Why do you faggots love to discuss WW1 so much?
I read about WW1 and feel absolutely nothing because all those deaths were pointless and all the real happenings were in WW2. I don't know why it is so popular here, its like gushing over Windows 2000 even though XP is widely regarded as the peak of the Windows OS and answered all the problems raised as early as Windows 98. Or talking about how perfect the marbling looked on a slab of chuck before it was turned into hamburger. Its irrelevant because of what became of it.
Clearly the horrors of mechanized warfare and wholesale slaughter in WW1 weren't as earthshattering as you imagine them to be if 20 years later the world restarted the war but with even better weapons, rhetoric, atrocities and body counts. We retroactively paint a picture of a war weary Europe, disgusted with war but also one curiously tainted with foreshadowing of the rhetoric of WW2. Everyone looks to 1918 for all their answers to why communism, fascism and antisemitism rose in WW2, but no one bothers looking before 1914, as if these ideologies are somehow temporally restrained to this period and don't have a long, forgotten history accelerated and catalyzed by WW1. We see Marx, and we see the 1918 revolution, we see Stalin but we don't see the trail leading back all the way to 1848. Fascism, a militaristic, nationalistic ideology is merely the end extreme of a harder, edgier form of normal European imperialism; in the German case, going all the way back to the >H >R >E . Likewise, we see Mein Kampf and the Holocaust as connected, but we don't see centuries of antisemitism and pogroms.
So why do people, ultimately just fans of pointless human misery, see WW1 as having some meaning other than accelerating processes already deeply embedded in European society and culture? Its a speed bump on its way to WW2, and its millions of deaths utterly pointless and meaningless in the grand scale of things. Why the disconnect and blatant fetishism /his/?
>>1232271
Ive seen 4 ww2 threads today
Havent seen a ww1 yet this week
Also it kinda spelled the end of monarchy in a lot of places and marked the deaths of historic empires
>>1232271
How to trivialize periods of history with asinine comparisons in one post
> I read about WW1 and feel absolutely nothing because all those deaths were pointless
That's the most amazing thing about WW1. Tens of thousands of men dying just to take few meters of land, no bad side, no great purpose, just endless fighting over status quo.
Are there any good books about the Chinese navy and their ships in the Age of Sail? I know the Chinese never placed too much importance on their navy, with a heavy focus on land trade and deterring Japanese pirates at the most, but you'd think after the West came in with their Ships of the Line, they might have had something.
Unfortunately, I can only find info on Chinese Junks which are pretty vague.
>>1232049
Junks are the pinnacle of sail
>>1232136
How do you pronounce junks in Chinese?
>>1232141
ching chong
Historically, religious people have been able to interpret everything and the opposite out of their religious texts. So far, the only way to make people agree on a specific interpretation was violence (by the state or by forces outside of the state).
Without a monopoly on violence you get thousands of sects and cults who can't agree on a single thing and, worst case scenario like after the west bombed the governments of Hussein, Gaddafi away, kill each other because of it.
This is why religious people always need violence (either by the state who punished blasphemy or, if that fails, non-government violence).
>christianity green
>islam yellow
triggered
>>1232025
I know Islam should be green but what colour should Christianity be?
>>1232032
red for blood
What's your perspective of history and progress /his/?
Neither bad nor good, but certainly impressive.
>humans are largely incapable of being functional in groups of more than 100 people
>humans are now organized in groups consisting of hundreds of millions of individuals
>it is likely that war, ethnic hatred, religious fundamentalism, and other manifestations of this fact will continue for quite some time
>it seems likely that the political development of global civilization will stabilize with either all totalitarian states or all liberal democracies with strict rule of law, as these are the most stable forms of government
>China delenda est
"Progress" has always made things worse.
Tribalism > Traditionalism > Monarchy > Democracy > Collectivism
Howdy Gaelic Servants.
Check it out, I'm made of hostages.
T. Niall
It is amazing indeed. Political hostages are a very valuable commodity. You are very powerful, and I have no choice but to submit to my servile instincts and become your vassal. I totally didn't have any plans for Kingship, by the way.
I hate Irishmen who disagree with me but I hate the British even more.
>>1232288
You got that exactly wrong.
What is power, who has power and how much does the Pope have?
>>1231672
>What is power
Something no true Christian should seek.
>how much does the Pope have?
He has the supreme whore-power of Babylon.
Power is the rate of work
>>1231676
When the Whore falls we read, "‘Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you’. . . . In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth" (18:20, 24). This shows that the Whore persecuted not just Christians, but apostles and prophets. Apostles existed only in the first century, since one of the requirements for being an apostle was seeing the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1). Prophets existed as a group only in the Old Testament and in the first century (Acts 11:27–28, 13:1, 15:32, 21:10).
Since the Whore persecuted apostles and prophets, the Whore must have existed in the first century. This totally demolishes the claim that Christian Rome or Vatican City is the Whore. Rome was not a Christian city at that time, and Vatican City did not even exist, so neither of them could be the Whore. Furthermore, Fundamentalists continually (though wrongly) claim that Catholicism itself did not exist in the first century, meaning that based on their very own argument Catholicism could not be the Whore!
Fundamentalists are fond of conjecturing that in the last days there will be a "revived Roman empire," such as the one that persecuted Christians in the first century. Yet they never draw the inference that this empire would be headed by a revived pagan Rome, with the bishop of Rome leading the Christian underground, just as he did in the first century.
Still, Revelation 18:20 and 18:24 prove that the Whore had to be a creature of the first century, which, in the Fundamentalist view, the Catholic Church was not. Thus, on their own view, their identification of the Catholic Church with the Whore is completely impossible! Only ancient, pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem could possibly be the Whore.
