Just a place for random musings and shit.

22nd August 2014

Link reblogged from A Dog of War with 83 notes

http://nightbringer24.tumblr.com/post/95395758477/swedebeast-sapper-in-the-wire-swedebeast →

sapper-in-the-wire:

nightbringer24:

sapper-in-the-wire:

nightbringer24:

sapper-in-the-wire:

nightbringer24:

sapper-in-the-wire:

nightbringer24:

sapper-in-the-wire:

swedebeast:

sapper-in-the-wire:

swedebeast:

sapper-in-the-wire:

So it’ll be pretty awesome if Scotland gets its independence.

Maybe it’ll be a domino effect sort of thing and we see the last of the British Empire crumble.

So it’ll be pretty awesome if Texas gets its…

Are you forgetting how Cromwell deported scots and Irish to be worked to death in plantations?

Because I’m three generations down from an Irishman and a Scotswoman and the hate is still palpable.

And? Which is better: killing them wholesale or deporting them? He chose the latter of two evils.

And don’t give me that tired American “I’m descended from an Irishman/Scotsman/Welshman, so I should have a say on British politics” bullshit. I’m sorry but seeing that shit so often annoys me to no end. You have as no say in British politics.

My family on my father’s side is entirely Scottish: the Forsyth clan. We’ve fought for a Scottish kings and English kings. We’ve faced Englishmen, Welshmen, and our fellow Scots. But do we hold a grudge? No. Because that’s in the past, and that’s where it should remain. Because we can be, and will be, better than that. And we don’t need jacked up Americans trying to force their way into political ground where they’re not wanted.

This is a British problem. And it will be sorted by Britons.

Wait so you’re saying working someone to death as a slave is a better option than a quick death? So British prisoners after the revolutionary war should have been sold to the south?

You know, what about giving quarter to your foes?

Nah, fuck Cromwell.

"You’re not from here so you can’t say" is a pretty shitty position, son. I recall Southerners using the same line of reasoning, and the South Africans with apartheid. Hoeß says the same thing in his memoirs.

My point was that all the scots I know, both those that live in Scotland and ex pats, are ardently anti union. So the feeling is still there.

You are trying to put a modern spin on an old political practice: of course by today’s standards, it’s wrong, but back then: perfectly normal. In fact, it was a better alternative. Would you rather be cut/gunned down, while your homestead burns around you, seeing your women raped? Of course not. But that was the only alternative. But many countries would just massacre the losers wholesale.

Your argument wasn’t about ex-pats though. Your argument was about YOUR family lineage and claiming that gives you a say in the matter. It doesn’t. As for ex-pats: they can have an opinion. But that’s it. This matter will be decided by people living in Scotland, not a Scot living in America (which from a logistical point of view is a godsend. Imagine all those ballot results…)

Byzantines integrated prisoners into their empire as citizens. England and France ransomed prisoners during the Hundred Years’ War. Executing prisoners or enslaving them isn’t the only option. I’m saying the better option would have just to have given quarter to the prisoners. Even in the Thirty Years War, prisoners were treated with respect in certain cases. Those that executed prisoners were known as butchers, so it was seen as unusual.

No I didn’t. I don’t consider myself a scot or Irishman. I meant that the Scottish and Irish of my family are still anti union. “Palpable” means externally felt.

But it still happened. And remember that Cromwell came after one of the bloodiest wars to be fought on British soil, so of course he was gonna be blood thirsty.

As Swedebeast has pointed out though, you wrote: "Because I’m three generations down from an Irishman and a Scotswoman and the hate is still palpable."If your family still feel that way after over 300 years, then you must have a very petty family to cling onto a hatred that old.

Cromwell is dead. Charles II is dead. All the soldiers and generals who fought for them are dead and those poor souls sent into exile are dead. That hatred should die with them. Don’t tray and fester an old scar. It does no-one any good.

That’s a shitty excuse. The American Civil War was the bloodiest conflict in American history, the Union still gave complete amnesty to Confederate prisoners.

Even during the eighty years war paroling and ransoming soldiers was the norm, so this isn’t a time period issue. In fact, the Treaty of Westphalia is the first place to suggest that you release prisoners without conditions, so the idea was alive during this century.

I can understand you disagreeing with me about Scotland, but what the fuck are you doing defending Cromwell?

The treaty of Westphalia wasn’t signed by the British sovereign. It was only signed by the kings of mainland Europe following the 80 and 30 Years War while the ECW was still going on, so you can’t use it in the context of the English Civil War. Also, a secondary cause of the ECW was religion, and history is quite clear how brutal religious groups can get when they’re religious view is challenged.

