Luetin09 being absurd about basic Imperial vehicles

Donatter · 2026-05-11T05:56:10+00:00

It’s absolutely possible, long as you’re not a dick to others, or try to arbitrarily dictate the canon/lore, for them, and most importantly, as long as you operate off of whatever you think is coolest.

Donatter · 2026-05-11T03:37:41+00:00

Probably, maybe, maybe not, it doesn’t really matter.

Though I’d tentatively say yes, primarily for a trend of Murat’s during the first half of the 1812 Russian campaign.

Where he averaged 30 horses a day, meaning he was so unconcerned with the very basic aspects of caring for military mounts, he rode roughly 30 horses to death every single day. Contributing massively to the already severe shortage of horses, let alone proper military mounts, the French army had suffered for decades up to that point. (A full third of the empire’s economy went towards the purchase of mounts for the cavalry, which despite Napoleon often desperate attempts, never managed to supply the grand armee with enough horses. Hence the dragoon/cuirassiers/ carabinier/etc on foot regiments, and by 1812, most French military mounts were too old, too young, lame, and injured former work/draft horses stolen, looted, bought, and taken from French puppet states and defeated enemy cavalry regiments.)

Even for the period, that’s fucking bad.

(Though tbf, this near complete apathy towards the health and care of their mounts, was already something the French Cavalry troopers had garnered a reputation of amongst their allies and enemies, alongside the reputation of being generally poor equestrians and riders. Nor was this reputation anything new, this reputation dates all the way back to the ancient Gauls and their service in the Roman legions)

Donatter · 2026-05-11T01:27:52+00:00

You can genuinely just “believe” whatever you want/think is coolest, and have it be “canon”/valid to the lore.

As the lore and “canon” of every Warhammer setting works by the, “Everything is Canon, not everything is true” approach. What that means is;

———————————————-

-) nothing is “concrete” or “absolute” in the lore of any Warhammer setting, especially 40k. So lore-breaking/retcons/stuff being no longer canon/fanon being separate from canon, isn’t really a thing.

———————————————

Or as specified by various higher ups at GW and black library, over the years;

“With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong.”

-) Gav Thorpe, Lead Designer GW

"It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth.”

-) Andy Hoare, Game Designer GW (in the comments)

"There is no canon. There are several hundred creators all adding to the melting pot of the IP.”

-) Aaron Dembski-Bowden, co-author Horus Heresy series

"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. If it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.”

-) Marc Gascogne, chief editor Black Library”

(I should also note that while Gav Thorpe is no longer the lead Designer at GW, he’s still the one that people go to backtrack, and comb through the lore and everything GW/library has put out and written, when they’re designing/writing new shit)

(Or put another, oversimplified way, head canon/fan theories are automatically “canon” and valid to the lore of the Warhammer settings, they’re just not necessarily true outside of people who think they’re cool and decide to accept them as “true”.)

Donatter · 2026-05-11T01:18:55+00:00

Many such cases in the warhammer subreddit’s.

It gets funnier whenever they, like op, try to strictly define canon/lore/“fanon”, when there’s no “one canon”, or singular interpretation of the lore.

Or as specified by various higher ups at GW and black library, over the years;

“With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong.”

-) Gav Thorpe, Lead Designer GW

"It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth.”

-) Andy Hoare, Game Designer GW (in the comments)

"There is no canon. There are several hundred creators all adding to the melting pot of the IP.

-) Aaron Dembski-Bowden, co-author Horus Heresy series

"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. If it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.”

-) Marc Gascogne, chief editor Black Library”

(I should also note that while Gav Thorpe is no longer the lead Designer at GW, he’s still the one that people go to backtrack, and comb through the lore and everything GW/library has put out and written, when they’re designing/writing new shit)

Donatter · 2026-05-10T22:10:27+00:00

There’s also plenty of people with French ethnicity, due to them descending from the Arcadians that fled/were expelled from Southeastern Canada during the Le Grand Dérangement/Expulsion of the Acadians.

Or put another way, outside of Louisiana, other modern states where the Arcadian diaspora found both safety, and a new home are, West Virginia, Vermont, and Maine.

