History discussion - no, hitler has never seeked the spear of destiny - General

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39538195]And then they lost to the Ravens. Wait wrong patriots.[/QUOTE] IIRC it happened mainly because smugglers got pissed off since the British government lifted restrictions on traders buying tea in India and selling it in the colonies. Beforehand, traders had to ship the tea to London (from India) before exporting it to the rest of the empire. Removing this reduced the price of tea (since you had to pay hefty duties when in London). Result was that the smugglers were unable to compete in the free market, and blamed the loss of profits on the British government for revoking the mercantile policy (and consequently dumped the tea in the harbour to show that they were pissed). Things escalated when the British government incompetently managed the fiasco (the colonies originally found the tea party to be a step too far) but the British response made things worse.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;39536543]I find Western History in anytime period interesting but I can't for the life of me get into Eastern, just not interested.[/QUOTE] i love eastern history even though i admittedly know very little about it.

My love of eastern history goes as far as Novgorod during the Middle Ages. My early historical ventures were extremely Euro-centric and I can't bring myself to shake that trait. It's a shame because the East has an extremely rich history. When the topics are related, say the Mongol expansion around Outremer during the time of the Kingdom of Jerusalem/Acre, I'll explore more, but I just am not motivated enough.

[QUOTE=ScottyWired;39537074]You havn't met Australian history. Australian historians have a really bad habit of focusing only on a few key events, namely Ned Kelly, Gallipoli and the aboriginal discrimination. Seriously, I went into my school library looking for resources about Australia in the Vietnam War and I found at least five books about bushrangers, twelve books on World War I (only one of them focused on WWI as a whole, the rest were about Gallipoli), three books about the Sydney Opera house and god damn, there was an [I]entire shelf [/I]dedicated to Australian discrimination. Only a quarter of them were about discrimination against someone other than Aboriginals. I even had this happen to me- Scott: "I need a book about Australian history that isn't completely focused on the rights of natives" Librarian: "Don't be so insensitive! They're [I]traditional custodians[/I], not natives. Say something like that again and I'll bring the principal here" Fuck political correctness. Fuck boring Australian history. Enough of my rant about Australia, railroads are where it's at. Did you know that the Catholic church condemned steam locomotives because they believed that the smoke was the breath of the devil?[/QUOTE] Traditional custodians? Who the fuck came up with that? Are they supposed to clean up after the white man or something?

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFrGsvURsfc[/media]

[QUOTE=wallyroberto_2;39539641]Traditional custodians? Who the fuck came up with that? Are they supposed to clean up after the white man or something?[/QUOTE] It is pretty dumb. Every school assembly begins by someone on stage saying "we acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land where we stand right now" Guess what, there are more Norwegians at our school than aboriginals. (Hint: I'm the only person born in Norway) Why bother paying respects to people who aren't even present? Even a lot of teachers have brought it up in class how pointless it is, except the history teacher of course. She'll stop talking about interesting Roman architecture and begin a twenty minute rant about the horribleness of Australian society.

[QUOTE=wallyroberto_2;39539641]Traditional custodians? Who the fuck came up with that? Are they supposed to clean up after the white man or something?[/QUOTE] Not sure if you're making a joke, but "custodian" can also mean keeper or guardian.

World war 1 is kind of hilarious when you consider how about half the major world leaders were directly related.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39543791]World war 1 is kind of hilarious when you consider how about half the major world leaders were directly related.[/QUOTE] That's the European Royal families for ya'.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39543791]World war 1 is kind of hilarious when you consider how about half the major world leaders were directly related.[/QUOTE] Although some were pretty much powerless (like the British monarchs).

[QUOTE=JDER14;39544555]That's the European Royal families for ya'.[/QUOTE] its like a big circle of incest

Any Americans here ever read the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen?

no but now i might

I might check it out if my local library has a copy of it.

[QUOTE=skynrdfan3;39536111]no history can touch the american revolution don't even try[/QUOTE] Even the French Wars of Religion beat the holy hell out of that crap. [sp] Does anyone else refer to them as the Huguenot rebellions? [/sp]

[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;39547313]Even the French Wars of Religion beat the holy hell out of that crap. [sp] Does anyone else refer to them as the Huguenot rebellions? [/sp][/QUOTE] I thought they were pretty much just known as Crusades. Or maybe we're not talking about the same thing at all.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39546706]no but now i might[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=kamikaze470;39546730]I might check it out if my local library has a copy of it.[/QUOTE] It's very good and what it talks about is frankly terrifying for the public school system and history education in America.

I don't know about you guys but I love studying the crusades. Especially the first one where the heroic crusader army stormed Jerusalem and killed literally everyone, regardless of their religion. Also Richard the Lionheart was a terrible king.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;39548982]I don't know about you guys but I love studying the crusades.[/quote] Yeah, they're great. You should read [I]God's War[/I] by Cristopher Tyreman if you can, really good book on all the crusades. [quote]Especially the first one where the heroic crusader army stormed Jerusalem and killed literally everyone, regardless of their religion.[/quote] Yeah Crusaders were assholes most of the time. Some of the leaders of the Kingdom of Jerusalem were alright though. [quote]Also Richard the Lionheart was a terrible king.[/QUOTE] Still makes for a very interesting historical figure.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39549001]Yeah, they're great. You should read [I]God's War[/I] by Cristopher Tyreman if you can, really good book on all the crusades. Yeah Crusaders were assholes most of the time. Some of the leaders of the Kingdom of Jerusalem were alright though. Still makes for a very interesting historical figure.[/QUOTE] You can't help but feel bad, the leaders of Jerusalem for the most part realised they had nothing to gain by fighting the muslims and did a pretty good job of maintaining relations with them, then every 10 years or so a load of crazy knights from Europe would show up and start burning everything.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;39549732]You can't help but feel bad, the leaders of Jerusalem for the most part realised they had nothing to gain by fighting the muslims and did a pretty good job of maintaining relations with them, then every 10 years or so a load of crazy knights from Europe would show up and start burning everything.[/QUOTE] this isn't completely true, and in fact ignores a lot of the very hostile actions taken by the seljuks when they controlled jerusalem. it's a misconception that the crusaders were violent bloodthirsty maniacs while the muslims were peaceful and tolerant. both sides were pretty crazy. well, specifically the turks were crazy; the arab empire was a great deal more tolerant.

