The Paladin Journal

2004-04-01T18:43:00.000-08:00

I have recently been spending much of my time on nationstates, here I have two nations Ancedonia which is my "fun" account. It's here that I make absurd decisions on issues like crime etc. And Aresgebirge, the nation which more accurately portrays my political views. Now, however, you'll all be wondering what I'm talking about. Well, NationStates is a simulated game. You, as president of a nation, decide on various issues and watch your self become a Corrupt Dictatorship or a Left Wing Utopia. There are three "counters," Civil Rights, Economy, and Political Freedoms. From your stance on all of these three groups, you become a Libertarian Police State, Democratic Socialists, Iron Fist Consumerist, or Psychotic Dictatorship. It's all up to you. I will, however, warn you that if you join issues often have an exagerated impact on you. The issues are things about such mundane issues as commuter traffic to the legalization of Euthanasia. This game is fun and popular, with over 600,000 nations served. This can provide hours of amusement. The players live in regions. There are some 14,000 or so regions, a few are the auto starting points. There is also a UN. Each region can have UN delegate, delegates are apointed by the number of "endorsements" received. All in all this is a very fun game. However, once you become a Psychotic Dictatorship it is difficult to become more left-wing/reasonable. Enjoy!

2004-03-02T16:50:00.000-08:00

It has been a long time since I posted anything here. The main reasons being a) I was too lazy, b) I was more interested in the VI and RWL, and c) because I and my sister have gotten a domain name and have been working on a promisance-based online game. This has taken up most of my free time after school. The online game that I'm creating is based on Ragnarok -- the fated doom of the Norse gods. In it you play as the follower of a Norse God or Frost Giant, for instance Odin and Surt. You then go about building up your fiefdom, using various strategies (some gotten from RWL) others that have been designed specifically for our game.

2003-08-05T17:17:00.000-07:00

C. 550 BC

Today the newly-founded Council to Defend the Mages against Zoroaster (CDMZ) has made a petition, signed by over three hundred mages throughout Persia, against Zoroaster. Zoroaster, who first started to shock religious authorities when he came to Great King Darius I to propose a radically new (and according to the Mages disturbing) religion, has now received royal patronage, and some claim that this will soon make his religion the official one. The CDMZ has now started a massive protest, and this is just the newest of fifteen large scale demonstrations.

Zoroaster, who claims that there is only one god, Ahura Mazda (representing light and good), who is locked in eternal struggle with the forces of Angru Mainyu (representing dark and evil), has now made some big enemies. The enlightened prophet came west with his family and presented himself and his religion at Darius's court. Darius, according to the Persian Post’s regal correspondent Artaxerxes Kingbroz, was “Quite taken by the idea…he was really interested”. And much to everyone’s surprise, Darius has voiced his support. Insiders feel that it is only a matter of time before Zoroasterism becomes the official state religion. For this reason up to eight hundred protesters, singing various religious hymns, have been marching through the crowded streets of Susa. A great many soldiers, including up to one thousand Immortals, have been dispatched to safeguard the public against possibly violent demonstrations.
Clubs
As part of keeping order, soldiers from the Nineteenth Lydian Infantry division, in an attempt to allow ordinary people to get to work, the market, or wherever they want to go, have started regularly to club their way through shouting hordes of intoxicated mages. Many top politicians fear rebellions are imminent. “Soon the army is going to start arresting people, and use real weapons”: that from chief political analyst for the Cyrus Institute, dedicated to improving and studying politics. However, Darius is now becoming more cautious, and has started talks with The Council for the Defense of Mages against Zoroaster. Top mage, Xartes Sobrax has told the Persian Post that “We won’t stop fighting until that nomadic upstart is squashed!” But some believe the religions can coexist peacefully:
“There’s something you need to get straight here; the CDMZ only represents a tiny amount of radical mages. Most of us could live with Zoroaster,” that’s Tasmorax Tarmondius, a mage who lives in a quiet Susan neighborhood, and who wants peace. The Zoroaster debate continues to rage in the palace. Queen Attosa has not yet voiced her opinions, though some of Darius’s others wives have stepped out in favor of the religion.

PS: the Persian Post would like to say that due to the raging mobs of mages, its religious correspondent is dead. Any who would like to apply for the job, please write to:
ThePersian Post
PO Box 234, Susa

2003-07-26T18:46:00.000-07:00

480 BC
Great King “Flogs” Water
By: Armondius Hextorba
Yesterday, Great King Xerxes, with a capital X, flogged the water in the Hellenspont in an attempt to stop a storm. For some months now top war-men have been planning to invade Greece, following Darius the Great’s humiliating defeat five years ago. Whilst attempting to cross the Hellenspont on a raft-brigde a storm got started, and destroyed the bridge. Xerxes was so furious that he had the water flogged by two men, who, if they even grinned, would be killed on spot. More from The Persian Post’s war correspondent Armondius Hextorba.

