Japanese culture is just a cargo cult of Tang Dynasty Chinese culture.
That's not true, they aped a lot from Korea too.
>>17283044I mean European culture is a cargo cult of Greco-Roman civilization.
>>17283044>cargo cultNobody ever uses this properly.
>tells the Hungarians to fuck off with their "compromise"Now what? What are the huns gonna do?
>>17281914No
>>17281914FPBP
>>17282314>>17281914>Russians literally side with the Austrians and destroys all hope of Hungarian victory in 1849Oh no no no
>>17281914this but with Italy and Germany
>>17281914Either France or Prussia, Russia hated the idea of liberals. >>17281573Hungarians had been assimiliating well into Austro-German society for centuries, had the compromise never happened and liberals shot, Hungary would be Germanized by ww1, it would still become independant but would be under a weird limbo state as Ireland is today where they reject being Austrians and Germanic but speak a German tongue as their native language
Why didn't they kill this dude?
>>17282981child's play compared to de Gaulle or Castro
>>17282829>Get btfo'd by the untermench so hard you have to beg your underlings to burn you to a crisp after you blow your brains out cos you don't want to have them touch your corpseKWAB bro didn't want his corpse to be studied and shown to be no different than a jews
>>17282829Fun fact, he was austro-hungarian.
>>17282829Who is “they”?
he was more useful to the allies alive than dead
Outside of Vlad Tepes what is Romania's history like?
>>17279856>Dacian Ooga Boogas (I swear we are totally the same people)>Conquered and raped by Trajan (WE WUZ ROMANS despite only being 1.5 centuries under Roman rule)>Invaded and raped for 8 centuries straight by Goths, Slavs, Avars, Bulgars, Cumans, Hungarians and Mongols (we don't talk about it)>Hungarian king grants some shepherd rednecks lands beyond the carpatians to be their buffer against the mongols (We were always living in Transylvania)>Ottomans come and rape them, some inbred prince tries to be le epin impaler edgelord but gets killed too (He is our Dracula)>Spent the next 3 centuring as the sultan's bitches (At least we got to be autonomous...)>Become independent thanks to the Russians, country is such a mutt they have to invent a new roman larp identity (Not a single drop of slavic influence)>Enters ww1, get shit kicked in, only wins by rejoining the war on winning side last second (We finally won something)>Spent the interwar as GREATER ROMANIA, yet still end up as a poor corrupt fascistic dictatorship like the rest of europe (It was the Jews who ehhhh did something bad i guess)>Enter ww2, get shit kicked in, only """wins""" by rejoining the war on the winning side (at least we switched ahead of time)>Become Communist hellhole, have one of the worst dictators on the eastern bloc (He was one of our greatest patriots!)>Dictator gets lynched by his own people, shit the bed during the decommunization (Let me vote for the Social Democrats then migrate to Germany)>Join EU, be one of the worst performing countries in the union in most statistics (At least Bulgaria is doing worse than us...)
>raped by magyars>raped by germans>raped by turks>raped by russians>still somehow latinxthat's basically it
>>17279856Hungarian
>>17279856>>17280515only about 5 cities in Romania look decent and they're all Saxon/Austro-Hungarian
>>17283003they also got raped by mongols and tatars.
Do you believe that a virgin gave birth to a magic jew that flew around on a magic cloud?
>>17282849Rome fell in 476. If we take the when Christianity was made the official religion in 380, then that's only 96 years.
The christards are REALLY mad in this one
>>17282921Why do you think that I am a Christian?
>>17279659>virginThe word is "pathenon".
>>17283069*Parthenon
Manchus were a bunch of scum
you mean were based?
The Confederates were one-hundred percent correct vis a vis the constitution and the only reason people don't support them is because of the institution of slavery being the rallying point behind their constitutional arguments. 1. The United States is a federal compact. It is so fundamentally retarded to believe otherwise. The fedgov is a creation of the states, not the other way around. 2. Constitutionally, there was no precedent or argument to ban specific types of property from federally administered territories. Only when those territories voted to become states could they have the sovereignty to ban specific types of property.3. The right of secession is fundamentally implied in the 10th Amendment, several states on ratifying the Constitution only did so with secession clauses in their assemblies that voted for ratification, and a federal compact implies secession anyway even if the 10th Amendment didn't exist.
the law is whatever can be reasonably argued and plausibly maintained, you can make all the arguments you want but that's only half the equation.the north had the factories.
