[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / 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

[Advertise on 4chan]

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

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]

Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.

[Advertise on 4chan]

[Catalog] [Archive]

Is this what celtics would have looked like?
Gauls where described as being mostly blonde so no, this is not what the average Celt would have looked like.
Thats bell beaker phenotype (they eneded adopting celtic culture)

File: CSA_states.png (58 KB, 1513x983)
58 KB
>"state's rights"
>use the federal government to expand the vile institution of slavery
>"state's rights"
>use the federal government to force Northerners to be complicit in the preservation of the vile institution of slavery
>"state's rights"
>found a new country to enshrine their vile institution of slavery forever
>"state's rights"
>CSA was the most intrusive government in the history of the continental US
Why do people defend this violent, immoral, hypocritical region?
302 replies and 47 images omitted. Click here to view.
He was literally pushed to run for president by abolitionists
He was a compromise candidate between moderate and radical factions in the Republican Party.
Contain it so that free states would outnumber slave states to the point of being able to pass a constitutional amendment banning slavery.
They ran him as a moderate but he obviously was not. That still happens today
He supported the Corwin Amendment

File: 00.jpg (29 KB, 415x500)
29 KB
Talleyrand or Metternich? Who does /his/ prefer?
3 replies omitted. Click here to view.
Metternich, based servant of the Emperor and therefore Europe as a whole. Trying to save it.
File: Gosling Laughing.gif (1.98 MB, 190x190)
1.98 MB
1.98 MB GIF
>Saving Europe
Maybe he didn't, what do you think of it?
In December 1808 an apparently warm and public rapprochment between Talleyrand and Fouché, the Minister of Police, who had previously been widely accepted as being Talleyrand's bitter political adversary, caused Napoleon to conclude that there was some sort of a plot being hatched by the two powerful men.
In late January 1809 Napoleon returned from Spain where he had been busy leading armies and, at a meeting of the privy council a few days later, delivered an half-hour long torrent of fulsome and extravagant abuse at Talleyrand. The intensity of the Emperors invective may have been somewhat provoked by the apparent impassivity with which Talleyrand received it. It seems that as the abuse was continued, in the presence of the most senior officers of the state, Napoleon depicted Talleyrand himself as being nothing but so much 'dung in a silk stocking" and brought up allegations that Talleyrand's wife was unfaithful.

Most observers thought that the Emperor's behaviour had been notably undignified. As the meeting dispersed Talleyrand is recorded as having said to a colleague 'What a pity that such a great man should be so ill-bred.'

File: Spain flag.png (7 KB, 400x267)
7 KB
It's not even made up.

>Quiepo de Llano spoke multiple times over the radio warning that "immodest" women with Republican sympathies would be raped by his Moorish troops. Near Seville, Nationalist soldiers raped a truckload of female prisoners, threw their bodies down a well, and paraded around town with their rifles draped with their victim's underwear. These rapes were not the result of soldiers disobeying orders, but official Nationalist policies, with officers specifically choosing Moors to be the primary perpetrators

>This practice of using Moroccan Foreign Legion members to rape local women was a carryover from Spanish military actions in their colonial possessions.

>German soldiers offering Nationalists support during the Civil War would sometimes delight in taking photographs of violence committed by Spanish Moroccan Legionaries against women, including the removal of women's breasts. Despite Franco's attempts to intervene to stop this behavior, it continued.

>Foreign Affairs magazine in October 1942 said of Francoist commanders, "They never denied that they had promised white women to the Moors when they entered Madrid. Sitting with the officers on a camp bivouac, I overheard them discussing the collusion of that promise; only some argued that a woman was still Spanish despite her "red" ideas. This practice was not denied either by El Mizzian, the only Moroccan officer of the Spanish army.


