Great AAR! I've read it atleast 3 times now over the years, always a good read.
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Welcome (back), @m088 !
It feels good to still be welcoming readers here.Thank you! I so much value your longtime and continued interest in this. I come back to it often, thinking how I might be able to revise and/or rewrite it into a workable novel.
I'll try to get the images back in one of these days. I'm just so busy right now -- I have two jobs, working 65 hours a week, so....
Thanks again!
Rensslaer
Dear Readers - If anyone is still tracking this old work I wanted to post an update. Especially since dozens of readers from this work had encouraged me in my writing, and had inquired about my IRL fiction writing.
In fact, in the foreword to my novel I credit this AAR and the Paradox Forums and the readers here as my inspiration for writing it in the first place. My finishing this whole massive AAR in two years time, with all of your encouragement, proved to me that I could write a novel-length story and that people would want to read it.
There's absolutely no substitute for support like that!
Some big news!
I have finally republished my original epic fantasy novel on Amazon. I can't post a link here, but my writing blog is linked in my profile and anyone could go search for Edwin Hanks Author or my novel called Uprooted on Amazon. It has NEW cover art (kind of embarrassed about the old art!) and I'm very proud of that, and the writing in the book. I'm working on getting the novel up on Barnes & Noble also, for the Nook app.
Thank you!
Rensslaer
In fact, in the foreword to my novel I credit this AAR and the Paradox Forums and the readers here as my inspiration for writing it in the first place. My finishing this whole massive AAR in two years time, with all of your encouragement, proved to me that I could write a novel-length story and that people would want to read it.
There's absolutely no substitute for support like that!
Some big news!
I have finally republished my original epic fantasy novel on Amazon. I can't post a link here, but my writing blog is linked in my profile and anyone could go search for Edwin Hanks Author or my novel called Uprooted on Amazon. It has NEW cover art (kind of embarrassed about the old art!) and I'm very proud of that, and the writing in the book. I'm working on getting the novel up on Barnes & Noble also, for the Nook app.
Thank you!
Rensslaer
- 1
Whoa! This one was the night of my 21st birthday, 19 and a half years ago! LOLOL!
Those Rensselaers sure do get around, don't they?
They're worse than the Habsburgs. And the Napoleans, lol.
Ha! From page 33 - you're re-reading, aren't you?
I'm actually re-reading it also, and taking notes. I am back on my "publish Fire Warms the Northern Lands as a novel" push!
So what's going on, for @RisKFactoR's benefit and that of anyone else who's watching still (anyone??)...
In order to do this right I'm going to expand the story to start it during the Napoleonic Wars. That's when Kaiser-to-be Wilhelm I was a young lad (born 1796) and he's growing up during the chaos of these wars across Europe. Prussia is defeated and made a subject state for a period of time, and then, around the time Wilhelm was 16, the Prussians rise up in the wake of Napoleon's defeat in Russia. Prussia becomes a key player in the final years of the struggle, and Wilhelm is a young officer. Napoleon is defeated, and exiled, but then returns and they have a do-over. Wilhelm is again in combat. Then gets to witness the Treaty of Paris that reshapes Europe. Quite an interesting time to be a young man, I would imagine.
So anyway, I'm researching the Napoleonic Wars currently. In college I had an awesome European History professor who was fascinated with Napoleon. And we went over his life and the battles, but I was more interested in American History and World War II at the time, so I never really picked up his interest. I'm sorry about that - this is interesting stuff, and I wish I'd had the time to discuss this stuff with him in detail back then. I know I would have learned alot, and he would have had fun telling me about it. This is the same professor who passed a French Chassebot and a Prussian Needle Gun (early breech-loading rifles) around the class so we could feel and touch them. He would have loved having a guy like me to talk to, but I missed my chance.
Anyway.... This is underway. I cannot promise it's near on the horizon, but I'm working, and we'll see how far I can get with the project. Enough sprints like this and I'll have a novel written. Just you see.
Thanks everybody!
Rensslaer
- 1
Haha, indeed! I did restart from scratch, reading this!Ha! From page 33 - you're re-reading, aren't you?
I'm actually re-reading it also, and taking notes. I am back on my "publish Fire Warms the Northern Lands as a novel" push!
So what's going on, for @RisKFactoR's benefit and that of anyone else who's watching still (anyone??)...
