[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]

[Advertise on 4chan]

[Catalog] [Archive]

File: IMG_0942.jpg (164 KB, 800x1063)
164 KB
164 KB JPG
Obviously we would have no way of really knowing how pervasive it was, but did the ancient civilizations have cases of serial killers? Or did most of the people who would have maybe become serial killers just get it out in so many ancient wars, etc.? Any good reading/docs on this topic or any particular cases?
5 replies omitted. Click here to view.

Anyway OP, Gacy is a bad example. Dahmer is a much better example as he is what happens when Americans grow up in extremely isolated, sheltered, and isolated environments. Especially in a declining region such as the midwest, there is really nothing to do besides drinking yourself to death and at that point you might as well start torturing, murdering and eating people too. The rise of drug abuse in the US, compared to the rest of the planet, has no precedence or comparative example either. It is demonstrative of an extremely sick society, especially outside large wealthy urban developments where there is no economic future.

To that end, why would a country like Rome need serial killers when there are food shortages, all manner of disease and outright armed warfare to do it? There are more outlets for violence that just don't exist in the late twentieth century USA.
Especially in a declining region such as the midwest, there is really nothing to do besides drinking yourself to death and at that point you might as well start torturing, murdering and eating people too.
kek. good post
>Especially in a declining region such as the midwest, there is really nothing to do besides drinking yourself to death and at that point you might as well start torturing, murdering and eating people too.
The Midwest does not have the most serial killers, that would be California and Florida as they attract a lot of weirdos, transients, and social outcasts due to the warm year-round weather.

I don't disagree. But I'd argue that pre-silicon valley Norcal was economically mediocre enough to incubate serial killers and Florida is just fucking shit.
File: IMG_7390.jpg (196 KB, 741x1136)
196 KB
196 KB JPG
A noble soldier in arms of Joan of Arc was a serial killer of children and occultist who tried to summon demons. Named Gilles de Rais

Convicted by both ecclesiastical authorities, and secular authorities after an actual investigation too, also it was a bad look considering Joan of Arc was considered a national hero so admitting her close confidante was a child sacrificing cultist wasn’t done for any obvious political manuevering

If he did this nowadays we’d just think he’s a crazy serial killer but back then they all believed in occult magic

Just bring it back already. Slavs are a danger to the world and can't rule themselves, just look at Russia. It's what happens when Slavs get too powerful. We need Germans to save us from ourselves.
43 replies and 5 images omitted. Click here to view.
European Union is the modern day Austria-Hungary.
They don't. Some people in the same genetic landscape don't even speak an Indo-European language.
They do.

I don't deny the existence of ethnicities. But in the exact same way that local dialects have always differed (even from one village to the next) it was only possible to unify a nation by standardising the language of a large number of dialects. If you want to look at a wider geographical region of course the spectrum of language diversity increases. This is true for any self developed native people who were not artificially created in Pax America modern times with nation building for the sake of imposing democracy.

Stem duchies can be unified by standardising a dialect that used to vary locally.
Nations can be unified by standadising many dialects.
Empires from many languages.
A continent from language groups.

Such standardisation and confederation practices are largely political, but they are also limited in possible scope. You can group counties, provinces, nations, continents, but you cannot group Europeans with nafris.
Apparently you can group Europeans with Mongoloids (Hungarians, Finns etc)
Siberians are not Mongoloid. They're language isolates who were closer to EHG both genetically and geographicallu than modern Mongols are.

Would it be ideal if all of the world united?
>Straight democracy in every level of governance
>Earth would be divided into counties, a bit larger unions of counties and this unions into a union of earth
>Same penal code and punishments everywhere
>Free trade everywhere
>Same taxation for trade and companies everywhere
>People in counties and in unions of counties could vote for regional restrictions like gun control, road traffic law, some regional extra tax, healthcare schooling, welfare etc.
>No armies
>Same educational requirements for police officers, doctors, judges and professions like these

