View Full Version : HISTORIC - Enlightening Information
I originally wrote this post in reply to someone's inquiry into the historic situation of the 5th century and on... but then I realized that this would make a really good thread, as a good number of people who enjoy KoH MUST have some sort of passion for history... This is my personal timeline as I have derived from research and study on the subject over the past few years... perhaps people might care to add to it, or challenge it - I am very open to discussion but I would request that it be kept on a minimaly continental scale or a known global, meaning that Id like this thread to discuss the global situation at the time, not neccessarily that of specific countries and conflicts, although certain decisions by a single state , or even one man have had huge implications globaly, and Id love to hear about those.
What exactly happened during that time. I always assumed that it was mainly of barbariens fighting over land since Rome was conquered? I also know what the Vikiings did then too :viking:
Im more of an amateur historian, so my dates and names are a little off, but a simple timeline of the lead-in to the KoH era would go a little something like this...
The Crucifiction of Jesus to approx. 500 AD...
was a transitional time from the fallen Roman Empire to the Christian fate, a last attempt by (I believe it was) Constintantine and the like to preserve power, and influence. This is why to this day we find much paegen symbolism in Christianity - this was neccessary to ensure a smooth transition, and acceptance by many inhabitants of Europe who still considered themselves 'Roman', and also to unite them and the 'Barbarian' (as they are often called) cultures who had infiltrated much of the land, and developed their own communities. It is interesting to note that at this time there was no centralization of this faith (ie no pappacy) and Jesus, although widely known and respected, was most deffinately not considered a divine entity, rather a Jewish prophet.
500 - 1100 ad...
In 553 (I believe that is the date, i might be a lil off) during the second council of Nicea, the new testament was assembled, the 12 gospels picked out of a collection of about 80, it was decided that the cross would be the official symbol, and it was here for the first time that Jesus of Nazareth was officialy entitled the Son of Man by the powers that be, and entitled a Holy Entity i.e. a divine being. The next 500 years led to further development, and 'polishing' of these concepts, perfection of the propoganda now known as the Pappacy.
1100 - 1700 AD...
In 1095, when a request by a (I cant remember which!)major European power to excavate holy sites in Jerusalem was denied, various peasents and mercenaries from Germany procceeded to 'lead' the first crusade, a terribly organized event leading to starvation and winter exhaustion of most of the 'troops' before they even reached the target, the remaining 'forces' being slaughtered by the 'infadels'. By the 1300s however, the holy propoganda had taken effect, and Christian forces (namely the Knights Templar) had taken Jerusalem. This was not to last, as the bickereing arab countries were to unite under the Muslim religion, which seems to have been centralized around the same time for the sole effect of uniting the middle east and declaring Jihad. It was here where the teachings of Mohomad were first misinterpreted and propagandized leading to the violent east we see today. As the war seemed to lead nowhere, back and forth from crussade to crussade, the pope slowly focused the attention of massess onto heretical teachings, purging all the teachings and beliefs that contradicted those developed at the council of Nicea, and eliminating all who opposed their phillosophy, eventually even the Knights Templar. In the west, the defeat of Christian forces, and the end of the crussades is largely fictionolized, full of legends and tales, so I wont even begin to describe THAT point of time.
Also, the late 1700s (the French Revolution by Napoleon) brought on a different world power (maybe Illuminatus would care to comment), and later on industrialisation which as we now know changed the world forever, and has very little to do with KoH.
I hope this gives you a basic idea of the historical factors that have led us here, where we are today, but if you'd like me to expand on or wish to disagree with anything written here, or maybe even to enlighten me on points i might have missed please feel free to do so.
***** I AM WAITING FOR YOUR REPLIES... IT WILL BE CURIOS INDEED TO SEE THE VIEWS OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD... although Id perfer that macedonian kid that just wouldnt understand how Bulgarian king could be born in Macedonia to keep quiet haha...
oh. The whole first post seems to me like a chapter from catholic propaganda. Sorry.
