Happy Victory Day /his/
>>2781614
Merry victory day to you too, commie. The one good thing those pinkos did.
>>2781614
happy victory day
>>2781614
We have successfully driven the Germans and Wehraboos from this board!
Let's have a Christianity thread. Christians of all denominations are welcome
C******cs are NOT Christian.
Daily reminder.
>>2782942
Reminder, that you should only follow the teachings of Jesus and no one else. Your sect of Christianity, priests, bishops, and the pope should not matter. Only listen to Jesus, confess to him only
Be Alexander the Great
>literally a filthy barbarian
>father conquers most of Greece
>father introduces phalanx
>father prepares conquest of Persia
>father dies
>Alexander takes father's tactics and conquers Persians who weren't much for strategy.
>Alexander wasn't much so a tactician himself, rather the generals who were already preparing for the invasion of Persia AND had experience in Thrace & Greece
>ie. Parmenion, Antipater
>numerous other great generals
>Alexander wasn't also very bright and logical like the Greeks
>extremely superstitious
>despite being exceptionally brave, Alexander's recklessness endangered himself and his army in battle
>Greece hates him
>Always sucking up to Athens as if the city is lover of his
>loses a lot of men fighting the frontiers of Persia where Cyrus died (somewhat more successful than Cyrus though)
>drags his army through the Gredrosian desert, losing countless men
>did not have to
>literally drinks himself to death not long after his boyfriend Hephaestion dies.
>at the end of his career, he was becoming a tyrannical cunt
>his death literally saved his image from being tarnished by his future career as a failed statesmen
Thoughts on overrated nerds in history?
Good Thread
>>2781247
That about sums it up, anon.
Did we mention that he was a exceptionally cruel bastard from time to time?
I don't think you can be more overrated than Hitler between him being military genius and anti-christ of modern times.
I don't understand why there's so much controversy and criticism over this book.
I've read pieces about how it is Eurocentric or racist, but he explicitly states that he is not making the argument that European culture or "progress" for lack of a better word is any better than hunter-gatherer societies, and he is just talking about why it happened.
Another one I've seen a lot is that Diamond is trying to oversimplify world history and explain everything that ever happened as a result of geographical determinism. This makes more sense, but again, he explicitly says in the first 30 pages or so that he is not presuming to explain all of world history, or assert that his ideas are all right, and that things are much more complicated than he could cover in one book. He literally tells you to read his book with a grain of salt.
Can someone explain to me why modern historians seem to hate it so much?
Jared Taylor on suicide watch
>>2782756
Unironically visit askhistorians
also
>e explicitly says in the first 30 pages or so that he is not presuming to explain all of world history, or assert that his ideas are all right, and that things are much more complicated than he could cover in one book. He literally tells you to read his book with a grain of salt.
You don't get to say lol what I'm saying might be bullshit don't believe me lol as if that means its fine to write a dumb, deterministic and oversimplified book
It's not about that, I suppose. It's just that you don't need to write a 500-something-page book to cover points that could very well fit into a 60-page essay, but it's just my opinion. It's the same thing over and over again, like a bad student struggling to come up with things to fill up his thesis.
Btw, in the book, Diamond explicitly states that all he wants is to explain why it was the Spanish who murdered the fuck out of hapless Incas, and not vice versa; alas, he never answers the most difficult question: why on Earth would several thousand people armed with clubs not try to use those clubs on 120 people with sharp metal sticks? I mean, come on, imagine you are walking down the street with 10 of your friends and you see a guy in a cuirass holding a sword. I'm sure you could restrain him with some losses.
>Nietzsche is such a nihilist and so depressing anon
DROPPED
What are your guys pet peeves when talking about philosophy?
> Ayyy Rand
I was talking with someone about existentialism the other day and he tried to talk about how the mind and the body are separate entities. needless to say I simply explained gestalt to him and he was BTFO for the night
What were Swiss Cantons? Were they just cities with some kind of council, the leadership made up by burghers, who got better at organizing violence than gentry? Is the Swiss Confederacy an example of medieval urbanization succeeding and defeating rural agrarianism? How similar was it to Italy? What role in nobility like knights, grafs, and what not play in Switzerland in the Middle Ages?
