Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 1526. page

>What did the ancients know that we do not?
Literally tons.

>>2502121
Aliens helped them then they fucked off

>>2502121
They forgot more than we know.

This current "we know more than everyone ever did" bullshit is about to come crumbling down.

No and no.

>>2502070
Your professor didn't say that

>>2502070
ITT: things that never happened

File: 1488648475733.png (289KB, 586x634px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 586x634px

>Celtomania

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-13 at 5.04.28 PM.png (381KB, 610x787px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 610x787px

>>2501926
next page

File: 880.jpg (26KB, 600x668px)

26KB, 600x668px

>>2501918
It probably has to do with the fact that he was against Christian morality and traditional institutions.

Nietzche was not even close to being a traditionalist though, if anything he is the forruner of modern fedora tipping edgelords.

File: foucaulthomosexualscateatingfaggotdeathtoalljews.png (337KB, 705x631px)

337KB, 705x631px

>>2501944
>It probably has to do with the fact that he was against Christian morality and traditional institutions.

He wasn't so much against them as he foresaw their inevitable doom as a result of modernity and desperately wanted something meaningful to replace them.

>was not even close to being a traditionalist

He despaired at the decay and decline of a traditional institution and the chaos this would bring. A non-traditionalist would not view the decline of the church and what came in its wake with the pessimism Nietzsche did.

Nietzsche is right-wing, there is no easy way around this.

Worth a read:
https://www.toqonline.com/archives/v6n2/NietzschereviewTOQV6N2.pdf

>>2501918

Godless left.

It's the godless left for reasons.

1. The Great War
2. That's literally it

I like that cooky italian linguist

and that british fellow with the penchant for foppishness

>>2501876
Unironically John Green to get interested in history as a beginner. After that "The Great War" and "Hardcore History"

>>2501853
i don't know shit about the middle ages compared to roman history

but i CAN tell you that Rome absolutely influenced dark age-middle ages army composition/equipment broadly. so cavalry were likely the most important element, but then again would be nothing without a large group of spearmen to fall back to or rally behind

The Normans pioneered heavy cavalry and managed to take England, Sicily and crusade around in the late 11th century, swinging far above their weight like their viking ancestors.

The golden age was the 12th century, knights faced few threats on the battlefield, were given land to support them and held significant political power, this is when books on King Arthur and chivalry arose.

In the 13th century they faced calamity at the hands of Saladin, Mongols, crossbows and schiltrons and their role declined.

By the 14th century and into the 15th, hired men at arms made up the bulk of well equipped soldiers accompanying knights who were now more an officer class, also the longbow became prominent.

In the early 16th century there was still a need for armored cavalry but these were all but hired like the gendarmes and without any special status.

>>2502342

>The golden age was the 12th century

what about Sirmium? and if anything at least in Hungary's case they proved very important in countering the Mongols.

The burger exists independent of your perception.

If nobody is in the room, the burger is still there. What kind of dumb question is this?

>>2501768
WHAT IF a tree falls on the burger?

>>2501773

Can you prove that?

>>2501743
The Germans have always been shit. Julius Caesar describes their culture in The Gallic War:
>The only things which they count as gods are things they can see and which clearly benefit them, for example, the Sun, Vulcan, and the Moon.
>Those who have remained chaste the longest win the highest praise among their own people
>They consider it a matter for shame to have sexual intercourse with a woman before reaching the age of 20
>They do not practice agriculture
>No one possesses a fixed area of land or estates of his own
>The highest praise among the German states goes to those who ravage their borders and so maintain the widest unpopulated area around themselves.
>They think it a true mark of bravery to drive neighbouring peoples from their land ... so no one dares to dwell nearby.

The Germans, in Caesar's day, were autistic wizard virgin fedoralords that couldn't farm and sought to isolate themselves from as many people as possible. What has changed since then? Well, they can farm now.

>>2503252
g*rmans btfo

>>2503252
So why was Tacitus such a Germaboo then?

File: dreku.jpg (34KB, 419x354px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 419x354px

>>2501483
>fatness as an aesthetic ideal
>in Eurasian
is the United states of Hamerica considered European or Asian now?

>Why did fatness become an aesthetic ideal in many Eurasian societies
Sumo is like a really fucking niche sport dude, it wasn't a CONTINENTAL standard of aesthetics.

It didn't. For skinny Japan (and Japan is one of the skinniest countries on earth) it's probably kind of novel to see two fatsos wrestling one another. Also remember that the Sumo wrestle is strong and uses his fat to his advantage. It's fitfat.

I call this photograph, "the People's Republic of China"

>>2501482
This Chinese artist is more redpilled than the entirety of /pol/

>>2501514
thats not really hard

>>2501405
Not even close

File: more honorable turk.jpg (19KB, 229x220px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 229x220px

It's about to achieve moor thanks to Merkel.

are you kidding me?

>>2501288
>God exists
>God created the world 6000 years ago
>therefore *tips fedora*

>>2501288
It depends on if you demand rigorous proof to conclusively determine something, or simply a series of examples to approach the truth.

>>2501288
You can only make the argument "I am an idiot" if you actually are one (from a hypothetical rhetorical point of view), in which case making a logical well performed argument would be improbable anyway.
If you take this away from a rhetorical grouding, then it really depends on how you make your argument and who is listening to it.

People lived.

They fought for the dominance in the Latin league, waged some minor wars with Etruscans and Volsci, and was busy working out the optimal constitution and laws. Then Gauls sacked the city in 390 and Romans spent the next 50 years rebuilding their power and reorganizing their military.

>>2500764
As soon as he resurrected

>>2500764

Nisan 17, 32 AD.

>>2500764
Since the moment someone came up with the myth. Dead is dead. Definition of dead is to "not" come back. People who make up shit don't make sense. Definitions don't matter to them.

>>2500599
>Did he sell his soul to them to become the Roman Empire
if He did they fucked him over because he will and never has been deemed the Roman Emperor.
kek.

as for >was conquering the Byzantines really that big of a deal?
>conquering the last remnant of Rome.
>not a big deal

>>2500599
Turks out of Wallachia, Byzantine spoons was weakened, Ottoman Empire never been any type of heir to the Roman Empire, Turks are trash.

File: terkem.jpg (50KB, 420x486px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 420x486px

>>2501584
If Turks are trash I can't imagine were all of Eastern Europe and Byzantine stands on the pecking order considering they were conquered by "trash".