>AD 50
>comfort and feed the poor and destitute
>preach the word of Christ
>stop at nothing to bring others into the fold
>accept death rather than respond with violence against even the most cruel and depraved of earthly authorities
>AD 1500
>the devil gave this guy a magic werewolf belt let's burn him alive lol
What went wrong?
>>1367527
the corruption of authority
>>1367527
>What went wrong?
>>1367527
no dude listen it was literally the devil and his dank meme armies ok?
Who was the best medieval King from the 12th century to the 15th? Was it Richard I, of the Crusades? Could it have been Agincourt's Henry V?
Discuss
>>1367455
>Richard Cœur de Lion
A frenchman who spent his life making war. He didn't help his country, although he was very brave.
>Henry V
A frenchman too. He only cared about being crowned King of France, he didn't do great things for his country.
The greatest medieval king was Saint-Louis of France. He was just, he was good, he was stable, even if he was a jerk to his family and tried to do two huge crusades that brought nothing.
>>1367603
Aquitaine =/ french
They didn't even speak french
>>1367455
I think King Henry VIII was the best King. Verily, he failed to have stable relationships and verily he had a poor diet but he successfully created his own church. How many Kings freed themselves from the Vatican?
"According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible..."
Does tension among the sexes and lack of cohesion lead to society's decline? It sounds plausible but I don't want to get caught up in alt-right/reactionary though if it isn't necessarily meritorious.
First thing that comes to mind is sexuality in Rome which is regarded as liberal. Though reading further into it there seems to have been some societal imposed patriarchal values that extol the virtues of, well, virtue; chastity, and family values to some degree.
Has there been a functioning society that is 'egalitarian' yet prospered? Is there a way to integrate both sexes and celebrate them without a female 'revolt' to consolidate power then fracturing sexual relations?
>>1367359
bump...
I feel like loose sexual morality is a result of a decadent society and not the cause. Abundance causes people to drift apart since they do not need to rely on others to have a good quality of life. Therefore institutions weaken and society becomes fractured and unable to resist a unified invading force. Maybe technology will allow current Western societies to maintain decadence while rebuffing or assimilating outsiders.
>>1367359
I don't get it, they don't even look similar.
What would be the first battle in which an army gunpowder arms clearly triumphed with the weapon's use over the enemy which didn't? I'm curious and want to do some research on the development.
>>1367348
I remember reading something about a Castilian battle/siege in Granada which supposedly was early. Where the Castilian side had all the firepower. But I can't remember much about it. That might be a bit late though seeing as cannons has been used since what, the late 1200's?
>>1367348
Talking about small arms in Europe, it would be Hussite wars.
>>1367438
>1200's
1400's.
Off the top of my head I believe there were a few instances in the 100 years war where the French rekt the English with artillery, same would apply for Constantinople in 1453 I guess.
This man is not taken seriously by just about any serious historian on Earth, but I'm curious to know what /his/ thinks about his works.
I think his books are interesting to read but I do definitely see why he is not taken seriously (many of his books are giant what ifs and/or make extensive use of cherrypicking).
If he's not taken seriously then why does he get jobs at oxford, nyu, harvard, and stanford?
Right wing meme "historian" who heavily cherry picks facts to support his case
>>1367340
>This man is not taken seriously by just about any serious historian on Earth,
[citation needed]
A very controversial man in American History. What I wanted to know is what you guys think of him?
He captured Harper's Ferry with his nineteen men so few.
And he frightened old Virginia till she trembled through and through.
They hanged him for a traitor, they themselves a traitorous crew.
>>1367127
Absolutely based tbqh. Although Nat Turner was even more based.
What I am even more curious of. Who thinks of him as a terrorist?
Personally I admire what he set out to do, but in the end I do think what he did by modern standard can be equated with terrorism.
How legit is this piece of writing? Seems genius as I read it, apparently the trust it came from sued the publishers so that disproves the 'new age cash cow' theory. What do you think /his/?
it's legit.
>>1367091
What even is this thing?
What do you think of Anatoly Fomenko?
>>1367089
Time Cube grade autism.
Even worse than the guy who argued that no sea travel was possible before the Renaissance.
Central to Fomenko's New Chronology is his claim of the existence of a vast Slav-Turk empire, which he called the "Russian Horde", which he says played the dominant role in Eurasian history before the 17th century. The various peoples identified in ancient and medieval history, from the Scythians, Huns, Goths and Bulgars, through the Polyane, Duleby, Drevliane, Pechenegs, to in more recent times, the Cossacks, Ukrainians, and Belarusians, are nothing but elements of the single Russian Horde.
