You go to sleep and tomorrow you wake up in the year 1 ad, you can choose a geological point to wake up, you wont die of fucking parasites, you gont fucking die of disentery or any other illnes.
But you will die on your 80th birthday. What do you do /his/?
>Go to italica southern hispania
> Get a qt roman-iberian wife
>Get 7 kids, love 6 and get at least 2 to the legions
>Pic unreleated
>>3313704
>Basically anywhere in the Pacific
>Spend all day fishing and getting drunk on fermented coconut milk
>Marry a qt brown loli
All other answers are wrong.
>Go to Black Sea coast
>Get qt Grecian wife in Pontus
>Be inducted into the Dionysian Mysteries
>>3313704
>Jerusalem
>hang out with Jesus
>help him get off the cross when the Romans aren't looking
Can a human being remain sane if he was immortal?
whatm8?
>>3313880
Would a human being still have relatively acceptable morals and viewpoints if he was to attain immortality?
>>3313691
Most people tend not to use their mortality as much of a touch stone so probably
Wtf I hate Aztecs now
>>3313553
I'm 1/64th blackfoot, am I chad now?
>>3313598
creek here, blackfoot a shit
*blocks your path*
His wicked spirit whispers in Putin's ear to this day.
> It was discovered that Yagoda's two Moscow apartments and his dacha contained 3,904 pornographic photos, 11 pornographic films, 165 pornographic pipes, one dildo, and the two bullets that killed Zinoviev and Kamenev.
>>3313506
Based Chaplin
How do you get your shit pushed in so hard that you're defeated by a bunch of peasants and have to flee to a tiny island...
You have to be more retarded and incompetant than Mao.
Think about that.
>>3313488
0 points in Charisma. He was the Stannis Baratheon of the Warlords Era.
>His constant demands for Western support and funding earned him the nickname of "General Cash-My-Check".
Iam trying to find name for that, it was linked to the fascism claiming that Fascism is "rule of some" (people) but i cant find its name. I bealive it was something-cracy.
Term you're looking for is Oligarchy, and it's far older than fascism.
Though Italy and Nazi Germany were oligarchies.
>>3313492
Definitely not this, as i said, its something-cracy or maybe -ism, but iam much more sure about the cracy.
Ochlocracy.
Rome used to be Orthodox. Their apostasy is due maimly to two factors: the (forged) Donation of Constantine, and the Pornocracy
The Filioque is the Latin doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as principle (principle in Latin means the source or basis of something’s existence). That is the official Roman explanation of what “Filioque” means in the Creed. This is distinct from the Orthodox doctrine that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the sense that the Son gives the Spirit to us, somewhat analogically to how the Spirit gave us the Son through the Son’s earthly conception. In Orthodoxy, the Father alone is the Spirit’s principle, whereas in Filioqueism, the Father-Son is the principle of the Spirit, whereas the Father alone is the principle of the Father and the Son. The Latin perspective lead to an obviation of the significance of the New Testament Pentecost. For example, Christ promised the Spirit of Truth would given to the Church to guide and administrate her; Catholics blurred the Spirit’s coming with the principle of the Spirit’s existence, which greatly marginalized the former. This meant Catholics no longer saw the Spirit of Truth as strongly as an administrator and preserver of truth given to the Church, which is why they needed the Pope, who took over the role of the Spirit of Truth. Also, Latin mysticism was massively impaired by this: you see, in the Old Testament, only prophets had access to the Holy Spirit, so only they had mystical experiences. With the New Testament Pentecost, such direct and mystical experience of God is offered to everyone. Prior to the schism,
Cont
>>3313471
the writings of Saint Isaac the Syrian and Saint John of the Ladder (who both wrote about how to have mystical experiences with God) were both highly esteemed and read in the West. After the schism, their relevance was gradually reduced; today, they are still considered very important in the Orthodox Church, but for the Romans they are little more than academic curiosities.
Cont
>>3313475
Rome initially rejected the Filioque. Pope Leo III was the first Pope was faced with its addition (prior to him, some churches in the West used it, but it had not reached Rome). Carolingian envoys were sent to him to ask he add it to the Creed (as transcript of this exchanged can be found in “Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy”). Pope Leo at first told them no, he would not officially add it in writing, but if they wished they might say it in the service, but no writing would be changed. They continued to pressure and pester him, and he finally told them not only would he not add it, but that now he was forbidding them from singing it, and said he had no authority to unilaterally alter the Nicene Creed, stating, “I will not say I prefer myself to the Fathers. And far be it from me to count myself their equal." To emphasize the finality of his decision, he had the Creed without the Filioque engraved on two silver tablets. A few decades later, his decision would be upheld in the Council of 879, which anathematized the Filioque and Pope Nicholas I for espousing Papal supremacy; this council was affirmed by Pope John VIII, which ended the Photian Schism. However, in 1014, after pressure from Henry II of Germany, Pope Benedict VIII added the Filioque. Benedict owed Henry big time because the later restored him to his see after the antipope took it. And that is how it got in the Latin Creed today.
