ITT: Things people say about history that make you cringe.
>The crusades were a first wave of european colonialism
>The mongols were a necessary evil to bring trade and stabillity
>The women of sparta were held in high esteem in comparisson to the other city-states
>The Mongols withdrew from Hungary because Ogedei died
>The jihad is somehow every slightly muslim fight ever fought
Other urls found in this thread:
>The Soviets were just as bad as the Germans
>The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified
>Nazis should've invaded England
>D-Day was important
>The Ottoman Empire was a good thing
>America won WW1 for the allies
>The women of sparta were held in high esteem in comparisson to the other city-states
This is true though, women in Athens weren't even allowed to leave the house alone and had less rights than male slaves. Women in Sparta had martial obligations which made them much more visible, and they did have a limited voice in spartan politics such as it was. A female spartan was in a much superior position to a male helot.
>The crusades were a first wave of european colonialism
i think i've been legitimately triggered
>If there were no dark ages (meaning church), we would've reached the moon in the 1500s.
Correct, the Soviets were worse
You know you are being dishonest. The Germans raped more and murdered millions on their race alone.
t.ankie
>the Moorish advance intp modern day France was actually just looters not a legitimate invasion
Why did they out number the christian forces? Why did the defenders unite under Christianity to stop them and push them back if they were just "looting"??
>The Germans would have won if America did not intervene/Hitler would have won if he didnt declare war on the US
Multiple assassination attempts on Hitler and his regime. Multiple coups being planned with allied backing. What was the French Resistance? What was the Russian resistance?
The Germans would never be able to successfully subjugate Russia or France for that matter.
I assume you're talking about Tours? You might want to look up how the actual centers of Aquataine were avoided, and how it only became possible because of Martel's invasion of Odo's lands from the north.
There was no unity under the banner of Christendom. And it was simply a raid. Higher Umayyad troop counts (if you in fact believe medieval chroniclers, which is generally a bad idea) probably has more to do with their organizational abilities than intents.
>great man theory of history is wrong
Good post.
>Mongols withdrew from the Levant because of the death of Mongke Khan
Do Mongolboos have any other excuse?
>The women of sparta were held in high esteem in comparisson to the other city-states
How is this one incorrect?
>jesus was a socialist
>The jihad is somehow every slightly muslim fight ever fought
What exactly is this sentence?
Yea, it was clearly the Greeks and Romans who were the precursors of Colonial aspirations of the pre modern Euros
>simply a raid
t. abdul
>Catholics read the Bible
Not to mention that Spartan wives inherited half the estate of their husband when he died, which was unheard of anywhere else in Greece. Women, inheriting property and money? OUTRAGEOUS!
almost all of this comes from attic sources which most likely wrote it to ridicule the spartans, it was also most likely recorded during a time of demographic crisis during which the women where under pressure to have a lot of children and thus had more influence
see
How? Greek colonisation was inherrently different in every way from early modern and industrial colonisation and the roman empire had it's capital in anatolia for half its lifespan.
t. Martin Luther
>colonialism was a good thing, the Europeans weren't evil they were just better than the natives who killed each other long before the Europeans arrived and the euros built infrastructure and shieet man.
>machiavelli was evil
>mccarthyism wasn't justified
>oliver cromwell was a tyrant
The most important agricultural revolutions in the first millenium where made possible by innovations in "dark age" Flanders, which saw an unprecedented urbanization.
>white people build the pryamids
>chaco canyon wasnt built by blacks
>the mimbres cliff dwellers werent blacks from akan
Why did the Mongols leave then? Did they fear the Magyar warrior?
I like how you don't even pretend to offer a rebuttal. Seriously, if they were planning to stay, what were they going to do with Narbonne behind their backs that they didn't even approach? Pretend it's not there? Hope that Odo won't fuck them up again a la Tolouse?
>lenin was a good boy who did nothing wrong
>ussr would've been good under trotsky
Euros dindu nuffin. /pol/ in a nutshell
Colonialism was a good thing for the colonists. The natives were separate tribes who killed each other. Some were idyllic hunter-gatherer lifestyles, some were savages. We also did build infrastructure, just really shitty infrastructure for the natives.
