It's impossible to have a full understanding of history. Most people only have a passing understanding of a few things related to their nation's history. Even expert historians usually just specialize in a certain area of history.
In this thread, describe an area or even in history that you barely know anything about to the best of your ability, and an "expert" /his/torian will elaborate on it with a reply.
Good thread start.
>>441983
>describe an area or even in history that you barely know anything about to the best of your ability
A positive view of the Confederacy persisted in the US (compare to, say, Nazis in Germany) because a lot of people don't mind racism and still relate to their cause to this day.
>>441983
>a full understanding of history
The problem is there are always two sides to history, you'll never truly have a full understanding since people tend to fall to bias and sources are almost always biased
I know a good deal about the Middle Ages but fuck all about Antiquity
>>441983
Constantinople
Byzantine
Things like that I have almost no knowledge of
Mesopotamia in general
Read Spengler.
You'll realise that the histories of all civilisations follow the same pattern, and events that appeared random before will make a lot more sense.
>>441983
The first cities were built by the sumerians.
The akkadians (who were the same ethnicity as the sumerians) basically united all the sumerian cities (which were all located in mesopotamia, between the tigris and euphrates).
The assyrians were the first real empire, they conquered the entire akkadian empire and got as far as egypt. They were incredibly brutal. they were a different ethnicity to the akkadians.
There was also a Chaldean empire north of all this, and at some point there was a Babylonian empire a bit south of all this. They were both different ethnicities. The babylonians built the hanging gardens and invented banking.
At some point the persians come in and conquer the whole area. They get the furthest yet. They reach from libya to central asia to anatolia. They are ruled by the achaemenid dynasty. At its peak, they are 40% of the world's population. In contrast, at the peak of the british empire they had 25% of the global population. It lasts for 200 years.
Eventually alexander conquers all of persia and decides to burn down their capital and genocide a bunch of folks. He gets to india but dies. He spread hellenism into the middle east.
His empire gets split up,this region is then ruled by his descendents, the seleucids.
At some point rome comes in, then the arabs completely take over, then the turks arrive under the seljuks and rule for 2 monarchs, then the mongols obliterate everything and set the region back generations, the ottomans then rise from the ashes and conquer the whole area (and also north africa, the balkans and the caucasus) and last for 500 years.
The ottomans get dismembered in the late 19th and early 20th century, ending after WW1. European empires take parts of the region, the british and french divide mesopotamia into Iraq and Syria. The british control the levant. They promise palestine to the local arabs who were living there already and also to the jews, and then the brits leave.
The europeans lose their colonies
>>443974
>The akkadians (who were the same ethnicity as the sumerians)
Second sentence and you already dropped the ball. Akkadians were Semites, Sumerians spoke a language isolate and fuck knows where they even came from.
>>443985
Thanks, I hope I get more corrections.
As far as I know south America was full of native Americans, the most powerful of which were the Incans.
Then come the Spaniards and the Portuguese and they fucked everybody up, though the incans were already falling apart at that point. It was just kinda beating a dead horse.
So these colonies all started up and then they eventually broke off and made their own nations.
Simon Bolivar shows up and pretty much establishes most of modern South America.
Lots of coups and dictators popping up then fucking off. Most remain third world nations and kind of stay underdeveloped.
Then good ol democracy but lots of corruption. From what it looks like Argentina is the only place that's keeping above water, if barely. Brazil is trying hard to become a global power and economic powerhouse but it's all collapsing on itself.
That's basically as much as I know about south American history. It's embarrassingly bad and likely inaccurate. Help
Ethiopia had a bunch of kingdoms and was rarely conquered.
Egypt got it once, not sure if the ottomans did.
The arabs didn't, and they never became islamic.
Then they just sort of stayed independent until the europeans came, and even then it was the only nation in africa that wasn't controlled by a european one at some point (excluding liberia but that doesn't count since it was essentially a us puppet state).
Also it's where humans come from.
>>443974
>His empire gets split up,this region is then ruled by his descendents, the seleucids.
Small correction, Seleucus was one of Alexander's generals. Not his descendent.
>>442054
>implying racism isn't the new boogieman
How the Middle East and Africa descended into... not goodness. The Ottomans and Persians grew as mighty empires, but now much of the area is poverty stricken and still developing. What happened?
