How did Europe lose its military elite and why did it fail to replace it with something new with the same function?
>>18347873What? Knights (i.e petty nobles with land) simply became officers in the new standing armies of the various european states. And many household cavalry or infantry regiments were entirely recruited from people of such a "knightly" background - from soldier/trooper to officer; all were of aristocratic background.>to replace it with something new with the same function?I assume you mean Heavy Cavalry. It existed well into the late 19th century. Albeith this arm had losts its potency in later years.>>18347988>but they are essential for the survival of the state and society in generalAnon, nobles were folded into the bureaucracy of early modern states. From officers and generals to ministers and councillors - most were nobles.
>>18348035Yes it does>>18348206Anon… they weren’t folded into the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy became inflated and subsumed them.
>>18347873>How did Europe lose its military eliteArmies based around the idea of heavily armored cavalrymen who exchanged military service in exchange for lands and privileges became completely outdated. The Hussites and Swiss showed Europe that the knightly elite could be utterly humiliated by cannon, firearm or even relatively simple pikemen who do not break at the sight of a cavalry charge. Mercenaries and eventually standing, professional armies replaced them.>why did it fail to replace it with something new with the same function?The nobility regularly sought employment within the military or state bureaucracy. Most of them adapted to the changing times and simply became important statesmen or commanders in service to their king.
>>18348237>Yes it doesNo, it doesn't. Being a military elite would imply that the primary function of this elite class was military pursuits, which it wasn't. British (and other Western European) elites overwhelmingly were part of the civil service. They do not have any special military function not given by any other member of society.
>>18348237>The bureaucracy became inflated and subsumed them.No. Even in "ye olden times" lesser nobles fuliffled bureaucratic functions towards higher nobles. Ffs most nobles dated back to royal officials that became hereditary over time.
The PoD is that Julian lives longer and his reforms are successful. But first, there are many misconceptions about him that I think should be addressed:>His theology wasn’t a new innovation of his nor was it actually unpopular with contemporary pagans. He was a Neoplatonist, which was effectively the standard view among educated pagans in the Roman Empire. The only thing that was odd about Julian was his weird obsession with animal sacrifices since pagans had already stopped widely practicing it a century prior and preferred purely “bloodless” sacrifices like incense, libations, or prayers. Julian was reportedly upset that active pagan cults were no longer practicing animal sacrifice and was so obsessed with bringing it back that even those supportive of his cause often joked that the empire would eventually run out of cattle. >He wasn’t trying to create a new artificial pagan “church.” What Julian actually did was restore patronage to the imperial cult which had already existed for centuries; his reforms were intended to make an already-existing system more centralized, not create a new system. While he did try to merge other pagan priesthoods like that of the Egyptians with it under the belief that all religions were different shades of the truth rather than standing on their own, I wouldn’t say this belief was controversial among contemporary pagans or a new innovation he came up with since Platonists have always held this view towards divinity. The only thing Julian took from Christianity was charity and support for the poor since he argued that it was the only reason Christianity ever took off to begin with.(cont)
>>18348260(cont) Julian failed because he was only emperor for 2 years and died unexpectedly at the end, that’s not enough time to make long-lasting reforms and he had secular duties to attend to as well. If Julian lived longer, I do think his reforms could have actually been successful. However, I only think they would have been successful in the European territories of the empire since the east was firmly Christian at this point. This would result in a different division between west and east as rather than the Roman Empire being divided between a Catholic west and Orthodox east, we would instead see a division between a Hellenist west and a Christian east. That alone has interesting implications.To clarify, I’m calling it Hellenism here because considering that Julian himself referred to Greco-Roman paganism as “Hellenism” (Ἑλληνισμός) in his letters, it would have likely eventually become the widespread name for Greco-Roman paganism.I think the Western Roman Empire would have still fallen to Germanic invasions anyways. But rather than converting to Christianity, the Germanic invaders would integrate into Hellenism and potentially syncretize Germanic paganism with it. Given its flexible nature and emphasis on hierarchy and heroism, it’s possible that Neoplatonist Hellenism would actually resonate with the Germanic conquerors far better than Christianity.
