he seems to think he will
He certainly believes so, which goes hand in hand with him being very cult-leader-ish
Not a chance.
He's not really a philosopher in my opinion, more like a propagandist for a very narrow political group.
I've never heard of him, in what subjects do he publish?
For most of History most of Europe was Savage lands. Then around 1600 they surpassed thier Asian masters in Persia, China, etc
What happened?
Turco-Mongols happened, and plague
>>473947
>Then around 1600 they surpassed thier Asian masters in Persia, China, etc
>around 1600
The Herodotus at the top of the board is weeping....
Muslim Enlightenment, Islamic retention of Greco-roman greats, Islamic green revolution.
Lincoln, my allegiance is to the confederacy, to STATES RIGHTS!
Where's your dress, faggot?
>>473932
wut
>>473929
straya plz
What are the best movies about the Armenian Genocide?
>talking about fiction on a historical board
>>473721
Preferably a documentary without Hollywood money thrown at it.
>implying the jews in Hollywood would let this happen
It takes away their social capital
>look up a pirate
>it's actually a privateer
Were any pirates actually pirates?
>>473366
Yes.
>>473366
plenty actually senpai. blackbeard. calico jack. claas compaan.black sam bellamy idk those are just off the top of my head
Look into Exquemelin. He was an indentured servant who ended up in the ownership/employ(?) of I believe Henry Morgan, and he somehow got back to Europe and wrote a book about 17th century piracy and Caribbean colonial life as a whole.
There's some crazy stuff in there.
Buccaneers were all crack shots with muskets because they tended to blow their loot on ammo and booze. They'd pack into a quick, tiny boat, head for a merchant ship and pick everyone off they could from a distance and then rush aboard. Often somebody would drill a hole in the bottom of the boarding vessel so there would be no option but to take the other ship.
Upon taking a ship and its cargo, they'd head for a town and party it up, spending all their cash on booze, women and ammo until they were penniless and had to do it all over again.
I really like songs that tell history, please post some. Here are examples.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj43X-VBEPE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K1CzqG-jrI
>>472890
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj43X-VBEPE [Remove]
Pretty impressive to do it in one take
>>472931
What is with the weird American flag?
>>472890
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me4E5wDCK2Q
Why did Hitler attack the USSR?
>>472525
www.google.com
>>472525
>communists
>Slavs
>Jews
Literally everything he hates
>>472525
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6o84NU9Ees
Well? Can armored warriors swim while wearing armor? I mean, sure, people were able to do tumbles and jumps while wearing full plate but how about being in water?
I brought this up because I was reading A Sword of Ice and Fire and there's these race of edgelords called Ironborn who wear armor in naval combat because "they do not fear drowning (they worship a sea god)" and also gave them an advantage against other shipborne soldiers, who wore little to no armor.
Lets divide this into armor types shall we?
-Chainmail
-Lamellar armor
-Medieval/Renaissance Full Plate armor.
>>471996
No, iron and steel naturally being much much denser than water people wouldn't be able to swim in armour.
However, in armour made from wood like the samurai wore it is possible to swim.
>>471996
>chainmail
I know who you are
>>471996
I've heard that one of the German tribes could, and the Romans used them to attack across the Rhine against some other Germans.
You know what? During the 1700's: how did State's armies pick out the colour for their troops?
I mean: it's very specific, isn't it? Us Brits wore red uniforms, the French were blue, Austrians were white and so on.
What determines the colour of uniforms back then? Was there a cunt going around saying "you guys will be blue, and they're red" or something? Were they following their national flag? Whot?
This thread is relevant to my interests. I never really thought about it till now, but now I am curious too.
>>471779
In short: a lot of factors
1) Visibility. Age of Black Powder. Shit created lots of smoke. Had to identify your troops with a bright, singular color in the battlefield
2) Identification. Obviously
3) Yes, some countries did base it off their flags. See Sweden's yellow and blue uniforms.
4) Identification of soldier types. Often enough cavalrymen and infantrymen wore different colors. Hell some regiments even had a different color.
5) Other factors. For example: the British Red Coat is red because red was the cheapest, most visible. dye color in England.
