Alright guys. History user here. Back to give you tl;dr in whatever history-related crap you want to ask about

Alright guys. History user here. Back to give you tl;dr in whatever history-related crap you want to ask about.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=iFgMiechy90
youtube.com/watch?v=VPle6IzDuoU
youtube.com/watch?v=otliit4Dfrk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(1839)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_ship
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Teach me about Ancient Rome's expansion East

Not OP but basically they took over the remnants of Alexander’s successor generals empires

Early Roman expansion outside the Italian peninsula was motivated by (like most Roman incursions abroad) to spread the Pax Romana (officially) and to secure glory and riches for the republic (sorta-kinda-not-really unofficial).

Rome's first major expansion into the East was to the homeland of the ancient Greeks, their intellectual forebearers. They had faced against various Greek forces in Italy (See: Greek colonisation of Italy and Sicily) and by now had grown used to fighting against Greek armies with devastating efficiency.

However, the Romans didn't hate the Greeks, they in0fact greatly admired them and considered themselves the descendants of various Greek cultures (See Roman foundation myth of Aeneis of Troy fleeing the Trojan war). After conquering the Greeks, they adopted much of their knowledge, customs, language, and scholarship.

Further eastward expansion into the middle east was marked by a combination of further military glories (Roman politicians often sought military accomplishment as a way of moving up the ranks in government) and to further secure more lucrative resources such as slaves, raw materials, control of trade routes, and taxation.

describe the daily life of a Pictish village.

Is it true that Napoleon picked his bone apart?
Just what I heard.

>tl;dr
And I don’t agree with a lot of your conclusions here.
According to Livy, the first part of their military expansion into Greece proper was because of some states involvement with Carthage during the Punic wars

Give me all the information you possess on ancient Mesopotamia, the Sumerians, Assyrians and Babolinians. I'm highly interested in this topic, so any information you're willing to share I'm grateful for.

Which came first, T. Rex or T. Rex eggs?

>be me
>be Pict
>be roughly 380-410 CE
>Romans have left the walls and no longer shoot at us on sight
>now free to raid Britons without reprieve
>go raid some Briton village, cut off their heads
>bring heads back to hut in village made of pig shit, mud, and sticks
>Eat pork and rudimentary grains for dinner
>make sure my shit hasn't been stolen
>give scraps to dogs/children
>admire new heads I've mounted on my door frame
>boys want to go raiding further south tomorrow
>fuck yeah.png

Yo mamas dick

Why are tomatoes considered fruit?
I think it’s bullshit

I figured retribution went without saying.
Romans loved getting even.

What do you think they are faggot?

I'm not going to answer that

why do white people have no culture?

2 tough mr smartypants?

Also, I'm reluctant to place too much stock in what Livy said. Being a Roman himself, his writings would no-doubt hold a pro-roman bias. Justification for war and such are one of those things that require a little more reading between the lines.

What do you think of the cultural turn of the 90s?

Me, I'm a social historian. At first, I resisted the change, preferring to stick to my Thompsonian roots and intellectual genealogy. But, over maybe the last decade or so, I've softened my stance.

I certainly see and agree with the goals of po-mo history (freeing subjects, resisting implied/imputed indexicalities, mixing the idea of collective memory/conscious into history, etc.) but I have a lot of trouble with what some consider a source in some circumstances.

Maybe I'm just an old fart.

What say you?

History belongs to the victor.
And if you read the preface of ab urba condita, he goes on for a whole chapter about how he did his best to avoid political bias. And he sites Polybius as a major source. Another Roman to be sure, but one who lived earlier in the republican era

>Sumerians and city of Ur
>Probably earliest forms of writing invented
>agricultural revolution turns a bunch of nomadic tribesman into farmers, then into empire builders
>Early forms of pottery
>Assyrians....didn't get to read into them that much, but now that you've pointed them out, I'm going to have to go read up on them
>Babylonians
same again. TBH all of these civilisations fall outside the scope of what I studied in my degree. But I'd be happy to look into them.

