Omo 1 is (as of right now anyway) the earliest member of our species. Without him, we might not have existed (maybe Neanderthals would have conquered the rest of the Homos through sex like we did).
Prehistoric human thread by the way.
Post'em Share'em Rate'em
Ayn Rand is way too high on my list, but otherwise believeable
Why were all of his successors such incredibly inept fucks?
Kruschev was actually a decent ruler: he pushed forward soviet science (especially computers and space development), invested in infrastructure, agriculture and consumer goods and was less of a dictatorial prick. Sure some of his programs did not work, but the same could be said of Stalin.
Cause if I were to root for anybody, I would root for Japan.
Root for somebody that doesn't attack a state locked in a civil war.
Even their own philosophers largely stopped rooting for Japan once it became clear the regime was terminally retarded.
how did these even happens
Is this the most embarrassing 19th to 20th century European nation?
Why is it so popular to make fun of the French as being bad at war when these clowns exist?
19th-20th century Italy thread.
>Italians putting pressure on Ethiopia during reign of Yohannes IV
>Ethiopians capture some Italian travellers and demand that Italy pull out of the town they had occupied
>Italy sends a brigade of 500 men to fortify
>it's ambushed and slaughtered
>Rome quietly sends the Ethiopia 1000 rifles asking for them to let the travellers go and forget about the whole thing
And I thought Adwa was embarrassing.
Suppose you get to choose which language becomes the lingua franca of the world.
Which language do you pick and what are the merits of that language that other languages do not have?
What did he mean by this?
Well that much is obvious, but I was hoping for help on that specific quote.
Am I the only one who really can't read anglo-saxons historians ? Not because what they say is difficult, but the way they write, always trying to make jokes, weird comparaisons, and they also seem to rely heavily on anecdotes.
I really can't take them seriously, it's like there is nothing scientific about what they're writing.
Is there even any solid evidence that the theory of Eternal Recurrence could be true?
It's supposed to be a thought experiment.
That said there are cosmological models that do say that the universe will "recur eternally". If determinism is true than there is the possibility the universe could occur the exact same way every time.
So did these things actually exist or was it just the chinese over compensating and making things up? For whatever reason most depictions compare it to Colombus
Will I ever be relevant?
In many sources writing about medieval times, the recurring meme is how decentralized Europe was at the time. It didn't have a boss: neither empire nor central nation-state that ran the shot. It's spoken of as basically an extremely complex system of loyalties without anything like a central power.
How accurate would you say this idea is? Was it really the case, or is it primarily because the middle ages were stuck between two rather centralized periods (Rome and the modern nation state system)?
Who is the greatest Holy Roman Emperor ? and why it is Charles V.
I have read that the Roman Empire had produced so much lead and other metals that they created measurable pollution. Was it ever a possibility of Rome starting the Industrial Revolution 1500 years earlier or did the Revolution require for serfdom to have happened first?
i think the industrial revolution needed neighboring superpowers with relatively small core territories to have happened. western europe was ideal for this and that is why it happened there first