No.31165[Last 50 Posts]
Lets talk history.
I'll start it off with Danton insulting Robespierre for being a virginhttps://youtu.be/u-b7Rtu-nuk?t=2559
I've been reading about the American Civil War again recently. Specifically a lot about the Army of the Potomac.
I've come to the conclusion that McClellan has gotten a bad rap. While he may not have been the best commanding general, he was an excellent military administrator and logistician, having basically raised and arranged the training of the army from militia to efficient fighting force.
He mostly gets attacked for not really understanding the concepts of force concentration and momentum, such as at Antietam when he wouldn't commit forces to assaults on the Bloody Lane because he was uncertain of victory. Then following the battle, he didn't seize the momentum and pursue Lee. That said, I think that it was a wise decision. The Bloody Lane was essentially a trench with open ground in front of it, an assault while perhaps successful would have been costly and if beaten back, could lead to the collapse of that section of his line, or weakening of other areas with redployments such as around Dunker Church which was nearby. Also, pursuit of Lee after battle could also have left the Union open to counterattack, especially considering that it would take time to get the army organized for moving again.
He is often demonized as the worst general ever but really, he was pretty good, if a bit old school. He did graduate second of his class at West Point after all and Lee considered him the best Union general of the war. He was no wizard, but I can't help but feel bad for him for being on the receiving end of 150 years of trash talking and Lincoln worship at his expense.
>>31277>While he may not have been the best commanding general, he was an excellent military administrator and logistician, having basically raised and arranged the training of the army from militia to efficient fighting force.
I think he is often given credit for that by historians.
His major military campaign was the Peninsula Campaign and march on Richmond. Maybe he was too clever for his own good, and the indirect approach, amphibious flanking of Virginia was a bad move. It left the superior Union army divided for Stonewall to defeat them in detail in the Shenandoah and threaten DC. And his slow crawl up the peninsula and then retreat from inferior CSA forces at Richmond, makes some of his bad reputation well-earned. Maybe a direct march down to Richmond would have been preferable. It would have been harder for the CSA to outmaneuver. And then you might have bogged down into a war of attrition and trench warfare outside Richmond like in 1864-5 back in 1862. And then the CSA superiority would be bogged down in a war of attrition that favors Union material and manpower superiority.
Also Antietam was a pretty disastrous outcome from the Union side, when you consider that a bloodbath stalemate is the best Mac could achieve when knowing the exact positions of the entire CSA army. Turtledove's entire CSA victory alt-hist is based on the epic fail it would have been if Mac didn't have the CSA's complete plans in front of him.
Antietam was a cock-up for sure, but his motives are fairly understandable is all and they do make sense to me at least. It's easy to look back and say he did wrong, but at the time, it's easy to see why one might be skeptical of such a convenient bit of info. Besides, Lee was also a plain superior general. I don't think many would have made great successes of that hell.
The retreat from Richmond likewise is kind of understandable though, even if he wasn't right in doing so. An army that is pushed into a corner has massive force concentration and can very well beat back superior forces if they think they're backed into a corner with nowhere to go. He was just too cautious and I can happily admit that, it's just that I disagree with the attitude that he is among the worst ever. Mac really wasn't at his best when attacking though, I'll also certainly admit that. He was not good at mobility and mass and preferred to dig in and fight with fortifications which often lost him the initiative, though also snatched some victories in his career because of it.
I don't think he was one of the best, and certainly needed an advisory unit he would listen to, but he was not the worst either. Tactically he was too immobile and cautious in a war which needed mobility and aggression, but if he was kept in an operational role and kept away from battle plans then I think we'd know a different Mac. He wasn't terrible, but his faults were plain to see against crazy good generals like Lee and Jackson, or Grant on the Union side who fought the war as it needed to be fought at the cost of many thousands more men to reach Richmond.
I don't think he was amazing, just that his military successes tend to be unfairly overshadowed by his failures, I can get it at the time, but after 150 years, I think it needs to be looked at again and the meme of him being a walking disaster reasessed.
I realize that I repeated myself a lot in that post. That's what I get for not proofreading I suppose.
The books I've read from mainstream history; largely coincide with the portrait you describe. McClellan is recognized as a good organize and administrator. And popular with the troops. But as a leader of offensives he was almost humorously inept, being mislead by Quaker cannons etc. Its hard to name a well-managed McClellan campaign except maybe 1861 West Virginia against minimal CSA forces.
I mean caricaturing him as a buffoon and a fool would be unjust. But I don't really think mainstream historians go much further than what you just said. A good administrator but unsuited for mobility and offensive warfare.
It would have been interesting to see McClellan with the full Army of the Potomac directly confront the Army of Northern Virginia. But that never really happened in Virginia. Since his forces were split for the Peninsula campaign and he was absent at 2nd Bull Run. The closest thing being Antietam. Its possible that his cautious, methodological style if employed for a direct advance from DC to Richmond would have proved lumbering but overwhelming. Then again he didn't really prove himself as a defensive general during the Seven Days.
Personally I like to read about the soviet union especially the stalin era. The last book I read was stalin executioner or hangman it was about all of stalin henchman who ran his secret police for him.
Another book I read is molotov renember is like a memoir by stalin foreign minister vycheslav molotov.
I've been reading this, its an economic history of how industry was nationalized and state industry set up in the period from 1917-1932https://web.archive.org/web/20110426213345/http://leninist.biz/en/1977/USITP299/index.txt
(save as html)
I've always thought of the War of the Spanish Succession, as starting over the Spanish throne, but geographically being fought almost entirely along the Rhine, while the Bourbons maintained steady control in Spain.
So is interesting that there was actually something like a Civil War in Spain between the Hapsburg and Bourbon forces. With the Anglo-Hapsburg army even briefly occupying Madrid.https://www.google.com/search?q=Mapa+de+la+guerra+de+Successi%C3%B3&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA2cmajMfQAhVH_IMKHWGzB64Q_AUICCgB&biw=1280&bih=629#imgrc=SGYpqyvj_ja1GM%3A
I mentioned this in the last thread; but for me the Hapsburgs represented everything wrong with the Ancien Regime, standing in the way of Whig history and progress, the Reformation, Enlightenment, French Revolution, liberalism, nationalism. But comparing Austria-Hungary to what came after in the 20th century Central Europe, it looks good by comparison. And if you look were Eastern and Central Europe is today in 2016, we didn't need the bloody 20th century to get us there. So you could say I've become somewhat of a revisionist on that. Even if Whig Liberalism is your goal, there would be more of that in a 2016 Austria-Hungary than contemporary Hungary and Poland.
Sorry for the late reply, I've been living on my sister's couch without steady internet for a couple of weeks.
I agree that the Seven Days didn't show his defensive abilities in the best light, but that said, McClellan was well known as a guy who liked to dig in. They make fun of it in 'Richmond is a Hard Road' when the lyrics mock McClellan;
'And it put him in the dumps, that spades wasn't trumps,
And the Hills he couldn't level as ordered.'
Referring to his defeats at the hands of A. P. Hill, but also,
'Lay down the shovel, and throw away the spade
For Richmond is a hard road to travel, I'm afraid!'
