Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 3387. page

>>1314002

Towton had more opportunities to flee / play dead, so that.

In terms of warfare which is more objectively brutal?

I would pick Stalingrad just to see how brutal it was. I would want to be on the German side, during one of the stormings of the tractor factory.

No one plays the 1st one anymore. But check this out

http://aoe.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/aoecgi/display.cgi?action=ct&f=17,6327,,10

>>1314133
Whoa sorry for bumping, thought I was on /v/

>>1314133
There must be someone on this /his/tory board that still plays this ancient game. Surely!

>>1313918
Hitler lost when he failed to capture Soviet oil fields, Kursk wouldn't change anything.

>>1313928
hitler lost when her mom shit it to this world

>>1313918
>Was Kursk winnable like he said?

Possibly, but bear in mind that Manstein's Kursk likely wouldn't bear much resemblance to the historical Kursk. For starters, the overwhelming bulk of casualties on both sides were in the Soviet counterattacks, not the German attack. And without such a huge buildup, it's less important of a target. It would straighten the German line, but not a whole lot else.

>Was Hitler correct to move the boys to Italy?

It was probably necessary. Mussolini's government was collapsing, and you need SOMETHING up there to keep the Americans from simply walking into Austria.

> Would winning at Kursk even have mattered like Guderian said?


Yes/no. Kursk itself is pointless. The troop buildups in the area are enormously important. It's less about winning and holding Kursk as it is about pinching off that salient and destroying the troops inside. You need to pull a rabbit out of your hat on the Eastern Front, or you're just going to be smothered.

File: Wernerprokla.jpg (331KB, 1280x947px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1280x947px

I personally think he was pretty bright and made alot of good moves.

However, his greatness was unfortunately in direct conflict with Bismark who had a better army.

But Napoleon's decisions I would defend as being the right ones.

The French army was better than Prussia's on paper and everyone at the time thought so.

In reality the French army had already turned in to the stereotypical surrender monkeys they are in popular culture. They were poorly trained with the latest weapons and undisciplined.

He knew it but his parliamen did not think that expansion was necessary and ruined it for him.

He didn't even want the war and knew how it would end.

>>1313912
>popular culture
anglo culture, french army have one of the greatest history

File: qt3.14.jpg (133KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1600x1200px

>>1313912
Judging how he needlessly pulled France into the Crimean war all for the sake of 'glory', he was too swayed by imagining himself as a second Napoleon to think critically. 19th Century wasn't too good for France.

File: napoleon.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>1313879
>manlets

Stalin

>>1313892
didnt it turn out he wasnt even short?

I would've probably joined the cult of Pythagoras, or some other edgy esoteric society.

>>1313790
>For example, if you couldn't become a great general now, you wouldn't have been one back then either.

says who, faggot?

>>1313822
I don't care about some anon's opinion on how differently he would've handled Germany as Hitler or France as Napoleon, the minutiae of history is what intrigues me most.

>>1313650
Hasn't this question already been answered by stripping the Papacy of legal authority?

>>1313650
There will always be some form of corruption with human's leading other humans. Even if it was a theocratic system that ruled on faith there would be corruption and people not interested/rebellious of the order. Theocracy can't really work anymore in the West, since most formerly Christian nations are secularized now.

File: tumblr_o38r2soK0E1v33hszo1_1280.jpg (248KB, 1157x1779px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1157x1779px

>>1313759
Perhaps someone should start over from scratch.

>>1313623
about 10-15k €
that's how much custom yorois cost I think plate would be in the same area

Google is your friend. Search for "pro fight armor" and you should find some stuff. Also watch some "knight fights" if your are into that kind of stuff.

>>1313623
Your dignity

>>1313463
It's interesting that people lose their shit over what he says when half of what he says is historically solid and the other half is backed by decent evidense. Most attacks I've seen him are character attacks but everyone with a real phd seems to think he is fine, if a little mediocre.

There is a push from theists that hate him to paint him as a lone gun man pushing his crazy theories when infact what he pushes doesn't deviate much from the normal historical understandings. When angry Christians here this they than just declare the whole study of history to be invalid since it doesn't confirm their prejudices.

>>1313540
>>1313463
His opinions seem pretty mainstream as far as academics go.

>>1313463

A very unfortunate character.

He went into academia interested in the historicity of the Bible and eventually lost his faith because of it.

And then he gets shat on by the community he used to belong to.

His work is hella legit though.

A classical mechanics textbook

>>1313367
None man, I shitpost all day and have yet to finish reading beyond the first chapter of The Ego and Its Own.

It was pretty based imo I don't know why /his/ memes against it. Very sophisticated governmental and judicial structures.

File: vol.png (151KB, 420x154px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 420x154px

Well done, OP. Very well done.

HOWEVER

>>1313307
>>1313322
First, was the Holy Roman Empire holy? It is hard to imagine that any worldly kingdom can be truly holy given the things that people have to do to stay in power. The Holy Roman Empire was certainly not holy. For example, the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV was excommunicated by the pope for his role in the investiture controversy. In this controversy, the emperor wanted to keep appointing high church officials as emperors had been doing in the past. Appointing church officials on the basis of politics does not seem like a holy practice.

