https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
What do you think about this guy and his research? Do you think his summary of Islamic history is accurate? Are his conclusions correct?
>>317799
Stop posting that stupid shit. It's obvious you already agree with him and will spend this thread defending.
But no, he talks shit, his summary of Islamic history is completely wrong and so are his conclusions. He's an incredibly biased hate preacher spreading fear of Islam to make money off gullible Americans.
>>317799
This is like the fourth time we've had this thread. Is it gong to become the new 'Christian Dark Ages map' meme?
But no, it's not great research if you're looking for something that'll stand up to a historian's scrutiny. His accuracy can't be judged because he doesn't offer any data on any of the dots for criticism, doesn't explain why he compares 'Muslim Conquest Battles' with only 'Crusade Battles' and not 'Christian Conquest Battles', and his conclusions are based off of the writings of non-historians.
>>317799
I have said it before, what a shitty map.
So what's the deal with Holodomor? Was it an ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians by the Russians?
>>317723
>Was it an ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians by the Russians?
Probably. It's impossible to prove whether it was on purpose or if the scale of it was intended, so Vatniks will be posting >PROOFS in this thread, but the measures set up by the government most likely caused the famine.
No. Essentially why it looks that way is because people were pumping out inflated reports of the amount of wheat, because they were scared Stalin would replace them with another supervisor if they didn't. Then famine hit, there wasn't enough to go around, but on paper there was, and rather than anyone, including Stalin, admitting his error (pretty bad when Stalin was tooting his horn about how great everything was going), they just said people are stealing or withholding the wheat and so on.
The famine was actually no something unprecedented in Russia, it just had a much larger population to go with it this time, and people were focusing more on it because we look at the communist system as accountable for it (either that, or Stalin's cruelty), but in actuality it wasn't, it's just that the communist system didn't help things as much as was predicted at all.
>>317723
>Russians
You mean Jews, and it coincided with the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians.
why are people on the internet so obsessed with the ethnicity of the pharaohs?
WUZ
Everybody loves Egypt for some reason and to claim you are an ancestor of them might be thrilling for "muh heritage" Americans and others. A lot of people are just tired of afrocentric and eurocentric arguements without proof though.
PHARAOHZ
Summarise european history by listing 10 most important events
christianity
no need for anything else
>>317577
yeah, romans were nothing
>>317570
>Macedonian Empire
>Rise of Caesar
>Rise of Christianity
>Fall of West Rome
>Rise of Islam
>Rise of Charlemagne
>Discovery of Americas
>French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars
>Industrialization
>WWII
What /his/ books are you reading?
What /his/ books do you recommend?
History and other humanities both welcome, we're all brothers here.
I'm currently reading the Landmark Herodotus, a big fat brick of the Histories with annotations from historians, translators and geographers, crammed full of maps and with a good inch of appendices explaining the historical context of every facet of what Herodotus talks about, along with his inaccuracies. Apparently there are equivalent editions of Thucydides and Xenophon as well.
Along with this, I recommend David Howarth's The Voyage of the Armada, which details the Spanish side of the Anglo-Spanish conflict of 1588. It's the best book I've read on the subject, but also the only one, so I welcome any objections to it.
I've just ordered Polybius' Histories (Oxford World's Classics Edition) and I'll soon order Plutarch's Lives (Complete Modern Library Edition). Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War (Oxford World's Classics Edition) arrived yesterday.
>>317553
Nice! Are you doing the Greek history train too?
Also, how are those Oxford editions? I've got a copy of Tacitus I haven't yet opened.
I haven't read much history but Anthony Everitt's Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician was excellent
This actually exists, I have only one question.
Explain this.
>Silver chariot vs Heavy weather
They symbolise sloth?
>>317532
the knight in the bottom legs has dragon legs ffs, and you talk to me of snails? nigga snells tha lass thing i got on ma mindz
What should be done about sociopaths?
>>317349
If they break the law, they are punished. This already happens and is all there needs to be done.
if its something that can by objectively proven then they should be corrected permanently
>>317349
Put them in high levels of government
>>317258
There would still be a pagan roman empire.
It would be exactly the way it was 2000 years ago.
>>317258
Rome was a period of stagnation, so it would inevitably fell at some point. Some neighbor would finally catch up and fucked them.
