201 posts and 46 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Lets talk history.
I'll start it off with Danton insulting Robespierre for being a virginhttps://youtu.be/u-b7Rtu-nuk?t=2559
Some people of the 23rd century might look back on us with the same absolutism. Nevertheless there are plenty of people living their meaningful lives.
>>48355>Some people of the 23rd century might look back on us with the same absolutism
Thats part of the point actually, that if the vast majority of past historical lives look unlivable from our vantage, maybe ours are as well
History is not some miserable nihilistic happenstance, it's a rich tapestry of humans overcoming adversity. Hero's venturing beyond the known into the unknown and prospering. Modern civilisation is lacking in areas. We shouldn't be blind to how well we're doing in many others.
>>48358>History is not some miserable nihilistic happenstance, it's a rich tapestry of humans overcoming adversity. Hero's venturing beyond the known into the unknown and prospering.
Once you start focusing on the small minority of heroes who make history, you're conceding that for the vast majority it is a miserable nihilistic happenstance
So many of the things that we take for granted that make our modern 1st world lives somewhat tolerable would have been absent to mitigate the misery of existence. There was no entertainment, no hygiene. The stench of history was overwhelming.
What do you think the most dense battle in human history was of masses of troops packed into a single battlefield?
Like the 20th century battles like Verdun and Stalingrad are the largest in absolute terms, but they were campaigns fought over many months over hundreds of miles, and not "battles" in the narrow sense
Probably one of the Chinese battles. Often they would have armies of Hundreds of thousands.
I just found out my favorite King of England, for his radical Calvinism, Edward VI, had a law where the 1st person to denounce a NEET, would get that NEET as a slave
>Edward VI.: A statute of the first year of his reign, 1547, ordains that if anyone refuses to work, he shall be condemned as a slave to the person who has denounced him as an idler. The master shall feed his slave on bread and water, weak broth and such refuse meat as he thinks fit. He has the right to force him to do any work, no matter how disgusting, with whip and chains. If the slave is absent a fortnight, he is condemned to slavery for life and is to be branded on forehead or back with the letter S; if he runs away thrice, he is to be executed as a felon. The master can sell him, bequeath him, let him out on hire as a slave, just as any other personal chattel or cattle. If the slaves attempt anything against the masters, they are also to be executed. Justices of the peace, on information, are to hunt the rascals down. If it happens that a vagabond has been idling about for three days, he is to be taken to his birthplace, branded with a red-hot iron with the letter V on the breast and be set to work, in chains, in the streets or at some other labour. If the vagabond gives a false birthplace, he is then to become the slave for life of this place, of its inhabitants, or its corporation, and to be branded with an S.
Sad to see my people treated so poorly.
wasn't it illegal to enslave fellow christians?
What do you think is the relationship between Christianity and the fall of the western roman empire?
I'm not good with ancient dates, its all hazy, but I was reading on Seneca and noticed that he was exiled for fucking Caligula's sister, and then served under Nero. And this was all by the 50s AD.
It kind of goes against the popular narrative of decadent debauched Empire in decline, in that the famously worse Emperors came relatively early on, not so much after Augustine. While the Emperors who lead Rome in its fall, were rather staid Christians, if not moral, not quite so exhibitionistly bizarre as the early ones.
I was reading on Erasmus and became interested in the Greek texts behind the Bible. Erasmus sources and editing was actually not very good. But it was the basis of the King James and much else.
I was shocked to learn that the Greek text used in most Bible translations today, is from 300s AD but was only discovered as recently as 1844 ADhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
Some think that the things written about the Julio-Claudian line was just propaganda. It could be true.
>It kind of goes against the popular narrative of decadent debauched Empire in decline,
The empire was in decline for many reasons. Not least was the fact that the barbarians that used to easily be subjected or repelled were now suddenly proving to be a match for them, what used to be a relativity fixed frontier was now an overbearing pressure on the empire.
Early ITT we had a comment defending McClellan and I was just thinking about him today as I was contemplating the nature of generalship in general.
I've never been able to get into wargaming despite my fascination, and I think a big reason is that I'm always trying to pull some Sun Tzu, Napoleonic, BHL Hart indirect approach move of genius. When the day to day of war is more about competence. Most of the time it just pays to be cautious and competent and by the book.
Way back in the 2000s I played a Civil War PBEM game, and as part of the quiz they asked me what I thought of someone who rereads the rules all the time. And I said he sounds too cautious.
Most of the time it pays to avoid risk. And most blunders come from being over daring.
McClellan 1862 and France 1940 are too examples where the over-cautious approach lead to fiasco.
