Almost every human wants to be a nobleman, but most halflings are fine with just being simple common peasants. So why not have halflings take up the role of the peasantry and have the humans take up all the fancy positions of knights and aristocrats doing the fighting and intelligent work?
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
that sword looks rather strange
Didn't read. Give me the source.
saucenao doesn't give anything
must be a crop
Too lazy to find the translation, but I know the artist. It's ie or _raarami_.
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/5592317?q=plate_armor
ascii2d finally was useful, pointing to a version that was slightly less cropped (but in Korean)
/nakadashigang/
>pubes and nakadashi
Nice, too bad she's kinda flat
Because power corrupts and halflings can be fricking deadly. an uprising of peasants who are experts with slings and thrown weapons, who have natural abilities at stealth and are resistant to magical influence are NOT the people you want to treat badly, and humans are fricking STUPID.
There has never been a successful peasant revolt in all of history. That isn't going to change when the peasants are 3 feet tall an weigh as much as a human toddler.
There hasn't been a revolt consisting of decided non-human creatures with the qualities I pointed out either. Humans are not naturally stealthy. Humans are not naturally adept with slings and thrown rocks. Humans are not naturally resistant to mind control. A p[easant uprising made up of creeatures that are naturally guerilla fighters happens, you can't use historical examples as a basis for surety.
>Humans are not naturally adept with slings and thrown rocks.
Yes they are
>Humans are not naturally resistant to mind control.
Nor are halfings, and human have the resources to employ it. Pity they arn't hobbits I guess.
>There has never been a successful peasant revolt in all of history.
In terms of overthrowing the government, no, but that's not necessary what the peasants are revolting over.
The Choho, Kakitsu and Kaga rebellions in Japan all ended with the peasants successfully getting the debts cancelled.
The rebellions at the tale end of the Sui dynasty in China actually led to the collapse of that dynasty, and the Red Turbans ousted the Yuan dynasty.
Then there's the various socialist/Communist revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries, which could be argued as peasant revolts. Mao Zedong was in charge of the Commies in China from the start, for example, and he was from a peasant family.
>In terms of overthrowing the government, no,
There absolutely have been many successful peasant revolts by that metric, but at least you’re less historically illiterate than that anon
>There absolutely have been many successful peasant revolts by that metric
I know, but sometimes it's not worth the argument even if you know you're right, especially if you can still prove you're right anyway.
>you know but you still say it didn't happen
This just comes off as moronic.
Vietnam when the commies took over?
>There has never been a successful peasant revolt in all of history
Lol
Zhu Yuanzhang my beloved
Mine started as a peasant though and he wasn't any of those things you mentioned
The Ming, Napoleon, The Ikko Ikki, and the soviet Union would disagree.
You need to read sources other than Wikipedia. Try books by authors who know what they are talking about. Actually invest in your knowledge rather than being an echo of the wrong opinions of unknowns with an agenda. You'll still be wrong a lot but you will learn and grow from debate rather than be the tool of others
you dont have an argument do you. you're just saying random shit on Ganker, like the rest of us.
Well it depends on what, exactly, you're defining as a "peasant revolt".
Like, the Chinese Communist Party initially had about 50 members, the most important of whom were Chen Duxiu, Li Duzhao, and Mao Zedong. The latter two were both from peasant backgrounds, while Duxiu was the kid of some wealthy but forgettable officials that Imperial China had legions of.
I get the sense that you're No True Scotsmanning this, that you won't consider a peasant uprising to be a true peasant uprising unless literally everyone involved is a peasant and the uprising receives no outside help.
Well, here's a truism that'll help you through life: Ideological purity is for suckers.
fricking moron
Wow so you're so cool and Borimir
Communist revolutions in general succeeded because enough trained army veterans and servicemen went red. In Russia, the Bolsheviks won the civil war mainly because mismanagement of WW1 by both Nicholas II and Kerensky caused so many embittered frontline vets from privates to officers to go commie.
