[Keir Maxwell]

Re relevance of history.

Back in the old days the ancients road round on horses, they fought with swords, spears, bows . . . they sieged castles, suffered from under supply problems, taxed peasants and so on.

Sound anything like a game you all play?

I find the argument that "I'm not a historian so history doesn't matter" bizarre. Take history out of the equation and we have no basis for even beginning a discussion on the game. So whart are swords then? Any answer you give will be informed by history - the better informed the better in general.

So you find it annoying Licker that I have keep referring to history? *shrugs" Do you know I still read up avidly and much of it is to do with my interest in ancients wargaming - thats right batles with pointy and cutty things. How else can I attempt to understand these but by studying there real usage? The idea that abstract reason can provide us the answers is very wrong. If you want to understand warfare in the age of swords and bows then study history. Want to understand the impact of taxes in a feudal society - study history. If you can't be bothered then thats cool but is there really anything wrong with me bringing history to bear on this debate? It seems profoundly relevant and the only commen ground we have for the discussion. Otherwise its just "I like playing this way" verses "I like playing that way."

I do like Steven Donadlsons Gap series. Disturbing but very compelling. I got frustrated with Thomas "what can I do?" Covenant but I did read them all.

To repeat PvK's point. Nobles who rule provinces have their own forces with which they cheerfully oppress the peasants and merchants (nobles didn't like merchants). How do we know this - history.

Cheers

Keir