0-500AD
christianism was spreading since about 100AD, Romanisation(how is called so called "cultivation of barbarians"=Gauls, Hispanians etc) was totaly diferent process which started before christ was born. Also Hispanians and Gauls were not such barbarians(naked warriors), but civilised nations with the difference they didn't know literature
Christianism was tolerated by Constantine in pragmatism(The Only God, The only Emperor instead of many gods and doubtable imperial godness), but when he, himself accepted it it was probably honest faith in momet of death
500-800 Roman empire was unable to stand attacks of various "barbarian" nations from Europe(Germans, Slavs, Huns). Invasions were caused by hunger in their lands and preassure from East(Huns) and high culture of Romans. As the high culture of Romans was in eyes of religious "barbarians" seen as result of faith of Romans, they accepted christiansim, some from Rome, some from Constantinople - which became rivals: Constantinople was now cultural and political capital of the Empire, while Rome claimed to be religious capital what was not accepted by neither of other 4 main partiarchates in Alexandria, Antiochea, Jerusalem and Constantinople.
800-1100
Europe started to be christian, but mostly very Barbaric continent, truly barbaric in comparison to high culture of Byzantine empire and new powerful empire of Islam.
but even more "barbarian" Vikings were attacking Europe from North and brought new power and organisation to it(established powerful states in England, Normandy, Sicily and Kiev) while christians were pulling back north under power of muslim rulers in Spain
by 1000 all nations on eastern edge of successor states of Frankish empire accepted christianism as their faith(845/930 Bohemia, 1000 Poland, 1000 Hungary), but also Normans(Vikings) accepted christian faith(catholic in France and Scandinavia, orthodox in Russia), culture(except Russia where Vikings+Byzantinces brought culture) and language(French in Normandy, Slavic in Kiev) so europe was consolidated an after 1000 catholic kingdoms had strong powerbase and due to good climatic conditions demographical, cultural and also political expansion has begun: reconquest of Spain, brutal christianisation of Baltic lands and crusades started
In east Byzantine empire survived it's crisis and reformed into centralised but partly feudal state, reconquered eastern Anatolia and Armenia, but lost it again to new powerful muslims: Seljuk Turks
1100-1700
1) The crusades' origin:
Byzantine emperor Alexios Comnenos asked western christians/catholics to help him against Seljuk Turks. He asked for mercenary armies that were usual in that times(mostly Norman and English mercenaries as byzantian guards), but the pope misinterpreted it and declared Holy War against muslims.
2) when Jerusalem was taken by catholics(in muslim and byzantine POV nothing but barbarians and infidels/heretics), it was plundered and most of jewish and many orthodox people were bloodbathed. This happened in 1099. Order of Templars was formed later: in 1118 first to protect pilgrims, later it evolved into military order that fought(fanaticaly) muslims. They could be comnared to muslim sect of Assasins, with the difference that Assasins concentrated on assassinating of kings and leaders, while Templars fought all "infidels"(=jews,muslims,orthodox)
Later crusader states established their power and realized that without religious tolerance they won't survive, but neverending flow of new pilgrims and knights was still very intolerant. It was recklesness and barbarism of some Christian knights what provoked muslim leader Saladin(who just united Egypt and Syria under his rule) to declare what you called Jihad (and compared to terrorism :lo:) and in fact it was kind of reconquest
3) Order of Templars was not destroyed because of magical practics or heresy inside order, but because king of France - at the time most powerfull king who had strong influence in Vatican) accused them of it as he wanted their property(money and estates). What became "heretic" and sinfull was papacy itself in times of pope John XXII, and later when Schizm appeared (14th century papacy in Avignon, since 1378 double papacy in Rome and Avignon, in 1412 triple papacy-third pope in Pisa) what was solved by countil in Constantia(Conszanz in Switzerland)
Order of Templars was destroyed in 1312, Last crusader stronghold fell in 1291 when Mameluk sultan Baibars declared HolyWar agaist infidels and after 200 years of presence of Crusaders in Levante ended their fate in the same way it has started(mass murders of infidels. The only difference was that now "infidels" were all catholics instead of all non-catholics=muslims, jews, orthodox. Strange that even "jihadist fanatics" Saladin and Baibars tolerated orthodox christians as well as Jews much more that catholic crusaders)
The same behaviour towards infidels was in another "reconquest" in Spain. Muslim "infidel" rulers tolerated all faiths, but when "saint" catholic "barbarians" conquered muslim lands, they forced all Jews and muslims to either convert to the Cross or die.
btw. I fell in love with order of Templars. I love so called "monk-military orders", but I can't be blind towards their religious fanaticism from the beggining of their history that could be compared to islamic fundamentalism of our days. Later knights of St.John(hospitaliets/maltese knights) were faithfull and curageous defenders of Europe against Turks :go: Templars have disabled to stand next to them and myths about them make them a mysterious or heretic organisation
this is how "infidel"(from all catholic, orthodox, jewish and muslim POV) Elvain see it after long amateur history studies + 3 years of history studies at University
Traveller
20-08-2005, 15:31
Nice, but both "stories" are too short for such a large period, not to mention plenty could be added also to the points of view... Later I'll add something from Bulgarian point of view - many times (especially in our first kingdom) we were among the three political, military and cultural centres in Europe, so we could add something, too! :wink:
P.S. Should this be in Webmaster's Inn or the DMZ? If its main topic is history as a whole...