So it was also known that he was a man who was only really dangerous if you let him use his spades, and that much was also proven in the Seven Days at Malvern Hill where Lee dun goofed and let Mac dig in and got royally fucked for his troubles.
That makes me think that maybe they should have given Mac command over the Engineers, it certainly makes more sense considering his skillset. He was also proven to be able to manage construction prior to the war when he worked on railways. His methodical approach wouldn't matter and would perhaps have been beneficial in construction as well, where small errors can cause big problems and he would get to do a lot of digging.
The problem with an encounter between the two armies is that under Lee and McClellan no mass engagement would have been forced I think. I don't know as much about the other generals of the AoNV to say, but Lee demonstrated that he was more than happy to just avoid Mac entirely and fuck targets of opportunity up instead (Harpers Ferry).
But yeah, I know that historians generally agree with some of what I'm saying, it's just that it still seems that Mac in the public consciousness is still a bumbling idiot when it was far from the case.
>>31504>The problem with an encounter between the two armies is that under Lee and McClellan no mass engagement would have been forced I think. I don't know as much about the other generals of the AoNV to say, but Lee demonstrated that he was more than happy to just avoid Mac entirely and fuck targets of opportunity up instead (Harpers Ferry).
I've heard criticisms of Lee that he was actually over-aggressive and went on the offensive too much. Which worked great in some circumstances but not Antietam and Gettysburg obviously. And even the Seven Days they attribute it more to McClellan's bad generalship rather than Lee's good generalship. In that had Mac been a Grant, the situation of Lee's smaller army taking more casualties than the Union larger army right outside of Richmond, would have ended very badly for Lee.
>The problem with an encounter between the two armies is that under Lee and McClellan no mass engagement would have been forced I think.
This would be a longterm Siege of Petersburg WW1-style trench warfare starting all the way in 1862. Which arguably would have been to Union advantage as it would have become purely an economic attrition war of men and material, where Lee's superior generalship would have been wasted. Which is basically what ultimately ended the war in 1865. Obviously Lee's army was much more fresh in 1862, so it might have been longterm WW1 trench warfare in the 1860s.
(also sorry about your situation fellow history wiz, hope everything works out for you)
Harpers Ferry was extremely aggressive. He split his army which was already outnumbered 2:1 and hit a garrison that was out of the way while fleeing the AotP. Lee was aggressive but not dumb. His biggest pitfall was thinking too highly of his men which led to vague orders that were misinterpreted and often catastrophically so.
I'm not actually from the US so I used them as an introductory series because I'd heard good things and I needed a general overview text to fill in what I don't get from a non-american background.
Hungary was better off without Czech, Romanian, Serbs, Ruthenian, and whatever other ethnic group inside it's border. The way the border were drawn were quite horrible, leaving a bunch of Hungarians in foreign countries.
But the Austro-Hungarian was a clusterfuck of ethnicity, so mixed together that it was impossible to create a country for each ethnicity without having dozens of enclave, and the census made was subpar, only grouping people by their spoken language, rather than cultural, or ethnic identity. Not to mention, that the Western Power weren't that much concern about what was going to happen, granting land to their allies more for strategic reasons, than making the region more stable.
Hungary should be happy to be that way, otherwise, it would have become exactly like Yugoslavia. A bloody civil war, and a bloody mess.
Tell that to anyone in my country and they will beat you up, even leftists. You are right, though.
Semi off-topic: why do you think Hungary is less developed than western European countries in spite of the remarkable achievements of its people in the fields of mathematics and physics?
Is it all due to foreign meddling? Being landlocked? Endogenous causes?
To be fair, most of the people you have in mind were Jewish-Hungarians, so it's not like they were actually Hungarians.
Dictatorships in the 20th century, my wizard. They pretty much fucked up this country.
Now it is basically Russia 2.0: Chad oligarchies steal everything, nobody cares anymore, it is a big clusterfuck.
We hungarians are to blame for this, though. Lots of people say hate on foreigners for "sabotaging" our country but they don't notice that the trouble is with us.>>31670
I don't want to sound like a nationalist but for being such small country, Hungarians did a lot of shit and I'm not talking about jews only.
I also left out that "muh Trianon" actually plays a part in the answer too. After we lost territories the economy was shit but Hungary started to do okay between the 2 world wars…then nazis and commies wrecked the country again. After that we had communism which destroyed the economy even further. And here we are, now.
This country is a fucking corpse and our politicians are trying to get as much money out of it as they can. Currently the prime minister, his family and his friends own pretty much everything…just like in 20th century dictatorships.
Hegel though that history had in essentials ended with the post-Napoleonic Restoration; the revolutions of 1830 deeply troubled him and he could see on the horizons that all which had seemed settled had become problematical againhttps://books.google.com/books?id=83PXlSBuLXgC&pg=PA209&dq=hegel+1830+revolution&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhgt2p29bQAhUJw4MKHVLyBq4Q6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=hegel%201830%20revolution&f=false
Just bought this. Need some bathroom reading to browse.
I strongly recommend the Napoleonic Atlas and the London Times World History Atlas. Very detailed maps.
Adrian Goldsworthy's book on Augustus is well worth the read. He also wrote a good book about the fall of Rome, but it wasn't as good in my opinion.
I liked this a lot.>The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire: A complete history of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire
History of Rome podcast:http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/archives.html
I started reading this book on the Grand Strategy of Byzantine https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Grand_Strategy_of_the_Byzantine_Empi.html?id=pZAikRi4ROAC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false
I also like studying the intricacies of theological, christological, trinitarian debates of the late roman and Byzantine Late Antiquity era.
I've memorized every single US Presidential election from 1788 to 2016. The winner and most of the losers. I have a basic outline of most of the election maps in my head.
I've also memorized every Soviet Congress from the 16th in 1930 to the 28th in 1990. As well as the CPC from the 7th in 1945 to the 19th in 2017. As well as the major issues of the congresses. They are basically the equivalent to the US Presidential elections as far as selecting the top executive leadership goes as the Congress elects the Central Committee which elects the Politburo.
I've never been big on the meaningless memorization of facts and dates. Although being a serious amateur scholar you naturally pick up a lot of memory. But there are uses to it. You don't always have google at your fingertips and its like having a book in your brain. A peg to anchor facts to dates so you can think about and contemplate history without a book or computer in front of you. Sometimes when I'm walking I'll just count all the years from 1789 to the present and try to name an event for each year. I have some pretty big gaps. The US presidential election helps anchor me every 4 years, although I'm actually much more focused on European history.
The thing is I already naturally picked up all the big stuff, so I just needed to fill in some of the boring stuff to have a complete archive in my brain, and the dates lend to it as a natural peg. For example I already knew the Founding Fathers to Van Buren. Pierce to Hayes. And Cleveland to the 20th century. So I just needed to fill in a few gaps in the pre and post Civil War era and I now had the complete history in my brain. And it was actually easier to remember it by election than by list. Since you have the natural pegs of the 4 year cycle and just fill in the gaps. I even remembered the VPs who took power like Millard Fillmore, Tyler and Chester A. Arthur.
