A Matter of Expedients

I don't know why I think this is funny

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Sat, 10 Jul 2021 00:44:00 +0000

Not "ha ha" funny, but just amusing, but I was at the library the other day and noticed that back in the American history section they had four books - 1774: The Long Year of Revolution by Mary Beth Norton, 1775: A Good Year for a Revolution by Kevin Phillips, 1776 by David McCullough, and 1777: Tipping Point at Saratoga by Dean R. Snow. The fact that four separate people covered a four year period of American history in a sequence independently of one another amused me.

I've developed an interest in American history recently, so these four books will help. I can't tell you exactly why I have this interest, but I think it might be a combination of two things: 1. Right-wingers going on and on about how the "commies", "leftists", or whatever the current boogie man is is trying to "cancel" history or some such nonsense. 2. Realizing that my own knowledge of American history, especially early American history, is spotty. I have a general knowledge of people and events, but I've never much cared about delved into it until now. Given that the right-wing is setting its sights on "patriotic" historical revisionism, I figured I better get to reading before it's too late.

With that in mind, I'm going to start with Norton's book, then work my way forward. I also started reading another book called Autumn of the Black Snake by William Hogeland. The book is about the events that led to the founding of the United States Army, the behind the scenes political maneuvering required for its formation, and its first campaign: an invasion of the Northwest to defeat a coalition of Native American tribes. The Black Snake in the title is a nickname bestowed by those very same natives on the general commanding this new army, "Mad Anthony" Wayne. Should be interesting.

I just hope I can get through all of these books!

Kim Il-Sung and his giant tumor [Warning: Graphic]

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Fri, 09 Jul 2021 00:16:00 +0000

Hi-ho, we're going off on a trip to Weirdville with this one, folks! I was just thinking of North Korea yesterday because something is going down in the Hermit Kingdom after Kim Jong-un unloaded on his goons over something related to COVID-19. North Korea officially has no confirmed cases of the virus, but they're probably just not reporting them to the outside world. They aren't nicknamed the Hermit Kingdom for nothing. This did lead me down a line of thought about how devastating the virus could be in that country given how pisspoor it's managed. Famine and mass starvation are common specters there, to the point that malnourishment has successive generations of North Koreans to physically shrink. Somehow, somehow, that reminded me of something I read (and saw) about Kim Il-Sung, the founder of the communist state: the man had a giant tumor on the back of his neck.

No, really, I'm not kidding. Going by the rare photographs, the tumor was about the size of a grapefruit right on the back of his neck. Pictures of his condition were rare because Kim Il-Sung was the leader of a brutal regime and nobody was going to be snapping candids if they didn't want to wind up in a labor camp or in front of a firing squad.

According to Wikipedia, it was a condition called calcinosis, where calcium deposits form on the body. Clearly, milk did not do this man's body any good. Shockingly, this isn't even what killed him in 1994. No, instead he dropped from a heart attack.

I'm posting a couple pictures of it, but I'm putting under a read more because you never know who might be grossed out by something like that.

Here's the new blog

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Tue, 15 Oct 2019 00:35:00 +0000

I went ahead and created a new history blog last month, called The Casual Amateur Historian. Check it out.

A new start?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:46:00 +0000

So here's the thing: I like posting about history on the very rare occasions that I remember to, but I feel stuck when it comes to posting here. With that in mind, I've been thinking for a bit* about just starting over with a brand new blog. A Matter of Expedients has been running since *checks* 2011, so I think eight years is long enough. I'll keep this up as an archive.

Of course, now I have to come up with a new name and hope that the few people who still read this thing will follow over.

The Notre Dame is burning and the heart breaks

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Mon, 15 Apr 2019 18:43:00 +0000

This is an unfathomable tragedy and I only hope that if it can't be saved, that the Notre Dame will be rebuilt.

A face only a mother(land) could love

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:04:00 +0000

Alternate title: The Soviet Yak-28 "Brewer-C" is one ugly aircraft.

Via Wikipedia.

I get that the Reds valued function over form, but even that has to have proper limits! Some comrade really looked at the final product and thought "Yeah, this looks good." The wings look so thin and narrow in that picture that I'm surprised that they could support the weight of those engines. Probably why they needed landing gear on the ends.

