ITT: Battles where the good guys lost.
this but unironically
the achaemenids were completely justified in invading the greeks
fuck off you were living under the achaemenids, the worst that could've happened would be a mildly offensive depiction in some persepolis mural
Alexander conquering the Persian Empire
Greeks were sexist man! And racist too! Persia was more tolerant and progressive, a better society. They were the good boys.
>revolution in France threatens the royals oppressing all of Europe
>royals tell their slaves to fight and die for them just cuz
>Napoleon is defeated by the people he sought to liberate
>forestalled uprising of the lower classes leads to even worse communist revolutions
Feels bad. What could have been.
Alexander is largely looked on fondly by most joe schmoe wasterners. Getting them to question that perspective by judging the conflict by modern sensibilities gives such people a broader and more critical understanding of history, which was pretty much Green's mission statement when he said it.
He did that to give highschoolers a more critical understanding of history, so if you're a highschooler with a narrative view of history it may seem enlightening.
But it runs counter to proper historiography. If you want to talk about how the Persians were the "good guys" don't do that on a board for real history.
rip Austria-Hungary, Central Europe's last chance at relevancy
nice alternative history
how about the real version where he made his own family members kings of conquered states and forced these states to give him soldiers for his army or where he had himself declared emperor and married an austrian royal so he could be part of the aristocracy? or that time the people of europe actually ended up loving their incestuous opressing rulers because compared to old nappy they weren't so bad after all?
Literally everyone in Persia was the king's slave. If they gave wages (a lot of the time they didn't, as the Spartans found out when working for them down the road in the navy), it was because they had a massive empire that paid tribute to them.
>Literally everyone in Persia was the king's slave.
>Literally believing in Herodotus tier lies.
Lol, it's like Proskynesis: which is the traditional Persian honor to the King of Kings.
Herodotus and Greeks went buckwild with that and said LOL PERSIANS WORSHIP THEIR KINGS. WHAT BARBARIANS.
>mfw Persians never did. Ever
>Mfw Greeks did under Alexander & the Diadochs.
They certainly were not, the only reason the Red Army acted the way it did against the german population and everyone else is because Germany were literally trying to wipe out all slavic peoples
The socialists were just ruled by a paranoid dictator, the nazis entire ideology was fucking insane
So is being subject to an autocracy like North Korea or Eritria isn't at least comparable to slavery?
When the leader of your country can rape you on demand and choose what job you are going to have for the rest of your life?
Stop drawing false equivalency, if you mean Feudal Britain then I still don't see how the serf system can't at least be compared to slavery, it directly supplemented it.
>the only reason the Red Army acted the way it did against the german population and everyone else
That isnt why people shit on the soviet union you idiot. People shit on the soviet union because it starved millions of its own citizens to death, killed a ton of innocents in the revolution and because it was an oppressive totalitarian regime and a total police state. Not to mention shit like the katyn massacre and gulags and killing german and non german civilians in ww2 and basically raping half of eastern europe for 50 years
Battle of Berlin (1945)
IN B4 BAN, WAIT:
>Soviets fail to take Berlin on their own
>Allies armies finally have an excuse to press forward
>No German partition. Maybe even Czechoslovakia gets at the other side of the Iron Curtain
The thing is, if the Anglo-Saxons had an effective leader to rally behind after Hastings, the Normans could've been defeated. Especially when they had a bout of dysentery (including William) and weak enough to not resist a counterattack.
The problem was the flower of Englsh nobility died at Hstings. It didn't help that the Anglo-Saxons lost irreplaceable men at Fulford Gate and Stamford Bridge. In fact, the Earls of Mercia and Northumbria didn't do shit in the crucial days after Hastings. If they had lent their full strength to Edgar Atheling, the Normans could've been penned up at Hastings. Especially if the English had laid waste to the surrounding countryside and with autumn in full swing, William's army would've been fucked. Keep in mind that the Normans burnt their ships so that they wouldn't retreat. The English had seized the ships that Harald Hardraada had brought so they could've thwarted Norman reinforcements from the mainland.
And the southern thegns should've mobilized the burhs and evacuated all the people to London. Launch hit-and-run attacks on the Normans until weather, hunger, disease, and attrition would give them the opportunity to land a decisive blow.
Cato the Elder strikes me as the guy with the biggest stick up his ass in all of history.
Has this guy ever said anything positive? Has he ever expressed even an iota of happiness on record?
The Toyota War is amazing.
The Chadians found that driving over minefields at 100mph allowed the Toyota trucks to safely escape the mine blasts after activating them.
Also, the Chadians got supplied over 400 Milan ATGMs by the French, that they then mounted on their trucks. What resulted was a bloodbath, the Chadians would flank around Libyan defenses with a couple hundred Toyota, then pop off some rocket fire and .50 cal fire then retreat at 100mph before the Libyan Tanks or APCs could regroup and return fire. And the French Airforce made sure that the Libyan's could not use their superior airpower to engage these convoys, so the Chadians were almost untouchable out in the open.
In all honesty what stopped France and England from supporting the fascists in fighting communism? Surely they would've known that fascism was at least to them the lesser evil when they at least had diplomatic relations before declaring war. Was the sentiment of neutrality so strong in France that they'd happily wait to be invaded?
>Surely they would've known that fascism was at least to them the lesser evil
They did believe Fascism was the lesser evil at first. Why else do you think they just let Germany roll over Czechoslovakia and Poland? They wanted to turn Germany's aggression on the Soviet Union away from them. Hell, even after Poland was invaded they still held out for peace. Their delusions were crushed when the Nazis attacked.
You never fail to disappoint /his/.
Are you fucking kiding me ,boy ?
Do you know the reslults/consequences of CCCP ?
My country is fucking dead (mentally) because of that faggots ..
I've heard all the arguments and I still can't see the confederates as "good guys" or "justified"
They got bootyblasted for reasons and tried to do their own thing, then got BTFO. If anyone were to try and make the same arguments today, they would get told to sit down and shut up, do things via the proper channels.
sorry about that booing at the football game too
Edwin and Morcar were fucktards. They held back what remained of their troops (remember they got mauled at Fulford Gate) and actually submitted to William in hopes of keeping their lands and title. BIG mistake.
The thanes of Wessex and East Anglia either died at Hastings and Stamford Bridge or were mortally wounded. William had an easy time getting himself crowned king in London because of the lack of organized opposition.
The only real chance England had was Sweyn Estrithson sending help before the Normans built their castles. The Anglo-Saxons would've rallied behind a Danish king than a Norman one easily.
It's amazing how the Normans were able to dominate England yet the Welsh were able to stop them. The Welsh even beat back the Vikings; something that Northumbria and East Anglia were unable to do.
>Has this guy ever said anything positive?
There was his one true love.
Hardraada wouldn't have invaded if it weren't for Tostig. Somebody should've killed his ass before 1066.
And Harold was a dumbass for having his ship floundered and getting "rescued" by William. That and swearing a forced oath on holy relics.
If anything, if Harold had backed Edgar Atheling as the new king, William doesn't get Papal blessing or as many troops to invade England. The Anglo-Saxons wouldn't have needlessly rushed in battle because the threat of excommunication isn't there.