>second son/spare

>marries his sister in law

>hates foids, wants a son to be his heir

>get's cucked by the Pope after asking for an annulment

>breaks with the Church, founds the Church of England and divorces

>married a foid who left him horny, she gives birth to another daughter

>accuses his new queen of adultery and incest, she's executed

>marry again, this time the foid finally gives him a "legitimate" son, she dies

>gets married again to German lutheran princess, get an annulment

>gets married again to a 17 year old, she cucks him, she and her lover are executed

>gets married again to some respectable widow, she survives

>brings the kingdom to the verge of civil war due to religious break-up. Executes thousands of catholics including loyal collaborators

>becomes a fatass after a jousting accident, sires a bunch of bastards

>fails to invade France

!historychads what's our assessment? I know !catholics won't be positive

- 23 votes

- 61 votes

In history there are 17 ( or perhaps even more ) people richer than Elon Musk today ( Inflation adjusted ):

Elon Musk net worth : 260 billion USD

1. Mir Osman Ali Khan - 270 billion USD

2. Jakob Fugger - 328 billion USD

3. John D. Rockefeller - 341 billion USD

4. King Croesus - 345 billion USD

5. Cyrus the Great - 350 billion USD

6. Andrew Carnegie - 372 billion USD

7. William the conqueror - 400 billion USD

8. Mansa Musa - 400 billion USD

9. Rothschild family - 500 billion USD

10. Abdul Rahman bin Auf - 606 billion USD

11. King Solomon - 2.1 trillion USD

12. Augustus Caesar - 4.6 trillion USD

13. Joseph Stalin - 7.5 trillion USD

14. Akbar the first - 21 Trillion USD

15. Emperor Shenzong of Song - 30 trillion USD

16. Alexander the great - 32 trillion USD

17. Genghis Khan - 100 to 150 trillion USD

It is kind of crazy that for a lot of history kings used to own entire nation states yet there are less than 20 people on the list richer than the richest man alive today.

As global wealth continues to go up, we can expect some of those previous records to be easily enough broken, such as Mir Osman, Jakob Fugger, and John D. Rockefeller by the end of the year.

The Rockefeller family today is worth 10.3 billion USD.

Genghis Khan's inflation adjusted net worth is the hardest to believe.

Similarly, the greatest empire of all time was the Persian empire, which at its peak around 480 BC accounted for 44% of the world's population.

In comparison, India's share of world population today is 17.76%.

In all other ways except technologically and genetically, we are today living in the scraps of far greater empires and greater men.

I am personally betting on Elon Musk's net worth crossing 1 trillion USD. Which would make his net worth 150x lesser than that of Genghis Khan.

Conclusion:

Genghis Khan was the greatest man that ever lived. Nobody will ever be able to beat his record for centuries to come.

!historychads !kino

This was Caracalla (bust and reconstruction)

And this was Geta (bust and reconstruction)

The Severans were from Carthage and likely had a North African look not different from modern day Tunisians, on the reconstruction Geta is too dark skinned but Caracalla is about right. Caracalla did wear a blonde wig while on his campaigns on Germania but it probably looked very uncanny on him.

Meanwhile on Ridley Scott slop

The trailer is hilarious! Rap music, Kang merchant Denzel working to destroy the Roman Empire, two ginger gay twinks as villains. I was half-expecting the Rock showing up with Vin Diesel !nooticers

@Aevann can this get a pin please Hollywood seems keen on erasing North Africans and replace them with either pasty Bongs or Kangz.

Hiii besties~

I'm the guy that made the effortposts on the 2024 race and debates! With talk about Biden dropping out, Vice-President talk has skyrocketed. How will Harris do? Who will she pick as her running mate? Wouldn't it be hilarious if Hillary Clinton lived to watch someone else be the first female president?

With all this Vice-President talk around, I've been thinking about vice-presidents. The office, described by first Vice-President John Adams as "the most insignificant office ever devised", only really matters in helping people get elected. Be it a moderate to offset a radical , a figure from another region , or just a guy with a lot of money who can pay for campaign stuff, actually being the Vice-President is a distant second to being involved in the campaign. So what about the radicals that derailed the ticket? The unbalanced region tickets? Or just the brokies? Here's a ranking of the shittest running mates in history!

PREAMBLE

1. Vice-Presidents were originally whoever came second in the election, before the two party system established itself. 1804 would be the first time Presidents and Vice-Presidents were elected on the same ticket, so I'm counting Vice-Presidents that ran from 1804 to 2024.

