One of the better ideas humanity has had.
Why do the people that pan it for minor fuckups (more made up entirely by the press than actual fuckups) forget the massive boons it has made to trade?
If it only stayed a trade union nobody would be bitching.
This thread would work better in /pol/. Most of the fuck ups are current events.
>>1176055
More like: if it had been an economic AND fiscal union with a common defence policy and an elected president, no one would be bitching.
Summary of Ottoman Empire's battles in Europe during the Growth Period (1453-1606) (only sourced from wikipedia):
Battle of Albulena: Albania - Ottoman
Albanians win, Ottoman 50-80k Albanian 8-16k
Siege of Jajce: Hungary and allies - Ottoman
Hungarians win, Ottoman 400-7000 Hungarian 4k-25k
Battle of Ohrid: Albania - Ottoman
Albanians win, Ottoman 14k Albanian 13k
Battle of Vaslui: Moldovia - Ottoman
Moldovians win, Ottoman 120k Moldovian 47k
Battle of Valea Albă: Moldovia - Ottoman
Ottomans win, strength unknown but casualties heavy
Battle of Breadfield: Hungary - Ottoman
Hungarians win, Ottoman 6-25k Hungarian 12-15k
Battle of Krbava Field: Croatia - Ottoman
Ottomans win, Ottoman 8-10k Croatian 10-11k
Battle of Mohács: Hungary and allies - Ottoman
Ottomans win, Ottoman 55k Hungarian 25-30k
Siege of Szigetvár: Habsburg - Ottoman
Ottomans win, Ottoman 100k Habsburg 2-3k
Battle of Sisak: Habsburg - Ottoman
Habsburg win, Ottoman 12-16k Habsburg 4-6k
Battle of Călugăreni: Wallachia - Ottoman
Wallachians win, Ottoman 100k Wallachia 10-15k
Battle of Giurgiu: Wallachia - Ottoman
Wallachians win, Ottoman unknown Wallachia 23-40k
Battle of Keresztes: HRE - Ottoman
Ottomans win, Ottoman 100k HRE 40-50k
So the Empire with a very low population density consistently fields huge armies compared to its opponents, gets blown up consistently but can't stop going further into Europe. Can someone explain to me what actually happens?
>with a very low population density
that's where you went wrong
>>1174920
How? Is Anatolia densely populated? Is any of the eastern regions easy to gather army from and march into the Europe?
>>1174891
Read the articles on them.
Stop asking questions you can easily find the answers to.
Daily reminder that "Great" Britain gave Hong Kong back to China like a little bitch.
> The Foreign Office proposed a counter-strategy founded upon a distinction between 'sovereignty' and 'administration'. It suggested that Thatcher aim to reach an agreement with China whereby Britain would cede a titular sovereignty over Hong Kong to Peking, in exchange for Peking's formal agreement **to allow British administration to remain in place in Hong Kong beyond 1997.** Thatcher eventually digested the proposal in principle **more easily** than the Foreign Office had feared
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/how-mrs-thatcher-lost-hong-kong-ten-years-ago-fired-up-by-her-triumph-in-the-falklands-war-margaret-thatcher-flew-to-peking-for-a-lastditch-attempt-to-keep-hong-kong-under-british-rule--only-to-meet-her-match-in-deng-xiaoping-two-years-later-she-signed-the-agreement-handing-the-territory-to-china-1543375.html
> Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over_Hong_Kong#Talks
> Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping tells her that sovereignty is not negotiable and China will take back Hong Kong on its own terms in 1997 no matter whether UK agrees or not.
> Mrs Thatcher falls off steps after talks with Chinese leader on Hong Kong issue
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ecd_1365482566
> On the rainy July night in 1997, Thatcher was present for the formal transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong back to China, an outcome which Thatcher expressed regret over towards the end of her life.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554095/My-regrets-over-Hong-Kong-by-Lady-Thatcher.html
>perfidious albion eternal anglo
>hands over Hong-Kong because they agreed to
>>1175065
If GB had kept Hong Kong, then China would have easily made them look like even more of a little bitch.