In order to do this right I'm going to expand the story to start it during the Napoleonic Wars. That's when Kaiser-to-be Wilhelm I was a young lad (born 1796) and he's growing up during the chaos of these wars across Europe. Prussia is defeated and made a subject state for a period of time, and then, around the time Wilhelm was 16, the Prussians rise up in the wake of Napoleon's defeat in Russia. Prussia becomes a key player in the final years of the struggle, and Wilhelm is a young officer. Napoleon is defeated, and exiled, but then returns and they have a do-over. Wilhelm is again in combat. Then gets to witness the Treaty of Paris that reshapes Europe. Quite an interesting time to be a young man, I would imagine.
So anyway, I'm researching the Napoleonic Wars currently. In college I had an awesome European History professor who was fascinated with Napoleon. And we went over his life and the battles, but I was more interested in American History and World War II at the time, so I never really picked up his interest. I'm sorry about that - this is interesting stuff, and I wish I'd had the time to discuss this stuff with him in detail back then. I know I would have learned alot, and he would have had fun telling me about it. This is the same professor who passed a French Chassebot and a Prussian Needle Gun (early breech-loading rifles) around the class so we could feel and touch them. He would have loved having a guy like me to talk to, but I missed my chance.
Anyway.... This is underway. I cannot promise it's near on the horizon, but I'm working, and we'll see how far I can get with the project. Enough sprints like this and I'll have a novel written. Just you see.
Thanks everybody!
Rensslaer
Also, I'm going to PM you this coming weekend for a question, of you don't mind.
- 1
I shall forestall your speculation by saying that this is a three-part tour, and it has lots more to do with other things than what you're thinking!
(EDIT: most notably NOT a three-hour tour -- those are always dangerous, and often cause much more trouble than they're worth!!! though they can be entertaining for the viewers...)
In partial answer, I will say that the symbolism is mainly to highlight Prussia's #1 status as a prestigious world power -- vanity on display. And to point out that Prussia's colonies are finally protected by a capable navy, for the first time in history! But that's not really the most significant part of what's going on...
I have the other parts mostly ready, but will space them out because I have virtually nothing after that done!
VILenin, yes, the Russians were in the place of honor because they were primarily responsible for the development of Prussia's modern navy. Tech trades with Russia (+194 relations) got our navy caught up to where it needed to be. Which will be a point of some irony, very soon...
Catknight and Vincent, yes Krakow is in an exalted place! They should be very glad no one ever pays attention to them.
Thank you all for your attention! More specific feedback later, once things begin to develop to where I'm not giving things away...
Rensslaer
This is another old post I am responding to, but I really like this part of this AAR. It reminds me of America's own rising onto the world stage with its own world tour of the Great White Fleet at the turn of the century. Without looking it up atm, I believe it was for the same exact reason your portraying Prussia's World Tour:
The opening of the Panama Canal IRL, as well as America's feat of naval engineering that ushered it onto the world stage as a major power. It was also used a diplomatic tool to open Japan as a major trading partner.
- 1
@RisKFactoR you're right. The British would make station calls with Royal Navy task forces also. It's a "big navy" thing to do to show off.
And at the rate you're reading you've probably realized that's the beginning of the end for Kaiser Friedrich III.
I'm actually rereading at the death of Kaiser Wilhelm I, where Friedrich III becomes Kaiser.
Thanks for rereading! Glad you're enjoying it.
Rensslaer
And at the rate you're reading you've probably realized that's the beginning of the end for Kaiser Friedrich III.
I'm actually rereading at the death of Kaiser Wilhelm I, where Friedrich III becomes Kaiser.
Thanks for rereading! Glad you're enjoying it.
Rensslaer
- 1
Ahh, Wally becomes as much a despot as his ancestors
Let's hope he can limit himself to but a single newspaper, hopefully because after that he will be firmly in charge. A civil war where all the free press gets burned is bad, IMO
Another old post I'd like to bring up:
Technically, ordering the burning of a newspaper engaged in illegal activity (gang-like activity; having paperboys assault each other on the street, smashing rival presses, and engaging in general treachery seeing as Waldemar in this story up to this point in this thread is the LEGAL heir-apparent,) could be argued to be a legal order for shutting down criminal activity,
- 1
Oh, I very much am! I'm even readin all the other comments in between as well lol.
