- This topic has 69 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
is this roman, is it medieval? when does the middle ages begin? surely it’s somewhere between 170 AD and 600 AD. i would say 313 AD, with the edict of milan, but it is very debatable.
-
Medieval begins with muslim conquests
-
It’s amazing how much they influenced the development of Europe just by their presence
-
they were literally in modern day France at one point. So it’s not just being present in the middle east. They were neighbouring the heart of europe.
-
they influenced nothing. it is the other way around: the camelscrotes tool everything from the byzantines , from architecture to the laws. and the 7th century was the lowest point of the european civilization, we have no art, no literature, and almost no historical records, which led some schizos to believe that it is was fake century resulted from a wrong calculation of the gregorian calendar.
-
It’s impressive that Christendom didn’t fall. It was attacked on all sides: by the Muslims from the south, the Vikings from the north, and the Magyars from the east.
-
-
476. Thats whe dark ages aka middle age a begin in West Europe.
Stale narrative
Iberia and Italy were great after 476 as they had been less affected by deurbanization and the Hunnic invasions. Goths taking over Iberia assimilated into the local culture and kept the old government and economy intact, Italy was similar until the Byzantines and then Lombards invaded decades later.
-
>Iberia and Italy were great after 476 as they had been less affected by deurbanization and the Hunnic invasions. Goths taking over Iberia assimilated into the local culture and kept the old government and economy intact, Italy was similar until the Byzantines and then Lombards invaded decades later.
And? All occured before the muslim conquests you freaking imbecile.All I can think of that was still around was the gladiatorial games.
[…]
And famously defeated and kicked out within a few years outside of a small portion of France in the far south and even there it only lasted a few decades. There was no Islamic influence in Europe outside Iberia/Sicily until the 12th century no one was reciting Hadiths or praying to Mecca there weren’t even Muslim intellectuals at court. There was no government in France that remotely resembled the one Andalusia let alone Baghdad or Damascus. France was feudal for centuries after the Muslim invasion, nothing changed.Utterly embarrassing and scrotebrained posts
-
Those posts are correct. Muslims are the secod worse after germans and slavs.
-
woke af and realitypilled
-
-
-
-
-
The Roman world after Diocletian was still that, the Roman world. The post Roman world was a completely different beast from what came before it. I would place the Middle ages to begin in the later 600’s after the Arab Conquests. The Barbarian kingdoms before that were so stepped in Roman culture and writing that there is real difficulty trying to separate time periods in writing style because of how Roman it really was. Only after the 600’s did much of the post Roman world really come into their own.
-
>The Roman world after Diocletian was still that, the Roman world.
how? What Republican era Roman would ever recognize a king or government laws against the movement of civilians. It was already a very different world. I would still call it antiquity, but it’s late antiquity and not the same. Still I’d say the middle ages begin with the fall of the western Roman Empire or around that time so the 5th-6th century.
-
>how? What Republican era Roman would ever recognize a king or government laws against the movement of civilians.
Just because the Republic was little more than a farce by Late antiquity doesn’t mean that the Roman Empire isn’t Roman.-
we abandoned most of our traditions and even abandoning our religion but we are still Roman (somehow)
All I can think of that was still around was the gladiatorial games.
And famously defeated and kicked out within a few years outside of a small portion of France in the far south and even there it only lasted a few decades. There was no Islamic influence in Europe outside Iberia/Sicily until the 12th century no one was reciting Hadiths or praying to Mecca there weren’t even Muslim intellectuals at court. There was no government in France that remotely resembled the one Andalusia let alone Baghdad or Damascus. France was feudal for centuries after the Muslim invasion, nothing changed.
-
>no one was reciting Hadiths or praying to Mecca there weren’t even Muslim intellectuals at court.
Of course there weren’t, I wasn’t saying any of that. The only thing I am trying to argue is that way before the 12th century, having the caliphate in iberia and small portions of France definitely had an effect on the development of europe. And I agree somewhat with this anonthat the muslim world took a tremendous amount from the byzantines. But even disregarding iberia and france. The islam world devided the old mediterranean world in two, and in that way pushed/isolated the southern european world and the northern european world together, or/and created a new cultural vacuum for europe to define itself. The same happened with the great schism, when west and east europe got divided. Influence does not necessarily mean the more direct stimulation and interaction that started at the beginning of the 12th century, like you mentioned.
-
>small portions of France
like what?
>he islam world devided the old mediterranean world in two,
it was already devided in two. the byzantines waged many wars, especially in italy against the goths and the longobards before islam existed. by the 7th century knowledge of the greek language was almost completely lost in latin europe, and so that of latin in the byzantine empire.
