Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Which worked Better? by Rebecca Dugglefield - Sat, 07 Nov 2015 14:40:49 EST ID:o6keS00K No.56263 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1446925249315.jpg -(36064B / 35.22KB, 780x585) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 36064
I was doing some thinking about the current state of the Union, and I found myself ruminating on how if Reconstruction had been followed through on more sincerely, like maybe is Lincoln hadn't gotten assassinated or at least someone more resolved than Johnson had succeeded him, maybe today we'd be closer to a less socially stratified country.
And I got to thinking, we did that after WWII with denazification (we in this case meaning the allies instead of just the US). Reconstruction lasted several years longer, but seems to have had less effective results than the Denazification efforts in post WWII Germany. Besides obvious advanced in technology like with telecommunications and weapons, what are the reasons that Germany has less admiration for it's Nazi period than the southern state have for their "lost cause."? Was is just that Nazism only lasted around a decade whereas slavery had been in the south for centuries?

Or am I wrong? As an American am I romanticizing Denazification? I know there are still neo-nazi in germany but they seem to have less of a presence than the neo-confederates in the U.S.

How about what happened in South Africa? Did Truth and Reconciliation do better or worse than both or either?

13 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
David Nubblechut - Thu, 12 Nov 2015 03:56:20 EST ID:o6keS00K No.56289 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>Regardless, it just really pisses me off when I see the results of propaganda like this and I couldn't come up with yet another refutation of the same fucking shit again.
Go ahead and copy paste from a previous time then. I don't believe you've ever actually constructed a coherent refutation.

>There's a fucking psi-op going on to strip away southern culture to make the country into a homogenous blob of worthless unthinking fucks
Or it's a natural side effect resulting from the modern ability of people being able to exchange ideas with someone from farther away than four towns over on a regular basis. And what exactly are "they" trying to eradicate? Our proud legacy of... barbecue and reverence for outdated technology? The only memorable cultural achievements of the south have been self deprecating works of literature and southern rock. You sound like those hicks in West Virginia who's heads implode when you mention that being a coal miner is kind of a shitty job to still have to be doing.

>Shit, does anyone here even realize how few people even had slaves?
You don't have to reap the benefits of a system to be one of it's enforcers, and thus bear part of the blame. Modern cops get paid jack shit and they're perfectly happy to stomp on throats for the benefit of the wealthy. If anything your statement just showcases how retarded the average southerner at the time was for being duped into fighting for a cause that did not benefit them, on behalf of people who didn't give two shits about them.

[citation needed]

But I think, by accident, you answered my question about why it's taken the south longer to fix itself than Germany, so thanks.
Martin Clattingmick - Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:35:49 EST ID:mLAewN/G No.56290 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>There's a fucking psi-op going on to strip away southern culture to make the country into a homogenous blob of worthless unthinking fucks
I thought "worthless unthinking fucks" WAS Southern Culture?
Edwin Nungerchane - Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:15:38 EST ID:nFUrmaNy No.56291 Ignore Report Quick Reply

You think Germany is "fixed" ... That says enough about your grasp on reality.

Quips done and said, what's your problem? Why do you hate?
Priscilla Bizzleham - Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:10:39 EST ID:aZJF8f7V No.56293 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>thinks germany was better off under hitler

bracing for impact
Archie Clayforth - Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:48:54 EST ID:nFUrmaNy No.56294 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Now that's just misreading. Fuck hitler and his cronies. For anything they did that I may agree with, there's a million people who suffered that I'd rather hadn't. Also fuck Franko the hardest.

Sovetunio by Hedda Ferryberk - Sat, 07 Nov 2015 22:19:10 EST ID:SbLL3rxd No.56270 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1446952750168.jpg -(98563B / 96.25KB, 720x711) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 98563
Why were Esperantists in Eastern Europe forced to hide their language during the cold war?
Lydia Chuzzletodge - Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:18:27 EST ID:pIYqIk9c No.56281 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I have no idea but I would like to know. Apparently the soviet union supported it early on but from 1930 onwards they started shooting people and putting them in labor camps for advocating its use. Weird.
Polly Gossleman - Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:34:02 EST ID:nFUrmaNy No.56284 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Because it's an abomination designed to strip people from their cultures, while removing them from the powers of words. Fuck Esperanto.
Angus Berrykure - Fri, 13 Nov 2015 13:15:50 EST ID:eiH1WIkz No.56297 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Because if it's international it better also be socialist and if the party can't control it, it's bad.

