Gunpowder was a mistake

>implying pike&shot didn't force everyone to steup their game
>he hates xviii and xix canon ans firelines
what a fag

>ywn experience this irl

Attached: 1554596404797.jpg (730x420, 75K)

So were you. Yet here you are

And they never experienced penicillin...

This guy has obviously killed people before, let's listen to him

Were amazons real?

Attached: kassandra42.jpg (1080x1166, 426K)

mass production and industrilisation was the bad thing

They had mass production of arms tho

Attached: 1555991871546.webm (1100x458, 1.85M)

nah youtu.be/E7Y3zCSA4LA?t=5

And they were better off for it

mmm lead dust

>tfw your pikes are only 10ft long and the enemies are 10.5ft

that boomer eats lead bars for breakfast

Mass literacy was a mistake.

No, but I wish they were.

True facts.

Yeah but they were more part of a nomadic tribe that needed woman to be hunters then the whole DC wonder women amazonin thing.

The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

Attached: Priestess.jpg (500x386, 78K)

>tfw war becomes a nerve-wracking game of The Price Is Right, with each contestant guessing the most appropriate length and trying to "and 1 cent!" each other
>Even the intro tune, except more grandiose, with horn ensembles and war drums

>ywn capture the high priestess of the tribe you've conqured and make babies with her in the sacred grove.

gunpowder is just a much more potent energy alternative to leverage and muscle power in pushing a projectile.

Top fucking kek

Attached: 0egbj2cuniu21.jpg (1448x2048, 476K)

PTSD it caused mainly from extended periods of of intense stress like not knowing if you and your friends will get blown to bits at any given moment
This is why it is very common in modern warfare, because this is a constant threat, you can be resting back at your fortified compound, on a patrol, in a firefight, talking to some locals, sleeping in your bed and at any moment a shell from a mortar team could drop on you and end your life instantly
Indirect artillery is the one that really has fucked people's heads, it's why a generation of young men threw themselves to the floor when they heard a car starting up
While yes it can still cause it, it is far less common from shorter periods of intense stress and singular highly stressful events and people nowadays just call anything PTSD, just like what has been done with depression, which trivialises mental health issues imo

Supposedly various peoples used anti bacterial mould for a long as time, though honestly last time I heard of this I was arguing against it due to struggling to find contemporary reports that a plethora of other sources reference, though this may have been about just Hellenes I can't recall

Attached: MEgVf.jpg (1024x576, 91K)

Pussy.

That looks like later than Alexander
He notably decreased the burden of the Phalangite decreasing the length of the sarissa compared to both before and after his era and lessening the amount of armor they wore, (always a helmet and usually something such as a linthorax, but rarely anything else)
This was to make use of this force that required upmost cohesion in a combined arms force, and to help maintain that cohesion, something that once lost during the wars of the diadochi would become their downfall at the hands of the Latins, as they had become some accustomed to fighting other Hellenes, they had reemburdened their Phalangites with longer sarissa and more armor and lost cohesion in the face of their Roman enemies

Can this girl crush my head already? Thanks

Gunpowder was a mistake until the invention of the assault rifle

Scythians. The Greeks liked to bantz the aryans for being pussy whipped and letting women lead

Philip had the phalangites go in mostly unarmored, but Alexander had them wear armor. Probably had to do with the number of missile troops in the Persian army, as opposed to mostly Psiloi for the Greeks Philip fought

The virgin pike push vs the Chad Legionary tall shield rush

Humanity peaked with the Roman Empire

Attached: 1546813880771.jpg (630x830, 528K)

Word

This, but its not because some retard decided he preferred to farm. Its because by the time the first settlements appeared in recorded history, man had conquered pretty much every single possible "hunting ground" aka land and population density couldnt sustain anymore.

Agriculture is what made villages first put up walls to protect themselves, then create divided labor, where some farmed all day and the others became warriors.

Humanity peaked when we domesticated wolves and invented the bow.

>you will never live in unspoiled nature where there is always a quick meal to be hunted/trapped with your wolf pet, your bow, your stone knife and a couple of qt sloots in a tribe of 150 where everyone gets along

It peaked during the late 19th and early 20th century, just before the outbreak of WW1.

Attached: 1280px-Werner_Enthüllung_Wagner-Denkmal_1908.jpg (1280x927, 448K)

idk, reading greco-roman texts has me thinking IQs were 20 points higher back then. This was the peak of modern European civilization

what would you do if you captured a barbarian slave girl haha

Attached: 05677f86f52c689e01c072ee20ea69aa.jpg (501x600, 51K)

In minecraft?