>that way pushed/isolated the southern european world and the northern european world together,
you imply that the "mediterranean" ever was a cultural area. it never was and the romans made it clear: when they conquered the greeks they respected them as people of their own kin. when they conquered egypt they treated them like beasts regardless of the antiquity of their civilization. egypt, syria, continental anatolia were never seen as a cultural continuum with greece and italy. germanics were often assimilated in the empire, they became generals and often senators. it never happened with the egyptians.-
Is this a bait post or is it the genuine state of LULZ?
-
Just read about the Umayyad invasion of southern france, there is literally a wiki page. Even the carolingians with Pepin fought them and were directly influenced by them.
It definitely was more divided in different pieces, however after the muslim conquest there was a sense of unity growing between the byzantine and the other kingdoms of west-europe, until the schism and the crusades etc. This is what I mean with how the muslims seperated the mediteranian into two.
It was a hotpot of different cultures that traded and interacted with eachother. Very different from what it became after the early muslim conquest, where there was the christian mediteranian and the islamic mediteranian. Egyptians were definitely not treated as well as for example greeks by the roman empire, but treating them like beasts is a bit over the top, especially in the cities where there were more priviliges for egyptians. Fact remains that they were the second wealthiest area within the empire apart from italy, that certainly wouldn’t have been the case if they were exploited and treated like animals by the empire.
-
>Umayyad invasion of southern france,
the was never a caliphate, never a rule, never a settlement. they tried to get in and they were immediatly kicked out.
>sense of unity growing between the byzantine and the other kingdoms of west-europe,
lmao so united that the virtual end of the byzantine empire was due to the rightful looting of constantinople by the venetians.all the egyptians were treated as slaves, that is beasts. their dead weren’t respected, their history wasn’t respected, their gods weren’t respected. see :
why do you think augustus refused the title of pharaoh?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436668?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27566703?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
http://www.fayoum.edu.eg/Tour/TouristGuidance/pdf/DrWahid6.pdf
https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/6780/Broadbent_Valerie.pdf;sequence=1
same happened with the parthians (also hated by the greeks, see aristotle) and the other middle easterners.
-
>hated
i meant despised actually -
You seem consistently under the mental /poo/ impression that I am trying to prove that there was a muslim society and people were wearing burkahs everywhere in the south of France in the 8th century.
I am not, its really simple what I am saying. Muslims were in spain and at the border of France much earlier than the 12th century. There was direct contact between muslim invaders and european tribes and kingdoms as early as the 8th century. Thus it is ridiculous to say that the two even back then did not influence eachother in the broadest definition of the word. It’s really not that difficult, stop seeing it all only in politics anon.
-
>You seem consistently under the mental /poo/ impression
Stop responding to him. Just another barely sentient poltrash tourist fresh off the assembly line. Barely above a bot in terms of mental complexity. I noticed this immediately with its first post. The type of garbage that’s ruining this board -
This kek. This scrotebrain sounds like his education was lifted off a civilization game
augustus despised you nafris more than me, i don’t even know how it’s possible but it is true. you see, i don’t hide my ideas like a filthy semite, but i argue them and you should answer just to those arguments without trying to say "noooo you just say that because muh pol". but you are just 2 butthurt shitskins trying to apply modern "inclusive" propaganda to the ancient world under the mask of neutrality, so what can i expect?
you were always seen as an inferior people by europeans, from aristotle to augustus to kant, deal with it.
the middle ages begins for internal reasons in the 4th century, it was not triggered by 8th century 47 IQ shitskins. -
>t. Poltrash newscrote subhuman kiddie who thinks history is a fun meme shitpost extension of his braindead internet ideology
have a nice day -
>literally "muh pol"
-
>t. Pol
I know you’re too scrotebrained to realize how much of a cliche you are but it’s obvious to everybody else. Go back scrote>samescrote
KEK you know you have somebody at their edge when multiple people in a single thread ridiculing their braindead existence is seen as a conspiracy
Go back roach trashhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/40387959?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Go back gutter scum
-
Yes now go back
-
stop samescroteging, shitskin.
(now the single id count is 15 due toand me posting on phone)
just stop it -
here is aristotle arguing persians are natural slaves literally because they are too low IQ (=are "unable of rational thought")
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40387959?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
-
>get accused of being a scrotebrained polscrote abusing history
>immediately proves that accusation correct
You’re too stupid to know how stupid you are>it’s just widespread knowledge
Lmfao
>muslim conquest of spain
Who the fuck is talking about spain? Is your knowledge really that rudimentary where impact on Europe means directing conquering europe? -
Cringe scrotebrain
-
your original point are very clear:the turning point between the roman world and the middle ages is marked by the muslim conquests in europe during the 7th and 8th centuries.
this is obviously fake, because the middle ages is characterized by its specific beliefs, art, way of life , which are independent from the muslim conquest of spain of the 8th century and were already settled more or less from the 4th century.
how romanesque-gothic art was influenced by muslims? how latin christianity was influenced by islam? how feudalism was influenced by the arabs? how chivalry was influenced by the caliphate?
you know nothing about european history , you hide behind commonplaces like muh vibrant plurality of cultural exchanges, with no grounds whatsoever. -
>point are very clear
point is very clear -
>this is obviously fake, because the middle ages is characterized by its specific beliefs, art, way of life , which are independent from the muslim conquest of spain of the 8th century and were already settled more or less from the 4th century.
