History user here

History user here.

Ask me anything. You know the drill.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=U2bNXrVubrE
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100217-crete-primitive-humans-mariners-seafarers-mediterranean-sea/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

What actually happened in Bosnia in the early to middle 80s to make so many of them immigrate? I really find it hard to believe that a little genocide caused all that.

Are you proud to be unemployed and worthless to the economy while having wasted precious money for your degree?

>a little genocide

The Bosnian genocide was just one of the events that caused massive upheaval in the Balkans. The break up of the former Yugoslavia lead to a bunch of different interrelated unrest. This included widespread violence, factional infighting, and ethnically-motivated violence as the Yugoslav government basically unraveled before everyone's eyes. Much like Being a staff member during black friday sale. Authority broke down and new countries were declared pretty-much overnight. These new nation states were formed mostly on ethno-nationalistic lines. This bred fierce nationalism, which lead to events like the Bosnian genocide.

Basically:

>Yugoslav government collapses
>FML can't go to supermarket to buy Semechkyi
>general lack of services
>nobody knows what the fuck is going on
>general violence/mayhem
>new countries
>Stability found only in making a common enemy

the historians are the people who protect the truth from the monsters that are SJW and fascists.

Not really. Hence why I'm in the workforce, and returning for a science degree too.

History is the means by which we can make sense of the world and why it is the way it is. Without direction, we fall to anarchy and violence. Our very civilisation depends on maintaining that the truth is free for all to access.

Glory glory! A shame, then, that most historians are paid like shit, treated like shit because they don't have a degree in economics or IT, and that many of them only do history as a hobby.

jobbing at walmart also makes you part of the workforce. Do you have a job that's adequate for your degree?

i recently finish Zinn's "A People's History of the U.S.", and found it cringingly leftist, but I wondered how accurate his portrayal was of the conscious institutionalization of racism as a tool of the ruling class to create a middle-class barrier between them and slaves. Was it a plan?

>Do you have a job that's adequate for your degree?

Not in the slightest. I detail trucks for a living. Also, graduate programmes are constantly full, so hence my going back to study science so I can diversify myself and be more employable.

Eventual goal is to work for a university and contribute to knowledge.

i feel you bros,keep the flame lit

that looks more like sociology than history

I haven't read that, but I'd be willing to give it a go.

From what i understand about social US history, systemic racism exists in the form of centuries-old habits. There is some evidence that sheds some light on the subject in the form of interviews after the fact. For instance, the Nixon administration used the war on drugs as a means to supress the black vote during the civil rights movement. Black communities were targeted much more than white communities because thew administration knew at the time that pretty-much most of the black community intensely disliked "dem white men overseein' us like we was slaves 'n' shit", so the government at the time did its best to stay in power by use of dirty tactics.

This would have indeed caused a disparity between black and white communities in terms of access to services and wealth inequality but as a deciding factor? I can't really say, I don't have enough information.

As somebody who still works at an university, be careful. Working there will often get you a badly paid job that is always temporary, unless you manage to somehow get to hold a chair for history. Which is hard, by the way, competition is beyond insane. Mixing your knowledge with stuff that is actually paid like basic IT knowledge or economics might be better.

Throughout you life's history, can you recall how many cocks you've sucked?

Hence why I'm going to both diversify with science, and specialise in the humanities by taking on archaeology: a field that always receives funding--especially in Europe.

Probs somewhere between 10-25. I can't really give you an exact number. My early 20s were a blur.

Why did western countries not adapt the superior roman ways of life, was it because of the book burning? I could google but i'm a lazy little cunt.

Flugelcrank or flugelhorn?

If you want that, go for it. Just be sure that you are on the lookout for skills that make you valuable outside of the humanities, because from my point of view, the humanities are fucked globally. I'm from Europe, and it looks pretty bad to be honest. But archeology has its own benefits. They often teach some nice skills in geographic information systems, and stuff like this gets requested a lot. Heard about someone who practically got bought out of the university by a big company.

Actually, since the fall of the romans right up until the middle of the 19th century pretty much all of Europe sought to recapture the lost glory of Rome. All fo the petty European kingdoms saw themselves as a fragment, or a shadow of what had been lost. Pic related is King Louis XIV of France. He built Versailles. He basically was showing through his massive building projects and his vsage that he was equal to the romans in glory and power.

It wasn't until the coming about of the Imperal age (mid to late 19th century) that Europeans began to see themselves as superior to the Romans, because they had done quite a lot fo things the ancients had never accomplished.

eg:

Pretty much every European nation by 1900 had an overseas Empire with vast colonial acquisitions. Even little Belgium.

