Civ Talk

[Burzum]

So, you're saying that the Middle East was developed and educated for a longer time than the West, right?

That's exactly what I'm saying and it's a fact.

[Shield Bearer]

So it is. And I'm sure you will also agree that, if that's the case, the West sure got back on its feet in record time... I wonder why...? If the history of Science and Education of the West is just 800-500 years old (not counting the time before the 'Dark Ages'. That these ages were 'dark' is not a fact btw. See the Carolingian Renaissance and the High Middle Ages.), how did it come so far, in so little time, discovering things that the educated and age old East did not?

[Burzum]

Infact a lot of things came from the East.

Gunpowder, etc etc. That's far east.

I wasn't saying the western world were dark, but that christianity has zero tollerance for science and knowledge. Islam preserved much of ancient and Medieval knowledge and history that the west mainly burned to ash.

Islam and their religion were not interested in building upon western knowledge because it wasn't Islam and Islam also impededed their progression.

Only difference is who was the most tolerable.

[zoot]

The "church had no tolerance of science" thing is an old stereotypical view of the Middle Ages that no one really subscribes to today.

http://bede.org.uk/university.htm

[Shield Bearer]

Infact a lot of things came from the East.

Gunpowder, etc etc. That's far east.

I wasn't saying the western world were dark, but that christianity has zero tollerance for science and knowledge. Islam preserved much of ancient and Medieval knowledge and history that the west mainly burned to ash.

Islam and their religion were not interested in building upon western knowledge because it wasn't Islam and Islam also impededed their progression.

Only difference is who was the most tolerable.

You say Islam was tolerant? You didn't even answer any of my questions, I observe. Please read your history again. See why the crusades were fought (to gain back Jerusalem, because the Muslims were attacking the pilgrims that came to visit the holy sites...tolerant?) Islam got its knowledge, a good part of it, from ancient Greek and Roman writings (as we know Constantinople-Istanbul was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire), which the West did not have. The West did not have many manuscripts because they were burned by barbarian hordes when they were pillaging the areas. But still the West thrived. The barbarians were taught and formed modern day Europe, which then went on to conquer the world. If China, India, Istanbul etc. were such centers of learning, how in the world did the Europe overtake them?

Like I said, read about the Carolingian Renaissance, educate yourself.

The "church had no tolerance of science" thing is an old stereotypical view of the Middle Ages that no one really subscribes to today.

http://bede.org.uk/university.htm

No one but our misinformed friend here

[Burzum]

You say Islam was tolerant? You didn't even answer any of my questions, I observe. Please read your history again. See why the crusades were fought (to gain back Jerusalem, because the Muslims were attacking the pilgrims that came to visit the holy sites...tolerant?) Islam got its knowledge, a good part of it, from ancient Greek and Roman writings (as we know Constantinople-Istanbul was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire), which the West did not have. The West did not have many manuscripts because they were burned by barbarian hordes when they were pillaging the areas. But still the West thrived. The barbarians were taught and formed modern day Europe, which then went on to conquer the world. If China, India, Istanbul etc. were such centers of learning, how in the world did the Europe overtake them?

Like I said, read about the Carolingian Renaissance, educate yourself.

No one but our misinformed friend here

Islam got their knowwledge from all over and were the preservers of it.

You in no place to tell me to revise my history...lol Both of you have a phobia to my statement about religion and it explains your low remark about it.

See why the crusades were fought (to gain back Jerusalem, because the Muslims were attacking the pilgrims that came to visit the holy sites...tolerant?)

Intolerable to Christian pilgrims yeah, but not knowledge. Two different things and deems that statement irrelevant.

Crusaders fought in the middle east not for Jurusalem only like many of you mainstream folk like to believe, but the whole significance of Knight Templer and Teutonic Knights were to capture artifacts, ancient knowledge and relics. They had nothing to do with safe guarding pilgrims... lol

You really have the wrong idea bud...

The evolution of Islam over the decades have slowly made more and more intolerable. I think you yourself need to look into this further.

About me being misinformed...lol you entilted to your opinions. But don't portray your opinion so as to make you know any better, because from what I've seen you say, the sources you have provided, and the questions you have asked, I can conlcude the same dear friend.

