>>1705483
>Never served in the armed forces
>Still wore a Stalhelm
Fucking Himmler man.
>filename
This twinky looking dork actually managed to convince people of an 'Aryan' race and that he was a leader of it LOL!
When did you realize nazis and neo-nazis were losers?
How could one man get away with so much shit for so long?
>>1705369
Third worlders.
Just look at the monkey-president Philippinos have and you'll see why.
>>1705376
This.
>OMG THIS GUY IS SO MACHO AND RICH LET US DISREGARD LAWS AND JUST OBEY THIS GUY AND HIS WHIMS.
Third worlders are easily impressed swine.
>>1705380
Dont meme yourself too hard. Most third countries could not save their economy even with 50 years of competancy.
How is it that the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, apart from the formula for Christ's nature, are otherwise identical after more than 1,500 years of separation, but the Catholic Church is much, much, much different from the Orthodox Church after a thousand years of separation?
>>1705315
political tension between ERE and WRE
>>1705332
That doesn't explain it at all.
Because the Latin West and the Greek East were already culturally distinct before the rise of Christianity, let alone the Great Schism
ITT we post images and discuss the greatness, pageantry and unquestionable beauty of the 16th century.
I like to think of the late Renaissance as the high point in Western military fashion. The general aesthetic of the time was brightly colored and gay, despite the fact that warfare was entering a brutal new age of gunpowder and therefore impersonal slaughter of one's enemies.
If it's true that men want to look good when they march out to kill or be killed, never was it more fitting than the regalia and garb of Renaissance era combat.
My favorite moment in all this is certainly the Italian Wars, particularly during the involvement of Francis I.
>>1705242
<3
The dynamic of the European stage during the lives of Francis I, Charles V, Henry VIII and Suleiman the Magnificent was an unparalleled drama of religious, political and military strife.
The best part about this section of history is the convergence of artistry and military science. The knowledge and skill of armorers reached a level that will never again be achieved.
>>1705255
Post your favorite planes of WWII
War Thunder is shit
Good ol' primitive is at it again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9AoGc-OTCk
>>1705199
MUD THE HUT
MUD THE HUT
>>1705199
This guy has replaced Bear Grylls as my fantasy "trapped on an island with..."
I'm sure that given long enough, this fucker will build a coconut-powered internet.
>>1705319
coconet
you missed a good chance for a pun there
I'm 169 cm. In what civilisations I could have been a good soldier with my stature? (before the gun invention).
>>1705136
the ancient kingdom of manletia
>>1705136
You would've been average height or above in most civilizations before gunpowder.
>>1705136
Most of them. Small wiry mentalists are the mainstay of any military force, just as much as big brawny ox-men are. It's basically a meme at this point.
>The Susa weddings was a mass wedding arranged by Alexander of Macedon in 324 BC in the Persian city of Susa.[1]
>Alexander intended to symbolically unite the Persian and Macedonian cultures, by taking a Persian wife himself and celebrating a mass wedding with Persian ceremony along with his officers, for whom he arranged marriages with noble Persian wives.[2] The union was not only symbolic, as the new offspring were to be the children of both civilizations.
>What the Macedonians thought of these marriages is evident from the fact that the nobles all divorced their wives after Alexander's death, except Hephaestion, who died before Alexander, and Seleucus. So in spite of Alexander's precedent, the Macedonians were no more inclined to share equally with the Persians than before.
ALEXANDER BTFO
>>1705069
>Refuse to marry into local elites.
>Asian successors: OMG WHY IS MY EMPIRE CRUMBLING.
Reminder that Seleucus was the best diadochi.
wtf I hate the diadochi now
Is this the edgiest thing ever written?
>>1704989
that's not das kapital
>>1704989
Edgiest thing ever written that wasnt deliberately trying to be edgy was The Prince
>>1704989
Anything written by communists
>kill rich people and take their shit lmao
Don't believe the history, it's written by winners. True or not? Discuss.
>>1704972
does it matter? You can still find uses for even historical propaganda, this is excluding civilizations that prided themselves on accurate record keeping, the chinese are a known example to have points in their history where they obsessed with objective historical writings.
