Questions that don't Deserve their Own Thread
A lot of other boards have these and not every question needs a thread.
Where did that nickname Augustulus for Romulus Augustus come from? He went by Romulus Augustus officially.
Don't know the answer to yours, but I'll toss in mine.
Why have Christians historically had so much trouble converting Jews? Almost from day one, you have a lot more success when they went out and preached to the gentiles rather than staying in Iudea itself. And you have the Disputation of Barcelona, which sounds like something out of a Disney movie, but apparently actually happened. You've had Jews living within Christian communities for literally millenia, and while you have converts here and there, you have remarkably little headway at mass conversion and eliminating the minority religion. In contrast, things like the old Norse religions, or the Baltic paganism, or the various religions in Mesoamerica often disappeared almost entirely within decades of Christian political domination.
I'm not an expert on the topic but I'd imagine that since historically Jewish people were taught not to trust gentiles and were somewhat xenophobic, converting them probably wouldn't be easy.
This is just a random guess, but didn't Jews generally have certain roles in society like moneylenders and merchants that they might have lost their advantage in if they converted due to religious restrictions? In that case there might have been a strong economic disincentive to converting.
I don't know shit about Jewish history so that might be bullshit.
I don't know if the same was true in the Islamic world.
Well, to begin with, Christians are Jews who believe that the Mesias had already came, while the Jews are still waiting for he to arrive.
So obviously the Jews are raised to deny the root itself of the Chrisitan religion.
Say you're a pagan living somewhere. You worship your old gods, things are good. Then one day, a bunch of cross-bearing soldiers come along, smash up your country, say they're taking over. A little while later, some men in nice robes come along and explain how your tribal gods (who are actually demons, and it's their fault that every plague and crop failure happened) lost out to the one REAL God, and you should follow the God that the Christians have. After all, they won, doesn't that prove who is really the mightier?
Dealing with Jews, on the other hand, you have a number of thorny problems, most of which come from arising from a similar theological stem. A lot of Jews could read and write in Hebrew, and they extensively studied the Old Testament. Despite what the likes of Constantine will tell you, there's an enormous shift from the OT to the NT, so much so that it's hard to justify it as being all of one theological truth. To even get started with converting a knowledgeable Jew, you have to somehow convince him that his own readings and literally millennia of his own theological traditions are all wrong. It's tough.
The South forever claims it was for States Rights; State's Rights to own slaves.
The North worked to solve the dispute diplomatically, but the South got butt-frustrated and attacked Fort Sumter.
Technically it was, but what Confederate apologists like to ignore is that it was specifically the state's rights to own slaves. The right to own slaves is mentioned in pretty much any declaration of secession and is right in the Confederate constitution, right above habeas corpus.
You can't really blame a lot of Southerners for wanting to preserve the plantation system though since that was literally their entire economy. They would've gotten rekt by the cotton boll weevil a few decades later anyway
>sending people to the archive instead of my real channel
Smh desu senpai
If you want a good podcast, I'm making one that will be released soon.
It will be released under NextThread so keep an eye out.
So one of the things I've heard, not sure if it's true, was that
>The Me-262 came out too late because Hitler wanted a light bomber and not a fighter.
I don't pretend to know all that much about the development cycle, but that's at least something that gets tossed around a lot. Why would someone want their first jet to be a bomber? What good would it be over just the available prop planes?
Do you think certain memes will be in history books 50 years from now?
Like, do you think your future grandchildren will open up a history ebook on their iHolograms and read about the explosion of cyber-social interaction and see DIARRHEA CHA CHA CHA in a little sidebar?
They would also have been rekt by the devaluing of cotton due to Britain making their own farms in India and the like.
My question is, was there another cash crop they could have switched to and continued their gilded age Southern dandy aristocracy?
Has there ever been a battle that was openend with a frontal cavalry charge against infantry that wasn't:
A: A gigantic mistake (i.e. Charge of the light Brigade or Agincourt)
B: A group of cavalry stumbling on disorganized army (i.e. Patay, Montgisard)
C: A Charge on loosely deployed skirmishers (i.e. British Rifles)
Just elaborating on what I said down here in >>682996, Patay wasn't really the French cavalry swarming over a disorganized foe. Talbot had about 500 men on the road with stakes out to fend off this sort of attack, but the French bulled through anyway and smashed through the rest of the army once it started to run. It's not much different than any post-rout pursuit at that point.
Kadesh is also probably a candidate, assuming you consider chariots to basically be cavalry. Horsemen opened up at Zama as well.