Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 221. page

Pretend you were shot an arrow. If they ask why you don't bleed and why's the arrow so short and thick, you just say
>"dunno asshole why don't you check for yourself"
when they do, slap em with with diamond sword

Please tell me there is a femdom doujin based on Battle of Manzikert.

>>3293830
Isn't this just slander? However, he's a turk, and not even a turk from Turkey but an OG turk, a savage from the steppes. Was that kind of humiliiation done before?

Then how did elephants cross the alps? Other than that I agree with you and Sowell.

>>3293791

Because that was literally the only route that Hannibal could have used to enter Italy. It was inevitable due to the lack of viable alternatives.

File: image.jpg (173KB, 374x452px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 374x452px

>>3293787
>civilizations become downright unrecognizable after a few hundreds of years
>geopolitical equilibrium costantly shifts in new directions

>tfw 200 years are absolutely irrelevant from a genetic standpoint
>tfw white people are not superior, they have just got lucky


>tfw there's a timeline in which Abos got luckier than white people, achieved world domination and then start blabbering about Abos sre inherently superior

>>3293711
Because they never got invaded.

>>3293711
They sustained themselves by feasting on helpless Belgian boys

>>3293745
Virginal ones?
Or did only the commanders get the virgins, and the grunts have to do with the leftovers of the commanders?

Because it's modern history. There's plenty of people who do care about it but I think there's a lot more who care more about ancient history.

The older an event is the easier it is to see how it changed the world. It makes certain things much more important historically. A thousand years people might be talking about how the Falklands War was the beginning of the mighty Empire of Argentina. Just joking but you get my point.

>>3293684
In modern history you can have an almost minute-by-minute breakdown of important events (like coups or elections) thanks to the abundance of records. In ancient history you may have decades with very little information.
I guess some might prefer ancient history precisely because of this.

>>3293581
>Implying physical and chemical stuff have eternal soul granted by God

Since both you mentioned can potentially be abused, I see no reason why there shouldn't be.

>>3293581
chemists and physicists are robots that don't give a shit about someone's hurt fee-fees

>>3293546
There's no such thing as human nature. People are shaped by society and shape it back all in certain ways.

>>3293546

Very true. Look at any socialist country.

>>3293546
Absolute bullshit.

xD

>>3293539
Your post is stored on open-source database software right now.

>>3293537
Most open source stuff sucks though. It requires motivation so if its something tedious its unlikely itll be well made.

>>3293525
nothing would change, science by ww2 has become so complex that no genius no matter how smart he was could change the course of it alone

If any molecular level event was different or any time frame be it infinitely small would change in any time in history, everything would be different.

he would have just kept publishing papers at his retarded rate which no one would ever read, seriously the guy was ahead of his time not just intellectually but he was the OG of just spamming out shit that regardless of quality would never see the light of day. Only difference being he did it bc he was god tier and people do it now in a desperate bid to seem relevant.

>>3293476
/pol/
/thread

>>3293476
/b/
used to be the driving force of 4chan and now it has been reduced to just a porn board

/his/. Most cancerous board on 4chan. Because of posters, not subject.

massacring novgorod, attacking neighbours without declaration of war (and then losing), killing his own son

>>3293444
I can't name another European monarch who beat their own son to death in a fit of rage and went to war with their own noble class, so maybe it was that?

>>3293451
>Novgorod
Same shit happened in WE at that time, and even later.
>attacking neighbors
Just like everyone? He did provide some (flimsy) reasons for it.
>son
That was never proven, it could be a popular myth.
On the other hand, he accomplished quite some good things.
So why is he seen worse than Henry VIII?

Break down ant economics for me

>>3293404
command economy

let me know when they can into space.

>>3293357

Why is Beria fat?

