Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:46 pm
...And then Maddie died of internal bleeding. The end.
A place to sit around and talk about the comic.
https://www.twokinds.net/forum/
What?Dadrobit wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:28 am Just a note here. Both Eastern and Western Basitins are militaristic communities to their core. Military life and conflict between the two communities is so essential that when one side begins to gain too much of an advantage over their counterpart, they actually back off and let the other side recover so that they can continue their war.
Yup. It's an old statement, but I believe it's one of the few from this period that is likely still canon to some degree.Technic[Bot] wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:06 amWhat?Dadrobit wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:28 am Just a note here. Both Eastern and Western Basitins are militaristic communities to their core. Military life and conflict between the two communities is so essential that when one side begins to gain too much of an advantage over their counterpart, they actually back off and let the other side recover so that they can continue their war.
I knew Basitins were supposed to be weird but that is more than i expected...
I like to think it's something as silly as whoever drew the borders had the map upside downSpottedKitty wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:56 pm<grumpy!Worf> "We do not discuss it with outsiders." </grumpy>
I see...
And, if I might add, only arms dealers tend to benefit in those situations.Sun Tzu wrote: There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.
That's super interestingRafe wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:48 am Some Long-Winded History Notes from Professor Rafe:
I minored in History, and ended up working as a historian, with one of my main areas of study being the history and effects of warfare. There have been periods in human history when wars were conducted under a very strict and mutually respected rules. This usually happens when the combatants are very close in religion and culture. Arrangements like this seem to come and go in cycles. Although it never worked all that perfectly, the "High Middle Ages" in Europe saw a period where warfare was somewhat regulated by the rules of Chivalry, and a lot of pressure from the Church to be non-violent (at least to other Christians). Basically, armies fought other armies, and were supposed to leave civilians alone, prisoners had to be properly cared for (at least the ones with rich friends), churches and monasteries were off-limits, you weren't supposed to fight on Sunday or religious holy days - things like that.
I remember reading an account of a battle for a besieged castle, where the army attacking the castle decided to have their sappers dig a tunnel under the castle to collapse one of its walls. The force defending the castle found out about it, and broke into the tunnel, starting an underground battle in the dark tunnel. The fighting was like nothing any of them had seen before. Everyone thought it was great, and pretty soon soldiers on both side were lining up and saying something like "C'mon! You've been down there long enough, it's my turn now!" I can't remember the outcome, but under Chivalry, if a castle surrendered, you couldn't loot it or harm any of the defenders.
It could be the Basitins have a similar respect for rules like these. When wars are more or less run in a way that the entire society isn't wiped out, they can last a long time. You may have heard of one European war that did. It was fought between the French House of Valois and their allies, against the Plantagenets and their allies, who were running most of Western France and England. It lasted from the year 1337 until 1453. They call it "The Hundred Year's War". Plenty of good stories and movies about that one.
And as to the Eastern Basitins being in the west and vice-versa, I can imagine the Eastern Basitins making a major push to capture the Western capitol. and in a countermove, the Western Basitins move to cut off the Eastern attack by flanking them and cutting them off from their capitol and their supplies (Kind of like the "On to Richmond"/"On to Washington" campaigns in the U.S. Civil War). But what ends up happening is, both of them succeed and capture their enemy's capitols. The Eastern Basitins control the West of the island, and the Western Basitins control the East. After arguing about who has to surrender to whom, they mutually decide to occupy each others land and keep fighting, which is where we stand today.
Actually, they broke the rules of Chivalry quite a bit during the Hundred Years War. The routinely burned the fields and houses of the peasants, and they were killed and raped too (that was called "chevauche", which means "ride"). I guess the nobles decided to turn a blind eye to this, since they weren't personally affected (they lost money, but so long as they were ransomed, they were willing to let slide a few dead peasants and claim that the war was fought following the Code of Chivalry...).Rafe wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:48 am Some Long-Winded History Notes from Professor Rafe:
I minored in History, and ended up working as a historian, with one of my main areas of study being the history and effects of warfare. There have been periods in human history when wars were conducted under a very strict and mutually respected rules. This usually happens when the combatants are very close in religion and culture. Arrangements like this seem to come and go in cycles. Although it never worked all that perfectly, the "High Middle Ages" in Europe saw a period where warfare was somewhat regulated by the rules of Chivalry, and a lot of pressure from the Church to be non-violent (at least to other Christians). Basically, armies fought other armies, and were supposed to leave civilians alone, prisoners had to be properly cared for (at least the ones with rich friends), churches and monasteries were off-limits, you weren't supposed to fight on Sunday or religious holy days - things like that.