A horde of Roman Legion artifacts unearthed near Hadrian's Wall

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Mon, 11 Sep 2017 18:12:00 +0000

Remains of the Vindolanda fort.
Credit: mramoeba.

This should interest both ancient history buffs and wargamers. Archaeologists discovered a previously hidden room under a Roman-era fort named Vindolanda and as they put it, won the lottery:

Archaeologists are likening the discovery to winning the lottery. A Roman cavalry barracks has been unearthed near Hadrian’s Wall, complete with extraordinary military and personal possessions left behind by soldiers and their families almost 2,000 years ago. A treasure trove of thousands of artefacts dating from the early second century has been excavated over the past fortnight.

The find is significant not just because of its size and pristine state, but also for its contribution to the history of Hadrian’s Wall, showing the military build-up that led to its construction in AD122. The barracks pre-dates the wall: the Romans already had a huge military presence in the area, keeping the local population under control.

The room, which was sealed when the Romans covered it with a concrete floor, contained two Roman cavalry swords, lances, wooden practice swords (one of which has a gemstone set in the hilt, fancy!), and even mundane items such as bath clogs, styluses, combs, hairpins, and more. The concrete floor itself apparently is what preserved all of these items by creating an airtight seal.

It's really fascinating to think that all of that stuff was just laying there for near two millennia and is now just being found. It really goes to show how much history is still left buried in the ground and that archaeology is not a field that will be going away anytime soon.

Under Renovation - Keep Clear

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Sun, 03 Sep 2017 21:07:00 +0000

A seawall under construction in Galveston, Texas.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Without intending to, I let this blog lapse into nearly two years of inactivity, which is unfortunate because while I never posted with any kind of frequency, I did enjoy posting here. I also let the focus of this blog slip into more modern, less historical concerns and that I regret. So, I'm going to try and remedy it and bring A Matter of Expedients back. Here's some ideas I have in mind:

I don't think I ever had any kind of limitation imposed on what time periods I posted about, but it did seem like most of what ended up on here was 19th century stuff. I'm aiming to maintain that but at the same time, I want to avoid touching on anything recent, so I'm going to impose a limitation: nothing beyond the 1950s. Maybe I'll push that line further back later on, but for now, I just want to avoid touching on subjects that are still sensitive or have become heavily politicized by today's political climate.

So basically, anything from the very beginning of history (or even before) up to December 31, 1959.

Another thing I noticed is that a lot of my posts are military history related and while that's fine because wars and battles and such interest me, I want to post non-military history items too. There's a tremendous amount of meat there, with major events and larger than life figures to post about, so it's not like I'm going to be scrapping the bottoms of any barrels for subject matter.

In terms of posts, I'm aiming for both long and short. The former will roll out less often than the latter because I want to take my time crafting them and not everything needs a 1000+ word article.

On a minor note, there might be a blog redesign in the works. Blogger added new templates a few months back and I think one or two might work for this.

Well, that's a bit bothersome: Stalin's making a comeback in Eastern Ukraine

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Sat, 24 Oct 2015 22:20:00 +0000

Credit: Alexey Filippov/AFP/Getty Images

Saw an article on The Guardian about how portraits of Josef Stalin are being installed in Donetsk, the capital of the rebel-held and unrecognized Donetsk People's Republic. In fact, the rebel government is also reviving other artifacts of the Soviet-era.

The previously taboo display comes as the rebels revive Soviet customs to cement their Moscow-backed rule – while glossing over Stalin’s atrocities.

The portraits went down well with one young woman walking past. “I think the portraits of Stalin are a good thing. It’s our history and a lot of people have forgotten he even existed,” said Yekaterina, a 22-year-old student.

The horrors of Stalin’s repressions and the deaths of up to five million Ukrainians in the 1930s due to famine caused by forced collectivisation go unmentioned.

The Donetsk rebel leader, Alexander Zakharchenko, said how he regretted the break-up of the Soviet Union.

“The Soviet Union was a great country and it was a huge mistake that it was destroyed by the CIA and other secret services,” said the 39-year-old former field commander who prefers to dress in camouflage gear. “Europe and other countries were scared stiff of us.”

