Which state has the most interesting history?
Probably NY. Just because of the city. That or DC.
I'm from SC, and we have some cool history because muh revolution and muh states rights/civil war. But I would say NYC really takes the cake.
Does /his/ have some sort of list of essential or recommended reading? If not, should one be made?
For my brethren in Christ and those who abide in the Truth.
How do you find structure in an inherently chaotic universe? We're all so small and unimportant
Who cares? Just give your life whatever meaning you want and slug it out for a few more decades. All things considered humans have mostly coped very well with a short and meaningless life, it could be worse.
>ywn be a young idealist Leftist who goes to fight in Spain for the Republicans
>ywn be a old catholic Rightist who goes to fight in Spain for the Nationalists
Why was he so incompetent?
Because he's was the generation that grew up with everything handed to him and that was surrounded by a military culture he loved to play with without experiencing it himself outside of bossing others around without a legitimate threat to face.
I have no idea how Otto V Must Unite The German Peoples Under One Flag wasn't taken as gospel and propped up for as long as he lived as elder council by anyone who recognized the master stroke of politics he pulled on Germany.
Irish beat vikings, fucked the picts, and it took the English hundreds of years to finally subjugate Ireland as a whole they might have officially lost, but Gaels were in high demand as mercenaries due to their skills as individual warriors. Excellent warriors, poor leadership besides based Brian Boru.
Civilization collapses and all books are lost, except 3. Which 3 history books do you save for future generations?
science still knows so little and cannot answer the "why" to things, so is being super objective just as much a belief when we don't know the full scale of the universe?
You can make a tv show or movie based on any historical event,what do you choose?
I'd go for a show about the power struggles after Alexander died.
Hitler when he was hired by the German police or whatever to infiltrate a certain national socialist workers party. Shows his transition from a slightly disturbed WWI veteran into a politician
My dream would be a 7-10 long season series following the crusader princes all the way from western Europe, Constantinople, Antioch to Jerusalem.
Where do I start with Kierkegaard?
Fear and Trembling
Watch videos on Kierkegaard's Three Spheres if you prefer listening to the concepts.
Also, these movies took a lot of inspiration from Kierkegaard
>The Tree of Life
What went wrong?
>we should have listened to him
Plato narrated the history of Western society -- from the middle ages (monarchy, aristocracy) to the modern era (democracy, tyranny), passing through all successive phases: timocracy (absolute monarchy) and oligarchy (liberalism) -- before it happened, in book VIII of the Republic. This remarkable foresight proves the soundness of his psychology and political theory.
Plato > Plebs.
WTF did mod-shills delete the democracy thread??
Lenin, without ever having read Plato (that I know of), agrees with him when he says that democracy (that is the rule of the pleasure-seeking, low IQ mass-men) is a necessary prerequisite for the triumph of socialism (that is bolshevik tyranny).
Why did the HRE never make any attempts to colonize? Was it because of the 30 years war?
Did their reigns bring anything positive to their countries?
honnestly if you negate all the casualities created by communist Big china and USSR on their soil and their slave states* YES:
Mao: forced modernization of whole chinese empire, destroyed a feudal castic religious hierarchic system into a chink work harder society.
Stalin: forced industrialism and militarization of USSR and forced collectivisation of education and food prodution
Yes they killed people by the tenth of millions
but they both used the manpower of their country to wipe out century technological gap between western world and them.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
In a one-party system, your average citizen's political choice is with the State, or against the State.
In a two-party system, your average citizen's political choice is with the State, or with the State. That is because the citizen's efforts are directed towards fighting the citizens supporting the other camp.
A multiparty system creates allegiancies, sides-switching of centrist parties and individual representatives, and too much intrigue and conflict to let the State be governable. It is more effective to restrict a citizen's illusion of...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
The various intrigues, political backstabbing and deal making that occurs in a multi-party system is the thing that makes those system work. To some degree the state must be protected from its own government. A healthy multi-party system will prevent extremists and radicals from taking control and leading the state to oblivion.
What did the average Europeans, especially the ones in the north, think of the Roman Empire during the middle ages?
Did they understand that this powerful empire collapsed hundreds of years earlier and now they were living in the ruins of it or did the loss of information after the collapse cause them to look at Rome in an almost Lovecraftian way where they saw the ruins of the empire as these incredible and mysterious structures that were created by mythical titans that they barely knew anything about?