Again, is this bait? I’m honestly shocked at the simplicity of your miniscule brain -
You’re a braindead scrote whose conception of history is that of a freaking video game with essentialist and exchangeable trading cards disconnected from any context beyond themselves.
-
This kek. This scrotebrain sounds like his education was lifted off a civilization game
-
Yeah sis if we took Europe in the 5th century and dropped it in Canada nothing would change.
Embarrassing kiddie you are. Islam is extremely essential to the development of Europe in every possible way, and your mental deficiency that is unable to comprehend the complexity of large scale ideas like this isn’t evidence against it -
The large scale logistics and economy of mediterranean antiquity broke down after the muslim conquests. The lifestyle and trade that categorized antiquity ended and the reversion to extremely localized centers of food and product production that is essential to the development of "feudalism" and the manor system started from there you scrotebrained scrote
-
> single ID count still at 13 after
Muslim conquests play no part in this. Most muslims live in mediaval times even today.
how many times are you planning to repeat your doggerel?
>mediterranean antiquity broke down after the muslim conquests
i already told you that the mediterranean was already split in half between the byzantine empire and latin europe, scrotebrain. the byzantine–lombard wars lasted for 2 centuries. the latins couldn’t even speak greek in the 6th-7th centuries. there was no trade.
>The lifestyle and trade that categorized antiquity ended and the reversion to extremely localized centers of food and product production that is essential to the development of "feudalism" and the manor system started from there
open a book ffs. -
>i already told you that the mediterranean was already split in half between the byzantine empire and latin europe, scrotebrain. the byzantine–lombard wars lasted for 2 centuries. the latins couldn’t even speak greek in the 6th-7th centuries. there was no trade.
You told me, I reacted, the guy you are replying to is really someone else.
-
-
-
-
-
>having the caliphate in iberia and small portions of France definitely had an effect on the development of europe.
Only in the sense that it gave them a consistent enemy to the south to fight. And perhaps also in the sense it affected the later Christian states that replaced Al-Andalus.
>created a new cultural vacuum for europe to define itself.
Christendom really didn’t change in response to Islam though the main heresies that came centuries before had already resulted in teh expunging of all the ideas that were somewhat present in Islam like Arianism with God being greater than Jesus (or Jesus not being God).
>nfluence does not necessarily mean the more direct stimulation and interaction that started at the beginning of the 12th century
name something then-
>name something then
How about the loss of jerusalem? You don’t think that the capture of the holy city had some effect on the christians within europe? There are so many examples that you can think of how one culture and people can indirectly influence another culture.-
No significant effect you forget that the Vatican preferred to be the main city in Christendom so losing Jersualem, Antioch, etc wasn’t necessarily traumatizing and could even be seen as an opportunity. Also the religious implications weren’t immediately apparent, remember for centuries Muslims were still just a minority in MENA and only slowly converted locals who were under the ethnic supremacist Arabs who didn’t want to allow them to be part of their "club".
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Roman republic was ruled by dictators for half its life time
-
-
when i wrote 600AD is was not thinking about the muslims, which are basically irrelevant in the history of europe. i was thinking about the end of the germanic migrations and their settlement, represented by the edictum rothari.
-
>muslims, which are basically irrelevant in the history of europe
AHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Jesus freaking christ, I thought this was a history board -
It goes both ways. The Eastern Roman Empire had a hand in upholding the Roman status quo in the West and also still being a bureaucratic superstate born out of Diocletian’s reforms that continued Roman law, military and institutions almost perfectly until they were forced to adapt or were just discontinued because of the Arabs. Had the Arabs not come the Romans would still be forcing their will into the West.
-
-
-
476. Thats whe dark ages aka middle age a begin in West Europe.
-
it’s more practical to work with term "late antiquity" as a transitional age, starting with Dominate, and ending with J*stinian and his closing of Platon academy, terminating the spirit of antiquity and starting the medieval period
-
Plato Academy wasn’t important. It was just a bunch of Neoplatonic scrotes who did mystical shit
> To begin with the Academy that was closed down in Athens as a consequence of this law could not trace its “history back in an unbroken line …. to Plato himself, almost a thousand years before” (p. xxvii) – it actually only dated back to the late fourth century AD, when it had been established by the neo-Platonist scholar Plutarch. The original Academy of Plato had ceased to exist centuries before.
