/his/ - History

Shit I almost forgot.

/islam/ called dibs on Saladin so we need somebody else to replace him with. Maybe Emporer Justitiam to go with >>25396

>>24950

I'd like to say I'm sorry. I did jump the gun a bit there.

>>26441

Man I love /his/, people apologize and civilly discuss things.

>>26442

fuck you

>>26419

If Saladins out, how about Ismail I with a little Qizilbash hat. what says /his/?

>>26453

Whenever I hear of the Darien Scheme, I want to belief that this actually is a theater comedy that some bloke mistakenly put into a history book.

But other than that the Roanoke colony comes to mind, as well as countless others that will never be remembered in history books because no-one survived to tell the tale.

>>26533

The SNP has been going for decades and they panicked when asked the relatively simple question of "what currency will you use?". If they came into power Scotland would be fucked.

>>23770

>The HRE was formed in the 900s.

And those annals were written in the 1000s. Also the pretension of being successors of the Roman Empire was of the Carolingian Empire too.

>Only Romagna was named after Rome.

The name Romania was applied to the region around Rome too, at least.

>Show me the proof.

The Chronicum Altinate speaks of the "Romanum Constantinopolitanum Imperium", "Romania" for the ERE is used in the "Annals" of Bernardo Maragone, and also in some chansons de geste. These are but examples.

>It was built near to Byzantium (thus the name), as the next Rome BECAUSE it was an important center of trade.

Byzantium was a center of trade, Constantinople was much more. The hills of Rome weren't special either, what's your point? New Rome doesn't mean "new big center of trade".

>Ravenna was the last capital of the WRE fucboi.

Can you read?

>Its use came well after the WRE had crumbled

So we have Italian cities and Persia, who call the Byzantines Romans. Here are your "external factions".

I live by the principle;

>if it ain't Latin, it ain't Roman

Around Greeks, stay on your feet.

>>23714

>Western Roman Empire

>capital Ravenna

>"Roman"

>>23681

but it was an empire anon, till the kebab stole everything away from them

>>26515

>Ravenna

>literally in the Romagna part of Emilia-Romagna

>not Roman

>>25286

>>Germany was only getting stronger whilst France was getting relatively weaker

You can't know how things will evolve. At the start of the war The Kaiser was confident that they could take on both France and Russia with the help of Austro-Hungaria so why bet on what might happen in the future ?

What if Great Britain allies France? To his knowledge the brits were going to stay neutral for that war so why give his rivals time to get stronger?

What if Russia decides to become a not shitty country and AH collapses?

What if in the next few years Germany stagnates and France grows more powerful than them?

Also powerful men tend to prefer war. Who's to say that they weren't gonna crush the French and the Russians and he'd be remembered as one of the greatest rulers this side of Augustus?And in the case of defeat it wouldn't be his fault as he only respected his alliance.

>>25288

Meant for

>>25285

Seriously, if the Germans just held their ground and wait for the french to either try ad break through their defenses along the Rhine and get reckt and then advance on the severely weakened French troops, or a French crossing through Belgium and Britain joining the war on Germany's side.

Germany's eagerness is what cost them the war

>>24761

we're talking about WW1 here mr. poltard

2nd reich best reich

>>24830

You know how we could have avoided that 40 years of leftist demoralization and indoctrination?

If Germany had won the Great War.

Depends on the laws of succession in place and any other agreements. Their kids could inherit one kingdom but not the other.

see >>26286

But they would go into "Unions" where one dominates the other and they have pretty close relations and sometimes if the Heir of Both countires is the Product of the King of A kingdom and B kingdom, then they would become one, unless there was some dispute over the throne and such, and it all depends on the circumstance.

It all depends on how the marriage was formed. If one country much stronger than the other marries, then the weaker nation will most likely become the lesser partner in a Personal Union with the stronger nation being the greater part.

For Example, take evidence in the Austro-Hungarian Union with Austria being the Greater part ex.(Stronger Military, Greater Political Strength), and Hungary being the weaker ex.(Weaker Military, Not as much political influence as Austria but equal in regal regards.)

>>26450

"Happy merchant" meme aside, I think their minority status in, well, virtually the entire old world, coupled with their relatively tight-knit community it has created, allowed Jewish merchants to establish a very large and, more importantly, fairly secure trade network. Simply put, the (international) community was to small as if that you could screw another brother in faith over without suffering negative consequences for your business, plainly the Jews heavily relied on each other for support and aid when outside of their own home community.

