Off Topic Thread - simply talking about everything possible

[Phil Anthos]

 "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

Being a theoretical anarchist I just love these two quotes tentatively attributed to Winston Churchill...

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

~ Peter 

[sand]

Yes, democracy has its disadvantages. I have sometimes wished, that the average voter was more intelligent. Democracy is sometimes described as "the tyranny of the majority". However, I can't think of any other form of government, which is better. Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. At least, in a democracy, as long as it is a true democracy, in which all people are allowed to vote freely, and all people are allowed to run for office freely, etc, then, it seems like, the average person won't be too badly oppressed. And, in a democracy, if 1 group of persons is oppressed by a larger group of persons, then there is always secession or emigration, which sometimes works. However, I try to be open minded, in case anyone has a better idea.

Edited January 8 by sand

[expat]

A while ago my Wife took this photo. She said our cat, Smarty, had a look that implied she thought @lordmarcovan was looking at her funny, LOL

 

[Salomons Cat]

8 hours ago, Prieure de Sion said:

In Star Trek, the writers implemented a pretty good idea of how a world population might function. The personal goal must no longer be ever more personal, selfish wealth - but the "currency of life" must change. In Star Trek, "currency" is something great for the rest of humanity to achieve. Research, honor, progress to achieve - for humanity.

I do not know Star Trek well enough. Although my father is a big fan.
What exactly is the difference between the money that we have now and the Star Trek currency? Do I understand it correctly that the Star Trek currency can only be used for goods and services that serve humanity?
So, for example, it would not be possible to buy cocaine with it?
I think that this would not even be feasible if we switch to some kind of electronic currency. I don't know how this currency that is tied to honor or progress could work in practice.

34 minutes ago, sand said:

Yes, democracy has its disadvantages. I have sometimes wished, that the average voter was more intelligent. Democracy is sometimes described as "the tyranny of the majority". However, I can't think of any other form of government, which is better. Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. At least, in a democracy, as long as it is a true democracy, in which all people are allowed to vote freely, and all people are allowed to run for office freely, etc, then, it seems like, the average person won't be too badly oppressed. And, in a democracy, if 1 group of persons is oppressed by a larger group of persons, then there is always secession or emigration, which sometimes works. However, I try to be open minded, in case anyone has a better idea.

My idea would be artificial intelligence. I know that this is exactly what everyone is afraid of. But what could be better and fairer for something as complex as governing a state?
The status quo does not seem satisfactory. I doubt that humans do it better.

Edited January 8 by Salomons Cat

[JeandAcre]

2 hours ago, Phil Anthos said:

 "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

Being a theoretical anarchist I just love these two quotes tentatively attributed to Winston Churchill...

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

~ Peter 

 

36 minutes ago, sand said:

Yes, democracy has its disadvantages. I have sometimes wished, that the average voter was more intelligent. Democracy is sometimes described as "the tyranny of the majority". However, I can't think of any other form of government, which is better. Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. At least, in a democracy, as long as it is a true democracy, in which all people are allowed to vote freely, and all people are allowed to run for office freely, etc, then, it seems like, the average person won't be too badly oppressed. And, in a democracy, if 1 group of persons is oppressed by a larger group of persons, then there is always secession or emigration, which sometimes works. However, I try to be open minded, in case anyone has a better idea.

The sad truth is that, back to the founding days, Jefferson was insisting on the need for an educated voting public in order for even representative democracy to be viable.  His point is sounding more plaintive all the time.

But @sand's citation of Edmund Burke on power and corruption is as true on a psychological level as on a merely political one.  As with, for instance, prospects for solving the ecological degradation caused by technology with ...more technology (however brilliant it might look on paper), I have to say, Yes, But, Human Nature.  

To another of @sand's points, the real selling point of democracy might be that --if it's not hopelessly dysfunctional in real time-- no other system provides as substantial a check to de facto authoritarianism.  Which, from every precedent I know of, is inevitably corrupting and commensurately oppressive, regardless of the political ideology it begins from.

Edited January 8 by JeandAcre

[Dafydd]

17 minutes ago, Salomons Cat said:

I do not know Star Trek well enough. Although my father is a big fan.
What exactly is the difference between the money that we have now and the Star Trek currency? Do I understand it correctly that the Star Trek currency can only be used for goods and services that serve humanity?
So, for example, it would not be possible to buy cocaine with it?
I think that this would not even be feasible if we switch to some kind of electronic currency. I don't know how this currency that is tied to honor or progress could work in practice.

