God tier game, we can all agree, but how many historical inaccuracies does it have?
>Celts winning the battle of Falkirk
>Saracens not just being called Arabs
>'Western Roman Empire' a faction in the first Huns scenario which was clearly set in Western Asia hence the presence of Persia and Scythia
>Huns having the central European architecture when all evidence points to them being from the central Asian steppes
>Second largest empire in history
>Conquered China and Persia
>Outnumbered by their enemies and lacked their technology
Face it, Mongol Empire is best Empire. Rome and Britain were established powers, ahead of everyone else technology-wise that never conquered anyone superior to them. The Mongols had the odds stacked against them and they still BTFO'd their opponents.
I've noticed that usually when people have their ideology questioned in some way they resort to whataboutism instead of actually defending their own position, why is that?
Also pic unrelated.
Perhaps because people don't want to take responsibility for something they themselves haven't done, even if people who have professed the same ideology as them in the past has done wicked things.
Why were the Japanese so consistently BTFO by the Red Army in all their 1930s border fights?
I thought the Soviets were supposed to be going through purges and were incompetent.
Was the Imperial Japanese Army really just that shitty?
As I get it the Japanese had a strong focus on their infantry (Got a strong fetish for long bayonets) as well as the navy.
None of that was of much use in the flat lands surrounding Mongolia, where the Soviet's far more mechanized forces had an advantage.
>Not a single generation has passed without an uprising against the British
When will they realise Ireland just isn't worth the fucking hassle?
But it is. It really is. We've got nothing left, we need somewhere to rule over. We just need somewhere.
Oh, also it's not very safe to have an island that large and that close not under our or an ally's control.
What was Vercingetorix's mistake?
So I'm not into history. But what can we learn from history (all history)?
Like, sum it up for me.
Christians of /his, if a man invented a perfectly intelligent and conscious robot would the man be the god of the robot or would god be the god of the robot?
ITT: we post intellectually bankrupt ideologies and beliefs
add more to the list
There has been something on my mind that despite the insurmountable effort that I have spent digging and personal conversation that I cannot come to a satisfactory equilibrium to, that being on the detailed aspect of the physical & psychological extent of an "evil" mind, now to clarify this topics definition of evil: self driven, psychologically vicious, without compassion or remorse, manipulative to the extreme and understandably and completely outside of the constraints of any societal morality. Most of the results I have found (so far) have lead to a chemical imbalance or a harsh upbringing, to which I digress in the fact that I personally exemplify the aforementioned despite having a very colorful and positive childhood and possess no 'imbalance' as far as various medical screenings have proven.
Even if it is just philosophical banter that can be provided it could still prove to be insightful and it is impossible that I am alone in this search, so please, devulge.
If I get what you mean, then I think the lack of the ability to empathise as shown by severe psychopaths is why that aspect of society holds no value for them, only 'thrilling' and personally beneficial situations seem to motivate them.
Oh and to add, my understanding is that sociopaths are more related to environmental factors, while psycopaths are more genetic. Do you enjoy emotional conflict?
I've read things suggesting that this is close to 1-100, eg autism frequency. And on 4chan obviously it's more prevalent than the general public.
>t-this guy was just a butthurt heretic, he destroyed Christian unity forever! If it wasn't for him, Europe w-would be way more united and wouldn't have to experience centuries of religious wars! XD
Why do you retards keep repeating this? Do you guys not realise that he had no intentions of breaking off from the Church, and was instead just trying to reform and eradicate what he (mostly rightfully) saw as extreme Church corruption?
I mean fuck, I'm not even some protetard, I'm Orthodox, so I have more reason than...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Ok, fair enough, and he was wrong in that. But if the Church hadn't been so uncompromisingly butthurt, they might have been able to engage with him properly and and take on board his actual legitimate suggestions, rather than dismiss everything he said outright because of "muh heresy."
Honestly, the Catholics have no one to blame for the fractured state of Western Christianity but themselves.
>But if the Church hadn't been so uncompromisingly butthurt, they might have been able to engage with him properly and and take on board his actual legitimate suggestions, rather than dismiss everything he said outright because of "muh heresy."
but they did, only a few of his theses were actually condemned, not all of them.
Had he not been so emotionally invested in his "new theology" he wouldve been highly regarded in the Church. Fuck, he may have even...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
What went wrong with the second KKK?
>1926: 6,000,000 members. A lot of them were politicians and educated people
>2016: 5,000 members. Most of them uneducated rednecks
Was invading Russia as big of a military blunder as some people like to paint it to be?
>faggot OP knew the answer already and had to inb4
How does one "study" history?
Fantasize about how cool it would be to be a badass warrior from that culture that you like but have no actually link to.
Read literature and other materials from certain points in history and examine the events and culture from said points.You try to examine and understand these things from multiple perspectives and learn what other people's perspectives are and re-examine.
As an agronomist, you cannot convince me that this isn't the authoritative source on human history.