What would the history of humanity been like if the Abrahamic faiths never existed?
>>503982
I don't understand why you come here asking such a stupid question. Do you want us to rewrite thousands of years of history for you? What do you seek to gain from asking a question like this knowing that any answer you get will be pure bullshit?
>>503982
More intact baby dicks. That's pretty much the only thing you can be certain at.
>>504002
This lol
I've noticed: why are millennials obsessed with senseless, stupid, rhetorical questions that serve no purpose. This thread is a perfect example. Who the fuck cares? It didn't happen. Quit wasting time imagining useless fantasy scenarios
Pic related. I've heard some people say they looked like Aborigines, but according to Mungo Man, they didn't always look like that.
>>503313
My bet is like the San, so cute big booty hobbits.
>>503327
Shouldn't they be taller, like the Khoikhoi?
>>503313
Would have been darker skinned, dark haired and dark eyes, but who knows if they had a wide or thin nose, round or almond eyes, thick or thin lips, straight or curly hair, etc.
In all likelihood they wouldn't look like any ethnic group around today.
How did medieval armour piece together?
I want to understand more, so I can draw it. I've loe to depict a battle scene, bit I'll need an understanding of how the armour functions.
Also, a big breasted woman probably couldn't wear a standard breastplate, but wear a modified cuirass, I'd assume.
No, women did not wear standard breastplates.
They didn't wear shit, because they didn't go to war.
>>502418
>Also, a big breasted woman probably couldn't wear a standard breastplate, but wear a modified cuirass, I'd assume.
6.5/10, decent b8
>>502443
Nah, just asking in context to all the fantasy shit you see with the 'boobplate' which never would have been practical in a proper situation.
If a woman were to wear armour, I'd assume it would be a breastplate or cuirass same as anyone, but if her tits were too big, she'd be fucked on that department.
How can the Latin Church call itself the true Church when she banned administering the Blood of Christ the laypeople in the Council of Constance, one regarded by Rome as Ecumenical, and then backpeddled?
Priests who administered the Blood of Christ were prescribed excommunication, in fact, by the Council of Constance
>This holy synod also decrees and declares, regarding this matter, that instructions are to be sent to the most reverend fathers and lords in Christ, patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, and their vicars in spirituals, wherever they may be, in which they are to be commissioned and ordered on the authority of this sacred council and under pain of excommunication, to punish effectively those who err against this decree. They may receive back into the church's fold those who have gone astray by communicating the people under the forms of both bread and wine, and have taught this, provided they repent and after a salutary penance, in accordance with the measure of their fault, has been enjoined upon them. They are to repress as heretics, however, by means of the church's censures and even if necessary by calling in the help of the secular arm, those of them whose hearts have become hardened and who are unwilling to return to penance.
So which is it? Was the Council simply wrong? Or was is actually a heresy back then, but no longer a heresy?
>organized religion
>>501633
Me on the left
>>501633
>God is disorganized
How could the Soviet Union have won The Cold War?
>>501128
As in the last thread before it went to shit, the 1956 pan european revolution is a pretty good point.
1949 PUSH is viable
1968 is pretty much the last chance.
>implying they lost
>implying they weren't only pretending
In 1984, Golitsyn published the book New Lies For Old,[15] wherein he warned about a long-term deception strategy of seeming retreat from hard-line Communism designed to lull the West into a false sense of security, and finally economically cripple and diplomatically isolate the United States. Among other things, Golitsyn stated:
"The "liberalization" would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party's role: its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced. The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power, and the president of the Soviet Union and the first secretary of the party might well be separated. The KGB would be "reformed." Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to return, and some would take up positions of leadership in government.
Sakharov might be included in some capacity in the government or allowed to teach abroad. The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as the writers' unions and Academy of Sciences, would become apparently more independent, as would the trade unions. Political clubs would be opened to nonmembers of the communist party. Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties.
There would be greater freedom for Soviet citizens to travel. Western and Unitized Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action.",[16]
Angleton and Golitsyn reportedly sought the assistance of William F. Buckley, Jr. (who once worked for the CIA) in writing New Lies for Old. Buckley refused but later went on to write a novel about Angleton, Spytime: The Undoing of James Jesus Angleton
>Roman law
>Catholic
>Democracies
Why is Latin America not considered part of Western Civilization? Is it because of economic and ethnic reasons? Is Industrialization as important to the "Western" status as the other pillars?
>>498957
The mudblood, mostly.
>>498957
Are they not? I always considered them part.
>>498957
Latin America is heavily influenced by native Americans. It's basically a hybrid of western civilizations and native civilizations. Calling Mexico western is like calling Obama white.
Is Ataturk universally popular in Turkey, or only in the Western part + the cities?
Or is he seen as a pro-western degenerate (to use strong words) by Erdogan and conservatives, but such people are very careful about what they say publicly?
As a Turk i say, he's pretty popular. Only çomars (AKP voter anatolians) and kurds dislike him
>>498166
>Only çomars (AKP voter anatolians)
which are the majority, so no he is not that popular. Also what kind of a Turk are you? A real one, or a muhacir?
>>498189
>which are the majority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Turks_and_Black_Turks
they're only 48%
>Also what kind of a Turk are you? A real one, or a muhacir?
what
What was Sykes-Picot?
Is it really one of the main reasons why the Middle East is so messed up today?
>>497603
During WW1, The Ottomans were with the Central Powers.
The entente promised to support free, Arab states in the region if they revolted against Ottoman rule, which they did.
But Britain and France had made a secret agreement (Sykes-Picot) to split the land between themselves as colonies, which they did after the war.
So now the Arabs are pissed because they didn't get what they were promised. To make things worse, when the colonies finally got independence their borders were drawn along colonial lines with little regard for ethnic, cultural, or religious boundaries, which created a lot of tension. Just look at Iraq or Syria today to see the mess it caused. Palestine being given to the Brits also directly led to the creation of Israel, which of course fucked things up even more.
Overall, Sykes-Picot isn't the sole reason for the Middle East being a shithole today, but it definitely helped to contribute a lot.
It's a scapegoat. Whatever borders had been drawn, some groups would have felt wronged.
>>498175
Unless they could've fought it out like Europe where every ethnicity either has its own territory or was destroyed in the process. That's the whole point though, Africa, Asia and the middle east never had the chance to form their own borders because of imperialism. And now it's too late because Europeans and Americans have a compulsive need to interfere because of economic reasons.
What do you know of Romanian history?
Did you know it specifically omits large chunks of history just so it can suit a specific romantic nationalist rhethoric, and is all basically one fat lie?
>>496456
Wow, so Romanian history is like literally all national historical narratives?
>>496461
Name one other country (aside balkan countries) that romanticizes the fuck out of it's own history in order to pursue a nationalist rhethoric.
>specific romantic nationalist rhethoric
Most countries do this, Romania is not the only culprit.
Is America the continuation of the Roman Empire?
Do they speak a Romance language? No. Is it predominately Roman Catholic? No. Is Rome actually in America? No. Do Americans ever claim to be so, like the Russians, the Germans, the Ottomans and the Austrians? No.
So, no.
Fuck no.
We're not cucks like Eurofags.
America is a superior civilization.
>>496211
No, but it is a parody of the Roman Empire in it's own way. Just waiting for our version of Nero to show up......
Would it have been possible for all of Christian Europe to have been brought under a single ruler/dynasty during the High Middle Ages/12th century? A medieval Napoleon as it were.
>>495663
Care to go into detail? Charlemagne almost achieved European unity hundreds of years earlier. With the increase in literacy and clerical bureaucracy in the 12th century, it's not outright impossible.
>>495665
Karl the Great's empire only covered a third of Europe and didn't really lasted for too long
>>495665
>European unity
Look at the Carolingian empire map. Does that look like entire Europe to you?
Can anyone tell me exactly what happened?
A bunch of immigrant squatters got #btfo, then a bunch of butthurt diaspora joined forces with a bunch of unstable gun fetishists and turned it into a meme on an anime website.
>>493609
pretty much this, you bladdy "when-we".
here
http://www.missedinhistory.com/podcasts/a-condensed-history-of-rhodesia/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades
I'm really sick of pic related because its factually wrong and makes people with anti-Muslim sentiment appear stupid and ignorant about history. Who ever made it should be crucified.
Anyway, how come the crusades are almost always associated with the Middle-east?
>>492420
>"New Battle"
>one in Egypt
Shit is this thing still going on? Hold up I need to find my hauberk
>>492420
> implying the video pic is based on is wrong
> implying that the muslims weren't invading big chunks of Europe before and after the Crusades
Because the middle eastern crusades are a clash of two mighty civilisations that has lasting consequences to this say. While the northern crusades is just another case of Europeans fighting and being cruel to each other.
>>492420
>First map covers more than a thousand years, from about 632 to apparently at least 1683
>Second map apparently covers less than a century
How many people in Classical Greece would have had physiques like this?
All of them. What are you? A Helot?
>>491279
athletes did for sure, also considering gymnastics were highly regarded by the greek culture i assume many ordinary citizens would train from time to time
>>491279
None, honestly.
The Greeks statues were idealized beyond what any person could achieve. They weren't physiques to attain, but ideals to strive after.
>muh ultimate warrior viking
>muh honorable samurai
>muh epic and brave knight
are these easily histories most overrated warriors? If so, who are the most underrated warriors of history?
>>465505
>histories
*history's
Gallowglasses are p. cool
These
