Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 1162. page
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
Why didn't the French emigrate in large numbers to Quebec or other European colonies like the Brits, Germans, Spanish, Portuguese, Irish, Poles, Scandis?
bumpan
>>24241
they did, additionally many Huguenots went to british colonies instead of new france
There are plenty of French descendants in Quebec?
![2000px-Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/xtgyud7.png "2000px-Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg[1].png")
Let's talk about that ever popular topic, the Civil War.
I've seen arguments over whether the war was about slavery. Would it be accurate to say that the South's secession was over slavery, but the war was over secession?
Back in high school, I was told that Britain was seriously considering aiding the South. Is that true? If Britain had joined the war, could the South have won?
The South secession was hugely motivated by slavery, but the North was largely motivated by the need to keep the South for revenue purposes. At the time, the South was paying well over half of the tax, and there were also concerns of the Mississippi River being closed to Midwest shipping.
An interesting thing to me is the South's formation in the context of the age of Nationalism- the South was beginning to think of itself as an independent section with its own culture and traditions around the same time Germany and Italy were pursuing unification. The war accelerated...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
confederates did nothing wrong
>>24158
Let's learn a little about American slavery first, shall we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao7FKReHYKY
How accurate is Guns, Germs and Steel?
It's fairly accurate, but remember its simply an attempt to explain how and why Europeans had several significant advantages over the rest of the world. I am sure that there are some parts of it that might contain some factual inaccuracies however I think that the majority of objections to this book are ideological and are mostly espoused by /pol/tards.
It's Eurocentric garbage.
Never read it but I get the idea and I don't think the idea is too far off. Europe did have some advantages over other areas of the world.
One of the most fascinating theories I've heard about ancient Egyptian civilization is that they got their knowledge from a civilization that's even older. The way the Great Pyramid of Giza was built, it's mathematical accuracy and construction, is likely way more advanced than what Egypt was capable of at the time. It's possible that there was another civilization, more advanced, and lost to time.
What does /his/ think? Is there some truth to it, or is is bullshit? Was Egypt really one of the first civilizations capable of undertaking such massive building...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
People love to underestimate the wisdom and ingenuity of ancients.
honestly no one really knows who constructed the pyramids. they were just copied and copied over again and again but with horrible results. people all want to lay claim that they are the progeny of the builders.
>>24039
No i am pretty sure they built them. Their mathematics included the idea of a slope, kind of like y=kx. The slope of a pyramid is the same slope a pile of sand has, for example, the sand in an hourglass.
Why is the Middle East as fucked up as it is today? Is it all because how the British and the French messed with their national borders after WW1 or did something already go terribly wrong long before that?
>>23993
When hasn't shit been going wrong over there? You can hardly say its anything as recent as the British. Being the intersection point between three continents its always been pretty screwy. The birthplace of civilization, but still screwy.
>>24046
For example, I think the region was much better off than Europe during the Middle Ages.
>>24122
You're speaking pretty relatively there. It was a time period of stability and growth but I hesitate to call that anything more than the result of an empire keeping its foothold strong. And that didn't last long.
>talking about ww2, rome, communsim ect.
Wow get all that casual normie shit out of here
Let's talk about the Incan road system
i don't know a shit about those things, but keep posting more about it, i am intersted
>>23644
Romefags and naziboos will ruin this board, mark my words.
And Incan roads are quite incredible tbqh.
Give us a quick run-down (pun intended).
Why have Jewish people been expelled 109 times since 250 AD?
I'm honestly curious, no hidden motive or anything.
They're bad for "business" - the business of running sovereign countries.
You're getting better at the shitposting /pol/
Soon you might even be able to create bait threads that lead to lively discussion
They were disliked because of their religion. bunch of bad rumours were made about Jews. Like that they kidnap kids and eat them.
Could the split have been avoided? Why didn't Muhammad name a successor (or did he)?
What would it take to get these guys to stop fighting?
All religions, given enough time, will develop a schism of some sort. Even if the Shiite-Sunni split didn't happen, there would have been another split of some time that resulted in the two splinter groups hating the other.
