Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Saber Cherry]

Right I've had it with this thread. I have a masters in Medivial History from York University so listen up.

5.) Very comman.

I would demand a refund from York  , unless you meant Communication Manager System for Data Exchange for Ship Operations

I would be more concerned with:

I have a masters in Medivial History...

...trade embryos...

Being unable to spell your own degree is a sign of QUARITY.  But stating that diplomatic sanctions were normally effected by trading embryos, well, that's just awesome.

[Servant Corps]

Right I've had it with this thread. I have a masters in Medivial History from York University so listen up.

1.) Peaceful Protests- these did occur, however they were very rare, far more likely is that it would dissolve into a angry mob, either because of oration from the mob leaders or the fact that European kings method's for dealing with protests was to use force.

2.) Diplomatic sanctions however were far more common, nearly always in the form of trade embryos.

3.)Sabatoge - very viable, assainantions, stirring up rebellions, backing pretenders, full blown lets poison the well or destroy the building was generally only used in a seige.

4.) Not in the modern sense, their would be no leaflet drops to make them turn on their rulers. Missionaires would be the only viable method of this, although tradionally this lacked effectiveness as these missionaires would be very harshly treated, Elizabth I executed Jesuits and Seminary Priests for treason.

5.) Very comman.

It seems to me that the "peaceful protests" referred to in the first post that mentioned them are the diplomat requesting that the offending party cease, as opposed to a crowd gathering outside to demand something. Besides, given the case of two different nations widely separated from each other, peaceful protests by citizens are not likely to be a tool of international diplomacy.

Yeah that is what I mean. I didn't know of any other way to say that though. Hm.

[Silverionmox]

- Peaceful protests of course happened, but they aren't documented very well.. because they were so common. Paper is cheap, as well as papyrus, wax tables and clay tablets.
- Trade sanctions: controlling trade always has been a tool of power. Who gets the tolls, the staple rights, the mill, etc. ? A step further towards war is blockading ports or trade routes.
- Sabotage was less common, because there was less infrastructure and destroying something required an army anyway due to the lack of explosives. Raiding and plundering, burning fields as a war of attrition instead of a confrontation was common practice, however.
- Propaganda: not as flexible as the modern version, but sponsoring religions/missionaries is an ancient practice. There still is pretty direct stuff, eg. the Mesopotamian kings that deified themselves, or the Egyptian Pharaohs that put up steles to commemorate their victories.
- Outright bribing was less common in times with less monetary means, but promising a count a promotion to duke if he switched allegiance from one king to another would have been considered.

1) No, they really were NOT that common. At least not on a level that was taken seriously. There is a very good reason for this. FEUDALISM! The Great Chain of Being, Castes. All that. People were programed to think they were born into a position and HAD to listen to those above them for the most part. Education was not common, what was there reinforced the Great Chain of Being. You know what getting excommunicated in pre-1400's Europe meant? It was a death sentence. The Great Chain of Being was a part of the Catholic doctrine, and thus to deny the great chain (aka: protesting your better's actions in any way shape or form) was heresy.

Feudalism was not a symptom of indoctrination and totalitarian control; on the contrary, it's the result of the inability to exert control over long distances. The king can't move his pitiful army over from Paris to Bordeaux quickly, so he gets his nephew or one of his drinking buddies or someone he owes a big favour (at least anyone who could muster troops) to represent his interests over there. All he has to guarantee their obedience is personal loyalty, formalized in an oath. After a few generations that personal loyalty is absent (exchanging pupils/hostages was an attempt to counteract that). If one of his barons then refused to send what they perceived as their income to the king, the king had to go trounce them. Of course, if he did that everyone else would refuse to pay taxes as well, since he only had one army. So instead, a lot of envoys were sent back and forth until an agreement was reached. That could simply mean tax reduction, or anything else could be drawn in as well.