- 1
You must be reading at a fantastic clip to be up to the Waldemar Succession story already!
And I've always thought that reading this lost alot of the detail if you only read the updates. There's alot that went on, and was explained, in the comments. Plus the readers have been very insightful in their comments on the story and characters.
Glad you're enjoying the readthrough!
Rensslaer
- 1
Selected Excerpts from Captain of My Heart: A TransAtlantic Romance, by Camelia Gardner, Pub. 2003
Nov 1, 1903
Dear Wally,
To my Prince, Captain of my Heart, I miss you so. It has been so long, since the summer, when we last saw each other. I think of you every day, dream of you every night. Wish for your kisses, and sleep with your letters.
It sounds like you have settled in to being a wonderful Kaiser! I hope your people appreciate you. I know they must.
With All My Love,
Betsie
Nov 6, 1903
Dear Betsie,
Your letters are an ever-present comfort to me, as I still struggle with the Reichstag, and even my own ministers! I feel like a Montana bronco buster, like those your President Roosevelt told us about! I’m always riding high, but having to hold on tight to keep from being thrown in the dust.
Your Enduring Protector,
Wally
Nov 15, 1903
Oh, Wally! I heard in the news today that you are going to war again! Well, perhaps not you, but Germany. You won’t go to war yourself, will you? Yes, I suppose you will, won’t you! You’re too much a man to send someone to do something you wouldn’t do yourself. But I do hope you will take care of yourself, wherever you are! Don’t let anybody at home take advantage! And be safe. You will be in my prayers, every day, seven times a day – not just twice or thrice, like usual!
With Kisses for My Captain,
Betsie
Nov 16, 1903
My Dearest Prince,
Professor Bradford said today that Germany was just playing as bully, and that one of these days you were going to find someone bigger on the block who would put you down! I spoke out against him, of course, but… I have to admit, Wally, I don’t know exactly what to say. I got your telegram to say you’re okay, but I know you’re surely too busy to telephone. And I certainly don’t want to trouble you when you have so much on your mind. The newspapers here have mixed feelings, but I know none of them have your perspective on things. Some of what the newspapers say is much worse than old Bradford! And I was just getting used to not having Wilson’s snide comments to get my blood boiling!
Love and Prayers for My Captain,
For one, I must say that, although we haven’t been in a shooting war with Russia since before you and I met, there has been a war of sorts… Call it a “cold war,” perhaps. I can’t tell you the number of times we found troops gathering on our border, and began to get concerned, and then found they were being sent someplace else. They did that intentionally, I think. Just to make us nervous, and to remind us they’re there. Nicholas should know I harbor no evil intentions toward him, but he taunts us nonetheless.
And then, where are all those soldiers going? In recent years, they have been going east and south – toward central Asia – where they have been taking over small countries and unorganized territories – Crimea, Khiva, Kokand, Bukhara, among others. When they attacked, and finally annexed Khiva earlier this year, I felt we had no choice but to conclude Russia’s aggression must be countered.
Interesting... This timeline takes place 123 years ago. You wrote this almost 18 years ago from this date, and 8 years before Russia's 2014 IRL invasion of Crimea, while the USA was worried about the Russian troops building up on the border....
- 1
Yeah, it's a really good read! Thank you! I also might write a Stellaris AAR partially using this as an inspiration.
- 1
From The Eagle Rising: The Story of Prussia's Arrival On the World Stage, pub. 1989 by Professor Reinicke Herz
Following the disaster at Boston, the United States had withdrawn all but a holding force from the Hartford area to form part of a defensive line protecting New York from German attack. With Hartford laid bare, General Kreuzberg mounted an offensive that engaged on the 20th of May. By the 30th, the Americans had surrendered, and Germany came into control of Connecticut once more.
On 10 May, the German cruiser squadron encountered an American cruiser squadron. The exchanged fire left two German and three American light cruisers afire and sinking. But later, on 3 June, this same German cruiser task force (now down to 3 armored cruisers and a light cruiser) met two lone American cruisers – a light cruiser and an armored cruiser. Without loss to themselves, the Germans sunk the USS Boston and USS Memphis. The loss of Boston’s namesake served to further demoralize the American people.
