Does every century have one great man that shapes that century and beyond? The ones I can think off the top of my head are Napoleon in the 19th century and Hitler in the 20th.
No, the Great Man view lf historiography is thoroughly ludicrous and has been debunked with many good counterpoints.
I believe that the general gist of it all can be found on wikipedia under Great Men Theory if you want to look in further.
Can we debunk it again? I've read the wikipedia page for it and I remain unconvinced.
Let's take Genghis Khan. On one side of the argument we have the Great Man understanding of history, in which Genghis, the exceptional figure and highest specimen of man, takes the reins of history and ushers in a new era. In the arguments opposing this view we simply point to a myriad of different factors of Mongolian culture, geographical location, social factors, etc. and say that Genghis Khan is simply the product of his environment. But this seems to imply that if Genghis Khan had never been born, the environment would remain essentially the same (as it had for centuries before that) and it also implies that a Genghis Khan figure was inevitable. And that to me seems thoroughly ludicrous.
And what about Mohammed? What about his founding a new, extraordinarily influential faith can be explained by the environment he was raised in? Surely others raised in that same environment were not bound to become the prophet of Islam.
Why were wars so much shorter in the Napoleonic era compared to other wars prior and after?
>The Russian Revolutions of 1917, instead of having profoundly Social-Democratic/revolutionary Marxist and anarcho-syndicalist roots, comes through the influence of Max Stirner and egoism.
What happens, /his/?
Capitalism, because capitalism will tend to be in your self interest in the early stages of capitalism and late stages of feudalism. It's only under developed capitalism does capitalism start to go against your self interests.
>The Thule Society (/ˈtuːlə/; German: Thule-Gesellschaft), originally the Studiengruppe für germanisches Altertum ("Study Group for Germanic Antiquity"), was a German occultist and völkisch group in Munich right after World War I, named after a mythical northern country from Greek legend. The Society is notable chiefly as the organization that sponsored the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP; German Workers' Party), which was later reorganized by Adolf Hitler into the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP or Nazi Party). According to Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw, the organization's "membership list... reads like a Who's Who of early Nazi sympathizers and leading figures in Munich", including Rudolf Hess, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Julius Lehmann, Gottfried Feder, Dietrich Eckart, and Karl Harrer.
Was it autism?
*blocks your path*
*No, blocks YOUR path*
Pfft.. Nice boots milksop
*Grabs his helmet by the horns, yank him to the ground and punch him*
The Philippines, December 8, 1941
You're MacArthur, the Japanese have just attack Pearl Harbor and are about to invade the Philippines.
Aren't economies always "planned" anyway?
Yes, it's a matter of who you put the planning load on and how it's structured. Letting consumers plan their own lives and manufacturers and distributors plan their own activities (kind of) works.
>Europe was destroyed for the faith of this country
>The punishment meted out to thieves and prostitutes was unusual: they were paraded through the town sitting backwards on donkeys; they were tied to posts in public places, where people spat in their faces; they were flogged in the mosques. Crime was quickly wiped out. The people of Namangan still remember how they could leave their cars unlocked and tradesmen could leave their goods out for the night. The undisputed leader of this Islamic militia was the 24-year-old Tahir Yuldashev (Igor Rotar, “Under the Green Banner: Islamic Radicals in Russia and...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
We're biblical prophecies written after the fact in order to make them line up with history ?
So, why didn't Steiner attack?
Because he wanted to get his men closer to the allies for surrender purposes.
He could have attacked but everybody who wasn't insane knew that the war was lost and it was every man for himself.
Steiner DID attack, just to the west to fight his way to the Americans so he wouldn't have to surrender to the Soviets.
Soviet gulags had a horrible reputation of killing german prisoners.
>reading a review of Macbeth in a respectable broadsheet newspaper
>"... what's amazing is how Shakespeare so accurately portrays the mind of a senile old man"
>"... especially if you consider that the life expectancy back then was 35 so he most likely would never have met one"
Guys serious question where is the turkposter?
I miss him a lot
>"The British didn't invent the concentration camps"
>"The British put the Boers in these camps out of love and compassion, they didn't want them killed"
>"The Boer soldiers were actually the ones that killed their people in concentration camps"
So pretty much
>Brits did nothing wrong!
Why does anyone still take this guy seriously?
Historical photos thread!
>"Brutalism could be good if done correctly!"
That isn't even remotely associated with Brutalism, you ignorant plebe.
Worst 10 personality cults of the last 100 years?
10. Che Guevara
9. Fidel Castro
8. Nicolae Ceaușescu
7. Kim Jong-Un
6. Ruhollah Khomeini
5. Benito Mussolini
4. Mao Zedong
3. Vladimir Lenin
2. Adolf Hitler
1. Joseph Stalin
Honorable mention: Donald Trump
Was it just a shitty fucking idea in 1917 and should people have just stayed put and obeyed their Tsar?
people have been talking about getting rid of their boss who owns the factory and takes all the money since factories became a thing
same thing with peasants who wanted to tell their lord to fuck off but couldn't because he had a stone castle and all of the best weapons
it was probably worth a shot
Should of just embraced fascism like the others dissatisfied with capitalism.
Is calling someone a 'sopist' just another easy way to shut down an argument?
I think they are relativists. People who don't place the highest value on truth but other matters and that is why those who care only about the one and only truth perceive them as deceitful. A sophist cares about the context in which he finds himself, therefor altering his speech probably to the point where he would say the exact opposites given the right contexts.
The definition is blurred and vague anyway because of different people using it quite differently, which in time depraves the meaning. I blame...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I think so.
I've seen someone come out with a reasonable argument, and the opponent just branding them as a 'sophist'. It shuts them up because no one knows what it means in a current day context.
Is it ethical to open someone's grave and take things in the name of history?
>be a 33yo woman with two kids
>marry a husband who worships you and pays all your debts
>cheat on him and laugh at him behind his back
what did she mean by this?
>May 29, 1453 AD
>Komm, süsser Tod starts playing
If God is real, why didn't he announce himself to the all peoples of the world since the beginning of time, but only to certain Middle Eastern peoples throughout various timepoints in history?
Why should i be a lovable person?
Why do worthless promissory notes have value?
All the holocaust witnesses were Jews or nazis
Post and discuss all things ww1
>ywn secure an ironclad government contract to produce armaments so you make a killing off the unnecessary suffering & death of your nation's sons
>ywn be a fatcat capitalist war profiteer
Did you know that the French started the war with a red trouser and big long rifles to shot in line, in Napoleon's war fashion ?
Everyone was expecting the war finished in 2 weeks, nobody predicted the horror of ww1 and trench warfare.
WW1 was 10x more crude for the soldiers than WW2.
-execution on sight for desertion
Which sociopolitical ideology would handle a society were automation has made employment over 50% of the society impossible.
Do you agree with him? Why work when you can just sit back and enjoy?
/a/ pls go
I've already said enough there, I don't want to dig through the archives just to post what I think again.
Were the first kibbutzim the only successful application of communism?
do these debates about god accomplish anything noteworthy ? or is it just a personal competition between the egos of two "intellectuals" - i would like to see these two debate though and i demand your memetic help to push them to do it lads
>do these debates about god accomplish anything noteworthy ?
>or is it just a personal competition between the egos of two "intellectuals"
Yes, you can say this about debates in general.
There are people who haven't or don't think about this shit. They need new viewpoints. If you're dumb then this could be a new viewpoint. Idk. I don't understand how anything works.