What's interesting is the same is largely true of the Fascist ascendancy in Western Europe and if not for the unassailable patriotism of Smedly Butler something similar could have been hatched in the US. The development of revolution as a deliberate ideological tool rather than a happenstance of context has been one of the most influential advancements in political thought probably for the worst but only the far future will see how the spreadsheet really balances out.
>embittered frontline vets
None of whom were peasants?
>Haiti???
Also this.
Napoleon was an aristocrat, albeit from a family broke and down on their luck.
Define "peasant", because there's been plenty of victories where unorganized and uneducated rabble beat professional soldiers. Or at least professional commanders.
>There has never been a successful peasant revolt in all of history.
Um, hello?
The wrath I feel at this image
>We will not be intimidated
Says the clearly intimidated man
still think thats the stupidest looking mask they could have gone for.
Haiti???
That doesn't automatically make them not peasant revolts.
>There has never been a successful peasant revolt in all of history.
Truthfulness of such claim hinges on technicality - how exactly you define "a peasant revolt".
Streaking is for magical girls.
Jan Huss says hi
The Hussite revolt failed.
Hus was clergyman. Zizka was experienced mercenary warlord (even before getting involved with Hussite ideology). Yes, considerable part of their fighting force was peasants, but that was the case for most medieval armies.
By that metric, the Great Peasants' War also wasn't a peasant uprising. Its leadership was mostly clergymen like Müntzer and petty nobles like Florian Geyer.
What matters more is that the "peasant's side" is populist in nature and/or rebelling against the existing aristocratic system.
>There has never been a successful peasant revolt in all of history.
does killing 70,000,000 people and resulting in the collapse of the ruling dynasty not count as successful? it's not like the Qing are around anymore
That's heavy metal as heavy metal goes. Has there ever been a peasant revolt with a higher estimated death toll?
>successful peasant revolt
they "succeeded" in destroying their country and destroying their regions and lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithmarschen
Oh holy frick, I hadn't heard of this, we might have a winner
What are you talking about? Peasant revolts were almost always successful at accomplishing what they set out to do - getting the attention of the rulers.
The military side of things doesn't matter because it never does - war is a mug's game.
If a noble finds himself fighting his peasants he is losing the more he kills the worse he is losing full stop since he is wholly dependent upon said peasants for both his livelihood and his ability to fulfill his feudal obligations
imagine a setting with a halfling revolt using tactics inspired by the viet kong
40k did it. They had to burn the agri world's fields they were hiding in.
That's the backstory of my PF1 halfling ranger, orcs invade and the halfling start digging holes.
No, power just makes you more effectual and significant. Everything you do has more ramifications and consequence. “corruption” is just a sissy word for responsibility for people who hate the very idea of liability.
moronic useful idiot hands typed that post.
Tell me where I am wrong. Power is literally and fundamentally just how significant you are. hate of power is literally just hate of self efficacy.
Power derived from social station is how much control you have over others. Some people don't feel the need to control others. It's that simple.
If you don't think that's true, that's a you problem.
Not that Anon, but how is that remotely relevant?
>Not that Anon, but how is that remotely relevant?
Because it's like asking someone to recommend five fantasy novels, and you pick five Harry Potter books back-to-back. It's one of those 'technically correct, but not accurate' things.
>Pic
It would be genuinely more fun, on the grounds of it being novel rather than boring and predictable, if she wins and he has to run around the town naked.
But novelty and Japan don't mix so I know this just leads to the same boring scenario as always.Tomboy loses, keeps her end of the bargain, gets fricked, becomes a housewife, etc., etc.
>Tomboy loses, keeps her end of the bargain, gets fricked, becomes a housewife, etc., etc.
In hentai, maybe. In anime, the MC would just let her go after winning, be on his way doing MC things, then the tomboy will follow him and his harem around the world in order to get her revenge.
Sure, one way or another. Like I said, the novel thing would be for the tomboy knight to actually win.
>Like I said, the novel thing would be for the tomboy knight to actually win.
her winning and the MC being forced to streak around town naked would be expected in something like a john hughes movie, especially if the protagonist ends up embarrassing himself in front of a primary love interest as a result, and earning the respect of tomboy knight for at least being man enough to carry out his punishment and not b***h out. It all just depends on genre.