My idea would be artificial intelligence. I know that this is exactly what everyone is afraid of. But what could be better and fairer for something as complex as governing a state?
The status quo does not seem satisfactory. I doubt that humans do it better.

I have first hand dealings with AI and the problem is it is a "pleaser" approach it answers how you want but it will answer the context of the question as posed.

Two incidences.

I am CEO of an accountancy firm that specialises in tax relief for research and development in the UK. I am not an accountant ( I am not clever enough ) but an engineer and I do hold 18  patents on recycling equipment so understand intellectual property.

 

1st Scenario.  A client puts in a claim for a VR ( Headset) that allows a client to visualise say a door and window , check the dimensions and the cost. Our HMRC  ( Your IRS  in the USA ) rejected the claim with a 20 page rebuttal.  I noticed multiple paragraphs and realised that the HMRC employee had used Chat GPT AI which did not exist 4 years ago. When the client did the work it was a twinkle in an eye but in real time AI categorically stated it was not new as it only knew the world after 2022.

I am fighting this now and will win because ultimately it will be judged by a human.

2nd Scenario.  A British engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel used to visit my home as he was friends with the owner who built it who was at School with him. Without this friendship Brunel's career would not have taken off and we would probably not have heard of him. His accomplishments included the first suspension bridge, and the first steamship to cross the Atlantic. Brunel had a tunnel collapse and lost favour but his friend who was an investor in the Great Western Railway, rescued his career.

Here is Brunel at a Welsh Chain Factory,  I believe this is the anchor chain for the first transatlantic steamer.

 

One Sunday morning a man called at my door and asked if he could photograph my house as he was writing a new biography featuring every engineering project Brunel was ever engaged with to further the existing biographies..  I said yes and gave him a tour of the inside also and gave him the history as I knew it with the previous owner.  He asked me to email him with further details which I did but thought I would ask an AI platform for anything I didn't know.

My question asked the positive outcomes of Brunel's s relationship with Roche, the previous owner of my home. The AI churned out a lot of nonsense saying that Roche became the Chief Engineer of the Great Western Railway on Brunel's death. The Chief Engineers of the most important railroad company in Great Britain at that time are documented  as were the Ides of March! It was completely spurious and fabricated, Roche was a tea trader who became a teacher on a philanthropic basis and at no time was ever an engineer of GWR although a substantial stock holder whose patronage of Brunel allowed him to progress after a failure that nearly ended his career.

It is speculated that if Brunel had not invented and launched the first ironclad cross Atlantic streamer the economy of the USA and UK would have bn hindered by at least a decade. A novel for Harry Turtledove methinks.

The reason I elaborate is that if Artificial Intelligence is the way forward then G*d help as it will not only invent our future but realign our past. History is brutal and we need to learn from it.

I have a great anecdote from a Cambridge University Scientist about the failings of Artificial Intelligence but no time to recount it at the moment. Basically his argument is that we will always outwit it because it is too logical. Let's not worry about Terminator yet!

 

[Dafydd]

1 hour ago, Salomons Cat said:

I do not know Star Trek well enough. Although my father is a big fan.
What exactly is the difference between the money that we have now and the Star Trek currency? Do I understand it correctly that the Star Trek currency can only be used for goods and services that serve humanity?
So, for example, it would not be possible to buy cocaine with it?
I think that this would not even be feasible if we switch to some kind of electronic currency. I don't know how this currency that is tied to honor or progress could work in practice.

My idea would be artificial intelligence. I know that this is exactly what everyone is afraid of. But what could be better and fairer for something as complex as governing a state?
The status quo does not seem satisfactory. I doubt that humans do it better.

The Star Trek currency scenario is correct but drifts into Dystopia. Who controls choice? Surely the individual ?

It is an awful scenario that can ultimately be used to abuse citizens.

Opiates wreck society when misused but have also saved pain for millions. A computer will say cocaine kills people so we will ban it.A human will say it saves 50,000 people pain in the dentists chair for every addict that dies so lets ask the question? We now drift into morality. Is the pain of 50,000 worth the death of one individual? If I have toothache, yes but without toothache I would say cure the underlaying problem that makes drugs attractive, tax it and offer treatment to vulnerable people. Complex issues and probably best suited elsewhere. I have  no real answer.