>tfw no French-speaking Egypt ruled by the Napoleon dynasty
>tfw you will never live in Paris during the Century of Enlightenment
Give me your feels, /his/
>>317235
>tfw not russian in the nineteenth century
>tfw can't talk with doestoyevsky
>tfw can't argue with lenin et. Al
>>317235
Egypt until the 1950s was patrician as fuck.
>>317235
>you will never be a wealthy patrician in Ancient Rome, fucking your slaves and qt wife, watching gladiator fights in day and drinking and attending orgies at night
>Sic semper tyrannis!
how do you respond?
>>317219
It's treason then.
Hand up don't shoot
>>317219
Something like "Arghhh!" and then I fall over because I've been shot to death by a filthy Confederate traitor.
What was life like in Francoist Spain?
>>317191
miserable in the 1940s. stable in the 50s, better in the 60s and 70s with industrialization, terrific all the way through if you were military, clergy, landowner or industrialist
>>317191
Better.
a fascist hell
Russia pre-862
What the fuck was it?
I can't find anything more than some basic shit on Wikipedia that tldr says "there were Slavic tribes somewhere here"
Does anyone have any in depth/detailed resources on what was in Russia before 862 (start of Kievan Rus), stuff like states, ethnicities, music, architecture, history ( kings and wars and borders and etc)
>>317111
The Cambridge History of Russia, Volume 1: From Early Rus’ to 1689
free download:
http://bookzz.org/book/989365/7c30f0
description on linked page:
>This first volume of the Cambridge History of Russia covers the period from early ('Kievan') Rus' to the start of Peter the Great's reign in 1689. It surveys the development of Russia through the Mongol invasions to the expansion of the Muscovite state in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and deals with political, social, economic and cultural issues under the Riurikid and early Romanov rulers. The volume is organised on a primarily chronological basis, but a number of general themes are also addressed, including the bases of political legitimacy; law and society; the interactions of Russians and non-Russians; and the relationship of the state with the Orthodox Church. The international team of authors incorporates the latest Russian and Western scholarship and offers an authoritative new account of the formative 'pre-Petrine' period of Russian history, before the process of Europeanisation had made a significant impact on society and culture.
>>317120
It says this volume covers from Kievan Rus onwards.
But I want to know what happened BEFORE the Kievan Rus was founded
When did the Mesopotamian culture disappear? It seemed still flourishing during Alexander's conquest and was still distinct during the rule of Antioch III.
Who wrecked it? Late Seleucids? Parthians? Sassanians? Or maybe Arabs?
USA
Alexander's rape train
Muhammad's rape train
It sort of just slowly died out after Alexander's conquest under the Seleucids and Parthians. It was long dead by the Arab conquest.
If anyone killed it, it was Alexander. It didn't suddenly end under his reign, but he was the one who set in motion the process of Hellenization that ultimately ended Mesopotamian civilization.
Hey guys, just a discussion on all that is Utilitarian. What is the best version of it, why it fails, why it succeeds,and worst misunderstanding of it you've come across. Remember the basis of all utilitarianism
Principle of utility: The greatest happiness for the greatest number. (An essay on the principles of Govt Jb preistley).
How would you describe happiness?
Utilitarianism is hedonism.
>>317093
I mean you can only sling that mud at Bentham because his the only one who defined happiness as pleasure. I would argue that Bentham's theory is more refined then simply hedonism, he even has a calculus. Do you like the theory or nah?
>>317098
For economics, there is no alternative to utilitarianism. And in public consciousness, utilitarianism won. This has positive points and negative points.
Thoughts on his philosophy?
Pretty good on the lower levels because his dayjob is "le science man" (think Dicky Dawkins exploring rather than dimissing other fields). But on the higher levels he's committed to western academia dogma, utilitarianism, humanitarianism, etc.
I think his age shows too. For example many of his readings on philosophy or music are clearly straight from outdated textbooks/translations.
The fact that so many books still name the Scaruffi as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" philosopher ever only tells you how far philosophy still is from becoming a serious art. Scientists have long recognized that the greatest scientists of all times are Issac Newton and Albert Einstein, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Historians rank the highly controversial Herodotus over historians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Philosophers are still blinded by commercial success. Scaruffi sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Scientists grow up studying to a lot of science of the past, historians grow up studying to a lot of history of the past. Philosophers are often totally ignorant of the philosophy of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that Scaruffi did anything worthy of being saved.
>>317135
He is a cultural historian, not a philosopher.