| Welcome to NationStates - Canada. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| SFTDOG; Society For The Discussion Of Government | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 14 2008, 10:54 AM (1,458 Views) | |
| Yanopia | Aug 24 2008, 01:50 AM Post #161 |
|
Checking Line Forward
|
Oligarchy? Let's just say I hate it. It puts a select few in power. Of course, that select few is in control of everything. Power should be more evenly distributed. No, i'm not talking Communist evenly distributed just to clarify... |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Aug 27 2008, 04:38 PM Post #162 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
stalin's russia was a perfect example of oligarchy, only him and a few right hand men got any power. His paranoia killed more than hitler. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Aug 28 2008, 07:04 AM Post #163 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
50,000,000 and that's by reserved estimates, there are many who think he killed upwards of 70/80 million. Oligarchies are terrible forms of government. The only dictators who have an oligarchy form of government are those that know they and their regime do not have wide public support. |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Aug 28 2008, 08:22 AM Post #164 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
next government: Parliamentary Monarchy |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Aug 29 2008, 10:40 AM Post #165 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
Best in the world! The UK has had a parliamentary/constitutional monarchy for 1,600 years (with a short break after the civil war) since the first Anglo-Saxons came here. After all that time I think the British model of parliamentary democracy has certainly proven itself one of the most effective forms of government in history. Furthermore, as we move into an age where the Royals become more publically owned it means they're more accountable and can no longer get away with what they have only 100 years ago. Quite simply, it's worked this long, why change it? :lol: GOD SAVE THE QUEEN! |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Aug 29 2008, 10:56 AM Post #166 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
hard to believe britain was ruled by germans! And then made it their country! and then they went to war often..... but STILL!!!!!Henry VIII was misunderstood, he was pretty cool........
|
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Aug 30 2008, 12:57 PM Post #167 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
Britain wasn't ruled by the Germans! I assume you are referring to the Hannoverian monarchs, that would be the monarchs on the throne from Geroge I all the way through to Queen Victoria; however, you must realise by the time George I came to be King of Great Britain and Ireland, the monarch "reigned but did not rule", as one parliamentarian once said. Therefore, your saying the Germans "ruled" Britain is inaccurate and technically wrong. Also do not forget that the Hannoverian monarchs may well have been called "German" by some Britons, however, in Hannover (when it was still independent of Germany) the Hannoverians were called "English" due to their being of large English ancestry. As for the "going to war often", that is unfortunate. I am from the position that WW1 need never have happened. George V didn't want to go to war but alas the old Imperialists in parliament (from both the whigs and the tories, but mainly the previous of the two) got their way and Britain went to war. Creepy that Adolf Hitler once stated, "We should not be fighting with our English cousins!" And finally of Henry VIII of England, he was indeed a much misunderstood man. He did a lot for the England, and perhaps equally as much for himself... I think the TV series "The Tudors" is portraying him rather more negatively than history would. I do think it deeply ironic that the man whom said, "Women cannot rule!" was outshone by his daughter, Elizabeth I of England, a woman I have deep admiration for!
|
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kyleslavia | Aug 30 2008, 04:40 PM Post #168 |
|
Stanley Cup Champ
|
I like the way Parliamentary Democracies operate. However, I don't feel like going into much detail right now. |
| Come and visit Kylesburg City, please clicky! | |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Aug 30 2008, 09:56 PM Post #169 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
nio i was speaking of the noble and strong saxon/angles from nordern germany. They even beat VIKINGS off from wessex, now that's strenght. Henry the 8th really formed the british navy and in the long run, the british empire, i still think the mongols had a cooler empire. I wish i could go back in time and watch the armies of the first emperor of china (500,000 men, or 800,000) conquer it's enemies with such armies..... *sigh* a militarist can dream......
|
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Aug 30 2008, 09:56 PM Post #170 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
parliament is okay, but shouldn't let it become too beaurocratic. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Pez201 | Aug 30 2008, 09:57 PM Post #171 |
|
New and improved
|
The Mongols couldn't rule their empire. They conquered it and then it just fell to bits. |
|
"I never said i was the first person..yesh. I admit Pez was the first one to throw a goat" - Fin Leader of the Canadian Fat Whale Party from 21/5/08 - 29/8/09 and from 1/8/09 when his 48 hour brain fuzz cleared up.