The reason people think the Arabs were tolerant isn't because the leaders were genuinely tolerant, but were forced to be because much of the time they were a minority ruling over vast and hostile empires.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39551167]The reason people think the Arabs were tolerant isn't because the leaders were genuinely tolerant, but were forced to be because much of the time they were a minority ruling over vast and hostile empires.[/QUOTE] yea, and taking a more intolerant and violent path ended up with the seljuk empire splitting apart in a few hundred years. [editline]11th February 2013[/editline] and hell, the "tolerance" of al-andalus ended up alienated large portions of the population when visigoths at the frontier converted to islam and got pissed off because they were no longer a "protected class" according to sharia.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;39549732]You can't help but feel bad, the leaders of Jerusalem for the most part realised they had nothing to gain by fighting the muslims and did a pretty good job of maintaining relations with them, then every 10 years or so a load of crazy knights from Europe would show up and start burning everything.[/QUOTE] The Kingdom of Jerusalem fell first and foremost because of the very fractious and sometimes violent nature of Levantine politics. The Dukes, Counts, and Lords were not united. It's not that surprising as most of the highborn came from France, with it's highly independent feudal Lords, but it's what brought the Kingdom down. Obviously the constant Muslim invasions, the poor leadership (I'm looking at you Guy de Lusignan), and the relative lack of aid and manpower post thirteenth century didn't help.

Not to mention the Roman Church and the dying Byzantine Empire were at odds with each other as much as they were against the Muslim Arabs and Turks. Had they been more united, I think maybe at least the Balkans would had remained Christian and not fall under Turkish rule.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39552104]The Kingdom of Jerusalem fell first and foremost because of the very fractious and sometimes violent nature of Levantine politics. The Dukes, Counts, and Lords were not united. It's not that surprising as most of the highborn came from France, with it's highly independent feudal Lords, but it's what brought the Kingdom down. Obviously the constant Muslim invasions, the poor leadership (I'm looking at you Guy de Lusignan), and the relative lack of aid and manpower post thirteenth century didn't help.[/QUOTE] Guy de Lusignan is one of those characters in history that reminds of when in Total War, somehow some idiot becomes leader of your faction and you are just trying to get him killed but he stays alive somehow just to annoy you.

[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;39553740]Guy de Lusignan is one of those characters in history that reminds of when in Total War, somehow some idiot becomes leader of your faction and you are just trying to get him killed but he stays alive somehow just to annoy you.[/QUOTE] Well the Templars were also horribly led, but they (Obviously) had a huge say in decisions in the Levant. Few of the Kings were that competent, I'd say the Leper King was the best one they had through the Kingdoms short run. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39553724]Not to mention the Roman Church and the dying Byzantine Empire were at odds with each other as much as they were against the Muslim Arabs and Turks. Had they been more united, I think maybe at least the Balkans would had remained Christian and not fall under Turkish rule.[/QUOTE] Which is funny because the Sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade was really the final nail in the coffin for the Empire, the rest of the time was just waiting to be buried. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches did reunite, right before the final fall of Constantinople, the only real effect of that was that the Emperor's Greek subjects deserted him while his Western mercenaries fought on. [QUOTE=Ganerumo;39547911]I thought they were pretty much just known as Crusades. Or maybe we're not talking about the same thing at all.[/QUOTE] Are you talking about the Albigensian Crusade in Langue d'oc?

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39553803] Which is funny because the Sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade was really the final nail in the coffin for the Empire, the rest of the time was just waiting to be buried. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches did reunite, right before the final fall of Constantinople, the only real effect of that was that the Emperor's Greek subjects deserted him while his Western mercenaries fought on. [/QUOTE] If I recall, the Emperor during that battle was only crowned either a couple days or a couple weeks before it and he only had a couple hundred men left to defend against the thousands of Turks outside the walls.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39556105]If I recall, the Emperor during that battle was only crowned either a couple days or a couple weeks before it and he only had a couple hundred men left to defend against the thousands of Turks outside the walls.[/QUOTE]If we're discussing the 1204 siege, there were at least 2 - 4? emperors crowned during the battle. Two of them, if memory serves me right, fled like cowards almost immediately after the other. Or are you talking about the final siege of Constantinopolis? According to a mix of chroniclers, there were at least a couple thousand of mixed ethnics, both foreign and native, that were helping to defend the city.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39556105]If I recall, the Emperor during that battle was only crowned either a couple days or a couple weeks before it and he only had a couple hundred men left to defend against the thousands of Turks outside the walls.[/QUOTE] He was crowned in 1449 and the city fell in 1453, so he had a little time, which he mostly spent strengthening the city and weeping (Presumably). But there were about 7,000 Byzantine troops left to old the city when it fell. [QUOTE=kamikaze470;39556316]If we're discussing the 1204 siege[/QUOTE] Sounds like he got them mixed together, as the Emperor during the Fourth Crusade, specifically during the fall of the city, only reigned a month before the city fell. But he also mentioned Turks, and as memory serves, the Turks weren't huge Crusaders.