[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / caco / choroy / dempart / doomer / mde / vichan / vril ]

/his/ - History

History. Genetics. Archaeology. Anthropology. HBD.

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Verification *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

History. Genetics. Archaeology. Anthropology. HBD.

File: 608c8ce0a53527b⋯.jpeg (59.32 KB, 583x589, 583:589, 1455278674103-4.jpeg)


Who was the last true Roman Emperor

34 posts and 15 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 969109460452323⋯.jpg (156.02 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, constantine the 11th.jpg)

The one who died as a roman to defend the last piece of the empire, of course.


The Ottomans were fucked people who massacred the original Tengri peoples who settled there first. modern Turks are bastards who would do best if they returned to Tengrism. The Crusaders failed to remove kebab and instead massacre a bunch of innocent Orthodox Christians


The last king of Byzantium (Rome)

Its possible heirs could have escaped to italy though







File: d444c9871a05edc⋯.jpg (865.95 KB, 1009x676, 1009:676, belgianwaffles.jpg)


Belgium seems like a boring as fuck place. /his/, tell me about it's history


File: f7ae004eb7b0e56⋯.png (121.48 KB, 294x643, 294:643, raid op de medway.png)


Fake nation, created by the french and the anglo's. The french planned to annex it and the anglo's feared a strong dutch nation (pic related). Its name was first used for the celtic tribes in the area, then for the Roman province and afterwards for the seventeen provinces. It is latin for the Netherlands. Politcally it is the most complex form of government you have ever seen, as it is a constitutional, parlimentary, federative state with about seven parliaments for not more than 11 mil people. The only good thing is the productivity of the local population, germanics with the typical work-autism. Because of this productivity it has been a very important part of the world trade until the A*glo came. Antwerp was once the largest port in the world, and its tolls were worth more than the entire spanish colonial empire for the spanish crown. During the industrial revolution it became the 4th greatest industrial power. It has the Catholic University Leuven, which is one of the more important universities in europe (vesalius, Mercator, Erasmus, Jansen, Lemaitre) Its riches made it wanted by every neighboring nation, and therefore it was the battlefield of Europe. Honestly it shouldnt even exist. Annexation by the dutch and have the walloons be dutchified would be the best solution.

t. """""belgian"""""

File: 5167746534159d0⋯.png (26.14 KB, 314x575, 314:575, Course Fields.png)


Operation Information Liberation


>Original Post


The online digital age has rendered institutionalized education obsolete and has left them exposed as the detriments to society that they have become.

Colleges no longer exist to educate, but to indoctrinate. And to add insult to injury, we're paying through the nose for the right to have our youth

brainwashed against us by these narcissistic ingrates.

No More.

This is a project that, in time, will be cross-posted across numerous boards, platforms & media, taking participation from numerous communities with Truth

being our guiding light and uniting purpose.

This project is designed to provide and highlight alternatives to mainstream universities, or at least offer an inoculation against the Marxist intellectual

contagion perpetuated by these Institutions of Higher Indoctrination.

For the fields that can't just be done online, and require some sort of hard infrastructure, like a chemistry lab, we may want to consider utilizing, or

copying the Maker Space route of community educational facilities.


We will need to find alternatives to acreditation.

This project will also need an accompanying meme campaign to get Normans, especially in the hiring class to associate a traditional college degree with risk. Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


What about linguistics?

File: 356b48e6eee9dd2⋯.gif (3.03 MB, 800x399, 800:399, 800px-Indo-European_migrat….gif)

File: a556dc1f264cf46⋯.png (264.72 KB, 1015x598, 1015:598, 1015px-Map_Corded_Ware_cul….png)

File: 4a1cfc11d1d42df⋯.png (315 KB, 1174x916, 587:458, 1174px-Yamna-en.svg.png)


The core opposition to it now are Pajeets, Other Muds, SJWs, and Jews.

20 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>Race != language.

Sure it doesn't.

>The basques are haplo group r1b and speak a language totally unrelated to Indo-European.

The Basques are an isolated group who had less contact with Aryans than others.

>In other words, it's all bullshit.

lol dude weed



No, you see, you just don't know anything about it.

Here, this genetic paper:

Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe


They know that by a fact, because Indians, Iranians, Central Asians: all of those people speak or spoke Indo-European languages, they all shared Yamnaya and Corded Ware ancestry, they carry R1b and R1a too.