Islam never developed an institution like the Catholic Church (which itself had to continuously deal with various heresies).
That, combined with how large the first Islamic empire got, would make some form of religious fracturing inevitable
What i want to know is what the hell happened to Fatimah
she just up and dies soon after the split 'happened' and i cant find out what kills her she was like 28
/his/ enthusiast here. I think it'd be fun to get to discussing some interesting history.
What does everyone think of the Holy Roman Empire? I've always been fascinated by the other Roman states and empires, but this is one I never much read up on. I've only ever heard bad things on it, such as it in truth only being a loose group of small kingdoms all more interested in fighting each other than being a group, how true is that?
It was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire as they saying goes.
>>23501
How so? I know they formed themselves off the idea that they had papal support, and were the ultimate christians, basing themselves off Rome, and controlled a large amount of land under an Emperor. What makes the title wrong?
>>23548
Well the 'not holy' part comes from the idea that most of the emperor spent a good portion of their rule disputing claims with the Papacy. Not Roman is self evident in the fact that most of the rulers were Germanic, who were the enemies of Rome back at the time of the Emptire. Not an empire is the play on the idea that it was merely a loose confederation of barons who spent as much time warring on each other as they did other people.
Hopefully this won't be cancer. To all the armchair /his/torians out there that love to speculate: What would be some of the implications of a world where Carthage beat Rome?
Elephants tanks? I dunno
>>23357
>Hopefully this won't be cancer
>General
Is this thread about actual army generals, or are you starting another terrible trend of continuous threads?
Why did Rome wipe out Carthage? Was it out of paranoia? Even worse, when Hannibal was making reforms and getting rid of corruption in Carthage, the Romans demanded Hannibal to go in exile.
>>23071
You think Hannibal would've been any kinder to Rome?
Both of them were extremely vengeful and ambitious empires. They were seeking to eliminate the other to assert their absolute dominance over the Mediterranean.
queen dido was a slut
>>23071
>Carthage sends general into Italy
>slaughters hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians
>can't siege any of the major cities themselves so he just fucks off
It pissed off the Republic so badly they literally outlawed any mention of peace with Carthage in public
Carthage in many ways stood in the way of Roman imperialism, no other civilization had the navy to match Rome's at the time
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Which country has the most boring history? I'm talking about sizeable countries, not meme non-countries like Barbados or Liechtenstein or whatever.
Pic very much related.
The USA
Australia's history is only boring because 90% of Australian history taught to Australians focuses on the exploits and misfortunes of aboriginals.
Australian history has a few interesting events like the Eureka rebellion, but it's pretty dull otherwise.
It's weird how New Zealand has such a vastly interesting colonial period whilst Australia doesn't. Is it due to the Maori just being far better at resisting/dealing with Europeans than aboriginals?
You are Tojo.
The year is 1939.
How do you win World War 2?
Don't poke the sleeping giant. Invade the Soviet Union from the East when Hitler begins Barbarossa.
Start the development of a nuclear bomb. Use it against the USSR.
>>22681
Japan COULDN'T invade Russia.
They simply didn't have the power to break through.
A lot of threads on US presidents around here. Forget that for a moment, who's your favorite British PM?
William Pitt the Elder
attlee's a bro he did the nhs and beat churchill
Better than Edens
>mfw you actually had a PM who was high on amphetamines.
Can we talk about Americas best president, James K Polk?
Lets look at his accomplishments:
>Increased Americas Land Mass by 2/3rds
>Manifest Destiny is only a thing because James K Polk accomplished it
>He took over half of Mexico and gave the shitty part back
>He said he would only serve 1 term as president. served that term, and didn't run again. Died 1 year later, after making America the greatest nation in the world.
James...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Best? He did an alright job, but winning the Mexican war came mostly down to Scott and Taylor. There's nothing that really distinguishes him as one of the better wartime presidents.
>>22375
> I just learnt who James Polk is
William Henry Harrison was best prez because he had the decency to kill himself and so spare the Republic of his administration