>not pounding the boypussy of a captured puer delicatus

m8 you're not even in the roman mindset if you haven't taken the twink pill

Attached: giton.jpg (1000x563, 102K)

>muh honorable fight
>muh swords
>muh blades
>muh phalanxes
>muh chariots

Attached: 1446133354913.png (870x352, 115K)

Literally a myth created by lesbian college professors taking bantz seriously and taking context out of slanderous accusations. The Romans called faggots Cinaedi and to be one was a source of shame. Some emperors cracked down hard on it too

The problem with modern warfare is how depersonalized it is. The individual soldier has little reason to fight. Back in the day you would fight for land, for loot to plunder, and for women to rape. It was easy to get men to fight because they were promised all the gold and pussy they could want. Now? We only fight for abstract ideals that don't really mean anything. We fight for "freedom." What freedom? The freedom to lose your job because of a racist joke? The freedom for public schools to turn your son into a tranny and to get your daughter impregnated by a nigger? We don't even defend our borders. American troops die in the desert for Israel, while spics flood Texas and California by the millions. Why the fuck do we give a shit about the desert? I grew up around trees, hills and lakes. I don't care about the Semites or their shithole desert. You can get excited about defending your land, you can't get excited about invading a country halfway across the world, and you can't even steal their women, that's a "war crime." The notion of a war crime is absurd, wars aren't civilized no matter how much dressing you put on them. No hollow points because their "unethical," but destroying the Libyan government, dooming teir people to slavery while rapefugees flood Europe, now that's "civilization."

Attached: 1555201454068.jpg (809x4512, 2.11M)

Oh we have an expert over here

>Literally a myth created by lesbian college professors taking bantz seriously and taking context out of slanderous accusations

>meanwhile my pic is from an adaptation of probably the most famous piece of silver age roman literature
>literally large parts of the Satyricon are about the sexual relationship between Encolpius and his slave lover Giton

>The Romans called faggots Cinaedi and to be one was a source of shame

the romans had no concept of homosexuality. they viewed fucking and dominating another(either man, boy or woman) as inherently manly. Cinaedi only meant a weak man who submitted to get dicked by another man. fucking young male slaves wasn't frowned upon at all and was actually fairly common

"all that stuff praising teenage boys as the supreme form of beauty was just banter" - t.romans and greeks

your retarded argument might have worked for the more modest greeks but even then if you are fucking the thighs of a 16 year old boy how straight are you really by modern standards?

Attached: Ganymede_Waters_Zeus_as_an_Eagle_by_Thorvaldsen.jpg (3627x2716, 1.78M)

>source: my ass

Infinitly fucking based

because your post was so well sourced

I literally mentioned the works Gaius Petronius Arbiter in my post

even if I rattled off a massive list of latin writers that mention sex between men(or man and boy) you still would cling to your "muh romans were perfectly straight" retardation

just as examples

Tibullus constrantly pueri delicati for their beauty
they had a literal god based on the their concept of the beauty of boys(Catamitus)
Catullus has both men and women as the objects of his love poetry
Augustus and Tiberius kept young male sex slaves based on recovered inscriptions
Nero made a 17 year old boy his wife according to Cassius Dio and Suetonius
Hadrian made his boy lover a god and his cult existed for over a century
Juvenal(the Jow Forumsfag of the late empire) mentions all the pervasive faggotry of 2nd century rome in his Satires

Attached: 0024MAN-Antinous.jpg (743x990, 622K)

*Tibullus constantly lauded pueri delicati for their beauty

also Catullus mentions the role of catamites during wedding ceremonies in Carman 61

"the groom’s catamite refuse nuts to boys as he hears about abandoned love. Give nuts to
the boys, lazy catamite! You have played with nuts long enough: now it pleases Hymenaeus to be of service. Catamite, give nuts. You considered farm managers’ wives unworthy of
your attention, today and yesterday. Now your hairdresser shaves your beard. O wretched, wretched catamite, give nuts! Anointed groom, you will be criticized for keeping away from
your bald, effeminate slaves, but keep away from them."

definitely no well established tradition of boy slave fucking going on here

Daily reminder that humanity hasn't changed at all and the Pompeii graffiti confirms this.

I'd sign up in a heart beat

"This low gravity will make you soft!"

You missed the entire point of ganymede if you think it was PROMOTING pederasty
You didn't even debunk my claims, you just insisted they were false

Almost all of those mentions are in a negative context, often banter and accusations to dismiss a rival.
Augustus wasn't a homosexual. "The leap of Tiberius" is a modern myth like the vomitorium being for puking. The Severan dynasty was the peak of homosexuality among the Romans, and that peak involved emperors getting killed for it.

I'm sure "wretched catamite" is a positive address

This

fucking based and gravity pilled

The Native Americans didn't have gunpowder, and look at them now. The world doesn't gives a shit if you prefer a certain way of waging warfare, all it cares about it which way wins the war.