I’m not defending him. I said his methods were brutal but in the time period, they were explainable.

Same time period. So what I meant was that in this era, killing prisoners or enslaving them was already seen as dishonorable. The Imperial cause in Germany lost support because of its harsh treatment of prisoners, but these were committed by only a few. The big names, Wallenstein and Tilly, gave quarter and were respected for it.

And it was very widespread, from Spain to Bohemia. We see instances of armies allowing clearly defeated forces to leave the battlefield unconditionally, i.e. what was going to happen at Rocroi until the misfires.

So again, it isn’t a factor of time period. If anything, Cromwell’s actions are worse when we consider the era, had Cromwell fought during the latter end of the Hundred Years War, his actions would not have been notable (though enslavement was rare and considered more barbaric than execution). Yet the 17th century is post enlightenment, and these sort of actions were looked down upon.

And to kill civilians after a siege is one thing, but to order a systematic ethnic cleansing? That harkens back to the Spanish of the 15th century. Even the Protestant and Catholic populations of Germany did no such thing after the Thirty Years’ War concluded. Cromwell’s actions stand as uniquely barbaric for this late in the 17th Century.

Can we actually stop here before we start talking about the ethics of war, pre- and post-Enlightenment? We may have gone too off topic by now. 

22nd August 2014

Link reblogged from A Dog of War with 83 notes

http://nightbringer24.tumblr.com/post/95395758477/swedebeast-sapper-in-the-wire-swedebeast →

sapper-in-the-wire:

nightbringer24:

sapper-in-the-wire:

nightbringer24:

sapper-in-the-wire:

nightbringer24:

sapper-in-the-wire:

swedebeast:

sapper-in-the-wire:

swedebeast:

sapper-in-the-wire:

So it’ll be pretty awesome if Scotland gets its independence.

Maybe it’ll be a domino effect sort of thing and we see the last of the British Empire crumble.

So it’ll be pretty awesome if Texas gets its…

Are you forgetting how Cromwell deported scots and Irish to be worked to death in plantations?

Because I’m three generations down from an Irishman and a Scotswoman and the hate is still palpable.

And? Which is better: killing them wholesale or deporting them? He chose the latter of two evils.

And don’t give me that tired American “I’m descended from an Irishman/Scotsman/Welshman, so I should have a say on British politics” bullshit. I’m sorry but seeing that shit so often annoys me to no end. You have as no say in British politics.

My family on my father’s side is entirely Scottish: the Forsyth clan. We’ve fought for a Scottish kings and English kings. We’ve faced Englishmen, Welshmen, and our fellow Scots. But do we hold a grudge? No. Because that’s in the past, and that’s where it should remain. Because we can be, and will be, better than that. And we don’t need jacked up Americans trying to force their way into political ground where they’re not wanted.

This is a British problem. And it will be sorted by Britons.

Wait so you’re saying working someone to death as a slave is a better option than a quick death? So British prisoners after the revolutionary war should have been sold to the south?

You know, what about giving quarter to your foes?

Nah, fuck Cromwell.

"You’re not from here so you can’t say" is a pretty shitty position, son. I recall Southerners using the same line of reasoning, and the South Africans with apartheid. Hoeß says the same thing in his memoirs.

My point was that all the scots I know, both those that live in Scotland and ex pats, are ardently anti union. So the feeling is still there.

You are trying to put a modern spin on an old political practice: of course by today’s standards, it’s wrong, but back then: perfectly normal. In fact, it was a better alternative. Would you rather be cut/gunned down, while your homestead burns around you, seeing your women raped? Of course not. But that was the only alternative. But many countries would just massacre the losers wholesale.

Your argument wasn’t about ex-pats though. Your argument was about YOUR family lineage and claiming that gives you a say in the matter. It doesn’t. As for ex-pats: they can have an opinion. But that’s it. This matter will be decided by people living in Scotland, not a Scot living in America (which from a logistical point of view is a godsend. Imagine all those ballot results…)

Byzantines integrated prisoners into their empire as citizens. England and France ransomed prisoners during the Hundred Years’ War. Executing prisoners or enslaving them isn’t the only option. I’m saying the better option would have just to have given quarter to the prisoners. Even in the Thirty Years War, prisoners were treated with respect in certain cases. Those that executed prisoners were known as butchers, so it was seen as unusual.

No I didn’t. I don’t consider myself a scot or Irishman. I meant that the Scottish and Irish of my family are still anti union. “Palpable” means externally felt.

But it still happened. And remember that Cromwell came after one of the bloodiest wars to be fought on British soil, so of course he was gonna be blood thirsty.

