Vos history

[Elton Robb]

Discussion thread for Vos (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Vos). If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.

[cccpxepoj]

tell me if i am wrong , buth wy are the russians allways a bad guys in a western movies,games....

[cccpxepoj]

The Vos live in the harshest part of Cerilia and they are trubled whith humanoids and awnsheglien, but they survive and they are tougher. My opinion is that their southern states thet have contacts whith cultures of khinashy & brecht are most properus & most promising.

[ryancaveney]

> why are the russians allways a bad guys in a western movies,games....

The Cold War. 45 years of conflict, fear and propaganda had their intended effect. Of course, in modern American movies, major villains are often given British accents; we haven't fought them since 1814, so it seems that we're never going to forgive anyone, at least in fiction.

I should have thought that would be obvious to someone with "CCCP" in his username. =)


Ryan

[AndrewTall]

tell me if i am wrong , but why are the Russians always a bad guys in a western movies,games....

1. cold war
2. white skin - therefore it is not racist for them to be the bad guys and the US/European predominantly white male audience (in action movies) can lech over the actresses encouraging attendance.
3. cool accent - therefore you can tell the good guys and bad guys apart
4. reputation for having ... an efficient perspective on dealing with problems...
5. the skill of the Russian spy networks - a lot of story opportunities
6. if you make Arabs the bad guys they might firebomb cinemas, etc - which cuts profits (we've shamefully had cinema's refuse to stock films which 'insult the Muslim religion' - and riots by Sikhs and Muslims outside cinema's to force the cinema to stop showing the movie...)
7. if you make the Chinese the bad guys they may not invest in the movie increasingly capital costs and reducing profit

As an Englishman I am always happy to see someone else as the bad guy, some US movies go far beyond attempts to justify the American creation myth into the realms of offensive propaganda - 'the patriot' is one example and many of the 'Irish' movies are others...

Southern Vos states:
Yes, I would agree that harvest yields will be better and winters less costly to survive which will encouragw wealth.

I lean strongly to the view that until the Anuirean Empire came along the far north of Cerilia was completely uninhabited - the Vos lived in what is now northern Khinasi and eastern Brechtur. The empire then pushed them into more remote areas. This is partly because I can't see the Vos willingly living in the icy tundra when there are soft, warm, Basarji and Brecht realms to live in and partly to encourage the prevalence of long-buried ruins and the like...

[cccpxepoj]

> why are the russians allways a bad guys in a western movies,games....

The Cold War. 45 years of conflict, fear and propaganda had their intended effect. Of course, in modern American movies, major villains are often given British accents; we haven't fought them since 1814, so it seems that we're never going to forgive anyone, at least in fiction.

I should have thought that would be obvious to someone with "CCCP" in his username. =)


Ryan
I know just had to make that question :) , i realy like Russian "villains".
My name is Ivan Chekov and you are closing right now:cool:

[cccpxepoj]

The conflict between nona and torva Vos is essential especially for the southern states because torva way subdued those realms but it is now up to nona to stabilize them and make them prosper .

[vota dc]

Vos model are the mongols or the siberians?Because one Vos kingdom has the czar and no vos kingdom has the khan.

[RaspK_FOG]

An interesting thing about the good old Atlas is that it says that the Vos are the most misunderstood of all the humans, since they are some of the most decent individuals around (Madislav from "The Falcon and the Wolf" comes to mind).

[Dcolby]

As an Englishman I am always happy to see someone else as the bad guy, some US movies go far beyond attempts to justify the American creation myth into the realms of offensive propaganda - 'the patriot' is one example and many of the 'Irish' movies are others...

As an American with no need to justify our "Creation Myth" (A little sensitive to us Colonials getting loose eh Andrew??) ;)

I should hope that anyone who watches anything from Mel Gibson... Brave Heart, The Patriot, The Passion, (did not see Apocolyptco sp??) is in for a one sided distortion of events.

The character in The Patriot was based on a historical British officer who had a reputation for....effectiveness...in the use of questionalble means in the prosecution of the war. However I do not recall ever hearing about the Burning of a Church, civilians inside or not.

