Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 3297. page

Kathleen Hughes, "The Celtic Church: Is this a valid concept?", pp. 1–20 Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies i, summer 1981.

She basically single handedly destroyed ecclesiastical Celtic Romanticism

>>1370999
That looks very interesting,

Does anyone know if any citation analysis has been done to see what the most cited historical papers are?

>>1370816
Is that freedom for ants?

Freedom was what the native americans had.

>>1370816
Until that Kenyan Muslim Obama and the DemoCRAPS took it away.

File: 033.jpg (96KB, 662x1024px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 662x1024px

I will start by posting portuguese uniforms during the napoleonic wars. The portuguese that fought for Napoleon, the Portuguese Legion.

File: Ph_legiao0301.jpg (8KB, 210x300px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 210x300px

>>1370706

File: ph_legiao0201.jpg (8KB, 213x300px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 213x300px

>>1370709

File: Husaria_pod_Kluszynem.jpg (117KB, 627x461px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 627x461px

>>1370606

File: Husarz.jpg (78KB, 568x800px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 568x800px

>>1370612

File: hussar Pancerni.jpg (18KB, 240x494px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 240x494px

>>1370618

>>1370369
They would, after eating the right mushrooms, fuck each other in the ass to give birth to special assbabies, untainted by female weakness, who would be the mightiest warriors of the next generation, and lead charges into the hottest parts of the combat.

This is an interesting read on beserkers
Berserkir: a re-examination of the phenomenon in literature and life
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/28819/

>>1370394
Lindy said something similar but let's look what this saga says about them

>[Odin's] men went without their mailcoats and were mad as hounds or wolves, bit their shields...they slew men, but neither fire nor iron had effect upon them. This is called 'going berserk'."[3]

so it seems like they were indeed prone to going batshit

>>1370348
Reddit. You should also consider staying there.

>>1370372
redditors are retarded. Also a voting system is fucking terrible for historical debates.

>>1370480
The equivalent of that here is the amount of (You)'s somebody gets

>>1370261
You know that Mexicans in Mexico don't even celebrate this, right? It's mostly a thing for Chicanos.

The actual Mexicans realized that there were two battles on the 5th of may. One the French lost, and exactly one year later another the French won. And entirely militarily speaking the French won the war. They achieved their wargoal of installing Maximillian as Emperor of Mexico. The problem was that in the North, the Civil War in the USA had ended and a unified America could start waving around their Monroe stick again. French power not solidified in the region enough, they cut their losses and fell back.

tl;dr: The Americans saved Mexico.

Also
>Machetes and rocks
>Implying the Mexican military wasn't relatively modern

Because the french were overconfident and far from supply centers

>>1370420
>saved

They got fucked in the ass by RICO

But organized crime isn't done, just operates on a much smaller and less profitable/influential scale

Because Spics and Blacks now control the crime
2bh, organized crime was better under white rule

>>1370080
They are still to this day one of the most powerful organized criminals in the Northeast U.S and Chicago. They receive up to more than $50 Billion a year according to FBI.

Murders still occur but they make it harder to trace it back to the murderer.
Bodies that were murdered secretly in Chicago will often be transferred and dumped in Indiana or nearby states.

>not building nothing but mudhuts all over africa

lmaoing at your life rn my man

>>1370169
I built mudhuts in Paris :^)

ethics is based on functionality or whatever. morals is literally "because i said so"

source: my ass

>>1370057
Thank your ass for me

>>1370029
They're the same thing, but for historical reasons which I don't care to explain in detail here, the word ethics became associated with the public sphere and morals with the private. So you could say that ethics = public morals; morals = private ethics.

He became an ethnic activist not out of loathing white supremacy but rather forced integration and equality with blacks.

Probably. He also supported Hitler and Mussolini, said Jews were the scourge of the world and so on. Those are the type of stuff swept under the rug in western education.

>>1369892

When he was young and living in Africa, he realised he hated niggers. But by the time of his death it's safe to say he had gotten over his racism. It's called a "character arc", google it.

>>1369849

What a stupid question. No, obviously.

