|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted March 17, 2019 11:34 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:35, 17 Mar 2019.
|
JollyJoker said:
You'd have to give evidence for the last one because everything I read said it was the pox.
Now - I didn't say towns were limited to 10.000 people. Artu said, there were no towns in the middle ages or some such nonsense, and I said, yes, there were, starting in 12th century, although MOST of them wouldn't reach 10.000.
The question here isn't a demographic problem, it's whether the middle ages were a dark age or not, and the middle ages WERE a pitch black age, compared with the standards BEFORE. In each and every regard.
No. Artu said sewer systems of towns wouldnt be definitive when it comes to epidemics because towns were not the “norm” meaning most people lived in rural areas anyway, so if you have “town” with 40 infected villages surrounding it, which you get all your agricultural food from, your sewers wont help you.
Btw, Neraus is right on spot about Roman baths spreading infection by public toilet brushes but that’s not “the Plague.” The Plague, the Black Death, that specific disease is spread around through rats, and to be more precise, the flees on rats. Since like 3 years ago, that was the most common hypothesis, if things changed since then, I’m outdated, but I dont think this is the case when it comes to the objections here.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 17, 2019 11:38 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:41, 17 Mar 2019.
|
And dont you love science:
Link
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 01:24 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Blizz is right about one thing
I'm right about everything. 
Pop culture perceptions of the Middle Ages (and also pop cultures perceptions of ancient Rome and Greece) don't correlate with academia.
- Sanitation wasn't significantly any better or worse in the Middle Ages than in ancient Rome. Medical technology, for the most part, hit a ceiling up until people started understanding microbes. The vast majority of folk remedies or pain relief for illnesses were legitimate. Some weren't but they were an exception.
- Modern universities and banks were born in the Middle Ages.
- Women's rights (and human rights in general) were vastly better than what they were in ancient Rome. If you think the Middle Ages were patriarchal, they paled compared to the ancient world. The ancient world also regularly made use of mass slave labor, including sexual slavery.
- The Church, even at the height of its material power, had limited ability to control the monarchs of Europe (who for the most part did whatever they felt like... hardly a surprise) and the overwhelming majority of its efforts prevented or ended wars.... in many cases rather successfully. It also prevented the caliphates and the Normans from taking over Europe.
That isn't to say the Middle Ages were fantastic. Probably the #1 failure of the Middle Ages was that they never managed to consolidate Europe again after the Western Empire collapsed, and that's highly unfortunate. Byzantine continued for many centuries and the Western states became stable and relatively prosperous once the invasions were under control, but it could have been more. Even today Europe hasn't managed to do that and the future of the EU is in trouble.
BUT the problem here is that most of the positive perceptions of ancient Rome or Greece are pretty much stuff that applied to a privileged group of elites. People think about their art or architecture or philosophy. Medieval Europe is associated with torture even though it was MORE common in Rome, etc. The cards are stacked.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 01:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Probably the #1 failure of the Middle Ages was that they never managed to consolidate Europe again after the Western Empire collapsed, and that's unfortunate.
You have a bad reading of history. "Europe" is a conception that was precisely born in the middle ages, prior to that it didn't exist. The Roman empire has never been about unifying Europe, because it actually never unified it in the first place, because the idea of a European identity simply didn't exist.
"Europe" is the antithesis to Islam, it's the part of the Roman empire that refused it, compared to the one that accepted it.
Quote:
The Church, even at the height of its material power, had limited ability to control the monarchs of Europe
Wrong, after the fall of the Islamic civilisation the pope had still enough power to decide how Spain and Portugal were going to share the New World.
The Church and the absolute monarchies of Europe started losing power only after the Plague, because the kings and the Church could not save the people from it, despite their supposedly privileged relationship with god. That plague is what shook the centuries-established social order, and even that took a heck of time to change it, it just gave the first hit.
Quote:
It's an incredibly broad definition that encompasses an incredibly diverse continent, in a huge span of time. It's not like today there aren't some places that are living in a pitch black period right now
I follow the usual consensus, from the death of Clovis the first to roughly the fall of Granada to the Spaniards. As for a civilisation, I would say the one that innovates is to be called the civilised one, and since Europe was far from being in the lead of innovation in that period, it was not a civilisation.
Moreover, after the fall of Granada in 1492, humans ceased to conceptualise civilisations, as a new concept arose being the Empire, which was followed by the Nation-State concept. And yes these notions did overlap in the transition periods.
There is a huge abuse in the word civilisation today.