There is a popular quote used by Catholics ascribed to Kallistos Ware: "The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences." This quote is fabricated, and the work by Ware it is ascribed to, does not exist.
Hi Constantine. It's been a while. How's the horse BF?
got any pictures of american arms before european contact?
This is an incan axe made from copper alloy
fuck niggas up with this shit
Macuahuitl image from Spanish Royal Armory Catalog, only document of last surviving Aztec Weapon. Sadly it was lost in a fire In 1884.
>>3313468
It's made of bronze.
Are there any significant black philosophers? Why? Why not?
>>3313352
Ptahhotep
>>3313352
Socrates
W.E.B. Du Bois back when he was alive
Hello! I am actually currently enrolled in Ministry College. There is something I have noticed. Jesus himself, obviously, what he says goes. Like with the sermon on the mount, if he says something is a sin, it is haha. But I feel like many Christians use the letters by Paul in the Bible as something to help make things a sin. Back in Biblical times, Paul thought he would see the return of Christ in his lifetime. With that, many of the things he wrote were written in a form of dos and don'ts. It was urgent to him, basically. But I feel like they use verses from his letters of saying to not do something, when Jesus never said that. Almost as if we have even more rules because of Paul, and I don't recall him being put in a position to make something a sin. Can anyone help give me clarity? Should we take the sins made by Paul with some grains of salt? Obviously he was a man of God and God used him in AMAZING ways. But thing is, he was still just that. A MAN. And man makes mistakes.
>>3313331
You should have picked a better religion. Paul, not Jesus, is the true founder of the religion. His epistles pre-date the Gospels. He was the one who formed the theology, the framework for what sin is and isn't, and why it's important. You start playing pick and choose with Paul's stuff, and very soon you won't have anything left.
>>3313331
>Can anyone help give me clarity? Should we take the sins made by Paul with some grains of salt?
You can't handle the depths of the treason against Christ.
Jesus says Moses is a liar - Paul says Elijah was working for God.
> “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. I do not accept glory from human beings. But I know that you do not have the love of God in[f] you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG7VtVr4eFw
>>3313331
Paul, like the other authors of scripture, was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who is just as much God as Jesus is. Honestly, I'm surprised someone in "Ministry College" wouldn't already know this. What is the name of your school OP?
>it wasn't until the 19th century that humans devised a faster way to travel over land than riding a horse
>>3313294
Is there any technological reason why railroads couldn't have come earlier? Steel, coal, wheels, etc. were all very old tech by the 1830s.
>>3313324
>Is there any technological reason why railroads couldn't have come earlier?
I've always wanted an alt-history Roman horse drawn rail system.
>>3313395
What benefits would horse-drawn rail over horse-drawn carriages over Roman roads?
Why do people sunburn so easily in this day and age? How did people of the olden days manage to live in hot areas their entire lives (im thinking immediatly south USA, but also stretching all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece) Is it because the majority of us have spent so much time in doors and away from sunlight, that our skin has become more weaker to sunlight because of that?
>>3313257
europeans evolved to not be in the direct sunlight, they sun burn easily because they didnt need to develop resistance to the sun. People arent magically getting sun burned now
>>3313257
Kind of. In ye olden days people tended to already have tans by default, because they spent most of their lives outside. People also wore hats, which probably helped to some degree.
Early European farmers brought a white skin with them to receive more vitamin D from the sunlight, which was necessary due to a smaller cosumption of animal products containing it (unlike the darker hunter gatherers).
>>3313255
>Latin America
There's your answer.
Hell, coup d'etats are a cherished Spanish tradition that most colonies of Spain inherited. Look at the Philippines, they too had many coups.
>>3313255
because it is in South America
>>3313255
Because they are coup-coup.
I like the way the English made a construction in the 20th Century and claimed it was an ancient construction, pic related.
>>3313067
>Thinking the 20th century even happened
Get off this history board senpai, the world starts on September the 11th.
>>3313067
Just because someone might actually believe this, the photo here is showing the stones partially being restored.
There are older photos and even medieval manuscripts that show Stonehenge.
>>3313093
>restored
>We wuz Kangz n shiet
Nice try, white boy
Was East Germany really as bad as westerners claim it was? In light of recent events, it might have been a more stable society than West Germany prior to unification.
>>3313047
One party states that shoot dissidents tend to be quite 'stable' compared to multiparty democracies.
>>3313100
that's funny, i didn't realize i was on r/theDonald