2. In the words of our current Vice-President, "you think you fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you." Source. Before roughly 1908, Presidents never "ran" for office. They "stood" for office, and their supporters campaigned for them. To actually campaign yourself, as Whig Winfield Scott in 1852 or Democrat William Jennings Bryan in 1896 and 1900 did, was unseemly at best and outright embarrassing at worst. So you have to cut them some slack back in the olden days.

5. Tim Kaine (Democrat) 2016

The Hillary Campaign is studied today as one of the worst campaigns of all time . Complacency was it's biggest sin, as she campaigned in safe states to win more votes rather than bother to defend the Blue Wall - which would ultimately cost her the election. Nothing showcases this complacency more then her selection of Tim Kaine, Virginian Senator, as her running mate. Tim added absolutely nothing to ticket.

On paper, this shouldn't be the case. On most Democrat tickets, the Southern Moderate is a perfect Democrat counter balance to the Urban Liberal. But Hillary was already a Southern Moderate! She had basically selected herself! That wouldn't in itself have been so bad, but Hillary wasn't universally popular. She had a long, drawn out primary battle against the far-left Bernie Sanders. Can you imagine, if Bernie had won in 2016, if he picked a white man who was far left instead of literally any woman? There would be bloody murder. Rather than show any kind of basic respect to her opponent, she picked herself again, except less well-known.

Kaine is only number 5 because there was nothing wrong with him. He didn't actually do anything wrong - he was just the wrong man at the wrong time. The only reason he was chosen was because of Hillary's backroom dealing - in any sane convention, she would have picked a more committed liberal to keep Berniebros happy. The arrogance, to assume that the leftists would fall back in line and vote for her anyway, is what would doom her efforts against the deeply unpopular political outsider. Kaine isn't the cause of the loss, merely the symptom.

4. Francis Preston Blair Jr. (Democrat) 1868

From a modern Southern Democrat to a old school Southern Democrat. The first presidential election since the end of the American civil war, the Democrats were left reeling. A majority of Democrats had supported the Confederacy , and with the South under military rule, this left the Democrats crippled as they prepared to run against the victorious in war Republicans. They would nominate Horatio Seymour of New York, a Northern Urban Democrat that had stayed loyalish during the Civil War.

Similar to Kaine, Blair is on paper an amazing choice. How can you call the Democrats traitors when Blair, a Union General, was on the ticket? Ehh, ehhh? Certainly, he seemed amazing. He flew through the nomination, and campaigned on Seymour's behalf (as was the style out of time).

They ran an insanely racist campaign - the official slogan was "This is a White Man's country, let the White Man rule." Seymour would win the West by threatening that Republican's dedication to equality meant they would grant civil rights to the chinese, he defended the Klu Klux Klan as just a social club, and fiercely opposed the idea of black people voting.

Francis Blair still managed to be too racist.

Blair ranted furiously that beloved war hero Ulysses Grant would transform the nation into a military dictatorship because he was obsessed with black people. The republicans were, in his eyes, a "semi-barbarous race of blacks who are worshipers of fetishes and poligamists" that wanted to "subject the white women to their unbridled lust." That's right, Chuds have always been obsessed with . Seymour would be forced to break tradition and campaign to try and mitigate what Blair was spouting - he didn't think all black people were male feminists or evil, he just thought they were inferior!

The ticket was destroyed, for a lot of reasons, Blair being cited as a key reason. He made white supremacy a dirty word - for shame! What makes Blair so bad is that he managed to turn one of the ticket's strengths, being racist, into a weakness. Seymour had tapped into something very powerful, and he knew it. He represented a party of literal actual traitors, but still pulled off 47% of the popular vote. Could they have won? With so many Southern states under reconstruction, no. But they could have done far better - Blair disgraced this key strength.

3. Curtis LeMay (American Independence) 1968

A hundred years on from the days of "White Man's Country" and it had been thanks to Texas Democrat Lyndon Johnson the Civil Rights Act of 1964 signed . The Democrats began the shift, very firmly, to the Urban North, while the Republicans continued their final shift to the Rural South. During this wacky period, the "Dixiecrats" found themselves adrift. Some, like William Fulbright of Arkansas, just complained while being forced to stick with the party. Others, like Strom Thurmond, joined the Republican party. But as far as Alabama Governor George Wallace was concerned, there was no difference between the parties.

