Who gets bragging rights for building the most unassailable fortress?
Pic or it doesn't exist.
Can we have a Poland thread?
I would like to know about early Poland. Mostly the birth of Poland. All Polish info is also welcome.
I would also like to know why Poland is so religious and conservative. Is it because of Communism? Is it from being fucked over for so many years?
>I would also like to know why Poland is so religious and conservative. Is it because of Communism? Is it from being fucked over for so many years?
communsim and just a long long tradition of being religious as fuck
though of course most of the youth is fedora like everywhere
Alright. I understand. But do you know how they became really religious?
I also apologize if i dont respond quick enough. I'm busy today so i'm all over the place.
Poland has almost always had non-Catholic enemies so the church has been seen as a rallying point. Whether it be the orthodox Russians, the Muslim ottomans, or the Protestant Germans, the Catholic Church has always been a way to contrast Poland from its neighbors (read enemies).
Reminder that Da Vinci was an Arab.
Any interesting facts like this that most people don't know?
Time to try this again. What are some good history books?
Why are the Nordic countries so peaceful, compared to other superficially similar countries, such as the UK and the US?
>that time spaniards assassinated the leader of one of the greatest cities in history, starved its population to death, razed it until nothing but its foundations was left, drained its sacred waters, and then built a crap european style city on top of it
Is there such a thing as European Latin national character? If so, what are its cultural, social and political traits?
Seeing how kings enjoyed being bastards (have illegitimate children), was there a point in history when one of those children became the monarch of the kingdom?
Like, let's say the heir dies out and king leaves no more children, but let's also say the king's siblings and everyone else related to his family are also dead, can the throne go to an illegitimate child or will the kingdom search for a monarch outside of it's borders?
As always, depends.
William, duke of Normandy, and later conqueror of England, was not called "the Bastard" just for the hatred of butthurted people but cause he was an illegitimate son of his father.
Henry, count of Trastamara rose agaisnt his half brother, the king Peter, and after a series of wars in the context of the HYW, defeated him and take the throne for himself, fathering a new line.
Alright, interesting. Anywhere I can read up more on this? Apparently just found out that the King of Scotland, James VI also became the King of England simultaneously, so does this mean that monarchs generally preferred to just find a foreign ruler instead of let an illegitimate one rule the state?
What single person killed the most people themselves? Not generals or rulers who ordered killings but went and killed people themselves.
My searching came up with Luis Garavito the most confirmed victims for a serial killer in modern day and Catherine Monvoisin who confessed to up to 2,500 murders.
>Garavito's victims were poor children, peasant children, or street children between the ages of 8 and 16
>After gaining their trust, he took the children for a walk and when they got tired, he would molest and rape them, cut their throats, and usually dismembered their bodies
>He admitted to the rape, torture and murder of 147 young boys
>Most corpses showed signs of prolonged torture
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Probably Hans-Ulrich Rudel.
>Confirmed kills of 519 tanks, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 70 landing craft, 800 other vehicles, 150 artillery pieces, 4 armored trains, a whole shitload of bridges, and 9 -planes.
>Possible victimes: 300–350+
The cops over there make people disappear all the time yet they let a guy like this go free?
A place for famous rivalries of history
Would /his/ like to learn some Akkadian?
Reminder that religion was BTFO by Russel's Teapot, and Betrand Russel in general
> The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings.
>here are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Religion was never BTFI in the first place. It has always been the refuge of second rate thinkers and their terrible ideas.
The fact that it's now dying (at least the literalist version of it) shows that the last centuries merely slowed down the inevitable collapse
This is by far the cringiest picture I have ever seen. And I am not religious people.
The addition of a fucking comedian and a shitposting demagogue among a bevy of scientists is cream of the cringe.
Is it possible for poor people to be atheists or nihilistic?
Does anyone else find it so strange that women (~half the population at any given time) have such a small role in a non-feminist reading of history? I don't mean to sound like an SJW or something, but it borders on the unnatural
Of course maybe it's because we focus too much on Great Men, but even from a broader perspective, you don't get many females. Can anyone hazard a guess as to why this is the case?
Because women weren't pressured to pursue greatness. There weren't any expectations for women throughout history to achieve something big. All such pressures must come from within, and therefore any female that has attained greatness are all excellent, such as Noether and Mirzakhani.
Feminism thus must encourage women to introspect such that they can realize and actualize their own greatness, instead of extrospect and blame the lack of female representation in industry on the strawman that is patriarchy.
Historically, women haven't exactly had the most praiseworthy of roles in society. Until the development of modern Western civilizations, women have generally been viewed as child-bearers and housekeepers.
Historically, women haven't exactly had the most praiseworthy of roles in society. Until the development of modern Western civilizations, women have generally been viewed as child-bearers and housekeepers. There shouldn't be any excuse going forward.
Is the cliche true that only the victors in war write history?