-
it seems you are indeed correct. when you think the sprit of antiquity already died? Theodosius I?
-
-
-
[…]
>that argument
Genuinely pathetic. Go back to your shithole containment board with the other culture war obsessed newscrote subhuman scrotebrains. History isn’t a vehicle for your contemporary delusions and echo chamber brainwashing -
>when does the middle ages begin?
It depends on where it applies (yes, unironically). Different cultures develop differently and at different times, and define eras or "stages" in their history differently. In Scandinavia, for example, the middles ages don’t start until around 1100. -
With the life and deeds of Greatest Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). All history before Him can as well be burned and nothing of value will be lost.
-
25 July 306 : the dark ages began.
-
>you imply that the "mediterranean" ever was a cultural area. it never was and the romans made it clear: when they conquered the greeks they respected them as people of their own kin. when they conquered egypt they treated them like beasts regardless of the antiquity of their civilization. egypt, syria, continental anatolia were never seen as a cultural continuum with greece and italy. germanics were often assimilated in the empire, they became generals and often senators. it never happened with the egyptians
Poltrash education and take on actual history.
Please go back-
why do you think augustus refused the title of pharaoh?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436668?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27566703?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
http://www.fayoum.edu.eg/Tour/TouristGuidance/pdf/DrWahid6.pdf
https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/6780/Broadbent_Valerie.pdf;sequence=1
-
-
476 is the normie beginning of the Middle Ages
-
Today historians assume a translation period between roughly 400 and 600 AD for the end of the greeco-roman ancient time and the beginning of medieval times, depending on the region. This covers all specific dates from 410 to 576.
Muslim conquests play no part in this. Most muslims live in mediaval times even today.-
>Muslim conquests play no part in this. Most muslims live in mediaval times even today.
Poltrash kiddie still going with his nonsense-
i am not him scrotebrain. it is just widespread knowledge that the beginning of the middle ages is not determined by the muslims conquest of spain. it is literally only you 2 who believe that (provided you are not samescroteging)
-
-
-
>is this roman?
yes
/thread -
>it is very debatable
It is very debated sure, but I wouldn’t say it’s debatable at all. Periodization is a matter of convention, and conventionally the middle ages start with the fall of the western roman empire in 476AD. There really is no point in arguing for anything else, if you need specific periodizations to support whatever theses you have make up your own, don’t just try to hijack the traditional ones.-
for me the periodization is not just a convention. it is a change of general atmosphere (in germany we say Stimmung). the classical roman atmosphere is not the same as the medieval atmosphere. i wanted this to be the main topic of my thread, until a couple arabs ruined it.
-
>not just a convention. it is a change of general atmosphere
And how does that make sense in your mind? From one day to the next this stimmung changes continent-wide because some chucklefuck does something politically relevant?
I more or less get what you mean by stimmung, but still you must realize that this only could have happened gradually over a long period, and periodizations need discrete segments. The idea of stimmung doesn’t really fit the concept of periodization, not if you want to put it down to the year.
And again, don’t hijack traditional periods. They don’t fit your aims, they wouldn’t even if the actual dates were up for debate.
Because afterall classical Rome has a very different feel from archaic Rome or military anarchy Rome, and the romano-barbaric kingdoms have a very different feel from carolingian Europe which is completely different itself from early Renaissance Europe.
You can’t really force stimmungs into conventional ages, they aren’t really related.-
>And how does that make sense in your mind? From one day to the next this stimmung changes continent-wide because some chucklefuck does something politically relevant?
no
>I more or less get what you mean by stimmung, but still you must realize that this only could have happened gradually over a long period, and periodizations need discrete segments. The idea of stimmung doesn’t really fit the concept of periodization, not if you want to put it down to the year.
of course it is gradual. also the passage from afternoon to evening is gradual. does it mean it is a convention? no. the question is : where to place this passage, which is necessarily subjective. for me today evening began at 19.00, for someone else at 18,30. this is also why it has nothing to do with "fitting my aims".
and the different feel between classical rome is nowhere comparable to the different feel between , say, the 17th century and the 18th.-
>between classical rome
*between "classical" and "archaic" rome (as you call them)
-
-
-
-
-
Sorting human histories into ‘eras’ has always been problematic for this reason, there is almost never a definitive date where the world has officially changed enough for a new era.
-
Antiquity : Birth of Alexander to the Fall of Rome in 395
The Dark Ages : 395 to the Birth of Charlemagne
The Middle Ages : The Birth of Charlemagne to 1492-
>Fall of Rome in 395
sis wat
also antiquity starting with alexander is really late
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.