ITT: We discuss the mongols, nomads, and other steppe folk.
Does anyone have a good bibliography for the Mongolian Khanates?
>>932564
Hey,
I've just finished reading Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford and it gives a really great historical narrative style story. If it irks you that some sources may not be translated well or that Weatherford's thesis is a bit weak, it's really insightful secondary source. Another great book related to this topic is The Mongols by David Morgan which I have also read and it is just the perfect book for understanding this.
>>932564
I honestly find the Mong empire the more boring of the Steppe Nomads. Not to mention the most pop history'd and memed.
>>932564
literally the shittiest civilization in history, their only achivement ever was being good fighters and conquering others. but they never produced anything culturally significant (the cultural achivements by the peoples they subjugated doesn't count). at least the norse had their sagas, created runestones and statues. all nomads did was ride around, fight, steal other people's shit.
Why are approximately 10% of the threads on this board about Hitler or Nazis?
We have literally all of history to talk about, and yet people are endlessly focused on one very, very brief period of it.
Where do you think you are?
We're in the WW2 phase, wait until we start talking about Big Foot and ancient aliens
Seriously though, the World Wars are way too influential to not be focused on
Better Hitler than Mosley
>"The ethnolinguistic affiliation of the Avars is uncertain. Although there is sparse knowledge about the Avar language, scholars have suggested that the Avars could have spoken Caucasian, Iranian, Mongolic, Tungusic, and Turkic. Over time Slavic became the lingua franca of the Avars."
What would make a group as powerful as the Avars adopt the language of their slaves and subjects? Any suggestions as to why one of the ruling class' languages didn't take hold?
..SO YOU BE SAYIN' WE WUZ HORSE-ARCHERS N SHIT
>>930936
I guess /his/ wasn't the place to ask about history.
The same reason why Ukraine and Russia speak Slavic instead of Norse, or why the French and German kings of England eventually spoke english, a minority will completely overwrite a population's language.
how do we argue against nihilism again?
That was easy.
>nothing matters
>yeah so?
>....
same way you argue against solipsists
>>927782
you are agreeing tho, not arguing with him
>Jesus was a carpenter
any truth to this meme?
The greek word "tekton" (translated into "carpenter") could also possibly mean “artisan,” “contractor,” or “handyman."
I don't think it really makes a difference though
>>925566
Joseph was a carpenter.
It would be sensible to think his wife's son would take up the same trade.
>>925566
Jesus was a meme
Friendly reminder that the Atomic bombings of Japan were war crimes and the Allies are literally on the exact same moral level as the Axis
>>932692
Yeah but we won so it doesn't matter.
>>932723
>winning the ability to create and maintain a Western neoliberal society which then destroys the west
yeah we 'won'
>>932732
You know for all 4chan jokes about suicide, you'd think you'd support the self-destruction of western culture.
![adolf_hitler_by_supajutsu-d3dbk39[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tvXn9MR.jpg "adolf hitler by supajutsu-d3dbk39[1]")
When did the third reich lost the war?
German navy getting weakened in Norway?
Battle of Britain?
Italian failure in Greece?
Lost in El Alamein?
>>933791
Stalingrad
>>933799
Honestly the Germans still had the Russians on the back foot until Kursk, that's when they finally lost their momentum for good.
As for when German defeat was inevitable, that would be the failure of Barbarossa to make the Russians capitulate. After that, they had lost too much of their core to make an offensive as successful as that plausible ever again. They gamed on breaking the Russians through shock and realized too late that it would be a long, long war.
When Barbarossa failed in its main objectives.
Was Kursk the biggest blunder for the germans?
>huge manpower and equipment wasted assaulting a impenetrable fortification
>every gain was futile because soviets just gained them back counterattacking with their huge reserves
>offensive was called off anyway because Allies invaded Sicily
All of it lost because Hitler thought that assaulting the most defended position on the EF would gain them victory
>>929362
You're ignoring the fact that assaults on salients had worked fine before for the Germans. They had literally just crushed a Soviet push into Kharkov (which is what created the Kursk Salient in the first place), and there was no better place to launch an offensive than at Kursk. There, they could call on the forces of two Army Groups and two Luftflotten to hit a dangerously exposed salient in the lines.
