New CG Cinematic for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Shows Geralt “Killing Monsters”

[cmdr_silverbolt]

I think you should be able to discern from the other person's post whether they are open to joking with you at that moment, otherwise what you say comes off as an attack.

Regardless, now I'm really just going to tell you- go play the games, and then talk. I don't understand why you're so invested in these series if you don't even play the games.

Then again, I can understand why you would be interested because it is a rather interesting series ^^

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Still pissed off because of Baghdad are you now? Personally I don't take the muslim records too seriously considering the rather large bias against the Mongols by them.

These are historical facts. They massacred hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed all the books, hundreds of thousands, in its great library.

No historian questions or denies it.

 

[Garrison72]

If a short CGI trailer sparks this much debate, they better get a bigger forum when the game releases.

 

[wichat]

I don't think it was hatred as much as it was bloody noble pride that led to the massacre in Cintra. But there was fear of Nilfgaard, it's even mentioned in some of the first chapters in the Blood of Elves and that was after Sodden.

Oh! you didn't talk with any Cintrian after that massacre, did you? They love the land that Nilfgaarian step! />

 

[CostinRaz]

Because cities tend to surrender even when threatened with slavery, pillage, and abduction of property.

Cities don't surrender when prideful nobles are in control of their garrisons. The commoners have little say in the matter in cases like that.

Macedon was not part of the empire at the time.

I said declare war on them. The rebellion was related to Syraccuse.

And no, in fact a substantial number of Rome's army was in expeditions in Iberia at the time, several years before Cannae.

According to military historian Richard A. Gabriel, who's written a book about Hannibal that I have, had all of Rome's allies or even a large number of them defected to Hannibal at the same time, Rome would have been powerless to do anything. This opinion is corroborated by every single historian I've read on the subject.

What happened however is that a ot of Rome's allies stood by it not out of fear, but out of loyalty. Some sure did it out of fear, after Rome pummeled them for rebelling. But not most, as Rome would have lost had they rebelled.

They also had large numbers of troops in Sicily and in Greece, who dealt with the Macedonians there and Syrracuse. That's my definition on the border. So no Rome would not have lost had the Italians rebelled, but the Italians were not the only allies Rome had, though they were quite loyal it's true but fear did play a part in their decision to remain loyal.

These are historical facts. They massacred hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed all the books, hundreds of thousands, in its great library.

No historian questions or denies it.

And yet the Mongols are portrayed in a very negative manner by Muslim scholars are they not?

Baghdad was an anomaly since the Mongols, at least under Ghenkis Khan's direct rule, went to great pains to preserve knowledge like the one found in the books of the library of Baghdad.

 

[wichat]

If a short CGI trailer sparks this much debate, they better get a bigger forum when the game releases.

Isn't it fun? I don't know about the rest but I enjoy it! />

 

[Agent_Blue]

I think you should be able to discern from the other person's post whether they are open to joking with you at that moment, otherwise what you say comes off as an attack.

Regardless, now I'm really just going to tell you- go play the games, and then talk. I don't understand why you're so invested in these series if you don't even play the games.

Then again, I can understand why you would be interested because it is a rather interesting series ^^

It's called argument from authority, what you did there.
And no, thank you, I'm not going to play the previous games and read the books.

But thanks for the heads-up though.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Cities don't surrender when prideful nobles are in control of their garrisons. The commoners have little say in the matter in that case.

Give me a historical example of commoners continuing to fight because nobles told them to.
I can't for the life of me remember a single occurrence.

They also had large numbers of troops in Sicily and in Greece, who dealt with the Macedonians there and Syrracuse. That's my definition on the border.

Then we are not talking about the Italian allies, who were the backbone of Rome's strength. That's who I am talking about. Had they rebelled, Rome would have lost, according to all historians I've read.

Fear worked on a few, but not on most of them, otherwise Cannae would have changed their minds. They had little reason to fear the Romans after Cannae, esp if they all rose up at the same time. There is no way Rome would have been able to survive.

 

[CostinRaz]

Give me a historical example of commoners continuing to fight because nobles told them to.
I can't for the life of me remember a single occurrence.

Depends on what you define as commoners? Regular soldiers fighting for the army and the city watch? Yes they would actually fight for their liege lord until the battle would seem lost and then they would try and surrender or flee, but a medieval siege battle regardless of how you cut is a brutal business.

Look at the fall Constantinople where the pride of an Emperor led to the brutal sacking of the city because he would not surrender.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Depends on what you define as commoners? Regular soldiers fighting for the army and the city watch? Yes they would actually fight for their liege lord until the battle would seem lost and then they would try and surrender or flee, but a medieval siege battle regardless of how you cut is a brutal business.

No I mean the people, civilians.

Even if they were conscripted en masse, I would find it hard to believe they'd fight to the death if the enemy gave them generous terms.

Yes sieges were a nasty business, but to be forced to raze an entire city to the ground because the people were resisting? I have no heard of such an occurrence, unless they were given no choice but to fight.

