Does Republic of Macedonia FYROM has anything more in common with ancient Macedonia than part of the occupied land? From where and when did slavs get here?
>>554768
No.
>>554768
Slav migrations
Modern day Macedonians have literally notning in common with Alexanders Macedonia
Mainly because those who lived in modern day FYROM were greeks now they are slavs (basically Bulgarians)
>>554768
Tito managed to convince some Bulgars that "WE WUZ ALEXANDER AND SHEIT"
What was the closest real world equivalent to the Rohirrim?
Was there one at all?
They seem to be based partially on the Anglo-Saxons, but the Anglo-Saxons didn't use cavalry much as far as I know. Perhaps the Goths are a more accurate comparison?
Where there any early-middle age European societies that relied heavily or primarily on light-to-medium cavalry? Not counting Iranian and Eurasian steppe peoples, as the Rohirrim are clearly more northern or western European or Nordic in appearance.
Additionally, were there any particular middle age societies that relied on cavalry that primarily used missile weapons (such as javelins), spears (rather than actual couched lances) and, to a lesser extent, swords primarily from horseback?
>>554711
There is no Western equivalent, or at least not anything that could be pointed to as a direct influence.
If you look East, you're far more likely to see similarities, but many of them come later than the early Middle Ages.
>>554711
Most of the Germanic tribes that wandered used heavy cavalry as the basis of their fighting forces, but none of them were that effective at charges and doctrine.
Lombards, Vandals and Goths are probably the closest you'll get.
In the movies the Rohirrim have an anglo-saxon appearance. In the movies.
>>554711
Tolkien based Rohan on Mercia, so that's probably it.
Can we have some pre-photography art where the artist had to guess at the things he hadn't seen?
>>554676
Why limit the thread to pre-photography, though?
Glorious worker's paradise didn't know which color bananas were.
/his/, I just had an interesting conversation with a student at my uni. She said that she wanted military history and history, political science, and so on classes about war and violence removed from university curriculums nationwide, and also literature or film classes that assigned books or films that show violence or war in a positive way.
I asked her why, and she said that the humanities, including military histories, have often been used to push a violent, hegemonic narrative of militarization and to legitimize violent agendas and violent actions in the mind of students. She said the reason that there is so much violence in western culture is because from a young age children are taught military history, watch war movies, and are encouraged to study military history and literature about war and military adventure in college. She said she was protesting against militarized education like the teaching of war novels and military history in schools.
What does /his/ think of this idea? I disagree with it and think it is stupid, but is there a valid defense of these ideas?
>>554175
Regardless of what the academic focus of a school is, the realities of life will always force focus towards the functionality of violence than the facade of intellectualism.
>>554175
Violence between people predates universities.
War is part of human nature and deserves to be studied as such.
What went wrong? Why did it devolve into race riots, violent anti-war protests, suburban flight, urban blight, and the shift in allegiance of white middle- and working-class voters to the Republican Party? Is it all LBJ's fault or were there bigger influences at work?
It was soviet psyops, especially in detroit. Not even tinfoil.
>>553766
It's all LBJ's fault.
LBJ implemented those programs as much to make poor voters vote democrat than anything else. They are not much more than vote-buying programs.
Did byzantines consider themselves greeks or roman?
>>553556
both
>>553556
They referred to themselves as the Roman empire
>>553566
Can confirm. Also, the notion of Byzantium and Eastern Romans were apperently modern creations by some German historian I believe
can someone explain stoic philosophy to me? why is virtue important?
>>553394
No fun allowed. Think, the opposite of hedonism. Very ascetic in nature.
>>553394
Because it's all you have control over.
Someone get the cheat sheet.
How are there still Marxists-Leninists in modern day and age? I mean, at least the other Marxists can use the "NEVER BEEN TRIED" copout, but how do M-Ls cope with the fact the implementation of their ideas ended up being a complete failure?
>>553390
>How are there still Marxists-Leninists in modern day and age
>IT'S CURRENT YEAR
>>553390
The Soviet Union managed to carry out one of the greatest and fastest increases in human standard of living in history via crash industrialization. Not everything the USSR ever did was bad.
>>553395
Yes, in the CURRENT YEAR, since in the CURRENT YEAR they can easily see that Marxism-Leninism has been tried several times and it ended up being shit everywhere.
Is America the only modernized country wherein over half the population can graduate high school and not know when the The Roman Republic existed, when the French Revolution happened, and not know who Voltaire is?
>>553282
You're dreaming if you think more than 5% of the population of any country in the world could tell you those facts
>>553282
Is America the only country where the critique of the history curriculum amounts to requiring knowledge of trivial Anglocentric dates?
>>553331
>Anglocentric
The past is told by those who win, Mehmet.
Military history fan here, and I have some questions about the SS. I already know the basics: they were a special branch of the Nazi Party, originally designed to enforce the genocidal goals of the party in foreign lands, and eventually many units were converted to combat units when the pressure of the war became more intense. Also know they were responsible for a lot of the worst massacres of POW's and civilians. My question here is, how much better trained for combat, or less better trained, than the regular Wermacht were they? I see some accounts calling them "elite troops" and the most intense and die-hard soldiers of the Nazi regime, and others saying historical records indicate their performance in action was less than stellar yet Hitler insisted they continue to fight. I've read that their physical training regime was the most intense in the German military and they were given a spartan like mindset when it came to combat. On the flip-side however, I've also have read they were despised by the Wermacht for being "rabid dogs" and "unofficial soldiers" due to their ways and methods of initiation into the military. Can anyone shed light on this? Post any other small bits of information you may know as well.
>>552905
>I see some accounts calling them "elite troops" and the most intense and die-hard soldiers of the Nazi regime, and others saying historical records indicate their performance in action was less than stellar
They were the most fanatical believers in the Nazi doctrine, you can say they were part of that ideological elite. They were not however elite combat units, not by any stretch of the imagination. Google 'Brandenburg Divisions' if you want to learn more about German special ops during WW2.
>>552926
So basically they did have the die-hard attitude and mindset of the combat elite, yet lacked the overall training to fully encompass it? It's pretty funny when you think about it, usually in movies in video games when the SS shows up all the soldiers shit themselves, while now it's clear you'd rather be fighting them than the regular Wermacht.
>>552940
>when the SS shows up all the soldiers shit themselves
Because they were exceptionally cruel. Most of the Wermacht hated their guts.
Was there any cooler unit that war elphants? I don't think so.
>>552506
t.barca
berserkers
How was slavery taught in Reconstruction and segregated schools in the South? Was it just ignored? They teach it is a necessary evil, or as a facet of their culture taken away from them?
>>552402
>Truth
Is this some meme i dont understand?
>>552413
It's bourgeois liberalism.
>>552402
Do you mean you personally were taught that?
I was asking about 1865-1965 more or less.
There is evidence that European civilization may have been the first and most advanced at its time, more advanced than Sumeria
I'm sure you know most European (and also a good deal of Asian) civilizations come from a single culture, right? The Proto-Indo-Europeans were a people who lived (probably) on the steppes north of Caucasus (hence why we're called "caucasians") and, about five thousand years ago, spread into Anatolia and Eastern Europe; the Greeks and Romans, the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic tribes, all of those were just different migration waves, later developing into their own, unique cultures. Even the Proto-Indo-European language has been reconstructed, to a level of refinement that more recent, concrete evidence has come to corroborate the hypotheses (such as the laryngeal theory, proved true by Hittite studies
Evidently, there were people living in Europe before those guys came in. Perhaps the most prominent of those is the Minoan civilization of Crete, which predated (and actually highly infuenced) the oldest Greek settlements. Later, non-Indo-European cultures of the Aegean, such as the Etruscans, seem to be related to Minoans; but material evidence is so scarce (mainly due to Greek/Roman expansionism) that it's very hard to state anything conclusive.
However, the "lost civilization" I think you'll find more interesting is the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture of modern-day Moldova. Those guys were a very complex society, with their very distinct forms of art, architecture and pottery; they even had a system of symbols (refer to pic), used throughout millenia, though most researchers classify them as "proto-writing".
The two most intriguing points, though, are: one, they were building absurdly large settlements for their time (while the estimated population of Uruk in Sumeria was five thousand people around 4000 BC, the CP settlement of Dobrovody was twice that size); and two, (cont).
>>551582
(cont), they had a most peculiar habit of deliberately setting those same settlements on fire every few decades. Although theories abound, no one quite knows WHY they did that.
Needless to say, they were eventually washed away by some Indo-European tribe, and all immaterial aspects of their culture are most likely lost to History.
So, what are /his/ thoughts on that? That Europe developed advanced civilizations independently of Mesopotamia and were somehow destroyed with all traces and most of its evidence vanishing
>>551592
>So, what are /his/ thoughts on that? That Europe developed advanced civilizations independently of Mesopotamia and were somehow destroyed with all traces and most of its evidence vanishing
We wuz kings, snownigger edition. Seriously, if you can't prove it and have no evidence, how can you know? Proto-writing isn't writing, and I have a strange feeling your society isn't accepted by any mainstream archaeologists.
>>551852
Not him but is accepted, it was a rather advanced culture for its time, why the fuck are you so mad?
He just stated facts.
This board sometimes is as stupid as pol but in the opposite way.
Recently a Qur'an was found that is dated to between between 568 and 645 CE. The Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) was engaged in his active ministry in 610-632 CE. The wording of this Qur'an is identical to the wording today.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/23/opinions/quran-manuscript-analysis/index.html
In case anyone is missing the significance of that, here is a comparison. The first time we have any two-page manuscript fragment of the New Testament is from around the year 200 CE. That’s 170 years after Jesus’ death in 30 CE.
Meanwhile the New Testament has approximately half a million different variations in text between different copies!!!
This finding proves the text of the Qur’an is exactly the same in 630-40 CE as it is in 1630-40 as it is in 2016, the scribes of the Qur’an simply didn’t change it. They made sure they copied it the same, every time, word for word.
If Muslim scholars over the centuries – from the very beginning – made dead sure that when they copied their sacred text they didn’t change anything, why didn’t Christian scribes do the same thing??? My answer is that the Muslim scribes had the guidance of Allah.
Clearly this proves once and for all the Qur'an is the word of Allah and Islam is the one true faith.
Truly God is Greatest.
>>551404
Because the Bible was written by a bunch of semi-random folks many decades after Jesus lived.
The Qu'ran is also, dogmatically, the literal word of God, to be copied verbatim. Few other religions make this demand of their holy texts.
>>551408
Peace be upon you. It is because the Qur'an is true and the Bible is not, my friend.
>>551408
Before the first Council of Nicaea, Christianity wasn't so much a single religion as a spectrum, like Hinduism. You had all sorts of whacky cults believing in everything from "Only Jews get into heaven as Gentiles are creations of satan", a belief held by the author of Revelations, to "Eat semen, for it is the blood and body of Christ", held by the followers of the Gospel of Eve.
The Council just arbitrarily decided upon which texts were "right" based upon which would empower Constantine the most.
>history class
>teacher calls Alexander the Great "the Kanye of his time"
>>550732
At least he tried.
>yeezus album
>kanye raps "I keep it 300 like the romans"
>history class
>teacher compares what we learn to last night's episode of Game of Thrones
![18e71cd26f68[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GfT6AMu.jpg "18e71cd26f68[1]")
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HFasSum.jpg "maxresdefault[1]")
