This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages, etc. Please use /lit/ for discussions of literature. Threads should be about specific topics, and the creation of "general" threads is discouraged.For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago. Historical discussions should be focused on past events, and not their contemporary consequences. Discussion of modern politics, current events, popular culture, or other non-historical topics should be posted elsewhere. General discussions about international culture should go on /int/./his/ is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates. Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected. History can be examined from many different conflicting viewpoints; please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character. When discussing history, please reference credible source material, and provide as much supporting information as possible in your posts.
What European ethnic groups have the palest and whitest skin?Am I right in assuming it goes something like this?1. Faroese2. Icelandic3. Scottish4. Irish5. Norwegian6. English7. Welsh
>>16550825the Irish have the whitest skin but Scandinavians are the most Aryan, Aryans could tan
>>16551951Look it up anon, it’s hard to get seperate stats but Wallonians are far swarthier than the French and Flemish, with the Walloons having less blue eyes than the French. Also look into the artwork produced during Belgiums revolution, the Walloons are almost always painted without fail as swarthy.
>>16553586this is nonsense, I lived in both Wallonia and France, and Walloons are much fairer than the French, and not much different than the Flemish.To say that Wallonians are far swarthier than the French is insane to me. You probably saw someone with Italian ancestry. What would be the logic and rational of Wallonians (who are frankish) to be swarthier than the French who are geographically more southern than the Walloons?When I lived in Wallonia, the French students were always spotted because they looked darker, slightly more mediteranean than the locals.The map you shown just show an odd spot near Luxembourg.
>>16553586Walloon minister Paul Magnette when he met French president François Hollande is a typical example; the french are swarthier bro.Also, Walloons are more blue eyed than the French
>>16550825i knew some dark scots
"Why Do We Oppose the Jew?" by Dr. Joseph Geobbelshttps://files.catbox.moe/c4wpo7.mp4Did he have a point?
>>16555547so they were gonna send the jews back to israel so are you pro zionist?
>>16555556Advertising and marketing exist IRL too. What's your point?
>>16555559No, I'm not a Zionist.
>>16555562Were the nazis zionists?
>>16555560Yes but I don't need ads to find the local grocery store. I just need to go the fuck outside or better yet, Google "Grocery store near me". It sounds like YOU need someone to tell you these things.
Was Great Moravia real? And was it really a "Slovak empire" tragically destroyed by invading asian Hungarians, like Slovak nationalists like to claim?
>>16555520Yes, but the predominant Slavic people within it weren't Slovaks, but the Moravians, during its tenure, it was one of the "big four powers" in Europe, the other powers being the Frankish Empire, Bulgaria, and the ERE.
>>16555520Slovaks were fucking serfs in Great Moravia, like in every state they were part of, and like everything that is of any value in the Visegrad region, it was run by Czechs. Slovak Empire, right, lmfao.
>>16555520Despite being called great Moravia it's definitely more of a Slovak state than a Czech one.
>>16555545Moravians*, and Slovaks were mostly independent pastoralists, not indentured farmers.
Is it just a meme myth that all medieval peasants had shitty lives?
>>16553396Common law was from the Royal courts. Unfree people couldn’t use Royal courts. Therefore they couldn’t access common law.
>>16551855No, why do you think people did anything they could to escape peasant life?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGq49ONdz3QIs she happy? I guess the grass is always greener on the other side.
>>16553814No ruler ever had it easy. Your life is easy because you have no responsibility. As far as luxuries go, they had much better.
>>16554344>The only thing shitty about the middle ages was that everyone had to worship a Jew on a cross or get exiled from societyThis
>antony beevor le bad cause he only picks german sources and is german biased which is hecking bad>david glantz le good cause he only picks soviet sources and is soviet biased which is hecking goodWhy do people still take this guy seriously?
>>16555459What have I said that's wrong here?This is exactly what TIK claims.
>>16555462He's not an actual historian, he just makes quirky videos for clicks. He's as bad as that whatifallthist guy. They both just create (clickbait) narratives and cherry-pick information to suit said narratives. These people are easy to pick out because they never try to falsify their own claims.