We even see European mtDNA among those people, carried there by the Indo-Europeans.

You can see in archaeology and recorded history how all of the Indo-European peoples shared a common culture, religion, lifestyle and language.

You cannot explain Sanskrit or Avestan, for instance, as something that just appeared out of nowhere.

Today, even after massive Dravidian, Turkic, Arab and Mongol admixtures, you can still see some remnants of the Indo-Europeans in the regions.

Look for the Red-haired, blonde and blue eyed Uyghur in Xinjiang (former Tocharian territory), or the Kalash and the Tajik peoples, from the former Sogdia merchant empire. The presence of Indo-European ancestry in these people is still considerable, aDNA-wise and even haplogroup-wise.

>Muh Basques

The Iberian peninsula wasn't affected much by the Indo-Europeans, as we know that by Roman times, there existed many non Indo-European peoples, with the Celtiberians being the only ones.

Iberians in general are the people in Europe with the less Indo-European ancestry (with the exception of Sardinians), and by the time the Celtic presence there and in France became the "norm" they never even get conquered.

The R1b among the Basques might be due to outsiders actively, individually and peacefully seeking to live among them from the outside (thus giving the BasquesPost too long. Click here to view the full text.




Just want to point out that people on the borderlands of India (modern day Afghanistan and Western Pakistan) got their Western DNA by settlers that Alexander bought. He conquered as far as the river Jhelum until he was defeated by King Purushottam, and left settlers. This is also where some Kashmiri people get their blue eyes and fair hair.

See, misinterpreting evidence to crowbar in your theory is the opposite of the scientific process. Geneology is not a simple branch of study.



Wrong, very, very wrong.

The Alexander stuff is a myth, both autosomal DNA and Y haplogroups are against it.

Here's how the Kalash are:

38.25% Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2 (pre-Indo-European Afghanistan)

31.05% Steppe_MLBA_East (Indo-European, Andronovo)

10.80% Sarazm_Eneolithic (pre-Indo-European Tajikstan)

8.90% Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1 (pre-Indo-European Afghanistan)

4.90% AASI (Original South Indians)

4.25% Seh_Gabi_ChL (pre-Indo-European Iran)

1.85% Mongola (East Asian generic)

All of those pre-Indo-European guys are people heavy in CHG ancestry.



>Ancient Greeks aren't more swarthy than the Ancient West Steppe

File: d79c18dbeb1a675⋯.png (180.38 KB, 972x721, 972:721, vladimir1.png)

File: 8eb0638afcb4bf0⋯.png (19.8 KB, 546x397, 546:397, vladimir2.png)


ill start


File: 9e96cf426eaebb2⋯.jpg (783.62 KB, 1776x1000, 222:125, louisfrenchrevolution.jpg)



feels bad man

File: 3f77315d07a4cf7⋯.jpg (101.11 KB, 900x900, 1:1, IMG_1149.JPG)


So, probably one of the worst kingdoms in medieval history is Burgundy. They had it all, wealth and power.. But they wasted it, along with their own kingdom. One such person to blame for the kingdom's loss and disappearance from the map would be Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. He foolishly decided that Switzerland would be a good target to expand his middle kingdom between France and Germany, much like the Lotharingians of old. Except this Lotharingia would be called, "Burgundy". But Philip failed conquering Switzerland and his hopes of having a significant middle kingdom died out, with him. As he was killed at the Battle of Nancy by the Swiss and the Duke of Lorraine, 1477 AD.

You know what that makes Burgundy? A fucking failure, and it makes Philip a huge fucking faggot! :^)

Do you agree, /his/?

4 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 23dac8745e3554b⋯.png (231.56 KB, 931x1024, 931:1024, Blason_fr_Bourgogne.svg.png)

File: 9dabcb67e4337f0⋯.png (50.99 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, Flag_of_Cross_of_Burgundy.….png)


Why hate on it? History's underdogs have their own charm and the idea of an alternate Burgundy consolidating a major European power between Krautistan and the Big Blue Blob is an amazing one.

And it left a great heraldic legacy. Is there a better saltire than the Cross of Burgundy?


File: 14981a18c264ade⋯.png (33.67 KB, 950x600, 19:12, Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg.png)



Agreed, by a wide margin.



Why does he look like a modern Italian?


except if he had been successful they would have have been called the Burgundian Guard and not the swiss guard.

