|
On June 16 2017 17:34 Shiragaku wrote:
Does anyone have any good world history atlases or large world history books with lots of images and maps? And preferably one that does not just cover the typical Europe, China, and Middle East, but also South East Asia and Africa.
I am looking to give a history book as a goodbye gift, but I don't want any books that are heavy and filled with technical knowledge, something that someone can read while in the bathroom or falling to sleep.
The Times Concise History of the World
Based on the much-acclaimed The Times Complete History of the World, this authoritative history covers the whole story of humankind from its origins to the global economy and environment of today in 80 double-page spreads of text, maps and pictures. The Concise History avoids a Eurocentric approach, offering a worldwide view of history emphasizing change, expansion and contraction, and aiming to provide 'a sense of the past as a continuing process'. No jacket.
http://www.psbooks.co.uk/products/reference/item/the-times-concise-history-of-the-world/?gclid=CL2f3JKGwtQCFQmdGwodGzkN0g#sthash.W33WX64K.dpuf
http://www.psbooks.co.uk/products/reference/item/the-times-concise-history-of-the-world/?gclid=CL2f3JKGwtQCFQmdGwodGzkN0g
|
Less than 200 pages? And not expensive at that.
Will take a look.
|
On June 16 2017 17:13 opisska wrote:
Who the hell argues in favor if the crusades? It was an invasion, done under a religious guise, mostly for money. It was kinda the modus operandi of the period, so it really shouldn't be seen as particularly evil, but there is really nothing to praise about it.
You know that there were a LOT of crusades, and only a couple against the middle east. One particularly egregious one was against the Cathars in the south of France. It wasn't an invasion, because nominally they were already French... it was more about consolidating power in Paris... but yes, under the guise of religious zealotry.
As for whether there was anything "good" about the crusades, I agree with opisska that it was just business as usual in the Middle Ages. I guess the war industry pushed forward technological progress? Eventually the crusade era gave rise to the early rennaissance, so perhaps somehow the crusades were "essential" to civic progress in Europe? I don't quite know how you'd argue that, but I'm sure historians could.
|
On June 16 2017 19:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 17:13 opisska wrote:
Who the hell argues in favor if the crusades? It was an invasion, done under a religious guise, mostly for money. It was kinda the modus operandi of the period, so it really shouldn't be seen as particularly evil, but there is really nothing to praise about it. You know that there were a LOT of crusades, and only a couple against the middle east. One particularly egregious one was against the Cathars in the south of France. It wasn't an invasion, because nominally they were already French... it was more about consolidating power in Paris... but yes, under the guise of religious zealotry. As for whether there was anything "good" about the crusades, I agree with opisska that it was just business as usual in the Middle Ages. I guess the war industry pushed forward technological progress? Eventually the crusade era gave rise to the early rennaissance, so perhaps somehow the crusades were "essential" to civic progress in Europe? I don't quite know how you'd argue that, but I'm sure historians could.
The crusades as a stepstone for renaissance :
The city states of modern Italy (Venizia, Genova, Pisa) provide the fleets to transport troops to the east for the eastern crusades. They benefit financially from the transport in 3 ways:
- The silver/gold that is payed for the transport itself
- Part of the plunder of other cities (which happened to be competitors on commerce in the mediterranean)
- Most importantly, long term commercial contacts with eastern europe/muslim countries
These new trade routes continue to grow in the following centuries and the wealth of the italian cities allows the sponsoring of the early rennaissance.
The crusades also create a point of contact between western europe and the muslim empire. Through this channel, western europe re-discovers the "classical" knowledge of ancient greece, learns of new knowledge available in the muslim empire, some of it coming from persia, india or even china.
With the new knowledge also comes an outlandish will to promote education and learning. Classical education is born, and will lead to renaissance.
(this one is easier to argue if you consider the spanish reconquista as one of the crusades)
Other positive consequence of the crusades: contacts with eastern cultures and commerce of goods from india/china will be the motivation for the voyages of Marco Polo (at the time of the later eastern crusades) and later the search for a sea route to india, which in turn leads to the "discovery" of the americas and their colonization.
