Historically speaking, has any state been able to successfully deal with and/or end terrorist campaigns against them? Not just including modern terrorism, but all of history stretching back to ancient times.
Is it even possible to do such a thing? Or can you only keep calm and carry on, ignoring the urge to capitulate to the fear, and fall for the terrorists plans to make you desire revenge?
>That image fuckup
>>872155
I don't browse /pol/.
I want a historical discussion about terrorism and its history for the last several thousand years, including strategies against it, how successful or unsuccessful they've been.
I don't want this to be a "gas all muslims" thread.
How could the French Revolution have beeen less, well you know.
By not being French and not a revolution.
They are doomed to be horrible by themselves, and when you bring them together, they only get worsened.
>>871967
Republicans are barbaric by nature.
>Robespierre did nothing wrong
>Everything Robespierre did was wrong
>Robespierre was completely insane
>Robespierre was a model of revolutionary justice
All of these statements are hyperbolic.
>>871945
This.
>>871938
The main fault for Robespierre us that he didn't kill enough
Was nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki purely utilitarian (ending the war quickly with less casualties) or did they have other motives as well?
It was a showoff to the Soviets. "Look at we have you red bastards!" Too bad the commies already had their own spies on the Manhattan project.
>>871705
It had no "utilitarian" use (Japs were already in process of surrendering)
It was purely to test it on civilians and send a message to the USSR
>>871705
muh unconditional surrender
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire
OT anon
>>870755
>Sacrilegious
>German
>Customs Union
Prove me wrong pls
Find a flaw
>protip: you can't
His face doesn't look realistic to me, the painter could've done a better job.
Other than that the artist had serious talent.
>>870239
>>870239
On one hand he killed poor Boethius, on the other hand he indirectly created one of the most wonderful books ever.
Why is Jerusalem considered sacred to Muslims? I know the significance for Jews and Christians, but what events occurred there that made it the third Muslim Holy City as well?
>lemme google that For You
>Because that's where the dome of the rock is:D
>What is Jerusalem worth? XDDD
Honest and serious answers are allowed as well
>>870231
It was sacred in a general Abrahamic sense to begin with. The Dome of the Rock was put there for a reason, and not in Damascus or Medina. At some point legends about Muhammad's night journey to the furthest mosque was attributed to the Dome of the Rock, and it gained a mystical reputation among other shrines of Syria and Palestine shared with Jews and Christians.
Other than that, it's not particularly sacred on the level that it is for Jews and Christians, but it happens to be the center of Palestinian spirituality in Jerusalem, which extends to Palestinian nationalism throughout Israel, which then extends to Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, and then bleeds back into the religion.
>>870264
That was an excellent answer, thanks anon.
Thread has fulfilled it's objective.
>>870231
>Understands significance for Jewish/Christians
>Doesn't understand significance for Muslims
>Doesn't know all three religions basically share the same prophets besides their respective "true" prophets and share the same patriarchs.
Are you kidding me senpai?
Favorite subcultures from the last century or two? What are some of the most important subcultures in terms to our lives today, if any?
So is this board really just regurgitated college curriculum shit? I was hoping for some niche insight
>>870070
>I was hoping for some niche insight
So is this board really just regurgitated college curriculum shit?
>animu
what else are yo expecting from this board
As Eddie Conlon states in 'The Spanish Civil War: Anarchism in Action':
> If you didn't want to join the collective you were given some land but only as much as you could work yourself. You were not allowed to employ workers. Not only production was affected, distribution was on the basis of what people needed. In many areas money was abolished. People come to the collective store (often churches which had been turned into warehouses) and got what was available. If there were shortages rationing would be introduced to ensure that everyone got their fair share. But it was usually the case that increased production under the new system eliminated shortages.
> In agricultural terms the revolution occurred at a good time. Harvests that were gathered in and being sold off to make big profits for a few landowners were instead distributed to those in need. Doctors, bakers, barbers, etc. were given what they needed in return for their services. Where money was not abolished a 'family wage' was introduced so that payment was on the basis of need and not the number of hours worked.
> Production greatly increased. Technicians and agronomists helped the peasants to make better use of the land. Modern scientific methods were introduced and in some areas yields increased by as much as 50%. There was enough to feed the collectivists and the militias in their areas. Often there was enough for exchange with other collectives in the cities for machinery. In addition food was handed over to the supply committees who looked after distribution in the urban areas.
How much of these claims are supported by other primary and secondary sources?
If these claims are true, do they damage the notion that non-hierarchical forms of organisation in industry, agriculture etc. are innately inefficient?