>>443985
>Sumerians spoke a language isolate and fuck knows where they even came from.
Their own legends posit that they migrated from the North. One linguist, I forget who (might have been Ruhlen) is proposing Sumerian to be part of the North Caucasic family like Chechen and Circassian dialects. So far the idea is not widely accepted.
But it sure does look like a convenient answer. There were plenty of North-Caucasic speakers not only in North Caucasus where they live today, but also South of the Caucasus in Eastern Anatolia and Upper Mesopotamia. These are such famous people as the Hurrians and the Hatti. There's even a tie-in to the Noah legend. Remember, the biblical flood myth was originally not part of the Semitic canon, but was a Sumerian legend. The ancestors of Sumerians may have been refugees moving away from the Black Sea flood event, eventually settling further South along the same rivers their relations already knew so well.
/fringe
>>444812
Italy tried to conquer Ethiopia in the late 1800s after it unified as a nation. They finally did manage to conquer Ethiopia in 1936, but by 1941 they had been pushed out, because they are fucking Italy and not a proper colonial power.
Spain was one of the big colonizers in the New World, they owned tons of land from Chile all the way up to California.
At some point they just sort of, fell out of world relevance.
How?
>>444922
But the sumerians existed thousands of years before the current north caucasic ethnic groups are confirmed to have been in that area.
>>444882
Ah, thanks.
Obligatory pic related
>>444937
Yes and?
>>444919
The ottomans stagnated for the last century of their rule, not sure what happened after that. I know Iran got fucked by the us intervention.
Have the arab states industralised?
>>441983
>describe an area or even in history that you barely know anything about
The Gunpowder Empires
(Mughals, Ottomans, Safavids)
>>444128
You got it kind of right, but don't forget the only reason Bolivar won was due to English loans (which gave money becausr fuck Spain). The thing is the newly emerged SAmerican states got fucked in the arse by external debts, we were pretty much Britain's bitches until the decline of the British Empire. After that some countries got a head start due to the oil discoveries, but corruption and overall stupidity has made the whole thing a fruitless endeavor. Seriously, fuck oil.
>>444919
Not an expert, but:
Middle East
>Greatest powers in the region broken up arbitrarily, leading to shitty borders that prevent strong national identities.
>Wealth of resources and important clay led to neverending international meddling, as well as propping up shit leaders and governments.
>Tons of politically exploitable human resources (dumb country bumpkins, uncomfortable ethnic minorities, diverse religious sects, commies, capitalists, authoritarians, etc.) that can all be called on at a moment's notice to destabilize a rival nation/faction.
Africa
>Pre-imperial power structures usually torn apart.
>Wealth of resources and important clay led to neverending international meddling, as well as propping up shit leaders and governments. Again.
>What little infrastructure colonies had were usually devoted solely to extracting resources.
>>444982
Iran is a lot better off than most people think, excluding the shitty theocracy and all.
Given the cards stacked against Africa and the Middle East, those nations are pulling themselves together surprisingly well.
>>441983
Sigmund Freud was a neurologist who, through his studies of the brain and how it works, learned how to do psychoanalysis and stuff. These learnings caused him to notice patterns in the human mindset. He then became a semi-philosopher, basing his beliefs off of his learnings in the field of neurology.
>>444919
>How the Middle East and Africa descended into... not goodness.
The Ottoman Empire became poor and shitty in its latter years, and finally fell in WW1 to British-backed Arabs.
Rather than divide the former empire by nations, the British and French decided to just draw random lines. This, known as Sykes-Picot, established the borders of the Middle East. So Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds all lie together in Iraq.
The British also installed the House of Saud into power. Centuries earlier, the House of Saud made a pact with radical Salafist scholar, Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab. Wahhab would support a Saudi state, if the Saudis spread Wahhab's beliefs. This lead to a campaign against the Ottoman Empire, in which was lost and lead to the execution of Abdullah bin Saud.
This is important because once the Sauds were installed to power, they stayed true to the original pact. The Saudis bashed heads originally with the Arab Nationalists, who wanted an end to monarchies in Arabia. This lead to a war in Yemen which divided the country.
The creation of israel also greatly ruined things. Jews had been moving to Palestine since the 1890s, and had begun dominating neighborhoods and businesses. Many Arabs were forced out of work, and many riots resulted. Once israel was a state, however, it became apparent that Arab Nationalism would ultimately defeat israel in time (despite shortcomings at first on part of the Arabs).
