Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 2955. page

>>1585634

Russia has always kinda sucked.

Even when they win, they getting beaten up real bad in the process.

>imperial Russian """""""""""""army """""""""""""

File: general_franz_graf_conrad_von.jpg (78KB, 416x550px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 416x550px

Austria carried them.

>>1585509
Anyone could beat Japan's ass.

The only reason they conquered so much shit was the distance disadvantage the Allies had.

They lost pretty much every battle against the Americans.

>>1585518
>Anyone
Didn't Japan have the strongest navy after the US and Britain?

I dunno, what are they fighting over? Geography is 70% of the battle

>>1585518
The early successes were pretty impressive given what they were working with tho

>>1585488
Because people are assholes

>>1585495
Why though?
I mean doesn't it feel better to love something/someone than it is to have a switch that goes off in your head that makes you mad/disgust/have bad feels?

File: 354323.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

Anger and hatred feel good,
and it can be done with ease without ever having to speak to the person who becomes our object of hate.

Love more often comes when we have come to more understand a person,
and to do so sometimes requires social conquest
(that is, if you mean to imply platonic love, i.e. friendship, partnership, etc. contra lustful love).

>>1585455

Why limit it to the gunpowder era? A man on foot can more easily put his back into a blow, and you can pack men more tightly on foot than you can mounted on horses.

Cavalry always lose to infantry if they lose momentum. And they always have trouble with men who have kept in formation.

But unless you're stupid or you think your enemy is at the breaking point, you generally didn't have your cav run head on into the mass of enemy infantry. Cavalrymen have enormously more tactical mobility than infantrymen, because horses are faster than people over short distances. They also allow for a focused blow on a particular part of the enemy formation that's at least difficult to do with infantry.

None of this is new; melee cavalry was never effective standing still, and to use them as such was just blundering.

>>1585484
I am aware it's suicidal to charge with cavalry headfront to a formation of infantry but I am saying even when flanking or charging into a broken group I doubt cavalry could win if the men didn't run since they would be greatly outnumbered. Asking whether people died because they ran instead of just staying there and killing the riders instead of routing and being slaughtered like cattle.

>>1585521

So what if they're greatly outnumbered? You're in line, maybe with a gun, maybe with a spear. You're focused on your opposite number of the infantry in the opposing army. Suddenly there's a crash behind you, and dozens to hundreds of guys on horses are rattling through. You can barely see, and you hear people screaming all around. Maybe you never even see the man who stabs you. Or maybe you turn around to fight him, only to be stabbed/shot in the back by the infantry you used to be facing.

Maybe they'll wheel in, smash up your formation some, and then wheel out to wait for a better opportunity as soon as it looks like your defense is organizing. Maybe you're too tightly packed with your fellow infantry to be able to turn around effectively. Maybe your formation is too loose to effectively stop the horses's momentum, and you're stuck swinging at a rapidly moving target, which might or might not be heavily armored, while your buddies are getting struck down like bowling pins.


Real life isn't like an RTS man. Combat is confusing, chaotic, and frightening. Expecting soldiers to react with robotic precision in the best way to meet a sudden threat to an area they weren't focused on, ESPECIALLY if you're in an era where the infantry is mostly non-professional, is just stupid.

>>1585454
We have like 2 other threads of the exact same subject.

>>1585454
>Was it primarily inflation from the devaluation of silver? A desire for Catholicism in all subjects leading to instability and opportunistic war? Did the very poor placement of a capital in Madrid becoming a significant burden on the economy play a part? Etc.

None of that
It was France
France killed Spanish dominance in the mid 17th century and then finished off what was left of Spain with the invasion under Napoleon (which resulted the decolonization wars in Latin America)

>>1585454

You misunderstand "the Spanish Empire". It wasn't a carefully schemed plan plotted by upper oligarchs and merchants into acquiring useful clay and resources in order to create a sustainable network of trade routes and commerce for shekels and domination. Instead, it was a variety of pretty much autonomous states with their own laws, currencies and etc coming under the authority of the same monarch. The first merge, Castille and Aragon was on purpose, the second one, with the burgundian realm happened by purely dynastic accident. The discovery of America was another accident; the exploration and conquest of that continent and other places around the world driven by a renaissence desire to expand christianity across the globe. The Portuguese Empire is actually the first global one that was planned and conceived from a strictly commercial point of view.

The gold and silver of America were thus not invested in any long-term carefully planned scheme to develop commercial corporations n shit because of the structure itself of the realm and its foundations. It was essentially medieval with touches of Renaissence splendour.

The abundance of gold and silver actually empoverished the population through inflation, and heavy taxation to support wars -the majority of defensive nature- while the upper nobility got really wealthy and displayed a luxurius way of life.

By the XVII century, the core of the realm, Castille, had been empoverish to death, other realms wouldn't contribute funds as easily due to their own charters and privileges. A combination of a development of merchantilist-shekelian societal structures in other powers, namely the Dutch, the French and the English, getting rid of Renaissence values for pre-capitalistic ones combined with necessary predations on the Spanish overseas posessions allowed them to take off and surpass the Sp. Realm economically. Also, the disconected/clusterfuckish nature of the realm in Yurop made it complicated to defend.

>>1585419
Wtf is going in this picture?

>>1585425
XIX century memes, sadly genre of satirical maps died for some reason

>>1585419
WWI no, WWII, maybe.

No. If Aquinas is "better" than Aristotle, it's just because he tweaked some of his ideas. Aristotle actually pioneered the entire system of reasoning Aquinas uses, and any reading of Aristotle's works on logic or physics show that the man was a thinker on par with Newton and Einstein.

Aquinas is terrible. He's a shit-tier philosopher, and I hesitate to even call him that.

What can Aquinas tell me about the witch problem?

Presidents used the failure of last president and hippie age to gain presidency.

It is common you will not see presidents fix things last presidents tried to fix because they memed about it too hard while running.

How come the U.S never invaded the World after the dissolution of the USSR?

File: 1458594658499[1].gif (27KB, 240x200px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 240x200px

>>1585374
shit. I just realized this pic isnt the version with question marks over her head

>>1585123

I know some Roman gladiators only had one arm armored, but then again, that was show fighting, not people trying to prepare themselves as best they could for battle.

Outside of that, I can't think of an example.

Isn't the most armored arm the nearest to the enemy if confronted from the front (and right handed)?

Maybe it was the one likeliest to be hit.

File: 1fe0d451cc781994026174cab652c7cc.jpg (11KB, 236x345px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 236x345px

>no historical evidence

Who the fuck is "he"

>>1585031
HRE?

File: 1470694243540.jpg (84KB, 606x960px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 606x960px

>>1585031
No he was black

File: Fantastic Planet 1973.jpg (33KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1024x576px

DROOLING BABY MODE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGiQaabX3_o

>>1584982
>human history
>ONLY 1 hour long
>HARD MODE

Really /his/?

File: 853844.jpg (21KB, 259x286px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 259x286px

>>1584982
surely op will deliver mode: https://soundcloud.com/tphoow

Well, if you believe the Book of Acts, it was Peter who decided the Gentiles could be part of the Church, when he allowed Cornelius and his family to be baptized.

>>1584901
Jesus intended it for Jews, Paul intended it for the Gentiles though, thus.

Jesus was a heretic Jew.

Paul was a heretic Christian.

You are really a practitioner of Paulism.

>>1584890
Anyone?

>>1587892
Sorry you can only talk about religion here if you're memeing or being a dick about it

>>1584890
It seems it's a scribal saying that was really common then, or a wordplay that only works in aramaic(think quid pro quo)

They were victims the same as a Muslim criminal, lawfully detained, prosecuted, judged and encarcerated (actually given community service) is a victim of the oppressive white racist regime.

In short, Xtians were dindus of the Roman Empire and have the nerve to oppose Islam for doing the same. If Islam ever triumphs the only good side is that this cuck religion that made Europe weak will be abolished from the face of the earth.

>>1584931
>cuck religion that made Europe weak
lol
Its either
>ebil christians perpetrated CRUSADES AND BRUTAL GENOCIDES ON PEACEFUL PAGANS!
Dindu pagans or
>Le cuckianity runed mighty europa

Are Christians bloodthirsty Crusaders or total cucks?
Me, I blame Liberalism and a significant amount of Leftwing thought becoming pervasive in European Christianity.

File: Church_of_Scientology_building_in_Los_Angeles,_Fountain_Avenue.jpg (118KB, 1000x714px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1000x714px

>>1584884

>>1584884
The fedora is the new religious awakening my kin.

>>1584884
There was one in the 00's