Why Europeans had such hate boners for projectile weaponry? Greeks were butthurt about peltasts as if throwing javelins was the same as standing far in the back and shooting arrows and there is nothing wrong with that either it's not like the archers fucking assasinate them in their sleep.
Why Europeans thought ranged weapons were dishonorable but asians were cool with it? Also if they were so concerned about muh honorable melee combat why they used polearms which existed solely to keep the enemy far away? Pre gunpowder era people were seriously daft hypocrites.
Just the knights, and then only when they were fighting with other knights. Arrows and crossbows were the weapons of poor, peaceful peasants with weak bodies and spirit and no knowledge of actual chivalrous combat, who fought for their lives and not for honor. But if it was peasants you were fighting, then it was perfectly fine to use their dishonoravle weapons against them.
was the fourth crusade a mistake?
The third crusade was an even bigger mistake to be honest
>people on this board actually think you are obligated to pay more money than you got because some pretender said so
Considering that it weakened the byz empire while itself failing to even hold out against one of its rump states, yeah it probably was.
What are some good YT channels on history?
favorites coats of arms, mine of philipe II of spain
Am I the only one here that doesn't know shit about history?
Let's talk about logic.
1. Is logic a branch of philosophy or a branch of math? After all, every modern logician had a math degree, e.g. Russell, Frege, Gödel, Hilbert, Kripke.
2. Can all philosophy be reduced to logic? I mean not necessarily propositional logic or first order logic, but perhaps some higher order logic, modal logic, fuzzy logic, quantum logic or any other known extension of logic. Or is there some way of thinking which can never be formalized?
3. How much logic do I need to know if I want to do serious philosophy?
In the epistemology section of The World as Will and Representation
>Hence arises the remarkable fact, that while in other sciences the particular case is always proved by the rule, in logic, on the contrary, the rule must always be proved from the particular case; and even the most practised logician, if he remark that in some particular case he concludes otherwise than the rule prescribes, will always expect to find a mistake in the rule rather than in his own conclusion.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I've read that the Achaemenids banned slavery, but I've also heard others say it's not true or was decreed but never actually implemented. Maybe they didn't practice slavery themselves, but allowed its practice among subject populations? Can anyone shed some light on this?
I'll dump some reconstructions anyway.
Why did nations like Paraguay have such a strong sense of national identity, and fight horrendous wars against their neighbours in the hope of preserving their independence?
Weren't they just some glorified administrative subdivision of Spanish SA? Why did the rebelling colonies have such a strong sense of nationhood?
There should more Paraguayian War based memes.
How could Western society go from ultra conformist in the 1950s to completely anti-conformist in only 10 years? The change in society from the 50s to the 60s has to be the biggest societal change in only 10 years in all of Western history. Was there 1 event that caused this?
I can think of one issue.
The war was getting pretty scary and, while the commies were still considered bad guys, propaganda couldn't put enough of a positive spin on USA intervention in Vietnam to make it all seem black and white, with USA as the heroes.
A = ~A
what does this imply, if simply assumed and taken as an axiomatic truth?
isnt that a straight up logical impossibility?
A = ~A is ground for disproving any other argument, assuming that statement to be true is in essence gibberish. It's like assuming Light = Dark or 1 = -1.
Tell me about the history of whistleblowers /his/. Who was the biggest one in history?
Predict what happens to North Korea in the next 10-20 years.
>people are starving
>beg for more aid
>survive another year
It feels now that the people are less brainwashed and the military elite know that the people are less brainwashed so sometghings gotta give.
Also, the Spaniard in this documentary has to spy right?
>strong military leader decides to man up and start a coup
>the coup ousts the Kim dynasty
>US is happy
>new government calls for reunification of Korea
>US gets buttmad and plots a coup with the remnants of the Kim
Just when the US supported Pol Pot after the Vietnam War.
What was his fucking problem?
He was skeptical of progress, contrary to all the other German thinkers of his century who saw some new and great age right beyond the horizon when their philosophy would define the world.
Is the history of the Horn of Africa as intrinsically linked to the Middle East as North Africa?
Depends on the what area and subject you're talking about. The civilizations that flourished there certainly were. The first civilization there in northern Ethiopia, called D'mt, seems to have originated with the Yemeni Sabaean civilization. Later civilizations, like the Aksumites and later Ethiopian Christians, the Somali city states and the Muslim sultanates in the eastern/central highlands were culturally linked with the Middle East and the rest of the Eurasian/North African world in their religious and political culture. Linguistically, most people in the Horn...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
WHO were Sumerians?
Those are Assyrians.
Sumerians were probably just the native people of southern Iraq who adopted agriculture from around Syria/northern Iraq, or they might have been the descendants of those early agriculturalists who migrated into the region.