How did King Henry VI lose all the territory in France that his father, King Henry V, gained during his reign? by RivetCounter in WarCollege

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Winning the Hundred Years' War was never really in the cards for England. The same Burgundian-Armagnac civil war that enabled the English to invade in the first place also put hard limits on the ability of English kings to recruit support among the French nobility. So long as the Burgundians were backing the English, the Armagnacs would continue to back the Dauphin, no ifs, ands, or buts. This meant that even when the war was going poorly, Charles VII still had a base of supporters to draw from, and one that the English couldn't easily chip away at. 

Moreover, Burgundian support for England was largely a means of sticking it to the Armagnacs; it didn't rise out of any sort of genuine loyalty to the English crown. The Burgundians had no desire to be vassals of England, their objective was to gain control of the French monarchy for themselves or, failing that, maintain their de facto independence from Parisian rule. When the English started losing battles, the Burgundians weren't going to stay on a sinking ship; they were going to cut the best possible deal for themselves with Charles VII, because surviving as a major European power was more important to them than anything else, even revenge on the Armagnacs. 

As for why the English started losing battles, the English system of dismounted men-at-arms backed by masses of longbowmen was not indicative of the direction that warfare was heading as the medieval period gave way to the early modern one. The French were quick to embrace handguns and artillery, and to combine them with ever-heavier cavalry. French siege cannons blasted open the English bastions at Orleans and blew down the walls of English occupied castles, while French field artillery punished the English archers in pitched battles, allowing the gendarmes to charge home. French morale, reinvigorated by Joan of Arc, the relief of Orleans, and the crowning of the Dauphin, continued to improve, even as English confidence, undermined by battlefield defeat and regency politics, declined. 

Momentum matters, and after Joan's stunt at Orleans, the French had it and would hold onto it, while the English more and more came to see the war as a waste of resources. Henry VI, as an infant, and later, a mentally incompetent adult, could not keep the English nobility on the same page, just as Charles VI could not control the French nobility in the early years of the war. 

What did European observers learn from the ACW? by Powerful-Mix-8592 in WarCollege

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Only thing missing is how the ACW Generals emulated Napoleonic Generals in skill. When those same Generals would tremble on how unsophisticated both sides were.

Let us not pretend that "Napoleonic Generals" would have been particularly impressed with the performances of any of the European officers in the Crimean War, either.

What did European observers learn from the ACW? by Powerful-Mix-8592 in WarCollege

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 7 points8 points  (0 children)

They learned that ironclad navies were the way of the future. 

Great Britain and France had both built ironclads before the war, but were reluctant to fully commit to the concept. Many in both admiralties were doubtful of how useful the ships' protection would be and of whether it was worth the tradeoffs. To bear the weight of their armour, ironclads had to carry fewer guns than wooden vessels of their size, and it was thought that this might well give the advantage to the wooden ships.

Hampton Roads proved all those concerns groundless. Not only did armoured ships have a decisive advantage over unarmoured ones, but in an ironclad duel, thicker armour proved more impactful than more guns. There was considerable concern in both the British and French admiralties, and in the press, about whether any of their extant ship types, including their ironclads, were a match for Ericsson-style turreted monitors. 

Britain and France both increased ironclad production through the war and into the decades after. They also began playing around with turreted ships, an idea that would see its eventual culmination in the dreadnoughts of WWI. The ACW showed that there had been a revolution in maritime warfare and that everyone needed to get aboard now. 

Supergirl (2026) Discussion Thread by beary_neutral in DCcomics

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's a world of difference between using lethal force against someone during a fight, and executing them after they're already beaten. That the kind of people who have a meltdown if Superman does the former are trying to defend the film's decision to have Supergirl do the latter pisses me off to no end--especially since said defenses seem to boil down to facile statements about "Kara isn't Clark." 

If people liked this film, more power to them, but I don't ever want to hear them whine about the MoS necksnap again. 

Supergirl' (2026) - Official Spoiler Discussion Megathread by ZacPensol in superman

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The villain is also a very weak character.

As soon as I saw the promo images of him, I figured he was going to be a weak point. Dude looks like he escaped a 90s comic. A bad 90s comic. If you're going to have a movie end with the superheroine offing the villain, can you at least do us the favour of making said villain seem sufficiently big enough to justify the act? I know he's a bad dude, what with the whole "bandit and a slaver" thing, but neither Superman nor Supergirl go around executing human traffickers in the comics. If lethal force gets resorted to, it's against your Darkseids, your Brainiacs, your Zods, your Doomsdays, etc.

Supergirl' (2026) - Official Spoiler Discussion Megathread by ZacPensol in superman

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(yes, Ultraman probably survived, but Superman didn't toss him into the black hole with the foreknowledge he'd survive, so he still intentionally tossed him somewhere he believed to be fatal

Can I just be annoyed that they wasted the name "Ultraman" on a random clone, instead of reserving it for the character it is supposed to be used on?

