Why was Germany called "Germany" and not Prussia when lots of Germans were never part of Germany (i.e. Austria)?
>>762262
Austrians are not Germans, that's why.
>>762262
>and not Prussia
Because Prussia was just a kingdom within the German Empire like for example Bavaria, Prussia unified those states but she didn't annex them
>>762269
Swallow your pride, Austria
Personally, I gotta cop out in favor of Albert Camus, a philosopher still considered controversial even today (particularly due to his wishy washy stance on the post WWII Algerian independence movement).
Some his better known works are The Stranger and the Myth of Sisyphus, with a very common theme in his works being the incredible absurdity of life. As well as participating in the French resistance in German occupied France (directing their newspaper lel), he stood against totalitarianism all his life to the point of ending up in staunchly opposed to Jean Paul Sarte despite being quite the liberal himself.
He was a quirky sorta guy, embodying liberalism tempered by suspicion of ideology (this particular quirk leading to many comparisons between him and George Orwell), and adamantly committed to the value of the individual human life.
>inb4 stirner
>>762247
ending up staunchly opposed*
>>762247
Marcus Aurelius. He made some mistakes, but the dude was largely successful, and his furthering of stoic philosophy has done a lot of good.
None, because I don't live through other people.
I'm going to buy this.
It's a Zulu War uniform replica.
Somehow cheaper then the 18th century uniforms of the British Empire.
>>762044
This isn't really worthy of a thread, but ok that's nice anon, have a (You).
>>762044
Thks isn't really a history thread, but I like you so I'll make it one.
Why did the 1st British invasion fail so badly. Sure, Rorke's Drift was a good accomplishment but their main force was annihilated completely at that one battle I can't remember the name of.
>inb4 Anglo racial inferiority
None of that /pol/ shit here, real answers.
Why is Roman cavalry never discussed? How good was it?
>>761831
Depends on what time period you are refering to.
The Byzantine horse archers were good if not great, allthough still inferior to the their sassanid counterparts.
>>761831
>Roman """"Cavalry""""
>Laughing_Asiatic_Entities.jpg
In terms of earlier eras than the byzantine one (in which cavalry was the central part of the army) infantry was the primary component of the army.
IIRC the roman cavaly in the republic era was competent and tended to do well in battles allthough it was severly limited in size. Once the state started to expand however the role of cavalry was left more and more to the auxillaries as they had a greater experience and tradition of fighting on horseback. I wouldn't be suprised if the increased wealth of the state during its period of vast expansion following the second punic war also lead to a decrease in willingness from the the roman knight-class to go into military service as civilian life was much more pleasant and gave room for enrichment through trade etc.
I think this is most fit for this board.
Ok, so in our timeline most of our religions and cultural beliefs and lore derrive from 1000s of years of stargazing, and the legends surrounding the different constellations and the cycles of the sun.
Ok, so what of the Earth had rings like pic related.
How would this affect humans CULTURALLY?
We're going to assume humans still evolve, and that most cultures still exist like in our timeline.
>>761592
I don't know but we'd probably have figured out earlier that the earth is round.
We would probably have a lot of rings in our culture desu
>>762148
We probably wouldn't have found out the rings are actually rings until very late in our history.
How do I become a history erudite?
I have a high-school level knowledge on history.
Do I just read Wikipedia ?
I'm poorfag so I can't buy books but I got the internet.
>>761498
Wikipedia - chase up the references (you can get loads of free history books on things like libgen) for more detail and then chase up the references in the references.
History blogs and magazines, podcasts, documentaries.
Books are the best way to go, but imbibing all of these things will help, and honestly, best thing to do is chase up what interests you, because you'll want to read/learn about it. Don't go looking for stuff you think you 'should' know, just go after what you find appealing (one of the great things about Wikipedia is the interconnectedness of the pages - you can go from Rome to the Axumite Empire and before you know it. you're reading about the White Rajahs of Sarawak).
Best of luck anon.
>>761498
Go on wikipedia and find a topic. Next read the page and with your middle mouse button click on those blue links that interest you. When you are done reading the page look at your tabs. Reapeat the same with the next tab. If you are really interested in history you will never be free of tabs.
