God tier game, we can all agree, but how many historical inaccuracies does it have?
>Celts winning the battle of Falkirk
>Saracens not just being called Arabs
>'Western Roman Empire' a faction in the first Huns scenario which was clearly set in Western Asia hence the presence of Persia and Scythia
>Huns having the central European architecture when all evidence points to them being from the central Asian steppes
>>869506
>>Saracens not just being called Arabs
Did the Syrians and Egyptians call themselves Arabs at this time? I once read Arab was a pejorative for Beduoins of the inner desert.
How do I submit myself to the one and only religion of our ancestors had: wololoism?
>>869531
Not sure, but Saracen was basically just a nickname for Arabs.
>Second largest empire in history
>Conquered China and Persia
>Outnumbered by their enemies and lacked their technology
Face it, Mongol Empire is best Empire. Rome and Britain were established powers, ahead of everyone else technology-wise that never conquered anyone superior to them. The Mongols had the odds stacked against them and they still BTFO'd their opponents.
>>868720
Nah. Rome better.
>>868720
How long did the Mongolian empire of Ghengis Khan last before breaking up into various states?
>>868720
Nomads are cheat codes.
I've noticed that usually when people have their ideology questioned in some way they resort to whataboutism instead of actually defending their own position, why is that?
Also pic unrelated.
Because most people suck at arguing.
>>868576
I'm actually surprised by how few people on a history board can argue well, and how few actually know the historical method
Perhaps because people don't want to take responsibility for something they themselves haven't done, even if people who have professed the same ideology as them in the past has done wicked things.
Why were the Japanese so consistently BTFO by the Red Army in all their 1930s border fights?
I thought the Soviets were supposed to be going through purges and were incompetent.
Was the Imperial Japanese Army really just that shitty?
As I get it the Japanese had a strong focus on their infantry (Got a strong fetish for long bayonets) as well as the navy.
None of that was of much use in the flat lands surrounding Mongolia, where the Soviet's far more mechanized forces had an advantage.
Zhukov.
Really that's the only reason.
Armor
>Not a single generation has passed without an uprising against the British
When will they realise Ireland just isn't worth the fucking hassle?
>>864515
Sometime after UK loses Scottland.
So maybe in the 2020-2025 timescale. I expect Scotland to be independent and then North Ireland to follow shortly.
>>864521
Without discussing if they _should_ be independent or not because that would be politics, why would you expect Scotland to vote for independence when they've already voted against it?
>>864515
But it is. It really is. We've got nothing left, we need somewhere to rule over. We just need somewhere.
Oh, also it's not very safe to have an island that large and that close not under our or an ally's control.
What was Vercingetorix's mistake?
He had no dicipline in his ranks
Getting himself caught
>>857705
Being a Gaul
So I'm not into history. But what can we learn from history (all history)?
Like, sum it up for me.
>>872041
>everything you know is a meme
>even paradigm shifts are subject to paradigm shifts
>except for science, the end game of sentience
Now go study a monetizable major.
Absolutely nothing that will get you hired above McDonald's fast food crew.
>>872041
What God creates, Man can destroy.
Christians of /his, if a man invented a perfectly intelligent and conscious robot would the man be the god of the robot or would god be the god of the robot?
>>871758
God would still be God because he created the man.
>>871762
But man created the robot.
Also robots don't have souls so it's not like the robot would have any connection to god other than being made by someone who was made by god.
>>871766
God is omnipresent. Everything has a connection to God.
ITT: we post intellectually bankrupt ideologies and beliefs
I'll start
>Pan Slavism
>Atheism
>Protestant Christianity
>Trotskyism
>liberation theology
>Buddhism
>Enlightened Absolutism
>democracy
>Romanticism
add more to the list
>dude judeo-bolshevism lmao
>communism
>marxism
>stalinism
>andropovism
>brezhnevism
>kruschevism
>sanderism
>clintonism
>trumpism
>obamism
>bushism
>>871617
National Socialism, ironically
There has been something on my mind that despite the insurmountable effort that I have spent digging and personal conversation that I cannot come to a satisfactory equilibrium to, that being on the detailed aspect of the physical & psychological extent of an "evil" mind, now to clarify this topics definition of evil: self driven, psychologically vicious, without compassion or remorse, manipulative to the extreme and understandably and completely outside of the constraints of any societal morality. Most of the results I have found (so far) have lead to a chemical imbalance or a harsh upbringing, to which I digress in the fact that I personally exemplify the aforementioned despite having a very colorful and positive childhood and possess no 'imbalance' as far as various medical screenings have proven.
