Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 670. page

and obviously during this period most of the cavalry was still lance-equipped gendarme shit, but for example the Venetians also had Stratioti that had ranged weapons, and the French had Argoulets, wouldn't those also be effective against the Swiss pikemen? Or where they not used in that way due to fear of being flanked?

File: image.jpg (32KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 250x250px

>>3042151
>Castille should have stopped at Toledo
We would have welcomed the visit

>oh. That Toledo. A bit before our time

>>3042151
Nope, we conquered Americas because of that shit.

>implying we would be better off having half of Spain being muslim rn

>>3041905
>he wasn't retarded


Yes he was...

>>3041915
>Greatest economist of his time
>A retard
He was just ahead of his own time

>>3041905

Compared to Trump he was a genius

Start with Illiad and Odyssey since you'll find them referenced quite often in philosophical works. Also make sure to read Theogony to get familiar with Greek universe of Gods and myths, without it you won't understand half of implications scattered through the works.

Don't bother much with presocratics, not much is known about them anyway and i suggest just reading the most basic stuff to get the idea what they're saying. Aristotle mentions presocratics from time to time anyway.

Don't start immediately with the Republic, it will only confuse you. read shit like Phaedrus or Symposion first. Once you finish Plato it's smooth sailing with Aristotle since his opus is basically just one big response to Plato's ideas.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1

File: hytgf.jpg (10KB, 266x189px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 266x189px

>>3041562
Start with Marcus Aurelias meditations. It serves as a perfect baseline for the purpose and reasons for Philosophy, and introduces many fundementally modern (in the context of post-civilisation) human concepts - it serves as a good 'trunk'.

Much of the work of finding 'your' philosophy is about what resonates with the thoughts you already suffer. To dig towards this you should get a good surface-knowledge of the 'branches' of the tree. Metaphysics, Epistomology, Ethics and Aesthetics (I personally have spent zero time looking into Aethetics and I've been participating for over a decade).

From there, you'll have bumped into enough names and ideas to start walking your own path.

File: 1484857987590.jpg (13KB, 259x206px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 259x206px

>>3041469
This site is terrible at reasoning. It only gives the illusion of good reasoning through the meme arrows. Just read the complete works of Aristotle and stay away from here. I'm only here to troll.

File: Caspar_David_Friedrich_-_Mann_und_Frau_in_Betrachtung_des_Mondes_-_Alte_Nationalgalerie_Berlin.jpg (598KB, 2536x1944px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 2536x1944px

>>3041460
The 19th century has just so much good content to read from and so diferent from the early years to the late 1800s. My absolute favourite books are from Dostoevsky which are often about events that happened during his lifetime. "Demons" is perhaps one of my favourites yet which depicts the secret socialist societies rising in late 1800s russia, "The Idiot" was very nice and right now i'm readin "The Brothers Karamazov" which is about to take the place of Demons for favourite. I recommend short stories by Chekhov as well

>>3041460

Democracy in America.

It's about Europe more than America desu.

Well, you can say there's no objective morality and still say this and that event is terrible -- terrible in your own personal morality. If they're expressly saying that the Nazis were objectively bad then this post is more interesting.

What's the problem? The crimes were terrible subjectively. :^)
I haven't encountered such people, desu. At least, I didn't notice anyone saying these or similar statements explicitly. Did you try to point out the contradiction in their thinking?

>>3041383
>no sources
>vague statements
>not a single mention of laws he's referring to
It's not even worth discussing.

>>3041350

That would be a simplistic version of history, but they wern't so much reactionary. I'm no expert on the Jesuits but they had a unique
and newer doctrine on ethics for the time and could be the equivalent of an "intelligence department" for the Church.

>maximize happiness because happiness is good and sadness is bad
Holy shit what a revolutionary, I have literally never heard the names John Stuart Mill or Jeremy Bentham in my life

(((German idealism)))