File: 0deff7f11b84225⋯.png (1.36 MB, 4433x1858, 4433:1858, The Battle of the Milvian ….png)



So what this article implies is that by numerous signs of coexistance between moors and iberians it might have been that muslims never invaded nor populated iberia in large numbers, the relations between jews, unitarian christians and arabs were warm and as such the invasion is a farce.

How to counter this text? By the way i find muslims completely alienated nowadays and unable to comprehend western traditions, how did it work before?

26 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



If very detailed and informative scientific data like that (I allude to your graph specifically) exists on the gene compositions of all different ethnicities with significant populations why do /pol/acks continue to repeat the same old arguments on which races are/aren't/more/less "Aryan" based on phenotypes and stereotypes and such? I mean the information is all already out there for anyone to see. Sorry to be whining about this, but lately I've grown disinterested in /pol/ who-is-most-supreme arguments, which I should probably stop partaking in for that exact reason.



This stuff has only been around since 2015.

See this thread here: >>42126

About /pol/, it didn't survive the massive influx of post-election newfags, most of the good ones are on twitter now and left /pol/, only shitheads remain on /pol/, basically.

/his/ is a refugium regarding the genetic question, because on /pol/ there's always some retards posting bullshit about atlantis or oera linda or neanderthals or whatever.

But just for curiosity: the purest Europeans today are the Lithuanians.

Actually, Europeans had 3 phases since the end of the last Ice Age. Lithuanians are the purest of phase 1 and 3, while Sardinians are the purest of phase 2.



I've read part of the David Reich book and hope to read more when I get the time, if you are the BO then thank you for having posted it.

What you said about nu-/pol/ is probably correct, I usually give the benefit of the doubt and so argue while assuming the guy on the other side will be open to learning from any good points I make (and vice versa), but a lot do seem to be too stubborn for that.




"arab" is a cultural-linguistic term much like turk.



Aka WE WUZ. Achmeds take credit for Old Mesopotamia.

File: 321d3dc8d6ec6c6⋯.jpg (67.69 KB, 500x500, 1:1, UM-30284-2.jpg)


I can't help but feel there could be some sort of relation between the fall of Bactria and the rise of Christianity some few decades later. Before I do more research what are your opinions on this? It's well known Christ and Buddha have similarities, but yet there is never any mention of people from india or eastern Asia. My guess is that these values could have been carried over by greco refugees themselves and somehow took root in Anatolia.


File: 80dfbe098c7270c⋯.jpg (43.98 KB, 294x433, 294:433, ad97cfb3abbfee00f6b9db418e….jpg)


Sounds plausible, enough so that someone else might have already done research into it, check for that before spending time researching into it yourself.


The Northern route to Central Asia was closed since the Huns, it was too dangerous. Even Eastern Europe was too dangerous and Christianity took centuries to advance there.

About the Southern route, through the Middle East, before Christianity became strong, it was prevented from advance Eastwards due to Persia and Iranic peoples who were pious Zoroastrians. by the time Christianity became strong, the Roman empire was in shambles, Byzantium was already in its eternal downward slope and Islam rose like a wildfire.

The reason Buddhism thrived there was because it was the religion of Merchants in the India-Central Asia-China corridor, the Silk route, and it bypassed other 'powerful' religions.

Islam became hegemonic by the sword later.

They also experienced too much instability for religions to take roots for good, with loads of invasions and population shifts.



Thats likely all true, but it happened long after what OP is talking about. Basically, some of the parables of Jesus Christ show some good similarities with Buddhist teachings. There was a fairly long period in Jesus's life where its unknown where he was or what he was doing https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_years_of_Jesus. This has led some to speculate that during these lost years he travelled to some Eastern part of the old world where he studied under Buddhist monks. Theres not much evidence behind that theory so OP is wondering about alternative possible theories.



I just see it as normal syncretism, with Zoroatrianism being the catalyst for both Abrahamic religions and Buddhism alike.

But Buddhist ideas might have crossed to the Middle East with merchants too.

Who knows, really.

File: bca39428c120548⋯.jpg (32.05 KB, 500x375, 4:3, 1474898084383.jpg)


What makes an Emperor an "Emperor"? An Empire an "Empire"? Is it something as simple as a declaration? Does it deal with territory and titles? Why did the UK, which once held a fourth of the world's territory, never have an Emperor or an Empress? Why did Ethiopia, which was confined to Africa, call their leader an Emperor?