Oh and a lot of people had overlapping uniforms. France and Austria were both white actually. A lot of German states wore blue.
>>471779
>was there a cunt going around saying "you guys will be blue, and they're red" or something?
Honestly, that's probably actually the most accurate answer. There's no absolute scientific reason why certain countries preferred certain colors for their troops. There's about as much reason to it as why a certain style happens to appeal in that country. It all comes down to who is designing the uniforms, and whatever designs the military decides to accept. As to the question of why they would consistently choose the same color scheme, it's likely simply a matter of tradition.
Now that the dust has settled, do we know whether water is H_2O ?
what are other breakthroughs of logical positivism and other analytical schools ?
Not absolutely.
There's nothing wrong with knowledge, provided you keep in the back of your head that all of it is potentially fallible
Logical positivism is stupid and dead.
However science is pretty great because scientific truth is determined by something outside of humans so there can't be any disagreement.
Can someone please explain to me how the "H" "R" "E" even works?
How autonomous were the states within?
How did they delegate power?
Who owns what and how?
How did war work inside?
Is it just a cluster of nation states that band together when a bigger guy threatens one of them, but otherwise they hate each other or is it more nuanced?
Do Germans have to learn about this mess in school?
Basically it was a big joke and the landed elites had all the power.
>>483077
How did the HRE work? It didn't. Full stop. Did not work.
Depending on the individual power the prince, things could very a great deal. The Elector of Brandenburg/King in Prussia, along with the other secular Electors- Brunswick-Luneburg (also called Hannover or Lower Saxony), Saxony, Palatinate, Bavaria- also had a great deal of independence. These guys could pretty much declare war on each other or foreign nations whenever, especially after Westphalia, but the Emperor usually tried to mediate (unless they declared war on him, which happened often). Two Electorates- Cologne and Mainz weren't secular, but owned by the Catholic Church, along with many other bits of territory. These Sovereign bishoprics had various degrees of autonomy and local government, many functioned like Imperial cities, some served as proxies for the families of the secular Electors, some "civil administrators" in the Northern ones were the Danes and Swedes using Protestantism to get footholds in Germany. The rest of it's seperated into Imperial Cities and Principalities, a few of the Duchies like Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Wurtemburg, Baden-Baden, etc. were more like the secular electorates, but others were little proxies or ruled by minor gentry. Imperial cities were just free cities that usually were governed like mercantile republicans, with a nod to the Emperor.
The Habsburg lands are the awkward squad of areas that would be powerful and independent, but have been conquered (usually by a Habsburg heir and a pretty daughter) and merged into a great monstrosity known as the Crownlands- including several "Austrias"- Inner, Outer, Further, Upper, Lower; as well as Tyrol, Silesia, Bohemia, Moravia and Hungary. Most had local estates that constantly wrestled with the Habsburg Emperors until Ferdinand and Wallenstein generally put a stop to that business.
>>483105
Cont.
So, pretty much the whole mess was theoretically governed by the Imperial Constitution, built upon since Charlemagne and by the 18th century, was literally impossible to compile (I'm not kidding, a guy wrote 150 volumes wasn't near done). What was important about the Imperial Constitution is not the powers it granted the Emperor, but the powers it granted everyone else. Much like Ancien Regime France, everyone had their own little rights and privileges that completely hampered reform in any war, barring war.
As for your question about a bunch of nation states (not a thing yet, but you'll get a pass) banding together when someone else threatens them...well, no. The only exception to that is the Turks, which the Emperor did play up to get war taxes in his military zones in Croatia (yes, also a Habsburg Crownland). Usually, everyone provided men and money against the Turks. There was a big exception at the beginning of the 30 Years War, where Bohemia and Hungary offered themselves as Turkish Protectorates as long as they could keep their Protestant Kings (Frederick, Elector Palatine and Bethlen, Prince of Transylvania).
Every other war was basically like that, with a few states actively working against the Emperor and the majority not really giving a rat's ass about what the Emperor did as long as he left them alone.
So /his/ what's your opinion on this man?
>>476978
Usurper of the rightful Roman throne.
But a pretty cool guy.