Alexander the Great by Hedda Bungersig - Sat, 20 Jul 2013 21:56:23 EST ID:Dv4EQMVh No.50164 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1374371783708.jpg -(510006B / 498.05KB, 576x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 510006
Alexander has to be one of the most enigmatic characters in history. On one hand the sheer magnitude and glory of his accomplishments has to set him amongst the greatest and most succesful men who have ever lived, but on the other hand he was something of a cruel and vindictive megalomaniac with a murderous temper. In the west he's one of our greatest heroes, but in the east he's known as 'the two horned devil'.

How do you all feel about the great man himself?
54 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Phineas Brucklebidge - Fri, 23 Oct 2015 06:45:22 EST ID:3uS7Cyfj No.56219 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Augustus Murdhood - Mon, 02 Nov 2015 08:23:21 EST ID:QhbJyx2S No.56244 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Not weird at all for his cultural surroundings.
Phoebe Weddlebanks - Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:43:17 EST ID:46Ivwr3B No.56245 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Diogenes would often masturbate in public.
no homer - Tue, 03 Nov 2015 04:10:05 EST ID:t9ossodW No.56250 Ignore Report Quick Reply
As if the gay lobby didn't make up that all the greeks were gay to make their gayness seem okay.

Stone statue of alexander sucking cock or it didn't happen.
Betsy Brookgold - Thu, 05 Nov 2015 23:40:29 EST ID:pIYqIk9c No.56258 Ignore Report Quick Reply
okay so I bought the aleander biography by plutarch and also the fictionalized story of his relationship with bagoas called The Persian Boy

ready 4 superior form of love

German government is/was confusing by David Sodgelere - Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:16:18 EST ID:HudvzGAi No.56228 Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1445908578965.jpg -(61141B / 59.71KB, 800x533) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 61141
What are the differences between Kaiser, President, Chancellor, and Fuehrer?
Rebecca Facklewill - Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:54:35 EST ID:aZJF8f7V No.56230 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Kaiser was basically the King. He was determined by bloodline and was the Commander-in-Chief and Head of State etc.

Fuhrer was basically a full on despot that was semi-legitimised by law.

Chancellor is basically their elected parliamentary leader, ie. President in the USA and Prime Minister in Commonwealth states. Where as the President's role is more about protecting against a bad Chancellor/Parliament. He has powers of veto but in modern times its generally expected that if he wishes to veto something he must have a very good reason and basically just passes it onto a sub-committee to determine if said bill is unconstitutional and if it is they'll veto it.

But I'm pretty sure during the time of the Weimar Republic the President had much stronger powers of veto and could even dissolve parliament. He was also the head of the military and could act without the authority of the rest of the Reichstag.
David Sodgelere - Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:06:22 EST ID:HudvzGAi No.56231 Report Quick Reply
So did the enabling act allow Hitler to dissolve the President, or was there also a president up until 1933 when Hitler declared himself Fuhrer? It's so crazy how all of this happened within the last 100 years. Also I don't get how war = money, aside from stealing gold and other things from jewish people, and poland
Hedda Gockleten - Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:46:26 EST ID:46Ivwr3B No.56232 Ignore Report Quick Reply

The then reigning president had essentially established that precedent when he assumed control of a military dictatorship in WWI, and overruled the Kaiser. Thanks to some early battlefield successes, he was elected president of Weimar. He was also suffering from senility.
David Sodgelere - Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:12:32 EST ID:HudvzGAi No.56234 Report Quick Reply
Yeah I heard Hindenburg was kind of forced to do it, plus he was senile.
Augustus Murdhood - Mon, 02 Nov 2015 08:10:35 EST ID:QhbJyx2S No.56243 Ignore Report Quick Reply
People in this thread have no idea.

The Kaiser was the German emperor, there were other kings below him (Bavaria and Saxony) and he himself was king of Prussia. The president of the republic was more of a figurehead and the chancellor actually did like 90% of all political work. The president just had to sign off laws and reforms and had to declare the winner of elections the new chancellor (well unless 1932). Führer was just a title the nazis came up with during the 20s. When Hindenburg died in 1934 the dictatorship was already strong enough to say "Hey, now the chancellor should just take over the president's powers, too and we call him Führer".

History of Bengal by Shitting Drannershit - Sat, 24 Oct 2015 04:28:05 EST ID:qleMGbH6 No.56221 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1445675285247.jpg -(613755B / 599.37KB, 1536x1068) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 613755
What do you guys think of the history of Bengal? Know anything about it? Got any good reading material on it?