A little dubious, but usually seen as positive: central europe in the XIth century would not have been able to stop a muslim invasion. The crusade invasion and creation of jerusalem kingdoms postpones the fall of Constantinople to the muslims by centuries. This in turn gives time to central europe to develop, resist and ultimately stop the advance of the Ottoman empire at Vienna.
Those would be long term positive consequences, but they were not the goals of the crusades or planned at the time.
|
Surely it is beneficial to rob plunder a few cities - for the plunderer. I don't think anyone argues with that. However I understood the question to be asking whether they were a good thing in general, not just for the crusading side.
You are nicely cutting your own branch for whole construction with the knowledge exchange by the "stopping the Turks" part - they would have simply brought said knowledge during their conquest, if they weren't stopped.
|
On June 16 2017 16:30 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Is there a historical consensus on if the Crusades were good or bad? I randomly came across stuff arguing in favor of them (didn't read it just saw the books online) and was wondering how valid those arguments are considered.
Historians rarely concern themselves with broadly categorizing historical happenings as "good" or "bad". You're gonna have to be much, much more precise in your question. You could ask, for example, "were the crusades necessary or at least very important to the revival of trade in western europe in the high middle ages?".
|
On June 16 2017 20:53 opisska wrote:
Surely it is beneficial to rob plunder a few cities - for the plunderer. I don't think anyone argues with that. However I understood the question to be asking whether they were a good thing in general, not just for the crusading side.
Good in general is a philosophical one.
The long term consequences can be discribed as positive for western europe and the muslim countries, it is more difficult for central/eastern europe.
The local impacts during the crusades themselves is impossible to assert globally, has to be analyzed for each crusade.
On June 16 2017 20:53 opisska wrote:You are nicely cutting your own branch for whole construction with the knowledge exchange by the "stopping the Turks" part - they would have simply brought said knowledge during their conquest, if they weren't stopped.
The first one is known and the second one hypothetical, let's write an alternative history !
|
On June 16 2017 21:29 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 20:53 opisska wrote:
Surely it is beneficial to rob plunder a few cities - for the plunderer. I don't think anyone argues with that. However I understood the question to be asking whether they were a good thing in general, not just for the crusading side. Good in general is a philosophical one. The long term consequences can be discribed as positive for western europe and the muslim countries, it is more difficult for central/eastern europe. The local impacts during the crusades themselves is impossible to assert globally, has to be analyzed for each crusade. Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 20:53 opisska wrote:You are nicely cutting your own branch for whole construction with the knowledge exchange by the "stopping the Turks" part - they would have simply brought said knowledge during their conquest, if they weren't stopped. The first one is known and the second one hypothetical, let's write an alternative history !
How can you, in the same post, talk about long-term consequences and then call any discussion about what would happen without the crusades as "alternate history"? How do you even evaluate, what were the consequences, if you don't know what would have happened otherwise?
More importantly, what makes you think that it was positive for the Muslim countries? What exactly did they gain out of it, in the long-term?
|
On June 16 2017 17:11 AbouSV wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2017 21:42 JWD[9] wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0EmMH5X.png) When koreans stream to multiple platforms, which one is the fourth one? (yellow) Afreeca->Twitch->Youtube->??? Where did you find those icons?
Most Korean Broodwar Streams on Twitch have them. This is part of a screenshot from Efforts stream I think.
|
How can you, in the same post, talk about long-term consequences and then call any discussion about what would happen without the crusades as "alternate history"? How do you even evaluate, what were the consequences, if you don't know what would have happened otherwise?
Agreed, that is one of the difficulties in any description of history. That is why you usually have to be careful with presenting a causal chain. That is also why you need to keep to the known timeline because I'm quite sure in any timeline where the crusades did not happen earth was destroyed in a meteor collision early 1508.
More importantly, what makes you think that it was positive for the Muslim countries? What exactly did they gain out of it, in the long-term?
They gained the same trade routes. Granted Bagdad fell, the mongol invasion was barely contained and the next empire was turkish, but I see the crusades as taking only a minor part in that chain.
|
On June 16 2017 20:42 Oshuy wrote:
A little dubious, but usually seen as positive: central europe in the XIth century would not have been able to stop a muslim invasion. The crusade invasion and creation of jerusalem kingdoms postpones the fall of Constantinople to the muslims by centuries. This in turn gives time to central europe to develop, resist and ultimately stop the advance of the Ottoman empire at Vienna.
