>he ACTUALLY wants to live in any time period before the late 90's
What religion has the most interesting mythology?
Obviously me, but that's besides the point.
Do you like the Greeks more?
You know, I'm an optimistic nihilist for the most part. I only believe in things that can be backed by hard evidence and science. The problem is you hear something enough times you start to second guess yourself. Which brings me to my question /his/, does karma exist or does our brain just like to find patterns to justify otherwise meaningless phenomena?
yeah that was a pure choice of words i should have said occurences
>The universe does not care about you.
as I get older I'm learning this and it's really eye-opening and i don't know why people run away from this fact my upbringing was conservative christian so my whole life I've been led in the direction of mysticism and weird forces being at work to govern the universe but like you stated...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I'm thinking from Bussiness admin to polysci because I suck at math? What do you people do with your liberal arts degrees?
Like I'm terrible at math. I already have my math course for polysci filled.
Lib arts degrees are pretty garbage. Knew a chick with an art history major end up working at Christies AUctions of London. She basically researches and qualifies the provenance of various rare auction items.
I know another who used his army money to get a liberal arts degree. He was a former 75th Ranger. Ended up unemployed. Went into contracting and makes 6 figures defending nouns in foreign countries.
So pickings are slim.
Were pikes used during the Napoleonic Wars? I know they were becoming obsolete by this time period because most infantry troops had bayonets attached to their muskets, but were there any pike-specific units during any instance of the wars?
Nah bro, you're confusing the 30 Years war aesthetic with Spanish-American war era American aesthetic.
The long awaited sequel to the start with the greeks guide.
1) Did the Frankfurt Parliament ever stand a chance?
2) What would the 1848 Germany have been like, compared to 1871?
Is democracy really what westerners hype it up to be?
Particularly liberal democracy.
It seems like the success of western nations predated their adoption of democratic systems.
And if you look at the most successful countries in Asia (which was "backwards" till the white man's came around) are probably one of the least democratic, China, Hong Kong, Singapore (which might as well be a single-party state).
As for Korea and Japan. Japan might as well be a western nation, and it was hardly democratic during its development into a Great Power. Korea,...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
The success of the Western model of government involves more than holding an election once and then everything working itself out.
What you need is a government that is conducive to economic growth.
The most dynamic Western governments (the Netherlands, the UK, the US) achieved this by creating parliaments which would then be dominated by businessmen, and would thus protect the interests of the business class from the monarchy, the nobility, or the rabble.
Until recently, it was assumed that the best development model was democracy, followed by the growth of corporations and gradual economic change.
What Westerners failed to realize is that a democratic system of government is only as strong as the actual practical adherence of society to the rule of law. In many places, corruption is so common, and the rule of law so weak, that merely holding elections doesn't change the actual power structure, or the actual system of law, enough to protect free enterprise, reduce government corruption, or encourage development.
The Asian Tigers went with the model of having the government dominated by large corporations which would create exports to sell in the developed world. This proved to work very well for development, as the corporations still had to be efficient in order to compete in global markets, and the government had an incentive to keep the economy competitive, so as to make more moni.
However, the more Confucian model of development followed by East Asia comes with serious drawbacks. Working conditions in East Asia are shit. The Asian Tigers tend to have lower life satisfaction, higher suicide rates, and lower birth rates, because every aspect of society is structured to serve the needs of multi-national corporations, even more than in the West. Finally, corruption persists in most of East Asia in a way that simply wouldn't be acceptable in Europe or the Anglosphere.
TL;DR Countries develop when the government has an incentive to see the country develop.
Was he real?
Is good art subjective or objective? Why?
Could Communism ever be implemented in a society with scarcity? If so, how?
Is it only possible in a post-scarcity society, if such a thing is even plausible?
pic semi related, if Kal-Els ship had landed on Earth a few hours earlier on a collective farm in Ukrainian SSR instead of Smallville, Kansas
So, how would Macedonian soldiers fight when they stormed cities? They can't possibly have carried their sarissas with them up ladders or formed phalanxes on top of walls. While a dory seems more practical for that, he never had that many hypaspists and beyond that it still seems unwieldy. Those tiny-ass daggers don't really seem like they would cut it, so what did they use? Xiphos? Kopis? Would they use formations? What kinds? I'm genuinely curious, and I can't really find anything on it. Anyone here know anything?
In wars, how often do battles have news reporters and camera men on the scene? Are most of the news people also soldiers or at least equipped with weapons? Always thought this was one of the coolest jobs after seeing the news reporter in Lawrence of Arabia taking pictures of Lawrence's train sabotage. The reporter seemed pretty careless about how he wandered around the battlefield, as though he weren't going to be attacked because he wasn't a soldier.
Civilian newsmen, the guys from BBC, New York Times, Le Monde or Al Jazeera... are civilians, no soldiers, they do not fight and have no weapons.
Armies may deploy their own info teams, to film or record stuff for news or promotional purposes, such men being part of the army may carry weapons and even fight if needed but they are not deployed with that purpose.
Redpill me on Assyria, /his/. Why is it important aside from muh ancient civilization? What's interesting about it?
The fact that they're one of the few surviving distinct ethno-cultural group from the Bronze Age is pretty interesting. Oh and they're probably one of the most disturbingly brutal civilisations that have ever existed. In the British Museum there are massive relief sculptures depicting the sackings of cities and the kings would base their success based on how many enemies they had skinned, how many children they had penetrated with stakes rectally and how many men they had castrated.
Assyria finished the process that changed the Middle East from an area in which many different kingdoms and city-states (Babylonia, Urartu, Elam, etc.) vyed for regional supremacy, to a place ruled by a succession of massive multicultural, multinational empires. (Persia, the Arab Caliphates, the Ottomans.) Not to mention all of the forced and unforced population migration. Carthage may never have been as large or important a city if not for Phonecians fleeing the Assyrian terror, for instance.