2007-03-10, 04:36 | Link #82 | |||
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
|
Yeah! Japanese animated revisionist history. I want to play too!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
they're called liberals . |
|||
2007-03-10, 09:50 | Link #83 | |
Sleepy Lurker
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nun'yabiznehz
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Anyway, spoilers and magazines information have been pointing a less-than-subtle finger at a certain person. Spoiler:
__________________
|
|
2007-03-19, 12:24 | Link #85 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Quote:
|
|
2007-03-21, 03:54 | Link #86 | |
Holy Beast ~Wuff!~
Scanlator
|
Quote:
there is a big differences between what one country claims it's governmental system is called, and what's the reality. oh, and me? a satirical Brit? umpossible.
__________________
|
|
2007-03-23, 07:21 | Link #87 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
|
well, i also believe germany to be a federal republic. its economic system however, is called social market economy, which means basically that the state intervenes into the market and helps each citizen with offering free education and so on.
and why would should they not make the eu (which seems technologically pretty advanced after seeing ep 22) democratic, and chinese federation communists? itīs a clichee that chinese are communists, so why not make them like that in cg universe. and we all know the eu in our universe tries to unify europe on a long term basis, why think of something totally new, the writers could just state that in the cg universe, they already suceeded. |
2007-03-31, 00:32 | Link #88 |
Resident cynic
|
Depending on the theory of Americain government you choose to identify with, you may interpret the US government differently.
1) Elitist Theory: The government is controlled by a small social elite. The elite does not necisarily cooperate (rarely does, in fact). 2) Pluralist: Interest groups make sure that political leaders are aware of the issues at hand. Since there are so many, there is no particular political elite since everyone gets the same ammount of say. Note: "Elite" does not refer to the economic elite, though there is a degree of overlap. The elite are the people who are active in the political process. This includes everyone from the members of the NRA (national rifle association) to to the ALF (Animal Liberation Front). The elite often clash over issues, given their often massive gap in ideaology. The US is a Federal Democratic Rebublic (back on topic) As to the discrepancy in the timeline, it is possible that 2017 is simply a discrepancy made by the staff, asuming people would assume that meant AD, or, it is possible even that whoever established the dating system made a mistake at when the empire was actually established. After all, Christ was actually born somewhere arround 4 AD, not 1 (major oops on someone's part). |
2007-04-05, 20:56 | Link #89 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Yeah, the idea that Britannia is the Irish empire is most interesting indeed. Anyone Irish around here? I would like to hear your opinion on this.
__________________
|
|
2007-04-05, 21:07 | Link #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
It's a neat theory, but it doesn't really work since the Celts aren't exactly unique to Ireland. The Celtic inhabitants of Britain at the time of the Roman invasion were fairly diverse groups that were rarely cordial with outsiders, and the Irish Celts would definitely qualify as such.
__________________
|
2007-04-16, 18:13 | Link #91 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
With 98 Emperors... all saying ruled for about 20 years... give or take... given to some chances of the civil wars mentioned... was about 1960 years of legitimacy of Emperors... by the looks of it they were not always of the same house, as it seems with the many sons and daughters that the 98th one has. (Used as an example.)
As for how this started, probably due to a council of the kings of Britannia (or effectively The British isles)... with one united chief, it would seem that they could hold off the Romans and keep their independence. With this they probably stayed trade partners with the Republic, because the Roman Civil war had yet to happen. So as the kings were united... did Rome stay a Republic? or did did a failing Julius still became murdered within the Senate. In fact... did Caesar still have the fame and glory? Even with the Empire being thus, a stable trade and dangers of landing and controlling a beach head, probably kept the Britons alive. Given that they would have a stable kinship, probably developed deep partener ship with Rome. Thus when Rome fell, Briton possibly kept a very strong Roman Imperial sense of rule, especially with the offspring constantly trying to win against one another, the smarter and more charismatic would follow through? As a nexus, or 4th Rome, Londinum (present day London) could have been a support of literary power, A united Briton would be relatively easy to hold against invading barbarians... and without a sword in your back... you can think. So with the fall of Constainople, and the movement of scientists back into the west... could've sparked a Rennaisance not only in Rome... but in London. With such it is possible, that wth the beginning of Colonialism and superiority of strategic placement, would've been better off in the arms struggle with Spain and France. With the Neopolianic Wars... maybe Britain would've been far more effective with a constant struggle with its own elites to be the best? Further still, Even with the Declaration of Independence... maybe the greater power of the elite and constant adaptation ability, would've fared much better in the American theatre, possibly winning the war. America could've possibly developed much faster, with no regard with the Native Indians due to its deeply rooted beliefs of Ranked society? Indians as Numbers? Even with the opening of Japan, it could be seen as a strong example of Britannian as the main opening force... firing of the guns in the port. With the future control of South america, and Central America, and continue control of India, South Africa and Austrailia... I can easily imagine that Britannia could hold 1/3 of the world's land mass. Though I believe the World Wars would become null and void, as a tiny Germany would not be able to stand up to the massive industrial and superior manpower that the Britannians could field. AS for military tactics, they porbably could be found within Britannians favour, due to a constantly competing enviroment... and a wide variety of views which could be found within the Empire. nuclear development possibly could have been developed... and may have limited the world to one war... Would the depression still exist... it is unknown. However... this is just what I think. More focus on the Britannian evolution than the other world governments. (Would Charlemange still be crowned the Emperor of the Romans... I wonder...) Edit: In support with the council of the british kings... A.T.B... I assume is the timeline frame of reference which stands for (Ascension Throne Britannia) or the beginning of the Imperial line. I know I saw this ATB thing somewhere else... magazine exceprt I believe. Thus 2017 ATB... given with 1960 years or Britannia hier... 20 years average a piece to each emperor.... it could be seen that the timeline appears to work. Last edited by Nazaroth; 2007-04-16 at 21:49. Reason: Addition of the A.T.B time refernce. |
2007-04-23, 01:36 | Link #92 |
Crux
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: United States
Age: 32
|
I believe, in order for an Irish-esque Britannian *empire* to exist, the Romans would have had to conquer the whole of Britain in order to completely eliminate any sort of *regional* culture clash that could supplement any other conflicts there would be in a united Britannia.
