Strange and Unsettling.

It's okay, PD.

I know how you feel.

I was once called Lycaon.
But signed up here as Charonte out of shame

Shame!

I'm also not feeling particularly well at the moment.

Strangely, I haven't consumed any alcohol today.

Do you wanna see my plans to murder Meyers?

 

Did you guys just respond to this thread in poems?

 

WTF? Your posts are starting to look like you're trying to post bad poetry...

 

*waves hand* I wanna see the Meyers death plans please!

 

But only if it will be written in thirteen-syllable verse, with a caesura after the seventh syllable.

 

And that means?

 

Ahh... They only teach us Prehistoric, Egyptian, Hellenic, Hellenistic, Roman, Medieval, Islamic, Proto-Turkic, Ancient-Turkic, Islamic-Turkic, Ottoman, Renaissance, Colonial, Enlightment/Revolutionary (American/French and I think Soviet), Industrial Age, World War I and Republican Turkish History. Also a brief outlook on WW2 and the Cold War. No Scandinavian though.

The only person of Scandinavian origin I know of is Charles (the Ironhead in Turkish, but I doubt that's the real title) of Sweden, who had to take refuge in the Ottoman Empire after losing a battle against Peter the Great (or Crazy, as Turkish titles sometimes differ from accepted titles)

Sounds good enough. Would be funny to think of people carrying giant ice masses around to drop off on the heads of enemies though.

 

You know, I never knew why all those people just couldn't do with expanding a little in and then creating new settlements there to launch attacks from. The Russians burn everything while retreating anyways, so it's clear, uninhabited land.

 

Two good points, Mesteut.

As for the first, most invasions of Russia take place in a desperate political climate, and the act itself is almost always one of desperation. Besides, nations like Nazi Germany and Napoleonic France didn't have the means to wage the kind of war to which you're referring, considering the distance between themselves and Russia. The strategy to which you refer would be far more effective in a border/border kind of war. Not necessarily border to border, but a similar situation, whether geopolitical or purely political.

The second is an excellent point as well, but in this case more relevant than the other.

All of this feels familiar, by the way. Haven't we been down this road before?

 

Someone must've talked about WW2 before, seeing Godwin's Rule.

Also, Nazi Germany so "didn't need to" attack USSR, but that's another matter.

 

Sweden had an empire?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the fact that Charles couldn't lead the army in Poltava, and therefor had to give command away to two bickering generals contribute to the loss?

And the fact that the whole cavalry squadron were lost in a swamp, not participating in the battle?

 

If I'm right, they used to be the Scandinavian Superpower before Peter the Great promptly built himself a navy/army and wiped out the Baltic (that's the correct sea, right?) colonies.

 

They did have a monopoly on meatballs.