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 03:05 AM |
|
|
Rome is a Mediterranean centered empire, not European centered, but Europe is certainly not the anti-thesis to Islam, that is way too two-dimensional. Basically, the steps go like this, advanced use of metal and military horse = empires (centralized authorithy), empires = pagan religions transforming into monotheisms (the monarch god, btw, this isnt the same everywhere, it’s just a route, not the route), so now Pagan Rome transforms into Monotheist Rome, shaping the imagery of creators of Islam: the religion of invaders, invaders who are legions of the one true god (lord, emperor, same deal), Europe is also monotheist during this phase, only their religion is a lesser tool of organizing such authoritarian mindset, because it is eclectic and the prophet figure, Jesus, is no warlord, unlike Muhammed. This ironically turned out to be a better set of cards for Europe in the end, because decentralization of power lead to variety in possibilities and much more flexible progress.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 04:05 AM |
|
|
@AlHazin:
North Africa and West Asia were lost to Islam in the 7-8th centuries, so after that point it was mostly about consolidation of Europe (or most of Europe), since unification with the other former Roman provinces would have been impossible. A lot of this came down to natural geographic barriers that made some areas more defensible than others. The Christian religion eventually became the official religion of the empire from the inside out. The Roman provinces that would become Muslim were conquered. Fast forward, and the people who founded the EU were Christian Democrats trying to heal the continent from the massive loses of the two World Wars. That has mostly gone away and so has the vibrancy. Regrettably it has largely been replaced by technocrats of an increasingly geriatric population and an increasingly obsolete continent and it's hardly surprising that the EU isn't as appealing as it once was. The most viable alternative to this are protectionist, racist alt right politicians that are possibly going to get a LOT of people killed in the not-very-distant future. So not very great options to work with. Too bad so sad.
So by "rejection" I'm assuming you mean "Muslims tried to invade and they lost".
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 09:56 AM |
|
|
@Blizz
While it is true modern historians dont see “the Dark Ages” as dark as old school ones did, your interpretation is a little over the top, the term was always eurocentrist to begin with, the period wasnt dark for all of the world, and if we remain with such eurocentrist perspective, it is still a setback between Classical Antiquity and Renaissance, (hence it is still called the Middle Ages), banks and universities only came through the end of the Middle Ages for instance and they havent really flourished up until 14th Century, Europe was not the main region of innovation and progress during this period and was mainly on defense. So while your objection ko JJ is not completely void, you are not right about everything either.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 10:03 AM |
|
|
In what worls are you people living?
@ artu
The article you linked to confirms (if you read to the end), that there is a lot of discussion going on. There are theories, and they are contested, but the main question isn't what kind of fleas or lice were transporting the actual germ, the real question is, I repeat - why THEN? The answer, because the germ didn't exist before, is just speculation - why wouldN#t the germ have existed before or what would have made it appear then?
Xou also said, "cities were not the norm". Well, demographics from the dark age are dark, but town history isn't, and for one thing, a lot othe old Roman towns over "Europe" (including England) were already in existance, while in the rural non-Roman areas like "Germany" towns were founded early. For example, Dortmund has been founded before 1000 AD, its neighbour Bochum goes back to charlemagne, in the east of it Soest is mentioned early in the 9th century, between the 2 is Unna first metioned in the early 11th century and so on.
In short, you are wrong with towns.
And blizzard wrote a lot of nonsense - for example:
Quote:
- Sanitation wasn't significantly any better or worse in the Middle Ages than in ancient Rome.
Not true. Sanitation - both fresh water supply and waste water management - is a pretty old concept, but the Romans perfected it. All Roman towns and garrisons in Britain for example had a complex sewer system. There is nothing like that in the middle ages. The firest closed sewer part was established in Paris in 1370. Aquaeducts were "Lostech" in the middle ages.
Quote:
Medical technology, for the most part, hit a ceiling up until people started understanding microbes. The vast majority of folk remedies or pain relief for illnesses were legitimate. Some weren't but they were an exception.
This is also not relevant. For microbiology the OPTICS (microscope) was a necessary invention - the ceiling. But ancient Greece (and China) was pretty good in medicine before that, and Byzantine and Arabs kept the knowledge after that, while for the rest of Europe medicine became lost knowledge as well. Healing then became a matter of monasteries.
It was also forbidden by the church to dissect bodies (as a means to gain knowledge) which was not helpful either.
Quote:
- Modern universities and banks were born in the Middle Ages.
