Dump some daunting historical images - preferably during the 20th century.
>inb4 not 25 years ago
Why is God in Christianity portrayed as being a giant human with a big beard?
In Judaism and other religions he seems to be portrayed as some unearthly and higher dimensional being
>>1813698
They do?
>>1813698
>as being a giant human with a big beard?
He's modeled after the golden Zeus statue of Phidias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Zeus_at_Olympia
>>1813739
So? He disproved OP's claim.
/thread
What sparked the American revolution?
What could Britain have done to prevented it politically?
What were arguments loyalists had?
American revolution general discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzRhFH5OyHo
>>1813661
There was no way for Britain to maintain control over America at the time, it was simply too far away for them to adequately manage it. I realize they did a good job in India and Hong Kong and geographically they were further away, but these were places reachable by land routes and thus support of supply.
When you have to send your entire army and fighting force on ships on a 3 month journey to the US across the stormy Atlantic Ocean, it gets pretty difficult to wage war.
>>1813661
I would argue similarly to >>1813751 but I would state that my argument is focused a little differently. Before the Revolution the British government never really ruled the colonies. They were closer to protectorates. It was only when the British actually tried to rule that the colonies rebelled.
So, what exactly was life like in Iraq under Saddam's reign? I hear that Iraq was in good shape in the early 70's but I don't know anything about Saddam's presidency other than the pointless wars.
>>1813651
Life was fine for all but Kurds, those who politically opposed Saddam and those he just wanted to fuck with for no reason. Obviously most men were forced into the military and it sucked especially if they, you know, died.
At least the situation made people think in non violent ways because terrorists and rebels were shit scared of Saddam.
>>1814738
Life was shit for Shia Muslims as well, who made up more then half the population.
For Sunni Muslims it was okay as long as you didn't publicly oppose Saddam. Shia though were being actively discriminated against.
Terrorism wasn't a major problem in Iraq, but Saddam was kind of a terrorist himself. He for example gave out reward for every suicide bombing made in Israel.
>after the Gulf war it took Saddam 6 months to repair the iraqi infrastructure that the US bombed to oblivion and restore the nation to more or less order
>13 years after the Iraq invasion and billions of US taxpayer dollars and resources and the nation is more unstable than it ever has been before with hundreds of thousand of civilian deaths and weekly bombings still going on (one was like 2 days ago in baghdad killing 20)
>Saddam fucking Hussein was better at providing safety and liberty than America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LaMJ_5us5U
Hello,
I've made a few threads here talking about some videos I'm making and you guys have been receptive, so a new one is out on:
Western Europe and their Renaissances
First up, the Renaissance in the Low Countries. I have a lot of history to cover, and touch on:
>islamic slave trade
>history of the Franks
>Venice and building their own island
>The Low Countries and that they used to be literally underwater, including polders etc
>universities originate in the west
and lots of other stuff. I also get into Jan Van Eyck and the practice started there where artists would smuggle doctors into their anatomy lectures, since only artists were allowed to autopsy bodies for a while.
How do you feel about the renaissance in the Low Countries? Jan Van Eyck? The west in general?
>>1813580
there's also a good bit of info on free imperial cities and why you'd run away if you were a peasant with a bad lord
middle ages had tons of innovation most people take for granted
>>1813580
Well I'll leave a final bump in case anyone wants to talk about the middle ages or the low countries
from the video
>Rome was havng many troubles associated with decadence- increased corruption, lowered public confidence, higher taxes, and politicians and Emperors who cared for little beyond their own interest. Roman citizens began to feel the strain of a nation far flung from its original intent, serving no longer as a bastion of innovation but now simply a seat of power to be obtained and wielded for its own sake. Their law system became a joke, one emperor nailed his laws to the top of a 100ft column so he could try people for breaking laws he had “made public.” If that sounds crazy, its not too far off from today, where bills 100 years ago were 4 pages and could be read by anyone who could read, and today they're 4000 pages long and even the people writing them don't really read them. If you can't read the law, how can you trust it, much less those who craft it?
Bumpo
What does Jesus teach?
Programming at my local college.
>>1813439
How to dance
>Literally scores of Books written about Jesus and his life, his teachings, and his philosophy
"Wut duz Jeezuz teech?"
Who are some of the most fleshed out figures in history? I'm talking about comprehensive primary sources about them.
ronald reagan
Elliot Rodger.
Chrischan
which artform has the most prestigious history?
>implying photography can't be abstract or expressionist
>>1813399
What the fuck is that picture trying to say? It just says "art" under mid-tier.
>>1813421
literally a bunch of things arranged on a surface. no masterwork to see here.
>hating bourgeoisie when you should be hating aristocracy
ISHYGDDT
>Not hating the working class more than you hate the others because it's the only one that's too stupid to see how the system works
>The Current Year
the bourgeois are the aristocracy with the exception that they pay taxes. everything else about the model has just been internationalised, so that first-world bourgeoisie enjoy a life of luxury at the expense of workers in the third world
>>1813407
I don't think you know what the word 'aristocracy' actually means.