Any improvements for the idea
10 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>They could draw the borders how they want them to be -> no ethnic conflicts.
lmao even
We currently have 2 different active wars going on, in dispute over borders. That's before things like the India/China dispute over their border. There's other places where the borders aren't agreed upon.
Hell, within Canada, Quebec and Labrador don't even agree on their border.
I also don't see how this idea is going to help anyone. Now the government with ultimate authority over me, is even further removed from my life. There's no possible way that the global government would be able to address our needs and issues.
This is turning into some "communism works on paper, but not in practice" levels of theorycrafting.
It's based on a lot of incorrect beliefs about how people are.
Where I live, I'd be giving up far more than I'd be gaining.
>Border guard is an option. No need for prepare to armed conflict with other strongly armed group.
How are you going to guard, without being prepared for armed conflict? If each region can vote for different forms of gun control, then the regions with the least control will win over the places with the most.
>Would it be ideal if all of the world united?
No, it would be shit. John Lenon was wrong when he sung Imagine. We're already seeing what a globalist government is trying to be, and it's utter shit.
>They could draw the borders how they want them to be -> no ethnic conflicts.
What happens when two or more different ethnic groups demand the same territory?
>Border guard is an option. No need for prepare to armed conflict with other strongly armed group.
In your OP you said there would be no armies but now each count(r)y is supposed to have its own armed forces so that they can safeguard their territorial sovereignty, aka a fucking army.
No, that would be completely retarded at this stage in civilization.
UN is trying to do it but with bad results
>>Straight democracy
stopped reading there
democracy is the white supermacy's sharia you can't achieve racial harmony with this shit

File: file.png (164 KB, 797x246)
164 KB
164 KB PNG
what is it about christianity and islam that makes their followers fuck nogs?
83 replies and 22 images omitted. Click here to view.
i said arabs aren’t white?
Religion is an antiquated version of old globohomo. It's not race or nation conscious.
File: 1686242347386.jpg (260 KB, 1607x1088)
260 KB
260 KB JPG
Yemenites are Canaanites, who are a spawn from Ham (Africa)
What about this
allah raping 8 year old niggers boys and girls is how that whole race was created

File: Cossacks.jpg (767 KB, 1920x1080)
767 KB
767 KB JPG
What are some interesting facts about the Cossacks?
Their national clothes are stolen from Georgia
In ww1 their regiment casualties were up to four tines higher than any other unit type. Mostly because they were suicidally retarded and drunk on the battlefield.
Which are in turn stolen from the Turks, which stole it from the Armenians, who stole it from the Parthians, who stole it from the Persians, who stole it from the Medes... etc etc

File: IMG_9309.jpg (180 KB, 750x382)
180 KB
180 KB JPG
nobody knows

How common were African knights in Europe?
5 replies omitted. Click here to view.
Chivalry was linked to both Church and nobility since its inception. I don't think there was a significant number of African knights anytime in Medieval history.
origins of chivalry.
How do you know that is an armor mask?
File: Lake_Harley3244_f39r.jpg (592 KB, 1500x1380)
592 KB
592 KB JPG
>there's precedent bro, elephants always lived in England
Imagine being some guy from London and you see Henry III come back to show off his massive fucking elephant he got from France.
Also this should be drawn by Matthew Paris if I'm right.
>But not that rare to find black soldiers generally.
That's ridiculous. Of course it would be rare.

File: xPeterPaulCatacombs.jpg (325 KB, 660x433)
325 KB
325 KB JPG
I'm drunk and need 4channel's support for this neckbeard argument I'm having- what is the earliest dated piece of iconography depicting Jesus Christ specifically that was created after his birth?

There's a couple of pieces depicting a vague holy/"chosen one" type figure from well before Christ's approximate birth, but what is the earliest artwork specifically made for "yep, this is our man JC from nazareth and nobody else"

