>Turn a Bourgeois state-reform into an actual revolution
>Put a maximum on bread's price to stop borgs from speculating and causing mass starvation
>Crushed royalist and liberal traitors
>Tried to implement a Rousseauist christian heresy againts extremist atheists
>Punished those who were guilty of vendée slaughter
>Even Napoleon said he would have been one of the greatest frenchmen in history if he had lived longer
was he, dare I say, one of the good ones?
>>2800744
the revolution was good for the proletariat too I don't give a fuck what they say
>>2800744
He was truly based
Why do you only examine in terms of realpolitik, materialism is so boring.
But yes, he was a great soul. Too bad he did not realize he was fighting for what benefits the small souled
Name one modern military costume that's more aestethic than the shit Prussian and Austrian high-ranking chiefs wore in the 18th century.
I said modern (18th century and beyond), Medieval shit doesn't count.
Done
But that's the 19th century?
>>2800588
I am so fucking stupid oh my god. In my head, I totally was thinking 1800s but I mistakingly said 18th century.
My bad.
What the fuck was his problem?
>>2800502
Cult of personality and mad with power.
He was a legit lunatic.
>>2800502
Savior of Russia
I don't see any problem.
Hahah soon Vienna won`t be no more!
*arrives very late to the battle*
*still wins*
>>2800493
forgot pic
>yfw you realize the end justifies the means
Sure, but you better be damn sure all of your math checks out. Unknown unknowns included.
>>2800459
>yfw code goose is unwatchable garbage
#notallends
>retreat to Dunkirk because you got completely rekt
>abandon your French ally to their fate, while they give you enough time to go back into your ships and flee France like rats
>lose all your war equipment because you're too busy retreating
>spin it as a historical and magnificent victory
how did eternal anglo get away with it?
Like in 1870, the Germans smashed the French at Sedan.
However, unlike in 1870, there was no reason this should have been decisive. But it was. The French Army's failure to plug the breech via an immediate counterattack cost them the war.
"General André Beaufre, then a junior staff officer at French general headquarters, described the impression the news made on General Georges at his command post at La Ferté early in the morning of 14 May: The atmosphere was that of a family in which there had been a death. Georges . . . was terribly pale. ‘Our front has been broken at Sedan. There has been a collapse. . . .’ He flung himself into a chair and burst into tears"
>>2800416
No-one ever spun it as a victory, it's the "Miracle of Dunkirk" that allowed Britain to remain in the fight, but it was and is remembered as "a disaster averted" rather than a victory.
>that same butthurt Frenchfag who thinks that British people consider Dunkirk a victory, and not just a brave evacuation that saved hundreds of thousands from captivity and a British surrender
I suppose we should talk about this video, since it's the newest meme.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuCn8ux2gbs
>>2800354
>LOL SO RANDUM XD XD
All the normie stacy cunts that are sharing this on social media, the "omg I love science! Neil and Bill Nye!" Stacies, to be raped to death with a buzzsaw
>>2800372
kys virgin loser.
>>2800372
>Letting the stupid things other people like annoy you
You are a sad person
Why do some people still claim morality is totally cultural and a human construct when animals display obvious morals everyday? why can we not accept we have naturally developed these?
Before you state 'religion, understand these faiths were an extension and greater justification of these innate morals in order to maintain order.
>>2800206
>when animals display obvious morals everyday
?
>humanities
>>2800212
Protection of their children, sacrifice for the pack. Suicide to defend others. Attempting to save their fellow members of their species. (i.e. elephants waiting and staying with their children as they die)
You can claim these instincts exist as they've evolved into them as they help the species as a whole, but can we not say the same about our own morals? our's are almost entirely collective > individual
Srsly is it just our culture that's porn obsessed and what were ancient equivalents?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunga
>>2800107
>what were ancient equivalents?
There weren't. Pornography is a very new invention created solely to take over our minds. It's to allow people to basically choose who we sleep with.
Just look into this piece of bread. What do you see? That is why things the way they are.
