[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]

[Catalog] [Archive]

>There was no clear bad side in ww1

File: sultan.jpg (98 KB, 600x400)
98 KB
Why is the presence of a hereditary aristocracy aside from the monarch so rare in Islamic Monarchies?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (78 KB, 1280x720)
78 KB
Can we have a thread on what we know on about this people?

>looking up east germanic languages
>notice they're all extinct
>see the Burgandians
>they had a fleshed out legal code while being full on pagan in circa 500 AD called The Lex Burgundionum

On a related note, what are the chances we may ever find something similar in the Arab Penninsula? i.e A codified legal document during Pagan Arabia pre-Islam?
8 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>he isnt papuanpilled
Free West Papua

Was the United States part of the informal British Empire during most of the 19th century in the same way that China was?
21 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
File: 8gfyqjeula241.png (108 KB, 1920x982)
108 KB
108 KB PNG
>Tell that to the Spanish
Spain was irrelevant by the 1890s. It was not even a Great Power anymore. Actual Great Powers (Germany, Britain, France) kept carrying out interventions in the Americas when they pleased. And the Royal Navy actually controlled the Atlantic well into the early 20th century.

The Monroe Doctrine was American autism, a proclamation that they couldn't enforce until the 20th century.

>Victorian era is really pushing it.
Pushing what?

>I mean theres definitely a strong cultural influence because America was/is an Anglo nation.
And a strong economic and political influence. Britain was America's largest trade partner, purchased most American exports, largest foreign investor, supplier of technology and the world hegemon during the 19th century.
Also Britain was the largest net creditor to America. The US only became a net creditor following WW1.
US policy was generally anti-British in the 19th century. This is the time when America instituted protectionism, went to war with the UK once and nearly did it twice more. In economic terms it was less dependent on Britain than many European countries.

China wasn't part of the informal empire either, just parts of it like the Yangzi delta
unenforceable after 1945 too
Let me guess you are a Canadian

How did the Persians manage to establish such a huge fucking empire through conquest, but constantly got their shit pushed in by the Greeks, the ancient world's equivalent of rural backwater rednecks?
77 replies and 12 images omitted. Click here to view.
File: DFeYooqVwAA6uju.jpg (113 KB, 513x466)
113 KB
113 KB JPG
>tfw ywn be a philosochad
I see Iran has unveiled their version of the 50 cent army.
zerg rush
were they the bulk of the army?
And diplomacy. The persians were widely known for their silver tongues. They made themselves desired by those they conquered either through force or bribery. And as another anon aluded to, alot of the persians clay used to be part of the assyrian/babylonian empire, who were in contrast to the more subtle and covert persians instead known for their overt and blunt cruelty and sadistic tyranny. The persians treated their subjects and vassals fairly well in comparison to the horror show that was Assyria/Babylonia.

File: 1562944460088.jpg (949 KB, 1280x1823)
949 KB
949 KB JPG
*conquers the world*
19 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
File: 6420785.png (56 KB, 304x259)
56 KB
*actually just doesn't, gets murdered and his wife raped by Russians because he was a fucking idiot and took on the whole world at once*
*gets counter-conquered by pissed off russians and americans*
File: 1574908224273.jpg (74 KB, 500x500)
74 KB
>destroy ancient european civilizations
>bring 2k years of dark ages to greece
>refuse to get civilized
>destroy roman empire by immigration just like africans today
>we wuz romans and shit
>pillage the entire world
>get relevant only 300 years ago and think your are the pinacle of human civiliation
>lose 2 world wars

What went wrong?
13 replies omitted. Click here to view.

3. The colonial economy was completely dysfunctional. Mostly, it was based on resource extraction (gold and silver) to be shipped to Spain. This fucked up the Spanish mainland itself and not just Latin America. Spain suffered from currency overvaluation from the huge quantities of gold introduced, it created what we now know as "Dutch disease". The Spanish currency was so strong, it hurt Spanish industries on the mainland because it was more difficult to export, and easier to import industrial goods, to the detriment of Spain and the benefit of Britain.