>History belongs to the victor.
Trite. And often, incorrect.

I'd agree that the first draft of history is often what the victor (however defined) may wish it to be, but that doesn't often hold sway long.

Gobleki Tepe was 6000 years earlier than this and it was in capadocia

And Augustus said he didn't want to be Emperor. I wouldn't take stock in anything they've said apart from finding their motivations. I'm not particularly interested in what various roman politicians said, but how the actions of the romans benefited them.
That being said, I'll add ab urba condita to my reading list.

Trite yes but not incorrect. See Ramses II

i appreciate your take on my peoples, user. have some reddit gold.

I really loved the New Radicals, and while I'm no historian I felt as if the shift here in the US was marked with so much of the music released and the overall output of the artists at the time across all fields. Just my thoughts on a question not directed at me in anyway.

>cultural turn of the 90s
Are you referring to the shift in historical academia? History from below, etc?

Was Napoleon black?

Oh

Was Shakespeare real? How well do the theories hold up?

He was Corsican, so tan-ish and probably spoke Italian better than French.

I want to know everything there is about the second war with the btibongs and a brief summary of the origins of guerilla warfare in the revolutionary war

So he was black? WE WUZ KANGS WHEN YOU WUZ IN CAVES

Yes. But he was about 4’8” tall so he probably looked more like beetlejuice.

>the midget nigger from Howard stern not the meme movie

Oh boy.

History from below happened in the late 70's, early 80s, as a result of EP Thompson (et al -- and important caveat) seeking to to study the minor folks, notjust the great men shit.

The cultural turn was the po-mo rxn to that. Thompson was great and all, they reasoned, but what of those who left no diaries or other sources. What of slaves (in the US context,) what of the average Jack Tar sailor, what of indigenous folks? The po-mo culturalists sought to emancipate the memory of those peoples from just memory to historical fact, to 'valid' source.

lrn2historiography

youtube.com/watch?v=iFgMiechy90
youtube.com/watch?v=VPle6IzDuoU
youtube.com/watch?v=otliit4Dfrk
When you have ample free time, I would suggest watching these documentaries sometime. I found them quite interesting myself.,perhaps you will as well.

So many questions.
>Why is it we remember the 6 million Jews that were killed in WWII, when it was more like 1.4 million according to Israel, and like 60 million other civilians were snuffed out intentionally by various sides in the war?
>Where did belief in the devil come from?

Those are my two most pressing ones.

...

I'm assuming you mean the war of 1812.
>Napoleonic wars raging in Europe
>British bloackade France, even from trade with neutral countries
>America dependent on trade with countries like France, so upset.gif
>British navy also had habit of kidnapping any merchants in the Atlantic and forcing them into naval service--including Americans
>US naval vessel attacked by British naval vessel
>US ship sunk/damaged British ship
>British miffed.blimey
>British start arming Native Americans to raid US
>Americans may or may not have wanted to annex British territory in Canada
>war declared
>British on defensive, because Napoleonic war
>British army in Canada still formidable force
>whitehouse burned
>back and forth across New England and southern Canada
>meanwhile in Europe, Napoleon defeated/abdicated
>British navy now free to blockade America
>US brought to brink of bankruptcy
>British tired from Napoleon
>Americans on last legs
Everyone basically decides, fuck it, you're still good for trading with anyway
>End of war, no change in borders, no reparations

Guerilla warfare in American Revolution born of necessity, as American forces nowhere near as well-equipped or trained as British regulars
>British completely unprepared for fighting against a European entity that refuses to fight in an open battle
>heavy use of snipers, espionage, etc
>British annoyed, because Americans won't "fight fairly"

Thanks :)

why did Napoleon ask "Êtes vous Illuminati?" to the young Saxon who tried assassinating him?

Yes, my patriotic (healthy 4lbs each ) fingers accidentally typed btibongs instead of britbongs.

