Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 1597. page

>reading Gibbon

>>2465123
>Disregarding one of the most prominent scholars of Western classical history because he said bad things about Christians

>>2465176
>reading Gibbon

>>2464053
Carthage of course. The Vandals were nothing but snow niggers who deserved the frozen tundra of the north. The Mediterranean should belong to only Mediterranean people.

>>2464071
>Reminder that the Vandals actually sacked Rome and Hannibal couldn't

>>2464081
delet

>>2464020
Thread theme
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9aQNv5nraA

>>2464020
>Hey guize lets start an independent anarchist microstate in the middle of a German invasion

File: image.jpg (54KB, 400x515px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 400x515px

>*shots you in the head and deports all your living relatives to French Algeria*
Pssh, rien de personnel le communard.

America is new Atlantis and old Atlantis was on the American continent https://www.google.com/amp/s/4threvolutionarywar.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/america-the-green-country-alexander-dugin/amp/

>>2463953

there were great cities died to natural disasters prior Plato, Atlantis is either amalgamation of those stories or over-glorification of a single one.

We have surviving architecture from the time period and nothing even comes close to the grandeur described.

>>2463953
>Plato is more reliable than a lot of other greek philosophers...

Well, Plato was describing it as a fictional place, so I guess it didn't exist then.

Got BTFO by John Berger in 2 hours.

>>2463895
what a (((coincidence)))

>>2463879
I like it mostly for how Clark talks, adding qualifying statements to his points. Some information is a little dated though since with pluralism came a more rigorous look at societies often overlooked by conventional history, i.e. 'the dark ages'. It is a 'personal view' after all.

>>2463895
Not really. Civilisation is a program on civilisation that draws on art as examples, Ways of Seeing is primarily about art.

>>2463870
The first automobile was invented in 1769 by Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot, but it was a unique model
Then Karl Benz a century later improved his design and was the first one to put automobiles on the market
And then Ford was the first one to sell cars en mass

>>2463898
this

File: Leonardo_self.jpg (67KB, 420x659px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 420x659px

Invented by Leonardo Da Vinci: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo%27s_self-propelled_cart

It is also considered the first robot. He invented the first humanoid robot together with it as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo%27s_robot

>Polytheism
There are many gods
>Pantheism
God is a force
>Monotheism
There is one God

Paganism is just the mythologization and legends of ancient fallen angels and nephilim giants. They don't know the real creator God.

So the first debate is Pantheism (Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, Gnosticism, Theosophy, etc) VS Monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). Pantheism is Satanic to the core, it adopts all of Lucifer/Satan's teachings. These things is what the elitist occult believes and are strictly anti-Christ.

So the second debate is which monotheistic or "abrahamic" religion is the right one. Talmudic Judaism based on Babylonian mysticism is satanic, so we can write that off. Jews rejected and killed the Son of God. Islam has been thoroughly debunked and proven wrong many times. It has nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity.

So the final debate is what denomination or version of Christendom is correct.
>Roman Catholicism
>Eastern Orthodoxy
>Protestant Reformation
This is a hard subject because you really need to delve into church history to understand who has it right and who has it wrong.

File: for (you).png (10KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 450x450px

>>2463836
>Paganism is just the mythologization and legends
you could say that to discount literally any religion on the face of the planet. i also find it hilarious that you dismiss pagan relgions as mythology, whilst simultaneously invoking mythological figures from your own religion.
>Pantheism is Satanic to the core
>Talmudic Judaism based on Babylonian mysticism is satanic
i don't find this argument very convincing. in order to demonstrate that your religion is legitimate, you say than pantheism, and talmudic judaism is "satanic," but satanism as a concept is predicated on the legitimacy of judeo-christian doctrine. you have yet to actually demonstrate this legitimacy, instead opting for circular reasoning (pic related).
>Jews rejected and killed the Son of God
once again, simply referencing scripture is not a satisfactory demonstration of legitimacy.
>So the final debate is what denomination or version of Christendom is correct.
i would posit that you've yet to settle the first "debate," much less reached a point of finality in this conversation. christ, the first point you made completley sidesteps the question i originally posed. you didn't show why your god is more worthy of worship than those of a pagan, or a pantheist, or a jew.

