How can i live trought the soul crushing depression of being an historian?
>>1714829
Stop burying yourself in books, get off your ass, and travel to historical sites. See the history for yourself so to speak.
All the professional historians at my uni seem like cheery folks.
>>1714829
What's so depressing about it?
The qualitative leap from not using fire to using fire, from no missile weapons to missile weapons, from no agriculture to agriculture, from no animal husbandry to animal husbandry, from no codified writing to codified writing is far greater than that between the lack of any subsequent technology and the invention of said technology.
Either:
1. Prehistoric man was incommensurately more Materialist than us.
2. The aforementioned technology was not invented by prehistoric man.
3. There is no link between Materialism and any and all technological progress.
What? Of course there isn't, who the fuck believes there is?
The philosophical foundation of modern science is cartesian rationalism, which is a form of idealism. And all the previous religious thinking was of course idealistic as well.
>>1714783
Could you expand on this? Is this true? Are you referring to Cartesian dualism? What fields DO have their foundation in materialism, if any?
>>1715095
Marxism
What the fuck was her problem?
Butthurt about communism
she was Russian and Jewish
worst possible combination
Because she was a massive, gobby cunt.
what would a movie about ancient greece be about
Boipussy
Boys doin butt stuff to their butts probs
Getting btfo by the Romans.
Who was in the wrong here?
>>1714635
The Japanese
Chinks for existing.
Japs for not killing enough Chinks.
Both sides are pretty shitty but at least neither of them are gooks.
>>1714670
>Chinks for existing
you fucker I came here to post that
In Iran, there is a popular conspiracy theory which states that Khomeini was a British agent. Is there any credence to this theory, other than the fact that he was born in British India?
he was Sean Connery that´s obvious
>>1714614
But for what purpose?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British%E2%80%93Ruhollah_Khomeini_conspiracy_theory
Neato, it has its own Wiki page
Never even heard of this before
Would have the House of Lancaster be more everlasting if Henry V did not decide to rule France?
Silly question, England owned France and therefore he could not have chosen to pass ruling France as he already did by virtue of being King of England.
>>1715212
Henry's claim to the throne of England was based on females not being allowed to inherit. The original English claim to France was based on females being allowed to inherit. Edward III was rightful king of France but Henry was not. Besides, Henry didn't even want to be king of France, he just wanted the duchy of Normandy in full sovereignty
>>1715212
England was ruled by French nobles, but these nobles had never been part of the French royal family
They owned big territories in France (their original territories) alongside their oversea colony England, but it didnt give them a claim on the French throne in any way
why is noone talking about this?
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/piramides/esp_piramides_china_3.htm
>>1714517
Something, something, jews, something
bumpan
>>1714517
Almost every ancient civilization built some kind of pyramids, it's the babbys first monument of history. They are actually incredibly primitive, one of the easiest buildings to design and build. The Egyptians went a bit overboard with it by the later dynasties, but earlier pyramids (and pyramids from other cultures) were basically heaps of dirt or debris covered with stone steps or plates.
How much does Machiavelli’s Prince belong in the tradition of the medieval ‘mirror for princes’ genre?
>>1714413
It doesn't
>>1714440
care to elaborate?
>>1714413
Totally and completely. The behaviour suggested is different than most other works, but it still fits perfectly the definition of mirror for princes.
The only way you could argue otherwise is by playing the satire angle, but let's not bother with that discredited and talked to death theory.
How did he keep getting away with it?
>>1714387
Keep getting away with what?
>>1714387
American bailouts
>>1714387
By attentionwhoring really hard. The weary Brits, in need of a wartime hero, fell for it.
Has any nation or state ever managed to erradicate corruption or come very close to doing so, and how did they do it?
Also, newfag about the Republic of Venice. Was it good? I guess it was corrupt, but at what level? The system they had to elect the Doge was quite interesting.
>>1714377
Technically there's no corruption in a feudal monarchy.
It wasnt that good of a government thougj.
>>1714384
>Technically there's no corruption in a feudal monarchy.
Huh?
>>1714389
Not him, but if you make the methods by which people engage in corruption legal, then it's not a crime.
Bribing the Secretary of State to make you an Ambassador isn't corruption if selling titles ans positions to the highest bidder is legal. Racketeering isn't a crime and isn't corruption if it's legal to beat people up for not paying you money.
What is your favorite unsolved mystery?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamam_Shud_case
I think they're fairly certain he was a Soviet spy who was poisoned via his cigarettes.
Dyatlov Pass incident:
9 Hikers die with really no clear reason.
With the way these people died, and the pics available send chills up my spine.
Karmen vortex, although it's still brutal
Mike Duncan announced he is going to be releasing new History of Rome material
GET HYPE
>listening to podcasts instead of reading books
pleb history general?
>>1714264
Cool. Gotta say that I lost a lot of respect for him when he dismissed the entire medieval period as boring, but the history of rome was good.
>>1714288
Mike Duncan has released what is essentially a book version of history of Rome. So I guess it is superior because it's written? Even though the content is pretty much the same?
History books are dangerous if you read them without the proper discourse. For someone interested in history, but not studying it actively in an university podcasts are objectively superior for getting a factual view of history.
>>1714303
Not anon, but in books(or any reading matrial) you can easily find the footnote behinde the statement but in listing you most be more willing to accept the stated or harder to find the source of there information
What did he do wrong?
INB4
>carte blanche
Built a navy
Lost Russian support for no damn reason.
became allies with A-H
>Jesus = Boring Mary Sue
>Muhammad = Interesting multi-faceted gray character
Is Islam the patrician's choice?
From is an Islamic perspective, it's the other way around. You see Jesus as perfect and Mohammed as grey because you are coming from a Christian culture. Muslims would see Mohammed as perfect, and Jesus as slightly less so.
>>1713682
But that's Ali
in islam you have both