I remember reading an account of a battle for a besieged castle, where the army attacking the castle decided to have their sappers dig a tunnel under the castle to collapse one of its walls. The force defending the castle found out about it, and broke into the tunnel, starting an underground battle in the dark tunnel. The fighting was like nothing any of them had seen before. Everyone thought it was great, and pretty soon soldiers on both side were lining up and saying something like "C'mon! You've been down there long enough, it's my turn now!" I can't remember the outcome, but under Chivalry, if a castle surrendered, you couldn't loot it or harm any of the defenders.
It could be the Basitins have a similar respect for rules like these. When wars are more or less run in a way that the entire society isn't wiped out, they can last a long time. You may have heard of one European war that did. It was fought between the French House of Valois and their allies, against the Plantagenets and their allies, who were running most of Western France and England. It lasted from the year 1337 until 1453. They call it "The Hundred Year's War". Plenty of good stories and movies about that one.
And as to the Eastern Basitins being in the west and vice-versa, I can imagine the Eastern Basitins making a major push to capture the Western capitol. and in a countermove, the Western Basitins move to cut off the Eastern attack by flanking them and cutting them off from their capitol and their supplies (Kind of like the "On to Richmond"/"On to Washington" campaigns in the U.S. Civil War). But what ends up happening is, both of them succeed and capture their enemy's capitols. The Eastern Basitins control the West of the island, and the Western Basitins control the East. After arguing about who has to surrender to whom, they mutually decide to occupy each others land and keep fighting, which is where we stand today.
He already knows about the Dragon though.AmigaDragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:25 pm Irrelevant for Reni's interrogation, I've been wondering if Karen knows any keidran, and now whether Brutus knows any human. On the wall during the attack, were they speaking human or being magically translated?
Don't forget "DRAGON!"Welsh halfwit wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:27 amBrutus' thoughts. "Food, food, food... Human with Keidran ears!???
You reminded me my history classes in high-school. Used to love history you know. And your comment is mighty interesting.Rafe wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:48 am Some Long-Winded History Notes from Professor Rafe:
I minored in History, and ended up working as a historian, with one of my main areas of study being the history and effects of warfare. There have been periods in human history when wars were conducted under a very strict and mutually respected rules. This usually happens when the combatants are very close in religion and culture. Arrangements like this seem to come and go in cycles. Although it never worked all that perfectly, the "High Middle Ages" in Europe saw a period where warfare was somewhat regulated by the rules of Chivalry, and a lot of pressure from the Church to be non-violent (at least to other Christians). Basically, armies fought other armies, and were supposed to leave civilians alone, prisoners had to be properly cared for (at least the ones with rich friends), churches and monasteries were off-limits, you weren't supposed to fight on Sunday or religious holy days - things like that.
I remember reading an account of a battle for a besieged castle, where the army attacking the castle decided to have their sappers dig a tunnel under the castle to collapse one of its walls. The force defending the castle found out about it, and broke into the tunnel, starting an underground battle in the dark tunnel. The fighting was like nothing any of them had seen before. Everyone thought it was great, and pretty soon soldiers on both side were lining up and saying something like "C'mon! You've been down there long enough, it's my turn now!" I can't remember the outcome, but under Chivalry, if a castle surrendered, you couldn't loot it or harm any of the defenders.
or
It could be the Basitins have a similar respect for rules like these. When wars are more or less run in a way that the entire society isn't wiped out, they can last a long time. You may have heard of one European war that did. It was fought between the French House of Valois and their allies, against the Plantagenets and their allies, who were running most of Western France and England. It lasted from the year 1337 until 1453. They call it "The Hundred Year's War". Plenty of good stories and movies about that one.
And as to the Eastern Basitins being in the west and vice-versa, I can imagine the Eastern Basitins making a major push to capture the Western capitol. and in a countermove, the Western Basitins move to cut off the Eastern attack by flanking them and cutting them off from their capitol and their supplies (Kind of like the "On to Richmond"/"On to Washington" campaigns in the U.S. Civil War). But what ends up happening is, both of them succeed and capture their enemy's capitols. The Eastern Basitins control the West of the island, and the Western Basitins control the East. After arguing about who has to surrender to whom, they mutually decide to occupy each others land and keep fighting, which is where we stand today.
Actually, many of the Aztec's neighbors didn't share that view on war and religion (they did sacrifice human beings as part of their religion too, but not at a level that demanded to launch actual wars to provide enough victims...), and loathed them so much that when the Spaniards arrived they provided tens of thousands of warriors to help destroy the Aztecs...Technic[Bot] wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:46 pmYou reminded me my history classes in high-school. Used to love history you know. And your comment is mighty interesting.Rafe wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:48 am Some Long-Winded History Notes from Professor Rafe:
I minored in History, and ended up working as a historian, with one of my main areas of study being the history and effects of warfare. There have been periods in human history when wars were conducted under a very strict and mutually respected rules. This usually happens when the combatants are very close in religion and culture. Arrangements like this seem to come and go in cycles. Although it never worked all that perfectly, the "High Middle Ages" in Europe saw a period where warfare was somewhat regulated by the rules of Chivalry, and a lot of pressure from the Church to be non-violent (at least to other Christians). Basically, armies fought other armies, and were supposed to leave civilians alone, prisoners had to be properly cared for (at least the ones with rich friends), churches and monasteries were off-limits, you weren't supposed to fight on Sunday or religious holy days - things like that.