Even if it is just philosophical banter that can be provided it could still prove to be insightful and it is impossible that I am alone in this search, so please, devulge.
If I get what you mean, then I think the lack of the ability to empathise as shown by severe psychopaths is why that aspect of society holds no value for them, only 'thrilling' and personally beneficial situations seem to motivate them.
![tumblr_o3t925GoPo1r89qoso2_500[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/OvcA8Ao.png "tumblr o3t925GoPo1r89qoso2 500[1]")
>>871573
is this you OP?
>>871586
Oh and to add, my understanding is that sociopaths are more related to environmental factors, while psycopaths are more genetic. Do you enjoy emotional conflict?
>>871600
I've read things suggesting that this is close to 1-100, eg autism frequency. And on 4chan obviously it's more prevalent than the general public.
>t-this guy was just a butthurt heretic, he destroyed Christian unity forever! If it wasn't for him, Europe w-would be way more united and wouldn't have to experience centuries of religious wars! XD
Why do you retards keep repeating this? Do you guys not realise that he had no intentions of breaking off from the Church, and was instead just trying to reform and eradicate what he (mostly rightfully) saw as extreme Church corruption?
I mean fuck, I'm not even some protetard, I'm Orthodox, so I have more reason than anyone to take issue with the movement his ideas spawned. But to say that he was actually TRYING to break away from the Church and cause all these new heresies to pop up is factually wrong. If you want to look at people who were actually trying to do that, point your attentions to Zwingli and Calvin, not Luther.
>>871227
Dude literally rewrote the bible. What does that have to do with corruption.
>>871235
Ok, fair enough, and he was wrong in that. But if the Church hadn't been so uncompromisingly butthurt, they might have been able to engage with him properly and and take on board his actual legitimate suggestions, rather than dismiss everything he said outright because of "muh heresy."
Honestly, the Catholics have no one to blame for the fractured state of Western Christianity but themselves.
>>871254
>But if the Church hadn't been so uncompromisingly butthurt, they might have been able to engage with him properly and and take on board his actual legitimate suggestions, rather than dismiss everything he said outright because of "muh heresy."
but they did, only a few of his theses were actually condemned, not all of them.
Had he not been so emotionally invested in his "new theology" he wouldve been highly regarded in the Church. Fuck, he may have even upheld his teaching as a intellectual pursuit, against the Ockhamism of his day, but he let his emotions and huge ego take hold of him, going as far as to hold Church teaching as another fallible opinion.
That's the thing with heretics anon, they are extremes of what would be perfectly orthodox points of view.
also
>I'm Orthodox
you're pretty much the first Luthers, it's just that most people dont really care about your history, seeing you just as the weird church who is friends with Putin.
/his/
What went wrong with the second KKK?
>1926: 6,000,000 members. A lot of them were politicians and educated people
>2016: 5,000 members. Most of them uneducated rednecks
racism is no longer trendy. unfortunate.
>>871226
everyone got fed up with prohibition and started to accept catholics
>>871226
Corruption, then racism wasn't cool anymore
Was invading Russia as big of a military blunder as some people like to paint it to be?
>>871202
inb4 Mongols
>>871210
>faggot OP knew the answer already and had to inb4
>>871214
t. John Greene
How does one "study" history?
Fantasize about how cool it would be to be a badass warrior from that culture that you like but have no actually link to.
>>871113
Read literature and other materials from certain points in history and examine the events and culture from said points.You try to examine and understand these things from multiple perspectives and learn what other people's perspectives are and re-examine.
>>871113
By playing EU4. Duh? How else?
As an agronomist, you cannot convince me that this isn't the authoritative source on human history.
it's a pretty good book m8.
>>870984
It's actually a pretty decent book. It ain't perfect but it ain't bad either
>authority
Top kek m8
