What are some of the most common myths that even people on Veeky Forums believe even though they're thoroughly debunked horseshit?
For me it has to be almost everything about Rasputin, from him cucking the queen (zero evidence for that) through having a 20 inch cock (complete hoax, including that dick in St. Petersburg) to surviving poisoning and shooting (myth started by his assassins to make him appear demonic, autopsy clearly proved he died of a gunshot).
Pic not related.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Jesus is white kek
>Soviets and germans counted their casualties the same way
So a dead german and a dead commie arent the same?
Speaking of Jesus and his race, the biggest meme that circulates the internet are retards who claim Jesus only started to get depicted as white in the renaissance and that his appearance is based on Cesare Borgia for some weird reason.
>Ottoman Empire was evil
>the Mongolians could start an Empire but couldn't run it
>Alexander's tales are 120% about everything they wrote about him and if you disagree you're a butthurt shill
>Mongolians could start an Empire
This is where they're wrong, the Mongol "empire" wasn't really an empire, it was a continent sized racket. They weren't running anything, just collecting money.
Unless you count Mongol controlled China which indeed was a kingdom, but only after the Mongols completely assimilated into Chinese culture.
Rasputin survived poisoning because the son of a bitch vomited before it could take place
Additionally the first couple of shots didn't properly do him in immediately, however I fully believe that he died from multiple stab wounds and being bludgeoned to death after
Not him, but a wounded commie and a wounded German were often counted according to different measures, and that's not even getting into material losses; what counted as a destroyed tank or plane was hugely different between the two.
For my own 2 cents:
>Judaism got monotheism from Zoroastrianism from their time in Persian captivity. We, after all, should believe texts whose oldest copies we have are over 1500 years younger than the supposed transmission of their ideas as proof positive that's what Zoroastrians believed circa 650 B.C.
He died from a gunshot to the head, it was proven by the autopsy. The rest are the nobles fabricating stories.
So if a European Feudal lord collects taxes then he's not in charge of the realm he rules?
Most people define control of a land area, that is to say, their fiefdom, as whoever collects the wealth from them and prevents others from taking that wealth in turn.
Now the Roman Empire on the other hand was never called an Empire by the Romans. They insisted that they were still following Republican traditions and didn't have Kings (which is true by their definition, the ruler of the Roman territories was technically called "Consul for Life" or other variations). Although it did end up functioning exactly like an absolute monarchy, there was always a game of PR you had to play to bullshit people that you were "elected" in some way.
Holy Roman Empire
Wasn't a theocracy.
Wasn't Roman.
Was not an Empire.
Voltaire, is that you?
It's different. A feudal lord built infrastructure, fortifications, created administrative networks, etc. Mongols did literally NOTHING. They came in once in a while, collected cash and left, that was literally it. The life in your average Russian city before Mongols and after Mongols was literally the same except they had to pay more.
It's like confusing the school director with some kid who bullies you for lunch in the school yard.
which texts are you referring to
Primarily the Avesta. Our oldest surviving manuscript, K-1, is from 1300ish.
Not him but probably the Zend Avesta minus the Gathas.
The Mongols set up checkpoints along the silk road to ensure the safe travel of caravans and trade wagons. If it were not for their organisation of trade routes then gunpowder never would have made it's way into Europe. The Mongols were so successful at boosting trade along this route that it ended the dominance of Islam over global trade.
en.wikipedia.org
This man was the other side of the coin to Marco Polo. A Mongol that travelled to Europe and brought his stories back to China. He was able to accomplish this because the Mongolian civilization had stabilized travel routes compared to the previous norm of nomadic raids that were common in Arabian shipping routes.
en.wikipedia.org
The Mongols were so powerful at one point in time they sought an alliance with the French (a precursor to what their descendent would one day achieve through the Russo-French alliance). Although nothing solid ever materialized there was correspondence on both sides.
The Mongols also offered help to a few crusades due to sharing a common enemy with the Christian kingdoms: The Muslim. Mongols were also more sympathetic to Christianity as Nestorian Christians had started to become prominent in Mongolian courts.
Yeah, we all know they got it from Akhenaten when they were slaves in Egypt.
>* Alexander's tales are TRUE 120% about everything
No, I'm saying that the chain of influence is likely never to be known and is probably complicated as all hell, with multiple levels of syncretism.
But mostly what irritates me is the taking of Zoroastrian claims about purity of transmission at more or less face value (WE WUZ ALWAYS MONOTHEISTS FROM ZOROASTER'S DAY!) when pretty much no other religion gets that same sort of credulity.
>>Alexander's tales are 120% about everything they wrote about him and if you disagree you're a butthurt shill
???
I don't think that phrase is fully formed.
For all we know there could have been several earlier conflicts within Judaism that were erased form history because the winners eradicated their foes.
Or other religions that contributed ideas and mythography (possibly to both Judaism and Zoroastrianism) which went unrecorded and their faiths now long dead.
>Stalin was bad