The Marrocidenian war

[Chenier]

Ya know, it's like Iraq. America Defensively Conquered it.

This is... priceless.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Can we please immortalize the doctrine of "defensive conquest"? Seems a bit, erm... paradoxical...

Not really. It's what the Roman's did. Basically what occurs is you have someone on your borders that poses a threat. Whether that be monster spawning rogues or a hostile realm, it doesn't matter. So long as it exists as a threat. The threat is responded to with force, conquering the area where it was and eliminating that threat. After that, you have a new border, and outside that border the law breaks down. Bandits and such use the area outside your nation as an area in which to attack traders with impunity. So you conquer the area the bandits are in. So on and so forth.

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Terran and D'Hara don't really like the Zuma... if he can show that he can beat up the Zuma, we might just help him.

Mendicant likes the Zuma in his own weird way, don't get him wrong he considers them little more than wildlife, but they have the same sort of attitude when it comes to war. I'm half sure Aurvandil may be able to beat the Zuma, but then that presumes the Zuma can be beaten, and not just spawn new hordes nigh indefinitely. It's on my list of things to try if Aurvandil ever gets substantial peace time to build up our infrastructure, store some reserve gold and prepare for war, which we've never had. After all, Haktoo is just about the only ruler capable of standing up to Mendicant on their own and potentially slapping him down brutally, and that just adds the sort of thrill to a war Mendicant would consider worthy of him. Glory lies over the horizon, challenge it because you know you cannot reach it.

Sure, I'll give it you that you all are resourceful. No one argues against that I don't think. You are so resourceful and active to the point of a lot of controversy and suspicion around it.

However, I would posit that the war between Aurvandil and Madina was fundementally different in that it was all focused on one small bottle necked choke point. This changes a lot.

Nevertheless, I won't argue the hypothetical war between Terran and Aurvandil any longer. Was a little silly to bring up in the first place, I guess.

--


So, this new realm in Paisly... you have no intention of defending it, then? So you're conquering it so Terran can't have it, then are going to split it off, and then sit by while Terran reconquers it? Seems... silly.

Anyone who thinks we're active to the point of suspicion sees what they want to see, and ignores the reality in front of them. Aurvandil is regularly dogged by inactive and over extended movements.

As for the new Paisly realm, well, whether we will defend it depends on the circumstance. If Terran invades as a means of conquest to then continue their war on Aurvandil, we'll intervene, it's would just be ungallant of us to leave Lady Florence to be conquered by hordes of Terranese. Or if say, down the line Florence challenges Terran to a war and loses, well they brought that on themselves it's not Aurvandil's problem.

Can we please immortalize the doctrine of "defensive conquest"? Seems a bit, erm... paradoxical...

It really isn't.

There is a clear distinction between defensively conquering a land, for obviously defensive reasons, and aggressively conquering a land for aggressive agendas.

[Vellos]

There is a clear distinction between defensively conquering a land, for obviously defensive reasons, and aggressively conquering a land for aggressive agendas.

Because in one you invade and conquer their land and annex it as your own or to form a colony, and in the other, you invade and conquer their land and annex it as your own or to form a colony.

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Because in one you invade and conquer their land and annex it as your own or to form a colony, and in the other, you invade and conquer their land and annex it as your own or to form a colony.

Yeah, anyone can over simplify anything to try and fail to make a point

Why not say there is no difference between being aggressive and defensive because both involve some form of confrontation?  "There's no difference in being attacked, and being the one attacked, because in one situation there's some kind of confrontation involved and in the other, you are involved in some kind of confrontation."

[Anaris]

Yeah, anyone can over simplify anything to try and fail to make a point

Why not say there is no difference between being aggressive and defensive because both involve some form of confrontation?  "There's no difference in being attacked, and being the one attacked, because in one situation there's some kind of confrontation involved and in the other, you are involved in some kind of confrontation."

Ask the ones being conquered whether they think there's a difference.

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Ask the ones being conquered whether they think there's a difference.

That'd imply their opinion is relevant.