The Spanish monopoly on South America was all kinds of fucked up. EVERYTHING that South America exported had to be exported from Lima, Peru, the only authorized port.
A Pacific Ocean port city. To trade through the Atlantic. Surely you realize how retarded this was. This also forced other cities to rely on the aforementioned road network, which was shit.
Many cities like Buenos Aires had to rely on contraband with other powers (Portuguese in Brazil, Britain) to be economically viable. A situation the Spaniards overlooked because they realized they couldn't enforce their monopoly without killing the colonial economy. Free trade was actually one of the rallying causes of the Independence Wars.

4. The colonial system didn't even try to get the local elites on board with the project. The Spaniards made a distinction between Criollos (local-born whites) and Peninsulares (Spain-born). While both had the same rights on paper, only Peninsulares could be appointed as local rulers, and they dominated the much-coveted government positions in the colonial bureaucracy. This pissed off a lot of criollos, imagine being a local criollo bureaucrat that lived all his life in Peru, only to have some clueless Spaniard that knew nothing about the place come all the way from across the ocean to boss him around. Local governance was an anathema to Spaniards. This caused many criollos to side with the mestizos and natives.

While many of these issues were beginning to be resolved by the late 1700s (more criollos on the bureaucracy, asientos abolished and the monopoly relaxed, better treatment for the Indians, etc.), it was too late, the resentment was too great, and as soon as the chance appeared, it boiled over and dismembered the Empire.
There was more development in colonial provinces than in the mainland.
this but unironically
repulsion in 1492 was a mistake
not having private gun ownership

File: ob_5bc761_mtdna-v-map.png (69 KB, 800x581)
69 KB
>Two ancient Egyptian child mummies at the University of Tartu Art Museum (Estonia) were, according to museum records, brought to Estonia by the young Baltic-German scholar Otto Friedrich von Richter, who had travelled in Egypt during the early 19th century. Although some studies of the mummies were conducted, a thorough investigation has never been made. Thus, an interdisciplinary team of experts studied the remains using the most recent analytical methods in order to provide an exhaustive analysis of the remains. The bodies were submitted for osteological and archaeothanatological study, radiological investigation, AMS radiocarbon dating, chemical and textile analyses, 3D modelling, entomological as well as aDNA investigation. Here we synthesize the results of one of the most extensive multidisciplinary analyses of ancient Egyptian child mummies, adding significantly to our knowledge of such examples of ancient funerary practices.

>The mtDNAs retrieved from the mummies belong to hgs T2c1a (OM S1) and HV (YM S7). ...

Kangz BTFO yet again two Egyptian mummies turned carry White mtDNA. As quick reminder, no black mtDNA or Y-DNA was found among more than the more 80 Egyptian mummies studied so far.
1 reply and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
File: egyptiens-noirs-5-2.jpg (120 KB, 800x450)
120 KB
120 KB JPG
Are they white?
Egypt is older than that.
It's not the only mtDNA from elite mummies. I know about other two. One was U-something and the others M1a1.
While M1 is present in Africa it obviously came there from Asia. I think the important thing is the lack of haplogroups L in ancient North African samples.
So the ancient Egyptians were Sami?
Probably dark skinned Caucasians. Sub Saharan Negroids have no connection whatsoever to ancient Egypt. Its absurd for American niggers to claim any connection to ancient Egypt.

Why did the Mob didn’t had that much power in America or Europe compared to the drug cartels in Latin America?
13 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
I'm a Brazilian prison security officer and I'm scared of the cartels in Mexico, Brazilian gangs got nothing on them
this plus it's all fucking jungle
All the towns used to be run by "bosses" up until ww2 when jews stopped tolerating competition
Join OPEC. They have tons of oil.
i could kill in self defense no problem
i could probably even engage in some light torture depending on the circumstances and for a food enough cause

but shit like I can never understand. I can only assume the types of guys who do this for cartels are high off of high grade cocaine and meth 24/7

