Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 4362. page

>>24559
Shameless self-bump

If I remember correctly, he was the first president to start heavily decreasing taxes on the rich, and was the first president of a long line even to this day that seek to make the rich richer

He redefined "conservative" to mean neoliberal in America.

Cont.

>Judaea proved yet once more victorious over the classical ideal in the French Revolution, and in a sense which was even more crucial and even more profound: the last political aristocracy that existed in Europe, that of the French seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, broke into pieces beneath the instincts of a resentful populace—never had the world heard a greater jubilation, a more uproarious enthusiasm: indeed, there took place in the midst of it the most monstrous and unexpected phenomenon; the ancient ideal itself swept before the eyes and conscience of humanity with all its life and with unheard-of splendour, and in opposition to resentment's lying war-cry of the perogative of the most, in opposition to the will to lowliness, abasement, and equalisation, the will to a retrogression and twilight of humanity, there rang out once again, stronger, simpler, more penetrating than ever, the terrible and enchanting counter-war-cry of the prerogative of the few! Like a final sign-post to other ways, there appeared Napoleon, the most unique and violent anachronism that ever existed, and in him the incarnate problem of the aristocratic ideal in itself—consider well what a problem it is:—Napoleon, that synthesis of Monster and Superman.

Noble European culture ended with excessive centralization of the monarchy, along with "The Great Transformation"

The Renaissance was the beginning of modernism, the French Revolution was a natural product of the snowball.

>Was the French Revolution the beginning of the end for noble European culture?
No, it was the begining of a new and better era.

>It seems that almost every destructive trend in recent Western history had its roots in the French Revolution.
There is no such thing as a destructive trend in history. Stop being a faggot and romanticizing the feudal past. There has never been a better time to be alive.

nope, reagan desu

>>24370
This gets my vote as well

>>24370
>>24394

Reagan was bad but he didn't almost wipe out you and everyone you've ever known.

This website should clear things up for you.

http://www.coldsiberia.org/

File: 1443329741401.jpg (41KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1280x720px

>>24304
>Last updated: June 10, 1998

File: mongolian army.jpg (96KB, 680x453px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 680x453px

Because their environment made a stable source of wealth impossible. You can't really have large-scale agriculture to consistently sustain a large population on the steppes. Most wealth is tied to sheep and goat-herding, as well as horses but in smaller amounts, which need to be constantly on the move for fresh grazing grounds, which is vulnerable to the whims of weather. As a result, their economy was usually dependent on getting necessary and luxury goods by force or by trade with sedentary civilizations. The fact that familiarity with the horse and the bow gave them such a military edge and their harsh environments raising tough men fit for warriors compared to the sedentary farmer, made war a natural option even when trade was possible, and they were quite good at it.

The mongolian khanates declined due to disputes over succession, overextension which meant that the number of actual mongols in an army was increasingly small so they eventually just got integrated by the people they conquered, and as time went on warfare changed and due to the structure of their societies they were unable to adapt to it.

bumpan

>>24241
they did, additionally many Huguenots went to british colonies instead of new france

There are plenty of French descendants in Quebec?

The South secession was hugely motivated by slavery, but the North was largely motivated by the need to keep the South for revenue purposes. At the time, the South was paying well over half of the tax, and there were also concerns of the Mississippi River being closed to Midwest shipping.

An interesting thing to me is the South's formation in the context of the age of Nationalism- the South was beginning to think of itself as an independent section with its own culture and traditions around the same time Germany and Italy were pursuing unification. The war accelerated this process, so that what started as a bunch of independent-minded states ended up with a very firm national identity as one unified South, and the effects of that continued for a century.

As for winning with British intervention, well yeah. It's unlikely the Union would realistically even try to continue in the face of British opposition. The French were even more eager to intervene and held back primarily due to British intransigence, so any intervention would likely have had them too.