In order to stop Arab Nationalism, both the Saudis and israelis began funding and arming islamic radicals. The Saudis went farther with it, supplying the Mujahideen with plenty of arms, fundings, and men (including Osama Bin Laden, a member of the Bin Laden family who are to this day close associates with the House of Saud).
Only one Arab Nationalist remains: Bashar Al Assad. And of course, the Saudis have been supplying "rebels" with arms and funding while the israelis have been conducting airstrikes and providing medical aid to Wahhabi fighters.
>>445134
>Only one Arab Nationalist remains: Bashar Al Assad. And of course, the Saudis have been supplying "rebels" with arms and funding while the israelis have been conducting airstrikes and providing medical aid to Wahhabi fighters.
Assad is a dictator who's family controls the entire state. The Syrian Civil War was caused by his heavy-handed mass execution of protesters. And he backs Islamists that side with him, like Hezbollah.
>>445189
>The Syrian Civil War was caused by his heavy-handed mass execution of protesters.
Are you referring to event where chemical weapons were fired? That's hardly mass execution. The UN did an investigation that determined that it was inconclusive whether the government or rebels had used the chemical weapons.
>>445134
>/pol/ actually believes this
>>445189
>mass execution of protestors
o
i
am
laffin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_15oFg-1Kw
>>445226
That happened quite a while after the war actually kicked off.
>Are you referring to event where chemical weapons were fired? That's hardly mass execution. The UN did an investigation that determined that it was inconclusive whether the government or rebels had used the chemical weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack#UN_Ghouta_Area_report
>The 7th Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, a different group than the U.N. fact-finding mission, stated that the sarin used in the Ghouta attack bore the "same unique hallmarks" as the sarin used in the Khan al-Assal attack. The report, dated 12 February 2014, also indicated that the perpetrators likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military. These conclusions were based on the fact-finding mission's evidence, as the Commission of Inquiry did not conduct its own investigation of either chemical attack.[30]
>Independent analysts concluded that the two azimuths determined by the report intersect deep in Syrian-government-controlled territory, near Mount Qasioun, noting that this region has been the target of Israeli airstrikes against chemical weapons-capable surface-to-surface rocket launchers.[21] Based on analyses of the azimuths provided by the UN report, Human Rights Watch and The New York Times concluded the rockets that delivered the sarin were launched from areas under government control.[31][32] Specifically, the inspectors listed the precise compass directions of flight for two rocket strikes and these pointed to the government's elite centre in Damascus, Mount Qasioun.[33] The two azimuths were calculated from impact sites of two different rockets – a 140mm rocket and a 330mm one. Human Rights Watch conceded that while the 140mm rocket was known to have a maximum range (9.8 km) such that Mt Qasioun was just in range of the impact site 9.6 km away, the range of the other, a 330mm rocket, was unknown.[34]
>>445256
>The average person
Perfect defense anon
My knowledge Chinese history of disgustingly lacking.
>Made up of lots of dynasties over the years, most of the names I can't remember in order or pronounce
>Wasn't unified in the modern sense for a lot of its history
>Lots of warring dynasties and revolts at various points
>Most technologically advanced nation in the world up until the middle ages, invented gunpowder and umbrellas
>Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill
>The eternal Anglo eventually got its hands on China, rented Hong Kong and started opium wars
>Eventually there was a big revolt, the name of which and outcome I forget but I'm sure everything worked out nicely for everyone involved
>The red menace struck and Mao did a lot of purges
>Today China still pretends it's a communist country
As far as I'm aware, after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, there were no states or any rule of law, just roving bands of brigands opressing meek peasants until Charlegmane came along and fixed everything, and was crowned Roman Emperor as a thank you
>>445018
Well thanks. I really only have a cursory knowledge on south America. It's my weakest in terms of history.
Glad I at least have it somewhat right. Thanks for adding insight.
Also fuck oil.
>>445354
Western Rome's collapse was accelerated by the new power structures in Europe. The weren't just wandering brigands, but actual kingdoms and nations that competed with Rome and each other.
>>445268
>The 7th Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, a different group than the U.N. fact-finding mission, stated that the sarin used in the Ghouta attack bore the "same unique hallmarks" as the sarin used in the Khan al-Assal attack.