Europeans had rendered incapable the oldest-known civilisation on the planet: China.

The scientific and Industrial revolutions means standard of living was better than ever before. For example, the discovery/invention of antiseptic in 1845 suddenly meant that death from infection after surgery dropped from 60% to just 15%

I want a flugelhorn, of course.

Shit. Always assumed the flugelcrank would be first.
You win this round, historian.

Why are tomatoes considered fruit?

I studied History, not botany (not real science anyway)

But it's because they grow above the ground.

When was the last time Sup Forums was good?

There were other factors involved, but one major thing that was holding the former Yugoslavia together was its leader Josip Broz Tito. After he died, things rapidly fell apart.

The history of Sup Forums is still something I'm looking into. Obviously that's a loaded question, so I'm going to say it's subjective.

Sidenote: Why am I looking into Sup Forums's history? The history of the internet is just as important as the history of the printing press IMO.

But many beans grow above ground too, as well as cauliflower.

Just old you I studied history, not botany. Truth is I don't really have an answer. Google it.

2 basic questions I've never been able to find a tl;dr answer to:

Why did WW1 start?
Why did WW2 start?

Now I’m sad.

You're absolutely right. But a history of the internet will be very hard to look into, as we will encounter a lack of sources. Digital culture is far more elusive and ephemeral than printed books from the 16th century.
Same problem goes for the history of digital games, as a sidenote. Currently there are some people already looking into that topic, as games are nowadays considered a true piece of culture.

OK, i did this last time, but I'll give you a tl'dr of a tl;dr.


Why did WWI start?

>No major war in Europe for nearly 100 years
>Industrial revolution, nationalism, colonial competition, system of alliances and balances
>Unification of Germany 1870s
>decline of Austrian (Hapsburg) influence
>Military incompetence, especially from the Austrians.
>Decline of Ottoman Empire
>Newfound need for oil


WWII

>Because WWI (Also, treaty of Versailles and Great Depression hitting much harder in Europe than America)
>Japanese expansionism

My fith great uncle

You're distantly related to General Sherman? That's pretty cool. Pic related is my grandfather's grandfather, c.1900.

Why were the princely states so easy prey for the British East India Co?

Yes I am and a lot of people dont know this but they wanted him to run for president but he refused. And he was also close friends with Mark Twain

Why was the whole existence of the abbasid caliphate a long decline.

Petty warring kingdoms/small states like those found in India in the 18th century were on the receiving end of European Imperialism at its worst. Basically, various Princely states tried to stay out of Imperial affairs by playing the British and the French off one another. This was at first successful, because Britain and France were pretty-much equal in both naval and land power (except for attacking the British homeland.)
By the 1760s, the French had catastrophically lost their territorial acquisitions and their overseas enterprise options in the Seven Years' War. With no major competitor to back up any resistance in India, the East India Company was able to just use British troops to exert control over large areas of India. Anyone that dare resist, fell to British arms. When diplomacy was an option, it meant heavy trade concessions for the British.

Basically, India was made up of a lot of small rival states, no match for a maritime power like Britain by the 1760s.

u still here ?

Hmm, middle eastern history wasn't something I got to study in-depth, but here goes.

The Abbasid Caliphate, like all large centralised "empires" eventually fell to factionalism and internal disputes. The mongol invasion in the 13 century surely didn't help either. From what I understand about the middle east from my studies, is that large chunks like Eqypt are relatively easily defended due to narrow chokepoints and the ability to function independently. This ability to function just fine without the centralised authority probably lead to more and more local autonomy until breakup was inevitable.

Also, did I mention the mongols came and fucked everything?

Right here.

Why did germany assist japan in their agression against the US

Before WWII during Hitler's rise to power, the Nazi government sorely needed allies in order to keep who they perceived as inevitable enemies in check. Italy was a natural choice for the Germans at this stage, as they both had fascist governments.

Japan was a special case of sorts. Hitler himself probably didn't particularly like the Japanese, but he recognised that they would hold up a lot of enemy effort in the East. Furthermore, they were already enemies of the Russians (Russo-Japanese war 1905).

Another good reason was that the German war industry was partially driven on exports. The government didn't make the weapons, armour and uniforms of the Wehrmacht, they were made by private companies. Exporting their masterials to other countries helped kickstart the German economy in the mid 1930s. Japan wasn't the only one that bought German-made arms and armour, the Chinese did too.

How old are you

25.