This is how I did it
>be 5
>learn to read on my own
>tell grandma to stop buying fairytale books because its a load of nonsense and buy encyclopedies
>read all those encyclopedies
Does climate affect how a civilization or culture develops, and if so how much does it influence the development of a civilization or culture?
I myself experienced it, the hot weather makes people feel too lazy or dizzy to do anything.
>>761059
But cold countries like Russia and Finland are not too productive either
I guarangoddamntee that a tribe in a desert is different because it is in a desert in the same way that a tribe in a jungle is different because it is in a jungle.
In the same way, we can infer that tribes would act different in different climates, and since climates can change (IE Sahara), we can infer civilizations can change
If for the least of all, lack of food relative to when the Sahara WASN'T a desert.
I'm not sure where to put this, but since I've seen discussions about philosophy and psychology related topics here, I thought it would be appropriate.
Is gender a social construct?
No. But people have redefined to to be.
There is social constructed part and other part that isn't.
I'd say that there is most certainly a real and tangible sex, but a certain role doesn't necessarily follow.
Though, by virtue of being culturally enforced, it shouldn't matter.
Were europeans "in the right" for conquering the native peoples of the americas?
I think so. Though, "in the right" is a tough phrase to use. I just think it's natural human behavior and shouldn't necessarily be admonished.
I'm in a native american studies class at uni right now and I'm getting a little tired of the victimization complex these natives have, especially the super biased prof.
>muh laura ingalls wilder
>muh genocide
>muh sterilizations
Yes, it's all bad. Yes, killing millions isn't good, but it's been the way of the world since its inception and native americans shouldn't be special snowflakes simply since they were essentially "left alone" until 1492.
Conquering is the human way. There was no way that it was going to be a peaceful assimilation, I mean, just look at Africa. We arguably did far worse to them.
Although, the reservation system and how natives have been handled in the last 100 years or so could be improved. They are given plenty, though, and drinking alcohol and being generally degenerate is definitely not how their people sound when they claim "muh noble ancestry".
What are /his/'s thoughts on the matter? I kind of wrote this on a whim and didn't organize my thoughts. I think native culture and history is for the most part pretty neat, though.
Nice meme.
>>760233
First off you need to be a bit more specific on which area. French are arguably innocent, Brits were cunts, and the Spanish were actually pretty good. Americans are their own things and not really Europeans, and almost 100% cunts to them
It can't really be justified, but only accepted. Unfortunately some peoples just get trampled over by more dominant cultures/civilizations, it's happened before. The Indians who did get it good integrated and became a part of society.
>>760233
While there is a probably too much victimization of the natives, I think it's mostly backlash against the prevailing way the history books typically treated Natives before the 50's, as backwards savages killing all the good honest white settlers, with any hope in the next century maybe we'll see a more even tone given to events that doesn't marginalize Native Americans, but doesn't demonize the European settlers either, after all the story of the America's is the same as everywhere else, a bunch of people screwing each other over for their own best interest. However, I don't think you could say the Euro's were in the right. Something being human nature or the way things were always done, does not make it right, while I'll agree that the colonization of America was generally more tolerable than Africa, I don't think you can't morally justify it using modern morality.
>They are given plenty, though, and drinking alcohol and being generally degenerate is definitely not how their people sound when they claim "muh noble ancestry".
I think you're experience with modern Amerindians is biasing you towards history, you should be aware of that and try and curb it.
>tfw Belisarius will never tell that cunt Justinian to go fuck himself and birth a new Rome from the ashes of the old with a bloody conquest of Italy
>>760092
Imperium Romanum 2 had a great little scenario on this exact hypothetical.
>>760140
Total War: Attila has a DLC about it as well.
>tfw Belisarius could've been a god tier Western Emperor ruling a united and restored Roman Empire alongside his bro Justinian if it wasn't for that slut Theodora
I'm trying to write a novel, or a short story, in Medieval Russia (and Ukraine). Do they have legendary epics, such as Roland, St. George, and the dragons, etc? What about legendary creatures such as elves, dwarves, goblins, dog-headed men, werewolves? Who were their main theologians? What was their cosmology like? Did they believe in the Ptolemaic universe? Is it true that Orthodox theology rejects Aristotle and is more Platonic? Was there a dialectic relationship between Christianity and Paganism as there was in the Christian West (Christmas tree, some Pagan gods becoming saints, etc.)? In short, Russian Middle Ages? Wussup wit dat?
