Seems incredibly reasonable to dislike that hack.
Roman Empire in 180 ad?? Lmao what the fuck is he smoking? Also seeing as how he separates the Republic and the empire then all you can really say is that a country will have a significant change in methods of governance (at least) every 250 years. What a bunch of cherry-picked ahistoric liberal-ideas-rule-the-world bullshit.
Not to mention Chinese dynasties, the byzantines or, if youre a real pendant, the kingdoms of countries like Denmark or Japan.
Edit: just noticed Britain lmao. So we do ALL of the Roman Republic, but of course we cant do ALL of Britain for some reason
That table is great c/slop content. I just realised it accounts the “rise AND fall” of each empire. So Britain had its Imperial beginnings in 1700??? Lmao. Romanov Russia is a copout, you also had Russia before the Romanov dynasty. If youre doing Romanov Russia, why not Tudor Britain? Why not pre-union Britain? And aren’t these successor states, which we seem to include with greece and Persia?
Why exclude the north sea empire? The maya? The aztecs?? Austria??? What about when the Vatican was a real-ass kingdom? Or the mongols??? The huns? The golden horde or whatever it was called?
And again RISE and FALL so the cut offs are so weird.
Not to mention we’re doing succesor states with greece and Persia, but somehow not including byzantium (even though it was just rome, but still a lib like him would see it as a successor) or the USA for Britain? Don’ts even get me started on Charlemagne… Or Portugal and its weird Royal fuckery with Brazil. Or what about Bolivar and Colombia? I remember something about him wanting a big united nation and it all falling apart, isn’t that an Imperial rise and fall? (Seeing as how his definition of empire seems to be entirely based on vibes and “did they invade any other country at any point?”)
Seems incredibly reasonable to dislike that hack.
Roman Empire in 180 ad?? Lmao what the fuck is he smoking? Also seeing as how he separates the Republic and the empire then all you can really say is that a country will have a significant change in methods of governance (at least) every 250 years. What a bunch of cherry-picked ahistoric liberal-ideas-rule-the-world bullshit.
Not to mention Chinese dynasties, the byzantines or, if youre a real pendant, the kingdoms of countries like Denmark or Japan.
Edit: just noticed Britain lmao. So we do ALL of the Roman Republic, but of course we cant do ALL of Britain for some reason
It’s genuinely so ridiculous. I hate seeing liberals riff of this so often
That table is great c/slop content. I just realised it accounts the “rise AND fall” of each empire. So Britain had its Imperial beginnings in 1700??? Lmao. Romanov Russia is a copout, you also had Russia before the Romanov dynasty. If youre doing Romanov Russia, why not Tudor Britain? Why not pre-union Britain? And aren’t these successor states, which we seem to include with greece and Persia?
Why exclude the north sea empire? The maya? The aztecs?? Austria??? What about when the Vatican was a real-ass kingdom? Or the mongols??? The huns? The golden horde or whatever it was called?
And again RISE and FALL so the cut offs are so weird.
Not to mention we’re doing succesor states with greece and Persia, but somehow not including byzantium (even though it was just rome, but still a lib like him would see it as a successor) or the USA for Britain? Don’ts even get me started on Charlemagne… Or Portugal and its weird Royal fuckery with Brazil. Or what about Bolivar and Colombia? I remember something about him wanting a big united nation and it all falling apart, isn’t that an Imperial rise and fall? (Seeing as how his definition of empire seems to be entirely based on vibes and “did they invade any other country at any point?”)
Tl;dr what no marxism or map games does to an mf