|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Japanese right-wingers have a long history of just flat out murdering leftists, I think one leader of the communist party there was literally killed with a katana. During a live televised speech, no less.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 12:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:28 |
|
|
Samovar posted:Did you know that one of the responses to the formation of the Soviet Union was a Hyper-Monarchist trying to reform the Mongolian empire? Now you do. And the russian revolution was financed by the germans because they believed that Lenin would order a cease-fire (which he did). Proteus Jones posted:Yeah, he was born in England. At the time of the assassination, however, he was immensely popular in the US and was basically a Hollywood mogul at that point (he was a founder of United Artists). And then he was exiled from USA because of his political beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 12:37
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Japanese right-wingers have a long history of just flat out murdering leftists, I think one leader of the communist party there was literally killed with a katana. I’m not going to post a link, but there is video
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 12:41
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:And the russian revolution was financed by the germans because they believed that Lenin would order a cease-fire (which he did). Yeah, Hoover really hated him for some reason. In some respects it was fortuitous since he side-stepped the McCarthy witch hunts that happened a few years later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 13:19
|
|
|
Proteus Jones posted:Yeah, Hoover really hated him for some reason. In some respects it was fortuitous since he side-stepped the McCarthy witch hunts that happened a few years later. Took me too long to realize you meant J. Edgar Hoover and not President Hoover, was sitting here wondering how many years is "a few" to you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
J. Edgar Hoover ran FBI and its predecessor longer than every director since.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:The crazy thing is that the group also planned to assassinate Charlie Chaplin, who was visiting Japan as a guest of the PM, hoping that his murder could provoke the US into war. However, they missed their chance because at the time of the attack, Chaplain was out watching a sumo match with the PM's son. The only time-line where Japan could have won.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
Does anyone care to take a guess how long the longest, uninterrupted naval battle took? A week? A fortnight? A month? The correct answer is 252 days, between the Weymouth and the Königsberg and their supports in Tanzania, a battle which pioneered naval air recon to boot. This battle ended with a British victory, but which ended up helping the German armies in Africa, since the German cruiser's guns were reclaimed and used as mobile artillery. A very bizarre history. Samovar has a new favorite as of 13:47 on Dec 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
One of the first Europeans to write sympathetically about Native American cultures was a conquistador named Cow Head. Like, he was Spanish so he had one of those long multi-name names, but his family name was Cabeza de Vaca. Head of Cow. It's a small thing but I like it. Wish my name was Cow Head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
That's probably from his family crest. The Swedish statesman Axel Oxenstierna, similarly, had a bull's head on his family crest (stierna means forehead).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
Samovar posted:Does anyone care to take a guess how long the longest, uninterrupted naval battle took? A week? A fortnight? A month? For the curious, that's the Battle of Rufiji Delta. The damaged Königsberg was outgunned and outnumbered by the British ships, but was small enough to hide upriver where they couldn't pursue or accurately aim their guns, supplemented with German land defences. The tropical weather conditions prevented the British from effectively using aircraft, and fire from the Königsberg and its surrounding defences made head-on attacks difficult even with river-capable ships. They successfully played cat and mouse this way for ten months, at which point the British brought in two shallow-draught shore-bombardment monitors, the Mersey and the Severn, and disabled the Königsberg with an hour of bombardment from 9km away (after an abortive earlier attempt in which they accidentally entered the Königsberg's range and took heavy damage).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
Phy posted:One of the first Europeans to write sympathetically about Native American cultures was a conquistador named Cow Head. Like, he was Spanish so he had one of those long multi-name names, but his family name was Cabeza de Vaca. Head of Cow. The story of how his family got that name and were ennobled is pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
When emperor Didius Julianus died in 193 ad he had been emperor for nine weeks. He had bought the throne on march 28th and was killed on Septimius Severus' orders on june 1st. His last words were "But what evil have I done? Whom have I killed?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:When emperor Didius Julianus died in 193 ad he had been emperor for nine weeks. He had bought the throne on march 28th and was killed on Septimius Severus' orders on june 1st. His last words were "But what evil have I done? Whom have I killed?" Defied the potions expert of Hogwarts, most likely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:When emperor Didius Julianus died in 193 ad he had been emperor for nine weeks. He had bought the throne on march 28th and was killed on Septimius Severus' orders on june 1st. His last words were "But what evil have I done? Whom have I killed?" I was curious about why he got assassinated. Apparently the Praetorian guard actually killed his predecessor Pertinax and auctioned off the throne. He was the unlucky senator that took the bait and offered 25,000 sesterces to every assassin. As would be expected, the proto-Trump was tremendously unpopular and terrible at running an empire. After a few months, there was a civil war for succession and he was shanked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
There was a period towards the end of the (non-Byzantine) Roman Empire where they went through four emperors in four years. As I recall, a common issue was keeping the military happy (i.e. paid).
