Tell me about the society that built, among others, Great Zimbabwe. I don't want anons derailing threads by fighting with each other (the second threat is beyond hope), I want something of
How come the Selucids, the largest and wealthiest of the Diodochi states, couldn't crush a bunch of Hebrew goatfuckers right next to their center of strength?
The Texans were a pretty large state too, I don't see why they didn't just crush the Cubans
What sort of historical artifacts does /his/ have at home?
>I have assorted coins back home.
I have a red army parade/officer's sabre on my mantelpiece, because fucking swords.
Why exactly did Native Africans build a stone structure in Zimbabwe and then never make another structure like it every again? It makes no sense and i have to question if Africans had anything to do with it
Do you think there could be a way (besides "everyone is fucking racist") our society could've become less globalized? And what are the factors that led to globalization and the assimilation of everything?
Do you think cultures, costumes, warfare and everything could've stayed more 'unique' in a way, into the 1900s for example, with not so much changing in our history?
I'm always thinking that the ancient times were extremely diverse, both in culture, manners, costumes and in warfare. Different peoples behaved extremely different....
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Globalisation is an inevitable product of capitalism. And capitalism will always win. Too much money to be made selling air-con to Africans etc
So, you're basically saying that in a world that has no capitalism, there would be much less room for globalization?
So then, what should've happened for the world to change like that?
Let's get some kind of alternate history going
I think I'm saying capitalism and globalization are practically the same thing. Globalization is a symptom of capitalism like a runny nose is a symptom of a cold.
I don't think there could be any serious alternate history here. If you have two stone age tribes who begin to trade with each other, eventually they will begin to resemble each other as ideas and artifacts swap between them, and the distinction between them will become meaningless.
what went wrong?
Was the Age of Enlightenment-- with it's triumph of reason, emphasis on Republic and Liberty, and love of beauty in the arts-- the height of Western values and culture?
Of course. Almost every scientific field (as well as the social sciences - including economics) was either created or vastly expanded between the mid-1700 and early-1800s. Also most of our political concepts rely on distinctions made in that period.
So my western civilization teacher just called Louis XVI a kek, do you think this is true?
I agree the guy was a bitch.
He was a decent king, to be honest. He was just there at the wrong time. Wealthy bourgeoisis just wanted to seize power.
Your teacher is an idiot, and so are you, otherwise you'd be studying something useful that would provide you with a job.
We know for fact that Marie Antoinette had an affair with a Swedish officer, that started in the early 1780s. Whether she gave birth to him or not we can say for sure. Anyway, the Queen's sexual misbehavior was an incredibly popular meme in pre-Revolutionary France, so the notion that her children were bastards did fit into it very nicely.
Are there any /his/core books yet? What GOAT /his/ books have you read?
Is Latin America considered western?
Are bombing campaigns actually an effective strategy, or does the relative safety (with air superiority) prejudice commanders into using them?
I know the conventional wisdom is that it softens up the target before a ground invasion, if not just completely breaking the will to fight. But how effectively do they do this? And when civilians get caught up in the mix it often rallies the opposition. It definitely didn't work on the Britons, Germans, or Japanese. Similarly, it didn't work on the Vietnamese, Afghanis, or Iraqis. It doesn't seem to be working on...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
NATO has tried before to determine if you can win a war with purely air attacks, the conclusion is "of course not you fucking idiots, now Russia has an F-117 hull to go test it's anti-radar technology on"
The problem is no one actually wants to commit because it would be political suicide but doing nothing is also not going to do anything to help keep those that feel like there needs to be something to happen. It's a political not a military game.
ITT: based political philosophers
Post an image and a short description
>individuals create commonwealths for protection, out of necessity
>the State may do anything to its citizens, as they consented to subjection
>absolute monarchy is best monarchy
Was the East India Company the most powerful non-state body in history?
Is Islam more theologically liberal than Christianity? I've talked to a few friends who say it is, but none of them are Muslims (well, one identifies as one, but she hasn't read any Hadiths, she drinks and I don't think she's ever set foot in a mosque). So I'm addressing my question to actual Muslims.
Islam in general is neither more, nor less liberal than Christianity in general. You're mistaking reality with the naïve and sappy ideals of white guilt ridden leftist loonies with a pathological passive-aggressive antipathy towards their parent culture and never grew out of their rebellious teen phase as flower children of the 1960s.
>It's more liberal than Catholicism
Top fucking kek
In honor of Schwarzesmarken getting an adaptation soon, let's have a thread about the historical divided Germany.
First for the most brutal, efficient and effective police force/intelligence group in history. RIP.
never trust a german