It's only novel in the east. It's unheard-of to have a woman lose a willing gamble with sexual stakes over here in the west.
I've seen a laughably enormous amount of pornography that says you're absolutely full of shit.
>Anyway my point is that
At this point, her getting fricked is actually a surprise. is a shut-in who doesn't watch enough movies, if he thinks that women are somehow indefatigable in Hollywood.
Oh no, it's much worse. He DOES watch movies, but he spends so much time on angry incel boards that when the narrative contradicted reality he chooses the narrative.
Give me a scenario where the tomboy loses and rides her victor like a rented mule.
For me, it's the guy winning and forcing her to wear a dress and go on a date
So dull.
For me it's the guy winning and then forcing the woman to publicly circumcise herself with her own useless blade.
>For me, it's the guy winning and forcing her to wear a dress and go on a date
This is always an incredibly cute thing to do. Gonna be honest, I can't remember the last time a non-hentai work actually had the 'If I lose, I'm your woman for the night' deal that ended with the man winning. It's actually quite refreshing when it happens now, given the rarity.
Have you actually seen a woman lose in any conflict in Western media? Especially if sex is on the line?
At this point, her getting fricked is actually a surprise.
horror movies still do this, even Western-made one
>Have you actually seen a woman lose in any conflict in Western media?
Well my immediate thought because I know it'll piss you off is that Captain Marvel wasn't able to beat Thanos in Endgame.
Didn't she literally just get tossed out of the movie because they didn't want to wrangle with her power level?
...no? She shows up in a big heroic moment to take out Thanos' ship as its bombarding the battlefield (done by Thanos to escape the Scarlet Witch), but when she goes to actually fight Thanos one-on-one she puts up a pretty decent fight but ultimately Thanos is able to outfight her and take her out. Not kill her, but knock her out. She straight-up loses the fight.
I thought of a third time a woman failed, by the way: Ahsoka Tano, in the show. Her objective is to stop Thrawn from returning to the Galaxy, and she straight-up fails. Thrawn thoroughly outthinks and outmaneuvers her.
I thought of a fourth: Hela failed in Thor: Ragnarok. She very much did not want Ragnarok to happen, but it did, destroying Asgard, her army of undead, and herself.
By the way I could obviously do a LOT more, but I've got a funny feeling that you'd automatically discount any time a woman loses to another woman, so I'm not including stuff like Coraline, The Marvels,
Cersei Lannister!
Ma-Ma, from Dredd.
Wanda Maximoff.
Anyway my point is that
is a shut-in who doesn't watch enough movies, if he thinks that women are somehow indefatigable in Hollywood.
These are all literally Disney movies.
Well I do also mention Cersei Lannister, Poppy Adams, and Ma-Ma in other posts.
Still, though, doesn’t that kind of help my point? The current Narrative is that Disney has gone woke beyond belief, and yet I named a bunch of Western movies/shows helmed by Disney where female characters straight-up failed in their goals, and often got their asses kicked in the process, AND I made sure that each time they were doing the losing (and receiving the ass-kicking) from men.
Well except Cersei, I think Dragon Lady Bad took her down. Never watched Game of Thrones. Though come to think of it Danaerys is also a female character who also ultimately fails in her goals and gets herself killed, by a man, so GoT still counts. Twice over, even.
>GoT still counts. Twice over, even.
Waaaay more than twice. GoT is the kind of work that thinks "gritty realism" means "women constantly murdered and/or raped." And that was the most popular TV show for like a decade.
Prince of Nothing is pretty much the only one that has actual gritty pre-Enlightment morals, where women are thoroughly disenfranchised and also physically harmed on a regular basis.
Do you do anything besides consoom Disney media?
Captain Marvel is basically a DLC character
Hopefully after the Marvels we won't be seeing her again
Oh, and Poppy Adams (main villain) in Kingsman: The Golden Circle.
Pick a slasher movie out of a hat
That's because it's horror. A woman failing is the most horrifying thing they can imagine, and a woman is still usually the survivor anyway.