Nice post Elvian - Im impresed. Im surprised that you consider my post christian propoganda thjough - most of the things I mentioned there have been rigarosley denied by the pappacy for generations, although I realize my focus is more on christian evolution and corruption, and ill openly admit that that is because i am not as knowledgable of the details of the muslim history.... id like to point out a couple of things...
1) In my post I was not reffering in 'cultivation' of the barbarians, but rather assimilation. Also, if you'd like to read the post again, you'll realize that I used the word 'barbarians' in quotes, satiracally and sarcastically, for you are right - it is a word taken well out of context. There is no doubt that the romans had been much more advanced technologically but that is simply because they had thousands of years to build, while their 'barbaric' neighbours live nomad lifes and had no need for this type of lifestyle.
2) The acceptance of the 1 god religion is not as simple as you wrote in your post. There were are as many 'noble' and powerfull people accepting as there were rebbelling against it. You are right that it is not 'official' history what I wrote abot constantine, but in REALITY if you consider the situation... it was obviously a last ditch attempt at unification... and there is much historic evidence to suggest that many people of influence at the time the roman empire felll assembled and passsed down through generationscertain plans and secrets, and I refuse to believe that Constantine was this great guy who did everything cuz he believed in it.... history has taught us that there are no leaders like that.
3) Im a little confussed by your 500 - 1100 synopsis, it is very vague, but I have to say I think I agree with most of it... however you leave out the council of nicea when speaking about the formalization of chrisitianity.... do you disagree with what is said about it historically or are u unaware of it? Also, Id like to say that you're absolutely right about the east being ahead of the west at the time, I think it would be safe to say that the east has allways been ahead of the west spiritually, islam and the like more or less, but im thinking of the likes of china, ancient egypt - all countries who were waaaaaay ahead of the rest of the world in literature, astronomy, phillosophy and whose perspectives are the base of cultivated thought in the west - I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN PROPGANDIST hahaha i wsas almost offended at that, I think you just misinterpreted that because my focus was more on the development of chrisitianity...
4) Im pretty sure that Jerussalem wasnt taken in 1099... if it was please enlighten me with some type of bibliography... my understanding is that the first holy war was declared in 1095... how could the 'merceneries' REACH Jerusalem from germany, let alone conquer it all in the proccess of 5 yrs? But i do agree that the highlight of the 1st crussade was cold blooded genocide of innocent jews and 'infidels' as KoH likes to call them.
5) What do you know? We DO have something in common haha Im a big fan of the knights templar, and i think once again u misinterpreted my statements. Aside from the fact that my knowledge leads me to believe that the templars were the first military order since the 1st crussade to take and successfully hold jerusalem (am I wrong??) we do agree on most of the other factors. They WERE established to protect pilgrims, if you say thats the date then whatever it might be, but it wasnt even the 1st generation of templars that took jerusalem! This happened in the 12th century.
I dont remember mentioning magical practice... but if you'd note the Knights Templar had also come to be known by other names... The Poor Knights of the Temple, the Poor Knights of Solomon, and im pretty sure this was used in an ironicall context. The herecy they were first charged with was that as MONKS they had no right to pursuit of personal riches and wealth, but as anybody whose done a lil research on them will tell you this is not so. They had aquired extensive wealth, and invented the 1st banking system in the world! Also the king of france (the one who held power before the one who wanted them gone) gave them soverignty, meaning they no longer answered to any kingdom, or anybody for that matter. Their power had grown to the point where they could topple entire regimes had they wanted. This of course was a threat, and as they were no longer as usefull in the east as in the previous years it only made sense to destroy them! It is also rummored that they had gained access to information which could not be allowed to leak out... Again this is going into as little detail as possible, and its still a 6 page post!
-The hashassins (ie in english translation) were VERY different from the knights templar... hardly a good comparisson, I trully cant say I respect anything about hash smoking, in the heat of the night killing cowards...
- And my comment about jihad was based on the fact that the original interprations of Jihad was 'the battle inside oneself to find god'... this statement has obviously been altered since.
