If genetic heritage doesnt matter, move to Zimbabwe and tell us how it goes /thread

This guy think the Mass Murder of the Jews of Europe = Height of Human Civilization

This was the height of human civilization



The year was 100 BC but civilization had aqueducts spanning thousands of miles that supplied clean drinking water to thousands.

The only factor that prevented them from reaching their own industrial revolution was the practice of slavery and the absence of microbiology and modern medicine.

Modern day Africa still doesnt have clean water, and they still practice slavery.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Oct 18 2020 09:40am

The greeks were boy-fuckers who created the Draconian Law to stop the dynastic family vendettas that were rampant in their age. Persia was way more advanced and civilized than the Greeks during this time. They has pluralism, multiculturalism, and were largely like the United States is today in that they were a benevolent peacebringer more or less.

Of course you would be into quarrelsome boy-fucking. You would probably be catchin' though.

All that was lost during the theocratic experiment known as the Dark Ages of Europe. Greek wisdom only came back during the Renaissance, the Rebirth of Greek Knowledge, brought to you by Avicenna and the Muslim world who remembered aristotle.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 18 2020 09:45am

Marcus Aurelius was Roman.

Endless is talking about the Pax Romana during the Nerva-Antonine dynasty.

The Dark Ages were a function of social collapse. The Roman economy was never sustainably developed, and alongside rampant internal strife, cultural decline, and intense pressure from migratory populations the borders couldn't hold.

I recommend reading "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" in full, if only from a historical perspective. You come out wondering not why the Roman empire fell, but how it possibly lasted so long.

Europeans were black 15k y+ ago

Any questions?

Rome never collapsed, just Western Rome diminished and the power shifted east

They were held up the way we hold up the first world today.

By exploiting the resources of conquered peoples. Except instead of military conflict today, we exploit them economically by installing friendly leaders.

Same thing with the Mongol empire.

If you learn one thing from history, it's that the greatest standards of living are built on the backs of subjugated peoples, and that can keep any system afloat as long as the system remains.

The Mongols spent a great deal of time and effort redirecting trade through protected, controlled routes and it was under their rule that some modern financial advancements (e.g. widespread proliferation of paper money) were made. At the end of the day, the Mongol population was simply not large enough to rule over so vast an empire. That they managed for as long as they did is a miracle.

The difference between modern and classical roman economics is that the modern model is built on production, not extraction, and is therefore sustainable. A better example would have been Spain during the early colonial era.

It's important to read history first and make opinions second. There are a lot of terrible takes that result from the latter.



Yes and no. Obviously the Byzantines continued on for almost a millennia, but the peak (~circa Justinian) was less than a shadow of Rome's former glory.

After Constantine, it simply wasn't tenable for one Emperor to control East and West. The East was always the more prosperous half. The shift to Byzantium/Constantinople was simply a recognition of the reality of the times.