Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 308. page
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
Yes, but he would lost his god powers because of that rock, so it is a one-way road.
Yes.
But then he'll again destroy the laws of the universe so that he may destroy it, and so on, and so on.
Yes.
I don't see why he wouldn't.
Memes aside how competent were vikings at fighting? I mean vikings as in raiders not as a catch all term for all Norsemen. Also how often they were ambushed during their raids? I know they attacked defenceless monasteries and coastal towns like a bunch of niggers but were kings sending some troops to patrol the area later on? Seems weird they would just leave the places unprotected if they knew they are easy targets to raid.
You stake out the place and wait for a hole in patrols obviously.
You don't have to be a competent fighter if you're raiding. Presumably they were average armed men in that respect, considering professional armies were not the norm.
Vikings were recognized to be good fighters. They were widely sought after as mercenaries. In the 11th century there were three countries outside Scandinavia recruiting Scandinavian troops, England, Russia, and the Byzantine Empire.
There's not much use in distinguishing between Norsemen and vikings. Raiding and seafaring was a huge part of Norse culture and most Norsemen would have went on a viking expedition at some point in their lives.
>>1215714
During the raiding their combat strength was complete shit. Perhaps because of bad leadership, or perhaps it's true that vikings weren't soldiers at all.
However the viking countries (Norway and Denmark) proved time and time again that, if need, they could muster up an impressive and competent army.
The best example, in my opinion, is the danish conquest of England in 1013.
Obama's visit to Hiroshima and some reactions I've seen online makes me wonder why Amerifats think Pearl Harbor was one of the worst things that happened during WWII?
Sure, it was an underhanded, kind of dick move not to declare war before attacking but it was a military target at the end of the day.
>Breitbart
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/27/dont-want-get-nuked-dont-bomb-pearl-harbor/
>>1213818
Who thinks that?
>>1213818
>some reactions I've seen online makes me wonder why Amerifats think Pearl Harbor was one of the worst things that happened during WWII?
Who the fuck thinks that? The 'Remember Pearl Harbor' thing isn't about "one of the worst thing of the war" happening. It's about getting attacked unprovoked and teaching some slants to eat crow.
>but it was a military target at the end of the day
So were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Cry more weeb.
What does it mean to sell your soul to the devil?
you get really good at guitar and then die mysteriously
It means humanities was a mistake
It's what Esau did, selling your birthright for lentils. If you masturbation, you are doing that every time
Some questions about Stalin the person.
When i read about Stalin the more positive information that i can get about him is that he at the very least is a huge prick to his friends, family and followers.
Did he have any hobbies or good friends who he liked to hang out with until his death?
Also a probably more loaded question:
Did Stalin belief that his governamental choices would be positive to USSR? Was he doing everything out of self-interest?
Like, if you told me that Mao did the Great Leap Forward with completely good intentions, i would believe...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>1212656
>Did he have any hobbies or good friends who he liked to hang out with until his death?
I think he study as an Orthodox priest, or something along those lines.
>>1212656
He liked cowboy movies
>>1212656
He was a very cynical asshole. And he knew that.
>No people, no problems.
Why was it so impossible for God to create a perfect world without evil? Why did he decide to tolerate evil in the first place?
>inb4 free will meme
I'm sure omnipotent God can do whatever he likes if he truly wants to create a perfect world
>what is heaven
>>1209510
I don't really get this either. Why can't he just make people who have free will but are naturally content and peaceful because their minds were designed to like good and really really hate evil?
The only rational explanation is that God allows evil for his amusement, with the handwave'y excuse of
>don't worry guys, if you grovel enough eternal bliss awaits
How was living in the Papal States?
We hear a lot about church's influence on medieval Europe, but what happened directly under the pope's jurisdiction?
>>1220287
Bump
>>1220287
>How was living in the Papal States?
Depends. Certain areas lived the same as the rest of northern italian city states, the rest lived the same as the feudal south. Romagna and the Rome area were fairly prosperous through self government and centralized government respectively, but the rest were very rural and undeveloped. By the 19th century it was a very antiquated place from a cultural, administrative and economic point of view, but it wasn't exactly poor.
It was more oppressive...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
For the average joe it was much the same as everywhere else in mid/northern medieval Italy. It wasn't until around the 10th century when the papacy started to consolidate its territory
How did people take care of skin problems in the past? Shit like cysts, skin tags, and the whole shebang.
By lancing them.
Though I'm willing to bet it was much, much less frequent because their endocrine systems, diets and air quality weren't completly fucked beyond repair like ours.
>>1220064
ITT - post ottoman culture
>>1220077
>By lancing them.
Just imagine the infection rates.
I do believe herbal remedies and compresses were much more common than outright lancing shit.
did the greeks beat the persian because persians were all effete cowards?
Whi ch occasion specifically?
Yes.
Does anyone have the edit of that image where he's a pikachu and the sons are pichus and the snakes are ekans?
Was moral decay the downfall of the Roman Empire? I'm trying to write a paper that will reference this topic but I'm having a hard time getting past pay-walls to well-researched papers. If /his/ can help me with just a few sources, that would be great. Thanks
>>1218832
Library. Visit it.
No.
A. Acceptance of Christianity.
B. Reliance on foreign mercenary armies
C. Unwieldy size. When Rome was just Romans, it was fiercely nationalist expansionist and virile. As its borders expanded Romans within the perimeter got soft and impotent.
Shouldn't you support both atheistic and theistic positions on God? We doesn't know with certain who is right and therefore should study all points of view. The more you knows better. If you chose only one side your perspective narrows. This isn't intellectual honesty. This is intellectual laziness of the worst kind.
>>1218593
>We doesn't know with certain who is right and therefore should study all points of view.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
>>1218593
Most people choose a side of the fence. I feel as you do, and I support the human beings on both sides of the fence, but the idea I've chosen works best for me, so I'll believe that idea to be better and defend it.
>>1218593
Well, here's the issue. Some people are CERTAIN that a being such as God exist.
Some people are CERTAIN that there is no such being as God exists.
The conflict that springs from contrasting beliefs gives rise to the opposite of intellectual laziness.
What are some good documentaries that explain how Hitler came into power over Germany?
There this one that's really good. Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told. You should definitely watch.
>>1218295
Nothing that gets aired on US TV.
Try BBC.
The rest of this thread will probably be delusional faggots linking tinfoil youtube videos.
>>1218305
Oh look the delusional tinfoiler beat me to it.
Does it make you sad that you are in no way unique?
There is nothing about you that has not occurred before and will not occur again.
Enjoy your day.
Why would it make me sad that I'm not unique? That is a very self centered point of view on life.
>>1218248
Edgetard
>>1218258
This.
Are aristocracies actually Nietzschean in character, or was Nietzsche just a passionate snob?
Nietzsche wasn't an aristocrat, he wasn't qualified to judge them.
Plato, on the other hand...
He advocated that the German aristocracy - the 'Brandenburg class' - marry the Jewish elite of Germany.
Nietzsche is surely right: to the extent that anything like intellectual challenge, growth, and aesthetics will flourish, it will be among a very small minority of people. He never thought this was some recognized elite, the aristos or wealthy, just a minority, likely loathed and feared by the masses.
Ironically, he ends up pretty much where Christianity began: only the ascetic alone in his cave knows God.
Sadly, Nietzsche is wrong in that the nobility too are nonredeemable plebs. He failed to refute Schopenhauer and for that we all dwell in eternal nihilism until society collapses once more
Ayy yo who was this nigga?
>>1217481
Dis dat boi
O shit waddup
>>1217501
o shit waddup
>>1217501
o shit waddup