The region is an interesting mix of Indo-European, Austronesian, Dravidian, and Sino-tibetan racial types. It has a mix (or in modern times, a bifurcation) of Hindu and Muslim culture with a shared language although it has a ton of distinct dialects.

I personally find it fascinating. Everything from the history of early Buddhism in the area, to the introduction of Sufi Islam into the region and the development of Hinduism during the medieval period, to the British conquest and the Bengal Renaissance, to the 1947 partition and 1971 war of independence.

You learn a lot about subcontinental center-periphery relations, and the dynamics of religious spread and interaction when you read about Bengal. Plus its a highly artistic and literary culture, which is just wonderful if you an aesthete.

What do you guys think?
Augustus Bollybury - Sat, 24 Oct 2015 18:46:43 EST ID:WBy4CtY7 No.56223 Ignore Report Quick Reply
And it's not going to exist for much longer thanks to global warming
Jack Dugglesutch - Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:38:58 EST ID:fkwhQn7d No.56235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No idea, but now I'm inspired to learn more about it! I recently looked a bit at Sri Lankan antique history. I'm going to need an actual book about it though.
Ebenezer Handleline - Sun, 01 Nov 2015 01:26:14 EST ID:qleMGbH6 No.56241 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1446359174818.jpg -(729580B / 712.48KB, 1800x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Here is a good thing about the rise of Islam in the region: http://videshisutra.com/2015/02/14/the-islamization-of-bengal/

And the book which that post referenced:


Brass and/or Copper Effigy by Martha Brazzletine - Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:48:13 EST ID:HG5zdpC2 No.56229 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1445917693663.jpg -(7196B / 7.03KB, 192x159) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 7196
Hello /HIS/, It's been a very long time since I last posted on here, so please forgive me if I mess anything up...
I recently purchased two small, brass (or copper), horse-like figurines from a small estate sale. I myself have a degree in anthropology/archeology and feel as though these pieces may have historical and/or cultural significance, but do not know where to start in regards to research. Both of these figurines seem very old based upon their patina, and each features a square hole on their underside.
My question to you is this: Has anyone ever seen anything like these? Are they some type of effigy or ceremonial item? Can anyone identify the type of animal these items portray? Any help would be greatly appreciated even if they do turn out to be simply junk.
Augustus Nicklestone - Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:20:37 EST ID:/F/VROSe No.56233 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Cool thumbnail. 19th or 20th Century tat would be my first guess. The older they are, the less likely those fine holes are to have survived intact. It looks like lost-wax casting and the holes at the bottom may suggest production in volume. You'd want to talk to someone who knows about casting about that though.

Drug using presidents? by Fanny Buzzhall - Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:54:50 EST ID:fZ3DK8Em No.56227 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1445889290727.jpg -(3294B / 3.22KB, 135x101) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3294
Post quotes from (possible) drug using presidents

>Habayit Hayehudi MK Betzalel Smotrich asked Netanyahu: "Why do you even talk to (Palestinian President Mahmoud) Abbas? Why pull the world's leg?" Netanyahu responded by saying that Israel "is not talking to bin Laden or ISIS, but I will talk to whoever isn't calling for our destruction."
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.682374


Thunk about it by Nell Neblinglidging - Tue, 20 Oct 2015 01:15:19 EST ID:GVgszkte No.56211 Locked Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1445318119987.jpg -(29171B / 28.49KB, 371x684) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 29171
So im drunk.and was thinking about cartoons that had good songs.like famly guy or sponge bob.think about it!
Thread has been locked
Thread was locked by: Quetzalcoatl
Reason: try /mtv/ buddy not /his/tory
Colonel Furburger - Wed, 21 Oct 2015 01:58:51 EST ID:69yWv/Nb No.56213 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1445407131432.jpg -(126251B / 123.29KB, 682x711) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I post this on behalf of Justin Trudeau :P
And yes I am canadian HAHA

Crazy Kings and Leaders by Walter Gallystone - Tue, 20 Jan 2015 01:43:46 EST ID:IIEMocfo No.54643 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1421736226172.gif -(135851B / 132.67KB, 555x255) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 135851
Any instances of leaders/kings slowly going insane and losing their minds?

Cambyses was one, the Cambyses who was the son of the Cyrus that beseiged Sardis.