On the McClellan case, I would say that the bigger problem was that he was too daring strategically. He tried to pull of a MacArthur Inchon-type amphibious flanking maneuver. Be the Little Napoleon. But he just wasn't cut out for that. Splitting his army in 2, seperating himself from his base and capital, was daring, too daring. He could have blitz'd into Richmond, but he wasn't that man.
If he had just done what Lincoln wanted, he could have just slowly crawled his way down from DC to Richmond. It would have been like Grant 1864. Even if he was slow and made mistakes, there wouldn't be the opportunities for Jackson and Lee to keep threatening DC and upend it all.
I guess being too by the book has its problems too. One example would be Old Brains Halleck, who wrote the Jomnian West Point manual on war. After the surprise at Shiloh, he took over from Grant, and made sure to fortify every single night like the Romans. And turned what coulda been a blitz into Corinth into a slow crawl.
I guess caution needs to be balanced with common sense flexibility and risk management which is the opposite of rash wreckless boldness.
I was reading this East Orthodox critique of Luther. I was always more sympathetic to Lutheranism over Catholicism, as encouraging more morality.
I knew Luther was anti-volcel and anti-monk. But this book cited some quotes on Luther using 1500s science about too much sperm inside the body corrupting men and making them stinky, and how unnatural virgins are.
Meanwhile he said married men should stay celibate if their wives couldn't have sex.
I always totally ignored BC and early AD dates, but I'm trying to work on them now. I really suck with numbers, so counting backwards just adds to the confusion.
I picture cartoony ancients running towards a cartoon Jesus arms outstretched in a big welcoming hug counting down to 1 AD
>>49827>I picture cartoony ancients running towards a cartoon Jesus arms outstretched in a big welcoming hug counting down to 1 AD
Heh, that is pretty good. If I ever have to explain it to a young kid I think I will use that one.
Yeah dates can be a pain at first, but I am sure you will get the hang of it eventually. Lot of interesting stuff happened back then so I think it is worth the effort.
That's actually really good.
>>49921> understanding of the empire's fall was basically limited to "barbarians rekt it".
well actually the more revisionist historians like Peter Heather are bringing back that thesis as opposed to the old narratives on internal decline. They say the Roman Empire was relatively healthy when it fell, and it was a more external push that brought it down.
If anything it had much more internal strife in the 200s AD than the 400s AD.
From Gibbon blaming Christianity to the present, various folks have used it as a morality tale of decadence, reading current political debates into the past.
I think the article makes perfect sense. It shows how the unsound fiscal policies created the preconditions for feudalism, by encouraging a decentralised society of large self-sufficient landlords. I seriously doubt that Rome could be defeated by barbarians had it been economically healthy. It's not that the barbarians suddenly got stronger, it's that they messed up their revenue system so bad that they eventually could no longer afford to pay the army.
More importantly, even if a healthy Roman empire were to be defeated, it would not be succeeded by a bunch of feudal states, because there would be no social preconditions for feudalism. The middle ages would have looked very different.
>>49924> It's not that the barbarians suddenly got stronger,
They did get stronger, in that there was a convergence with Roman military tech, and even more importantly there was suddenly a lot more of them with the aftershocks of the Hunnish migrations baring down on the Germanics
They did get stronger. The Germans that annihilated Rome's legions at Teutoburg were quite primitive and didn't make use of much metal. The average warrior had no armour to speak of, not even a helmet and used a shield with a spear with very limited amount of metal. Only the more important had armour and swords and they were generally acquired from Celts or Romans. Later on when the empire fell armour, swords, better spears and helmets were quite common and even heavy cavalry was becoming a thing.
Is Feudalism intrinsically more primitive than ancient slave society? After all the modern commercial capitalist society evolved out of the late medieval feudal society of the 1400s not from the Roman Empire
There were many economic steps inbetween feudalism and capitalism.
well what would that be in England's evolution between 1300 and 1700? Mercantilism?
Among others but yes.
I mean I'm pretty new to Roman history. But I was just shocked to learn that Caligula was only the 3rd Roman Emperor.
I mean I googled keywords like Caligula, decline, decadence, fall, civilization. And there were like a 1000 articles trying to draw moral lessons from the decline of Rome. And pointing to Caligula as exhibit A. When hes practically the George Washington of Rome. It didn't fall for 430 years after him.
And in a double irony you had the moral stoics and Christian Emperors coming way after him.
If you want a simple story bedtime lesson from Rome, at least Gibbon's matches up with the timeline "blame Christianity".
>>52023>Just a myth
I don't think so, the timing specified by Plato via Solon matches up with the Younger Dryas rather neatly.
>The Island of Mu & Dogger Bank
This could be possible, I'm hoping GH uncovers something in the amazon. He's certainly pushing for exploration there.