George Wallace ran third party with the goal of winning enough states to prevent Humphrey or Nixon from getting 270 Electoral Votes, to force the election to the House and work with Nixon to repeal the Civil Rights Act. To do this, Wallace collected a series of single issue voters - he wanted to escalate the Vietnam war, supported worker's unions (like Humphrey) while opposing welfare (like Nixon), and was of course a massive

His running mate, Curtis "Bombs Away" LeMay, was a pretty cunning choice. LeMay, a self-declared war criminal, didn't have a record of racism but was utterly blood thirsty enough to appeal right wing nutjobs while legitimising the ticket as more than a racist riot, at least a little. So why was he bad?

Well, during the press conference announcing LeMay being on ticket, LeMay talked about how much he loved nuclear weapons, musing that America had a phobia of Nuclear Weapons. George Wallace jumps in to say that LeMay hadn't promised to use nukes, he just discussed them. LeMay would then say he could see himself nuking Vietnam. Seriously, just minutes after Wallace jumped in. It was like a fricking sitcom.

The response to this press conference was immediate. George Wallace went from polling 20% down to fricking 14% - a position Wallace would never recover from, winning an admittedly still impressive 13.5% of the popular vote, and narrowly failing in his goal of a deadlock. The lesson from LeMay is pretty esoteric but I think we can perhaps agree that talking about how cool nukes are generally backfires because the American people are cowards.

2. Geraldine Ferraro (Democrat) 1984

Walter Mondale had an uphill battle. Firstly, he was running against Ronald Reagan , the economy was booming and there was generally peace in the world . So he decided to think out of the box - he picked a woman with Jewish heritage, the first ever woman or ethnic Jew on a presidential ticket. It was a pretty good idea to supercharge women voters - shame it just flopped massively. 20% of women thought she was good for ticket, so she was already a pretty awful choice.

She did manage to turn some heads however, as the press investigated her scumbag husband! Tony Zaccaro, her husband, had ties to the mafia, the porn industry and cheated on his taxes, being investigated during the campaign by the police and ultimately pleading guilty to fraud in 1985 . These connections turned a failed gambit into an outright detriment, solidly slotting Ferraro as one of the worst candidates of all time.

Not everything is complicated!

Honourable mention

Not Sarah Palin. I'm a Sarah Palin shooter. She was a fricking r-slur make no mistake - but unlike Ferraro, she successfully supercharged female voters (until the fact she was an r-slur became common knowledge) and helped convince conservatives that didn't trust the moderate Komrade McShame that he would be suitably conservative. The polling tells the story - McCain went from 3% behind Obama to 5% ahead of him. Palin should have been kept on a tighter leash, but Bush was in the White House when the Recession hit. McCain was going to be slaughtered no matter what.

Dan Qauyle (Republican) 1988 and 1992

Herbert Walker Bush was in the same boat as McCain. Conservatives didn't entirely trust Bush, with him facing primary challenges from the far right in both his elections. There was some reason to mistrust him, as he had ran as a moderate against Reagan in 1980 and had a generally moderate voting record when he was a representative, nearly being forced out when he voted for a civil rights bill. Qauyle was a solid conservative culture warrior that helped Bush keep this base loyal - he was also a fricking idiot that couldn't even spell potato. While not awful, he created a lot of noise when there were a lot of better options that would have kept the base loyal. Like the 1996 ticket, Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, who were both free at the time!

Qauylee committede noe grande crimee, bute hee createdede ane imagee ofe uttere stupiditye thate cloudede thee campaigne ine ae mannere thate wase utterlye avoidablee.

Fricking POTATOE!

The worst running mate of all time, Thomas Eagleton (Democrat) 1972

How can you be worse than arrogance , turning strength to weakness, blab about nuclear weapons or having ties to criminal pornographers? You can be such an awful running mate, you get fired from the ticket during the campaign! While Blair was de-facto fired, sent to rant about how Darwin proves White Supremacy in Missouri, no other running mate was such an active detriment they had to leave.

When McGovern won the primary as 1970s Bernie Sanders, except more radical in some areas, he found himself deeply unpopular. Thomas Eagleton was his 5th choice for running mate, after Ted Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Edmund Muskie and Abe Ribicoff turned him down. He spoke to Thomas Eagleton and asked him if he had any skeletons in closet, and Eagleton said no. Being a Catholic moderate, it was hoped that he could trigger some nostalgia for Kennedy while being blandly inoffensive. That was what they wanted - him to no negatively impact the campaign. He would fail this - the Nixon campaign researched him, and found out he had a skeleton in the closest.

Eagleton had clinical depression, and had actually spent time in a mental asylum getting electro-shock therapy to treat it. This was immediately leaked to the press, and McGovern faced pressure to drop Eagleton. He declared that he stood behind Eagleton 1000% - then dropped him a few days later.