This is pure bullsh!t. Banks are basically as old as money. IN greece, in the 4. century BC Athens was a banking center and they did cashless bank transfers as well.
Then there is the university. This is basically a modern concept, and before you can go to that you have to look at LITERACY. In the Roman Empire vast part of the population were literate, they had (public) libraries, publishing houses and of course schools - but no "universities". All that was lost, when Rom fell - no schools, no, libraries, no literacy, and that din't change in the middle ages. Universities were obviously only for those who COULD read and write which were not many.
Quote:
- Women's rights (and human rights in general) were vastly better than what they were in ancient Rome. If you think the Middle Ages were patriarchal, they paled compared to the ancient world. The ancient world also regularly made use of mass slave labor, including sexual slavery.
This is also, well, not true in the sense it is said. Sure, they had slavery. You know, they had slavery in the States in the 19. the century, and we have sexual slavery in the present. In the middle ages slaves wer called thralls - and that included sexual services (ius primae noctis). Women's rights - well. I don't think that there have been many differences over the millennia, insofar that societies have been patriarchical one way or another, but in the middle ages illiteracy and superstition in connection with the Christian genesis was generally a bad thing. In the middle ages I'd wager that there will have been big regional differences in how things in reality were.
There is no reason to point to the middle ages as an improvement, though.
Quote:
- The Church, even at the height of its material power, had limited ability to control the monarchs of Europe (who for the most part did whatever they felt like... hardly a surprise) and the overwhelming majority of its efforts prevented or ended wars.... in many cases rather successfully. It also prevented the caliphates and the Normans from taking over Europe.
Look, if the church had only limited abilities, that includes their efforts to prevent or end wars or to prevent the caliphates and normans from taking over Europe. The church is the middle ages' religious concept (as opposed to the religious concepts of the ancient world), and while the ancients were rather liberal, the church wasn't. That's the big difference, but instead of making the Christian world a better place it made it a more superstitious one, where "the priests" got demi-god status again as the middle instance between humans and god (as it had been in some ancient cultures, but not in Rome).
Quote:
BUT the problem here is that most of the positive perceptions of ancient Rome or Greece are pretty much stuff that applied to a privileged group of elites. People think about their art or architecture or philosophy. Medieval Europe is associated with torture even though it was MORE common in Rome, etc. The cards are stacked.
No, it's not some kind of MORAL thing. Ancient times could be as hard to you as middle ages. The thing is, as I said, that the ancient world was pretty "developed". They knew a lot of stuff and could do a lot of stuff. The whole system of law in western civilization is based on ancient Rome, for example. When Rome broke down, it was a dystopic event, as I said. A lot was lost, knowledge and abilities, and had to be re-developed. It was a long, slow climb, and the dark ages were hampered by a lot of things and in many ways inferior to what had been, until renaissance and enlightenment set in, and even then things took a couple of really bad turns.
When Rome was still growing, it was a juggernaut, thriving on conquest and slavery, until their empire reached the limits of what was still "managable". Keep in mind how fast the conquests of Alexander the Great broke down into separate entities, and keeping an empire the size of the Roman one together for such a long time is something.
When it crashed, everything came down and not much survived.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 10:41 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:43, 18 Mar 2019.
|
Dude, you linked the Black Death to people emptying the pot out the window, I objected by saying it spread through parasites on rats, I emphasized this was the mainstream consensus up until recently but I could be outdated, then I checked and as the article says (of course I read it to the end), now some say it is directly parasites on human. (So as I guessed, there are some new hypothesis, that’s why I linked the article with a laugh: “dont you love science.” Still, it has nothing to do with sewers, does it? And may I remind you what my objection was once again, I didnt claim there were no towns, I said their sewers wouldnt stop the Plauge because of the demographic distribution of people.
When it comes to banking, yes, in a more general sense of the word, you can trace it back to beginning of early trade but I assume blizz is talking about the roots of “modern banking” which is a little more specific:
The history of banking began with the first prototype banks which were the merchants of the world, who made grain loans to farmers and traders who carried goods between cities. This was around 2000 BC in Assyria, India and Sumeria. Later, in ancient Greece and during the Roman Empire, lenders based in temples made loans, while accepting deposits and performing the change of money. Archaeology from this period in ancient China and India also shows evidence of money lending.