>>2800565
I see a scheming jew. What does that mean?
Could someone give me a super brief rundown on how nobility worked in the 1000s-1200s? I obviously know that there were increasingly higher ranks of hereditary nobles until you reach the king, and below all of them are the peasants and serfs. Could like normal people who were useful get knighted, or were knights exclusively hereditary? What level of nobleman would live in a castle near a large town or small city, and would he be actively served by lesser nobles in the same area? Like would an earl run around surrounded by knights, who are themselves noblemen?
>>2800050
Knights first appear around XI Century, at first they were not nobles but the menbers of the local elite who began to distinguish themselves from their less fortunate neighbors.
Over time, they became more and more influential and a whole ideology was developped for them. The Chivalry was so succesful that even the nobles did adopt their values start seeing themselves like knights, thus making the knightly clase a noble one, instead of one of nobles´ servants.
>or were knights exclusively hereditary?
It end up being a "chaste" in which knigtly status was hereditary, but at the beggining, as I wrote it was open to those who had the means.
And even after that, there were always chances to jump in the ladder, "if you want to be noble, move to another place and live and act like one".
>What level of nobleman would live in a castle near a large town or small city, and would he be actively served by lesser nobles in the same area?
A rich one. A titled noble is very likely pretty rich, so an Earl would most likely had a pretty impressive entourage, but not all great nobles were titled (even if it was the most usual)
> roi ne suis, ne prince ne duc ne comte aussi; Je suis le sire de Coucy ("I am not king, nor prince nor duke nor count; I am the Lord of Coucy").
>>2800050
>Could like normal people who were useful get knighted
First of all, knighting was not really a prerequisite to be considered a nobleman.
The best way for a relatively low born person to enter the ranks of nobility was through service to the powerful lord. In this period counts and bishops were in constant need of talented and trusted people to manage their vast estates. And because it was oftenly seen as undignified for those of noble birth; the managers, bailifs and other essential offices were filled with men of modest means - ministeriales, unfree servant-knights, a numerous and influential group of people in medieval Germany. Some of them made in fact unbelievable careers, like Diepold von Schweinspeunt, who became a duke of Spoleto thanks to his usefulness for imperial family.
I don't even know how to formulate this question properly since I'm so ignorant in this field, but how different does Europe look now than it did 2-3000 years ago?
I ask because I recently heard a person say that just one thousand years ago it was warm enough in the British Isles to keep vineyards. So I'm just wondering, did things change so much? Would Greece and Italy from 1000 BCE look altogether different from how they do today? I know that many regions in Romania and Ukraine used to have aurochs as well that are now gone. How often has this happened?
Is there any recommended reading on this?
>>2799976
There were much more forests and most likely more biodiversity. People forget that deforestation happens in Erope too.
>>2799976
egypt was the breadbasket of rome.
its ogre
Was it Ottism?
It was Nationalism
>>2799943
hardy har
Ottobots, roll out!!!
What started the Hundred Years' War?
they could not agree on who was best saintfu
The Hundred Years War was French and England autistically screeching at each other about the French throne until England had to give up due to them having 10 ships for every soldiers.
>>2800557
to be fair they would never outnumber the french army
they had 5x the population.
According to the people of /his/, who was the best US president?
>>2799887
William Henry Harrison. He objectively ruined the least amount of crap.
jackson
Reading through various far left and far right places through internet made me think that it is not truly idea that people latch onto, but pure aesthetics. I have been reading some Islamic forums, and same pattern can be seen.
Aesthetics = Ideology
Memes = Religion
Most don't know this
>>2799792
Easy access to the internet gave a lot of stupid people a chance to make oneself heard.In addition,being able to write anonymously is a big reason to that.This is simply a lot of guys/girls living their fantasy via internet pretending a far left/right person.
>>2799792
Yes it is true, people may be very rational in obtaining their desires but the desires have no rational basis. This principle crops up everywhere, particularly in psychology. If you want an alcohol buzz ASAP, binge drinking is the rational thing to do, even if you are drinking yourself to death.