How did naval battles play out after the Napoleon wars when steampower was introduced?
There just seems to be a big gap between this era to WW1. Were there any big battles? How did this new technology change warfare? When were traditional cannons removed for the longrange guns we know of from later eras? Were they phased out? Did the newer more effective guns become availible before iron hulls were introduced? Wouldn't that have completely decimated wooden hulls?
Bump. Please...any naval fans out there?
>>1225922
Merrimack and the Monitor was a battle that changed naval warfare in the American Civil War. Steam ships were used as coastal vessels and tug ships, useful for moving against the tide.
They're useful as commerce raiders, as they were pretty agile and could move in dead winds.
But they're vulnerable to attack with early designs. The wheel could be hit easily and put the ship out of battle. The turbine had yet to be placed at the ships rear. Early steam ships had plenty of wood in them and sailors hated the idea of having a running boiler on the ship. They thought that a coal burner would set fire to the ship.
>>1226678
Nice. These are the sorts of anecdotes that I crave. It would seem that the Pax Britannica didn't leave a lot of room for giant naval showdowns, but I imagine it must have been quite a strange age for these guys. Especially if you were still on a wooden ship with steampowered tech and a boiler as you said, and then you know get to know that there are ships sailing around that are equpped with exploding shells which could turn your wooden ship into splinters. I imagine there must have been a lot of paranoia and espionage where each power tried to get up to speed quickly.
Were these bitches capable warriors? They were described as more efficient than their male counterparts.
And what are some other female military groups?
>>1225907
Probably more typical imperialist propaganda intent on highlighting how treacherous the tropics were in order to further justify it's colonization.
>A dagger entombed with King Tutankhamun was made with iron from a meteorite, a new analysis on the metal composition shows.
>In 1925, archaeologist Howard Carter found two daggers, one iron and one with a blade of gold, within the wrapping of the teenage king, who was mummified more than 3,300 years ago. The iron blade, which had a gold handle, rock crystal pommel and lily and jackal-decorated sheath, has puzzled researchers in the decades since Carter’s discovery: ironwork was rare in ancient Egypt, and the dagger’s metal had not rusted.
>Italian and Egyptian researchers analyzed the metal with an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer to determine its chemical composition, and found its high nickel content, along with its levels of cobalt, “strongly suggests an extraterrestrial origin”. They compared the composition to known meteorites within 2,000km around the Red Sea coast of Egypt, and found similar levels in one meteorite.
>That meteorite, named Kharga, was found 150 miles west of Alexandria, at the seaport city of Mersa Matruh, which in the age of Alexander the Great – the fourth century BC – was known as Amunia.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/01/dagger-king-tut-tomb-iron-meteorite-egypt-mummy?CMP=fb_gu
Blades made of meteoric iron are far from unheard of
Neat
>>1225929
/thread
If the Inuit had known that the Ottoman Empire existed would they have have been able to stop Tokugawa Ieyasu from establishing power over all of Japan?
>>1225894
Probably, yeah. They had the technology, just not enough people to field an army.
>>1225894
R/subredditsimulator is leaking Guiz.
>>1225894
I think it is possible desu. Inuit kayaks were actually relatively high tech. If they would improve them it remains within possibility. But it is a tough question.
What did the monks mean by this?
>>1225778
Tough question anon. Different interpertrations exist. It seems that the monks want to communicate us something about violins. That or they are shitposting again.
The key to sucking ones own dick
What did god mean by this?
Sorry for intruding upon the rules but I don't know where else I can ask. I'm just about to graduate from high school and I already know what I want to major in. I'm doing two years at my local community college for an associate degree in Computer Science, and I then plan on transferring to a four year university for a bachelor's. I have already taken and passed my school's Ap Computer Science course, and while I do have an interest in it, this is mostly for job and financial security. Recently I have been taken by an urge to study history or perhaps do archaeology. Should I try and put that down as a minor? I know that history wouldn't serve me well, but I really do wish to travel and discover artifacts, but then again I don't want to burden my parents with debt. What can I do that allows me to continue doing Computer Science, but at the same time have the ability to get a minor in archaeology? Is it even feasible or should I just stop this pipe dream of mine? It doesn't help that my state is pretty much a hermit state, so there's possibly only one University that's accredited for something like that. Although I know that I can get into it. I always planned to go the Community College and then University route, but the fire of youth in me stupidly made me apply and get accepted to Universities anyways.
>>1225716
Its not that there are no jobs in archaeology, especially if you live in Europe, Canada or Australia, but its money earned with hard work you could half-assedly earn doing things like Computer Science in the city instead. Its a lot of travelling in the middle of nowhere, digging dirt, doing mundane tasks and being often disappointed. If you want to have a functional family or kids before you're 35 or something, its not that perfect. Plus everybody thinks you are wasting government money and not doing anything of note. I like archaeology, really, but I wish I could have 8-10 hour working day in a city and ride subway home every day instead. Although you could earn good money with it, especially in Australia. No kidding, 100k/year even if you go full retard.