As part of an attempt to build the public spirit, the US Army initiated a strong attack against Hartford on the 4th of July, 1919. President Wilson announced the offensive in his Independence Day address. Meanwhile, General Kreuzberg made use of the diversion of forces to launch his own attack upon the defenses of upper New York State. Leaving Nienburg’s core corps of 188,000 entrenched soldiers to defend Massachusetts, Kreuzberg attacked on 9 July with 230,000 soldiers, supported by artillery and tanks.
To some degree, the Americans were ready for this. They moved in additional divisions to absorb the attack, and began marching several divisions from Vermont to attack Kreuzberg’s flank. Sensing that the thrust into New York was in danger of becoming entrapped and destroyed, Nienburg called upon the only resource he could. General Gerhard Schwedt, grandson of the famous cavalry general of the First Anglo-Prussian War, had been placed in command of six divisions of cavalry. Among them were the Stendal and Stettin divisions – units with histories going back to his grandfather’s day, and with which Schwedt had served for 20 years. These cavalry divisions – the last of the Prussian cavalry tradition – were also some of the most experienced officers and men in the army. And they were the only units with enough speed to harass and delay the army from Vermont to prevent its deciding the battle against Kreuzberg.
Schwedt’s cavalry began nipping at the flanks of the American reinforcements on the 14th, and was able to delay and distract them such that they could not concentrate on their mission, which would have been very detrimental to the timing and success of Kreuzberg’s attack. The Americans would attempt to move – in a different direction, if necessary – and suddenly Schwedt’s cavalry was there. They would snipe from ridgelines, make sharp, stinging flank attacks, and then would be gone before the US cavalry could respond effectively. This went on for some days, albeit at certain cost to the Prussian horse troops.
By the 18th, these three simultaneous battles – Hartford, New York and Burlington – were turning out in wildly different ways. The American attack upon Connecticut had cost 30,000 casualties of their own against only 2,000 German. Like in the Battle of Boston, they could not sustain that ratio for long.
Kreuzberg, relying heavily on the shock effect of his panzerwagens against the helpless infantry, hoped to punch through the American lines despite the fact that the reinforced American army outnumbered him.
And Schwedt, trying desperately to keep the northern corps from aiding against Kreuzberg, had already lost half of his cavalry to death or injury, despite the mobility which gave them an advantage against the vastly superior American strength. At that point, he was recalled to Boston, where he would then play a different but similar role in the evolving battle plan.
Nienburg, as the plan went, would leave his entrenchments and move forward to Kreuzberg’s aid with the reserved Hamburg PanzerKorps.
This is where the battle plan becomes immensely complicated. On the 27th, Kreuzberg disengaged his badly mauled divisions from the American lines and retreated back toward Boston. He met with Nienburg, coming the other way, they swapped commands, and Kreuzberg rolled forward with the Hamburg Panzers toward the US Army defensive lines he had just left.
General Schwedt, his exhausted divisons backfilled with spare horses and rapidly (and inadequately) trained infantry, rushed forward to keep the Americans under pressure long enough for Kreuzberg to arrive with his slow panzerwagens.
Finally, on 30 July, the Hamburger Panzers arrived. For the next week, Schwedt, Kreuzberg and Nienburg managed, as best they could, to maintain the pressure on the American lines in hopes that they would break – which history tells us they very nearly did, on several occasions. But just enough US Army divisions arrived on the front fresh and ready for combat to keep the line from collapsing. The offensive was taking a terrible toll on the cavalry, infantry and even panzer units involved on the German side. Each unit was rotated out when they were near their limit, and new units were brought back into the offensive as available.
On the 7th of August, the Hamburg PanzerKorps was pulled back, having suffered grievous losses against the Americans. Fresh German divisions had just arrived in Boston from overseas, and they were quickly prepared to go forth and become the next wave of this prolonged offensive.
However, on the 10th, General Nienburg made the difficult but obvious decision to relent, bring his battered corps back to Boston to regroup and recover, and consolidate the surviving soldiers with the reinforcements.
In hindsight, Nienburg’s position was not unenviable. Thanks to the reinforcements, the security of the New England perimeter was not in doubt. Ahe Americans had taken a horrible beating also, having many divisions ground under through constant contact with the enemy.
