/his/ - History

>>25115

>converting to protestantism was already an act of dissidenz

Did the "cuius regio, eius religio" thing end before the Thirty Year's War?

>>25104

Those Bulgarians look comfyasfuck

>>25115

All of the electors were born protestants. The one who rebelled committed a pretty blatant power grab which started off the 30 Years War. He tried to oust the designated Emperor-to-be from Bohemia, thinking him too weak. Turned out not the case. He also was a Calvinist, which was not aligned with Lutheranism. Which is exactly why there was no massive support for him. The Lutherans wanted to curtail the power of the Emperor, not destroy him.

>>25179

>The Lutherans wanted to curtail the power of the Emperor, not destroy him.

Have I claimed that anywhere?

Anyways, what you say is right, but the bohemian rebellion was just the beginning of the war and when I said the the initial act of conversion was dissidenz I was talking about the original converts in the 16th century. Saying that the protestants were "at worst neutral" to the emporer is understated since the tension between protestants and catholics and especially the tension between protestants and ferdinand II were growing rapidly. During the war this worsend, especially when Ferdinand overstept his own rights and acted more and more like an absolute monarch.

WW1

>>25147

ebin bait /intl/, everyone go home now

You missed your turn. This isn't /pol/. Go there if you want acknowledgement.

And kindly don't drag anthropology through the mud by pinning it to any old bullshit you want to believe.

STAB

ANUS

>>24798

Shhhh!

>>24829

*chut

>>23429

>>23433

>Israel didn't exist

No but zionism has been around before the existance of Israel as an independent state. Jews have been emigrating to Israel since the early 20th and there have been violent clashes between Israelis and Palistinians in Palistine under British mandate.

Israel could have been a reason for Arabs to join the nazis despite not being a sovereign state.

>>24842

This.

Except it was a reason, Arabic leaders told the Arabs to join the Nazis because they were promised that the Nazis would remove Jews from Israel

>>24781

Coal and iron mines.

King Arthur, Kingdom of Heaven, and Braveheart were shit.

>>19089

1500 Aguirre, the wrath of God

a realy good movie, it's pretty much apocalypse now with conquistadores on the amazonas

bumping for the movie thread

1800 - The Man who Would be King

1900 - The Sand Pebbles

>>25030

>implying Classical Greece was the same as the Byzantine Empire

Kill my father and have sex with my mother

Kill my father and have sex with my mother

>>25062

>>25063

Drama club is two στάδιον down

Prohibition was pushed through by nosey housewives and spinsters that had too much time of their hands and because people didn't have it in their hearts to call them retarded.

>>25035

So they were equivalent to modern SJWs?

History really does repeat itself

>>25047

there's streams in art school besides modern art, Anon. Classical art education still exists, it just doesnt get as much media attention.

>>25047

Well, maybe you look at the wrong area. There are still classical arts being done.

And the common belief today that photography have replace the need to be able to draw correctly.

>>25031

A long neck probably was a beauty ideal back in the day, so all the young countesses and princesses developed an uncanny resemblances to Big Bird in the paintings.

>>24773

I might have to pick it up some time.

And that's why I'm enjoying Empire of Liberty a lot too. Really informative on the time period and even though Wood is clearly more in the Republican/Jeffersonian camp I don't feel like he's ever outright telling you that only the Republicans were right; even when he sort of does it feels kind of soft and still leaves the reader with information to feel that the Federalist side had a better idea or really just draw their own conclusion. Also gets away from moralizing outside of a few random mentions (mainly when talking about voting/freedom) that "x amount of the population was still unable to" but never feels overbearing like I got right from the outset of What Hath God Wrought.

Speaking of that time period, I hadn't heard of James Wilkinson before and that's a shame. The guy should be seen as THE poster child in America of being a traitorous fuck. I get that Arnold's happened during a more "famous" time period but I'd argue that spending years as a paid agent of the Spanish crown to forment dissent in the western territories working against his own country for the benefits of a foreign power, and then later on being involved in Aaron Burr's conspiracy to take over part of Mexico as an independent government away from the U.S. should really shoot you to the top of the list of "Worst traitors in American history".

>>24773

>It was bizarre considering that it had been almost 250 years since the last crusade of note and almost 300 years since Europe even gave a shit about crusading.