What is it about Japanese history that fucked them up
>>1813380
Probably the American parts around 1945
america hitted too hard
Everyone is a little fucked up anon
The Japs seem to be doing okay
The greatest strategist that ever live?
>Napoleon did not stay still. The French Emperor decided to set a psychological trap in order to lure the Allies out. Days before any fighting, Napoleon had been giving the impression that his army was weak and that he desired a negotiated peace.About 53,000 French troops—including Soult, Lannes and Murat's forces—were assigned to take Austerlitz and the Olmutz road, occupying the enemy's attention. The Allied forces, numbering about 89,000, seemed far superior and would be tempted to attack the outnumbered French army. However, the Allies did not know that Bernadotte, Mortier and Davout were already within the supported distance, and could be called in by forced marches from Iglau and Vienna respectively, raising the French number to 75,000 troops.
>Napoleon's lure did not stop at that. On 25 November, General Savary was sent to the Allied headquarters at Olmutz to deliver Napoleon's message expressing his desire to avoid a battle, while secretly examining the Allied forces' situation. As expected, the overture was seen as a sign of weakness. When Francis I offered an armistice on the 27th, Napoleon accepted enthusiastically. On the same day, Napoleon ordered Soult to abandon both Austerlitz and the Pratzen Heights and, while doing so, to create an impression of chaos during the retreat that would induce the enemy to occupy the Heights.
>The next day (28 November), the French Emperor requested a personal interview with Alexander I and received a visit from the Tsar's most impetuous aide, Count Dolgorouki. The meeting was another part of the trap, as Napoleon intentionally expressed anxiety and hesitation to his opponents. Dolgorouki reported to the Tsar an additional indication of French weakness.
>Napoleon was hoping that the Allied forces would attack, and to encourage them, he deliberately weakened his right flank.
>>1813347
All he needed to defeat 35,000 turks was 300 good men
>From 6am to 4pm the French withstood repeated Ottoman charges. They suffered few casualties and easily held their square, but as the day wore on their ammunition ran low and the men suffered from lack of water and hunger. The Ottomans suffered substantial losses, but they could easily replace their casualties and keep up with good supplies and strength to continue repeated strikes throughout the day.
>Just when all seemed to be lost, and Kléber prepared for a last-ditch breakout towards the Jordan, some soldiers claimed to have briefly seen a military force advancing from the north. Kléber tried to verify their report, which could be a relief column under Napoleon, but he saw nothing but the open desert and a monstrous enemy force.
>However a moment later Kléber saw the relief column; at the first moment Kléber had looked, the relief column under the personal command of Napoleon Bonaparte had marched right into a dip. Although Kléber saw and his men began to feel relief, their opponent still had many times more men than Napoleon and Kléber together.
>Napoleon found himself between the Ottomans and their camp; he decided to distract them by detaching 300 men to pillage and destroy the Ottoman camp. This succeeded far more than Napoleon could have imagined: upon seeing the destruction of their belongings, the Ottomans assumed they were surrounded. In response, the Ottoman army began to retreat to the south and across the River Jordan. Kléber ordered his men to charge in a last effort for the day, and supported by the rest of the soldiers under Napoleon – who were relatively fresh - this charge transformed the Ottoman retreat into a general rout. Kléber’s men found their thirst replaced by an adrenaline rush, and the waters of the Jordan turned red with the blood of the Turks who were killed in the rout.
>>1813347
>he shouldn't have won
>he did anyway
Pretty much all of his campaigns. so yes, yes indeed.
He's easily in the top 5
Move over autistbeige, there's a new autistic in town ranting about stupid shit in history that doesn't matter.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p3NvizhnU4
nice video, faggot
>>1813355
you think so?
>>1813324
I'd like to see an actual medieval text that says "loose" in reference to shooting an arrow.
The new translation of the Deeds of Henry V uses it, but that's a Latin text translated into modern English.
How many royal courts were mobile? The Catholic Monarchs kept moving their court around to keep the feudal lords happy, but I wonder how they managed to do that.
It tended to die down as states got more centralized, because moving an entire treasury and a bunch of records around is a pain in the ass.
>have a bunch of castles
>every now and again live in a different one
Part of the reason they travelled was because it was more luxurious that way. They would go to one place, the local lord will have lots of entertainment prepared, they would hunt all the game, eat everywhere, shit everywhere then move on to the next party house.
They stopped after the black death tho.
Why do people reproduce?
>>1813295
Ask your dad and mom
>>1813295
Having kids is too much of a burden these days
Intelligent people know better than to reproduce
>>1813295
Because children are adorable
Why is the Polish-Soviet war considered a soviet defeat if their main goal was driving the Whites and Poles out of Ukraine? Isn't that what happened?
>Whites and Poles
yer playing with fire m8
I've seen one of em poles take out an eye with a toilet brush, nasty innit
>>1813284
Another major war goal was reaching Germany and assisting Luxemburg and Liebknecht in the German revolution of 1919