You seem pretty good in history for a 25, what the fuck are you doing wasting your time learning useless bullshit.

History is just a stepping stone for me. It's a means to an end as well as a hobby. I plan on studying science and archaeology too.

are you white ?

I am. If you must know, I'm Australian of German descent.

Hello history user.

Please explain to me why the Irish have immigrated all across the world but burst into tears at the thought of Scottish farm workers immigrating to vacant land formerly owned by Irish landlords who deserted their serfs. Thanks.

>wh*Toid

DROPPED

you're younger than me. Run while you still can. I'm pursuing a PhD in history myself, and while I am currently making some money because I work at an university, I just see myself unemployed and fucked in about two years. Unless I can make some money out of my degree because of its reputation or something.

>you'r younger than me

wrong, im 44.

Was the Holy Roman Empire of Germany dysfunctional because of its lack of centralized state power - or was it pretty succesful because of being rather decentralized?

fucked up the quotation. Meant to go to

hentai

The whole custer's last stand felt off to me, he seemed too clever to walk into a trap like that; was there more going on?

Ah, that's an interesting one. Irish emigration across the world is a fascinating subject unto itself. But basically put, it was due to the horrible conditions in Ireland at the time. It's no secret that Ireland was generally poor. Centuries of domination from the British basically means wealth flowed out of Ireland and to England/Scotland. Since the 1600s, Ireland was under almost constant occupation by the British army, as a means of denying Ireland (predominantly Catholic) as a landing space for any French invasion of the English homeland. British soldiers were often quartered among townsfolk, this practice was common and is one of the reasons why the US constitution expressly forbids this practice.

Furthermore, in 1845 a massive famine took place in Ireland that saw a good portion of thge population face either leaving, or starvation. The British at the time didn't lift a finger to help on purpose because social Darwinism was all the rage, them believing that the famine was a natural means of controlling overpopulation.
>half-dead and starving Irishmen also make poor revolutionaries

Now, with protectionism and the Scots moving in. The term "Scotch-Irish" refers to the settlemt of Scottish people in the north of Ireland by the British as a way of trying to replace the Catholic Irish natives with loyal Protestant Scottish/Irish taxpayers that didn't hate the British (as much). This was basically ethnic cleansing over a period of generations and forms the basis of why Ireland is currently split between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Any "further encroachment" by the Scotch-Irish and Scottish digs up those old feelings, and is especially offensive to Irish nationalists.

How hitler compares to the average person?

Track down snacks, that guy might be worth talking to

Sup Forums Sup Forums alone, a lot will likely never be recorded/remembered, nature of the medium, people split off/fragmented
Reminds me somewhat of painted caves

The Roman Empire was basically just a means of controlling central Europe on the part of more powerful nations (mostly France, Spain, and Austria). Keeping it decentralised stopped it from being a threat, and served as a buffer between the French and the Austrians, who were always at war with one another.

France and Austria's worst fears were realised when They eventually unified into Germany in the 1870s and became a power unto themselves overnight.


With the dysfunctionalism, that was evident at every level. Voltaire was known to complain at the utter lack of infrastructure and how asking for directions was impossible.

American military history was full of people obsessed in making their way to be the stuff of legends. Custer was no exception. From what I know (which is very little, I focused on European History) Custer wanted to get his way into the history books and knew that the classically educated elites of the US filled with stories of the 300 Spartans and such would just adore the idea of a lone American commander facing against impossible odds against barbarian hordes (in this case, "savage indians")

His "bravery" also served another function: a "just cause" or an excuse for politicians in congress to call upon the army to forcibly deal with the native people of North America.

Adolph Hitler was born in 1889 in Linz, Austria. His father was also his mother's uncle.

He grew up at a time when nationalism was at it's peak in Europe, and he strove to be a "real German", moving to Munich as soon as he could. He had a classical education and like most Austrians, was brought up to love fine arts and painting.

Like most Germans in WWI, he suffered a lot and fought on despite the conditions. He even went so far as to berate people for not being patriotic enough, earning him the rank of corporal.

What set him apart in the 1920s was his uniquely firey oratory that drew attention in Berlin, where anti-western, anti-establishment, and anti-Jewish sentiments were scoldingly hot because of the recent defeat in WWI. He simply made powerful friends in the right time in the right place, and talked to the right people, being charismatic enough to draw attention and larger than life enough for people to get behind. Benito Mussolini had similar results.

I don't really care about the money so much, I just want to be involved and to contribute.

