where the cancer has gone much deeper. As a screenwriter [at which Fraser was almost as successful as he was with the 12 Flashman novels; his best-known work was scripting the Three Musketeers films] I once put forward a script for a film called The Lone Ranger, in which I used a piece of Western history which had never been shown on screen and was as spectacular as it was shocking - and true.
The whisky traders of the American plains used to build little stockades, from which they passed out their ghastly rot-gut liquor through a small hatch to the Indians, who paid by shoving furs back though the hatch.
The result was that frenzied, drunken Indians who had run out of furs were besieging the stockade, while the traders sat snug inside and did not emerge until the Indians had either gone away or passed out.
Political correctness stormed onto the scene, red in tooth and claw. The word came down from on high that the scene would offend "Native Americans".
Their ancestors may have got pieeyed on moonshine but they didn't want to know it, and it must not be shown on screen. Damn history. Let's pretend it didn't happen because we don't like the look of it.
I think little of people who will deny their history because it doesn't present the picture they would like.
My forebears from the Highlands of Scotland were a fairly primitive, treacherous, blood-thirsty bunch and, as Robert Louis Stevenson once wrote, would have been none the worse for washing. Fine, let them be so depicted, if any film maker feels like it; better that than insulting, inaccurate drivel like Braveheart.
The philosophy of political correctness is now firmly entrenched over here, too, and at its core is a refusal to look the truth squarely in the face, unpalatable as it may be.
Political correctness is about denial, usually in the weasel circumlocutory jargon which distorts and evades and seldom stands up to honest analysis.
It comes in many guises, some of them so effective that the PC can be difficult to detect. The silly euphemisms, apparently harmless, but forever dripping to wear away common sense - the naivete of the phrase "a caring force for the future" on Remembrance poppy trays, which suggests that the army is some kind of peace corps, when in fact its true function is killing.
The continual attempt to soften and sanitise the harsh realities of life in the name of liberalism, in an effort to suppress truths unwelcome to the PC mind; the social engineering which plays down Christianity, demanding equal status for alien religions.
The selective distortions of history, so beloved by New Labour, denigrating Britain's past with such propaganda as hopelessly unbalanced accounts of the slave trade, laying all the blame on the white races, but carefully censoring the truth that not a slave could have come out of Africa without the active assistance of black slavers, and that the trade was only finally suppressed by the Royal Navy virtually single-handed.
In schools, the waging of war against examinations as "elitist" exercises which will undermine the confidence of those who fail - what an intelligent way to prepare children for real life in which competition and failure are inevitable, since both are what life, if not liberal lunacy, is about.
PC also demands that "stress", which used to be coped with by less sensitive generations, should now be compensated by huge cash payments lavished on griping incompetents who can't do their jobs, and on policemen and firemen "traumatised" by the normal hazards of work which their predecessors took for granted.
Furthermore, it makes grieving part of the national culture, as it was on such a nauseating scale when large areas were carpeted in rotting vegetation in "mourning" for the Princess of Wales; and it insists that anyone suffering ordinary hardship should be regarded as a "victim" - and, of course, be paid for it.
That PC should have become acceptable in Britain is a glaring symptom of the country's decline.
No generation has seen their country so altered, so turned upside down, as children like me born in the 20 years between the two world wars. In our adult lives Britain's entire national spirit, its philosophy, values and standards, have changed beyond belief.
Probably no country on earth has experienced such a revolution in thought and outlook and behaviour in so short a space.
Other lands have known what seem to be greater upheavals, the result of wars and revolutions, but these do not compare with the experience of a country which passed in less than a lifetime from being the mightiest empire in history, governing a quarter of mankind, to being a feeble little offshore island whose so-called leaders have lost the will and the courage, indeed the ability, to govern at all.
This is not a lament for past imperial glory, though I regret its inevitable passing, nor is it the raging of a die-hard Conservative.
I loathe all political parties, which I regard as inventions of the devil. My favourite prime minister was Sir Alec Douglas-Home, not because he was on the Right, but because he spent a year in office without, on his own admission, doing a damned thing.
This would not commend him to New Labour, who count all time lost when they're not wrecking the country.
I am deeply concerned for the United Kingdom and its future. I look at the old country as it was in my youth and as it is today and, to use a fine Scots word, I am scunnered.
I know that some things are wonderfully better than they used to be: the new miracles of surgery, public attitudes to the disabled, the health and well-being of children, intelligent concern for the environment, the massive strides in science and technology.