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:There was a period towards the end of the (non-Byzantine) Roman Empire where they went through four emperors in four years. Four emperors in four years? That’s little league stuff. how about four in one year? or five! Or six!
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
I vaguely recall something anecdotal about Colombia having like four presidents over the course of one summer. I checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Colombia and not quite seeing that (maybe some were unofficial attempts) but there are several occasions where Colombia has had three presidents in the space of one year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:There was a period towards the end of the (non-Byzantine) Roman Empire where they went through four emperors in four years. You think that is something there was a year where they went through 4 emperors in one year. That doesn’t even count Nero.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 06:58
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:You think that is something there was a year where they went through 4 emperors in one year. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
Where's the Finno Korean Hyperwar?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 07:11
|
|
|
The first Portuguese Republic existed from 1910 to 1926 and was politically extremely unstable: in its 16 years of existence, it saw nine presidents and 45 (!) governments
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 07:45
|
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:Where's the Finno Korean Hyperwar? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:I vaguely recall something anecdotal about Colombia having like four presidents over the course of one summer. I checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Colombia and not quite seeing that (maybe some were unofficial attempts) but there are several occasions where Colombia has had three presidents in the space of one year. No South Korean president has managed to leave office without being removed from power, assassinated, or having their reputation later ruined by scandal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_South_Korea The first president was couped by the third and fled to Hawaii, the second was effectively a figurehead who quickly resigned. The third president (military dictator) was assassinated by the head of the Korean CIA. Number four was quickly couped by the military. The fifth and sixth presidents went on trial in the 90s for bribery and their roles in the coup against 4 and a massacre of pro-democracy protesters. 5 was sentenced to death and 6 got a couple decades in prison, but both were later commuted and then released by president 7. President seven himself was a big anti-corruption guy... who's son was arrested for bribery and then had the economy collapse and had to take a big loan from the IMF. President eight had been sentenced to death by 5 and it turned out he'd bribed the North with a bunch of money to come to the negotiating table so he'd look good. President nine was impeached but had the impeachment overturned and returned to power. After his retirement he was involved in a bribery scandal (Like 7 he'd also had a anti-corruption platform) and allegedly committed suicide by throwing himself off a cliff. Presidents ten and eleven (the military dictator's daughter) have both been arrested for corruption and because Dictator Jr. was involved in some weird cult stuff. Ten is on trial and eleven has been sentenced to 24 years in prison. Number twelve seems to be doing okay with his general left-wing reformer stuff but we'll see if he can escape and make it into his coffin with a untarnished reputation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 08:12
|
|
|
Australia hasn't had a Prime Minister manage a full term since 2007. Mostly a result of John Howard having deliberately left a huge political vacuum from making sure he wouldn't have any potential in-party competition. A pretty common political phenomenon, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 08:36
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I was curious about why he got assassinated. Apparently the Praetorian guard actually killed his predecessor Pertinax and auctioned off the throne. The Praetorian guard was supposed to protect the emperor but instead they represented his biggest threat. If they weren't paid enough or the emperor pissed them off they would kill him and choose a new emperor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 09:17
|
|
|
Rome has really advanced a lot during the last few millennia - they just let the majority collapse nowadays and elect a new government. They did it something like 64 times since WW2, I think. The current PM is the 58th, but there were several that presided over consecutive different governments and I am too lazy to look it up. It is mostly a function of the awful proportional electoral system, but still feels like a continuation of the ancient system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 10:14
|
|
|
Why did none of these Roman emperors who were former military officers keep some of their own men around to keep an eye on the Praetorian Guard?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 10:57
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Why did none of these Roman emperors who were former military officers keep some of their own men around to keep an eye on the Praetorian Guard? Some did but in the 3rd century taking good soldiers from the frontline was a bad idea The guard changed personnel a lot It was also a PR disaster to station troops in Italy CharlestheHammer has a new favorite as of 11:19 on Jun 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 11:16
|
|
|