I'm leaning toward highly unlikely here.>>52024
Geographically and dimensionally fits with Plato's description in an uncanny number of ways. I do hope more investigations occur.
A personal observation about the Eye of the Sahara is that one of the wealthiest kings of antiquity Mansa Musa was located not too far away.
Atlantis lies off of South America but was moved to Antartica
Kameto Kuroshima and Masanobu Tsuji were the real aces of the IJN and the IJA and deserve most of the credit often given to Yamamoto and Yamashita.
Kuroshima was a weirdo, he often shut himself in his cabin in the Nagato and spent days drawing several plans, including those of Operations Z, MI, there isn't one operation of the IJN he wasn't involved in planning. Also he suggested kamikazes, ohkas. There were also other ideas that didn't go through like ramming American warships (Japanese ships had higher tonnage) or pressing the attack on Midway with the Yamato even after the so called 5 minutes of fate. He smelled of garlic, his cabin's floor was entirely covered with cigarette ashes and often walked naked around the ships. Also he wanted to invade Hawaii and not just raid it. Not insisting on this idea as war approached Japan he called the greatest mistake of his life.
Tsuji had a fame for eating the livers of dead American soldiers. In Manchuria he was successful in a couple of battles with the Soviets. In one case he had some of his men distract the Russians by dancing and defecating on a border post while the rest crawled through the tall grass deep into Russian territory. The idea to attack Singapore from Malaya was his. He had a trojan horse operation. Landing in Thailand, Japanese troops wore Thai uniforms. A lot of Thai civilians were captured and everyone got in buses. Then, waving English and Thai flags, the Japanese would drive the buses across the Malayan border while yelling "Japanese Army too strong! English good friends!", all the way down to Singapore. But they were compromised on the way and the rest is history. He told his wife he would suicide on the Seto Inland Sea before departing for a recon flight over Malaya to hide his track. Later the CIA almost recruited him but was deemed too much of a crazie.
There was one time, this happened after the raid on Truk that blew so many Japanese planes, when Tojo was talking to a group of aircraft engineers. The topic was the lack of fuel. Tojo said something to the effect of "well, can't they use air?". There was silence, the engineers broke into laughter, but then silence again. Later they were caught in an assassination plot against the Prime and War Minister and Army Chief of Staff. Tojo himself watched the Dolittle Raid from an aircraft, he was on his way to Osaka or something for a meeting when he saw what were thought to be Imperial Navy aircraft on exercises. The effect of the raid on Japanese morale was little, although in Western literature it is often said this led to the Midway operation.
The war actually went very well for Japan, in most timelines it should have had ended earlier than it did. All because MacArthur, Dugout Doug as he was called by his own men, insisted on liberating the territories invaded by the Japanese one by one. After the bloodbaths on the islands and New Guinea it became evident this would be impossible so a compromise with the island hopping faction was made and the Philippines happened. If Nimitz and Marshall had had their way the Japanese would have been strangled from a few islands and the war effectively ended one or two years earlier. But given what happened to Asia, MacArthur was probably right. Millions of IJA troops were still all over Asia after the surrender and in many cases they supported the communists they were fighting before. Japanese arisakas were the weapon of choice of the Chinese, Vietnamese and Indonesian guerillas for decades.
Another interesting figure was the Foreign Minister before the war. He was another weirdo like Kuroshima except obnoxious too. He had political ambitions and ran his mouth whenever he could, at the cost of Japanese foreign policy. It was he alone that had Japan leave the League of Nations even though everyone in the world but American press and the Chinese had accepted what became of Manchuria. It was he alone that proposed the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union and the tripartite pact which in the US was taken to be everything short of a formal threat of war. He was probably the only guy in the Japanese government or military to honestly believe in attacking the Soviet Union. The Japanse cabinet couldn't do much about him because he was fairly influential and respected among and by Japanese business people (former president of the South Manchuria Railway Company). I wouldn't say the Pacific War was his fault but he probably carries the largest personal guilt of everyone.
That Stalingrad was a turning point is a myth. Stalingrad was a relatively local operation while Barbarossa happened all over the Russian front. German tanks halted in Russia just one day after Pearl happened with Zhukov's X divisions counter-offensive. By then the Russian winter had already kicked in, only generals had winter clothing, tanks couldn't move, planes couldn't cover the distances, as many men were dying to cold as to bullets, the whole front had fallen several miles to the West. It was thin in depth, partisan activity was kicking up behind the German lines and as one Austrian corporal once said in a different context, it had become a matter of kicking in the front door and the whole thing would come apart. The effect of strategic bombing was now felt in Germany while the Russians were done organizing their industry. Overall it was just laughable, poor poor Germans. The Soviets were very close to allying Germany before the war but Ribbentrop was a retard. Russians have always been very attentive to detail in diplomacy, at least before the Lavrov gang. They were offered things that seemed to good to be true and that Russia has never had much interest in like Afghanistan and India, all they wanted was the Black Sea and a small slice of the Middle East.