>>2782270
First, all Swiss cantons still exist.
Switzerland was a bit the dead end of Europe around its founding time, the mountains where not passable, agricultural yield was meager, trade was not developed and it was generally ignored by major noble clans. There where some free cities in the middle country and Habsburg, Burgundy and others held some random possessions.
Then things changed, the mountain dwellers developed techniques for cattle herding on alpine meadows and opened the Gotthard pass for trade. Suddenly living conditions improved, food surplus and merchandise was produced and up to 70% of the transalpine travel of the HRE went trough Switzerland.
Now the European nobles, notably Habsburg developed an interest in the lands and the people who until now where Reichsfrei, meaning they only had to answer to the emperor itself.
The original valleys that made up the 3 initial cantons (Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden) where organized in best Allamannic tradition, Althing assembly democratically decided the politics and elected leaders, every free man had the right to vote and the duty to fight, it is estimated that at medieval times 60% of the male population had perform military duty and be part of the militia. Constant tribal feuds and raids had made them competent warriors, plus they had some experience from mercenary work abroad.
The first recorded "constitution" of what was to become Switzerland dates back to 1291, the so called Bundesbrief details a mutual defense agreement between the 3 and also establishes a basic law of the country and certain legal traditions.
When the Habsburg tried to seized control of the mountain valleys, the Swiss resisted, the Habsburgs sent in an army, which in turn was destroyed at Morgarten 1315 by ambush tactics and the superior mobility of the mountain men.
At the same time, the city states of Zurich, Bern, Luzern and the mountain valley of Glarus had their own troubles with the Habsburg and all fought battles with them.
>>2782270
I'm gonna be watching this thread. Don't have anything to contribute but very interested in a rundown of Swiss history. Has the potential to be an actually good thread.
>>2782358
How did Swiss internal politics change over time? How did its development as an independent and unified state occur? Was it literally just a defense pact between villages that turned into a country? What happened to it during Napoleon's conquests? How was it viewed by its monarchic neighbours? Did it ever have a period of expansionism (I'm pretty sure it conquered some land from Milan at some point)?
>>2782358
So soon after, the City states allied with the mountain valleys, and so you had a heterogeneous confederation of patrician class ruled city states, basic democratic mountain tribes, and more or less democratic city states as well. All was bound together by a mutual defense pact, called the Oath or "der Eid" in German, hence why they still call themselves Eidgenossenschaft.
Now the Swiss had some advantages, superior infantry an tactics, as well as the militia system, which allowed to raise large armies quickly and move them in record time over difficult territory.
On the other hand they had 8 guys quarrel all the time and closely guarding that their neighbors would not out power them, going so far that they could not agree on who gets to rule conquered lands and hence rather give them up. Also they could not support a large army for a long term campaign.
This led to the interesting combination that the Swiss managed to slaughter several European super powers that attacked them, but where pretty mediocre at taking turf or taking political advantages of the military might.
Lateron, the French took advantage of that and basically hired the entire country as their personal army, thus Switzerland entered an age of domestic peace and political insignificance. France basically made Switzerland a symbiotic country, they gave them money and culture and political protection, the Swiss gave them steady troops for the french wars.
If you like the subject, try "One million mercenaries: Swiss soldiers in the armies of the world" by John McCormack, the first chapters give a good introduction to history, military and society of old Switzerland.
I'm not really religious, but at least Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and certain mainline denominations have *taste* and a level of tradition and history to them. Why are Evangelicals growing almost worldwide?
>>2781552
Probably because someone manipulated statistics and played with numbers to reach such conclusion.
>>2781552
Because it's the McDonald's of the religions.
Because rational people find it harder and harder to justify believing in Jewish fairy tales. The only denominations that survive are those that don't aim at rational people.
Is White-Guilt justified?
no.....
if anything people should be worshiping us
we build the modern world
Only when you personally oppress black people.
It's kinda fucked up because if you say yes, you also open the door for white nationalism.
Shut it down. The goyim know.
