> Decide to check out this cool french documentary on WW1 voiced by Mathieu Kassovitz called "The Apocalypse"
> First minute: George Lawrence Price was the last soldier to die
> It's time to stop
Why modern documentary are so full of shit ? Why don't they have any standard of quality ? What happened with being rigorous with facts ?
First, Lawrence Price is just one of the contender for being the last, there's many others claims, he's at best the "last" english man to die on November, 11th. Yet you have Trebuchon, Gunther, etc... does the documentary mention any of that ? Nop.
Also, and more importantly, it's fucking WW1 ! Do they think every soldier on the front have a fucking cellphone to know the war is over ? Do they think every holes have wireless internet to check on Armistice status ? Do they EVERY soldiers are just cool with it and won't try to kill just another kraut before leaving ?
There were war deaths MONTHS after the Armistice.
Now, as a teacher, am I suppose to show my students a documentary starting with a lazy lie ? Fuck modern documentaries, they are so much looking for the "little stories" they forget to talk about History.
and sorry for my awful english, i'm a frog
>>1366805
The German diaries of the Great War is on Netflix and is pretty good. The reenactment stuff isn't so good but it's just people's first hand accounts of the war so it's worth watching
>>1366887
It's probably the best way to get a good documentary but it's also lazy and lacks perspective.
The problem is simple, producers have decide long ago historians are bad storyteller so now they want "small History" with meaningless but "fun" facts told by miseducated journalists.
why do people lionize the mongols?
sure Genghis Khan and his horde was remarkable, but the matter of fact is that they were a virus to human civilization as a whole
>it's a "why do people idolize [popular Civilisation], they were assholes"
Because Mongols are interesting as hell. They're history's biggest one hit wonder so far.
They killed a large number of Chinese and Arabs, thus paving the way for Western civilization based on democracy and rule of law to become the global standard.
They were even nice enough to create trade networks to connect the bubonic plague from its source in China to Europe, so that Europe's old social structure would be demolished and the Enlightenment could happen.
Can someone explain intersectionalism to me? I don't understand it at all.
I have no idea what it is which is why I had to use this random picture I had saved.
that picture raises a more interesting question than the one you typed in the thread text
>>1366631
Being a black woman is roughly twice as bad as being black or a woman. There, you can think about something more useful now.
Comes from Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, a Catholic theologian
Hi /his/, i have some questions on the roman army
1. Why did the romans use swords instead of spears? I heard they used spears untill the punic wars, were they encountered iberians with the gladius and then adopted it. But why use a sword if you could use a spear wich is cheaper and had more range.
2. Why did the romans stop using the scutum in the 3d century? It seems like the the best shield ever (big, great for formation, protected much thanks to it being curved and being able to put the shield on the ground).
3. Was the roman infantry the only one to use javelins befor melee? I never heard of it before or after (medieval times).
>>1366629
1. It was more mobile and swords have a shock factor when you compare spear wounds to sword wounds. There was an account of a Greek leader encountering the Romans and when his soldiers saw the horrific wounds on those that had died they lost morale.
2. Scutum was phased out because the legions relied more on moving fast as time moved on and I suppose they encumbered the legionaries. Honestly it was the sign of the times of Rome falling apart.
Not too sure about the third point.
>>1366629
>1. Why did the romans use swords instead of spears? I heard they used spears untill the punic wars, were they encountered iberians with the gladius and then adopted it. But why use a sword if you could use a spear wich is cheaper and had more range.
It's harder to use a spear in a tight-packed formation with big shields. It enables you as a soldier to be more versatile and mobile. A spear is also a lot heavier than a sword, and having held a reproduction of a scutum there's no way you could effectively use one with a spear.
>2. Why did the romans stop using the scutum in the 3d century? It seems like the the best shield ever (big, great for formation, protected much thanks to it being curved and being able to put the shield on the ground).
There was a trend towards longer swords. Most Roman soldiers by this point were using the Spatha instead of the Gladius, and like with the spear it's not easy to wield a longer sword and a huge shield.
Vegetius wasn't a military man and pretty much everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt, but he says that there was a tendancy for Late Roman generals to want to engage the enemy "at arm's length" compared to the earlier Imperial army, which is why they started to use spears again, as well as longer swords.
>3. Was the roman infantry the only one to use javelins befor melee? I never heard of it before or after (medieval times).
It's actually not that uncommon. At the time, the Gauls, Carthaginians and Iberians did the same thing. The Late Romans used smaller darts, which the Medieval Irish also used. The Welsh and Norse also did it in Medieval times, and the Zulus in the more modern era.
>>1366629
They got their tactics from Etruscans.
Is bureaucracy the most effective way of running a state?
>>1366589
It's slow as shite, but it's organised and as blunt as an mallet with autism.
Non-bureaucracy is relaxed, fast, spur-of-the-moment and free.
>>1366589
God no.
>>1366589
Define effective. It's not the most efficient, and efficiency goes a very long way in the value of effectiveness in most circumstances.
The most efficient, however, may very well be some manner of despotism, which is more prone to corruption, with fewer "moving parts" which could be broken or in a state of ill repair.
>muh stamp act
>On February 21, a resolution to repeal the Stamp Act was introduced and passed by a vote of 276–168. The King gave royal assent on March 18, 1766.[98][99]
>muh taxation without representation
>In February 1775, Britain passed the Conciliatory Resolution which ended taxation for any colony which satisfactorily provided for the imperial defence and the upkeep of imperial officers.[58]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNGz6LYY6_g
Okay, thanks Constantine. You always bring quality posts.
Constantine, everyone. Showing a fine regard for the Sabbath like a good Christian.
When's the orgy?
>>1366470
Now he just got to turn his misdirected aim against Napolen towards the eternal Anglo and he will be gold.
What is the story about this island?
>>1366398
French clay
>nobody cares
>Napoleon is born there
>Napoleon leaves
>no one cares
>no one cares
>no one cares
>Napoleon returns
>Napoleon leaves again
>no one cares
>no one cares
>no one cares
Tell me about the history of weed.
Cannabis is native to Central Asia, the Aryans were the first to use it.
The Scythians introduced it to Europe. The words hemp, canvas, and cannabis, go back to Scythian *kanabis.
Herodotus wrote that the Scythians took steam baths in it and shouted for joy. In Norse paganism cannabis was associated with Freyja. There are traces of hashish in the Celtic Halstatt culture. Sacks of cannabis were common burial goods among the Tocharian mummies in the Tarim Basin.
>>1366360
It's THE most important source of strong, durable fiber in history
Hemp for Victory!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1oFcgLfgV0
>>1366360
Would also like to know more than this
How did chicago come to be such a murder driven city /his/? speculations from more recent events and older ones would be much appreciated .
Jews and blacks
>>1366357
Prohibition
Swedish immigrants
Red pill me on the Scottish kilt
Riddle me this:
>was it a Scottish, English or French invention?
and these two contrasting opinions....
>"it was invented in Victorian times by Walter Scott in a manufactured attempt to romanticize the Scottish to impress the English during a royal visit!"
>"the kilt has been around for hundreds of years before the Victorians! the only thing that was romanticized was the romantic concept of attributing a tartan pattern by clan/family name!"
bump - I wanna know too
Haven't Celts always worn tartan-patterned clothes?
>>1366455
OP here -- yeah, I forgot to add the fact that some people believe it to be an Irish invention, which makes sense.
I really want to know about the Victorian era 'kilt' issue because so many people get salty over this.
Were the Russian Old Believers justified in their schism?
fff, where is Constantine when you need her.
>>1366293
Old Believers practice original Russian Orthodoxy as it used to be for centuries, so I guess. Prior to Nikon's church reforms Russian Orthodoxy had been extremely different from what its neighbors practiced. Said reforms modernized Russian practices and brought them to be more in line with how Ukrainian clergy of the time worked. Hell, plenty of Russian Orthodox higher-ups like Theophan Prokopovich or Stefan Yavorsky had Kyiv Mohyla Academy education.
>the "schismatics" were actually more Orthodox all along
This seems like a huge deal with tons of serious implications. Why isn't it discussed more?
>le rus were vikings xD meme
>Rurik was finnish
>no archeological evidence for any fucking Norse activity in Russia
>even the viking theory itself makes no sense because apparently only the ruling class was Norse to begin with so that still makes Rus Slavs with some Norse thrown in
in other words Byzantium BTFO'd ruskies not vikings
B-but muh Primary Chronicle!
There are a few varangian-slav settlements in Russia because of the trade routes they formed with Greece, such a Gnezdovo. As for Rurik in Lagoda and Novgorod, well, I don't know.
You're right though, the origins of the rurikid dynasty are shrouded in myth. Has anyone here read the Primary Chronicle?
>>1366280
What are you talking about, the sagas are full of stories of Scandinavian viking kings and nobles spending time with their cousins, aunts etc. in Rus
>>1366436
The sagas also mention a witch who had an army of monsters and raised people from the dead, a king who lived for hundreds of years and that berserkers could actually shapeshift into a fucking bear.
It's the archeologic finds that matter not some fairy tales Ivan.
Does it make any sense for an anarchist to endorse monarchism?
>>1366196
No, never. Not once. An anarchist that endorses monarchism is not an anarchist.
>>1366210
/thread
If they're some sort of accelerationist I guess maybe.
But accelerationism is retarded.
Are Sorbs just meme slavs?
>>1366051
>meme slavs
What do you mean by this?
Does anyone even speak Sorbian or is it a dead language?
Is their borders about as meaningful as those of Sapmi or do they actually make up a majority anywhere in most of it?
Who had the biggest balls in the history of the world?
You just /thread'd your own thread OP
>>1366011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Pilecki
caitlyn jenner
so brave
