Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 1034. page
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
Well, what did they give to the world? Any renown philosophers or scientists? Any relevant cultural figures? Any social reforms that affected the rest of the world in a lasting legacy?
The only things people mention is
>muh postal service
>muh meritocracy
but that's irrelevant and had no impact on history. I'm not saying the Mongol empire didn't affect history or that it was bad obviously, but its only contribution was per se; it helped some backwater nations to get their shit together...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>or that it was bad
Except it was bad. It resulted into one of the greatest human catastrophes in history, Russia and the Middle East are shitholes to this day precisely because of the Mongols.
>>349735
Meme empire that did very little outside of killing and destroying. Gets peoples pants wet so I guess that's a merit
>>349742
>Except it was bad. It resulted into one of the greatest human catastrophes in history,
Just the conquered's slander. I've never actually saw or heard any sources claiming that living inside the Mongol empire, or at least Mongolia proper, was bad. And Baghdad was asking for it. He just did conquering better than anyone else at the time.
> Russia and the Middle East are shitholes to this day precisely because of the Mongols.
Not true, especially...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Is this a valid statement?
Perhaps generally.
There are historical events that have no hard objective evidence but are assumed to have occurred because of later political climates. and diverse sources.
There is no evidence of 2+2 being equal 4, and there is no evidence for basic laws of logic, like law of excluded middle. So yeah, go ahead, dismiss math and logic.
Why was Europe a barbaric backwater for most of human history while China, India, the Middle East, and North Africa were advanced and prosperous, but has dominated in the modern era?
>>349497
>Yet another Jared Diamond thread
We should just have one stickied
I'll take the bait, anon: Europe wasn't a barbaric backwater for most of human history. The two most advanced civilizations have predominantly been European and East Asian civilizations, a trend that continues to this day.
>Minoans
>Mycanaeans
>Greek city states
>Macedonian empire
>Roman empire
"barbaric backwater"
In fact thanks to Minoans and Cycladeans, European civilization is about the same age as Egyptian one.
Marxists are spooked.
Anarchists are spooked.
Republicans are spooked.
Christians are spooked.
All things could be nothing to you.
>>349471
If all things are nothing, what is my property?
>>349488
Anything you acknowledge could become yours.
>>350392
Would if two people acknowledge the same thing as their property? Who is spooked?
Why does popular culture uphold Japanese samurais as the Eastern antipodes of the European knights? As opposed to Islamic, Indian or Chinese cavalry?
>bushido and chivalry
But surely other warrior castes had a warrior philosophy?
>zen and Christianity
I find it interesting how universalist, nominally pacifist religions came to be devoutly followed by the warrior castes of Europe and Japan. Maybe this parallel helps explain why the samurais attract us so much?
>cool armor
it's...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Because Europeans liked and respected Japan.
In the 19th century, Islam was thought of as cruel and backwards, but at least you get sex slaves, Indians as lazy wife-burners, and Chinese as arrogant barbarians who can't fight.
>>349444
Because the guy who 'invented' bushido in its modern form had a hard on for Europe (naturally being it was during europes peak) and made the obvious parallels to show similarities between japan was to europe.
>>349491
>between japan and europe.
Why is the contemporary political narrative that westerners owned slaves, instead of that westerners ended slavery?
Slavery was a horrid institution that existed even before written history began, even if Western Europeans and North Americans were trading and owning slaves up until the 00s it would still be a massive accomplishment and big step for humanity to have ended the practice, not something to be condemned for happening in the first place.
>>349436
Fairly sure the "narrative" is that most western countries both owned slaves and ended their slavery.
>>349453
My point is that people care that it happened in the first place, and not that we were ahead of pretty much everybody in getting rid of it (including using our global hegemony at the time to end it on other continents as well).
Who were the greatest virgins of all time?
DEFINE "GREAT", AND "TIME".
As a group
The Popes
Well not all of them
>whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man. Just as one must slay a mad dog, so, if you do not fight the rebels, they will fight you, and the whole country with you.
What did he mean by that?
I'm not sure about this particular quote, but there was a reformed peasant revolt in Germany led by Thomas Müntzer and Luther himself was so horrified about it he condemned them.
Kuehnelt-Leddihn argues that the cancerous ideologies started by the French revolution (socialism, nationalism, egalitarianism, marxism etc) actually have their root in people like Wycliffe, Hus, Luther or Müntzer, protestants that is.