Also interested in civil war naval warfare/ironsides if you don't mind

I feel like it's a means to look into stories worth telling, but much harder to investigate. That being said, I welcome the shift to taking a look at the silent masses, as it were. Every part of history has thousands of perspectives, and it's a good practice to get as many perspectives as possible in order to get a clearer picture of the period in question.
I feel that archaeological evidence is best used in this context. It provides a lense into the period without relying on the accounts from the time that may be biased (or can be used in conjunction with existing accounts to find bias/confirm claims)

Hey OP tell me more about the ancient Persians (specifically Darius I and Cyrus II)
How all history lessons should be

Was Zachary Taylor's death accidental or orchestrated?

Which or who's books of the new testament were written first?

According to Napoleon's biography, yes.
In any case, Stapß was executed for attempting to assassinate Napoleon

I didn't get to cover ancient Persia, but now it's on my reading list.

Only thing I remember about Darius I was that he was catastrophically defeated by Alexander, and that he was eventually killed by his own followers as he retreated from the Macedonians.

British did not fight wars, unless the enemy was FRENCH, the British Empire was a bi-product of astute trading.
This lesson needs to be taught today. The war on Terror should be for profit.... not be paid for by the American Taxpayer.
There were some small errors like starving to death 30% of the population of Bengal, but pajeets don't seem to have suffered too much from that mishap.

Ah, this is a good one.
Basically kinda like this

>Be civil war
>Confederacy blockaded
>newfangled idea from abroad about this armoured ship that's invulnerable to explosives
>Perfect for breaking the blockade
>enter the Virginia, confederate Ironclad ship
>armsrace.jpeg
>ship of the line rendered obsolete
>ironclad ships now the norm after the civil war, not just in US, but in every western navy

Conspiracy theory, but no idea. Didn't get to cover Taylor. Upon initial research, he ate a lot a few days before his death, so no idea.

>newfangled idea from abroad
So the US did construct the first ironclad, but the concept was foreign?

Historically, what has been the laws regarding prostitution? Has it always been mostly illegal, even in ancient societies?

According to Hill (2000), the first "ironclad" of the industrial age was the French Gloire (1859) in response to recent developments in explosive ordinance in the Crimean War.
Source: Hill, Richard. War at Sea in the Ironclad Age ISBN 0-304-35273-X; p. 17.

However, there were armoured ships in the pre-industrial age. For instance, according to various sources there have been several kinds of "armoured" vessels going as far back as antiquity.

How come the fur trade just kind of died out? Was it the french indian war? Tell me

Weren't the round shield hung over the sides of Northman longboats for just this reason? And to get them out of the way, of course.

Huh, thanks, historianon. OP was not a faggot

Here's a tl;dr for ya:

Niggers and Jews ruined America and Trump is saving it.

are you and that other faggot even trying?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(1839)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_ship

took twenty seconds

Prostitution is an interesting one, because there have been a great variety of responses to it.

Ancient cultures typically didn't outlaw the practice, from memory, as they often kept the soldiers from performing their other favorite hobby, looting.

In ancient Rome under Augustus, there may have been some restrictions to the practice, as the man was obsessed with "returning Rome to family values" or something like that.

Various christian restrictions were evident, particularly during the early modern period, in which prostitutes were required to wear certain types of clothing in order to exhibit the fact that they were sex workers.

This is a subject I'm interested about, but haven't yet had the time to look into with more detail. However, from memory, the United States is one of the only western countries to outlaw prostitution in entire districts based on "morals"

The fur trade continued right up until the 20th century, but fur trade in America came under intense competition from particular Russia. As the Russians expanded their fur trade operations into Alaska, The British suddenly found they no-longer held a monopoly, and sought to find a new one.

Precisely. However, it wasn't unheard of for Ancient Greeks to line the sides of ships with lead to prevent damage from ramming, etc

I said "according to", not "this is the definitive evidence". Thanks for pointing out an earlier example, though.