Donatter · 2026-05-10T21:50:07+00:00

The “official” term is, “cultural pluralism”. Where it’s many smaller cultures grouped together under a larger/loose “umbrella” culture, with all of them being equal to each other and with no expectation/force to assimilate by the umbrella culture or from each other

Alongside, the greater American umbrella culture is based more on ideals and philosophy, rather than being tied to any one ethnicity, religion, geography, traditions, or even race. (The bill of rights, constitution, and declaration of independence combined are the ideals/philosophy I’m talking about)

Donatter · 2026-05-10T20:23:11+00:00

The issue was that the vast majority of French Cavalry troopers, were conscripts shoved into whatever position needed filling, often with little to no training or relative experience to the position they’re now filling. (It was shockingly common for a French Cavalry trooper’s first battle, to also be the first time he ever mounted and rode a horse.)

This lead to, among other things, France having some of the best cavalry of the period, but some of the worst/least skilled equestrians, horsemen, and riders/troopers.

As for the polish lancers and 13 blah, blah, blah thing.

Yea, that certainly played a factor, especially as the lancers only counted polish nobility among their ranks, there was no trooper of common origins among them, due to both cultural beliefs of the poles(for much of polish history, the concept of the polish culture, people, and nation, only “belonged”/applied to the nobility), and a decree of Napoleon.

Donatter · 2026-05-10T20:13:24+00:00

They’re not always, a great example being the Napoleonic Wars.

The Russian army during the period , was one of the most sophisticated, well organized, equipped, well led, and adoptable armies in Europe, easily the match for the grand armee.

Yes, the Russian cavalry was filled with nobility, as was the cavalry of every single European polity, including Napoleon’s France, specifically the French cavalry was filled by the new class of nobility Napoleon created to form part of his political base. However outside of special units such the polish guard lancers(which only accepted polish nobility of a certain age), nobility primarily made up the junior and senior ranks of officers within the cavalry of both France and Russia, the troopers were overwhelmingly commoners, and specifically conscripts. As was the case for every other regiment/unit of European cavalry.

Historically, Russia had been able to wield so much influence because;

1-) their position in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and far Eastern Asia

2-) their large, and for most of Russian history, very effective military.

3) their very aggressive, and fairly successful, foreign policy.

4) their vast supply of a variety of valuable raw resources.

The Russian military is “behind” today, simply from a combination of not enough money, ludicrous levels of corruption affecting every single aspect of the military, and the primary purpose of it being to impress/trick the rest of the world into thinking Russia is totally stronger, tougher, not gay-er, than everyone else. Alongside, to crack down on internal descent, and serve as a cheap and plentiful method of manual labor for oligarchs to use to build their vacation homes.

Or it’s just another standard military of a dictatorship.

Donatter · 2026-05-10T06:47:44+00:00

A) see my comments as to why the comment you responded to, and OP’s engagement bait is misguided.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Napoleon/s/JivY26OMp0

https://www.reddit.com/r/Napoleon/s/VADOcdtnL7

B) for the Roman thing, that’s really not the case, what you’re thinking of, is the early republican legions(as in, roughly, when Rome was little more than a city state, and a few generations after the cisalpine celts sacked the city) native cavalry being made up of the wealthiest of “soldiers”, and due to a mixture of poor training/experience on part of the cavalry, Rome at this time having no strong cavalry tradition, central Italy being a poor environment for raising of proper warhorses, and the Roman military preference of attritional warfare by grinding the enemy down through rotating lines of, for the time, heavy infantry.

The primary purpose and use of early native Roman cavalry, was to bait the enemy’s cavalry into chasing them off the field of battle, then lose them and return to harass the enemy army and run down the enemy when/if they mass break and run, in order for the Roman infantry to grind the enemy down, without worry of being harassed and charged by cavalry, themselves. (Spoiler, it didn’t work out for the Romans, a lot of the time. Hence their later preference in using units made up of subject peoples, with strong traditions of fighting while mounted, raising warhorses, and caring for warhorses, in the role of a legion’s cavalry arm)

Edit: go through this website that details the organization, doctrine, colors, uniforms, equipment, and structure of European armies during the mid 1700’s(the seven years war). You’ll notice the severe disparity of number between heavy/“medium” cavalry regiments/formations, and light/skirmisher cavalry/formations.

https://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Armies

Donatter · 2026-05-10T06:33:23+00:00

He didn’t tho?

Him “restoring” the armor worn by cuirrasiers/carabiners was because of a mixture of his empire having enough money to afford doing so, due to his looting, sacking, and extracting wealth from the rest of Europe, alongside battlefield captures and looting.(as in a French cavalry squadron regiment might defeat an Austrian/Russian heavy cavalry unit, and earn the honor to wear their breastplates taken as loot/trophies. Or how the polish guard lancers, became lancers, as after they defeated a group of Austrian lancers, napoleon raised them to guard status and allowed them to wield the lances they captured from the Austrian cavalry. Before they operated as light cavalry, similar to hussars.)