"History" is pretty vague, so here's several questions:
>Without the Anatomy Act of 1832, do you think graverobbing would still be a common practice?
>What would've a Benjamin Wade presidency looked like? (this is assuming he becomes president if Andrew Johnson was actually impeached)
>Besides the world wars, what do you think had the largest effect on boosting the economy in 1920's and 50's?

Which came first, the sail or the flag?

>>Without the Anatomy Act of 1832, do you think graverobbing would still be a common practice?

Probably not in England at least. However in other regions in the 19th century that were still heavily catholic, yes.

>>What would've a Benjamin Wade presidency looked like? (this is assuming he becomes president if Andrew Johnson was actually impeached)

A Wade presidency would have been interesting, given the man was pro-union and pro-universal suffrage. However, he was a radical for his time and would have been routinely blocked in Congress. Even if he had used executive orders in order to get through his agenda, the majority of the common people at the time had only just gone though the civil war and old sentiments were still very-much alive until the turn of the century (some still are). I think he would have helped along the idea of universal suffrage, but wouldn't have been able to bring it to fruition.

>>Besides the world wars, what do you think had the largest effect on boosting the economy in 1920's and 50's?

In the 1920s, the large-scale expansion of venture capitalism and colonial exploitation--particularly in Africa and South East Asia.
In the 1950s, the onset of the cold war and subsequent arms race. The post-WWII economy functioned on a combination of the Martial Plan, and the Military Industrial Complex.

The flag.

Early flags and banners would have been used by warring tribesman fighting over a particular hill in order to determine who's army was who's, whereas sailing would have come about sometime later (probably invented by the Egyptians or the Hittites)

History user I call upon you once more. Recently asked about the issues in 1980-1990 Bosnia. Next question is is it possible to truly phase out our knowledge of history, seeing as the vast majority of American public have done away with core teachings already? And as well, when was the last something like this occurred without a contingency plan of some sort. Assuming there isn't one of course. Implying I am whole-heartedly on the side of history because without it we cannot hope to right our past wrong or even our future ones. Thanks b/ro. Marylin chambers nudes for interest.

History you say? OK why is your mom a nigger lover?

youtube.com/watch?v=U2bNXrVubrE

Public schooling- is,is* god damn I despise auto correct

It is a dangerous game playing with the idea of withholding history from the masses. If the past has taught us anything so far, it's that revisionism and censorship only encourage people to find the truth.

For instance, the censorship of classical Roman and Greek philosophers lead to dissenting Italian intellectuals to kick start the renaissance and later the scientific revolution in the 1600s. History cannot be suppressed or concealed for very long, despite many tyrants' efforts.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100217-crete-primitive-humans-mariners-seafarers-mediterranean-sea/

Seafaring may be a bit older; fun thing with ancient is the evidence is scant.

Picking one side or another would seem to suggest that we are either warlike or curious.

I tip my fedora to you good sir. They say the more you know... Yeah you get it.
Final question is more a conversation piece than anything, but regardless my interest was peaked. When was the last time a symbolance of world-wide propaganda was so prevalent as feminism? What was done to correct this backward influence? Other side notes are appreciated.

I can't comment on propaganda, but in terms of a social movement, I would have to point to The Enlightenment.

The 18th century saw a whole new way of thinking become popular in western culture, and was spread to every part of the world where Europeans went, leaving visible marks today--feminism included.

The whole idea was that nature and science had a relationship that could be observed, repeated, and replicated. That there was a natural order of things, and that the greatest beauty was that of nature itself. This was a very far cry from earlier social movements that saturated things in religion as the main driving force. This was the exact opposite. In fact, many of today's notions of what we consider "modern" such as representative democracy, universal suffrage, the scientific method, modern mathematics, the idea of cataloguing life into genus and species, the study of science as a discipline (rather than a subset of humanities), grid-patterned cities,

>"We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:"

>"I - Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.
II - The goal of any political association is the conversation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety, and resistance against oppression."

>"I disapprove of what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it" (inb4 misattributed)


This movement shaped the very foundations of the modern world. Any notions of progressiveness, or "common sense" started here.

Okay, I saved that response. Prolific at its core, undoubtedly well said and very thought provoking. Never saw it this under the same light. Much appreciated man, also nice "common sense" reference.

>Ask me anything.
Jews?

Was willst du wissen von die Juden?

--I mean, what about them?

Okay guys, it's almost 3AM here, and I have shit to do tomorrow, so this is History user signing off.

What was the most advanced military unit tactic strike force of the dark ages and why was it Doppelsöldners?