 

[wichat]

Give me a historical example of commoners continuing to fight because nobles told them to.
I can't for the life of me remember a single occurrence.

I could give you one (1711) but it could be just an exception in the whole History./>

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I could give you one (1711) but it could be just an exception in the whole History./>/>

No please do.

Were they given the chance to surrender, with generous terms, and they still fought to the death? I'd be interested in hearing of such a thing.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

It's called argument from authority, what you did there.
And no, thank you, I'm not going to play the previous games and read the books.

But thanks for the heads-up though.

Uh, it's called knowing-what-you're-talking-about-to-actually-talk-about-it />

No, honestly, you don't need to know about the games/books to talk from your kind of perspective, which I think is a "writer's perspective"(?), and you're fine for the scope of the trailer. But it doesn't help you to lack the understanding of the character, which players/readers gain from playing/reading, and I think that's why you can't understand why/how the character underwent a dilemma.

 

[GuyNwah]

Common people? Do you have a historical example where the people of a city chose to fight to the death, when they were given the option to surrender, for their properties to be left intact, and for their homes to be left unmolested?

Because cities tend to surrender even when threatened with slavery, pillage, and abduction of property.

The Warsaw Uprising would be a good recent example, and Masada would be a good ancient one, but in general you are right; such things are rare. The leaders of most cities are like the town council in Brand and favor saving citizens' lives over risky or suicidal ventures.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Warsaw Uprising would be a good recent example, and Masada would be a good ancient one, but in general you are right; such things are rare. The leaders of most cities are like the town council in Brand and favor saving citizens' lives over risky or suicidal ventures.

I am familiar to an extent with the Warsaw uprising, and in general the Germans were harsh conquerors, esp in Eastern Europe (as opposed to say France, in general). The Poles never accepted German occupation from the get go. That and during the German withdrawal from the catastrophic eastern front, they started to commit more and more atrocities in the hope that it would stop any resistance, which only ended up making it worse which is my point.

Of course Germans losing played a huge role, but I think it was their atrocities, both immediately before the event and since the invasion, that was the deciding factor in spurring the uprising.

I admit I am not familiar with Masada, I will check it out.

 

[wichat]

No please do.

Were they given the chance to surrender, with generous terms, and they still fought to the death? I'd be interested in hearing of such a thing.

I'd would but I'm not sure to do it correctly. The siege of Barcelona, mystifications apart, took more 14 months. Citizen wanted to resist before surrender, Villarroel and Casanova knew that and almost no need to ask for fighting to the people. In fact, Villarroel wanted only resist but Casanova order to fight Spaniards who seiged the city. Citizen did it. Because they trusted Casanova and his honesty and their own believes.

Para mantener el orden público dentro de la Ciudad se levó la Compañ

 

[GuyNwah]

The Warsaw Uprising was not so much a reaction to Nazi atrocities as a planned attempt to drive the German garrison out of Warsaw and other cities ahead of the advancing Soviets; it failed for a lack of Allied support, usually blamed on a decision of Stalin to let the Germans and the Poles bleed each other to death.

Masada was the famous mountaintop fort of the Sicarii during the Great Jewish Revolt, where the Romans built a ramp to gain the walls; Josephus has it that when the Romans breached the walls, they found that the 960 inhabitants had all committed suicide. Josephus' accounts of anything have to be taken with a grain of salt, but it is clear that the defenders had no intention other than to fight to the death.

The undercurious may note the similarity to the "crack suicide squad" of the Judean People's Front in Life of Brian.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

You say hate are an emotion stronger than fear. Sure, but there's an emotion stronger than hate: feeling to be part of something rightful as a culture (no religions or politicals ideals in between).

I am not familiar enough with the example to comment on it. But I will check it out, thanks!

But yes I absolutely agree with you, which is why the sentence "it's better to be feared than loved" is not something I agree with (and incidentally, neither does Machiavelli). Yes fear is an important part of statescraft and leadership, but the leader who inspires love and loyalty will get a lot more than one who only inspires fear.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Masada was the famous hill fort of the Sicarii during the Great Jewish Revolt, where the Romans built a ramp to gain the walls; Josephus has it that when the Romans breached the walls, they found that the 960 inhabitants had all committed suicide. Josephus' accounts of anything have to be taken with a grain of salt, but it is clear that the defenders had no intention other than to fight to the death.

Oh yea now I remember it, I just forgot the name.

Well I would ascribe it to religious zeal, but it may be an over-simplification on my part. I do not know much of the Jewish Revolt to say much.

 

[GuyNwah]

Oh yea now I remember it, I just forgot the name.

Well I would ascribe it to religious zeal, but it may be an over-simplification on my part. I do not know much of the Jewish Revolt to say much.

Religious zeal is a good enough short answer. At the risk of derailing the thread still further, a good place to start would be Zealots and Sicarii, which is an account of the adherents of the revolutionary "Fourth Philosophy", which condemned anything less than murderous resistance to Roman rule as idolatry. There are no primary sources, and no better secondary ones than Josephus, making it a difficult subject to study.