Many histories position the crucial historical development of a banking system to medieval and Renaissance Italy and particularly the affluent cities of Florence, Venice and Genoa. The Bardi and Peruzzi Families dominated banking in 14th century Florence, establishing branches in many other parts of Europe.[1] The most famous Italian bank was the Medici bank, established by Giovanni Medici in 1397.[2] The oldest bank still in existence is Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, headquartered in Siena, Italy, which has been operating continuously since 1472.
About the rest, I dont disagree much although I cant say I am exactly in tune with you either, you both have valid points.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 10:54 AM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 11:02, 18 Mar 2019.
|
I always take history with a grain of salt. It's all based on someones recordings (if any) plus some additional archaeological findings. We weren't there, it wasn't recorded with camera, so it can only be based, mostly, on assumptions. There are some universally-acclaimed facts, but it doesn't mean those are 100% accurate...
What I'm trying to say is that there's no "one and only truth" in all but a few cases... further research might uncover new findings (how many "historians will need to rewrite books' articles you see each day?), so unless you're referring to "here and now research shows..." I wouldn't be so sure about something, well unless it's written so that nobody will ever know the truth
And no I don't want discourage you Guys in any way, I'm just sayin'.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 11:43 AM |
|
|
Now after that great dicussion in a huge off-topic veer, I went back to find something to follow and somehow missed this post BB.
Quote:
The benefit of the US is that our system has enough built-in countermeasures that so far, Trumps attempts to go beyond his constitutional power have largely failed. He has been shut down by either the courts or the legislature, or both, although whether or not those safeguards will last is not 100% certain. A large percentage of the USA is poorly educated (victims of circumstance) and that makes it easier for Trump to say and do stupid things. In a more unstable country a Trumpian leader is even more dangerous.
Four things to consider
Quote:
The future rests in leaders who are more like Merkel. If you have leaders like Donald Trump popping up all over the place something very bad is eventually going to happen.
1. Merkel? The East-German educated hand-picked communist-educated female that was USED as the supreme-leader by the corrupt West to destroy Nationhood? Obama, Macron, Trudeau and May have also danced to their tune, in a NY city Rockette-chorus-line. Imagine "plants" and I don't mean veggies in the common.
I think Globalists executed a very big plan = Behind the GMSM talking points and projections.
2. Courts? My friend LAW in our country has became a corrupt BEAST with many eyes, layers of hmm, special-interests, that make the Mobs of old look tame; that far too frequently work to opposite purposes than the Constitution and the interests of all of We the Citizens, no matter our skin-pigment.
Far too often today the "Spirit of the Law" is imvho...damned evil - where layers of lawyers are tiered and protecting each other and speaking and writing a wordy-legaleze that frees criminals...for glittering-Gold. We have not seen a Blind-Lady of Justice in decades.
Bush and Obama wrote Executive Orders but what were those for? Oh,oh yes...WAR! and then...Open-Borders! The Cabal has destroyed peoples and than handed a expressway to those victums to destroy our nation. Globalists are loyal to no nation and certainly not to the Human-Race; we are nothing but fodder and pawns interfering inside their Paradise of Power.
3. You wrote; "A large percentage of the USA is poorly educated (victims of circumstance) and that makes it easier for Trump to say and do stupid things. In a more unstable country a Trumpian leader is even more dangerous."
Well,, besides being a huge "Blanket of Feeling & Belief" that identifies nothing, would not you agree that Education has been purposely dumbed-down for decades?
And, do you not think it is "stupid, as you put it" to promise anyone anywhere on this entire planet to come here for free-everything while the profiteers posing as politicians enforce open-borders? Can you not see that when a gold-digger is pushing for someone that lives on Pluto to come here, get all the goodies and then insists that the Plutonians not bet counted on the Census and not identified in any way? Maybe all of that has nothing to do with SENSE? Developing Logic and problem-solving skills have been purposely reduced.
You said; "Trumps attempts to go beyond his constitutional power have largely failed."
Please list them. I'd like to read your list - what you've uncovered.
Btw, please DO NOT receive this personally because every American right now (providing they are truly engaged) is weaving their way through harmful-MOVIES (in many forms) of intense misdirection and projection and for the record, I've been blessed with lots of Time to compare notes from many POVs and am in no way claiming an inside track or superiority of comprehension. When folks have little time and the web is woven wide, it's very hard for any of us to navigate the coordinated-BS that is constantly hiding...Truth. i.e. The Truth that nearly all of we Americans need to hear about what the hell has happened to our nation over "the last several administrations."