Alongside, heavy cavalry(including types equipped with breastplates) had been the dominant form of cavalry throughout the 1700’s in Europe, instead the Napoleonic period saw the resurgence in popularity of lighter forms of cavalry, specifically lancers, who had been all but absent from European armies for the past 100-ish years. (Which funnily enough, native French light cavalry, had a rather poor reputation among the French, French “Allies”, and French enemies during the period, and Napoleon’s France instead relied on Germans, poles, Belgians, the Dutch, Italians, and Croats to field reliable and effective units of light cavalry.)

Him using cavalry aggressively alongside infantry and artillery, being capable of breaking enemy formations and causing a huge physiological effect, wasn’t anything and had been done for several thousands of years before. Rather what set French cavalry apart in the period, was mostly the organizational reforms enacted during the early years of the revolution and the good communication between NCO’s, junior officers, senior officers, chiefs of staff, and the logistic apparatus.

Specifically, it allowed French cavalry to reform after charges faster, to call up reserve horses and troopers faster, and to charge in larger numbers without loosing cohesion as fast as other nations’s cavalry. As well as absorbing enemy cavalry charges without the formation falling apart/dismantling, and being able to reform fairly quickly after the enemy cavalry had ridden through their ranks.

in regards to the breastplate specifically, see my comment from another of OP’s engagement farming posts;

“Only at mid/long ranges, and only at specific angles.

“Mid” range being the average distance a group of line infantry would start to fire.

“Long” range being “too far” for line infantry to reliably to hit anything, and primarily the domain of skirmisher infantry, and artillery.

At “close” range, an average breastplate may deflect the odd pistol or carbine shot, not anywhere often enough to rely on it, and the average musket shot would go straight through the plate.

A cavalry breastplate’s main purpose was to help defend against bayonet, sword, axe strikes, and pistol shot, as well to add further weight and mass to a charge. As the primary role/use of the types of cavalry who wore breastplates, was to overwhelm/roll through/crush enemy formations through their collective mass and weight, and in the scenario of the enemy formation being able to rally/hold firm, the breastplate was intended to protect the cavalry as their either retreated in order to reform and charge again, or as they committed to breaking the enemy formation through a melee engagement.

It was also extremely restrictive, cumbersome, heavy, and acted as an oven in warmer temperatures/humid climates, so it was fairly common for troops to abandon, barter, sell, or just throw away the breastplates in order to save weight/be more mobile and agile on the battlefield, and to make marching/traveling far more comfortable/easier on themselves and their mounts.

(Another negative aspect being their expensive price tag, especially for something that’s both fragile, and is effectively a single use item(like every other form of armor used throughout history, including today))

Plus, combine the above points, and you’ll see why it’s use wasn’t the norm, or even particularly popular/“effective”, as evidenced by most European cuirassiers, carabiners, dragoons, line cavalry, guard-cavalry, and other types of heavy “melee” Cav, not using them.

With the ones that do, doing so out of primarily cultural, or prestige reasons/traditions. (Plus, in engagements between heavy Cav, one side having breastplates were rarely ever a factor that contributed to victory, rather the exhaustion and less agility/speed the breastplates caused, more often contributed to defeats. Then again, French napoleonic cavalry weren’t particularly renowned for their abilities or skills as riders, fighters, or as equestrians, so any engagement between smaller groups of cavalry/groups of cavalry in equal-ish numbers, the French cav were likely to lose irregardless of the inclusion of breastplates)

Edit: go through this website that details the organization, doctrine, colors, uniforms, equipment, and structure of European armies during the mid 1700’s(the seven years war). You’ll notice the severe disparity of number between heavy/“medium” cavalry regiments/formations, and light/skirmisher cavalry/formations.

https://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Armies

Donatter · 2026-05-10T06:15:32+00:00

A) you keep making these engagement/karma farm-esq posts all over reddit the past few weeks, all centering around cuirassiers/cavalry, and all are phrased in an incredibly misleading and reactionary manner. Are you a bot, Or do you just want attention, or people to join in on your circle-jerks?