Stalin portraits have become de rigueur in the offices of rebel officials in eastern Ukraine, where the separatist conflict has killed more than 8,000 people.

The Donetsk rebels’ deputy defence minister, Eduard Basurin, wears a badge with Stalin’s profile on his uniform.

Side note: Donetsk was also once named Stalino, so I wonder how long until that gets revived as well.

Read more »

The pro-Russian separatists and their T-54

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 00:18:00 +0000

#451795974 / gettyimages.com

So I was derping around on Wikipedia, reading up on what kind of weapons and equipment the military of the self-proclaimed (and little recognized) Federal State of Novorossiya was using to fight against the Ukrainians. I noticed something interesting under the section about tanks: they've got a T-54. Now that itself isn't noteworthy because a lot of countries had them, thanks to the Soviet Union's foreign policies. What I did find amusing however was that they got the tank from a museum.

They've been erected new barricades on the streets of the city of a million people - and have even nicked a World War II tank from a local war museum.

The armed men arrived at Donetsk museum with heavy lifting gear, winched the Soviet era T-54 tank onto a flat-bed truck and drove it off. Squatting on top of the tank, one of them told a local online journalist: ‘‘We have got an engine to go in it. We have got some experts. We have to add the engine, ease the turret and it will be a working battle tank.’’

Well, necessity is the mother of invention, so I have to tip my hat to their improvisation. I wonder who these experts were and from which side of the border they hailed from? Actually, the separatists have a nice little armor corp, the bulk of which is made up of about 40 or more T-64s (apparently from Crimea after the Russians took over there), some T-72B1s, and a small number of other armored vehicles.

There's that bear again: Russian armor convoy enters Ukraine, part of it destroyed by Ukrainian artillery

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 19:22:00 +0000

Well, this is getting interesting. According to reporters from both The Guardian and The Telegraph, a convoy of about 23 APCs, along with a number of support vehicles crossed the border into Ukraine yesterday. The Ukrainian government reports that the army destroyed part of the convoy with artillery fire.

This is starting to get worrying. It's more or less an open secret that the Russians have been supplying pro-Russian separatists with both weapons and *ahem* "volunteers" ever since the revolution there and maybe they just got caught red handed? Or, if I may go a little bit further than I should, what if this was meant to provoke the Ukrainians into doing this very thing? Who knows what Putin's game plan and end goals are. I don't think he could gobble up all of Ukraine without provoking a serious response from the rest of the world, but he could repeat what happened in Crimea and take another piece of Ukrainian territory, specifically, Eastern Ukraine.

I'm pretty much sliding over the thin line between speculating and bullshitting here, but this idea popped into my head just now. What if Putin goes on TV and tells the Russian people (and the rest of the world) that there was no incursion into Ukraine, at least not an intentional one? He could claim that the convoy that crossed over the border was just a patrol that took a wrong turn and got lost. Ignore the fact that the convoy was traveling with the supposed aid convoy the Russians have assembled on the border*; the two convoys were totally unrelated and just happened to driving down the same highway together. It would be easy for Putin to wave the bloody shirt and lament the "murders" of soldier who were merely serving their country, only to be cut down by "the barbaric" Ukrainians. Spin it some more and he could probably fan the patriotic flames and manufacture a mandate to send troops into Eastern Ukraine in order to prevent the loss of anymore Russian life. Again, I'm just crossing over from speculation to bullshitting here, so I doubt it will happen.

What do you think of this whole mess?

*Yeah, I believe what the Russians say about as much as I believe anything that comes from an untrustworthy source. They say "humanitarian convoy", but unless they allow the contents to be inspected by a third party, who's to say that it isn't carrying more weapons and supplies to the separatists?