>>16555002>david glantz le good cause he only picks soviet sources and is soviet biased which is hecking goodShow where the clip that justifies this comment.
>>16555481If I did clips about the Glantz stuff it would take too long, just watch his videos, the dude can't stop obsessing over Glantz.Is Glantz having a pro Soviet bias news to you or something?Here's his claim that Beevor is pro German anyway:https://youtu.be/dUtPCPDO1L4?si=uJLyBr9vvMgPedX8&t=1340
>>16555541Thanks for the clip. No, Glantz is not 'pro soviet' he simply doesn't fall for the lazy old tropes and memes about the soviet armed forces and doctrine that traditional German contemporary sources so often parroted and includes a range of sources from both sides in his work. And in that clip you sent me Tik still recommends reading Beevor as an introduction while recognising some of its weaknesses. Your strawman Op said otherwise.
>was a backwater shithole for most of its existence>somehow the only non-western country to industrialize, develop and become on par with the westHow did China, India and the Middle East failed where Japan succeeded?
>>16551206>How did China, India and the Middle East fail?...>India80 IQ people, they have nothing going for them, no matter how much you pump into them>Middle EastSimmilar to Indians, they have a little bit higher IQ and lower aggresion rates, but they have no inventive spirit. They have east mediterranean blood within them (middle eastern basically) with a lot of Red Sea admixture.>ChinaOnly a few parts of their country are high IQ, and without any mongol DNA. Huge parts of their country were invaded by various tribes from left to right, from top to bottom (pic rel). >JapanAs mentioned above, they're superior genetically: >>16551648 , >>16552139 , >>16551908
>>16553155>After the Ruso-Japanese war, William Elliot Griffis declared the Japanese the most "un-Mongoloid" people in Asia, and suggested they had much "Aryan blood in their veins". It's hard for me to believe it's an actual quote, but if it is, it shows how much more popular and widespread was the discussion about genetics and its impacts. And also, given the Portugeese black admixture, it's no wonder they regarded the Japs as whites.
>>16551206>somehow the only non-western country to industrialize, develop and become on par with the westThey aren't on par with the West. If they were, their military bases would be in America instead of the other way around.
>>16552847>One can only speculate if the white admixture were higher in them, what would they be able to achieve.We need to export Scandinavian women to Japan, STAT!
>>16555519>After the Ruso-Japanese war, William Elliot Griffis declared the Japanese the most "un-Mongoloid" people in Asia, and suggested they had much "Aryan blood in their veins".It would make sense, considering that they lost the war and are now the servant of America.
With recent findings suggesting their I2 haplogroups are from GAC rather than Yamnaya-related migrations, can we consider these a EEF continuation? Tollense battle victims too had I2 from GAC most likely, and their Stepp-WHG-ANF ratios were way out of left field compared to modern populations, indicating a high-WHG GAC holdout in Europe for thousands of years.
>>16553234Yes, yes I believe you're right.
how does no one connect kurgans, catalhoyuk underground homes and modern jew tunnels, west asians have thoroughly been running circles around euros kek
>ANE rapes CHG women before migrating across Eurasia>Muh 'Southern Arc'>ANE and WHG join forces to subjugate EEF in Southern Europe>CHG mops up the remnants in the Middle East>Africanized Semitic women act as if their men were always drawn from these lineagesLife as a medcel is the epitome of mindbroken
>>16555325You literally visualize all of human history as a contest between genetic clusters from the Mesolithic.