Armando Iannucci is pretty based desu

>>3293357
Don't know a lot historical comedies. Would you count Life of Brian as a historical comedy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuu9YH7_-T8

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-26 at 09.03.07.png (1MB, 1026x808px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1026x808px

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945502-the-president-and-the-apprentice

More than half a century after Eisenhower left office, the history of his presidency is so clouded by myth, partisanship, and outright fraud that most people have little understanding of how Ike’s administration worked or what it accomplished. We know—or think we know—that Eisenhower distrusted his vice president, Richard Nixon, and kept him at arm’s length; that he did little to advance civil rights; that he sat by as Joseph McCarthy’s reckless anticommunist campaign threatened to wreck his administration; and that he planned the disastrous 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. None of this is true.

The President and the Apprentice reveals a different Eisenhower, and a different Nixon. Ike trusted and relied on Nixon, sending him on many sensitive overseas missions. Eisenhower, not Truman, desegregated the military. Eisenhower and Nixon, not Lyndon Johnson, pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through the Senate. Eisenhower was determined to bring down McCarthy and did so. Nixon never, contrary to recent accounts, saw a psychotherapist, but while Ike was recovering from his heart attack in 1955, Nixon was overworked, overanxious, overmedicated, and at the limits of his ability to function

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-26 at 09.05.34.png (939KB, 698x934px) Image search: [Google]

939KB, 698x934px

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13192865-kennedy-v-nixon

For almost half a century "The Making of the President, 1960" has stood as the standard work on this topic. Kallina has exposed the mythology of Theodore White's description of Camelot. For the first time we have an unbiased portrayal of what happened before, during, and after that pivotal election."--Irving F. Gellman, author of "The Contender: Richard Nixon, the Congress Years, 1946-1952""Readers will never look at the historic 1960 election the same way again."--Matthew Corrigan, author of "Race, Religion, and Economic Change in the Republican South""Kennedy v. Nixon" is a book for everyone who "thinks "they know what happened in the pivotal election year of 1960. For fifty years we've accepted Theodore White's premise (from "The Making of the President, 1960") that Kennedy ran a brilliant campaign while Nixon committed blunder after blunder.But White the journalist was a Kennedy partisan and helped establish the myth of Camelot. Now, five decades later, Edmund Kallina offers a fresh overview of the election's most critical and controversial events.Based upon research conducted at four presidential libraries--those of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon--Kallina is able to make observations and share insights unavailable in the immediate aftermath of one of the closest races in American presidential history. He describes the strengths and mistakes of "both" camps, and examines the impact of civil rights, Cold War tensions, and the televised presidential debates on an election that still looms large in both the political history and the popular imagination of the United States.

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-26 at 09.07.56.png (351KB, 628x584px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 628x584px

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25241663-being-nixon


In Being Nixon, Evan Thomas peels away the layers of the complex, confounding figure who became America’s thirty-seventh president. The son of devout Quakers, Richard Nixon (not unlike his rival John F. Kennedy) grew up in the shadow of an older, favored brother and thrived on conflict and opposition. Through high school and college, in the navy and in politics, he was constantly leading crusades and fighting off enemies real and imagined. As maudlin as he was Machiavellian, Nixon possessed the plainspoken eloquence to reduce American television audiences to tears with his career-saving “Checkers” speech; meanwhile, his darker half hatched schemes designed to take down his political foes, earning him the notorious nickname “Tricky Dick.”

Drawing on a wide range of historical accounts, Thomas reveals the contradictions of a leader whose vision and foresight led him to achieve détente with the Soviet Union and reestablish relations with communist China, but whose underhanded political tactics tainted his reputation long before the Watergate scandal. One of the principal architects of the modern Republican Party and its “silent majority” of disaffected whites and conservative ex-Dixiecrats, Nixon was also deemed a liberal in some quarters for his efforts to desegregate Southern schools, create the Environmental Protection Agency, and end the draft.

A deeply insightful character study as well as a brilliant political biography, Being Nixon offers a surprising look at a man capable of great bravery and extraordinary deviousness—a balanced portrait of a president too often reduced to caricature.

I didn't think anyone believed that to be the case.

>>3293242
Literally did nothing wrong except build infrastructure in the kongo

animal cruelty is bad, but most evil man in history? come on

>>3293242
things just got a little out of hand