History discussion - no, hitler has never seeked the spear of destiny - General

anyone here has watched "crashcourse" videos on youtube? im just wondering if the stuff they say in there are reliable at all. e.g. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szxPar0BcMo[/url] (Wait For It...The Mongols!: Crash Course World History #17) yes, it's titled that way.

crash course is ok for an abridged look at a subject to sort of dip your toes in. also i like how john green doesn't just focus on european history but tries to provide a lot of info on eastern history subjects as well. [editline]14th February 2013[/editline] eurocentricism is one of the things that pisses me off most about the way modern history is taught.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39582303]by the time rome fell, the ere was already way more rich and powerful than the stagnating west anyways, and had been for a while. [editline]14th February 2013[/editline] i also don't like the classification of the germanic tribes as "barbarians" either. i think it sends really bad signals regarding these people. [editline]14th February 2013[/editline] malta fell during the napoleonic times. i think the hospitallers are based in rome now[/QUOTE] They were leased a fort in Malta.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39589206]Before or after Rome demolished Jerusalem? Either way, I doubt it. Rome was fairly tolerant to religions, but the Jews had always been quite opposed to Roman rule. If they had bent the knee and peacefully toiled under oppression one of the Emperors would likely have listened to a plea of autonomy. Of course, by then Christianity had taken a firm grasp of Europe so the Jews were even more marginalized. Not like I'm saying oppressed peoples should just shut up and deal with it, just that Rome was always kinder to people who, well, shut up and dealt with it.[/QUOTE] Christianity didn't get a firm grasp in Europe until the 500s really. And by time it was a "firm grasp" within the Empire, Palestine was already under the Eastern half which wouldn't have sacrificed a territory that connected it to the rich grain fields of Egypt.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39594355]Christianity didn't get a firm grasp in Europe until the 500s really. [/QUOTE] By "firm gasp" I didn't mean everybody and their brother was following it, just that you can't get rid of it.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39589206]Before or after Rome demolished Jerusalem? Either way, I doubt it. Rome was fairly tolerant to religions, but the Jews had always been quite opposed to Roman rule. If they had bent the knee and peacefully toiled under oppression one of the Emperors would likely have listened to a plea of autonomy. Of course, by then Christianity had taken a firm grasp of Europe so the Jews were even more marginalized. Not like I'm saying oppressed peoples should just shut up and deal with it, just that Rome was always kinder to people who, well, shut up and dealt with it.[/QUOTE] Rome was also a power mad military based Autocracy that ALWAYS had corrupt rulers, even with the senate, even Caesar was corrupt in the end.

[QUOTE=Broguts;39603895]Rome was also a power mad military based Autocracy that ALWAYS had corrupt rulers, even with the senate, even Caesar was corrupt in the end.[/QUOTE] Considering Julius Caesar came to power with a coup d'état I think it's safe to say he was corrupt even from the start. Btw do you say "Kahesar" or "Ceesar" ? I've heard both and I still don't know which one is correct in English.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;39603966]Considering Julius Caesar came to power with a coup d'état I think it's safe to say he was corrupt even from the start. Btw do you say "Kahesar" or "Ceesar" ? I've heard both and I still don't know which one is correct in English.[/QUOTE] I say 'Ceesar', but I'm pretty sure the original pronunciation would be 'Kaihsar', judging by how it's spelled.

It's "Kai-sar" originally, then Germans used "Kai-zer" for so long. "Cee-ser" is just a bastardized variation. [QUOTE=Broguts;39603895]Rome was also a power mad military based Autocracy that ALWAYS had corrupt rulers, even with the senate, even Caesar was corrupt in the end.[/QUOTE] The Senate was virtually useless once the Emperors really took power, but yes, they were always a good place for corrupt old men to go and be corrupt. It's wrong to say [I]every[/I] senator or Emperor was corrupt, but it's not that far from the truth.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39604035]It's "Kai-sar" originally, then Germans used "Kai-zer" for so long. "Cee-ser" is just a bastardized variation. The Senate was virtually useless once the Emperors really took power, but yes, they were always a good place for corrupt old men to go and be corrupt. It's wrong to say [I]every[/I] senator or Emperor was corrupt, but it's not that far from the truth.[/QUOTE] i know that mexicans use the word cesar(say-sar) instead of caesar. every language bastardizes names to suit their own language. it's beautiful in a way how words like caesar, julias, jesus, and joseph have been adapted by so many different languages to produce these very unique names.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39604228]i know that mexicans use the word cesar(say-sar) instead of caesar. every language bastardizes names to suit their own language. it's beautiful in a way how words like caesar, julias, jesus, and joseph have been adapted by so many different languages to produce these very unique names.[/QUOTE] Aye well Latin is the root language of some of the most used languages there are. Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, and some others, are all bastardized Latin. I would assume that some speaking Italian could get a general meaning from someone speaking Spanish. French seems kinda separate from the Mediterranean languages, but it's still damn close. Though English and French are fairly similar at that. Really all western European languages are close enough that you should be able to get the faintest amount of recognition, in a written form anyway.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;39603966]Considering Julius Caesar came to power with a coup d'état I think it's safe to say he was corrupt even from the start. Btw do you say "Kahesar" or "Ceesar" ? I've heard both and I still don't know which one is correct in English.[/QUOTE] Seezar is probably correct English, seeing how we totally don't know Latin anymore. But correct Latin is Kaisar.