It was a quiet day here in the Persian army’s camp, just one day after Great King Xerxes flogged the waters of the Hellenspont. Chief army commanders here on the field, and politicians back home in Susa, have had to do a lot of reassuring to convince soldiers and satraps alike that the Great King isn’t insane. Top general and childhood friend and cousin to the Great King, Mardonius, told the Persian Post, “We’ve spent over ten thousand Golden Archers in bribing soldiers and satraps to stay in support of the Great King.” These are just some of the problems the government is now facing. The chancellor and all the chief members of the Great King's administration are busy keeping enthusiasm high for Xerxes’s war against Greece.
“… All for it!”--Axtares Golbraz
Back here by the Hellenspont the soldiers seem to have been encouraged by Mardonius’s, and other generals’ words over the flogging. And when I asked Axtares Golbraz, captain of a group of ferocious looking Bactrians, if he still supported the war, he said “Of course! We who come from Bactria are all for it! And anyways, it's necessary! Xerxes needs to avenge Darius’s previous defeat!” Former chief government adviser during Darius’s reign, Heloxra Ganguri, agrees: “They [the Greeks] have gotten too big for their sandals! This new campaign simply reflects the need to crush Greek ‘Imperial Democracy.’ I mean, look what they’ve been doing in Ionia!” Xerxes himself declined our request to interview him, and would not comment on his “flogging”.

2003-07-10T18:03:00.000-07:00

This is a satire dealing with Shah Shapur I's victory (260 AD) over Roman Emperor Valerian, who was subsequently stuffed and put on display. It will be the first in up to five installments of satires dealing with roughly one thousand years of Persian history (from the time of Cyrus the Great, to the Islamic conquest of Sassanid Persia). Enjoy!

260 AD

Get Stuffed!

That is the message being sent to the Roman government by Shah Shapur I, after having had 70 year old emperor Valerian stuffed. Valerian was defeated by our fine troops at Edessa. Shah Shapur then had him paraded in front of cheering mobs, and poor feeble old Valerian 'died of shame.' Shah Shapur then had his body stuffed as an 'agelong token to our great victory.' More from the Persian Post’s war correspondent, Adashir Parshi.

Today, Shah Shapur anounced the stuffing of Valerian: 'Fellow countrymen! it is my honour to anounce the God-given victory over the Romans! He [emperor Valerian] has been stuffed, as an agelong token to our great victory!… Let this be a warning to all those who anger the God, and His faithfull followers [the Persians]!' It has been all celebration since we won Edessa, and here in Ctesiphon all have been expecting the Shah’s speech:

'My people! Today, I announce our greatest victory since Darius’s time! We have defeated the Roman infidels, and captured their emperor! The Romans try to be like us by using Mithras (even though he is merely a servant of Ahura Mazda, and shouldn’t be called a god). Little do they know that our god only helps us!'

Valerian suposedly died of humiliation after having been presented to the people. And in a moment of 'divine inspiration,' Shah Shapur then had him stuffed. Meanwhile Persian generals are hoping this won’t provoke major wars, like those that eventually toppled the Parthians. Cousin to the Shah, nineteen times removed, Avashir Andur told the Post what he thinks about the 'stuffing.' 'Well, you have to admit, it’s very artistic.' That from top artist-general Avashir Andur. In fact, several major museums as well as some private collectors have already started making offers for this 'rare specimen of Roman and taxidermic art', however all offers have so far been refused.

© 2003 Persian Post, in association with the Sassanid Sentinel.

2003-06-27T19:55:00.000-07:00

I have just completed JK Rowling's Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and have just realized the major problems with JK Rowling's world, and that I wouldn't like to live in it. The first thing that really struck me was you can't be a philanthropist. Sure, you can help other wizards, yet wizards no doubt represent only a quarter of a percent of the worlds population, so you couldn't really help many people. This assumes you have lots of money, but lo! there is another problem, how do you make your money? I mean with only perhaps a dozen medieval-styled allies with perhaps thirty-six stores each, how can there be an economy? Where, if there are any, are all the factories? And if we assume that whatever JK Rowling doesn't mention, doesn't exist, than we would be forced to say there are no factories, and no more alley ways. Now, there is the problem where do you have your shop, and since some stores (Olivander's Wands for instance) have been occupying their places for centuries, what is the chance of a young wizard, fresh out of Hogwarts to open his own shop. (I suppose Fred and George Weasley were just lucky!). The other main problem is you can't really be an entrepeneur. You can't become a CEO of a powerful multi-national company, in short, you are reduced to a mere shopkeeper, there are no multi-office companies. Furthermore, the government can easily be corrupted and is not very democratic. Ministers and magistrates are drawn from an unelected body, namely, the Wizengamot. And if all you have to do if you want a bill to get passed is either put the imperius curse on your opponents, or threaten to curse their family's if they don't vote your way, what kind of a government is that? Another big problem is the wizarding world's banks (see the previous post), they are not at all like our banks, and from what JK Rowling hasn't said, you don't get interest on your deposit. The next problem is with the school of Hogwarts itself. As Hermione clearly demonstrated, you can learn almost every spell, charm, and potion there is from books, which makes Hogwarts virtually unnecessary for the brighter students. All in all the if I got an offer to go to Hogwarts, and never be able to talk to, befriend, or help muggles again, I wouldn't accept. For wizards, despite their kindness to each other, scorn those who are not as lucky as they, and are self-centered and arrogant.