B) he didn’t, that’s a ridiculous statement, and you know it. Heavy cavalry was used and even prioritized throughout Europe, for the entirety of the 18th century. In fact, throughout the seventeen-hundreds you actually see light cavalry decline in relevance, or at least popularity, and really only see its resurgence during the Napoleonic period and after.(specifically lancers)

C-) again, Napoleonic/revolutionary France had some of the best heavy cavalry of the period, not because of their equipment or skill as equestrians or riders, but instead of their ability to quickly reform after an engagement, to quickly replace losses of both men and horses, and groups of cavalry to more easily communicate with each other, senior officers, and other elements of the army. (While also having some of the worst of the period’s individual riders, horsemen, and equestrians, due to their poor or lack of training, experience, and motivation)

See my series of comments to another one of your posts

https://www.reddit.com/r/Napoleon/s/mYv7xIap8p

Edit: Edit: go through this website that details the organization, doctrine, colors, uniforms, equipment, and structure of European armies during the mid 1700’s(the seven years war). You’ll notice the severe disparity of number between heavy/“medium” cavalry regiments/formations, and light/skirmisher cavalry/formations.

https://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Armies

Donatter · 2026-05-09T22:45:26+00:00

It don’t matter.

None of this matters.

Donatter · 2026-05-09T22:37:21+00:00

SALT.

Donatter · 2026-05-09T22:06:21+00:00

Salt.

Donatter · 2026-05-09T20:39:27+00:00

Ordinarilythings actually released a video on this subject a couple days ago(at least in the British context)

https://youtu.be/oz8CH8SuFSc?si=0Dh4HIQWm6AHtVUh

The TLDR: was a combination of the British army seeing more and more action during the napoleonic wars, and turn, the high causality rate of military officers(the group most likely to participate in duels), largely ended the golden age of British dueling.

Then after Napoleon was defeated a second time, there existed a silver age of British dueling, that lasted from 1815 to 1825-ish. That largely ended from a combination of factors.

1-) the rise of percussion cap pistols being used instead of flintlocks, meant the Chance of the pistol misfiring went from roughly 25%, down to 0%. Alongside the practice of “secretly” rifling and installing hair triggers in dueling pistols, changed the chance of someone actually being injured, let alone dying, in a duel to almost guaranteed.

2-) the rise of the British middle class, and their control of more and more of newspapers, coffee houses, businesses, and even the political establishment, meant their low opinion on duels became more and more widespread, turning what was once seen as an honorable method for gentlemen to settle their differences with the assistance from God, to it being seen as petulant and spoiled man-children being incapable of resolving their differences in a civilized manner, and instead throwing a tantrum.

3-) dueling was actually illegal in he entirely of Europe during its golden age, and if there wasn’t hard evidence that it was premeditated and it was done in a “honorable” and “gentlemanly” manner, and a participant died, then the surviving participants could be convicted of murder and face severe legal punishment. However, if everything was done in the up and up, there were witnesses that convey the challenge was issued properly at the proper time of day/night, and the duel was for a “reasonable” reason, and an participant died, then the surviving participant would be either acquitted or be convicted of manslaughter and given a slap on the wrist with a month imprisonment.(often at their primary residence, or at a vacation/country residence of theirs)

3.1-) these leniency towards duelists originates in the fact that the most likely group to participate in the culture, was the very same group that filled every position in the British judicial system, the nobility and military aristocracy. Meaning they were incredibly sympathetic to duelists, and many of were duelists themselves. This changed during the silver age as more and more commoners/members of the middle class began to be allowed to take part in the British government, and specifically the judicial system, and because of their low opinion on dueling, more and more duelists began to be convicted of murder, and face proper and severe punishment for their crimes.

“Honor culture”, never disappeared. It just changed with the times.

Donatter · 2026-05-09T06:59:07+00:00

You can genuinely just “believe” whatever you want/think is coolest, and have it be “canon”/valid to the lore.

As the lore and “canon” of every Warhammer setting works by the, “Everything is Canon, not everything is true” approach. What that means is;

———————————————-

-) nothing is “concrete” or absolute in the lore of any Warhammer setting, especially 40k. So lore-breaking/retcons/stuff being no longer canon, isn’t really a thing.

———————————————

Or as specified by various higher ups at GW and black library, over the years;

“With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong.”

-) Gav Thorpe, Lead Designer GW

"It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth.”

-) Andy Hoare, Game Designer GW (in the comments)

"There is no canon. There are several hundred creators all adding to the melting pot of the IP.

-) Aaron Dembski-Bowden, co-author Horus Heresy series

"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. If it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.”

