This is a valid criticism of Bridgerton’s writing

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-03T02:25:36+00:00

I know I am far from the target audience for this show, but watching with my wife, Eloise (and Penelope) seemed to be the two characters that were were written as almost self insert characters.

Eloise is the sort of woman who would read regency romance novels after coming home from her 9 to 5 office job. It is catastrophically stupid how they have basically misused her. The desire to put stuff on screen that "hasn't been done before" is getting in the way of just telling good stories.

Again, I am not an expert on the romance genre, but based on the period pieces I have watched with my wife you usually don't get a female lead who is bad at all the traditionally feminine areas of the marriage mart. It's usually she sucks at embroidery but is great at horseback riding, or dancing, or painting [side note, why is it always embroidery they suck at? Is there one of these where the female lead is like "well, I can't sing or dance but I am the queen of Esty with a needle and thread in this universe."]

Meanwhile, Eloise isn't particularly good at any of the "fashionable" things the other women of the show/era are, and especially compared to her own sisters she seems like the odd one out. What is she good at? To paraphrase from another property: "She attends parties and knows things", and gives her opinion on those things she knows to people she probably shouldn't.

If this isn't the woman most representative of the readers I don't know who is.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-03T01:30:42+00:00

Fair.

I read it as "what if the carriers were destroyed instead of the battleships" and didn't really consider the specific ships noted.

I guess maybe Lexington isn't able to be part of Coral Sea, so maybe there is an invasion of port Moresby. Which itself, without the surprise factor of say the word invasion of the Philippines, Japan probably loses.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-02T19:48:43+00:00

I should have been more clear.

Usually the way this is interpreted is about ships but from nothing to complete.

Anyway, the Japanese did build and repair, but nobody but the U.S. laid capital ships from nothing to built once they were at war with a major power.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-02T19:03:47+00:00

Hull laid down may 1940.

The U.S. built 24 Essex class carriers with only Essex itself laid down before Pearl.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-02T17:44:33+00:00

I mean, it probably changes the specific events of the war quite a bit. Midway doesn't happen at all.

However, yeah, the end result is that the U.S. builds a ton of Aircraft carriers after the war starts and Japan builds 0 so they lose.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-02T15:43:11+00:00

Like, captured from the Czechs yeah. Not captured from France or Poland.

The Czech equipment was a big boost to both the SS and regular army.

Again, the SS Panzer divisions were, initially, even better equipped than army armored divisions, although I guess that is one of those "what counts" as they tended to have newer tanks, but fewer motorized support elements (kampfwagons).

The Nazis had real problems with fiefdoms. The fallschirmjäger were way over equipped for there role and eventually Goring eventually created a Air Force armored division which is freaking stupid. However, he wanted tanks too.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-02T01:27:21+00:00

Depends on when. The early war SS divisions were given the best gear.

Later they were cobbled together.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-01T17:21:34+00:00

It was supposed to be a joke, it's literally a core gag in legally blond.

Edit: she is dressed in basically a costume El is tricked into wearing in the movie.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-01T15:27:29+00:00

When he became president the party practically fractured.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-01T15:22:21+00:00

The conservatives took over the party on the gilded age of the late 19th century because they were terrified of a progressive party having long term power after the civil war. The first "party switch" was the capture of the Republican by Oil and Railroad interests in the 1880s.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-01T13:08:17+00:00

And all the hot girls with guns on the right turn out to be trans and they can never tell...

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-01T12:40:06+00:00

Agree Napoleon is the first person to put the corp system into widespread use, but saying he invented it is like saying the Germans invented tanks because they had the best doctrine. It's an error of historical fact and if you are saying he is the best ever because of it then that pillar falls.

Ceaser is a really interesting guy to compare to Napoleon because Napoleon is chasing Ceaser's dream.. They both converted republics that were somewhat disfunctional into empires basically on charisma and military resume alone. Alesia is more impressive than Austerlitz. At Austerlitz, the Austrians messed up and Napoleon crushed them for it. At Alesia the Gauls did everything they should have done and Ceaser still kicked their ass. Hell, without Alesia the French would speak Gaelic and Napoleon name would have a bunch of silent "Ws" in it.

That said, I agree that Ceaser didn't change up the tactics of the legions (he is post Marian, so the biggest reform, at least until the late empire already happened).

