Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 2432. page

>>1945731
>[COLAPSE]

They were fucking lazy pieces of shit is why.

>hurr I'm too dumb to start my own bizness gib job pls
>w-w-what do you mean my house lost its equity in the Crash? I've lived in that house for 30 years!
>lol college education who gives a shit about that just let me shovel coal
>THANK YOU FDR FOR ALL THE FREE JOBS YOU ARE THE BEST PRESIDENT

sickening

>>1945731

Because FDR let the money supply collapse

>>1945580
your under the impression that most monks could fight, that is wrong. If a temple needed defended they would more likely hiring the local warriors/thugs into a militia, perhaps make the leaders laymonks

>>1945580
monks as in clerics? i believe scandinavian armies employed heavily armoured monks who only wielded maces since they were not allowed to shed blood by the sword, as for unarmed combat.....i dunno

File: Medieval 2 #4.webm (2MB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 960x540px

>>1946101
I have hard time thinking your post is serious.

Totaly

>>1945522
It overwrote a lot of them, particularly when there were ethnic replacements involved, like in the New World and Prussia, and Northern Ireland.

Ironically cultural syncretism survived alongside Catholicism for a long time; Protestantism is when association with anything that was done because of "pagan" tradition was rooted out, generally by the same "Germanic" countries who fap over the Norse tradition.
Not to mention all the old art, writings, buildings, and historical records destroyed by Protestants.

"Ruined" is a value judgement, but if you ask me I think pre-Protestantism Christianity was more amenable to finding a best-of-both-world modus vivendi with the cultures whose religions it replaced, and most of the non-Christian cultures overwritten in other places were notably cruel and violent, so I would say no in a lot of cases and not inherently.

>>1945522
christianity and capitalism

Who

>>1945454
>buy the Imperial throne in an auction after his much more capable predecessor murdered
>devalue the currency
>gets BTFO

Really not much to see here

>>1945457
Was offered the crown and throne at an auction by the Praetorian Guard.

Then was murdered for buying the crown and the throne at an auction.

From Commodus all the way to Diocletian, we're in for a bumpy ride and a lot of literally whos.

Aurelian is one of the few exceptions.

>>1945375
>Benevolent

Sure purged a lot of people to be called benevolent. Enlightened would be a better term.

>benevolent
Competent, yes, but...

>>1945375

>benevolent
>dictator

Pick one, nigga

>>1945253
If bad means anything then nihilism is bad. If bad doesn't mean anything then nihilism is true.

File: spooktastic.png (3KB, 110x120px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 110x120px

>>1945253
nihilism's a spook.

>>1945253
I thought that seaman on his face

>>1945196
Probably not. Put 10 people in a room and systems emerge, somebody becomes dominant.

>>1945196
"True freedom"
This phrase is meaningless.

>>1945196
Look at the caveman

File: 1463103240584.jpg (110KB, 900x300px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 900x300px

>>1945120
Assyrians
>invade and commit attoricities against every neighbor.
>when everyone else is finally fed up with their shit and form a coalition to btfo them from existance: "w-we dindu nuffin!!! fucking haters !!111!!!!"

>>1945130
Name an unrequited atrocity America did to a neighboring country
The only major thing they did was wipe out the Native Americans, brutally

>>1945130
Name a single international coalition that has invaded the American heartland and wiped us out.

Unlikely. Nothing like that has ever occurred

>>1945116

Almost certainly so. Nuclear devastation in most projections would kill somewhere between 40-60% of the population if you say had a full exchange of missiles by the U.S. and the former USSR, with an eye of destroying each other's stockpiles on the ground as a primary goal.

I mean, it would be horrifying, but ultimately society would reform, and probably along similar lines as the old society, that's what happened in enormously devastating plagues in older times, anyway. People tend to cling to their ideological stances when there's a disaster.

>>1945078
Pls no

I really like that wall!

