The pics thread

[cookiecutter]

There were lots of wars before the development of nation-states, but they were generally fought by mercenaries and involved relatively little bloodshed and a lot of maneuvering. Wars certainly became much bloodier with the development of nation-states, since there were people who were willing to fight to the death. However, I think the root here is not the development of nation-states, but the development of a conscious sense of national or ethnic identity.

I would definitely dispute that the reasons wars became bloodier with the rise of the nation state is due to a sense of a national identity. It is due to tanks and machine guns and bombers and things like that. Really the only major conflict that has been fought since the development of the nation-state was WWII and as we've already said that grew out of WWI, a conflict you yourself admit was started by the European empires.

Serbia indeed was a nation-state at the outbreak of WWI but they were merely the trigger as you say not the underlying cause. If not for the network of alliances engineered by the French, German, Russian, British and Austro-Hungarian empires, it would've merely been a regional conflict.

Prior to 1914 there were tons of conflicts. If you want bloody examples look at the Boer War or the British invasion of Tibet. I know this all stemmed from a humorous cartoon, but I don't think the argument that the creation of nation-states has made humanity more warlike is not defensible.

 

[-CC-]

 

[False Joe]

Win

 

[Blind Guardian]

What's up with everyone having Utumno posters recently?! I thought no one even knew of this band.

 

[Hubster]

!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hubster]

They call him the working man.

Fuck me dead thats Geddy Lee!

 

[Dak]

The rug really ties the room together.

 

[False Joe]

The rug really ties the room together.

Fucking legend movie.

"World of pain" and "Watch the beverage, man" have entered me and my mates regular vocabulary since we rewatched that.

 

[arg]

fap

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Yep. Hot

 

[Einherjar86]

The rug really ties the room together.

You totally just reminded me:

There's a guy running for senate on my campus whose last name is Dejesus.

I don't even need to tell you what his slogan should be, but I will anyway: "Nobody fucks with Dejesus!"

 

[waif]

I would definitely dispute that the reasons wars became bloodier with the rise of the nation state is due to a sense of a national identity. It is due to tanks and machine guns and bombers and things like that.

Agreed, there's increased killing power, but that doesn't matter without people willing to be killed. In WWI the Russians would have a line of soldiers. The guy at the front would have the gun. They'd run at a machine-gun nest and the guy in front would get shot. The guy behind him would pick up the gun and keep going. You don't get that sorta shit from mercenaries. Even without modern weapons WWI would have been a hell of a lot bloodier.

Really the only major conflict that has been fought since the development of the nation-state was WWII and as we've already said that grew out of WWI, a conflict you yourself admit was started by the European empires.

Right, WWII was inevitable after WWI...but only due to the development of nation-states in Europe; if the Treaty of Versailles had been made in the 1700s everything would have been cool.

If not for the network of alliances engineered by the French, German, Russian, British and Austro-Hungarian empires, it would've merely been a regional conflict.

Right. Nation-states were not really at fault for WWI.

I know this all stemmed from a humorous cartoon, but I don't think the argument that the creation of nation-states has made humanity more warlike is not defensible.

Or in other words you do think the argument that the creation of nation states has made humanity more warlike is defensible (Why the double negative?). You seem to be arguing that people were just as warlike before the rise of nation-states, though. And I'm not even sure what I'm arguing...

 

[cookiecutter]

Agreed, there's increased killing power, but that doesn't matter without people willing to be killed. In WWI the Russians would have a line of soldiers. The guy at the front would have the gun. They'd run at a machine-gun nest and the guy in front would get shot. The guy behind him would pick up the gun and keep going. You don't get that sorta shit from mercenaries. Even without modern weapons WWI would have been a hell of a lot bloodier.

I don't know why you are under the impression that only mercenaries fought wars before WWI but that isn't true. Besides Russia was an empire at the time of WWI so it only proves my point. A lot of the soldiers in the army would've been from places like Ukraine and central Asia so I don't think it was national pride that kept them going.

You seem to be arguing that people were just as warlike before the rise of nation-states, though.

This is what I am arguing.

 

[waif]

I don't know why you are under the impression that only mercenaries fought wars before WWI but that isn't true.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that prior to the rise of nation-states (which is not at all synonymous with WWI, it's much closer to the French Revolution), wars were generally fought by professional soldiers (for example, the British army) who were motivated by pay and not by pride, and commanders sought to avoid actual combat by a lot of maneuvering. This isn't a rule, it's just how things generally were.

This is what I am arguing.

Oh. Okay.
Well, I wouldn't contest that there were just as many wars before the rise of nation-states, if not more, but they were political wars fought between governments. The concept of total war, for example, is inextricably tied to the idea of the nation-state. I have to go to work now, but we can argue more later.

 

[General Zaroff]

Sure is gay in here.

 

[Vimana]

You totally just reminded me:

There's a guy running for senate on my campus whose last name is Dejesus.

I don't even need to tell you what his slogan should be, but I will anyway: "Nobody fucks with Dejesus!"

Win.

 

[Zephyrus]

Good insights I'm getting here. My concentration is pre-modern Europe, so I may never get to take a real course in anything after 1600. Thanks, Nick.

 

[skeptik]

Just redid my Wall o' Death! This shit's right above my bed. I'm consistently watched over by great metal bands (and some OK ones, and one great noise act):

Coincidentally I'm doing the same, no pictures though. Except all of my posters are great metal bands. So far over my CDs I have Kat and Mortuary Drape, and over my bed I have the two new gigantic The Crypt posters of Root and Utumno, and above that on the slight incline part of the ceiling I have Funebrarum, Hellhammer, and Portrait. Others I already had up but didn't move/rearrange are Master's Hammer, Tudor, Ignivomous, Excruciate, Karnarium, In Solitude, and Bathory. More to go, and maybe I'll take pictures then...

Edit: Runk: A bunch of people have Utumno posters now because it was just reissued, as I just mentioned above.

 

[Dak]

but they were political wars fought between governments.

That is what all war is. The method for procuring manpower changes, the size of the government changes, the excuses given to the populace changes, but at it's root all war is political.

 

[Belligerent]

Just redid my Wall o' Death! This shit's right above my bed. I'm consistently watched over by great metal bands (and some OK ones, and one great noise act):

Thought you hated Unearth.