-By the way... you've now made me a little unsure about the whole issue of when jerusalem fell, who took it etc.... ill admit i havent read up on this in almost 2 yrs... you mind giviing me a more comprehensive timeline of these events? and maybe a site i can confirm them on? Im pretty sure im right.... but 3 yrs history can allways prove me wronG!
CHRISTAIN PROPOGANDA? ME? wow....
sorry. It seemed to me as christ propaganda due to stress on "church history" I apologise, I didn't mean it to start any kind of confrontation.
Also it is very hard to put whole history of 1500 years into one post :wink:
I need to explain some things deeper...
There is no doubt that the romans had been much more advanced technologically but that is simply because they had thousands of years to build, while their 'barbaric' neighbours live nomad lifes and had no need for this type of lifestyle.
I agree that you probably misinterpreted your usage of word "barbarian" sorry for that. But I must say NO to the quoted part of your post.
Germanic peoples as well as Celtic and Slavic were already mostly farmers for at least 1000 years before they "invaded" Rome(the empire). Germans and Slavs were moving south because they were farmers and needed new and better land, due to climatic changes (5th century was very cold, somewhen between 400-410 even river Rhine was frozen!)and because Romans needed farmers, they were accepting many Germanic settlers on their territory since about 150AD due to Roman agricultural crisis.
The diference was not in lifestyle nomadic vs. agricultural, but in culture:
Romans lived in mediterranean through Greece they recieved experience and technoloogies from Egypt , Mesopotamia etc. while "barbarians" lived in colder forest areas, didn't know litrerature and state bureaucracy. But if you would have seen archaeological artifacts and ruins of Germans and Celts you'd know they had very developed culture!
2) The acceptance of the 1 god religion is not as simple as you wrote in your post... I know and agree. It was much more complicated, but:
there's not enough space to explain it all and to be hones I don't even want because I'm not very strong in church history. BUt I agree, christianism was widespreaded in all parts of roman society, many senators were christians as well as other powerful people in roman society. Constantines tolerance of Christianism was the only possible solution of the problem. HIs own acceptance of the faith was fruit of his mother's influence on him(historians accept as truth that he converted honestly in moments of death as he was afraid of his soul)
3) Im a little confussed by your 500 - 1100 synopsis, it is very vague...
however you leave out the council of nicea when speaking about the formalization of chrisitianity... well, what can I write in 1 post?I was generalizing as it was possible. I even divided it into 2periods...
No, I do not disagree. I leave the council because I'm not very interested in the church history(sorry if repeating myslef), eventhough I know that history of christian theology is very important to understand medieval Europe. I know general tendences and some basic thing, but I don't remember many things.
I also think that as theological disputations were one of reasons of eastern/Western "schism" I know there were many other, even more important processes: culture, political claims etc. I will elaborate it little deeper if you want, but not now.
Generaly East considered catholics as barbarians, and I would say that untill 13th cenury with full right.
Their culture was higher. F.e. Aristotle was translated to Latin from arabian translations and works of arabian philosophers. In culture and science they were long way ahead, as you pointed. In many aspects they are ahead untill now...(by East I mean all of following: orthodox from catholic POV, Islam from Christian POV, the East=China+India from POV of 3big monotheistic religions=Judaism+Christianity+Islam)
4) Im pretty sure that Jerussalem wasnt taken in 1099... if it was please enlighten me with some type of bibliography... my understanding is that the first holy war was declared in 1095... how could the 'merceneries' REACH Jerusalem from germany, let alone conquer it all in the proccess of 5 yrs? But i do agree that the highlight of the 1st crussade was cold blooded genocide of innocent jews and 'infidels' as KoH likes to call them.
You are right. The crusade was called in 1095. But it really took them 3 years to reach Jerusalem. Note that they travelled slowly on horses with many foot soldiers and wagons with food suply. This is how the first crusade was going:
1095 pope Urban II "declared Holy Crusade" in Clermont council.
In 1096 the crusade(I mean the one led by knights) has started. main leaders were Baldewin of Flandres, Geoffroy de Bouillon(duke of Lorraine), Robert of Normandy(brother of english king) So in this case I must say you were wrong as the crusade started in France instead of Germany. Their route went through Germany and Hungary, near Belgrade they entered territory of Romans(Byzantines). and continued to Constantinople.