McGovern not doing a basic background check, insisting he was going to stand by Eagleton then dropping him - the whole affair was utterly idiotic. While McGovern ran a generally incompetent campaign, the shadow of the fact he had to fire his own planned vice-president loomed over everything he said and did. His selection was so grossly incompetent, did so much damage to the ticket, there is literally no point of comparison. Kaine didn't make any mistakes. Blair and LeMay were war heroes. Even Ferraro was a gamble that Mondale needed to make, just with a different woman. Eagleton was a moderate from a state McGovern couldn't have won to begin with. A bad idea executed horendously, there can be no comparison for sheer r-sluration.

Thanks for reading Rdrama! Can you think of any running mates worse? No you can't so keep yourself safe for even thinking of disagreeing with me. Top 5 best running mates coming when I can be assed!

!historychads

also the phones look like dildos

!anticommunists !neolibs why do they look like dwarfs?

Roman Empire: Restored Footage concept pic.twitter.com/t4a6R1HMpn

— PrzemekSkyMan❇️ (@Przemek87394560) June 26, 2024

!historychads

!historychads

Nantes cathedral is an excellent example of a Late Gothic French cathedral. It had been going all well and good for the building until one fateful day, the 18th of July 2020:

In the early hours of 18 July 2020, a fire broke out in three parts of the cathedral, one concentrated on the main organ (grand orgue) at the west end, originally built by Jacques Girardet in 1621, which was destroyed, a second near a smaller organ to the left of the altar and the third to the right of the altar.

Basically fire "simultaneously" broke out in three separate parts of the cathedral on that one singular day. Twice can be a coincidence but three times? That's about as smoking (forgive the pun) gun for arson as you can get.

Fortunately the frog police got off their asses and did some investigation. They honed in on a 39 year old "Rwandan undocumented Immigrant" who had been "helping out".

After the fire, a 39-year-old church volunteer, Emmanuel Abayisenga, a Rwandan undocumented immigrant who had lived in France since 2012, was detained for questioning but released without charge.

Fair enough, they couldn't get conclusive evidence so they let him go. It looked like an unfortunate accident, which wasn't all that unexpected given this was a 500 year old structure. Except:

However, he was later re-arrested and confessed to setting the fire; he was charged with arson.

This poor helpless asylum seeker just destroyed a 17th century organ and other stained glass windows too because of his fiery but mostly peaceful actions. Who knows what might have driven him to do this?

The destroyed organ:

His lawyer told a newspaper that his client "bitterly regrets" his actions.

Ah, that justifies everything then...

Presumably given that he had confessed to destroying public property and being a general menace to society he would now be kept locked up until his trail and sentencing. If only frogs had that much sense in them. This gentleman here was released back onto the streets of France and now, with nowhere to go, was taken in by a priest as a gesture of goodwill. How did he repay his gracious host?

On 9 August 2021, Abayisenga allegedly murdered 60-year-old priest Olivier Maire in Saint-Laurent-sur-Sèvre, and was again arrested after surrendering himself at a local police station.

Setting fire to a priceless old church and causing damages estimated at close to 40 million Euros is one thing, but killing a human being is quite another. As expected he was arrested again and put on trial for his heinous actions. This time around the French state had had enough, it was going to play hardball https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/03/30/french-court-jails-man-who-set-fire-to-nantes-cathedral_6021174_7.html :

A French court on Wednesday, March 29, handed a four-year jail term to an arsonist for starting a fire that severely damaged a Gothic cathedral in the city of Nantes in 2020.

Absolute frog moment

The court ruled that Abayisenga was not mentally sound at the time of the fire at the Cathedral of Saint Peter and Saint Paul when it handed down the sentence.

No shit. Oh how low the country of the Sun King has fallen these days...

!macacos !historychads

For the burgers and other foreigners, this was D. João VI, King of Portugal, Brazil and and Algarves.

This man was responsible for what Brazil would eventually become. He was king from 1816 until his death in 1826 (a modern autopsy revealed the King's corpse contained high doses of arsenic so he was likely poisoned by someone), however he had been leading Portugal since 1792. His mother was Queen Maria I (known popularly as Maria the Mad), this woman was deemed unfit to rule in 1792 due to mental illness (Bipolar Disorder probably) so he took over as Prince Regent until her death in 1816 at the age of 81.

In 1808 Napoleon invaded the Iberian Peninsula as Portugal violated the Continental blockade on Britain, the Bongs however assured the Prince Regent that the court would be evacuated with the help of the Royal Navy if the French invaded. Which happened so the Royal Family and 10k Portuguese noblemen were evacuated to Rio de Janeiro which from that time on became the Empire's capital.

