|
On February 12 2011 09:01 whatusername wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 08:53 Jswizzy wrote:With the amount of gnostic Jesus like characters running around Jerusalem at the time I doubt that. Ever heard of John the Baptist? ............................... did you even read the link?
Yes but John the Baptist is a historical figure unlike Jesus.
Edit: when I mean historical I mean that he appears in historical documents other than the Bible unlike Jesus who only appears in Josephus and that inclusion is considered a forgery inserted by Christian scribes. I don't want to argue over wither Jesus is a purely fiction character or not because I don't know if he is real or not but I lean towards believing that he did exist but was not a very noteworthy figure at the time to be recorded into historical documents of the time.
So how can Pompey be John the Baptist when John the Baptist was John the baptist?
|
On February 12 2011 09:01 whatusername wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 08:53 Jswizzy wrote:With the amount of gnostic Jesus like characters running around Jerusalem at the time I doubt that. Ever heard of John the Baptist? ............................... did you even read the link?
Yes, and if you're interested in learning what people with actual degrees in things like History, Archaeology, Ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek linguistics have discovered, I can recommend a few easy-to-digest books on the subject. You only think they're good points because your relevant education ends at what you learned in elementary school. There is plenty of doubt and controversy at the highest levels of any academic discipline, but generally such controversy falls within the bounds of that field's "common knowledge." Biologists fight over specific mechanisms of local evolution, but they do not argue about descent with modification. Physicists might argue about string theory and branes, but they don't argue about General Relativity.
People used to think the world was a flat square. Then they thought it was a sphere. Then they realized it was fatter at the equator. Then they realized it was actually fattest south of the equator. What you're doing is saying "no, that's all wrong. The Earth is actually a flat hexagon, not a square."
Here's another website displaying a similar level of rigor and credibility to yours:
http://www.remnantofgod.org/666.htm
|
On February 10 2011 19:16 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 14:07 travito wrote:On February 10 2011 14:02 Alexhandr wrote:On February 10 2011 14:01 Eskii wrote:On February 10 2011 13:54 Silidons wrote:
If I say it, I'll probably get banned. Fine, if you don't say it, I will... THE HOLOCAUST! Oh... only absolute morons deny such things. You can't hide the deaths of 11 million innocent people. =/ Despite the atrocities of the holocaust, Hitler was a brilliant leader. He can be credited with huge a economic boom during his time, as well as military success. My question is why is he painted as the posterboy for evil when Stalin and Mao both killed thousands more people under their rule? I am in no way trying to undermine the horrors of the holocaust, but I don't really understand why Stalin or Mao don't get the same negative attention that Hitler does. :/ big difference, hitler intentionally killed people through holocaust and war, under stalins rule you can argue that the people just died due to the conditions of the environment and time they were in. It's like saying Obama should be held accountable for deaths that occur every day in the US. I'm not comparing Stalin to Obama, but this is why there is a difference between hitler and these other guys. I agree though, stalin and mao are pretty bad people but still don't really compare to what hitler did.
Agreed. Deaths caused by Stalin and Mao were largely indirect, as opposed to the Holocaust (how can people even deny this happened?)
Then again, most Western history books that talk about Stalin and Mao paint them in an extremely negative light. It's all propaganda and depends on what book you're reading.
For example, in Japan, history textbooks largely exclude the atrocities they committed to the Chinese during WW2... you could say it would be similar if Germany decided to censor all information regarding the Holocaust. It's disgusting, and is one of the reasons many Chinese people still have hatred for the Japanese government.
|
Idk if this has been posted yet but apparently Paul Revere didn't do shit, he rode to like one town to warn people and then stopped. Apparently it was another guy that tirelessly rode around warning everybody but Paul Revere became famous because someone wrote a song about what the other guy did except his name (i forget what it was) didn't rhyme well so he used Paul Revere's name instead.