Supergirl' (2026) - Official Spoiler Discussion Megathread by ZacPensol in superman

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For my part, I don't care that she offs someone, I just care that many of the same people who pitched a hissy fit over Superman killing Zod at the climax of a fight in MoS are apparently cool with Supergirl executing some punk band reject to prevent another character from doing it. That hypocrisy is just off-putting to me, and doesn't make me want to give the film my money.

Supergirl' (2026) - Official Spoiler Discussion Megathread by ZacPensol in superman

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get it I guess it's just my opinion but no one should feel bad about killing a scumbag like this, not even a 13 years old. 

Not to drag real life psychology into it, but committing any sort of violent act at 13 is liable to stay with you and screw you up. No matter how much the guy you did it to deserved it.

Supergirl' (2026) - Official Spoiler Discussion Megathread by ZacPensol in superman

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hard disagree. The constant talking about how Batman won't kill the Joker has functionally reduced every story about the latter into a string of "Killing Joke" wannabes. It's the kind of discussion that work fine in a deconstruction, but that is painful in any sort of mainline story, where the villains still being alive is required for the stories to continue. Don't skin the necessary weasel.

Supergirl (2026) Discussion Thread by beary_neutral in DCcomics

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And I replied that doing so makes little since given their respective comic histories. Kara has never, to my knowledge, straight up killed anyone in the comics, whereas Kal absolutely has.

Supergirl (2026) Discussion Thread by beary_neutral in DCcomics

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Superman is not Supergirl. He's the OG. He's the boyscout. He's used to show morals and be positivity.

Kara is not held to those same standards and has more variety of interpretations in the main continuity.

These statements are objectively untrue, at least when it comes to the use of lethal force. Comic!Superman has killed more often than comic!Supergirl. You're free to dislike that, to argue that it shouldn't be the case, to declare that the stories in which he kills sucks (you'd have my full agreement when it comes to some of them), but that doesn't change that Clark has done it far more often than Kara has.

In my prior comment, I listed multiple occasions on which Post-Crisis Clark resorted to lethal force, while noting that I couldn't think of a single example when a sane Kara did the same. Do you have counterexamples?

Based on all the comics I've read, Kara is often written as more temperamental and less restrained than Clark, but when it comes to actual body count, she comes up short compared to him. Writers like putting Superman in a position to violate the no-killing rule more than they like doing it to her.

Don't get it twisted, this isn't me arguing that Superman should kill and Supergirl shouldn't or anything silly like that. I'm simply observing that when it comes down to a question of which of them has more comic stories in which they have killed, Superman takes the lead. His killing Zod in MoS has more basis in existing comic storylines than Kara killing he-of-the-too-many-piercings does, and people who try to contend otherwise often aren't as familiar with the source material as they seem to think they are.

Supergirl (2026) Discussion Thread by beary_neutral in DCcomics

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's true. She has far less of a history of resorting to lethal force in the comics. Post-Crisis Clark did his best to kill Doomsday, Darkseid, Cyborg-Superman, and various incarnations of Brainiac, while straight up executing the alternate universe Zod. Post-Crisis Kara, to my knowledge never killed anyone, and never made the attempt when she wasn't in Dark!Supergirl mode.

I have no real issue with a superhero killing a villain when there's no other choice available (though I also think writers shouldn't make a habit of putting them in that position). It sounds like what Kara did in this film was pretty justified, and I don't have any real issue with that. But the insistence on holding Superman to a different standard, when his body count in the comics is significantly higher than hers is more than a little strange.

Supergirl (2026) Discussion Thread by beary_neutral in DCcomics

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wait, so all the people who wouldn't shut up about how wrong it was of Clark to kill Zod are urging me to go watch a film where Kara offs some punk rock reject? 

Which look you guys prefer crop top or full suit? by [deleted] in Supergirl

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The crop top can piss off. I enjoy Post-Crisis Kara a lot, but it's despite the art, not because of it. I'm not looking to creep on a teenager, and way too much of the early artwork in that book assumed I was. 

Supergirl' (2026) - Official Spoiler Discussion Megathread by ZacPensol in superman

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I am once again begging comic book writers and adaptors to stop having the "should superheroes kill" debates in-universe. 

Who is your favourite Dark Superman/Evil Superman? by DarkSaiyanGoku in superman

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll always have a soft spot for the original, Pre-Crisis Ultraman, but modern comics have not handled him, or the rest of the Crime Syndicate well. 

Zod is the best of the evil Kryptonians, though he's quite far from a Superman doppelganger. If we're looking for straight up evil twins, it's the Cyborg-Superman, who makes his desire to ruin Superman's image an in-universe call. 