Why are fascists such cucks?
131 replies and 33 images omitted. Click here to view.
Unfathomably based. Commies deserve to be raped by a pack of niggers, and that's exactly what happened.
I'm sure rape is very exciting when you have an adrenaline rush from combat and get into a frenzy, and haven't had sex for a long time. Obviously a normal guy going about his day wouldn't be interested in raping, any more than he would be in killing.
Put yourself in their shoes

They aren’t coomed in months because they can’t get private time to jerk off and are scared of being killed

Then these sexy women who you have been told are your enemy keep wiggling their butts and boobs at you

How could they NOT rape them?
there are pyriamids in the sudan tho?
Spanish Republicans propagated a fake democracy that would've made Spain a communist satellite state. Spain would've been Stalin's.

They were not his country-women.

What is the identity of the shell shocked soldier?
17 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
I'm saying Sam Hughes had a marked disdain for "professional soldiers" and considered them mostly career bar-flies. He was adamant he could raise a volunteer-civilian army equal to any professional army on the western front, and he was right.
Well that is extremely ironic considering he was a career soldier. Now I don't know all that much about the Canadian experience in the war and this civilian army, I can only assume they did as well as every other civilian army put into the field in WW1 in that they were devastated. My original comment is more a reference to those conscripted during the war. Anyone already in the service had better training to start off with and possibly some experience.
He only served in the South African war and was a noted hot-head and a pain in the ass to the British.


>I can only assume they did as well as every other civilian army put into the field in WW1 in that they were devastated.
The CEF had their loses like everyone else, but at no point where they ever devastated and are arguably one of the only elite formations on the western front.
Well snap, maybe I need to workshop my theory a bit more. perhaps the professional/conscript isn't that much of a factor in WW1 trauma.
private dimwit

File: Hitler.jpg (163 KB, 440x340)
163 KB
163 KB JPG
>National ""Socialists""
>Gets supported by Krupps
>Ban labour unions
>Put socialists and communists in concentration camps
>Attacks the USSR
35 replies and 7 images omitted. Click here to view.
Now I'm off to bed.
>praised the Bolsheviks.
Because he saw the destruction of tradition and order as a good first step, but he also sympathized with nationalism and rejected Marxism, ultimately he would have come into conflict with an expansive USSR.
>well what is fascism?
palingenetic ultranationalism
> Is it just nationalist populism?
No because you need the "rebirth" aspect, the idea that you are creating a new system and wiping away the mistakes of the past.
>Is Khmer fascist?
You could certainly make a case for it, one of the key aspects of the Khmer Rouge was Khmer ultranationalism
Hitler read Uncle Tom's Cabin?
Damn, I'm really curious about his views on it
>>Marx was wrong about how Capital is class conscious
Kinda. It was Germans who sent Lenin to Russia.
if worker conditions were so bad from day one, WTF do you think the total war speech was about in 1943?

File: abughraib.jpg (209 KB, 1280x848)
209 KB
209 KB JPG
What the fuck happened here?
77 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
so they can brag about it
they take it home to show their fellow losers
he's being electrocuted
That's harsh, anon.
I thought the mission statement of this board is pls no racism?
This happened in every prison too. This was pre-cellphones, this was when everyone who enlisted wanted revenge on Iraq an Al-Queda. These were enlisted kids out of high school who finally get to be a MP and play cops and robbers with muslims in handcuffs

File: cathpepe.jpg (7 KB, 181x250)
7 KB
Did the Jews who died on the Holocoaster go to Heaven?
yes and live as holocaust survivors in america
No, if you deny Christ, you're going to Hell.
No Jew ever went to heaven.