Not him but more Rome than Greece. They were a microcosm of future euros
>Makes radical statements contrary to widely accepted beliefs by historians
>doesnt even site it.
Google search the pdf. "Primary sources for battle of tours"
Battle of Tours Primary Sources
PDFMontville.net lib Centricity Domain.
>Germany deserves the lion’s share of the blame for who caused WWI
>WWII started in 1939
>The Russians are the reason the Japanese surrendered in 1945
>The Vietnam War was a tie
>American interventions in Cold War South America caused more harm than good.
>Americas wealth was built on slavery
don't really know how you could say that as most roman plantations where in europe with european slaves and most trade- , educational and financial centers where in Africa and asia, so you could almost say it was the other way around in rome's case.
Is there anyone who is interested in history who believes this? Everyone should know it was WW1 and the aftermath of WW2 that made america rich
>Colonialism was evil and genocidal
Are you truly advocating that the banana republics where a good thing?
No, but certaintly no worse than Soviet banana communes.
every conquest was a raid back than. the battle did most certainly stop the ummayyads from settling further down the mediteranean.
they where anything but soviet states before america took over
This one you have to be careful about. The United states itselfwas not built on slavery but it did see a strong agricultural success in the South until the mid 19th century. The United States can thank its overall success and financial prosperity to industry and capital freedoms.
While the united states was arguably not built on slavery at all and instead saw its most successful years post slavery, the Americas during colonialism without was built on slavery and enforced labor. Without slavery it would have no success at all in building a sustainable and functioning colonial structure.
Difficult to say one way or the other considering the general lack of contemporary primary sources about spartan society. But the notion of women being expected to get out of the house and train daily so that they could better raise strong children is definitely believable given everything else we know. It's easy to imagine this increase in visibility would give women some influence relative to the position of their contemporaries in other cities.
During the Cold War it was one or the other.
I’m not saying the republics didn’t do some awful things, but even then they were better than letting them become soviet client states, which they would have without American interference.
>The United States can thank its overall success and financial prosperity to industry and capital freedoms
I think you mean WW1 lending and not being obliterated after WW2
>gather an army and invade the largest christian kingdom
>they can't be planning to conquer a landmass from the atlantic to the rhine because they forgot about narbonne
>i-its just a r-raid they weren't actually trying or anything haha!
take your memes elsewhere abdul
They were beaten by Polacks and Magyars, they lost majority of their army.
Soviet client states in middle america?
You are an utter idiot if you believe american intervention in middle America was about ideology and not about making a profit. If it was they would installed a free democracy
>mccarthyism wasn't justified
Explain how it was justified how it was consistent with American values of personal liberty, and what it accomplished.
I mean what I stated. America saw a long continuation of success in the global economy due to both its individual innovators and industrial success in the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries
Nice dubs.
Then what do you call the actual raids that they actually did? And what do you mean they just forgot the largest city in the area and one that they needed to secure to keep hold of lines of communication between their territory in what's now Spain and anything north of Aquatania that they hoped to hold?
>once they win the battle they go home and relax and hope for the best
If they had one the battle of Tours decisively, they would've made it impossible for native rulers to oppose subjugation. Count Odo's forces made up part of Charlemange's army, so his army would've been defeated as well.
Afterwards the Umayyad's would've simply marched their army to each major city and subjugated the local rulers. I mean, this is pretty obvious stuff, why do I have to explain this?
>forgot the largest city
They had to defeat the Frankish army before they could conquer the Frankish kingdom, Aquitania was a minor entity, the whole reason Odo sent for help was because he knew that Aquitania had no chance of stopping Abdul Rahman.
Once Tours was won, he was free to conquer any city he wanted.
The better question is, why would anyone assume they wanted to stay? They completed their objective in devastating Hungary. The only reason they'd want to stay is to gain more loot, but their sieges of castles and fortified towns were more costly than the loot was worth (see: Esztergom). So they hit all the soft targets and left.
Them wanting to conquer Germany and France on top of that is not supported by any primary source, at least not in the 1240s.