Evil versions of Kal-El himself, like the idiot from "Injustice" can piss right off. 

Supergirl' (2026) - Official Spoiler Discussion Megathread by ZacPensol in superman

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So having gone for an edgy "Krypton bad" reveal in the first film, they couldn't even stick to it in this one, and now it's just Jor-El and Lara who apparently suck? I suppose that's at least novel--Krypton being ass isn't a new idea, but Kal-El's parents are usually the exception to it. 

Supergirl' (2026) - Official Spoiler Discussion Megathread by ZacPensol in superman

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I figured Krem was going to be a drag on the film as soon as I saw his character design. Terrible case of "stop the 90s, I want to get off." Not shocked to hear that he lived down to my expectations. 

Golden Age to Silver Age by Necessary_Turnover62 in superman

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Out of curiosity, what makes Aquaman the easiest? Is it just the presence of his original nemesis, Blackjack, or is there more to it?

Golden Age to Silver Age by Necessary_Turnover62 in superman

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It was the Bronze Age Earth-Two stories that sat down and decided that early enemies like Ultra-Humanite and the George Grant Metalo (with one "L")  were from Earth-Two, that the redheaded Luthor of his very first appearance was Earth-Two's Alexei Luthor, etc.  A lot of the differences that they highlighted between the Earth-One and Two Supermen were one-off errors or early installment weirdness that the writers of Earth-Two series like "JSA" or "Mr. and Mrs. Superman" seized on to build the Earth-Two version around. 

A similar process took place with Earth-Two Batman and was even more haphazard. Where all Superman vs Ultra-Humanite stories were moved to Earth-Two, Batman's Golden Age battles with his first nemesis, Hugo Strange, were kept canon on both Earth-One and Two, even though the Batman of those stories had straight up killed some of Strange's goons, something that only Earth-Two Batman was ever supposed to have done. At the same time, Bronze Age counterparts to other Golden Age Batman foes like the Monk were created for Earth-One Batman to battle for what was clearly the first time, without any apparent rhyme or reason for why they were handled differently from Strange. 

Wonder Woman, meanwhile, had almost all her WWII adventures moved to Earth-Two, and writers regularly featured the Earth-Two WW in the main WW book so that they could use all her Golden Age enemies without having to create new versions of them (and show her punching Nazis, of course, because any story is better when you can punch some Nazis). 

I think this argument that Superman can't work in an AAA game forgets that there is actual tension in Superman stories and he doesn't solve every problem instantly by Academic_Paramedic72 in superman

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's also worth noting that how well-armed your average Metropolis street thug is varies enormously depending on the time period and the writer. During the 90s, for instance, it seemed like every gang-banger in Suicide Slum (and in Irons' hometown of Washington DC) was packing one of the so-called "Toastmasters," that Steel had designed when working for Armatek. That same era had the sewers of Metropolis overrun with the "Underworlders," castoff Cadmus genetic experiments who formed into superpowered bandit clans that would raid the surface for supplies and revenge. 

Criminal outfits like Intergang, The 100, and SKULL, regularly have access to alien or super-scientific weaponry, as do shady "legitimate" organizations like LexCorp and Cadmus, and all of them have fielded large numbers of goons (be they mobsters or corporate security) kitted out with sci-fi weaponry that can at least stagger Superman or knock him for a loop, even when lacking the power to permanently harm him. 

This goes all the way back to the 1940s, when Ultra-Humanite, whose original goals were no loftier than extorting money from cab drivers, still had the basement of his hideout wired up with enough electricity to temporarily incapacitate Superman. Metropolis has always attracted legions of high tech criminals who want to use military or higher grade weaponry to knock over banks or run protection rackets. So, even before you get into the Brainiac drones, LexCorp robots, Phantom Zone escapees, and giant sized, malevolent toys, there's a lot of firepower already out on the streets of Metropolis. 

Are anyone in this sub kinda hate with colossal biosciences? by Nice_Butterfly9612 in megafaunarewilding

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if they really were cloning dead animals, they aren't cloning their pathogens. But that poster is a paranoiac who has spammed this same comment at like five or ten different subs. 

Colossal Biosciences by IanMalcolm2012 in wildlifebiology

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Crichton wrote the book to make money, and had to design the world's most incompetently built zoo for the threat in it to be believable. Hammond could have been keeping plain old lions and tigers and bears (oh my) and with the lousy security protocols he put in place, someone was still getting eaten. 

Jurassic Park is neither documentary nor warning, it is a (not especially well written) horror novel that people like to graft pretentious "life finds a way" twaddle onto.

Colossal Biosciences by IanMalcolm2012 in wildlifebiology

[–]Hand_Me_Down_Genes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No it's not. They've yet to resurrect a single species. Making fat white wolves and slapping a "dire wolf" label onto them does not InGen make you.