Basically, the guy slowly went insane and made his army continue to march against a mythical tribe of Africans in the woods while his troops converted to cannibalism due to ration shortage. Or that time that he shot an advisor's son with a bow and arrow because he disagreed with him being an alcoholic? Or how about that time that he decided to kill his own brother because he had a dream? Or when he killed his own wife because of something she said at the dinner table? Or how about that time he started burning shit in the temple of Hephaistos?

He was probably the only king who didn't give a fuck about the hellenistic gods, or any for that matter, because he was crazy.
60 posts and 12 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
George Bricklekudging - Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:05:13 EST ID:Vxn3KaCO No.56186 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Surprise! It's me, the guy whose 6 month old post you quoted!
That's a really amusing thought, but Caligula really does seem to have been, by all surviving accounts, a colossal asshole and not just a practical joker with a penchant for satirizing his own regime.
I like your version better, though. Let's stick with that one.
Ghengis Dong - Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:14:45 EST ID:2egVTEgC No.56188 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1444774485781.jpg -(8303B / 8.11KB, 177x285) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Here's a report from the British Ambassadors to Castille wherein they describe the relative hotness of Juana la Loca in somewhat hilarious detail (They even try to describe her breath). The description begins with item V. under "June". It's quite interesting and from their description I would quite likely hit that.
Ghengis Dong - Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:31:41 EST ID:2egVTEgC No.56189 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>XVIII. To endeavour to speak with her fasting, and that she may tell them some matter at length, so that they may see whether her breath be sweet.
Could never come near to her fasting, but at other times have approached her visage as nigh as they conveniently could, but never felt any savour of spices, and believe her to be of a sweet savour.
Cyril Chennerway - Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:52:59 EST ID:5ADmKFCq No.56208 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The Ottoman Sultans had a crazy one in their line, Ibrahim the mad. Can't really recall any specific stories but modern psychoanalysts would have a field day with his diagnosis
Cyril Chennerway - Mon, 19 Oct 2015 23:15:46 EST ID:5ADmKFCq No.56209 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Tamerlane wasn't crazy

His campaigns were brutal as fuck yes, but he didn't exhibit any mental issues and we actually have primary sources of Timur and his court, unlike all the turco-mongol raiders before him. You could argue that he was a fanatic islamist zealot but it seems more that his hardcore muslimness was a means for him to legitimize his rule, just like when he made the dubious claim that he descended from Chingis Khan. He was a peasant nobody, he needed to legitimize his rule among the turco mongol armies and claiming to be "The Sword of Islam" and a descendant of Genghis were ways for him to do that. Not sure where you got the idea he was a crazy.

Help with identification by Hamilton Goodford - Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:27:23 EST ID:02zvB8Ms No.56153 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1443562043538.jpg -(1304561B / 1.24MB, 2592x1936) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1304561
Hi. This was in our basement. I must have looked at it a bunch of times, but today I noticed the cross at the top and realized it had some sort of nefarious association. Sure enough, I looked it up and it is an "Iron Cross"(proper noun?). Is there some reason it was placed on top of an America flag? Was this flag a grave marker? My grandfather fought during the time of the Wars, and has since died.(all I could think of)
9 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cornelius Crendlefen - Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:49:57 EST ID:6Xi/1jMy No.56190 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>weak Habsburgs who got to try to unite Germany for centuries but failed
Molly Naggleford - Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:24:37 EST ID:46Ivwr3B No.56191 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>saved europe from Ottomans in their prime

fixed that for you
Beatrice Bunwater - Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:55:30 EST ID:4u9Cq0MQ No.56192 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>tfw when Europe is going to belong to the Muslims anyways in a few decades
A Wizard - Fri, 16 Oct 2015 23:36:40 EST ID:/HWjT0P7 No.56197 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Omfg... "Ger-Man"

All of the fuckers you're talking about all Germans. The existence of various political regimes does not effect the ethnicity that is the Germanic ethic group.

But yeah, the Christians really fucked up europe.
Phyllis Fevingtit - Sat, 17 Oct 2015 08:38:46 EST ID:VbnwhOqz No.56201 Ignore Report Quick Reply

You probably mean
>got their asses saved by Poles in the last moment

Historical tidbits by Rebecca Dacklefoot - Sun, 11 Oct 2015 11:49:39 EST ID:taGtMpGl No.56183 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1444578579692.jpg -(3937498B / 3.76MB, 1687x2200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3937498
Indentured servitude was common in the Swedish countryside (predominantly in the south) up until the 1930's and it wasn't outlawed until 1945.