Can you name a recent slasher movie that DIDN'T have a female survivor? There's even a trope named after it
>Can you name a recent slasher movie that DIDN'T have a female survivor?
Does Cabin in the Woods count? Because EVERYONE dies in that.
Also the original assertion was:
>Have you actually seen a woman lose in any conflict in Western media?
With a corollary of "especially if sex is on the line". The assertion doesn't require that no woman win in the media, only that a woman loses. So any Western slasher movie that has any female victim die would in fact qualify as a woman losing a conflict in Western media, even if the female victim is just some minor character.
It's kind of a moot point anyway because I didn't really exert all that much effort naming a bunch where a woman loses (Infinity War, Kingsmen: The Golden Circle, Star Wars: Ahsoka, Thor: Ragnarok, Game of Thrones, Dredd, Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness), even with the additional, unnecessary challenge of making sure it was men they were losing to since I have a funny feeling that if I named something like The Marvels or Coraline, Anons would be like "it doesn't count if the woman loses to another woman".
BUMBLEBEE! How could I forget? The main villain of that is Shatter and she loses. Again to a male character, too.
Can't even make the argument that she's a robot so it doesn't count, Transformers media has expressly had the Transformers have distinct sexes across multiple forms of media going all the way back to Season 2 of the original cartoon with Elita One, Chromia, Moonracer, and Firestar.
>Does Cabin in the Woods count? Because EVERYONE dies in that.
Picking a movie where everyone dies seems to be missing the point of the question
Well then see the rest of my post where I point out that literally any slasher movie where literally any female character is killed will meet Anon's question.
And then also see how I further pointed out seven modern movies where a major female character (both protagonists and antagonists) ultimately loses, to a major male character too, though that part was just for fun.
And then I added on Bumblebee, so eight.
Not that guy, but the films you've named generally don't have a flat out 'man dominates woman' thing, which is presumably what the other guy is asking.
I don't remember Infinity War, but The Golden Circle's antagonist was a woman who didn't actually fight (and the real final enemy was a dude). Ragnarok had Hela never actually be beaten in a fight with Thor, while Game of Thrones had two plot-relevant female combatants who fought for the good guys. Hela was basically unbeatable and was never really humiliated.
The same can be said for the Multiverse of Madness, Scarlet Witch effectively killed herself. Strange just couldn't match her power at any point. They were never really put in a position where they were vulnerable.
Doesn't matter, not what Anon asked and it's not my fault he poorly worded his assertion. He said "any" conflict. I provided seven right off the bat and just added an eighth.
Actually a ninth I suppose since I observed that Dragon Lady Bad in GoT ultimately also is treated as a villain and then loses.
The male characters not necessarily always straight overpowering the female ones doesn't mean much to me because it's not like every male verses male fight has the winner ultimately overpower the loser. Iconic example (for me) here being Aladdin verses Jafar, though I admit that the '90s isn't recent.
It's not remotely splitting hairs. Splitting hairs is making a small and unnecessary distinction to turn something to one's own advantage. I'm taking Anon's post at its literal, unambiguous English wording and pointing out times that women have lost conflicts, and as an extra challenge I even made sure to have it always be men who ultimately triumphed in said conflict.
>It's more like how a situation as depicted in this card generally doesn't stick.
It generally doesn't stick when the situation is reversed either, but then I find myself wondering if you know the actual context of what's happening in that card or if you're referring to what it was *perceived* as depicting by people who weren't actually following MtG's story.
>I'm taking Anon's post at its literal, unambiguous English wording
This is a textbook sympton of autismanationalism
Doesn't matter, I still proved Anon's assertion wrong. Nine times over. His poorly thought out wording is neither my fault nor my problem.
It is actually your problem because every normal person can see that you're being obtuse and not addressing a point that everyone understands. You're not actually convincing anyone of anything other than that you're an insufferable homosexual.
>With a corollary of "especially if sex is on the line". The assertion doesn't require that no woman win in the media, only that a woman loses. So any Western slasher movie that has any female victim die would in fact qualify as a woman losing a conflict in Western media, even if the female victim is just some minor character.
