What was Hanibal's master plan? He marches on Rome across the Alps, then what? What if Rome fell, then what?
How would he keep it, how would Phoenicians proceed?
>>1457420
Romans in Sardinia and Iberia would get slaughtered/sold as slaves and Phoenicians would have won, keep in mind that they already had a huge revolt in Sardinia.
>>1457420
His objective was to have the italic tribes rebel against Rome and sack the city so that it would lose its economic and political influence over the peninsula and its ridiculous manpower pool. He didn't want to conquer it, nor any territory other than Sicily and Sardinia. From his point of view, without roman leadership, the rest of the italic wouldn't stick together and fall under the economic and political influence of Carthage and Epirus. He wasn't wrong, it would have probably happened that way. However the italics were fully aware of it too, so almost all of them kept loyal to Rome.
Continue being an absolute madman
I hope I chose the correct board. There is a symbol, I've tried to depict it. Now I'll try to describe it. There is a circle, in the middle of it is pentagon. Then there are another 5 pentagons inside the circle, "attached" to every margin of center pentagon with a gap. After that there are 8 sort of beams outside the circle.
I have seen a locket with this symbol, so I wonder if it has any meaning. It may have some background, or may just be purely random. That is what I want to find out. Can you help me?
Hash tag soccer ball.
>>1457448
Nothing paranormal. You know some cultures and religions have specific symbols. Maybe it's one of them.
>"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse."
What did he mean by this?
>>1457315
Translation: "My jaw feels funny."
>>1457315
Why was he so based, lads?
>>1457328
lmao
IT WAS JUST A PRANK BROS
>>1457299
Ides of March 44BC. Never forget!
Post'em here.
"Fuck Britain."
- Gen. George Washington, 1776
>>1457227
"Gas the jews"
-Fuhrer Adolf Hitler, 1941
>>1457227
I believe he actually said that in 1783
"Fuck Russia."
-Taras Shevchenko in his poem "We wuz Kieven Rus n Shit", 1862
Are there more fat people today than in any historical era? Will our time be known as the blooming of fat people in history generations from now? How were fat people viewed in history?
>How were fat people viewed in history?
Probably as really wealthy
>>1457223
Fat people are associated with wealth, and that's why fat shaming is anti-capitalist.
>>1457223
> Are there more fat people today than in any historical era?
Obviously.
> Will our time be known as the blooming of fat people in history generations from now?
No, I think the blooming is just getting started.
> How were fat people viewed in history?
Lazy.
What are the historical origins of right-libertarian ideologies?
They seem to be of two sources as far as the economic thinking goes. The first chain of influence dates back to the 18th century political economists, particularly Adam Smith. The second and more immediate chain of influence dates to the post-war period and is characterized by the mathematicization of economics; this process created the axioms of human behavior which govern the thought of the Austrian school.
In the 1970s these economic perspectives seem to have merged gradually with American exceptionalism and neoliberal political thinking. The role of the Civil Rights movement should not be understated here-- the antifederal instincts of the contemporary Republican party largely exist as a reaction to the federal intervention in the southern states during that period.
Ron Paul is a figure of great significance in understanding the prevalence of the term today.
In my opinion contemporary Libertarian politics dates to the 1970s and is a particular form of the general neoliberal ideology of the post Bretton-Woods. It exists and in an intellectually consistent space that does not correspond to reality (the universal tendency of economic power to influence political power is completely ignored, despite vast historical evidence for its existence, for example).
Currently its propagated as the most populist form of neoliberal ideology by think-tanks (there are several; Cato, Hoover, Mercatus, Heritage) and manifests in politics only in as far as it serves existing neoliberal objectives. For example, the isolationist and pacifist ideas of the libertarians have not had a lick of influence on the Republican party, but their passionate defenses of non taxation and small government have become tremendously useful to the establishment.
>>1457221
Generally people who want society to give them things (like infrastructure, rule of law, regulations that benefit themselves) but want other people to pay for it while they don't have to.
>>1457302
you're thinking of socialism, friend.
what do cults consist of and is NA one?
cults are a religion that isn't true and is only there to aggrandize the leaders and manipulate the followers
>>1457171
but is being goaded into prosocial behavior almost required??
>>1457179
yeah that falls into the manipulation part. building houses for senior members, giving your money to the benefit of the organization, letting the leaders fuck your kids, etc
What is the historical basis for libertarian socialism? (i.e left-"libertarianism")
>>1457097
What's with all these thinly-veiled /pol/ shitposts?
>>1457114
>everything I don't like on /his/ is /pol/'s fault
>>1457237
>Hey what do you think of this leftist political ideology? Here's a biased image showing how it's fucking dumb. Oh, and also history.
Name a comfier firearms history channel
[spoiler]you can't[/spoiler]
>>1457096
C&Rsenal is pretty good too
I am not a Christcuck by any measure: however, I am still baffled as to how the Catholics on this board always speak of Martin Luther as a devil-figure who "destroyed Europe" single-handedly.
This displays an amazing lack of historical knowledge. The Catholic Church at the time had for many years been embroiled in controversies that damaged its reputation and standing (the Avignon Papacy and the Western Schism, among others), and its corruption was well-known, as well as the disastrous state of the clergy.