"The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire"
Edward N. Luttwak, Senior Associate, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C
Conversations host Harry Kreisler welcomes Edward N. Luttwak for a conversation on his new book, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire." Luttwak discusses the logic of strategy; the distinctive features of Byzantine strategy with its balance of diplomacy, intelligence, and military power; the institutional and ideological foundations that account for the eight hundred year survival of Byzantium, and the implications of this record for other great powers with diminished resources confronting many adversaries. The conversation concludes with a comparison of Rome, Byzantium, and the United States.
Espionage History Archive is an online project for the translation and analysis of historical materials from the archives of Russian intelligence as well as articles, interviews, and memoirs by veteran intelligence officers. From the time of Ivan the Terrible to today, Russia has excelled at the art of spying, becoming an espionage superpower. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, some materials on Moscow’s intelligence operations have become available to English-speakers, but much remains undiscovered.
Espionage History Archive aims to lift the veil of secrecy from the KGB, its major operations, and most formidable officers. From intelligence and counterintelligence to special operations (spetsnaz), assassinations, secret diplomacy, and deep politics, we seek to peer into the history of spying – a murky underground world that can tell us much about the ever-present realities of the Great Game.https://espionagehistoryarchive.com/
Battle of Sekigahara.
October 21, 1600.
As the samurai armies of Tokugawa Ieyasu and Ishida Mitsunari clash, Mitsunari sends a messenger by horse to Hideaki, whose troops were until then on top of mount Matsuo, waiting for the right opportunity to intervene, signaling that it was the moment for him to charge down mount Matsuo against the Tokugawa forces. The messenger did not get off his horse to deliver his message, and much less did he bow to the man he was meant to deliver the message to. Such detail, such dishonor, would forever ripple in the history of Japan, as Hideaki decided to not intervene in the battle. It was only when Tokugawa Ieyasu was about to lose the battle that he said "If Hideaki cannot decide which side to join, then I'll make him do!" and ordered his cannons to fire against mount Matsuo. This gamble turned out to be extremely lucky, as Hideaki charged against the forces of Ishida.
The Great War channel on Youtube is a good source for one to understand WW1 thoroughly.
Thank you kind anon
Honestly I kinda lost respect for that book when I learned hes a failed pundit and not a classics scholarhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Luttwak
Heres a book by an actual Byzantine scholar
>Kaldellis shows that the idea of Byzantium as a rigid imperial theocracy is a misleading construct of Western historians since the Enlightenment. With court proclamations often draped in Christian rhetoric, the notion of divine kingship emerged as a way to disguise the inherent vulnerability of each regime. The legitimacy of the emperors was not predicated on an absolute right to the throne but on the popularity of individual emperors, whose grip on power was tenuous despite the stability of the imperial institution itself. Kaldellis examines the overlooked Byzantine concept of the polity, along with the complex relationship of emperors to the law and the ways they bolstered their popular acceptance and avoided challenges. The rebellions that periodically rocked the empire were not aberrations, he shows, but an essential part of the functioning of the republican monarchy.https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Byzantine_Republic.html?id=mOmaBQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Mitrokhin Archive is a collection of handwritten notes made secretly by KGB archivist Vasili Mitrokhin during his thirty years as a KGB archivist in the foreign intelligence service and the First Chief Directorate. When he defected to the United Kingdom in 1992 he brought the archive with him.
The official historian of the MI5 Christopher Andrew wrote two books, Sword and the Shield (1999) and The KGB and the Battle for the Third World (2005), based on material in the archives. The books give alleged details about much of the Soviet Union's clandestine intelligence operations around the world.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrokhin_Archivehttp://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/52/mitrokhin-archive
Fuck you wilson for ruining europe
European emigration to the US hit a massive pace during the 19th century. Especially from the irish and germans. Political situations and technological possibility (Stema ships) meant that if you moved to america with a fairly low travel cost, you'd get some cheap land and work it as a free man, rather than be under some monarch's thumb, or starving to death because there's a potato famine.
I can't remember the exact statistic but it was something like 20 million europeans emigrated to the US during the 19th century. Especially during the great hunger of 1840s, where seasonal low temperatures and potato blight or whatever gave everyone bad crop harvests.
Europe in the 19th century was pretty rough at the start, since 1798 was the french revolution, causing political tumoil all over europe, and then when Napoleon was defeated, all the monarchs started basically working together to suppress uppity peasants either through appeasement or brute force (like in russia).
You'd also get lots of jewish emigration from Russia, since being pogrom'd every year is bad for morale.
At once point there were more native irish living in America than in Ireland.
>>33349>if you moved to america with a fairly low travel cost, you'd get some cheap land and work it as a free man
America of the 19th century sounds like a paradise. I can see why people came. I've not done a whole lot of US history as my primary area of interest for most of my life has been the British Empire. I knew about the mass of migration but I wasn't aware of just how deeply European these groups remained even when they reached the New World, Considering that a lot of the migrations started in the 1840s, that means that many of these guys had 20 years of American life under their belt and were still most definitely German, though apparently everybody just called them Dutchmen. It's also interesting to note that after such a short period, these minority groups were more than willing to go and die for the Union which says a lot about a nation inspiring loyalty instead of demanding it a la seemingly every government including the US today.
On the internationalism as well I found out about this unit, the 39th NY Volunteer Infantry,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/39th_New_York_Volunteer_Infantry_Regiment
>Initially, the regiment was divided into eleven companies of men of different national heritage: three German, three Hungarian, one Swiss, one Italian, one French, one Spanish, and one Portuguese.
The Spanish one was just Spanish speaking though and was mostly Cubans, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. There was also a Polish Legion under Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski who really nails down what you were saying because wikipedia says he was >A Polish noble, he took part in the 1848 uprising against Prussia and left Poland after its suppression.
It's also neat to think that if Lincoln had the balls to call it a war against slavery in '61 then the Commander in Chief of the US Army could very well have been none other than Giuseppe Garibaldi of redshirt fame who offered that exact service to Lincoln if he'd make it a war of emancipation.
I'll also leave some regimental colors for something pretty to look at. I find the aesthetic of Civil War colors really neat because they're often so makeshift, or simply in an entirely different style to how I'm used to seeing colors from British history. Compare the first two to the third to see what I mean.
The hardest bit about researching the American Civil War in Australia is that there is virtually nothing in hard print here while presumably one could find volumes on it in any bookstore in America.
Apparently Churchil gave orders to bombard german civilians. Anyone else here heard about that?
I had this book on the backburner for a while as a "to eventually read". But it wasn't really high priority because America bores me.
My impression was that it was about US diplomacy after WW1, and how the USA was actually the dominant hyperpower world hegemon in 1918, the way it was in 1945 or 1991.
I've read a lot of books about the origins of WW1, so I figured I might as well read a book about post-WW1 diplomacy.
But I was really blown away by the depth of it. It gets into the whole political ideology of Woodrow Wilson. And how he was not an idealistic utopian, but a Burkean Anglo-Saxon shaped by the South's defeat in the Civil war. And contrasting that with the young Clemenceau, radical Jacobin journalist, supporter of Reconstruction.
