Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 3094. page

>>1488429
Obviously not very difficult since you see so many wymyn and leftist sandal-wearing dreadlock hair cuck males in that field.

>>1488436
I'm not talking about a professor at some literally who liberal arts college. I mean being a professor with tenure at a respected research university.

>>1488429
It's hard in the sense that it's a deadly game of musical chairs with everyone else that tried to go this route. Whatever your own efforts, they're only going to be one factor considered among seniority, the connections your competition has, the image the school wants to project, staffing needs fluctuating with enrollment figures and budgetary concerns, etc.
>>1488625
Distinction without a difference on this subject.

>>1488423
Human can't into coherent idea.

>what is the American Revolution
>what is the French Revolution
>what is the Russian Revolution

Because Marx is a shithead, religion is the entire foundation of civilisation, and he was just preaching a faggified version of Christianity.

Collapsed without a shot being fired.

>>1488374
It was a perfect autism containment zone.

File: conrad-escape.jpg (97KB, 550x369px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 550x369px

>>1488374
idk man, they had to build a wall just to keep the people from leaving its glory!

>>1488241
>The enlightenment
>Founded by federico da montefeltro
>He was influenced by Catholicism
>Catholics blame Protestants anyway
typical.

>>1488241
>no more public bathhouses
Tell me more, my reactionary friend

>>1488241
>the use of hops instead of gruit in beer
Was a technological innovation. Beer not going sour every 3rd time is actually pretty nice.

>no more public bathhouses
Blame the plague

>the Enlightenment
>bad

subsaharan blacks have the most biodiversity despite what is shared and common.

negroes

Americans

Autism: The post

>>1488148

>look mom I posted it again

>>1488148
It was communism and it was shitty because communism is shit. Words are shit too, just look at their actions to judge

>>1488133
Why are you comparing an apocalyptic preacher to the Buddha?

>>1488133
Buddha is a basic bitch, he says really nothing that Aristotle didn't already say about moderation and minding the virtues. Plus Buddhism is ultra-passive and life denying which I find troublesome.
Jesus was significantly more active and his actions during his ministry have a lot more depth to them in terms of how they can be interpreted, now this of course is the reason Christianity is such a shitshow of different sects but I think that ads intellectual depth, since you have everything from life denying antinatalists to more worldly esotericism.

They both have the same basic message.

If someone orders you to do something abhorrent to you, you can always just die instead of doing as you're told.

Also requesting soldiers memoires from ww2 about people other than german, anglos or americans.

There's some material I have about the Slovak Axis state but nothing in English.

$100 , it has a lot of information though

>>1488063
>This is something I don't get. Germany managed to settle a white peace with Russia,

First off, the peace with Russia took some time to settle, what with the revolution and whatnot. Second, holding the newly conquered lands took some manpower.

>meaning they had a war on only one front. Conventional wisdom states that therefore they should have the upper hand and win the war.

Why would conventional wisdom state that they should have the upper hand just because they only fought on one front? That would only be conventional wisdom if that meant they somehow achieved a decisive advantage in some factors, most importantly manpower. Which they did not.


>But they didn't? Germany crushed the West in WW2, so why did they have some much trouble in WW1?

Germany crushed the west in WW2 because they got very lucky with an incredibly risky plan - and reaped incredible dividends as a result. They achieved this in large part to a much higher degree of mobility which was not present in WW1.

The answer why Germany could not achieve anything meaningful despite only now having a single front after 1917 is fairly easy – they had the short end of the stick when it came to the homefront. The blockade was denying them resources, the allies were in a much better economical position for the long run, and resentment and war weariness grew among the populace.

Then there was the American entry into the war which was not decisive but it definitely sped things up by a lot simply by the virtue of opening up large reserves of manpower. Which did not really get tapped into, but the allies - unlike Germany - could easily afford to act in a much more decisive manner.

