Why didn't the disdain for bows held by European chivalry develop elsewhere? It's not like social classes were exclusive to Europe or the feudal system.
>“When we look back upon Western warfare as it was before the introduction of firearms, of the differences we see, the one which most boldly stands out is the precedence of valor over cunning. It is out of valor that European history rises: the spear and the sword, and not, as in Asia, the bow and arrow, are its symbols. The bravest and not the most crafty are the leaders of men, and it is their example rather than their skill which dominates the battle.”
Because it's stupid
>>1154126
Bigger dicks
>>1154126
Pretty sure it started with the greeks.
Plato appreciation thread. Aristotelianfags GTFO.
Let's discuss Forms and Ideas without any pure empiricist faggots denying the existence of abstract principles.
I think Plato was wrong in asserting that there are forms of artificial objects like beds and chairs. Suppose there was a form of the automobile. Then, since the forms are eternal and outside spacetime, it would have to have existed forever. But then how come man only invented the automobile almost two millenia after plato died? He discovered the previously unknown form of the automobile? But that's not how Plato's theory of knowledge works. You don't discover new forms, you remember them. In this case the automobile, if anything, would have to have been invented much earlier because more ancient peoples were less materialistic and remembered the forms better. I think Aristotle's view that there can only be forms of natural objects and the forms of artificial objects are created by us with reason and imagination solves this issue, and it has been incorporated, if I'm not mistaken (the Platonist scholar Thomas Taylor seems to think so) , by the Neoplatonists.
>the Forms exist
>why?
>because they exist
It's not empiricism, there's just no reason to believe it.
>forms
How do I become a Senator?
>>1153961
You don't. Filthy plebe.
Fuck your way to the top.
>>1153966
pre sure pompeii was a plebe
What was his deal?
>>1153960
Nigga had a big dicky unlike little Nicky
>>1154070
It was supposedly 8 inches flaccid, that's pretty impressive
Anyway he was just an opportunistic con artist who couldn't control himself.
>>1154070
BSC, big slav cock.
Were there many black roman citizens ?
>>1153861
It's possible.
>>1153861
Boi don u know WE FOUNDED urope and shiet
Scipio AFRICANUS was black
>England
>Scotland
>Naples
>Portugal
>Castille and Leon
>Sicily
>Cyprus
>Jerusalem
>Aragon
>Navarra
>Hungary
>Latin Empire
Why were french dynasties so good at worming their way into monarchies?
France is the bull who basically cucked the whole Europe for centuries.
>>1153824
France was the most populated nation in Europe for a long period of time.
>>1153824
>worming
They literally conquered England
Why did even the Nazis not want Finland? Are the Swedish memers right?
>>1153770
Hitler was sympathetic for Finland's loss in the Hyper War and sought to recreate the Ancient Finnish Empire, integrating Finland in as the capital after the fact.
>>1153770
The Swedes were very cautious about Hitler and Nazism while the Finns allied themselves with Hitler after the Soviets fucked with them.
>>1153778
/thread
How does /his/ feel about the Celts?
>>1153712
They were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
>>1153712
The Celts are basically the Wojaks of Europe with Latins being Pepe and Germanics as Spurdo.
t. Meme historian
>>1153712
They were what the Aztecs were to Cortes
Gold laden bitches that Caesar thought needed a conquering
Can we all agree that the Protestant Reformation was a capitalist plot to destroy Christian morality?
pic related
>>1153684
No, but we can all agree that the Protestant reformation is the biggest heresy outside of Orthodoxy being a bitch.
Yes.
>"Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died."
t. Martin Luther
>"If your papist annoys you with that word (i.e. alone), tell him straightaway: Doctor Martin Luther will have it so: Papists and asses are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. LUTHER WILL HAVE IT SO, AND HE IS A DOCTOR ABOVE ALL THE DOCTORS IN POPEDOM."
Amicable Discussions, I, 127, ‘The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, Tan Books (1987), p201
>>1153684
>being closer to god is a plot against morality
And paying money to get to heaven is perfectly moral, right?
Why did the post-independence African civil wars kill more people than the anti-colonial independence struggles in the 1950s-1970s between European powers and Africans?
Take for example the death count in the Mozambican War of Independence vs. the Mozambican Civil War:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambican_War_of_Independence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambican_Civil_War
Historically, when less organized tribes had disagreements they just migrated away from each other
More organized tribes went to war
Post colonial leaders didn't want to let go of both their territory and resources to dozens of autonomous states
>>1153623
It's a power settling process. It took Europe from antiquity to WW2 basically to go through this process. Give it time.
Oh right, but to answer your question
Imperial europeans were unwilling to put up resistance against African independence movements
And WWII made imperialism uncool
Much easier to install puppets, kill opposition, saddle them with debts, and leave maybe 5 loyal people who can actually read
how the fuck can the ottomans pull hundred thousands men out of their asses everytime /his/? it seems like in every battle they always won with huge numbers and huge casualities even though the enemy killed shitloads of them. where did these all these manpower come from? how did their logistics work with these huge ass armies?
Turks love to fight.
I guess you get lazy and brute force after your empire has access to tons of territories with people available to enlist as troops
>>1153477
arent their empires full of non-turks and non-muslims? how did they get these people to fight for them? and how did they supply their 100.000+ armies everytime?
Is atheism necessary for the unique one?
No. Stirner doesn't attempt to disprove God at all, and doesn't see that as a worthy project. Stirner instead argued that regardless of whether or not God exists (which Stirner doesn't care about), he'd be an egoist himself, and any following of him or lack thereof could only be driven by egoism.
Following religions are not compatible with Stirner's philosophy, but believing in them is totally acceptable. The Devil, for instance, obviously has faith (or belief, same word in the Bible), but he doesn't care to follow the religion.
No, but the idea of a "God" as the source of "good" is not comptable with it.
There are such things as amoral Gods.
depends on how consistent your will is with the moral code of whatever religion, Stirner would probably say make use of the parts you like and discard the rest
why didn't I learn about the Umayyad Caliphate in high school? It seems like they royally BTFO everyone for like 300 years.
What was going on in 700 AD?
>What was going on in 700 AD?
They built a lot of cool stuff in the Levant around that time. Also everyone hated them.
>>1153178
>for like 300 years
I don't think they lasted more than 200. Otherwise, it's because we know a lot less about them than we do the Abbasids, and they're in that span of time between the fall of Rome and Charlemagne that even most people who actually care about the early Middle Ages just don't care.
I remember learning about them in 10th grade world history. They were mentioned passingly along with the Abbassid's
Generally these days, the only history that's taught extensively in the U.S. is Enlightenment ----> American Revolution ---> Slavery ---> Segregation ---> Civil Rights Movement ---> Vietnam ---> 9/11
what is history?
is history a science?
believing history is science is supreme autism.
However, scientific methods are used to find as best a picture as we can know about the past.
Science creates falsifiable, objective conclusions.
History is an art.
There is nothing empirical going on.
Fortunately there's enough tradition and review going on that it doesn't get fucked in the ass as hard by dumb college cunts like other soft sciences.
who the fuck was he
The proto-fedora
>>1152838
A new ager who's been misunderstood by both left and right
>>1152852
>evola
>new age
Kill yourself you mong