Another "army" was led by Raimund de Saint-Gilles(count of Tolouse) and moved through Italy and Dyrrhachion to Constantinople. In southern Italy Bohemund of Tarento(one of leaders of Italian Normans) joined him.
catholic army negotiated in Constantinople for very long time about character of their help(so late!). First conflits emerged between catholics and Byzantines.
Now I'm not sure about dates, but then christian army marched through Anatolia for very long time with many problems. Then the main army reached Antioch(biggest christian town in Syria) and besieged it for several months. Antioch was captured in 1098(this date I know as good as my birthdate) and crusaders were besieged by strong muslim army just after the conquest. the principality of Antioch, ruled by Bohemund of Tarentum(whose forces broke into the city first).
Later they moved down to Jerusalem which was captured in summer of 1099 mostly thanks to forces of Geoffroy of Bouillon who then became "defender of Holy Grave"(his true title)
If you look into ANY encyclopedy of middle ages you will find that these dates are right.
Order of Templars was founded by Hughes(Hugo) de Payns in 1118(another date I know exactly) and was subordinated directly to the pope. so no lay nor church authority but the pope had any rights over the order(that's why later Pope had to cancel the order). Their goal was to protect pilgrims and Holy Grave in Jerusalem.
The comparison to Assassins was little overwhelmed, I admit. It was muslim sect that used political murder as their main weapon.
btw, very offtopic: what's so bad on Hashish?It's not even as bad as alcohol :angel:
PS:3 years of history at university are NOTHING. I am diletant-historian. I know very few, but there are some things I know something about. So I am glad to widen your knowledge a little...(I prefere not to use word enlighten as I don't like age of enlightment much as it caused many wrong and destroyed many nice traditions in my countyr :sad:)
PPS: sorry for that long post, I also agree that this should be moved to Off-topic forums. I would already do it, but I am moredator only in modding section...
Superisis
21-08-2005, 00:49
First of all let me applaud you both for trying to summarize 1500 years in one (or a few) post(s). God knows I can't bother.
Hrm, some edits, eh?
@KING
The Crucifiction of Jesus to approx. 500 AD...
How come you don't mention the fall of the western roman empire? The tribal migrations? And no papacy before the year 500? What about the first 50 popes? Who bribed Attila the Hun?
500 - 1100 ad...
Again missing the rise and falls of empires. The Ostrogoths, the merovingians, the carolingians, the coronation at Christmas in the year 800. And ofcourse the first viking raid (and no, they did not have horns on their helmets ;) )
1100 - 1700 AD...
The conquest of America. The discovery of a trade route to India, initiating the end of the ottoman and persian empires. The HRE (Holy Roman Empire), The renaissance, the reformation, the counter reformation. All these as important events as the crusades.
Few notes to the to your's on the crusade:
-- As Elvain said: The first crusaders were quite ignorant about middle eastern culture and politics and thus made the mistake of thinking that all living there muslims (exaggeration, but more or less). Thus most civilians were slaughtered. This meant jews, muslims and christians.
-- The "bickering" arab countries were allready muslim. They were united (well some of them were) politically by Salah ad-Din Yusuf Ibn Ayyub (Saladin). He sorta united these territories religiously aswell (he was a sunni). With a united Muslim foe (and just bad leadership on their side), the Christians didn't have a prayer.
-- The middle east was inhabited by violent muslims long before this period.
Also, the late 1700s (the French Revolution by Napoleon) brought on a different world power (maybe Illuminatus would care to comment), and later on industrialisation which as we now know changed the world forever, and has very little to do with KoH.
Napoleon didn't cause or start the french revolution.
@Elvain
500-800
true about the invasions, however you missed out why Rome could not stand up against its invaders. Some claim it was due to the slow disappearance of the peasant class (farmers). The farmers were the backbone of Rome. They paid the most of the taxes and they made out most of the army. Due to the inequalities of the roman political system [Roman emperors fear rich and powerful landlords. Rich and powerful landlords are exempt from paying taxes. Rich and powerful landlords become richer and more powerful. Poor farmer has no security. He is dependant of weather(i.e. risky business). One bad year and he is indebt to rich and powerful landlord. Poor farmer sells/abandons farm and moves to city.], the catasrophy was almost irreversible. To compensate the Roman government had to devaluate its currency (lower the ammount of silver in the coins) and take in "barbarians" as farmers and soldiers. The reast is history.
