Roman culture and civilisation becomes a whole lot less impressive once you realise that they basically aped everything from the Greeks.
It was cultural diffusion which made them both stronger and weaker in several ways.
>>2553190
Greek culture and civilisation becomes a whole lot less impressive once you realise that they basically aped everything from the Germanics.
The Greeks invented love, the Romans introduced it to women.
>ends the lives of approximately 129,000 to more than 246,000 civilians and soldiers to announce to the other inhabitants of the planet the superiority of its machines of warfare
>later spends two periods of ten years each fighting a war in Vietnam, a Southeast Asian nation thick in jungle cover, which it proved unable to be successful at, all the while never utilizing its option of dropping a weaponized nuclear reaction on the Viet Cong soldiers, thereby markedly damaging our outward appearance and the international perception of us as an autonomous state with a large ability to leverage
Pray tell, for what did we embark on the original dropping of the nuclear fission reaction weapon on the citizens of the autonomous archipelago in northeast Asia known as Japan?
>>2553189
>we drop a nuclear weapon on a small conflict in Southeast asia
>we then show the communists that we would use the bomb in small engagements, starting the chain reaction to WW3
If you want my opinion, we should have changed our ROE and let our armies rampage across the country like in Armageddon Now.
>>2553189
hmmmmm. I wonder. was there a specific reason that we decided to drop the bomb in WW2, but not drop the bomb in Vietnam? hmmmmmmm, im really trying to think.
maybe it had something to do with what other countries had in their arsenal? or maybe the consequences of using a nuke were different? hmmmm...
>have bunch of cannibalistic death cultist hellbent on world domination
>have to put them down
>use your strongest weapon to do so
>70 years later
>a self-loathing weaboo cries about how nagasaki and hiroshima were war crimes
Why did she never marry?
Because it would have lessened her power and control over the country. Any man she took as a husband would have been used as a pawn by the advisors and court. At best, they would have tried to use her husband in order to promote their own agenda. At worst, the husband could have been used as a pawn in a coup d'etat or the husband might even participate willingly. Also, there's the question of "who would be an appropriate husband for a reigning queen of England"? If she married a foreigner of her own rank, it would cause political and dynastic complications. People loathed Mary's choice of a Spanish husband. If she married an English subject, she'd be marrying beneath her and elevating a subject to the status of "king." It was accepted, although not always orthodox, for a king to raise a female subject to the status of queen, which with some exceptions was considered a consort role in England. It would not be the same for a queen to raise a subject to the status of king, which had wholly different connotations.
>>2553150
She was an Anglo. it's a miracle the Anglo race survives at all considering their opposition to love and affection.
>>2553254
This makes no sense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_claimed_to_be_built_on_seven_hills
So why exactly do some Christians claim the Catholic Church is Babylon because "city on 7 hills" despite there being countless other cities sitting on seven hills and the Vatican itself is a complex distinctly separate from Rome proper and is built on a hill adjacent to the Roman seven (also called Vatican, hence the name of the Catholic Church's headquarters) and also separated from them by the Tiber river?
I'm not religious so I really have no idea how they conclude that.
It's not just 7 hills, there are hundreds of reasons why the Papacy is the Antichrist.
http://www.remnantofgod.org/666-CHAR.htm
Only the Vatican fits all the characteristics of the Beast system. No wonder it was illegal to read the Bible in the vernacular during the middle ages - the book of Revelation showed how Roman Catholicism is wrong.
The Reformers universally knew the RCC was Satan's false church, it's sad to see Protestants today fall for the Futurism lie (perpetuated by Catholic Jesuits to get attention away from Rome).
>>2553149
Because the second part of the bible verse is "and rules over the kings of the earth". And it was written in 95 AD. Present tense.
Rome is Babylon.
Roman Catholicism is Mystery Babylon. The exact same pagan practices that they were doing before; they just literally changed the names on the statues.
>>2553202
The more people who know the Jesuit Order is an order of assassins, the better.
Why did Europe produce so many mathematicians compared to the rest of the world?
>>2552953
superior euro intellect
not even meme'ing
the jews were dunces until they crossed with Europeans
hard to find a non racist answer
the europeans did document shit throughout history, explains why kangz (egypt) has a "high" number of mathematicians
>>2552953
Why is Iran there? Have they contributed a lot in the 20th century?
What does /his/ think of Herbert Hoover?
>>2552931
Anglo retard
it wasn't his time
>fed: how you want your recession pham?
>Hoover: just fuck my shit up
>fed: say no more
>much undefeated general, very genius, wow, bla bla
How was Sulla not the bad guy? He brutally crushed the Socii when they wanted to have a say in the government they paid taxes to (somehow the Americans were the good guys when they demanded the same), he fought other Romans, he acted against the Senate, he basically held the Republic at gunpoint, he set the precedent of taking power by force.
His military success aside, is there any redeeming moral quality to Sulla? Or is this another case of history being written by the victors?
>>2552854
>How was Sulla not the bad guy?
You have to consider who he went against. Marius was basically the competent version of Pompey, while Sulla was basically the homosexual hedonistic version of Augustus.
Now who would you consider the good guy between Pompey and Augustus?