A lot of detail about the internal power struggles of German politics. Or the semi-alliance between Lenin's Russia and Germany. Its about much more than just American diplomacy.
Not saying I agree with all the unique takes, but its a very interesting revisionist take on the WW1 to 1930s era.
I enjoyed the popular British historian John Julius Norwich's engaging and well-written A Short History of Byzantium
. It is an abridged version of his three-volume work, which I plan to tackle some time down the road.
Though he has to cover a dizzying amount of years in a relatively short book, he still manages to immerse the reader with well-chosen anecdotes and snapshots of daily life.
The idea was to try and get a similar effect to what happened in Japan. Bomb the people and make them sue for peace to stop the bombs. Could go as easy as that, or the enemy could go into a civil war with civilians vs military government.
It's a seriously messed up idea but that's war. The British did it to Germany, and Germany did it back to some success in the Blitz as well, but never achieved the force concentration for it to work as intended and they got pushed out. It's also part of why things like the V-1 and V-2 were developed, to hit civilian targets and terrify the public into surrendering. The Allies never went with that avenue though and stuck to bombers and just flattening cities for shock and awe.
Like I said, it was fucked up but it was war and people get nasty during wartime.
Was Emperor Basil II a wizard? We do know he was very ascetic, fiercely celibate, never married, left no heirs.
He really gave the aristocrat chads hell at times as well, preferring to spend much of his time with his neurodiverse Scandinavian norman-slaying Varangian Guard.
The early years of his long reign were dominated by civil war against powerful generals from the Anatolian aristocracy. Following their submission, Basil oversaw the stabilization and expansion of the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire, and above all, the final and complete subjugation of Bulgaria, the Empire's foremost European foe, after a prolonged struggle. For this he was nicknamed the Bulgar Slayer (Greek: Βουλγαροκτόνος, Boulgaroktonos), by which he is popularly known.
At his death, the Empire stretched from southern Italy to the Caucasus and from the Danube to the borders of Palestine, its greatest territorial extent since the Muslim conquests four centuries earlier. His reign is therefore often seen as the medieval apogee of the Empire.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_II
Yes, it is my feeling that the claim of womanizing is false, perhaps added to deflect suspicions of homosexuality (or wizardry). But I do not know for sure, of course.
I have that book on my backburner but havent gotten around to it yet. I'm not that into Roman military history anymore. More into the social conflicts between Optimates and Populares. Which was a big part of Caesar's assassination
Its one of my fav eras of history, Jacobins on horseback scaring away the Crowned Chads, setting up satellite sister Republics across Europe
The monks, in vowing celibacy, had underestimated the power of a sexual instinct repeatedly stirred by secular example and sights. Caesarius of Heisterbach tells a story, often repeated in the Middle Ages, of an abbot and a young monk riding out together. The youth saw succubi for the first time. “What are they?” he asked. “They be demons,” said the abbot. “I thought,” said the monk, “that they were the fairest things that ever I saw.”14 Said the ascetic Peter Damian, nearing the end of a saintly but acerbic life:
I, who am now an old man, may safely look upon the seared and wrinkled visage of a blear-eyed crone. Yet from sight of the more comely and adorned I guard my eyes like boys from fire. Alas, my wretched heart!—which cannot hold scriptural mysteries read through a hundred times, and will not lose the memory of a form seen but once.15
To some monks virtue seemed a contest for their souls between succubus and Christ; their denunciation of succubus was an effort to deaden themselves to her charms; their pious dreams were sometimes softened with the dews of desire; and their saintly visions often borrowed the terms of human love.16 Ovid was a welcome friend in some monasteries, and not least thumbed were his manuals of the amorous art.17 The sculptures of certain cathedrals, the carvings of their furniture, even the paintings in some missals, portrayed riotous monks and nuns—pigs dressed as monks, monastic robes bulging over erect phalli, nuns sporting with devils.18 A relief on the Portal of the Judgment at Reims shows a devil dragging condemned men to hell; among them is a mitered bishop. Medieval ecclesiastics—perhaps seculars envying regulars —allowed such caricatures to remain in place; modern churchmen thought it better to have most of them removed. The Church herself was the severest critic of her sinning members; a noble succession of ecclesiastical reformers labored to bring monks and abbots back to the ideals of Christ.https://archive.is/dbVfs#selection-2055.0-2127.472
I am 40 pages into a book (link below) on the air war over Germany and the bombing of Dresden. This passage I just read on the Hamburg bombing was particularly moving:
"The streets were littered with hundreds of corpses," SS Obergruppenfuhrer Kehrl described, "Mothers with their children, youths and elderly people: sometimes their bodies were charred and burned, sometimes untouched: sometimes they were clothed, sometimes naked, with a waxen pallor like tailor's dummies. They lay in every attitude, now quiet and composed, now hideously contorted, with the final struggle of death crying out in every line of their faces."
Even those who had reached the public air raid shelters had not escaped; there scenes were little different, unusual only where panic had broken out as the people realized the nature of the fate they would never elude. "Here and there the positioning of the remains of the bones and skulls betrayed how the occupants had fought each other to escape from their buried prisons."
When rescue teams finally cleared their way into the hermetically sealed bunkers and shelters after several weeks, the heat generated inside them had been so intense that nothing remained of their occupants; a soft undulating layer of grey ash was left in one bunker, from which the number of victims could only be estimated as "between 250 and 300" by the doctors… Pools of molten metal, which had formerly been the pots, pans, and cooking utensils taken in them further testified to the uncommon temperatures in these bunkers.http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Dresden/Apocalypse_2007.pdfhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II
Please don't try and justify it with 'they started it'.
An almighty smiting. After that, Britain became less of a bully.
Don't oppress the wrong people.
Germany could have just unconditionally surrendered and ended the pain
Well what exactly did they think was going to happen?
Is there anyway to stop a blitzkrieg?
I've been reading about the War of Polish Succession and how France acquired Loraine, and its kind of interesting the complexities, marriages, inheritances and horse trading of 1700s Europe.
The Duke of Lorraine married into the Hapsburgs, Empress Maria Theresa. And by the Sallic Law the dynasty became officially the House of Lorraine-Hapsburg.
The last of the Medicis died out in tuscany and the heir was Bourbon Spain.
And then the old Polish king who was the father in law to the French dauphin tried to reclaim the polish throne. France supported the claim against Austria. England didn't support Austria which helped lead to the breakdown of the old alliances.
The pro-Austrian side won in Poland. But as part of the grand bargain, the pro-French Polish King became Duke of Loraine. The current D of L became Duke of Tuscany from the Medici.
Lorraine was then passed onto the French after the death of the Polish King. The 2 Dauphins never became King. And so Louis XV handed the throne to his great grandson. And he had himself been the grandson of Louis XIV.
I was reading this and I said no way Prince Eugene from the 1683 Siege of Vienna was fighting in the War of Polish Succession. But it turns out he was. And he might have been a incel.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Pizzighettonehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Eugene_of_Savoy#War_of_the_Polish_Succession
There is no single Magnum Opus on that matter, just pick up the next book that says "History of the middle ages" or "History of the Vatican" or "The Popes of the middle ages". Just make sure to read more than one book to see if they contradict each other and in case one book is ideologically biased.
