Is there such a thing as a necessary evil, fellow /his/torians? Honest answers please, I'm genuinely curious as to your opinions.
What was the transition to firearms like? Was it swift? Any milestones in terms of battles won with firearms? Seems like an interesting time in military history that is often overlooked.
This is a topic that I've studied a lot, but it's difficult to answer. Your question has a global scope, and depending on the country, the widespread adoption of firearms could have taken place over hundreds of years. How do you say when a country has transitioned to firearms? When they're first implemented into the army, when they make up a certain percentage of the soldiers, or when they've displaced every other individual weapon?
Good point. Perhaps limit my query to Europe and count "transition" as when combat began to be focused around firearms, like the rise of pike and shot formations. Really I'm just asking about how, why and when firearms took over European warfare.
>how, why and when firearms took over European warfare.
I would have loved to have been part of the companies deployed to sub-Saharan Africa with the first Maxim machine guns to deal with the local spear-chuckers.
Oh, the comedy...
Explain why in the thread. Please provide more information than "makes the most sense" or "the other ones are retarded"
Btw this is a Christian thread, "other" would refer to non-fundamental forms of Christianity like Mormon or Jehova's Witness, not Atheism or Buddhism.
who is the best pharaoh in Egyptian history, and why is it Thutmose III?
>"Its appearance does not answer to our ideal of the conqueror. His statues, though not representing him as a type of manly beauty, yet give him refined, intelligent features, but a comparison with the mummy shows that the artists have idealised their model. The forehead is abnormally low, the eyes deeply sunk, the jaw heavy, the lips thick, and the cheek-bones extremely prominent; the whole recalling the physiognomy of Thûtmosis...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Can we talk about this? More and more and more and more, sex and reproduction are being completely severed in public consciousness. Sex might not always have been about reproduction, but it was always associated with it in our minds. And all reproduction came from sex. But more and more and more sex and reproduction are seen as almost antagonistic, and things like artificial insemination are becoming more common. I think gay marriage is the big thing, since it completely destroys marriage as an institution and public symbol of sex as the source of family.
Are any of...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I believe it's the natural progression of human evolution. If we have the means to create superior beings (which these designer children inevitably will be), someone will do so. Natural selection will do its work over a period of time, and soon sex and the genitals will be solely associated with pleasure.
>Does anyone worry about this eventually happening? All babies will be designed, natural babies will be frowned upon.
What would the Church's position on this be?
It sounds revolting but might not necessarily be 'sinful'
Is there a single philosophy which isn't ultimately an appeal to emotion?
Why do /pol/ and /his/ discredit emotions? It almost seems like they're almost in denial of having them, despite the fact that emotions regulate and filter what information comes before the persons "logic" and "reason" kicks in.
I think these people associate themselves with the ideas in their minds, which are not their own. I think they're at least a tiny bit inauthentic.
What did Enrique do to deserve these shitty stats?
ITT: Absolute Madmans
ITT: Post God-tier historical cities in your country.
Bonus if European, double bonus for gorgeous paintings
Castletown, Isle of Man. The name is terrible but the place is lovely.
I always found ottoman istanbul so comfy looking especially te houses looked nice and blended so naturally into the background.
City upon a hill, Massachusetts Bay colony
>there are people in this board RIGHT NOW that unironally believe that this braindamaged meme philosopher that was abused as a child wasn't just a crazy old man spitting out his thoughts
HAHAHAHAHA, what the fuck
>i have a bachellor in philsophy but I can't use google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner#Biography Here. Not only he was abused as a child but also he had a very sad childhood in general which of course made him a lunatic. He literally believes in ghosts. There's no way this paranoid can be taken seriously and whoever buys into his philosophy probaly didn't get attention from daddy and momma
Good movie or cringe worthy, from a historical point of view?
What is the formula for eternal happiness?
Contrite heart + Blood of Jesus = Eternal Happiness
happiness is rarely possible, and certainly impeded, amidst loneliness, fear, purposelessness, destruction, misery, insanity, or chronic anxiety or stress, among other things. In contrast, happiness is found, secured, and improved amidst love, good friendships, security, purposefulness, creation, joy sanity, and peace.
Choose a place and period to live in and an occupation. Also, assume the past fits your ideal.
I think pre-Islamic Arabia would be bad ass. Imagine living in pic related and being a high-priest/wizard/sage. Pretty comfy to me.
probs a scholary rich rome citizen with scars from campaign in gaul and now fucking slaves and feast for a living
How much longer can we ignore the fact Chinese discovered the Americas?
Which brings me to the question, were the Olmecs fully Chinese? I really doubt it, but you can't deny the Asian features of them.
Does /his/ like/respect William Buckley? Even if you don't agree with his politics?
(Note to mods: 1. His prime legacy was prior to 25 years ago. 2. He was a historian amongst other things (including being a famous historical conservative talking head) and god forbid we can't talk about that on the history board; and, 3. /pol/are grandchildren who've never heard of him).