Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 415. page

Anastasius, Justinian, Heraclius, Constantine V, Nicephorous Phocas, John Tzimiskes, Basil II

I chuckled

>>3188514
Jack bruce, eric clapton and fuck off baker

>>3187285
Both are better than subhuman Anglos.

This is pretty weak i won't lie.

File: Fascism_against_Nazism.png (3MB, 2276x1554px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2276x1554px

>>3187285
HOW

>>3187213
Roman emperor's day depends on whether he was a shit emperor or good emperor

>good emperor
>spend most of day answering petitions from subjects across the empire, appointing officials and delegating tasks

>bad emperor
>go on autistic expeditions all over the place swatting down usurpers that have risen up due to your shitty rule, brutally execute a few noble families because one of your courtiers said they were suspicious and then retire to bed to fuck your domineering wife

The Roman emperor really did not have much of a clue what was going on half the time in his empire, especially if he was the sole ruler. The 4th and 5th centuries tended to lead to the empire being divided up between co-rulers to make it easier to manage.

An example

>city in North Africa being raided by Moors
>begs the local general for aid
>general extorts a shit load of camels and cash from the city
>doesn't defend them
>Moors keep raiding
>city sends delegates to the emperor in Rome for assistance
>general's delegates get there first
>spin a good tale about a bunch of lying bumfuck city slickers trying to fuck the imperator over
>city's delegation turns up
>official appointed to go and check the situation in the city out
>emperor's agent gets to the city, gets bribed by the general and fucks off back to the emperor
>emperor rips the tongues out of the city's delegates
>years later turns out that the general was obviously lying
>emperor goes ape shit

Oh, and another example

>head of the Gallic legions is a popular Frank
>emperor's courtiers in Rome start stirring shit about him
>forge a letter suggesting the Frank is trying to gather legions for a usurpation attempt
>emperor demands that the Frank, Silvanus, comes to Rome for an inquiry
>Silvanus believes he's going to be executed since he doesn't hear the "inquiry" bit, just the demand to return to Rome
>launches a bid for usurpation
>fug
>gets murdered by his colleagues in a chapel

>>3187321

Autism ran rampart after Calígula
Was it some plant like the greek plant that made babies born one eyed inspiring the ciclopes?

>>3187213

There is a surprisingly large amount of paperwork involved with being a roman emperor. The good news is that you have an enormous administrative staff to help you with it.

>>3186871
creepy

>>3186891
Insular art gives me a boner

>mercy less = merciful
Are you fucking retarded?

>>3186719
there some audiobooks to dl here, but only the book on the reformation is kinda relevant to the middle ages.
https://mega.nz/#F!8wI0iAbK!H5mfo6CnivegkGkulyTuBg

>>3186719
TTCs series on the Middle Ages is pretty good. Not a book, but a lecture series covering early/middle/late.
Just started listening to it an hour ago.

paratroopers

>>3186331
Depends on if you find vengeance/vigilantism to be just. A lot of western state have people who in turn hold to some sort of Christian moral, and vengeance/vigilantism has no room in Christian ethics.

>>3186331
Let me answer your question with another; is it moral for me to summarily execute you for a perceived crime I presume you are guilty of, rather than take you to court where your case is analysed and a verdict given based on evidence and rule of law?

/his/ is /pol2/ with a generous sprinkle of other retarded revisionists like turks, balkans, poles, and sudacas

it should be renamed /WEWUZX/

It obviously depends on the situation of the person committing suicide.
In my case I think my fathers suicide was not morally wrong and that prolonging his suffering would have though,

I'd say it could be considered morally wrong if you have any sort of sentient dependencies, like family members that rely on you or a dog or something. Then, your suicide would not just end your suffering, but profoundly affect and hurt the lives of those dependencies. However, depending how much you truly suffer, suicide could be the more "right" option humanely.

>>3186082
Your life is not your own, you owe 50 years of tax money to the state!

Britbong so college for me;

My A-Level was split into three, with coursework (on the Civil Rights Movement of the US), the British Empire, and the making of modern Britain and the USA.

British Empire consisted of everything from the Battle of Plassey that secured us in India in 1757 to the start of the First World War - ranging from the adoption of free trade, the creation of the worlds greatest navy, the colonisation of Australia, Canada, and India, and the American Revolution and our failures that led to its success.

Making of Modern Britain and the USA was pretty shit, basically the level of economic and social change.

To be fair I'd say that'd be the best our education system could offer us while keeping history useful to a degree - half something amazingly interesting, and something more applicable to the modern day that, while not as interesting, does help you understand the modern world. I took Government and Politics and Business Studies alongside the History A-Level, so it all added up pretty decently.

There wasn't much pandering to political correctness, if that's what you mean, other than attempts to make us all feel bad for the Aboriginals getting ill and apparently being our fault.

