streaming Movies and TV daily, click
here for the web player, or
here for the .m3u.
what do you guys think of Historychan???
We ok with this?
is that a real photo of them? that isn't shopped?
even if it is, I recognize hitler and himmler, but who are the other 3, starting with the eyepatch guy, then the skinnier guy behind everyone else, then the fatface guy on the left
that's kinda a cool picture, it almost looks like it's an add for a boyband rofl
Youtube - Toggle Video
you gonna cry now?
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
Oh wait, I got it, first one, then the other.
Thanks for that bit of entertainment. :)
, Black Guard.png
Anyone have info to share on Nestor Makhno, and the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine in general? Anything/everything you have, please.
I know we're all supposed to think the world revolves around arabs vs jews vs europeans, and keep them all first and foremost in our thoughts, but honestly, I've been finding myself giving a lot less of a fuck about the history of the same shitty old ignorant sheep herder tribes and their dismal world-views, and quite a bit more about all the hundreds of other, more nuanced and dynamic cultures elsewhere, that had more fucking sense than to make the mistakes the former did.
Take the US, for instance. Nature just published a bit announcing the long-held Clovis migration theory has now officially been dismissed, and scientists are now using all the usual methods for tracking migrations to figure out just how long people have been populating our western continents, with evidence pointing to much earlier explorer groups moving down the coastline via boat, & even earlier large-mammal hunter cultures moving across the arctic down through canada all the way to South America, building the huge populations and cultures across the hemisphere.
...before the diseased europeans showed up and laid waste to everything, only to turn it into... a replica of exactly the dysfunctional mess they left behind.
personally I way prefer what we call modern civilization, which has many aspects that were *mostly* developed in the west, but is not so specific so that it has many other aspects that can exist as well
you have your chinese flavoured modernism, european flavoured modernism, beginning to get an eastern european/western asian modernism, and even african, and south american modernism
and let's not forget that north american and european modernism are different a reasonable amount too
note that just because the west pioneered modernism more or less it doesn't mean there haven't been vital contributions from other cultures
in fact, much of modernism that we take for granted has had a major amount of input and feedback from the other cultures to begin with, and the reason we were able to develop it at all is because we listened, even if we made our own decisions
I hope you meant to say that you "strongly prefer" or "prefer above all else" modern civilization.
I don't know what textbooks OP has been reading, but my view of human history includes far more details than OP's statement includes. This subject is far more complex and far-reaching than newspaper opinions can be expected to summarise.
Here's an image to add to the discussion:
"Mitochondrial DNA-based chart of large human migrations (Numbers are millennia before present.)"
It comes from a wiki page which hardly covers the subject any more than this thread, but it is a useful perspective.
The best measure of a new stage for human mind is the degree to which superstitious behaviour has been thrown off. I see superstitious crap everyday. Let's explain that dilemma, and then we can begin to make progress.
that map is fucked up in the head
after I checked the discussion, I realized there was an argument about the idea of human migration to australia before europe
I might as well point out that almost noone even wanted to go north until caesar got bored, apparently, and the immigration route seems to follow the same one that alexander the great followed
which is an interesting correlation between the idea and historical fact, not that it means anything serious necessarily
What if in the battle of Berlin both the Americans and the Russians fought instead of just the Russians and there was no Cold War how would that impact us today?
bad british cooking versus GREAT MOTHER RUSSIA
THE POWER OF VODKA COMPELS YOU
THE POWER OF VODKA COMPELS YOU
THE POWER OF VODKA COMPELS YOU
hah. russia wins IT ALSO STEALS ALL THE GERMANS' SAUSAGE AND FRENCH'S CHEESE AND ITALIANS' WINE
and iranian's oil
actually there is but one tactic that might work in the event of a clash between allies and soviets
concentrate your forces and fucking bust up some serious shit making a drive for moscow then miraculously like a retard, stop in a position where you can defend and they have to concentrate their forces to get to you
then drop some bombs on their supply depots for those places
They had already divided Germany in one of their big conferences. If the Americans took more ground than they were meant to then they'd have to GTFO afterwards, which they historically did. Failure to take Berlin on its own would've just been a massive hit to the USSR's prestige and would piss them off, that is all. The Soviet spies already knew about the nukes back then.
, EL Duffo.png
Dear Historians, I come to you with a practical historical question.
Has there ever been a dead language we managed to decipher without using an intermediary? Where we only had written documents/tablets in the strange language, and nothing else - no Rosetta stone or anything.
Also, is there a manner to convey a language in such a way that would make it easier for an outside observer to understand it?
To answer your question, I think Linear B from the Mycenaean culture fits the bill. Linear A has yet to be deciphered at all.
Well yeah, I obviously meant chemical signals converted to an electrowave format, much like we do with sound and image broadcasts.
Wicked. Although it would appear they only really figured it out once it became apparent the symbols written represented ancient Greek, of which they had extensive knowledge.
Fellow /hi/story buffs. Quick question: Would you say it would be fair to call clocks the only machines of the pre-industrial revolution?
(if you want to get technical, complex machines, because simple machines have existed for practically all of humankind's existence)
pic sort of related. some machines.
Depending on how broad your definition of clock is, this may qualify; the Antikythera Mechanism is possibly the earliest known example of computing.