Did abo's ever win any wars, battles or form any sizeable ressistance against euros like the native americans did?
11 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
He is wrong but the thing is even if they weren't pacifists, primitive warfare was more of a dick measuring contest where two tribes throw some some stuff at each other before having a brief quarrel. You don't get massive bloodbaths and sackings of cities like you do in civilized regions.
Wasn't like the biggest abo group 30-50 people? How could they possibly mount a resistance, I don't criticize the abos for not building societies ( Australia pre-contact had no capacity for a sedentary civilization on the scale of even a Brozen age civilization ), but they were probably the most like primitive humans out of any population, only from being restricted to hunting gathering with desert soil.
>hunting gathering
they definitely farmed plants and animals too.
Pretty much this >>9935695
this is a good example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalkatungu#The_massacre_at_Battle_Hill
There could have been, but the tribes were too divided by bad blood between them to organize any mass resistance.

File: Ireland_(MODIS).jpg (2.61 MB, 1600x2200)
2.61 MB
2.61 MB JPG
i was talking to my family over thanksgiving and it turns out my town has a long history of animosity towards micks, i myself unknowingly bullied kids who were actually micks. was it because they were papists and because of the troubles and shit? i am in the us south
66 replies and 5 images omitted. Click here to view.
I didn't forget that. It was the King of Leinster who requested they aid him; he promised them land and marriage to his daughter (illegal in Irish law) in return for military support for his run against Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair, the High King. They then began campaigns of their own until Henry II's intervention.
>[citation needed]
No, you're the one that needs to provide one. You literally said that your argument is based on you believing it.
>They come together against common foes
No, they didn't. Many Irish lords worked together with the Norsemen, including the King of Leinster, the head of the Uí Fidgenti and numerous others. Famously during the Battle of Clontarf, Brian had many Norsemen on his side too.

I might hurt to hear this but your vision of medieval Ireland is completely flawed. The concept of an Irish Nation first arrived in the late 1700s, created by Protestants in Belfast. Irish people before that were of course a collective people sharing a culture/language/code of law, but they absolutely were not united politically or part of some big "unit" together. It simply is not true and the burden of proof is on you if you wish to challenge that.
>No, you're the one that needs to provide one. You literally said that your argument is based on you believing it.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Years%27_War_(Ireland) 2. at least i can admit to an opinion unlike you who is claming fact 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_King_of_Ireland although these kings never truly ruled Ireland but they prove that irish people did see them selfs as a people.
>No, they didn't.
1. nine year war 2. Irish Rebellion of 1641 3. the defeat of the viking settlers and yes there is well documented evidence to support viking mercenary's helping clan lords but not settlers and ultimately the settlers where driven off
>The concept of an Irish Nation first arrived in the late 1700s
clearly wrong if thats true that how do you enplane even just the Irish Rebellion of 1641. i honestly just want to hear where the fuck you got 18th century from i know there was a lot going on then like wolfe tone be how can you not know about earlier examples.
>Nine Years War
The Nine Years war had Irish lords siding with England too.
>The existence of High Kings prove the Irish saw themselves as a people
No, it proves that the role of High King existed but that it was almost entirely ceremonial-again, seeing as it was often rotated between families to stop anyone getting too powerful. The High Kingship actually argues *against* what you're saying.
>Nine Year War
See above; it had Irish lords fighting for England too.
The 1641 Rebellion was not a separatist one and most of the leaders were Royalists-supporters of English rule.
>Defeat of Viking settlers
They were assimilated. Hiberno-Norse lords simply became more independent lords in Ireland. They were not at any stage driven off.
>Clearly wrong, explain 1641
1641 was an attempted coup d'etat of the Dublin authorities to secure the privileges of the Catholic nobility. They were loyal to the English crown and trying to gain the graces from the King. There was no concept of an Irish nation outside of the context of the Kingdom of Ireland at the time.

>where you got 18th century from

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>The Nine Years war had Irish lords siding with England too.
of course it did this doesn't prove anything tho as these loads may have still seen the Irish people as a collective wile also believing English rule would be beneficial.
>it was almost entirely ceremonial-again
as i said these kings never truly ruled Ireland but there needs to be an "Ireland" for them to be a high "king" of. this would not be possible if it was JUST an island of fight clans they clearly seen a connection that linked them together as a people.
>the leaders were Royalists-supporters of English rule
the Rebellion of 1641 was a Rebellion ageist English rule & Protestants plane and simple many Irish men died fighting British red coats there is not any way you can spin this around
>They were assimilated
yes but only after be defeated by a collective effort ageist them by clan lords if this had not happened Ireland my well have been Scandinavian by now
>1641 was an attempted coup d'etat of the Dublin authorities to secure the privileges of the Catholic nobility.
1641 was an unorganized semi nation wide Rebellion not just Dublin and it was an attempt to bring more power Catholicism and Irish nationalism.
>They were loyal to the English crown
they where catholic the crown was Protestant.
>conceived the idea of an independent Irish nation
Wolfe Tone conceived the idea of United Irishmen witch was a society of revolutionarys not an idea of Irish nation if anything it shows how many people already believed Ireland to be a nation.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
File: irish 3.png (25 KB, 679x162)
25 KB

File: image(1).png (78 KB, 1200x1200)
78 KB
They were right and you can't prove me wrong yankee scum. SIC SIMPER TYRANUS
38 replies and 14 images omitted. Click here to view.
What's their long-term plan for the blacks, then? They couldn't be slaves forever. Most of the western world had already banned slavery, and the freemen population was continuing to grow. How would the Confederacy continue to survive through the 1900s, with ideologically opposed neighbors to the north and south, and across the ocean?
anon, what the fuck is this
annie frub
File: 1504901126514.jpg (1.21 MB, 1072x4616)
1.21 MB
1.21 MB JPG

File: First Crusade.jpg (284 KB, 1279x734)
284 KB
284 KB JPG
When did Christendom die?

1453 Fall of Constantinople
1517 Protestant Reformation
1648 Treaty of Westphalia
1806 Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire
1870 Dissolution of the Papal States
1914-1918 World War I and the dissolution of the Russian Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire

Christendom no longer exits. Christianity is no longer a political system but a "personal individual quest that doesn't judge people" now. It's been cucked beyond all recognition and all the church fathers are facepalming and rolling in their graves.
16 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
with masonry tookover

usa independence
Rothschilds in continental europe
uk became jewry stronghold
late 1700
Constantine had no dog in what the councils were deciding he just wanted theological unity in the empire. it is worth noting he was baptized by an Arian priest, Eusebius, on his deathbed. his children were also staunch Arians.

File: Cicero_-_Musei_Capitolini.jpg (1.98 MB, 1227x1636)
1.98 MB
1.98 MB JPG
>Cicero said: Gold. This is obviously why the present case is being tried close
to the Aurelian Steps. It is because of this particular charge that you have sought out this location, Laelius (the prosecutor), and that mob (referring to the noisy crowd of Jews whom Laelius
had assembled to create a commotion at the trial). You
know how large a group they (the Jews) are, and how influential they are in politics. I will lower my voice and speak just loudly enough for the jury to hear me; for there are plenty of individuals to stir up those Jews against me and against every good Roman, and I don't intend to make it any easier for them to do this. Since gold was regularly exported each year in the name of the Jews from Italy and all our provinces to Jerusalem, Flaccus there, gentlemen of the jury, who cannot sincerely commend this
action? The exportation of gold had been forbidden by the Senate on many previous occasions, and most strictly of all during my consulship. Further, that Flaccus was opposed to this barbarous
Jewish superstition was proof of his strong character that
he defended the Republic by frequently denying the aggressiveness
of the Jewish mobs at political gatherings was an evidence
of his high sense of responsibility."
If Cicero was anti-jew and he was Caesar's enemy does that make Caesar pro-jew?
Cicero was the Jüdensheißführer of the Republic.
Wow, corruption in ancient rome? Totally unheard of.
But wait I thought their reputation for greed and power brokering was a result of Christian antisemitism """forcing""" them to become bankers (an incredibly lucrative and inherently powerful profession - something you definitely delegate to the underclasses) centuries later?

