Why is this board (and in some degree the west in general) so obsessed with Africa and black people??
Every time I come here there is always one of these threads:
>why Africa so shitty
>why is it so shit
>black ppl in x country/period
Tell me about the Croats, what have they done in history to remove kebab? How come they converted to Catholicism? Any major badass factors? Crusades? Myeah?
>what have they done in history to remove kebab?
> How come they converted to Catholicism?
we converted to christianity,catholicism came years later
fucking 4th crusade man....
>called the OttoMAN empire
>it's actually run by Turks
Who was the biggest cuck of the lot ?
Imo claudius wins
>"n-n-no pls go and marry my wife"
So tell me /his/,
why did Austria-Hungary perform so shit in ww1?
Shit railroads, shit organisation, bad officer core, multinational, very hard to relay orders in so many languages, outdated tactics, marching troops up mountains in winter, attacking Serb fortified positions, underestimating a chance of Serbian counterattack as they went to capture Belgrade, Slavic soldiers defecting.
General Oscar Potjorek got a letter from high command that literally said "lmao, kill urself". Just as the high command was sending heaps of soldiers to die from Russians.
Oscar also rambled something about the Serbs fascination with plums in his memoirs
Did Hoholdomor really happen?
The inventor of the concept said it qualified. Submitting a population to conditions menacing its very existence and causing destruction on the population is a way to do a genocide. The controversy is about the intentions of Stalin. Did he intentionnally make in sort that so many people would die ?
Knowing the character it wouldnt be surprising but I dont know enough about the subject to prove anything
Benjamin Franklin seems like a cool guy. What other country can boast that a genius, inventor, polymath, and all around witty fucker as one of their founders?
I don't really understand 'murca's obsession with founding fathers. I mean, BF seemed like a cool statesman and all that, but who cares what these dudes thought? They're more than 200 years out of date. That's like if Britain obsessed over what Walpole and his ilk thought.
I read his autobiography and I was so underwhelmed. This guy allegedly had mistresses in every major city of Europe and he couldn't write about something more interesting? It is just him the whole time talking about local politics.
Thomas Jefferson seems cool though and I think Madison was a really good political theorist.
>The Pill was more important to giving women reproductive rights than feminism
>The cotton gin was more important to ending of slavery in America than the silver war
>The printing Press was more important to the catholic church losing power in Europe than Protestantism
Technology is more important to the development of our history than individual movements or people so how come history classes are generally so people and politically centered?
There is never a logically substantive reason not to commit suicide. All that matters is ameliorating the negative utility of existence.
>In my chief work I have explained the only valid reason existing against suicide on the score of mortality. It is this: that suicide thwarts the attainment of the highest moral aim by the fact that, for a real release from this world of misery, it substitutes one that is merely apparent. But from a mistake to a crime is a far cry; and it is as a crime that the clergy of Christendom wish us to regard suicide.
Are there good reference books about the evolution of french military in late middle ages/ early renaissance ?
I'd like to know everything from equipment/weapons used to tactics and strategies, but also structural reforms and organizations.
I know about the compagnies d'ordonnance for example and would like to know more about it, and also how the firearms changed the battlefield and armies adpated to it.
Look, not an expert, but I'm well-read. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the tactics of medieval armies of Europe only changed when technological advances required one. Tactics were stagnant otherwise. Why change? Sure, some brilliant commanders came up with clever ambushes and sieges, but those usually lived and died with that commander or became the new standard.
I meant to add that you should specifically look into books on technological advances to really get a feel for why the tactics changed. Think gunpowder. That changed the game, sure. But that wasn't it. Guns were firing stones back then, if they were firing at all, or if the commander even thought them useful!
That's why Im interested in this period. The development of firearms and the political restructuration of the kingdom must have affected its military. And the technological innovations must be interesting as well
What can you tell me about Crimean Tatars?
Shittiest of shit.
>last remnant of the Golden Horde
>conducted slaver raids on Christians for centuries
>got BTFO by Imperial Russians and Stalin
>those that remained are still Turk tier savages
Are we back in the late Roman era where the people start seeking meaning in oriental cults, while a more dogmatic burgeoning oriental religion will eventually take claim of the empire that once fought it?
Unless that dogmatic burgeoning oriental religion of yours loosens up on their strict rules and practices in order to attract more converts, while a internationally acclaimed general attributes his victories to their god despite not fully converting himself, I doubt it.
How much did this guy contribute/help the Soviet Revolution become a thing? Could it have happened without him? Or did he merely speed up the happening? Or is he just a meme tier charterer.
He sped it up.
The fault of the Russian Revolution wrests firstly on the predecessors of Nicholas II (mostly Alexander III and Nicholas I) who squandered opportunities to reform and create a sustainable modern constitutional monarchy. They also brainwashed Nicky (a man-child) into thinking he alone should rule and autocracy was necessary for the survival of Russian peoples. Nicholas II as a result constantly fucked up and blocked reformers at every turn and his stubbornness basically created a ticking time bomb that would destroy him at any moment (first in 1905, then...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
There lived a certain man in Russia long ago
He was big and strong in his eyes a flaming glow
Most people looked at him with terror and with fear
But to Moscow chicks he was such a lovely dear
He could preach the bible like a preacher, full of ecstasy and fire
But he also was the kind of teacher women would desire
>ITT: Historical best bros
Ah yes, "bros".
"Bros before hoes".
Can anyone recommend me an accurate movie about Genghis Khan (not a documentary). This summer I have to do a review of a movie for historical accuracy for a history class.
The Conqueror (1956)
John Wayne's worst movie.