I don't see what would be the distinguishing feature of a clock. If the definition of a machine rests upon (complex) moving parts, many others qualify. If you go by the type of energy used to power it, a clock still would not qualify, as it runs on human labour (winding it). The earliest possible machine is probably the wind/water mill, and the earlies non-human/animal/wind/water powered one would be Greek steam-engines.
What would happen if America somehow decided to start living off of rations?
Boy kid, you sure like greentext.
But logic? Not so much.
Funny, you became quiet as churchmice until Trump started up the crusade a second time.
Then I'd have to hunt for more food. Fuck that noise.
, mary magdalene icon.jpg
This was quite unexpected. When we set out to critique the rabbis and start a new, and unique, communication with God, we didn't realize that we would see such a large following or such a brutal backlash. Sure, faith healing and miracle working was in there. Judaism has a long tradition of miracle working - there was Elijah, who outcompeted the priests of Baal in a sacrifice and drew down fire and rain from the heavens, Moses, through which God split the Sea of Reeds, Honi the circle maker, who nudged God to provide rain through his making of circles, and the inventor of the Golem of Prague, who used the Divine Name and a pile of clay to make a robot. We like to think of ourselves as unique, though.
Who but us would descend into utter filth, among the creeping maggots and the bloody timbers of the ill and impoverished, and strive to bring the touch of God to the sick? The Rabbis, the Pharisees, were no help. They were too busy arguing over narrow points of law and wining and dining to care about the poor and the tempest tossed. Before he was said to have turned water into wine, I saw Yeshua slogging through a pile of shit, fleas nipping at his every contour, trying to reach a bunch of lepers in a shantytown, skin falling off their feet, a putrid odor around everybody. I was pretty impressed. When I asked why he did that, Yeshua gave a typical Yeshua response, saying that anyone with a couple of ears ought to listen and mentioning that the poor, the odorous, those missing limbs, the starving, the filthy, the vomit-streaked, those struggling for life, were the people to be prioritized, rather than machers and decisionmakers. Of course, the bigwigs didn't like that. But quite a few people loved it.
While we saw what we were doing as a mitzvah, the Sanhedrin was more skeptical. The situation got worse when our movement got politicized. Rome saw us as a threat to Rome, and the cohenate (priesthood) saw us as a threat to them. Rumors that Yeshua was the Messiah, or, even worse, God, didn't help the situation. (Which is why I find it interesting that my boyfriend wound up getting worshipped as God "the son" by some 57% of the world's population, and, even more, that pictures of him on a cross, crown of thorns on his head, wearing naught but a loincloth, bloodied all over, should be their chosen depiction of him.)
Mind you, we had our lighter moments. You'd be surprised how good the guy was in bed. **laughs** But we never had a formal marriage, and his "official" students were all men, a vain attempt to save face in a rather chauvinist society. Respectable rabbis were male, hired male students, and it was the men who got to be high priest. So, of course, having officially female "disciples" was out of the question. The Popes are doing a disservice by using this as an excuse to deny women the Catholic priesthood, in a world where standards of respectability ar
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
I wasn't sure where to put historical fiction, but something concerning the history of a religion sounded very /hi/ to me, so I put it in /hi/.
God has better things to do than wiping Earth's civilization out several times over. See, there's that galaxy over there God's trying to play billards with...
I don't care what you think /hi/, this was an interesting read. That's all I came here for.
Sadly, I feel more spiritual than I ever did in church. Any of the several I've been to.
If everyone is in debt. Who has any funds? Or is the debt just how much credit is stacked against a body?
I'm in debt, you're in debt, my city is in debt, my state in debt, my country in debt, most of other countries and cities, most people in the West.
If every fucking anything is indebted where is any semblance of liquidity? Are we overpopulated and the money is stretched too thin, is most of the world whording large sums in savings, or is it all invested in fancy pants Western 1st world infrastructure?
tl;dr who the fuck has money?
Youtube - Toggle Video
A lot of countries hold physical liquidity in the form of rare earth metals/technology/infrastructure/investments. Money is mostly imaginary or representative, as in a set of numbers stored in a system somewhere or paper/tokens. Physical monetary reserves (i.e gold standard) only cover a fraction of a country's economic net worth or money supply in circulation.
who has money? Most likely private "businesses" of various sizes and the individuals who have significant economic stakes in them.
Nice to meet you Mitt. Shouldn't you be focusing on the campaign?
there is no magical increase in supply
there is just an arbitrary switch from gallons to litres, so that the number of said units is higher for the same amount of stuff because the units are smaller
however there are many people who get suckered into thinking it's higher
What will happen when oil 'runs out'? By this I mean when it becomes economically inefficient to keep digging for oil, as it will never actually 'run out' so to speak.
Some of the countries we accept as nice countries are largely oil based. Norway and Saudi Arabia rely on their oil to maintain such a high standard of living, just to mention a couple.
Have there been any countries/states in the past who have ran out of oil? What did they do as an alternative? Are they still successful?
>Except that it might not be an easy feat without dictatorship and a planned economy.
And a nearby oil-producer providing you oil at below market prices.
>Have there been any countries/states in the past who have ran out of oil?
Romania. They did manage to restructure their economy, so would Norway. Saudi Arabia on the other hand.. unlikely. They need to use their oil money to get something running, but it doesn't seem like the oil sheiks are particularly interested in such things.
It turns to shit basicly and the population has serious trouble sustaining itself.