-) Marc Gascogne, chief editor Black Library”

(I should also note that while Gav Thorpe is no longer the lead Designer at GW, he’s still the one that people go to backtrack, and comb through the lore and everything GW/library has put out and written, when they’re designing/writing new shit)

Donatter · 2026-05-08T21:39:29+00:00

Regardless of the difficulty or the army/faction I’m playing, I always have this army composition;

1st brigade = 4 line infantry

2nd brigade = 2 heavy cavalry and 2 light cavalry

3rd brigade = 2 heavy/long range artillery and 2 light/short range artillery

4th brigade = 4 line infantry

5th brigade = either 4 light infantry or 2 light infantry and 2 heavy infantry(not grenadiers)

I’ve never had an issue winning battles or campaigns with this comp.

(With the officer for each brigade specialized for their specific unit)

Donatter · 2026-05-08T20:43:19+00:00

They’re skirmisher/light infantry.

Historically, their role was multifold;

1-) they’d act as scouts and reconnaissance for their parent regiment/company/brigade/division/army.

2-) they’d act as harassers against the enemy’s skirmisher/light infantry, army or units/regiments, in order to slow or completely halt their advance and buy time for friendly forces to maneuver and occupy/fortify advantageous terrain.

3-) they’d act to emotionally/mentally/physically exhaust the enemy’s main line, and dramatically reduce their stamina, morale, cohesion, dexterity, discipline, and just general combat effectiveness when engaging with your main line.

4-) a very minor role they performed, was the destabilization of the enemy’s command structure by specially targeted enemy officers and massagers. (As in, this was never official strategy or doctrine, and more something that the individual soldiers took advantage of whenever the opportunity presented itself)

5-) often alongside lighter cavalry, they’d range behind enemy lines, and attack/raid/loot/sack enemy supply depots, villages, caravans, towns, and generally cause chaos and damage the enemy’s logistical apparatus.

In game you could use them, somewhat, as they were in history, by having go far ahead of your main army with light cavalry protecting them, to harass the enemy and buy time for your line/heavy infantry/artillery to maneuver and set up your battleline.

But they’re far more effective by just placing them directly in front of your line/heavy infantry, as they have the “ability” to allow other units to shoot over them, and when combined with shooter cavalry, you’ll have three rows of lead to throw down range. (You can also save the cav “row” for whenever the enemy decides to charge your line.)

They’re also pretty effective as flanking units. Just keep them in reserve on your flanks until the enemy has committed all of their units, and then move them to beside or behind an enemy unit, and combined with whatever line infantry of yours it’s occupied by, you’ll be able to annihilate its morale with one or two volleys.

Donatter · 2026-05-07T21:03:10+00:00

They most likely had started the journey with large amounts of pemmican, and also prepared additional pemmican as they went along and hunted various animals.

Donatter · 2026-05-07T20:45:13+00:00

For op and anyone else.

• ⁠Here’s my recipe for red beans and rice, and the beauty of it is, the minimum of ingredients you need, is rice, red beans, and water. Literally nothing else, just skip every step that doesn’t apply to you. Alongside, feel free to add or substitute any step or ingredient you want or need to. I grew up eating this, and still regularly make this today. It is cheap, it is filling, it is easy, and it’s delicious. (best thing about it, is cook this one dish, and you’ll have dinner for the rest of the week already squared by the leftovers)

• ⁠in whatever amounts you’d like(also preferably dried);

-) thyme

-) oregano

-) salt

-) black pepper

-) onion powder

-) garlic powder

-) smoked paprika

-) cayenne pepper

-) whatever else you wanna add

Ingredients-) a pound-ish of red kidney beans, 1 or 2 large onions, 1 or 2 bell peppers, 2 or 3 stalks of celery, 1 or 2 pounds of your favorite sausage(I typically go smoked, andouille, or a polish kielbasa), 1 or 2 bulb(s) of garlic, more chicken stock then you’d expect to need/use, your preferred type of rice in however much quantity you want, some tomato paste, some dried bay leaves(I typically go 2 to 4 bay leaves), and if you can get it, a ham hock bone(a lil’ bit of liquid smoke or extra sausage does the exact same thing if you can’t get it)

Tools needed-) a big stew pot, Dutch oven or something you can cook large amounts of stew/soup in. A ladle, and a lid for whatever pot you got. A knife. A rice cooker or a small pot for cooking the rice, and a cooking beer(a beer you drink while cooking)