Fomenko claims that the most probable prototype of the historical Jesus was Andronikos I Komnenos (allegedly AD 1152 to 1185), the emperor of Byzantium, known for his failed reforms; his traits and deeds reflected in 'biographies' of many real and imaginary persons.[17] The historical Jesus is a composite figure and reflection of the Old-Testament prophet Elisha (850-800 BC?), Pope Gregory VII (1020?-1085), Saint Basil of Caesarea (330-379), and even Li Yuanhao (also known as Emperor Jingzong or "Son of Heaven" - emperor of Western Xia, who reigned in 1032–48), Euclides, Bacchus and Dionysius. Fomenko explains the seemingly vast differences in the biographies of these figures as resulting from difference in languages, points of view and time-frame of the authors of said accounts and biographies.
Fomenko also merges the cities and histories of Jerusalem, Rome and Troy into "New Rome" = Gospel Jerusalem (in the 12th and 13th centuries) = Troy = Yoros Castle.[18] To the south of Yoros Castle is Joshua's Hill which Fomenko alleges is the hill Calvary depicted in the Bible.
Fomenko claims the Hagia Sophia is actually the biblical Temple of Solomon. He identifies Solomon as sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1494–1566). He claims that historical Jesus may have been born in 1152 and was crucified around AD 1185 on the hill overlooking the Bosphorus.[19]
On the other hand, according to Fomenko the word "Rome" is a placeholder and can signify any one of several different cities and kingdoms. He claims the "First Rome" or "Ancient Rome" or "Mizraim" is an ancient Egyptian kingdom in the delta of the Nile with its capital in Alexandria. The second and most famous "New Rome" is Constantinople. The third "Rome" is constituted by three different cities: Constantinople (again), Rome in Italy, and Moscow. According to his claims, Rome in Italy was founded around AD 1380 by Aeneas and Moscow as the third Rome was the capital of the great "Russian Horde".[20] Similarly, the word "Jerusalem" is actually a placeholder rather than a physical location and can refer to different cities at different times and the word "Israel" did not define a state, even not a territory but people fighting for God, for example French St Louis and English Elizabeth called themselves the King/Queen of Israel.
He claims that parallelism between John the Baptist, Jesus, and Old-Testament prophets implies that the New Testament was written before the Old Testament. Fomenko claims that the Bible was being written until the Council of Trent (1545–1563), when the list of canonical books was established, and all apocryphal books were ordered to be destroyed.
Fomenko also claims that Plato, Plotinus and Gemistus Pletho are one and the same person - according to him, some texts by or about Pletho were mis-dated and today believed to be texts by or about Plotinus or Plato. He claims similar duplicates Dionysius the Areopagite, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Dionysius Petavius. He claims Florence and the House of Medici bankrolled and played an important role in creation of the magnificent 'Roman' and 'Greek' past.
Tell me about the cossacks, /his/
They seem sort of like Slavic samurai or knights, but they also seem to have had their own states? I don't really understand much about them. Can you put it in terms a romaboo or western civ buff would understand?
>>1366989
They were basically Turkified steppeniggers who were allowed some autonomy in exchange for their role as auxiliary cavalry for the Russian Empire.
>>1366989
THE COSSACKS WERE THE KNIGHTLY CAVALRY DIVISION OF THE TARTARIAN MILITARY; THEY WERE CONFERRED LAND WHEN THEY RETIRED.
>>1367050
>tripfag
Ah okay so your post is an Opinion not a fact. Opinion discarded.
If I’m being completely honest, what is real?
The silent pause, the ticking of the clock. The sound of a train in the background.
These are real, because I perceive them to be. I hear them. If I traveled enough, I would be able to see the train. See the clock. I could touch it. Feel its vibrations as it rumbles down the tracks.
I understand now that my brain creates reality. I know that you do. I know that an entity that can be conceptualized as “God” exists within my mind.
However, I am not my mind. I am nothing. I am.
That’s all there is to it. A silent watcher, the ever present observer. This is my essence.
Now, we all know that time is not real. We get that. However, I still perceive it to be. I am bound in time, which ultimately is a good thing. It allows me to experience each thing individually. It keeps continuity in my life. It is really the spine which holds together the experience of my being.
Now I may ask, why?
This is the ever present question. Considering my brain has the ability to create an infinite number of experiences, why (and how) does it choose one experience over another?
Feelings are real. These are more real than sights and sounds. Those are the surface levels of reality. My body is real. I can feel my body.
Before we had eyes, before we had ears, what was perceived? Feelings. Tactile sensations in the darkness, in the silence. This was our navigation through the complex realm of the infinite.
We still possess these abilities. We can still feel. We just ignore it now, letting our visual and auditory systems run wild, acting like they are the most important part of this.
They’re not. In fact, in this moment, the only thing that is real is now. Now is real.
Memory is really something, huh?
Without this, where are you? You’d just be, here. You would, now be here. You would be nowhere.
I love you. What does that mean? It clearly means something deep, something profound. It’s clearly a feeling, some sort of higher geometry. Space, and time, are these structures. They are static and unchanging. So why do I see change?
Change is experience. Change is everything. I say I like changes. I say I want change. But do I really? You have to realize that everything you wanted is here, right in front of you. You would know that if you had the proper memories. But you don’t, and you wanted that too. You wanted to forget about what happened and how it used to be. Don’t you remember??????
Of course not. You’re bounded by your own biology. It’s nice, living in ignorance. You spend a lot of time thinking about the big questions. But as far out as you choose to go, you must go equally inward, otherwise your being will become unbalanced.
For each part of the truth you receive, you must also experience the complimentary part of the life. They go hand in hand. Each experience, each moment, that is the way.
I am not waiting, even if it feels like I am. There is no such thing as waiting.
I just want to touch you again. Feel you again. That’s all I ask. For right now, that’s all I can say.
I miss you.
And another victim gets absorbed by his own navel.
Pretty sure I read this drivel in a visual novel or something once.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K63PN2bxAXE
What does /his/ think of this video?
>>1366581
the resentment and edginess make me wonder if it's a false flag to make nationalists look bad
not to mention the narrator's voice...
I will bump this now
>>1366581
>presumptuous american voice
>ebig metal in the background
>flashy cuts with an average length of under 5 seconds
Just goes to show america was a mistake.
He did nothing wrong desu.
He really tried his hardest, and almost succeeded.
>>1366515
Tried a bit too hard. Oppressing the religious leaders and turning them into martyrs is a good way to lose public support. That, and pissing off the western powers.
>>1366515
His only mistake was being head of a region that the Soviets wanted.
>>1366515
He looks like that one guy from Seinfeld
Elaine's boss
Does anyone else find the demise of House Stuart kind of disappointing? Especially since House Hanover is pretty lame.
nope
>>1366377
Would still be catholic if that revolution wasn't so glorious.
No, actually ever talented leaders to be honest, even James who was a notorious homo and witchburner was otherwise pretty competent.
YES YES WELL DONE ROMULUS WELL DONE ROMULUS
HOWEVER
>>1366176
And this shitty meme is supposed to be funny cause...?
>>1366179
Everyone can easily do his own shitty version easily.
>>1366176
YES YES WELL DONE DIOCLETIAN WELL DONE DIOCLETIAN
HOWEVER
Has there ever been a school of thought or a political movement that advocated the advent of nuclear warfare, either as a means to a specific goal or as something inherently good ? Asking after somebody here talked about Posadism which got me interested.
>>1366151
http://www.lacan.com/zizmaozedong.htm
"When Mao high-handedly dismisses the threat of the atomic bomb, he is not down-playing the scope of the danger - he is fully aware that nuclear war may led to the extinction of humanity as such, so, to justify his defiance, he has to adopt the "cosmic perspective" from which the end of life on Earth "would hardly mean anything to the universe as a whole":
The United States cannot annihilate the Chinese nation with its small stack of atom bombs. Even if the U.S. atom bombs were so powerful that, when dropped on China, they would make a hole right through the earth, or even blow it up, that would hardly mean anything to the universe as a whole, though it might be a major event for the solar system.
This "cosmic perspective" also grounds Mao's dismissive attitude towards the human costs of economic and political endeavors. If one is to believe Mao's latest biography, [11] he caused the greatest famine in history by exporting food to Russia to buy nuclear and arms industries: 38 million people were starved and slave-driven to death in 1958-61. Mao knew exactly what was happening, saying: "half of China may well have to die." This is instrumental attitude at its most radical: killing as part of a ruthless attempt to realize goal, reducing people to disposable means - and what one should bear in mind is that the Nazi holocaust was NOT the same: the killing of the Jews not part of a rational strategy, but a self-goal, a meticulously planned "irrational" excess (recall the deportation of the last Jews from Greek islands in 1944, just before the German retreat, or the massive use of trains for transporting Jews instead of war materials in 1944). This is why Heidegger is wrong when he reduces holocaust to the industrial production of corpses: it was NOT that, Stalinist Communism was that."
>>1366181
Interesting, but that's not exactly what I'm asking. This is more a gamble or a fuck it, they wouldn't dare attitude and a sort of nihilism, not a position that actively wishes for nuclear warfare to happen.
>>1366209
The only "school of thought" that actively wishes for nuclear winter are the Schopenhauer-style pessimists who consider that life on Earth is never-ending pain and suffering and that oblivion for all would be the greatest good.
There aren't too many of them since that sort of mentality tends to lead people towards fringe Apocalyptic religions or Transhumanism first. It's only once they get disillusioned with the afterlife and with sci-fi utopias that they start considering human extinction as a goal.