Don't do history though, I don't think there is work in this field anymore, maybe in America.
>>1225742
Yeah that's what I was thinking myself. I guess I just really like the Romance Nations of Europe and wish to go there. Maybe I should do an exchange program instead. I was thinking Galicia or some other country in Spain. Maybe Italy, but I'll have to check how the Community College does that. I also don't know if the university that I transfer to would even allow me to do an exchange program the first year I get there. Ahh, aspirations.
>>1225757
Look into a minor in classics(Rome and Greece).
The schools in my country(Canada) often have exchanges and trips over to Europe.
Also you get that history component (although fairly rigid) and you won't have to sacrifice your major.
What would the world look like today if the Soviet Union had never collapsed? Also what would the Soviet Union itself look like ?
>>1225696
I do not think you can accurately answer this question anon. What would the reason be that they never collapsed?
Well, for starters, the girl in your picture would have been raped by whatever neo-Beria was in charge of the KGB.
You can pretty much see the USSR 2.0 lite happening right now. It's still shit.
Who is the most impressive/important/influential Jew in history and why?
president of israel
Rabbi Hillel for introducing the Golden Rule to Abrahamic religion
>>1225610
Top movie that. Book is fantastic too
How did Muslims conquered India? I understand how they did it with Persia since it was left vulnerable from it's war with the Byzantines but how did Muslims take and left such a huge impact on India? Also, how did the Mughal Empire work since you essentially have Hindu majority being ruled by Muslims, like how did that not fall flat on it's face?
>>1225520
>""""""""""""""""""""vulnerable""""""""""""""""""""
Reminder that the Persians outnumbered the Arabs in every battle they fought
>>1225520
Because India is literally in a worse position than Persia/Byzantium: it;s a region with a bunch of Hindu Kingdoms.
Also fucking Turkics conquer shit as a hobby. And Mahmud of Ghazni led the first serious Islamic incursion into India.
>>1225520
India was always always more vulnerable than Persia, it was a bunch of independent kingdoms and principalities with constantly shifting borders because no one liked one another. The conquest itself was very slow, there wasn't a unified effort by the forces of Islam to capture the land for the Caliph and for Islam, it was mostly adventurers who wanted to create their own little kingdoms, preferably outside the Caliph's influence. Trade and the riches of the Hindu temples were also a huge factor in Arabs migrating there.
And by the time the Mughals got there, there had been a Muslim presence in India for centuries, it was nothing new to have a Muslim monarch for a majority Hindu population, there were even situations where the opposite happened and everyone got along fine.
If the Japanese had discovered America, could they have held off the Spanish colonists?
bump guys, this is what this board is fore
>>1225401
I think it is possible. The Japanese were a collectivist culture which would give them an edge against the Spanish cataholics.
>>1226174
yeah collectivism is pretty much the best
I really hate people who disagree with my government
Would you consider population exchange as ethnic cleansing? What if the governments make sure that the new property will be equally valuable as the one the they leave behind?
Could it be used to resolve other conflicts around the world?
>>1225291
>Would you consider population exchange as ethnic cleansing
>Ethnic Cleansing "the mass expulsion or killing of members of an unwanted ethnic or religious group in a society."
Yes, population exchange is ethnic cleansing.
>>1225429
It's no doubt infringing on freedom of movement. But if it was handled correctly would the end justify the means?
Resolving border clusterfucks, easing tensions and paving way for reconciliation?
>>1225291
It is ethnic cleaning. For one, there's no way to realistically guarantee that people moving would have the same quality of property after the exchange. If your government dislikes your people enough to displace them actively, it would not exert the required effort for the sake of good faith, would it?
Also, even if on paper the exchange was without fault, you're still asking thousands of people to give up their livelihoods.
And you're not even taking into account the problems of 'rightful land' at this point.
Fun facts about historical figures thread
I'll start: George Washington
>6ft8
>weighed a fucking ton
>invented cocaine
>stuck an opponent's wife's hand in acid at a party
>had like 30 goddamn dicks
>>1225244
>George Washington
>invented a drug that was first produced in 1855
Is this a stealth Cracked.com thread?
Hella fucking epic !!
>>1225253
dude george washington invented it, the heck are you on about?
I´d like to know if you can think of a good reason why there would be such a thing as a "soul" or "spirit" that is separate of the body (this includes your brain) and which is the source of your rationality. I read some bullcrap descartes wrote on wikipedia and met some people in my philosophy course that are pretty sure, that this is true, while being unable to explain why.
Now i come to you for enlightment.
>a "soul" or "spirit" that is separate of the body (this includes your brain)
Where can you find serious Cartesian dualists in this day and age? I know that a lot of people like to use them as strawmen but I've literally never encountered anyone who thinks that a soul is an entity that has no connection to your body.
In the traditional sense, a soul is simply a life-force, i.e. the thing ANIMAting your body (no, this is not supposed to be conceived of distinctly from the mind; the 'mind' is just the process whereby you are alive, that is, whereby your body is capable of directing its own movement, or at least believing that it is directing its own movement).