Why do you want to write about something you don't know?
>>759764
/thread
Why is God always talked about in such patriarchal terms?
It is clear God is a female. A male could never have given birth to the Universe.
>>759074
Abraxas is a futa though.
>>759074
if you look at how god acts he's very much like a stern father who doesn't like you talking shit to him
>>759097
> if you look at how god acts
He doesn't acts anymore. If he is stern father he is completely apathetic to our lives now and doesn't care.
/his/ I'm at a dilemma. It turns out that I have Nazi collaborators (now dead) in my family, and much of my family is unaware of this. My mother's grandfather was part of a provisional government in Nazi occupied territory during the war, and fled when Russians took it back. An international committee cited him as a war criminal complicit in the holocaust. He escaped justice by fleeing the country, bringing his family as refugees to where I live today.
I've been learning more of my family's life, and talking to my Grandmother and reading her journal about her time as a refugee. Some deeper digging online and through archives led me to what I learned. I'm sure she knows about his role, but might be unaware that this government committee labels him as a war criminal. My mom doesn't know about his crimes or status and she just thinks he "was some kind of government official", not even aware he was working with Nazis. She even gave my brother his middle name after him. I'm unsure about my uncles.
I don't know if I should break the news, or just drop it all together. I don't want to press my grandmother about it since she's old and doesn't need that kind of stress.
I'm going to keep details fairly vague because I'm sure some savvy /his/torian could put together the pieces and find out who it is/I am.
Thoughts /his/?
>>759070
Post on /pol/ and be hailed as a hero
>>759081
I did. They encouraged me to embrace my nazi heritage, which I don't feel right being proud of
>>759090
then don't, embrace is, yes, it's your past but you dont have to be proud of it. Wasn't your fault your great grandpa killed Jewish kids, bro.
One of the topics I find most interesting in history is the appearance of these Christian 'heresies' (i.e. deviations from supposedly orthodox thought) since the very beginning.
The Carpocratians, the Borborites/Barbeloites, Valentinians, the Marcionites, the Paulicians, the Bogomils, the Cathars and you could make stretch and even include the various gnostics and even Manicheans into these.
What makes these so fascinating to read about is that we know so very little about them since all their books were their destroyed, and most of what we have are polemics written against them by their enemies. However, we can see most of them had some kind of dualistic worldview, and they seemed to have shared at least a basic belief that the material world was evil and had been created by a demiurge (the 'God' of the Old Testament).
We don't seem to know much else, though, and the Church establishment makes accusations that could certainly be fabricated, but that could also be true (though this isn't very likely).
> churchcucks will not worship this
>>758514
The Cathars seemed like an interesting bunch. Rights for women, no marriage, vegetarianism. Too bad they viewed the world as evil.
>>758514
We tend to get the worst aspects of them promoted or even exagerated because the church would not want to portray them in a positive light.
If you look at the stuff that comes out of the Nog Hamadi Library the Gnostics saw the material world as no more 'evil' than the Christians. It was more like a neo-platonic view. The material world is in imitation of the divine, salvation comes through knowledge of the perfect divine realm, allowing complete union with the divine. It's also somewhat similar to a lot of Orthodox theology.
>Church says that breaking away from it would mislead the faithful
>Martin Luther said that it will actually make people closer since the truth will naturally guide them towards god
>instead makes a bunch of sects that get increasingly nonsensical
>years later Europe shifts more and more to outright atheism
But surely nothing in scripture says that disregarding authority would distance you from god, Oh Wait!
Or maybe
>people are released from authority and view the world without Catholic preconceptions
>without church indoctrination they gradually come to realize that there is no god
>>757920
which funny enough is also pretty much shown in the garden of Eden story
There's nothing in scripture about having a pope vested with the luxuries of royalty and golden idols conducting bizarre rituals using the mummies of saints either.
![d1eb4dccyisytnevnqtg[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/aCZcsDY.jpg "d1eb4dccyisytnevnqtg[1]")