Those would be long term positive consequences, but they were not the goals of the crusades or planned at the time. It's more than a little dubious, more of totally dubious. If a small crusade could so easily attack and hold ground onto the Levant, then it hardly holds that the various and divided Muslim kingdoms at the time could had so easily attacked and conquered central Europe. The expansionist Ottoman Empire did not exist before Crusades, in fact it could be argued that the instability the crusades caused to the regioned caused the birth of the Ottoman Empire and the fall of Constantinople in the long run, The crusades sacked Constantinople, conquered and forcefully converted what we now call the Baltic states and were generally great for the plunderers, and not so good for those who were killed and plundered. Also, I think you will find that Vienna is hardly central Europe as the term is usually applied, but rather at the time of the battle of Vienna 400 years later it was the dominant power of the Holy Roman Empire, the most technologically and industrially advanced "state" in Europe.
Anyways the question is just strange. You might as well ask, what is good or bad, in which case you should just open up a book and read the hundred variants of people pondering just that.
|
On June 17 2017 00:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 20:42 Oshuy wrote:
A little dubious, but usually seen as positive: central europe in the XIth century would not have been able to stop a muslim invasion. The crusade invasion and creation of jerusalem kingdoms postpones the fall of Constantinople to the muslims by centuries. This in turn gives time to central europe to develop, resist and ultimately stop the advance of the Ottoman empire at Vienna.
Those would be long term positive consequences, but they were not the goals of the crusades or planned at the time. It's more than a little dubious, more of totally dubious. If a small crusade could so easily attack and hold ground onto the Levant, then it hardly holds that the various and divided Muslim kingdoms at the time could had so easily attacked and conquered central Europe. The expansionist Ottoman Empire did not exist before Crusades, in fact it could be argued that the instability the crusades caused to the regioned caused the birth of the Ottoman Empire and the fall of Constantinople in the long run, The crusades sacked Constantinople, conquered and forcefully converted what we now call the Baltic states and were generally great for the plunderers, and not so good for those who were killed and plundered. Also, I think you will find that Vienna is hardly central Europe as the term is usually applied, but rather at the time of the battle of Vienna 400 years later it was the dominant power of the Holy Roman Empire, the most technologically and industrially advanced "state" in Europe. Anyways the question is just strange. You might as well ask, what is good or bad, in which case you should just open up a book and read the hundred variants of people pondering just that.
A dubious assertion. Though I don't think I've ever read evidence specific to technological advancement, under the assumption that it goes hand in hand with economic advancement, the Dutch provinces, followed by the Italian states and England were the most technologically advanced, and in terms of industrially advanced, Austria was certainly far behind given its very low urbanization (below even France). All of this in the period you're mentioning (1650-1700).
|
the first crusade was in 1096 so we'd be looking at 1496. the dutch didnt dominate trade for at least 100-150 years after that.
|
okay thanks. I meant more of at the time if there was legitimate justification/reasons or was it just religious/invasion reasons. I figured the book was nonsense because it was in the far right Christian area.
|
On June 17 2017 01:49 IgnE wrote:
the first crusade was in 1096 so we'd be looking at 1496. the dutch didnt dominate trade for at least 100-150 years after that.
By battle of Vienna i assume he's talking late 1600s. I was refuting only the bolded part.
Ed: Ok, theres another battle of Vienna which hadnt come to my mind. Still, I doubt it would figure under most advanced or industrious. Around the 1500s the italian states were far ahead of the rest of europe
|
On June 17 2017 00:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 20:42 Oshuy wrote:
A little dubious, but usually seen as positive: central europe in the XIth century would not have been able to stop a muslim invasion. The crusade invasion and creation of jerusalem kingdoms postpones the fall of Constantinople to the muslims by centuries. This in turn gives time to central europe to develop, resist and ultimately stop the advance of the Ottoman empire at Vienna.