I remember reading an account of a battle for a besieged castle, where the army attacking the castle decided to have their sappers dig a tunnel under the castle to collapse one of its walls. The force defending the castle found out about it, and broke into the tunnel, starting an underground battle in the dark tunnel. The fighting was like nothing any of them had seen before. Everyone thought it was great, and pretty soon soldiers on both side were lining up and saying something like "C'mon! You've been down there long enough, it's my turn now!" I can't remember the outcome, but under Chivalry, if a castle surrendered, you couldn't loot it or harm any of the defenders.
or
It could be the Basitins have a similar respect for rules like these. When wars are more or less run in a way that the entire society isn't wiped out, they can last a long time. You may have heard of one European war that did. It was fought between the French House of Valois and their allies, against the Plantagenets and their allies, who were running most of Western France and England. It lasted from the year 1337 until 1453. They call it "The Hundred Year's War". Plenty of good stories and movies about that one.
And as to the Eastern Basitins being in the west and vice-versa, I can imagine the Eastern Basitins making a major push to capture the Western capitol. and in a countermove, the Western Basitins move to cut off the Eastern attack by flanking them and cutting them off from their capitol and their supplies (Kind of like the "On to Richmond"/"On to Washington" campaigns in the U.S. Civil War). But what ends up happening is, both of them succeed and capture their enemy's capitols. The Eastern Basitins control the West of the island, and the Western Basitins control the East. After arguing about who has to surrender to whom, they mutually decide to occupy each others land and keep fighting, which is where we stand today.
Anyhow to add some relevant about this type or organized conflict. Xochiyáoyotl or floral wars* was a form of ritual wars practiced by aztecs and other native people in Mexico. In these conflict two opposing "armies" faced each other in an specifically designated place called either yaotlallí or cuauhtli. The objective of these battle was not to rout the enemy forces, nor to win the battle but to get captives. These captives and prisoners were then took home and sacrified to the god of war Huitzilopochtli. They did these as they believed that the gods ran on blood and if no sacrifices were made the sun would stop rising in the morning.
Sure in this conflict people could and did died and get hurt but that was not the point you wanted captives. And also this was no normal war either, aztecs did fought conventional wars from time to time, mainly to capture the different lordships located in the area. In these wars you took no prisoners, by imperial order.
I can imagine the basitins having a similar arrangement. After whatever made them end on the opposite ends of the island made them realize that all out conflict would results in mutual assured destruction they went to more and organized, "chivalrous" conflict were they could exercise their blood lust martial prowess without necessarily killing each other.
*citation needed
Well most actual scholars consider that Xochiyailyotl were less "war" and more ritual conflicts, the number of sacrifices that these events provided is considered to be way small compared to other events and most accounts of them are considered to be very exaggerated by the spanish. Not to say there were not many sacrifices: In the "New dedication of the greater temple"* (1487) over 10k persons were sacrificed.Xian wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:10 am
Actually, many of the Aztec's neighbors didn't share that view on war and religion (they did sacrifice human beings as part of their religion too, but not at a level that demanded to launch actual wars to provide enough victims...), and loathed them so much that when the Spaniards arrived they provided tens of thousands of warriors to help destroy the Aztecs...
As a matter of fact, the Aztecs had a reputation of being quite irrational and bloodthirsty when it come religious matters...
An concrete example from actual Aztec religious history: When the Aztecs were still a homeless, errant people wandering around North America in search of a place to settle down, they arrived to the lands of Culhuacan, where they were greeted by the king. The Aztecs told him that, as a way to show their gratitude, they would make one of his daughters "the wife of their god", implying that she would be made their great priestess.
The king of Culhuacan, flattered by their offer, accepted it, and sent them his favorite daughter. Soon after, he was invited to a ritual to honor the god Xipe Totec...
The lord of Culhuacan came, sat and feasted with the leaders of the Aztecs, and when the ritual was about to start... the priest of Xipe Totec appeared, wearing the skin of the princess as a body suit...
Yeah, they had taken the chance to use trickery to capture and sacrifice a virgin of royal blood, not caring that her father was the only leader willing to accept them in his lands (no wonder nobody else wanted then around!). The king of Culhuacan was incredibly pissed, of course, and he ordered his army to genocide the Aztecs, who had to escape and hide in a swamp, where they built their city, Mexico.