Hope that helps.

History in my public highschool was alright, it generally covered the basics, World History in Freshman year and AP U.S history in Junior year, I did take some history class in sophomore year but I honestly can't remember it, I think it was European history. World history was your general ancient history to modern day stuff and U.S history covered the Colonial period to Modern day in theory but we only got to LBJ by the end of the year due to a heavy focus on Puritans in America and LBJ.

I would have liked a bit more focus on lesser known topics or a deeper look but you have to stick to the curriculum somewhat in my state/county so it's understandable that the amount of time spent on topics covered were short.

There was a heavy focus on essay writing and analyzing sources in all of my history classes, even in middle school, so I feel that I was taught fairly well in regards to interpreting and understanding history.

The only teacher that I can say obviously influenced my understanding was my AP US history teacher, particularly her extreme focus on Puritans (we spent nearly a month on them alone) changed my view of the founding of America very significantly.

I got a lot of information about history outside the class. Probably more than from highschool classes, since they retreaded middle-school material a bit and I was interested in history beforehand. Embarrassingly enough most of it was Wikipedia and video game related but I began to read actual historical books in my Junior and Senior years of Highschool.

File: calvin.png (568KB, 469x600px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 469x600px

>>3186034
Former NSW HSC Modern History student here.

> What were/are your experiences off the history classes in high school?

One of the few subjects I actually enjoyed. I did economics, physics, mathematics, English, but it was history that made high school worth it.

>What did you learn in those classes?

We did an Albert Speer and Joseph Stalin personality study. We studied the growth and destruction of Weimar Germany and WWI.

> Do you feel that you were thaught how to grasp History (or the past)?

Indeed, I would daresay that in my locality, I'm one of the few who actually understands how intimately the present is tied to our past.

> In which ways did 'the world outside the classroom' shape or help form your understanding of History?

I'm the child of two parents who are only here because of a 20th century conflict. My own life drove me to understand how things connect to each other in the grand scheme of things.

>>3185995
The "state" is a relatively new concept, but it's a lens through which we view history.

Even in periods of history where a proper "state' didn't exist, or was weak enough to be disregarded, we still assign the names of states to leaders, such as kings or dukes. For example, if you were to say "in 1337, Edward III claimed to be the rightful heir of the title King of France and went to war with Philip VI over it", you'd be correct. But then if you were to say "in 1337, Edward III claimed the throne of France and thus France and England went to war", you'd also be considered correct. How can this be? Well, the only difference is that "England" and "France", in terms of the way it's worded, cease to be titles and instead become actors. Even if "the Kingdom of England" and "the Kingdom of France" at the time were really just titles held by an individual, in the context of history they are also viewed as actors.

As for why this is, I think there are a few reasons. First of all, there is continuity between these collectives of individuals, and they have defining characteristics - culture, language, etc. So it makes sense to give them a label like "England" or "France" to denote which group of people you're talking about. This is purely for convenience's sake, even if it's not always correct (e.g. Alexander's Macedonia is not the same Macedonia as FYROM, yet both are called Macedonia, yet given context you can easily figure this out)

Another reason is the concept of sovereignty, the idea that there are independent polities that have the right to govern themselves in some way. In a world where this is the case and states are considered "independent", then it makes the most sense to refer to them with definite labels and consider them individual actors, even if they're actually just large groups of people and complex social structures. This is even more true in the west following the Peace of Westphalia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty)

>>3185995

Because most people understand 'state' to mean a collective formed by individuals by its very definition you fucking moron.

>why would someone use one word instead of several

is your question

neck yourself

>>3186162
>>3185995
Finally, there is the fact that history is not a perfect recounting of events, or a perfect snapshot of what happened and how. It's more like a story pieced together from (hopefully) various sources, sometimes of varying reliability and relevance. And when telling a story, it is easier for people to understand what's going on if you portray states as individual actors, rather than semi-independent masses of possibly-related groups of significant and/or insignificant people(s) and abstract institutions... Yeah, it's a huge mess. And if historians spent all their time expounding on that mess at every turn, especially in formats like the encyclopedia, then they would quickly run away beyond the scope of what they're meant to be discussing. If I want to tell you about the Hundred Years War in a simple way, I can tell you it was a war between England and France, and that's just fine. It's not the entire picture, it's not a final account, but in and of itself it's accurate. So in that capacity alone, referring to states as individual actors is justified imo.

I also want to add that the concept of states as actors is very important in international relations and much of history is simply an account of international relations over time. It's also an important concept for trade; after all, if a state isn't an individual actor, how can it sign a contract with another state? Would there have to be a referendum on every single treaty signed? The idea that the people transfer sovereignty to the government, who acts on their behalf and also represents the "state", is another reason why labeling states as individual units makes historiographic sense.