4 ms·

That's pretty cool. Kinda reminds me how often during border conflicts, modern country states legitimize their claims with arrangements made hundreds or even th

by est31 8y ago

That's pretty cool. Kinda reminds me how often during border conflicts, modern country states legitimize their claims with arrangements made hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

maehwasu 8y ago
Or how your EU4 spies need about a year to generate a claim on a neighboring province, thus giving you a casus belli.
- usrusr 8y ago
  I always suspect "inspired by Paradox" when this kind of comment comes up. It's scary to see how much these games influence our perception of history, considering the permanent conflict of interest between accuracy and gameplay. On the other hand, those games are teaching models instead of "facts", which is much less prone to cause future conflict when the stuff taught is not exactly consistent with what others were told. Ever met one of those people who only know Hitler as heroic shatterer of colonialism? scary. All in all, Paradox is doing an amazingly good job, but we should not only be careful about how many hours we lose to them, we also need to be wary of putting too much faith into the models we absorb from them.
maze-le 8y ago
That is not legitimizing but contortion of history into nationalist sentiment. No one takes these stories seriously, aside from the easily impressed, that don't have a solid grasp on history. Besides, most of these "claims" are already invalidated by contracts between modern states. A state and its borders is not legitimized by fancy ahistorical fiction but by mutual recognition and contracts. --- [0]: https://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Articles/722_IntlRelPrincipalTheories_Slaughter_20110509zG.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Articles/722_IntlRelPrin...
- coldtea 8y ago
  >That is not legitimizing but contortion of history into nationalist sentiment. No one takes these stories seriously, aside from the easily impressed, that don't have a solid grasp on history. That's absolutely wrong. All kinds of "hundreds and thousands" year old arrangements are part of modern borders and state relationships. This includes purchases, centuries old loans, and other such matters. European borders, for example, depend on arrangements going back to the time of Charlemagne. >A state and its borders is not legitimized by fancy ahistorical fiction but by mutual recognition and contracts. Which is neither here nor there, because today's contracts are still based on arrangements made hundreds and thousands years ago (as well as later arrangements, of course).
coldtea 8y ago
Well, if countries didn't constantly refer back to "arrangements made hundreds or even thousands of years ago" as still valid, then the globe would be a complete blood-path or territorial disputes, expansion, and murder. It's not just during "border conflicts" that they refer to them. The borders themselves, as they stand in peace, are based on "arrangements made hundreds or even thousands of years ago".

by est31 8y ago

That's pretty cool. Kinda reminds me how often during border conflicts, modern country states legitimize their claims with arrangements made hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

maehwasu 8y ago

Or how your EU4 spies need about a year to generate a claim on a neighboring province, thus giving you a casus belli.

usrusr 8y ago
I always suspect "inspired by Paradox" when this kind of comment comes up. It's scary to see how much these games influence our perception of history, considering the permanent conflict of interest between accuracy and gameplay. On the other hand, those games are teaching models instead of "facts", which is much less prone to cause future conflict when the stuff taught is not exactly consistent with what others were told. Ever met one of those people who only know Hitler as heroic shatterer of colonialism? scary. All in all, Paradox is doing an amazingly good job, but we should not only be careful about how many hours we lose to them, we also need to be wary of putting too much faith into the models we absorb from them.

maze-le 8y ago

That is not legitimizing but contortion of history into nationalist sentiment. No one takes these stories seriously, aside from the easily impressed, that don't have a solid grasp on history. Besides, most of these "claims" are already invalidated by contracts between modern states. A state and its borders is not legitimized by fancy ahistorical fiction but by mutual recognition and contracts. --- [0]: https://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Articles/722_IntlRelPrincipalTheories_Slaughter_20110509zG.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Articles/722_IntlRelPrin...

coldtea 8y ago
>That is not legitimizing but contortion of history into nationalist sentiment. No one takes these stories seriously, aside from the easily impressed, that don't have a solid grasp on history. That's absolutely wrong. All kinds of "hundreds and thousands" year old arrangements are part of modern borders and state relationships. This includes purchases, centuries old loans, and other such matters. European borders, for example, depend on arrangements going back to the time of Charlemagne. >A state and its borders is not legitimized by fancy ahistorical fiction but by mutual recognition and contracts. Which is neither here nor there, because today's contracts are still based on arrangements made hundreds and thousands years ago (as well as later arrangements, of course).

coldtea 8y ago

Well, if countries didn't constantly refer back to "arrangements made hundreds or even thousands of years ago" as still valid, then the globe would be a complete blood-path or territorial disputes, expansion, and murder. It's not just during "border conflicts" that they refer to them. The borders themselves, as they stand in peace, are based on "arrangements made hundreds or even thousands of years ago".