Now, the prince Regent has been unfairly slandered since the 19th century, deemed as a coward, a buffon and a cuck. This is misleading.

1. He was no coward, there was no point in becoming prisoner and letting Napoleon install one of his relatives as King like he did with Spain. The Spanish King Fernando VII was imprisoned and Napoleon installed his own brother Joseph Bonaparte as the new King. The spanish Virreinatos in the !americas obviously didn't recognize him and this triggered the independence process, there had been criollos calling for independence since the American Revolution but Fernando VII capture provided the perfect opportunity. In Brazil the biggest independence movement previous to 1822 was the Inconfidência Mineira, which was quashed in the 1790s ending with Tiradentes brutal execution. The arrival of the Royal Family killed any republican movement for decades.

2. He was no buffon, he had a melancholic character and was prone to depression episodes but he was a skillful politician. He created many institutions which still exist like Banco do Brasil, and he managed to get support of the local aristocracy. Brazil had something called “nobreza da terra” or “land nobility”, which was basically the equivalent of the landed gentry but they also included wealthy merchants from old lines. Old colonial families which occupied positions of power, Dom João turned them into titled nobles, a reward for the support and also a source of income for the crown as the aspiring noblemen had to pay a fee for the titles. So the Portuguese nobility was divided between titled and untitled nobles, all of them were adressed as “Your Excellency”. The untitled ones were the “Fidalgos”, the landed gentry or “nobreza da terra”, and the member of the literate bureaucracy (judges, prosecutors, officers of the courts). The titled nobility were divided on a scale, the titles with no “grandeza” (baron and viscount) and the titles with “grandeza” (count, marquis, duke), I don't know the exact process during João VI reign but during the Empire there was an Office for Registration of Nobility Titles where aspirants would present their background, their services to the Empire (they had to come from good, respectable families with no “mechanical defect” that is, they shouldn't perform any source of manual labor) and finally they would pay a fee if accepted after being reviewed bu the monarch. Baron was the cheapest, Duke was the most expensive and rare. So you give the local rich guys titles and they give you money and loyal service, win win. He was also crowned in Rio after becoming King and didn't want to leave, he did so because of turmoil in Portugal and adviced his son who would remain as Prince Regent to proclaim independence and become Emperor.

3. He was indeed a cuck lol

This is his wife, Carlota Joaquina de Borbón, known as Dona Carlota Joaquina. She was the daughter of Carlos IV of Spain, she was an extremely nasty woman. She constantly plotted against Portugal's interests so they would benefit Spain and cucked her husband with several men. She would also swim naked in Rio and drink a proto version of the caipirinha. Her son and later emperor Pedro I repeatedly called her a whore lmao.

pic.twitter.com/JMaBIRVLKu

— Your Typical Local Man (@LocalBateman) June 22, 2024

!karaboga, why does every country have the same flag. Must be prey behavior.

Also @Aevann, where is the herstory hole? Can we not post there or did it get zucced?

!historychads Do you think l'empereur was a good guy or a tyrant? Would you rather side the Bongs, Austria and Russia? Or make use of the Bongs like Portugal while doublecrossing Napoleon?

Let's presume you're in 1805 and have no benefit of hindsight

- 51 votes

- 18 votes

(There's no Napoleonic era british soldier so the red coat should suffice).

!neolibs do you think the British Empire represented was the closest to our vision for that era?

This man was His Imperial Majesty, Dom Pedro II, Constitutional Emperor and Perpetual Defender of Brazil. He reigned from his father abdication in 1831 (Because his father Pedrão decided he loved more than us) until he was deposed by seditious republicucks in the army in November 15th 1889. Though he was under a regency council until 1840 due to being a child when his father abdicated and left him in Brazil.

Anyways, D. Pedro II traveled a lot in his late reign. In the 1870s he went to Egypt, the Middle East, Europe and the United States, and I just wanted to share some pictures I found interesting.

So on the second pic he's hiking the Pyramid of Cheops.

This pic was taken during his visit to Jerusalem.

This one is from Niagara Falls

Also, everywhere he went he wrote down his name along with the date. He wrote in on Cheops sarcophagus as well.

During his Eurotrip he met with Friedrich Nietzche on a train trip, on the United States he went to the Philadelphia world fair and was among the first to use Alexander Graham Bell's invention, the telephone (apparently he attracted public attention to Graham Bell's invention). He loved so much it was soon installed on his palace at Quinta da Boa Vista in Rio de Janeiro, and another line in Petrópolis (his summer palace in the Serra Fluminense).

!macacos !latinx, !historychads