800-1100
Not much to note, except the intense trading between the vikings and the Byzantines and the Turks (and Persians, etc)
1100-1700
The Nizari Isma'ilis (assassins) did not just limit themselves to political leaders. They were fanatical fiver shi'i who targeted the sunni abbasid caliphate in Baghdad and thus wanted to kill anyone who belonged to the sunni elite (political, cultural and spiritual leaders were all targeted). The templars fought all infidels, true, but they were pragmatic and could broker peace and alliances with different Muslim kingdoms at times. Trivia about tolerance. The coptic churches and christians were actually better off under the Muslims than they were, when they were under the Byzantine church (lousy sentence, I know).
but I can't be blind towards their religious fanaticism from the beggining of their history that could be compared to islamic fundamentalism of our days
Well, the templars' fundamentalism should not be compared with the one of todays various extremeists. The templars believed in not owning worldly possessions and thus they never plundered a won battlefield (thus they were less bloodthirsty than the crusader kings). Since the Templars stayed in Middle East (unlike the crusader who went home when he was done), they were quite accostomed to it. The were thus not as ignorant of islamic culture as most crusaders.
The hashassins (ie in english translation) were VERY different from the knights templar... hardly a good comparisson, I trully cant say I respect anything about hash smoking, in the heat of the night killing cowards...
see what I wrote earlier in this post
Order of Templars was founded by Hughes(Hugo) de Payns in 1118(another date I know exactly) and was subordinated directly to the pope. so no lay nor church authority but the pope had any rights over the order(that's why later Pope had to cancel the order). Their goal was to protect pilgrims and Holy Grave in Jerusalem.
What about Bernard of Clairvaux?
btw, very offtopic: what's so bad on Hashish?It's not even as bad as alcohol
Hash is bad. Weed is better :D
I used to have a great history teacher in high school. And btw, I love the knight templars too!!!
Evian perhaps our interests difffer in world powers due to georaphical reasons? Do you reside in the east? I must admit a few of your comments in this last post have widened my knowledge. I wasnt aware of a few of your points, and your knowledge of the details (dates and names) are very impressive.
Superisis... i think the fall of the roman empire kind of goes without saying? I also think documenting the rize and fall of every empire through the middle ages would be a little difficult in one post... perhaps you might wanna help?
Haha im well aware of Napoleons sneaky takeover during the revolution, and his prior rapid success in the army... and that was barely french, and I think that HIS reign and fall would be one of the most extensive and time consuming to document, and asit doesnt really relate with the KoH period ie it is in the future, I didnt really go into it... I could however as Napoleon is my single most favirote historic leader as i consider him responsible for the takeover of the control of todays powers, and whisked it away from the church and those who inherritted it from the likes of constantine... wether it passed into better hands is most deffinatly up for discussion.
Superisis
21-08-2005, 02:10
I'm sorry, but I'm a tad to lazy to document the rise and fall of empires. Correcting/editing the works of others, sure. Doing my own stuff... ehh... ;)
what would be the point of mentioning rise and fall of every empire? I know they were important, but empires rise and fall, it's their fate. No empire will stay forever(well, everything has exceptions, here it is China). I prefere processes that cause it...
The fall of the empire had many more reasons. We should not criticise each other from not mentioning everything, it's imposible. I don't claim I write everything. I just wanto to clear some things if I'm able to...
I'm sorry, but I'm a tad to lazy to document the rise and fall of empires. Correcting/editing the works of others, sure. Doing my own stuff... ehh... ;)I am the same, but don't you think it's just a little unfair from you? one can ALWAYS find something what the other forgot...
We should not try to concentrate on everything, I prefere few topics (damn, historic syntheris in few posts is left by me :bash: :lol:) We have discussed Crusades, what now? fall of roman empire?
There was huge overall crisis. It was based, as Superisis said, on lack of farmers causing agricultural crisis.
It had much wider impact: farmers(free Roman citizens) were backbone of Roman army, while big landlords were paying money instead of engaging army. As there was still less and less free farmers(independent on latyfundists-landlords), there was lack of men in the army. This caused hiring of mercenary troops from surrounding nations, like Germans. Those mercenaries were recieving land in marginal parts of the Empire to farm there, and later teri families were moving there. The important thing was, that they kept their culture and customs as they feel like Romans already(they were roman soldiers), so they didn't try to be Romans by language and culture like Gauls and Hispanians 200years ago. And another thing: their families moved to Rome to follow them.
There was also crisis of values(religion) in Roman society.Roman religion was very "pragmatic". They gave sacrifises when demanded something from gods, what was kinda primitive religion in comparison to their society. Alongside with philosophical crisis it enabled massive convertins to christianism.