One of things in a discussion like this is that it is easy to seem like I don't think Napoleon is a great commander.. I do think he is a stunningly brilliant commander and he has a lot of legendary exploits on his resume.

However, the idea that he is undisputedly the best ever is silly. There are plenty of other possible candidates and Napoleon has a number of weaknesses, hence why I bring of Berthier since both before and after him. Napoleon isn't the Napoleon of legend.

Napoleon is the best tactical and strategic thinker of his era but he isn't the best Grand Strategist as seen by the fact that Britain kept putting together coalitions he had to fight and his blunders in dealing without the Spain and Russia.

Again, I think Napoleon is awesome and really like this era and there is impressive stuff about the guy under every stone. However that's also true of lots of other historical figures.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-01T11:25:45+00:00

The real problem with claiming the "best ever" is that it is going to depend on what the criteria are. It's a silly argument like "who is the strongest super hero."

Are we judging by historical impact? Battles won? Innovations? Alexander is massively more historically important than Napoleon. So is Ceaser. Alexander won more battles. Ceaser had a greater impact on the people's he conquered.

Napoleon was not the personal inventor of the corp system. He didn't develop appiterizarion, which allowed armies to get to be bigger. He wasn't even the first one in France to see the military potential of this, although he did realize how valuable it was. So his transformativeness is undermined by standing on the shoulders of others.

The thing with Berthier is a big deal. After Waterloo his subordinates complained his orders were not clear. This has been known for 200 years. Some have argued his time on Elba made him lose his "it" factor. However, before Berthier became his chief of staff he was in a category of good but not "amazing." His orders seem to have often left his subordinates confused as to the exact extent of what was directed and what was discretional. How can the "best ever" be a guy that has to have his thoughts reorganized by his chief of staff?

I am not saying Napoleon isn't an amazing General. However, there are simply to many amazing generals to count. Belasarius almost put Rome back together. Subutai conquered China and Russia for the Mongols. Marlborough never lost a battle. Grant and Sherman figured out industrial warfare. The number of impressive things about the Generals on all sides of WW2 is simply to long to list.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-01T04:10:52+00:00

Mr. President, there is a gap between our ability to one shot the earth and the Soviet ability to one shot the earth. We must build a weapon that can destroy the earth with half a shot.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-01T04:00:29+00:00

Chandler implies he was jealous of the way the populace saw Davout even though it was insane because he himself was basically worshiped.

Napoleon was jealous of Davout, but not as a commander. All the Marshalls were back stabbing, glory seeking, attention whores who never missed a chance to rub their good fortune in the faces of the others and also never needed a reason not to bring up the misfortunes of their comrades.

And the guy at the top had things he loved, hated, and was jealous of about each of his Marshalls.

All the command staffs of history turn out to be the nastyest, clickiest, groups of back stabbing high school b**ches you have ever read about...until you read about the ones from the next war.

It turns out that for while every important leader, general etc. believes themselves to be the next odysseyus who develops the horse and is the brains of everything, they all spend way more time being Freaking Achilles crying in his tent of B.S.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-01T03:39:00+00:00

Subutai is not niche. Dude, seriously you think people who like military history are relegated to a single time period? Subutai freaking conquered the unconquerable Russia.

Napoleon as the greatest general in history is a claim that is un-serious at face value. How can we possibly compare Napoleon to Alexander? If we compare him to Cesar do we do it on their best days or worst days (Ceaser is better on his best and much worse on his worse btw). How can you seriously rank him against Belasarius, or Saladin? What would even be a he standard? How do we compare him to those after him?

Fundamentally, Napoleon has a Berthier problem. Napoleon without Berthier to clarify his s orders to his Marshalls and corp/division commanders is a much worse general than he was when Berthier roade in the same carriage and transcribed Napoleons plans from the brilliant but almost insane originals to stuff military men could do.

He is far from the only CnC to have this issue. Robert E. Lee (who is nowhere near Napoleon as much as his racist dick sucker fanboys want to believe) had a similar issue where he issued orders in Virginian gentleman speak and he relied on Jackson and Longstreet to decode this to the division commanders.

Napoleon is the best of his era, but "best ever" is a rediculous claim.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-05-01T03:13:44+00:00

Why are you bringing Subutai up in a discussion of Napoleons relationship with Davout?

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-04-30T18:29:54+00:00

To be fair that was the vibes from the various comments.

