"Alexander" was an incredibly common name in the Greek world. Even within his own family tree, he was technically Alexander III of Macedon. Using "The Great" was a practical necessity for historians to distinguish him from his father’s predecessors and the dozens of other Alexanders running around the Mediterranean. Plus his scale of impact was absurd! Charlemagne literally means “Charles the Great” because there were many Charleses. Finally, while we usually think of Julius Caesar, "Caesar" became a title used by every Roman Emperor for centuries. It eventually evolved into "Kaiser" and "Tsar". If you just say "Caesar" in a room full of Roman history buffs they actually will ask you to disambiguate which one you mean
Does this technically mean the the little orange freakshow is also a 'Donald the Great'? He's technically the most succesful 'Donald', as the only one why made it to leader of a country and the only one with diapers and a nussy.
Names only stick if history validates you. Plenty of other rulers ended up getting remembered through the lens of discontent, bad press by who came later, and sometimes mistranslation. Ivan IV Grozny was a ruthless dude, but “Grozny” meant awe-provoking or imposing, whereas in English “Terrible” tends to imply evil. Æthelred II Unræd meant “good counsel”, but as that word fell out of use in English he got stuck with “Unready” because it just happens to be similar in form but not meaning.
Donnie probably wishes he’ll be remembered as something special, but informally Diaper Don will outlive him and I don’t foresee history being gentle with its performance review.
Generally speaking, they got those titles because they were beloved by the people and did great things on behalf of their country. Things no other countryman before or after has done.
Not because they're literal pieces of shit shoved into a fat suit that are causing untold death, destruction, chaos, and reputational harm to their country of origin.
There's a reason why there's no historical monikers for Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Putin, etc.
It's because they're pieces of shit that fuck everything up in the world and nobody likes them now.
Guess which category "Orange Mussolini" is in? I'll give you a hint. The hint is in the phrase "Orange Mussolini".
Not necessarily. I originally thought the phrase "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" from the Bible referred to Julius Caesar, but apparently it refers to Tiberius.
Though in modern times "Caesar" almost ubiquitously is referencing Julius
Almost correct. The title Caesar derives from Gaius Julius Caesars (the "OG") lastname Caesar. It was used by successors to imply a lineage between them and Caesar and therefore give them more legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
The guy was called Charles le Magne (French for Charles the Great) and some barely literate idiot who had somehow* got the translator job in spite of clearly not being anywhere near fluent in French made up a stupid new word born of ignorance that the English speaking world has been using ever since.
*I'm guessing he was the failson of the groom of the stool or something like that.
I don't know when that happened for the English language, but Charlemagne (as a single word) is also what the French language calls him, the earliest variations of it appearing in the Song of Roland (11th c.)
So you're telling me that, presumably due to medieval French people having an irrational fear of spaces between words or an allergy to proper kerning, his name WAS actually the equivalent of Charlesthegreat like some German compound noun weirdness?
an irrational fear of spaces between words or an allergy to proper kerning
Yeah uh, medieval language was not nearly as entrenched in rules and grammar, and absolutely not set in stone. Things changed from one text to another - even within the same text. The same Song of Roland writes that same name in a few different ways, some with spaces, some without, with different letters.
From the French Wikipedia, count'em :
Carles (vers 1) ou Charles (28, vers 370), Carles li magnes (68, vers 841) ou Charles li magnes (93, vers 1195), traductions de Carolus magnus, mais aussi Carlemagnes (33, vers 430) ou Charlemaignes (138, vers 1842)
"Boss, I can save you a couple of deniers' worth of ink and paper over the course of the tome by writing Charlemagne instead of Charles Le Magne every time we refer to the great king."
"Brilliant! You get an extra serving of gruel for lunch!"
The name Charlemagne annoys me because in most other languages it's Charles (or Karl) the Great, but in English and apparently French it's shortened to Charlemagne though he was originally Charles Le Magne in French?
Among Greeks, if you say Alexandros (or Philip for that matter) then people will know who you are talking about. But basically, those names are still in use. Caesar became the word for leaders rather than a name, and it's relatively rare as a first name.
Charlemagne is actually Charles le magne which means Charles the Great. If you called him "King Charles" you'd need to be much more specific.
I can't speak for Attila, because I don't know if the name is popular in any particular cultures. Certainly in the USA, the Hun king is the most famous Attila.
