World History Discussion

[Kabalisto Koga]

Considering what views Ratman has admitted to holding, and his response to my statement about Austria-Hungary, I knew this would get way too ugly way too fast. Also, I am a man of my word, and Draconic asked me to refrain from starting shit at least. That being said, this thread will likely get super political and I don't think we've seen the worst of the bigoted takes.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, if you go any further, Ratman, I am not letting you get away with it.

without to over politicalize it , it may be because of the language barrier but can you explain what bigoted mean ?

and you havent answered what your favorite Roman emporer is ?

[Ratman]

Why is Justinian your favorite ?

Because he fixed things while mostly keeping his hands clean, but the actual reason is that the mosaics in Ravenna are very pretty.

Theodora and Belisarius were equally cool historical characters with lots of fun episodes to them, whose fame mostly bounced off Justinian's ability to keep things going. Belisarius is basically the real world history version of Oskar von Reuenthal, and Theodora is a story of a woman making it to the top just through intense feminity. There's just a lot to look at there from all kinds of dialectical angles.

[Ideofago]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/...ingles/bigoted

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

Bigoted describes a person or opinion which is incredibly narrow-mindedly hostile to entire groups of people based on their identity alone.

Also, with regards to Roman Emperors, I don't really care for any of them. Ancient Rome is not my cup of tea, and all of the Emperor's are kinda monstrous to me.

[Five_X]

Considering what views Ratman has admitted to holding, and his response to my statement about Austria-Hungary, I knew this would get way too ugly way too fast. Also, I am a man of my word, and Draconic asked me to refrain from starting shit at least. That being said, this thread will likely get super political and I don't think we've seen the worst of the bigoted takes.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, if you go any further, Ratman, I am not letting you get away with it.

He said nothing incorrect though: the various ethnic groups - that is, the nationalist politicians who claimed to represent them - of Austria-Hungary fully supported the empire until America's entry into the war in 1917 at which point the end was quite clear to any rational thinker of the time. cf. Edward Crankshaw's thesis in The Fall of the House of Habsburg; he was one of the first to put forward this argument of relative unity before the promulgation of the ideal of national self-determination. The conceptualisation of Austria-Hungary as a 'prison of nations' which by natural law would fall apart eventually was a justification made in hindsight, which remained continually useful to American intellectuals in particular as they made similar arguments against the Soviet Union and, ironically, Yugoslavia.

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

I was mostly referring to the French Revolution take, and I see your point that he wasn't incorrect about Austria-Hungary per se, but the implications of his statement raised some red flags for me.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I think nationalism was and is one of the most harmful legacies of the Romantic Era, among many others. It does no one good.

[Five_X]

Also, I think nationalism was and is one of the most harmful legacies of the Romantic Era, among many others. It does no one good.

So you also dislike the French Revolution!!

[Nanashi(kari)]

okay so now what i wanted to discuss which of the Roman Emporers is or are your favorites ? i mean either in personlity , deeds etc .

Aurelian because 'Restorer of the World' is the coolest-sounding title ever.

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

So you also dislike the French Revolution!!

Not to the same degree because I like the rest of the ideals it espoused and the way it opened the discourse towards socialism. The French Revolution was THE liberal revolution, and from it came further improvement of its core ideas throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, which birthed the many socialist movements of those centuries. Nationalism was bad, but I think the worst of it was more a consequence of 19th century German Romantics, unless I have messed up some crucial facts.

[Kabalisto Koga]

Because he fixed things while mostly keeping his hands clean, but the actual reason is that the mosaics in Ravenna are very pretty.

Theodora and Belisarius were equally cool historical characters with lots of fun episodes to them, whose fame mostly bounced off Justinian's ability to keep things going. Belisarius is basically the real world history version of Oskar von Reuenthal, and Theodora is a story of a woman making it to the top just through intense feminity. There's just a lot to look at there from all kinds of dialectical angles.

Well for me is he a quite mad Ruler which didnt saw major parts of his empire and he was an rather stern and over zealous in religious rites as i have a history magazine wreer a article about his reign is included were he was so radical that he even investigated many small christ sects whose name is just in his law documents mentioned aswell was he the one that closed the last publical pagan institutes and abot the last pagan festival .

i am curious what do you think of Augustus and Julian ?

And what do you think of the later Byzantinian Rulers as i find that Nikephorus II Phocas and Constantine Drageses are the mot baddass Rulers .

- - - Updated - - -

Aurelian because 'Restorer of the World' is the coolest-sounding title ever.

yeah he was literally to goof to be keept alive ! to say it in movie jargon as i am shure had his reign be longer he had the potencial to be a second Alexander also was he the one that introduced the Sol Invictus into Rome.

in other words he was a certified baddass and i readthat after his death his widow werer ruling until the coronation of the next Augustus which makes her the sole Roman Empress in history !

[Five_X]

Not to the same degree because I like the rest of the ideals it espoused and the way it opened the discourse towards socialism. The French Revolution was THE liberal revolution, and from it came further improvement of its core ideas throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, which birthed the many socialist movements of those centuries. Nationalism was bad, but I think the worst of it was more a consequence of 19th century German Romantics, unless I have messed up some crucial facts.