In general it seems the earliest depictions are around 2-300 years after Christ's death but there's only so much I can do while phone posting
8 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
>is christ the only religious figure to have ever been depicted as being crucified
A bunch of saints were also crucified, because crucifixion was a common execution method in the Roman Empire. St. Andrew was crucified on a tilted cross, making a X, that's why the modern Scottish flag it's called St. Andrews cross. St. Peter was also crucified, but upside down according to the Church, because he felt unworthy of dying in the same manner that Jesus did.
Adding to my other post >>16531027, there is a small carved gemstone, also found in Rome, that is thought to depict Jesus, dated from around the same time as the Alexamenos graffito, that might be the earliest depiction of Christ. However, I couldn't find much info on it and it's still up for debate, so for the time being the Alexamenos graffito is held as the earliest depiction of Jesus we know of.
Why are Jesus's feet positioned like that? Have they never seen a crucifixion?
Some kids bullying their classmate may not have
Weren't capital punishments just another Tuesday in antiquity?
They didn't live in a shithole like Palestine where crosses would have functioned as lampposts, this is Rome where I don't think things like this would have been in the city itself, maybe a few in the countryside

File: EEF_Stare.jpg (76 KB, 810x657)
76 KB
There are no west eurasian features. Merely Europoid/European and a dillution/mixture of this via negroid and abo-asiatic (indians, asians, abo-papuans). Arabs look closer to half East Eurasian Indians than they do Nordics despite both being "West Eurasian". This is because they mixed with Negro-Aboriginal Basal Eurasians in great amounts.
69 replies and 12 images omitted. Click here to view.
Yeah and both are European HG in origin kek. MENA are Eurogod on Basal whores creation.
Samples? No? Thought so. IJ is only found in EURO HG. Big european cock in basal pussies. You are a mulatto subhuman.
ANF had some Neanderthal
Is G Basal?
File: 1713689605406261.jpg (112 KB, 972x796)
112 KB
112 KB JPG
>Araps in a dickmeasuring contest to see who is more Arap
>Araps gatekeeping Arapness
That's funny, even if the entirety of Somalia suddenly wants to LARP as Araps, so be it. Isn't there a Somali clan already called Arap? They claim descent from some Arabian sheikh who settled in Somalia and took a couple of local women.

>inb4 they're too black to be Arap

Target: Tunisian_Arab_Douz_SSA_Profile
Distance: 5.0970% / 0.05096970
78.0 Yoruba
12.2 Levant_Natufian
9.2 MAR_Taforalt
0.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I8728

Target: Sudanese_Arab_Shaigia_o2

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: nhaplom.jpg (447 KB, 2032x798)
447 KB
447 KB JPG
Ancient Finns founded the first Finland (Liao) some 12k years ago, but something was wrong and so they marched through Asia into Europe to find the second Finland
we wuz burmese n shiddd

File: IMG_0373.jpg (44 KB, 716x780)
44 KB
I refuse to believe modern Greeks have anything to with ancient Greeks. Modern Greeks are an Arab-like population who don’t contribute a single thing to society, they are also low iq, short, brown and overall dysgenic
79 replies and 18 images omitted. Click here to view.
File: 1712070141853113.png (162 KB, 1471x518)
162 KB
162 KB PNG
meanwhile elite shaft grave burials....
>I'm not sure that's true. And also, their philosophy is way older.
Yes it is, motifs were copied as styles gained complexity. This laste duntil the Persians disrupted the trade flow. And no, the pre-socratics aren't actually that old, they predate socrates by two centuries at most, squarely in the orientalizing period. Thales might also been a Carian.
> Are you really saying we can't measure the scope of civilizational achievements?
Not in the way one might measure the curvature of the earth. It's not that its an immesurable quality, rather that all measurers will be biased, and there is no way to mathematically prove which is better.
>The architectural structures, the storytelling in the mythology, scientific inventions, etc.?
For everything you might bring me of Greece, I will give you China, the Middle East and India. None of these can explained away via ancient ayyrians n'sheit with a straight face.
>The previous studies confirmed what I said earlier.
No they didn't.
>Also, the newer ones might be politically motivated to disproove our existence and history.
So true, the ancient Romans were also black africans and evil whitey is just tryna keep a brutha down by hiding dem proofs n'sheit.
>You're trying really hard to disregard this argument.
Because it's not an argument at all, you are just babbling "pattern rekugnition" and "Noticing realituh" over and over again without any substance. You are asserting that it is a natural and correct conclusion, I will assert that it is wrong.
> You can observe and measure the behaviour and capabilities of each human race, both historically and presently.
By arbitrary metrics. Even with those, there is some cajolling and value judgements being made. A buddhist would look at the entirety of western philosophy from Aristotle onward and easily dismiss it as empty bloviation, he would then call "pure whites" spiritually and mentally barren. This is his observation of reality.
>If the correlation is so strong, and not only in 1 country (it works the same in Spain, the R^2 is 0,57 there), then you are justified to call it a causation.
You might argue that is causation, you haven't really confirmed anything. One could chalk it up to other issues within the country.
But then again I am talking to a preacher.
>their philosophy is way older
Nordicist edumakation. Greece has been in contact with ME even before their ethnogenesis was completed.