The Vatican got more corrupt and immoral the more worldly it became, waging war on other states and wasting money on art while people are starving. Marxist retards will never admit that.
Well, I just found The New Cambridge Medieval History book. It consists of 7 or 8 volumes, and each is about 900 pages long…..
I think I'll read it, though it won't give me time to check out any other books, it's probably not heavily biased. I hope.
>>36529>Marxist retards will never admit that.
Why won't Marxists ever admit that?
I liked the Durants' Age of Faith. Its not an academic history. But it really gave a feel for the Middle Ages. And as someone who for a longtime considered it to be the Dark Ages, this book was good at making the best case for the High Middle Ages as a climax of a civilization as worthy of tribute as the peak ancient empires.
If you're just getting started on Medieval history its a good place to start. And the writing style is actually enjoyable, which you can't say for most academic history.
Well this is the recent magnus opus on the Middle Ages written by an academic marxian historian. So you can see if you disagree with the bias of marxist historiography.
I haven't read it yet, but I have the audiobook on my list.https://books.google.com/books/about/Medieval_Europe.html?id=nB4oDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false
Thank you guys for posting! This thread is great!
I find these podcasts entertaining.
Thank you guys for posting! This thread is great!
Britain was the first in bombing civilians
>>36814>Around 90,000 civilian casualties, 40,000 of them fatal.
If I was Hitler, after that chimp out I would bomb Britain until there's nothing more than his remembrance.
I like reading about the collapse of things: trade markets, corporations, countries, civilizations, ecosystems, the universe, and so on. I find it to be both moving and, in a way, soothing.
I am now taking a look at the fall of South Vietnam in April, 1975.
Here is an author talk on a great book I recently read, which relies on a lot of Vietnamese sources.>Watch the full version of George J. Veith, author of "Black April:The Fall of South Vietnam", at the Marines' Memorial Club on February 12, 2013.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon
I like reading about the collapse of things: trade markets, corporations, countries, civilizations, ecosystems, the universe, and so on. I find it to be both moving and, in a way, soothing.
Please post your list.
This week we will be discussing the great political wheeler and dealer of modern Japanese politics: Tanaka Kakuei. We will trace the rise of this man of the people, the heights of his power, and his eventual fall from grace, as well as discussing his political legacy. Also, there will be bizarre assassination plots involving yakuza and revenge-minded porno actors. Should be a good time.https://historyofjapan.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/episode-25-the-shadow-shogun/
This week, we’ll be talking about the height of postwar Japan during the 1970s and 1980s. On the surface, it’s a time of great accomplishment when the dream of catching up to the West had finally been realizing. Looking deeper, however, we find the roots of many of the problems which would bubble to the surface during the economic troubles of the 1990s.https://historyofjapan.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/episode-20-japan-as-number-one/
I am reading an entertaining history book about John Jacob Astor's fur business (Astoria
by Peter Stark). In it there was a brief but intriguing reference to one of his sons.
This son was a promising child who was sent away to school in Europe, where he had some sort of unspecified mental breakdown. He then lived as a NEET in his very own mansion in lower Manhattan until his death, many decades later.
I am going to do more research to determine whether I have stumbled across a new individual to add to our list of historical wizzies.https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=158270380>Fort Astoria (also named Fort George) was the primary fur trading post of John Jacob Astor's Pacific Fur Company (PFC).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Astoria
I've been getting into some of those youtube map vids. I used to think they were too simplistic to waste 5 minutes on, just looking at color blobs on a screen. But its interesting to see exactly who controlled what at what time.
It really reshaped my conception of the 30 Years War, to see just how dominanting the Hapsburgs were most of the time.
Was Robespierre actually a virgin?
I've been reading ancient greek history recently, and I stumbled upon the figure of Epaminondas, a general of Thebes (the city of Oedipus) who decisvely defeated the Spartans at Leuctra and was thus hailed as the Liberator of Greece.
This Battle of Leuctra is particularly important because it seems to have marked the end of spartan domination over greek politics, relegating it the position of a mere second-tier city state. It is also important in military history; Epaminondas employed a very simple but effective tactic, and concentrated the bulk of his forces on his left, while the Spartans deployed in the usual straight formation for the phalanx. This had the effect of quickly destroying the spartan right-wing (where their king was), stricking panic in the rest of the line, and sending them into retreat. Epaminondas also made innovations in the hoplites and cavalrymen; innovations which, without doubt, influenced Phillip II of Macedon (who was at Thebes at the time), who would go on to subjugate all of Greece (except Sparta) and to father Alexander the Great.
Returning to the man himself, he seems to have been really exceptional. He is praised by Nepos (our main source of him) as strong of mind and body, uncorruptible, loyal, honest, eloquent and virtous. He strikes me as similar to Pericles, in a way, since he was also a successful statesman/comander who observed the democratic institutions of his city and was popular with the people.
He is also a POSSIBLE wizard, since he never had wife nor children, and he is also remembered for his general abstinence and his ascetic tendencies. He most likely buggered some young boys at one point, seing that he was educated by Pythagoreans. This is hinted by Plutarch, as well.
Due to his actions, Thebes was raised from a second-rate city within the Boeotian league to the leading power in Greece, surpassing Sparta, of course, as well as Athens. This hegemony was short lived, however, because three decades later Phillip II (who, again, learned indirectly from Epaminondas) defeated them in decisive battle. After a while, the city was completely razed by Phillip's son, Alexander.
We must be careful, however, as all our main sources of his life (Nepos, Plutarch, Pausanias) are second-hand sources, who mostly held anti-spartan feelings, so they could be praising him a little too much. Still, he is certainly a important figure in universal history, if a little obscure.
I was obsessed with epaminondas as a teen. He gave the Peloponnesian war a happy ending and showed that Democratic yeoman could beat the Chad Spartans at their own game
What's not to like in Epaminondas? He seemed, by all accounts, as an overall able and virtuous person. He is indeed one of the great exponents of democratic leadership, alongside the figures of Pericles or, say, Abraham Lincoln; yet it's also worth noting that he was also, at times, limited by the own democratic framework of his polis.
For example, Nepos in his Vita Epaminondae writes: …but the most remarkable instance was, when he had led an army into the Peloponnesus against the Lacedaemonians, and had two joined in command with him, of whom one was Pelopidas, a man of valour and activity;—-on this occasion, when, through the accusations of their enemies, they had all fallen under the displeasure of their countrymen, and their commission was in consequence taken from them, and other commanders came to take their place, Epaminondas did not obey the order of the people, and persuaded his colleagues to follow his example, continuing to prosecute the war which he had undertaken, for he saw that, unless he did so, the whole army would be lost through the incautiousness and ignorance of its leaders. But there was a law at Thebes, which punished any one with death who retained his command longer than was legally appointed. Epaminondas, however, as he saw that this law had been made for the purpose of preserving the state, was unwilling to make it contribute to its ruin, and continued to exercise his command four months longer than the people had prescribed.