Those would be long term positive consequences, but they were not the goals of the crusades or planned at the time. It's more than a little dubious, more of totally dubious. If a small crusade could so easily attack and hold ground onto the Levant, then it hardly holds that the various and divided Muslim kingdoms at the time could had so easily attacked and conquered central Europe.
The argument seemed strange to me, this is why I mentioned it as a little dubious. My source was Encyclopedia Britannica :
www.britannica.com :
There can be little doubt that the Crusades slowed the advance of Islamic power, although how much is an open question. At the very least, they bought Europe some much-needed time. Without centuries of Crusading effort, it is difficult to see how western Europe could have escaped conquest by Muslim armies, which had already captured the rest of the Mediterranean world
|
On June 17 2017 02:29 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 00:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 16 2017 20:42 Oshuy wrote:
A little dubious, but usually seen as positive: central europe in the XIth century would not have been able to stop a muslim invasion. The crusade invasion and creation of jerusalem kingdoms postpones the fall of Constantinople to the muslims by centuries. This in turn gives time to central europe to develop, resist and ultimately stop the advance of the Ottoman empire at Vienna.
Those would be long term positive consequences, but they were not the goals of the crusades or planned at the time. It's more than a little dubious, more of totally dubious. If a small crusade could so easily attack and hold ground onto the Levant, then it hardly holds that the various and divided Muslim kingdoms at the time could had so easily attacked and conquered central Europe. The argument seemed strange to me, this is why I mentioned it as a little dubious. My source was Encyclopedia Britannica : www.britannica.com : Show nested quote +There can be little doubt that the Crusades slowed the advance of Islamic power, although how much is an open question. At the very least, they bought Europe some much-needed time. Without centuries of Crusading effort, it is difficult to see how western Europe could have escaped conquest by Muslim armies, which had already captured the rest of the Mediterranean world
That seems a bit dubious. I always considered the reconquista quite separate from the crusades. I just saw that one of the popes actually called the reconquista of Aragon the First Crusade, which is a bit bizar to me, as I thought the First Crusade was to conquer Jerusalem (and one of the successful ones at that).
Anyway, if you consider the reconquista part of the crusades (Spaniards don't, and insofar as I know, the idea of the reconquista being a holy war only really entered right at the end of the thing, when Isabel and Ferran united Castille and Aragon, "liberated" Granada and became the first of the "Reyes Catolicos"), then I guess you could say they definitely had some influence on the expansion of Islam in mainland Europe. However, if not, I fail to see how a load of caliphates and kingdoms that spent more time fighting amongst themselves than against the Christian "enemy" were stopped from conquering Europe. The turning point for the Islamic Jihad was Carolus Magnus halting their conquest at Pointier, and then the infighting leading to the split up of all the different caliphates and kingdoms ended the Islamic conquest of Europe.
I don't see much evidence for the claim there was fertile ground for an Islamic Empire forming and having another stab at conquering Europe before the Ottoman Empire actually did.
|
On June 16 2017 16:30 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Is there a historical consensus on if the Crusades were good or bad? I randomly came across stuff arguing in favor of them (didn't read it just saw the books online) and was wondering how valid those arguments are considered.
Crusades are a lot of different wars, almost none of which met anything approaching classic Christian Just War criteria. You could sorta make a case for the Reconquista, and the East Roman defense of their homeland is obviously justifiable. But those aren't usually called "Crusades" and are anyway the closest you get to justifiable.
Beneficial to the world? Who knows. Beneficial to Europe in many ways. Impossible to say for the world and depends a lot on how you feel about the European conquest thereof.
|
why compare a war's justifications with a christian schemata (just war theory) which didn't fully develop until hundreds of years after said war(s)? you'd have to make a distinction between aquinas and augustine. do you think the popes calling for the crusades didn't appeal to augustine?
|
I have some questions about people with frequently mispronounced names.
As an example I met someone named "Que" pronounced "Tray".
First, does this happen everywhere, or are there places where this is very uncommon or specifically only with names from other cultures (meaning you don't have the issue with strange spellings/variations of common names)?
Second for anyone who has a name that is frequently mispronounced. If you could go back to when you were named and pick a spelling, would you keep the one that get's mispronounced or go for a common/phonetic spelling/different name?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