File: trianon.jpg (151 KB, 589x788)
151 KB
151 KB JPG
How is this shit fair?
41 replies and 5 images omitted. Click here to view.
Why are you on the history board if you can't even bother to Google basic shit like this?
It was close enough.
>be croat
>go to budapest for a week
>visit heroes square
>some old ass dude wearing a trianon shirt is running a "never forget trianon" stand, selling postcards and shit
>chuckle to myself and take a pamphlet
Why didn't the Hungarians try and help the Slavs by promoting a triple Monarchy? They fought for their place at the table with creation of the dual monarchy shouldn't they have expected the same thing to happen to them?
they started killing hungarians the moment we told them this is our kingdom and we make the rules
this is not entirely true, slow akians were ok, they are northern hungarians anyway corrupted by czechs

File: download.jpeg.jpg (7 KB, 225x225)
7 KB
Name one thing wrong with absolute monarchy
32 replies and 5 images omitted. Click here to view.
This is what is right with Absolute Monarchy
>says the ideology in favor of limiting speech and right to bare arms
>Fuck absolute monarchy, let's talk about feudalism instead.
>gimme the pros and cons
cons: you're a politically disenfranchised turnip farmer, figuratively (sometimes literally) bought and sold like farm machinery, whose pitchfork isn't going to do much about the other Lord's army as it ravages the land while he makes a play at total power

pros: no mean black kids making you feel inadequate and you get your own boney, malnourished womanlet to slap around and/or pork without consequence
I'm just going to point to the reign of Tsar Nicholas II as an example of everything wrong with the concept

Considering it was invented by a biased renaissance scholar and popularized by protestant/Enlightenment thinkers to slander the Catholic church, I see no good reason to keep using the term. It's arbitrary, meaningless, derogatory and slanders the achievements and progress of the medieval period.
51 replies and 6 images omitted. Click here to view.
Look you claim that Rome was ahead of medieval Europe in every metric. I used agriculture as an example that proves your assertion wrong. What are you not getting?
Petrarch lived in the Middle Ages you dumbass
The Middle Ages were a step-down from the Graeco-Roman antiquity
We live in the best era up to date, the quality of our lives is much higher than in the past
Now fuck off
>me Rome was the largest and most successful empire

>you buy what metric

>me industrial production

>you heavy plow proves you wrong

Your obviously not in the same debate here,considering no other ancient empire had a heavy plow,and that plow was only useful in territories outside the borders of ancient Rome
>We live in the best era up to date, the quality of our lives is much higher than in the past
No, I don't have free virgin Christian pussy and faggots have rights, this era is shit.

How could they appear from nowhere and just btfo everyone in eastern europe?
209 replies and 23 images omitted. Click here to view.
Kindly do not feed the Polish emigrant retard in this thread by your attention, thank you.
Are Slavs mentioned in the Bible?
If yes, where and what is our role there?
Also is YHVH originally a Slavic god, are we the chosen ones?
Of course Kanaan could't fit all these nations (12 enemy nations and 12 nations of Israel), so it is only a MODEL, not description of any real people or real events, notice there are 12 nations like 12 zodiac sign
You are pleb who think he's already too clever to read more, that's why such things are unknown to you, and you laugh at anybody whom you don't understand.
File: 1473338683216.png (1.15 MB, 900x652)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB PNG
>You are pleb who think he's already too clever to read more
But anon, how can you overlook the striking similarities between Yehowah and Jahowit El-Elyon and Jelen/Jolon "the deer god", David is Donavit, Jesus is Jesomir.
You're the ingnorant here.

And don't get me started with old Egyptian culture. All Slavs.
File: poles.jpg (1.86 MB, 3284x2368)
1.86 MB
1.86 MB JPG
>Germany spoke Germanic (=slavic)
>Germanic (=slavic)

File: map.gif (137 KB, 1200x1302)
137 KB
137 KB GIF
I've been studying Belarus recently. Have questions for any Belarusbros or historians on /hist/

Belarusian nationalism, if we are talking about the anti-Russian sort of nationalism, is a subject that captivates me. (If Belarus is actually part of Russia as some in Belarus do believe, then Belarusian nationalism is just a branch of Russian nationalism. That's not the sort of movement that I'm asking about.)