Attached: __original_drawn_by_hozumi_ouchan__0fd9d7de79d7f88b02f0d9ebb1e33e7e.png (1972x1101, 3.42M)

A lot of the words translated by anglos into "lover" or "beloved" aren't in a sexual context or even translate to being sexual words. Augustus did the opposite of promoting sexual leniency, that was his social platform to the Populares.

cow dung and mouldy breasd...

>You missed the entire point of ganymede if you think it was PROMOTING pederasty

the story was used as the model and justification for greek pederastia

>Almost all of those mentions are in a negative context, often banter and accusations to dismiss a rival.

Catullus was often bawdy but he also mentioned the subject like in poem 61. Miser means wretched as in miserable. the catamite is wretched because his master is getting married and he will be forgotten

as for Tibullus

>Then [the boy will] be gentle with you, then you may snatch
>that precious kiss: he’ll struggle but let you take it.
>At first he’ll let you snatch it, later he’ll bring it himself
>when asked, and then even want to hang about your neck.
>Sadly alas these times now produce wretched arts:
>now tender boys are accustomed to wanting gifts.
>You, whoever you are, who first taught the sale of love
>may a fateful stone press down on your bones.

I-I-IT'S J-JUST BANTER

as for the Satyricon not only is the love between Encolpius and Giton sincere and explicitly("I returned to the little room and, having claimed the kisses which were mine in good faith, I encircled the boy in the closest of embraces and enjoyed the effect of our happy vows to a point that might be envied") but Encolpius treats Giton more like an actual lover than the slave he is. plus many references and anecdotes from from other characters don't exactly make the practice seem uncommon

Attached: 1548594480385.jpg (1200x1119, 305K)

Because your IQ is 40 points below average. Late 19th century philosophy is the absolute height and still guiding the world.

>Scythian
>Aryan

Okay retard

>That time the leader of Greece's biggest empire yet came *this close* to personally killing the leader of Persia's biggest empire yet on a massive fucking battlefield
There were some upsides to pre-gunpowder warfare

Attached: 1511246819638.gif (800x430, 897K)

Yes, according to the strict definition of the word. Scythians are literally Aryans. Try reading a book some time.

Attached: 41E2q9Cqa8L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (243x346, 18K)

"Aryan" is a sanskrit word and encompasses the people of the Caucasus, iran, pakistan, and northern india, MAYBE including the greeks at best. White people are not aryan. You are whatever you are. But you are not us. Neither are the arabs/semitics, the negroes, or the mongoloids.

Prof. Tolkien maintained that Aryan was a linguistic, not ethnic term, and used this fact to mock Hitlerites over their ignorance.

Damn.

>romans had no concept of homosexuality
The concept was tied up in being "unmanly"
There were clearly defined masculine and feminine roles.
If a male Roman fucked another male Roman, the pitcher would be manly, but odd while the catcher would be unmanly.
It's close enough to our current stuff on gay/straight discussion

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on that.

Attached: gun powder.png (500x959, 282K)

Which is why the world's currently a steaming pile of shit

Scythians are literally Yamnaya you fucking pajeet wuwuzer

Pajeets aren't Aryans. The highest concentration of Yamnaya descent is in Scandinavia. High caste Indians are less than a quarter Yamnaya. Not only were they white, they were Nordic by modern standards

youtube.com/watch?v=XSVZB3zJ35I

>claims Augustus was a homosexual without evidence
>Augustus sacked Tibullus
Your lies can't even be consistent

Catullus isn't the only writer to refer to a Catamite that way. There's no use of the word where it isn't a negative connotation, even in the Metamorphosis, which was basically unserious porn.

Virtually all of the references to IRL homosexuality in ancient texts are banter and accusations, and your poems can't debunk that.

>muh single digit amount of poems
Yeah, because Rome was run by poets, not military dictators that publicly condemned it and cracked down on it to win support. No man getting fucked in the ass was accepted or respected for it, and even the people who pretend it was a common practice acknowledge this.

Compare ancient Rome to today, and the modern west, with about 2% of its population being homosexual, promotes and normalizes it more than the Greco-Romans did.

The word was "cinaedi" based on the Greek "kinaidos". It was a slur like faggot is today. You're right to point out that the penetrator didn't get as much shit for it, but that wouldn't save the bottom from shame and ridicule

This is correct.
Wrong, it's now mid-20th century philosophy which has lead to this:

Attached: Statue of the republic.png (779x634, 416K)

I was bantzing, but none of those philosophies started in the mid 20th century

>muh phalanxes
Did you read your own pic retard

Yeah they did. Critical theory and post-modernism are completely 20th century philosophies.

