>He thinks a finite crime is worth infinite punishment.
>ywn be Alexander the Great
>ywn never inherit your father's army
>ywn never literally believe, in your bones, that you are an actual descendant of Hercules
>ywn cross the Hellespont with thousands and thousands of battle-hardened men loyal to you and your cause
>ywn never go on a star-studded tour of the ancient world, visiting the ruins of Troy and getting bantz'd by Diogenes
>ywn subjugate unruly barbarian hordes and grind one of the most powerful empires of the ancien world under your heel
>ywn kill your bestest bro at a party because you party that fucking hard
>ywn ride into India, high on victory and bloodlust, to conquer lands beyond the rim of the known world
>ywn die young and so be immortalized forever as an archetype of the shining, youthful world conqueror, fortuitously rescued from a future of declining fortunes, boredom, and inevitable political strife as your legacy comes to be defined by its uneventful latter years rather than the blazing path of blood and war it tore across the world
why even live?
Heh, I've got at least one of those. Coming from the mystic east, I have ancestors who descended from legendary god emperors, and even bear the name to this day.
Of course there's an asterisk there considering deification was posthumous.
I wonder if people in Greece still bear the family names of the Argeads, or the Atreids.
Find some /his/tory pick up and all day you'll have a triggered board.
How accurate is this, /his/?
Actually, if oyu look at the rates of death in battle in ancient Greece compared to deaths in childbirth of at least Roman times (as far as I'm aware, nobody compiled even cursory statistics about Greek death in childbirth), bearing children was enormously more dangerous than fighting in battle. Orders of magnitude more, especially for the Spartans, who won a lot more than they lost.
So could there be some shred of truth to some of the tumblr historians?
Is war ever morally justifiable?
Why didn't anyone outside of Europe try colonizing?
Could Morocco have colonized, and if yes why didn't it?
Because Europe is keked by Islam and Italians off the Main trading routes of the world.
Meanwhile the likes of China, Ottomans, Indians aren't.
The only one that tried was Japan and boy did it fail.
The greatest trick that religions ever pulled was to pretend that the central religious question is "does God exist"?
Actually, from a societal point of view, that question doesn't have much to do with anything. The real question is: "Did God interact with the physical world to found a religion?"
Christians and atheists shouldn't be arguing about God, they should be arguing about whether Jesus had supernatural powers.
But every religion I'm aware of answers the second question in the affirmative, that the God or Gods they worship affect the world with explicit supernatural actions.
That's viewed as secondary to the "Does God exist" because the usual evidence advanced for God's existence rests on these miracles, which, if believed, demonstrate an affirmative answer to both questions.
Tell me about the society that built, among others, Great Zimbabwe. I don't want anons derailing threads by fighting with each other (the second threat is beyond hope), I want something of
How come the Selucids, the largest and wealthiest of the Diodochi states, couldn't crush a bunch of Hebrew goatfuckers right next to their center of strength?
The Texans were a pretty large state too, I don't see why they didn't just crush the Cubans
Why exactly did Native Africans build a stone structure in Zimbabwe and then never make another structure like it every again? It makes no sense and i have to question if Africans had anything to do with it
Do you think there could be a way (besides "everyone is fucking racist") our society could've become less globalized? And what are the factors that led to globalization and the assimilation of everything?
Do you think cultures, costumes, warfare and everything could've stayed more 'unique' in a way, into the 1900s for example, with not so much changing in our history?
I'm always thinking that the ancient times were extremely diverse, both in culture, manners, costumes and in warfare. Different peoples behaved extremely different....
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Globalisation is an inevitable product of capitalism. And capitalism will always win. Too much money to be made selling air-con to Africans etc
So, you're basically saying that in a world that has no capitalism, there would be much less room for globalization?
So then, what should've happened for the world to change like that?
Let's get some kind of alternate history going
I think I'm saying capitalism and globalization are practically the same thing. Globalization is a symptom of capitalism like a runny nose is a symptom of a cold.
I don't think there could be any serious alternate history here. If you have two stone age tribes who begin to trade with each other, eventually they will begin to resemble each other as ideas and artifacts swap between them, and the distinction between them will become meaningless.
Was the Age of Enlightenment-- with it's triumph of reason, emphasis on Republic and Liberty, and love of beauty in the arts-- the height of Western values and culture?
Of course. Almost every scientific field (as well as the social sciences - including economics) was either created or vastly expanded between the mid-1700 and early-1800s. Also most of our political concepts rely on distinctions made in that period.
Are there any /his/core books yet? What GOAT /his/ books have you read?
Is Latin America considered western?
Are bombing campaigns actually an effective strategy, or does the relative safety (with air superiority) prejudice commanders into using them?
I know the conventional wisdom is that it softens up the target before a ground invasion, if not just completely breaking the will to fight. But how effectively do they do this? And when civilians get caught up in the mix it often rallies the opposition. It definitely didn't work on the Britons, Germans, or Japanese. Similarly, it didn't work on the Vietnamese, Afghanis, or Iraqis. It doesn't seem to be working on...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
NATO has tried before to determine if you can win a war with purely air attacks, the conclusion is "of course not you fucking idiots, now Russia has an F-117 hull to go test it's anti-radar technology on"
The problem is no one actually wants to commit because it would be political suicide but doing nothing is also not going to do anything to help keep those that feel like there needs to be something to happen. It's a political not a military game.
ITT: based political philosophers
Post an image and a short description
>individuals create commonwealths for protection, out of necessity
>the State may do anything to its citizens, as they consented to subjection
>absolute monarchy is best monarchy