1. Aryan is not a race. It's a Sanskrit word for noble. Nowhere does it refer to people of a different race or appearance. This is evident in Vedic and Buddhist texts.
2. Sanskrit words have nothing in common with "Indo-European words". Not even the letters look remotely similar.
3. If the Aryan invasion theory is correct then that means the original habitants of the Indus Valley were Dravidians and Vedic literature and knowledge is Dravidian in nature.
4. The caste system is not something this supposed race came up with. Every civilizations has their class of people.
5. There is no historical evidence or literature of this supposed invasion ever taking place. Surely if it happened then it would mean they would have recorded it if it changed the very foundation of their society and civilization.
7. The theory itself was created by early European indologist who came up with their own version of "Out of Africa" theory but instead of Africa, they used Europe. It was a way to downplay Indian achievement by claiming that their ancient text, knowledge, civilization was due to ancient European migration and not because of their own native population. This contradicts point #3. The languages, culture, math, science food of ancient India has nothing in common with Europe relative to that time.
8. Pic related is a sculpture of a dancing girl in 2500BC in the Indus Valley civilization. Why would they (the supposed Aryan "race" make a sculpture of an inferior of a lesser caste and bring importance to her?
>>2780877
Shut the fuck up.
The woke level in this thread is too high
>>2780890
>t. Buttblasted White boy
Is it possible for Christians and Muslims to coexist peacefully?
>>2780811
Yes they are currently doing so in North America and parts of Europe
>>2780819
Where in Europe? In the West they live segregated in ghettos never interacting with the native populations.
>>2780829
Everywhere they live in Europe there is peace between them and the Christians.
This is the single most relate able and meaningful depiction of Jesus I have ever seen. It is a depiction of him on the night before the crucifixion after he left his disciples to go and pray. But in this version, he isn't the messiah talking to god; he is a man, cold and afraid, who needed time alone, to cope with the idea that he will sacrifice his life in matter of hours. It might be my favorite religious imagery of all time. What are some Art or Photos that depict parts of history differently then they are usually portrayed?
>>2780704
What's the story here?
>>2780710
It's cardinal richelieu, the de facto administrator of france, besieging the port of la rochelle, which was the bastion of french protestants aka huguenots. fall of la rochelle spelt the end of protestantism as a minority in france, discriminatory laws on the protestants were put in place that would last until the french revolution
What did pro-Nazi Germans do after the second world war? Did they just go back to their everyday lives? Was there any sort of punishment or shunning for them?
>>2780689
To be clear I'm thinking of your average villagers like in the picture, not high-ranking officers.
>>2780689
>Did they just go back to their everyday lives?
yup pretty much
https://youtu.be/R5i9k7s9X_A
Why does everyone usually imagine people of the past as being humorless and always serious? Were they?
>>2780666
>>2780666
They don't. Is this a trick question?
>>2780666
because they think the past was only grey, neutral colored misery full of hardships.
>be irreverent minor European power
>sail over to Africa/Asia
>kick everyone's ass
>conquer dozens of cities and create a globe spanning trade empire
How the fuck was this even possible? I mean this is the equivalent of Korea sailing over to Europe and making a trade empire in the Mediterranean (which obviously never happened).
When you think about it, it's completely absurd. You can't even use industrialization as an excuse, since it started in the fucking 1400's, way before Europe was supposedly overtaking the rest of the world.
>>2780384
they had guns and didn't need to worry about european wars
being Britain's dog has its advantages
>>2781559
The Brits didn't help on the Sea voyages.
King Manuel called for a joint Crusade and no one replied.
He sent it to the King of England, Pope and the King of France I think and got no reply.
>Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, offers to withdraw and negotiate, United Nations immediately authorises military action against them, bombs the shit out of them, and starved the country for 10 years
>Israel invaded Sinai, golan and West Bank in 1967, invaded Lebanon in 1982, builds settlements and occupied them for decades
>UN does nothing except "strongly worded condemnations"
Why do people say the UN is historically biased against Israel again.
>offers to withdraw and negotiate
When?
>>2779919
The UN is primarily a tool of the USA. Since the US is pro-Israel, so is the UN.
>>2779919
Jews > Muslims