>>1369849
It isnt ethical to arrest a person for a crime they have not yet commited, but it is ethical to prevent the crime from occuring. For example,
>Billy works for a business
>Crimebot reads the future and sees that Billy will commit tax fraud in the future
>Crimebot representative tells Bill not to cheat on his taxes because it will be caught
>Bill decides not to commit the fraud
However, if Bill still commits the tax fraud, it is perhaps on more ethical grounds to arrest him because Bill knew that Crimebot knew he was going to commit fraud. Preventative Crime thought experiments should focus on just exactly what the name implies, preventing crime.

If your into anime, you should check out Psycho-Pass. It deals with this exact issue.
In the show, people have a "crime coefficient". This number reflects how likely it is someone will commit a crime. If it's high enough, police are permitted to kill on site.
Obviously, this is NOT a good idea. As one can see in the show, people fucking obsess over their crime coefficient. It simply adds to the stresses of everyday life, knowing that at any time you could be imprisoned or even killed just because your number rose, even if you really never wanted to hurt anyone.

someone

File: 1461431352715.png (544KB, 2000x1507px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 2000x1507px

>>1369723
>I hear some shit about germany being in the middle of other powers causing the events of ww1&2 to be somehow predetermined. how far is that true?
It's somewhat true. The entire problem goes as far back as 1871, and from there on Germany made more and more stupid decisions that would make war inevitable. By the time the year 1905 had rolled around, the question wasn't "if" but "when". Let me give you a tl;dr (though if I make a mistake others are free to correct me).

>1871
>France is defeated, German empire declared
>Bismarck favors a gentle treatment of France as to not make them permanent allies, but the rest of the German high command wants to humiliate them and take their territory (Alsace-Lorraine)
>France is now furious and its entire politics is now centered on one goal: taking back Alsace-Lorraine
>Bismarck is now forced to ensure France is diplomatically isolated because France + strong ally = dead Germany
>They ensure the British that this new Germany is no threat to them, buddy up with Italy (muh 1866) and make mutually contradictory promises to Russia and Austria to keep both on their good side
>Status: France pissed off, everyone else ok

>Wilhelm II becomes emperor, fires Bismarck
>Does not renew diplomatic relations with Russia in favor of focusing on Austria
>An insulted Russia joins France in an alliance
>Wilhelm also goes full retard demanding colonies Germany does not need and a gigantic navy Germany does not need
>The British see this as a provocation
>Status: France pissed off, Russia pissed, Britain pissed off

>Early 20th century
>Morocco crisis rolls about: France wants to colonize Morocco to cement its influence in North Africa while Germany wants Morocco purely to piss off France
>Germany thinks this would be a perfect opportunity to play out the French and British against eachother, but Germany goes full retard and presents itself as the villain
>France and Britain ally (entente cordiale)

And then the Daily Mail scandal
cont.

>>1370216
Correction: Daily TELEGRAPH Affair
https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Daily_Telegraph_Affair

Basically Wilhelm II had an interview with a British newspaper and some political questions were asked. He gave the dumbest answers possible, including but not limited to:
>The British must be MAD, INSANE, STUPID if they think we're a threat
>France and Russia? Yeah, they're totally involved in the Boer War
>Japan? Who the fuck cares?
In one newspaper article Wilhelm II pissed off the British, the French, the Russians and even the fucking Japanese (who had an alliance with Britain). By that point the lines were already drawn on the map: every great power was pissed off at the Germans, and only Italy and Austria remained as potential allies.

Italy was mostly upset that France had taken Tunisia, which they wanted themselves, but did not want all-out war. So what they agreed with Germany and Russia was a defensive agreement: if, and only if, France declares war on Germany, Italy will join on the German side.

If I could avoid this? Well, I'd do at least one intelligent thing, such as
>Not annexing A-L
>Not building a navy purely to provoke the British
>Not act full retard in international politics
>Favor Russia over Austria
Perhaps even declare a war on Austria together with Russia, promising Russia some Slavic territories (muh Panslavism) in return for allowing us to form a Grossdeutsches lösung

>>1369706
>>>/x/

>>>/x/

>>1369708
>>1369710
>This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages