What do you think of Oda Nobunaga?
I think he was a very admirable person
>people still believe japan's ruling class wasn't white.
That's clearly a white man, and it's sad that anti-white liberals still suppress this information
>>680929
WE
>>680926
His ambition is pretty admirable.
*Record Scratch*
Cut to a close-up of Napoleon.
"So you're probably wondering how I got here..."
It all started during the great revolution..
*scene slowly faiding away with dreamy voice effects*
Somebody once told me
See that guy?
*zoom in to tall, handsome man*
No not that guy! That guy.
*zooms in to short statured peasant*
That's me.
What would happen if the Native Americans were the ones to sail to the Old World? What would play out?
They would have had better luck travelling (back) to India via the arctic passage.
>>680605
They'd land on a well-secured and civilized landmass, the Europeans would trade with them for a bit, and then proceed to sail over to their continent, inadvertently give them all smallpox, and then push the few that are left off their sparsely populated land. So pretty much nothing different from reality.
What if they travelled to Australia?
Native Americans vs Native Australians. Who wins?
How was Napoleon viewed by his own soldiers? How loyal were they to him?
Well considering they went back over to his side during the Hundred Days without a shot fired I'd say they were pretty big fans.
Cult of Personality, la
Even Poles used to shout "Vive l'Empereur!" before charging head-on the cannons.
>>680542
He could be the most well loved general in history.
Why should I break my addiction to fantasy? Why does truth not exist in fantasy? Why can it not be artificed?
There is some truth in fantasy, but it is an incomplete representation of reality.
Reality sucks, so reveling in dreamworlds is only natural
>>680446
Natural doesn't imply that it is right, war crimes are natural.
What would have happened to the Allied leaders and generals and key people if Germany had won WWII? Would there have been a "Nuremberg" style of trial or something like that? What crimes would they have been charged with?
>if Germany had won WW2
Literally the only way this could have happened is if they magically got access to nuclear weapons technology by 1942. Implausible scenarios are dumb. Its very difficult to even imagine what an Axis victory would look like.
>>680357
But what do you think could have happened to the allied leaders and generals and key people if Germany had won WWII?
>>680366
I could see the german high command wanting to keep the western leaders as puppets while hitler would want retribution, it would probably cause an internal power struggle and likely lead to a cold war style scenario happening after hitler's eventual death.
What would Europe be like today if Germanics never existed? Would the Roman Empire have fallen? Would the West-East schism never have happened? Would the Reformation never have happened? Would there have been no WWI or WWII? Would Europe be untied against the Turk?
*united
>>680014
If Germanics never existed then Germania would have been conquered and romanized with the Romans pushing further north and into eastern Europe as a part of their imperialistic desires.
The Roman Empire would have fell much earlier and to a different opponent. First off, remember that the fall of the WRE was not chiefly due to barbarians, but to a large number of factors. Some like economic issues and lack of men won't happen thanks to Germanics not existing while some like civil wars and incompotent rulers will still persist.
Ultimately I attribute the death blow of the empire to the lost of North Africa which was the Romans most richest province and thus their main economic backer. North Africa was lost to the Visigoths thanks to Bonifacius' idiotic rivalry with Aetius in which he used the Visigoths against him (and lost anyways). The Visigoths then eventually decided to settle in North Africa taking it away from Roman control. The Visigoths are, of course, a sect of the Goths who are Germanic thus, will cease to not exist according to your scenario meaning the Romans will keep North Africa.
The main issue now comes in the form of the Huns. Since Germanics don't exist, Rome feel and wave of immigration of the varies barbarian tribes who fled from the Huns. It all comes down to the Romans vs the Huns. The Huns will largely do the same damage to the Romans and they would have with Germanics, but perhaps to a lesser extent. Shitty emperors ruling was still a decisive factor to Rome collapsing. Anyways, now comes Chalons were Attila makes his march through Gaul. It was here that Aetius stopped Attila, BUT, only by allying with Theodoric the Great, leader of the Visigoths. The Visigoths provided much of the men in that battle so they would have lost. Though that lost wouldn't have mattered anyways. The ravaging that Attila would have done to Italy would have been bad no doubt but he still dies meaning the Hunnic Empire collapses.
CONT
>>680014
Slavs would be in Western Europe
Europe is X10 shittier.
Thoughts on Wikipedia as a reference for history/philosophy?
Should it be avoided at all costs or is it decent enough for getting the summary of a topic?
>>679934
It's fine.
>>679934
Pretty good. Better for science, but okay for history.
Avoid it like a plague. A great majority of citations is rooted in highly obscure, meme authors who are most likely the laughing stock of the genuine academics.
Are wars justified? Do you believe wars contribute to the expansion and evolution of humanity as sentient species in a short span of time? Are there benefits and positive outcomes to war?