His right-hand man, Pelopidas, is also an interesting figure. He is likewise portrayed to us as valerous, capable and patriotic; and he also played a very important role in the submission of Sparta and the short lived Theban hegomony. For he was the one who liberated Thebes and expulsed the spartan occupators. He's also, with his death, a good example of the dangers of hubris; he wasted his own life in a battle that already had been won, just by going straight to the enemy general for the glory of killing him/personal vengeance.
Nepos writes of him: During this period of turbulence, Epaminondas, as we have already observed, remained quiet, so long as the struggle was between fellow-citizens, in his own house. The glory of delivering Thebes, therefore, belongs wholly to Pelopidas; almost all his other honours were gained in conjunction with, Epaminondas. In the battle of Leuctra, where Epaminondas was commander-in-chief, Pelopidas was leader of a select body of troops, which were the first to bear down the phalanx of the Spartans. He was present with him, too, in all his dangers. When he attacked Sparta, he commanded one wing of the army; and, in order that Messene might be sooner restored, he went ambassador to Persia. He was, indeed, the second of the two great personages at Thebes, but second only in such a way that he approached very near to Epaminondas.
was he the one that stopped his army on a hill, waiting for the spartans, and when they arrived he called their bluff knowing they wouldnt engage from the lowground, ordering his army at ease as the spartans advanced, and then the spartans admitted defeafed without even fighting?
Thanks for posting this movie, OP.
I watched it in full and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Do you have anymore like this?
No, I think that was the athenian general Chabrias.
From his Wikipedia page: "With the advance of Agesilaus' (Spartan king) forces, instead of giving the order to charge, Chabrias ordered his men to stand at ease, with their spears remaining pointing upwards instead of towards the enemy, and their shields leaning against their left knees instead of being hoisted against their shoulders. Chabrias' command was followed immediately and without question by the mercenaries under his command, to be copied by their counterparts beside them, the elite Sacred Band of Thebes under the command of Gorgidas. It was said that this "show of contempt" stopped the advancing Spartan forces, and shortly afterwards Agesilaus withdrew"
ah still very nice! all spartan defeats amused me, like how they lost to bow/arrows and explained it by saying their enemies were too feminine to fight them like men with melee
Sparta is like the ultimate Chad society. So its like seeing the football team beat by the math team at football
And epaminondas was a virgin Pythagorean, so basically a mathlete
>>40596>puso pena de muerte a cualquiera de los ciudadanos que fuese tan descuidado y remiso, que en tiempo que sus vecinos andaban partidos en bandos y disensiones, se estuviese él en su cas haciendo profesión de neutral, sin allegarse a una de las dos parcialidades cualquiera que fuese.>Pareciéndole, y muy bien, a Solon, que no merecía vivir entre los hombres, el que tenía tan poca cuenta con los negocios públicos, que por huir del trabajo particular, y vivir en su sociego y reposo, dejaba de entremeterse en lo que vaya a andar envuelta la mayor parte de sus amigos y vecinos
N-No wizies were allowed.
Which era of history are you most familiar with?
Real wizards are neutral at least. Roleplayers tend towards sides.
It does not surprises me, guy's butthole should have been extremely wide for all the pounding.
I really like academic institutional history, a story without a subject if you will, I don't like narrative history that writes like a novel
From Pliny's the Younger first-hand recollections on the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. (http://www.attalus.org/old/pliny6.html
- letters 16 & 20 to Tacitus the famous historian)
"We were considering what to do, when the blackness of night overtook us, not that of a moonless or cloudy night, but the blackness of pent-up places which never see the light. You could hear the wailing of succubi, the screams of little children, and the shouts of men ; some were trying to find their parents, others their children, others their wives, by calling for them and recognising them by their voices alone. Some were commiserating their own lot, others that of their relatives, while some again prayed for death in sheer terror of dying. Many were lifting up their hands to the gods, but more were declaring that now there were no more gods, and that this night would last for ever, and the end of all the world. Nor were there wanting those who added to the real perils by inventing new and false terrors, for some said that part of Misenum was in ruins and the rest in flames, and though the tale was untrue, it found ready believers
Some things never change.
40 common errors regarding ancient history (unlike most clickbait articles, these all are well sourced)https://rambambashi.wordpress.com/common-errors/
Thank you for posting this.
How were Rwanda and Uganda, the 2 smallest countries in Africa able to invade, occupy and impose regime change on Zaire Congo the largest country in Africa?
Zaire was struggling as a country, lost 65% of it's GDP from the beginning of it's independence, had problem with communist and other rebels, the US stopped supporting the Zaire government for what they called the "new generation of African leaders" of Uganda, and Rwanda, and the International community pressured them to become more democratic.
The central government was weak, and didn't had much support. The rebels could withdrawn in the East, in poorly developed region far from the government core which made it difficult for the army to deal with them, and close to Uganda and Rwanda who could provide them support.
Add on top of that violent ethnic tension particularly between the agrarian tribes native to Zaire, and the semi-nomadic Tutsi. The genocide of the Tutsi was latter exploited by the Ugandan government.
sounds like lack of force projection.
if you are fighting anywhere but the street outside your own army headquarters there are lots of logistical problems- lack of food, lack of clean water, lack of ammunition, lack of requisite ISR and air support, lack of intelligence capable of pinpointing enemy positions.
ultimately the guerilla is always at an advantage, and this is even more pronounced when:
1. you probably had only a marginal hold on anywhere outside your own capital city to begin with
2. your army is inexperienced
3. your intelligence apparatus and support network are fledgling or nonexistent, which means that even if you have the force locally to attack the enemy you don't know where he is 90% of the time
there were tons of wars in africa and it was just a mess all around. most of these "armies" seem basically like militias to me, but without the "i am willing to actually fight for my land and my family" that make real militias actually sort of effective.
full disclosure i don't know much about that war in particular though, mostly i know about angola.
Should add that they attempted to impose regime change twice.
Pursued the defeated Hutus into Zaira. Overthrow it, and helped establish DR of Congo.
But then the new Congo govt didn't do enough to clean up the hutu raiders either. So they invaded a 2nd time. occupying large swathes and basically turning it into a diamond colony. But unable to overthrow the govt. Rwanada and Uganda backed the rebels, rest of Africa backed the govt.
A graffity from Pompeii, found in one of its public buildings:Quisquis amat veniat. Veneri volo frangere costas
fustibus et lumbos delibitare deae.
Si potest illa mihi pertundere pectus
quit ego non possim caput illae frangere fuste?
In english: "Let everyone one in love come and see. I want to break Venus’ ribs with clubs and cripple the goddess’ loins. If she can strike through my soft chest, then why can’t I smash her head with a club?"
More can be found here: http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/graffiti-from-pompeii-for-benjamin.18436/
very interesting thanks
>To the one defecating here. Beware of the curse. If you look down on this curse, may you have an angry Jupiter for an enemy.
Some books I'm reading
Into the Whirlwind- argues that German forces in the East front were not that unmanned, a lot of number counting of equipment and manpower
West Pointers and the Civil War- detailed look at the professional officer class 1812-65, looks at how their Mexican War attitudes carried over into the Civil War and their imitiation Napoleonic
The path to Blitkzkrieg- detailed look at German army doctrine 1919-1939 really dissects the army trainining manuals in details. Covers the wargames with the same level of detail that you would give a real battle.