Medieval armies by Doris Clullydale - Tue, 30 Sep 2014 02:57:12 EST ID:LQxCuB8k No.53765 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1412060232744.jpg -(123959B / 121.05KB, 283x381) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 123959
You are in medieval times, you have full command of an army of your choosing, any type of composition. What do you choose? What is your army

> Main force consists of cataphract type shock cavalry and horse archers
> Light cavalry for distraction and hit and run purposes
> Heavy spearmen to hold the line, readied for hammer and anvil
> Longbow men behind spearmen shooting down ranks
> Cavalry and archer based armies are the best
104 posts and 17 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Hedda Chuffingspear - Tue, 06 Oct 2015 00:48:38 EST ID:BiQZyatf No.56173 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1444106918569.jpg -(48118B / 46.99KB, 400x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Jarvis Claystock - Tue, 06 Oct 2015 12:29:27 EST ID:46Ivwr3B No.56174 Ignore Report Quick Reply

At the battle of Pydna, which is what we were talking about, yes. The Macedonians the Romans encountered were a far cry from the Macedonians of Philip and Alexander.

>The two centers engaged at about 3pm, with the Macedonians advancing on the Romans a short distance from the Roman camp. Paullus claimed later that the sight of the phalanx filled him with alarm and amazement. The Romans tried to beat down the enemy pikes or hack off their points, but with little success. Roman officers began to despair. One 'rent his garments' in impotent fury. Another seized his unit's standard and threw it among the enemy. His men made a desperate charge to recapture it, but were beaten back despite inflicting some casualties. Unable to get under the thick bristle of pikes, the Romans used a planned retreat over the rough ground.

>But as the phalanx pushed forward, the ground became more uneven as it moved into the foothills, and the line lost its cohesion, being forced over the rough terrain. Paullus now ordered the legions into the gaps, attacking the phalangites on their exposed flanks. At close quarters the longer Roman sword and heavier shield easily prevailed over the Macedonian Kopis and lighter armor of the Macedonians. They were soon joined by the Roman right, which had succeeded in routing the Macedonian left.

>Seeing the tide of battle turn, Perseus fled with the cavalry on the Macedonian right. According to Plutarch, Perseus' cavalry had yet to engage, and both the king and his cavalry were accused of cowardice by the surviving infantry.

>An elite unit of the phalanx, a 3,000 strong Guard unit, put itself on higher ground, but was cornered there. The unit fought to the bitter end, with almost every man killed.

>Perseus later surrendered to Paullus, and was paraded in triumph in Rome in chains. He was then imprisoned. The Macedonian kingdom was dissolved, many inhabitants deemed to be anti-Roman were enslaved and sent to Rome, much of its land parcelled out to Roman colonists (ex-legionaries) and Roman allies, its government replaced with four republics. In time, these were also dissolved, and Macedonia became a Roman province.
A Wizard - Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:18:01 EST ID:/HWjT0P7 No.56179 Ignore Report Quick Reply

The thing about this, is that in Philip's and Alexander's armies, there would had been a division or two of skirmishers who run about flinging a few javelins and then are used to fill the gaps when a heavier division can't keep it's footing and needs a moment to reform. Further, they had light cavalry to stop maneuvers like the one mentioned below.
Clara Nullerdudging - Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:35:32 EST ID:46Ivwr3B No.56180 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>The Romans had placed the two legions in the middle, with the allied Latin, Italian and Greek infantry on their flanks. The cavalry was placed on the wings, with the Roman right being supplemented by 22 elephants.

>The phalanx took up the center of the Macedonian line, with the elite 3,000-strong Guard formed to the left of the phalanx. Lighter peltasts, mercenaries and Thracian infantry guarded the two flanks of the phalanx, while the Macedonian cavalry was also most probably arrayed on both flanks. The stronger contingent was on the Macedonian right, where Perseus commanded the heavy cavalry (including his elite Sacred Squadron), and the Thracian Odrysian cavalry were deployed. However, other sources state that the cavalry did not participate in the fight, as there was a strike against Perseus by the nobles.

They had literally every element they needed, but the nobles took a dive.
A Wizard - Sat, 10 Oct 2015 03:53:15 EST ID:/HWjT0P7 No.56181 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Hmm, well, the Macedonians were known for talking shit to the Thracians, and the Thracians well known for saying "Fuck you, we quit. Let's go raid the neighbors."

But here's the reason they lost. They sent their main force in first, against a legionary army. You don't do that, and they should had known better.

<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.