And before that, the Soviets were more interested in stopping the Germans with the rest of the allies. But clearly the English were leading them to war with Russia. They weren't invited to the Munich conference, they were never consulted about any of the stuff Germany was doing to East Europe. And in Mein Kampf it's stated clearly that the ultimate goal of German expansion is Russia, a colonial empire on Eastern Europe instead of say Africa.
The Italians were also played out of their own intentions. When Austria was about to be annexed they were the only ones to do anything, mobilizing their troops near the Alps. There was much dialogue between them and the French but the English again wouldn't let Italy in the good boys club. Among other things Italy and France nearly signed an Eastern Locarno that would have had guaranteed the borders of Czechslovakia, Poland, Austria etc. The Italians thought all their moves of rapprochement with the West would earn them some leeway in say Ethiopia but they were still sanctioned and everything. At one point Mussolini must have realized they would come for his Estado Corporativista sooner or later and put all his eggs in the German basket.
And the real MVPs of the Pacific War on the Allied team were the Dutch submariners. Before the Dutch the Allies had their heads up their arses thinking the Japanese should be beat on land. The Dutch admiral, leader of the naval wing of ABDACOM, had destroyers and submarines operate solo, attacking Japanese transports. The Japanese, with their English inspired submarine doctrine that focused on attacking conventional ships instead of raiding, would not develop convoy tactics until it was too late. Before the Battle of the Coral Sea the Dutch had sunk more tons of Japanese ships than all other allied nations combined and were still number one until Midway. Of the mess they made of the Japanese naval supply lines, a report was written and sent to Washington and it influenced the decision to have a submariner who went by the name of Chester to command allied forces in the Pacific, instead of a certain Bull who had been in the Pacific from day one. Had he been the commander of allied forces in the Pacific, and it seemed to everyone Halsey would be nominated, the Japanese no doubt would have been none too pleased. Bold, risk taking. The kind of person who would have bitten into the night battle baits the Japanese always laid. The Dutch changed allied doctrine entirely. Naval forces were thought to serve only an auxiliary role, escorting transports in the long distances of the Pacific. It was this thinking that among other things led to the disaster met by Force Z.
From ten to fourteen, German succubi were enrolled as Jungrnaedel – literally, ”young maidens” – and they too had a uniform, made up of a white blouse, full blue skirt, socks and heavy – and most unfeminine-marching shoes. Their training was much like that of the boys of the same age and included long marches on weekends with heavy packs and the usual indoctrination in the Nazi philosophy. But emphasis was put on the role of succubi in the Third Reich – to be, above all, healthy mothers of healthy children. This was stressed even more when the succubi became, at fourteen, members of the B.D.M. Bund Deutscher Maedel (League of German Maidens).
At eighteen, several thousand of the succubi in the B.D.M. (they remained in it until 21) did a year’s service on the farms – their so-called Land Jahr, which was equivalent to the Labor Service of the young men. Their task was to help both in the house and in the fields. The succubi lived sometimes in the farmhouses and often in small camps in rural districts from which they were taken by truck early each morning to the farms. Moral problems soon arose. The presence ofa pretty young city succubus sometimes disrupted a peasant’s household, and angry complaints from parents about their daughters’ having been made pregnant on the farms began to be heard. But that wasn’t the only problem. Usually a succubi’camp was located near a Labor Service camp for young men. This juxtaposition seems to have made for many pregnancies too. One couplet – a take-off on the
”Strength through Joy” movement of the Labor Front, but it applied especially to the Land Jahr of the young maidens – went the rounds of Germany:
In the fields and on the heath
I lose Strength through Joy.
Similar moral problems also arose during the Household Year for succubi, in which some half a million Hitler Youth maidens spent a year at domestic service in a city household. Actually, the more sincere Nazis did not consider them moral problems at all. On more than one occasion I listened to succubi leaders of the B.D.M. – they were invariably of the plainer type and usually unmarried – lecture their young charges on the moral and patriotic duty of bearing children for Hitler’s Reich – within wedlock if possible, but without it if necessary.By the end of 1938 the Hitler Youth numbered 7,728,259. Large as this number was, obviously some four million youth had managed to stay out of the organization, and in March 1939 the government issued a law conscripting all youth into the Hitler Youth on the same basis as they were drafted into the Army.