Heracles the Great Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 The three Great Wars bear their name because of the similarity of the wars. They all had the same thing going for them: LUE/NAAC/GATO vs NPO/NpO, it was a war of conquest on both sides. The mission was the same in everyone: GATO/LUE/NAAC wanted to beat the tar out of NPpO. The Unjust War doesn't even come close to a Great War, first of all it did NOT last that long and second of all it didn't exactly have the whole "Destroy NPO" vibe to it. The BLEU War (War of the Coalition) also was not a Great War because again, it did not have the "Destroy NPO" vibe. I could live with this most recent war being called a Great War due to it's anti-NPO nature and the feel of CnG has is very close to that of CoLUEtion/League/(WAEgis)Aegis. The main thing that differs between the Karma War and other Great Wars (other then the fact that the numbers aren't on NPO's side) is that it isn't lead by one war coalition, it is lead by many. (SuperFriends, Complaints and Grievances, Citadel, etc) Again I could live with this being called 'Great War IV' but then again I can see how people would be against calling it GWIV as well. If Great War IV becomes the common name for it, great. If not, great. To be honest, I think people should let the old guard (not the alliance) determine the name of it. Whatever they decide, I'm down with. EDIT: Spelling Well said sir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 No. No. No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodrow Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Yes No and Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorbolt Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 lets call it the Great Global War then considering it is way bigger than anything in the past, and its not the same title as the ones fought between LUE and NPO The Grand Global War even? :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOONS Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Yes No Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 No, no and no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingly Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 admin said this is an epic war, so Epic War I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 A 'great war' is defined by its political characteristics -- namely it is the 'tilting point' in the global dialectic whereby the contradictions that have slowly developed over time come to a point where they can no longer continue, resolving themselves one way or the other in a huge global event (which in turn brings about a new synthesis with new contradictions). In this way the Unjust War was the current war are 'great wars', while the 'War of the Coalition' was not. The claim that a great war is characterised by the alliances that took part is entirely revisionist. It was originally so called due to the potentially world-changing nature of the war and the number of treaties involved. Today when common man speaks of a great war he speak of the above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 I can get behind this being Epic War I (let's pray we see a 2nd one in the future ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Emperor Brian Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) The claim that a great war is characterised by the alliances that took part is entirely revisionist. It was originally so called due to the potentially world-changing nature of the war and the number of treaties involved. Today when common man speaks of a great war he speak of the above. I respectfully disagree. :jihad: admin said this is an epic war, so Epic War I I can get behind this. The Epic War. It just sounds so...epic. Edited April 25, 2009 by Grand Emperor Brian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 I respectfully You'll never fit in here with that sort of attitude. Quick, compare someone to Hitler! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incitatus Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 The claim that a great war is characterised by the alliances that took part is entirely revisionist. It was originally so called due to the potentially world-changing nature of the war and the number of treaties involved. Today when common man speaks of a great war he speak of the above. To a degree I concur with this statement. However, as stated in one of my posts earlier, not only does there have to be a 'world-changing' event that must take place in order for a war to be considered a "Great War", it has to have the 'anti-NPO' feel to it. Also, I like your sig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Salovsky Posted April 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Epic War I is amazingly and epic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Well, I had originally said No, No, and Yes. Epic War I would be good, but there has to be an Epic War II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Salovsky Posted April 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 June? July? That'd be time for EWII. Or same time next year... *shrugs* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.