>>1175362
Bullshit, UK is a nucleair power allied with France and the US. China wouldn't do shit.
Who were the best medieval generals and why do they never seem to get as much of the spotlight as the ancients?
Wasn't warfare in the medieval period somewhat smaller scale than the ancient period for most of it? Also less well-recorded.
Because those would probably be why if I'm not mistaken.
>>1173191
Cause they were mostly fighting petty local grude matches with other nobles.
For the exception of Poles, Ruskies, Byzantines, Bulgars and Spaniards keeping back the hordes, and the major sucession wars, most the medieval wars weren't deciding the fates of Europe.
>>1173191
Because the medieval period is not as popular for telling stories of generals. You typically get more fantasy shit.
Besides that the early middle ages were a clusterfuck.
The high middle ages were mostly centered on sieges and strategy rather than battle seeking (John II was a great general but fought no battles, Richard Lionheart fought two or three at most during his entire military career and Phillip August didn't fight many more either).
Late medieval battles are mostly reduced to meme weapons being the cause of victory rather than generalship (i.e. muh longbow, muh gunpowder weapon, muh halberd, muh pike)
Daily reminder that the Byzantines spoke Greek, practised Orthodox Christianity and were living under a Monarchy, so they were pretty much the antithesis of Romans.
That is all. Thanks.
Julius Caesar spoke Greek.
>>1167548
Daily reminder that the 'Roman Empire' from the 4th century practiced 'Orthodox' Christianity, lived under a monarchy and spoke Greek, so they were pretty much the antithesis of Romans.
That is all. Thanks.
>>1167548
How can Roman Catholics recover?
Tell me about the horned god (or however you might call him)
>The Celtic religion and some animistic religions worship him as god of the nature and god of the animals.
>Greek mythology and Christianity declare him as evil.
>Freakish cults think he is the key to magical powers.
So what is the "truth"? Is he good or evil? If he is evil, who is the good counterpart?
Also where is the root of this deity and what has the pentagram and the snake to do with it?
>tfw Celts worshiped the Yellow King
Fucking savages
>>1176210
>Implying there is only one horned god
>>1176240
Don't you think they all have the same root?
>You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.
Plato
What did he mean by this?
the way to a man's heart is through his boyhole
>>1176006
It's boy's soul, and I think you are saying boy's hole
>>1176003
He meant he loved sucking cock
>brb going to wreck some parthians
Augustus, my man! My buddy! Hey man, you mind if I borrow a few legions? No big deal, man, just a trip through the forest to kill some barbarians.
>>1175747
>brb invading russia
>>1175760
LOL, what a retard
![voltaire_and_rousseau_by_worgue-d4yp7fd[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Bk77HN7.jpg "voltaire and rousseau by worgue-d4yp7fd[1]")
>Hobbes believed in the wretched nature of man
>His ideal government type was an authoritarian "whatever works" regime that suppressed the wretched nature of man
>While a monarchy is never explicitly preferred, we can imply this from the authoritarian bend of his philosophy
>Locke and Rousseau believed man was inherrently good
>A nation could only exist as a free association of individuals, with a right to overthrow the social contract if it no longer respected their inalienable rights and liberties
>Republican model is preferred
Is it possible to believe in Hobbes' wretched nature of man while still preferring the state model of Rousseau and Locke without suffering from cognitive dissonance?
Most men are ill suited to govern themselves let alone others
>>1175626
hobbes was comming from a rather fucked up period in his peoples history so that probably reflects, but generaly disregarding humans are dangerous animals is shortsighted and stupid, not to mention disrespectfull
this dosent say anything explicitly negative about humans, its just a fact, it makes us potentialy problematic, but we all deal with ourseves one way or another
with this in mind you should logicaly preffer a goverment that can be voted out of power, othervise deposed or simply rejected, the last thing you want is to be ruled by a group of dangerous animals that you just cant get rid off, thats often how violence breaks out, as in the mass armed sort
The wretched nature of man cannot be universal, otherwise any government placed above him would be wretched as well, being itself man-made.