The Germans actually tried one last gasp attempt at a major breakthrough with the Spring offensives, but in the end those were counter-productive to their war effort. They did not achieve any meaningful objectives, whatever ground they gained was either only reclaimed from previous positions or of little to no value.

>>1488063
Exhaustion, to put it simple.

German manpower and resources were brought to their limits fighting off a 2 front war, along with enduring a blockade by sea that was effective in slowly starving the Germany civilian population.

By the time Germany secured peace on the eastern front, the damage done was already too severe, and the Germans had to gamble what was left of their army one one final offensive to break France and bring Britain and Italy to the negotiating table.

By late 1918, the food shortage was so severe that both the civilian population and the military revolted, overthrowing Wilhelm and setting up a Republic that would accept talks with the allies.

tl;dr: exhausted manpower and resources grounded Germany to a halt at the very end, and the food shortages that were starving the country was the last straw that broke Germany.

All their allies were about done and or collapsing. They were defeated rather decisively in the hundred days offensive. Their population was starving and large parts in revolt.

>meaning they had a war on only one front

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Front

>>1487961

>>>/Reddit/

>>1487961
Australians went to war against emus and lost.

Oklahoma and Texas had an armed standoff over a border dispute in 1931, and Hitler believed this to be evidence that the U.S. was unstable and weak.

>>1487932
Both.

I mean, shit, Archers were often posted for skirmishing duties and they first met the enemy before the rest of the army did. This meant that they fought small battles versus looser formations.

No, they wouldn't aim for individual targets. Massed archers were used as artillery, blanketing a whole area of the battlefield. Careful aiming would take too long, and it's nearly impossible to hit a specific moving target at long range anyway.

File: Papua New Guinea Tribal Wars.jpg (76KB, 640x423px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x423px

>>1487932
Well, hunters did not just got the range right, but aimed for accuracy to, least they spook the quarry. But difference is they are really close to their target and had all the time in the world.

Pic unrelated,

File: image.jpg (82KB, 850x488px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 850x488px

>>1487786
The modern concept of chivalry in knighthood didn't really happen until the late medieval period. However, there were some who you could describe as being a chivalrous knight earlier on, such as William Marshal.

Marshal was basically the Lancelot of his time, serving the Young Henry, Henry II, Richard I and King John. He stuck by all, even when it was in his best interests not to. This led to him having an unrivaled reputation for loyalty during his lifetime. His combat prowess during his prime was also one of the best, being I believe the only knight to ever unhorse Richard the Lionheart.

I would encourage reading more about him. Look up Thomas Asbridge's book on him called The Greatest Knight. It gives a good summary of what life as a knight was back in the 12th century was as well.

>>1487826
Sounds like a great book. Thanks anon!

On the other hand, do you know any examples of knights as hired muscle?

Are modern professional soldiers heroic patriots? Or ignorant thugs?

Or just silly young men with too much testosterone and no particular aim in life?

I like to think Knights, Legionaries, Samurai, etc just enjoyed a good brawl, talking shit, and that weird combination of joy & terror in battle

>>1487747
>hey, you wanna have sex with me?
>yes
In my experience, no.

>sometimes yes means no
>lawsuit

>>1487747
No, our decisions are informed by the superstructure of capital

Most stem majors are just as retarded as philo majors. They think following objectivity will make a job magically appear for them.

Shut the fuck up you dumbass liberal arts cuck. I hope you fucking enjoy pouring me coffee while I earn fucking thousands a year while you fucking struggle to live. LOL.

>bright academic future
I didnt know mcdonalds slavewaging and dating white trash subhumans was considered a bright academic future.

Thanks guys.

File: rose-tinted-glasses.jpg (7KB, 225x199px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 225x199px

>muh nostalgia
>muh platitudes

>>1487702
It may indeed, be this man's experience.
In any oppressive society, there are always people who benefit from the regime.
Look at any authoritarian state.
There are always a favored people.
It's the "other" who is stained and impure.