This is an article I wrote some years ago on the cashless society. It is my opinion only. I don't believe there are benefits.

See https://issuu.com/aspen-waite/docs/the-benefits-of-a-cashless-society

 

Cashless.pdf

 

There is no advantage for banks for currency as every time we use a card they collect a percentage often 3% or more.

A central currency allows control. Ultimately if the state controls credit you will not need prisons you simply make people disappear by stopping credit .I am apolitical so agree with @DonnaML with her previous sentiments about not talking politics but as an educated person I completely understand the dangers of state intervention and how it can control.

My view on society was changed when I was on one of the first flights into China after the cultural revolution and spent 3 months there. It moulded some cynicism.

Humans created AI so ultimately should be its master unless we get it wrong.

History is written by the conqueror so even that can be flawed.

I am happy to supply source and credits for some of my statements by PM.

 

Edited January 8 by Dafydd
Typo

[JeandAcre]

56 minutes ago, Dafydd said:

I have first hand dealings with AI and the problem is it is a "pleaser" approach it answers how you want but it will answer the context of the question as posed.

Two incidences.

I am CEO of an accountancy firm that specialises in tax relief for research and development in the UK. I am not an accountant ( I am not clever enough ) but an engineer and I do hold 18  patents on recycling equipment so understand intellectual property.

 

1st Scenario.  A client puts in a claim for a VR ( Headset) that allows a client to visualise say a door and window , check the dimensions and the cost. Our HMRC  ( Your IRS  in the USA ) rejected the claim with a 20 page rebuttal.  I noticed multiple paragraphs and realised that the HMRC employee had used Chat GPT AI which did not exist 4 years ago. When the client did the work it was a twinkle in an eye but in real time AI categorically stated it was not new as it only knew the world after 2022.

I am fighting this now and will win because ultimately it will be judged by a human.

2nd Scenario.  A British engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel used to visit my home as he was friends with the owner who built it who was at School with him. Without this friendship Brunel's career would not have taken off and we would probably not have heard of him. His accomplishments included the first suspension bridge, and the first steamship to cross the Atlantic. Brunel had a tunnel collapse and lost favour but his friend who was an investor in the Great Western Railway, rescued his career.

Here is Brunel at a Welsh Chain Factory,  I believe this is the anchor chain for the first transatlantic steamer.

 

One Sunday morning a man called at my door and asked if he could photograph my house as he was writing a new biography featuring every engineering project Brunel was ever engaged with to further the existing biographies..  I said yes and gave him a tour of the inside also and gave him the history as I knew it with the previous owner.  He asked me to email him with further details which I did but thought I would ask an AI platform for anything I didn't know.

My question asked the positive outcomes of Brunel's s relationship with Roche, the previous owner of my home. The AI churned out a lot of nonsense saying that Roche became the Chief Engineer of the Great Western Railway on Brunel's death. The Chief Engineers of the most important railroad company in Great Britain at that time are documented  as were the Ides of March! It was completely spurious and fabricated, Roche was a tea trader who became a teacher on a philanthropic basis and at no time was ever an engineer of GWR although a substantial stock holder whose patronage of Brunel allowed him to progress after a failure that nearly ended his career.

It is speculated that if Brunel had not invented and launched the first ironclad cross Atlantic streamer the economy of the USA and UK would have bn hindered by at least a decade. A novel for Harry Turtledove methinks.

The reason I elaborate is that if Artificial Intelligence is the way forward then G*d help as it will not only invent our future but realign our past. History is brutal and we need to learn from it.

I have a great anecdote from a Cambridge University Scientist about the failings of Artificial Intelligence but no time to recount it at the moment. Basically his argument is that we will always outwit it because it is too logical. Let's not worry about Terminator yet!

 

Brilliant observations, @Dafydd, with some enlightening historical background.

I live in terror of AI.  --Why not just come clean, lose the euphemism, and call it "Fake Intelligence?"  It takes something I already detest, the ubiquitous dominance of algorithms, as means of processing and interpreting the real (vis. virtual) world, and increases its worst tendencies --and societal power, potential and otherwise-- by orders of magnitude.