The Germans may have failed at their primary goal – a breakout from Boston – but they succeeded in a secondary goal of reducing the ability of the United States to resist the growing presence of the Germans on America’s shores. The day for another offensive would not be far off. Until then, it was time to rest.
This is my latest read. And I DO gotta say:
I wish the Huns would lose here! I'm from Pennsylvania, and a break out here would threaten my hometown in North Central PA. once Boston then NYC falls.
- 1
I just have to say it was never my intent to provoke the Americans. Blame Wilhelm II if you must. But Wally had nothing to do with it, nor did I!
Rensslaer
Blame Wilhelm II if you must. But Wally had nothing to do with it, nor did I! Rensslaer
- 1
Vincent Julien - One of the interesting things about history -- one of the things that most fascinates me -- is that there are multiple perspectives and worldviews that persist independently, each with their own bodies of evidence which can be debated and argued back and forth. It's often hard to say where "fact" lies and different things can be taken from the same evidence depending on your perspective. Now, I'm no relativist, but I do acknowledge that we cannot "know" fact with 100% certainty, so I'm willing to allow for other perspectives even while holding firmly to my own (but not stubbornly in the face of strong counter-evidence).
I mean, there are people who still disagree vehemently about whether Spock has emotions!
History is no different. I think some "academics" go far astray in insisting they are right and everybody else is wrong. Not only are there multiple sides, each saying they're right and everybody else is wrong. But each side often has good points which deserve to be considered. By insisting that one has "the right of it" one also shuts down discussion, which I think betrays the basic principles of the historical ideal, which is to question, and to re-evaluate based on new evidence (as you know, history is always changing!).
Anyway, for what it's worth, the audiobook I'm currently listening to -- by an "expert" of many decades in the field -- goes into length describing how Nazism was a "redistributive" (i.e. socialist) system, and that it was "far from being a tool of the capitalists". Next week I might read/listen to something completely opposed to this perspective. But I think it benefits me, as an experienced historian, to take in all these perspectives, and to consider the evidence.
As an American philosophical conservative (or libertarian/liberal, as you say in the other thread -- the meaning is the same, even if the definitions are not -- I stay the same, while the definitions change, which is oxymoronic), I see many influences of socialism in society and in history (and socialism is broadly enough defined to encompass various sub-philosophies). I think this perspective is underrepresented, so I present it here. No need to necessarily agree with me, but I think it's an idea worth considering. The discussion in the other thread seems to be leaning toward the term "corporatist" for the Nazis, which may well be a more accurate term/perspective. I don't know, as corporatism wasn't really taught/acknowledged when I was in school, so I'd need to learn more about it to see what fits.
Anyway... You'll see more of "my perspective" to come, so... enjoy!
And, naturally, I plan to enjoy your magnificent tome on the same subject -- "Prussian Moderation" -- from a different but worthy perspective, and with great talent and care spent in the crafting!
Rensslaer
Another old post I know, but I am really curious to know whether, how, and why your perspective has changed over the past 18 years?
One thing that many people seem to either forget, or simply do not acknowledge:
Laissez-faire capitalism.
As far as I understand it, If it isn't laissez-faire capitalism (which is basically a libertarian dream), then it is socialist in some form or another in a post-colonial world. (Post-colonial, because colonial empires like the UK and France in the late middle / early modern era (1500 - 1800), was focused on the mercantilist system. )
Laissez-faire capitalism seems to have the exact same end-result as communism:
The entire economy controlled completely by just a handful of individuals.
I view socialism as a tool that can wisely be used in a truly democratic system of constitutional government with a separation of powers, in order to protect the free market and fair competition. As a way to somewhat level the playing field and give others who were born later a chance to start a business and increase innovation and productivity levels. Socialist policies as used western democracies starting in the interwar years of the 20th century, and particularly post WW2 have resulted in practically a miracle of innovation and productivity.
@RisKFactoR I started a brief reply and by the 10th paragraph realized it was going to have to be 20 paragraphs so... Lol
In extreme brevity let me say this.
