What was so great about him?
Literally nothing
>tried to reform army but failed
>tried to reform navy but failed and most of the major battles were won by old fleet
>ruined russian orthodox church that became state ministery, basically
>betrayed orthodox Georgian allies in war against persians
>cucked russian culture so hard that everything foreign was seen as awesome and everything russian as degenerate for centuries (read russian novels and you'll see that quite clearly)
This guy actually ruined future for russia for long time. His domestic policy and attitude towards allies proves that Peter was quite a degenerate.
>>3056263
He modernized Russia. His accomplishments are many and hugely important: making Russia a naval power, expanding its borders heavily, defeating Sweden (when Sweden was destroying everyone else), and updating Russia's backwards culture (in Peter's childhood, music itself was seen as dangerous). Read Robert K. Massie's biography of him.
>>3056263
But that's wrong.
>tried to reform army but failed
Tell that to Charles XII. Russia was far stronger under and after Peter than before him.
>tried to reform navy but failed and most of the major battles were won by old fleet
Russia really had no naval power before Peter took over. And so what if victories were won by the old fleet - they're still victories.
>ruined russian orthodox church that became state ministery, basically
The church was getting in the way of effective administration and getting into politics, so of course Peter put it in its place.
>cucked russian culture so hard that everything foreign was seen as awesome and everything russian as degenerate for centuries (read russian novels and you'll see that quite clearly)
He promoted foreign influence because - as Peter saw himself in visiting other countries - Russia was backwards culturally and needed to be modernized.
He was a great lad
Why are there no New Testament manuscripts dated to within Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) lifetime?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35151643
>>3056150
Because it was corrupted. Islam is the true word of Allah.
It's simple. The New Testament claims that Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew. He wasn't. He was a Muslim, along with all the other prophets, including Prophet Adam (pbuh). This proves that Islam is the oldest monotheistic religion by far. Judaism doesn't even claim Adam was a Jew.
Were there any common factors which brought about the collapse of 'democracy' in both Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome?
>>3055837
>Were there any common factors which brought about the collapse of 'democracy' in both Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome?
democracy
>>3056133
Elaborate
>>3055837
The so-called democracy was just for rich aristocrats.
ITT ancient traditions that are still being practiced today
>>Baby jumping (El Colacho) is a traditional Spanish holiday dating back to 1620 that takes place annually to celebrate the Catholic feast of Corpus Christi in Burgos.[1][2] During the act, known as El Salto del Colacho (the devil's jump) or simply El Colacho, men dressed as the Devil (known as the Colacho) in red and yellow jump suits jump over babies born during the previous twelve months of the year who lie on mattresses in the street. The "devils" hold whips and oversized castanets as they jump bravely over the unaware infants.
>> The origins of the tradition are unknown but it is said to cleanse the babies of original sin, ensure them safe passage through life and guard against illness and evil spirits.[4][5][6] In recent years, Pope Benedict has asked Spanish priests to distance themselves from El Colacho, and to downplay the tradition’s connection with Catholicism. The Church still teaches that it is baptism by water, not a giant leap by an airborne devil, which cleanses the soul of original sin.[7]
>>3055729
I wonder if babbies were ever killed that way. I doubt their tiny skulls could endure the weight of an adult
Shit like this is common in every corner of the Catholic world. Catholicism is not a religion. It is several pagan religions all pretending to be Christian.
>>3056303
Roman Triad
Find a better general
What a fucking joke, are you kidding me?
>>3055680
Philip was an A- commander
Khalid was an S+ commander
>>3055677
hannibal and subadai desu
If a child is likely to have a life full of pain and suffering is that a reason against bringing the child into existence? - yes.
If a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life, is that a reason for bringing the child into existence? - yes. Can we produce only happy people? - no.
So, is the continuance of our species , justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings? How can we say "Yes" without accepting unlimited utilitarism?
>>3055337
>So, is the continuance of our species , justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings? How can we say "Yes" without accepting unlimited utilitarism?
By simply saying that you do not know whether or not a child will suffer.
To say that you know for sure that even the most impoverished child living in a favela in Brazil or a slum in India will not live a life full of little joys is to say that you yourself are omniscient, or that you have a lacking capacity for joy yourself and are projecting this onto others. Human beings find joy in the smallest of things, and every one of us is capable of living a worthy life.
In addition to this, if you are to have a child, it is your duty as a parent to ensure that they live equipped to build a worthy life. You have the power, no matter your station in life, to ensure that your children can do this. To abrogate this responsibility, or to assume that you are not up to the task, is a weakness of the first degree, that will end your lineage. If you succumb to this weakness you are not worthy of life. As if you would call your life worth living (and it must be, for you not having killed yourself yet), and you accept that it is the primary instinct and duty of the parent to give their children better lives than they themselves had, then for you to say that your children will have nought but suffering, you must yourself be living a life so absolutely contemptible that you ought to have killed yourself already.
If, however, you acknowledge that you are incapable of fulfilling the duties of a parent, and you are not capable of giving your children better lives than you had, then by all means, voluntarily castrate yourself and continue life confident in the knowledge that you are unworthy of nurturing children and have failed the only true task given to all human kind.