Russia had much the same problem during its Time of Troubles after the last member of the Rurik Dynasty, Feodor Ivanovich, died and it lasted until the Romanovs managed to finally wedge Mikhail Romanov's rear end onto the thrown. Dude apparently broke down in tears of terror when he was offered the crown because he wasn't a strong ruler, was self aware enough to know it, and was convinced that becoming the Czar was a good way to end up very shortly dead (for good reason: it wasn't called the Time of Troubles for nothing). Thankfully he was wrong. But before that you had the series of false claimants to the throne. So between 1605 and 1612 Russia was ruled by a series of four short-lived Czars. Not very dramatic by the standards set, but it had a uniquely Russian spin: See, Feodor had had a brother and wouldn't it be convenient that instead of being assassinated when he was eight if some guy calling himself Dmitri Ivanovich showed up and claimed he was totally the old Czar's brother who'd just been in hiding all these years for vaguely defined reasons? So in that short period you had four dudes ruling Russia all claiming their name was Dmitri and that they had actually escaped assassination when they were eight...and that they were totally the same guy as the previous Dmitri just they'd totally escaped those assassins too! No foolin' guys, I just did a backflip and ninja kick and that dude on the floor bleeding out that I look nothing like is really just a body double, or unfortunate retainer. Besides that guy was totally a pawn of Poland which I am totally not! And thus Russia had a series of leaders known as the "False Dmitris"
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 11:26
|
|
|
Ah, the Doctor Doom school of politics
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 11:39
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Russia had much the same problem during its Time of Troubles after the last member of the Rurik Dynasty, Feodor Ivanovich, died and it lasted until the Romanovs managed to finally wedge Mikhail Romanov's rear end onto the thrown. Dude apparently broke down in tears of terror when he was offered the crown because he wasn't a strong ruler, was self aware enough to know it, and was convinced that becoming the Czar was a good way to end up very shortly dead (for good reason: it wasn't called the Time of Troubles for nothing). Thankfully he was wrong. There was actually quite a few romans who were made emperors against their will. Wheat Loaf posted:Why did none of these Roman emperors who were former military officers keep some of their own men around to keep an eye on the Praetorian Guard?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 12:00
|
|
|
Though it should be said it didn’t really matter as Severus lost because his soldiers deserted him while besieging Rome by the fourth Century the PG didn’t really matter anymore
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 12:04
|
|
|
How did the Byzantines deal with the same problems wrt the Varangian Guard? Or were they specifically only chosen from foreign warriors to avoid that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 12:45
|
|
|
Nightgull posted:How did the Byzantines deal with the same problems wrt the Varangian Guard? Or were they specifically only chosen from foreign warriors to avoid that? They were a gift that was a good way for foreigners to join for a bit and make some cash. They never really settled enough to be a political influence. Though generally not just any foreign group could join.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
Nightgull posted:How did the Byzantines deal with the same problems wrt the Varangian Guard? Or were they specifically only chosen from foreign warriors to avoid that? It's not like the varangian guard never did the same poo poo that the praetorian guard did. Most notably Harald Hardråde (who was famously known as the last viking ruler) and a group of varangian guards led a revolt against emperor Michael V and even claimed that he was the one who blinded him after they had dragged him out on the street.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 13:42
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Why did none of these Roman emperors who were former military officers keep some of their own men around to keep an eye on the Praetorian Guard? Depending on the era there were laws that you were totally forbidden from having troops in Rome. This is why it was a big deal when Caesar marched his troops across the river and why "crossing the Rubicon" means "passing the point of no return." He wasn't allowed to do that by law and doing so meant that he was going "gently caress your law, I'm in charge now." At the time the various governors of various areas ultimately had troops that answered to them rather than Rome itself. It was a practical measure; it was a big empire even then and was hard to manage. So anyway, the Senate forbid the various officials from taking their troops too close to Rome for pretty obvious reasons. Caesar's governorship was ending so they ordered him to disband his troops. Instead he marched them on Rome, said "gently caress you I'm in charge," and kicked off the civil war that led to him becoming dictator for life and starting the Roman Empire as that was when the emperors started. While the Republic was still a huge empire there weren't emperors; it also expanded far more slowly than the Empire did. But anyway, even then Caesar didn't have complete, absolute power so keeping a lot of troops around Rome was a Bad Idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
Before caesar the republican system had yearly elections and two heads of state so really these  "FOUR EMPERORS IN FOUR YEARS" periods were just a kind of accidental return to the old ways
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Former DILF posted:Before caesar the republican system had yearly elections and two heads of state so really these
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:28 |
|
|
You should put elections in quotes as they were more appointments. Though the office did still have its uses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 04:32
|
|