Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 508. page

the most pressing wants of Robespierre*
fix'd

Especially the part where he died on the guillotine.

poor quality bait thread desu

I don't believe that doctrine.
I think you die and then are resurrected for judgement day where you then are sent to heaven or hell.

"Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live."

File: judgement 16th cent_.jpg (632KB, 1201x1600px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 1201x1600px

Where you go in the afterlife is usually but a foretaste one receives after the Judgement. When the Judgement happens one will be brought back to life, all of creation will be brought back to what it was before the Fall and the righteous shall inherit the earth while the wicked are cast into the lake of fire due to their wickedness. If you're a bad dude you ought to feel bad about yourself and all the bad things you did. You only have so much time on this earth so it's best to turn away from all the bad inclinations you have and try to be a better person, going so far as to do the opposite of them and the bad things you did previously. It also helps to believe in God too you know.

File: childgods.png (479KB, 1062x692px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 1062x692px

>>3153535
>I don't believe that doctrine.
>I think you die and then are resurrected for judgement day where you then are sent to heaven or hell.

LMFAO - no human has ever come back to life... That's right up there with "Jews don't burn if the King puts them in furnaces."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a94Kpkku94

history of rome goes from 509 BCE to 1806 so you have to be little more specific

Going to assume we are talking about after the Punic Wars but before Caesar and say Rome wins. Between ability to raise legions and allies to use for cavalry, skirmishers, etc, they probably have the more versatile army.
Would appreciate a good book on Han Chinese military though to get a more complete picture.

How would Han crossbows factor in this?

Who is that homeless man?

A lot of useless words but I don't think slavko is wrong there

File: IMG_1484.jpg (30KB, 320x262px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 320x262px

>>3153200
It's Slavoj!

>>3153176
Vedas an shieet bro, Jetpack Vimanas woop woop

>>3153187
quality post, thanks anon!

>>3153176
Just read anything.Except ones withovert political biases.
>>3153187
KEK

>>3153142
>Spain
>super power
Spain was bankrupt and crumbling empire
Cuba was on the other side of the world to Spain

>>3153150
I said the only country able to beat us. I was talking about the British. To be fair they never actually beat us. But they managed to take us to a stalemate.

>>3153142
>War 1812

Bruh literally Canada beat you and burned down your white house lmao

Love my country xP

>>3153138
Whats with the massive influx of posts about Lebanon?

I like the flag because it reminds me of Christmas

>>3153225
I dislike it because it reminds me of Stanford

>>3153106
depends where ... middle wast it was a geographical concept that should have never existed.
same goes with africa.

>>3153106
Alaska is the last frontier

>>3153106
Space bro its the final frontier

>>3153088
Shimabara were Catholics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liever_Turks_dan_Paaps

Don't doubt the prowess of the netherlandish Merchant

>>3153071
Generally speaking, you're unlikely to create more "optimal" foods on accident. Unless you're deliberately making foods to be healthy, the fact you didn't evolve alongside the food and diet as a whole makes it less likely you'll be properly adapted to it. In other words, it'll usually be less healthy. This is really just a general or statistical statement, not a rule or anything. It's also hard to determine for certain because of how complex our biology is. Sometimes you just don't see the effects of diet or sometimes it only appears decades down the line.

All that said, people who preach you should only eat foods that could be found 1000 years ago or longer is bullshit, they're giving the whole "natural" aspect of it way too much credit. There's no such thing as unnatural, including GMOs. Natural at best could be a standin to refer to foods we evolved with.

>>3153071
>preservative-laden sugar heavy ones that are pretty consistent across the west
Who eats that shit dude? Why would you want to eat anything other than veg and meat and wholefoods? They heaps cheaper and better

>>3153071
No GMO's, preservatives, pesticides, eostrogen-laden packaging, pollution, processed sugars - sounds pretty healthy to me. Though if you've read Plato, even back then the elite understood that if you restrict meat to the lower classes and give them a primarily grain-based diet, they will be strong enough to work but too weak to revolt.

b-but he was holy, right?

File: WE.jpg (558KB, 725x840px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 725x840px

>condescending-philosopher.jpg

Europeans are the biggest WEWUZers of all time, bar none. It's one thing to adopt the techniques and institutions of an ancient civilization, but it's another thing entirely to claim to actually BE that civilization for centuries. CENTURIES.

>>3153069
Claiming to be a successor is different than claiming to be the entity itself. It's also far less clear cut since any debate about it tends to be subjective unless the previous state directly transitioned to a new one, or was broken up into several pieces, in which case there is a technical argument to be made

A baron could own several manors and a castle, though not necessarily a castle.

File: peel.jpg (50KB, 300x355px)

50KB, 300x355px

>>3153051
>castle, though not necessarily a castle.
Peel towers of sorts or any variation of tower houses?

>>3153032
Depends on the place they are baron of. Some were broke, others obscenely rich.

File: central powers.png (219KB, 640x867px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 640x867px

This isn't some 21st century american politician doing bad things with his dick. Military and political leaders lost their positions or lives and the republicans that replaced them blamed them

>>3153026
not willy though

>>3153007
no because their only mistake was losing

>Haber and colleagues' genetic analysis also revealed the origins of the Canaanites, whose ancestry was so mysterious that even the ancient Greeks wondered about it. Analysis showed that the forbears of the five Bronze Age Canaanites in the study are the result of mixture between local Neolithic farmers and hunter-gatherers who hailed from the region today called Iran.

>The Iranian group probably arrived in Sidon with the ascendency of the Akkadian Empire, which the researchers note "controlled the region from Iran to the Levant between 4,400 and 4,200 years ago." A massive drought around 4,200 years ago led to the empire's collapse and also sent refugees fleeing from the parched north of Mesopotamia to the south. There's evidence that southern cities and villages in the area became overcrowded with the new migrants. Eventually, however, the two populations intermingled and produced a thriving, influential culture. The people of this culture called themselves Canaanites.

>Modern-day Lebanese underwent another genetic transformation in the past one to three thousand years, as Steppe peoples migrated to the area from the east and mixed with the local population. As a result, people in Lebanon today are mostly Canaanite, with a touch of Eurasian ancestry. This change came about in the wake of another collapsing empire.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/genetic-evidence-suggests-the-canaanites-werent-destroyed-after-all/

Probably got destroyed as a nation not genocided.

File: xx00.jpg (385KB, 1100x2127px)

385KB, 1100x2127px

>First, God orders the Hebrews to destroy the Canaanites along with several other groups

These Hebrews keep breaking promises it seems, God had to come down from his realm and create order because the "chosens" couldn't keep to their promises.

People don't like those who stand out

it's just evolutionary biology. life is meant to propagate itself, and when it doesn't it's treated like an anomaly.

File: 1433433651351.png (36KB, 608x486px)

36KB, 608x486px

Why is there such a high social stygma in all cultures about people who don't have any money?

I mean, not just the desire of not having any, a couple who for X motive doesn't have money (health, children, etc) is usually stygmatized.

>inb4 le survival of the economy
People always buy things, it's not like all of society will stop spending.

So why? Is there any reason for this patern?