| |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Aug 31 2008, 12:08 PM Post #172 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. "They even beat vikings off from Wessex" Um, the Saxons created the Kingdom of Wessex, the name means "West Saxons", or in Old English "West Séaxe". If you're talking about the Saxons fighting off the vikings from invading Wessex, then again, you are misguided. They never spread that far south, and where Wessex and the vikings met in the midlands, a truce was drawn. Also the Angles and Saxons arrived in England and the lowlands of Scotland roughly 200 years before the Vikings got here. As for Anglo-Saxon victories over the vikings: there were actually very few instances where the two people met face to face. The vikings were raiders. They didn't take part in what we today recognise as standard warfare of facing off with the enemy. Also it is worth noting that the Danish Vikings were considered brothers of the Angles (who were essentially southern Danish vikings). The biggest battle between the Anglo-Saxons and the (Norwegian) vikings, and one of the few where the Anglo-Saxons won, was the Battle of Stamford Bridge, where Harold Godwinson defeated Harald Hardråde, finally ending the viking raids against England and lowlands of Scotland. A week later, Harold Godwinson was defeated by William the Bastard (who was descended from vikings, hence why they were known as "norman"), who established what would eventually evolve into the uniquely British monarchy. Anyway I digress...just correcting you again (I do British History at uni, what can I say?!) :lol:
^ Very true. Where the British Empire brought governance, law and order, the Mongol Empire just brought anarchy. |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Aug 31 2008, 01:46 PM Post #173 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
the british weren't so cheery either, they nary had the best empire. The best empire i'd have to say is not even an empire but a confederacy of tribes that beat off the huns and the romans, the germanians, who governed themselves fairly and lived good lives, the best life one can live. When others rule another without one's blessings then one does not rule, they merely replace the other man's prefered leader, and therefore have no favorability. The germanians governed themselves the way they wanted to be governed, now if only everybody could have the same luck English is based of loads of german, and latin, some greek, but it does have extensive relation to german, you could sometimes listen to german songs and understand it. I can go into a german bar and understand what they are serving. German language has deep roots in many popular languages of europe, germany had large influence in europe back then.
|
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Sep 1 2008, 01:54 PM Post #174 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
English is around 25% Latin based and 25% Medieval French based. It's hard to believe but modern English is less than 15% Germanic. Simple nouns, simple verbs, simple adjectives and the pronouns are all of what is left from Old English (which was, of course, a Germanic language). As for the sporadic Greek found in English it is usually only found with scientific or astronomical terms, and very little anywhere else (though there are exceptions tho this). As for the German language, I can understand about three quarters of spoken German for the simple reason of intelligibility between the Western Germanic languages of today. I must admit I find the Northwestern dialects ("Plat düütsch" or Low German) easier to understand than southern dialects ("Hoch deutsch" or High German). As for the British Empire not being the best, KK, don't forget it was a fledgling British Empire that sowed the seeds of the United States Also the British never "replaced one man's preferred rular" in the case of India and South Africa, the British actually unified the nations and then simply put a Viceroy or Governor-General in place as a figurehead in the Monarch's place, thus allowing the people to elect whomever they wanted to form governments.The Germanic Empire wasn't as idyllic as you make it seem, KK. They elected their Kings who was elected for life and usually, went on to get his sons appointed as the next rulars before he died. It was a very bloody and barbaric place to live. The Germans certainly did not "govern themselves fairly". There is a reason they have a reputation as being blood-lusting barbarians :rolleyes: Also, in actuality do not forget the Romans carred very little for what was on the other side of the Rhine, they viewed it as nothing more than forested lands that were largely infertile. In the few instances they did have major skirmishes with the Germans, the score was one for one. For every victory the German tribes made, they suffered a loss. The major scuffles the Romans had were actually with the Slavs of eastern Europe, specifically in the Balkans and the southwestern Black Sea cost. |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Sep 1 2008, 08:54 PM Post #175 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