1. My fundamental ideals haven't changed. What has changed is I'm alot more cynical today.
2. I'm not in favor of laissez-faire capitalism, which is something that has never existed in reality short of small towns and lemonade stands. Reasonable government controls make a free market easier the same way streets and railways make travel easier. Once the controls become unreasonable and oppressive, I define that as socialism. IMHO
3. I support capitalism in principle because I believe it's the fairest economic system. I would be willing to bet that you support socialism because you believe it's the fairest system (I once believed the same). An actual free market, free of domination by either a government or a set of monopolies, is generally free and allows people to advance themselves according to their ability, persistence, sheer force of will, etc. A true free market system also takes care of the weak through a social net of unforced charity. The extreme poverty of the 19th Century was caused primarily because of monopolism (see below). Socialism, in my opinion, doesn't really allow anyone to change class (classes still exist) and it's inherently coercive -- anyone who disagrees with the government agenda must be punished for not going along. In reality most societies on earth today have some variation of government-run socialism, each of which is made less progressive by the intervention of monopolies (because anyone in government (socialist, capitalist, etc.) is more likely to take a bribe than to uphold a principle).
4. I'm opposed to monopolies because they're anti-capitalist. Monopolies are antithetical to the whole concept of a free market. Many people believe monopolies are the result of pure capitalism, but actually capitalism can't work if monopolies exist because they destroy free markets. Without monopoly controls (which the US used to have -- I remember when the government broke up the monopolistic telephone company and made a whole bunch of little ones) the free market ceases to exist. In the '70s & '80s the US government would have said no to 3/4 of the enormous companies we have today. We've gone back to the monopolistic system of the 19th Century. There used to be a bunch of cellphone companies in the US, and now most have been bought up by 2 or 3 big ones.
5. The worldwide economy these days is dominated by monopolies (think Google, X, Apple, Meta, Pfizer, Amazon, etc., most of which are actually controlled by one or more gargantuan holding companies) and those companies basically place controls upon the governments instead of the other way around. Any politician who tries to do something the monopolies don't want has their money tree cut off and doesn't get re-elected. So basically we have a global set of monopolistic companies running everything. Capitalism happens on the small scale, but big tech and big pharma determine what politicians' priorities are.
Anyway -- if you hate monopolies then we agree they're destroying the world.
Rensslaer
In extreme brevity let me say this.
1. My fundamental ideals haven't changed. What has changed is I'm alot more cynical today.
2. I'm not in favor of laissez-faire capitalism, which is something that has never existed in reality short of small towns and lemonade stands. Reasonable government controls make a free market easier the same way streets and railways make travel easier. Once the controls become unreasonable and oppressive, I define that as socialism. IMHO
3. I support capitalism in principle because I believe it's the fairest economic system. I would be willing to bet that you support socialism because you believe it's the fairest system (I once believed the same). An actual free market, free of domination by either a government or a set of monopolies, is generally free and allows people to advance themselves according to their ability, persistence, sheer force of will, etc. A true free market system also takes care of the weak through a social net of unforced charity. The extreme poverty of the 19th Century was caused primarily because of monopolism (see below). Socialism, in my opinion, doesn't really allow anyone to change class (classes still exist) and it's inherently coercive -- anyone who disagrees with the government agenda must be punished for not going along. In reality most societies on earth today have some variation of government-run socialism, each of which is made less progressive by the intervention of monopolies (because anyone in government (socialist, capitalist, etc.) is more likely to take a bribe than to uphold a principle).
4. I'm opposed to monopolies because they're anti-capitalist. Monopolies are antithetical to the whole concept of a free market. Many people believe monopolies are the result of pure capitalism, but actually capitalism can't work if monopolies exist because they destroy free markets. Without monopoly controls (which the US used to have -- I remember when the government broke up the monopolistic telephone company and made a whole bunch of little ones) the free market ceases to exist. In the '70s & '80s the US government would have said no to 3/4 of the enormous companies we have today. We've gone back to the monopolistic system of the 19th Century. There used to be a bunch of cellphone companies in the US, and now most have been bought up by 2 or 3 big ones.
5. The worldwide economy these days is dominated by monopolies (think Google, X, Apple, Meta, Pfizer, Amazon, etc., most of which are actually controlled by one or more gargantuan holding companies) and those companies basically place controls upon the governments instead of the other way around. Any politician who tries to do something the monopolies don't want has their money tree cut off and doesn't get re-elected. So basically we have a global set of monopolistic companies running everything. Capitalism happens on the small scale, but big tech and big pharma determine what politicians' priorities are.
Anyway -- if you hate monopolies then we agree they're destroying the world.
Rensslaer
Last edited: