Who dressed better?
>>1025164
Augustus
Any more dumb questions?
Who's the guy on the right? Are you including the Ottomans or something?
>>1026170
thats Peter the Great you idiot
>In order to understand Ancient literature, you need to have a massive knowledge of ancient history and to be familiar with the context and circumstances surrounding the creation of that work
>In order to understand "modern" philosophers such as Derrida and such you first need to have a huge understanding of phenomenology, Heidegger, structuralism and post-structuralism and pretty much every single philosopher (and their ideas) that came before him, and it all boils down to "start with the Greeks"
>In order to fully grasp Ancient Greek philosophy it is advised to be familiar with the Ancient Greek history
>In order to understand Joyce, you first need to be familiar with the works of Shakespeare, Dante and Ovid (and many others)
>In order to understand Pynchon, you need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of just about any subject ever, also it is recommended to be a rocket scientist
It's like they couldn't have possibly made it any harder if they tried.
Learning is hard? Give up.
Saw this on /lit/ earlier fagtron
the idea that you can fully graps something knowledge of hat produced that work, is bogus. You wouldn't have the need to read it then yu could make it up yourself if this sort of "transparent" understanding was possible.
In fact the value of a work resides exactly in what is stranger to you and the effect it produces by clashing with your cultural horizon, also not everyone needs to be a critic.
What was the point of Anglo and German anti-slavic sentiment?
Wasn't the whole Europe dominated by Indo-Europeans anyway?
>it's a Craniometry thread
>>1023893
>Not being a Phrenologist
>2016
>>1023889
Northern Europeans can be racist even to other whites.
Let's talk about Medjugorje.
hmmm
interesting
Been there once on a pilgrimage some years ago. I had my doubts and I still do, but... ...I don't know. There is this rocky hillside where Mary supposedly appeared. The place had a certain... ...aura, if you will. Like if it was graced by the presence of something holy. Or maybe it was just my mind playing tricks with me. Who knows.
![250px-Ingres,_Napoleon_on_his_Imperial_throne[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/d0InYfi.jpg "250px-Ingres, Napoleon on his Imperial throne[1]")
Hypothetically, if Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte and Hannibal Barca were each given 100,000 peasants and 3 years to train them for a 3 way showdown between the generals, using the peasants as their armies on a completely even level of tech, who would win?
>>1021881
Scipio Africanus, Duke Wellignton and Aids/Alcoholism
>>1021881
Whats the tech level? Also remove Hannibal. He was the king of a form of war based on rational states. Thats why he lost. The idea a state would tolerate a fucking maundering army in its land was unheard of at that time, Hannibal did not know he was fucking with gangstas.
>>1021881
Napoleon. He's the only one of the three who was actually masterful at training peasant armies, which the others never did.
what does /his/ think about this youtuber?
in my opinion he makes quite entertaining videos.
>>1056549
Entertaining. A good way of getting basic information about a variety of topics. NEVER assume he's correct about ANYTHING.
I enjoy him but he has become somewhat of a meme around here.
He's sometimes raucously inaccurate, but for the most part his information is sound and comes in bite size chunks with good, logical arguments behind it.
8/10.
So what's the deal with Holocaust denial?
I think it happened but the numbers were questionable, and even so it was still horrific.
I also dislike the emotional driven narrative that plagues the USA that puts Jews on a pedestal, but yeah, the Holocaust did happen.
>>1063941
Because people always feel the need to counter things they disagree with in equal extremity. So when, like you say, there's a constant emotionally driven narrative around the Holocaust, other just as delusional people who get tired of it are going to shout the total opposite of what you'd usually hear.
>>1063941
>I think it happened but the numbers were questionable,
Why do people say this? What's the point?
>>1063958
Because most of the arguing is over the amount of deaths, when it might have been inflated for propaganda or miscalculated, some people draw the conclusion that because of this it did not happen at all.
If the British Army landed in Europe, I'd get the Belgian police to arrest them.
- Bismarck
Who was the historical figure with the most wit?
>>1062653
Churchill.
>>1062653
Martin "Mad Bants" Luther
http://ergofabulous.org/luther/?
>>1062653
>If the British Army landed in Europe, I'd get the Belgian police to arrest them.
>- Bismarck
Please excuse my severe crippling autism but what does he mean by saying this?
/his/ humour thread
>>1045550
You could've just posted a German flag.
>>1045550
>austria didn't lose anything this time
lovely
So do all southern /his/torians shitpost confederate nostalgia and "muh war of northern aggression" or am I the only one who's massively embarrassed by the csa and it's aftereffects?
>>1042590
Second worst thread on /his/ besides that Viking wank one. Good job OP.
>>1042590
Southern 'historians' pretty much prove "history is written by the winners" to be bullshit.
>>1042590
carpetbaggers and/or yankee scum please go
Was he objectively the most competent Emperor in Roman history?
>>1050729
Charlemagne was pretty competent by christening his enemies so they were bound by church law to not fight
>>1050729
Augustus
>>1050743
Fuck off with your shitty bait.
For example, here's one I consider 'interesting': historians and researchers are certain that the original story concerning the Binding of Isaac in the Old Testament actually ended with Abraham killing Isaac as commanded.
According to one source (Terence E Fretheim in The Child in the Bible edited by Marcia J. Bunge, Terence E. Fretheim, Beverly Roberts Gaventa, pg. 20), the entire story of the Binding of Isaac "bears no specific mark of being a polemic against child sacrifice"
Scholars point to verses 20-24 of Genesis (which come right after the Binding of Isaac): the description of a rash of newborns placed right after the main story suggests the existence of some direct cause-effect connection between the two. From the perspective of a sacrificial mentality, these numerous progeny could not have been conceived without the preceding payment. More importantly, the names of the newborns in these passages appear to be code, due to their rarity/implausibility as actual names. Respectively, the names are: Re’umah – "see what"; Tevah – "slaughtering"/"slaughtered"; Gaham – "flame" or "burning"; Tahash -"skin" often used to cover the tabernacle; Ma‘akah – "blown" or "crushed. In other words, when deciphered: "[somebody] had been blown, slaughtered, put on the tabernacle and burned".
The addition of the ram and Isaac's survival are hypothesized to be later additions, possibly from the period around the Babylonian Captivity.
>>1057822
I'm just curious, going along with this theory, where does the supposed nation of Israel come from. The formation "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" is repeated throughout the pentateuch, and from what I understand, that formulation is pretty old.
>>1057822
Why do you find lies interesting?
Isaac had no children prior to the event, and had children afterwards.
>>1057822
>the entire story of the Binding of Isaac "bears no specific mark of being a polemic against child sacrifice"
This is true. However, there are plenty of mentions of child sacrifices to Molech being forbidden.
>Germany was so technologically advanced it took the entire world to beat them
>>1060731
>implying that's not true
So why did it take the world to beat them TWICE then huh genius?
> Germany never won a war
> Israel never lost a war
>>1060731
Russia, Britain or the US alone could have beat them. each of them outpaced Germany's war economy often by several times. but the war would have lasted a long ass time without multiple fronts due to Hitler forcing the country to fight down to the last man and refusing to surrender
Was it a war crime? Was it justified?
>>1059886
All war is a crime.
Violence is never justified.
nope (no one complains the firebombing of Tokyo in March of that year was a war crime, and it killed just as many)
yup (still at war)
>>1059906
You're of course right, but it's worth noting that Curtis Lemay himself once said that if the US lost the war he'd be tried as a war criminal.
OP, dropping the bomb saved lives, plain and simple. What about it seems controversial to you?
Let's say they true AI were developed one day.
Would that machine be eligible for the same rights you and I share?
based bruno
>>1059044
>Should a non-human be eligible for human rights
Gee, I don't know. It sounds like such a tough question.
>>1059044
This is shopped, if anyone didn't notice