>ugh history is the least important (core) subject
>omg its so boring itll never make me money either
>why do I need to know this? Ill never use it
>who cares about the past all that matters is the present and the future
How do you respond to this? Or "history is useless to know" in general
pic related
>get rich
>pay attractive women to fellate you
You will not be punished for your anger. You will be punished by it.
it is useless. knowing the past doesn't mean anyone will go out of their way to repeat it. with that said, it's a mark of the ignorant to know nothing about history.
If major reforms were carried out in the 2nd century and the Roman Empire survived much longer in its 2nd century glory than it did, would there be a chance of industrialization occurring before 1000 AD?
Nice autism.
It mirrors my own.
And yes.
>>1231382
I take no shame in my autism. I frequently fantasize about visiting the city of Rome 2000 years ago and seeing how an ancient city with 1 million inhabitants looked and functioned
>>1231353
The second part of the question is easy, because Romans would have continued to make leaps and bounds in technological advancement if the Pax Romana continued for centuries in a stable condition.
The first part is more difficult. The problems of succession, minimizing the damage caused by bad emperors, economic stability, hostile neighbors, etc. You'd have to enact perfect reforms at every level that can't be ruined by the fuckups of future generations. No civilization has managed that thus far.
All things, including empires, tend toward entropy eventually.
ITT: Give historical figures theme songs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3SjCzA71eM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgkSnFoPX5M
>>1231284
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsVlQ1jLdrE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5YNiCfWC3A
should you be able to criticize political philosophies if you don't have a better idea?
for example, the people who continually bitch about capitalism, or neoconservatism, or enlightenment ideals, without any alternative. is just arguing against something without a way to make it better (or replace it entirely) just a waste of time?
Yes, absolutely. Seeing the faults in something is an important step to building better things.
>>1231213
You should be allowed to, because these ideas can (and always do) have flaws that are worth criticizing. That said, providing an alternative is certainly preferable.
That's called the Nirvana fallacy, so probably not.
SOMEBODY HELP ME OUT OF THIS DARK CAVE, LADS
fuck you productive class
*lights fire behind u*
there u go lad... thatll help a bit
>>1230910
It's better in the cave, anon. You won't like what's outside.
throw your favorite classical works at me
[poetry, novels, quotes, paintings, sculptures, structures, music, ect.]
plato is pretty fun, particularly the early socratic stuff
socrates is such a dick
https://youtu.be/X9Dh43kVL1Q
>>1230802
oh my god, that tune is beautiful.
I like Liebestraum, if I must pick a favorite composition.
>cicero was an anarchist
based
>>1230672
You dont have to be an anarchist to see that laws and regulations often benefit those with power rather than bind them
>>1230725
you do if you want to be consistent
people stay away from being called anarchists just because it has edgy connotations though
I SHED BLOOD OF SAXON MEN!
I SHED THE BLOOD OF THE SAXON MEN!
I SHED THE BLOOD OF THE SAXON MEN!
I SHED THE BLOOD OF THE SAXON MEN!
I SHED IT AT VERDEN!
I SHED THE BLOOD OF THE SAXON MEN!
I SHED THE BLOOD OF FOUR THOUSAND SAXON MEN!
No repeat threads.
>>1230639
saxon detected
>>1230632
Jutes are the fuckin master race FUCCBOI
Picts come second imo
Can anyone tell me about the interactions between celts, Germans and Slavs with the Roman Empire? The Romans describe the germanics as being of average build yet hardy and the celts as tall, strong and terrifying yet they beat the celts in war and not the germanics, why is this? What kind of systems, traits and armour did they all have? Why is there such a lack of sources about slavs, it seems that such a prominent group of people today were virtually irrelevant back then. Very interesting point in history I think.
>>1230485
Definitely one of the most interesting periods in history.
Its important to point out that there were many different sub groups of germanic peoples. Over the course of 200-300 years the Romans could occasionally destroy a group, such as the Marcomanni and new germanic identities would emerge such as the chamavi, bructeri, franks, alamannii, etc.
Check out Peter Heather's Empires and Barbarians or Patrick Geary's Before France and Germany.
>>1230485
>Why is there such a lack of sources about slavs,...
Slavs came into contact with the Roman Empire as late as the 6th century.
The Slavs under name of the Antes and the Sclaveni make their first appearance in Byzantine records in the early 6th century. Byzantine historiographers under Justinian I (527–565), such as Procopius of Caesarea, Jordanes and Theophylact Simocatta describe tribes of these names emerging from the area of the Carpathian Mountains, the lower Danube and the Black Sea, invading the Danubian provinces of the Eastern Empire.
Procopius wrote in 545 that "the Sclaveni and the Antae actually had a single name in the remote past; for they were both called Sporoi in olden times." He described them as barbarians, who lived under democracy, and that they believe in one god, "the maker of lightning" (Perun), to whom they made sacrifice. They lived in scattered housing, and constantly changed settlement. Regarding warfare, they were mainly foot soldiers with small shields and javelins, lightly clothed, some entering battle naked with only the private parts covered. Their language is "barbarous", and the two tribes do not differ in appearance, being tall and robust, "while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or blond, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are all slightly ruddy in color. And they live a hard life, giving no heed to bodily comforts...[7] Jordanes described the Sclaveni having swamps and forests for their cities.[8] Another 6th-century source refers to them living among nearly impenetrable forests, rivers, lakes, and marshes.[9]
Menander Protector mentions a Daurentius 'Dobreta' (577–579) that slew an Avar envoy of Khagan Bayan I. The Avars asked the Slavs to accept the suzerainty of the Avars; he however declined and is reported as saying: "Others do not conquer our land, we conquer theirs – so it shall always be for us".[10]