File: IMG_0293.jpg (13 KB, 480x360)
13 KB
I am scared of Germans. They are a very weird people. In many ways they are completely unique.
>only Germanics to not merge with a local latinized population of the Roman Empire and create a new European nation like France or Spain
>instead like five different Germanic tribes morphed into something Germanic, which we now call German (basically left-over Germanics of the migration period)
>they call themselves Deutsch which is just a generic Germanic term to refer to the in-group
>they never politically united and centralized, until the late 19th century
>but instead of being culturally isolationist, they have been all over the world as colonists and mercenaries, but never for their own country (until very late)
>when they actually united (except for Switzerland) they almost became the world‘s number 1 Supepower
>somehow most royal houses in Europe are German and people are just okay with that (is there no native nobility?)
>most European ethnic groups are strictly tied to the civic identity of a state, which unified, centralized and standardized
>Germans on the other hand kinda always existed with no definite point of origin
>got assimilated or diverted into other ethnic groups to other countries on their western border (Dutch, Flemish, Wallonians, eastern French)
>but were racist and xenophobic on their eastern border, they colonized Slavic lands, but didn’t give a fuck about assimilating them
>responsible for the creation of all kinds of different ideologies and are predisposed to fanatical belief in ideologies
>obsession with nature (nudist culture, every single German family owns salad bowls with leaf motives, their most common dating idea is to go on walks, very high percentage of Germans believe in alternative medicine)
6 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>they call themselves Deutsch which is just a generic Germanic term to refer to the in-group

so what? the welsh call themselves cyrmu which means "us"
"welsh" comes from a germanic word meaning foreign (hence "walnuts")
>they colonized Slavic lands, but didn’t give a fuck about assimilating them
I wish. My father was a Silesian German and I can assure you we are identical to Poles and Upper Silesia is 50% R1a
You are not Silesian German.
The actual Germans got all expelled.
Every single Slav, who was seen as too German like the Masurians, got expelled.
The only non-Polish slav minority, who didn’t get expelled for being not Polish enough and too German, were Slavic Silesians. They of course spoke German, because they have been a part of Prussia for a long time.
You are a Slavic Silesian, not a German. Of course you are like the Poles, because if you weren’t you would have been expelled. The expulsion of Germans was a massive negative selection event.
No, before the occupation, my family all spoke German and were certified Germans. Members of my family were NSDAP members and received state awards from the NS government.

I hurt myself today
35 replies and 18 images omitted. Click here to view.
>How can you analyze the words of a dictator?
maybe I should expand "speeches and writings" to include internal discussions with other high ranking nazis and orders he personally issued. The result is the same, he never intended action against GB.
>What if Germany ever gets soured relations with Britain in the future? What if they ever have conflicting interests in the future?
I'd say that's unlikely as long as Hitler is in power as again, he respected and admired the British Empire, called the british a "Brudervolk" etc. and was firmly opposed to any action against the empire. If you want to have an example of how Germany can be an ally, look into the relations between Germany and Italy, and look into the case of South Tyrol. Hitler was willing to make sacrifices for good relations if the other side was open to it. The problem was that GB was never open to working together or allying with Germany which is the root cause of the escalation.
>Czechoslovakia wasnt some "Versailles product".
it was Hitlers opinion, not mine. It just makes his intentions clear, didn't intend to justify them.
False quote. They're lying like motherfucking Gypsies, I told you.

btw, London was a financial capital of the world at the time; was Churchill supposed to say that he should have butchered his own central bank? inb4, no, the Bank of England wasn't "Jewish" - it transferred the Czechs' gold (which, ironically, was being kept in England as a safeguard against Germans) to Germany. And no, the Appeasement evidently didn't work - the only thing Britain did wrong was that it waited too long; just long enough for this chimpanzee to destroy the European civilization.

