>sitting in History class, listening to lecture on Asian history half assedly
>History Professor: "Yeah, and um, the Japanese invaded Korea, but that isn't that important"
>Curiosity peaks and I find out it's called the Imjin war
But you see, I can't find info anywhere on the military construction of the Koreans, there is some on the Ming and a lot on the Japanese, but what units were there? What was the Korean military hierarchy? What kind of weapons and technology did they use? I'm primarily curious as to land units, any information would be appreciated!!
>>1744905
The Admiral: Roaring Currents is a pretty cool Korean movie on the 2nd Imjin War, it's on Netflix. Don't take it as 100% historically accurate though.
10,000x pic related.
>>1744905
This talks some about Korean tactics and weapons in the latter part of the war.
http://www.samuelhawley.com/imjinarticle2.html
What is the fundamental purpose of a country?
>>1744736
to accommodate a specific ethnic or a collection of ethnic groups.
>>1744747
you could say that about anything
>>1744736
Country as in what exactly? A modern nation-state?
Redpill me on kite shields
they don't fly very well if tied to a string
>>1744746
They're also inferior to round shields, which can be thrown like a frisbee.
>>1744731
That's a heater. Kite shields are the long fucks Normans used and pretty baller for early cavalry before leg armor evolved past long hauberks. Less than ideal for infantry fighting barring shieldwalls though given the shape.
Pic related.
In addition to the title, offer your opinion on what actors should play which figures, and describe how you would structure the movie / miniseries.
Nobody deserves to have his life's legacy ruined by modern movie/series made for simpletons.
>>1744655
Answer the question or don't answer at all.
>>1744661
I answered it, mongrel.
What is your favorite alternate history?
Mine is that the Byzantines would survive the siege on Constantinople in 1453 and end up joining the Spanish to the Americas, after which they set up a new colony "Nea Byzanteia", which would become the new Byzantine empire after they Ottomans defeat them in 1500, leading to a east-west rivalry between Ottomans and Byzantines.
I'm actually writing a book on this story btw.
Another one is that the order of Assassins would form an actual nation in 1185 to counter the Ayyubids, leading to the "Kingdom of the Assassins"
What is your favourite alternate history? Maps welcome.
Byzantium wins Manzikert because Constantine X is murdered before he ever sits the throne. Turks are driven back, and Byzantium keeps her rich, populous provinces.
>instead of fire, writing is the first thing humans discover/invent with tools
Just think of what would happen
>>1744607
My favorite is the alt-timeline where Catholicism fails to catch in the Roman Empire and becomes a minor religion, thus leaving us with a bunch of distinct cults with some major deities being shared.
Can anyone tell me anything about Leif Ericson and his journey to America?
Apparantly he fought with Native Americans...
>>1744482
Read the Vinland Saga, yo. It's short and really cool. The Indians are called Skrælings.
A FUCKING LEIF
>>1744587
Do you know of any other famous unusual battles? Like perhaps Australian aboriginies versus China? Did that happen?
Let's say things exist.
If something does not exist, something does not exist.
My question to you is, how can something that does not exist come to exist?
>>1744436
It must have been created by something else?
>>1744436
Define thing. Is thing a material thing, or is thing a pattern of material things?
>>1744442
Correct, correct! You are correct!
A baby can only be born from a mother and a father.
A toaster can only heat toast from electricity.
And a bodybuilder's muscles will only come should he eat protein.
However, this is not creation, it is transformation.
All these things ultimately already exist, and therefore, cannot be said to not exist.
They exist in the future, and, when the future comes, they become the present, and eventually turn into past.
Logically speaking, this could mean three things:
A- everything exists in an infinite circle
B- things that do not exist cannot come to exist
C- something superior to the laws of logic can freely created and destroy things as it pleases
Which option do you find more likely to be true?
Hey guys I saw this footage from Berlin july 1945 of what appears to be a german man vaping. I know the nazis were well ahead in rocket technologies (v2 rockets) and that Hitler was an avid anti-smoker, is it possible that the nazis also developed the first e-cigs decades ago?
I wouldn't be surprised to find out something as sophisticated as vaping was actually introduced to the world by Nazi Germany
>>1744379
It's a pen, dood.
>>1744388
Do you know if they did any experimenting with vapourising liquids?
Also nice dubs 88 HH
How valid is the New Testament?
>>1744338
What do you mean by "valid"?
Council of Nicea basically rippped out all the parts that they didn't like.
>>1744369
Wrong on so many levels it's painful.
Why are philosophy debates so full of passive-aggressive assholes?
>>1744337
Why are Japanese animes so full of cute sexy girls?
>>1744337
Why is OP always a faggot?
>>1744337
Because philosophy debates are all about politely telling people that they're thinking wrong and living their lives wrong.
is capitalism (free market) the only non retarded economy ideology?
>>1744104
Yes
>>1744104
No.
>>1744104
Maybe
>tfw crucifixion is a manifestation of the idea that man is momentarily stuck at the crossroad between essence and matter
If your a sun worshipper
>>1744259
Not that anything is "wrong" with that. According to many to many Pagan superstition Christ worship is Sun worship, and this belief is carried out even though there is evidence of His being outside of the Bible.
That's fucking stupid. It's a manifestation of the idea that someone wants you to die painfully, and nothing more.
Hey /his/. I'm Welsh and know pretty much nothing about our history. Can someone help me out and tell me about the Celts? Why is there fuckall documented about the Celtic people?
>>1744014
Irishman reporting in! We simply didn't leave much behind or documented anything. I suppose our ancestors passed knowledge on oraly and not by paper and pen.
>>1744014
Are Irish girls that flat?
>>1744062
Ahh that's pretty disappointing. The concept and idea of druids is really fascinating, I guess we'll never really know for sure what they did.
"IF WE ARE IMMORTAL, we have to be so in essence and not by accident. Immortality then is our true condition and the plane of reality in which we actually exist. In this case, this bodily life is but a tiny fraction of our reality, a momentary appearance that conceals our true substance. As a result, all the knowledge we can acquire within the limits of bodily existence is only an appearance of an appearance. Although it seizes genuine portions of reality, it can not have in itself its very foundation, but it has to get it in the realm of immortality.
All this is clear. What confuses things is that the term "immortality" in this culture, acquired the connotation of something that manifests itself - if there is - after physical death. It hides there an entirely absurd suggestion: we are mortal in life, but "become" immortal after death, as if death were to move to a state of existence radically separate, heterogeneous and incommunicable to the present life. It is in this assumption that rests all hope of a purely immanent knowledge, without reference to the "beyond". If immortality exists, that hope is as absurd as the assumption that sustains it. If we have a life that transcends all times, this life transcends and therefore covers instead of delete, its slice immersed in duration. If we are immortal, we have to be so far from the present life, instead of being immortalized by death. Death can not immortalize the mortal: it can only make manifest the existing immortality and challenge, in the same act, the illusion of mortality. "
Are we immortal, /his/?
>>1744013
>Are we immortal, /his/?
We cannot know. We can't even know if our sense of logic itself is not a deception of our subjectivity, which would make anything being "true" or "false" a joke.
What is the source for your text? Google can't find anything.
>>1744139
>We can't even know if our sense of logic itself is not a deception of our subjectivity, which would make anything being "true" or "false" a joke
I don't want to spoil the surprise but you are more right than you know.
>>1744013
This is basic Platonism
Why were Saxons and Irish much better fighters than vikings?
>>1743863
They always been trash.
>>1743863
But the Saxons got conquered by Normans who were the descendants of Vikings. You can't say that the Saxons were better fighters when they got conquered by Vikings.
>>1744103