yeah I noticed that too lol!

Or some random kid who’s never used a weapon kill a group of 8 foot tall all muscled orcs

With dual-wielded scythes

What about have a six man team of marines single-handedly overthrow the elected lea-I mean, dictator of a small nation, to advance America’s influe-I mean, bring freedom to all those citizens! Yes, no ulterior motives from the Good Ol’ USA!

@@herickkenalgin4473 Hell yeah brother

@@herickkenalgin4473 If you wanna make insinuations, give me three examples. Otherwise, please don't.

It is a very cute dog.

@@BoisegangGaming I would talk to Oscar too were I able.

Francisco killed by Francisco, sounds like one of those "the hero and villain are the same"

@@mollof7893 Another fun (and ironic) fact: Francisco Lacerda was allowed to take a silver knife that belonged to Francisco Solano Lopez, which had the same initials (FL) engraved in the sheath.

Just read up on this war, one of the leaders of the war was even an actual Emperor as well

There's been so much fighting in the world that there are a lot of examples of battles and wars that did kinda work like fantasy battles/wars. War is basically the embodiment of chaos and so you get weird stuff sometimes. Fighting to the end I think becomes more common as you get closer to modern day. The objective of WWI and WWII was to kill the entire army. Both of those wars were won because Germany ran out of ppl to fight. During Verdun a particular fort was held almost to the end by the French garrison. They fought so well and bravely that the commander of the fort was brought before the Kaiser's son, who was leading the overall battle, and presented with a sword I think.

90% of Paraguayan men died in this war.

Julius Ceaser was a master at keeping the initiative. Most of his battles espically in Gaul . It was his turn then his turn again then his turn again oh they surrendered, next army!

How you 20 hours old

@@khadirahassan7634 The magic of Patreon and Time zones.

WAR KITTENS!!!

Interesting. Can i ask you then, what was it, that made peoples like Mongols so succesfull, if it wasn't the horse archers?

@@gorkamorka41m84 Cavalry and martial skill did play a part, but it was mostly logistical and organisational excellence. Remember that the Mongols mostly fought peoples as adapt at mounted archery as they were.

@@jaspervanheycop9722 Ok. That makes sense.

@@gorkamorka41m84 Mounted archers were only one component of Mongol armies. They used infantry and heavy cavalry very effectively, and their wars against China made them expert siegecrafters as well. Genghis Khan also had the obvious yet at the time revolutionary idea to promote people based on competence and merit rather than aristocratic heritage. A lifetime of living in the saddle in harsh condition made them an exceptionally hardy people. You give a people like that leaders like Genghis and Kublai, and generals like Subutai and Jebe, and you've got yourself one of the most effective fighting forces in history.

I was gonna add some horse archers to a setting so thanks for some proper information on them.

That's me rn

Yes, but it's *cool*.

god dual-wielding was fucking awesome when i was a kid now whenever i see it i can't think about anything other than how impractical it looks

@@wren1024 yeah, I think some styles were meant for competitions and duelling and not war. I think other fighting styles were purely for self-defence. one such example has to be sickle fighting, (nothing communist about it) it's probably the weirdest system I've ever learned.

What about fencers who would use one normal rapier and a smaller, dagger like one? As you can tell by my word choice I'm by no means an expert on this subject; but I've heard of this combo in history before.

Dual wielding could be justified under certain conditions in a fight. The problem with dual wielding is that in the hands of a very skilled fighter it is arguably better than a pole arm or sword and shield in a large fight. But in the hands of an average or novice fighter it is worse than useless. Also, front line heavy infantry need polearms or they'll get skewered on those of the enemy (roman legions being an exception to this rule). But an elite force of light infantry intended to skirmish with the enemy and attack the flanks could be equipped with two swords an be effective. Dual wielding gives the distinct advantage of being able to attack from both directions. Most shields can do the same, but typically lack reach. Also, a longsword and shortsword/dagger setup allows a soldier to fight effectively at medium range as well as when grappling. In a one on one polearms are still better because with room to retreat the extra reach wins out. But outflanked or disorganized infantry rarely have that kind of room to maneuver. Dual wielding troops coming in on the flank or filtering through their own lines to reach a weak point in the enemy formation could close to grappling range and start laying about. The disadvantage of fighting in formation with polearms is precisely that if troops with shorter weapons can penetrate the formation then it typically devolves into a slaughter. This was how Roman legions defeated hellenic phalanxes and is also the principle behind the zweihander. In short, an elite force of dual wielding infantry intended for penetrating weak points in an enemy battle line where most enemies use polearms would be effective as long as they never charged an enemy shield wall unsupported.