North & South was the main issue behind Roman Britain and Celtic Britain (main reason Britain could not unite as early as other modern "nations" did [differences between Scotland and England]) as North & South was more obviously seen as the central issue in the United States Civil War. Believe it or not, a regional culture clash is the worst kind of conflict that can exist within a nation since it divides sociopolitical and even economic aspects affiliated with the regions themselves. If the Romans did successfully conquer the entirety of Britain and maybe even Ireland for some time, Im sure they wouldve been unable to completely exterminated the Celtic culture. Since all of it would be under Roman control, at least the Celts living in a Romano-Britain would be equally influenced and/or maltreated by the Roman conquerors, therefore making it slightly easier for a Celtic rebellion to begin and succeed in order to form a loosely united Celtic state. At the very least, the Roman Civil War would have done much to damage the Roman political organization system of Britain allowing the Celts to slowly rise to the point that the Celts gain control of themselves through the system set up by their former oppressors. Upon full realization of the fall of the Roman Empire and the loosened state tightens following whatever crises that may result directly from it is when I believe they would have likely taken up the name Britannia. A huge problem, however, is pretty much how the Anglo-Saxon invasion would have played out around what we know as the 1000s A.D., because that would a determine a big deal of how exactly Britannia would progress afterwards. Religion is also a big issue. Apparently the Spanish wouldve still held a grudge against Britain sometime around the discovery of the New World for some reason and difference of religion would have been the only thing to authorize such a conflict. Its kind of awkward to look at since the majority of Irish people in general were then and are Catholic now. Since we have deformed the history of Britain, its quite indistinguishable. Apparently, whichever religion prevailed in Britannia would have been greatly accepted so that the colonization of the New World would be purely economic and strategic with the majority of the colonists having no reason to dislike Britannia and for no reason for Britannia to dislike the colonies (as long as they impose taxes extremely early on in the colonization game to eliminate most of the problems that escalated the Revolutionary War). I guess the rest is history from there? Im sure, though, that there is much, much more to address. |
2007-04-24, 13:14 | Link #93 |
Dietrich fan #681675
|
I'm just curious to see what you guys think about this.
I initially was under the impression that Britannia controls all of North America because of the fact that they suppressed the American Revolution, thus preventing the USA from ever existing. After watching Code Geass episode 1 (DVD version), I noticed that when they showed the map of Britannia invading Japan from what we know of as the United States, there were locations that were clearly US locations. Mainly, an "IOWA BASE" for the Britannian Air Force, a "LA BASE" and "SEATTLE BASE" for their Navy (I think) and also some base in Anchorage, Alaska. Is it safe to assume Britannia, at some point in time, invaded the US and conquered us? Or were they ruling the United States from the beginning and these locations just match by coincidence? |
2007-04-24, 13:23 | Link #94 |
性転換 団長
|
^ I was curious about the same issue, but couldn't quite find enough evidence to hit either theory.
The only idea I can come up with is the loss Britannia suffered in the Geass timeline's Battle of Trafalgar (ep. 9, classroom scene?), which in our time was Britain's greatest naval victory in history. This would support a theory that Britain actually might have relinquished control of the British Isles in the Geass timeline to the EU, and only control the Americas and the rest of their colonies. Granted I'm no expert in history, fictional or otherwise, so there's bound to be holes in all these different theories until the writers of Geass give us more to chew on.
__________________
|
2007-04-24, 16:03 | Link #96 |
Narcoleptic Insomniac
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philippines
|
Does anyone have info on what the other areas are, especially those pre-Area 11? [that'd be Areas 1-10].
I was thinking of posting this on the Q&A thread but there might not be any info on this at all so I guess it's open to speculation... Britannians strongly distinguish themselves from "Numbers" which means Area 1 probably isn't the mainland. I wonder where "mainland" is? Real world US, if we base it on the "invasion map" shown in the first few eps? |
2007-04-24, 17:51 | Link #97 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
|