The Plantagenets by Dan Jones

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:00:00 +0000

(via Barnes & Noble)

I was at the local library the other day and not seeing much that interested me at the moment, I went to check out the bookshelves where they keep books they sale and found this. Two dollars well spent, in my opinion. Oddly, my copy looks brand spanking new, like somebody bought it and then just got rid of it without touching it. Maybe they bought it just to donate it to the library, figuring that it would end up in circulation? According to Amazon, the American edition of The Plantagenets was published April 18, 2013, which also happens to have been my birthday by coincidence. Anyways, here's the blurb, which differs from the one on the dustjacket:

The first Plantagenet king inherited a blood-soaked kingdom from the Normans and transformed it into an empire stretched at its peak from Scotland to Jerusalem. In this epic history, Dan Jones vividly resurrects this fierce and seductive royal dynasty and its mythic world. We meet the captivating Eleanor of Aquitaine, twice queen and the most famous woman in Christendom; her son, Richard the Lionheart, who fought Saladin in the Third Crusade; and King John, a tyrant who was forced to sign Magna Carta, which formed the basis of our own Bill of Rights. This is the era of chivalry, of Robin Hood and the Knights Templar, the Black Death, the founding of Parliament, the Black Prince, and the Hundred Year’s War. It will appeal as much to readers of Tudor history as to fans of Game of Thrones.

The version on the dustjacket is much longer and I might edit this post later on to include it, since I like it more than the condensed version Amazon and others are using.

As of right now, I'm on the final chapter of Part 1 and I am thoroughly enjoying it so far. Dan Jones' writing isn't stale or stuffy and he hasn't tried (at this point, anyways) to make a connection between the Plantagenet era and modern times. He's 32 years old, according to Wikipedia, and that apparently makes a difference. He knows how to write for a more contemporary crowd who aren't interested in sitting through a history lecture.

Point of interest is that The Plantagenets is only the first book of what is so far a two book series. The second book has two different names: The UK and Canadian edition is called The Hollow Crown: The Wars of the Roses and the Rise of the Tudors, while the U.S. edition is The Wars of the Roses: The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors. No idea why they removed "The Hollow Crown" from the title for the latter, because I liked it. Here's the blurb for the American edition:

The crown of England changed hands five times over the course of the fifteenth century, as two branches of the Plantagenet dynasty fought to the death for the right to rule. In this riveting follow-up to The Plantagenets, celebrated historian Dan Jones describes how the longest-reigning British royal family tore itself apart until it was finally replaced by the Tudors.

Some of the greatest heroes and villains of history were thrown together in these turbulent times, from Joan of Arc to Henry V, whose victory at Agincourt marked the high point of the medieval monarchy, and Richard III, who murdered his own nephews in a desperate bid to secure his stolen crown. This was a period when headstrong queens and consorts seized power and bent men to their will. With vivid descriptions of the battles of Towton and Bosworth, where the last Plantagenet king was slain, this dramatic narrative history revels in bedlam and intrigue. It also offers a long-overdue corrective to Tudor propaganda, dismantling their self-serving account of what they called the Wars of the Roses.

The UK edition drops this September and the American edition drops in October. If the rest of The Plantagenets is as good as it is so far, I'll be eagerly waiting for the sequel.

Zulu is quite a good movie

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:28:00 +0000

https://www.movieposter.com/poster/MPW-6188/Zulu.html

One of my all time favorite war movies. It was Michael Caine's first big acting role and he and Stanley Baker were excellent. The battle was top notch and it was really cool seeing what late-19th century fighting might have looked like.

The Anglo-Zulu War was fought in 1879 between the British and the Zulu Empires in modern day South Africa. The war is famous for the Zulu's surprise victory at Isandlwana and the Battle of Rorke's Drift, where less than 200 British soldiers defeated a force of 4,000 Zulu warriors. Zulu depicts the latter battle and a prequel, Zulu Dawn, centers on the former. The war ended the same year it started with the fall of the Zulu Empire and its annexation into the British Empire.

Eleven Victoria Crosses were awarded to survivors of Rorke's Drift and even if the movie isn't 100% historically accurate, the medals were definitely deserved.

Fun fact: If Prince William becomes king, his regnal name will be William V of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Fri, 23 May 2014 22:59:00 +0000

Provided that either of those states still exist by that point. If Northern Ireland goes back to Ireland and Scottish independence ends the United Kingdom, then he would just be William V of England.

Or maybe William the Bald
would be more appropriate?
(via Wikipedia)

If Prince Harry somehow, someway were to become king, his name would be Henry IX and would be the first King Henry since 1547!