>Ms Frank, Simon of Trent sends his regards
>You see, Sicilians have black blood pumping through their hearts. Hey, no, if you don't believe me, you can look it up. Hundreds and hundreds of years ago, the Moors conquered Sicily. And the Moors are niggers.>So you see, way back then, Sicilians were like wops from Northern Italy. And they all had blonde hair and blue eyes, but then the Moors moved in there, and they changed the whole country. They did so much fuckin' with Sicilian women, huh? That they changed the whole bloodline forever. That's why blonde hair and blue eyes became black hair and dark skin. You know, it's absolutely amazing to me to think that to this day, hundreds of years later, that Sicilians still carry that nigger gene.>Now, if that's a fact, tell me, am I lying?https://youtu.be/tsIEAipTNbE?si=yEIw6xilI-YMSMIS&t=42
>>18344916least zesty italianx
>>18342158Everything he said is literally true and the only reason why white men are denying it is because they hate the idea of black men getting laid with white women lol
>>18346788this
>>18346788>>18347996Brown hands.
jeets are just sad
There was no genetic test to determine if someone was Jewish or not, instead the state went entirely off of Synagogue and Church records, and in many places, Judaism was considered a religion before it was considered a race. In fact, the holocaust itself was instrumental in shaping the concept of Jews as an ethnoreligious complex. Many victims of the holocaust were not even practicing Jews, but were branded as Jews because of family Synagogue records, meaning some white German could've visited a Synagogue once in the past, had their name added to their confessional, then raised a Christian family that ended up getting killed. There were even instances of Germans who supported Hitler, only to later be betrayed over their families history. This is why many victims of the Holocaust had Germanic surnames. The Holocaust was, in effect, a massive dysgenics operation that Hitler conducted on his own people.
>>18346516Who said it was 'by accident'? The point is that white Germans still could've visited a Synagogue because they didn't realize their country would soon be taken over by a Genocidal retard
German Jews were a tiny percentage of the Holocaust. The vast majority of Holocaust victims was comprised of religiously Orthodox Polish and Eastern European Jews from the Pale of Settlement, who were very unassimilated into gentile culture.
>>18346165>>18346179>>18346189Cool, dog. It's still not right to kill Palestinian children.Any discussion about the Holocaust is just deflection for Israel's ongoing mass murder campaign in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. I'm a brown man (a Christian one), and I sincerely do NOT believe that brown Jews have any right to kill brown Palestinians or take over their land. No number of Jewish deaths can be used to justify any Palestinian displacements or deaths.
>>18346165jews implying you need a genetic test to tell if someone is a kike is like trannies implying you need a genetic test to tell if someone is a man.lol
>>18346220Jews and slavs are white though?
>Wants slaves >Creates free willed beingsCan anyone explain this?
>>18348120>>> arbitrary relationships ----> not arbitraryThis is not what I'm saying at all lol. Free will should allow one to make arbitrary decisions. If I decide to have orange juice with my breakfast instead of milk, that is an arbitrary decision. Choosing orange juice not being allowed and incurring a punishment is an arbitrary restriction on my freedom of choice.The only one who brought up arbitrariness was you when you insisted the restrictions God places on humans are not arbitrary.
>>18348133>Free will should allow one to make arbitrary decisions.Why? Is the freedom you're seeking a freedom from sense and meaning?>orange juice not being allowed and incurring a punishment is an arbitrary restriction on my freedom of choice.Yes, because those two drinks are roughly equivalent. Just like marrying one of two good women would be roughly equivalent. The restrictions are not placed on those and as long as you apriori assume that God's restrictions are arbitrary then yes... you will circularily conclude they are abitrary. But you don't actually have good evidence for that.>you insisted the restrictions God places on humans are not arbitraryCorrect. And I tried to make it obvious in >>18348090 how they're actually pretty sensible in the cases where we can tell.
>>18348073He wasn't lying and he's not the best source.
>>18348138>Why?Why wouldn't itI don't care if the restrictions are "sensible". I am sure North Korea considers their restrictions sensible, but you called them oppressed.>>18348173What's a better one
>>18348212If the freedom you seek is from sense then you're just not talking about the same free will that religious people are talking about. You can discuss it with libertarians but as far as religions go, you're conflating different things. Just like you now tried to conflate sensible restrictions with ones that someone "considers" sensible.
Well, her getting BTFO by a smaller Roman army was wrong, but burning London was 100% justified, those Roman pillaging rapists deserved it
The more I dwell on this thread the more I want to hep NGOs import stinky niggers to Italy to rape Italian girls.
>>18344398Plus built navy counter Rome reconquest?
