/his/ - History

I'd probably be beaten up by the Jets

TUNNEL SNAKES RULE

U

N

N

E

L

S

N

A

K

E

S

R

U

L

E

>>23146

YEAH!

FUCK YOUR STUPID SHIT AMATA!

The big example I recall was the Ottoman Empire. I believe the other powers essentially took over its internal finances and taxation.

There was massive amounts of debt for many European countries after the Napoleonic wars though I don't really know much about the consequences of this

>How did the other powers/great powers at that time handle the default?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_Spain#Economy

In his defense one can argue that inflation had not been theorized for that time, since nobody ever had faced such a gargantuan amount of gold and precious metals. In order to maintain the continuous state of war for the spanish crown, the solution was to mint, mint, mint, mint, and ask his italian vassals and imperial bankers for loans. The time arrived when that policy indebted the crown even more and made it less reliable for investments. A handy characteristic of being an absolute king swimming on gold was that once defaulted he could afford to just not to care and keep on warring the heathens worldwide.

One funny side effect is that this conduct propelled the spanish dollar to become the first world standard currency. The sad side effect is that nobody knows about the spanish dollar.

>>22724

British have only just started paying off the costs of the Napoleonic Wars

There's one or two good Islam/Middle East focused threads in the catalog I think, so you could also see if you get some replies there. But I'll try my best.

Unfortunately I don't think there's any good study of the subject, mostly because the concept is something thrown around by popular science enthusiasts and limited to obscure undergrad papers in history departments if ever discussed at all.

The big players like Kennedy and Crone are all more interested in politics and sociology as a whole, and metaphysics if they ever approach the subject of philosophy and theology rather than a specific thing like the philosophy of science. Maybe it's a hole just waiting to be filled, or maybe they've all realized that there is no clean answer and that the downfall of science in the Middle East is just one consequence out of many of the shifting political and theological changes of the middle ages which can't really be qualified in some cause-effect relationship.

But I've put my mind to the question, and if pressed I'd say it was because of:

1) The widening gap between Muslim society and their political leadership, compartmentalizing the relationship of state and religion as one where a governor is merely the guardian of an antinomian Islamic order/people and the prosecutor of Jihad against infidels and heretics.

2) The growing hostility of what eventually became the Sunni revival where divergent theosophical practices that didn't tightly follow the Quran-reading to Hadith-school pipeline were publicly denounced and suppressed by manipulating political rulers into action or else inciting mob violence.

3) The loss of urbanization in North Africa, Syria, Iraq, and Iran due to several waves of Beduoin, Berber, and Turkic migrations as well as the loss of agricultural productivity, which combined with the separation of a Muslim middle class from the bureaucracy of the state led to a fall in a once prosperous knowledge economy.

4) The invasion, destruction and ultimately isolation of the major centers of Islamic scholarship, sucPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>18965

Awesome, thanks for the reply. If there's such a paucity of sources, I hope you don't mind if I pick your brain some more, going point by point:

1) Why would this have a deleterious effect on the progress of science? I can think of a few hypotheses, but I'd rather hear from someone who's formed a coherent argument for it.

2) When did this movement start to take off?

3)

4) Why were Al-Andalus, Sicily, and Khwarezm such important centers of knowledge? Some of it could be chalked up to interaction with outsiders and thus increased curiosity (feels weak to me though), some of it to simple accidents of history. But I feel like there's some better explanation.

Sorry to do so much asking and so little contributing of my own.

>>19111

1) Muslim education and scholarship was supported in large part by patronage and a knowledge economy. You learned to read the Quran, then you found yourself a master-teacher to impart his specialty knowledge such as hadith, linguistics, poetry, or philosophy, then you set out to search for more teachers. You made a name for yourself publishing books, then you hopefully find yourself a noble patron of the arts or else take up an administrative post to support yourself, becoming another master-teacher. But if you had a nobility that didn't share your culture (let's say foreign Central Asian turkics with mustaches, no beards, long braids, and a need to find legitimacy to support what is essentially an usurpation of traditional authority from Classical sources like the Caliph), then they wouldn't care much for supporting you in order to impress the other upper class families. If you're a religious man, you might take offense in general to their existence as a deviation from the holy order, and refuse to take up an administrative position in the regime. Soon the bureaucracy are full of non-Muslims and foreigners, and you're only further convinced you won't find either piety or culture or intellectualism. So you become a NEET and live a life of >tfw no qt hadith female teacher/student.