>>3055481
>Can we produce only happy people? - no.
hmmm...Your answer "Yes"? But I am know. There is no chanse that among 8billions of people no one got a life full of pain and suffering.
zygotes are a renewable resource
What's your reaction to people's thinking he was Italian? Why do we let lies be taught in schools?
WE
E
Are you implying that Marcas Ă“ PhĂłilĂł was Slavic? He was a proud Celtic man.
>>3055314
You're only half-right anon, Mwrcw Pywllw was Welsh
Has their been any actual beta uprisings in history?
>>3055140
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Notting_Hill_race_riots
Jihad.
Islam allows polygamy and that lead to un-paired mated-deprived males. Said males go off in jihad to die or grab some war brides.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests
Shite tier flag aside
What ethnic group do Lithuanians fall into?
I've heard from some people that even though Lithuania is near the Slavic nations, it isn't technically Slavic; and that the same goes for Albanians, Austrians, Hungarians, Romanians, Estonians, and Latvians.
Anyone care to shed some light?
Balts
google it you fuck
They are the original Indo-Europeans. THEY IS EUROPE N SHIT
What caused the development of the Anglo's savior complex?
There is none. Politicians don't have such impractical objectives on their minds. Also, white man's burden is a myth.
Incas were superior to europeans.
>>3054564
>complex
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland saved mankind from an eternity of feudalism and stagnation through the Industrial Revolution.
>>3054564
It's an excuse to oppress and milk others. Anyway, why is "civilization" placed on top of all those presumably negative things? All that suggests is that it's built on them.
why is he so disliked here
>>3054338
Because he's right
He is wrong about literally everything he has ever talked about apart from World War 2 and to a lesser extent Republican Rome. He uses half-remembered anecdotes and his LARPing experience as a substitute for actual historical knowledge. He makes ridiculous claims in order to give an impression of going against the grain, which is the same sort of "they never taught you THIS in history class!!!" thing a lot of popular media rides on
It is not so bad in itself that he is wrong, he never claims to be a historian or any sort of expert or authority
But he is quite charismatic and entertaining to watch, and he has disparaged professional historians and archaeologists from time to time, so in spite of his amateur mistakes, his audience takes him as an absolute authority. I have seen people in his comment sections and elsewhere on the internet jubilantly proclaim that they do not read the works of professional historians or even trust their opinions, they just watch Lindybeige instead
>>3054397
>But he is quite charismatic and entertaining to watch
Really? I've seen people say this but he repulses me. Cant stand to watch his videos for more than 10 seconds desu
From a sociological point of view, why does the US have next to no sports violence?
Like sports violence always seems to have been a phenomena accompanying mass sports, from the horse races of Constantinople to todays football. There is customary violence in sports in Europe and in south America, hell even the lately Egyptian revolution was fueled by disgruntled Ultras.
So why exactly is there no sports violence in the US. Best you guys get is a drunken fight at super bowl, but for sure not organized ultras.
For Americans the mass entertainment is a sort or religious ceremony that must not be disturbed.
Also to add, sport clubs in Europe often have some political or ideological background.
2nd Amendment.
>>3054220
I know a couple of Ultras myself. I live in a big European city close to the Stadium and many of my friends and neighbors are hardcore football fans. Trust me, they have no ideology at all, they just love the thrill, a mass event, group identity and sometimes violence.
I always fought it is some kind of accepted surrogate or valve to let off aggression and tribal thinking in our overly civilized society.
Thats why I wonder how the americans do it?
So I was curious about the plight of women. And of how the biological differences bar them from the physical virtues that can be achieved by men.
For example women in general women will never be as great at sports or be better at combat than men. And in most cases they are dependent on men to protect them from other predatory men.
One can argue that these physical limitations mean any power a woman has is given to her by men. (I wouldn't argue that but I can see how it can be argued)
I should believe that this is potentially the source of great angst for women who value physical strength highly perhaps even over becoming a mother.
Anyway are there any female philosophers that deal with these topics that will not lead me down the rabbit hole of the standard modern feminist tripe?
>female philosophers
First name that comes to mind is Aneeta Sarkisian
>>3054111
> Aneeta Sarkisian
I specifically asked for anything not overtly tied to the modern feminist movement
Is the landscape that bad for female thoughts?
try The Factual Feminist on youtube
Black americans came from the west coast of africa they were never Egyptians
Mexicans are not aztecs, the city was destroyed and population masacred there are no aztecs alive others indians are.
Modern romans have nothing to do with the people that raped the sabine women. The italian peninsula was invaded countless times and was depopulated during the gothic wars.
Western europe were nothing but savages and never did anything until they were raped by rome.
I agree
>>3054061
Every single thing you've said is wrong, except for the first one that is only partially wrong. Now fuck off.
During the early days of the Cold War, why did it take the Western Powers some two decades or so to field an Assault Rifle? From the 50s to the late 60s it was all Battle Rifles while Soviets and their buttbudds had AKs.
Did they fear the intermediate cartridge warrior?
>>3053965
Muh kewl snipers, muh marksmanship
>>3053965
>Soviet uniforms are stylish, practical and distinctive
>American uniforms are the same drab green camo shit over and over
On that basis alone I posit that the USSR should've won the cold war.
>>3053965
Because for some reason it took non-Russian retards almost 15 years to discover 'hey, maybe the STG 44 was on to something'