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

Well there is the History of Byzantium podcast which follows on from when the West fell, its around 532 AD right now and will go right up to 1453 eventually. It's only on its 19th episode and it seems to take 2 weeks to make one so it'll be a while before we get up to that point.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39575808] guys, how about those carolingians?[/QUOTE] It's too bad they fell apart so fast, they had some promise.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39577260]It's too bad they fell apart so fast, they had some promise.[/QUOTE] Considering the extent to which they shaped Europe and the legacy they left behind, I'd say they achieved a lot of that promise and their collapse isn't so lamentable

[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] You're probably thinking of the Albigensian Crusade. Same location, different thing. The first was an actual crusade sanctioned by the church against the Cathar heretics in southern France, and the second was more along the lines of a civil war.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39577260]It's too bad they fell apart so fast, they had some promise.[/QUOTE] the descendents of the carolingian dynasty far outlived the empire itself. the holy roman empire lasted until napoleon, and west francia is now called france and is a world power. i would say they were pretty damn successful at carving a name for themselves.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39577633]the descendents of the carolingian dynasty far outlived the empire itself. the holy roman empire lasted until napoleon, and west francia is now called france and is a world power. i would say they were pretty damn successful at carving a name for themselves.[/QUOTE] I didn't say their descendants didn't accomplish great things. I said the division of the Empire itself may have hindered other progress (Albeit in a roundabout way).

[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] Well that, and the simple fact that a state surrounded by hostile factions, (Especially dangerous when those factions are united by a strong military leader, I.E. Saladin or Nur ad-Din) with little to nothing in the way of strategic or material value is doomed to fail. The best they could rely on was military reinforcements from Europe, and when those failed, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was essentially finished. Also, I'm thinking of getting this shirt, partially because I just like the iconography and also because it might look fitting when I DJ: [IMG]http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.8066532.1906/fig,silver,mens,ffffff.jpg[/IMG]

Don't know why, but it bugs me when people use Roman Numerals to represent centuries, like writing "XX Century" instead of "20th century" One of my high school history teachers did that, it bugged the hell out of me.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;39575330]They did promote Hitler though, yes they didn't want a war and that's why they took the route they did but this helped Hitler, if they hadn't and instead took Hitler down as soon as he started breaking the treaty then Germany wouldn't have been in as nearly a strong position that it had in 1939. With leaders such as Lloyd George praising Hitler as a great leader for turning Germany around it is clear that for most of the 1930's Germany was purposefully allowed to grow in strength e.g. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement. They did promote Hitler's growth through appeasement and they kept doing it until they finally saw that Hitler was not going to stop. [/QUOTE] I've heard that actually the elite of the later allied were hoping that the nazi ideal would destroy communism which was obviously a threat to monarchy and capitalism.

[QUOTE=Falchion;39578221]I've heard that actually the elite of the later allied were hoping that the nazi ideal would destroy communism which was obviously a threat to monarchy and capitalism.[/QUOTE] Some wanted a strong bufferstate between Russia and the West but it became clear that Fascism was a bigger problem than communism.

I find it would be really cool to go back in time during the Crusades and lop people's heads off with the Templars

[QUOTE=Jetpack Bear;39579009]I find it would be really cool to go back in time during the Crusades and lop people's heads off with the Templars[/QUOTE] Uh okay

[QUOTE=Jetpack Bear;39579009]I find it would be really cool to go back in time during the Crusades and lop people's heads off with the Templars[/QUOTE] Even though they were psychotic and corrupt?

Who was the first to start releasing their african colonies? Was it France?

[QUOTE=Broguts;39579152]Even though they were psychotic and corrupt?[/QUOTE] Well that's a sweeping generalization, though I agree with the sentiment that it's wrong to dream of being one of them. Not every Templar was Raynald de Chatillion. Like any organization they had their cowards and their heroes, their thieves and their honest men. Their original purpose was noble enough, escorting pilgrims through the extremely hazardous post-Crusade Holy Land, as with the Hospitaller's and their running of the hospitals, which I believe were open to all peoples. They might have even treated enemy wounded with the same respect they treated Christian wounded, I'm a little fuzzy on that though. The guy is still possibly sadistic though.

[QUOTE=Broguts;39579152]Even though they were psychotic and corrupt?[/QUOTE] Most of their poor reputation, like many other organizations, came after they had ceased to exist. The fact that the Templars practiced "The Dark Art of Moving Money Around" (They allowed pilgrims to buy certificates in Europe which they could redeem in the Holy Land) attracted the ire of a number of Europeans. Other than that, It would NOT be cool to be a templar knight in the Crusades, unless dying of heat exhaustion or execution is your kind of thing.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39579254]Who was the first to start releasing their african colonies? Was it France?[/QUOTE] i think south africa was released in 1931 and effectively independent(although still a commonwealth of britain i think). idk if there were any african nations released before that.