Aristotle, at one point, mentions something about a special kind of the intellect that might be capable of surviving after the body dies. St. Thomas Aquinas took this to mean that this part of the soul is that which is in the presence of God when a person goes to Heaven. Like so many issues, Aquinas is where people start to depart in irreconcilable directions. If he hadn't brought Christianity into the Aristotelian account of the soul, you wouldn't need to be convinced that you have a life-force, or that some process causes or allows your body to move.
Aristotelian functionalism isn't wrong, it's just medically useless.
Thanks for the reply and the input! Apparently some people at my uni do.
So my "soul" is actually what we call brain/mind? We had a lenghty discussion about whether this is true, because I brought up the point, that human beings achieved their rationality through the effects the evolutionary process had on our brain. Therefore rationality is a product of the layout and composition of our brain. To which they replied that the "soul" is the source of rationality.
Also: How does aristotle come to that conclusion?
>>1225484
>Apparently some people at my uni do.
Are you sure?
>brain/mind?
Those words are not interchangable.
>To which they replied that the "soul" is the source of rationality.
The soul is the layout and composition of your body such that it is alive. You're both right, they're just wrong to be dualists. If they're Christians, I can't even think of a form of Christianity that seriously endorses Cartesian dualism.
>How does aristotle come to that conclusion?
The same way he comes to every other conclusion: slowly. I'm not going to explain Aristotelian or Cratesian psychology to you, you should read Aristotle and Descartes yourself and stop posting on 4chan. Otherwise you may as well just accept everything your idiot dualist friends say. You've come here looking for opinions to mimic. I've already given you more than you deserve or should want, if you're serious about learning about the history of philosophy.
So often these crafty little bastards manage to outmaneuver forces 10x their size - ITT share your favorites!
I'll start -
>be Enrico Dandolo, ~64 year old Venetian merchant
>He's brilliant and built like Rambo, despite his age
>sent on an expedition to punish the Byzantines for sacking the Venetian merchant quarters in Constantinople along with the Doge
>fuckingdisaster.wav
>be appointed ambassador in charge of fixing the mess with the ERE
>finally manages to negotiate a half-decent treaty with the Byzantines after 14 grueling years of diplomacy
>Finally returns to Venice
>but the fire of vendetta burns bright within
>go blind, but the blindness only fuels your hatred
>the Byzantines will pay
>elected Doge of Venice in 1192
>builds a sweet armada for the 4th Crusade for sweet profits and because deus vult
>crusaders are broke so they can't afford the ships
>so Dandolo gives them an offer they can't refuse & turns the Crusaders into his own personal hit squad
>turns them on the city of Zara as a test run
>the knights absolutely stomp the defenders - which is what happens when militia try to fight off a surprise crusader attack from the sea
>excommunicated by the Pope for slaughtering a bunch of hapless Catholics with his gang of knights over Adriatic trade rights
>Dandolo doesn't even care
>his hate-boner for the Byzantines compels him to press on
>sicks his gang of knights on Constantinople, along with the Venetian armada
>promises to install the Emperor's son on the throne to gain easy access to the city
>instead he sacks the city, personally commanding the Venetian soldiers despite being like 90 years old and fucking BLIND
>loot the Romans like they looted his countrymen 3 decades ago
>partitions the Empire and take 3/8ths of its territory for the Republic, sets up trade deals in all the rest
>his thirst for revenge sated, finally dies in 1205 at the age of like 98
>buried in Constantinople as a last fuck you to the Empire
Pic related. Guy was a beast
I'd love to see an adaptation of the life of Dandolo desu
absolute swagger
And then the Ottomans came and destroyed the Venetian economy.
Well done you stupid fuck
valuable spices and dead gr**ks will come to you only if you post 'thank you most serene doge' in this thread
Was Hitler really the bad guy? It seems to me as though he wanted peace but was denied. Also, Churchill supported eugenics and biological warfare, so the systematic killing of an entire race of people with poison gas. Ring any bells? Roosevelt had everyone by the balls and kept Europe in war. Hitler always said he wanted peace and said his declarations of peace where ignored, and that the SA was necessary for the Nazis to rise to power.
After WW1 you have a broken Germany with a crashed economy and the iron ball of the treaty of Versailles. Germany was denied its rise of power by the elites that already took the seats. These Elites are...Jews? So he or his colleagues without him knowing initiated a program of mass killing?
How right am I?
>>1225126
If he wanted peace maybe he shouldn't have declared all those wars
>>1225126
Nah, he was good guy, it's just poles being butthurt:
>kill 2 billions of germans living in poland a day so they become minority in German Colony of Poland in few years
waaaaaah they killed 2 polish soldiers bad hitler, bad
>destroy warsaw - blame it on germans
>build concentration camps for jews and germans - blame it on germans
literally the worst scum in the world.
>>1225126
>he wanted peace
Invading a bunch of countries is a weird way to show that.