That's not exactly true. The 15th and 16th century was full of Crusader rhetoric in Europe with the escalation of the Ottoman-Hapsburg conflict. Several major diplomatic events regularly included clauses and plans for a major campaign against the Turks. And de Gama's career took off right after Spain finished the Reconquista and along with Portugal entertained a conquest of North Africa.

>>23554

I'm not white myself (not black either, so take that as you will), but a lot of American historical readings seem to have this problem of applying modern values on really old issues. I get it, white people were pretty morally shitty, but I think it gets dwelled on way too often in historical writings nowadays, and it really doesn't serve to do much other than appeal to modern people's sympathies. It just seems like an underhanded tactic to keep people interesting in reading what would otherwise be a dry, objective history book, but I think those kinds of summaries can be interesting even without the theatrics or ethical dramatizations.

>>25029

Saving this one

Trenches were certainly used in sieges, which is a clue to why they weren't used in the field. The Napoleonic battlefield, due to the scale of artillery deployed, was very focused on finding, engaging, and driving off the enemy from a position before their artillery could deploy and respond. Engagements tended to be climactic and decisive within a few hours of first contact as both sides deployed their armies out from headquarters before finding their target and attempting to pin them down or drive them off. Once an enemy dominated the battlefield with well positioned infantry and artillery, the outcome became questionable and many commanders did not risk further battle.

A siege is the opposite situation. One side is already fortified in an advantageous position and can fire their artillery on any advancing force at a moment's notice. But to subdue the enemy it must be encircled, and unless the army is in the millions this requires an army to approach the wall close enough to guard against sorties and resupply attempts while also remaining safe from enemy artillery and sniper fire.

Without machine guns, a trench is just a ditch that you sit in. You can't fire by rank in a trench that quickly; and the other side might be planning on bringing it to a bayonet charge anyway.

>>23779

Lack of required technology (including logistics, communication, artillery, and automatic weapons), as well as the sheer numbers - during the 12 or so years of the Napoleonic Wars, both sides (so most of Europe of that time) combined had about 17.000.000 soldiers, while during the four years of World War 1, Germany alone employed almost 13.000.000, and more than 60.000.000 soldiers were fielded by all conflict parties combined.

>>24394

kill yourself m8

>>24397

ok m8, when? I can't tonight cause I'll be fucking your mom but any time after should be fine.

>>24420

lmao, you are literally twelve

>I FUCKED YOUR MUM

>implying you have the time to get off of Minecraft to do that

>>24360

>Recruiting from cuckchan

Well, maybe if

>from /int/

NEEEEEEEEEEEJJJJJJJ

>>24947

>thinking /int/ was ever good in the first place

>thinking Minecraft is shit just because of Public servers

I mean autistic servers are shit but Minecraft as a game is very good and well made, there's a reason it has gotten so popular.

>>24670

No, they had blueprints. It's just a case of they were shut down due to material shortages already beginning to affect production of things like the Tigers, Panthers and other tanks.

>>24849

Same. I recall them being fakes / shoops.

>>24898

You want proof that it's fake? Not like the others gave anything even close to that, aside from an unsourced infograph.

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/15808-russian-land-battleships/

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/wwii-experimental-secret-weapon-russian-land-battleship-kv-vi-tank.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AKliment_Voroshilov_tank#KV-VI

>wikipedia

I don't know what to tell you. If you google for the KV6, basically all results are either "Is it fake" or "It's fake"

As for other possible russian super heavies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-42_super-heavy_tank

>didn't go past drawings and models

KV5

>Project development began in June 1941, however was cancelled due to the Siege of Leningrad, in which all developmental operations at the Kirov Plant were halted. The project fell out of favour from the more advanced heavy tank designs, and no prototype was built.

>KV4

The KV-4 (Object 224) was a proposed Soviet heavy break-through tank, developed during World War II. Part of the Kliment Voroshilov tank design series, it never progressed past a series of feasibility studies.

T35 for example was built, but isn't considered super heavy, althoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>24932

I'm also sorry for the horrible formatting of that post.

>>22507

>scrubs

please no

>still using the tricolor of the French republic

>>22513

>Asking for rebellion