Slim Shady is an interesting example, because its's basically branding for Marshall Mathers aka Eminem. One of his first widespread hits was a song essentially saying that he's the only real Slim Shady, and anyone else using that nickname is a copycat poser.
Alexander is a common name, but it depends on context, if you say "at the time Alexander conquered X" most people would understand, but if you say "Alexander was here" you might be talking about a work college.
There's not only one Caesar, while you probably beat Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius and others were also "Caesar", and you might referring to any of them. For example, "give to Caesar what is Caesar’s" does not refer to the same Caesar you probably meant.
Slim shady is a made up name and it's way more specific than the .
Charlemagne is short for Charles Magnus, or in English Charles the great, so that's exactly the same.
Attila is a very unique name, I've never met nor heard about any other Attila so the name is disambiguation enough, but it's likely that if that is a common name in some country they have an extra qualifier to it, I've heard Attila the Hun, but there might be others.
There's nothing special, if a name is common you need disambiguation, if a name is overly specific you don't, same reason why we have last names, "I met with John the other day", "which John?", "The Smith", "Ah yeah, John Smith, not John the son of Richard", "No, I haven't seen John Richardson in a few weeks".
Well, those are fairly uniquely-identifiable names in the scheme of things. "Caesar" isn't just the guy at your local pizzeria, but THE Caesar of Caesars. "Charlemagne" is a combination of the common name "Charles" and <"great"> as with Alexander. "Attila" is a rarer name, already with a certain stigma, so quite unique in that sense.
"Alex" / "Alexander" is still a pretty common name today, so it makes some sense that there'd be a qualifier. Not unlike with Peter the Great , Catherine the Great, etc...
Also I would say Atilla is usually called Atilla the Hun in most textbooks I saw in the U.S. Also since Caesar became a position/title we still say Julius to specifically refer to him.
As for Slim Shady, I seem to remember many people standing up to that name
Also I would say Atilla is usually called Atilla the Hun
Good point, and I think I whiffed a bit on that one. "Atilla" is actually a name still used sometimes today across Europe, so "the Hun" definitely adds some helpful context.
Also since Caesar became a position/title we still say Julius to specifically refer to him.
You mean, in Italy?
In the States, I feel like it's pretty clear that "Caesar" without further context refers to either a leader / dictator / emperor of the Julio-Claudian line, or more commonly to Julius himself. The point being that if you're referring to one of the emperors, it's usually necessary to name them, i.e. "Caesar Tiberius," etc.
Yeah now to show our Archilles, I have no idea what else I would call Saladin, but Saladin. Im sure a textbook full names him somewhere.. but I haven't ever remembered it.
Slim Shady is a self invented stage name so there is not really a point in anyone adopting it as their own unless they are comfortable being called a copycat all the time.
there's several caesars, slim shady nobody else has that name, Charlemagne is French for Charles the Great, and Attila was antiwestern so they wouldn't name him "great"
He's asking why is it Alexander the Great but not Caesar the Great. If Alexander was so great, he wouldn't need "the great" after his name. Alexander itself would be enough.
:::spoiler The Great is a shortened euphemism for The Great Asshole.
Prior to Alexander, simple city-state like entities were dominant and the norm. No one had to bear the tax of some professional army or deal with the federations of disparate polities. Shit gets real bad, everyone goanna die this winter from starvation, worst case is city vs city raids. Lots to try to trade across cities where many skilled trades and goods are unique but quality varied. Getting raided? NP, retreat to the walls with your belongings and defend with your neighbors. You know nearly everyone on the walls beside you. Wives and daughters worry, but the idle times and company are more jubilant than not. The differential in forces is negligible. Defending is a massive advantage. There are very few creative innovators around that are focused on attacking. Raiding is about poor management, resource scarcity, and minor thievery. Where the former are larger parties and latter are smaller.
Along comes The Great Asshole, and here come the pro bro brutes. They are the first regional sized force. The whole group of them are totally desensitized to morality. This is not some parity or simple innovation of technology. This is - it does not matter that a coalition of cities are banded for defense. No one has ever seen a force so large and so murderous. These are the military engineers.
Brutishness is so very limited in real value. It only matters in one on one engagements with limited constraints. Humans are not predators of strength, but of endurance.