As Swedebeast has pointed out though, you wrote: "Because I’m three generations down from an Irishman and a Scotswoman and the hate is still palpable."If your family still feel that way after over 300 years, then you must have a very petty family to cling onto a hatred that old.

Cromwell is dead. Charles II is dead. All the soldiers and generals who fought for them are dead and those poor souls sent into exile are dead. That hatred should die with them. Don’t tray and fester an old scar. It does no-one any good.

That’s a shitty excuse. The American Civil War was the bloodiest conflict in American history, the Union still gave complete amnesty to Confederate prisoners.

Even during the eighty years war paroling and ransoming soldiers was the norm, so this isn’t a time period issue. In fact, the Treaty of Westphalia is the first place to suggest that you release prisoners without conditions, so the idea was alive during this century.

I can understand you disagreeing with me about Scotland, but what the fuck are you doing defending Cromwell?

The treaty of Westphalia wasn’t signed by the British sovereign. It was only signed by the kings of mainland Europe following the 80 and 30 Years War while the ECW was still going on, so you can’t use it in the context of the English Civil War. Also, a secondary cause of the ECW was religion, and history is quite clear how brutal religious groups can get when they’re religious view is challenged.

I’m not defending him. I said his methods were brutal but in the time period, they were explainable.

22nd August 2014

Post reblogged from CKIDF Official with 3 notes

Homebrewing regimental fluff for 40k

butmuhgains:

butmuhgains:

So far:

The Secareans hail from a small planet in the Segmentum Pacifus. It is a civilized world, having just grasped the concept of true range warfare, its history pockmarked wildy by conflicts ranging from lightning wars in the deserts, comparable to the Tallarns’ specialty, to slogging trenches the Death Korps would be comfortable in. The Secareans know of only one method of warfare: Kill your enemy; if you can’t, find a way that will.

nightbringer24 strategiczergface how’s this sound for an entry paragraph?

Alright, now they’re essentially the Highland Brigade, as a world fighting force. The creator’s favorites are the Blackguard (Black Watch), a subservient regiment inside the Brigade, but there’s also several other regiments that I’ll write up later maybe.

It sounds all right. Although I think you’re only problem is that the models need to be tailored to the fluff. If you try to make them too much like a jack-of-all-trades, you run the risk of making them Cadians. Maybe try and making them specialized in one aspect of warfare. Like my Morphean Highlanders are light infantry, so very very few heavy vehicles.

21st August 2014

Video reblogged from Rift-In-The-Warp with 67,827 notes

frienem:

hyenasinbootyshorts:

tommypom:

This is me sneezing and it’s one of the most adorable things you’ll watch all day.

man lets reblog some cute happy shit

BABY

Source: tommypom

21st August 2014

Photoset reblogged from $17,000 with 1,260 notes

ich-liebe-dicks:

tsulala:

xpikax:

Under the Dog anime project directed by Masahiro Ando (Sword of the StrangerBlast of TempestCANAAN)

"Under the Dog takes place in 2025 in Neo Tokyo, five years after a devastating terrorist attack at the Tokyo Olympics. In the wake of the tragedy, the U.N. formed a covert ops unit dedicating to seeking out, then eliminating those responsible for the attack. Anthea Kallenberg, a girl of Swedish descent is a member of this elite group who has honed her combat abilities and has become a deadly assassin, but must come to terms as to who she really is."

Support it on Kickstarter!

You guys like Fire Emblem? I’m supporting to nab another art book by Yuusuke Kozaki, who does the character designs for Fire Emblem Awakening, No More Heroes, Speed Grapher, etc. And also cuz this show looks neat! Let’s support the creators we love!

"Under the Dog takes place in 2025 in Neo Tokyo, five years after a devastating terrorist attack at the Tokyo Olympics."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA I’m down for this.

Tagged: under the dog

Source: xpikax

21st August 2014

Photoset reblogged from Elizabeth with 12,591 notes

thefrogman:

[video] [h/t: sizvideos]

Source: sizvideos

21st August 2014

Post with 1 note

How… optimistic of you.

I have quite high hopes for the people I follow/who follow me.

Tagged: swedebeastreply

21st August 2014

Post

Now, to a slightly more important question: do I go for a holiday to the Netherlands and visit the-pietriarchy or Scandinavia to visit swedebeast/thewarsmithsforge/wastelandgopnik?

Tagged: personal

21st August 2014

Post with 1 note

Okay, can we say that matter’s resolved now? Because I don’t want to wake up to see that again on my dash.

Tagged: personal

21st August 2014

Photoset reblogged from Sharks and Sailors with 32,923 notes

Source: sizvideos