Threads by latest replies - Page 10
Historical memeball thread
bullshit, the only right wing organization which such a color scheme is the Ukrainian right sector. in europe red and black are heavily associated with anarchism.
Germans are literate.
Learning? Sound more like will have another civil war
Hey /his/, do you know of any objectively written books on the historicity of Jesus and/or bible? Specifically ones that try to come at it from a third party perspective and report the facts without taking a stance. I've read the bible, so please don't suggest that.
Also looking for any and all first hand accounts of Jesus/Bible events. I don't want this to devolve into a "The bible is fact" vs. "Jesus isn't real" so please keep it to books and discussion of the contents of the books.
No. Apart from confirming Nero's persecution of Christians after 64AD (when Tacitus was a young boy, probably living in northern Italy), it only confirms that Tacitus knew the story the "hideous and shameful" early Christians promulgated and saw no particular reason to doubt the basic outline. He's obviously hazy about the whole thing, though, since he gets Pilate's rank wrong.
So, while this passage is evidence of a historical Jesus, it is neither a primary source nor absolute proof.
Further, Tacitus doesn't mention Jesus by name. This is more evidence that he is repeating stuff he knows about abominable Christians, their origins, and their beliefs, rather than stuff he knows to be historical fact.
Excuse me if this is a stupid question, but if Jesus didn't exist then how did Christianity manage to survive its early stages? There were plenty of Jewish apocalyptic preachers in the region at the time yet only the followers of Jesus seem to have made a serious impact. If he didn't exist (whether he was the Son of God is another matter) surely Christianity would have had a hard time gaining followers and would've died out pretty quickly instead of becoming the world's largest religion. It sounds so stupidly simple when I put it like that but I'm genuinely interested in some responses to this. I mean, was it really that easy just to make up some bullshit and spread it around?
It was likely a jewish mystery cult that opened it's doors to the goyim.
Of course, Roman slaves latched onto the idea of eternal life in return for faith, so christianity spread.
And they wouldn't go on to make a serious impact for decades after the original founding of Christianity, whether by Jesus or by someone else. And remember, Christianity was never that big among Judaism itself. Even in their own scriptures, Acts says there were about 120 families holding to the faith after years of preaching and about a yearish post Jesus's death. That's pretty much nothing.
Christianity only got big when you had Paul and his preaching to the gentiles.
I wonder if it's possible to do a 3x3 of our favorite flags, nations, or historical figures.
Why do they think they're superior when they stole their entire culture from the Chinese?
Why did you say Chinese? I think you mean the West
>>2583790 >European civilization came from Iraq
It came from Greece you dolt.
Greek civilization came from Persia.
>>2580882 >he post it. >Han Chinese (also called Han) (simplified Chinese: 汉族; traditional Chinese: 漢族; pinyin: hàn zú) is an ethnic group from China. 92% of the Chinese population and more than 97% of the Taiwanese population are Han. Out of the entire human population in the world, 19% are Han Chinese.
Your comment only makes sense if you either assume 1) Greece isn't in Europe or 2) Greece didn't get their civilization from somewhere else.
Both are equally retarded.
>There's this thing called the general will >It is the will of the people when taken collectively >It is distilled virtue >Except when it does things I don't like >Then it's not virtue >It's actually bad in that case Why did anyone ever take """"""""enlightenment""""""" philosophy seriously? Even a pseudo-scientific rambler like Aristotle could have destroyed this navel-gazing French faggot.
>>2582045 >A child before being born has nothing intrinsic with the quality of his genes
Do you mean in utero? Because you're wrong.
>We couldn't do shit about our genetic health up until like 20th century.
What are you talking about? We still can't do anything about it other than treat symptoms.
You need to check up on your reading comprehension if you think I implied "genes = randomness".
>>2581404 >rolling dice is true random
get a load of this guy
Wow dude I'm so smart I watched a Vsauce video
It's a dumb distinction and your semantics do not change what random means for statistics.
Statistics.of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
>>2581291 >I don't see why you're sad Bruce, you didn't have bad luck having your parents killed, it's all in your genes!
Is there a good book or volume of books on American history that covers everything from the Revolution to more modern times? Looking for something without a modern liberal "evil white colonialism" bent, if possible
Go back to the primary sources.
I'm not an American so I don't really know where to start with that...
It's not complete but its a series of books from multiple academics meant to cover the expanse of American History.