That's not moving the goalpost, my dude. It fits perfectly the challenge. It's not my fault that Anon worded the challenge poorly.
Kind of splitting hairs, though. It's more like how a situation as depicted in this card generally doesn't stick.
>At this point, her getting fricked is actually a surprise.
We all know why
Thankfully Japan doesn't share your shit taste.
It'd be funny if the tomboy very obviously throws the fight.
Because you touch yourself at night.
>why not have the labour force made up of midgets who are weaker on average
hmm
Most of the peasant labor doesn't require a particularly large amount of strength. There's a reason knights were so much taller and stronger than the peasantry.
>There's a reason knights were so much taller and stronger than the peasantry.
yeah diet, they needed as much yield as possible to support their lifestyle.
What OP is proposing is to both reduce the amount of food produced and change the aristocracy in a way that maximizes consumption
Halflings are known for being great farmers so the point is moot.
this is based entirely off of hobbits in lotr living in the breadbasket of the entire continent
And it's how halflings have been characterized since.
I like that you think said nobles wouldn't simply make other humans workers because not only would they want the nobility to be fairly exclusive landowner class with as little competition for themselves or their allies, but also because they could get even more economic benefit from taxing more peasants.
Discontent is almost always easily solved by being relatively kind when they do what you want and then ruthlessly crushing all dissenters when you have any cause so they don't think to rise up.
Because there are a lot more humans than halflings.
>Because there are a lot more humans than halflings.
And why would that be? All halflings have to do all day is breed and farm. If anything the halflings should outnumber humans.
>All halflings have to do all day is breed and farm
All human peasants have to do all day is breed and farm
But human peasants don't want to be human peasants, they want to be human nobles.
I want to be a human peasant. Or at least a human yeoman.
I don't know. But that's how it is in all settings with halflings.
halflings probably approach breeding like pandas do
Yeah. Just give everyone what they want.
Because Halflings are usually freefolk yeomen who govern their own affairs while human peasants are usually some kind of serfdom or bondsman who has a landlord whose property they pay rent to live on in the form of taxes of goods the produce for the year.
Frodo, Merry and Pippin were halfling gentry and didn't have to work. Why shouldn't halflings in other settings have their own social classes?
Halfling societies only work when they are among themselves in their small communities, they would not be able to sustain a large centralized community for long. Most of them are healthily suspicious of fellow halflings living in different halfling settlements, and outright racist towards anyone living over a day's journey away.
>knight wins
>forces fighter woman into a pretty dress
>brings her to a fancy noble ball
>learns speaking to the noblewomen there that the knight who brought her has no social skills and struck out trying to ask literally every other noble woman in the land and as such assumed he had no date.
>she looks back and sees him trying to dance, alone, while avoiding stepping on the cracks between the floor tiles.
>he seems confident, but he also looks like he's hobbling from an injury while trying not to shit himself.
(captcha TGKKN0)
>She watches for a moment, feeling a little bit sorry for the knight as she learns he was just trying to get a date
>That pity slowly turns to horror as she watches what could only be described by a particularly charitable nun as "dancing"
>What the frick was he doing with his leg there?
>Right, this can't go on
>He did win the bet, least she could do was make sure he didn't embarrass himself tonight
>She marches over to him and seizes the idiot's hands
>"You're doing it wrong, moron. Let me show you how it's done."
>she looks down at her feet
>Looks back up, with confidence
>Takes one step and nearly trips over the knight's foot
>The last time she danced with someone was before she was even a squire
>There are now two knights stumbling like drunken idiots across the dance floor
What game? What system? What setting?
>almost every human wants to be a nobleman
>laughingsarpedon&glaucus.homer
I did say almost. Exceptions are rare but there are a select few humans who might turn down becoming nobility for silly reasons.
You're fricking up. That dialogue in he illiad is specifically about how most humans don't want to be nobles and don't have the capacity.