2003-06-19T17:57:00.000-07:00

J. K. Rowling's new Harry Potter novel is coming out in two days and I'm speculating about certain loopholes in her books. I'm really struck that Gringotts doesn't pay interest on deposits. Does this mean that Gringotts charges you a fee for depositing your money with the 'bank'? This brings up the interesting question that if you don't get any interest, how come Harry still has so much money in his account after eleven years, especially if money got subtracted from his account to cover banking fees. I have two possible solutions.

Either Gringotts doesn't charge interest until users reach a certain age, which seems unlikely, or James Potter and his wife Lilly had so much money to start with that even after eleven years, Harry still has a fortune.
Assuming the second possibility is the right one, how did James Potter get so much money? I'm ignoring what Lilly's contribution might have been, for unlike the Potters she had only been in the wizarding world some twenty years, and so would not have been able to amass that much. My solution to this riddle is that I believe that when the Wizarding world was young and there were no known spells, certain families (or clans) 'invented' spells and possibly put some type of a copyright on them. Subsequently, every time a wand was sold, a small sum of money would go to the inventor who had discovered this spell. Thus, families, some of which may now no longer exist, amassed considerable wealth, and through intermarriage these fortunes reached modern families such as the Malfoys, Potters, and any others which might be mentioned in the series. Another possibility is that when the wizarding world was young, there were many dragons that hoarded tons of wealth. Some wizards might have gone off and fought for and won these treasures, in this way laying the foundation for the wizarding world's wealth. Though I would think the first possibility more reasonable, who knows what J. K. Rowling might still reveal?

2003-06-12T13:57:00.000-07:00

Mardonius, who conquered Macedonia, Thessaly, and later Boetia, was probably Darius’s and later Xerxes’s best politician and most able general. While Darius was himself an accomplished leader, Xerxes lacked his father's political and military talents. Consequently, Persia's decline is often blamed on Xerxes. The king's weakness also affected Mardonius's ability to use his talents to the fullest. What if, in addition to Mardonius's survival at Platea, Xerxes I had then been assassinated shortly after the Persian Wars ended? In that case, Mardonius could have become regent until Xerxes’s son, Artaxerxes, came of age. Mardonius could then have successfully dealt with the Greeks, Scythians, various Barbarian Tribes, but, perhaps most importantly, possible rebels. We know that Mardonius was a skilled and diplomatic negotiator. For instance while campaigning in Ionia against the Ionian rebels, he conquered a city, but instead of appointing an unpopular Persian “Tyrant”, he instead instituted a democratic regime. Through cunning use of diplomacy of that sort he could have maintained a healthy Persian empire. Mardonius could have trained his successor so well that he in turn could train his, and so on, thereby establishing a new tradition of rulership.

Imagine the possible consequences: Philip the First of Macedonia would not have been king of an independent country, but rather a satrap in the Persian empire; Alexander the Great, his son, would not have gone forth to conquer in the name of Greece, but would instead have been a powerful Persian general. How would this have changed the Persian government, its army, and the course of history? Would this have shaped the Greek birth of democracy in significant ways?

The next most influential king after Mardonius would have been Darius III, who was actually the Persian ruler in the century following the Persian Wars. In real life, Darius’s reign was cut short by the Macedonian invasion of Persia. Under my "what if" scenario, however, he could have, like Mardonius before him, taught his successor well, so that the empire would still not go into decline. In the seventh century, with the advent of Islam, the empire could have helped the Muslims, yet maintained its Zoroastrian identity. There is an actual historic precedent for this kind of mutually helpful relationship between nations of different religions. A good example was the African kingdom of Axum, a medieval kingdom which ruled parts of southern Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia, and which helped the Muslims while still retaining its Christian identity. If these peaceful relations could have been maintained, then both sides could have benefitted from cultural, religious, and technological exchanges.

Throughout the middle ages, the tolerant Zoroastrian Persians would have acted as a counterweight both to some of the less tolerant Muslim regimes as well as the orthodox Byzantine Empire. This scenario can also allow for the rise of Rome and its imperial machinations in Anatolia and Greece; Persia could still have continued its peaceful relations with its Muslim neighbors. This tolerance would have so hugely benifitted the Empire that getting rid of it would have probably been unimaginable. Persia could have served as the meeting point for the scholars of India, China, Arabia, and perhaps even Europe. The technological exchanges between the Chinese, Indian, and Arabs with the Persians could have helped the arid Persian and Bactrian steppes to become productive parts of the empire. But Persia’s main strength would most likely have come from manufacturing raw materials from India, Arabia, Bactria, and China, into manufactured items such as jewelery, perfume, cloth, ceramics, and more.