the british aren't the best they did their own atrocities themselves in africa for instance. Also, "barbarian" is such a crude term, the germans were not barbarians, they were advanced, with a very cool culture of their own. Sometimes the people want blood, nio, look at rome for instance, sometimes you need to spill blood in order to advance to gold. The british took some places from happy people though nio, the british weren't all jolly and epicly wonderful as lots think it is. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Sep 2 2008, 06:17 AM Post #176 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
^ Neither was Germany as you seem to think You need accept that the Germanic tribes were not as glorious as you seem to think. I am descended of those very Germanic tribes we speak of and I have no beef calling them "barbarians", it's not like I'm using it in reflection of modern Germany.The British certainly did more good than harm. They may well have committed atrocities in West Africa, and South Africa, but they were also the first nation on Earth to start righting those wrongs. The British Empire was the first government on Earth to outlaw slavery. The British also became the first nation on Earth to outlaw labour camps...something started by the German Empire in southwestern Africa. Now don't get me wrong, the British, as you pointed out, weren't all good; but they're certainly a far shot from all bad. Approximately 70 - 80 of the world's 200 countries were founded by the British. As for the Germanic tribes, you seem too clouded over with the romance of it to put a realistic face on the way they lived. They were not all glory, remember that although they had a beautiful and unique culture, it's not the best |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Sep 2 2008, 06:58 AM Post #177 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
i know the germans weren't all romance. The british weren't all glory, they did sometimes act out of greed and glory, like any other empire of the time. The french, spanish and some others. The treaty of versailles was more revenge for a serbian murder, than a true surrender treaty, and that caused world war 2, when hitler used it against the very people who signed it. The united states wished less of the terms on the treaty but the french/british nary did a thing, but revenge. The germans had lost alot of good lives, but people seem to forget that. Now the british might have founded good countries but it hurt others, like the middle east, they aint so cheery are they? |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Sep 2 2008, 08:02 AM Post #178 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
I have to stop you right there! I'm borderline offended by the incorrectness of parts of your previous post... The British and Americans wanted a less harsh treaty, however, the French wanted all the revenge. However, at the time we had a tit of a Prime Minister in charge, whom was almost as greedy as France at the time was I've had to study the Treaty of Versailles a lot through my high school and uni courses so I know what I'm talking about.You are right in the idea that the Treaty of Versailles caused World War Two. Hitler acted to defy the treaty that had caused famine and poverty throughout Germany. No wonder he loathed France. Don't forget, that Germans considered the British cousins before World War One (a war I firmly believe should never have happened). The greedy French caused World War 1 and 2 in my opinion, and I say that from an academic view point more than a personal view. French aggression prior to 1914 caused the Germans to snap and the French greed for the German economic machine triggered WW2 by the French seeking endless and impossible repirations. The French President at the time actually suggested around a third of Germany be handed over to the French...um...NO! Even today, French greed controls Germany's economy through the European Union. That whole thing was started by the French wanting to control/benefit from the German powerhouse economy without contributing, thus France created the European Coal and Steal Community and bullied the Benelux into it. One more thing, KK, you said it - it was revenge for a murder.
|
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Sep 2 2008, 07:31 PM Post #179 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
im not fond of the french, i hate how even nowadays, people forget that germany was defending it's allies, and that they were pretty much blamed for the whole thing in the treaty. It's good to have someone knowledgeable like niongor to backup this info!
|
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Sep 3 2008, 07:05 AM Post #180 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
^ That's a quote from the President of United Celtic Nations (it's on our RMB over there, so it's ok to copy it). I totally agreed with it, it sums up the French attitude beautifully. |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Village · Next Topic » |






and then they went to war often..... but STILL!!!!!
(I do British History at uni, what can I say?!) :lol:
You need accept that the Germanic tribes were not as glorious as you seem to think. I am descended of those very Germanic tribes we speak of and I have no beef calling them "barbarians", it's not like I'm using it in reflection of modern Germany.

8:00 PM Jul 10