I'd answer any questions or chat about any of these books if ur interested.
I just downloaded an world history audio textbook. I don't know how you guys have the energy/motivation to read. I zone right out and end up reading the same page 100 times.
Anyhow, the main reason I downloaded it is because it helps me relax so I can fall asleep at night. At least thats the hope. History is pretty interesting as well.
I wonder how the yellow part of the country should be called.
Kingdom of Rhine-Bavaria, have the Bavarian King as ruler?
I was reading "Becoming Hitler" and the Bavarian seccessionist movement was very strong in the 1920s, to the point where the NSDAP occasionally flirted with it, and that was without any French encouragement.
With secular Social Democratic Marxists in control of Berlin, and Rhine-Bavaria immune from any war guilt penalties, perhaps it could have been viable.
Or maybe just absorb in the Protestant plurality districts for the sake of more steady borders, they would still be overwhelmed in the Catholic sea.
Think Napoleonic or Soviet satellite state, although arguably with more popular support from the native conservative Catholic tradition.
There was a real life Bavarian secessionist movement in the 1919-20s that wanted exactly that. They also felt that the French would go easier on the Catholic rump state separated from Prussia-Germany.
The only thing is IDK if the French would be willing to see the German state grow after losing WW1, even if its a new South German state.
Also the type of people you would expect to support a Catholic monarchy in Austria were loyal to the Hapsburgs. Would they switch their support to the Bavarian monarchy?
Also what kind of French government would impose this solution? Would secular Republicans like Clemenceau do it for the sake of real-politick? Or would a Center Right govt do it out of ideological affiliation?
How would the Anglo-Americans react to this?
What would be the the politics of the Prussia-Germany rump state? North Germany was the main source of votes for the SPD, KPD and NSDAP, so the politics could swing wildly with the Catholic Centre out.
Well in this scenario looks like South Catholic Germany is going to be more of the powerhouse and potential threat to France down the line than North Prussia Germany. I'm not sure about the exact population and GDP. But the area that became East Germany, highlighted in the light purple of secularized Protestants, was more rural and Junker dominated. The Rhineland was the economic heart of Imperial Germany. So combine the Rhineland, the Ruhr and Austria. Seems like South Germany is now the real Germany, as far as the economic and military threat to France is concerned.
So yeah in the scenario we're talking about in which this is all a French scheme to divide and conquer. If I was the French I'd veto an Anchluss. Although a Real-Politick centre-right French govt might be willing to have the Hapsburgs stay on in Austria, or a Hapsburg restoration to keep it divided from the Germanies.
Also made a new coat of arms.
One can only dream…
So Catholic Rhine-Bavaria becomes an early version of West Germany, with a moderate Christian Democratic government, but more Catholic influence, married to France. Prussia never threatens anyone ever again. And we ride off into the end of history with prosperity, liberty, welfare and Christian Democracy.
Awesome. I love that kinda stuff. Got any more underdog states achieving improbable feats?
An Amerindian Communist utopia set up by volcel Jesuits. Covered by Lafargue author of "The Right to be Lazy" in this book:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forerunners_of_Modern_Socialism
I assume by War of 1812 they mean Napoleon's invasion of Russia. A little Russian boy memorizing the American War of 1812 would be even weirder.
America never had a real war until the civil war.
didn't the british or the canadians burn down the white house before the american civil war?
I assume he means scale of troops involved. War of 1812 was a sideshow compared to European Napoleonic Wars. While the Civil Wars were the largest land battles in the Western world 1815-1914
Nope, there was the franco-prussian war, the crimean war, and the russo-japanese war that were all larger.
The american civil war wasn't all that large to be honest.
Don't want to be rude or intrude but are you autistic? Just curious because you seem to have great memory skills.
Just Chattanooga to Atlanta was bigger than the Franco-Prussian War
What if the same way Renaissance Italians misinterpreted Greek tragedy as being sung like operas, they misinterpreted Greek oratory as also sung? And a whole tradition of civic republican sung speeches began, and today politicans sung all their speeches?
In one example of an actual race war, José Tomás Boves was the main driving force in the fall of the Second Republic in Venezuela. Boves had a deep hatred for the republican/independence cause, who was mostly backed by the rich, white landowners of direct spanish ancestry, at the time commonly called "mantuanos", and so decided to fight against it.
He did this by exploiting the natural hatred of the lower classes against their 'white masters'; thus he created a considerable force made up by blacks, to whom he gave liberty en masse, indians, who were mostly content to live under spanish administration, and people of mixed-ancestry, notably the pardos and the llaneros' (lit. people of the plain/steppe), who were famous for their barbarity, being so far away for the coastal urban centers, and for their mastery of the horse - Bolivar once dubbed them the "Cossacks of the Americas". He himself named this force "the Infernal Legion", and gave to this very same force a black flag with a white skull on it to serve as a banner, which he called the "banner of death".
From Guayabal he publicly declared war against all whites, and unleashed this heterogenous force upon them, were they neutral or not, with a ferocity rarely matched: man, succubus and child were cut down without a shred of mercy; their lands, or what was left of them after the pillage, going mostly to blacks and mestizos, as both llaneros and indians had little interest in living near the urban centers. Boves himself was as courageous and ferocious as his men and had excellent military acumen, which he used to emerge victorious in most of his battles, destroying the armies of the Second Republic and bringing her to an unseemly end. He was unable to derive much political advantage from this, however, as he expired in battle near the end of the war.
One tale about him: Boves once met an sick, old man, who was the last person remaining in his town after everybody else had escaped in the prospect of Boves' advance. He sent for someone to decapitate the old man, but then a young man from his own files, no more than 15-years-old, jumped out and begged him, in the name of Most Holy Mary, to spare the old man, who he said was his father. Boves agreed, on the condition that the youth suffered the amputation of his nose and ears without producing the slightest sound of pain. The youth did so admirably. Boves then had them both decapitated, saying that the boy "was too brave".
Boves was born in Spain, and was white himself. It is said that he cried like a child in front of his men when his horse, Antinous, was killed by a spear in a charge.
If Boves was white then that picture is quite blackwashed.
You say that but as a spaniard, he might have had some moor ancestry. Additionally, people who spend lots of time in very sunny countries tend to get pretty heavy tans.
Yes, that picture seems way to dark. He's described as light-skinned with red hair. It is important to note that all the paintings containing him were made after his death, so they are, to an extent, imaginary.
Dunno why they are so discordant.
You could see how pic 2 of young Boves leads to pic 3 then to pic 4 of old boves.
We often consider the romans a serious bunch, and think of latin as an exclusive medium for the hieratic and elevated language, but they too had their own ways of poking fun at things.
Here's a parody of a roman testament, written 4th century AD:https://tlockyer.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/testamentum-porcelli-a-little-pigs-will/
Due to the rare nature of the document, and the vulgarities of the language therein contained, this little writing has been the subject of considerable scholastic work.