2) In some ways since the 8th century, but it wasn't really dominant until the Seljuks who, for the above mentioned reasons, fully supported a program of intense Sunnification and crackdown of all heterodoxy in order to challenge the spiritual and political influence of the Fatimids. At the same time the stagnation and losses at the borders of Islam stirred up an end-times zeal at the tribal fringes of the Muslim world, such as in the Maghreb with the rise of the puritanical Almoravids, the first (Sunni) expression of Mahdism and militant fundamentalism. Finally, the conquests of the Southern Europeans and Franks into North Africa, Spain and the Levant followed by the Mongols furthered a siege mentality (capitalized by rising dynasts like the Ayyubids and Seljuk successors)

4) Surprisingly, it had less to do with outsiders and more to do with the evolution of the warrior-scholar tradition. During the chaos of Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23226

This.

With the discovery of America and with the first sea trade route between India and Europe in 1469 the Middle Eastern civilizations quickly decayed.

Also the conquest of Constantinople didn't help either, since it was the link between eastern and western world.

>>23118

There were some development in the context of Japan's own culture, like increased emphasis in its own arts, so the period was not completely devoid of advancements per se. Certainly by adopting more European sciences Japan probably would have been more advanced, at least militarily in the immediate by embracing more gunpowder weaponry and maybe construct star forts and the likes. But you have to remember that the Sengoku Jidai devastated the entire country for well over a century and a half, The Tokugawa Shogunate's anti foreigner policies (which the foreigner no contact policy was officially enacted by Tokugawa Ieyasu's grandson, mind you) were among other policies, to make sure that such a devastating conflict doesn't happen again by rebelling vassals. Said vassals could obtains foreign weapons or aid, etc, and that has been a concern even during Hideyoshi's reign when in fact he was the first to enact limits against foreigners. Therefore, since the actual ban on contact with foreigners in Japan was so far removed from Oda Nobunaga's generation, it doesn't preclude the idea of an Oda shogun adopting the same anti foreigner policy down the line, and Tokugawa merely followed the precedence set by Hideyoshi and continued along a pragmatic route to maintain national stability.

>>23127

This

Both Christianity and Judaism are very resistant to outside assimilation and conversion

Progress was very slow due to that policy, but beacuse of that japan's didn't become puupet state of westerners which s more important

>would an Oda Shogunate have been better than a Tokugawa

Depends on what your ideal Japan looks like.

The Tokugawa clan brought stability to an island wrecked and ravaged by war. Life was pretty good for the people of Japan under the Tokugawa's leadership.

Nobunaga has great ambitions and I believe he had plans to invade both Korea and China. Life for peasants might have been worse if they had to constantly supporting his wars.

Off the top of my head, I remember they traded guns and booze for land, which they then really regretted. This led to some tribes fighting back and getting wiped out and a series of massacres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians

I also vaguely remember them becoming Christian so the British attacked them on Sunday when they were praying.

>>23135

https://press.anu.edu.au/titles/aboriginal-history-journal/

38 volumes, all freely available as pdf, published by australian national university.

>Abbo history

kek

>>23141

>I also vaguely remember them becoming Christian so the British attacked them on Sunday when they were praying.

That's a depressing scene to imagine…

>>23142

Great stuff! Thank you!

Go for it, if e-celebs can make books about how to make a movie why can't you make a detailed book about history? Just make it good.

Independent research can get published but it's hard, mostly because independent scholars tend to lack the contacts and immersion necessary to know what is currently buzzing in academia and to be familiar with the historiography on their subject.

If you are at the point that you have a completed "thesis" you should know at least some major academics in your field, because you've probably read their books and back-and-forths in journals. Why not try contacting some of them? Just to ask about your research in general terms, to learn about the field, make sure you're on the right tracks, etc. If you have a local university, you could try finding relevant scholars there and emailing them to request a meeting (I imagine most would be like "OK why not" and just tell you to come during their office hours), or looking into any organisations that are available for junior scholars to get their work out there. Worst case scenario you'll realise that you're not as far along as you think you are.