Besides false quotes (aka lying) they have only memes (aka propaganda)
Was he right, /his/?

>listen to what he says not what he actually did!

Pathetic cope.
>maybe I should expand "speeches and writings" to include internal discussions with other high ranking nazis and orders he personally issued. The result is the same, he never intended action against GB.

You could make this exact same argument that Stalin was generally just a good and misunderstood man cause nothing he said or discussed ever suggested malicious world dominating or evil plans of genocides. Does he even mention mass killing? Can you show me any quote that he was preparing to break the pact with Germany? You have an infantile way of analyzing history if its limited to this shallow understanding on whats happening if you're only going to look at what the man said and then take it as truth.

>I'd say that's unlikely as long as Hitler is in power as again, he respected and admired the British Empire, called the british a "Brudervolk" etc. and was firmly opposed to any action against the empire.
You dont get it do you? It doesnt matter what Hitler says. Actions speaks louder than words. Hitler didnt give a shit about British interests so conflict was extremely likely.
Britain clearly wanted peace in Europe. They clearly wanted a Czech state. They clearly wanted a Polish state. Hitler didnt care. It violated his own ambitions. Hitler also cancelled all bonds owed to Britain when he came to power as a means of forfeit the German war reparation debt. This was millions borrowed to Germany that was lost. Hitler didnt give a shit.
You say Britain should have allowed German dominance because they will assure the British they will never threaten them.
Well maybe the British didnt want someone that was powerful enough to give them assurances of their own safety?
This is nothing but tribalism, and frankly, Hitler may as well have said flatterous words simply to keep Britain away from his grand schemes since Britain was the only ones who could potentially stop him.

The root cause of the escalation was that Hitler never tried to meet them half-way.

Is this true?
Why don’t they talk about this in history class
49 replies and 6 images omitted. Click here to view.
>international jews boycott germany
Isn't that a good thing?
Hitler wanted an autacracy.
They don't need Jewish goods.
I never learned shit about WWII in school. We talked a bit about Poland in 39, cause that is the German invasion that kicked it off, then we talked about Dunkirk (we watched the movie Dunkirk), Pearl Harbor (movie Pearl Harbor), and the Hall of Cost (movie Schindler's List). And of course D-day. I don't remember if we watched Saving Ryan's Privates, but it wouldn't surprise me. Maybe it was just taken for granted that Nazis=the bad guys and that was enough? We talked more about the early Cold War than WWII. WWII was just like this thing everybody already knew about but we had to say something anyway.
I guess we didn't watch Dunkirk. That was way after school. Pretty sure we watched some other film about it though. Or maybe that came in college. idk
>So was the pope in on it with the Jews?
The thing is that school doesnt actually have a reason to go into details about ww2.
You might think that because you find ww2 extremely interesting, but objectively, it only needs to highligh certain details because they become relevant to the next chapter.
Obviously D-day is relevant because it sets the conditions for the cold war.
The holocaust is relevant because it sets the conditions for the Israel - Palestine conflict, as well as the casualties of ideology.

The expulsion of ethnic Germans doesnt really set the stage for anything and if school needs to mention it, then the bar is lowered for what is relevant and it will begin to bloat every topic when its supposed to just be brief and surface-level understanding of history, unless you individually choose to study history further with more advanced courses.

File: Henry-A.-Wallace-Townsend.jpg (206 KB, 1234x1474)
206 KB
206 KB JPG
I usually don't like to attribute too much to individuals but if Henry A. Wallace was VP when FDR died instead of Truman I don't think it's a stretch to say that we would be living in a completely different world today. I don't think the Cold War would have happened, at least not in the same form that it did and at the time it did.

[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.