>that greco-roman Chinese legislative building
How can one say that Rome fell when every fucking nation on Earth is a Roman wannabe?
Rome won, and we all are her citizens.
Except we're not unified under a Roman state, and nobody speaks their language, observes their religion, or practices their culture. At best, we're barbarians trying to imitate them, more probably we just like how their shit looks.
What are examples of effective, objectively good dictatorships or autocrats in history?
ITT: we post pics like pic related
How did they do it? I get that the Romans and Sassanids were severely weakend but still. One day they they invent a religion, go out of the desert and next they conquer an immense territory.
ITT: describe all world history in 5 words or less
>you will never be the emperor of rome
>you will never be a praetorian guardsman
>you will never be a legate
>a priest of jupiter
>a conqueror in rome's name
>a slave to any of the above
Genuinely why live?
idk desu senpai. maybe you should just kill yourself and you'll be reborn as a roman patrician
>It says here that your studies specialized on the "Holy Roman Empire"- Care to explain?
Was there ever a worse scourge of Christianity than the Roman Catholic Church?
>muh Vicar of Christ
>muh whatever you do is Christian, as long as you're with us
No wonder the worst mass murderers and pedophiles are Catholics.
Why do Protestards care so much about Catholicism? Like, they always go 'waaah da Catholics have false teachings!' but the Catholic Church's teachings are pretty much all in accordance with other churches like the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Ethiopian, etc...
Protestants are clearly the odd ones out.
As a southerner, I understand that the Civil War was mostly about slavery. But I've noticed many people, not just in the south, but internationally, still support the idea of the CSA today, or that the south should have won the war. Why is that?
What events from history make you feel legitimately depressed?
For me it's the fall of the Commune
Regardless of their reputation, the Aztecs controlled and maintained an extremely impressive empire in Central Mexico. Other cultures include Tarascans, Mixtec, Mayans, Tlaxcalans, etc.
Their empire was quite small at only about 300,000 square kilometers (at it's height, Roman Empire was 25 times larger). Regardless, they kicked Rome's ass in a lot of ways.
During the conquest of Tototepec, they mobilized an army of about 400,000 soldiers for a single campaign. By comparison, that was about the same size as the entire Roman army.
They ruled hegemonically, meaning that the regions under their control were relatively autonomous. This kept the cost of administration low and maximized the efficiency of taxation, because the locals felt more comfortable living under the control of their own lord. All tribute was centralized in the Valley of Mexico and the capital, Tenochtitlan, making it one of the most densely populated and richest regions on earth.
Still, since no horses were available, the furthest food-tributing region was located only 300 km from Tenochtitlan, which is the distance between Genoa and Venice.
Additionally, the logistics reports suggest that this food was likely sent to the Aztec garrison in Oaxaca instead.
1. think up of an historical event
2. draw it in paint, gimp etc
3. others guess
anybody want to watch the history channel while its actually showing history rather than pawn stars?
theyre showing 2 hours on the dark ages from 12-2 EST. turn it of at 2 though pawn stars is on right after
I just want to live in a neolithic tribe full of people I'm related to.
Who else here thinks modern life SUCKS?
>tfw you will never settle your tribe and make the settlement an agricultural center, living on beyond your life, the descendants of your tribe continuing to live on, making empires and kingdoms, and known as an ancient city millennia from your lifetime
What are the philosophical virtues of Anarchism?
What are the philosophical arguments against it?
No /pol/ please.
>What are the philosophical virtues of Anarchism?
It assumes that people are basically decent and rational, and treats them accordingly.
>What are the philosophical arguments against it?
It assumes that people are basically decent and rational, but they're not.
The biggest argument I can think of against it is that any functioning social organization a group of anarchists create will be a pseudo-state. It all comes down to a few simple concerns.
1. Large numbers of people living together means some people's wills being denied for the benefit of other wills.
2. A fully voluntary society will be rendered redundant by any population growth whatsofreaking ever.
Even if everyone signs on and says "This is the kind of social organization I want", you'll have people in 100 years saying "I didn't sign shit"
The closest thing to a functioning anarchist society would be a series of communes whose only punishment for serious crime is banishment, and ignoring the massive reasons that would suck, I'm convinced any working arrangement set up in such a manner would be effectively identical to a state.
The question isn't whether the state is desirable, its whether its inevitable.