>That dialogue in he illiad is specifically about how most humans don't want to be nobles
It should be noted that the book was written by a noble. It was basically a noble speaking on behalf of the peasants for them telling them they didn't have the capacity to be a noble and they wouldn't want it anyways. No different than a rich person telling poor people today they wouldn't want the burden of being rich.
>it should be noted people have bias
No shit super genius.
You still entirely reversed the point of the text.
Being great requires effort. Most people can't do that. Inherited noblty is a different problem if you want to go there but you still fricked up.
>Inherited noblty is a different problem
Quite the opposite, it's the default. Nobility isn't determined by greatness, it's determined by bloodlines.
Because halflings like the simple part in thr simple peasant lifestyle which doesn't really require an entire administrative race. On that note, in most settings with halflings the societal scale isn't large enough to have a race that exist in a purely aristocratic capacity
>tall noblemen
>small peasants
So, Dark Souls?
Because that would be moving away from boring generic fantasy. Nobody wants that.
Hmm, have a peasantry that has half the size, strength and endurance of a normal human labourer but twice as lazy and with twice the appetite. I wonder if this would work?
Whomsoever art thou quoting, anon?
I do that in every game I run. Is part of my "eternal setting".
https://alchemistnocturne.blogspot.com/2021/02/trow-fortress-class-as-race.html
These are the muses in where i started figuring it out. It works in the game fantastically
"Why doesn't an entire species voluntarily become the underclass to a different one"
You're also assuming that temperament of halflings is something inherent to them and not culturally-conditioned. The fact that they're literally half the size of humans may also be a problem if they're taking up the role of primary producers
The answer with Tolkien's hobbits is that this already kind of is the arrangement but you have to take in mind that hobbits are fundamentally a kind of fairy
>Almost every human wants to be a nobleman
Wrong.
99% of humans want to be noblemen/women.
Still projecting.
No that's just common sense. Most people aside from masochists want things that are in their own self-interests.
Yeah, I have to agree. Who WOULDN'T want to be a noble? The only exception I can think of is being King.
King is just Noble+, too.
It's not common sense. "Noble" is just a dumb social construct, some social recognition with extra strings. You think your simplistic idea is right because you're a fricking midwit.
>"Noble" is just a dumb social construc
That doesn't change the fact that it's better to be one than not to be one. "Would you rather be more respected by people or less respected by people" is not a fricking difficult question, for 99% of people more respect is preferred over less.
Why does it being a social construct matter in the least. To quote a common phrase "We live in a society".
>Almost every human wants to be a nobleman
Most humans don't know what being a nobleman entails.
>Middle Ages
You are part of a warrior caste, beyond that everything else is secondary, your entire existence is built around chains of obligations and you are still indirectly tied to your land. While a peasant couldn't leave their lands a noble couldn't just decide "Luxembourg sucks I'm gonna move to France" unless he was okay abandoning most of his valuable property in land and serfs and essentially become a mercenary. Furthermore you wouldn't be well educated, better than a serf but still probably illiterate and much of your education would be more around dance, music, and poetry than stuff we would consider a proper education.
>Early Modern Period
Good news your life no longer revolves around being a super soldier. Bad news, you have far less wealth relative to the mercantile portion of society yet are expected to maintain a much higher standard of living. Good news you can read and write. Bad news you're probably in inescapable debt which will be inherited by your children. Good news the king might buy out some of your debts in exchange for lands that don't earn much. Bad news that means your meager income is further lowered and your titles no longer entail actual power, being as meaningful as a last name.
Also generally hobbits or halflings are outnumbered by humans so you can't have them as a working class supporting a larger (both in size of individuals and numbers) upper class.
>Most humans don't know what being a nobleman entails.
It would always entails a better life than being a commoner though.
>All of them had educated nobility, clergy, or merchant class at the helm
Ideological purity is for suckers. You should be looking at the driving force and intent of the revolution, not its leaders.
I mean if we follow your logic then there's never been a Communist revolution either. None of the leaders of the Russian or Vietnamese or Chinese or the like revolutions were factory workers.
>You should be looking at the driving force and intent of the revolution, not its leaders.
Lol I can just say "You should be looking at the driving force and intent of the revolution, not it's followers", wow, that was easy, congrats on being braindead.