@All
If there is a person that would like me to explain my take-away on any part above...just ask.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 11:50 AM |
|
|
@ artu
Of course it has to do with sewers. "Vermin" as a general word for rodents, fleas, lice and so on, play a starring role as carriers (generally the quality of the immune system plays a role, and a species with a better immune system than another will virtually transfer diseases to the weaker one, that' why you have to keep away from those), and vermin and "waste" have strong ties.
For banking - there WAS "banking" in the ancient world, as much as needed. The thing is, when the Roman Enpire broke down, all banking just STOPPED in that area (which is in part a consequence of the Christian idea that money-lending and interest is sin; when Christian religion became official state religion in Rome, banking also went in decline). Until it got rediscovered. Banking in the middle ages was a very different thing, though, from what it is now and actually also, what is HAD BEEN. Because - think of the Mediterranean a few centuries BC: lots of commerce, lots of ships and people coming and going, lots of different COINS around, with diffrent quality and weight and so on, and in a town like Athens there were simply money exchanger who'd take a foreign coin and give you local coins for them.
You could also lend money, and it was done. There were private banks and "polis banks", but of course it wasn't what it is now (nor was it in late 14th century Italy).
If I had to summarize the ancient world, then I'd say there was light and shadow. In the middle ages the shadows weren't deeper, but there was a lot less light, and it took a lot of time to gradually switch it on again.
Also, the dark ages are dark in another sense - there isn't that much know about them, actually.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 11:56 AM |
|
|
markkur said:
@All
If there is a person that would like me to explain my take-away on any part above...just ask.
As a non-American & sexist & racist (as in: does not see the woes of todays women/minorities as it is pictured it in media), with a few small exceptions, this is how I see modern America from a distance...
So no questions.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 12:30 PM |
|
|
blob2 said:
As a non-American & sexist & racist (as in: does not see the woes of todays women/minorities as it is pictured it in media), with a few small exceptions, this is how I see modern America from a distance...
So no questions.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 01:59 PM |
|
|
I have to disagree with some things. Like your take on education being dumbed down. Considering in the 80s not all US citizens could not even be considered literate, I’d say there has been definitive advancement.
As for globalism, I have to disagree. Nationalism is an idea developed for advancing the benefit of a limited group of humans(Finns, Germans, Italians, etc.) and used for power plays(Russians, Serbians, Israelish jews, etc.) Globalism is an idea developed for advancing the whole of humanity. Which of course can be misused as well. But generally it will be worse for some while better as a sum for all.
A side-note about communist, hand-picked, east-german educated here: how is this any better than capitalist, born to money, united states educated? It honestly doesn’t matter who the leader is as long as the machine behind them is competent.
As to what comes to lawyers, that’s their job. Ask omega how much of that glittering gold he sees.
That’s why there are also lawyers whose job it is to catch those criminals.
And to close, yeah, a lot of american policies are very intrusive and would never fly in Europe. Can you imagine that in Finland a person has constitutional right to privacy? Or that access to information is a basic human right defined by law? United States(and its citizens) chose (external) security over such matters.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 06:57 PM |
|
|
Blizzardboy said:
So by "rejection" I'm assuming you mean "Muslims tried to invade and they lost".
No, what I mean by rejection is the populations who, mainly in Europe the continent, decided they were not going to enter in the Islamic Arab nation by opposition to those who did, and that that had as a consequence the creation of an idea we now today call "Europe". Prior to that, the concept did not exist.
(Think also about the fact that all Arab nations today are not of Arab necessarily of extract, countries like Syria or Egypt were not Arab to begin with, they have become through time because being an Arab is more an identity than purely a form genetic heritage.)
I am saying that if Islam did not happen, Europe would simply not exist as a political entity as it does today. And this is why the EU does not work today, people fail to understand what had cemented the European identity to begin with, aka opposing Islam.
Because if you try to unite Europeans through something else, tough luck. Roman Europe is different from the Germanic one, Germans who have always been in competition with the Slavs, Hungarians who are originally Asians in the middle, plus those who converted to Islam (Albania, Bosnia), the Balts, and finally the British who are can't stand any of the categories mentioned above. You can't unite such people, especially through a model that would look like the United States.
Unless you use a different model of unification.