[vonGenf]

That'd imply their opinion is relevant.

Ah, I get it now!

When your neighbor is agressive towards you, you fight a defensive war.

When you neighbor is not agressive towards you, you fight a defensive war.

The difference is only in their opinion, therefore not relevant.

Genius!

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Ah, I get it now!

When your neighbor is agressive towards you, you fight a defensive war.

When you neighbor is not agressive towards you, you fight a defensive war.

The difference is only in their opinion, therefore not relevant.

Genius!

Not even sure how you managed to work that out.

[Indirik]

Not even sure how you managed to work that out.

Does it matter? His opinion isn't really relevant.

Anyway, I really like the theory. If you can win the war, and any other war that could conceivably emerge as a result, then who really cares what anyone else's opinion is? I have to admit, if I had that kind of power, I wouldn't really give a crap what anyone else thought of what I did, either.

[Indirik]

Mendicant likes the Zuma in his own weird way, don't get him wrong he considers them little more than wildlife, but they have the same sort of attitude when it comes to war. I'm half sure Aurvandil may be able to beat the Zuma, but then that presumes the Zuma can be beaten, and not just spawn new hordes nigh indefinitely. It's on my list of things to try if Aurvandil ever gets substantial peace time to build up our infrastructure, store some reserve gold and prepare for war, which we've never had. After all, Haktoo is just about the only ruler capable of standing up to Mendicant on their own and potentially slapping him down brutally, and that just adds the sort of thrill to a war Mendicant would consider worthy of him. Glory lies over the horizon, challenge it because you know you cannot reach it.

Out of curiosity, have you ever fought against a daimon army before? From the scout reports I've seen of the Zuma, I'd say two daimon lords could rip through your entire realm like a chainsaw through warm butter.

As my character would say IC: "Please let Aurvandil try to take on the Zuma!"

[JPierreD]

Anyone who thinks we're active to the point of suspicion sees what they want to see, and ignores the reality in front of them. Aurvandil is regularly dogged by inactive and over extended movements.

Well, no offense but you did repeatedly deny Aurvandil being the new home of the Saxons. And now we have Averoth 2.0 in Madina. That sort of surprised me.

[Chenier]

Besides, we all know only mediterranean realms matter. Who cares about those who don't even have a coast on it?

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Well, no offense but you did repeatedly deny Aurvandil being the new home of the Saxons. And now we have Averoth 2.0 in Madina. That sort of surprised me.

The Averothoi aren't saxons, and the fact the Madina realm became a Freestate is a case of serendipity, the original plan was to give it to a Caerwynite to make of it what he would, but Lex was simply more convenient over the Madina issue and Mendicant just wanted Madina to stop being a burden, particularly with burgeoning war in the north and east.

Then why does he (and you, for that matter) constantly propagandize and attempt to justify his/your IC actions on the forums?

Because !@#$ sticks?

When I don't counter some of the nonsense it becomes the accepted opinion on an OOC level which then translate IC, such as the whole clan and saxon rubbish everyone decided was going on because Nosferatu and his crowd just kept shouting abuse whenever they lost a battle, or the religious waffle being said on the forum which suddenly made it a key issue IC with people repeating what they heard OOC and not IC (There being a clear difference in the information made available IC and OOC and the way it was presented by Mendicant, which made it easy to tell which came from the forum and which didn't). But the main reason is to discuss it, which is somewhat interesting because there isn't the same forum to do it I.C.

I'm quite happy letting people hate me (Certainly gives other players something to do as well as myself) but they can at least be accurate and well informed in that hate, there's nothing more annoying than some one hating you and using their misapprehension as a reason why.

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Out of curiosity, have you ever fought against a daimon army before? From the scout reports I've seen of the Zuma, I'd say two daimon lords could rip through your entire realm like a chainsaw through warm butter.

As my character would say IC: "Please let Aurvandil try to take on the Zuma!"

We've seen the Daimon forces, the hordes they sent to protect Barca were less than a third of the combat strength Aurvandil could attack them with, and that was several Daimon lords.