No, dumbass of another flavor. I'm saying no peasant revolution has ever succeeded. Every single one has ether been co-opted or instigated by other forces.
If it were my generalized statement, perhaps. But what you all are arguing is that every revolution that had a gun is a "gun" revolution, every revolution that used a book is a "book" revolution.
If your argument is that peasants are just tools and not people with agency, by all means, you are correct, there have been countless "peasant revolutions", you fricking psychopath.
>Lol I can just say "You should be looking at the driving force and intent of the revolution, not it's followers"
That's just nonsensical on the face of it. Without followers there IS no revolution.
>Without followers there IS no revolution
Now that is nonsense. You are putting the cart before the horse, and expecting it to pull, while arguing its the road. Please go away until you actually acquire perception of causality and a brain to process it.
No thanks, I'm not even sure one exists, but regardless, why would I argue a point that doesn't matter? Is there a reason it is relevant?
He started as a peasant but became an educated monk. Unfortunately he is not the genuine article, he rose in class and then receded after the death of his monastery. Not saying he isn't incredible by any means mind, but his access to education and exposure to constant turmoil and war literally turned him into an educated warrior monk, not someone who farmed their entire life.
I will say he is probably the closest example listed so far, simply because of that.
>if the revolt is mostly pesants fighting for peasant issues why does the leadership matter?
Same reason sparks matter to gunpowder. Peasants usually don't have the education, drive, or support to succeed in a revolution. Its like someone saying life will spontaneously form on the moon if it is left alone for 7 billion years. Its stupid. That is the reason it matters.
As for the Haitian Revolution, you really just need to look up Louverture. He wasn't even a slave during the revolution. Also, a key part of that revolution was getting help from as many fingers in the pie as possible and backstabbing them, hilariously. So no, it wasn't a "peasant" revolution, it was a military dogpile from roughly 5-6 different nations. The biggest backstabbing bastard won out, became Emperor of Haiti, and then promptly got assassinated. Haiti was an amazing clusterfrick, but by the time the dust settled there were probably more military men on that island than ex-slaves. I love the Haitian Revolution, its such a train wreck of interventional colonial bullshit. Foreshadowed a lot of more modern wars.
>You are putting the cart before the horse, and expecting it to pull, while arguing its the road
You're an idiot if you're calling followers the cart and not the horse. The one putting the cart before the horse is (you).
>He started as a peasant but became an educated monk.
And if peasants take over the government, they stop being peasants.
>no you
Ok. Truly your new argument is deep and compelling
>peasants take over the government, they stop being peasants.
Correct. However, if they were ABLE to take over the government, and only learned warfare and education during the revolution, I would admit defeat and say there was a successful peasant revolution. However, no example so far has filled that criteria. The closest was the monk-turned-emperor, who only went to war after his monastery was razed.
Not that you have an argument at this point anyway, you are clearly intellectually tapped out now.
>Truly your new argument is deep and compelling
It surely is compared to an argument that pretends the people doing the grunt work are the cart and not the horse.
It follows that you continue to not know what followers are, or peasants. Revel in your ignorance
>Revel in your ignorance!
Alright, name a revolution that succeeded and was not co-opted or instigated by a third party.
The American Revolution.
Started by and for the bourgeois merchant and planter class and ended in their favor, building the government they wanted.
A good thought, but the American Revolution was heavily financed by, amongst of which, the French. Though other powers that opposed the English also contributed in various ways. Polish mercenaries spring to mind as minor but significant players.
But as incredibly silly Anon suggests earlier; there is no revolution that fits the description of not having a third party involvement. The slightest weight on the scales invalidates it. Silly Anon does not realise that if there is no such thing as a politically neutral revolution; then the very definition of a revolution involves the concept of having a third party interest in the outcome. This is, incidentally, grammatically true.
But thanks for playing!
>wasnt real commutism!
Isn’t this that what commiecucks often say?
It is. I say it too, but for different reasons. Pure Communism has never been tried but if anything I expect it would be *less* successful than the kinds of Communism which has been tried.
