/dixie/ Southern US & Friends

>which places them at the top of the list of most violent, since bronze age eurasia was fucking brutal
These were not violent at all though, they were very formal and elaborate ceremonies, they only sacrificed more people due to the fact they were closer to each other and had a larger population as compared to bronze age Eurasia.
>dying in battle =/= being sacrificed during a religious ceremony
Your're right, being sacrificed in ceremony is much more honorable and humane. If they had not been sacrificed they would've died in battle or just "sacrificed" right then and there. And Eurasian religious insurrection causalities were hardly just soldiers, many of them included genocide of certain religious denominations. This was very uncommon in the Mesoamerican world. In fact, the Aztecs took account of how easily the Spaniards were able to kill without emotion. The AZTECS said this, of all people.

>also there's a reason people get more assblasted when you execute captives versus when you kill them on a battlefield
In the west yes, but not in Mesoamerica
>there's no moral comparison to be made between the ritualistic sacrifices in mesoamerica and the religious warfare in europe
Fundamentally the only real difference in that for the Mesoamericans, it was done to sustain their own gods and the world, whereas for Eurasians, it was done to stamp out what they saw as sin, vice, and heresy
>the sheer number of skulls they've dug up suggests that they executed at the very least several hundred people a year
I agree, i was mistaken in that I though you said hundreds OF thousands, as opposed to hundreds AND thousands.
nevertheless the largest example of mass human sacrifice ever found in Mesoamerican history, aside from the Tencochtitlan excavations from this past year, is a grand total of 150 people. And recent excavations at the primary skull rack in Tenochtilan show that it had "thousands" of skulls.

Attached: 1583511609980.jpg (2560x1704, 878.71K)

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED

Attached: chloe 4.jpg (1024x683, 84.14K)

me no like wall text

>whereas for Eurasians, it was done to stamp out what they saw as sin, vice, and heresy
which are good and moral reasons to go to war

never did like the cathars

>which are good and moral reasons to go to war
>spooks are a good reason to go to war

his*

Attached: 1471406810179.jpg (720x928, 381.92K)

the cathars deserved it
you can quote me on that
herault more like error

youtube.com/watch?v=BX5jZwjM6i8&t=

Lording moral superiority over people and then declaring war on them for being worse than you is the opposite of a moral reason for war
With sacrifice it's at least relatively impersonal and has nothing to do with meeting the standards of some jackass who thinks he's Jesus

Hmmm

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

based CHI

It appears my superiority has lead to some controversy

disagree

Attached: 140913182159-haines-executuion-story-top.jpg (640x360, 60.76K)

chloe is a lovely lady and i will brook no insult to her honor. neither will she, probably

it was a joke
there are very specific circumstances that Thomas Aquinas(pbuh) outlined for engaging in a just war

Attached: 1515298398524.jpg (1280x1120, 727.53K)

Oh
My bad then m8

Attached: 1538622352625.jpg (1346x1056, 73.42K)

I'm siiinnggiingg in the rain
just sssiinnnggginng in the rain
what a gloorrriuuss feeeling
I'm haappyy again

Yes, of course; but I'm finding your reason lacking as in providing a distinction in Aztec sacrifice (religious killings) to Eurasian religious killings in holy wars or religious purges/inquisitions.
Singling out any culture for their religious violence and acting as if that makes then uniquely horrible is odd, as it is quite the staple it would seem like historically.

me btfo

Attached: 1583541154870.jpg (3200x2400, 1.63M)

I'll be taking a shit as you read this

The NZ dollar is getting weaker and weaker ever since I've been here
Soon I'll be able to mentally convert my groceries extremely easily as 0.50€ = 1$

fine i'll keep arguing
>These were not violent at all though, they were very formal and elaborate ceremonies,
being formal and elaborate and still ending in death, they were inherently violent
>they only sacrificed more people due to the fact they were closer to each other and had a larger population as compared to bronze age Eurasia.
yes, as i said it places them at the most violent, their larger population and closer proximity led to more sacrifices, making them the most violent
>Your're right, being sacrificed in ceremony is much more honorable and humane.
debatable, the flaying of prisoners isn't something i'd consider humane, some deaths were quick some weren't
>In fact, the Aztecs took account of how easily the Spaniards were able to kill without emotion.
mercenaries and cutthroat sailors made up the bulk of the conquistadors, they weren't exactly typical europeans, they were exceptionally violent and obviously high risk takers