What are the guidelines for being considered an Emperor and an Empire by history?

13 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



I was referring to the modern period Bulgarian monarchy, but yes, the reason was that they were challenging Byzantine legitimacy as Eastern Emperors. Same with Serbia, for the short period it claimed the title.



Bulgarian doesn't even have the word kraľ like other Slavic languages do.



>Why did the UK, which once held a fourth of the world's territory, never have an Emperor or an Empress?

It had. The Empire of India. The rulers of UK from mid-XIX century were King-Emperors (or Queen-Empress, for that matter). India was the main "Imperial" part of said Empire, but the King/Queen of England&Scotland was treated as more prestigious one even if semantically below the Indian one.

Basically it all goes back to Rome, and 2 classical emperors - the Western and the Eastern. So the "true" emperor would maintain the Roman lineage and thus claim his half of the world. He must also be Christian, so while Ottomans claimed to be (Eastern) Roman emperors, they were never recognized as such by anyone.

2 classic Emperors, never more.

The Holy Roman Emperor was formally the ruler of the whole Catholic Europe, the kingmaker and the supreme feudal authority. When the Pope didn't screw things up by making kings of his own, like when Hungary was made kingdom by the Pope but Poland by the Emperor.

The Roman Greeks mostly kept to themselves and barely promoted anyone to Despot/King title. I can recall only Serbs. Even Russian princes were not formally elevated to Despot-ship even though some minor princedoms were larger than kingdoms to the West.

Bulgarians claimed themselves Imperials at least twice, but both times self-proclaimed and were treated like kings at best. Incessant spamming of Tzar-titles by Bulgarians actually demoted it to King-tier level, even though Tzar is the same word as Kaiser and Caesar.

Russians claimed the Imperial title in absence of any other Orthodox realms left, but were actually acknowledges both in the East and the West. They also had to convert Tzar title to Imperator, to reiterate their claim back from XV century and distance themselves from Bulgarian title-spam.

The Western line went through Charlemagne to Holy Roman Empire to… well, Nappy killed it by inventing his own French Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: a6db1e1018b25fe⋯.jpg (82.75 KB, 692x530, 346:265, serveimage.jpg)


I think the most consistent application of the term throughout history had to do with geographical areas. Usually Emperor was chosen when dealing with people who would consider the king as a foreigner. They probably figured it was easier to declare a change of lords and then doing something with it later rather than immediately taking conquered land.

I think the UK they didn't adopt the title of emperor much later was because the government involved a parliament and declaring yourself emperor might rile some people up.

File: f8d987b1ccd1193⋯.jpg (45.6 KB, 305x474, 305:474, peretroika deception.jpg)


Did the soviet union really collapse? KGB defector anatoliy golitsyn in 1984 predicts that liberal reforms will take place in the soviet union where the regime will become something that resembles a democracy but is actually still soviet totalitarianism

>Anatoliy Golitsyn's first book, 'New Lies for Old', caused a long-running sensation when it

was discovered that, unlike most Western analysts, the Author had accurately predicted,

some years ahead of the events, the 'Break with the Past' which took place in Eastern

Europe and the Soviet Union in 1989-91. In his book 'Wedge: The Secret War between the

FBI and CIA' [Alfred A Knopf, New York, 1994], Mark Riebling, who carried out a

methodical analysis of Golitsyn's predictions in 'New Lies for Old', credited the Author with

'an accuracy record of nearly 94%'. This singular achievement puts all other analysts,

including some official services, to shame; and it is precisely because of his record of pinpoint

accuracy that Western Governments, policymakers and even some intelligence

services, whose record bears little comparison with Golitsyn's, have competed with one

another over the years to find reasons why Golitsyn's perceptive explanations of Soviet

strategy should be ignored. But events as they unfold are relentlessly proving this

remarkable analyst of Soviet strategy to be right. 'The Perestroika Deception' explains the

devious secret intent behind the Leninist strategy which the 'former' Communists are pursuing

under cover of fake 'reform' and 'progress towards democracy'. The immediate

strategic objective is 'convergence' with the West - on their terms, not ours. The ultimate

objective is Lenin's: replacement of nation states with collective regional governments as

building blocks of the 'New World Social Order' - World [Communist] Government.