THE EARLY YEARS: 400 BCE-650 CE

Persian political strategy during this time would have to have been good or else the Empire would have fallen apart. The Persians could have 'secured' Greece; to ensure peace and stability, it would only have been essential for the Persian King to make the Greeks feel 'independent', even though they were actually satellite states. The easygoing Acheamenid Zoroastrian religion should have, and could have been kept in place. With a strong religious infrastructure in areas such as Mesoptamia, Anatolia, Macedonia, Thrace, and perhaps even Greece, Israel, and Phonecia, Zoroastrianism would have become the main religion. This is not to say that all other religions would have been diminished; rather, they might have thrived side-by-side. During this early period, Persia's main threat would have come from the north. The nomadic tribesmen of that region would have been greatly tempted to attack Persia, and as a matter of fact, they did just that several times. For this reason, some tribes should have been won over to Persia's cause, to create a buffer zone. Persia most likely would have conquered some territory, which for the most part it could not keep. For this reason, entrenchment would have been a top priority for the Persians during the Middle Ages.

THE MIDDLE AGES: 650-1400 CE

The Persian empire would have had to have started entrenching itself during this period. The reason for this is that they were already bigger than the Roman empire at its height. However, if we assume Persia did not start entrenching, what would have happened? At this time, Muslim warriors could have been pouring out of Arabia, an area with which the Zoroastrian Persians had not yet been able to create peaceful relations with. We should assume that the Persians would have tried to make peace treaties with these religious soldiers, and that they would then not have harmed Persian lands. But what if either side had then foolishly dishonored such a treaty by attacking the other? The ensuing war would have been a close one, the Persians, with their large and superior army, facing the fervent Islamic jihadists. If Persia had then lost, the Muslims would have most likely been able to take everything west of the Euphrates. If Persia had won, it most likely would have taken large amounts of Muslim territory. Now, assuming the Persians won, they would have had a tremendous amount of new land and hostile populations to administer. The Persian kings would then have had their hands full. In the north, they would have to deal with the Qara Khitai and Mongols; in the west, the Byzantines were still strong and dangerous; and now in the south, a hostile, newly-conquered people. Persia would most likely have had a tough time of it, but I think that eventually, through its sheer economic and military capabilities, it would have defeated the Byzantines, and eventually negotiated peaceful relations with the Muslims. The Persians would have realized that entrenchment was necessary, and would have made alliances or declared truces with their numerous neighbors. Throughout the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, Persia could have maintained the peace on its large frontiers. Persia would have acted as a melting pot of ideas, cultures, and technologies. It would most likely have inherited the robust culture of India, the intellectual capabilities of Islam, and the technological innovations of China. This would have made for an ever-changing, fluid society, where India's caste system would not have been possible.

2003-06-02T18:14:00.000-07:00

On the weekend I watched Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets again, and I thought about what it means to have a picture painted of yourself that you then have to 'inhabit'. For example, in the scene in the first Harry Potter movie, The Philosopher's Stone, Harry and Ron are on the Hogwarts Express, and Harry tries -- unsuccessfully -- to eat a Chocolate Frog. The Chocolate Frog package contained the picture of Professor Dumbledore, but when the picture vanishes, Harry says: 'Oh, he's gone!' and Ron answers: 'Well you can't expect him to be there all day!'

Since pictures still can 'move' and 'talk' several hundred years after the person who was painted actually died, it would suggest that the wizarding world has found the key to immortality. This is an intriguing thought. If all you had to do to become immortal was to have a picture of yourself painted, this opens up the possibilities that all the greatest minds of the magical world could be preserved, and used for the common good. It could of course also mean that all the best criminal minds of the magical world could be preserved. Now, on a purely theoretical level, how would this work? Could it be that the mind finds a home in the paint's cells? Or is the paint itself made of a special material? Or is it the spell? Could the spell transfer some sort of 'home' for our human minds? Or is it the fact that this is an unintended misinterpretation of J.K. Rowling's books (and the movies)? If so I would like to see this loophole in the Harry Potter series 'sealed up'.

2003-05-30T17:10:00.000-07:00

This is the last installment in my blogs about the Old Guard of WBritains (see these blogs to read about the other Old Guard series: Intro
The Delhi Durbar and The Toy Soldiers), that of the Napoleonic Wars. This series started as a sub-series to the Toy Soldier line, but in 2001 it became fully 'independent' and for two years it was one of the largest and most diverse, colorful, and extravagant series around. It spectacularly captured the extravagance of the Napoleonic wars from the tall bearskin hats of Napoleon's Old Guard, to the kilted Highlanders, the green of the Pavlov Life-guards, the tall plumed cuirassiers, and finally the rather simply dressed Prussian Infantrymen. William Britains definitely did themselves proud, until recently. This year and last, WBritains has reduced the Napoleonic Wars series to a bare minimum. Today its size is roughly 15 sets, with no new sets added. When you look in the WBritain catalogue for this year, there are no pictures of the Napoleonic sets still available. It seems that WBritain wants to obliterate all traces of this series. Why? I mean, wasn't it one of the largest and most 'healthy' of all their lines? Was it the fact that WBritains is now part of a larger American company, and to please their American owners they're now expanding their American lines. (Surprisingly in the years that the Napoleonic Wars series was shrinking, series like the American Revolution and American Civil War have expanded rapidly). Whatever WBritains' motives, it is committing a terrible mistake in letting the Napoleonic Wars series shrink and 'stagnate'. This is not good. The Napoleonic Wars line is the 'heir' of the Toy Soldier series, it is the last series that is like the Toy Soldier of old. The Napoleonic War series is now the only one to display the extravagance and pomp of Europe's military of the 19th century. I think that it would be one of WBritains greatest mistake if they discontinued this series.

