How far back could one go with modern technology and ideas and explain them without coming off as a madman?
>>1551842
Probably all the way back to the Bronze Age if you know how to talk and have physical proof.
You could show an iPhone to an educated Roman, and if you made sufficient reference to it being a machine, and compared it to greek fire or the devices of Archimedes, you could likely convince him it wasn't magic. Same story for the Middle Ages.
>>1551842
For technology, probably 40-60 years would best estimate.
50 years ago some were speculating about things that resemble the internet
80-100 years and modern tech seems borderline magic.
150-200 years and most things would be incomprehensible because the science behind them wasn't yet conceived
It also depends of what sort of tech. TV, VR or video games would seem like magic, but weapons and transportation might be easier to explain or at least they could make a gross analogy.
They might understand that assault rifles are somewhat like their firearms, only automatic.
Cars are like smaller trains, but without needing tracks and coal.
For culture, even for people 25 years ago it would seem like SciFi,
>black president of US
>all the pop-culture and music
>the internet memes
>>1551881
We have illustrations of how the 2000s would be from 115 years ago that describe shit like Skype, the internet, cellphones, etc. You could easily go back to 1916 and explain the current status quo.
Reminder that all civilians used to be serial killer tier psycopaths that would murder people for financial reasons and descrate their bodies
>>1551838
you're willing to go that extra mile when you're hungry.
>>1551853
More like this was the average day in history and there just happened to be some record keepers around today.
>>1551838
>some french slag will never geld your corpse
why even live
do nations exist /his/?
>>1551796
yes
>>1551801
how come?
>>1551801
Only in our minds, not physically
In order to become a great man, to archive the greatness. What should a man do?
become a nihilist
>>1551793
act like a sociopath and take what you want when you want it and destroy all opposition until you're at your desired sense of greatness. only the strong survive/rule.
Learn to suffer, and learn to overcome your suffering
Napoleon and Hitler: two faces of the same coin, with devastation following at the end in either case. Why the extra hatred for the latter? Partly the far greater scale and scope of WWII over the Napoleonic Wars, partly the increased power in the means of war and the ensuing devastation, partly Jewish lies and propaganda. That no one studies history any more and therefore has no clue who Napoleon was and more importantly what he did, is not exactly helping either.
Napoleon, save for that on Russia to which he was confronted in hopes of preserving the continental blockade that was to bring peace unto Europe, never outright declared any wars, and all those he waged bore only a defensive purpose, rather than be wars of aggressions and expansion.
Besides, Napoleon, although by near-tyrannical means, pursued the legacy of the French Revolution, in edifying all its founding values as pillars of the french empire (loss of privileges, equality before the law, etc...) while purging from it that which had been tagged unto it by Robespierre and the Directory of Public Safeguard. Furthermore, all the countries in which his armies were to tread spread those ideals into Europe, shaping a century of nationalism and democracy that was to come.
Lastly, he didn't will the entire genocide of the Semite, gypsy, and Slavic peoples, if that means anything to you.
Not to mention that one far exceeded the greed of the other, and upset the the balance of Europe much more.
Napoleon captured Vienna and Berlin three times, yet never requested more than they free some of the people subdued to them (Italians in Tyrol, Istria, Poles, etc...). Hitler on the hand sought for his Reich to spread everywhere like a fool.
Will I get a response though? Am I replying to copypasta? Feels like it.
>>1551784
I thought you were just a retard until the last sentence, then I realized it was b8. Too blatant.
>>1551813
That's pretty much it.
Why does humanity act like they want peace yet allow differences
>>1551772
don't really know but i believe humanity is inherently irrational. our whole concept of life is "we're born then die". we are afraid of dying. we love to eat and have sex and satisfy our egos so we are driven by fear and a passion for life and seek to reason and justify anything and everything we do irrationally.
>>1551772
Diversity is not the opposite of harmony.
