Seriously now, what's the point of wasting ammo like that? Why can't just one guy fire a round into his head and be done with it?
some of the guns had blanks in them but the soldiers weren't allowed to know who did or did not have a blank thus letting those with a conscience and guilt assume that they infact had the blank allowing them to assume they infact did not kill the man, also with multiple shooters guilt is further negated because it is spread between them all.
I've heard lots of reasons as to how he did it, either him just claiming empty siberian lands or attacking and subjugating cities in horrible economic situations. But I want to hear /his/'s take on it. So, what's your theories as to how he managed to take all that land and lose it like immediately after his death?
>But I want to hear /his/'s take on it.
Why would you ever want to do that
>Would've imagined that it's success rate would eventually fall, due to others adapting.
This did happen, but not until later. By the 1280s the Mongols were getting trounced.
>The earliest civilizations started here
>Still underdeveloped today
>A war or two.
>Throw in some more war.
>Add a bit of war.
>Spice things up with just a pinch of war.
>Now get serious and have a war.
>Don't forget the war!
And that's just the first 1,000 years, only 7,000 more to go!
Can anyone explain what this meme is trying to say? I feel like it is trying to say the US had nothing to do with any of these inventions, but all the info posted in it seems completely twisted and false, but I don't know enough about history to claim so.
BUT I FUCKING KNOW that Leonard Kleinrock, and the MIT are as american as the colt 1911 and cowboys
>tfw King Charles I was brought down almost solely for the Protestant equivalent of durka durka
None of the popular atheists know Scripture well enough to settle debates; neither do I follow the popular nor do your deluded retarded memes apply to me. My post was antitheist. I somewhat doubt your kind can learn new proper words.
>be on date with smart qt
>only second date I've ever been on in my life
>she talks about moral philosophy for about five minutes straight, then finally stops and goes, "I'm sorry, I guess I just got so full of myself...so, what's your moral philosophy, anon?"
>"don't be a dick" I respond
>"that's it? so basically follow whatever norms of the zeitgeist are?"
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Should've just started spouting Stirner shit for the keks
>..so, what's your moral philosophy, anon?"
You dodged a bullet, she sounds pretentious. I once went on a date with this girl, who went on about how she was into "visual art" beforehand. I am really into painting and film-making so I was intrigued, plus she had this interesting sort of thick hipster college girl style that for some reason, and I am not proud of, turned me on a lot. Needless to say she meant "installation art" had poor and unrefined...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
So we can all agree that natural history/science museums are the best museums right?
Creationism not mentioned and bible is seen as fiction. Go to the Creation Museum instead. Anyone who tells you it's bad is a Darwinist.
> Charles II's genome was actually more homozygous than that of a child whose parents are siblings.
> More inbred than a child born of brother-sister incest.
Did the Hapsburgs have a generations long plan to marry into all of the houses of Europe? Because this seems absolutely sinister, damning one of your descendents to absolute retardation for a throne.
Or were they just simple opportunists that simply had a penchant for boning each other?
The Hapsburgs weren't medical experts, they didn't know if incest mutation was definite or not every time. They rolled the dice again and out popped that little mutant, and due to royal poltics and general life he was the only one in line when it came down to it
>Inb4 some contrarian talks about how he wasn't that bad of a king, since all the other advisors and political figures managed to run a somewhat competent spain.
A king could not marry a nobody. The only equal for the spanish habsburg king that wasn't hostile was another habsburg. It doesn't help that european monarchies have always been genetically close to each other.
I HURT MYSELF TODAY
None of the popular atheists know Scripture well enouh to settle debates; neither do I follow the popular nor do your deluded retarded memes apply to me. My post was antitheist. I somewhat doubt your kind can learn new proper words
STOP THE BULLYING
>xD why should I follow a 3,000 year book ???
>Implying Human Nature has changed
>200 years old
More like ~1,500 years old.
>being a Christcuck
Pretty obvious you don't really have a grasping of history if you are one, so why don't you head on over to the Cripplechan to post on your containment board/hugbox?
Is it true that the US propped up Democratic Kampuchea? If so, why?
No. Pol Pot came to power because the US simply stopped propping up the Cambodian Kingdom.
Democratic Kampuchea is one of the great tales is irony though, where the US fought against what they believed to be the evil Communists in Vietnam, only for the Vietnamese to bring more stability to Indochina and thwart the genocide going on in Cambodia.
Why doesn't Confederacy just doesn't made army from slaves and used them to overpower enemies with a human wave tactics?
>tfw the most benevolent, cultured, sophisticated, prosperous, and powerful Chinese dynasty ever seen was cucked by the Mongs
Historical Feels thread?
How good were early handguns? If not good, why did anyone bother and not just use crossbows?
They werent great, bows or crossbows were far superior as killing machines in the early days. Guns were useful because they were terrifying and easy to use and dont require a lot of stamina to reload and operate
They didn't see much use until they developed to the point of being better than crossbows. Conventional bows were still better in some ways, but required a lot of training, unlike firearms or crossbows.
They went through plate armour a lot better than arrows and crossbow bolts. I sort of doubt the whole "easier to train" narrative simply because they would have been quite expensive compared even to crossbows, thus making them less usefull in arming a bunch of conscripts.
How historically accurate is this movie?
I did not know about this. It's usually hard to get me pissy about entertainment but between this and Gods of Egypt I actually feel a bit salty.