>a distinction in Aztec sacrifice (religious killings) to Eurasian religious killings in holy wars or religious purges/inquisitions.
the distinction is the ritual violence and the sacrifices being doctrine in the religion which is inherent to aztec culture as opposed to a war based on differences in religious thought/material gain
there was spiritual gain for the aztecs through their killing

fufuaonoa

Sounds Polynesian

I am 100% Polynesian
Kamakawiwoʻole

can you introduce me to tulsi

>but I'm finding your reason lacking as in providing a distinction in Aztec sacrifice (religious killings) to Eurasian religious killings in holy wars or religious purges/inquisitions.
because most of the killings in religious wars occurred either on the battlefield or when a commander lost control of his army and they started slaughtering captives or civilians. most people condemn the instances of soldiers running rampant and killing the defenseless for a reason

the aztecs expressly captured or enslaved people for the sole purpose of ritualistically sacrificing them. There were very few if any aztecs who objected to the mass slaughter of the defenseless because human sacrifice was just that ingrained in their culture. Again, there is no moral comparison to be made here because they're fundamentally different circumstances

mommy milkies

Attached: Tulsi-Gabbard-Swimsuit-2.jpg (832x1200, 66.7K)

DAYUM BOI HE THIK

Attached: wide.jpg (1000x360, 50.69K)

samoans are the thiccest niggas alive

>being formal and elaborate and still ending in death, they were inherently violent
Less violent than what was going on in Europe. But I was wrong in saying that it was "not violent".
>yes, as i said it places them at the most violent, their larger population and closer proximity led to more sacrifices, making them the most violent
As a total? Sure, but we never make those types of assessments. The total sacrifices were around the same given the regional and population differences all accounted for.
>debatable, the flaying of prisoners isn't something i'd consider humane, some deaths were quick some weren't
As opposed to being burnt alive? And I agree with you, some deaths were more violent than others, what I'm arguing is that this was not unique to the Aztecs. these types of practices were practiced all around to world to similar degrees.
>mercenaries and cutthroat sailors made up the bulk of the conquistadors, they weren't exactly typical europeans, they were exceptionally violent and obviously high risk takers
Even accounting for this, the genocide committed by the conquistadors was unseen previously on the continent. To the old world as well.
>the distinction is the ritual violence and the sacrifices being doctrine in the religion which is inherent to aztec culture as opposed to a war based on differences in religious thought/material gain
there was spiritual gain for the aztecs through their killing
Did this not exist for the old world as well? Was it not the whole point for joining the crusades was that you would go to heaven if you were to retake the holy land, by force? Also, this is an argument over the brutality of the action, not the reason for action.

Attached: 1574041917950.png (799x378, 64.74K)

nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike-ride-past-burglarized-home-made-him-n1151761

the Hawaiians are such a race of weebs that they named their first king after the Dragon Ball power move

>Was it not the whole point for joining the crusades was that you would go to heaven if you were to retake the holy land, by force?
that's a misconception. it was treated like indulgences were

blacks are still the weebiest people on the planet. have yet to meet one under 30 who didn't watch naruto, one piece, or dbz growing up

>

Attached: 1620px-Kamehameha_Ier_2.jpg (1620x2160, 797.05K)

Maghrebis here are closeted weebs
The Samir34 guy that made these ghetto DBZ comics with Vegeta mugging old ladies and selling hashish is from Hérault

>because most of the killings in religious wars occurred either on the battlefield
Many of the sacrifices were war prisoners, had they not been captured they would've died on the battlefield.
>or when a commander lost control of his army and they started slaughtering captives or civilians. most people condemn the instances of soldiers running rampant and killing the defenseless for a reason
No, maybe in certain scenarios, but the majority of violent actions taken upon the civilian class was seen as necessary for purging of the faith or for purging other faiths. See the Thirty Years' War.
>the aztecs expressly captured or enslaved people for the sole purpose of ritualistically sacrificing them
They were to die anyways in battle. They were already dead.
>There were very few if any aztecs who objected to the mass slaughter of the defenseless because human sacrifice was just that ingrained in their culture
Many people did, many people outright refused to send people to the Aztecs as they did not see it as honorable or not in their best interest, see Cempoala.
>that's a misconception. it was treated like indulgences were
Yes, and thus you would have an easier time going through purgatory and would get to heaven much faster. It's still a spiritual gain for the crusader to go out and kill Muslims to retake Jerusalem (not to mention the "bloodbath" there).

Attached: 1497900039495.jpg (720x1024, 368.27K)

>"Gosh I wish I throat Montezuma until he shot his warm chichihualātl down my gullet. If Cortes were still around today, I'd kick his ass."