>>2552854
hard to be a bad guy when you are up against Marius
otherwise known as the Stalin principle
>>2552897
bad comparison
Pompey did nothing wrong
>>>/pol/117963935
Why are there still people who don't believe the Holocaust happened?
>>2552809
A healthy mix of cognitive dissonance, racism, and ignorance
>>2552809
Because they're litterally 13 and being a neonazi holocaust denier is the edgiest thing they can come up with.
>>2552809
If the Holocaust happened how come there are still Jews?
>>2552800
>K/D ratio
Literally the most irrelevant bullshit statistic ever conceived.
>>2552800
Italy probably. It sucks too because they had such huge shoes to fill. China usually sucks ass too.
>>2552800
>k/d
Completely irrelevant, soviets had collosal losses and still stormed berlin.
Does everyone have a purpose?
Does everything have a purpose?
Is purpose even real?
>>2552727
Yes, I believe everything has a reason for existing and happening. The reason is not simply apparent, and most of the time can't even be hinted at until far after the fact.
>>2552727
purpose is an abstraction.
>>2552727
Life is it's own end, it doesn't serve some higher purpose.
Was there ever a genuinely good-hearted ruler who cared about his subjects and helped them as much as possible?
>>2552702
Considering that he was stealing their labor for his own gain by definition of the word "ruler", no. If he was truly benevolent, he would install a representative government.
>>2552714
fuck off commie
>>2552702
Pedro II of Brazil
Augustus
Salazar
THE POINT IS Egyptians were non-whites.
Greeks took from Egyptians. THEY WERE non-whites. Look at Socrates statue.
Romans took from Greeks. THEY WERE non-whites if we go by the stormfag definition.
Using terms like "white" or "black" in antiquity is meaningless. The Romans didn't care what colour your skin was, they cared if you were Roman. The Gauls and the Egyptians were equally foreign to them.
>>2552648
I'm using the stormfag definition my man.
>>2552636
STOP PERPETUATING THE SPURIOUS NOTIONS OF "BLACKNESS", "WHITENESS", "YELLOWNESS", "REDNESS", "BROWNNESS"; THEY ARE RACIALLY IRRELEVANT, AND ONLY PRODUCE INTERETHNIC STRIFE.
Maybe Italianons can help here. What did Italy construct its national identity around? It couldn't have been language; many regions spoke mutually unintelligible dialects or even used outright different language groups. It couldn't have been genetics; Italians north of Tuscany and those from Rome downwards have noticeable physical differences on average, more so than, say, Germans and Poles. It couldn't have been a legal precedent; what is now called Italy had not been a fully unified country since the empire of the Romans. From an outsider's view it looks like they just clumped a bunch of different states and ethnicities together and called them one.
So what united them? And under a Sardinian dynasty no less?
the elites fell for the nationalism meme
>>2552578
>It couldn't have been language; many regions spoke mutually unintelligible dialects or even used outright different language groups.
True, but do notice that italian as a common language spoken by the intellectual elite was a thing since the 13th century. And by the 17th century you had most intellectuals believing it should actually be the national language.
>It couldn't have been a legal precedent; what is now called Italy had not been a fully unified country since the empire of the Romans.
Wrong (de jure anyway). The concept of Italy as its own isolated area is as old as the social war, the concept of kingdom of Italy is as old as the fall of the WRE, and the jure the kingdom existed more or less whole for centuries until the franks took over. And even then, the concept of kingdom of Italy remained (even if the actual land controlled by the king progressively shrunk into nothing) right until Boney dissolved the HRE.
>From an outsider's view it looks like they just clumped a bunch of different states and ethnicities together and called them one.
You'd find a great deal of people thinking the same thing back then too. I do believe most people wanted a federation back then, but of course the Savoia monarchy was a very centralized and authoritarian state, so that was never gonna happen with them unifying the country (almost entirely by force of arms, mind you. It's not like it came together on its own).
>>2553056
It's probably better they didn't get their federalized state then as the Italian peninsula might very well look like the Balkan peninsula if they did. This being said, Italy as at a time and place where it could federalize like Germany no problem.
Was he even taken seriously or was it just a roleplaying club?
>>2552555
roleplaying club. He never did anything other than give a few speechs here and there and the moment any communist shitheads offered any resistance, he would run away.
He also never held any real power and was a completely inept politician. A true testament to what a farce Fascist noble hierarchy is. For instance, he met with a big time British business man in order to secure some money in his little warchest. But he blew the whole thing when he went on an unprovoked 20 min rant about jews...even though the businessman was a jew literally named Israel. That story about sums up that patheticness of Mosley and British Fagism
This is the difference between the rest of the world and the G*rmans. G*rmans are too autistic to realize Hitler was just roleplaying and they all wanted to LARP along with him.
>>2552597
>larping is bad
Humanities majors realize they are studying for a useless degree right?
>>2552388
Absolutely, even when I was doing my history degree I only thought about it as an excuse to laze about for three years. I was a bretty dumb 18 - 20 year old.
Surprisingly, no.
I mean I know, but I'm not sure my colleagues know.
The guys are admittedly the most realistic in their prospects. Most of the ones I met were already in skilled trades.
>>2552388
>going 500K in debt just so you can work at starbucks
do these faggots not realize you can just teach yourself history on the internet?