>>17282615by that logic its pointless to have any laws or regulations to begin with, if it all just boils down to might makes right.surely some objective moral truths must exist, and if they do, surely law must be derived from them and force can never make the contrary legal, only de facto.
>>17282645That's sort of the trick isn't it? No matter how much we pretend to live in a civil society with laws and traditions, it really is just might makes right. If you don't have the power or agency to do something, it doesn't happen.
>>17282605The first change the confederates made to the constitution was that the government couldn't print money
>>17282605>10th amendment>"... or to the people">Lincoln/congress calls for a popular vote / plebiscite>D*xoids lose because three fifths cheat codes don't work IRL>Slavery is now illegalOut fucking skilled.>a federal compact implies secession anyway even if the 10th Amendment didn't existcite it then.You won't because you'll be too busy screeching at me for daring to suggest that people, actual people and not slaver scum, have a right to vote in the US.
Vgh, imagine being a Black cavalryman in 1681 and crushing the skull of an ugly iberian hooknosed portuguese rapebaby mutt with your horse as he begs for his life.
>>17281072>>17281124>negros>riding horses>being relevantlol
>>17281223This happened though. Do you want me to post that account of Black Africans raiding the portuguese settlement in the 1690s , raping everyone and smashing the heads of ugly portuguese mutts into trees? Doing that was awesome btw, and it was repeated by Black African Angolans in 1960s-1975
>>17281268
So basically, 500 Portuguese landed in Africa, tamed a few thousands local nogs and attacked the nearest "powerful kangzdom"As for the battle, it was actually a pyrric victory for the Portuguese>Despite taking the field, which had never been an objective in the first place, the Portuguese losses were such that the invasion of Matamba's capital was called off. After encamping at Katole for nearly thirty days, the Portuguese and their African allies retired to Mbaka under the command of João António de Brito.[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Katole
>>17281223Cavalry was pretty common in the Sahel and the horn
why do we believe the ancient sources when they claim army sizes? It makes no sense that rome and china were deploying napoleonic age sized armies in the 2nd century BC
>>17282830not herodotus no, but I think OP was talking more about stuff like the punic wars where the romans are recorded to have fielded armies of 80,000 and shit like that
>>17282846some (not all) ancient sources give breakdowns of army sizes which specify what people were armed with, e.g. X with spears, Y on horses, Z amount of slingers, etc. and still end up with incredible figures. Just off the top of my head, herodotus spends pages itemising each different part of the persian army and their numbers, even separately enumerating those involved in logistics iirc.obviously herodotus is not a good example because that's the one instance where kind of everybody agrees it wasn't that big but this seems to be a thing that greek sources didroman sources tend not to do this and will just boil everything down into "a legion" vs "a horde of unwashed barbarians" and rarely bother giving any kind of numbers for either. Obviously when they give numbers for the barbarian hordes that includes all sorts of non combatants. Some battlefields are recorded to have had the women and children show up too
>>17282785>it doesn't make sense that sub-continent spanning empires with an extreme cultural focus on bureaucracy and logistics would field orders of magnitude more men than piddleshit petty kingdoms whose influence barely extends 100km away from the capitalReally?>but napoleonic France..Had less than half the population of peak Rome and Han.
revisionists downsize the traditional reports of population size and military strength based on projections from archaeology and their own ideas about what agriculture must have been like at the timebut that's bullshit because archaeology only has access to a small remnant of what once was, their data is incomplete, and most of these people don't come from traditionally agricultural backgroundsthere were a lot more people alive in the distant past than they are willing to admit, entire populations totally forgotten to time
>>17282830>no one's taking their numbers on faithI am.