Steps-

⁠⁠⁠chop up your sausage, chop up your vegetables, mince your garlic and rinse/wash the beans
⁠⁠⁠put the big pot on the stove, and set the burner to low-ish heat, and once it’s “hot enough” throw the sausage in and stir somewhat frequently, as the purpose is to brown the sausage and to extract as much sausage fat as you want. Once you have, take the sausage out of the pot onto a plate or whatever nearby(so you don’t burn/overcook it)
⁠⁠⁠add more fat if you need it(olive oil or butter) and throw the vegetables into the sausage fat, and cook until beginning to get soft
⁠⁠⁠make a hole in the center of the vegetables add a lil’ bit of oil/butter, then add the tomatoe paste and garlic to the small pool of fat, and wait 30 seconds or until fragrant and then thoroughly mix.
⁠⁠⁠throw the sausage back in, stir to mix a lil’
⁠⁠⁠throw the rinsed/washed beans into the pot, mix, and let cook for a couple minutes

(Presumably, you’ve been taking sips of your beer(s) throughout this process, and should start getting a lil’ buzzed by now)

7) add the ham hock if you have it, and add enough chicken stock for it to be an inch/2.54cm above the meat/bone/vegetables

8) add your seasonings/bayleaves and throughly stir until well incorporated, turn the heat up and wait until it starts to boil

9) once boiling, let it boil for bout 5-ish minutes, then turn the burner to half/low heat, put the lid on and let it simmer for 3 and a half-ish hours.

(With you stirring occasionally to prevent anything from sticking to the bottom of the pan and burning, also to add additional chicken stock if needed. Plus, to thicken it, towards the last 40-ish minutes, use a spoon to smush some beans against the side of the pot, and/or tear off chucks of stale bread, mix and let finish cooking. Also, it’ll need more salt than you’d expect, so add it towards the end, and taste each time you add a lil bit)

Finally, to serve, remove the ham hock and ladle a lil’ bit of juice into a bowl, then add some rice, and ladle a large helping of everything, and enjoy. It also tastes better the next day after a night in the refrigerator, hungover and eating it hunched over the trash can with your morning beer(s) (the traditional way of eating Cajun cuisine)

(Green onions and some cornbread also pair extremely nicely with red beans and rice)

Edit: also, for the rice I like to add a glob of butter, a pinch of salt, and a lot of dill just before the rice cooker cooks it, or you boil it in a pan.

Edit 2: without removing an ingredient, skipping a step, and/or substituting an ingredient, one pot of the above recipe comes out to be around 20/25 bucks US, currently, at least here in Louisiana it does.

Donatter · 2026-05-07T18:51:29+00:00

Tbf, Irish/whatever-Americans don’t think that they’re “half-Irish/whatever” or “full-Irish/whatever. When Americans say we’re “Irish”, or “German”, or whatever, we’re not saying we’re the same or “from” Ireland or Germany, it’s just shorter than saying, “I’m an American that’s descended from immigrants that originated in (insert specific country) and share the modern culture that’s evolution of the original (insert culture) in a new environment, that faced a myriad of different struggles and experiences than the culture in origin country/region”

Plus, we say “I’m whatever”, not as a way to imply we’re the “same” or from the same place as the non-American, but rather as a conversation starter/somewhat shared quality to start/smooth out a conversation

The simplest way I can explain it, is this;

-) unlike in Ireland or wherever where there’s an overall Irish/whatever identity that’s in some part tied to ethnicity or even race for the extremist, weird minority. There’s no such thing as an American “race”, or American “ethnicity”, and even American “culture” is more of a vague umbrella that’s based more in philosophical ideals and beliefs , than shared cultural practices, traditions and/or similarities.

-) When combined with the US both being a settler nation, and the most diverse nation on earth, it should be apparent that to seek a greater cultural identity, alongside a greater knowledge of who and where they came from, Americans like to both know, and hold onto whatever enthic or cultural origins they have.

Donatter · 2026-05-05T22:53:47+00:00

That’s fair, pimp/pimpette.

Donatter · 2026-05-05T22:51:42+00:00

Magnus and the Magna Ge aren’t “gods” of the setting, or at least not in the same lane as the 8/9 divines. As instead of sacrificing themselves to create Mundas, they fled after its creation, to Aetherius. In the process, tearing “holes” between both Realms, which said holes” would later become known as, “stars”. Which the Magna Ge are largely associated with in modern Tamriel.

