https://www.khm.at/en/artworks/ornamental-basin-with-ewer-basin-89232

Democracy is woefully overrated and it’s praise is largely because the dominant victor of WWIII said it was good so everyone had to believe it was good, but the fact of the matter is that it has only lasted ~300 years and has already deteriorated into tyranny.

Username checks out.

Britain had ~400 years about as good as ol usa

… you do realize that the UK has been a democracy since its inception, right?

Rome had at least 1000 years of peace comparable to the USA

Stultus esne?

Of the Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, and Roman Empire, only a handful of years, by their own admission, involved peace. See: the Gates of Janus.

And Egypt probably had ~3000 years+ of genuinely good rule for the people (hard to say it was very different than now)

Jesus fucking Christ.

Is there a point here other than bootlicking for monarchy to seem ‘edgy’, or…?

Explanation: The Spartans at Thermopylae are often lionized for fighting against a numerically superior force of Persians at a strategic chokepoint. There were, famously, 300 Spartans - less famously, there were around ~3000 other Greek troops as well (seems they drew the short straw when popular narratives were being made) - who fought against a Persian force which outnumbered them by at least a degree of magnitude. They eventually were outflanked and killed, but gained a reputation for bravery by their enduring resistance.

The Romans at the Battle of Watling Street, on the other hand, faced down between 100,000-200,000 Britons, thus being outnumbered 10-1 or 20-1… and came out with only a few hundred casualties, having entirely routed the enemy army.

Now, there is an actual reason, other than Gr*ek sympathizers infesting academia, that the two battles did not become quite equally famous for being outnumbered.

First and foremost, despite the Persians being unfairly slandered in many depictions, and the Greeks glazed, the Battle of Watling Street is much harder to portray as “OUTNUMBERED PEOPLE HEROICALLY RESIST FOREIGN CONQUERORS” than Thermopylae. The rebellious Britons were led by a Briton queen who had been legitimately wronged by the Romans - something even the Roman accounts admitted - and rallied native Briton forces against the ruling Roman administration. The Britons committed atrocities themselves, and were largely fine with collaborating with Roman rule for the previous ~20 years - not to mention that the Briton loss was an ignominious rout rather than a heroic last stand to-the-death - it’s far from the neat narrative Thermopylae - which even the most pro-Persian accounts must admit is “Imperialist power vs. Natives of the region trying to resist” - offers.

Second, that the two sides were not qualitatively equal. In Thermopylae, professionals/nobles (Spartan troops and the Persian Immortals) clashed, each side supported by a much larger number of militia and levies. Whatever the exact advantage one wishes to give the soldiers of one side or the other, it’s generally agreed to not be a massive difference in troop quality, on average. At Watling Street? The Romans were 20-year term professionals in an institution with generations of combat experience maintained and passed down, equipped with the best gear civilization could imagine at the time. The Britons were militia at best, with many of the best warriors already serving the Roman Empire (elsewhere in the Empire, mind you) and unavailable for their rebel army, who had only been called together for a few months, very little of which had been spent training or practicing maneuvers together.

Third, that the eventual outcome was… not particularly exciting. In Thermopylae, despite the defeat, the Greeks rally to (eventually) push out the vastly larger Persian Empire from Greece. Even in defeat, resistance plants the seeds of victory! In Watling Street, the vastly larger Roman Empire, having won over the rebellious Britons, proceed to… occupy Britain, as the plan always was, and as they had done for the past 20 years. Not exactly a shocking turn of events.

Explanation: The Spartans at Thermopylae are often lionized for fighting against a numerically superior force of Persians at a strategic chokepoint. There were, famously, 300 Spartans - less famously, there were around ~3000 other Greek troops as well (seems they drew the short straw when popular narratives were being made) - who fought against a Persian force which outnumbered them by at least a degree of magnitude. They eventually were outflanked and killed, but gained a reputation for bravery by their enduring resistance.

The Romans at the Battle of Watling Street, on the other hand, faced down between 100,000-200,000 Britons, thus being outnumbered 10-1 or 20-1… and came out with only a few hundred casualties, having entirely routed the enemy army.

Now, there is an actual reason, other than Gr*ek sympathizers infesting academia, that the two battles did not become quite equally famous for being outnumbered.

First and foremost, despite the Persians being unfairly slandered in many depictions, and the Greeks glazed, the Battle of Watling Street is much harder to portray as “PEOPLE HEROICALLY RESIST FOREIGN CONQUERORS” than Thermopylae. The rebellious Britons were led by a Briton queen who had been legitimately wronged by the Romans - something even the Roman accounts admitted - and rallied native Briton forces against the ruling Roman administration. The Britons committed atrocities themselves, and were largely fine with collaborating with Roman rule for the previous ~20 years - not to mention that the Briton loss was an ignominious rout rather than a heroic last stand to-the-death - it’s far from the neat narrative Thermopylae - which even the most pro-Persian accounts must admit is “Imperialist power vs. Natives of the region trying to resist” - offers.

Second, that the two sides were not qualitatively equal. In Thermopylae, professionals/nobles (Spartan troops and the Persian Immortals) clashed, each side supported by a much larger number of militia and levies. Whatever the exact advantage one wishes to give the soldiers of one side or the other, it’s generally agreed to not be a massive difference in troop quality, on average. At Watling Street? The Romans were 20-year term professionals in an institution with generations of combat experience maintained and passed down, equipped with the best gear civilization could imagine at the time. The Britons were militia at best, with many of the best warriors already serving the Roman Empire (elsewhere in the Empire, mind you) and unavailable for their rebel army, who had only been called together for a few months, very little of which had been spent training or practicing maneuvers together.