>Samir34
based

Attached: 1582416424597.jpg (960x679, 212.33K)

Cortes is great, but I prefer Pizarro

Attached: Francisco-Pizarro-um1540.png (392x598, 319K)

All the action takes place in Montpellier and 34 is Hérault's administrative number

>had they not been captured they would've died on the battlefield.
if the aztecs didn't send out raiding parties to take captives, no one would have died

>see the thirty years war
political motives were by far more important during the 30 years war than were religious motives

>they were to die anyways
see above about raiding parties

>many refused to send people to the aztecs
to the aztecs. meaning they weren't aztecs

>it's still a spiritual gain
autistic point and still wrong

can't wait for anti-catholic bigotry to die

Attached: 1462157123107.png (776x883, 409.04K)

>what I'm arguing is that this was not unique to the Aztecs. these types of practices were practiced all around to world to similar degrees.
yes they were, but the aztecs are the most extreme degree that religious sacrifice occured and that in and of itself makes them somewhat unique
>Even accounting for this, the genocide committed by the conquistadors was unseen previously on the continent. To the old world as well.
the bantu expansion and ivan the terrible's conquest of siberia come to mind
>Did this not exist for the old world as well? Was it not the whole point for joining the crusades was that you would go to heaven if you were to retake the holy land, by force?
thou shalt not kill is a pretty clearcut division from thou shalt cut out this prisoner's heart with an obsidian knife and the crusades were a war for material gain and control of land, the men in charge simply justified it with those words in order to achieve their goals
>Also, this is an argument over the brutality of the action, not the reason for action.
the brutality isn't irrelevant, the extremity is unique and should be recognized as such
the reason for action varied from appeasing their gods with blood offerings, in order to barter for supernatural intervention regarding rain or the like or their big heart cutting sacrifice that they HAD to do or the sun would stop rising, the sacrifices were as integral to their religion as communion was in christianity

also a reminder that the arabs fucking deserved it during the crusades
don't @ me

@119226332
based

wypipo be like let invade that sandy shithole for the 10000000x time surely it will work this time

Didn't the arabs try to invade europe like a billion times before the first crusade

There should be a crusade the next time all the cars in Languedoc are smeared with Sahara's sand during rainfalls again

more successfully, yes

didn't poopoo pee pee gaga goo goo

they were simple economic refugees looking for work

languedoc? more like language duck lmao

>if the aztecs didn't send out raiding parties to take captives, no one would have died
The vast majority were taken during wartime, not raiding parties. They were encouraged to capture and not kill.
>political motives were by far more important during the 30 years war than were religious motives
Yes, and that's the same for all Aztec wars. Politics first, sacrifices second.
>to the aztecs. meaning they weren't aztecs
There exists numerous accounts of cities giving up sacrifice in order to gain favor with the Spanish. This wasn't as important to them as opposed to politics.
>autistic point and still wrong
great argument

>yes they were, but the aztecs are the most extreme degree that religious sacrifice occured and that in and of itself makes them somewhat unique
It isn't though, Aztecs sacrificed way less than Eurasians killed in holy wars.
>the bantu expansion and ivan the terrible's conquest of siberia come to mind
Yes, violence is not unique to the Aztecs then.
>the brutality isn't irrelevant, the extremity is unique and should be recognized as such
the reason for action varied from appeasing their gods with blood offerings, in order to barter for supernatural intervention regarding rain or the like or their big heart cutting sacrifice that they HAD to do or the sun would stop rising, the sacrifices were as integral to their religion as communion was in christianity
Yes, and the violence that went with it is no different to the religious killings that took place in the old world.

Attached: 1464595531257.png (3613x2265, 3.23M)

>great argument
thanks i try

Attached: 1508229723216.png (680x606, 675.85K)

who fukkin cares lol

Attached: 65445169.jpg (1024x763, 173.5K)

>It isn't though, Aztecs sacrificed way less than Eurasians killed in holy wars.
eurasians killed in holy wars were not sacrificed they died in battle
those are not the same thing
>Yes, violence is not unique to the Aztecs then.
but their methods and extremity of violence is unique though
>Yes, and the violence that went with it is no different to the religious killings that took place in the old world.
wrong
people killed in battle were not having their body parts offered to yahweh or allah in order to curry divine favor

HELL YEAH BROTHER

soul vs soulless

Attached: cadillac_ducks.jpg (1142x680, 112.32K)

>violence is not unique to the aztecs then
no one has ever said this
the thing that was unique to the aztecs was the sheer magnitude and widespread acceptance of the human sacrifice. MOST examples of human sacrifice in the old or new worlds were either one off situations where some animists killed someone to bring the rain after a drought or were so infrequent as to be negligible. the aztecs built their entire society on the practice of mass sacrifice

Yaghan injuns confirmed as most badass people on earth

mom found the malarkey cabinet

Been reading das book about Mexican history
Says that at the peak of their civilization they lined up sacrificed corpses on the ground stretching from each wall of the temple at Tenochtitlan so that you could stand at the top and see corpses stretching all the way to the horizon in every direction

they call it a cartel compass berta

Attached: 1527526371977.png (350x350, 137.64K)

duck>no ducks>mom found the aspect tool

Attached: thiccc.jpg (1000x416, 59.81K)

Attached: 1512584898960.jpg (200x150, 20.33K)

>cartel compass

Attached: 1457674016093.jpg (1462x1462, 410.61K)

>CK2 is still having DLC released while CK3 is actively being developed
how ebin

Attached: 1574448987602.png (96x157, 33.59K)