The setting is on a open field, no forests, no cover other than high grass.
All of the warriors are in their latest forms, but no gunpowder weapons allowed.
ARMOR:
Vikings have chain mail, helmets, leather bracers, and wood shields.
Spartans have bronze breastplates, shinguards, bracers, and helmets, with the shields.
Knights are decked out in full plate, but no shield.
Samurai are also decked in full plate, not the early bamboo armor.
Romans have steel scale breastplates with bracers and shinguards with Roman shields.
WEAPONS:
Vikings both get Ulfberht swords, viking bows, and one viking spear.
Spartans get 4 javelins and 2 hoplite swords.
Knights both get Scottish Claymores, morningstars, one halberd, and one crossbow.
Samurai get 2 yumis, 2 katanas, one naginata, and one kanabo.
Romans get 2 gladius and 4 pila.
The soldiers can use whatever tactics their people used in history, they cannot do anything out of character.
Who would win?
>one crossbow
Knights
The legions wrecked in pitched, orderly, battles
The Knights might give a good show though.
>>314052
>crossbows
Knights win because they instantly turn it into a 2v1 5 minutes into the match.
Has there ever been a more debauched, vile, wicked, and deviant pope in history than Alexander VI?
Pope Francis.
>unironically liking a Marxist agent
All I need to know about the Borgias, I learned on AssCreed.
>>314015
>Implying he compares to the most vile popes of history
Why do people argue for nuclear disarmament when history has shown that nuclear weapons are the only thing preventing a major war between two developed nations?
Because fear.
Because ordinary wars between major powers kill lots of people, in the unlikely event of a nuclear war everyone dies.
>>313912
Because many people on this planet are just plain stupid and ignorant.
Is this the best of all possibile worlds, /his/?
Memes aside, if we somewhat postulate the existence of God, could he create a perfect world? Or could he only settle for a balance between freedom and sin?
God did create a perfect world. We mucked it up.
Leibniz smokes crack.
>>313892
>best of all possible worlds
I would say that of all the possible worlds, we live in the reality which was created so we must assume it's perfection, otherwise we fall into gnosticism or cult to the chaos, which ends up being much more insane because subjectivism and idealism.
>Australia’s national curriculum is getting a trim with the scrapping of history and geography as stand-alone subjects and replacing this with 21st century computer coding.
>According to the Australian, a new digital technologies curriculum was endorsed by Australia’s education ministers yesterday which would see students as young as early as Year 5 picking up computer coding with students starting to program by Year 7.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australian-schools-are-scrapping-history-and-geography-and-replacing-them-with-coding-classes-2015-9
HAIL STEM
>>313742
>Aussies are going to take my job
>Not only do I have to compete with loo-less poo-ers but now I have to compete with an entire nation of shitposters.
Just wreck my belongings up, to be truthful family.
>>314814
>implying Aussies would want to move to your Povertystan
It is not like Australian learn history.
They don't even learn about the Hundred Years War or the War of the Roses.
Seems like histoy started with WWI.
how did rome explode from a relatively small Italian state to a European empire in such a short amount of time?
It was full of privilaged white people that just randomly invaded people.
>>313718
i'm guessing the pic is a troll?
Who would win?
Knight, however the samurai is more effective vs the lightly armored peasants they fought.
me desu
>>313692
What's the contest?
What are their arms and weapons?
Also tell me a little bit about the combatants. How many duels have they fought?
Why is logic accepted as the means to truth? Why should I trust in logic?
you cant even define truth without citing logic
but logic is any set of consistent ideals so it is theoretically subjective
Logic = thinking using truth and facts.
>>313801
No. Logic is the form or structure of language. You can say false things about imaginary beings and still have logic validity.
>all rwabs are tucktuck
>gurgur is a rwab
>therefore gurgur is tucktuck
True Roman thread. Only true, catholic Romans allowed.
>inb4 le 3 lies meme
>HOLY
>ROMAN
>EMPIRE
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire
P A T H E T I C
>Germans calling themselves Roman
"Carthage must be Destroyed"
I must unite the Turkic peoples under one flag
"Gott straffe England"
"Let them eat cake"- Boudicca, after the Siege of Orléans
Time for a thought experiment. Suppose you showed up at a university anytime between, let’s say, 1910 and 1970, and went from department to department asking (in so many words): what are you excited about this century? Where are your new continents, what’s the future of your field? Who should I read to learn about that future?
In physics, the consensus answer would’ve been something like: Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac.
In psychology, it would’ve been: Freud and Jung (with another faction for B. F. Skinner).
In politics and social sciences, over an enormous swath of academia (including in the West), it would’ve been: Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin.
With hindsight, we now know that the physics advice would’ve been absolute perfection, the psychology and politics advice an unmitigated disaster. Yes, physicists today know more than Einstein, can even correct him on some points, but the continents he revealed to us actually existed—indeed, have only become more important since Einstein’s time.
But Marx and Freud? You would’ve done better to leave the campus, and ask a random person on the street what she or he thought about economics and psychology. In high school, I remember cringing through a unit on the 1920s, when we learned about how “two European professors upset a war-weary civilization’s established certainties—with Einstein overturning received wisdom about space and time, and Freud doing just the same for the world of the mind.” It was never thought important to add that Einstein’s theories turned out to be true while Freud’s turned out to be false. Still, at least Freud’s ideas led “only” to decades of bad psychology and hundreds of innocent people sent to jail because of testimony procured through hypnosis, rather than to tens of millions of dead, as with the other social-scientific theory that reigned supreme among 20th-century academics.
2/2
Marx and Freud built impressive intellectual edifices—sufficiently impressive for a large fraction of intellectuals to have accepted those men as gurus on par with Darwin and Einstein for almost a century. Yet on nearly every topic they wrote about, we now know that Marx and Freud couldn’t have been any more catastrophically wrong. Moreover, their wrongness was knowable at the time—and was known to many, though the ones who knew were typically the ones who the intellectual leaders sneered at, as deluded reactionaries.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2494
>I just picked a section of it, the full thing is in there. How will /his/ dialectic their way out of this one?
>>313364
>psycho analysis didn't establish the scientific study of the human psychology
>Marx isn't one of the founding fathers of modern sociological research
And Lenin and Trotsky have never been in the majority
>>313376
So damn, I'm mad. And holy fuck does this guy imply physics didn't have a massive paradigm shift during the 20th century. Does this guy know that around 1900 people were still believing in the existence of fucking ether
>10 page paper due tonight
>only have the statistical model
Write an outline and get moving
>shit on by STEM majors
>shit on by public opinion
>shit on by Republicans
>only thing I have an interest in is history
>studying history in uni is a waste of time because lol no job
>R-rule, Britannia!
>india
I guess alot of brits died from the poo trenches
I like the German guys name
Tbf he was one hell of a commander; spent the whole of the war isolated yet he went undefeated
What are the biggest popular misconceptions and myths surrounding the Dark Ages and medieval history?
>>313287
They weren't that dark
>>313287
Dunno but people tend to forget that the early middle ages happened at all, just look at any modern depiction of something "medieval" and you will always get something closer to the renaissance than to the fucking middle ages.
>>313482
Honestly, at least in my country, people refer the early feudal middle ages as medieval more than renaissance
If Russia had integrated with the native Siberian peoples, could they have discovered and invaded the Americas via land bridge?
>>313283
Yes, but only if the Russian state was created 15.000 years before when the landbridge still existed.
>>313459
Russia is eternal.
>>313283
I HOPE THAT EVENTUALLY, YOU REALIZE HOW MORONIC THAT QUESTION IS.
