|
Post by Doug on Jun 5, 2016 15:31:34 GMT -5
I don't discount things based on source but I do weight things based on source. Hack on Clinton from Infowars is not going to have as much weight as a hack on Clinton from W Post or Huff from one extreme to another for sources.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Jun 5, 2016 20:50:15 GMT -5
Okay, it's over the top. At the same time, I can't say for sure that it's entirely wrong. It's certainly driven by a Russian and Orthodox Christian point of view. Truth of the matter was that the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, in one of the most ignoble perversions of a "Crusade" ever passed off. It may indeed have resulted in the creation of capitalism and power to the west by the sucking out of vast treasures. But that also seems over simplified.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jun 6, 2016 0:40:28 GMT -5
Okay, it's over the top. At the same time, I can't say for sure that it's entirely wrong. It's certainly driven by a Russian and Orthodox Christian point of view. Truth of the matter was that the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, in one of the most ignoble perversions of a "Crusade" ever passed off. It may indeed have resulted in the creation of capitalism and power to the west by the sucking out of vast treasures. But that also seems over simplified. That's what victorious armys do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 6:05:12 GMT -5
Okay, it's over the top. At the same time, I can't say for sure that it's entirely wrong. It's certainly driven by a Russian and Orthodox Christian point of view. Truth of the matter was that the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, in one of the most ignoble perversions of a "Crusade" ever passed off. It may indeed have resulted in the creation of capitalism and power to the west by the sucking out of vast treasures. But that also seems over simplified. That's what victorious armys do. Except I think they were kind of on the same side or at least had the same enemy.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jun 6, 2016 7:01:45 GMT -5
I thought it was supposed to be a meteor.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 6, 2016 9:23:25 GMT -5
There was an interesting three part BBC series about Byzantium with historian Simon Sebag Montefiore last year. I couldn't find it online. There is however a YouTube of John Romer's well regarded 1997 BBC series on the same subject. I think he's quite an engaging fellow. Here it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 11:12:42 GMT -5
I thought it was supposed to be a meteor. Not to be too obvious but I believe that was the dinosaurs. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jun 6, 2016 11:24:28 GMT -5
I thought it was supposed to be a meteor. Not to be too obvious but I believe that was the dinosaurs. And the Flintstones & Rubbles
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Jun 6, 2016 11:26:40 GMT -5
Okay, it's over the top. At the same time, I can't say for sure that it's entirely wrong. It's certainly driven by a Russian and Orthodox Christian point of view. Truth of the matter was that the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, in one of the most ignoble perversions of a "Crusade" ever passed off. It may indeed have resulted in the creation of capitalism and power to the west by the sucking out of vast treasures. But that also seems over simplified. That's what victorious armys do. As Tom said, they were on the same side. The Crusades were about the fight against Islam. Constantinople was Orthodox Greek Christianity. It was quite bizarre. Right up there with the crusade against the Cathars in the south of France. Ostensibly stamping out heresy. In actuality, an opportunity to loot and take over some pretty nice real estate by all the nobles in the north.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jun 6, 2016 12:24:29 GMT -5
Byzantium don't surf.
Mike
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 20,253
Member is Online
|
Post by Dub on Jun 6, 2016 13:40:04 GMT -5
The Crusaders killed everybody that looked Middle Eastern. They killed Christians as enthusiastically as Muslims. In fact, the Ottomans protected both Christians and Jews, albeit as second class citizens.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 6, 2016 13:53:56 GMT -5
I wonder what history will record as today's "crusades"?
What is being destroyed today that history will regret in 1000 years?
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jun 6, 2016 13:58:18 GMT -5
I wonder what history will record as today's "crusades"? What is being destroyed today that history will regret in 1000 years? Glaciers?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 14:11:47 GMT -5
I wonder what history will record as today's "crusades"? What is being destroyed today that history will regret in 1000 years? Glaciers? Not according to the article that I posted yesterday. I'd say common sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 14:19:04 GMT -5
The Crusaders killed everybody that looked Middle Eastern. They killed Christians as enthusiastically as Muslims. In fact, the Ottomans protected both Christians and Jews, albeit as second class citizens. That's a reach. If by second class citizens, you mean those who were living in dhimmitude, you might want to reconsider what you'd call being protected. Of course, then there were the Janissaries. Slavs taken by the Turks to be slaves and to serve in the Sultans army. The source of the word, after all. Perhaps you believe the president when he credits Islam with all that's good but the Crusades were merely Europe's response to over 400 years of Muslim aggression. A sort of counter jihad, if you will.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jun 6, 2016 15:07:24 GMT -5
Okay, I listened. I'll never get that hour-something back...but I'm interested in reading some good history on Byzantium.
I thought it was Bizz-anteeyum
Not Bye-zan-teeyum
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Jun 6, 2016 15:26:58 GMT -5
I downloaded about 10 hours of Podcasts on Byz. The major thing I remember about their history was that there was one pissant ruler after another stepping on everyone in front of him to seize power. They invariably expended much blood and treasure getting and keeping power for themselves so that by the time Islam was waxing strong, they had depleted themselves enough to finally crumble. Didn't the English do the same thing in 1066? Stupid selfish bastards expending the blood of others just so they could sit on a "royal" ass instead of a plain one.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 6, 2016 15:27:13 GMT -5
I would be inclined to read the historians, John Romer and Simon Sebag Montefiore's accounts a little more trustingly than Vladimir Putin's personal confessor, the politically motivated, theocratic, agenda driven,non-historian, Russian nationalist and propagandist, Stalin admirer, Archmandrite Tikhon Shevkunov. I guess I'm probably labouring that point at this stage so I'll bow out
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 20,253
Member is Online
|
Post by Dub on Jun 6, 2016 15:32:20 GMT -5
Okay, I listened. I'll never get that hour-something back...but I'm interested in reading some good history on Byzantium. I thought it was Bizz-anteeyum Not Bye-zan-teeyum I think Bih-ZANT-ee-um is closer to correct. You have to see it written in the Greek alphabet to see why. People often say "jye-rows" when referring to the Greek gyros which is an attempt to spell the word using Roman characters. That word is really gee-rhos where the hard G sound is very nearly silent and the R is rolled.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 20,253
Member is Online
|
Post by Dub on Jun 6, 2016 15:34:28 GMT -5
I would be inclined to read the historians, John Romer and Simon Sebag Montefiore's accounts a little more trustingly than Vladimir Putin's personal confessor, the politically motivated, theocratic, agenda driven,non-historian, Russian nationalist and propagandist, Stalin admirer, Archmandrite Tikhon Shevkunov. I guess I'm probably labouring that point at this stage so I'll bow out Yup.
|
|