|
On February 12 2011 09:24 Genome852 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 19:16 emc wrote:On February 10 2011 14:07 travito wrote:On February 10 2011 14:02 Alexhandr wrote:On February 10 2011 14:01 Eskii wrote:On February 10 2011 13:54 Silidons wrote:
If I say it, I'll probably get banned. Fine, if you don't say it, I will... THE HOLOCAUST! Oh... only absolute morons deny such things. You can't hide the deaths of 11 million innocent people. =/ Despite the atrocities of the holocaust, Hitler was a brilliant leader. He can be credited with huge a economic boom during his time, as well as military success. My question is why is he painted as the posterboy for evil when Stalin and Mao both killed thousands more people under their rule? I am in no way trying to undermine the horrors of the holocaust, but I don't really understand why Stalin or Mao don't get the same negative attention that Hitler does. :/ big difference, hitler intentionally killed people through holocaust and war, under stalins rule you can argue that the people just died due to the conditions of the environment and time they were in. It's like saying Obama should be held accountable for deaths that occur every day in the US. I'm not comparing Stalin to Obama, but this is why there is a difference between hitler and these other guys. I agree though, stalin and mao are pretty bad people but still don't really compare to what hitler did. Agreed. Deaths caused by Stalin and Mao were largely indirect, as opposed to the Holocaust (how can people even deny this happened?) Then again, most Western history books that talk about Stalin and Mao paint them in an extremely negative light. It's all propaganda and depends on what book you're reading. For example, in Japan, history textbooks largely exclude the atrocities they committed to the Chinese during WW2... you could say it would be similar if Germany decided to censor all information regarding the Holocaust. It's disgusting, and is one of the reasons many Chinese people still have hatred for the Japanese government.
http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/welch_naval_MCs.pdf
Cannibalism and Vivisections of POW's by the Japanese.
|
What about the origins of who invented football (soccer)?
|
Debatable accounts of history:
All of it. That's why the profession of the historian exists, to point out the flaws and biases inherent within history and so others can push back. History provides the means to argue, and thus to initiate change based on precedent or retrospection. There is the past, and there is history, the recorded and recollected past which because of it's nature, is constantly perceived through some sort of lens depending on who is doing the recording or recollecting.
/rant.
Historiography is actually really cool ^_^
More specifically though:
1. Most of the bullshit on the history channel about aliens. Much of it is lol-worthy to say the least.
2. Most of Thucydides is highly contentious material. He is the Father of History, yes, but he is also the Father of Lies 
3. Stylistically, history predating Leopold von Ranke in the early 19th. century tends to be very...not what you expect from history. The overall development of history and it's place tends to coalesce after that point by taking in all of the intellectual advances regarding history's practice and combining it into what would most nearly resemble "modern" history. (By development I mean historiography that is, not HISTORY itself)
4. Bronze age Greece is akin to the Mayans. They just sorta...disappeared. The only records from that time speak of an alliance of "People from the sea" or "People of the sea" that set out to conquer the known world. Phoneticians are believed to be descendants of those conquerors. The supposed invasion force was eventually stopped in Egypt by...eh...I'll have to recheck this but I think it was Ramses the....third? O_o? Eh, not much survives from that period so the whole things sorta up in the air.
Anyway, just some neat historical points that tend to rile people up and get people talking.
|
The link about Caesar was very interesting.
|
On February 12 2011 09:30 funnybananaman wrote:
Idk if this has been posted yet but apparently Paul Revere didn't do shit, he rode to like one town to warn people and then stopped. Apparently it was another guy that tirelessly rode around warning everybody but Paul Revere became famous because someone wrote a song about what the other guy did except his name (i forget what it was) didn't rhyme well so he used Paul Revere's name instead.
Do you mean in general?
Because Paul Revere printed a number of Newspaper articles and engravings during the time period between the Seven Years War and the Revolutionary War, as well as being active in the Sons of Liberty. For instance, he printed ![[image loading]](http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/Boston%20Massacre%20Revere.jpg) in one of his articles following the Boston Massacre.
And the picture on the "Sam Adams" beer is actually Paul Revere! 
|
On February 12 2011 10:20 DrTJEckleburg wrote:And the picture on the "Sam Adams" beer is actually Paul Revere!
This is pretty interesting wish I knew this when I was in the Navy many of buddies drank that beer and would of loved to of know that fact.
|
On February 12 2011 10:12 Kimaker wrote:
4. Bronze age Greece is akin to the Mayans. They just sorta...disappeared. The only records from that time speak of an alliance of "People from the sea" or "People of the sea" that set out to conquer the known world. Phoneticians are believed to be descendants of those conquerors. The supposed invasion force was eventually stopped in Egypt by...eh...I'll have to recheck this but I think it was Ramses the....third? O_o? Eh, not much survives from that period so the whole things sorta up in the air.
