*Teleported behind your Empire*
"Psssh... nothing personal Alexious"
*teleports behind your Jerusalem*
"Psssh... nothing personel, Balian"
*teleports behind your Cataphracts*
Psssh...nothing personnel, Khosrow
*teleports behind your ambush*
"Psssh... nothing personal Saladin"
Cute mountains you have there Rome.
Hope ya don't mind me marching my elephants across it
>>3358620
He was black.
>>3358620
Sure go ahead mate, fucking kys and most of your army while you're at it.
You're in the year 2600 and looking at a history book in the 1970 to 2017 part. Which USA presidents are in it? Which events are mentioned?
Let's say there are no more than two pages
>>3358541
blumphf
>>3358541
Reagan - Ended the Cold War
Clinton - The 1990s good feeling
Bush - The man that started the terminal decline of the US
Trump - The man that gave the killing blow
How exactly were Pyrrhus's victories "pyyrhic victories"? In each battle he fought in he won average victories against the Romans and yet most historians consider each and every single one of his victories as "Pyyrhic". Can someone explain this to me?
Because, by definition, any victory one by Pyrrhus would be Pyrric, given that those victories were made in a manner owing to him.
>>3358464
Because he took losses he couldn't replace, and while he put the hurt on the Romans, he came no closer to actually forcing them to surrender after battles like Heraclia and Asculum. He won the field, but fell further behind when it came to the actual winning of the war.
Also, I would point out that in classical battle, losing around 10% of your forces when you win was pretty rare and makes it a messy win. Go look up land battles, especially among the Hellenics, and you see that the losing side didn't always lose that many men, and the winning side, almost never. Those kinds of losses were damn heavy for "victory".
I can't find these guys names. If I recall correctly one is a roman that was advising and the other one of the leaders of the Seleucid. In the moment I'm thinking of it was during a parade showing the military might of the Seleucid's and the leader asked is this enough to beat rome? and the advisor knew they didn't have a chance but said it was enough
I'm not sure this is it, but it involves Hannibal Barca (who obviously wasn't a Roman) and Antiochus III, who Antiochus III paraded his army and asked him if it would be enough for the Romans for his planned invasion of Greece, and Hannibal allegedly responded ambiguously ""I think all this will be enough, yes, quite enough, for the Romans, even though they are most avaricious."
Who or what caused the Spanish War of Succession?
>>3358457
False, Charlie was a good boy and designated an heir in his will even though he couldn't produce his own son. The war wasn't his fault.
This isn't an /r9k/ thread, more just an exploration of whether status in ingrained into us. Do some people win the genetic lottery? Do you think its impossible for many humans to rise above their station and become physically powerful, charismatically magnetic and intellectually talented without being born with the correct DNA, or can anyone achieve it with the right amount of time and development? Is is it both? Have humans reached our full potential or is this just the beginning of what we can achieve? Are there things out there we'll never know because our human capabilities aren't good enough to understand them?
I think its nature and nurture, but more nurture. The thing that makes me think that is how quickly humans developed between 12,000BC to 2000AD. An alien watching us from behavioral modernity (70,000BC) for 50,000 years might well get bored and say just another group of apes, 30,000 years and they've achieved nothing more than hunter gathering" whereas an alien watching from just 1700-2000 would marvel at how in just 300 years we went from pre-modernity to the internet. This makes me think there are other ways in which human potential is still untapped, but we're like the ancient hunter; we have no precedent or circumstance in our post-modern world igniting that flame inside us.
What are some good references(if any) of different population statistics/demographics around the world before 1700?
I guess Russia actually enforces the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" rule.
1- Is this book about the Mongols good? Its free for kindle
2- Was Teddy Roosevelt a good president? He wrote the forward
i'm glad most of his policies didn't get implemented, but i'm also glad some of his did.
How did people look like in past? Were they significantly uglier? For example medieval Europe, or antiquity? I guess these two period would be different.
>rigid schedules (could "set your clock" to kants walks every day)
>Fixated interests
>Isolated self
>"Any change makes me apprehensive, even if it offers the greatest promise of improving my condition"
Autistic?
STOP JACKING OFF
You forgot the most important thing
>a manlet
>>3358048
Litteraly the virgin philosopher
>>3357991
pathetic self bump
How would he have handled WW1?
>>3357974
Wouldn't he have crushed the commies before going in a world war?
>>3357974
Killed his son first
>>3357992
From most to least significant
>MENA
>central asia
>south/southeast europe
>east asia
>north/west europe
>south/southeast asia
>eastern europe
>subsaharan africa
>americas + australia
>northern asia (siberia)
Correct me if I'm wrong
>>3357851
>northern asia
Industrial revolution is just as important as the neolithic revolution imho. Just as revolutionary
>>3357851
>MENA
you can cut the NA habibi, we accomplished a few things back in the days but we're far from our euros and middle-eastern cousins