In your opnion what was the BEST,THE WORST and THE MORE WISER ROME EMPERORS
The worst is Flavius Honorius
I hate Caracala
Constantine I the Renegade worse
Italy vs Greece
give me your thoughts on this and why
I'd go with Greece
>shaped western culture and the roman empire
>alexander
>discovered many sciences
>medicine
>great mathematicians
>defined democracy
>byzantine empire
many more reasons but tired to list them
>>828893
greece: hasn't achieved jack shit for 2000 years
bumps
Modern Greece is completely different than ancient Greece. I'm not even getting into genetics and shit like that, but culturally they're two radically different nations.
What factors led to the rise of Chav/skanger 'culture'?
>>828853
White males being demonized and cast out of society. Glorification of layabout culture.
oi m8 ill fuk u up good rite, i swear by me mum
fooken bloody wanker
Urban poverty, drugs and incarceration. The exact same circumstances that led to black thug culture, only with white people. A good counterargument to any "only blacks can be niggers" argument.
They're people of the English working class sticking together. They're basically todays skinheads.
What went wrong?
>>828154
They didn't manage to go full Mughal.
>>828154
They're still Muslim and angry.
>>828780
redundant desu
Hello, /his/,
Let's talk about this duchy, I find myself to be deeply fascinated by it. Throughout the history, something that was once big has dramatically receded to a country that barely anyone knows. >Yet how "Lithuanian" was it?
>Today, the language under the name of "Lithuanian" as we know of is only spoken by 3 million people.
>The territory they had at it's peak embraced such today's countries as Belarus, Ukraine, Poland and Russia, which obviously are slavic.
>If we are objective and competent enough, we know that Lithuanian language is indeed related to slavic, yet not as close to it as some may think.
>Surely, after forming a Commonwealth with Poland, Lithuania got badly polonized and thus made more slavic
>But let's look at the King Mindaugas back from 13th century, or the early Gediminds back from a century or so later:
What language did they speak in? Was it a language somewhat similar to today's Lithuanian?
Or was it some sort of a Slavic language, based on the fact, that the Duchy at its peak consisted of massive regions, in which Slavic languages were widely spoken?
>What language did they speak in? Was it a language somewhat similar to today's Lithuanian?
The "Lithuanian" language itself only came to be in 1547, majority of the country spoke Ruthenian and Polish, some Dukes would speak German (such as Gediminas) since they were diplomats or of the such.
So yeah, majority of the country spoke mainly Ruthenian, a.k.a slav.
Any more questions?
>>827417
Grand Duchy of Lithuania is indeed a very interesting subject to discuss. As far as Lithuanians go, they were originally a pagan tribe which was quite good at waging war. As Ruthenian principalities next to it became weakened due to fragmentation and Mongols, Lithuanians managed to add them to their state. That's where the fun part starts.
Some historians, particularly Belarusian ones (though there aren't many of them because official Belarusian history basically starts and ends with WW2) outright deny Baltic factor in Grand Duchy because supposedly Lithuanians assimilated with predominantly Slavic population quickly and WE WUZ REAL LITVINZ. Ukrainian historian Hrushevsky viewed Grand Duchy as a new stage in development of Ruthenia and downplayed Lithuanian elements.
That's just oversimplifying things, however. It is true that pagan Lithuanians did accept dominating and more developed Ruthenian culture just fine but Lithuanians did bring a lot of their own innovations into the mix, namely army structure and centralization - the latter being a constant weak spot of Ruthenia prior to that. Subtelny says it was more of a symbiosis of both Ruthenian and Lithuanian elements than anything, and I think it's a perfectly valid idea. One can't even really say that Lithuanians "conquered" those lands - locals viewed them favorably, especially since they chased Mongols off - it was more like incorporation.
Now as far as the language goes, I'm not too sure about that. Generally at that period common folk and elites spoke different languages, and there were both "written" and "spoken" ones. I know that many Lithuanian statutes were originally written in Ruthenian, however, which is also known as Ancient Ukrainian/Ancient Belarusian language because it's the same shit.
>>827505
Wuz Belarusians Litvinz?
>>827417
The slavic lands were only held by and independent Lithuania for a relatively short time, and during the PLU and the PLC today's Lithuania would've spoken Lithuanian and the ruthenian parts would've spoken (You guessed it) Ruthenian
>someone pronounces "caesar" as "see-zar"
>someone pronounces Russia as Rasha
>>827339
vocaroo what you just wrote please
>someone autistically posts the same thread over and over
THESIS: Corruption is caused by a mis-alignment between the size of the polity, and people's identification of their community of mutual interest.
People in Denmark don't steal from the state/society through corrupt practices because they expect Denmark writ large to support them if they need the help (over and above their local communities and even their families). By stealing from Danish society / the Danish state they'd essentially be stealing from themselves.
Conversely, where people depend more on their local communities and their families for support, and don't identify their interests with people who just happen to be part of the same economic area and tax base, it makes sense to steal what they can since it enriches their support group at the expense of these outsiders.
POINT: Is the solution to corruption to devolve authority to a level where people start seeing the point in following the rules?
Would an Italian who doesn't see the problem in cheating on his taxes think otherwise if the tax pool was reduced to his more local community? Would a Mexican who flouts laws set at the distant federal or state level think otherwise if they were all set by his city or district? Would a Kenyan bureaucrat who's happy to take bribes working on behalf of the country think otherwise if they were employed by their village?
And if so how do you apply this logic in the real world?
p.s. does this line of thinking have a name?
>>827312
Somalia isn't that corrupt honestly unless your a outlander.