General Sir Banastre Tarleton, 1st Baronet, GCB (August 21, 1754–January 25, 1833) was a British soldier and politician. His reputation for ruthlessness earned him the nickname "Bloody Ban" and "Butcher" amongst American revolutionists. The British regarded him as an outstanding leader of light cavalry.

Banastre Tarleton was the fourth of seven children born to the merchant, ship owner and slave trader, John Tarleton of Liverpool (1719 – 1773), who was mayor of Liverpool (1768). Tarleton was educated at the Middle Temple, London and went up to University College, Oxford University where he matriculated in 1771, after which entered the British army. As a young man, he had inherited £5,000 on his father's death, but squandered it all on gambling. In 1775 he purchased a commission as a cavalry officer in the 1st Dragoon Guards, and proved to be a gifted horseman and leader of troops.

On May 29, 1780 Tarleton, with a force of 150 mounted soldiers, overtook a detachment of 350 to 380 Virginia Continentals led by Abraham Buford. Buford refused to surrender or even to stop his march. Only after sustaining heavy casualties did Buford order the surrender. What happened next is cause of heated debate. According to American accounts, Tarleton ignored the white flag and mercilessly massacred Buford's men. By Tarleton's own account, his horse was shot from under him in the charge, and chaos erupted when his men believed he had been killed. In the end, 113 Americans were killed and another 203 captured, 150 of whom were so badly wounded that they had to be left behind. Tarleton's casualties were 5 killed and 12 wounded [1]. The British called the affair the Battle of Waxhaw Creek, while the Americans knew it as the Buford Massacre or the Waxhaw Massacre.

In recounting Tarleton's action at the scene one member of the British Army who was there, a surgeon named Robert Brownfield, wrote that "... Tarleton with his cruel myrmidons was in the midst of them, when commenced a scene of indiscriminate carnage, never surpassed by the ruthless atrocities of the barbarous savages." The Waxhaw massacre became an important rallying cry for the revolutionaries. Many people who had been more or less neutral became ardent supporters of the Revolution after the perceived atrocities. "Tarleton's quarter" and "no quarter" became rallying cries for American Patriots for the rest of the war.

Of course the accuracies of the accounts are somewhat in question, but the movie needed a good bad guy so there it is.....no church full of civilians though... :D

[AndrewTall]

As an American with no need to justify our "Creation Myth" (A little sensitive to us Colonials getting loose eh Andrew??) ;)

Nope, think we both did better apart. The overly messy separation notwithstanding (first kid to leave home always finds the parents find it difficult to let go, Canada and India did much better so we figured it out in the end.)

For many of us the only issue was the way you chose to do it (siding with the French??? How can anyone go running to the French for military aid?) But still Americans are reluctant to set up effective colonies (compare your success in Germany and Japan - both treated as colonies after WWII to the countries south america, etc, etc which continually got invaded, and then fell over as soon as yor troopsu wandered off) which undermines your effectiveness globally. We did the whole liberty and justice for the world schtick for centuries, your turn already...

And the continual bitching about the empire - some US text books are still apparently whining that the Irish potato famine was a British plot to harm the Irish and similar garbage - frankly I expect better of you - would you have rather have been a Spanish colony like Mexico? A French one like Algiers? Hmm, admittedly you might have been better off with the Dutch, less booze and violence, more sex...



However I do not recall ever hearing about the Burning of a Church, civilians inside or not.

This was ranted about in some of our more exuberant rags, apparently it's based on an event in Nazi Germany where a SS officer went overboard... I don't recall the name in question, and even its officers questioned the righteousness of the event...

The issue is not brutality in war - getting lost in the moment is a problem for armies since time immemorial but usually only affects other soldiers, generally those who leave it too late in surrendering/running - it's the premeditated butchery of civilians for, effectively, pleasure...

Still, as examples of how NOT to deal with ambitious local politicians goes, and how fighting rebels inevitably alienates the local population, the US war of independence is a very good example - kudos to the founding fathers for completely out-maneuvering (in just about every way) the diplomats assigned to handling 'the Americas'.



