Official Safehold Speculation Thread

Gentlemen:

I am not Duckk and have no authority to act as moderator here. But it grieves me when we personally attack or demean each other. I am fond of all of you and you are all very fine forum members and posters. Please let's stick to the substance of the matter at hand and keep it related to David Weber's writing.

Don

n7axw wrote:Gentlemen:

I am not Duckk and have no authority to act as moderator here. But it grieves me when we personally attack or demean each other. I am fond of all of you and you are all very fine forum members and posters. Please let's stick to the substance of the matter at hand and keep it related to David Weber's writing.

Don

You are absolutely right Don. We should stick with Safeholdian stuff and not bring RL stuff into the conversations.

The conventional wisdom I've seen about Home Guard militias is that they are a poor choice for preventing an invasion from succeeding, but are superb at making the invaders's losses too high.

Accurate?

If so, it's the wrong tool for deterring fanatics who think they are on God's side.

Hard to say, since it depends a lot on exactly what the conventional wisdom is contemplating. In particular, what value of 'succeed' are we discussing? Declare victory and go home, or absorb and integrate the territory? The last people to pull off the latter were the British in Australia - and the aborigines will cheerfully call you on the 'absorb and integrate' part

The militias of both sides in the War of 1812 actually did a rather good job of pinning invaders' ears back on occasion, at least when in the company of regulars. But that's because, at the time, it was quite possible for militia to train to within shouting distance of regular standards and some of them went to the trouble of doing it.

Nowadays, it's not so easy.

Expert snuggler wrote:The conventional wisdom I've seen about Home Guard militias is that they are a poor choice for preventing an invasion from succeeding, but are superb at making the invaders's losses too high.

Accurate?

If so, it's the wrong tool for deterring fanatics who think they are on God's side.

lyonheart wrote:Hi Saber964,

The RN's WREN's were first formed in 1917 so they beat most American organizations by ~25 years.

Exactly what relationship to the ICN could such women have to justify the N for Naval initial?

I'd suggest more focused on internal security myself.

But the acronym would need work.

L

saber964" quote="Expert snuggler wrote:An initial step could be training women for a Home Guard.

I proposed something different, with a nice catchy acronym.

Woman's
Imperial
Naval
Service

This like what they did during WWII with the WAVES WAC's SPARS and WASP's

[/quote]


They could take over shore-side jobs freeing up men for shipboard duties. Like;

Sail-maker
Supply Clerks
Beach Patrol
Lookouts
Teamsters
Dispatch Riders
Yeoman
Personnelmen
Lighthouse Keeper if Charis has them
Lay Pasquale sisters in ICN Hospitals

Now the ICN probably uses disabled men for some of these jobs.

Keith_w wrote:

n7axw wrote:Gentlemen:

I am not Duckk and have no authority to act as moderator here. But it grieves me when we personally attack or demean each other. I am fond of all of you and you are all very fine forum members and posters. Please let's stick to the substance of the matter at hand and keep it related to David Weber's writing.

Don

You are absolutely right Don. We should stick with Safeholdian stuff and not bring RL stuff into the conversations.

I agree. Assuming that I will always make a mistake somewhere, my attitude of checking against evidence is deliberate. Yes, there are certainly errors there also.

I would enjoy discussing the fit between: Deuteronomy 28:26 and Josephus' history, Luke 12:20-24 and another part of Josephus, Daniel 11 and the Greek successor's wars, Daniel 12:4 and our rapidly moving current civilization (wish wisdom would increase ), Revelation 11:3-12's need for a fast visual communication, etc. etc.

But this doesn't fit a discussion of DW's enjoyable fiction.
Except maybe one thing: Romans 9:17, and a good reason to not kill Clyntahn Consider, if a nasty and corrupt person was not in charge of the Temple, how it would be harder to get people to change their thinking patterns.

Most people simply do not reconsider their basic thinking usages without major external stress. And even then some just don't .

Hi DDHvi,

Be very careful of what you wish for; RFC is a lay Methodist minister, and if he had the time to spare which he doesn't given we want him writing, he might surprise you with his theological insights as his books well demonstrate.

L

DDHvi wrote:

Keith_w wrote:*quote="n7axw"*Gentlemen:

I am not Duckk and have no authority to act as moderator here. But it grieves me when we personally attack or demean each other. I am fond of all of you and you are all very fine forum members and posters. Please let's stick to the substance of the matter at hand and keep it related to David Weber's writing.

Don*quote*
You are absolutely right Don. We should stick with Safeholdian stuff and not bring RL stuff into the conversations.

I agree. Assuming that I will always make a mistake somewhere, my attitude of checking against evidence is deliberate. Yes, there are certainly errors there also.

I would enjoy discussing the fit between: Deuteronomy 28:26 and Josephus' history, Luke 12:20-24 and another part of Josephus, Daniel 11 and the Greek successor's wars, Daniel 12:4 and our rapidly moving current civilization (wish wisdom would increase ), Revelation 11:3-12's need for a fast visual communication, etc. etc.

But this doesn't fit a discussion of DW's enjoyable fiction.
Except maybe one thing: Romans 9:17, and a good reason to not kill Clyntahn Consider, if a nasty and corrupt person was not in charge of the Temple, how it would be harder to get people to change their thinking patterns.

Most people simply do not reconsider their basic thinking usages without major external stress. And even then some just don't .

All right, time to restart some speculation.

How about the possibility of Duchairn giving some sort of aid to Aviah and Merlin on the possible future trip they would undoubtedly undertake to Zion as referenced at the end of Mighty Army.

OsageOrange wrote:All right, time to restart some speculation.

How about the possibility of Duchairn giving some sort of aid to Aviah and Merlin on the possible future trip they would undoubtedly undertake to Zion as referenced at the end of Mighty Army.

In the process of Nynian's being introduced to the inner circle and the drama with Sandaria, I, for one, have been overlooking the trip to Zion.

I suspect there is a connection between Nynian and her people and Duchairn. As for who is helping who, my own suspicion would be that it's the other way around, possibly with timely intervention to save Duchairn's bacon.

Don

After they get back into space, will the Safeholders have a conflict among themselves about whether to strike back at the Gbaba?

If the Gbaba only commit genocide within their sphere of influence, and if that doesn't include Safehold, wouldn't there be a lot of pressure to let sleeping hornets lie?

Merlin and Nimue will thirst for revenge. On the opposite side, even after the Reveal there will be many people who don't fully or emotionally accept the idea of billions of people living before the "Day of Creation". Revenge will be meaningless to them and a pointless risk of absolutely everything.

Do they even have enough intel on the Gbaba to make a rational estimate of their chances if they do fight?