Stagnating economy needed farmers, army needed soldiers, Romans needed new religion... and there were dozens of prople who needed land and were full of energy.
So called "invasions" or "migration" of "barbarians" were nothing more than 200years lasting "barbarian colonisation" of Roman lands(supported by Romans) Regional power was held by Roman latyfundists/landlords, military power by mostly Germanic tribal leaders and political power was in hands of Roman emperors. The diference between west and east was that east still had strong economical base in Egypt, Anatolia and Syria, while the west was in deep crisis. That's why West fell to Barbarians who saw that there is nobody to stop them in taking political power, so they took it. Eastern emperors kept power and were intriguing, sending one captain against another, one tribe against another, with enough money from provinces and with enough own forces from Greek speaking roman citizens in Syria, Anatolia and Egypt.
Later, in 6th century, Slavs were much more agressive and while Justinian was re-conquering western empire, Slavic peoples "settled" the Balkans...
give me something I can react in other topics...
[QUOTE=Elvain] No empire will stay forever(well, everything has exceptions, here it is China).
China does appear to be an exception...
[QUOTE=Elvain]Later, in 6th century, Slavs were much more agressive and while Justinian was re-conquering western empire, Slavic peoples "settled" the Balkans...
Expand on that... i've come to realized that balkan history seems to differ in the balkans and the rest of the world....
*** By the way the point IS discussion... I dont claim to know everything, so I talk to people that know more in subjects i lack in - the more you know, the clearer the big picture!
China isn't an exeption. It has been conquered many many times(mongols,the many rebelions ect.) Also you should know that china wasn't even united through the mid ages, it was divided in many states(much like Italy).
Superisis
22-08-2005, 01:04
exactly. China (in your reference) is not an empire but a geographical location. Saying that "China" has prevailed through history is like saying that Europe prevailed though history. There has been no "Chinese Empire" that has stood firm and strong for the past 2000 years, but there have rather been many Empires in China, rising and falling, just as Europe or the Middle East has seen the rise and fall of numerous empires. If you wanna talk about a state that has survived, I'ld be more inclined to speak of the Persian Empire, but then again, one must define (i.e. redefine) the term empire.
I think we were reffering to China in a not so literal sense... I think elvian was stating more of a phillosophical, and possibly presently political statement.
And regardless which empire, or revolutionary faction happenned to control China politically, since its unification thousands of years ago, I dont remember it being called anything other than China.
Also, it is my personal opinion that the preservation of China and its culture is its 'foreigny policy' of keeping to itself, and away from (namely) westerners...
Traveller
22-08-2005, 14:13
Later, in 6th century, Slavs were much more agressive and while Justinian was re-conquering western empire, Slavic peoples "settled" the Balkans...
Expand on that... i've come to realized that balkan history seems to differ in the balkans and the rest of the world....
Ahh... Balkan history... Now that's the thing! :wink:
First, if there are any diferences of Balkan history in the Balkans and in the rest of the wrold, then that would be due to several reasons:
1. High nationalism in the Balkans. Nationalism needs history as a basis for propaganda.
2.1 Current situation of West and East Europe. East European countries are currently in a not-so-good situation (aka some far backward stupid country) and Westerners tend to see them in a more "insignificant" POV.
2.2 Mix of the two above. Westerners know the East could be a problem for them (and it was), so they create propaganda, with which they'll weaken the Easterners.
Now, I don't know for sure which one of those is true and of course, there could be many more other reasons, but the main ones are usually either psycholigical or political. You know, history isn't a precise science and can be used in many ways...