>>1704972
>>1704972
True in the past, not really true today.
I'm in love with Anne Frank.
>yet another anne frank post
I'm sorry jeff but she's been dead for over 70 years
>>1704981
but I love her
>>1704985
NOW SHES A LITTLE BOY IN SPAIN PLAYING PIANO FULL OF FLAMES
Valid grounds for annulment of marriage in the Catholic Church include, but are not limited to:
*you married for social status but the person did not have the status you expected
*you didn't know marriage was a "permanent relationship"
*you married intending to have the option of divorce open
*you did not know marriage was an "exclusive relationship"
http://www.stmarys-waco.org/documents/Grounds%20for%20Marriage%20Annulment%20in%20the%20Catholic%20Church.pdf
https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/marital_consent.htm
But adultery isn't one of them. Neither is abondoment. So if your wife gets knocked up by another guy, you are obligated to stay with her. Or if you are a mother of three and your husband leaves, you are obligated to raise them as a single mother. But all these stupid reasons are allowed
Compare the Orthodox reasons for divorce, very simple, very practical, pic related
Oh, and the Pope recently said most Catholic marriages aren't valid anyway: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/most-marriages-today-are-invalid-pope-francis-suggests-51752/
According to Catholic procedure, this means any Catholic couple who could qualify for annulment but doesn't get one, is living in fornication. They just don't know it. And there is no way you can unless you apply for annulment using every method available--if you don't, there a very good chance you are living in fornication.
It's funny because my country practises religious lessons and we're Catholics and as far as I remember the orthodox list in large part applies to Catholics as well.
Outside of points 4, 5, 6.
The silly grounds for annulment don't happen because Catholics get sort of "pre-marriage course" so things like "I swear I didn't know marriage is permanent, officer" isn't a thing.
Oh of course the marriage is cancelled for only one party - so for instance if you were guilty of adultery your spouse can divorce you but you can't divorce your spouse.
But again I may be wrong.
What is some decent reading material on the Byzantine empire?
I'm familiar with the broad arc of its history, and am therefore aware that this might be about an odd request as asking for reading material on Rome without narrowing it down at all. But I know there's a lot of interesting stories and people that I've never been introduced to, and I need and entry point.
What's a good place to start?
I'm currently reading pic related. Seems good so far. I think I'll move to Norwich's "Byzantium: The Early Years" next. Or perhaps to some primary sources, like the writings of Michael Psellus, Procopius or Anna Comnena.
Gibbon
>>1705091
Please take everything from 500-800 with a grain of salt. Majority of our information is based Theophanes whose accounts are very dubious. Especially if you plan on reading Gibbon.
>"The long-standing reluctance of militaries to engage in the targeted killing of heads of state is based more on custom than codified regulation. (It’s not really in the interest of presidents and prime ministers for that sort of thing to become common practice.)"
>"The closest thing in international law to a ban on assassination is the 1907 Hague Convention on the laws of war, which prohibits signatories from attempting "To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."
Would there have been less wars in the 20th century if it became a common practice to assassinate hostile leaders during wars?
>>1704819
>Le great man theory babby.
>>1704819
>if it became a common practice to assassinate hostile leaders during wars?
It was common practice, and it didn't matter too much. There were dozens (?) of assasination attempts on Napoleon and I believe a whole 40+ on Hitler too. Obviously they failed. Many medieval rulers were assassinated by rival Kingdoms.
But what if the ruler would get replaced by a more competent one? Then killing him is a very bad idea. Generally, you see, there is not so much advantage to be gained in this as people think.
>>1704835
>>1704835
I'm not implying great man theory, my question is basically this: if those who are in the position to decide on declaring wars were more in danger due to their decisions, would there be less wars?
For example, WW1 wouldn't break out if all of the countries' leaders were too afraid to declare war. It's not like French and German civilians would still get weapons and march to the fronts on their own, dig trenches and start killing each other.
why did he get married before offing himself?
>>1704797
He was against sex before marriage and didn't want to die a virgin.
>>1704813
Nope.
Hitler's house staff were one gossipy bunch of maids and searched for any clues of Eva and Hitler fucking. None were found.