Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 834. page
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
How do you feel about the phantom time hypothesis?
>>568018
Retarded.
>>568018
When approaching conspiracy theories always start from the question:
>why would conspirators do it?
So OP, tell us, why would Pope, Holy Roman and actual Roman Emperors plot such a thing?
>>568120
The supposed reason is mentioned in the screenshot I provided.
![800px-Parigi_griffe[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/biy9pzz.jpg "800px-Parigi_griffe[1].jpg")
can we have some examples of the most hilarious superweapons in history?
Even though it was never produced, the American Project Pluto/Supersonic Low Altitude Missile was hilariously horrible thing.
>nuclear powered ramjet cruise missile
>because of its nuclear engine, it has an estimated range of roughly 113,000 miles (182,000 km)
>equipped with multiple (between 14 and 26) thermonuclear warheads which would be ejected one by one as the missile flew over its assigned targets
>because of the low altitudes it...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>567893
bumping for potential
>>567923
wow
that's some fucked up shit
Can we have thread about (Cold war) NATO?
Why Portugal joined and Sweden did not?
How Nato got both Greece and Turkey to join?
Was NATO US plot to have influence over Europe or European plot to have influence over USA?
How would WW3 looked in 50s/60s/70s/80s?
Also why did Finland never join? Is it because it was perceived to be a somewhat neutral party during the Cold War?
>>567847
NATO was/is just a security pact. Will it lead to WW3 like Triente (sic)? No, I doubt it personally.Better thread would be about the endemic failures of the UN
>>567876
The UNSC basically fulfilled its mandate, which is to preserve relative peace and stability, quite well.
Other UN organs on the one hand have widely varying degrees of accomplishment: UNESCO does its bit pretty good I would say, while the HRC is a shameful display of hypocrisy and pandering to third-world dictatorships.
howdy /his/, what do you guys call yourselves? /his/trionics? /his/panics? /his/t-trees?
/his/torians obviously
/his/
r/ask/his/torians
Why do you academics in the humanities reject science and naturalism? Is there some kind of brain disease which makes people go >muh social constructs and >muh post-modernism?
Yes, far left politics.
Wishful thinking, pure and simple.
LIBTARDS BTFO
Why isn't the center of Christianity at Jerusalem etc? Why is it "Rome" (Jesus never went to Rome), "Constantinople" (Jesus never went to Constantinople), etc?
Is it because it's more about the ROMAN EMPIRE and how they institutional Christianity and it is now less about Jesus and more about ROMAN EMPIRE POWER. Italy/Rome makes millions and billions of dollars off Christianity every single year.
>>567657
It's idiotic to put the center of religion in an area that's seemingly wanted and militarily targeted by everybody, that's why. The capital of an empire would provide the most resources to build and lead and organized religion.
Rome is where the political power was that made it possible to declare themselves the center of Christianity. It is doubtful whether St. Peter actually was the first pope in Rome.
So yeah, it was about power not about religion
>Why isn't the center of Christianity at Jerusalem
Roman-Jewish wars, then persecution of Christians by Romans.
>etc?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_centers_of_Christianity
>Jesus never went to
The apostles and their disciples did, preaching and establishing churches all over the place.
>Italy/Rome makes millions and billions of dollars off Christianity every single year
The Holy Land has its tourist attractions and...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
So what is the truth behind King Arthur /his/?
Did Cumalot really exist?
If anything, he would be a warlord in Post-Roman Britain. I think "Camelot" was an invention by later writers.
>>567410
>Did Cumalot really exist?
Every time I visit /aco/
>>567410
Given that most of his stories mirror religious myth very closely, no.
Do those Muslims that think everyone is born a Muslim, also believe everyone naturally follows Muslim law as outlined in the sunnah and all that? Have there ever been any attempts to see if people from birth will BE Muslims? I don't mean just being submissive towards a higher power, but following all the rules and whatnot.
>>567346
Actually a newborn child is sinless, not sure about already having faith from birth. most animals are considered Muslims as they have no free will to defect from the submission of God, maybe newborn be considered as Muslim, not sure though.
I imagine they think that. Supposedly many believe that Muhammad was born a Muslim
>>567346
>Do those Muslims that think everyone is born a Muslim, also believe everyone naturally follows Muslim law as outlined in the sunnah and all that?
Sure, why not, I've seen christians claim the same
Why did Zweihanders not become popular until late in the medieval era?
You think the idea of utilizing a bigass sword that allowed one man to fight against many in an open area would have come along quite early but it became popular right when firearms were about to make a scene and got pushed out in favor of polearms.
We Wuz WARRIORS
Why didn't anyone help fight in Rwanda? Why did the world allow a genocide to happen?
>>567046
The Americans fucked up in Somalia a year earlier and no one had to stomach to lose men over petty African bullshit because really who gives a fuck about Africa
There was Roméo dallaire a french canadian who was in charge of the UN or ONU peace keeper . he wrote a book named "j'ai serré la main du diable " wich mean i shook the hand of the devil. Deep shit nigga
>>567066
Is he the guy in the movie who was telling the main character that they think they're dirt? What was the book about?
When the arabs had their African slave trade, did they tap into existing networks or introduce what was later replicated and appropriated?
>>566972
it wasn't institutional racism, they enslaved Arabs, slavs, blacks, Asians, romans, franks , turks and anyone who sold to them
>>567679
In some ways it was institutional.
Blacks for labor/domestic shit. Asians, Franks, Romans for sophisticated shit. Slavs & Central Asians for military purposes.
Though the Barbary states didnt give a shit
>>567679
Oh thank god, I almost thought they did something wrong.
Which of the Greek city-states is your personal favourite?
I like the Thebans the most, but that might be a hipster choice.
I'd go with Macedon
>>566940
Phrygia because of their hats and because of the antics of King Midas.
>>566947
> Macedon
> Greek
A front line soldier on the western front in ww1 vs a front line soldier on the eastern front in ww2
Which was more horrible?
>>566801
THE LATTER; WHILST BOTH ARE OVERLY SORDID AND MISERABLE SITUATIONS, IN THE FORMER ONE COULD HAVE INTERMITTENT RESPITE.
>>566801
A frontline soldier in the Eastern Front during WW1 had it worse than of the Western counterpart.
West in WW1 obviously.
Eastern front in WW2 was brutal and cold in winter but otherwise normal combat. No mustard gas, no being trapped in the mud, no running out over barbed wire straight into machine gun and mortar fire and getting mowed down by the thousands every day or getting your face blown off by a shell.
How did this cluster-fuck even function for as long as it did?
>>566752
Highly centralized government.
and why should it be a clusterfuck? Its just your normal friendly slightly huge empire. Nothing too uncommon
Yes.
They were damn good at incorporating peoples with different cultures and religions into their empire. Even nations that weren't conquered outright were still pressured into contributing to the sultan's armies. At one point they forced the Byzantine emperor's son (who later became emperor) to help the sultan conquer one of the last independent Greek cities in Asia Minor.
Not that it was a multicultural paradise or anything, but no nation was too odd or too resentful to avoid being incorporated into the Ottoman war machine.
I'm new to /his/ and I'm wondering
Is there a consensus greatest General of all time?
>>566225
Not really.
Alexander, Napoleon, and Genghis/Subotai are usually in the top contender spots.
>>566228
Surely one has to have had bigger and better battles than the other?
>>566237
And how do you separate that out from all the surrounding social, economic, cultural, demographic, etc factors? Napoleon by any objective measure had "bigger" battles than the other two I mentioned, but does that make him a better general? The mongols conquered more land, but you could argue that they didn't face the same caliber of opposition.
Any military endeavor has a whole host of interlinking details, of which generalship is only one of them, and arguably a one of lesser importance. Does...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