Stemming from this, I would argue that the relatively secure trade network the Jews established were fairly important for medieval long-term trade. Add to this the fact that Jews had a headstart into the nascent banking sector due to religious taboos in Christianity, and you will find that medieval Europe relied quite heavily on them.

Which of course didn't stop the Christians from lynching the whole lot every now and then.

Interestingly, it might be added that the happy merchant/pol sentiment about Jews being rich and manipulative might have sprung from these historical reasons - the secure trade routes gave them money, and and the money, together with the constant fear of being lynched by the local non-jews for understandable reasons to no reasons at all led them to play them out against one another in an attempt to save their own hide

>>26471

IIRC, jews were forbidden to be peasants (because the land belonged to the christians) and people didn't like jewish craftsmen.

Plus, as you said, the church decided that cristians could not lend money at interest, which meant that christians did not lend money at all.

There weren't a bunch of possibilities, so most jews became merchants, then bankers. Peasants hated them for it because the banker gets wealthy without sweating, and it was seen as unfair. Now, there were also very poor jewish populations, who lived in ghettos and everything, living like romani. They were the ones who were victims of pogroms.

>>26463

>or are they just converts who tried to stake a claim to the lost tribes of israel because of the far-reaching influence of the abrahamic religions?

This one. Jews in africa look like regular african people and jews in china look like regular chinese people. Even your average Jew moving to Israel is probably only like less than ten percent middle eastern and has no real genetic claim to the reason.

>>26476

Which is another thing to keep in mind. For every happy merchant you usually get a hundred jews living in some ghetto or at most doing something local with no real expectation of vast wealth.

There isn't a single "the jews" to try going after unless you boil everything down so simply it stops mattering. There also isn't a single "the christians" to do the genocide.

>>26471

100% This

>>26484

yeah but it's not (entirely) A Genetic claim to the region it's a religious one, although if anyone does have any traces of Hebrew it would be the Jews.

>>26424

>Good worded

>Presents sound arguments

>Knows about the subject

Alright anon, youve given me more insight into something i knew comparatively little about, thanks.

Man i love that this board actually has people that are willing to discuss instead of shitflinging

>>26310

>There must be a counterbalance to the huge influence that is wielded by the elite.

Wouldn't some of the union heads be considered "elite" though?

I'm not OP but I've got a question about a situation involving unions. (Both kinda similar).

1. There is a state park near where I used to live. Back in the early 20th century there were pyrite mines in the area. At some point (I think around WW1, or the 20's) the workers asked for higher wages, or real money, I can't remember which. Up to this point the miners were paid with company scrips/coupons, only redeemable at company stores. Instead of accepting the union's demands, the mine owners shut the mines down and went to Spain.

2. Small, rural/industrial town in Pennsylvania during middleish 20th century my dad grew up in. Most of the industry was in carbon and other carbon products. The unions asked (demanded, according to my dad (Who loves Reagan)) for better wages. The owners shut the factories down and went elsewhere. Quality of town declines.

Who is to blame for these situations?

>>26437

>but one huge factor was the invention of reliable contraceptive method, which meant that the average woman now had the possibility to work.

Can you explain? I don't see how lack of access to contraceptives prevented women from working.

>>26458

Hey anon, im >>26310

>There must be a counterbalance to the huge influence that is wielded by the elite.

Wouldn't some of the union heads be considered "elite" though?

Yes, and nowadays if youre the head of a union (at least in western countries) youre probably very very well off.

To your first question i can perhaps give better insight, since my fathers line had worked in sugar cane fields since time immemorial, only stopping due to them closing thanks to drops in sugar cane sugar price.

I live in Puerto Rico, and sugar cane had been a major cash crop since the 19th century till the 40's when turnip (i think its called in english) sugar was starting to get manufactured, thus driving the more expensive sugar cane sugar out of buisiness. The agricultural land in my island was divided by great farm companies that cultivated these cash crops, it was common for them to have a company store in the processing plant and pay the workes in company cash, only redeemable in company stores. These stores had HUGE markups in prices, rendering your pay useless and forcing you to take credit from the company in order to get by for the week. This created a vicious cycle in which you were paid little, had to get loans from the only creditor available (the company), use that money to get food, and remain in debt virtually forever. I do not know how many farm workers unionized, if any. They were farm workers and had no education, making them impossible to demand higher wages. Of course, they didnt have any work alternatives either, it was work at the estate or starve. The only reason they stopped working in these sugar cane estates was because they closed up and went bankrupt. The fact that the mining company that you talk about closed shop and moved to spain tells you that they either dint want to pay the workers fair wages or it was necessary to move to spain since they couldnt pay everyone fair wages. Were going to need a bit more information on that if you want a true and informed opinion, of course, since youre just givPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>26458

