What if japan conquered rome would it be this?
If Japan conquered Rome, practically nothing would change.
The northern barbarians would invade and the Japanese wouldn't be able to stop it.
A blade folded a thousand times is still no match for German Steel.
I'd let her discover my history, I'd let her discover my history so hard.
As if all Brits during the Empire lived in mansions and owned slaves... when will people learn that life in Industrial Britain was extremely hard for basically everyone except for the upper class?
Kids were put in mines at like age 12 or younger, the smaller body sizes meaning they could crawl through smaller spaces.
>'Trappers' opened and shut wooden doors to let air through the tunnels. A trapper boy sat in the dark, with just a small candle, and no-one to talk to.
ITT: we post white privilege.
I don't think anyone seriously believes that all white people throughout all of history have been 'priveleged'. The term more refers to modern society.
In industrial Britain, the exploited class was formed from white people, in modern times much, but definitely not all, are formed of minorities.
A term like White privelege didn't exist in the 19th Century, idiot.
I disagree. Education puts a very strong emphasis on white exploitation of colonies, while ignoring that 90% of the whites had it just as bad.
>in modern times much, but definitely not all, are formed of minorities.
What are you talking about?
Literally 90% of the wars and troubles of history are caused by unclear solutions of succession. For Example
All the Roman civil wars and eventual fall
The Shia/Sunni split
Why didn't people sort out a proper system of succession before they died, they always die with it an open question as if to say fuck you.
Simply because there is no "proper system of succession". Making it hereditary always causes problems - what if your son is an incompetent little shit? What if your children start killing each other, or even worse, you?
If you have some sort of council like the Kurultai, that also brings forth many problems, like when the Mongol leaders had to return from their military expeditions halfway across the world just to play a part in it.
>>Literally 90% of the wars and troubles of history are caused by unclear solutions of succession.
I'd say the vast majority of war is waged over resources to be honest, various casus beli aside. Like people will look for any fucking excuse to fight each other, a succession crisis is just a formalized version of that.
If insanity is being different, or rather not acting normal, does this mean intelligence is insanity?
Apparently this is a thing and I can't stop watching them. In some videos he actually eats 60 year old rations.
Can someone explain to me why the Spartans are remembered as such badasses?
There doesn't seem much to back that up beyond your average run-of-the-mill propaganda that all military societies produce.
They beat Athens legit but then wavered into obscurity. Apparently killing weak babies wasn't good for fertility. After that they got meme'd up by Romans who would visit the town to see how the Spartans lived like they were zoo animals.
At the time they were pretty much the most feared infantry in greece. They had pretty amazing quips and left their mark by how fearless they seemed to be and how much they loved war. After the Peleponesian war when the style of warfare started to change the Spartans didnt keep up and that's when they started to buckle.
What went wrong?
Could Bulgaria have done something to prevent it's decline and fight off the Ottomans?
Bulgaria was split into 3 entities at the time of the Ottoman invasion of the Balkans. They were also suffering from Bogomilism and other internal disputes. The Ottomans were incredibly fortunate that they arrived when the Bulgarians, Serbs, and other peoples were divided and weakened. All they had to do was fight each of their opponents in detail instead of the entire might of Vlachs, Serbs, Croats, Albanians, and Bulgarians.
>The Ottomans were incredibly fortunate that they arrived when the Bulgarians, Serbs, and other peoples were divided
Oh, you mean like at any other point in history? That's not called being fortunate.
>the Romans were SO fortunate the Gaulish, Germanic, Iberian and Celtic tribes weren't united!
Sounds silly, ay?
Had the Ottomans faced a united Bulgarian Empire or even Stefan Dusan in his prime, they would've been repulsed before they had taken root in Thrace.
The Balkan polities DID defeat the Ottomans in battle before they were conquered, but they never followed-up on their victories because of squabbling and mutual suspicion towards one another.
What does /his/ think of Ali
What do the atheists of /his/ think of the Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help and the Great Peshtigo Fire?
Don't really know much about it nor do I care. There is probably a natural explanation for whatever supposedly paranormal happening you think occured even if it hasn't been discovered yet.
This event also doesn't count as proof for the supernatural/paranormal events in the bible either, therefore it is yet more idiocy thrown at the wall to see what gullible morons will fall for.
It looks like the shrine isn't in the middle of the forest.
And that america has a higher population density than Australia.