Anyway, just some neat historical points that tend to rile people up and get people talking.
I read in a science newspaper we recently discovered traces of cocaine in severals mummies, I don't remember the datation. How can we find cocaine in egyptian mummies?? (coca was unkown until the discovery of america)
|
|
|
French tanks had no radio.
|
On February 12 2011 12:27 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 06:22 jello_biafra wrote:On February 12 2011 06:12 DrTJEckleburg wrote:On February 12 2011 05:59 Krohm wrote:
Another people tend to forget is that France and Britain declared war on Germany first. Germany was well aware that France and Britain were going to declare war on them upon invading Poland. A clumsy response and mobilization by France and Britain then resulted in Germany conquering Poland relatively unscathed. As long as were around that time period, a lot of people already know about Neville Chamberlain being famous for his policy of appeasement towards Germany. However, he wasn't trying to simply keep Europe out of a state of war like many may think, he was trying to delay Germany in order to prepare for the inevitable Battle of Britain. Although this is completely irrelevant too since because he allowed Czechoslovakia to be taken by Germany. At that time the Czechs held the second strongest army in the world behind France(yes); Germany was allowed to take the country with zero casualties and absorb an incredible amount of equipment and supplies. Had Chamberlain refused to comply with Hitler's demands, Germany could not win a three-pronged war from Czechoslovakia, France, and Poland(not to mention the Soviet Union was allied with Czechoslovakia.) It wasn't so much a clumsy response from France and Britain as simply having outdated technology, Germany learned a lot of lessons from the first world war, how to use tanks and planes properly, made loads of them and implemented blitzkrieg to devastating effect. The British and French were cocky from victory in WW1 and didn't focus on the development of their military as heavily as the Germans. France's attempt at invading Germany in September 1939 did not go well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive Most of this is in fact incorrect and one of the many reasons you should never quote wikipedia as a source. At the onset of the Second World War France had a much larger and more advaced military than Germany at that time. The German army was small by comparision and their tanks were far inferior to the French. It is only latter in the war where German Tiger II and Panther tanks were develped. The French tanks were more advanced at the onset of war, what wasn't more advanced however were their military tactics. France had a tendancy to take things to the extreme. In WW1 there was what is now called the "Cult of the Offensive." French generals believed in all out attack as the best stategy and this cost them dearly. Charging into barbed wire and machine gun fire was never going to end well. From the experiences of WW1 France saw their offensive actions as the cause of the huge losses they suffered and became dead set that the defensive was the best way to win a war. This was articulated in the Maginot Line, and was one of the primary reasons France decided not to attack Germany even thought they outmubered them 110 divisions to 23 on the Western Front in 1939. A high ranking Nazi official at the Nuremburg Trials testified that Germany should have collapsed in 1939 from an allied attack that never came. The strategy of France was also comepletly outdated. Instead of consentration of armour and the use of aircraft for ground support, they would evenly distribute tanks and planes between divisions. The French and British were simply unprepared to deal with the highly advanced military tactics utilized by the German Wehrmacht. There are also other factors that contributed to the fall of France stemming from internal desent that I will not get into. However France greatly outnumbered the German army in terms of men and armour, not the other way around which is commonly believed.
|
^ Cult of the Offensive isn't specifically French when considering WW1, virtually all nations involved had an emphasis on offensive actions. Heh, I remember writing a paper on that very topic a few years back...ah memories.
Very true on all your points.
|
It was impossible for the germans to pass the Maginot line, why should the french attack when defense is a sure victory? (granted the germans wouldn't go through the ardennes). The Siegfried line was on the germans side to prevent any offensive from the french.
|
On February 12 2011 12:45 woowoo wrote:
It was impossible for the germans to pass the Maginot line, why should the french attack when defense is a sure victory? (granted the germans wouldn't go through the ardennes). The Siegfried line was on the germans side to prevent any offensive from the french.