>>18345162>>18347290Romans were gay so raping women wasn't a thing for them
>>18345162Ok, sarr ESL
>>18344363>invaders removedFact.
You literally cannot refute this.
>>18348047>See the very first sentence of >>18347961. It leads to a physical impossibilityThis is not a contradiction of any kind and I'm honestly a bit disappointed to see you continuing to claim that it is. I forget that people on 4chan like to larp as being more educated and intelligent than they actually are. You guys always have a nice window dressing that leads me to believe I'll be able to have a stimulating discussion and then you pull the dressing aside and there's nothing there.Consent is a human invention. It is a mental concept. That you would refer to this scenario as a "physical impossibility" is frankly embarrassing. There's nothing physical about it. What I'm describing is an inherent quality of giving birth, that it must be done without consent. That's not my opinion or a "contradiction"; it's simply how things are.>and not one with much emotional investmentThat's funny because every time I try to have a calm and rational discussion of the topic, at least on this site, people like you instantly pop up with posts that are extremely emotional. Or are we going to pretend that your first reply to me wasn't full of personal insults coupled with telling me to kill myself? That's not how an unemotional person responds.>it's you who needs to establish that the analysis that led to your conclusions is validI explained my position very succinctly:>forcing someone to do something without their consent is immoral>it's impossible for someone to consent to being born>therefore reproduction is immoralComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>18348106>>inapplicable application>not a contradiction of any kindAs you wish.>nothing physical about consentBesides the consenting part, sure.>are we going to pretend that your first reply to me wasn't full of personal insults coupled with telling me to kill myself?My first post was >>18348005, I imply this by saying 'the Anon' when referencing the other posts. I'm actually glad you're confusing me with someone else, I thought your accusations of emotionality were projection, now I see it's just a misunderstanding.>>it's you who needs to establish that the analysis that led to your conclusions is valid>I explained my position very succinctly:You did. Now you need to establish that the analysis that led to this position is valid, sound and relevant. Re-iterating the individual steps doesn't achieve this. Any number of positions can be arrived at by misleading and incomplete selection of premises.
>>18347992>If you accept that people should not have things imposed on them without their consentI don't believe in that in a work sense. As a kid all I wanted to do was be lazy, my father pushed me to do sports and work hard and it benefited my life in the long run by having a good attitude about work and having a good competitive spirit. Those benefits helped better in the long run then the fledgling pleasure I got from just sitting and watching TV. Life isn't about dodging all suffering. Some suffering is actually good for the body.
>>18348033>you'd need to argue that rolling the dice on a random person being born, not knowing what they will experience or how their life will turn out, is nonetheless for their own goodI can solve this with basic math. Something>nothing. No matter how you twist your view, it cannot disregard the truth that something is always greater than nothing.
>>18347951Why does consent matter to someone who doesn't exist?
So that's it then? Christianity has won the war of ideas AGAIN?
>>18346556Why doesn't it?
>>18343552All degenerates eventually hit the wall.Christianity offers a quick and easy status reset.
im christian and im addicted to interracial porn
>>18343554God HATES sinners>”You are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you. The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers” (Psalm 5:4–5)
>>18343599The amount of White Catholics that actually bother with all that is so ludicrously small
I'm french and i dont give a fuckWhy would anyone, even historians, care about a colonised people's contribution to their coloniser?I dont think anyone classified this + fuck romans
>>18347276ditch your gallo-romance language and go back to speaking gaulish
I don't know about Gallo-Romans, but the Gauls helped by raping them.
Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus the "firstborn of all creation". Some have understood this to mean that Jesus is a creature of God, but not fully divine. But they are mistaken, though in a sense they are correct that Jesus is being grouped in with creation here as a "creature", and yet it would be wrong to say that Jesus is being thought of as "created" in the same respect. This confusion comes from the latter theological distinction between creator and creation.What the inspired author has in mind here is not a subordination of Jesus to creaturhood as something being hand crafted or molded as a demiurge does, but rather he has his eternal and unique generation in mind. In fact it is Jesus who plays the demiurgic role, a "craftsman", by making the world (Colossians 1:14-17, John 1:2-3). This is the way Origen of Alexandria used the term creature for Jesus (for which, it is true, that he was criticized by latter theologians such as Rufinus), and yet he is well know for his prolific defense of the doctrine of Christ's eternal generation from God the Father. When we understand the theology of John 1:1-18, where Jesus is called God's "only begotten" who is "in the bosom of the Father", and taking into account Philippians 2:6-11, Hebrews 1:3, Proverbs 8:22 and Wisdom 7:24-26, we find that Paul has Christ's generation in mind in this passage. This is why John talks about being born again ("regeneration") in John 3, because we become children of God through adoption, but Jesus is God's child from all eternity, because he is by nature divine and shares the Fathers nature (homoousios) since he is his "only-begotten". This also explains the dialogue in John 10:31-36 most sufficiently, especially when taking into account the Greek grammar.
