As far as religions go, my favourite one is the Edda. The Norse gods are just cool. They are related in many ways to the Greek pantheon, but are just more badass. :-)

One statement is true and common sense, while the other is false and was just put out here as a snippy comeback. You are embarrasing yourself by defending that.

If you couldn't tell, I'm also a fan of Norse mythology ;) I've heard conflicting reports on whether Tyr was the son of Odin, or was in fact the original "version" of Odin. Care to shed some light?

EDIT: just looked up some resources and found the clarification I needed :)

That strongly depends on the source. Don't forget that the Edda in it's current form has developed over time. It was first brought into written form in the 13-th century and then it was streamlined during the translation in the 19-th century. So in the Snorri-Edda Tyr is the son of Odin. In another version of the Edda Tyr is the son of the ice giant Hymr. But according to historical research Tyr used to be the main god of the Norse pantheon and was replaced by Odin only after the migration period. At least during the time of Tacitus (roman conquest of the Germanic lands) Tyr is described as head of the Norse gods.

Etymological the name Tyr even comes via Tiur/Tiuz/Tiwaz from the indogermanic word for 'God'. So it may be that he was originally THE god of the (hypothetical) indogermanic pantheon. The other gods may have been added later, as the local gods of conquered/absorbed tribes were assimilated.
(Incidentally the words deva, dios (deus), and Zeus both come via different routes of linguistic development from the same root)


Edit: hm. Ninjad by yourself. Apparently I am too slow with my writing. ;-)

Thanks for sharing the info though :)

Like many people, I like the middle age era, and I also started to learn more about heraldry. This science is fascinating but heraldry books are quite expensive.

Bloody film-science. Pangaea broke up around 180 million years ago. Cave men were about 30 thousand years ago...

I don't have as much time to study history as I used to, but overall, how people were in times of peace (even the politics) interest me more.

Reading about the atrocities people committed in less peaceful times make me feel like picking up a sharp instrument and running the savages through with it. It doesn't bring me much peace of mind. To the contrary, it makes me violent.

With a movie, I know it's make believe. But when you learn what some of those SOBs did for real and got away with, you feel like raising them from the grave so that you can kill them again and again.

Well, I'm sure most people don't get that reaction.

now this is a history and heritage we can be proud of

I like Chinese history. Especially the kingdoms periods and how were the relations with other states at that time. Mostly because its so different from European model.

Another aspect of history I like, which isn't mentioned very often, is that of the historians themselves. What were their motives (if they had such)? How were their perceptions influenced by their times and surroundings? The dynamic between the objective instance and the (sometimes unconciously) subjective recording of it, along with trying to decipher what is what is a neat intellectual exercise.

ancient Rome, medieval period overall, WW2, cold war... and generaly czech history throughout the ages

on the other hand I never liked the 18th and 19th century, too boring for me

You should play some Imperialism, it was a very interesting time and still very relevant today. I'm sure the guy who liked Mao will enjoy how the British starved about 30 to 50 million Indians to death by exporting grain.

Relax, it's a comedy film. See? Far from being a documentary. What with saber-tooth mosquitoes and the like.