ITT: We discuss the mongols, nomads, and other steppe folk.
Does anyone have a good bibliography for the Mongolian Khanates?
I've just finished reading Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford and it gives a really great historical narrative style story. If it irks you that some sources may not be translated well or that Weatherford's thesis is a bit weak, it's really insightful secondary source. Another great book related to this topic is The Mongols by David Morgan which I have also read and it is just the perfect book for understanding this.
literally the shittiest civilization in history, their only achivement ever was being good fighters and conquering others. but they never produced anything culturally significant (the cultural achivements by the peoples they subjugated doesn't count). at least the norse had their sagas, created runestones and statues. all nomads did was ride around, fight, steal other people's shit.
Why are approximately 10% of the threads on this board about Hitler or Nazis?
We have literally all of history to talk about, and yet people are endlessly focused on one very, very brief period of it.
>"The ethnolinguistic affiliation of the Avars is uncertain. Although there is sparse knowledge about the Avar language, scholars have suggested that the Avars could have spoken Caucasian, Iranian, Mongolic, Tungusic, and Turkic. Over time Slavic became the lingua franca of the Avars."
What would make a group as powerful as the Avars adopt the language of their slaves and subjects? Any suggestions as to why one of the ruling class' languages didn't take hold?
The same reason why Ukraine and Russia speak Slavic instead of Norse, or why the French and German kings of England eventually spoke english, a minority will completely overwrite a population's language.
how do we argue against nihilism again?
>Jesus was a carpenter
any truth to this meme?
Friendly reminder that the Atomic bombings of Japan were war crimes and the Allies are literally on the exact same moral level as the Axis
When did the third reich lost the war?
German navy getting weakened in Norway?
Battle of Britain?
Italian failure in Greece?
Lost in El Alamein?
Honestly the Germans still had the Russians on the back foot until Kursk, that's when they finally lost their momentum for good.
As for when German defeat was inevitable, that would be the failure of Barbarossa to make the Russians capitulate. After that, they had lost too much of their core to make an offensive as successful as that plausible ever again. They gamed on breaking the Russians through shock and realized too late that it would be a long, long war.
Was Kursk the biggest blunder for the germans?
>huge manpower and equipment wasted assaulting a impenetrable fortification
>every gain was futile because soviets just gained them back counterattacking with their huge reserves
>offensive was called off anyway because Allies invaded Sicily
All of it lost because Hitler thought that assaulting the most defended position on the EF would gain them victory
You're ignoring the fact that assaults on salients had worked fine before for the Germans. They had literally just crushed a Soviet push into Kharkov (which is what created the Kursk Salient in the first place), and there was no better place to launch an offensive than at Kursk. There, they could call on the forces of two Army Groups and two Luftflotten to hit a dangerously exposed salient in the lines.
That's not to say that there weren't mistakes made at Kursk, but it was hardly a stupid decision...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
The Germans had to attack it because that was the biggest concentration of Soviet soldiers.
At this point, German high command new that conquering the USSR just wasn't going to happen, but hoped for one last major blow to bring the Soviets to the negotiating table and talk from a position of strength.
the goal was to encircle the Kursk salient and leave some 1.5 million Soviet troops surrounded and stranded by the encircle, which would've taken a good 25% of the Red Army off the playing field. So attacking it had to happen in order to achieve this goal.
The Soviets knew this was the Germans goal too, so they fortified to the point where the Wehrmacht was wading through their own dead men to advance.
It made sense to the Germans who wanted to remove the bulk of the Red Army from the battlefield, but the Soviet defenses were just that strong, even if the Germans pushed for one more assault, ignoring the allied invasion of Sicily, it would've been almost impossible to completely close the circle, considering how negligible their gains were so far in the operation.
What are some lesser known "bad people" from history? I am talking comic book villain tier of bad, someone whose ideas and actions were so batshit insande that his biography reads like a script for a saturday morning cartoon episode.
Do not just give me all the Hitlers or Stalins or Calligulas, give me more obscure ones, like, Emperor Bocassa, or General Butt-Naked, or, I don't know, the spanish guys who fucked up South America.
How do you feel about that, commies?
What did he mean by this?
>One of the Founding Fathers
>literally walked into California
>named every major city in California
>sent money to George Washington to fight to btfo Protestant England
>fed every native that came, every time
>taught animal husbandry and agriculture to the natives
>moved his missions away from protection of brutal soldiers
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
pretty based I suppose. I don't agree with the way that missions treated the indigenous peoples that weren't willing to convert so easily but the same can be said for anybody in any point of history really.
Living in California I have had the chance to visit the missions in San Diego, Santa Barbara, San Juan Capistrano
How can people unironically call themselves agnostic and pretend this to be a third position apart from theism and atheism?
The question "Do you believe in god?" is a question of yes or no. From a philosophical point of view you must know with certainty whether or not you believe. Sure your beliefs can change over time, but at any fixed time you are in one of two possible states of belief: either you do believe or you don't. So purely logically there is no such thing as an agnostic.
>haha the dark ages didn't happen man
>everything was fine after the fall of Rome
>that's just a renaissance myth bro
When will this meme end?
Is it safe to say that "Europe" as an entity was born with the rise of Charlemagne?
Only Christcucks who can't reconcile the FACT that Europe thrived the most when Christianity didn't exist and only recovered when Christianity was neutered by the enlightment claim that.