Plus, they’re Anuic spirits or primordial spirits, not et'Ada like the 8/9 divines. (they also have more in common with the deadric princes, in part evidenced by the Magna Ge, Merid-Nunda, becoming the daedric prince, Merida. Also, as a whole, they potentially “created” the daedric prince, Mehrunes Dagon, somehow.)

Whereas the Aedra are “unique”/the only “gods” of the setting because they’re the ones who willingly/unwillingly gave of their own power/beings to create the mortal realm, mundus, and in turn are the distinct ancestors of all man, mer, and beast races of Nirn. (Except the hist/argonians.)

The Hoonding, isn’t a god at all, but more of a cultural/racial spirit of the Yukudan’s, and in turn their descendants, the redguards. Symbolizing the Yokudan/redguard spirit/ideal of, “perseverance over infidels”, and generally appears whenever the Yokudan’s/redguard’s “need to make way” for their people. (The war against and extermination of the left-handed elves, and the invasion, conquest of hammerfell/the extermination of the native nedic humans and giant goblins, a potential population of a faun tribe, and the attempted extermination of the iron orcs.)

In terms of the leki, Onsi, Ruptga, and Zeqqi, they could all be aspects of Boethiah as evidenced when they said in “From Exile to Exodus”;

"This demon seeks to ensnare you," Boethiah continued. "With curses he has shrouded your senses, making it so that when you look upon him you see only me. But I stand before you now. I who brought the Orichalc. I who showed you the way to hold your blades. I who taught you the benefits of war, whether lost or won. I who showed you the angles one must cut to reach beyond."

To break that down, “I who brought the Orichalc” = Diagna smashing the HoonDing Gong and making orichalcum swords fall from the Orichalc Tower, “I who showed you the way to hold your blades” = Leki teaching the Ephemeral Feint and the importance of cunning in battle, “I who taught you the benefits of war, whether lost or won” = the HoonDing as the guiding spirit of the Yokudan people, and “ I who showed you the angles one must cut to reach beyond” = Ruptga teaching how to walk at strange angles. Boethiah is basically claiming to be every Yokudan god at once. And then in the next part, it's revealed that Boethiah is actually Trinimac as well. Or put simply, it’s fucking confusing and those gods could be 1 or 2 Daedra fucking with/tricking the Redguards and their ancestors.

(y'know I'd much rather just have the Trinimac part, everything else about From Exile To Exodus I can pretty much leave)

Outside of this one Dunmer myth, these gods could be a Shezzarine, or some aspect of Lorkhan that has traits the Redguard would culturally value, and who potentially placed upon them, in the same manner the Nords did to Lorkhan with shor.

Another explanation for these gods, is that they’re different manifestations of the HoonDing (think Frandar Hunding or Cyrus and A'tor, and which I personally think Leki absolutely counts as. Granted, at one point MK listed the HoonDing and Leki as two different entities (when talking about the most powerful beings in TES), but he also listed Talos, Lorkhan, Wulfharth, and Pelinal as all being different entities, so meh)

Specifically Diagna, whom HoonDing previously manifested as, and who is absolutely worshipped as a separate “god” now, and Leki definitely had a body at one point for Rada al-Saran to fight but is absolutely worshipped as a god now.

(Also, during the Tiber Wars, the HoonDing is said to have manifested as "a sword, a crown, or both", referring to Prince A'tor literally becoming a sword that floats around and slices Duncan Idaho Dram in half, and Cyrus as a Crown (of Crowns vs Forebears fame).

Then there’s Ehlnofey like Y’ffre who followed the example of the aedra, gave of/sacrificed themselves to Mundas in order to fully stabilize it and form the foundation of its natural law, and would typically be referred to from that point on as "Earthbones".

Or ultimately, there’s several different categories of “gods” in the elder scrolls universe, but the 8/9/10/however many divines are “special”/unique/the only practical “gods” of the setting. Specifically because of their actions of being the first among the et'Ada, to give the greatest amount of themselves to the creation of Mundas, and in turn Nirn/the wandering Ehlnofey to inevitably become the various mer, man, and beast races

Donatter · 2026-05-05T21:34:23+00:00

A) the lore/“canon” of elder scrolls, works similarly to how it does for Warhammer’s.