The real strength to fear are the engineers. The creative innovators are scary as fuck. When a group of them are focused on the innovations of murder orgies, common folks are a thrashing harvest.
After The Great Asshole, you no longer have some negligible tax to help pay for the walls. Now you pay a much larger sum. The city is dotted with these new professional murder chaps that work for this raider fuckwit asshat that killed Gerry, the guy at the forum market everyone liked. You know, the one with the two gorgeous daughters everyone loved. You would not believe the terrible things the guy in the tower did to them. The whole city heard it, every night for weeks.
Now here you are on a wall next to a bunch of guys you do not know. They seem halfway alright most of the time, but you just know they are not leaving until all your reserves for the winter are gone. Half of your neighbors are dead or left the countryside. Your shack of a home, it is the third time you had to toss something together. The old raiders are looking for food and goods, but these new sadistic fucks burn your shit down for kicks and giggles. Now, uncle dude is not just enslaved in yondertown. He is literally abducted by aliens. People just disappear and no one knows what happened. The party is over, decency is dead, tyranny of the foreigner reigns supreme, hailing from a place you never knew existed. You never imagined humans could be so vile, so cruel, so terrifying. You never felt so violated, so traumatized, so helpless, so lonely. That was the real change.
The population reached a size and wealth that made a test of true human nature possible. Alex was simply at the right time and place to manage an engineering core of mass murder orgies profession that was at the transition point of local to regional wealth management. It was a giant regression and depression of progress that ground everywhere Alex touched to a crawl by the force of attenuation; the way things recovered were a shell of what could have been achieved without attenuation and the same resources and effort gone into amplification. That is always the case, as proven by tit for tat plus ten percent forgiveness solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma problem within Statistics. One of the most persistent primitive stupidities present across time and human culture thus far is the failure to understand how attenuation cannot amplify. Shame does not produce positive change. Alex was the great monster. A serial killer in parallel port operation.
•»ÀĪÙ¬§¬¶¬×
:::
61 Comments
samsamsamsam@discuss.online · 91 pts · 118d
"Alexander" was an incredibly common name in the Greek world. Even within his own family tree, he was technically Alexander III of Macedon. Using "The Great" was a practical necessity for historians to distinguish him from his father’s predecessors and the dozens of other Alexanders running around the Mediterranean. Plus his scale of impact was absurd! Charlemagne literally means “Charles the Great” because there were many Charleses. Finally, while we usually think of Julius Caesar, "Caesar" became a title used by every Roman Emperor for centuries. It eventually evolved into "Kaiser" and "Tsar". If you just say "Caesar" in a room full of Roman history buffs they actually will ask you to disambiguate which one you mean
Tommelot@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 117d
Does this technically mean the the little orange freakshow is also a 'Donald the Great'? He's technically the most succesful 'Donald', as the only one why made it to leader of a country and the only one with diapers and a nussy.
backalleycoyote@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 117d
Names only stick if history validates you. Plenty of other rulers ended up getting remembered through the lens of discontent, bad press by who came later, and sometimes mistranslation. Ivan IV Grozny was a ruthless dude, but “Grozny” meant awe-provoking or imposing, whereas in English “Terrible” tends to imply evil. Æthelred II Unræd meant “good counsel”, but as that word fell out of use in English he got stuck with “Unready” because it just happens to be similar in form but not meaning.
Donnie probably wishes he’ll be remembered as something special, but informally Diaper Don will outlive him and I don’t foresee history being gentle with its performance review.
neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 117d
Generally speaking, they got those titles because they were beloved by the people and did great things on behalf of their country. Things no other countryman before or after has done.
Not because they're literal pieces of shit shoved into a fat suit that are causing untold death, destruction, chaos, and reputational harm to their country of origin.
There's a reason why there's no historical monikers for Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Putin, etc.
It's because they're pieces of shit that fuck everything up in the world and nobody likes them now.
Guess which category "Orange Mussolini" is in? I'll give you a hint. The hint is in the phrase "Orange Mussolini".
rudyharrelson@lemmy.radio · 47 pts · 118d
Not necessarily. I originally thought the phrase "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" from the Bible referred to Julius Caesar, but apparently it refers to Tiberius.