File: 260005e2dc5578b⋯.pdf (1.49 MB, Golitsyn-ThePerestroikaDec….pdf)

File: 6326a864f628d9d⋯.pdf (1.5 MB, new_lies_for_old_golitsyn.pdf)

File: 4daa6af47ab9046⋯.pdf (3.07 MB, Silent Invasion.pdf)

The Perestroika Deception

New Lies for Old

Silent Invasion


Collapsed. Their west influence got snatched by Western Europe, their central asian vassals by China.

The system is not communistic in the slightest, and they practice a form of civic nationalism today.

Economically, they're an oligarchy.

So, what remained from Soviet Times? The Nukes/Military, which makes the Cold War keep going.

Also, future prospects - Putin wants an Eurasian commonwelth, and to revive the Silk Road, essentially killing America as a whole, as it doesn't produce anything anymore, and the coupe de grace would be destroying the Pretodollar.



>So, what remained from Soviet Times?

The whole oligarchic civic nationalist state thing.



Seeing as how EU is more socialist than Russia by now, I don't really see the purpose of keeping up the pretense, if there was any. I could buy what the book is saying if we were talking about Russia under Yeltsin, but Putin's foreign policy is definitely right wing – why would a secretly leftist state that plans to unite everything into a NWO-styled commonwealth go with the bother of annexing Crimea?

Russia as of right now is trying its best to go back to being a superpower. First order of bussiness is leveling out the playing field so that US can't beat them militarily, which is why they started heavily investing into arms development years ago. It even worked – their T14-Armata tank, for example, is one of the best, if not THE best serially produced tank in the world right now, and US has needed to increase its own spending in the field to start matching them.

Second order of bussiness is building a sphere of influence, which you can see them doing right now in places like Syria, Iran, etc.

Third order of bussiness will be to directly compete with America and try push them as much out of Europe as possible. Essentially a restart of Cold War.

If they could reestabilish pre-1989 borders by conquering Central Asia and eastern Europe, it'd be a welcome bonus, but likely not something they actively aim towards as it'd require a direct military confrontation with america, or attacking someone who entered their sphere of influence (both of which would be very unwelcome developments for different reasons).

File: b01050268cc8d49⋯.jpg (1.54 MB, 2560x1536, 5:3, Alexander_the_Great_mosaic.jpg)


Hello, /his/!

Several years ago, I read two quotes from a biography (or two biographies, I am not certain) of Alexander the Great, recounting two stories:

>When Alexander was still a boy, he and one of his tutors visited a temple. When Alexander grabbed a fistful of incense instead of the standard pinch to throw into the fire, his tutor grabbed his wrist and told him that only when Alexander had conquered Asia would Alexander be able to throw expensive incense so freely. Many years later, when Alexander succeeded in conquering Persia and India, he sent several elephants loaded with incense to his old tutor's home.

>When Phillip died, and Alexander was eager to begin his own warring, he rushed to an oracle to receive a prophecy of his outcomes. The priestess refused to give him a prophecy, he grabbed her by the arms and she exclaimed: "My son, you are invincible!" And so it was.

I would be very grateful for help in locating the source(s) of these Alexander the Great anecdotes. A preliminary web search is not turning up anything even remotely similar for me, and, as is probably apparent, I'm far from a history buff.

3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: cd7898dbdf3e50d⋯.jpg (6.16 KB, 178x230, 89:115, will-cuppy-641.jpg)


Ha ha, you got me!



That fellow actually isn't Cuppy but a humorist named Will Rogers. His pic always shows up if you google Cuppy, though.


Plutarch's Life of Alexander probably. Also check Arrian. Other primary sources are Diodorus Siculus and Curtius Rufus but it's probably not in either of them.


File: 758288e9c710f10⋯.jpg (49.67 KB, 200x266, 100:133, plutarch.jpg)


Thank you, anon. Both anecdotes were from Plutarch.


<Moreover, as he was dispatching great quantities of the spoils home to Olympias and Cleopatra and his friends, he sent also to Leonidas his tutor five hundred talents' weight of frankincense and a hundred of myrrh, in remembrance of the hope which that teacher had inspired his boyhood. It would seem, namely, that Leonidas, as Alexander was one day sacrificing and taking incense with both hands to throw upon the altar-fire, said to him:— "Alexander, when thou hast conquered the spice-bearing regions thou canst be thus lavish with thine incense; now, however, use sparingly what thou hast." Accordingly, Alexander now wrote him: "I have sent thee myrrh and frankincense in abundance, that thou mayest stop dealing parsimoniously with the gods."