2003-05-20T11:09:00.000-07:00

I've been reading The Tolkien Companion; The Indispensable Guide to the Wondrous Legends, History, Languages, and Peoples of Middle Earth, by J.E.A. Tyler, and I realized that Tolkien, perhaps unintentionally, took the 'essence' of three main European medieval nations, which he then assigned to the three main races (Dwarves, Elves, and Men) of Middle Earth.

Elves: The Elves are immortal, and their weapon of choice is the bow and arrow, right? Right. For this reason the Elves represent medieval England, because (1) they dwell in secluded areas and are very 'insular' in their thinking, and (2) they fight mainly with bow and arrow, just like the English, who were famed for their longbow men.

Men: The Mannish kingdoms (especially Gondor) represent Byzantium. It is the men who are the 'masters' of the horse and are known for their cavalry (just like the Byzantines). They are also like Byzantium because, just like the Byzantines, they have been given the job to act as a sort of 'buffer' state against the hordes of 'Infidels' (aka Orcs, goblins, trolls, etc.), protecting the rest of the middle earth from these hordes. Men are also good builders, just like the Byzantines.

Dwarves: Dwarves represent Germany. Firstly, because they are more productive than the other kingdoms, just like the Germans under Barbarossa, Otto the Great, Frederick the Second, and others. Secondly, the Dwarves represent an elite army; they are heavy infantry and in general are invincible. This compares to the Germans, for in the Third Crusade Barbarossa's knights were viewed as an elite force. Most of Barbarossa's army was destroyed when he died, so the Germans weren't exactly invincible even then. The Dwarves also often fall prey to marauding Dragons (aka the Mongols), just as 13th century Germany had. Thirdly, the Dwarves, just like the Germans, were great castle builders. Now, I know that the Dwarves don't build castles as such, but wouldn't you consider a hollowed out, fortified mountain a castle?

If you are wondering why I don't compare the Orcs, Goblins, Trolls, and all the other evil races of Middle Earth to real medieval nations, it is because no one wants to be compared to hideous creatures and besides, I think the evil races are simply a melting pot of various, usually more evil, aspects of certain civilizations. For instance, the tribes that invaded the Roman Empire -- Huns, Vandals, Alans, and Goths -- might have influenced Tolkien in his descriptions of the way the evil races of Middle Earth act and fight. Besides being a melting pot of the worst traits of various tribes, I think that the evil races are also a hodgepodge of stereotypes. For instance, as a professor at Oxford, Tolkien might have come across documents in which the Saracens were perhaps portrayed as man-eating villains, or Vikings portrayed as half-bear, half-man monsters. Whatever influences Tolkien from medieval accounts of real tribes, his evil races of Middle Earth should only loosely be associated with real world counterparts.

2003-05-16T18:07:00.000-07:00

This blog is about the Toy Soldiers series made by WBritain in the 1990s, series which over the past two years have been largely discontinued by the manufacturer. Yet they were, to my mind, the best series made by the company. It included several 'sub-series,' including my personal favorite, the Crimean War. The main focus of this series was to accurately portray the British military of the second half of the 19th century. In sub-series like the Crimean War, other nations' soldiers, Russian and French, for example, were also represented. Perhaps the most impressive units in this line was the cavalry. These elaborately dressed soldiers came in several types: Hussars, Lancers, Dragoons, and Heavy Cavalry. Without question, England and France had some of the most colorful and fancifully dressed horsemen in the 19th century, and this series made it perfectly clear in its many cavalry sets. The uniforms were so elaborate, with so many colors being used by both sides, that a person could have great difficulty telling a British cavalryman from his Russian counterpart. This series, even though it was still very large right up until the moment it 'died', had really only one main 'rival', the World War II sets. Still a fledgling in the mid 90's it was a rapidly growing series by the end of the decade. If the Toy Soldiers had the most colorful uniforms, WWII had the dullest and drabbest uniforms imaginable. The grey-black of the Germans and the dull green of the British and Americans was the exact opposite of the fancy uniforms worn by the French, British, and Russian Toy Soldiers. I will not bore you with detailed descriptions of WWII uniforms; all I can say is that they are very ugly when compared to those of the 19th century. While the Toy Soldiers of the 19th century could ignite anybody's imagination, the dull realism of the World Wars series reduces the imaginary landscape to a bunch of trenches and deadening routine.

