>the pope gets his authority because peter and paul died in rome
literally wat
do catholics even listen to themselves
>B-b-b-but muh rock of the church! Muh key to the kingdom of heaven!
>>1408768
The Papacy doesn't have anything to do with Rome. The Vatican has changed locations many times
>worshiping gold statues and drinking blood
Daily reminder that Russia was founded by a Finnish man.
>Rurik was a Finnic Kven, i.e. he was "Finnish", in similar way an average Savonian, Tavastian or a member of some other Finnish tribe is Finnish. Rurik was the founder of the early stage of what gradually became Russia, and his descendants ruled what today is known as "Russia" well beyond the Middle Ages.
>The results of the Rurikid DNA study referred to below are not surprising, considering that other DNA studies and other evidence point to Finnic people having inhabited the modern area of Sweden for thousands of years, including the modern-day area of Southern Sweden:
>• "The hunter-gatherers show the greatest similarity to the modern-day Finns", says Pontus Skoglund, an evolutionary geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden, about ancient skeletal remains excavated in Gotland: http://gotland.3000.BC.kvenland.org
>Genetic studies were conducted on Prince Rurik's modern-day male line descendants. The 2007 Polish-led "Family Tree DNA Rurikid Dynasty Project" pinpoints the origin of the Monomakhovich branch of the Rurikid descendants' DNA "to the genetic haplogroup N1c1 – the so-called “Finno-Ugrian”" group.
>According to the Family Tree DNA report published, the studies concluded "that the N1c1 Rurikid princes belong to the so-called “Varangian Branch” in this haplogroup. The study confirms Rurik to be genetically related to the later Baltic Finnic peoples.
>This DNA study is consistent with Roslagen in the northeastern corner of Uppland, a suggested birthplace of Rurik, having represented the southern border region of the land inhabited by Finno-Ugric people at the time of Rurik's birth.
>The DNA study also supports the view that Rurik descended from the Finnish-Kven royal ancestry introduced in many medieval accounts, similarly to many other members of the Scandinavian-Fennoscandian royal Yngling Dynasty, a.k.a. the Fairhair Dynasty.
>>1408463
>The most influential proponent claiming that the founders of the early stage of Russia, including their leader Rurik, were ethnically Finnish has been the Empress Catherine the Great of Russia, a.k.a. Catherine II.
In her writings on the history of Russia, Catherine II placed the home of origin of the Varangians in the region between Ingria and Finland, i.e. in Karelia. Both Catherine and her husband Emperor Peter III of Russia were Rurikid descendants.
>Catherine even wrote a play about Rurik, in which the dying Gostomysl instructs his followers to elect his daughters son, grandson of a Finnish prince, as their ruler.
It was also during the reign of Catherine II, that three editions were published of a short review of Russian history by Timofei Malgin, another advocate of the Finnish theory, and a work of similar persuasions by Ivan P. Yelagin, literary adviser to the Empress and the founder of Russian freemasonry.
>Other proponents of the "Finnish theory" have included – but are not limited to – the following:
>• Rurikid descendant and the author of the first full-scale Russian history Vasily Tatishchev • Rurikid prince and a historian Mikhail Shcherbatov • historian Viktor Paranin (1990) • historian Johan Adolf Lindström (has presented also a Goth-Varangian theory) • historian A. H. Snellman (Artturi Heikki Virkkunen) • historian Yrjö Koskinen • historian Jalmari Jaakkola • historian Matti Klinge • archaeologist Pirkko-Liisa Lehtosalo-Hilander • Professor of Finnish and Scandinavian archaeology Carl Fredrik Meinander.
(1/2)
>>1408463
Go to bed Pekka.
>>1408470
>Vasily Tatishchev was a prominent Russian statesman and ethnographer, best remembered as the author of the first full-scale Russian history. He is sometimes referred to as the "father of Russian history".
>According to Vasily Tatishchev, the Rus' originated from the area of Finland and the Rus' were Finns. He based his knowledge primarily on the Ioachim Chronicle. The original chronicle was lost, and its contents are known through Tatishchev's "History of Russia" (Иcтopия Poccийcкaя).
>Further support for Tatishchev`s Finnish theory was provided by the "Chronicon Finlandiae", written by an unknown author, published by Christian Nettelbladt in 1728.
(2/2)
Does love exist? Is it even properly definable?
No. Infatuation does.
It's just a chemical reaction.
>>1406972
That is some sharp fedora
>>1406975
But love is fleeting, do you honestly believe in fairytale love that lasts forever?
What was the greatest historical bifurcation? Like was there a moment when hundred years or fates of entire national was decided by the pretty minor event? Maybe the war that was truly even without way to predict even with hindsight who would win. Any examples of serious historical uncertainties?
Vladimir Ulyanov wouldn't have become Lenin if his brother wasn't killed by tzarist guards.
>>1405940
>Like was there a moment when hundred years or fates of entire national was decided by the pretty minor event
the machination of any monarchy desu
>>1405940
>What was the greatest historical bifurcation?
The invention of trousers.
![Fleet_Admiral_Chester_W._Nimitz_portrait[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/H1ISt4R.jpg "Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz portrait[1]")
>Where is, repeat, where is Task Force Thirty Four? The world wonders.
What did he mean by this?
>>1403556
An attempt at witty bants that ended up taking many lives, so he told everyone it was just a security padding bro.
>>1403556
>Task Force Thirty Four
Admiral Nimitz was using sarcasm to tell Admiral Halsey to get into the fight at the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October of 1944.
Pretty Simple Really
>>1403676
I like this explanation 2bh. Also, was Halsey the most fagile, butthurt admiral in the entire war?
>"I was stunned as if I had been struck in the face", Halsey later recalled. "The paper rattled in my hands, I snatched off my cap, threw it on the deck, and shouted something I am ashamed to remember", letting out an anguished sob.[12] RADM Robert Carney, Halsey's Chief of Staff (who had argued strongly in favor of pursuing the carriers), witnessed Halsey's emotional outburst and reportedly grabbed him by the shoulders and shook him, shouting "Stop it! What the hell's the matter with you? Pull yourself together!" Recognizing his failure, Halsey sulked in inactivity for a full hour while Taffy 3 was fighting for its life – falsely claiming to be refueling his ships – before eventually turning around with his two fastest battleships, three light cruisers and eight destroyers and heading back to Samar, too late to have any impact on the battle.[13]
Not to mention the whole fiasco with Typhoon Cobra that cost the lives of over 800 of his men and 146 aircraft. Halsey's incompetence was pretty deadly.
A history memes thread sounds nice
no it doesn't
>Swords were shit spears were better in any way
Not really. Swords could be employed as the standard weapon of the infantry and could be used effectively. The problem with using swords effectively is that it requires strict formations, a lot of resources and training. Something which medieval European armies didn't possess.
See for example the gladius. The gladius is according to some scholars the second deadliest weapon in the world, right behind the AK-47. The gladius worked because the Romans employed tight formations where they could get to stabbing range. The small size and maneuverability of the gladius allowed it to be used from tight shield formations, making the Roman army extremely effective.
This sheer effectiveness is displayed by the fact that in basic flat-ground infantry warfare with no other factors (such as rivers etc), Romans almost always won.
So in conclusion: The reach and clumsy maneuverability of a spear is not always an advantage. A Roman army would easily beat an army consisting mainly of spear infantry, because there was little a spear could do against the advancing legions. But the production required in maintaining such an army was simply too much for most countries throughout history.
Roman production
Even if it isn't a spear shitpost, please go to /k/.
>>1395637
Roman formations were loose as fuck.
>roman formations
>strict
Only in comparison to unruly jews.
>I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
>>1410242
THICC
>>1410242
All Clintons are liars. But not 25 years old, so not /his/
Why was this such a big deal?
You know what to do.
Holy Roman Empire appreciation thread?
>>1406060
>You know what to do.
Right Click
Hide Thread
No but really, in a world without religion - from what can morality be formed?
>>1404716
Nothing
Pragmatism.
>>1404716
The will of the people
Is it possible to prove that you exist?
Cogito ergo sum
I think so
I know that my mind is real because it perceives information
Why is it that all the bait threads get 300 replies and any thread that is discussing history has a cap of 50 unless it about a bait topic.
Because very, very few people in the world are actually interested in history beyond a superficial level.
>>1399085
Then why come to the history board is it really that funny
Make quality threads instead of shitty meta complaining threads then dumb faggot
>most of people in Economics are right-wing
>most of people in Sociology, History, Geography, Philosophy, Political Science and almost every humanities area are left-wing
Why?
[citation needed]
>people in a hard-science field that relies on empirical evidence and other concepts entirely divorced from human biases/emotions and are right wing
>people in a soft-science field full of memes and feelings are left wing
Golly gee I wonder why
>>1399069
Where'd you get this info?
Why does Belgium exist?
Because the eternal Anglo wanted a puppet buffer state on the continent after the Napoleonic Wars.
Catholic/Protestant divide in the Netherlands
Because Britain didn't want France to have that land.
Who was/is the most powerful person to ever live?
[And how do I beat him?]
No individual person is, or ever really has been all that powerful.
>>1395207
The question was who was THE MOST powerful, not who was ALL-POWERFUL. Learn to read, please - it is /his.
>>1395227
>Most powerful person
Mark Zuckerberg
>How do I beat him
You can't. Roll over and accept the new order.