[QUOTE=Broguts;39604590]Seezar is probably correct English, seeing how we totally don't know Latin anymore. But correct Latin is Kaisar.[/QUOTE] Sounds the german 'kaiser' comes from latin 'caesar'. They are practically the same meaning. I find language evolution very interesting.

[QUOTE=ScottyWired;39606239]Sounds the german 'kaiser' comes from latin 'caesar'. They are practically the same meaning. I find language evolution very interesting.[/QUOTE] Kaisar is the German word for Emperor in tribute to Caesar. Whereas the English word Emperor comes from Latin Imperator. The Bulgars also called their kings Czars in tribute, and this kinda caught on with every Slavic kingdom ever.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39604553]Aye well Latin is the root language of some of the most used languages there are. Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, and some others, are all bastardized Latin. I would assume that some speaking Italian could get a general meaning from someone speaking Spanish. French seems kinda separate from the Mediterranean languages, but it's still damn close. Though English and French are fairly similar at that. Really all western European languages are close enough that you should be able to get the faintest amount of recognition, in a written form anyway.[/QUOTE] French and English is not really that connected historically, since they came from different language groups - English was from germanic one and French is Romance. All similarity in words is from trading and wars.

[QUOTE=overpain;39608685]French and English is not really that connected historically, since they came from different language groups - English was from germanic one and French is Romance. All similarity in words is from trading and wars.[/QUOTE] Didn't help when the Normans invaded in 1066. Made English somewhat unique among the Germanic language group.

[QUOTE=overpain;39608685]French and English is not really that connected historically[/QUOTE] Didn't say they were connected, just that they bear obvious similarities that allow a modicum of mutual understanding.

[QUOTE=overpain;39608685]French and English is not really that connected historically, since they came from different language groups - English was from germanic one and French is Romance. All similarity in words is from trading and wars.[/QUOTE] french and english are totally historically connected. french and latin influences are the reasons that english is unique from other germanic languages.

[QUOTE=overpain;39608685]French and English is not really that connected historically, since they came from different language groups - English was from germanic one and French is Romance. All similarity in words is from trading and wars.[/QUOTE] A Latin/French speaking Noble Class invaded England in 1066 and secured and reinforced rule there, English is a bastardization of Germanic and Romantic.

[QUOTE=Zambies!;39616008]A Latin/French speaking Noble Class invaded England in 1066 and secured and reinforced rule there, English is a bastardization of Germanic and Romantic.[/QUOTE] most of our words that are or were associated with government; court, parliament, bureaucracy, tax, pretender, monarch, etc., all come from french.

Shit thread dying. So how do people feel on the leadership of Edward Longshanks? A cruel monster, or a cunning, if heavy handed, leader?

Do you guys think the Soviets ever had a plan to dominate the world?

[QUOTE=magicman1234;39625728]Do you guys think the Soviets ever had a plan to dominate the world?[/QUOTE] Given that the Marx said eventually the entire globe would evolve into communism, I wouldn't put it past them as a long term plan. [editline]17th February 2013[/editline] Plus Russia has always wanted to expand their borders all the time.

[QUOTE=magicman1234;39625728]Do you guys think the Soviets ever had a plan to dominate the world?[/QUOTE] That just sounds like fear-mongering to me. Sure, Lenin believed in ideal of global revolution, but Stalin didn't, and after him the Soviet Union was in no place for global domination and their leaders knew that.

[QUOTE=magicman1234;39625728]Do you guys think the Soviets ever had a plan to dominate the world?[/QUOTE] according to the "socialism in one country" theory that stalin made state policy, no they didn't.

The Soviet Union post-Stalin didn't much care for Stalin, either.

Stalin was the guy who made the USSR a superpower. After him it was basically "rot for 40 years whilst ageing soviets not killed off by Stalin figure out how to cover up the failures of Stalin and the USSR after him.

Yea, but that doesn't mean he wanted to spread communism. He didn't. Khrushchev and the following MLs were more apt to spread socialism for purely political reasons, though, but I don't believe they had any reason or want to expand. Honestly, the post-Stalin Soviet union was about status quo and not expansion or ideology.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39627513]The Soviet Union post-Stalin didn't much care for Stalin, either.[/QUOTE] they still didn't really want to expand socialism or the revolution. basically they did what the us did(on a much smaller scale) because they were in a cold war where imperialism was a necessity for competition.

[URL="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlternateHistoryWank"]I love this page on tv tropes.[/URL] [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/6O5T9hH.jpg[/thumb]