I think it was because of Britain's decision to focus on manufacturing the WWI and WWII series that the Toy Soldiers began to go into decline. The lack of new sets and sub-series caused this formerly ever-changing series to 'stagnate' as it were. The Toy Soldier line's last 'great' achievement was a sub-series called 'The Battle of Waterloo,' which by 2001 had grown into the now 'endangered' Napoleonic Wars series. Since then, no new 19th century series has been introduced. The Toy Soldiers need to be restored because they are the image of the toy soldier. They are as integral to William Britain as the Ceremonial series, which includes the famous Beefeaters and Scots Guards. It has been two years since the Toy Soldiers line was discontinued, and perhaps WBritain will reconsider. Who knows? I would really like to see the Toy Soldier series up and running again.

2003-05-12T20:17:00.000-07:00

The modern Delhi Durbar series, made by WBritain in the late 1990s, is colorful, exotic, and extravagant: everything you would expect from a 19th century military parade that took place at the end of Queen Victoria's reign. These colorful sets convey the ceremonial pomp of the coronation of the Duke and Duchess of Connaught. The first figures commemorating this event were made early in the 20th century, but not until recently did WBritains revive the series. It has everything, from infantry to cavalry to artillery. Even the maharaja's elephants are there! The reason I classify this as one of the 'Old Guard' series is because of its multiformity. In the Delhi Durbar series, the soldiers wear many styles of uniform. Some infantry soldiers wear 'native' dress, while others wear the uniforms of the 'old country' (aka England). This also applies to the Cavalry: some wear Indian influenced uniforms, others wear European dress. But perhaps the most unique thing about this series is its elephants. These impressive beasts are in their full ceremonial trappings, complete with a 'tower', riders and 'drivers'. The first elephant was issued in 1997, but discontinued in 1999. However, in 2001 WBritains issued two new elephants, the Maharajah of Nizam-Hyderabad's, and the Maharaja of Bikanir's. The Delhi Durbar line continued to grow until 2003 when WBritain retired 6 sets, even though they were only 2 years. From 1997-99 there was also a 'sub' series within the Delhi Durbar, called the Indian Army, which showed the Delhi Durbar regiments in fighting stances instead of in 'ceremonial' poses. With some interruptions, the Delhi Durbars have been in WBritains's repertoire since the early 20th century. Simply for the reason that it is so old and diverse in its styles, I think it should be restored to its former place amongst the 'essential' series of WBritain.

The series which probably contributed most to the Delhi Durbar's current displacement is the hollow-cast Jubilee series, which has expanded tremendously since 2002. According to some, WBritains's launch of 'Jubilee' was a noble attempt to recontinue a series that had been stopped back in the 60's, but it has resulted in displacing the Delhi Durbar, which I think deserve a preeminent place. I also think that WBritain should restore the Indian Army line, which is a necessary component of the Delhi Durbars, so that you can actually make fighting dioramas with these spectacular troops.

2003-05-09T10:41:00.000-07:00

I am a member in the WBritains Collectors Club. This club is for WBritain toy soldier enthusiasts across the world. Members get the quarterly magazine The Standard, as well as a WBritain catalogue. In The Standard, club members write about Toy Soldiers in general and about up-coming sets. Recently, the WBritain collectors club, and to some extent the company, have been focusing on Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee series. By doing so, they are ignoring what I think are the 'classic' series of WBritain. In my next few blogs I will explain why I think each of the following series need to be kept and expanded, as well as restored to their former 'glory'. These are the series that are like the 'Old Guard' to WBritain:

The Dehli Durbar

The Toy Soldiers

The Napoleonic Wars

I will describe each of these above series, and discuss how each one is being affected by a 'usurper' series (below):

The Golden Jubilee

The Knights of Agincourt

(And perhaps worst of all!) The First and Second World War

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't want to see the actual destruction of the 'usurper' series. What I would like to see is WBritain's focus to be shifted more onto what I call the 'Old Guard' series. For instance, the 'Old Guard' keystone, The Toy Soldier series, is now actually discontinued! Series like the Dehli Durbar and Napoleonic Wars are seeing their 'armies' shrink rapidly. Why, in this year alone, 11 sets have been retired in the Napoleonic Wars series, with no replacements! That's an increase of reduction from last year's reduction of 5 sets, and it reduces the total size of the Napoleonic army to only 15 sets. The Delhi Durbar is also suffering, with 6 sets retired, making the size of its army a total of 11, with only one new figure for this year. Meanwhile, the Knights of Agincourt have swelled their ranks to an astonishing 21 sets! WWII is also expanding to 30 sets, with only 15 reductions this year. The new series of WWI is now at an amazing 17 sets (a large sum for a 'new' series). As can be seen from these shocking numbers, the 'Old Guard' might be 'extinct' by next year.