Hopefully he'll avoid the
relationship issues of his predecessor.
(via Wikipedia)

William's son, George, would be known as George VII.

Prince Charles, meanwhile, would be Charles III. Hopefully, he won't be like Charles I, who ended up losing his head - literally - over a change in management, nor Charles II, who was partly responsible for his successor, James VI being overthrown in the Glorious Revolution by...William III.

Let's be real though,
this guy is going to be senile or dead by then.
(via Wikipedia)

And what of the Duchess of Cambridge? If her husband were to ascend the throne, she would be known as Katherine, Queen Consort.

Weapons: Baker rifle

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Thu, 08 May 2014 23:18:00 +0000

(via Wikimedia)

A counterpart to the Brown Bess musket used by British infantry, the Baker rifle was used by rifle regiments, who in turn were deployed as skirmishers and marksmen during battles. While the Baker had a much longer range and better accuracy than the Bess, the rifles had a longer loading time than the former. Supposedly, a soldier could fire off four shots with a Bess compared to the two of a Baker. Still, it was a fine weapon and was even used once to kill a French general (Auguste-Marie-François Colbert during the Peninsular War of the Napoleonic Wars at a range of 600 yards! Behind impressive considering that the rifle's nominal range was like 200 yards, so shout out to Thomas Plunket for that feat. He repeated the feat by shooting a drum major who was trying to help General Colbert, just to prove that it wasn't a fluke. The rifle also came with a 24 inch sword bayonet, which is the just awesome as all hell. A two foot long sword attached to a rifle? Damn, son.

I tried looking for more pictures, especially outside of Wikipedia, but the only sites that had any were ones selling like replicas.

M36 Tank Destroyer

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Mon, 05 May 2014 20:07:00 +0000

Via here, here, and here.

Well, that post about William and Kate naming their son George was pretty popular, so have some pictures!

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:00:00 +0000

William III.

George IV.

Kate Winslet.

What do you mean "those aren't the right ones"?

Grand Watermelon coin note

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 21:10:00 +0000

The Grand Watermelon. No relation to The Great Pumpkin.
(via Wikipedia)

In the 1890s, the United States Treasury Department issued treasury notes under the auspices of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act to individuals selling silver to the Treasury. Back in those days, one of the hot button issues was the use of gold and/or silver to back American currency. Some people favored gold, others silver. Some people even favored both, called bimetalism. The coin notes, as they were called featured the portraits of Union generals and an admiral from the American Civil War, such as George Henry Thomas, James McPherson, George Meade, Philip Sheridan, William Sherman, and U.S. Navy admiral David Farragut. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, Secretary of State William Seward, and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall.

The notes were issued from 1890 until 1893 when the Silver Purchase Act was repealed during the Grover Cleveland administration as a result of an economic panic that year that threatened to drain the government's gold reserves.

The thousand dollar note was called the "Grand Watermelon" because the zeroes on the reverse look like watermelons.

Tanking of you this holiday season

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Sun, 29 Dec 2013 20:39:00 +0000

Centuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurioooooooooooooooooooooon!

(via Wikipedia)

Ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen

(via Wikimedia)

tuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuur

(via Wikimedia)

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon!

(via Wikimedia)

Turn: America's First Spy Ring looks hella interesting

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 20:38:00 +0000

Saw the commercial for this new show just now and my interest is definitely piqued. I mean, how many TV shows set during the Revolutionary War are there?

From AMC's website:

Based on the book Washington’s Spies written by Alexander Rose, Turn is set in the summer of 1778 and tells the story of New York farmer Abe Woodhull, who bands together with a group of childhood friends to form The Culper Ring, an unlikely group of spies who turn the tide in America’s fight for independence. Turn, from AMC Studios, is written by showrunner Craig Silverstein (Nikita) and executive produced by Barry Josephson (Bones, Enchanted) from Josephson Entertainment. The series stars Jamie Bell as Abraham Woodhull, Kevin McNally as Judge Richard Woodhull, Burn Gorman as Major Hewlett, Angus MacFadyen as Robert Rogers, JJ Feild as Major John Andre, Seth Numrich as Ben Talmadge, Daniel Henshall as Caleb, and Heather Lind as Anna Strong.

