Page 3 of 3

india

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:55 am
by Hefsgaard
AC wrote:The thought of Japan ever totally conquering India in incomprehensible anyway. This would have led to widespread guerilla warfare that would have drained all of Japan's resources rendering it extremely weak and vulnerable to attack from US, UK and USSR.

Empire building by military means is expensive and draining particularly if hearts and minds are not won.
Just as the british conquest led to widespread guirilla warfare?

Re: india

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 6:53 pm
by Flashman
Hefsgaard wrote:
AC wrote:The thought of Japan ever totally conquering India in incomprehensible anyway. This would have led to widespread guerilla warfare that would have drained all of Japan's resources rendering it extremely weak and vulnerable to attack from US, UK and USSR.

Empire building by military means is expensive and draining particularly if hearts and minds are not won.

Quite. Which is why I despair of map makers who just lump india together as one huge territory with a ridiculously low IPC value.

Just as the british conquest led to widespread guirilla warfare?
The British didn't conquer India. They gradually gained control of a multitude of small states, sometimes by diplomacy, sometimes by violence, usually by both. India as such only came into being when these small states were unified under enlightened British rule.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:09 pm
by Sabre Von Manteuffel
India as such only came into being when these small states were unified under enlightened British rule.
uh, just wondering...what is your definition of "Conquering." This sounds like Conquered to me...or did you mean they didn't rape and pillage the land from the Natives like the British, then us Americans did to the Native American Indians? :oops:

Also, the British were never Conquered by William of Normandy, he just well, brought Britian "into being when these small states were unified under enlightened Norman rule."

Oh, wait, they started calling him William the Conqueror after that. :twisted:

Just guess it all depends on definition of Conquered. :wink:

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:51 pm
by Flashman
Yes, England (not Britain) was conquered by the Normans. It had only existed as a unified state for a hundred years, and the rivalry between the great Earldoms prevented the English from a unified defence. So it is possible to argue that England was only really unified under foreign rule, though this was done in a very few years. The takeover of India was done piecemeal, with each individual princedom having it's own way of coming under British "protection". Even in 1940 there were several independent Princely States, which had their own governments and armed forces. The states of India often came voluntarily into the Empire rather than continue to be bullied by their larger neighbours. Most of India had previously been ruled by the now moribund Moghul Emperors, so the British takeover largely replaced one foreign ruler with another.
Curiously, Scotland was also taken over by Normans, but not by conquest. "Normanism" had become the done thing in NW Europe, and the Scots wanted in. The Scottish Stuart dynasty were of Norman origin; the FitzAlans were Stewards of the Kingdom, eventually morphing this into "Stuart". The Bruces, Baliols and Comyns who contended for the crown before the Stuarts were also of Norman origin. Yet there was no "conquest" of Scotland.
This is one of the (many) reasons the Braveheart movie is such a travesty. It was not a case of the English trying to rule the Scots, they were both ruled by a Norman (and French speaking) elite. Superimposing modern nationalism on a past society where the term was meaningless is a common mistake of historians, and particularly of film makers.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:24 pm
by Sabre Von Manteuffel
Ok, Flash, I will play for one more message, but I leave most on-going debates to IL, and just throw my 2 IPCs in every now and then:

First I wrote Britain just to rub you raw, mate....since I saw your post in the Maps section about FRENCH Madagascar and the Dutch being absorbed into Western Europe (aka "France)....Yes, it was the English.

However, your ENGLISH take on William Wallace and the ENGLISH suppression of the Scots is way off mark---but guess we need a Scot to weigh in on this one. :roll:

But from William the CONQUEROR's death until "Braveheart" was 210 years, so the Normanism you claimed was no longer the common thread between England and Scotland. Sure, Hollywood hyped up the nationalism and bravado of the whole thing, but the overall depiction was pretty acurate...and if the Scots weren't really revolting for independence and the English King didn't really hate him and the Scots so much, why would he hang William Wallace, rip his guts out and light them on fire in front of him, behead him, and then cut him into 4 more pieces to have all 5 pieces placed on display throughout the English kingdom that you don't f*ck with England?

Just wondering....oh ye of the Conquered England. :twisted:

And no bad feelings, I worked with the British Division for a few months in Iraq and earlier this month did some 2 nation Airborne Ops with the 4th Para. Good group of guys. And like I said, I won't go tit-for-tat with you like IL does....so this will end my comments regardless of your postings.

Just nice to know, that now, in addition to IL (who does have many valid points), we have another Never-Wrong Subject-Matter-Expert on Everything. :P why should IL not have some competition.......

-Sabre
(Lord of the Nasdats, Ruler of Milk Bars)

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:41 pm
by Larry
Always good to hear from you Sabre. Say hi to our troops for me.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:55 pm
by Flashman
I'll try to keep this brief. Wallace paid the penalty for treason, which was the same for Englishmen. It wasn't an anti-Scottish thing. If you insist that Braveheart is accurate, explain to me how Wallace could have fathered Edward III who was born THREE YEARS after he (Wallace) was executed? Why let history get in the way of stirring up obsolete nationalism, eh?
Define "independence". Edward quite reasonably ruled that Baliol had a better claim to the Scottish throne than the homicidal Bruce, but the Scotch wouldn't have it so in effect they were in revolt against THEIR OWN LAWFUL KING.

The nobility of England and Scotland were to all intents and purposes still Norman French, spoke that language, and considered themselves superior to the natives, English or Scotch. Henry V (15th century) was the first King of England since Harold who could speak English, and the same was true of the Scottish nobility of the time.

Re: India Crush?

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 4:14 am
by robdunbar69
Dec.6/7th almost here! &a house tradition this game will be out of the box(as will AAE.on june 6th.however J3 victory w india as target has been un-stopable but it is always a blast to try, but if Jap is played riteJ1she has40 ipcs& 4 vic pts(in.buy fters