[QUOTE=Tuskin;39578075]Don't know why, but it bugs me when people use Roman Numerals to represent centuries, like writing "XX Century" instead of "20th century" One of my high school history teachers did that, it bugged the hell out of me.[/QUOTE] I've never seen anyone, let alone a teacher do that before.

we all know that the IX Century was an era of great reform and innovation, but the XX Century was unparalleled in that regard.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39579401]Well that's a sweeping generalization, though I agree with the sentiment that it's wrong to dream of being one of them. Not every Templar was Raynald de Chatillion. Like any organization they had their cowards and their heroes, their thieves and their honest men. Their original purpose was noble enough, escorting pilgrims through the extremely hazardous post-Crusade Holy Land, as with the Hospitaller's and their running of the hospitals, which I believe were open to all peoples. They might have even treated enemy wounded with the same respect they treated Christian wounded, I'm a little fuzzy on that though. The guy is still possibly sadistic though.[/QUOTE] I like how the Hospitalers are still around and are a Red cross like organization, still somehow maintaining their rights as a sovereign state, though the only territory they hold at the moment is a fort in Malta I think.

I wish mainstream history books and classes don't say "the Roman Empire fell" rather than "The Western Empire fell". Byzantine history, which continued for another thousand years, gets completely ignored.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39582273]I wish mainstream history books and classes don't say "the Roman Empire fell" rather than "The Western Empire fell". Byzantine history, which continued for another thousand years, gets completely ignored.[/QUOTE] by the time rome fell, the ere was already way more rich and powerful than the stagnating west anyways, and had been for a while. [editline]14th February 2013[/editline] i also don't like the classification of the germanic tribes as "barbarians" either. i think it sends really bad signals regarding these people. [editline]14th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39582217]I like how the Hospitalers are still around and are a Red cross like organization, still somehow maintaining their rights as a sovereign state, though the only territory they hold at the moment is a fort in Malta I think.[/QUOTE] malta fell during the napoleonic times. i think the hospitallers are based in rome now

[QUOTE=Iago;39512016]I know i'm gonna sound a bit fucked up here but I think hitler was a pretty cool guy except for that jew thing and all.[/QUOTE] Yeah that Jew thing was so minor, everybody is totally exaggerating. Fucknut.

[QUOTE=urundeadmom;39574618]Im sure It cant be soo hard to do considering[b] all of us are adults.[/b][/QUOTE] <--- ahem. And just to prove my point- [QUOTE=Tuskin;39578075]Don't know why, but it bugs me when people use Roman Numerals to represent centuries, like writing "XX Century" instead of "20th century"[/QUOTE] When I did ancient history, we played a game where you replace every 'I' with 'No', every 'V' with 'Daddy' and every 'X' with 'Please, not there!' :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39582273]I wish mainstream history books and classes don't say "the Roman Empire fell" rather than "The Western Empire fell". Byzantine history, which continued for another thousand years, gets completely ignored.[/QUOTE] The Byzantines were too different from the Romans for that imo. Like if you think of the Eastern Empire in the year 1200 it bore no resemblance to the Classical Roman Empire.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39584952]The Byzantines were too different from the Romans for that imo. Like if you think of the Eastern Empire in the year 1200 it bore no resemblance to the Classical Roman Empire.[/QUOTE] They were different from the start. The eastern half had already been influenced so much by Greece and Greek culture, but still part of the greater Greco-Roman culture. And they still had a great many similarities and ties to 'ancient' Rome when the western half fell. They even had a senate, not that it did much.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39584952]The Byzantines were too different from the Romans for that imo. Like if you think of the Eastern Empire in the year 1200 it bore no resemblance to the Classical Roman Empire.[/QUOTE] well roman culture during the republic was wildly different from roman culture when rome finally fell as well.

[url]http://historyofrome.wm.wizzard.tv/webpage/2010/02[/url] If any of you want to listen to listen to the history of Rome podcast its all here. On 11 out of 176 so far and i'm really enjoying it.

You think the Jews ever had a chance at becoming independent or at least having more autonomy in the Empire?

[QUOTE=Thom12255;39587795]You think the Jews ever had a chance at becoming independent or at least having more autonomy in the Empire?[/QUOTE] Before or after Rome demolished Jerusalem? Either way, I doubt it. Rome was fairly tolerant to religions, but the Jews had always been quite opposed to Roman rule. If they had bent the knee and peacefully toiled under oppression one of the Emperors would likely have listened to a plea of autonomy. Of course, by then Christianity had taken a firm grasp of Europe so the Jews were even more marginalized. Not like I'm saying oppressed peoples should just shut up and deal with it, just that Rome was always kinder to people who, well, shut up and dealt with it.