>>827312
Corruption on those top5 countries are usually made in the open, its no big deal. Sweden for example, all top politicians in the govt have +10$ apt paid by unions paid by member fees, big scandal, now forgotten...
Theres so much public money being wasted in those countries, but people usually dont care cause living standards are still high, no1 bothers.
Intuitively it makes sense, but then you'd expect to see a correlation between the size of a country and level of corruption. I'm not sure I see that in that map.
>ww1
>ww2
Which was more senseless?
Which had greater lasting effects on the world?
>Which was more senseless?
What do you mean? Few human endeavors, if any, are senseless.
>Which had greater lasting effects on the world?
Impossible to measure.
>lasting effect
WW1 by far
>ancient monarchies evaporating overnight
>a huge chunk of central and eastern Europe partitioned into gorillion irrelevant microshitholes
>League of Nations and Wilsonian fucktardery
>rise of communism
>directly caused the rise of fascism as well
>>827093
>few human endeavors are senseless
Nigger are you retarded?
Why were russians so shit in WW1?
I know they had shit tier equipment, training and tactics, but they had the same things applied to them in WW2 and they won.
Except their equipment wasn't all that bad in WWII. Their tanks, for example, were superior to German tanks in many instances.
The whole "USSR did nothing but throw human waves at the Germans" is false, too.
>>827001
True, but you their good equipment was in too few numbers during the early years of war.
Most of the time it was shitty inter-war light tanks.
>>826996
>Poor communication
See Tannenberg
>Lack of fucking everything
While by WW2 one rifle per several people was mostly a meme that actually did happen in WW1
>Horrible logistics
Russians can't into them, not now, not ever.
>Shortage of supplies later on
And people say Lend-Lease didn't do anything
>No morale to speak of
There was mass jingoist hysteria in the beginning of the war which even led to renaming of Saint Petersburg to Petrograd but it stopped just as quickly as it started.
>>827001
>The whole "USSR did nothing but throw human waves at the Germans" is false, too.
Human waves still were there, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGZSkLq3Eng
/his/, what's your opinion on the "Extra Credits" YouTube channel? I just watched his video on Suleiman the Magnificent, but I'm unsure of how accurate his stuff is.
Also, feel free to recommend history YouTube channels.
>>826695
Wow, he sounds like a pretentious faggot. And he should burn in hell for that squeaky voice. Jesus Christ
>>826742
his voice is actually super deep in real life, it's sped up to not be disconcerting when paired with the animation
So my grandfather left me a very valuable inheritance of around 50 albums of stamps from around 1850 to 1980 that he and his father collected throughout the years.
I need your help /his/ to help me recognize some of those stamps, their source and maybe their value.
I will go pic from pages of interest as long as there is an interest for it.
First page(many hitlers in different colors):
This particular album was looted from the house of a nazi officer who collected stamps.
My question about this page is
> Do you think the number next to hitler's profile is the price of the stamp? If so, do you think that this page is a demonstration of the inflation in prices that occurred during the reign of the nazi's? Because that'd be interesting.
tell me if you want to see more pages from the album aswell
also, sorry for my english :c
>>826681
>Deliberately non-white, gay-ass rainbow Hitlers
>Visual record of gradual hyperinflation from jewsury
>Some boring-ass Nazi actually took up stamp collecting
what the fuck am I reading
What do you think of Black Israelites?
WE WUZ: The religion.
Their claims are just as valid as some random Euros and Khazars cosplaying as ancient Israelites.
https://youtu.be/yet2Q0M32GQ
Was he right, /his/?
About what?
Phenomenological non-cognitivism? Objectively, yes. This makes him more logically grounded and sound than almost any other philosopher.
Egoism? Egoism is a spook.
>>826322
A better question is, did Nietzsche read him?
>>826393
duh
Hey /his/torians
Let's play Battleground God
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/
Post your results in the comments, we can debate or find like-minded peers.
Direct Hit 1
You answered "True" to questions 11 and 15, which generated the following response:
Earlier you responded that it is rational to believe the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.
The contradiction is that on the first occasion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
>I believe the standard of evidence for a physical creature should be greater than that of a deity.
You answered "True" to questions 7 and 14, which generated the following response:
You claimed earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now stated that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that She exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet of supposing that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution; or (b) take a direct hit, accepting that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
You chose to bite the bullet.
>Evolution has many data points taken from the real world, whereas belief in God (Judeo-Christian) just focuses on the intent of one (real/imaginary) being. Evolution could also be a process initiated by a deity.
Loving this biased test!
Perhaps instead of concerning whether or not a belief is rational, consider that humans are free to find truth in whatever they believe, whether or not it is rational.
So perhaps the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, yet if my religion is a traditional worshipping of his sacred existent in his lake, then his existence is truth whether or not he exists.
And thus when asked whether or not something is true or false, one's definition of true and false are subjective. To me, I think there could be sacred power, but I don't particularly believe in it. To others, maybe they haven't proven it, but it is truth (to them).
Basically this test is just a test of rationality concerning something like religion which is so much deeper than rationality. It's a human experience that can't be labeled true or false.
>>826300
I took a hit so I started over and I made it through with no hits.
2 ez
Let's image a human's brain was hooked up into a robot and it was behaving like a normal human.
Is this a machine with a fleshy hard-drive or a person with an exoskeleton?
The latter, I suppose. The "exoskeleton" is a machine, though.
>behaving like a normal
Let's imagine OP making non-retarded threads.
>>826170
Well, I needed to dumb it down, so you can understand the thread.
