Would an Axis victory mean the total annhilation of communism?
no
even if you ban parlamentary politics and worker unions, communists can infiltrate the army
no, it would mean the total annhilation of capitalism, the driving force behind jewish world domination
No Hitler stated he planned on allowing Stalin to stay in power and 'continue his social experiment in the east' referring likely to everything east of Moscow
Ok, so we all know that the Roman empire went into decline shortly after the influx of Christianity, and especially after the Edict of Milan.
My idea is that this is because the government was putting more economic focus on churches rather than infrastructure/armies, and the people were putting more focus on spiritual goals rather than making money or other tangible personal goals.
Discuss.
No
Rome was already fucked because of the Third Century Crisis. The empire just couldn't deal with its massive borders, lack of a clear heredity and inability to control its currency. Christianity was just one of a host of monotheistic cults like the Cult of Mithras, Isis and Sol Invictus. Christianity just happened to be much better at spreading because it appealed to slaves and women, not just free men. I couldn't say for certain that the fact that Rome adopted Christianity as it was crumbling was a complete coincidence, but the causation is more likely that it adopted Christianity because it was collapsing, not the other way around
this area I am a little fuzzy on, ask me anything post Charlemange i got you. ask me anything before... eh.
anyways ill take a crack at it. so very rarely do we see Churches, cathedrals, monuments or devotion to Christianity in roman empire times. We see all that post Charlemagne and then an increase of the churches power post 1000's.
what we do see in Roman times for Christianity is a concept of a bunch of unclear beliefs, i mean at the time Christianty was so up in the air it was nuts, you could probably claim that it is gods will to kill all your slaves because they need to be damned to hell, but you still go to heaven because you didnt eat pork on sunday. or something stupid like that. WE really dont see any specific doctrines of Christianity until Augustine which arguably starts the increase in the church's power.
anyways... No Rome feel from previous stated reasons, and much much much more other reasons. think of Rome as a bag of popcorn in the microwave, each of those kernels popping is a reason Rome fell. way to many reasons to point out to make an argument for one. trust me... scholars have been trying for years to pinpoint exact reasons. There are tons!
Rome was pretty much fucked after the good Emperors.
It was kept alive for a while due to okay Emperors, like Diocletian, Constantine and Theodosius, but the Writing was on the wall.
Theodosius single handedly saved Byzantium with his Walls, though.
The reason Rome died is because the Army grew more concerned with being rewarded donatives than it did actually maintaining a country by letting the Emperor actually worry about more than pleasing them.
tl;dr: Christ didn't kill the Empire, the Army did
A question on Christianity that has bothered me for a long time:
So I was raised Catholic but I havent practiced in a while. But when I did I practiced in a way that may have not been correct. The way my parents taught me to pray (and this may apply to thousands of other Christian kids) is that when I pray I should basically wish for things from God. I should ask God for all of the things I desire in life.
What does the Bible have to say about this kind of thought? What should I be praying for when I pray to God? Is it ok to wish for things?
Ive thought about getting back into Christianity for a while and as soon as I began to pray I found myself wishing for things. Bad habits are hard to break. What do you guys think of this?
Also, Christianity thread.
praying is a private thing, do it as you prefer but don´t be a pharisee who prays in the streets for everyone to see
>>2106698
I remember there being a verse about that in Matthew
>>2106699
yeah mateo 6:5
Any other states with no real history or culture that exist mainly due to the mercy or machinations of superior, real states? Which of these two is most hilariously prideful despite having nothing to be proud of?
>>2106626
i've never found either to be filled with pride, i've met belgians and south koreans and they aren't bothered with it all anyway
neither, since Romania exists
Slovakia.
What are the coolest looking uniforms from throughout history?
obligatory
Modern Day Englishmen are French
>pakistanis
>same as maghrebs
>>2106592
That shop is poorly done, consider lowering the resolution on the moustache and whatever-the-hell that cap is.
>>2106599
back off, poofter
Goguryeo will rise again and cleanse the land of chinks.
How about conquering those 3 states down south first
>>2106533
not so long as the norks keep shitting in their playpen and the southern fucks are content to sell shit to people.
Impossible, they were just a bunch of steppeniggers claiming dominion over a vast expanse of nothing.
Did Saint Peter actually exist?
No. No one existed before Charles Darwin was born.
>>2106495
dis the nigga wit peppas.
Paul mentions meeting him, doesn't he?
Same with James, so the early Church fathers had to exist, unless you're saying Paul made up the whole Religion
>>2106461
>>2106473
He looks Arab not black
>>2106479
>The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, is neither too short nor too tall. His hair are neither curly nor straight, but a mixture of the two. He is a man of black hair and large skull. His complexion has a tinge of redness. His shoulder bones are broad and his palms and feet are fleshy. He has long al-masrubah which means hair growing from neck to navel. He is of long eye-lashes, close eyebrows, smooth and shining fore-head and long space between two shoulders. When he walks he walks inclining as if coming down from a height. [...] I never saw a man like him before him or after him.
What history books does /his/ recommend?
>>2106445
What fucking era do you wanna read you god damn fucking shiter
>>2106445
Stalingrad by Antony Beevor.
S-should I?
>not reading the Almagest
Was Georgism right all along?
>>2106415
Why not read a book on more recent mathematics?
For all the faults of mongols although they were weapons of mass destruction - killing people on an industrial scale, they rarely engaged in torturing or disfiguring bodies.
In fact, they hated spilling blood near themselves since they considered it impure. Good thing archery keeps your enemies at a distance. Their favoured method of execution was breaking the back, or rolling a person up in a carpet and stamping them to death with horses.
>>2106404
Yeah at least they just had them stomped by horses John Green.
I thought that was only royal blood.
Also, I'm 90% sure the Mongols used battle axes to dispatch civilians.
Like, why would you waste arrows on something that isn't fighting back at all.
>>2106404
>*migrates to China proper looking for jerb.*
Hey /his/, redpill me on the celts
barbarians.
People who produced hot redhead woman and overall bored individuals who wanted something to do.
>>2106300
Where did this meme come from?
Not the celts, but your pic related.
SANTIAGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Is that the Berber battlecry?
Y CIERRA ESPAÑA
>>2106263
>shells internally
Has anyone read this? I think it's one of the best works of non-fiction I've ever read.
Also, why has the Congo been the subject of so much excellent historical writing?
>>2106262
There's a lot of stuff to write about, most of it poetically tragic
>we wuz beljuns
Funny, I am reading Why Nations Fail, Congo keeps coming up. I had no idea how bad this country was. Thank baby Jesus I was born in good ol USA