We get cool death machines.
>>679795
sometimes
sometimes
yes
next question
>>679795
>Are wars justified?
According to the definition of Clausewitz, war is simply another realm of politics. So yes, they can technically be justified under the same considerations as any other political decisions.
>Do you believe wars contribute to the expansion and evolution of humanity as sentient species in a short span of time?
Not particularly. They answer questions, but the questions are usually political rather than philosophical.
>Are there benefits and positive outcomes to war?
Yes. You get people who understand how much war sucks and who warn other people about it. They may even be listened to for a time before the next war happens.
So, tell me /his/, was The Renaissance shit? Was it only focused on drawing naked dudes and feelings rather than doing science?
Hurr durr muh science
Fuck off
No, important religious doctrines and political theories came out of it, and a lot of important wars were fought during it.
>>679728
>doing science
UK and France:They were downfall by having lost the most of the colony.
Chinese Nationalist Party(Kuomintang):It lost to the CPC, because it was exhausted battling the Japanese Army.
USA:By Japan's and KMT's defeat, Manchuria and China were ruled by communists. This is also the causes of the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Roosevelt is incompetent.
I'm not good at English. If I make mistakes in my English, please pardon me.
It's exactly true. The US State Department was full of communist sympathizers at the time. In 1946 when the Nationalist Chinese were close to pushing the commies up and out of Manchuria, Truman sent Marshall to China to force them to sign a cease fire and make a "power-sharing" agreement with the commies. This saved Mao, who used the year of peace to reaarm with Soviet weapons from the North as well as Japanese weapons from Manchukuo, which they consolidated under their control. Of course the commies had no interest in power sharing and when the fighting broke out again in 1947, the US government placed an ARMS EMBARGO on the Nationalist government! Which was dependent since WW2 on American weapons and vehicles. The embargo went as far as small arms ammunition and spare parts for trucks. It was a disgusting backstabbing by piece of shit Truman and nothing else.
>>679624
fucking commies not even once
>>679624
Sauce on that one? Especially the arms embargo part.
An old woman in my neighborhood from North Carolina says she's Scots-Irish.
I've heard that term a few times in recent years so I decided to look up what it meant.
So it's a group of Scottish people who left Scotland in the early 1600s and settled in the north of Ireland
MY question is, why doe this classification even exist?
Apparently they were only there for 100 years before they fled to the US.
In only 100 years could have they really become that much different than a Scottish man who also fled to America in the early 1700s?
Are the Scots-Irish even Irish at all?
>>679475
>muh heritage
They still exist in Northern Ireland, they were mostly forcefully relocated there from Dumfries and Galloway which was the most hardcore presbytarian region at the time and also pretty distant from the rest of Scotland, so they were probably culturally distinct already.
>>679475
Well, there's Scots and there's Scots, y'see, and some of the Scots are Scottish and some are Irish, but some are Irish and some are also Scots, and there's the Irish Scots who are Irish and the Scots Irish who are Scots, not mention the Irish Scots Scots who are Scots Irish and the Scots Irish Scots who are Scots, except when they're Irish, in which case they're also Scots.
Is the only difference between a cult and a religion the number of participants?
>>679355
Yes, unless one of them is correct, then it's all but that one.
A cult has a central structure that exists to profit the leaders of it, and practices designed to extact profit for the leaders of it, ala Mormonism and Scientology.
A religion has either never had such structure or it has atrophied to the point where no single group of people can profit directly from it, and there are no practices that exist solely to generate profit for the cult leader(s), ala Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam.
>>679391
>Christianity isn't just a bunch of cults
Who is the true successor of the Roman Empire?
>holy
neither holy
>roman
neither roman
>empire
nor an empire
>>679326
Why Voltaire always looks smug as f*ck ?
>>679316
>Greeks
>Roman
>Franks
>Roman
Neither
Let's talk about the Battle of the Somme.
Fritz talked shit, got hit.
Not enough arty support; Haig had been forced into supporting the French attack with a good portion of his guns.
Comms and timing problems: the Newfoundlanders started late, and wound up crossing over their own trench lines instead of taking the long way round by staying in the trenches; they were skylined for the Germans, some of whom sat on top of their parapets and shot them like so many grouse. (This was at Beaumont-Hamel, Y Ravine).
>>679264
>Haig had been forced into supporting the French attack with a good portion of his guns.
Has he? The French had roughly the same number of guns as the British (1500 give or take) AND more heavy guns than them AND better crews AND better ammunition AND better observers (and better observing positions) at the Somme - I suspect a big part in their unqualified success in the opening stages of the battle - remember that despit the lack of traction north of the river by the British the French had mane great and steady gains and in the end the outcome of the entire campaign while not decisive by any means did favor the allies.