Hey guys, tell me everything you know about how have the views on expressing emotions changed through history, and how is it connected with different cultures
As life gets easier character gives way to personality. So your traditional 'self-improvement' suppression of emotions is replaced by the more natural defense of personality disorder traits, particularly class b and c depending. We're really in the dark ages of self-awareness. Remember, just 50 years ago homosexuality was in the DSM.
>>1175474
it varies greatly, by culture, mentality, education, class, religion...
if anything people used to be way more emotional, or temperamental, and there was much less detachment from this, in many cultures the notion seemed nonexistent
another thing is culture and education give people a capacity to selfreflect, which was a religious thing for most of history
like if you look at many poor or undreveloped cultures today the people often dont seem to make a conscious distinction betveen what emotional state they experience and what thought process relating to perception or decision making they are running, in fact mediterran women still cant do this without antipsychotics, regardless of education(cant sourse that, just trust me)
on the other hand some peoples were always known to be calculating, detached or cold, its mostly a question of group mentality and how it conditions individuals
>>1175508
Nothing wrong with being a homosexual though.
>That's some nice medevil philosophy you got there. It would be a shame if someone were to take all that Scholastic/Aristotlian work and turn into something secular.
>I improved your metaphysics. Turns out what you thought was "God" is actually Nature
>Don't mind me, just paving the way for Hume, Hegel, and pretty much everyone else
le jewish spider guy
>>1175469
>says nothing of value
>fedorafags centuries later suck his cock because nobody has ever even heard of him to seem intelligent
As I have always said, you are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all.
What are your thoughts on complete or partial abstinence?
Are there any philosophers or writings that advocate celibacy, abstinence, sexual self-restraint, etc.?
It's fine to choose to be celibate, and it's probably healthier than a sex addiction, but denying yourself pleasure in pursuit of a higher goal has never really made sense to me.
>>1175279
I should probably mention my thoughts on it. I believe that people should exercise a great amount of sexual restraint and abstain from meaningless sex, i.e. one-night stands, sleeping with people you've only been in a relationship with for a short amount of time, etc. Masturbation should also only be done sporadically when you are stressed and porn should be avoided at all times. Unfortunately, despite these beliefs I have had trouble stopping myself from whoring around, sleeping with anything that walks, and masturbating to increasingly "distasteful" porn, which is why I have decided to turn to philosophy to ease the transition into a more sexually austere life. Have any of you guys had similar troubles with sex, masturbation, or porn?
>>1175296
>denying yourself pleasure in pursuit of a higher goal has never really made sense to me.
That seems very short-termist to me, especially in a general sense. In the context of this topic it might make more sense because sex isn't all that harmful but too much of it and an unrestrained pursuit of pleasure, sexual or otherwise, can be very harmful.
Was he really as bad as Western media makes him out to be? Or was he a relatively decent ruler on a continent plagued by terrible rulers?
>>1174996
wasn't this the nigga who went crazy after his mom died
>>1174996
He sent a letter to the queen of the UK asking for her hand on marriage, claiming that he would conquer the world with both the UK and Ugandan armies.
He's also believed to have chopped people's arms and legs and then sewed the legs on the shoulders and the arms on the.. idk but u get it
>>1175141
that sounds like a good plan to me
Do you think Zeus is a Greco-Hitite version of Ba'al?
No
Zeus was the Greek evolution of the PIE sky god Dyeus Pater
>>1174957
Look up a god by the name of Sabazios. That's where Zeus' origins lie. He's basically Zeus and if you notice the last bit of his name you'll see where he even got his name from.
>>1174967
This
Were EMP weapons used against the USS Donald Cook?
For most practical purposes "EMP weapons" is synonymous with nuclear warheads.
Given that this site is still up, I'd suspect no.
>>1174800
Was the vela incident a joint Israeli-South African nuke test?
![eiEhPA9[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/9Km8XMu.gif "eiEhPA9[1]")
