Most attacked position

Read with interest that following the rather civilized siege and now Naval Blockade of Genoa in G10.......another Louis XIV is getting ready to show them how a siege/bombardment/punishment beating is done......G7 style.

Historically just before the game starts (1697?) Louis XIV bombarded Genoa to such effect that a third of the city was destroyed or damaged in some way so I guess he now intends to finish the job since he seems to be even more offended than he was in 1697.

Since Genoa seems to have overraken Venice as the Republic we all love to hate I was just wondering what would be the most attacked position in Agema games. Not in the context getting into the most wars but the position in which without doing anything at all to offend anyone you are most likely too get attacked?

Well militarily, I'd say the Maharatans, since it seems to be standard for the Moghul player to roll over them in most games.

Outside of pure warfare, I'd say The Pope. He says "Good Morning" and about half the players immediately jump to their feet to disagree.

Deacon wrote:Outside of pure warfare, I'd say The Pope. He says "Good Morning" and about half the players immediately jump to their feet to disagree.

Not just disagree ... in some games:

1) some would launch into tirades trying to prove that there is no such thing as 'morning';
2) others would deny the existence of the concept 'good'; one may even attempt to call various religious leaders together to discuss it;
3) several would claim that the observation was a purely secular matter that the Pope should not be commenting upon;
4) yet more will loudly proclaim that it is evidence that the Catholic Church is falling apart (or in 'civil war'), and that they quite rightly want nothing at all to do with Europe;
5) while another will claim that these words are symptomatic that the Pope clearly has no idea of what is happening in the world, being merely a naive priest.

It may be an exaggeration to claim that anyone has yet declared war on the Papacy as a result of the Pope saying 'good morning', but give it a few months and it may well happen.

The one thing we can be sure about is that nobody will agree that it is a 'good morning' or respond in a similarly positive way.

It is not so much the saying of good morning that causes the problem I don't believe. I believe it is the statement that only the pope's version of morning and good can be the accepted. All others are destined for evening or must be "excommunicated" to wear a sack over they heads during the hours from dawn to noon. I believe that will make the statement the most accurate.

If you extend the "most attacked" position to include attacks other than military attacks think you would the have to consider the Ottoman Sultan, the Jacobites and pirate positions like Blackbeard.

Not sure if anyone has played them but think position most likely to be a target of all sorts of grief would have to be the Barbary Corsairs or a Pirate Position turned Jacobite!

Just think how Lord Melville and some others would react to a member of the house of Stuart being elected Grand Master of the Knights of Malta.

In a different environment I could see the Corsair suffering greatly and being attacked every time you turn about. I would have to say that there are certain built in flash points in the structure of the early years of the game. It is not until there is a shifting of the historical timeline that warfare gets out of the typical fragemented states.

revvaughan wrote:It is not so much the saying of good morning that causes the problem I don't believe.  I believe it is the statement that only the pope's version of morning and good can be the accepted.  All others are destined for evening or must be "excommunicated" to wear a sack over they heads during the hours from dawn to noon.  I believe that will make the statement the most accurate.  

I think you've just proved Deacon's point!

You've certainly proved mine.

For Catholics the Pope is the supreme earthly authority, so how he defines 'morning' and 'good' are the official version to be used in discussions between Catholics and in discussions involving Catholics.  That is one of the many functions of the Papal Office.

Those of other faiths and none are of course at liberty to debate the point among themselves, but don't expect those debates to involve Catholics or be meaningful to them.

Since there seems to be some difficulty in getting the point across I have written a nice letter to you in game.

I don't think the point was understood. Good and Morning are rather simple to define and regardless of whether one is Catholic or Protestant there should be some common ground for such a discussion in the game. I beleive that it is the utter inability to see any truth in the position of the other that is the issue that causes the barbs and bullets to fly about.

revvaughan wrote:I don't think the point was understood.  Good and Morning are rather simple to define and regardless of whether one is Catholic or Protestant there should be some common ground for such a discussion in the game.  I beleive that it is the utter inability to see any truth in the position of the other that is the issue that causes the barbs and bullets to fly about.

The point was perfectly understood!

There will always be a difficulty in establishing common ground when one side defines itself in opposition to the other.

Without wishing to trespass on the Rome game (which I am not in) or conduct a discussion best had through private game letters rather than in newspapers or the forum, there was a similar problem with the Roman attitude to the Jews.  The Romans held that religion was a private matter; they would accept all 'gods' from whichever territories they conquered to keep the people happy and expected the Jews to reciprocate.  Of course the Jews worship only 1 God, which made their religion so difficult for the Romans.  To the Romans religion was simply the plaything of rulers, something they made up to suit the times and control or distract their people, which is much the way players today view religion.  Historically the Jews did not help themselves by being divided and ridden with factions, but they would agree that the Roman/Pagan approach to religion could not be reconciled with their revealed religion from God.  There were naturally attempts to find common ground using Greek philosophical language, but they were not particularly successful, and came up against more difficulties when trying to reconcile Christianity with Judaism.  

Although Catholic teaching understands and uses philosophy within its limitations, it recognises that Christianity is in its essence based on authority - of Christ, and then in unity with His teaching as transmitted through the Papal Office and the Magisterium of the Church.  This point was made in the game newspaper and should be read again if it has not been understood.  If individuals wish to place themselves outside that teaching and claim that they know better than the Catholic tradition upheld by their ancestors, then that is their choice, but they have defined themselves in opposition to (part of) that teaching, usually for political reasons.  It is sad that this is the case and Catholics pray constantly for them to repent of their errors and rejoin the Catholic Church.

If you actually look back and read what I have written for the game newspapers it is always addressed to Catholics (or those who claim to be Catholic), usually in the context of a discussion among Catholics.  That is deliberate, precisely to avoid 'barbs and bullets' from non-Catholics.  Every other ruler in the game holds a secular position (although I accept that some claim to be 'head' of the religion of their country, I don't know of any who would claim to be a priest rather than a king when asked), so naturally they are primarily concerned with politics; most would go through the entire game year barely giving religion a thought.  The Papacy is not like that - it is a religious office.  If the Pope did not talk about religion he would not be being Pope!  So however irritating non-Catholics may find it, the more 'barbs and bullets' they throw in the direction of the Papacy, the more the Pope is likely to discuss religion.  And that discussion will inevitably have the truth of Catholic teaching as both its starting point and its destination.

And thus the reason for the Reformation...

...transmitted through the Papal Office and the Magisterium of the Church... Sola Scriptura.

revvaughan wrote:And thus the reason for the Reformation...  

...transmitted through the Papal Office and the Magisterium of the Church...  Sola Scriptura.  

Another protestant misconception ... misguided as he was, even Luther believed he was conducting a debate from within the Catholic Church, not that his 95 debating points would lead to a split in the church.  I'm sure in your reply to my game letter you will be able to explain where in Scripture it permits an Augustinian canon to break his vows, marry a nun, and having lost the spiritual debate with Rome, throw himself on the mercy of his secular prince who then saw he could use Luther as an excuse to steal church property in his lands.  When other rulers saw the same political and financial advantages they permitted revolutions in their own lands, and without their decision there would have been no 'reformation' - Luther would have simply been one in a line of heretics who thought he knew better than his contemporaries, and would have ended up as a footnote in textbooks.  At the time the church made the mistake of viewing what was happening as a spiritual matter to be addressed by spiritual arguments, when it was relatively quickly demonstrated that it was a political movement that required political arguments to counter it.  In that sense what is happening in G10 is following the same lines.  It is nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with politics and the ambitions of rulers.

I'm sure I'm not the only one to be surprised that Deacon's original tongue-in-cheek observation that all the Pope has to do is 'say "Good Morning" and about half the players immediately jump to their feet to disagree.' has been proved to be so prophetic!

In game 3, I played the pope in 1737 or something. First position I played.

I had positions that regularly sent florid missives to the paper about the evil things my position had something like 20 years ago in real time.

I guess they must have enjoyed the ranting. But as it was game ancient history that I had nothing to do with, it encouraged me to just leave the game.

As an aside, I always found the sola scriptura argument pretty funny. The scriptures were written by men, whether they were canonical or not was decided by men, how to interpret the sometimes obscure texts were decided by men.

The argument itself embeds within it the necessary assumption that men's choices were all guided by god. But... God only guides them on this one thing?

Deacon wrote:In game 3, I played the pope in 1737 or something. First position I played.  I had positions that regularly sent florid missives to the paper about the evil things my position had something like 20 years ago in real time.   I guess they must have enjoyed the ranting. But as it was game ancient history that I had nothing to do with, it encouraged me to just leave the game.

I guess it goes with the position.  There was a protestant sect called the Ranters around the time of the English Civil War, though I don't remember anything about them.  Whether the verb 'to rant' came into usage thanks to them, I don't know?

Deacon wrote:As an aside, I always found the sola scriptura argument pretty funny. The scriptures were written by men, whether they were canonical or not was decided by men, how to interpret the sometimes obscure texts were decided by men.

The argument itself embeds within it the necessary assumption that men's choices were all guided by god. But... God only guides them on this one thing?

That Scripture was written by men is a bit of an irrelevant point since if Christianity was simply a hoax and Scripture not divinely inspired to some extent, then the authors would surely have produced a much less controversial collection of writings with a single definitive version of events, rather than multiple versions which often disagree and have left opponents of the faith with rather obvious lines of attack.  Even non believers would accept that some parts are so filled with sublime wisdom that the greatest of philosophers could not have written them, let alone working men from Gallilee.

I wouldn't describe the sola scriptura argument as funny, just weak and contradicted by the very Scripture it relies upon.  2nd Letter of St.Peter warns against individuals interpreting Scripture, which is one reason why the teaching authority of the church is not vested in a single individual, but the Magisterium, the Pope being ultimately responsible for its work.  Various Papal documents have described how the Magisterium approaches its task and works in a positive rather than destructive way.

Those who reject the Magisterium or the authority of the Church have no choice other than to look to scripture alone, interpreting it apart from the tradition it reflects.  Inevitably this leads to misunderstanding, the quoting of passages out of context and the twisting of words to suit a political agenda at a particular time.  It is not all negative, though, since through their renewed focus on Scripture protestants did prompt a Catholic response, and there has been much textural analysis and application of modern methods which may not have received the attention they merit had protestants not sought new techniques.  But the fundamental difference between the approach of Catholics and protestants remains: protestants accept an individual interpretation of Scripture whereas Catholics respect the official interpretation of the Magisterium.  Catholics recognise that Scripture is complicated and expert scholars, priests and those who have dedicated their lives to reading, meditating and praying Scripture within the structure of the Catholic Church are best placed to pronounce on its relevance and meaning.

I feel that we have crossed the line from the game to a debate... I must apologize to the readers that are following this thread and make my final response to this message. I fear that there is just no common ground with some people and the idea of "these know better than those(or you)" has been the method of tyrants and religious fanatics for years. I have actively pastored for most of my adult life in a bi-vocational role and have many friends from the RCC Clergy, Greek Orthodox Clergy and various Protestant flavors. I say this as one who is not trying to say "Look I have Catholic friends too"... However, I would like to demonstrate that the fact that there are many things we share in common and much better exhibit the love of Christ by not fighting in public or trashing each other in our assemblies. Oddly enough as a Reformed Theology guy I tend to get along with the RCC guys better than many of the Pentacostal sects that have popped up.

Lastly, the text you reference from 2 Peter is rather poorly rendered in the NAB (Vatican) and subsequently it has been twisted out of context. One of the tenants of the Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura and the fact that the common man was given the ability to read God's word by the very same hell-bound, lunatic protestants is the simple understanding that God authored Scripture through the men that HE chose to write it. If God indeed was the author through his Holy Spirit then the product of His efforts are perfect and were as intended. If the Bible is perfect in its form and substance then it should be without error and contradiction. (I full well realize there are plenty that believe that the Bible is rife with errors and that we simple and backwoods Protestants are utterly wrong on this account). If without error then passages can't say one thing here and then another a few books over that cause a direct contradiction. Otherwise, the faithful and the "almighty learned ones" would be confused and forced to do some fancy footwork to help their "g"od look good. It is clear that the text of 2nd Peter was referring to the Old Testament Prophecies and the fact that they were not the musings of Isaiah (an the all others), but of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Verse 21 would be a good idea to add on to the "hand selected" verse that was chosen. Likewise, these versus proceed the 2nd Chapter of the letter where Peter reminds the early church that there are those that prowl around and create false doctrines that twist Scripture and add things to the message of the Gospel. (Maybe they created some things that don't appear in Scripture at all, said THEY had all the answers to this question or that, or might have even stated that you had to do more than just believe it Christ). Further, if God intended St. Peter to use the word interpretation it did exist in the Greek language and is where we get the word hermeneutic (ἑρμηνεία). Its proper use and translation can be found in:

1 John 2:27, "As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him."

Acts 17:11, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."

Romans 14:5, "One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind."

If only the Scriptures had remained in Latin and not available for the faithful to read... That Gutenburg guy really messed things up.


As I have said several times outside of the context of the persona of a ruler in the game I truly hope that one day we might have the opportunity to sit and discuss these matters. Hopefully, we will be able to enjoy looking at the whole of the church militant and its many mistakes and issues caused by the hand of man as we sit as members of the church triumphant.

revvaughan wrote:I feel that we have crossed the line from the game to a debate...  I must apologize to the readers that are following this thread and make my final response to this message.  I fear that there is just no common ground with some people ...

I guess we can agree on these points.