Liberalism isn't postmodernism and the motives for pushing post colonial anti-whiteness go back farther. We just saw everything come to fruition is the 20th century

>x philosophy has a root in a previous ideologies so it's not unique
>what is the frankfurt school

It didn't start at the Frankfort School

>claims Augustus was a homosexual

again you keep using that word in a context where it has no meaning

also from Plutarch's Parallel Lives chapter about Mark Antony:

>and For [Antony] had offended Cleopatra at supper by saying that while sour wine was served to them, Sarmentus, at Rome, was drinking Falernian. Now, Sarmentus was one of the youthful favourites of Ceaser, such as the Romans call "deliciae."

>No man getting fucked in the ass was accepted or respected for it, and even the people who pretend it was a common practice acknowledge this.

where in any of my posts did I say that? I even pointed out in my second post that men who submitted to be the receptive partner was considered weak and a Cinaedi. at what point in any post did I imply that sex between freeborn men was accepted or that rome was some kind model for LGBTBBQ rights? but you can't deny their obvious love of boys and adolescents or common use of the male sex slaves to sate that love

I think you are in denial about romans being degenerate boy fuckers and you need to deal with your obvious issues with modern homofags before you consider ancient cultures without trying to fit them into modern sexuality(or even the very concept of a "sexual orientation")

Attached: Warren_Cup_BM_GR_1999.4-26.1_n2.jpg (937x843, 347K)

>what was the Late Roman period.
>what was the early Roman period.
Its like saying that 2019 and 1719 had the same culture.

Thank you I never knew this, I knew Philip himself had majorly reformed the army that Alex had inherited

"Favourite" isn't sexual, as much as modern anglos try to force it. Deliciae means "first" (ultimate/best). Funny how you point out that there was no word for homosexual, but then add sexual connotations to words that weren't sexual. Plutarch's one of the most disingenuous writers of the time, writing long after these events happened and putting in stories that don't match with contemporary accounts to push his "parallel lives" narrative.

Modern fags need entire swaths of the medical industry dedicated to treating the health issues caused by excessive anal sex, let alone in the iron age.

Funny how the british fought so hard to buy that cup. It's almost like the same people who glamorized Boudicca, fought the Spanish for centuries, and according to actual Greeks, mistranslated the ancient works on purpose(when they weren't stealing artifacts), MIGHT have a bias

Attached: History's first credentialed revisionist.jpg (900x750, 91K)

Plutarch claimed a lot of bullshit though. Stuff that contradicts contemporary sources and archeology. Not a stretch to say he made shit up, ESPECIALLY in Parallel Lives, which people back then even acknowledged

It's the lack of control really. Even an illusion is enough to save ya.

>One of the most puzzling things about fear is that it is only loosely related to the level of danger. During World War II, several airborne units that experienced some of the fiercest fighting of the war also reported some of the lowest psychiatric casualty rates in the U.S. military. Combat units typically suffer one psychiatric casualty for every physical one, and during Israel's Yom Kippur War of 1973, frontline casualty rates were roughly consistent with that ratio. But Israeli logistics units, which were subject to far less danger, suffered three psychiatric cases for every physical one. And even frontline troops showed enormous variation in their rate of psychological breakdown. Because many Israeli officers literally led from the front, they were four times more likely to be killed or wounded than their men were -- and yet they suffered one-fifth the rate of psychological collapse. The primary factor determining breakdown in combat does not appear to be the objective level of danger so much as the feeling -- even the illusion -- of control. Highly trained men in extraordinarily dangerous circumstances are less likely to break down than untrained men in little danger.

>The division between those who feel in control of their fate and those who don't can occur even within the same close-knit group. During World War II, British and American bomber crews experienced casualty rates as high as 70 percent over the course of their tour; they effectively flew missions until they were killed. On those planes, pilots reported experiencing less fear than their turret gunners, who were crucial to operations but had no direct control over the aircraft. Fighter pilots, who suffered casualty rates almost as high as bomber crews, nevertheless reported extremely low levels of fear. They were both highly trained and entirely in control of their own fate, and that allowed them to ignore the statistical reality that they had only a fifty-fifty chance of surviving their tour.

Wait was it "Carthage must be destroyed" Cato or "I hate Julius Caesar on principle" Cato?

The first

This.

Sure life was hard but it all seems so comfy

>Ywn March across Europe, spending every day with your eight best mates in the contubernia, under the command of one of the greatest generals in human history, removing Gaul and conquering an entire fucking country with ~10,000 other guys. Building fortifications, siege equipment, fucking local lasses and pillaging sacked cities, all with the promise of land, and a comfy life of a financially secure farmer in a Colonia if you make it through your twenty years.

Attached: 1555697467999.webm (720x405, 1.35M)