Though in modern times "Caesar" almost ubiquitously is referencing Julius
TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub · 25 pts · 118d
I'm pretty sure it almost always references the salad.
AskewLord@piefed.social · 14 pts · 118d
His family name became a title for future Emperors.
skulblaka@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 118d
Honestly might be an even harder flex than just being the only Caesar
UPGRAYEDD@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 117d
And the title of Caesar more rightfully translated would be "God King". It implied divinity and super human levels of being.
God being a roman god, not the christian god. So not omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient. But still divine.
Klear@quokk.au · 3 pts · 117d
While it actually means "born through C-section"
Successful_Try543@feddit.org · 8 pts · 118d
His family name is Julius Caesar. Gaius is his given name.
Archer@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 118d
Not many people know this, but Pontius Pilate, inventor of Pilates, also had another lesser known historical role
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 118d
It's/was basically the chief. Kaiser comes from that word IIRC. It's a bit like "king". Julius just made it stick to him, a bit like a brand name!
einkorn@feddit.org · 16 pts · 118d
Almost correct. The title Caesar derives from Gaius Julius Caesars (the "OG") lastname Caesar. It was used by successors to imply a lineage between them and Caesar and therefore give them more legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
deranger@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 118d
Tsar/Czar is also derived from Caesar.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 26 pts · 118d
Fun fact: there was actually zero Charlesmagnes.
The guy was called Charles le Magne (French for Charles the Great) and some barely literate idiot who had somehow* got the translator job in spite of clearly not being anywhere near fluent in French made up a stupid new word born of ignorance that the English speaking world has been using ever since.
*I'm guessing he was the failson of the groom of the stool or something like that.
Uruanna@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 117d
I don't know when that happened for the English language, but Charlemagne (as a single word) is also what the French language calls him, the earliest variations of it appearing in the Song of Roland (11th c.)
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 117d
So you're telling me that, presumably due to medieval French people having an irrational fear of spaces between words or an allergy to proper kerning, his name WAS actually the equivalent of Charlesthegreat like some German compound noun weirdness?
Huh. TIL!
Uruanna@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 117d
Yeah uh, medieval language was not nearly as entrenched in rules and grammar, and absolutely not set in stone. Things changed from one text to another - even within the same text. The same Song of Roland writes that same name in a few different ways, some with spaces, some without, with different letters.
From the French Wikipedia, count'em :
GraniteM@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 117d
"Boss, I can save you a couple of deniers' worth of ink and paper over the course of the tome by writing Charlemagne instead of Charles Le Magne every time we refer to the great king."
"Brilliant! You get an extra serving of gruel for lunch!"
Uruanna@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 117d
Save ink by removing spaces! Brilliant.
GraniteM@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 117d
Charles Le Magne
Charle
sLeMagneCharlemagne
Save three letters per instance of the name being used. If it's a history of French royalty, that adds up!
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 117d
SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 118d
Charlemagne is in the same boat, it means Charles the Great
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 118d
I did not know that, and now I feel foolish
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 117d
The name Charlemagne annoys me because in most other languages it's Charles (or Karl) the Great, but in English and apparently French it's shortened to Charlemagne though he was originally Charles Le Magne in French?
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe · 14 pts · 117d
themeatbridge@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 118d
Among Greeks, if you say Alexandros (or Philip for that matter) then people will know who you are talking about. But basically, those names are still in use. Caesar became the word for leaders rather than a name, and it's relatively rare as a first name.
Charlemagne is actually Charles le magne which means Charles the Great. If you called him "King Charles" you'd need to be much more specific.
I can't speak for Attila, because I don't know if the name is popular in any particular cultures. Certainly in the USA, the Hun king is the most famous Attila.
Slim Shady is an interesting example, because its's basically branding for Marshall Mathers aka Eminem. One of his first widespread hits was a song essentially saying that he's the only real Slim Shady, and anyone else using that nickname is a copycat poser.
Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 118d
If you talk about Philip the Greek in the UK on the other hand, it absolutely does not refer to Alexander the Great.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 118d
Alexander is a common name, but it depends on context, if you say "at the time Alexander conquered X" most people would understand, but if you say "Alexander was here" you might be talking about a work college.
There's not only one Caesar, while you probably beat Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius and others were also "Caesar", and you might referring to any of them. For example, "give to Caesar what is Caesar’s" does not refer to the same Caesar you probably meant.
