Board Thread:Speculation House/@comment-94.195.53.219-20160728132025/@comment-25936766-20160830030300

ANewUser123 wrote: -To me a revolution over the idea of individuality isn't farfetched considering the war was about it period.

-"A war that was about much more than where borders fell or who traded with whom, but about the very idea of individualism itself." -Yet you seem to ignore the fact that that is precisely what makes the idea of a revolution farfetched. Again, only a brute would think that there's no better response to just creative suppression, than starting a revolution. It's absurd, extreme, and too unrealistic to be believable.

-Are you taking those words literally? It's obvious he was being at least somewhat poetic in that sentence. Plus, that sentence does not mean at all that the war was caused only by creative suppression. All it says is that it was a remarkable part of it.

Not to mention, the words "where borders fell or who traded with whom", at the very least imply that the war was between kingdoms. And everyone knows that if X nation is at war with Y nation, that's not a revolution. A revolution is specifically internal, the people of X nation fighting the authority in X nation.

And additionally, the alternative idea: That the kingdoms were all having revolutions simultaneously, all caused just by creative suppression, and they all ended in the same place and at the same time, it's too convenient and coincidence-driven to be believable.