1. Why is it that Belarusian nationalists seem to always begin their historical narratives with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? It's as if the Kievan Period just didn't happen. Much like Ukrainian nationalists, they refuse to acknowledge the historical fact that Kievan Rus was a broad territory and ended up being controlled by different (often tiny) states. It was a nation but divided up into these states, much like Italians and Germans were previous to unification. These states went to war with each other at times.

2. How were the wars between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Grand Duchy of Moscow somehow worse or on a different level than say the wars between Moscow and Novgorod, Moscow and Tver, Novgorod and Suzdal etc? How was it that Belarusians acted differently than these other Russian states that had spats with Moscow from time to time? A lot of the Belarusian nationalists try to rub in these memories when speaking of Muscovy.

3. Why were Lithuanians overrepresented among the ring leaders of the revolts against the Russian Empire that happened in/near Belarus?
2 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
I would tend to agree. The 1918 state was the first of its kind and could only happen with Germans eating up the Russian Empire. They empowered the political opponents of their military opponent.

The post-1918 Belarusian nationalism is the dominant form.
While that's true in some sense, could you elaborate on the Lithuanian connection? I know a few things about Lithuania's involvement with the creation of an alternative identity for their Russian subjects (they even called them Russian in the GDL and PLC, but later insisted that they weren't Russian).

But what is the Lithuanian component in your understanding?
1. That's not true. They usually start with the Principality of Polotsk. Euphrosyne of Polotsk and the St. Euphrosyne Cross are quite an essential part of their nationalist narrative.

2. Moscow vs. Tver and other Tatar Yoke era conflicts were minor squabbles compared to the Muscovy-Lithuanian wars. You had a standoff between two centralized states, as opposed to a bunch of Tatar puppets fighting for khan's benevolence. They also fit nicely into the idea of the Belarusian nation opposing the Russian empire.

3. It was szlachta who was overrepresented in the 1800s revolts. For those people "Lithuania" (whether that means modern Lithuania or modern Belarus) was essentially an integral part of the Polish realm.
I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Belarusian nationalism is as anti-Lithuanian as it gets. Those people often refuse to acknowledge any rights of the modern Lithuanians for the legacy of historic pre-1900s Lithuania.
>They usually start with the Principality of Polotsk
I'm sure some of them do. But most of the material that I've come across minimizes this period and purposefully omits the relations with Kiev, Novgorod, Chernigov, Halych, etc.
>St. Euphrosyne Cross are quite an essential part of their nationalist narrative.
Yes, they use that symbol, but they purposefully don't connect the dots. She was building churches with architecture identical to those of the rest of Russia. Her period of history gets minimized in their narratives.
>a standoff between two centralized states
You have a valid point with regard to scale, however there were wars between the principalities before the Mongol Yoke. Additionally, why is it that these Belarusian nationalists think of Lithuania as organically a Belarusian? They were ruled by foreigners to an even greater extent than Muscovy was ruled by the Mongols. If anything was artificial in that period it was the fact that you had non-Russians engaging in wars and drafting Russian subjects.
>They also fit nicely into the idea of the Belarusian nation opposing the Russian empire.
I reached that conclusion too. That's why it seems like this nationalism is driven by political forces outside of real Belarusian heritage. It seems to serve foreign interests, even retroactively.
>It was szlachta who was overrepresented in the 1800s revolts
Yes, and the szlachta were often part Lithuanian or Polish. They were Polonized, universally by 1600.

Did proto-MGTOW exist? How were they treated by society?
294 replies and 23 images omitted. Click here to view.
It's was not a preference, putting the ability to grow you tribe in harm's way is not a good idea.
>seriously you didn't answer my question of whether it was necessary to pass property down only to males and why

Depending on the individual culture, this wasn’t even true in all cases. There were a lot of traditional societies that allowed women to inherit property (Egypt comes to mind) or at least possess it(dowry). What was passed down solely through the male line were titles, because they were associated with producing jobs (artisans, builder, smith. agriculturalists, horticulturalist etc...) or warfare, which men were more fit to do due to their physical strength. They also produced more goods in said professions (women mostly only produced clothes, if at all). But the most important thing for a men was not that his property pass down to his sons, but that it pass down to (a) a small amount of persons (that’s why primogeniture, ultimogeniture or preferences for one child over all others was often a thing) to keep property centralized and (b) -most importantly- that his(!!!) children inherit and not the brute of someone genetically unrelated.