>>16550971He's right, Slavic I2 (Din) has a basal finding in Meso. Sweden (Motala), and Neo. Norway (Steigen)
Ceasar, Commentarii de Bello Gallico:>13 Not so the ships of the Gauls, for they were built and equipped in the following fashion. Their keels were considerably more flat than those of our own ships, that they might more easily weather shoals and ebb‑tide. Their prows were very lofty, and their sterns were similarly adapted to meet the force of waves and storms. The ships were made entirely of oak, to endure any violence and buffeting. The cross-pieces were beams •a foot thick, fastened with iron nails as thick as a thumb. The anchors were attached by iron chains instead of cables. Skins and pieces of leather finely finished were used instead of sails, either because the natives had no supply of flax and no knowledge of its use, or, more probably, because they thought that the mighty ocean-storms and hurricanes could not be ridden out, nor the mighty burden of their ships conveniently controlled, by means of sails. When our own fleet encountered these ships it proved its superiority only in speed and oarsmanship; in all other respects, having regard p157 to the locality and the force of the tempests, the others were more suitable and adaptable. For our ships could not damage them with the ram (they were so stoutly built), nor, by reason of their height, was it easy to hurl a pike, and for the same reason they were less readily gripped by grapnels. Moreover, when the wind began to rage and they ran before it, they endured the storm more easily, and rested in shoals more safely, with no fear of rocks or crags if left by the tide; whereas our own vessels could not but dread the possibility of all these chances.How did they do it?
>>16553528Not that anon, but I think both groups were if not Celtic then Celt-adjacent. I further suspect the Armoric Veneti to represent the ultimate source of these three groups. Some limited genetic investigations have lent support to this position, and it has been known for decades that the ancient people of that peninsula relied mostly on fish for their sustenance since the Neolithic period despite also farming.The Vistula Veneti were likely Balto-Slavic too. Who knows what language they spoke?But we know the Adriatic Veneti had written language, at it appears to be Celtic or at least related.
>>16553491>What is the connection here?The name is an exonim meaning "friendly", very appropriate for traders like most people bearing the name were.There are tribes with a similar name in pretty much every single branch of ie people.
>>16553948>But we know the Adriatic Veneti had written language, at it appears to be Celtic or at least related.Venetic has been considered an italic language for decades.But then, italic languages are literally one branch over from celtic ones, so I guess it does mean it's related.
>>16553450The eastern Venedi are hypothesized to be the proto-Slavs, IIRC.
I wonder if they crossed the Atlantic Ocean in these ships. Imagine Celtic trade all the way down the East of the Americas.
What's creates the difference between a JW, and a Christian (say Catholic)? Does it come from the different translations of the bible, or from their different interpretations of the same bible? I've been searching online about what theologians think of JWs but I can't find anything. Since Christians shit on them, I wanted to see what actual scholars think of them. Is there even a consensus on that topic among scholars?It feels that since JW are such a small and new sect, there'd be people "debunking" them, but I can't find much. I'm not talking about finding a debate between a Christian and a JW, I want to go to the root of the difference, look at original text and translations maybe, etc...
How do you deal with dating when the other person is not religious, and openly sexual with you, when you are keeping chaste until marriage?Catholic, mid-20s, dating an agnostic. Can answer further questions if it helps.
Women are always happy to wait until marriage to have sex because it shows commitment. Women gain nothing from promiscuity because it inherently lowers their value. It is only something that men desire.
>>16555390She's cheating on you, while you post on 4chan.
>>16555390If you have to ask 4chan, sorry bro, she's literally having mindblowing orgasms in another man's bad RIGHT NOW.
>>16555390Why would you date a non-religious person? Do you want to suffer while watching your daughter be the town bike because her mother thinks it’s ‘finding yourself’?
>>16555390This isnt /soc/ faggotBut one bit of advice: if you are truly religious, why are you dating a whore?
Historically speaking, monarchies never cared about their own people.The gulf states, all monarchies, practically replaced their population with male migrant workers.Migrants make up between 40-90% of the population of the gulf, and almost all of them are males, so they make up 80-180% of males in the gulf.All of this for cheaper labor, this has always been true throughout history, if european monarchies had need of cheap labor and had access to international workers european nations would have been mostly non european genetically by the beginning of the 19th century.In short pro monarchy right wingers are wrong
How do they have such high birth rates with pyramids like this?
>>16555396They dont look how narrow are the younger population becoming
>>16555367>pretending that shitskins would have humanistic views of their societyWho are you trying to fool neoliberal?