2)Actually only in DF, period wise it was still not a valid method because most places were built to be self sufficent. Do you know how HARD it was to maintain communications and other things after the fall of the roman empire? Once their roads broke down? Trade in europe almost came to a stand still until the Bergs began to form (proto-cities). I'm not saying it wasn't happening, but the general concensus was that either A) my vassals give me the stuff I need from taxes and may request a tiny bit from me if they need it, or B) I can go raid my next door neighbors at lance and sword point and FORCE them to give me what I want, or C) I can do without.
If we're talking a full blown siege or blockade? Again, not common until the age of sea except for land based sieges. And those are basically what we go through now. NO GIANT CATAPULTS! NO TREBUCHETS! Just a bunch of guys camped outside taking any supplies meant for the City/Castle/Keep until somebody starts waving the white flag.

I expect to see the whole range of economical development from (barely) self-sufficient freshly founded villages and nomadic tribes to prosperous trade centers where almost half of the population is not involved in food production. Tolls wouldn't be worth much without much trade, but that only makes the local mill rights, mortmain etc. more valuable. The raiding only happens when the nominal king or emperor can't keep his vassals in line - let alone demand more than symbolic taxes.

4)Yeah. Missionaries were about it. And that only worked on Heathen lands, and didn't stop the Crusaders from coming in and still lopping off christian heads. Sorry, the crusades ended more christian than Muslim lives by the end of them (and that is NOT including the crusader casualty list, nor those who the Muslim's killed. That's taking the kill list of the Crusaders ALONE).

There were plenty of conflicts of interest and viewpoint even within Christianity. Every religious order is a different viewpoint (franciscans, cistercians,...). Even before the Reformation there were plenty of heresies and doctrinal disputes with political links (arians, nestorians,...) and then we still didn't mention orthodox vs. catholic.. A lot of manoeuvering behind the screens happened to determine which faction got that new church over there, or who could convince lord Longshanks to donate that piece of land to their monastery and not that other heretic order.

[Dvergar]

I don't think the historical background of diplomacy is relevant, the topic is alternatives to war in the game, the realism is unimportant.

Sabotage of the enviroment has already been mentioned, as have trade sanctions, but in addition

-Kidnapping political prisoners
-Assassinating certain targets (not nobles, but dwarves with many favorible relationships and/or skilled dwarves)
-Bribing the nation as long as the fort follows certain conditions, maybe install agents?
-Poison the water
-Poison the booze
-Poison the food
-Poison the livestock/animals (Treats?)
-Release high body-temp vermin into Fortress
-Magically collapse tiles/ignite hiden coal
-Trade cursed items to the dwarves that gives bad moods/cause fast-acting insanity
-Spread propaganda causing dwarves to defect
-On the larger scale turn other allies against fortress, agitate/equip gobos with supperior weaponry

[darkflagrance]

-Bribing the nation as long as the fort follows certain conditions, maybe install agents?

It turns out the Duke is an elf sleeper agent. The last we heard of him was a scream from the magma pipe.


Or maybe he wasn't, but it sure was convenient.

[Neruz]

Trading Embargoes are a waste of time for the Elves due to the fact that the Dwarves rarely, if ever, actually want to trade with them anyway.

[darkflagrance]

Trading Embargoes are a waste of time for the Elves due to the fact that the Dwarves rarely, if ever, actually want to trade with them anyway.

I would hope though that the current general lack of liaison and over-valuing of rope reed are being considered glitches for the present version that will eventually be fixed.

[Neruz]

Most of what Dwarves consider valuable require fairly heavy industry, industry Elves just do not have.

So unless they become the world's exotic animal vendors, they're never going to really be valuable trading partners, and even then they're only luxuries.

[Grendus]

I think that Toady intends to make Elves more interesting with the magic arc. Since Elves have always been magical in mythology, it would make sense if magic makes up for their suck technology.

One of the largest problems I see between the three races is their armor is all sized differently. Dwarves don't want Elf or Human armor (except maybe to melt down), and realistically Elves and Humans should refuse any armor or clothing that isn't one size fits all.

[WJLIII3]

Right I've had it with this thread. I have a masters in Medivial History from York University so listen up.

1.) Peaceful Protests- these did occur, however they were very rare, far more likely is that it would dissolve into a angry mob, either because of oration from the mob leaders or the fact that European kings method's for dealing with protests was to use force.

2.) Diplomatic sanctions however were far more common, nearly always in the form of trade embryos.