Slim shady is a made up name and it's way more specific than the .
Charlemagne is short for Charles Magnus, or in English Charles the great, so that's exactly the same.
Attila is a very unique name, I've never met nor heard about any other Attila so the name is disambiguation enough, but it's likely that if that is a common name in some country they have an extra qualifier to it, I've heard Attila the Hun, but there might be others.
There's nothing special, if a name is common you need disambiguation, if a name is overly specific you don't, same reason why we have last names, "I met with John the other day", "which John?", "The Smith", "Ah yeah, John Smith, not John the son of Richard", "No, I haven't seen John Richardson in a few weeks".
Infrapink@thebrainbin.org · 2 pts · 117d
Attila is a pretty common name in Hungary and Türkiye.
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 10 pts · 118d
Well, those are fairly uniquely-identifiable names in the scheme of things. "Caesar" isn't just the guy at your local pizzeria, but THE Caesar of Caesars. "Charlemagne" is a combination of the common name "Charles" and <"great"> as with Alexander. "Attila" is a rarer name, already with a certain stigma, so quite unique in that sense.
"Alex" / "Alexander" is still a pretty common name today, so it makes some sense that there'd be a qualifier. Not unlike with Peter the Great , Catherine the Great, etc...
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 118d
Also I would say Atilla is usually called Atilla the Hun in most textbooks I saw in the U.S. Also since Caesar became a position/title we still say Julius to specifically refer to him.
As for Slim Shady, I seem to remember many people standing up to that name
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 3 pts · 118d
Good point, and I think I whiffed a bit on that one. "Atilla" is actually a name still used sometimes today across Europe, so "the Hun" definitely adds some helpful context.
You mean, in Italy?
In the States, I feel like it's pretty clear that "Caesar" without further context refers to either a leader / dictator / emperor of the Julio-Claudian line, or more commonly to Julius himself. The point being that if you're referring to one of the emperors, it's usually necessary to name them, i.e. "Caesar Tiberius," etc.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 118d
Yeah now to show our Archilles, I have no idea what else I would call Saladin, but Saladin. Im sure a textbook full names him somewhere.. but I haven't ever remembered it.
Mothra@mander.xyz · 3 pts · 118d
Caesar (Cesar or Cesare) is still a pretty common name today though.
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 3 pts · 118d
That's what I'm saying, above.
Mothra@mander.xyz · 3 pts · 118d
Hm. Guess I didn't interpret you the right way then, sorry. Bed time for me then, enough Internet
einkorn@feddit.org · 8 pts · 118d
While there is only one Gaius Julius Caesar, his lastname has been used as title by various successors.
Slim Shady is a self invented stage name so there is not really a point in anyone adopting it as their own unless they are comfortable being called a copycat all the time.
Charlemagne actually is short for the French version of Charles the Great so it is a title name combination just as Alexander the Great.
Atilla probably sounds unique to you because it's an uncommon name in the west.
BradleyUffner@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 118d
You don't want to get him mixed up with Alexander the Just Kind of OK at Things, do you?
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 117d
I count see getting a beer with Alex the Just Kind of OK at Things.
Plus I could probably beat him at Catan
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 118d
All the other Alexanders are just imitating
mossberg590@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 117d
"The Great" is a moniker given to certain rulers. England has only one. List of people known as the Great - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_known_as_the_Great
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 117d
Is anyone else mad that Alexander the first the Great came after Alexander the third the Great?
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 117d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut
Pffffttt hahahaha
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 118d
I know like 5 dudes called Cesar.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 118d
I'd say it's because Alexander is still such a very common name.
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 117d
Julius or Augustus? Or Edward Swallow, Ave, trve to Caesar!
Caesar is actually a title, and where the German word Kaiser and the Russian word Czar came from.
Slim Shady is a rap name, it's probably copyrighted tbh.
Charlamagne the God or Charlemagne the King/Emporer?
Sidyctism2@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 115d
Caesar only became a title after gaius julius caesar. For him, it was "just" a name
square@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 118d
In my experience, in context people often do drop the "the Great" and just say Alexander.