Like I keep saying: ideological purity is for suckers.
Doesn't pure communism require people to not act like people to function?
It does, yes. Hence why I’m confident that any attempt at it would go *worse* than the actual real-world attempts. And that’s just sad because even the best of those attempts sucked.
So nobles can not revolt unless every member of the revolt hold a title? Every bannerman? I agree with you, but I think you have reached the right conclusion using the wrong arguments.
So your only argument is ‘No True Scotsman’
Humans breed too fast for that to be tenable, Nobles require a lot of peasants under them to function, even if we assume a model starting with 100% human landed nobles, some people would start falling through the cracks in a few generations. Inevitably you'd get human craftsmen, mechants, and pesants
Humans must toil under others to make up for their sin. Mankind defied the great God and were cast out of paradise tainted with sin, that they must toil to rectify, the average human life is spent seeking penance for their sinful nature. The other races who did not defy their own gods do not suffer from this limitation and can act more freely.
That's a backwards standard, if the revolt is mostly pesants fighting for peasant issues why does the leadership matter?
>educated person seeks to benefit or help the pesant cause
Who cares?
But fine let's accept it needs to be 100% pesant lead and operated. What about the Haitian Revolution? No local nobility, bourgeoisie, or clergy backed the slaves, for most of the revolution we don't have records from the victors perspective because almost none of them were literate. Is that pure enough to meet your definition?
No because slaves aren't peasants.
What's the difference
The difference is that Anon can't now, after all this bluster, suddenly say "Oh shit, guess I was wrong."
Sorry, some of us actually have places to be in the middle of the day, can't argue with the stupid 24/7
lol mad and sad
My bad, forgot to ping the right reply, just gonna copypaste answer for you from the other post, because, you know, effort.
>if the revolt is mostly pesants fighting for peasant issues why does the leadership matter?
Same reason sparks matter to gunpowder. Peasants usually don't have the education, drive, or support to succeed in a revolution. Its like someone saying life will spontaneously form on the moon if it is left alone for 7 billion years. Its stupid. That is the reason it matters.
As for the Haitian Revolution, you really just need to look up Louverture. He wasn't even a slave during the revolution. Also, a key part of that revolution was getting help from as many fingers in the pie as possible and backstabbing them, hilariously. So no, it wasn't a "peasant" revolution, it was a military dogpile from roughly 5-6 different nations. The biggest backstabbing bastard won out, became Emperor of Haiti, and then promptly got assassinated. Haiti was an amazing clusterfrick, but by the time the dust settled there were probably more military men on that island than ex-slaves. I love the Haitian Revolution, its such a train wreck of interventional colonial bullshit. Foreshadowed a lot of more modern wars.
>HOLY SHIT HOW ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE SO DUMB WHEN (Historical illiteracy)
Halflings eat a lot, breed seldom, and obsteninently lazy. They will grow hardly any excess, smoke pipe weed all day, and have 7 meals minimum. You cannot beat them, you cannot scare them, and you cannot over tax them in doing what you want and generating a profit. They make terrible fighters so you cant even press them into being arrow fodder soldiers.
Checking on this thread hours later, still no successful peasant revolution examples
Though peasant becoming "politically neutral revolution" got a giggle out of me
Cope aside, I guess I'll assume this topic is settled.
Mao
Mao? His father was a peasant, but Mao fricking wasn't lol
The dude basically spent the first 30 years of his life at schools and universities, he didn't start shit till after all that. He literally is an example of being raised out of the peasant class by his fathers money (one of the richest peasants in his area at the time). Have you guys ever even read about Mao at all? That is kind of a huge reason he became who he was.
Mao Zedong
As in, my ze dong in yo mouth homie
Theoretically it was actually the clergy doing all the intelligent work in the middle ages.
Because then who would be the humble Everyman farmer destined for greatness? A halfling, no one would ever read a story about that!
Well, even if that were true (it's not), the main problem is that humans breed so much faster than halflings.
The humans consumption of resources would quickly outstrip the halfling's ability to produce/extract said resources
There aren't enough halflings.