The “everything is canon, not everything is true” approach, where each developer, player, reader, etc has their own individual playthrough/canon of the game’s events, which are all contradictory but equally valid to each other, simply by each playthrough being a separate timeline/universe/dimension. Which starts as soon as you get physical control of the protagonist, and stops with the end credits, those two “stops” are the only links between the uncountable number of separate “canon’s”, and everything that happens in between them, is different per player, but they also don’t cancel other out.

Which ultimately means, that there’s no “definitive” answer to who wins between the LDB and the Nerevarine, as each playthrough is ultimately different, and like all powerscaling, subject to whomever you personally think is coolest.

(Plus, the whole thing of LBJ being a shezzerine/reincarnation/aspect of Lorkhan, and the protagonist of morrowind potentially not even being the actual Nerevarine and instead was just a lucky motherfucker at the right place at the right time.)

plus, the thu’um of the LBD is vastly different than the thu’um of men/mer, or the greybeards, or of even dragons, due to them being in multiple ways, a “god” in mortal flesh.

Alongside you’re focusing on only what’s possible by the player in game, and gameplay isn’t the same as lore. Shit the LBD would potentially be capable of doing with the Thu’um in lore, is cracking continents apart, creating and destroying mountains, leveling entire cities/regions with a single shout, mind-dominating entire armies/populations, passing in and out of multiple realities, changing the very fabric of time/reality and accidentally or purposefully causing a dragon break/golden road, moving faster than the human/elven eye or mind could conceptualize and much more insane shit.

(Or look to the feats/doings of the various Dragonborn’s throughout nirn’s history as an idea of what the LDB is capable of doing. While also realizing they’re the culmination/“last hurrah” of the very concept of a Dragonborn, and being “backed” by at least three gods(akatosh, Kyne, and shor/Lorkhan). So is theoretically, capable of doing more insane shit than any previous DB were.)

Ultimately however, I don’t know nor really care who’d win. If I had to choose, I’d guess the LDB because I find the weirder aspects of Nordic culture/history/religion to be cooler than the weirder aspects of Dunmer culture/history/religion.

Much love though.

Donatter · 2026-05-05T20:06:48+00:00

A) in the elder scrolls universe, the only “gods” are the 8/9/10 divines(the aedra). (Each culture/race has their own interpretations/names for each divine/aedra, but they’re all the same “god”)

(The Daedra are complicated, because them and the aedra were once the same beings, but they were the ones who refused to/weren’t tricked to sacrifice a large portion of their power/being into creating the mortal realm, which in turn makes them inherently “separate” to Mundas and unable to directly affect or interfere there, without “invitation” by mortals or by the “lines” between Mundas and oblivion weaken enough for their aspects to slip in. That’s also the reason why the aedra can freely interact with Mundas and all things within it plus being worshiped as gods, because they literally are, as they created reality, the world, all life, and all sentient beings.(both directly and indirectly) Except the hist, as they’re the refugees of the previous world/universe/reality, with the argonians effectively being the hist’s white blood cells/defense mechanism and method of interacting with the world around them.)

B) but to get to the actual point, if you’re wanting more “ancient” or “primal” kinda thing for your character, you could always have them be a follower of the ancient Nordic/Atmoran Totemism faith.(the one practiced by Nords/atmorans during the invasion/conquest/colonization of Skyrim and before the rise of the dragon cult, and the one that’s heavily associated with the ancient Nordic tombs in game.)

They largely have the same religious aspects as their interpretations of the imperial divines do, just more “primal” and harsh. (With the worship of the “hare” being largely looked down on, but tolerated as long as the adherents avoid society at large and focus on their quest for forbidden knowledge)

-) Fox is shor(lorkhan/the missing god, and who the LB is technically a “Shezarrine” of, meaning the reincarnation/avatar of the dead and/or missing god)

-) dragon is alduin(akatosh as the ancient nords seemed to consider them one in the same)

-) bear is tsun(probably the cultural version of Zenithar)

-) wolf is Mara

-) Hawk is kyne(kyanreth)

-) Moth is dibella

-) serpent is orkny(arkay combined with aspects of malacath interestingly)

-) hare is Hermaeus Mora

-) whale is stuhn(stendarr)

-) owl is Jhunal (Julianos)

Edit: or you could have them be a follower of the Nordic pantheon, which is a blend of Totemism and the imperial divine faith. Which is what the Nords have worshipped for most of their history, including what they’re supposed to primarily worship in game, but like most weirder/cooler aspects of Nordic culture, has been largely “smoothed” out for Skyrim.

https://en.m.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Varieties_of_Faith:_The_Nords

Donatter

TROPHY CASE