Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 3539. page

File: justin-bieber-levenslessen[1].jpg (58KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1280x720px

>>1193162
Modern Americans look like bigger fags to be honest, mate.

Long story short, I'll explain it in simple terms so even a retard like yourself can understand it: cultural fashion norms and trends change. Especially over the course of LITERALLY FUCKING CENTURIES.

To name the most prominent examples: high heels. First they were invented for knights, to ensure they had a better grip on their stirrups with their feet. As the noble knightly class faded out and the noblesse d'épée (nobility of the blade) became the noblesse de robe (nobility of the robe, basically privileged administrators), these high heels were adapted as day-to-day fashion. They were masculine because they made you look taller and more imposing. After the French Revolution this kind of stopped (as did other noble fashions like powdered wigs) because they were seen as vain excesses of the nobility. Ironically women started wearing high heels around this time. Does this mean women are the new leisure class? One could make a case for that, but that's a whole different can of worms.

>>1193204
>Canacuck

>>1193162
Why are you applying modern standards to an historical culture?

That guy certainly had way more fun whoring and stabbing peasants than you'll ever have.

>>1193030
>King Francis, I'm VIII
>Huh, you don't get to bring catholics

>>1193030
>How strong was the royal power during the Tudor period?
Extremely.
>Did it decline when the Stuarts took over?
Wouldn't say it declined; rather it stagnated and proved unfit to face the challenges of more modern statesmanship. Stuarts had their own style of doing politics which was at odds with the expansion of parliament and gentry power, but even as late as 1700 English Monarchs were style pretty dominant. The real objective decline only came under the Georges imo.

>>1193030
>How strong was the royal power during the Tudor period?
relative to what? anyway, yes, the Tudors were strongwilled kings generally. Henry VII attainted (i.e. accuse of treason and thereby seized the land and wealth) of dozens of leading peers in the realm, leading to a great drop in the number of noble families, as Henry didn't create as many peers as he destroyed.
He stretched the feudal system to the limit by collecting all sorts of dues and fees that were totally legal, but rarely exercised in practice by the king. This has generally been called "bastard feudalism", because feudal relations were no longer personal bonds but commuted to the collection of fees.
The most prominent of these were legal fees and the king's assertion of wardship over underage peers, during which he basically looted their estates and collected the revenue as his own. Henry basically continued this legacy, though he was not as miserly as his father. He was not afraid to bring any noble to heel that disobeyed him and he generally was able to get parliament to raise extraordinary revenue for his military ventures. The 1530s saw experiments in centralization under the direction of Thomas Cromwell. The liquidation of the monasteries brought in huge sums of gold and silver plate melted down. All opposition to Henry's elimination of papal jurisdiction was eliminated (see, Thomas More and the Pilgrimage of Grace). Mary and Elizabeth were more of the same, though the fiscal situation went to shit late in the century, with the Spanish war. Elizabeth though was not as financially vigorous as the other Tudors either. Also, Ireland came under control during the Tudor century, but at a huge financial cost to Elizabeth and created deepseated bitterness among the Irish. Wales, though, was politically united under VIII in the 1530s and the area was administratively, legally and financially incorporated into England, as Scotland would be in 1707.

I think it translates as Book of the Assembly or Counsel

>>1193028
Pure coincidence, or maybe onomatopoeia.
North American Indian languages could possibly have a small similarity with PIE roots due to their (speculative?) origin in India, but Central and South American had literally no contact with Eurasia.

HOL UP

>whites moved out of cities into suburbs in the 50s
>blacks moved into the cities in the 60s
>economy goes to shit in the 70s
>unemployment, crime and misery

>>1192909
Race riots were happening years before King was assassinated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_riots

>>1193133
I'd also mention the Greenwood riots which happened in Tulsa,OK and that happened in 1921. Greenwood was a nice area though.

>>1192857

That Jesus guy.

>>1192857
succesful? he died alone betrayed by everyone

>>1192857
The most succesful are the ones never caught.

>>1192774
Why are almost zero schizophrenics religious?

Why are so schizophrenics left-handed?

>>1192774
Hey I had psychosis, am either schizo or bipolar. But I only "believe" in nonsense when psychotic.
It is not like I'm delusional all day.

But some schizos are indeed delusional all day, every day. Mostly.

>>1192592
NOT FUCKING BEEVOR

>>1192854
Disregard. Read Beevor's Battle of Berlin.

>>1193816
Go to bed Antony Beevor.

Bump for interesting thread.

>>1192563
Well they spoke an isolated language that isn't Semitic or Indo-European and a lot of consensus on their origins and ethnicity seems to be based around believing they are descendants of neolithic farmers in the Near East that predate any Semitic ones who arrived later on.

>>1192563
>Did they develop from local cultures like the Ubaid
They were the Ubaid.

>>1192558
True, to a degree.
Example: every damn country who fought in ww2 with the exception of Germany.

Said some dudes on meth that jerk off to baby porn

>>1192558
>Historians disagree with my layman fringe views informed by wikipedia and pop history
>They must be part of a conspiracy to suppress me!

you guys can do it

>>1192550
let me google that for you cunt

>>1192671
thanks, any progress?

A bit more to Colonial Sub-Saharan Africa.

You're saying they should hire foreign mercenaries to rape and subjugate most of the place?

Then starting a campaign of perfidy against the world?

File: adventus_saxonum.png (43KB, 311x143px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 311x143px

>>1192207
That isn't sub-Roman Britain.

While http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/BritishMap.htm may be suspect as fuck it gets somewhat close to representing how chaotic shit was.

Top entry of the Truth Contest

Too low population + surrounded by people who hated them

>>1192054
did you know that the king of norway was held as a slave by estonian vikings for 12 years?

>>1192072
>estonian vikings

a source on Saddam, with an out of the orthodox perspective, is As'ad Abukhalil a Lebanese sociologist in California. search his blog(using the search bar) for references to Saddam. Apparently Saddam was into secularism(gave hints of atheism) and for a time was warming up to Israel.

Also search his blog for atheism, Arab atheism and the history of it rarely gets mentioned in the west.

>>1191970
Right?

Spread the oil money just right.
Fought the Iranians.
Played the superpowers like a fiddle.
Put the Kurds in their place (literally).
Puts the Shi'i in their place.
Killed radical Sunni clerics.

Wrong?
Trust Bush Sr.
Invaded Kuwait
Stopped killing radical Sunni and Shia clerics.
Didn't just comply with UN and American demands.

I miss him so much.

>>1191947
Not myth
Something much worse:
A meme
It was a meme
(Possibly, let's see what the others think)

>>1191947
Sounds total bullshit, the Spanish gave great privileges to allied Mexican peoples

>>1191947
Indian chiefs literally were kept in charge with the spaniards. They were the ones who decided what indians work with the encomenderos and what indians continue living the life.