It's not actually that fascinating, because the biggest conclusion that can be drawn is that Ieyasu is a good opportunist with really good luck. But then every man's good luck is highlighted at a time of chaos and shifting power struggles. Someone fought someone fought someone before you, and then you grabbed the pie. It happens. Really nothing much to brag about.

Plus events naturally transpired so that there were two finalists duking it out for the Shogunate, and so there's inevitably going to be a king of the hill in the end. If not Ieyasu, it would've been Ishida Mitsunari, and if not Mitsunari it would've been someone else.

In short, it's a game of chance in history that eventually rolled out a name. And whomever that name belonged to, he was but an heir to fortunes rather than a creator of fortunes. And in a time of chaos like the Sengoku Jidai, there are lots of creators of fortunes.

Dude's already on r/usdefaultism. 'Both' parties have we? Didn't realise we're all in the US of A.

Also the default blank state of Active Dolls in Dollhouse.

Closer to 400 actually. Romeo and Juliet was set in the 15th century.

The ironic thing here is that there's nothing Italian at all about Romeo and Juliet, or any other 'set in other European cities' characters under Shakespeare. Verona might as well be Newcastle.

It's like how Midsummer Night's Dream had shite all to do with Greece.

My personal flair on whatsapp for a long time has been 'fortunatos fortuna iuvat' - 'fortune favours the fortunate'.

It's just the way the world works. If you're born privileged you get more privileged. The lucky becomes luckier.

#UNSTOPPABLE

M-M-M-M-M-M-MONSTER KILL

"Also, if Your Excellency should desire the covert elimination of certain unwanted persons, and without undue resort to sound and fury, I count among my closest associates a certain Signore Auditore, who shall no doubt find it an utmost pleasure to expedite Your Excellency's enemies' journeys to the Lord's side."

> He was regarded as one of the greatest Emperors

Interestingly, he wasn't. And not because he's not benevolent enough, but that he's not expansionist or 'glorious' enough. Most modern Chinese folks wouldn't know who he was, and if you ask about greatest emperors, would give you Emperor Wu of Han, Taizong of Tang, Kangxi, or the First Emperor, and even if you ask specifically about the Ming dynasty, would likely give you Emperor Yongle. All those were better conquerors.

It's actually a shame how most competent but peaceful emperors are little known, and do not make it to 'greatest' lists.

How do you call an electrocution that does not result in death?

As a history major, I think history would've been largely the same. The main thing you'd change would be Spain's rise, but Spain's rise was already pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, aside from flooding Europe in silver (that when we factor in modern economics, did not actually pay for anything) and being very important when it comes to native American history only.

But take away Spain and the Aztecs, and the consequence of the Renaissance, in turn the consequence of the Crusades, would still have been felt. And that's much more important to the rise of the west compared to the Spanish colonial efforts. It would still have happened, just with someone else as the poster boy. There are many factors at play in Europe's technological rise, and the presence or absence of the Spanish colonisation would have changed little of those factors.

Considering what happened to China, India and Japan etc, the natives wouldn't have been solid enough. Even the best of the pre-gunpowder nations struggled against the Europeans, if we give both sides 200 more years I'm not sure if the natives would not be pounded into the ground even harder.

It'd be a shame if someone...colonised it.

Anakin is not happy at this turn of events.

Diphtheria antitoxins.

I love how you felt you needed to specify (USA) as where you live, as though it's not already plenty apparent from the uncalled-for comparison to your personal politics, the arbitrary understanding of 'liberals' and 'capitalism', among other things.