>>1551772
first consciousness to live forever wins
The concepts of “Original Sin” and (white) “Privilege” are identical, except that one operates in a religious moral universe and the other in a secular one.
>>1551769
Proving the need for religion to have good morality
>reaguurders on /his/
>>1551911
schuldig
xD
Was the Dunning–Kruger effect a thing before modernity? Somehow, I doubt that, say, medieval serf thought they knew how to rule better than their lords, or if they knew theology better then a priest. Sure, there probably were incompetent people who were effected by it, but it probably didn't transcend social hierarchy, so a particularly stupid serf might have been very certain about his dumb ideas on farming, but would still respect his place and mostly accept what his superiors said about religion or politics. Whereas now every pleb thinks that they knew how the world works and spew uneducated bullshit about science, world politics etc.
There's no such thing as the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's a fallacy concocted by elitist "intellectual" pricks as an excuse to break down democratic principles when it's convenient.
it is obvious an illiterate serf will have difficulty with record keeping and such, there are many other areas where the truth and someone's competence are less obvious, medicine for example, doctors believed in bleeding patients to rid them of excess humours and other superstitions and people believed them because of their credentials
>>1551701
Probably a cause of education. Medieval sefs didn't know shit about politics or economics. Modern people know a little bit, tiny but enough to trigger the effect.
>>1551720
I'm an elitist intellectual prick and I can confirm the Dunning-Kruger effect is a thing. When I knew as much as the common people about history I'd happily state my opinion in any conversation about the matter. Now that I've started to read books, I've noticed how much I don't know and rarely enter a historical discussion. Unless I've read a book on the specific matter I'm like: dunno dude, gotta read more
Could she have saved Europe?
>woman
>saving civilization
are you stupid?
do you know why we are where we are?
>>1551696
Not that with that nose.
>a communist Jew saving anyone
Is this a joke
Did rich Ukrainians cause the Holodomor by hoarding grain from the working class and burning their crops before they could be redistributed?
>>1551571
Are you a communist?
>>1551571
Pretty much, it was a self-inflicted famine
It literally hurts that I cannot interact with history past reading about it. I find some parts of history to be so cool, yet a history book only feels like a promise of something greater that I can never experience; like a trailer for a movie that never gets made. I don't know how to explain it, it's more than just wishing I was king after reading about kings. Playing historical video games does not help.
How can I really suck in history and feed my hunger?
>>1551456
LARP'ing
>>1551456
Archaeology
become an academic, then you'll want to stop reading about history once you get past the kings meme
Are there any examples of Empires that fell despite good leadership all the way up until the end?
>good leadership all the way up until the end
The savage Napoleon said that he was going to be Attila to the Most Serene Republic of Venice, and kept his word.
>>1551467
>
>
>
>>1551426
No, they just had a loose alliance with the tribes there.
>>1551465
You're completely and utterly wrong.
>>1551426
No.
The Huns basically just directly controlled the Pannonian Basin (what is modern day Hungary) and a few surrounding areas and had a few tributary states outside of that. That map is literally laughable. It's like having a picture of a "Germanic Empire" from 300 AD.
Hey guys. This is my first time here, I just came to ask a quick question. I'm writing a script for a short film set in the middle ages. The main character is an architect's apprentice. Now, I'm no history buff, but I figure he wouldn't refer to himself as an "architect". What would be the term for the profession at the time?
Any further tips are welcome, such as "for fucks sake, don't make that mistake all medieval films make!" and shit like that.
>>1551416
Why not just go full fantasy if you know nothing?
Like make him a member of the secret society of stonemasons that runs the world behind the scenes.
you could probably look up the etymology of it to find something suitable.
>>1551416
They wouldnt be speaking modern english anyway, its fine to just translate it into "architect"
ITT: We post pictures that trigger people born before the industrial revolution
those sad fucks, making coffee on a stove like a loser.
>>1551399
>implying percolator pots aren't god tier
Keep drinking your weak swill like a pleb.