File: occult.jpg (68KB, 800x528px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x528px

>>2464000
Check out Bill Cooper's work.

Liberal virtue signalling or atheists looking for something "new, fresh and exciting".

>I'm not religious, I'm spiritual bro!
>Christianity? ARGGH RELIGION!
>Buddhism? Wow that's so interesting.. Tell me more

>tfw you're an NPC

i'd np her c

File: augustus.jpg (4KB, 305x165px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 305x165px

GIVE

>>2463735
ME

>>2463735

ME

File: Seleucid-Empire_200bc.jpg (748KB, 1244x716px) Image search: [Google]

748KB, 1244x716px

The Parthians were a indo-iranian tribe that used to be defined as Schytians, cause of their tribal ways and being steppefags (since Persians referred to every non-civilized iranian tribe as Saka/Scythians). But after the term "Scythian" became something to define a certain ethnic group of indo-iranians thanks to modern historian shenanigans, Parthians are just seen as an extension of Persians.

They were vassals to the Achaemenids and later Seleucids when Alexander moved in.
But after the Seleucids turned out to be shit by Roman bullying they gradually expanded Westward, like every other steppefag from the Seljuks to the Mongols and created their little Empire to challenge Rome with dominion over the silk road. All while introducing everyones favourite RTS-tactic, spam horse archers and incooperating both Persian and Hellenistic-style warfare, thanks to serving both previously mentioned empires.

>>2463665

YOU ARE IGNORANT AND MORONIC.

File: masked big guy.jpg (18KB, 343x343px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 343x343px

>>2463731
What a puny response.

File: alignment.jpg (36KB, 713x357px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 713x357px

like all reductions there are "grey areas" and inaccuracies, but they are good for illustrating processes that exist in the wider world

>>2463576
Nietzsche special power means he can move to any alignment effortlessly, as suits his whim

>>2463475
Art of War by Sun Tzu
Has been used by multiple leaders including Napoleon, Hitler and Mao.
Also the 33 strategies of war is pretty good.
Haven't read it, but I know Makers of modern war.

>>2463475
The fact Romania still exists is mind-boggling. How did this bunch of literal pitch-fork wielding peasants manage to not get absorbed by the ottomans, Austro-Hungary or Russia?

File: 1402339555532.jpg (2MB, 3101x2326px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3101x2326px

If you find something valuable in those places, are they yours or do they belong to the country?

>>2463374
>Can someone redpill about Tito and Yugoslavia?
I'm not sure what you want with this question.

>What is Titoism?
The policies followed in Yugoslavia; opposition to the Soviet Union, federalism, workers' self-management, a compromise between the free market of the West and planned economy of the East, neutrality, cooperation with other countries in the Non-aligned movement.

>Why Tito hated Stalin
The split between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia happened in 1948 because the Yugoslav communists didn't want to become subordinate to the Soviets like the rest of the communist countries in Europe at that time.

>>2463478
>The split between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia happened in 1948 because the Yugoslav communists didn't want to become subordinate to the Soviets like the rest of the communist countries in Europe at that time.

Or maybe, it was the other way around, ensuring that "the naughty document" that divided Yugoslavia as a 50/50 zone of influence for the Soviets and the West was honored? But thats just a conspiracy, but i do find it more plausible than the official "heroic" version of Tito saying "No'' to the mighty Stalin.

Tito was a revisionist, but not the bad kind.

People are more annoyed that he used his campaigns to frame his presidential campaign rather than work more on preserving the lives of his soldiers.
For his time, he was average, but with enough spunk to bully the US Navy into leasing him the supplies without which he couldn't have invaded the Phillipines.

>>2463174
Why didn't he run in the end? He was still popular after being sacked meanwhile Truman had approval rating in the 20s

If Truman had let him use nukes it would have been bad for china