Third, that the eventual outcome was… not particularly exciting. In Thermopylae, despite the defeat, the Greeks rally to (eventually) push out the vastly larger Persian Empire from Greece. Even in defeat, resistance plants the seeds of victory! In Watling Street, the vastly larger Roman Empire, having won over the rebellious Britons, proceed to… occupy Britain, as the plan always was, and as they had done for the past 20 years. Not exactly a shocking turn of events.

Bonus fun: it was common practice until the 1700s

Fuck, really? lmao.

Hit the nail on the head.

“It burns when I pee.”

At the least, one understands the desperation of 19th century German nationalists in general. Border gore aside, imagine the tariffs and border controls one must go through for a simple day trip!

God be praised! Henry’s come to see us!

https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010132590

Explanation: In the Medieval and Early Modern period, the area we now know as Germany was home to a… staggering variety of independent polities.

… it would take quite some time for them all to be sorted out and put under one flag.

Explanation: During the Winter War in 1939-1940, the Soviet Union performed an unprovoked invasion of Finland. During the war, one of the lines given by the Soviet official Vyacheslav Molotov was that Soviet planes were dropping aid packages of food, not bombs. This blatant lie was taken by the Finns with dark humor - the Finns said, then, that their improvised incendiary weapons were just ‘A drink, to go with the food!’

For this reason, such incendiaries became known as ‘Molotov Cocktails’, a name they retain to this day.

Explanation: During the Winter War in 1939-1940, the Soviet Union performed an unprovoked invasion of Finland. During the war, one of the lines given by the Soviet official Vyacheslav Molotov was that Soviet planes were dropping aid packages of food, not bombs. This blatant lie was taken by the Finns with dark humor - the Finns said, then, that their improvised incendiary weapons were just ‘A drink, to go with the food!’

For this reason, such incendiaries became known as ‘Molotov Cocktails’, a name they retain to this day.

Explanation: Due to the overwhelming majority of surviving sources from the Roman Empire being written by the largely-Senatorial-sympathetic upper-class, Roman Emperors who are traditionally regarded negatively are sometimes ‘rehabilitated’ by enthusiastic Romaboos who insist that all of their misdeeds were just slander from the Senate.

… this ignores that numerous Emperors who are traditionally regarded positively had significant friction with the Senate, yet managed a relatively fair assessment from contemporary writers.

Most commonly attempted to be rehabilitated are Caligula (sometimes said to be mad; certainly autocratic and arbitrary), Nero (who openly preferred ‘cultured’ artistic endeavors to affairs to state), Domitian (a paranoiac, but one who bribed the troops), and Commodus (the megalomaniacal son of an Emperor, who loved personally ‘competing’ in the gladiatorial arena with odds fixed in his favor, portrayed himself as a demigod, and tried to rename the Empire after himself).

One might think that a handful of life-appointed Emperors turning out to be bad or corruptible would be more likely than all of them being decent, and the Senate just choosing a random few to slander.

Explanation: Due to the overwhelming majority of surviving sources from the Roman Empire being written by the largely-Senatorial-sympathetic upper-class, Roman Emperors who are traditionally regarded negatively are sometimes ‘rehabilitated’ by enthusiastic Romaboos who insist that all of their misdeeds were just slander from the Senate.

… this ignores that numerous Emperors who are traditionally regarded positively had significant friction with the Senate, yet managed a relatively fair assessment from contemporary writers.

Most commonly attempted to be rehabilitated are Caligula (sometimes said to be mad; certainly autocratic and arbitrary), Nero (who openly preferred ‘cultured’ artistic endeavors to affairs to state), Domitian (a paranoiac, but one who bribed the troops), and Commodus (the megalomaniacal son of an Emperor, who loved personally ‘competing’ in the gladiatorial arena with odds fixed in his favor, portrayed himself as a demigod, and tried to rename the Empire after himself).

One might think that a handful of life-appointed Emperors turning out to be bad or corruptible would be more likely than all of them being decent, and the Senate just choosing a random few to slander.

Explanation: During the Crisis of the Third Century and the split of the Roman Empire into 3/4 squabbling factions, the Roman Emperor Aurelian was tasked with re-uniting the Empire. Aurelian had devastated previous cities which had rebelled after his ascension, but Aurelian, after having a dream wherein a famous philosopher implored him to show mercy, offered fair terms to the city of Tyana.

Aurelian’s men, however, were upset, and reminded him that he said that ‘not even a dog’ would survive his capture of Tyana - words which would normally be accepted as hyperbole, but the troops were hoping to change Aurelian’s decision so they could have a little murder and robbery in the city - as a treat!

Aurelian conceded the point. Aurelian was a man of his word, after all.

He gave the troops permission to kill all the dogs in the city. And nothing else.

Explanation: During the Crisis of the Third Century and the split of the Roman Empire into 3/4 squabbling factions, the Roman Emperor Aurelian was tasked with re-uniting the Empire. Aurelian had devastated previous cities which had rebelled after his ascension, but Aurelian, after having a dream wherein a famous philosopher implored him to show mercy, offered fair terms to the city of Tyana.

Aurelian’s men, however, were upset, and reminded him that he said that ‘not even a dog’ would survive his capture of Tyana - words which would normally be accepted as hyperbole, but the troops were hoping to change Aurelian’s decision so they could have a little murder and robbery in the city - as a treat!

Aurelian conceded the point. Aurelian was a man of his word, after all.

He gave the troops permission to kill all the dogs in the city. And nothing else.

Well, this is more of a historical meme, unless the German National People’s Party had a comeback. The SPD is pretty uh, ‘watered down’ nowadays to my understanding.

The Soviet Union comes to mind.