That's not to say that there weren't mistakes made at Kursk, but it was hardly a stupid decision to attack it in the first place.
>>929362
The Germans had to attack it because that was the biggest concentration of Soviet soldiers.
At this point, German high command new that conquering the USSR just wasn't going to happen, but hoped for one last major blow to bring the Soviets to the negotiating table and talk from a position of strength.
the goal was to encircle the Kursk salient and leave some 1.5 million Soviet troops surrounded and stranded by the encircle, which would've taken a good 25% of the Red Army off the playing field. So attacking it had to happen in order to achieve this goal.
The Soviets knew this was the Germans goal too, so they fortified to the point where the Wehrmacht was wading through their own dead men to advance.
It made sense to the Germans who wanted to remove the bulk of the Red Army from the battlefield, but the Soviet defenses were just that strong, even if the Germans pushed for one more assault, ignoring the allied invasion of Sicily, it would've been almost impossible to completely close the circle, considering how negligible their gains were so far in the operation.
>>929419
Couldn't the germans just dig in themselves to favorable defensive positions and stay on defensive?
What are some lesser known "bad people" from history? I am talking comic book villain tier of bad, someone whose ideas and actions were so batshit insande that his biography reads like a script for a saturday morning cartoon episode.
Do not just give me all the Hitlers or Stalins or Calligulas, give me more obscure ones, like, Emperor Bocassa, or General Butt-Naked, or, I don't know, the spanish guys who fucked up South America.
Pic unrelated.
>belial wasn't real
nice try r/atheism
>belial isn't evil
nice try satanist, gb2 the mall
I recognized Pepe and Putin but who was in the left?
>>927085
katie the cat from /mu/
How do you feel about that, commies?
>>934009
>B-b-but muh communism is against capitalism!!!!!!! I can't handle the truth!!!! I'll call you a fascist then!!!!!
Capitalism and communism: two sides of the same coin.
>>934113
It is funny capitalists say fascism and communism, two sides of the same coin
And communists say fascism and capitalism are two sides of same coin.
What did he mean by this?
the first mistake was bugs
>>932057
OP was His first.
Free will was the first. And woman is the one creature that can totally wreck a man's logical, rational thought.
>One of the Founding Fathers
>literally walked into California
>named every major city in California
>sent money to George Washington to fight to btfo Protestant England
>fed every native that came, every time
>taught animal husbandry and agriculture to the natives
>moved his missions away from protection of brutal soldiers
>we don't need that kind of protecting
>traveled to Mexico City to have a brutal governor replaced
>slept on a wooden bench
Why does Junipero Serra get such a bad rap?
pretty based I suppose. I don't agree with the way that missions treated the indigenous peoples that weren't willing to convert so easily but the same can be said for anybody in any point of history really.
Living in California I have had the chance to visit the missions in San Diego, Santa Barbara, San Juan Capistrano
How can people unironically call themselves agnostic and pretend this to be a third position apart from theism and atheism?
The question "Do you believe in god?" is a question of yes or no. From a philosophical point of view you must know with certainty whether or not you believe. Sure your beliefs can change over time, but at any fixed time you are in one of two possible states of belief: either you do believe or you don't. So purely logically there is no such thing as an agnostic.
What if you just don't care and never really thought about it?
>from a philosophical point of view you must know whether or not you believe
Prove it.
>there is no such thing as agnostic
So how are we discussing it?
>>929639
Then the answer is no, you don't believe in god. Unless you do.
>haha the dark ages didn't happen man
>everything was fine after the fall of Rome
>that's just a renaissance myth bro
When will this meme end?
>>929156
what was going on in Rome & The Vatican during the "Dark Ages" post Roman empire up to 1500s Reformation?
>>929156
Nobody is saying that Things were fine after the Fall of Rome
>>929156
No ones implying that.
Is it safe to say that "Europe" as an entity was born with the rise of Charlemagne?
Only Christcucks who can't reconcile the FACT that Europe thrived the most when Christianity didn't exist and only recovered when Christianity was neutered by the enlightment claim that.
>>922295
No. Europe as an entity was born with the remarkable successes of Pepin the short
>>922302
>Pepin