>>349206
This
>Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve.
>Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabor the donkeys incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the ruler do with the people; they must drive, beat throttle, hang, burn, behead and torture, so as to make themselves...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>349262
Jesus Christ
Literally
If there is a Form of the Good, doesn't that mean there is a form of the Evil? If evil is just an absence of the Form of the Good, then is the world fundamentally evil and can only be redeemed insofar as it participates in the Good?
>>349203
How did you jump from evil being to absence of Good to the world is evil?
>>349203
Good and evil are value judgements, they require a subjective observer. They are a person/group/culture going "We like this, and don't like that other stuff." They have form in that we can perceive a strict situation and ideal "good" and "evil" aspects or results, but they have no bearing on the actual aspects or results. Well, aside from influencing how observers react to them.
>>349686
Anon started from the position that the...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>349203
There's multiple answers to this. One is that there is a form of evil. In this understanding good and evil are balanced and can even have a certain harmony, they co-exist as equal opposites. The Gnostic God Abraxas represents this pretty well. He is the ultimate creator who made both good and evil. He created the love of the good mother and the wrath of the evil mother. Another example of this represented is Zoroastrianism where there one supreme God that represents all good and the Devil that represents all evil...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
What would've happened if Trotsky became leader of the Soviet Union?
Soviet invasion of the West.
>>349199
A better world
>>349199
Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary and a traitor.
What was the role of the Ottamans in WW1?
>>349142
Kuking aussies
>>349142
Germans used them to harass brits in Middle East and Russians in Caucasus. Of course they fucked up horribly doing both and collapsed.
>>349142
>Ottoman empire is on the decline
>desperate for new military hardware and funding
>know they need to enter the war to stay relevant
>flip a coin and choose Germany basically
>Germany give them guns and shekels
>all is good
>except they lose the war and a bunch of their territory to the british and...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Was Zoroastrianism basically just another monotheistic faith but just with a bunch of weird names for shit? It's kind of difficult to grasp exactly what Zoroastrians believed very well
Zoroastrianism is essentially the missing link between polytheism and monotheism. It has two main gods, but one is the primary god and the other isn't
What's weird about the names? It's a Persian religion in the Persian language.
Zoroaster believed there was a universe of darkness and a universe of good. There was a self destructive spirit and there was a virtuous one, opposed to one another in eternity. However, evil is still subordinate to the good.
>>349093
There's one God, Ahura Mazda. He begets seven emanations that are hyposthases of basic values like kingship, motherhood, good health, etc. Those are the Amesha Spenta. Then there are angels, the yazata.
In the beginning, the Amesha Spentas were meant to be mostly metaphorical. The Yazatas were basically guardian angels who stood over certain rituals. So you had Haoma, the personification of the holy plant haoma used in liturgy, Sraosha who led souls into afterlife.
But then the religion re-absorbed elements...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
![Cataphract[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ZMnTHWV.jpg "Cataphract[1].jpg")
Hey can we have a cavalry thread? I have some questions about cataphracts and mounted archery:
-What are the advantages of the 2h lances you often see middle eastern heavy cavalry using? Was it just to remedy the lack of lance rest, or had it other reasons?
-Were cataphracts outdated by the fall of Constantinople? Had the city not fallen to the turks, would they have survived till the arrival of gunpowder small arms?
-What exactly is the problem with shooting bows while wearing plate armor? It seems like mounted archery fell out of fashion after mail became...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>349089
>Why did mounted crossbowmen stop being a thing?
That is a damn good question. I'd imagine (having not actually looked into it) it having something to do with how hard it is to reload, and keep loaded a crossbow. Or at least one with any power behind it. Especially since at that time when they fell out of fashion, there were more powerful bows being used on horseback, and that's just quicker.
How the hell are you supposed to pull back a crossbow while riding a horse? With just your arms? Then you might as well use a composite bow.
>>349089
>What exactly is the problem with shooting bows while wearing plate armor?
Forgot to answer this.
It's to do a couple of key factors. Firstly that plate armour wasn't exactly mobile, so it'd be hard to draw and aim a bow whilst wearing it. Then if you're wearing expensive armour like that, you're going to be making use of it, and the poorer archers in the back aren't going to need it.