>BUT MUH OLD TESTAMEEEEENT>BUT MUH SLAVERYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYThere's nothing wrong with God regulating slavery because slavery isn't inherently evil.There, simple. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
>>17282659How about a different word like considerate or liberal? Loving just doesn't make sense if its before you have a free will
>>17282764>The Greeks and the Romans considered free non-Whites people, and I already brought up free Blacks in slave-holding America. You're just wrongThere were some occasional bouts of experimentation with the idea of considering non whites people but they always ended poorly, Rome for example collapsed because of being an early adopter of multiculturalism. Then relative stability and white hegemony for over a thousand years until european states gradually began to again flirt with the dangerous idea of broadening the definition of people, and even American too eventually succumbed to the heresy. The world now suffers the consequences of such an unwise policy. What you see as progressive egalitarianism is in fact the dangerous destruction of civilizations because they are only bound together by the will of those that create them.
>>17282773>Rome for example collapsed because of being an early adopter of multiculturalismI'm sure you've heard this statement be repeated a lot, I guess that makes it true>What you see as progressive egalitarianism is in fact the dangerous destruction of civilizationsI am not a progressive nor do I believe in egalitarianism; I simply made the point that slavery is incompatible with an all-loving God (as the term is commonly understood)
>>17282783But slavery is not incompatable with an all-loving God. God gave the world white people because he loves the world, and he gave white people his son because they are his and he loves them most. To each their own, etc. You not getting the love you think you deserve is not disproof that God loves you in the way you deserve. A child needs not see it as does the father.
if slavery is inherently evil, it follows that there must be some objective universal standard that can judge the merits of individuals, acts, and institutionsthere is no other standard that meets this definition but God himself
I am currently doubting the authenticity and existence of Jesus as a historical person and even more so as the son of God, a miracle worker and his death and subsequent resurrection, the same with God, saints, angels, paradise and other related things.So to all those who had a similar crisis, how did you manage to reaffirm your faith and eliminate the doubts and uncertainties of God, Jesus, the holy scriptures and christianity?
>>17281646>You can rest assured that Jesus Christ totally existed historicallyAnd where is your evidence to make that claim?
>>17282682>And where is your evidence to make that claim?Historical consensus among academics.
>>17282918So garbage>>17282682It was revealed to me in a dream
>>17279433> the historical authenticity of Jesus is historiographically settled>virtually all mention comes from the Gospels which greatly contradict each other and add more things with the newer ones that the older ones didn't have>Mentions outside of Christianity are widely believed to be back dated editions added in hundreds of years later e.g. Josephus mentioning him while Origen writes lamenting the fact that Josephus never mentioned him, which leads researchers to believe that that part was added in past Origen's time>tfw you realize virtually all of human history is like this, just fake and gay. Written either by the victors or by resentful losers in an ancient form of memetics that, like memes of today, take on lives of their own and grow into something wildly different than the original intent they once had>Christianity itself started as a mystery messianic Jew cult taking heavy inspiration from middle Platonism in an attempt to overthrow the Pharisees as the dominant Jewish sect in Judea, eventually became the dominant force of all of Europe with the view of Jesus being changed from being just a philosophical anthropomorphic representation of the logos into a physical "of the flesh" magical Jew that used fear tactics of Heaven and Hell to spread "the word" by the swordtl;dr history is fake and gay, always has been.
>>17282953Hey, if historical consensus means so little to you, then I'm gonna go ahead and say the Exodus did happen, plus the flood while we're at it.
There's a interesting legend associated with Napoleon that he was advised by some type of scarlet spirit of destiny. I recently came up with a interesting theory that this little red man is actually supposed to be Cardinal Richelieu. Now I don't mean that it was literally Richelieu from beyond the grave, although I suppose that's possible as well. What I think is that the little red man was a symbol which predated Napoleon, and that the creature was based off of the Cardinal. The being has a red motif, is associated with the persecution of Huguenots, and advises the Monarchs of France; fits pretty well with Richelieu. I believe that the legend spread orally amongst French Protestants before being adopted into the mainstream as Propaganda against Bonaparte. The only hole in my theory is that the red man is associated with theTuileries palace, which may place a oral origin to before Richelieu was born.