If all else fails, you can submit your work for peer review like anybody else. Again, it's unlikely you'll get far, but that's mostly in the sense that statistically speaking your work probably sucks. The vast majority of people can barely do good work from WITHIN grad school, so you'd have to be pretty damn precocious. But if you put two years of work into the thing, it sounds like you might know your shit, so I say follow your dreams, faggot.

Journals are one thing but I don't know how you'd go about querying a scholarly press. If you're talking about a monograph length study, I mean. I think journal peer reviews have to be anonymous during the process, so reviewers don't give a free pass to famous scholars, but a major publisher is probably going to be wary as fuck about taking chances on independents without some sign that you are legit.

Post blog, please.

Also, try it. The worst that can happen is rejection.

>>22855

If someone like John Green can be taken seriously then its obvious so can you.

>>23013

Read this.

>>23009

>>23011

Is Gustav Adolf (and his horde of looting, raping mercenaries) even viewed as a hero in the modern day, though? He was just the Phyrrus of his day. Highly regarded because he killed Catholics (and everyone else that got in his men's way), but the Protestant-Catholic rivalry has been dead for ages.

>>23016

Oh yeah, napoleon is a dick for that.

>>23009

>the stronger party doesn't have the right to dictate terms to the weaker party

The lack of the owl of Athena as a flag is disappointing.

>>23032

holy shit, that ending though, I was expecting a heroic victory

>>17873

>History + beer drinking jocks

Did you base this assumption on his front page?

>>21068

>when I first saw the cover for the Blueprint series, I thought it was a DLC for one of those modern shooters

Don't know how you came to that conclusion: the subjects on those covers aren't "le mysterious anonymous soldier" enough.

Heard of him by way of Joe Rogan and I listened to his Mongol series

Holy shit the guys great. I love history but I need it fed to me in an entertaining way so Dan Carlin is perfect for me

>>22972

He says some dumb shit in that too, though. Like claiming that they were better warriors because they fought the Chinese, which were more advanced. No, they defeated the Chinese just as easily and most of China was ruled by Steppe people for that reason.

>>22700

So then we'll have the Indonesians and Thai ruling over the world? Meh

>>22800

Because a ruler claiming to be the successor of Muhammad is going to rule over a secular state.

>>22980

>successor of Muhammad

In fact, Caliph for much of the Umayyad and early Abbasid dynasty really meant Deputy of God, with successor being a vulgarization around the Fatimid and Almoravid/Almohad period.

>>22958

>the Egyptians thought the brain produced mucus, and thus why they were not placed in canopic jars

Can you clarify the logic behind this? Was mucus considered unclean? Was producing mucus a function unworthy of being conserved for the afterlife? Did they think the jars would explode because of the excess of mucus?

>>23005

>Was mucus considered unclean?

I would believe it was more unnecessary than unclean

>Was producing a mucus a function unworthy of being conserved for the afterlife?

Most likely

>Did they think the jars would explode because of the excess of mucus?

If they did then that's even more reason to not bury it

Well, due to colonisation, I am guessing warfare would be more the weaponry that was used in Europe at the time. Although,Arabic states were very fond of cavalry so I'm guessing rifle-cavalry?

Like I said, these are just guesses

The nature of Middle Eastern states at this time meant you normally had a foreign or ethnically distinct minority government run as a military court/household, meaning the army consisted of an elite core of ethnic kin or foreign mercenaries. The rest were tribal regiments whose inclusion or expulsion from the army was as much politics as it was military expediency.

Cavalry was a big deal, with artillery mostly immobile inside cities until it was time for a big campaign.

>>22979

>india between the 17th and 19th centuries

I found this essay on the army of the Mughal Empire:

https://archive.org/details/armyofindianmogh00irvirich

I haven't read it, but it looks pretty thorough. Enjoy.

>>22907

>My Middle English is indeed shit, but that's irrelevant, because 1. people weren't speaking Middle English in the 16th century, and 2. The poem is real. Its from a book called Batman vppon Bartholome.

YWRECCED

W

R

E

C

C

E

D

So what's this poem actually about? Tell us more.

>>22922

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Batman

It seems to just be a poem Batman wrote about himself for the intro. The book itself is kind of like an encyclopedia.

>>22893

>>22894

>>22895

>>22896

>>22897

Bravo/10

>>22907

Early modern whatever brah

>>22848

>you mean infantry attacks right?