FUCK YOU ORBAN YOU TRANSYLVANIAN PIECE OF SHIT

I KNOW WE DIDN'T WANT THE CANNONS BUT WHAT THE FUCK

>>1945078
That canon was shit compare to the war wolf

>>1945068
They Irish waht do you think

>>1945068
>High level of discourse, this is bait
Google it. 11m people, enclosures, shit boats, English Fisherman taking best stocks with superior boats.

>Irish in charge of being able to think

Outsourcing of jobs and white flight.

>>1945058
This, niggers and Democratic party policies enabling their shit culture.

>>1945048
Shitty unions

>>1944959
Living in Palestine, largely minding their own business. Having the occasional rebellion.

There were lots of them outside Palestine too. Mainly being butthurt about whatever the Romans decided to ban about Judaism this week.

Usual Jewish stuff.

>Usury
>Merchanting
>complaining about being oppressed
>subversion
>plotting to steal power
>killing the Son of the Living God in human form

>>1944959
Getting their temples sacked and looted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War

>Conquered Constantinople at 19
>Has no chin
>Possibly a manlet as well
Wew

File: SOBIESKI-1.jpg (265KB, 768x921px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 768x921px

>>1944753
Paved way for the ultimate cuck ruler, Mehmet IV, to be absolutely destroyed by based emperor Sobieski.

File: poland_partitioned_1772-1795.jpg (343KB, 650x339px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 650x339px

>>1944777
and look at how the krauts repay them

the PLC shouldve listened to the ottomans and split austrian scum beetween them desu

>>1944585
>Why are ''tru'' socialist hateful against social democrats?
Because it's a less optimal system that sheepdogs people who would otherwise be socialists into supporting the status quo.

Case in point: Bernie Sanders.

>>1944585
I'm a "tru" (anti-Bolshevik) socialist, and I will tell you that I have very mixed feelings about social democracy for several reasons. It doesn't solve the inherent contradictions of capitalism, it often adds to them.

Social democracy relies on taxing the rich, and the rich don't benefit from this, so they will flee and take their capital with them. Socialism promotes socially owned capital, the taxes come from the people that benefit from the system.

It's an inherently populist top down ideology. It causes the lower classes to seek handouts from the state, who in turn either takes it from someone else, or they go into unsustainable debt. In socialism, again, it's the people providing for themselves, they're taxing themselves to benefit themselves. Socialism is much more self-deterministic, in socialism people have to decide their own fates. They don't rely on propping up the state to support them. It makes them take responsibility rather than looking for an authority to take responsibility.

Social democracy often has cart before the horse policy, in an effort to compromise between capitalists and trying to achieve the consumer results similar to socialism. This often leads to stupid things like price controls on toilet paper. This is stupid if you don't have the means of production for toilet paper for obvious reasons.

Social democracy is seen as the middle ground dialectic synthesis between socialism and capitalism. But it really isn't. It solves some problems but introduces others. I don't see it as a viable endgame.

There's a few other reasons I can't remember right now.

I do support social democracy for a few reasons. I do agree with some of the policy changes. I think it will remove some of the stigma about socialism, although I do fear that socialism will be continue to be confused for the welfare state. I think it's a stepping stone for an actual socialist movement. Again I don't see it as a viable or sustainable endgame

>>1944623
cont.

I see market socialism as the most reasonable and long term viable capitalism-socialism synthesis, that's actually an improvement on capitalism. I tend to be of the opinion that the market works okay when regulated, and it's useful, and the alternatives are not viable.

Now some other "tru" socialists are actually anticapitalists more than they are socialists, so they think market socialism is revisionism, even though proposed forms of market socialism predate Marx. They think the market is too close to capitalism and there's problems with the market.

There's no need to sabotage your system by making it not viable by filling it with contradictions or ineffective mechanisms, like anticapitalist socialism or social democracy. They're going to run into problems in the long term unless you find effective ways in resolving the problems, which socialism does.

>>1944593
I'd vote Bernie