>>16555396immigration
>is irrelevant up to the 8th century>decides to be relevant for the 9th and 10th centuries>starts being irrelevant again up to the 16th century>decides to be very relevant for the 17th century>stops being relevant againWhat is up with them?
>>16555363>>is irrelevant up to the 8th centuryForest ooga boogas>>decides to be relevant for the 9th and 10th centuriesThe power vacuum of the Carolingian collapse and the East Slavs being retarded cucks>>starts being irrelevant again up to the 16th centuryThe relative strength of their southern neighbors plus endless infighting (not like they weren't infighting during the Viking Age but they conquered Russia/attacked Germany despite it)>>decides to be very relevant for the 17th centuryIt became a powerful and very belligerent nation state >>stops being relevant againRussia
>>16555363Climate is too shitty to consistently sustain a large population and it is also relatively isolated from the rest of Europe. Despite being a historically impoverished nation it seemed to produce some great leaders (at least in the military sense) and scientists, but due to a lack of manpower and money they could only really be relevant when rival powers were weak from infighting.
Which Roman era Germanic tribe or state had the most impact? Hard mode: Besides the Franks and the Anglo-Saxons that is.
>>16555189From one explaination I've heard (German Source: https://youtu.be/q0oJDeHOxv8?si=e7fxpiwwwDtHML2C&t=868 ) that the Burgundians came in small numbers (outnumberd 10:1 by the roman population) and that they were already romanized and christian, so they didn't have a stark cultural gap like the Almannians who were still pagan. So the Burgundians got absorbed by the larger roman population, they left little linguistical traces in law codes and village and city names. The Alamannians on the other hand never really associated with the urban romans and settled in the rural regions. When plagues ravaged the cities the romance speakers died away and Almannians moved in. The left-over celtic romanized people then adopted the germanic language of the new cultural majority. They would become the later german-swiss population which is 65% of the whole population of Switzerland. And because mountains seem to naturally create linguistical variety their language mutated into many "dialects", or rather many different languages/para-languages that get clumped together as "Swiss German" eventhough nobody could understand eachother if it weren't for the existence of Standard High German (Hochdeutsch). The first one I can still understand somehow as a German speaker from Germany, the second one is High Alemmanic and it's completely incomprehensible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkwbn0HwqOkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rgGQkXJHlQ>While the French-speaking Swiss prefer to call themselves Romands and their part of the country la Romandie, the German-speaking Swiss used to refer to (and, colloquially, still do) the French-speaking Swiss as "Welsche", and to their area as Welschland, which has the same etymology as the English Welsh (see Walha). In Germany Welsch and Welschland refer to Italy; there, the term is antiquated, rarely used, and somewhat disparaging. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-speaking_Switzerland
>>16552967So the tribes that populated England came there from Denmark?
>>16553096>It's a shame they abandoned their ways and got soft in Iberia.Their biggest fault is the infighting. Had they created a stable monarchy with quality institutions, they would've probably defeated he arabs, the the country's history would've been completely different.
>>16552967Anglo-Saxons were dogshit irrelevant, the dominant tribes were the Goths and the Franks at the time.
>>16554056Among the germanic borrowed words in italian, Lombard is by far the biggest source.
What’s the difference What’s their appeal
>>16554430>>16554430>Sikhism is a Hinduism and Islam by the way of Syncretism.>Bahaism is every single religion and with Islam as its base.Make it acceptable for other people to convert to, rather than religions they already have.
>>16554533>Are you Punjabi?Yes>Is Sikhism a combination of Islam and Hinduism?Not really. Vedanta, Vaishnavism and Sufi Islam all were major influences on Sikhism but it's a new thing.
>>16555115Punjabi girls are cuteWhat are your thoughts on Hare KrishnasAre they similar to Sikhs
>>16555252>What are your thoughts on Hare KrishnasPersonally? I have nothing against them, although their founder was quite racist.>Are they similar to SikhsNo. ISKCON is a Lord Krishna-centric Vaishnavite sect, while Sikhism does not acknowledge Lord Vishnu as the supreme being, but instead as a form/servant of the One God.
>>16554430>What’s the differenceWhat do they even have in common? Just monotheism?