>>18347477Paul wrote that. Don’t read into it too much
I really don't give a shit about your jewish fairytales about the super-rabbi
>>18347768>>18347769 Enjoy hell
If the Holy Spirit does not proceed from father AND son does that mean Greeks and orthodox are Arians then?
>>18347984Denial of the filioque does not necessarily imply heresy, for the Remonstrants removed it from the Creed on the grounds that they did not see it explicitly in scripture, not because they found it theologically objectionable. The Greek church however objects to it on the ground that it makes the Son equal to the Father, which convicts them of the heresy of Semi-Arianism.
Does anyone know what military uniform this is? For context, this is Chatham Roberdeau Wheat. He was an American soldier of fortune who served in the US Army and later the Confederate Army during the civil war. Between then, he served in the Mexican Army, The Italian Army under the Giuseppe Garibaldi and in the Walker filibuster in Nicaragua and in the Lopez filibuster in Cuba.
>>18348125Not sure what army this is, but in the ACW he commanded the original Louisiana Tigers, a bunch of dockworker thugs from New Orleans who had insane Zouave drip. Even the rest of the Army of Northern Virginia was afraid of them.
The Canaanite pagan goddess known by that name really isn't directly mentioned in the Bible, "Asherim" is a term for a type of pagan cultic object, translated "grove" in the KJV, that is probably tied to her worship, but as far as being specific about Canaanite goddess worship the Bible is far more interested in singling out Astarte, the Queen of Heaven.But there is a lot of talk online about a few archeological inscriptions taken as implying that the Israelites worshipped Asherah as the wife of YHWH. There is of course plenty of dispute about that reading of these inscription, but i have an interesting theory to add.Etymologically speaking Asherah is a feminine from of a Semitic word that means "happy" or "blessed", the same root the name of Asher comes from. In fact, the first time this word appears in the Bible at all is when explaining Asher's name in Genesis 30:13:>And Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name Asher.I looked at every other account of a son of Jacob being named in Genesis 29-30, and only in this one does the mother naming him say something to imply the Feminine from of his name could be an additional name for herself.Another use of this word, when the context implies it's being used in it's feminine form, is Malachi 3:12:>And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the LORD of hosts.The word for "delightsome" here is the core root that Hephzibah comes from, a poetic name for the Land of Israel in Isaiah 60.This ties into the them of Israel being in a sense collection the wife of YHWH, "Asharah" is among her poetic alternate names in that context. Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Then there's the Visitation, 41-48:>And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:>And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.>And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.If they were originally speaking Hebrew, it's plausible Asharah is the word for "blessed" they were using.This does NOT vindicate Catholic Marian veneration. It only further shows that Mary being an important woman from the Bible doesn't change that veneration of images of her are idolatry.
The pagan cultic objects would typically be idols of Asherah, similar to how idols are often referred to as “gods” because they are depictions of pagan gods. The evidence of the pagan Israelites worshipping a goddess named Asherah as a wife of Yahweh implies that at least some times the scripture is referring to this practice and condemning it.
Roman or Nordic phenotype? Why do Northern Italians have different features from other Italians?
>>18347987Maldini is some Slovenian mutt.>His father was born in Trieste, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Italy, and is usually said to have Slovenian ancestry. The surname Maldini was allegedly Italicized from Maldič/Mladič. >Paolo’s paternal grandmother was named Maria Vodeb.https://ethnicelebs.com/paolo-maldini
>>18348071
>>18348075
>>18348074It's not the cleaning that's funny, it's the other stuff. Tahnik means an adult chews on a date, then spits its juices into a child's mouth as though it's a feeding bird. And then, while Muhammed was doing that, the child pissed on him.
>>18347964>the Quran is the Word of Godnice joke mate but we've actually read it
>>18348071>>18348075Bro this shit is too funny
