Is this true?
Is the Caucasus mountain region the original homeland of 'whites' /his/?
2. There is no such thing as "whites". Japanese people have white skin, but they aren't caucasoid, Spanish people are caucasoid but they are often brown. The original homeland of Europeans, if thats what you mean, is Europe, and the Eurasian steppe.
Is south korea the only country that managed to go from colonized to first world economy ? Their growth is really impressive
Athens Greece, 2016
This legitimately looks like a central american third world shithole
When did this happen? Why? They weren't under communist rule, so we can't blame commieblocks etc on that.
This looks fucking shit tier, and i'm not even cherrypicking:
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Civil war, followed by civil strife and military rule.
Now they're corrupt as fuck.
To be fair, nobody in Southern Europe is competent, it's just that Italy and Spain are closer to people who are.
read a fucking book, asshole. You think after more than 1000 years, Athens is still going to be as relevant as it once was? It never recovered from the Peloponnesian War, let alone every other social crisis that befell it in the centuries to come.
Why is it that Japan was the only country in history which was able to self-industrialize and compete with the Western powers? It always dumbfounded me, because I have never seen a good explanation. China was historically the economic and technological superpower of the East, but then Japan comes out of nowhere, overtakes it, and beats it up.
Why is it that they were the only ones ever successful at Westernization?
In your opinion, was the sexual revolution good?
In the 17th and 18th centuries, how did Europe's firearm industry compare to gun manufacture in the Middle East and Asia?
The best guns were made in Japan, but after Nobunaga died, Japan turned inwards and banned the technology. Apart from the Japs, oriental gunmaking never really took off, the Chinks had gunpowder based weapons but nothing that could compare with even a simple musket, let alone the high quality flintlock / snaphaunce weapons being made by the 18th century.
english and german guns were highly praised, but india churned out ammo and gunpowder so much they exported it to europe, and had the capacity to manufacture fucktons of artilery and firearms too
ottomans had specialised manufactures set up near border regions, and loads of gunsmiths in urban areas, but they were mostly best known for how decorative and exotic they are, not so much how well they stand up to european quality
How do you win in this kind of situation?
I have a question for you guys, was it really common for soldiers in the Middle Ages to be kitted out in full plate? It seems like that would have been incredibly expensive and a lot of work to armor an entire army. Even chainmail took a very long time to make, right?
I'm no expert, but full plate didn't come around until the late middle ages. Your armour equipment and training usually depended on your status in society. They didn't make armour for an entire army that a king would pay for. Arms and armour was owned by the soldiers themselves. Knights and aristocracy would have quality armour and training. Men-at-arms were non-aristocratic soldiers equipped with heavy armour just like knights would be, and could fight equally well on foot or on horseback. In England, the next rank down from the men-at-arms would be the archers.
Hello, I'm working on a small presentation about the French Revolution and have been looking on the Internet but I couldn't come up with a viable, unbiased source for an approximation about the number of victim during the 10 years span of France's most important historical event. Do we know exactly how many people died during the whole thing?
Nice dubs, but you are going to have to go into a bit more detail than that. Do you mean stuff like The fear and The terror or do you want more about the armies and such?
But remember at that time people were very polarized about the revolution and the rebuild. Finding something unbiased will be a bit tough.
Do any of you fine folks know an estimate of Denmark's population around 1400? Preferably with a source, but if you have it by memory, that'll be fine too.
On another note, do any of you know the historical context around why Norway had this much clay back in 1135? (pic related)
What are the most important battles in world history ?
Things that make you go hmmm
Why did the french revolution suceed? And was it planned in advance - If yes, just by whom exactly?
Also, why did the pro-monarchist vendée counter-revolution in the years that followed fail?
Some retard is gonna come in here with some Barruel 'muh illuminati freemason jewish protestant conspiracy to overthrow civilization' shit, ignore them.
No, it wasn't planned, but a lot of people and political/ideological forces that had been waiting a long time to put their ideas and philosophies into practice seized upon the public discontent to carry out a lot of social experiments (with varying degrees of success).
The counter-revolution didn't so much fail as fizzle out and compromise. The Republican government came down from the zenith...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
No. It was retardation on the royalty and nobles part.
They bankrupted France with the intervention in the American Revolution and the nobles didn't want to pay for it so they taxes the lower classes into oblivion.
Then when farming failures happened it just made everyone mad so they killed the king etc and all that jazz.
Lesson learned. If France kept to itself it would still have a king today.
The revolution was about social change, about tearing down the ancien regime and ending serfdom. The power of the Church and nobles was broken beyond repair, there was a constitution, and representative government.
The Orleans and Bourbon monarchies that emerged from the ashes of Napoleon's defeat never tried to reestablish the old ways, the revolution had swept them away forever.