In Marxist historiography anyway, the French Revolution was a necessary evil, for the reason that it was a liberal (or, rather, bourgeois) revolution which ushered in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, and as part of its revolutionary cycle crushed nascent proto(?)-socialism like that of the Jacobins, which too was based in 18th-century thought like just about every characteristic of the French Revolution. If it did anything, the French Revolution for better or worse created the first truly political society, in which an ordinary person could be expected to develop some ideology through which to view their relationship to the state. Socialism definitely wasn't born out of the French Revolution: the best thinker of the 18th century (in my, humble, opinion), Thomas Paine, already approached socialistic ideals in form if not name, as did other British thinkers of his era; understandably, since in the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution they were at the front of the line to view the privations of capitalism.

If anything, it's kind of tragic that British proto-socialism never got to develop more fully, and I wonder if there's scholarship which connects its arrested development to events in France. Christian socialism was a big deal for a while in Britain, but as a chiefly moral movement it didn't have as much political consequence. In my own wheelhouse, I'd argue that even if it hadn't been articulated first by Fourier et al., socialism still would've arisen in Russia. But now this is getting into some controversial historiographical currents.

[Kabalisto Koga]

Bigoted describes a person or opinion which is incredibly narrow-mindedly hostile to entire groups of people based on their identity alone.

Also, with regards to Roman Emperors, I don't really care for any of them. Ancient Rome is not my cup of tea, and all of the Emperor's are kinda monstrous to me.

ah thank you for the explanation !

and which history part interst you the most ?

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

In Marxist historiography anyway, the French Revolution was a necessary evil, for the reason that it was a liberal (or, rather, bourgeois) revolution which ushered in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, and as part of its revolutionary cycle crushed nascent proto(?)-socialism like that of the Jacobins, which too was based in 18th-century thought like just about every characteristic of the French Revolution. If it did anything, the French Revolution for better or worse created the first truly political society, in which an ordinary person could be expected to develop some ideology through which to view their relationship to the state. Socialism definitely wasn't born out of the French Revolution: the best thinker of the 18th century (in my, humble, opinion), Thomas Paine, already approached socialistic ideals in form if not name, as did other British thinkers of his era; understandably, since in the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution they were at the front of the line to view the privations of capitalism.

If anything, it's kind of tragic that British proto-socialism never got to develop more fully, and I wonder if there's scholarship which connects its arrested development to events in France. Christian socialism was a big deal for a while in Britain, but as a chiefly moral movement it didn't have as much political consequence. In my own wheelhouse, I'd argue that even if it hadn't been articulated first by Fourier et al., socialism still would've arisen in Russia. But now this is getting into some controversial historiographical currents.

Yeah, I might have been a bit simplistic there, but I think it can still be argued that the French Revolution let the genie out of the bottle in a way that strongly influenced the 19th century socialist movements that our current leftist ideologies are descended from. Besides, if we're talking about proto-socialist ideologies, it's a matter of moving goalposts and finding things that resemble our modern ideas of it. You could argue British proto-socialism goes all the way back to the Puritan movements of the 17th century, with specifically the Diggers espousing proto-Anarchist ideals, and the Levelers at least approaching where modern SocDems are. Puritanism and its ideas of a perfect society being possible by emphasizing human reason and democratic decision making absolutely influenced the Founding Fathers, and probably later British proto-socialism as well.

[Ideofago]

I'll expect to be wrong as I haven't university level education in the matter, but Marxist historiography will always prioritize the appearance of "necessary evils" over other interpretations, seen as the chief flaw in the Marxist Plan For Commie Utopia™ is the centralization of power in order to descentralize power. A dumb tangent to go on, but I want to rant about it.

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

I do disagree on some level with the classical Marxist teleology because no society develops perfectly in that direction, and the transition from one stage to the other is much messier and more intentional than he seems to indicate, BUT I think he got the broad strokes of the relations between the proletariat and the bourgeoise, the struggle between labor and capital, and what must be done to free the worker correct, and many of his assertions do a pretty good job of describing the consequences of late-stage capitalism in our own society.

[Five_X]

I'll expect to be wrong as I haven't university level education in the matter, but Marxist historiography will always prioritize the appearance of "necessary evils" over other interpretations, seen as the chief flaw in the Marxist Plan For Commie Utopia™ is the centralization of power in order to descentralize power. A dumb tangent to go on, but I want to rant about it.

It's a very thick book (1,200 or so pages), but I recommend you read Yuri Slezkine's The House of Government. It builds on a similar idea, and is one of the most wonderfully audacious history books I've read in a long time.

[Ideofago]

Seems like a fun time. I'll libgen it right now.

[Nanashi(kari)]

Was Samo a rpg/ln protagonist?
>Outsider who forged relations with oppressed foreign tribes.
>Unified them and became their leader
>Led them against their oppressor
>Even led them against the country he was from
>Had a harem
Sounds like a narou protagonist to me.

[Kabalisto Koga]

Was Samo a rpg/ln protagonist?
>Outsider who forged relations with oppressed foreign tribes.
>Unified them and became their leader
>Led them against their oppressor
>Even led them against the country he was from
>Had a harem
Sounds like a narou protagonist to me.

Thanks is on my list !

[Kabalisto Koga]

Does omeone knows actually outside of egypt some baddass Persons ?

i can introduce two .

Shaka Zulu

and Menelik II both were african monarchs that gave the europeans a hard time and the second even defeated the euuropean !