A couple of the books in the series won Pulitzer's. I've read all the books they have out except for "Grand Expectations" and they were all definitely worth my time. Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War is especially good.
I'd say the Oxford History of the United States series but some of them get pretty heavy in their biases: the one on foreign policy getting increasingly liberal as it goes on for instance or Howe's hatred of Jackson and worship of the Whigs and the British vs. the Democrats and United States in What Hath God Wrought?.
yea reading freedom from fear right now and I'm liking it a lot
Have there ever been any historical example of children actively fighting in war Pre-WW1.
The US Civil War. Children as young as 8 were employed in various roles. 8 year olds were called "powder monkeys" on ships because they delivered black powder to the cannons iirc... There were a lot of roles like the drummer boy and such that a small child could take and travel with the regiment and experience combat. The number of child soldiers during the US Civil War was in the tens of thousands I believe.
Children weren't even considered children until the mid 1800s.
Young children would perform non-combat roles tied to an army, young teens would be eligible to participate in combat. Child soldiers as we see them today are relatively new and are only viable because of modern weapons.
I believe after the defeat at Cannae, boys as young as 13-14 were conscripted into the Roman army. Whether as support troops like slingers or velites, or whether they were drafted as hastati, I don't remember. It was pretty logical sadly, a huge portion of the Roman older middle and upper class were cut down in the fields by Hannibal's army in one fell swoop. It's partially a reason why someone as young as Scipio was able to take such a high command.
Something that amazes me about that is that Scipio rallied in Sicily and defeated the Carthaginians at Zama over a decade after Cannae. That means that the sons of those who fell at Cannae could've fought there. It sounds like something out of a fantasy novel, the sons of Rome avenging their fathers and winning the war that closest there ever was to Rome being destroyed in a single decisive battle.
It's a tale of family traditions
>Hamilcar Barca gets pissed at Rome winning 1st Punic war >Hannibal and Hadsrubal swear revenge and start the 2nd Punic War >Scipio Africanus and his father fight in 2nd Punic War, Scipio defeats Hannibal at Zama >Scipio Aemilianus burns Carthage to the ground in 3rd Punic war
>they wouldn't possibly invade through belgium! >well they wouldn't possibly invade through belgium a second time! Was it autism?
It's because there were dense forests in the way through belgium, so the french expected that Hitler would not take that route, and were swiftly proven wrong.
so it was autism then
Yeah, because the enemy is retarded and wouldn't concentrate their forces too right in the bottleneck you are trying to break and pass through.
if they would have fortificated the area around belgium just as much Germany would have ignored Belgium and the meme would be that France invested in fortificating that area which was never invaded instead of investing in anything else that would have helped them
The Maginot Line did its job. Even the Germans that came at it from the rear had some difficulty in assaulting it.
The real failure was in how the British and French were prepared for the fight. The French military was fairly modern in equipment. Yet it was still organized and run by WW1 mindset leaders.
why aren't there many comprehensive books about art history?
in comparison, philosophy has lots of different series about various fields and individual philosophers you can find dozens of academic books about say, Kant or Aristotle or phenomenology but very little about Rembrandt or Poussin or impressionism for art, there are a few textbooks for art history as a whole, but that's about as much depth as you can get
what are you smoking OP? maybe you can't access free books on art history, but there is still tons of scholarship on all those things you mention. that said, I think a part of the problem is that a lot of these works are also in french, italian and german, making a lot of scholarship inaccessible to us anglophone normies.
these seem like pretty good evidence to me:
the fact that you couldn't even think of one example of this scholarship says a lot
If you are sincerely interested in impressionism then this Met catalog would be of interest.
>>2584432 >the fact that you couldn't even think of one example of this scholarship says a lot
I'm not sure if that was an insult or not... but anyway I'm not trying to get into an argument and I never pretended to know anything about art historical scholarship.
All I'm saying is that there are plenty of art historians out there, but libgen usually favors english books so a lot of international scholarship might be missing. And if you asking for art history books or you want me to provide you a list of scholars to prove my point, I don't mind doing so; it's just that I wouldn't have read any of them.
Was the First World War truly an unjust war?
I'm very new to The Great War, but it seems to me that the English defense of Belgium was perfectly warranted - but again I'm totally new to this.
>>2584193 >1 in 4 russians had a musket then everyone else had a knife if they were lucky
>>2584193 >Russia did a dumb thing by attacking Germany in 1913
but did they seek to protect, by power, an ethos which german domination would have meant the end of?
Those comments made me wanna kms