I suspect it's to the detriment of both the North and South that they weren't able to resolve their problems peacefully with a velvet divorce. The "Culture war" that engrosses American politics would largely dissipate if the South was its own country today.

confederates did nothing wrong

>>24158

Let's learn a little about American slavery first, shall we?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao7FKReHYKY

It's fairly accurate, but remember its simply an attempt to explain how and why Europeans had several significant advantages over the rest of the world. I am sure that there are some parts of it that might contain some factual inaccuracies however I think that the majority of objections to this book are ideological and are mostly espoused by /pol/tards.

It's Eurocentric garbage.

Never read it but I get the idea and I don't think the idea is too far off. Europe did have some advantages over other areas of the world.

People love to underestimate the wisdom and ingenuity of ancients.

honestly no one really knows who constructed the pyramids. they were just copied and copied over again and again but with horrible results. people all want to lay claim that they are the progeny of the builders.

>>24039
No i am pretty sure they built them. Their mathematics included the idea of a slope, kind of like y=kx. The slope of a pyramid is the same slope a pile of sand has, for example, the sand in an hourglass.

>>23993
When hasn't shit been going wrong over there? You can hardly say its anything as recent as the British. Being the intersection point between three continents its always been pretty screwy. The birthplace of civilization, but still screwy.

>>24046
For example, I think the region was much better off than Europe during the Middle Ages.

>>24122
You're speaking pretty relatively there. It was a time period of stability and growth but I hesitate to call that anything more than the result of an empire keeping its foothold strong. And that didn't last long.

i don't know a shit about those things, but keep posting more about it, i am intersted

File: PERU-2011-980.jpg (704KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

704KB, 1600x1200px

>>23644
Romefags and naziboos will ruin this board, mark my words.

And Incan roads are quite incredible tbqh.

Give us a quick run-down (pun intended).

They're bad for "business" - the business of running sovereign countries.

File: 1371853033257.png (6KB, 387x429px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 387x429px

You're getting better at the shitposting /pol/

Soon you might even be able to create bait threads that lead to lively discussion

They were disliked because of their religion. bunch of bad rumours were made about Jews. Like that they kidnap kids and eat them.

All religions, given enough time, will develop a schism of some sort. Even if the Shiite-Sunni split didn't happen, there would have been another split of some time that resulted in the two splinter groups hating the other.

Islam never developed an institution like the Catholic Church (which itself had to continuously deal with various heresies).

That, combined with how large the first Islamic empire got, would make some form of religious fracturing inevitable

What i want to know is what the hell happened to Fatimah

she just up and dies soon after the split 'happened' and i cant find out what kills her she was like 28

It was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire as they saying goes.

File: ab04c515decbf0a5d29eda0ed0170dae.jpg (62KB, 494x618px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 494x618px

>>23501
How so? I know they formed themselves off the idea that they had papal support, and were the ultimate christians, basing themselves off Rome, and controlled a large amount of land under an Emperor. What makes the title wrong?

>>23548
Well the 'not holy' part comes from the idea that most of the emperor spent a good portion of their rule disputing claims with the Papacy. Not Roman is self evident in the fact that most of the rulers were Germanic, who were the enemies of Rome back at the time of the Emptire. Not an empire is the play on the idea that it was merely a loose confederation of barons who spent as much time warring on each other as they did other people.

File: 1407815665354.jpg (878KB, 986x1369px) Image search: [Google]

878KB, 986x1369px

Elephants tanks? I dunno

>>23357
>Hopefully this won't be cancer
>General

Is this thread about actual army generals, or are you starting another terrible trend of continuous threads?

>>23071
You think Hannibal would've been any kinder to Rome?

Both of them were extremely vengeful and ambitious empires. They were seeking to eliminate the other to assert their absolute dominance over the Mediterranean.

queen dido was a slut

>>23071
>Carthage sends general into Italy
>slaughters hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians
>can't siege any of the major cities themselves so he just fucks off
It pissed off the Republic so badly they literally outlawed any mention of peace with Carthage in public

Carthage in many ways stood in the way of Roman imperialism, no other civilization had the navy to match Rome's at the time

>>23129
not even real/10