2003-05-07T21:16:00.000-07:00

Continuing with my speculations about how England would be different if the Anglo-Saxons had remained in control, I came upon the next great difference between the Saxons and the French/Normans. This is the question of how the Huskarl compares to the Chivalric Knight? (By Huskarl I mean the elite fighting body, not the 'house carl' of the Vikings; if you want more information, go to this site).
First let's explore the Chivalric Knight and his origin. According to some, Chivalry's origins can be traced back to the days of Charlemagne, who in the ninth century conquered all of France, Germany, and a large chunk of Italy. But I would argue that Chivalry only came to prominence after the Norman conquest of England and the beginning of the first crusade (1096). The main virtues of Chivalry are to obey the Church, to defend the weak, and to serve your lord well. Now this all sounds well and good, but how did it work in the 'real' world? There are many examples of corrupt knights, lords, dukes, barons, and kings during the Middle Ages who circumnavigated the law to enhance their power or wealth, which means that they did not abide by the code of chivalry. Then, take the Feudal arrangement, where a king (or a duke) who went to war called upon his vassals (aka the knights and lords) to support him with soldiers. So far I have only come across one nation that has put a minimum in place when it comes to having a Knight supply troops to his lord/king, and those were the Normans, whose knights had to supply either 10 foot or 5 horse. Then there's another problem, with no standing army in place (including bodyguards) the higher nobility simply had 'to wait and see' how many troops actually showed up for battle. (And if you were in your right mind you would run as fast as you could if someone tried to make you take part in a medieval battle!) Then there's the varying quality of arms and armour, not to mention training and disipline. This is why most medieval armies consisted mainly of 'arrow fodder' in other words rabble, who weren't properly armed or trained and simply acted like a leaderless mob, which then formed a barrier between the enemy and your 'good' troops. However there were examples of highly trained and disciplined soldiers in the Middle Ages, The Teutonic Knights, Templars, Hospitaliters, and to some extent the Danes in the 12th-13th centuries, had there soldiers well armored and armed for battle. However over all, the Chivalric Knight had more disadvantages than benefits when it came to military service.

The Saxon kings of England got around this problem by hiring a force of Huskarls to serve as the 'spear head' of the army in times of war, and to act as a tax collecting/law enforcing body in peacetime. King Cnut reorganized the Huskarls in 1018, boosting there full number up to some 3,000. All Huskarls wore a mail tunic, helmet, and carried a 'double edge' sword, shield, and a two handed battle axe, as well as having a horse which rode them to battle so that they then could dismount and fight on foot. This standardization of weaponry, got rid of one of the problems of Chivalry, that of the large discrepancies between forces. Another advantage with the Huskarls was that, besides having the best armour and arms of the day, they were always there and ready to fight, so that the King could always count on at least 3,000 'state of the art' troops to fight in the battle. The Huskarl was the prototype for England's standing army. The fact that they had horses meant that they could strike and get away faster than there counterparts infantry. Making the Huskarl a 'mobile' unit. So what if in time the Saxon kings levied say 18,000 well trained and equipped troops, perhaps not as elite as the Huskarl but just decently trained and armoured infantry. Yet once again History decided to ignore something that could have lead to more 'modern' ways of fighting much faster had we simply 'skipped' the Chivalric Knight.

2003-05-05T13:00:00.000-07:00

I was speculating the other day about how England would have developed if the Anglo-Saxons, under Harold Godwin, had won against the Normans at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. This set me thinking about Feudalism and what I call Saxon 'Thaneism.' During the early part of the middle ages (800-1200 CE) there were two main 'styles' of government and social organization: Saxon 'Thaneism' and Norman Feudalism. From very early on, the Saxons grouped themselves into three classes: thralls (slaves), churls (freemen), and thanes (noble men, yet it also could mean a rich landowner who then became a noble man because of his wealth). I think that the feudal system we now identify as such was founded by the Normans after their conquest of England. Unlike Norman Feudalism, however, the Saxons had a 'middle class' of freemen who served as craftsmen, farmers (i.e., farmers not serfs), and merchants. According to domesdaybook.net, one of its definitions of 'thane' is, 'A lesser landowner who prospered so that he possessed fully five hides of his own.' This would indicate a much more 'fluid' social system than Norman Feudalism because individuals could rise above the station they were born to if they acquired enough wealth.

The Normans were famed for their castle-building skills, as well as for their often brutal conquests of England, Wales, Scotland, Sicily, as well as attempted conquests of Ireland. They were the first to implement the rigid hierarchy of Feudalism. In the feudal system there are only two prevailing classes, possibly three if one counts the clergy: the Nobility and the Serfs (semi slaves). Only in the 14th and 15th centuries did history see the development of what we might call a middle class of free men within these feudal societies. A key aspect of Norman Feudalism, which is now completely associated with the Middle Ages, is the image of a castle overlooking a town. When the Normans began their occupation of England (and later Scotland and Wales), they built castles near every village and town so as to make sure that any rebellions by the towns could easily be put down. The Normans were superb at occupying lands. From their castles, the Normans could send out raiding parties or go to war, leaving only a small garrison behind. But because the castles were so well fortified, the local population could not rebel without having to start an extended siege of the castle, which they would surely lose.

As an alternative to Norman Feudalism, Saxon Thaneism had tremendous possibilities. I think that had it been given time, we could perhaps have seen the development of an early type of democracy in which king and commoner would have had some say as to how the country was ruled. Saxon 'Thaneism' continued to survive a little bit in Denmark and in Germany. Yet after the conquest of England by the Normans in 1066, and the onset of French Chivalry in the 13th century, 'Thaneism,' which might have hastened the modernization of Europe by a few hundred years, died out while Feudalism advanced in the few remaining countries where this system was still used.