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 118d
“Charlemagne” literally means “Charles the Great”.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 118d
Didn’t know that until this thread
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 118d
there's several caesars, slim shady nobody else has that name, Charlemagne is French for Charles the Great, and Attila was antiwestern so they wouldn't name him "great"
DaniNatrix@leminal.space · 2 pts · 117d
Pretty sure his friends call him Alexander of Macedonia.
AskewLord@piefed.social · 2 pts · 118d
No, it's because he conquered the known world, and he left a lasting influence/political structure behind him as he went.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 118d
He's asking why is it Alexander the Great but not Caesar the Great. If Alexander was so great, he wouldn't need "the great" after his name. Alexander itself would be enough.
AskewLord@piefed.social · 0 pts · 118d
He's trolling, yeah. I understood that.
He's called that because that's what he's called.
Why is your username Blue Morpho? because that's what you username is.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 118d
Not 100% trolling, just thinking it was kinda weird that Caesar is not 'Caesar the Great', even though his name was reused by Augustus and others.
Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org · 2 pts · 118d
quite a meaningless idea.
It was meant to praise him, not because of any kind of neccessity.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 1 pts · 117d
there are a lot of caesar's. thats a title. other than that I can say its like a tornada fought a volcana while eating a potata with a side of tomata.
j4k3@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 118d
:::spoiler The Great is a shortened euphemism for The Great Asshole.
Prior to Alexander, simple city-state like entities were dominant and the norm. No one had to bear the tax of some professional army or deal with the federations of disparate polities. Shit gets real bad, everyone goanna die this winter from starvation, worst case is city vs city raids. Lots to try to trade across cities where many skilled trades and goods are unique but quality varied. Getting raided? NP, retreat to the walls with your belongings and defend with your neighbors. You know nearly everyone on the walls beside you. Wives and daughters worry, but the idle times and company are more jubilant than not. The differential in forces is negligible. Defending is a massive advantage. There are very few creative innovators around that are focused on attacking. Raiding is about poor management, resource scarcity, and minor thievery. Where the former are larger parties and latter are smaller.
Along comes The Great Asshole, and here come the pro bro brutes. They are the first regional sized force. The whole group of them are totally desensitized to morality. This is not some parity or simple innovation of technology. This is - it does not matter that a coalition of cities are banded for defense. No one has ever seen a force so large and so murderous. These are the military engineers.
Brutishness is so very limited in real value. It only matters in one on one engagements with limited constraints. Humans are not predators of strength, but of endurance.
The real strength to fear are the engineers. The creative innovators are scary as fuck. When a group of them are focused on the innovations of murder orgies, common folks are a thrashing harvest.
After The Great Asshole, you no longer have some negligible tax to help pay for the walls. Now you pay a much larger sum. The city is dotted with these new professional murder chaps that work for this raider fuckwit asshat that killed Gerry, the guy at the forum market everyone liked. You know, the one with the two gorgeous daughters everyone loved. You would not believe the terrible things the guy in the tower did to them. The whole city heard it, every night for weeks.
Now here you are on a wall next to a bunch of guys you do not know. They seem halfway alright most of the time, but you just know they are not leaving until all your reserves for the winter are gone. Half of your neighbors are dead or left the countryside. Your shack of a home, it is the third time you had to toss something together. The old raiders are looking for food and goods, but these new sadistic fucks burn your shit down for kicks and giggles. Now, uncle dude is not just enslaved in yondertown. He is literally abducted by aliens. People just disappear and no one knows what happened. The party is over, decency is dead, tyranny of the foreigner reigns supreme, hailing from a place you never knew existed. You never imagined humans could be so vile, so cruel, so terrifying. You never felt so violated, so traumatized, so helpless, so lonely. That was the real change.
The population reached a size and wealth that made a test of true human nature possible. Alex was simply at the right time and place to manage an engineering core of mass murder orgies profession that was at the transition point of local to regional wealth management. It was a giant regression and depression of progress that ground everywhere Alex touched to a crawl by the force of attenuation; the way things recovered were a shell of what could have been achieved without attenuation and the same resources and effort gone into amplification. That is always the case, as proven by tit for tat plus ten percent forgiveness solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma problem within Statistics. One of the most persistent primitive stupidities present across time and human culture thus far is the failure to understand how attenuation cannot amplify. Shame does not produce positive change. Alex was the great monster. A serial killer in parallel port operation. •»ÀĪÙ¬§¬¶¬× :::