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 07:27 PM |
|
|
There are many cases where this European nation allied with the Ottomans against that European nation or the Ottomans simply used a religious conflict between the Catholics and Orthodoxes to their advantage, etc, too many details to go into on such a platform, the point is: No. There is no “Europe born as a united front against Islam.” If there is something that unites Europe, it is culture, not strategy. Is that cultural unification beyond interpretation, “No” to that, too. To some Slavic nations and the Balkans are in it, to some they are not, to some Ottomans are in it, to some not, to some U.K. is in it, to some not, Europe is a blob, but it sure exists.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 09:19 PM |
|
|
I mean, our greatest king (and Holy Roman Emperor) entertained a lot of relations with the Emirs of North Africa, and even negotiated the liberation of Jerusalem with the Sultan of Egypt without any bloodshed, and the Normans were more concerned with land than with who you were, Sicily was the only Christian kingdom with an entire city where Muslims were the absolute majority and even had the possibility of applying parts of Sharia there.
The funniest alliance was between the French and the Ottomans, considering the former were the most involved in the Crusades in the past, even funnier was that Austria wanted to ally with Iran to balance it out, but couldn't due to distances.
Truth be told, people were a lot more relaxed on the topic of religion and international relations back then, until the fall of Constantinople a marriage between a Catholic and an Orthodox wasn't that scandalous, especially considering the Romans in the East turned Catholic twice before returning to Orthodoxy, and rulers didn't have problems allying or having good relations with Islamic countries of the time, Frederick II being the most fulgid example, but it never was that black and white when it came to diplomacy.
Unless you're a Spaniard or the Pope of course.
Maybe during the 11th century an idea of opposing the Mohammedan could have given unity of purpose to Europeans, but the Crusader ideal actually was never that strong, and neither did it last, the Popes were more eager to call Crusades against the Sicilians or the Balts than sending people to the Holy land at one point.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 09:28 PM |
|
|
Neraus said:
until the fall of Constantinople
No worries, it didn’t fall, I catched it.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted March 18, 2019 10:03 PM |
|
|
JoonasTo said:
I have to disagree with some things. Like your take on education being dumbed down. Considering in the 80s not all US citizens could not even be considered literate, I’d say there has been definitive advancement.
My comment is only about the USA my friend. I know what and how I was taught and I know how my kids were educated and what my grandkids are doing now.
JoonasTo said:
As for globalism, I have to disagree. Nationalism is an idea developed for advancing the benefit of a limited group of humans(Finns, Germans, Italians, etc.) and used for power plays(Russians, Serbians, Israelish jews, etc.) Globalism is an idea developed for advancing the whole of humanity. Which of course can be misused as well. But generally it will be worse for some while better as a sum for all.
If you are content with the WTO, World Bank, Nato, the UN, the EU etc. that's your call but I want the world less centralized. It's bad enough having 1 figure-head ruling any given nation; the last thing I think is wise, would be a world president. Of course it would be sold as "the needed betterment of people-kind." 
Respecting and Caring for the country where you were born is not a bad thing and never will be no matter how that simplicity gets twisted. Loyal to the World means...? The whole idea of Globalism was for the fat-cats because they wanted all walls knocked down so they could shop around and stay updated on what nation's people they could profit better by paying workers much less and having fewer worker safety regulations.
Quote:
A side-note about communist, hand-picked, east-german educated here: how is this any better than capitalist, born to money, united states educated? It honestly doesn’t matter who the leader is as long as the machine behind them is competent.
Didn't say it was or not. "Plants" come in all guise. Fyi, the USA has not practiced limited capitalism for decades. No matter what the nation, when the STATE is running everything we have serious problems.
Quote:
As to what comes to lawyers, that’s their job. Ask omega how much of that glittering gold he sees.
That’s why there are also lawyers whose job it is to catch those criminals.
You likely are not aware of the legal mess that is here. My comment was about the big-shots that are in the news and the bigger-shots that are behind the news. If Omega is worth is salt, he will know exactly what I meant. Well, unless he's getting rich off State-BS but I doubt that.
Quote:
And to close, yeah, a lot of American policies are very intrusive and would never fly in Europe. Can you imagine that in Finland a person has constitutional right to privacy? Or that access to information is a basic human right defined by law? United States(and its citizens) chose (external) security over such matters.
You better be vigilant or you'll wake up one day and think WTH?
I'll give you an idea about how screwed-up laws are here. It is legal for a person to claim some cause/charity and fund-raise. Now what would you think would be the law about that collected money? After years of giving here and there for different purposes, I discovered that the Charity I had been supporting could keep 90% of the intake as long as they passed-on 10% to whomever the hell needed it. I've heard others say it could be as low as 3% but IDK. Today, I give to local-need that I know about and do nothing by phone anymore.
Cheers
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