The rest of your points, I already addressed.
I also addressed elsewhere, why I think patriarchal societies did historically better than matriarchies:

Obviously there are aspects in which -on average- women are more proficient in or more capable of (empathy, theory of other minds, i. e. guessing hidden intentions, reading gestures, overall verbal competency, multitasking -although that’s disputed-, child rearing etc...) and others were men excel (aggression and warfare, understanding abstract systems, spatial awareness, mathematical competence, single-mindedness and rational long-term planning, creativity etc...). It’s hard to say how beneficial female proclivities would have been in furthering civilizational progress.
Overall I think -while I am not sure whether we would still be stuck in the Paleolithic as some posters have implied- the rate of progress would definitely have been slower, due to the following reasons:

-stability: women cannot create stable hierarchies. Men fight for status and dominance in the open. Once a ranking order is established it usually tends to be stable for a while. When a challenger for a position in the hierarchy arises, the affair is quickly dealt with either with him succeeding or failing, not endangering the overall integrity of the system. Additional since most of this power struggles happen to a large extent in the open, it creates trust in the reliability of other men.
Women , on the other hand, strive for status and dominance in a more clandestine way. A female can therefore never be sure whether her ally is fully trustworthy or whether she will backstab her the next opportunity she gets. Of course these are just tendencies. History has known its share of male traitors.

-Scaling: the larger societies(tribe, village, city, nation, empire etc...) get, the more important abstract thinking and non-personal institutional contacts become, at the expense of personal contacts and the ability to empathize or psychologically manipulate and read people in a face-to-face interaction.

-related to the last point: men are more object and idea oriented. So they can easier transcend their daily immediate lived reality and cling to a “cause” (usually in the form of religions or tribalism/nationalism. But secular ideologies can function alike) greater than themselves and their immediate kinship group. This facilities large, multigenerational projects (certain irrigation projects, defense structures etc...) and stabilizes societies further.

-innovation: The object-orientedness also makes men engines of technological progress. Whereas women socialize more and place a higher emphasis on (the appearance of!!! -see related first point about clandestine power struggle-) agreeableness and conformity, a certain subgroup of men (priests, philosophers, scientists etc...) tend to be more autistic and withdrawn making them natural inventors and discoverers. Women also argue more about persons/relationships, men about values/ideas.
>Society and those few men and women in power were their feudal lord, not their wives.

>It serves them some, but not as much as males. Historically, patriarchy did not benefit women as much even if you considered where.

you're thinking in terms of paper; i.e. surface level only, not looking deeper at the dynamics: look, if our society thought it unthinkable to hang or put in prison a woman for murder because she was a woman, and if women often get men to do their work for them, then it doesn't matter all that much what a mans title is - he's basically powerless towards women, unless he enlists other women.

i've given a few broad examples by now, re: power in practical objective terms held by women irregardless of paper titles - which we would call liabilities; i.e. get someone to take a deed/title/loan in their name, they are liable for it, then exploit the deed/title/loan for anything you like - knowing that the repercussions don't come back to you but to your stooge. mafia 101. the husband is the stooge.

I mean we can agree or disagree how many women would've thought like this; I would call it low-functional sociopath for short-term gains at long-term losses, but I'd point out that grand schemes or not, the average wife is taking from and ordering around her little husband all the time and benefiting from his miserable labor. Also that she coerces him to exploit other people in turn in order to have more by taking more from others so that she can spend it on junk - the business of a Wife is that,wherever you care to look. Unless she has businesses of her to occupy her time with.

>It's not an impulse though. It's a choice and a decision.
>The only impulse is to fuck young
no i wasn't referring to sexual impulses; but to all impulses, along the line that everything we do is the result of largely unconscious responses in our heads; cravings for the vitamin content sends us to certain types for foods for instance, those impulses..

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.