I'm a high school student and I've been wanting to become a more cultivated individual but I don't know where to start...

Who is he, user?

Friedrich Nietzsche.

Hitler.

The crucified one

Become fluent in Latin and koine Greek and then we'll talk

first you gotta know that u can't know nuffin.

First you gotta know, not fear, that you can't know nuffin

this tee bee haitch

>Age of Empires
did AoE have a mini-encyclopedia or was that just AoM? I thought that was very neat.
Europa Universalis is more likely to give you vague geographical understanding. CK is more likely to give you a vague grasp on early feudal jura.
total war will mislead you.
Hearts of Iron I haven't played

>did AoE have a mini-encyclopedia or was that just AoM?
III has one.

>Civilization
>Total War
Paradox games aren't that good for understanding actual history as just the WHOLE geographic and political situation. Only way you'll get actual "historic" experience is with HPM or something.
However, Paradox games are good for getting interested in history rather than actually learning it.
Just be careful with newer ones; Paracucks are milking them so fucking badly.
EU4 is good if you're absolute shit at strategy or just want to go for one of the easier steep curves to learn.
HoI is... well, it's just WW2. HoI3 isn't good for pulling off something interesting, but you can have some variation from history. Not nearly as ridiculous as other titles, though.
Gonna see what will come out of HoI4.

[spoiler] also assuming you're a senior, otherwise b& [/spoiler]

Ask yourself a crazy question:

>Was there a Scythian incursion in modern-day west Kazakhstan between 139 and 168 AD that caused a cascade of invasions leading to an invasion into Gaulish Rome from far into north Norway around 211AD?

Start coming up with ways to efficiently analyze hundreds of thousands of Roman documents with a computer system, and visualize your iterative results with directed graphs and GIS.

Fuck yeah you'll become a more cultivated individual.

In similar situation to OP. How much of the aura surrounding various exceptional historical figures is legend, idolizing and hero worship?

For example, i always see nonviolence and pacifism from Gandhi and MLK preached as the best and morally superior response to injustice. However, these philosophies seem more like something the oppressors love the rebellion to be because they know they won't do shit. Are these just meme philosophies and historical leaders? How effective were these strategies really ?

>How effective were these strategies really ?
Well they both managed to free India from British control and emancipate black Americans with minimal bloodshed compared to similar movements of the same periods so I think their effectiveness is really self evident.

What i mean was, what was it that made the nonviolent strategy work? overwhelming economic noncompliance, threat of violence from other groups, etc.? Because trying nonviolence with jihadists certainly wouldn't work. I just don't believe nonviolence alone could have been that effective. There has to be more nuance and contributing factors that are being glossed over. It's like the case with mother Teresa where she is venerated as a saint but a closer look at her background reveals she was much less than that. Likewise I'm curious how much these nonviolent movements are sensationalized.

>also assuming you're a senior, otherwise b&
What even lead you to think otherwise?

> bullying children
> on a chinese motion manga message board

So you're about 17?

Try L'Etranger/The Stranger by Albert Camus.

Also, try watching School of Life and look into what interests you. And see what podcasts the BBC have, they have a lot of interesting stuff.

>What i mean was, what was it that made the nonviolent strategy work?

Because it's indicative, in the context of India at least, of a complete failure of cultural imperialism, and without that it becomes far harder to maintain other forms of imperialism (I.e. Military, economic).

In the case of the US, economic noncompliance was a major if not the main factor in desegregation.

They worked because in both occasions the oppressor's reputation was at stake. Continuing to oppress the blacks/indians and putting down their protests by force would have lead to a level of international infamy that would cause more problems for the British/American government than they were worth.
Successful none violent movements get a lot of admiration especially in the west as Pacifism is highly valued in societies influenced by Christian morality. So they would undoubtedly be sensationalized even by those who took no part in them.

I think you're taking away a lot of the Indians' and blacks' own agency there. International outcry was a factor, but far more important was the awareness on the part of white Americans/ the British that using force to put down protests just wasn't sustainable in the long term. Consider what was happening in Ireland just 20/30 years before India gained it's independence.

Learn all you can about economics