<And now, wishing to consult the god concerning the expedition against Asia, he went to Delphi; and since he chanced to come on one of the inauspicious days, when it is not lawful to deliver oracles, in the first place he sent a summons to the prophetess. And when she refused to perform her office and cited the law in her excuse, he went up himself and tried to drag her to the temple, whereupon, as if overcome by his ardour, she said: "Thou art invincible, my son!" On hearing this, Alexander said he desired no further prophecy, but had from her the oracle which he wanted.


File: 29770129765f0c1⋯.jpg (35.55 KB, 480x360, 4:3, laughing mexican.jpg)

>mfw I remember that Alexander the Great got BTFO by some bum living in a barrel who didn't give a fuck who he was

File: 153e086b7048108⋯.jpg (147.61 KB, 727x1015, 727:1015, Raja-Robert-E-Lee-High-Sch….jpg)


Why is this faggot a household name? He only won like 3 or 4 battles. His tactics were pretty suicidal. He had no sense of the big picture. He was all tactical thinking and no strategic. They only worked because of the weak willed leaders that Lincoln had in command of the Union Army between 1862 an 1863.


Reminder he attended West Point in the north and they let him go south.

Because the other guy was so much damn worse.

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


What are some legit reasons to support the Union over the Confederacy, other than muh slavery.

The best arguments I've heard so far are

>Union was capitalist. Confederacy was slave-based mercantilist.


>The Confederacy were pseudo-nobility.

16 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



I'll post a book excerpt about it later.


File: 4a52801a78fa3bc⋯.png (325.98 KB, 1236x856, 309:214, a.png)



If you want more, then you will have to go before the civil war and learn about what happened in Europe for such state of matters happen in the USA.



I'm reading it, but it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Why were the British so stand-offish and timid about war with the U.S., even through proxy (the Confederacy), if they truly had so much invested in the South being independent? The American economy benefitted a shit-ton off of British investment in railways, cash crops, et cetera. It also doesn't make much sense to say that Britain would've been so dependent on the South for cotton, when they would have access to quite enough from Egypt and India, which they eventually went to after the blockade.

Cool read nonetheless, and I would also like to mention that I was aware of Lincoln's Bank War but I still don't see how that soundly ties a British conspiracy with the Confederates and the Jews.


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


Watch this, if you want details, then read The Lost Science of Money by Stephen Zarlenga.



American nationalism

File: 99a7db0494fa032⋯.jpg (278.14 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, 20171003144628_1.jpg)


What if Britain joined on the side of the confederacy in the us civil war?

Besides a two-front war, what could the union do? possibly side with france or mexico and other Americas countries?

12 posts omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at



the ends dont justify the means

rebellion in 1775 = rebellion in 1861

treason in 1775 = treason in 1861

yankees are hypocrites

the southern states had just as much of a right to self determination as the thirteen colonies had

its a matter of principles



Not at all, you're comparing reputation with goals, which are two completely different things.

The Southern states had right to self-determination, but that was not their goal, their goal was to make the USA a ((("British"))) plantation.



>their goal was to make the USA a ((("British"))) plantation

verify this with evidence plz



How you don't know about this is beyond me.

See this: >>42179



Nothing about that says anything about making the USA a British "plantation"

I agree, the UK was interested in weakening the USA (after all the US invasion of Canada was still in living memory). But there is no evidence of a grand conspiracy by the UK to take over the USA during the US civil war.


What's your opinion on the Solutrean hypothesis? Is it just a we wuz tier fringe theory, or is it actually possible?


12 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



The presence of R yDNA in America is all post-1500 AD.



No, it's at least partially of Beringian origin, related to the R haplotypes in Mal'ta-Buret' samples from eastern Siberia.



It's not, all the R clades in America are European-derived, and only as old as 1500 AD.

We can know that by the philogeny tree of the haplogroup.



This here is a whole discussion about that:


It's extremely unlikely that they got R* from Mal'ta because the split of R* into R1a, R1b and R2 happened thousands of years later than the ANE input into what would become the Amerindians.

If there was indeed some R* from that time in Amerindians, they would probably be R3 or something, but we don't see that.

So it seems that only ANE carrying Q went Eastwards.



R* didn't exist in Europe at the time of the Solutreans, their yDNA was probably I*.



Could also be R1c, R2b, who knows.

Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Next | Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / caco / choroy / dempart / doomer / mde / vichan / vril ]