What do you think of the moorish medieval civilization and empire?
Greatest Frenchmen itt
>flag cancer removed
Thanks mods. It was a retarded to even think about adding it in the first place. It's one of the main reasons /pol/ is garbage.
Also, what's your opinion on Garibaldi? Did he ruined Italy by unifying it?
I've seen the comparison that the American is like a chess setup with one line of queens, while the Soviets had two lines of rooks and bishops. The Americans were more focused on making smaller numbers of all-purpose weapons and vehicles, while the Soviets had more specialized units.
tl;dr Who would win in a fight?
>Who would win conventionally
The soviets had a period in around 1945-1965 where they likely would have won or at least been able to contest allied forces on somewhat even terms, past that america and NATO began to slowly gain a technological advantage that they maintained and grew upon until the soviet collapse. Soviet Deep Battle was a brutal slow crushing machine that was intended to use wave upon wave of mechanized troops to wear down NATO defenses, again it was a doctrine that would have been much more effective in the early 50's along with the experienced generals that russia could draw on post WW2, sophisticated ATGMs and much more effective CAS would've done pretty terrible things to such an advance in 1975 and onward.
Realistically things would've gone to the nuclear table before long in a conventional conflict, I doubt either side would back down if the soviets are steaming right across west germany in force and american casualty figures on the news start to show up back home. In a purely conventional slugging match, the soviets would probably have been able to push through west germany but it's hard to see a situation where they could ever possibly keep up that momentum. Eventually the advance would be bogged down and NATO would go into a full gear war footing and successfully push back, much like the german advance into russia.
NATO doctrine and conventional weapons were terrible until AirLand Battle. The main weapon of war being the tank, the Soviets held a massive advantage in armored technology until the Leo 2 and M1 Abrams. Even the Abrams didn't really grow into what it is today until the M1A1 upgrade.
Until AirLand Battle Europe was considered essentially indefensible with conventional weapons and despite all the political handwaving of no first use policy the plan was always to use tactical nuclear weapons to slow down the Soviet advance.
No nuclear weapons used, the Warsaw Pact would have steamrolled all Europe with ease. They had overwhelming armoured and infantry superiority.
However, NATO doctrine was fir using nuclear warheads once the soviet had overrun the defenses in the Fulda gap and Hannover. It was also French doctrine to tactical nuke anything coming close to their Rhine border in that scenario.
Thoughts on this country? How could a country with a modern-day population of 8.4 million (probably ~2million in the actual duchy of austria region) conquer such vast tracts of land and become one of the most unique empires in history?
Why are you not a Stoic?
Within this book lies 95%+ of everything you will ever need to know about life.
Back in the 1400s-1500s when Venice was a republic at the height of it's power, why didn't the Venetians unify Italy?
Daily reminder that 4chan is a Catholic Image Board.
/his/ is dedicated to the discussion of Catholic empires and kingdoms.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Post your favorite gods, creatures, whatever.
Mythology was totally a big part of ancient history so, this is cool, right?
Egyptian! Nubian! Whatever! Let's talk about what I feel is one of the least discussed regions.
Seriously I know all sorts of history info regarding various places around the world but aside from Egypt, Africa as a continent is rarely discussed.
Stuff was pretty impressive given the region and it being the late Iron Age.
Anyone have any suggested reading for the region/periods?
You know, the problem with discussing African history as a whole is that we barely have any sources (except for the northern parts of course, but those are never really meant when talking about African history). Many parts of the continent were never populated by high cultures and therefore never had writing or any sort of historiography.
The source situation gets better once the age of colonisation starts, but even then our sources are one-sided and mainly written from outside perspectives.
CHANGE THE STICKY PICTURE RIGHT FUCKING NOW
TALK ABOUT POLAND AND ITS NUMEROUS CONTRIBUTIONS TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION
Who is your favourite Roman emperor /his/?
[spoiler]besides Julius Caesar[/spoiler]
Since this appears to be the new place to discuss philosophy, I'd like to help anyone new to philosophy to remember to always start with the Greeks