A poorly defended and completely inadequate Siegfried Line yes. Not able to withstand 110 French divisions. Not to mention reinforcements would not arrive for weeks as they were all fighting in Poland.
|
On February 12 2011 12:18 woowoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 10:12 Kimaker wrote:
4. Bronze age Greece is akin to the Mayans. They just sorta...disappeared. The only records from that time speak of an alliance of "People from the sea" or "People of the sea" that set out to conquer the known world. Phoneticians are believed to be descendants of those conquerors. The supposed invasion force was eventually stopped in Egypt by...eh...I'll have to recheck this but I think it was Ramses the....third? O_o? Eh, not much survives from that period so the whole things sorta up in the air.
Anyway, just some neat historical points that tend to rile people up and get people talking. I read in a science newspaper we recently discovered traces of cocaine in severals mummies, I don't remember the datation. How can we find cocaine in egyptian mummies?? (coca was unkown until the discovery of america)
Unless you point to a historical paper there is no reason to believe it.
|
On February 12 2011 12:27 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 06:22 jello_biafra wrote:On February 12 2011 06:12 DrTJEckleburg wrote:On February 12 2011 05:59 Krohm wrote:
Another people tend to forget is that France and Britain declared war on Germany first. Germany was well aware that France and Britain were going to declare war on them upon invading Poland. A clumsy response and mobilization by France and Britain then resulted in Germany conquering Poland relatively unscathed. As long as were around that time period, a lot of people already know about Neville Chamberlain being famous for his policy of appeasement towards Germany. However, he wasn't trying to simply keep Europe out of a state of war like many may think, he was trying to delay Germany in order to prepare for the inevitable Battle of Britain. Although this is completely irrelevant too since because he allowed Czechoslovakia to be taken by Germany. At that time the Czechs held the second strongest army in the world behind France(yes); Germany was allowed to take the country with zero casualties and absorb an incredible amount of equipment and supplies. Had Chamberlain refused to comply with Hitler's demands, Germany could not win a three-pronged war from Czechoslovakia, France, and Poland(not to mention the Soviet Union was allied with Czechoslovakia.) It wasn't so much a clumsy response from France and Britain as simply having outdated technology, Germany learned a lot of lessons from the first world war, how to use tanks and planes properly, made loads of them and implemented blitzkrieg to devastating effect. The British and French were cocky from victory in WW1 and didn't focus on the development of their military as heavily as the Germans. France's attempt at invading Germany in September 1939 did not go well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive Most of this is in fact incorrect and one of the many reasons you should never quote wikipedia as a source. At the onset of the Second World War France had a much larger and more advaced military than Germany at that time. The German army was small by comparision and their tanks were far inferior to the French. It is only latter in the war where German Tiger II and Panther tanks were develped. The French tanks were more advanced at the onset of war, what wasn't more advanced however were their military tactics. France had a tendancy to take things to the extreme. In WW1 there was what is now called the "Cult of the Offensive." French generals believed in all out attack as the best stategy and this cost them dearly. Charging into barbed wire and machine gun fire was never going to end well. From the experiences of WW1 France saw their offensive actions as the cause of the huge losses they suffered and became dead set that the defensive was the best way to win a war. This was articulated in the Maginot Line, and was one of the primary reasons France decided not to attack Germany even thought they outmubered them 110 divisions to 23 on the Western Front in 1939. A high ranking Nazi official at the Nuremburg Trials testified that Germany should have collapsed in 1939 from an allied attack that never came. The strategy of France was also comepletly outdated. Instead of consentration of armour and the use of aircraft for ground support, they would evenly distribute tanks and planes between divisions. The French and British were simply unprepared to deal with the highly advanced military tactics utilized by the German Wehrmacht. There are also other factors that contributed to the fall of France stemming from internal desent that I will not get into. However France greatly outnumbered the German army in terms of men and armour, not the other way around which is commonly believed.
Best post in this thread.
|
On February 10 2011 14:02 Alexhandr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 14:01 Eskii wrote:On February 10 2011 13:54 Silidons wrote:
If I say it, I'll probably get banned. Fine, if you don't say it, I will... THE HOLOCAUST! Oh... only absolute morons deny such things. You can't hide the deaths of 11 million innocent people. =/
Well outright denying it is stupid but there are some interesting facts about the time that no one dares speak of because you're instantly branded as a nazi.
Saw a jewish made documentary of it once, like 2 hours long and only jewish sources so that nothing could be claimed as antisematic. Like how the number of dead produced by Auswitch has changed from like 4 million to 1 million yet the number of total dead (around 12 million people) has stayed the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