Wrong.
>>D-Day was important
only retarded part of your post
all the people that got BTFO by McCarthyism were pretty much all guilty and deserved it. Heres an old cspan thing about the hollywood 10
>If they had one the battle of Tours decisively, they would've made it impossible for native rulers to oppose subjugation
[citation needed]. That's after all, why after losing badly at Tolouse, Odo just simply overran all of Umayyad Spain, because you lose the battle and your entire realm just distintigrates, right?
> Count Odo's forces made up part of Charlemange's army, so his army would've been defeated as well.
His army had already been defeated twice, once at the hands of Martel. Aquitaine was still there, and would still BE there for quite a while afterwards.
> Afterwards the Umayyad's would've simply marched their army to each major city and subjugated the local rulers. I mean, this is pretty obvious stuff, why do I have to explain this?
Because it didn't happen after losses like Garonne and you have no idea what you're talking about?
>They had to defeat the Frankish army before they could conquer the Frankish kingdom,
Then why didn't they go looking for large Frankish armies and instead went after the cities directly for their next 20 odd years of attacking?
> Aquitania was a minor entity,
Idiot. Tolouse 721 was a much bigger battle than Tours 11 years later.
Tours is a fuckhuge meme, only relevant because this fat fuck put it in his "15 decisive battles" alongside a whole bunch of other meme-tier ones. It was, in fact, a large raid, as the Umayyads never, EVER bypassed hostile areas without subduing them looking for armies in the other wars that they actually went a conquering. Its important is primarily in how Charles Martel consolidates his hold on what's now France, not turning back the Muslim hordes, which you know, were mostly focused on Constantinople and not the backwaters on the far edge of what they considered civilization.
>The French Revolution was good
>Abolitionists were anti racists
>Colonialism was bad
>Mussolini’s incursion on Abyssinia was during ww2 and it was unsuccessful
>the women of sparta were held in high esteem in comparisson to the other city-states
This was actually true
>George Bush Jr!
>Ronald Reagan!
>FDR!
>Nixon!
>Woodrow Wilson!
anyone who claims any of these people were "the worst president ever" are normie retards
You're right but who is the worst president?
the less colonized a country is, the better they are.
...
Warren G.
Buchanan is a close second
Decent choices
DRUMPF!!!
>the only un colonized countries are Liberia, Thailand, and Japan
Maybe only 33% of the time
you still want to live in an aristocratic society without a decent judical system?
woodrow was a horrible racist though
Funny how no European country is like that today even though they were two centuries ago
FDR was shit
>Italy, Germany, Greece, etc., didn't exist until the 19th century
Displays a fundamental lack of understanding of how statehood has developed throughout the centuries and how people used to view nations before nationalism. The nation-state is so much a given these days that the average Joe can't even imagine a world where several states represented one nation and how one state doesn't necessarily make a nation - hence creations like Germany in the end.
>the Ancient Greeks were "Europeans" as we know it today
I don't really like the term "Mediterranean" to describe these cultures, but what exactly did the ancient Greeks have in common with mainland Europe? They always had more contact with other Mediterraneans in Asia. "Europeanness" was established in waves with Roman institutions, Feudalism, Renaissance, Enlightenment, etc. Greek influence (Classical Greece and Christianity) was always secondary, never direct. It's a bit like calling India American because some hipsters like yoga.
>Islam is a religion of peace
I appreciate Islam for the exact opposite reason. It's quite a nice guide to being a militantly all-rejecting zealous revolutionary. I'm pretty sure it was one of the most violently expanding religions of all time as well (southeast asian trade doesn't make up for that)
I've never heard the first two said ever
This. The Soviets murdered millions before it was cool
>FDR was a good president
>The Soviets crushed the Nazis in WWII
>The Crusades were unjustified
>The Catholic Church was evil and halted progress
>Che Guevara was a good boy
the only wrong thing is the 2nd one honestly
I mean I hate the commies but you have to admit that they (combined of course with weapons leased by the allies and blockades on Germany) were one of the biggest factors to Germany's defeat.