I kind of mentioned it in the very first sentence

A lot of the 21st century stuff is counter insurgency and small scale operations, you could check out the counter insurgency manual by Leroy thompson or look up some essays about iraq or kosovo there should be some out there, David Kilcullen is also a rather intersting author on the topic of modern warfare but his work are mostly about the development of insurgent warfare.

>>22784

I don't think the Emperor bloody allows it!

>>22373

it's in the guidelines

>3. Upon discussion, no consensus was reached as to what should be considered the limit of "history". I'd advise avoiding discussing things beyond the fall of the Soviet Union- seems to me a good cutoff- but provided you don't attempt to make it a /pol/ thread in disguise, you should be able to get away with threads about events until some 10 years before the present year.

Although I would refute that it's still within 10 years ago if you count from 2000-2005.

>>21437

As far as the thread goes, I believe it all started with WTC being bombed and I'm going to stop there. It led to undue excess as what this anon said >>21568.

>>22807

>WTC being bombed

Correction, having a plane crash to it.

>>22798

The Emperor is nothing more than a puppet.

>>22782

They are the second method of measuring national cock size, the first being how many nukes you have.

When the world powers start swinging their cocks around, the size of their sky scrapers is obviously factored in. Now, uncle Sam has what can only be described as a fucking humongous elephant cock thanks to that nuclear stockpile and some pretty tall sky scrapers; so he basically wins everything by default. For now. But thankfully most other nations aren't interested in making a national cock large enough to fuck the whole world; they just want to fuck most of it.

So. Since most nations don't have a fuckhuge nuclear stockpile, they need the next most phallic thing to big explosions. And that thing is tall, proud, towering constructions of steel and glass, tearing at the sky and standing in defiance of nature, pointing to the heavens which will one day belong to us; skyscrapers.

How does this avoid war? Well, the fact is, countries go to war far more often than you might think. Often nations will scramble their jets and their bombers and send them off to go bomb the cities of their enemies. But just as those tall beautiful buildings appear on the horizon, they know. "Oh fuck. Their cock is bigger than ours." As their pride wilts and falls flaccid with shame, they can do little more but turn around and head home, tears in their eyes, wishing they were just a little bit bigger so that they could confidently cock slap their enemies. Crisis averted; sky scrapers save humanity from global annihilation yet again. Thanks sky scrapers.

Explains a lot, doesn't it? For instance, why the US can fuck with anybody else, and why very few people will fuck with UAE.

>>22802

>Shame they never really got past the slavic kingdoms it would have been interesting to see them go up against HRE

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Poland

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi

>>22802

i thought they were laying siege to vienna at some point?

Comparing one city tied to a tiny culture snowballing into a huge long lasting empire with a much larger group of nomads assimilating each other's forces within a short span of time? It's not like Mongols controlled the empire by themselves.

>>Nobody ever conquered Russia in winter

>The Mongols did

There was no Muscovy, let alone a Russia.

>Nobody ever came back from sending troops in China

>The Mongols did

No? They got assimilated. Just like all the other invader dynasties. They are dime a dozen in Chinese history and none of them came back.

Mongs got spanked shamefully by Mamluks, who showcased the dinkiness of their arms and horses. Mongs' whole schtick was massing an outlandish unit type that was mostly unknown to and/or hard to deal with for agrarian civilisations. And it wasn't by design, it was simply the way their surroundings shaped them. Without that they'd stay in their steppes and remain obscure hobos.

He can be attributed with the rise of a centralized France, turning them into the premier world super power of the time until the rise of Britain.

so he's a prty kewl dude

>>20486

Also, this is one of my favouite paintings despite the romanticism.

>>22788

>super power

That word doesn't mean what you think it means. France has never at any time been a "premier world super power". At the height of France's power, they had to sell their remaining American colonies to the USA because they had no way of defending them or raising money from them.

>>22792

France had continental ambitions which was the total opposite of Britain's thalassocracy.

>>22826

Super Power implies global reach. European Hegemon is not the same thing at all. And, of course, the period of France's greatness overlaps heavily with Britain's (and Russia's).

>>22852

You're right, but it's a bit of a pedantic argument. In that context, the meaning is clear, even though France has only been a Great power.

If I'm not mistaken, there are only three historical superpowers: British Empire, USA and Russia. Indeed this makes >>22788 even more clear, because it's obvious that referring to 17th century France as a "superpower" is but a (sloppy?) hyperbole.