An interesting occurrence told by Paul the Deacon in his Historia Langobardorum:
In the end of the VII century, Alahis, Duke of Trent, rebelled against Cunincpert, King of the Lombards. King Cunincpert went out to destroy the rebellion. Before joining in battle, Cunincpert sent messengers to Alahis to arrange a personal, hand-to-hand combat, so as to avoid spilling the blood of so large an army. Alahis rejected the challenge, excusing himself by saying:
"Cunincpert, while a fool and a drunkard, has certainly enough courage and a strength worth admiring. For I now remember that during his father's reign, when we were youngsters, there were some huge rams (male sheep ofc) that Cunincpert used to lift with his owns arms, by grabbing them by the wool of their backs; a thing that was without a doubt impossible to me."
Battle was now near at hand, and King Cunincpert was ready to lead his men. Yet there was one Seno, a cleric, who convinced the king in that he shouldn't personally fight and be exposed to such dangers, but that he should rather pass over his arms and armour, so that he (Seno) could fight in his name, disguised as the kingly person. For they were indeed of the same build, complexion and stature. Seno, then, went on disguised as the king and begun the battle. Alahis quickly got the upper hand, charged towards the royal banners, and personally killed Seno. He then had his head removed from his body, giving thanks to God. But when the helm was removed, and the truth exposed, Alahis exclaimed:
"Woe to me, this battle has all been for nothing, for we only went out to kill a simple cleric! Then, God, I make now this vow: Grant me victory, and I will fill to he brim all the wells of the realm with the testicles of the whole clergy!"
But true Cunincpert sprung forth and, rallying his men, rekindled the flame of hope in their hearts. Battle was about to be renewed, but Cunincpert again sent messengers to Alahis, insisting again on a duel, saying:
"Behold the great multitude we have brought hither! Do they really need perish? Let us settle this in singular combat, and may he to whom God grant victory hold dominion over them!
Alahis' men were urging him to accept, yet he again excused himself in the following manner:
"This I cannot do, for I see there, among his banners, one of Michael the Archangel, to whom I made a vow in that very same place."
One of his soldiers rebuked him, and said:
"Fear makes thee see things that are not; and you are too late to think about these things now, regardless."
Battle was then struck, and for a while no side seemed to hold advantage. A terribly huge amount of corpses came to rule the scenery, while the two armies carried on with their struggle. Finally, Cunincpert came out victorious and Alahis was slain, his head later removed from his body and his legs cut, while the rest of his deformed and mutilated body was left to rot.
Seno's body was splendidly buried, by the orders of Cunincpert, before the gates of St. John's Basilica. Cunincpert would go on to put many others rebellions during his lifetime.
i like these raw footage vids, its like a time machine
wow it took me until 9:14 to see the first person wave to the cameraman. i think in 5 seconds people would wave or try to attentionwhore the camera if you did this today.
The only arguments colonialism apologists have to defend their position are purely materialistic. Trade, production, industry, development… There is more to a civilisation than this, or there used to at least.
Wow, that is a great channel. Thank you.
So what are the arguments against colonialism that you see as unanswerable?
I watched part of a video of his(I could only get through part) and I found him to be quite naive and simplistic, he had a talk with the chieftain that only reinforced this view.
wikipedia as info source on stuff like history.. what a shitty source
>Date4 September 1939 – 8 May 1945
Britain bombed Germany first only the impact and effectiveness was rather limited early on.
I don't get why people are upset at soviet atrocities, the country had no industrial capability, less than during tsarist times because of the civil war, and they had to develop industrial capabilities otherwise outside forces would seek to destroy the country. and that did happen later
The only way to do that was to buy american machinery by selling the only thing in the country that could hold some kind of value, grain. And as a natural consequence people died.
I dont understand how the early soviet system could have any alternatives
Lets not let this place get derailed by ethics and politics. Historiography is a value-neutral science; and we are only interested in learning the complexity of the facts based on serious academic and primary sources.
If that was true for this thread (which it isn't) 99% of the post made in this thread so far would be considered unqualified to be posted here as they aren't to that standard you just now pulled from your ass. Including the OP.
Nothing was derailed and everything is still on topic. Quit bullshiting to try and start drama.
Haven't explored very much of this yet, but so far it's pretty interesting.
>In the decades around 1600, the astrologers Simon Forman and Richard Napier produced one of the largest surviving sets of medical records in history. The Casebooks Project, a team of scholars at the University of Cambridge, has transformed this paper archive into a digital archive. This site is a supplement to the main Casebooks website (2nd link).https://casebooks.wordpress.com/https://casebooks.lib.cam.ac.uk/
Does reading the social history of everyday life in the past make you more grateful for the present?
I was reading about Victorian industrialism, and it really was a Dickensian hell. Just endless physical toil under the worst conditions, and 4 hours of sleep being the meaning of your life. And I'm someone who appreciates progress, and the step up over agrarian life. But if this is human civilization at its peak? But of course it ended up being a relatively brief period and can't compare to wageslaves today.
It be nice if the feeling it invoked in me is gratitude and thanksgiving over having never really worked a day in my life. But it made me more existential, reflecting on the pointlessness of life. If working 16 hours a day, just to sleep and eat is considered a life worth living, then humanity's evaluation of life is all misguided. Driven by survival instinct and religion.
Social history seems to be the best education in anti-natalism as you wonder why serfs and victorian proles, bother to live. Surely no rational cost-benefit calculation could justify it. And so if serfdom and slavery doesn't bring mass suicide, then you know the human animal is just irrational about leaving life.
Industrialism was really a low point in that way(hence why so many ideologies like Marxism and Socialism have their roots around that era).
Peasants actually didn't live a very bad life, because of the nature of their trade, you can only really sow once a year and harvest once a year. Even their labour obligations were not that bad, Teutonic peasants only had to work on their lords land three days in harvest and three days in sowing and pay 1 mark a year in tax.
There were peasants that would become mercenaries simply because they had nothing to do at home in the quite periods so they went out to make some money that way.
Its true the UK had its history of the enclosure movement that gave peasants no other choice than the factory, but it does seem like in every society in the world where factories have existed, young people have chosen to leave the farms for it
>>47896>ethics and politics. Historiography is a value-neutral science
Ethics, politics and history is intertwined.>>48343>Does reading the social history of everyday life in the past make you more grateful for the present?
I'm grateful for being able to study our history with such ease.
>reflecting on the pointlessness of life
Cognitively biased, try reflecting on the point of life.
>Driven by survival instinct and religion.
Collective religion is a unifying abstraction, it helped get us here.
It's as unifying as it is divisive. We'd still have the library of alexandria otherwise.
The serf and slave's life had no meaning, and it would have been rational to suicide
Humans in all their arrangements are divisive, religion got us working together under a common protocol.
Religion is what keeps serfs alive, when if they did a rational cost-benefit analysis of the pain and pleasures of life, they would suicide
Good thing they had religion then.
Suicide is imho irrational.
Pain and pleasure is variable, to assume it will always trend toward pain is a poor predictive model.
>>48352> to assume it will always trend toward pain is a poor predictive model.
pre-20th century it would be accurate for the lives of most peoples, when change takes centuries
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
[Last 50 Posts]
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.