>litte red manthis is actually a motif from folktales, kind of obscure nowit became associated with the devil over time
Vertibros...
>>17281455thats because they live in your walls
Livestocks have somehow damaged earth to a ridiculous degree and Brazilians/Africans want Cows to eat the rest of the planet's unique environments for some god forsaken reason
imagine the biomass of plants and bacteria.
>>17281430It's surprising that the cricket build works despite every other nocturnal animal specing in to max stealth. Not quite sure how they pull it off.
>>17281430That cricket/grasshopper should actually be a Beetle. Something like 40% of all terrestrial arthropods, and 25% of all terrestrial animal species, are beetles.
>The new FDR administration embarked on several currency reforms including removing the dollar from the gold standard and switching to purely fiat currency. In addition the administration retired paper notes greater than $100 in denomination. This included the $500 bill, which depicted President William McKinley, the $1,000 bill, depicting President Grover Cleveland, the $5,000 bill, depicting President James Madison, and the $10,000 bill, depicting President Woodrow Wilson. None of these large denomination notes were significantly missed since they were seldom seen in general circulation and were most often limited to inter-bank transfers. Since 1934 the $100 bill has been the largest US unit of currency in circulation and accounts for 70% of all paper notes the government prints annually.[9]
>>17282574>out of plastic god no, that shit would be annoying to carry around
That was only a couple years after they adopted the modern small-sized paper notes which appeared in the 1920s and replaced the large, bulky ones that had been used since the introduction of paper currency during the Civil War. Until that time most people carried coins around rather than those clumsy pre-1927 paper notes.
Wilson was on the $10,000, the biggest was the $100,000 bill that had Salmon Chase on it.
I suppose getting rid of those big bills was seen as a way to cut down on bank robberies which were extremely common in that era and banks didn't stand to lose as much cash in a robbery if the largest denomination was $100.
The other major currency reform had been back in 1857 when foreign currencies were made no longer legal tender in the US and had to exchanged for the appropriate amount of US currency--yes, in the early decades of the nation European currencies like the British pound and Spanish real were perfectly valid spending money and often used as the US Mint lacked the ability to make enough coins to handle commerce needs (there were no paper notes until the Civil War). By the 1850s the Mint was able to make enough coins that this ceased to be an issue. Further, quarters, half dollars, and silver dollars in the pre-1857 period were generally only used for bank transfers and not in general circulation that much so most people only had the smaller denomination coins.
Why did the Al-Andalusians adopt European-style armor and cavalry warfare, while the Ottomans did not? By the mid-13th century, the Andalusians had fully adopted European armor and knightly warfare, with their cavalry becoming nearly identical to their Christian adversaries. However, the Ottomans chose to stick to their traditional emphasis on horse archers and utilized a mix of half-plate and mail armor. Even though elite Ottoman units like the Kapıkulu cavalry combined horse archery with shock tactics effectively, they never fully adopted European-style full plate armor or fielded a cavalry force resembling European knights. The Ottomans utilized Serbian knights in battles such as Nicopolis (1396) and Ankara (1402), where these knights in full plate armor distinguished themselves in combat. This shows the Ottomans clearly recognized the effectiveness of such heavy cavalry. Combining knights in full plate with their other forces—such as their Janissaries and Kapıkulu cavalry—could have been a powerful strategy. Yet they still chose not to adopt European armor on a wider scale. Why was this the case?
>>17281525Andalusians were largely european converts so it was more natural idk
>>17281525Because andalusians hired Castilian, Portuguese, French, Basque and Aragonese mercenaries in mass scale, to great extenct they were not people of war so they did prefer to pay others to fight for them
>>17281626But these are specifecly Andalusian troops in eurpean armor. Not just mercs
>>17281614I gues, but why would'nt the Ottomans somwhat adopt full plate armor. The closest I know they did was that some Kapikulu sipahis would adopt cuirasses (Plus some guys taking armor of dead knigts after battles)
>>17281525Knights become irrelevant in the age cannons and modern standing armies like janissaries and Ottomans didn't need to adopt European style knight warfare because they constantly btfo heavy armoured Europeans with light armour steppe Mongol tactics