Yes, there are material blessings and benefits innumerable which were unknown in our youth.
But much has deteriorated. The United Kingdom has begun to look more like a Third World country, shabby, littered, ugly, run down, without purpose or direction, misruled by a typical Third World government, corrupt, incompetent and undemocratic.
My generation has seen the decay of ordinary morality, standards of decency, sportsmanship, politeness, respect for the law, family values, politics and education and religion, the very character of the British.
Oh how Blimpish this must sound to modern ears, how out of date, how blind to "the need for change and the novelty of a new age". But don't worry about me. It's the present generation with their permissive society, their anything-goes philosophy, and their generally laid-back, inyerface attitude I feel sorry for.
They regard themselves as a completely liberated society when in fact they are less free than any generation since the Middle Ages.
Indeed, there may never have been such an enslaved generation, in thrall to hang-ups, taboos, restrictions and oppressions unknown to their ancestors (to say nothing of being neck-deep in debt, thanks to a moneylender's economy).
We were freer by far 50 years ago - yes, even with conscription, censorship, direction of labour, rationing, and shortages of everything that nowadays is regarded as essential to enjoyment.
We still had liberty beyond modern understanding because we had other freedoms, the really important ones, that are denied to the youth of today.
We could say what we liked; they can't. We were not subject to the aggressive pressure of specialinterest minority groups; they are. We had no worries about race or sexual orientation; they have. We could, and did, differ from fashionable opinion with impunity, and would have laughed PC to scorn, had our society been weak and stupid enough to let it exist.
We had available to us an education system, public and private, that was the envy of the world. We had little reason to fear being mugged or raped (killed in war, maybe, but that was an acceptable hazard).
Our children could play in street and country in safety. We had few problems with bullies because society knew how to deal with bullying and was not afraid to punish it in ways that would send today's progressives into hysterics.
We did not know the stifling tyranny of a liberal establishment, determined to impose its views, and beginning to resemble George Orwell's Ministry of Truth.
Above all, we knew who we were and we lived in the knowledge that certain values and standards held true, and that our country, with all its faults and need for reforms, was sound at heart.
Not any more. I find it difficult to identify a time when the country was as badly governed as it has been in the past 50 years.
We have had the two worst Prime Ministers in our history - Edward Heath (who dragooned us into the Common Market) and Tony Blair. The harm these two have done to Britain is incalculable and almost certainly irreparable.
Whether the public can be blamed for letting them pursue their ruinous policies is debatable.
Short of assassination there is little people can do when their political masters have forgotten the true meaning of the democracy of which they are forever prating, are determined to have their own way at all costs and hold public opinion in contempt.
I feel I speak not just for myself but for the huge majority of my generation who think as I do but whose voices are so often lost in the clamour.
We are yesterday's people, the over-the-hill gang. (Yes, the old people - not the senior citizens or the time-challenged, but the old people.) Those of ultra-liberal views may take consolation from this - that my kind won't be around much longer, and then they can get on with wrecking civilisation in peace.
But they should beware. There may well be more who think like me than the liberal Left establishment likes to think. When my views were first published in book form in 2002, I was not surprised that almost all the reviewers were unfavourable. I had expected that my old-fashioned views would get a fairly hostile reception, but the bitterness did astonish me.
I had not realised how offensive the plain truth can be to the politically correct, how enraged they can be by its mere expression, and how deeply they detest the values and standards respected 50 years ago and which dinosaurs like me still believe in, God help us.
But the readers' reactions to the book were the exact opposite of critical opinion. I have never received such wholehearted and generous support.
For the first time in 30 years as a professional writer I had to fall back on a printed card thanking readers for writing, apologising because I could not reply personally to them all.
Most of the letters came from the older generation, but by no means all. I was made aware that among the middle-aged and people in their 20s and 30s there is a groundswell of anger and frustration at the damage done to Britain by so-called reformers and dishonest politicians who hardly bother to conceal their contempt for the public's wishes.
Plainly many thought they were alone in some reactionary minority. They had been led to think that they were voices muttering to themselves in the wilderness.
Well, you are not. There are more of you out there than you realise - very many more, perhaps even a majority.
Quote
I had not realised how offensive the plain truth can be to the politically correct, how enraged they can be by its mere expression,..
Excellent piece on the scourge of political correctness.
Although that could turn the thread into an OT discussion, I'm glad you posted it because I don't frequent the political section here.