3.)Sabatoge - very viable, assainantions, stirring up rebellions, backing pretenders, full blown lets poison the well or destroy the building was generally only used in a seige.

4.) Not in the modern sense, their would be no leaflet drops to make them turn on their rulers. Missionaires would be the only viable method of this, although tradionally this lacked effectiveness as these missionaires would be very harshly treated, Elizabth I executed Jesuits and Seminary Priests for treason.

5.) Very comman.

For the love of god, I hope hope hope you're lying. If you can't spell your own major....

Medieval, by the way. Medieval History. Also, Elizabeth was Queen of England

[Nordic dorf]

while the prospect of things like sabotage and all sound interesting, there will be more than enough of that with the re-implementation of gnomes with next release.

as far as protests,and "non-violent" actions go,much like in real life,nothing gets accomplished by this. what can you accomplish better by protesting some civilization when you can simply wipe it off the face of the earth? and if they can kill you just as easy,why shouldn't they? if i see elf protesters outside my fortress, there's gonna be some virtual heads a-rolling.

[Dvergar]

Trading Embargoes are a waste of time for the Elves due to the fact that the Dwarves rarely, if ever, actually want to trade with them anyway.

Until the Elves pressure the hummies and Mountainholm into joining in on the trade sanction fun 

A couple wacky ideas:
-Send displaced Elves to the fortress
-Begin preaching a new religion in your fortress
-Trespass Dwarven borders to collect wood/animals/whatever
-March armies across the Fortress lands
-Infringe on the Fortress's soverignty a la Imperial Style, enforced by dudes with bows of course
-Chase gobo's into Fortress teritory

Not all of these are formal diplomatic actions, but rather real world senarios that create political agitation

[Craftling]

Right I've had it with this thread. I have a masters in Medivial History from York University so listen up.

1.) Peaceful Protests- these did occur, however they were very rare, far more likely is that it would dissolve into a angry mob, either because of oration from the mob leaders or the fact that European kings method's for dealing with protests was to use force.

2.) Diplomatic sanctions however were far more common, nearly always in the form of trade embryos.

3.)Sabatoge - very viable, assainantions, stirring up rebellions, backing pretenders, full blown lets poison the well or destroy the building was generally only used in a seige.

4.) Not in the modern sense, their would be no leaflet drops to make them turn on their rulers. Missionaires would be the only viable method of this, although tradionally this lacked effectiveness as these missionaires would be very harshly treated, Elizabth I executed Jesuits and Seminary Priests for treason.

5.) Very comman.

For the love of god, I hope hope hope you're lying. If you can't spell your own major....

Medieval, by the way. Medieval History. Also, Elizabeth was Queen of England

So what if he cant spell? that has nothing to do with this thread.

[Cruxador]

Right I've had it with this thread. I have a masters in Medivial History from York University so listen up.

1.) Peaceful Protests- these did occur, however they were very rare, far more likely is that it would dissolve into a angry mob, either because of oration from the mob leaders or the fact that European kings method's for dealing with protests was to use force.

2.) Diplomatic sanctions however were far more common, nearly always in the form of trade embryos.

3.)Sabatoge - very viable, assainantions, stirring up rebellions, backing pretenders, full blown lets poison the well or destroy the building was generally only used in a seige.

4.) Not in the modern sense, their would be no leaflet drops to make them turn on their rulers. Missionaires would be the only viable method of this, although tradionally this lacked effectiveness as these missionaires would be very harshly treated, Elizabth I executed Jesuits and Seminary Priests for treason.

5.) Very comman.

For the love of god, I hope hope hope you're lying. If you can't spell your own major....

Medieval, by the way. Medieval History. Also, Elizabeth was Queen of England

So what if he cant spell? that has nothing to do with this thread.

It does have something to do with his claim of an education, though. Most history majors know the difference between and embargo and an embryo.

[uttaku]

Thank you all very much, for your infomation I happen do has a mild form of Dyslexia which effects my spelling ability, its something to do with word pattern recognition, so I'm sorry if my spelling isn't always perfect, also it didn't prevent me from gaining the masters as I got extra time in the exams as I'm a properly certificated dyslexic.