2003-05-01T10:13:00.000-07:00

About a year ago my friend joined a group of kids who every Saturday would get together and play Warhammer. I didn't want to join because it would have meant having to spend two hours or so every Saturday indoors, regardless of the weather, or what you really wanted to do during that time. Shortly after his second get-together with wargamers, it seemed to me that he couldn't talk about anything else, even to people who weren't playing the game. This if anything deterred me from joining the group. So I never really learned how to play these 'wargames', even though I wanted to. I would try getting my friend to show me what the rules were, but I guess he wasn't that good at explaining, because I was never able to make head or tail of what he said. Then, a few weeks ago, there was an education conference (which my mother wanted to go to) that had workshops for the kids. Amongst these was one called Siege, which was a wargame! So I went and learned a few things about these games, and found out that in general they were childishly simple (or at least the version I played), and in many ways unfair. This was because the whole entire game depended on your luck with the die (or dice) which you had to roll to determine how strong your attack was. So I came home, full of ideas for making my own version of wargames. I decided that the dice should not play such a prominent part in the game. I also decided that instead of using the usual metal 30mm figures, I would use 1:72 scale Italeri or Revel and Zvezda soldiers. Then, like in Siege, I created 'classes' for the soldiers: Militia (worst type of Infantry), Men-at-Arm (decent type of In.), and Champion (elite) were the infantry classes. These were the Cavalry classes: Scout (weakest type of Cavalry), Knight (medium Cav.), and Paladin (elite Cav.). Also I decided on changes in how far troops could move: Cavalry 8 in. (+1 for all Knight and +2 for Paladin), Infantry 4 in. (+1 for Men-at-Arm, +2 for Champion). I also abolished the rule of: 'after moving a unit's full amount, it can not attack'. So now I have this perfect wargame, but alas, no one to play it with!

2003-04-29T18:57:00.000-07:00

Total war, and complete and utter annihilation of one’s enemy, is the code which most people have to follow for winning strategy computer games. Games such as Ensemble’s Age of Empires, The Rise of Rome, The Age of Kings, The Conquerers, and Sierra’s Empire Earth, and the Expansion, as well as games like Star Craft, all follow this principle. In fact the only things that makes these games from becoming a complete blood bath (where no thinking is required) is becuase of the need to collect enough resources (to train troops who will then be sent into useless suicide attacks), and to destroy the enemy’s fortifications (walls, towers, castles, and so on) which also makes it slightly necessary to plan your assault. So when I sit down and play Age of Empires the Conquerers in a “fortress” type game as the Teutons, my problem is not how can I out maneuver my enemy? But can I attack before the enemy has built to many Walls and Guard Towers, as well as Castles, so that I will then be able to destroy their kingdom? So once you have finally destroyed all those walls towers and castles, you have to spend the next hour our so demolishing every single building or farm, not to mention tracking down all the enemy people and then killing them. For this reason games like Age of Empires have scenarios which if not quicken the game at least make it (depending on how good your enemy is) easier to win. Game types like Regicide, kill all enemy kings, instead of killing all their people; or Death Match, start off with large stock piles of resources and prepare for a mega death tournament, simply eliminating the 'gathering' phase, are these alternatives. But nothing really changes, the strategies are still the same and you still feel compelled to kill every enemy you see, and destroy all their buildings, to show all your allies that it was a job well done. So you would think that someone would have come up with a game where war ment something more then total slaughter. This would be the game where after having won the war the winner would take over his former enemy's civilization, or he would recieve, for a fixed amount of time, some tribute (say every five minutes he recieves 20 food, 20 wood, 20 gold, and 20 stone, and this continues for an hour or so) so that the victor can gain something from the war. And even if the other player gets defeated there is a 50% chance that he might survive and (possibly) rebuild his kingdom, and avenge for his defeat in the last war. I myself would be glad to see games like this in stores, becuase frankly I find these 'total war' games tedious, and in most cases boring. I would also like to see advancements made in the way wars are fought (now I mean the technical things like soldier HP, or the ranges of various troops), and the way in which resources are collected and on how you make alliances. One day while thinking up the rules for a computer game (based along the lines of a more 'progressive' way of warfare) I realized that alliances between countries were never, permanent, and that some were ment for peacefull purposes and others weren't. So I decided to incorparate this into my Game the finnished product was this:
'You can make and join alliances with other players. There are two types of alliances in this game, trading (were you simply trade with and maintain freindly relationships with the other nation) and war alliances (these are the types where if you get into a war these type of allies will aid you with resources and troops). Alliances are maintained on a yearly basis (except for war alliances which are renewed every five years) where you either continue or you leave.'
The usage of this type of diplomacy would in my mind at least benefit players more than staying in a permanent alliance. All of these reforms would probably be beneficial, but maybe the computer game industry knows its customers better than I, and if that is so then I think i'll just have to start making my own computer games.

2003-04-29T17:28:00.000-07:00

This is my first entry. I will write about my interests, especially history.