For centuries, there had been movements rising up in opposition to the corruption and the stifling nature of the Medieval Church such as the Fraticelli and the Cathars and the Bogomils of the 13th century, all the way to the Hussite Reformers and Lollards and Waldensians. That all these movements sprung up on a base directly challenging the corruption of and the over-accumulation of temporal power by the Church is not a coincidence: it reflects the views of how many saw the Roman establishment.
Luther was merely another reformer, remembered more than Jan Huss or Wycliffe because - for whatever reason or the other - he was successful in dismantling the Church establishment in areas and instituting his reformed church among princes sympathetic to him.
To call Luther a "devil-worshiper" is to engage in historical revisionism and to deny that the Church was incredibly corrupt and that it had - by its own actions through the centuries - shattered its own reputation in the eyes of many people.
The whole "upon this rock I will build my church" thing supercedes all actual conversation. It doesn't matter how corrupt the church actually was to catholics, because anything it does is automatically justified by way of that verse. So Martin Luther is evil not because of any of his other actions or moral statements (many of which are legitimately shady) but because he embarassed the church and seemed to have caused a loss of power and majesty.
Catholic church wasn't unreformable, Gregorius VII managed to do it
>>1457095
>but because he embarassed the church and seemed to have caused a loss of power and majesty.
The Church caused that itself. Luther was not alone: as I said, he was merely the most successful of all the reformers. Others before him had made similar - if not the same - points concerning the extreme corruption in the Church, the state of its clergy (infamous for their misconduct), and the Church's accumulation of and intervention in temporal power and affairs.
Luther is merely one in a long list of people who throughout the Medieval - Late Medieval period criticize the Church's state.
>loss of power and majesty
The Church was considered to have lost most of its power and majesty during the years of the Avignon Papacy, in all seriousness,
I watched The Right Stuff a few days ago and loved it. Does anyone have any good books/movies/ etc. that go into detail about the space race, especially the Soviet side?
>>1456934
>Cosmonauts: How Russia won the Space Race
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04lcxms
>>1457261
nice. exactly the thing I was hoping to find. thanks anon
>>1456934
>The Right Stuff
great stuff!
>German Jews were a very small percentage of Jews killed.
>Most killed Jews were Eastern Europeans.
>Most killed civilians were Eastern Europeans.
>Holodomor.
>
And yet we still talk about the genocide against Jewry instead of genocide against Eastern Europeans.
Why? Just because the Soviets did it too?
Then why not simply share the responsibility and talk about a gigantic genocide in which 2 regimes cooperated and have to share responsibility together?
Why take only a small part of the killed population and blow it out of proportions but forget the millions which were starved to death by Stalin and Hitler? And what the hell do Israeli or American Jews have to do with Eastern European Jews? If they identified as Jews first and Poles, Ukrainians etc... second then the genocide was justified because it was war. If they identified as Poles and Ukrainians first then there was no genocide against Jews, but only against Eastern Europeans.
This whole subject is so full of lies and half-truths, it's sickening.
>>1456923
>If they identified as Jews first and Poles, Ukrainians etc... second then the genocide was justified because it was war
are you retarded?
Poison Gas Paris Gun
What if, in early 1918 as the Germans are getting ready to deploy the Paris Gun, they belatedly realize the anemic load of high-explosives in the shells (roughly the equivalent of a WWII 75mm Sherman tank gun) isn’t going to do much damage to Paris and hit on the idea of loading the shells with poison gas instead?
At the same time, the German zeppelin fleet realizes aerial bombing with HE isn’t very effective either, as the zeppelins need to fly at too low an altitude to aim and are subject to fighter and AA defenses, suggest simultaneous poison gas bombing attacks against London instead?
What are the effects on Paris and London?
How to the Allies respond?
What are the post-war effects (as Germany is still going to lose in the end)?
>>1456921
>poison gas bombing attacks against London instead?
>>1456921
>>1456921
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun
The Paris Gun (German: Paris-Geschütz) was the name given to a type of German long-range siege gun, several of which were used to bombard Paris during World War I. They were in service from March to August 1918. When the guns were first employed, Parisians believed they had been bombed by a high-altitude Zeppelin, as the sound of neither an aeroplane nor a gun could be heard.
The Paris Gun shells weighed 106kg (234lb).[1]:120 The shells initially used had a diameter of 216mm (8.5in) and a length of 960mm (38in).[1]:120 The main body of the shell was composed of thick steel, containing 7kg (15lb) of TNT.[1]:120[Note 2] The small amount of explosive – around 6.6% of the weight of the shell – meant that the effect of its shellburst was small for the shell's size.[5] The thickness of the shell casing, to withstand the forces of firing, meant that shells would explode into a comparatively small number of large fragments, limiting their destructive effect.[5] A crater produced by a shell falling in the Tuileries Garden was described by an eye–witness as being 10 to 12ft (3.0 to 3.7m) across and 4ft (1.2m) deep.[6]
As military weapons, the Paris Guns were not a great success: the payload was small, the barrel required frequent replacement and its accuracy was only good enough for city-sized targets. The German objective was to build a psychological weapon to attack the morale of the Parisians, not to destroy the city itself.
A total of around 320 to 367 shells were fired, at a maximum rate of around 20 per day. The shells killed 250 people and wounded 620, and caused considerable damage to property. The worst incident was on 29 March 1918, when a single shell hit the roof of the St-Gervais-et-St-Protais Church, collapsing the entire roof on to the congregation then hearing the Good Friday service. A total of 91 people were killed and 68 were wounded.