I was actually curious about this too, so while I can't answer your question, at least I can help try keeping it on the first page.
By the way, Anarchocommunism is an oxymoron, since only through coercion you can keep people from not engaging in private enterprise.
Anyway, back on point, I'm sceptic about anarchist claims since they might be propaganda.
Bump.
>>869390
> I'm sceptic about anarchist claims since they might be propaganda.
That's why I'm searching for any sources people might have that can refute/support these claims and others like them.
>>869398
Have you read "The Anarcho Statists of Spain"?
Can anyone recommend any good historical documentaries on Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, YouTube, etc. It is so hard to find anything good.
what period?
2003 The First World War is on youtube
it is the best ww1 docu out there probably
Any period
>>869315
Thanks, I'll check it out
In modern times, people appear to just say a republic is a government with no king. Fine, but to me that seems not to be the case with how classical era governments were considered.
The word republic comes from the Latin 'Res Publica' meaning 'public thing', a government that is the public affair of its citizens and not the private concern of individuals.
Monarchy, comes from the Greek 'mon' (One), and 'Archon' (ruler).
Monarchy = One ruler
Diarchy = ruled by two
Triarchy = ruled by three
etc
So, being a republic is not mutually exclusive with being a monarchy? Look at Sparta, two kings, an assembly body that did most of the decision making, a constitution, and citizenship. Was Sparta a Republic?
>>869063
No because the kings were hereditary and the ruling class was made up of an elite upperclass that wasn't elected. Sparta isn't a monarchy or republic, it is an oligarchy because it was ruled by a small group of elite officials.
>>869521
Athens is the classic example of a democracy, and only the upper section of its populace was voting citizens. And it didn't elect its politicians either.
(They used sortition for their politicians, because electing politicians was aristocratic and undemocratic according to them)
>>869521
No for fuck sake, stop taking your modern definitions of whater into your judgement. Sparta was a democracy due to the definitions of the citizen. Which was a man born from two spartan parents.
Athens were the same but it had more lax rules and it created more stability because of it. However Athens was far more warmongering because they could travel and battle without fearing a slave rebellion.
What is the significance/symbolism of the hops growing on trees? Also does anyone feel like sharing weird art?
What is your opinion of Cesare Borgia?
Based as it gets
>>868077
Should have been pope desu.
Good boy
Ok /his/ I know this might be very specific but how much decently sourced information do we have on Byzantium in the years following the 4th crusade?
I'm talking Latin Empire and Palaiologos restoration, and mainly economic (tax records, treasury size etc.) and population (both of Constantinople and the countryside) stats, but literally any will do.
We all know Byzantium was weakened by the 4th crusade, but by how much, and how well did they hang on in the 250 years that followed? Were they ultra fucked and cucked out of all their wealth? Or did they have a large population and economy even after the crusade?
>>868045
One estimate I know of puts Constantinople's population prior to the 4th Crusade at 400,000, and the Byzantines retook it at about 35,000 people, and rebuilt the city to around 70,000. Hurt them pretty bad.
>>868045
After the Palaiologoi reclaimed Constantinople from the Latin Empire they gradually lost control of Nicaea and Asia Minor to the Turks and Athens to the Catalans during his reign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronikos_II_Palaiologos
After that there was a disastrous civil war between Ioannes Katakouzenos - duke of thessalonika and emperor Andronikos III.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronikos_III_Palaiologos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_VI_Kantakouzenos
After that the ottomans took Thrace and the Serbs and Bulgarians the rest of the Balkans except Morea.
Then Bayezid conquered most of the Balkans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayezid_I
From the 1350s onwards there were effectively reduced to a vassal state of the ottomans and were only saved by the mongols coming in and defeating bayezid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ankara
After that Ioannes VIII attempted to get help from the West by mending the Schism but it wasultimately fruitless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_VIII_Palaiologos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
Then the fall of constantinople happened at 1453 thus ending the empire.
Trebizond fell om 1461.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Trebizond
I believe at this point, the Byzantines were barely subsisting by selling off their relics and some meaningless (but cool-sounding) titles to Western rulers.
How would you suggest that failing countries escape the legitimacy trap.
>effective governments need legitimacy
>Legitimacy is brought about through effective government
Solicit arms and money from the US or Russia.
legitimacy died in 1789
![012[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6zluLp4.jpg "012[1]"){kind=small}
![cnt-hail-the-heroes[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Ycy84Ou.jpg "cnt-hail-the-heroes[1]")
