Egypt's President, "It's time for an Arab coalition against ISIS"; May lead to a rebirth of pan-Arab - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;47198938]I'm quite sure modern scholars simply cling to the name as a name. I use it from time to time to simply give people a point on the timeline of the world[/QUOTE] Maybe, but my issue lies with the fact people seem to think that the Europeans/Christians were really backwards compared to the Islamic world during this time when it's not true. They were making major contributions. It's just not common knowledge and gets ignored, for no real reason.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;47198938]I'm quite sure modern scholars simply cling to the name as a name. I use it from time to time to simply give people a point on the timeline of the world[/QUOTE] afaik a lot of historians actually don't use the dark ages as a label as it is misleading [editline]23rd February 2015[/editline] only when discussing it with the laymen is it used

i can confirm that academic medievalists don't say "the dark ages" [editline]23rd February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Deng;47198896]Humans are still generally less violent and intolerant than prior to the 21st century.[/QUOTE] the 20th century was the most violent century in human history [editline]23rd February 2015[/editline] i'd like to point out that someone literally explained what pan arabism was to a reasonable degree of accuracy within five posts of the op yet the momentum for a high school homeroom version of history was already so strong that apparently no one noticed

[QUOTE=Kommodore;47200674] the 20th century was the most violent century in human history[/quote] Hardly. Going back a few mere centuries, the 17th century easily trumps the 20th with the 30 years war, the deluge, English civil war, Russian time of troubles, collapse of the Ming dynasty, and the wars of the Ottomans and Mughals too. Considerable numbers of people died, on a far larger scale than in both World Wars. If we head to the 13th century meanwhile, the Mongols went and killed about 40 million people and regularly committed acts of genocide while invading just about everyone in Eurasia. Going by the actual destruction done (whole civilizations destroyed), Genghis Khan was far bloodier than Hitler or Stalin.

I would love to see places such as Baghdad, Iraq become centers of science, knowledge and culture just as they once were in the times of our ancestors.

[QUOTE=Deng;47200733]Hardly. Going back a few mere centuries, the 17th century easily trumps the 20th with the 30 years war, the deluge, English civil war, Russian time of troubles, collapse of the Ming dynasty, and the wars of the Ottomans and Mughals too. Considerable numbers of people died, on a far larger scale than in both World Wars. If we head to the 13th century meanwhile, the Mongols went and killed about 40 million people and regularly committed acts of genocide while invading just about everyone in Eurasia. Going by the actual destruction done (whole civilizations destroyed), Genghis Khan was far bloodier than Hitler or Stalin.[/QUOTE] you're delusional

[QUOTE=Kommodore;47200875]you're delusional[/QUOTE] That's not how you debate a statement you disagree with.

it takes 30 seconds on wikipedia to disprove, it's literally not worth anyone's time [editline]23rd February 2015[/editline] here, figure it out [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll[/url]

[QUOTE=Kommodore;47200875]you're delusional[/QUOTE] That's not really an argument? Going by the proportion of people killed, Medieval and Early Modern warfare was far more brutal than modern ones. A third of the population of Germany died in the thirty years war. This hasn't been matched since. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll[/URL] With deaths caused by the Mongol Invasions, about 40 million died. In WW2, about 60 million died. Whats important is that the population of the world in the 13th century was about 400 million. In WW2, the population was about 2300 million. The damage caused by the Mongol Invasions was far greater, simply because they killed a great proportion out of the total population. 40 million out of 400 million is 10%. 60 milion out of 2300 million is about 2.6%

ok you're doing great now add world war I and the deaths from this list [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll[/url]

[QUOTE=Kommodore;47200959]ok you're doing great now add world war I and the deaths from this list [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll[/url][/QUOTE] Alright, remember to look at this too then: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:13th-century_conflicts[/url]

when you're done you can add the great leap forward and soviet great famine and great purge

[QUOTE=Kommodore;47200980]when you're done you can add the great leap forward and soviet great famine and great purge[/QUOTE] The original point I made back then is that far more people died violent deaths in the past than in modern times. While loads of people died during the 20th century, a great deal more didn't die. If I was going to choose between the 20th or 13th centuries as a safer place, I would choose the 20th century as being the safer one. Remember that with the exception of Eurasia and North Africa, the rest of the world was full of tribes that had death rates from violence often exceeding 15%. Medieval Europe was full of feudal lords who fought each other practically every year (which is why the place was so full of castles, walled towns, and mass graves of people who died violently). The Mongols would go and burn down a town or village whenever they felt like it too, usually killing everybody there in the process with the rest being sold into slavery. Violence was such an integral thing back then, that the mean age of most populations tended to be something like 17, and murdering somebody over a game of chess or an insult was commonplace. Going by absolute numbers, yes more people died in the 20th century. That is misleading however, in that as a proportion of the total number of people around, less people died violently than those in the Middle Ages.

"the rest of the world was full of tribes that had death rates from violence often exceeding 15%" SH is so full of shit, why do i even bother

[QUOTE=Kommodore;47201046]"the rest of the world was full of tribes that had death rates from violence often exceeding 15%" SH is so full of shit, why do i even bother[/QUOTE] [img_thumb]http://edge.org/images/sp-Slide011.jpg[/img_thumb] The Hobbesian view that life outside of a state tends to be nasty, brutish, and short is corroborated by the many, many graves of people who show signs of violent deaths.

How did an article about Arab national unity against Islamist extremism turn into this

"More human beings had been killed or allowed to die by human decision than ever before in human history" - Eric Hobsbawm on the 20th century there literally could not be a more prolific historian to put this shit to bed

[QUOTE=Kommodore;47201258]"More human beings had been killed or allowed to die by human decision than ever before in human history" - Eric Hobsbawm on the 20th century there literally could not be a more prolific historian to put this shit to bed[/QUOTE] Why are you bothering? :v:

you practically live in SH, you tell me

[QUOTE=Kommodore;47201258]"More human beings had been killed or allowed to die by human decision than ever before in human history" - Eric Hobsbawm on the 20th century there literally could not be a more prolific historian to put this shit to bed[/QUOTE] Going by absolute numbers this is technically true, but you are missing the point I was making. If we acted like people did 800 years ago, then probably half a billion people would have died in the World Wars. The only reason so many people could be killed is because there was that much more people. Unless you actually look at rates of violence instead of absolute numbers, you're pretty much unable to make any meaningful analysis of violent behaviour in humans.