Of course the accuracies of the accounts are somewhat in question, but the movie needed a good bad guy so there it is.....no church full of civilians though... :D

Ah, propaganda - always the weapon of choice (for both sides). What bothers me is the way it continues to the current day and sometimes poisons relations between us. It just seems...oddly insecure...at least your politicians have grown out of paying our 'mafia' to kill civilians even if some of them are blocking the mutual extradition treaty as they scrabble to find a definition of terrorists which doesn't include them...

[Dcolby]

The French happened in that century and the early 19th century to be a perfectly viable counter weight to British Military power...it is only in recent times that they have developed into well "The French".

As to it being our Turn to promote liberty and such about the globe...I think much like the Empire upon which the Sun never set we do so only in our own and or best political interests and mask it in those guises. Then become a little puffy and sensitive when we get called "Imperialists". ;)

I tend to think this stems from our Christian roots which wars with our natures to produce the "Need" for a moral and correct reason for war and interfering with the course of other nations.

The Romans never saw any reason to disguise their reasons for doing anything and while brutal and cruel were pretty honest about why they did anything with their Military, both to themselves and to other nations.

Sigh I best not get into it....soon I will start to rant...like if I hear one more person tell me Islam is inherently peaceful...oops I am ranting... :mad:

[AndrewTall]

I tend to think this stems from our Christian roots which wars with our natures to produce the "Need" for a moral and correct reason for war and interfering with the course of other nations.

Indeed, I get surprised sometimes by role-players insisting that one king or another is evil for invading a neighbour to conquer them, but conquest was a natural part of nobility back then - it's only recently that human rights have become vogue and the idea that people should chose their leaders considered a moral necessity.


Sigh I best not get into it....soon I will start to rant...like if I hear one more person tell me Islam is inherently peaceful...oops I am ranting... :mad:

Hmm, I get that at work. I have to be careful talking at work now, my comments on the intrinsic opposition of a fundamentalist government based on ignorance and superstition, and a capitalist free market based on a skilled educated workforce, the free flow of information, etc leading to the entrenchment of poverty in the former system apparently being considered unacceptable nowadays.

[kgauck]

When I played the Hundred Years War online, my job was to justify the war by writing up our war claims, and attacking the war claims of the other side. These were always the historical issues (I didn't make up claims or use claims made later in the war). Justifying wars in terms of legitimacy is nothing new.

This war, while I'm on the subject, features several cases where the monarch is elected. All monarchy is elective. What has changed is not the notion that the people chose their leaders, this was always the case. But what has changed is the notion that the leader has a term of office and a regular succession.

[Gheal]

War claims sounds very different in different cultures. Small raids on neighbours is normal state of affairs for nomadic people, and this can easily escalate in full-scale war. Settled people usually have more reservations in this matter, but still some cultures view these raids as lawful deeds. The more different are states culturally, the less excuse aggressor need. (They are uncivilized and unenlightened savages / They are lowly settled people / They are hateful barbarians (non-Greek) / They are weak, evil and corrupted... so what the heck!?) Only culturally similar countries must elaborate something complex.
In Birthright, IMO, nomads of Binsada have little need to declare war against settled "greedy" Brechts or "former oppressors" Anuireans. And Vos ( even settled people, I hope, not Hunnu/Mongol nomads) don't bother themselves with the claims against "heretical and spiritually weak" Khinasi either.
And most real-world historical atrocities were committed simply because people don't care about something or somebody. But I prefer not to apply our real-world examples to Aebrinus, where Good and Evil are cosmic forces and some countries can have alignment. :eek:

I'm sorry, if my English is inadequate. :o

[Gwrthefyr]

War claims were an industry in medieval to modern administrations - I'd not be surprised if most countries' foreign services still had a few servants tasked with readying war claims just in case.

I think it was Vergennes, in France, whose papers included a number of claim documents (including, the only one I remember, one on Tuscany) - If your war is not wildly popular from the get go, you have to make it so, make your senate/governing council/high priests scream for it by the time your point is done :D . I don't think it's something particularly related to the monotheist religions.