Me too

Avatar also shines in how it depicts the effects of war on the entire society, even those who live in relative safety, like brainwashed fire nation school kids or the police society of Ba Sing Se, or Earth Kingdom villagers who live in fear of the thugs in their kingdom's uniform that terrorize them instead of protecting them.

YEa... except that MC gets "chozen" by the most badass guy to work with him, for no reason whatsoever. It is equivalent to Trum or Putin calling a 16 yearold girl to help them run a country. Plot armor 10/10.

@@_sky_3123 not really, because in Calernia Names rule. And by Namelore and Story Logic teenagers make the most powerfull people. And Black is not only very adept at using Namelore to his advantage, but also probably felt that Cat was on her way to becoming the Squire.

@@_sky_3123 That's why I think that complaints like these make no sense fir PGTE, because the whole setting is about how in that world Stories are real powers that massivly influence the world. So _of course_ there's Plot Armor and _of course_ there are little coincidences all the time. Providence works fir both Heroes and Villains.

@@7OwlsWithALaptop You can like the book, have fun with it, etc. But I can't stand such plot bending for the sake of the plot. It is an extremely well-written book, but it gets impaled by splinters of its broken plot.

@@_sky_3123 I really don't see what you mean? The plot seems really tight to me and most things that could be considered things happening just for plot is either Characters intentionally manipulating events with story logic, or Providence from either the Gods Above or Below. So technically there are no coincidences because it's all very clearly affect by in universe forces.

Good luck on your novel!

or Taliban.

Its the smart thing to do.

Incoming obligatory "Now that's soldiering!" comments. Be creative, lads!

Bernard Cornwell books = Do not be a civilian there the enemy army are....it will be a very horrible and life-threatening situation.

​@@TLOK1918 Preventing people from making an over used joke for two years. Now that's soldiering.

Yeah, you can't really fault them for not planning around mobile, murderous trees.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r9aJodR-086cdKc.html this one?

@@thezipcreator greetings fellow Historia civilis viewer

William "Annihilate Atlanta" Sherman William "You Rebel you get Hell" Sherman William "Keep their chains and get the Flames" Sherman William "Club the Railroad Hub" Sherman William "Protect the Plantation Prepare for Cremation" Sherman William "Traitor Incinerator" Sherman vs. Arthur "Take out the Krauts" Harris Arthur "Burn Berlin" Harris Arthur "Flatten Frankfurt" Harris Arthur "Doomsday of Dresden" Harris Arthur "Hammer Hamburg" Harris Arthur "Rule Brittania" Harris Arthur "Knightly Raids" Harris