As >>26462 just said, before reliable contraceptives were invented, women had to choose between their sex life and a carreer. Once a woman is pregnant, she'll spend between a few months and 10 years taking care of the child, which is incompatible with most jobs, and especially with being a company's boss or a military leader. Because women are human, you can understand that most of the time, they chose the traditional lifestyle.

A bit more about the traditional lifestyle, you can observe that in any traditional society, women's sexuality is controlled. In western cultures, the father always has an eye on his daughter, and is supposed to evaluate wether or not her fiancee is worth her. This is because women face huge consequences for choosing their mate badly (10 years of life), while men can simply run away.

An interesting note is that in many cultures (Corsica comes to mind), if a boy gets a girl pregnant and refuses to marry her, the father's duty is to kill him.

Now, the thing is, feminists believe that partiarchal systems appeared by themselves with no other purpose than to oppress women, and that feminism alone changed society. In fact, evolution of technology was the cause, women working in factories during the world wars (and earning wages) was the trigger, feminism was the means to adapt the law and equality of opportunity between the sexes is the result.

>>26451

Yea m8, /his/ is the shit.

>>26458

>Who is to blame for these situations?

Greed.

>>26406

Pitt the Elder

I maintain that it is, in fact, Disraeli.

>>26406

someone will name Churchill and the thread will derail

>>26125

Thats some Metal Gear shit right there.

>>26123

That manlet in the third pic has a huge rifle.

As always,

Für Kaiser und Vaterland

>>26126

Are these postcards of pre-war origin?

I find it difficult to imagine that you would print postcards happily celebrating the three monarch if your army run pillaged and burned its way through two of their countries.

If you have a chance, read Robert Greene's "The 33 Strategies of War". It's like Sun Tzu's "Art of War" but more modern and it can be applied to multiple areas other than war. However, the historian in me (college grad in History) remains critical of his works, mainly because he doesn't cite them but a bibliography is provided.

>>24432

Robert Greene, being something of a generalist, often gets details wrong. If he actually did citations he'd probably end up realizing most of his supposed examples aren't from any reliable source.

>>24463

I liked his 48 rules book, but you should know to take his advice with a grain of salt, his laws all have some use, but as >>24463 said, alot of his stuff is from folk fiction and generally unreliable resources, as well as the fact that he often gets scenarios wrong.

Would you guys consider "On War" to be still applicable in modern times?

>>26449

Very much so. Bear in mind that most of Clausewitz's book is often centered around philosophical ideas about war rather than being a description of actual combat. At the same time, many of his theorems (i.e., "Never attack the same enemy for to long or he will adapt to your tactics") can be successfully applied to non-military situations, including politics (which should be the case anyway, as far as Clausewitz goes) and business.

>>26434

All you need to know is that during WWI he sacrificed thousands of lives just so he can "get his share of the honor" by including the british navy in the war and going for the gold, and that in WWII he deliberately sent ships to their doom, effectively murdering all their crews, so he can keep the cracked code a secret.

A terrible man, and a very overrated leader, simply because he was an ebim meme cracker that insulted others. Back then, just like now, the crowd loved a joker.

One of the grandest faggots to come out of england, and that's saying a lot.

Why anyone would need his manuscripts is beyond me- the man was a hack.

Not to mention the unnecessary vengeful destruction he sanctioned

>>24863

Maybe if you learn to sage

>>25271

this documentary is what got me onto the train of not buying the holocaust story, it is primarily about treblinka, sobibor, and belzec. i don't ever accept anything as pure truth if it hasn't passed through my own sensory perception, but I'm pretty convinced after this vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dxsVSzL4HE

if anyone has seen this or is familiar with the points made and has counterpoints i'm interested too.

>>26425

Too many assumptions and half-truths.

>>25271

>Children and babies were hurled against the walls

Why is this highlighted? Anyway it reminds me of Psalm 137.

>O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

>Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.