Are you implying that the Khan al-Assal attack was done by the Syrian government? 16 govnernment soldiers and 10 civilians died in that attack, no opposition members. The report into it was also inconclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_al-Assal_chemical_attack#The_UN_Human_Rights_Council_investigation
> In none of the incidents, however, was the commission’s evidentiary threshold met in regards to identifying the perpetrators of the chemical attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_al-Assal_chemical_attack#The_UN_.2F_OPCW_Mission
>Åke Sellström, the chief investigator of the UN/OPCW mission was asked about the possibility that the Khan-al-Assal incident was an opposition chemical attack.
>When asked if he thought the rebels were behind the attack, he replied “I don’t know. I don’t know who was the perpetrator, I have no idea, but the [Syrian] government >wanted< it investigated. The government was irritated that we didn’t have the mandate to point to the perpetrator at Khan al Asal, that we couldn’t speculate who was the perpetrator.”
>>445268
>>445429
>"When we come to Khan al Asal, there are two witness statements on how this happened: one is that it is rockets and the other is that it is friendly fire from a Syrian fighter jet.
>The interesting thing about those two stories is that the Syrian fighter pilot is missing. It is logical, if you do friendly fire as a pilot you would rather go missing than get caught, or this is your last flight and you are going to work for the opposition then you do something."
>Sellström also noted that the Syrian government had originally requested the UN investigation into the Khan-al-Assal attack and commented: "So there was a background that makes you believe that maybe, just maybe, that the government was right".
>>442054
A lot of the Lost Cause mythos is propagated in public schools in the South. As someone who spent the first 24 years of his life in southern Louisiana, I saw this firsthand. The "states rights" ploy was taught to us. For years, I thought that slavery was a minor issue ("the straw that broke the camel's back," as my 7th grade American History teacher put it) regarding the war's cause. It wasn't until later that I realized that that kind of thinking was simply a mechanism for white southerners to get around the slavery issue so as to not feel bad about themselves and their heritages. Remember, this was a war that was fought largely on Southern soil amongst the homes and properties of the people of the time. Many people today still live on or near the properties that their ancestors owned during the war, and those people don't want to think that their ancestors fought to keep an entire race of people subjugated. Hence, states rights became a trope for slavery.
Homo sapie s defeated homo erectus around 600,000 bc
They all used spears at this age.
Around 80,000 bc, advanced, pila like javelins were being used.
Around 30,000 bc there was an ice age
This killed neanderthalis iff because they where shorter and couldnt hunt game as well in a frozen hellscape with no ambush cover.
When the ice age lifts and neanderthalis die, that one anthropological theory where people spread away from eachother happens until humans are at every corner of the earth.
Then humans become the biggest enemy to humans. Societies that arent large and unified die out. Around 10,000 bc basic naval seafarring and bows already exist. The dibblestick comes into existance, meaning people must now defend land.
Then with advanced farming, cities emerge around 6,00p bc. Then city fortifications, such as walls, at 5,000 bc some guy writies down the first thing ever, codeified laws. Before they where shown through language or sheer force
>>445642
Large communities of people came before humans. Chimps where doing large societies millions of years ago, and did things such as duel clan leaders and take revenge, sometimes even having battles with baboon clans. Larger communities came about would be more accurate.
>>445288
Don't forget about ancient China. Under the Qin/Han dynasty ~200BC, China unified itself in a greater magnitude than any other ancient state. Not to name-drop, but I'm going off Fairbank/Goldman.
>>445531
Northerner here,
It bothers me just as much that Northerners teach that the Union fought to free the slaves for moral reasons. I got the impression from McPherson and Foote that the vast, vast majority of fighting men in the North basically didn't give a shit about the slaves (in fact, several regiments deserted after the emancipation proclamation), and even then most abolitionists dislike slavery because it was holding the country back economically rather than because it was a moral wrong.
So teachers making it sound like the Union did literally nothing wrong and that it fought to free them oppressed slaves is every bit as retarded as Southerners claiming that slavery was only a minor issue.
It also grinds my gears when people say that the North or South were unanimous in supporting their sides. The North had massive draft riots (including the biggest riot in US history), while the South couldn't even get it's constituent states to actually work together.
>>445531
>ploy
That's some weak b8.
