History porn.
>>38263
good for you
>>38263
this show what kind of people posts on 4chan
but "would a rose by another name smell different?"
just call it picdump, it's more 4chan
>>38331
the fuckwas that pic
i meant to post this one
ITT: God-tier kings
Did kings really wear jewelry?
>>38211
You are supposed to show how rich you are.
In looking for a philosophy that is based on the natural world and has little or nothing to do with humans and how to live life. Idk if that makes sense. Maybe metaphysics or something, or a kind of naturalistic spirituality.
>>38108
sam harris
he also objectively proves how you should live using science.
Basically i want to become one with the rocks and sky.
>>38176
Why?
Hello all,
I'd like to have a thread where we share stuff we've read/seen that's board relevant which we feel allows a better understanding of historical developments or that succinctly describes cultural/military/social/etc. trends. This can be either in the form of just quotes (if they're self explanatory enough by themselves) or further exposition about the point you're making.
On my end, after reading On War by Clausewitz, I've frequently reflected back on how universally true many of his observations about armed conflict are.
For example, he makes a point about how violence in war - both throughout history and in any specific war - naturally tends to increase the more protracted a conflict becomes. This is because the first side to escalate the brutality of their conduct in battle gains an advantage over their opponent, thereby provoking their opponent to do the same (or inducing the opponent to escalate brutality first, through the simple fear they could otherwise lose the advantage by waiting.) I've always thought that was an incredibly relevant observation in looking at military history.
>
>>37951
While we're on the topic of Clausewitz, I liked his idea that the most important requirement for waging was successfully is in marshaling the violent impulse of the nation. Failures in this explain cases where a belligerent gave up a conflict despite having the upper hand in every other way.
>>37951
To provide another point I have mulled over since first reading it is from Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations." I feel his overview of why currency is a fundamental component of building a society (and precious metals natural value in facilitating systems of exchange) was very illuminating (that feels a little pretentious to write, but I'm trying to bump with content because I'm really, really interested in seeing what other people have to say.)
I'm going to look for that passage to see if I can post it.
Do you have one/multiple historical figures that inspired your interest in history?
For me it's Hannibal.
>I was about 12 y/o
>I played demo version of Rome: Total War that had only tutorial and 1 historical battle available - battle of Trebia.
>replayed this shit like 200 times (sweet times before internet and losing interest in anything in 20 minutes)
>decided that I want to know more about this guy, because idea of using elephants in war sounded pretty based
>After searching through history books from earlier years of school and encyclopedia I went to the library and got old, dusty book written in 70s-80s (based on the looks) and swallowed it in few days
>was absolutely blown out, not only by his history (and the fact that there were no elephants in combat in Trebia ;_;), but also the fact how interesing the history can be, and how fun it's read something of this quality (only reed shit like Harry Potter by then desu senpai)
I'm still not sure if I should mad that he didn't get high budget movie during /his/ movies boom in early 00s or grateful since it'd be hollywood tier bullshit.
[spoiler]/blog[/spoiler]
>>37893
Judah Maccabee
>fuck Hellenizers
>fuck Seleucids
>fuck edomites
For me its probably after reading that Ramses II novel when i was little, pharaohs looked cool as fuck in my imagination
>>37893
>Joan of Arc
She was a farm girl, with no military or political power. Her family had some money, but nowhere close to be influential on the larger scheme of things.
One day he heard voices that told her to go and save his country from invaders. She said "ok", and managed to turn around the war. Eventually became a saint.
Is... like pulled out of a fantasy novel, about predestination, beating the odds and plain magic. It was quite incredible to me to learn about her.
What would have happened had the Federal United States government died with the articles of confederation?
What if the conflicts between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had been too intense for the union to continue.
How would the 13 colonies fare? Which would be the least developed and the most? Would Louisiane still be a French colony to this day? Would Mexico's unhampered control over the American continent (including access to the gold reserves in California and Colorado) have led them to be a powerful player in the world stage in absence of the non-existent United States? How would have the World Wars played out? Would the individual American states have involved themselves? Would a Native Confederation (at least in the Eastern Midwest) sprung up to defend themselves from the weaker singular states?
What would be really funny is if the 13 colonies tried to extend their territory westward instead of creating new states. According to this map, Virginia, Georgia and Massachusetts would become the most powerful states, especially if they extended their claims to the Pacific coast.
>>37866
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but by that point France had already owned a lot of the stuff to the left of the colonies, right?
I think Napoleon wouldn't have sold the Louisiana Purchase then, he would've needed the money but he gave it to Thomas Jefferson because he also liked the Americans generally and they were neutral to the affairs in Europe.
>>38178
Not to mention the Spanish colonies on the other side.
But those states proposed would end up being unmanageable logistical nightmares.
Could Alexander the Great have stopped Genghis Khan?
No.
if he had one nazi panzer tank then yes
>>37766
No. Even if he had up-to-date equipment he would not really be able to stop the hordes from reaching the same places they did normally. As it turns out fighting Mongols is pretty fucking hard.
After the numerous times throughout history where societies found what they believed, in matters of religion, science or social subjects, was lies; or how we look what past societies believed as the truth and we now know it was false, after all those times where people formulated and spread lies about past or present events to manipulate or decieve in favor of their own agenda
How do you know the history you believe as true isn't just the lies created by other men?
There is no way of knowing. The broad strokes I imagine are there.
>>37478
nothing is objectively true and everything is open to interpretation and re-evaluation
>inb4 except the holocaust
>>37478
This is the fourth thread with this same shitty premise.
Fuck off.
ITT we post our favourite gay figures from History
Alexander the Great
Hadrian
>Shakespeare
>gay
>Knocked up a chick before they were married
Try to keep to real gays, like Leonardo.
abraham lincoln
ITT: We talk about why the pyramids were created.
>build by ayylmaos as roadspikes against giants
As mausoleums for their dead Pharaohs.
>>37445
Because why not? What else was there to do at the time but build some cool looking shit?
>>37475
this tBh
When did mankind start Anthropogenic Global Warming on a mass basis? I'd say the 1800s Industrial Revolution.
>>37902
> 1800s Industrial Revolution
>>37357
You would be correct in that assertion.
Is there such a thing as objective historical distance? Does 25 years guarantee an evincing of "factual data" or linear historicized truths any more legitimate than the bias of the "moment" would?
25 years ago marked the end of the Cold War era; it think that is why it was chosen.
>>37270
>any more legitimate than the bias of the "moment"
Of course they're more legitimate. More data can be scrutinised by various people from differing backgrounds. At the same time if you leave things too late then you have people with completely alien cultural standards making moral judgements and making basic errors.
>>37270
There's no clear cutoff date, of course, but yes, generally more recent events fall under political science category.
How did people know where to sail in Oceania and the Pacific?
Did they just get lucky to stumble upon remote places like Hawaii or do you think countless migrations were lost for that one success?
>>37241
I don't get this at all either.
I understand that if they were good sailors they could find a place once they knew it was there, but did they make a habit of sailing WAY out into the middle of nowhere just to see if they'd find anything? That sounds utterly mad.
They would sail out looking for new lands and use the stars to navigate back if they didn't find something. Probably lots and lots of them never came back.
>>37306
Humans do tons of crazy things.
Since most threads on alternate history so far have been on whether Japan could take on the US, I wanted to know if Japan was even able to take on their most imminent enemy, the Chinese. Say the US didn't oil embargo Japan and didn't send any volunteers or equipment to the China, could Japan even have finished China? Japan had far superior equipment, but China obviously had more manpower. China also retreated into it's mountain ranges. Their new capital Chongqing was in the mountains for example.
Japan really fucked China, they even used biological and chemical warfare, but it still seems like it reached a stalemate in 1942. I think China is to Japan what the USSR was to Germany.
>>37077
China was on the brink of capitulation until American loans propped up Chang.
>>37117
China wasn't even united at the time. There were multiple Chinese forces independently holding out,
>>37117
Did countries even stop fighting when they're out of money? The UK had a HUGE wardebt, but they didn't stop fighting.
Why do people idolise the Vikings so much? On a similiar note, who do you think are the most underrated or overlooked people in history?
>>37057
The original Newfoundlander
Aye b'ys
>>37057
>Why do people idolise the Vikings so much?
They're pretty much edgy european knights that aren't Christian so they are more relatable to the multiculti politically correct hordes.
>>37057
People in western civilization, whether they realise it or not, idolise them because they represent a much society where strength, courage and merit counted for a lot more. They were a small group of "savages" living in a frozen shithole who managed to build a trading Empire, challenged the mightiest civilizations in Europe at the time and accomplished unprecedented feats of navigation for their era. Also they're Metal as fuck
Most Underrated: Probably the pre-Colonial era South American civilizations.
![Friedrich_Zweite_Alt[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/E6n0NJv.jpg "Friedrich Zweite Alt[1]")