Now, about Slavic colonization of the Balkans. It was a long period of constant raids of diferent "barbaric" tribes over the Balkan territories of ERE (Eastern Roman Empire, aka Byzantium). Such tribes were f.e. the Huns, then the Ost-Goths, then the Bulgars, then the Slavs and the Avars. In the beginning those raids were usually just hit'n'run - the "barbarians" cross the Danube, spread accross the land, pillage and plunder the undefended settlements, take what they find and go back to their realms. These raids devastated the Balkan peninsula - the "barbarians" reached even Constantinople, which forced Anastasius to build the so-called "Long wall" (or Anastasius wall) in the outskirts of Constantinople. Of course, the rest of the Balkans were left defenseless with only some fortresses standing invincible like islands in the "barbarian" sea. In the end of the 5th century the Bulgars started their raids after they fought off the Ost-Goths as Byzantine allies (there was a widespread practice in Byzantium to use the "barbarians" as "foederats" in their northern borders). Raids were quite often and sometimes they took turns and even cooperated with the Slavs of the southern group - the Sclavinii, to attack the Roman lands. Emperor Justinian started a big rebuilding of fortresses, but it was of no use. But of course, if one thing doesn't work - try another. Byzantine diplomacy started intrigues between the "barbarian" tribes and they started fighting each other instead of fighting Byzantium - the Sclavinii fought with the Anti (Eastern group of Slavs), ad the Bulgar Kutriguri tribes fought with the Bulgar Otiguri tribes. The Bulgars were disabled in their internal wars, but the Slavs quickly continued their raids on the Balkans, whichat that time were already widely depopulated. Furthermore, in the 6th century the Byzantines had evacuated the population of Macedonia to the outskirts of Adrianople in Thrace, which was even better for the Slavs, which travelled and settled all the way to Peloponesos. In the meantime, in 632 the Bulgars created the so-called Old "Great Bulgaria" (or at least that's how Byzantines called it) in the steppes of Central and Eastern Ukraine. But the pressure from the Khazars in the east was too big and in 680 the Bulgars, led by Aparoukh, crossed the Danube, allied with the local Moesian Slavic tribes (the "Alliance of the 7 Slavic clans" and the Severi tribe), fought off the Emperor's army and created Danube Bulgaria. Somewhere around that time another Bulgar tribe, led by Kuber, settled in Macedonia, tried to take Solun, but failed. Later the two Bulgarias merged into one. But that's already of the "barbarian invasions" period (or at least "barbarians" continued to invade, but they couldn't reach Byzantium, because of its Bulgar shield)...
You could also check History of the Balkans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Balkans) in the Wikipedia, although it isn't a very accurate source for history...
very enlightening information indeed... wikkipedia is too 'official' it tends to 'forget' important information...
'nationalism and history' deserve each other in an abussive relationship sort of way... nationalism keeps ****ing history right up - broken ribs and everything.
"Alliance of the 7 Slavic clans" - ive never heard of this! ???
btw r u from the balkans as well? ur knowledge on the subject is pretty detailed and extensive...
btw r u from the balkans as well? ur knowledge on the subject is pretty detailed and extensive...as well?
I am not from the Balkans. Only Traveller(from those who posted ni this thread) is from Balkans. Czech republic is eastern neighbour of Germany...
Traveller
22-08-2005, 19:49
Yes, I'm from the Balkans. Or as I used to write in questionnaires about my address "Sofia, Bulgaria, Balkan peninsula, European continent, planet Earth, Solar system, Milky way, just in case some alien wants to come pay me a visit"! :wink:
"Alliance of the seven Slavic clans" (or "Saiuzat na sedemte Slavianski plemena" on Bulgarian) was an alliance of 7 Slavic tribes, which lived in Moesia (present day north Bulgaria). Later they joined the alliance with the Bulgars, but as all other Slavic tribes in Bulgaria they kept some self-government until the beginning of the 9th century (in the so-called "slavinii" regions). But actually, I would be rather surprised if you had heard of them in Toronto! :lol:
Btw I might check for some more detailed information about them tomorrow...
id appreciate that... i actually remember my father telling me about the begining of Serbian civilization starting with the unification of some tribes... but im not sure if thats what he was referring to... elvian I didnt mean you in that question... but you're chezch? Weird preference of civilizations for someoneone in that part of the world... what led you to explore eastern history more extensively?
Traveller
23-08-2005, 08:25
No, the alliance of the seven Slavic tribes has nothing to do with Serbia. These seven tribes were living (together with the Severi tribe) between the Danube and the Balkan mountain. Serbia is to the west. But I couldn't find much about them, sorry...
But I've found an interesting chronology of the Bulgar's activities before the establishment of Danube Bulgaria. I'll post it in the History thread (http://forum.sunflowers.de/showthread.php?t=4779) when I translate it!
ielvian I didnt mean you in that question... but you're chezch? Weird preference of civilizations for someoneone in that part of the world... what led you to explore eastern history more extensively?
Yes, I am a Czech
Well, is this question again to me?
I don't explore eastern history much.. I'm just interested in history of my/western christian civilization...
and I am interested in civlization clashes, so I like topics such as the Great migration of nations in Europe(in 400-600AD), expansion of islam and crusades.
And thanks to my studies I know little about history...
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.