I think the only thing I've seen Jamie Bell in was that movie Jumper with Hayden Christiansen (aka Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader), but he's been in a bunch of other movies. I've never heard of any of the other actors, but then again, how many people had heard of the casts of Mad Men or The Walking Dead before those shows came along? Here's to hoping this doesn't flop like Rubicon did. AMC has had a pretty good track record thus far, so I'm optimistic.

Tanks for the memories! (I'll just wait here for the pun police)

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:00:00 +0000

Tanks! Because why the hell not?

Another WWII movie starring Brad Pitt, you say? Yes, please.

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Sat, 19 Oct 2013 18:20:00 +0000

I wasn't aware of this until the other day, but Brad Pitt is starring in another World War II movie directed by David Ayer called Fury. It's about the crew of a M4 Sherman fighting against the Germans near the end of the European Theater of the war. Besides Pitt, the cast list is pretty impressive: Shia LaBeouf (the guy from the Transformers movies), Logan Lerman (Percy Jackson movies), Michael Peña (End of Watch, Gangster Squad, Shooter), Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies and has done a couple of war movies such as Black Hawk Down and Wind Talkers), and Jon Bernthal from The Walking Dead.

The last WWII movie Brad Pitt did, The Inglorious Basterds, was pretty damn good, so there's hope that this one will at least be a good popcorn movie. I have this feeling that it probably won't be hugely accurate, but what war movie has ever been dead-on? Honestly, I don't care too much about strict accuracy in war movies. As long as a movie doesn't include anything absurd and blatantly inaccurate (aside from like comedies), I'll probably enjoy it.

On the other hand, Fury is only the fifth movie David Ayer has directed and the first war movie; all of this previous movies have been crime and cop dramas. He also wrote the script for U-751, which was based on the capture of that German u-boat and its Enigma Machine. Unfortunately, in the movie, he altered history by having an American submarine crew in place of the British crew who had actually captured the u-boat. He also wrote The Fast & The Furious, so take that as you will.

I guess we'll just have to wait until the first trailer comes out before we'll have any idea of whether it'll suck or not.

Check out this picture of the USS Constitution's original sail plan

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:52:00 +0000

Via Wikipedia.

So, Monday marked the 201st anniversary of the USS Constitution's (Old Ironsides) victory over the HMS Guerriere during the War of 1812. Indeed, it was during this battle that the ship earned her famous nicknamed of 'Old Ironsides' due to her hull withstanding the cannon shots of the Guerriere. Apparently, this was due to American oak trees being more dense than those grown in Europe. So, to mark this occasion, here's the original sail plan for the Constitution.

Credit: National Archives.

Probably my favorite thing about the Constitution is that 215 years after she entered service, the ship is still a commission warship today. Only the HMS Victory beats it and that's the only time a British warship has bested her.

h/t Popular Science.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge naming their son George was beyond predictable, wasn't it?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Thu, 01 Aug 2013 21:21:00 +0000

Old news for sure, but what the hell. When I heard that the future King of the Commonwealth* and his wife had named the future future King** George, I thought it was rather anti-climatic. George is one of the most common first names for princes in the UK, along with Richard, Edward, Henry, William, and James. George is the second most common, after Henry and seeing as how they already have a prince named Henry, George would've been the most obvious. I wonder if there's a reason why the Royal Family has such a limited pool of names? Other than tradition, I mean. Succession-wise, we're looking at a Charles III, a William V, and a George VII. At least we will, provided that the Queen doesn't turn out to be a Highlander and lives forever.

*We can all agree that sounds badass, right?
**Unless he ends up becoming a trans person and then a woman or something.

Iron Maiden - The Trooper

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:26:00 +0000

The Trooper, of course, is based on the famous Charge of the Light Brigade, which itself was forever immortalized by Alfred, Lord Tennyson in his epic poem. Amazing how an absolute clusterf*ck like that gets turned into some sort of celebrated event, yet Pickett's Charge during the Battle of Gettysburg in the American Civil War is infamous as a huge blunder and isn't immortalized.

I just wonder if any wargamers have played this during a Victorian era game? If not, then I am terribly disappointed in all of you. :P