File: images (84).jpg (62 KB, 678x452)
62 KB
You don't see many other civil wars generate so much interest among foreigners, especially when they're so irrelevant to world history at large
129 replies and 13 images omitted. Click here to view.
>south americans and mexicans arent spanish
No they are. you don't get to rape and pillage populations then say their offspring aren't of your lineage. Every third worlder speaking Spanish? They are Spanish. they are your brethren and family.
Thinking it over, aren't the Russian and Chinese civil wars subjects that get more attention than the Spanish Civil War?
Because it was recent, particularily bloody, and set the stage for the ideological struggle of ww2
lo siento mi hermano.
la UE morirá pronto.
Múdate a China.
Because they didnt let themselves get baited into a war, thus there was no way plant propaganda against them.

File: 1606761684836.jpg (143 KB, 774x508)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
China used to have warring states. Were they different ethnicities that eventually joined up and mixed to become han?
They hated each other so much, they couldn't have been the same ethnicity.
14 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
>They hate each other mainly because it was a time where different states fought against each other. Just because they are brothers doesn't mean that they like each other.
Example: Was there any contention between the Americans and the Brits during the 1800s, or late 1700s? Yes. Are they Anglo-Saxons? Yes.
Let's explain all the states of the Warring States:
>Yan: border state lying on the farthest reaches of China that was relatively weak, but they were able to BTFO the Qi state
>Zhao: Military reform rivaled that of the Qin, but bad rulers killed off the strength of the Zhao
>Zhongshan: Sinicized Barbarians that were a major hinder to the Zhao, so it got wiped off early in the game
>Qi: was strong early on due to Guan Zhong, but it kinda died down later on
>Wei: Split off from the Jin with Zhao and Han and was the first to become the strongest in the Warring States Period. Too bad they missed a lot of chances and was btfo
>Han: Weakest of the States, because of how many strong enemies surround it. However, it was the birthplace to famous Legalist Han Fei.
>Ba and Shu: Barbarians that were annexed by the Qin
>Chu: Strongest nation that had the most potential, but was weak due to corruption
>Yue: Btfo the Wu early on and became a hegemon, but Chu was a major threat to its existance.
>Song: Descendants of the Shang Dynasty nobles. Really weak and had a weak hegemon in its history
>Lu: Birthplace of Confucius
>Wei(Smaller Wei): Birthplace of many famous scholars and the first female poet in human history
>Qin: The winner of the battle royale. Strong military, discipline, and conquered everyone but their rule was based purely on military strength and as such they collapsed pretty soon after.
File: States_of_Zhou_Dynasty.png (49 KB, 1275x902)
49 KB
To add to what has already been said:

The So-called "Hundred States" of pre-unity China had their own cultures and languages, and- in the case of the Frontier Dukes- even their own ethnicities. But all of them recognized they belonged to an Ubercultural identity that at the time was known as "Hua" or "Huaxia" (lit. Grand and Elegant), to which they ascribed as the height of human civilization, as opposed to the non-hua-cultured people, whose culture they referred to as as Yi (barbarian) and considered them inferior in virtue.

Hua/Huaxia is a biiiit similar to the Ancient Greek Concept of Hellenism, except the Proto-Chineses didn't speak one language nor belonged to a single ethno-cultural group.

Nowadays the Chinese still use the term Hua/Huaxia, but now it is understood as a national term referring to everyone with Chinese Citizenship (Zhonghua). If we stick to the original cultural meaning of Hua then the Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese would be part of the "Hua" civilization due to tremendous amounts of Chinese influence.
Well, China is one cline from Qiangic to Tai-Kradai/Dai/Zhuangs/Northern Vietnamese.

So it's whatever ethnicity belongs in between, which is predictable.

Basically, Han Chinese are two-way, anything in between either Qiangic or Vietnamese .

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.