@Wind Rose yes and no, the bombing of cities can demoralize soldiers and civilians to a certain extent but they do not ultimately win the war. It depends on the response of leadership to the threat of collateral damage, whether they will continue to fight or surrender. In places such as Holland, which had little chance to resist the German invasion, the threat of bombardment was enough to make them sign a peace agreement, (though the Germans bombed Rotterdam regardless). In Japan, the psychological effect of the nuclear bombings was a part of the reason why they surrendered though the Soviet entrance into the war was debatably a bigger reason why they surrendered. On the other hand, the governments of Britain and Germany, in the face of bombardment, dug their heels in, using the bombings as propaganda to galvanize their populations into continuing the fight. But it would be fair to say they were not as effective as they hoped. That said, it should be noted that the "Blitz Spirit" was a little bit of a myth that was encouraged by the government and has taken on a legendary status after the war, but the truth is more complicated. There was a certain amount of discontentment and demoralization of the public insofar as the bombings and blackouts created an environment for crimes such as looting to flourish and forced people to send their children to the countryside for safety among other things. While attitudes of perseverance in the face of bombing existed, the truth is more mundane and complicated than the common narrative would suggest. But it is true that the bombing of Britain and Germany in and of themselves was not enough to make them capitulate. Area bombing was employed because it was thought to be more effective than precision bombing which was not as accurate as it is now. On this topic opinions are divided on how effective area bombing was for hampering the war effort. Let's use Dresden as the example given that we're talking about Arthur Harris. While Dresden was a civilian centre it was also a major military hub, being the primary supply route for Army Group Centre on the Eastern Front. A lot of troops and material were being sent East through the railway network there. In this sense, people argue that Dresden was a justified target. I don't know where the factories or military hubs were in relation to everywhere else, but it was probably thought that area bombing would at least destroy some of them. However, other would counter that said military targets were either wholly missed by the bombardment or they were never targeted to begin with, making the bombing a wasted effort that did not greatly hinder the German war effort. I don't know which narrative is more correct but both sides have some merit to their claims. Now whether or not the bombings carried out by Britain were primarily of military value or meant to demoralize Germany is up for debate as well. While they did target cities full of civilians the question is whether or not civilians were treated as the primary targets or as collateral. The Germans for their part certainly did conduct terror bombings in an attempt to demoralize the enemy. In the case of Stalingrad this proved to be a tactical blunder because the resulting rubble made the land battle more difficult. One part of bombing that is often overlooked is how they are used for one country's own morale. During WWII and today, bombings are usually used to raise support for the war effort by demonstrating a country's power and will to fight. This is one reason why American presidents routinely order strategic strikes on a few targets in the Middle East every so often, and why England attacked Berlin as a response to the Blitz and why the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo occurred after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Neither of these examples actually did much to hinder the enemy war effort but they were crucial to raising public support for the war. But the great irony of a bombing such as what happened in Dresden is that it actually served as a problem in Britain because casualty figures (which were inflated by Nazi propaganda at the time as well as emphasizing Dresden's cultural significance) led to public opinion for civilian bombings less than confident. In England as well as elsewhere questions as to the effectiveness of bombing cities and area bombing came into question, the debate that continues on to this day. So in a sense the bombing of Dresden may be viewed as a justifiable target but it was a loss for British morale during the war.

I'm aware you provided very little and there's probably more to it, but definitely consider the motivations of the third nation - if they don't have resources themselves, is it worth it risking an open conflict with _two_ enemies at once? What was their strategy to deal with it if it would happen? Did they lose their resources suddenly (like Japan in WW2) or have they struggled for a while? Would it be possible to turn the first two against each other? Or to secure an alliance with one of them prior? From the minimalist info you gave, the third nation sounds to either be desperate and risks the open war (which it will most probably lose given their lack of resources), or they have something impactful up their sleeve, or their leaders are just stupid (e.g. like a very new young king). If neither is true (or there's a reasonable option I missed), it might not be very convincing.

I thought the same thing, but I guess we don't talk about that...or maybe he was only referencing the books (which I never read)

@@sunder9363 He said he was talking about battles in film...

He was possibly referring to Theodan's charge. In both book and film, the defenders of Helm's Deep are basically defeated before Gandalf arrives. While they recall that Gandalf said to look for him on that morning, they fully expect to die when they leave the caves to fight the orc horde.

@@Kartissa That does imply one side was willing to fight to annihilation, but even then it doesn't. He claims that the battle itself ends in annihilation, which it also didn't.

​@@guyofminimalimportance7 Actually, when talking about movie battles, he says: "No-one ever seems to cut their losses and surrender, or run away." The Rohirrim certainly don't do either, and while the orcs eventually break and flee, that only happens after the bright morning sun shining into the orcs' eyes has blinded them, and broken their formation. Very few orcs survive the battle, and subsequent venture into the new forest of Huorns that Gandalf brought with him (which *is* in the extended edition, so it happened as in the book). If that's not annihilation, I don't know what is. (It's worth noting that in the book, the orc host had Dunlending allies, who *did* surrender, despite being told that they would be burned alive if captured, and were granted amnesty. I'm not sure if they were in the movies at all - I don't remember anything other than orcs in the invading army, but it's been a while since I watched the movie.)