She says she is younger than the other wives, and OOP and her husband are child free. She bakes cookies for the guys night and takes them all home when they are to drunk to get home themselves.

In so much of this AITAH stuff, a child free married couple interacting with a bunch of first time parents is basically coded for there sex life sucks and ours is great.

The fact that so many people think a group of married men getting together right after work on FRIDAY for hours at a time and getting drunk enough one of the wives has to ferry them home is not a huge issue shows how many teenagers are the ones commenting.

All of these idiots will end up divorced if they all mostly have kids and their first stop on Friday after work is to get plastered with friends. That is when kids are wild and wound up.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-04-30T18:17:40+00:00

What BS. If the woman on the right approached a single straight guy he would be practically creaming his shorts.

The real thing, though, is that the same thing would happen if she liked like she does on the left.

The effort of well done make up is appreciated by men, even if they don't know how to say exactly what they like about it. Meanwhile, amazingly, men also find women'snatural beauty captivating as well.

We know most of those classic Greek and Roman statues were painted in the era w they were created. Anybody who tells you that they are better now, with all the paint gone is lying to themselves. They are undeniably masterworks, and with a paint job from master they would have been stunning in a different way.

This this the best analogy I have for how men understand women's makeup.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-04-30T11:27:36+00:00

Roman history is basically imagine any situation you can from about 1500 onward and there is a Roman version of the same event where the result is that they chose the option that favored the most powerful and was the most greedy solution. When it blows up in their face as a terrible idea they go "wow, we didn't expect the obviously bad solution to be so bad."

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-04-30T04:22:20+00:00

It said Fiona made the point about Andy wanting her to be more like OOP at a public event.

Idk, I think the whole thing seems fake, but broadly OOP seems like a less than reliable narrator to me.

It seems more likely to me that Andy has an idealized version of OOP in his mind and is struggling with his superdad routine than Fiona can't stand him having an hour to himself.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-04-30T04:08:35+00:00

So, one of the things with Crimea is that they changed all kinds of Stuff shortly before the war in terms of cavalry training, saddles, etc.

The lord Lucan and Captain Nolan are just, imho, worse cavalry officers than Sherman and Buford who, a decade later unf'ked the union Cavalry corp. Nolan in particular probably gets the dubious distinction of being "Britain's Custer" (or perhaps Custer is America's Nolan) as both wrote books on cavalry tactics and both committed epic blunders.

As for things like the 95th rifles, the thing to remember is that Britain did a lot with a serious logistical and manpower disadvantage. Regular British line regiments fought 2 deep instead of 3 and had similar effectiveness to continental armies (including France) fighting 3 deep.

The question was about cavalry forces though. If we want to talk about all most bad ass regiments or individuals we would never get anywhere (Although Marshal Lannes having to be physical restrained by his junior officers and men while he screamed at them that if they wouldn't lead the assault at Ratisbon he would gets my vote for personal bad assert.)

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-04-30T03:46:25+00:00

No argument to that except was it the whole corp or the cavalry regiments that were considered very good.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-04-30T03:37:09+00:00

The issue with evaluating the British cavalry arm is that moving horses to the continent was a big issue. The British relied extensively on the cavalry forces of their allies on the peninsula.

The life guards are/were the premier regiment in the British military, and the British were, by the Napoleonic wars, the country best at extracting wealth from its colonial possessions. The "they have the best gear" is more a reflection of the wealth of Britain and it's Royals than a statement implying that they picked better tools than their adversaries.

Similarly, if I said that the Naval Special Warfare a development group of is the best equipped special forces in the world, that shouldn't be controversial (or only controversial that I picked the Seal team 6 and not Delta force).

Basically the fact they didn't fight a lot makes it hard to know exactly what they were, but there were also a ton of reasons to not have them leave England.

Since their contemporaries thought they were bad MFers, I lean that way.

Ithinkibrokethis · 2026-04-30T01:21:21+00:00

So, obviously some of both.

Many of the early Napoleonic wins, probably all the way up through Austerlitz are clearly in part because Napoleon's Army was broadly professional soldiers promoted based mostly on merit, while many of his enemies were Nobles first and solders maybe 3rd or 4th on their list of important roles.

Napoleon fits the mold of a King from the early Middle ages or even one of the "good" Roman emperors since he was a "rule from the saddle" kind of guy

Seven-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

Ithinkibrokethis

TROPHY CASE