>>476978
Second greatest French emperor behind Napoleon
>>477037
this picture kinda makes me wonder what constantinople would look like the ERE never fell/was going through the industrial revolution a la London.
>Christianity came from Platonism
People think this?
>>481667
>Christianity came to Platonism
>>481688
It's a big meme
Some of you may be familiar with the Clark doll test which has been performed several times in the US. In it, young children of all skin colors and racial backgrounds are asked to ascribe certain traits and attributes to a variety of different colored dolls. Almost all children, including the darker colored ones, ascribe positive attributes, like honesty and beauty, to the lighter skinned dolls - whereas almost all children ascribe negative attributes, like ugliness and stupidity, to darker skinned dolls.
The test is used predominantly as an example for how even young children in America are ingrained with racist, anti-black attitudes.
However, I cannot find any sort of evidence of this test being performed on predominantly black populations like in Africa. Would the results be different, as these children do not have any experience with anti-black attitudes, or would they perhaps be different?
>>481651
They did one with afro-latinos but not sure about African youth but really it won't be all that different when bleaching is common and European/American manufacturers seek such things down there along with chemical relaxers.
Probably because the person asking is white, and the kids are afraid to disappoint or offend
>>481659
Also I'd like to add if you think being around a bunch of black people in today's day and age can nullify societally entrenched anti-blackness you're very incorrect.
Does anybody else wish there were more intelligent, well educated scholars of the bible making compelling arguments for the truth and accuracy of the bible?
The historical accuracy of the bible from an archeological perspective, the divine prophecy of the bible being accurately fulfilled, the historicity of figures in the bible. All of these things in a compelling argument for it possibly being god's inspired word?
It's not that I believe nor want to believe but rather I find it disheartening how few compelling arguments exist, yet how pervasive the bible is on history and simply the culture surround life as we know it. Everywhere I go I find more questions than answers which often lead to uninformed opinions. The bible is so polarizing that it seems to find anyone who is truly objective about it. It's either wholesale dismissed or blindly believed or somebody else masquerading as one side or the other to convince them the other side is correct.
I mean at this point I'd think intelligent people would simply start getting bored and play devil's advocate FOR the bible. Everywhere I go I just can't seem to find any compelling discussion.
There are plenty of scholars of religion around who analyze the bible and other holy books in a historical context. Same for theologians who try to debate religion rationally without all the shit-flinging.
brace for >rationally
You won't find many of either here, obviously, though some people do try bless their hearts.
>>481091
>Does anybody else wish there were more intelligent, well educated scholars of the bible making compelling arguments for the truth and accuracy of the bible?
There are plenty of them. They're theologians.
>truth…accuracy
You haven't considered what these mean theologically and are attempting to impose your feeble human rationality onto the works of god.
>The historical accuracy of the bible from an archeological perspective
Doesn't exist. These are rational human disciplines that reject the role of the divine in history and archaeology respectively. The post-patriarchal redaction of the myths of a levantine hill tribe who had some run ins with sea people and babylon aren't.
>the divine prophecy of the bible being accurately fulfilled, the historicity of figures in the bible. All of these things in a compelling argument for it possibly being god's inspired word?
God you're contemptuous of divinity. You're less humble before the divine than Luther, and more self-inflated with rationality.
>yet how pervasive the bible is on history
It isn't. Start reading the archaeology of the ancient levant and some serious theological works on the redactive process of the torah. And this is THEOLOGY you're missing out on and wrong on.
I bet you can't even name the consort of Yahweh, or Yahweh's role in the pantheon before the Jerusalem temple started redacting him as a sole god?
I bet you think the Samaritans were theologically wrong… given that innovation happened in Jerusalem, the Samaritans are probably the old school. Also, of course, tax issue.
>>481091
>Does anybody else wish there were more intelligent, well educated scholars of the bible making compelling arguments for the truth and accuracy of the bible?
Well, we have about 2000 years worth. Even in modern day, InterestingPhilosophy and Dei Verbum come to mind.
>historical accuracy
It takes lots of searching, but I can guarantee that the exodus fits in.
Honestly I would "intelligently discuss" the Bible with others but it usually ends in vain denominational bickering and people getting confused/bored.
