What does /his/ think of Graham Hancock's theories (about history and civilisation)?
Is he woo or does he have legit points?
Was there an ancient civilization which got wiped out at the end of the last ice age?
>12k year old cities
Which? Gobekli Tepe isn't a city. He even argues that all the cities at that time were flooded by sea level rise and are now 400ft under water and that's why we don't have any significant remains of an ancient civilization.
Why did it take so long for Napoleonic tactics to be phased out despite the invention of more accurate firearms?
Because the 19th century had relatively few wars in Europe between Great Powers, so a lot of the tactics remained due to inertia and not having battles you could point to and saying "See! It doesn't' work!"
Was any side "the good guys" in World War 1?
>b-but the Aztecs thought the world was gonna end if they didn't sacrifice all those people!11!!
I hate moral relativists
>I have The Real Morality figured out better than everyone who has existed before me or who will exist after me
Most of the people sacrified were captured enemy soldiers m8,death should be expected if you're a soldier, it's not like they fucking kidnapped their own civilians and killed them.
Maybe some did, maybe most, but definitely not all thought it was a good idea. For sure many "Aztecs" didn't sacrifice people, and looked down on sacrifice in general, like the Texcoco state, north of Tenochtitlan, the economic and political capital of the Aztec empire. The Texcocoan had a philosophy against sacrifice, but still allowed animal sacrifices, but were even starting to question that. Their philosophy and cultural gained the admiration and respect of the Spanish, even.
Also, there's another purpose for sacrifice that people tend to overlook,...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Can anyone tell me about any reasonable medium to get to know these two tales?
Maybe I should ask this in /lit/ instead, though I'm not only restricted into reading.
>Penguin Classic version.
Fucking maximum overpleb. Reading a prose version. Choking on my own rage here
Did Ancient History have memes?
הֶאָנֹכִי הָרִיתִי, אֵת כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה--אִם-אָנֹכִי, יְלִדְתִּיהוּ
As far as I know, it's the first written instance of the "What am I, your mother?" phenomenon when dealing with perennial complainers.
What killed the American labor movement? Why did workers and the general public stop supporting unions? Why did politicians stop caring about the American working class?
Labor unions were trying to kill the idea of capitalism but anticapitalists wouldn't be caught dead doing hard labor, so it just kind of petered out. Besides, you have to pay them money just to be a part of it and if you're not they just look down on you for not being active in the community
Is any geo-strategic factor more influential in the success of nations than the quality of maps?
REGARDING "ECONOMIC PROSPERITY", MAPS ARE NOT REQUISITE, NOR NECESSARY AT ALL.
REGARDING "MILITARY VICTORY", MAPS ARE MERELY A MODEL, SO TOPOGRAPHICAL ACCURACY, AND GEOGRAPHICAL ACCURACY, ARE RELEVANT ONLY TO THE LOGISTIC, AND TACTICAL, ASPECTS OF WARFARE, BUT NOT SO MUCH FOR STRATEGY, OR GEOPOLITICS.
Due to it's small population (of which a large section was slaves who could not be mobilized) and lack of industrial development the CSA never could have won the civil war.
Quite frankly I think they would have balkanized within a decade had they won anyways. Davis had to enact some very federal shit to keep the war effort together, and once all was said and done this would rankle within the states. Probably Texas would go first, and then soon the rest would fall into bickering nation-states.
I'm thinking a loose, autonomous "confederation" that may not have even fully supported each other in wars. But you're right Texas would just be like, fuck this shit and leave.
I have a theory that unity is always preferable. If you wanted to troll, you could argue the Mongol occupation of Asia was "good" because he maintained the silk roads. See, there's always advantages to unity.
Sure, but there's disadvantages too. The problem with a big centralized power is that if the center gets fucked up the whole thing falls to pieces. See the Mongol Empire, which splintered once the Kahn died.
>watching star trek
>boy in a Hitler haircut
>overall theme was DATA's superiority
This philosophy that we've kind of skipped over because Nazis and fascism and shit scared it out of us, what is it? I see it dropped a lot in Roddenberry's work, most heavily in Andromeda.
I don't quite mean transhumanism, which is inorganic and thus contrary to purity, I mean really studying what exactly "superior" means. It honestly could be the societal cure...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>I mean really studying what exactly "superior" means
wow, I can tell this is going to be a great thread
What do you think/know about the history of maghreb?
Carthage, moors-islamic empires, barbary pirats?
t. Curious Moroccan.
Pretty sure that the moorish empire were as strong and influent as Carthage, if not more.
So I'm doing an essay on just how "fair" the trials of the Spanish/ Portuegese inquisitorial tribunals were and I just wondered your thoughts were on the matter /his/?
Building my playlist, post the best history metal you know.
Pic related: god-tier concept album about the Roman Empire
This is the map of Ottoman Empire
Is god real?