Second, was the empire Roman? It is once again hard to say that it was. Of course, the emperors were crowned by the pope. This could imply that Rome was the center of the empire. Also, the empire was supposed to be a recreation of the Roman Empire and Latin was its lingua franca. But the empire was not truly centered on Rome. It was more of a Germanic empire that really only paid lip service to the idea that it was Roman. It was not truly a remaking of Rome.

Finally, was the empire an empire? I would say that it was not. The Roman Empire was truly an empire in that it was ruled quite strongly from its center. At most times in the Roman Empire, the provinces were not in any way independent. By contrast, in the Holy Roman Empire, the emperors lacked the power to enforce their will throughout the empire. Your text mentions that the popes would make alliances with various regional powers to try to check the power of the emperors. In other words, the Holy Roman Empire was more of a loose confederation of states whose emperors could not truly dominate the regional powers.

File: kek.jpg (5KB, 147x147px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 147x147px

>>1313297
You mean Mark "ceaserfuckedhersoishouldtoo" Anthony?
What filthy pagan filth are you worshiping this time annon?

Marc Antony is like the reader insert beside the Mary-Sue. He's the Nick to Caesar's Gatsby.

File: greekpepe.png (103KB, 624x434px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 624x434px

>>1313297
To be quite honest here, Rome sucks.

t. Hellenophile

>>1313020
>Destroy a perfectly functional republic and turn it autocratic
>Not even a state of emergency in which all of Rome is in danger, just because it tickled his fancy
>Get stabbed to death for being a traitor
>Based

Brilliant sure, but not based. He started the empire, and with it a long trend of degeneracy and decline leading to the eventual collapse.

>>1313075
>i dont know history but am shitposting on /his/

Noted

>>1313075
>degeneracy
>social decadence contributes to political collapse
I'm not saying social decadence is good, but I won''t believe you on this without a source. I mean, I've never seen anyone explain the mechanism behind how this would even work.

>>1312985
Nothing wrong with foreigners investing. Sure they get the profits but you get to use/buy whatever they invest in which you didn't have the option to before. Now if you have a banana republic where they control the state that's bad, but the same could be said for any group holding the state not just foreign investors per se.

>>1313007
I'm not making an opinion on any ideology, this is merely a thesis, not a judgment on Leninism or Positivism or Stalin, just something I'd do for a Master's thesis if I were to go to grad school for Russian history (I'd focus on the early Soviet Union likely as the early 20th century and ideology are two things I'm really into

>>1313007
>being this defensive for capitalism that any discussion on development is seen as an attack on your ideology


class cuckery knows no bounds

>>1312908
Rape and murder are pretty bad no matter what "centuries moral mindset" you reference, so I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

Generally, where there is a population of uneducated poor people, there will likely be more rape and murder, so some periods of history may have been rappy-er than others. But the universal disgust toward the actions were almost always the same.

I can't think of any society that viewed rape as anything but evil.

Murder, as libtards call it, is actually killing and murder, or, in Greek from the time of Luke, "" and "". Obviously there were other distinctions. Today we have degrees of manslaughter and murder, as one example of modern distinctions formalized over centuries of informal argument and linguistic development.

Now you ask about the difference between modern and ancient morality. You make a mistake in claiming frequency of an event ever integrates itself into morality; that is a flawed Wittgensteinian argument. Also, ancient morality had nuances. Furthermore, modern morality has its nuances. In both time periods, some of these flavors are just downright retarded. For example, a libtard, cleverly disguised as a fundamentalist Christial Evangelical, writing in http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-difference-between-killing-and-murdering/ says this about when the Bible says killing becomes murder:

>Killing becomes murder when (and only when) it is not properly justified, and the justifications are clear: you can use whatever force necessary to protect your own life from a hostile aggressor, or to save the life of an innocent from such imminent, life-threatening danger.

>>1312990
That's the same sort of retardation that leads to people blaming proactive defense practitioners and calling them murderers, even though the murderee wou'd have been the murderer if the critic had his way prior to the murder evwnt, suggesting the critic can percieve his interference as willful contribution to a society in favor of free murders, ergo he's a hypocrite, more commonly explained by the critic's terminal retardation. And just as terminally retarded people often go on to great heights at the hands of rather amoral patrons, so too have their fuck-retarded backwards ideologies or reinterpretations or historical revisionism gone on to influence the intellectual mode of their generation off of what the next generation will base their philosophy.

In other words, things now are as they always have been, and it is the fault of intellectual repression (oppression in the case of with-held patronage) and the state structure that leads to the masses to view objective evil as existing in a non-absolute point on the moral spectrum. The modern form of this state-sponsored moral relativism is called Positivism, more colloquially understood as "You're Anti-Freedom of Speech Ear-Raping My Non-Free Free-Speech Privacy Zone" or otherwise as it goes.