Algorithms already have a thoroughly, and frighteningly specious aura of 'objectivity.'  When, in fact, they're programmed by technicians, often with noticeably limited social and cultural frames of reference.  Bias, often at socially toxic levels, is literally programmed into them.

We have to lose the myth that either of these developments somehow summarily liberate us from the dimension of subjectivity which is irreducibly innate to human cognition.  Just, Don't Believe a Word of it!

To mix cliche instead of metaphor, for this minute, that's my two cents, for what they're worth.

[Prieure de Sion]

14 hours ago, Salomons Cat said:

I do not know Star Trek well enough. Although my father is a big fan.
What exactly is the difference between the money that we have now and the Star Trek currency? Do I understand it correctly that the Star Trek currency can only be used for goods and services that serve humanity?
So, for example, it would not be possible to buy cocaine with it?
I think that this would not even be feasible if we switch to some kind of electronic currency. I don't know how this currency that is tied to honor or progress could work in practice.

There is no money in Star Trek. By developing replicators, food and drink (and other things needed for life such as clothing, etc.) can be easily created.

The aspiration in Star Strek is therefore not the accumulation of capital - since money is no longer worth anything - but rather every person strives for more knowledge and education - in order to use this knowledge for the benefit of humanity.

The goal is no longer to become as rich as possible - but to accumulate as much fame and honor as possible (fame and honor through research).

Again - I think our system is sick. It is geared towards ever more growth and ever more wealth. Firstly, this cannot work forever on a finite planet (resources) and secondly - growth for some always means exploitation for others. And this also means violence and war.

[Curtisimo]

21 hours ago, Salomons Cat said:

My idea would be artificial intelligence. I know that this is exactly what everyone is afraid of. But what could be better and fairer for something as complex as governing a state?
The status quo does not seem satisfactory. I doubt that humans do it better.

A fully autonomous AI that was truly in charge would very likely conclude that the most efficient method to end human suffering is to eliminate all humans. A non-autonomous AI that was given overarching governing power would simply be a tool for control used by the people who set the boundary conditions for its behavior. 

[Dafydd]

Moving on from Dystopia and after enjoying some earlier shared images, here are the four creatures that own my wife and I and are far more effective in controlling us than AI.

They also make sure our Veterinary Surgeon enjoys a nice expensive vacation every year. She loves them as much as we do!

And to raise the OP @Prieure de Sion you can't negotiate with the Veterinarians ! The time it would take you to argue your case they will have raised a new invoice for their time......

Edited January 9 by Dafydd
Typo

[Ryro]

Here's Ace. My wife picked out the costume to make him a fighter Ace for Halloween:

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Today is the day that SEC chair Gary Gensler will either approve or disallow Bitcoin ETFs. Any opinions on this? There are 10 firms who have filed documents including Fidelity and Blackrock to begin trading as soon as possible. Any thoughts?

Well, I guess this is a coin-related thread after all. 🕓🍿

Edited January 10 by Ancient Coin Hunter

[Tejas]

On 1/9/2024 at 12:07 PM, Prieure de Sion said:

There is no money in Star Trek. By developing replicators, food and drink (and other things needed for life such as clothing, etc.) can be easily created.

The aspiration in Star Strek is therefore not the accumulation of capital - since money is no longer worth anything - but rather every person strives for more knowledge and education - in order to use this knowledge for the benefit of humanity.

The goal is no longer to become as rich as possible - but to accumulate as much fame and honor as possible (fame and honor through research).

Again - I think our system is sick. It is geared towards ever more growth and ever more wealth. Firstly, this cannot work forever on a finite planet (resources) and secondly - growth for some always means exploitation for others. And this also means violence and war.

The Star Treck economy is a socialist utopia. Star ships, fazer guns and all the rest are very realistic and achievable compared to their economic system, which is the true science fiction.

To the question of economic growth. There are many misconceptions regarding economic growth. Indeed, socialist and ecological ideologies are largely built on a false idea about growth. Economic growth is indeed infinite and this has nothing to do with the finite resources of our planet. The ultimate resource is not oil, metals or arable land, but human ingenuity (Julian Simon). Also growth is not a zero-sum game, where the gains of one group have to be the losses of others. We desperately need more growth to combat illnesses, improve health, living quality and to clean the environment. The poorer people are the more they will pollute the planet. Indeed, economic growth is the only way to solve climate change and all other environmental problems. Any idea or policy which advocates less growth and less wealth is highly dangerous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Prieure de Sion]

1 hour ago, Tejas said:

To the question of economic growth. There are many misconceptions regarding economic growth. Indeed, socialist and ecological ideologies are largely built on a false idea about growth. Economic growth is indeed infinite and this has nothing to do with the finite resources of our planet. The ultimate resource is not oil, metals or arable land, but human ingenuity (Julian Simon). Also growth is not a zero-sum game, where the gains of one group have to be the losses of others. We desperately need more growth to combat illnesses, improve health, living quality and to clean the environment. The poorer people are the more they will pollute the planet. Indeed, economic growth is the only way to solve climate change and all other environmental problems. Any idea or policy which advocates less growth and less wealth is highly dangerous.

An interesting perspective, really.

Unfortunately - from my point of view - pure utopia, as you describe it. Wishful thinking.

Unfortunately, it is a fact that our planet is being overexploited at the expense of the environment. And if somewhere it's worth digging and just making a little profit - a lot of environmental regulations are suddenly pushed aside.

I remember a report about fracking. It was forbidden in this region because the area was farmed with cattle. But then they found out that fracking was possible and financially worthwhile. So the environmental laws were repealed “for the good of the community.”

The consequence was. The chemicals used in fracking leaked into the groundwater. One day the fields were full of bloated dead cattle. Nobody can live there anymore - because the groundwater is now contaminated.

All for growth, all for science and progress (fracking).

 

And unfortunately you are forgetting the human factor. It's a great idea that growth is used to ensure that fewer and fewer people have to suffer. But we humans are not like that.

I see the gap between rich and poor getting wider and wider. There are more and more super rich - but I don't see how the growth is distributed fairly - on the contrary. Africa used to be a continent where production was cheap. Today, in Europe too, workers (temporary workers) are exploited cheaply - so that the shareholders have even more returns every year.

No, sorry, I don't see it that way. Simply because people don't like sharing their wealth. And you would think that super-rich people would eventually have enough money and start sharing it - but they don't.

 

The same also applies to health. I have the privilege of being privately insured here in Germany. My parents and my sisters have state insurance. I see how I'm getting more and more and faster benefits, while people with state insurance are getting fewer and fewer benefits.

Edited January 10 by Prieure de Sion

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

9 hours ago, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

Today is the day that SEC chair Gary Gensler will either approve or disallow Bitcoin ETFs. Any opinions on this? There are 10 firms who have filed documents including Fidelity and Blackrock to begin trading as soon as possible. Any thoughts?

Well, I guess this is a coin-related thread after all. 🕓🍿

Gensler approved the funds with the caveat that crypto is "risk-oriented" and may not be suitable for Main Street investors. However lots of money will flow from CD's and money market funds into Bitcoin...as the presence of big names helps to de-risk the asset class

[AETHER]

Unstable and useless at the moment with a  high risk. Right now we are just selling an idea, its greatest asset, anonymity, is not so anonymous any more.  It's still snake oil to me at this time, maybe in another hundred years. 

 

[AETHER]

New Alexander III Docu Drama on Netflix Jan 31st.. hope its good, but I doubt it.. 

https://www.comingsoon.net/tv/trailers/1480034-alexander-the-making-of-a-god-trailer-unveils-netflixs-historical-docudrama

Edited January 12 by AETHER

[Sol_Invictus]

20 hours ago, AETHER said:

Unstable and useless at the moment with a  high risk. Right now we are just selling an idea, its greatest asset, anonymity, is not so anonymous any more.  It's still snake oil to me at this time, maybe in another hundred years. 

 

This is how I’ve felt about it for the past decade, and yet it still hasn’t gone away. I now take a solipsistic view — bitcoin will generally appreciate over time (with high volatility) until the moment I finally cave in and buy into it, at which point it will crater for good.

[kirispupis]

3 hours ago, AETHER said:

New Alexander III Docu Drama on Netflix Jan 31st.. hope its good, but I doubt it.. 

https://www.comingsoon.net/tv/trailers/1480034-alexander-the-making-of-a-god-trailer-unveils-netflixs-historical-docudrama

Worth adding to the watch list, but I'm note hopeful.

Personally, I can't stand these "mixed action" docuseries where they get you involved in the plot and then pull away to some scholar. Seriously, have they not learned "show don't tell"?

I'm also highly doubtful that a true portrayal can be done today. So many of Alexander's actions and behavior would be difficult for today's audiences to accept.

[Prieure de Sion]

18 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

Worth adding to the watch list, but I'm note hopeful.

Personally, I can't stand these "mixed action" docuseries where they get you involved in the plot and then pull away to some scholar. Seriously, have they not learned "show don't tell"?

I'm also highly doubtful that a true portrayal can be done today. So many of Alexander's actions and behavior would be difficult for today's audiences to accept.

 

I'm very skeptical - I hope I'm wrong.

I was very disappointed with the Cleopatra series/documentary. It felt like every second they switched back and forth between the film series and the documentary with experts. As soon as I wanted to get involved in the film part and enjoy it, boom, an expert suddenly sat there and explained for a long time. This switching back and forth was driving me crazy. I could never really commit to anything. In the end it was too much for me and I gave up on the series/documentary.

Somehow I had the impression that they couldn't agree whether it should be more of a series or more of a documentary.

But of course it is always a subjective matter of taste.

[kirispupis]

Since we're talking about anything and everything here, thought I'd relay an interesting thing I'm working on.

Recently I picked up a coin from a ruler who just seemed interesting. He was the father of someone who's already in my People of Philip II, Alexander III, and the Era of the Diadochi collection. So, I decided to create a write-up for this site about him.

There's a Wikipedia page with a bit of information, but I was curious whether there's more, so I did a search and found an entire paper by a Harvard professor about his rule. It turns out he was quite controversial during his time.

So, I read the paper, and then I learned there's an entire book written during ancient times concerning him.

I now have the book on order and my post will be delayed until I read it. It's funny how a single coin can bring up so much...

[kirispupis]

1 minute ago, Prieure de Sion said:

I was very disappointed with the Cleopatra series/documentary. It felt like every second they switched back and forth between the film series and the documentary with experts. As soon as I wanted to get involved in the film part and enjoy it, boom, an expert suddenly sat there and explained for a long time. This switching back and forth was driving me crazy. I could never really commit to anything. In the end it was too much for me and I gave up on the series/documentary.

Somehow I had the impression that they couldn't agree whether it should be more of a series or more of a documentary.

But of course it is always a subjective matter of taste.

Personally, I didn't watch a single episode of the Cleopatra series because I felt they were completely immune to the facts. If you can't get her ancestry straight then how can I trust the screenwriters to get anything else right? 

Alexander poses similar problems. For example, many shows/books ignore that fact that he had sexual relations with men. Of course, the very concept of sexual relations was extremely different back then, so it would be a gross overstep to go the complete other way and say he was gay.

On another angle, he butchered a lot of people. He was particularly harsh in India (though today Pakistan). That also was a matter of fact in those days. 

Personally, I would love to see a series or book that deals with the complex person Alexander was and portray his increasing paranoia and anger. I doubt it would be well-received today though.

[AETHER]

46 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

Worth adding to the watch list, but I'm note hopeful.

Personally, I can't stand these "mixed action" docuseries where they get you involved in the plot and then pull away to some scholar. Seriously, have they not learned "show don't tell"?

I'm also highly doubtful that a true portrayal can be done today. So many of Alexander's actions and behavior would be difficult for today's audiences to accept.

I agree in every aspect, mostly. Also the image of the actor does not convince me, the guy looks whiter then a ghost.  

To your first point, it reminds me just how much I wish they renewed HBO's Rome..  this was a well done show in style, and capturing the era. I was satisfied with it.

[panzerman]

I really like Vlad vs Mehmet. The good guys Ottomans led by Mehmet II vs the the most evil human being that walked the planet, "Vlad Tepes" and his Wallachian Hordes. The battle scenes were realistic. Barbariens 1 and II came in second/ highly entertaining. They should do a big budget movie on Hannibal's feat at Cannae. Vlad on left looked like a nice kid/ same as Caracalla/ both became monsters as adults. While his younger brother remained loyal to Mehmet.