>>565811 There were no concentration camps in the US. We did relocate Japanese to camps, but they were not slaves, or kept in squalor. I'm not saying it was a good thing, but if the Holocaust is a 10 on a 1 to 10 scale of warcrimes, this was like a 2.
>>565657 The original reason for the Sunni/Shia split is almost as stupid as the Orthodox/Catholic split, and has about as much relevance for modern politics. Irrespective of branches, the religion is more extremist in the theocracies and more moderate in the secular states. Like, duh.
>>565580 Well this is more than characters, but the recent history of the Arab World could be perfect for a 'Romance of the Three Kingdoms'-esque story, except with a tragic ending.
>Exposition: Decline and overthrow of Ottoman Empire; Arab Revolt success; Sykes-Picot
>Rising Action: Faisal becomes king of Iraq and Syria, revolts against French and British, full independence of Arab countries, Jewish immigration and control of local economy... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>565794 Geoffrey Plantagenet has one of the most interesting histories.
Count of Anjou. Married Matilda. Matilda was 11 years older than he was. So, both disliked the marriage. Matilda even more so. She used to be married to a powerful Holy Roman Emperor that was 16 years older than she was. Then, she became a widow and had to marry a 15 years old count because her father wanted peace with Anjou.
They managed to have some kids together and then spent as little... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>565564 Thailand, perhaps? I'm not sure since I haven't really studied Thai history, but their independence made them pretty much the Ethiopia of SE Asia during the late 19th and early 20th century. I gues you could say they were ruled by Tokyo as a puppet during WW2 but they were still a sovereign state. Nepal also I guess, although very much influenced by the Brits they still had control over their own country
There are quite a few terms being thrown around on the internet and this board when discussing military history. Quite a lot of them really have different meanings to different people often resulting in the thread devolving into shitfests with people trying to prove which word means what. Shall we have a thread defining some of the vague terms we use in military history once and for all to the benefit of future threads?
Some terms I often hear are Professional or levy, warrior or soldier and Civic militia and the dreaded 'peasant levy'. Especially in medieval/dark... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>565532 Some historic examples of a professional soldier/warrior are the Post-Marian legionaries who were recruited in their late teens or early twenties and could be expected to serve 25 years, they did not know a live outside of fighting until they served their term. Spartans can be seen as another professional, they had a large population of slaves do all the labor and farming while every Spartan citizen was expected to take on fighting as their main occupation. The medieval period saw some professional forces too although... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
For some this has probably become a synonym for inept or low quality and the opposite of professional. I think this term is the opposite of professional but in defining the terms of service for a particular soldier. As opposed to the professional this person had an occupation before entering the army and he will probably return to this life when the war is over.
Some prime examples would be the army of the Athenian city state of Ancient Greece, the pre-Marian reforms... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>565537 It should be noted again that Levy does not indicate the quality of the soldiers per say, levied troops managed to beat professional troops from time to time, empires were forged and destroyed with these part timers. A way in which the Napoleonic or modern day conscription differs from some historic examples is that the state often provides the equipment for the raised soldiers whereas in most levied troops the soldiers were expected to bring their own armor and weapons according to his wealth.
In some cases... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>565497 Past monarchs returning to life would most likely be dead last in the line of succession. Titles are passed down to descendants and only in the case there are no direct descendants does it go up a generation and search for descendants again, then if there are no direct descendants it goes up again etc.
Of course since King Arthur is not from the same dynasty he could argue the newcomers usurped the throne with warfare or intrigue and he could launch a reconquest, I suppose.
After the collapse of the ottomans they went like "yeah man we were always here and then that Alexander dude was rude and made us basically go all the way across the world to China but they build a wall so we came back"
This was a serious political idea of the 20th century and is still viewed as an origin story in Turkey
>>565456 They're immigrants with no right to live in Anatolia. They're literally the descendents of Mongolian rape childs.
It's the same thing with those stupid ass Uyghers in china. There have been pathetic attempts by these people to justify their right to live in china. Going as far as to say they are descendents of tocharians. A Caucasian group of people with European features that lived in central asia before being raped and fucked over by the yellow monkey.
The Turks are such a diverse people that a lot of these origin stories are all true, in some sense. Some parts of the Turkish gene pool come from central Asia, some parts come from the Greeks, some come from the pre-greek Anatolians, etc.
Should I read a bunch of more modern stuff before jumping into Gibbon's Decline and fall? Should I read it at all? Regardless, are there any other works regarding the fall of Rome that are required reading?
>>565322 Most modern works are influenced by the decline and fall, so you don't need to. However, it is important to remember that Rome never really "fell", it just sort of faded away sometime in the early middle ages.
>>565315 It was. People just dont realize it, because most of the territory it lost was territory it had only recently gained - from France earlier, and from Russia in the same war, since there was a separate treaty. Germany won much land from Russia, then lost that land, and some of its own, when the final treaty was made.
All of Poland was German land, taken from Germany.
>>565315 Because The French didn't have the ability to force it on their own and No Way the British Would have approved it Despite the Germanphobia that the British had they still were pragamatic enough to keep "keeping The Balance of Power" as the goal, Only Idiots like Churchill wanted British Foriegn Policy to be about Macho feels
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.