Peshtigo fire - 4,860 km2 - Fatalities 1500–2500
Black Saturday bushfires - 4,500 km2 - Fatalities 173
The difference between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox is purely a semantic distinction, and does not concern the substance of dogma (which in contrast to the RCC, we both have the same conception of: the understanding is constant and preserved, as opposed to the RCC idea of it evolving). This is made clear by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which issued an anathema against the criticisms directed against Saint Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas (in chapter 3 of the work, Saint Cyril of Alexandria uses the term "natural union"--"union" here being "henosin",...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Pope Vigilius was then excommunicated by Patriarch Menas, and imprisoned by Emperor Justinian I, but the Pope eventually recanted and was reinstated. If you want to understand the distinction between miaphysitism (which the Oriental Orthodox subscribe to) and monophysitism (which both Eastern and Oriental agree is heretical), look as the differences in the prefixes: "mono" means "alone", "solitary", it's used in Luke 4:4 and 4:8. "Mia" is the feminine form of "heis", which just the adjective for "one" ("hen" when used as a noun); see John 17:21 for an example of its use. Not only is this formula acceptable, it is heresy to say it is not, and not just because of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (which merely witnessed dogma, it did not create it), but because henosis describes the communion between us and Christ: if we say Christ's humanity does not have henosis with his divinity, then that says his Body and Blood do not have communion with his divinity, and to say such a thing seriously impacts theology of communion, and is ultimately Nestorian. Likewise it is absolutely heretical to suggest that it is invalid to describe Christ as having two natures, insofar as the phrase "two natures" is used strictly and solely to mean that Christ is both fully human and fully divine and that his humanity and divinity are not confused or "mixed", like with a pagan demigod.
You just posted a copypasta, when you posted this last time an actual Oriental Orthodox chimed in and said that your churches were not in full communion.
Catholics do not believe that dogma evolves, as far as they are concerned there dogma has always been part of the church, councils and papal decrees simply clarify and affirm.
And the only reason we're not in full communion is because we haven't lifted the anathemas, which neither side wants to do without the other But we do fully recognize each other's sacraments (whereas neither of us recognizes RCC sacraments) and allow partaking of communion at each other's parishes under numerous circumstances.
RCC thinks understanding of dogma evolves: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop
Has anyone read this? I have heard that it has a tendency to caricature the nazi officials as well as other biases, does it detract from the book? would you recommend it?
About two thirds of the way through my first read-through right now.
He doesn't hesitate to insert his personal opinions about people, but it's not hard to distinguish that from actual facts. More meaningful biases I'd leave to the experts to comment on.
It is written by a journalist. I recommend it and his book "Berlin Diary". Rise & Fall is a surprisingly quick read. Shirer was a radio correspondent before the U.S. entered the war.
Reminder that Finland is true heir of Roman Empire
Quick reminder that the entire country, nation, peoples and cultures of Finland is literally just one giant meme.
Reminder that the ancient Finnish empire surpassed the Roman empire at it's peak, both culturally and militarily.
I doubt any human civilization will be able to match the glory and grandeur of pre-autism Suomi.
Was there ever a period in history that was worse off then the previous one? In terms of everything including daily life, scientific advancement, military.
>inb4 Dark Ages
For the longest time, the only two cunts called Emperor in Europe since the Fall of Rome was the Holy Roman Emperor and the Eastern Roman Emperor in Byzantium.
This was the case for like, the whole middle ages.
And then Tsar came up in Russia, and then Austrians, and then some French nutter.
What caused the sudden updraft in the title of Emperors in Europe?
Titles meant something special and was attached to claiming the position from Rome. When Spanish kings unified Spanish Kingdoms they took the title "Imperator totius Hispaniae" and the Pope condemn them for it, cause it took prominence away from the Holy Roman Emperor and they stopped.
R u srs?
Ok the reason why the only guy who could call himself Emperor in western europe is the >H >R >E Emperor is because of Charlemagne + Ottonians. Technically there is only one Emperor in Western Europe. The Byzantine one is self explanatory.
>What caused the sudden updraft in the title of Emperors in Europe?
The fall of HRE and Byzantium.
Tsar came about when the Byzantines fell and Moscow's Ivan the #th married a Byzantine Princess, and declared...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Well, a lot of those states became Empires:
Russia, for example, is an incredibly ethnically diverse place that was forced into confederation and ruled by a small class of Muscovites (and later on Austrians).
France conquered most of Europe very briefly and later on a gigantic land share in Africa that is larger than Western Europe, and encompasses a large variety of cultures and ethnic groups.
There were more emperors because European countries became more powerful.