My advice to you is before you add your 2 cents and criticise someone, read and understand them properly otherwise you make yourself look like an idiot.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Burzum

[Mythos_Ruler]

Crusaders fought in the middle east not for Jurusalem only like many of you mainstream folk like to believe, but the whole significance of Knight Templer and Teutonic Knights were to capture artifacts, ancient knowledge and relics. They had nothing to do with safe guarding pilgrims... lol

I'd say they were fought for many complex reasons. Opening trade routes, opening a "steam-valve" for population release, politics, economics, and religion. Also, keep in mind that Islam had been conquering Christian lands for hundreds of years. A counterattack was inevitable. It wasn't until the Siege of Vienna were the Turks finally pushed back from taking over all of Eastern Europe. It wasn't until the Battle of Tours did the Franks stop the Muslims from taking over Western Europe.

[Shield Bearer]

Islam got their knowwledge from all over and were the preservers of it.

You in no place to tell me to revise my history...lol Both of you have a phobia to my statement about religion and it explains your low remark about it.

Intolerable to Christian pilgrims yeah, but not knowledge. Two different things and deems that statement irrelevant.

Crusaders fought in the middle east not for Jurusalem only like many of you mainstream folk like to believe, but the whole significance of Knight Templer and Teutonic Knights were to capture artifacts, ancient knowledge and relics. They had nothing to do with safe guarding pilgrims... lol

You really have the wrong idea bud...

The evolution of Islam over the decades have slowly made more and more intolerable. I think you yourself need to look into this further.

About me being misinformed...lol you entilted to your opinions. But don't portray your opinion so as to make you know any better, because from what I've seen you say, the sources you have provided, and the questions you have asked, I can conlcude the same dear friend.

My advice to you is before you add your 2 cents and criticise someone, read and understand them properly otherwise you make yourself look like an idiot.

So, you mean to say Christian Europe did not preserve knowledge?

I see that you have not provided any sources either. And I also see that you are avoiding my more direct questions, with irrelevant ramblings. Answer these questions for me if you will.

1) You say Christendom was intolerant toward Science and Education. On what basis do you make such a claim?

2) If Christian Europe was so far behind in its knowledge, how did it come back on its feet AND overtake other cultures with its scientific breakthroughs in a much shorter period?

3) Do you claim that Christian Europe did not preserve knowledge?

I do not contest the Islamic contributions to Science, they are many and laudable.

You have not provided a single source for your information and yet you laugh at our 'source'?

I'd say they were fought for many complex reasons. Opening trade routes, opening a "steam-valve" for population release, politics, economics, and religion. Also, keep in mind that Islam had been conquering Christian lands for hundreds of years. A counterattack was inevitable. It wasn't until the Siege of Vienna were the Turks finally pushed back from taking over all of Eastern Europe. It wasn't until the Battle of Tours did the Franks stop the Muslims from taking over Western Europe.

Yes, of course. I wasn't going into the details.

[Burzum]

1) You say Christendom was intolerant toward Science and Education. On what basis do you make such a claim?

2) If Christian Europe was so far behind in its knowledge, how did it come back on its feet AND overtake other cultures with its scientific breakthroughs in a much shorter period?

3) Do you claim that Christian Europe did not preserve knowledge?

Catholic threshhold over power were responsible for such things. Sources are in history itself. Look at all the burnings of books and literature that was considered "The work of the Devil" ... If I had to list sources I would be going into immense detail.

I'm not interested in engaging a discussion where we exchange sources to just make up your mind on a claim to support it. You have you version of the story, whether that is truth or not, a given source doesn't mean anything as proven time and time again.

Your second question I will refrain from answering if you really want my honest opinion and view on that matter. All I can say that I probably will be labeled a sterotypical supremacist.lol.

Question number three, no directly, I say that there were a few great individuals in the Medieval period that clinged onto science literature and the likes, but compared to Islam in that time frame, all honesty the people in the middle east were so much more advanced and not just with scientific knowledge but were culturely advanced too.

I think if one were to look at it from an Islamic point of view as aopposed to a western point of view which is biased to the west, the people of the middles east were like Romans to naked bunch of Germans with faces painted blue.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Burzum

[sanderd17]

Ancient Aliens man, it's all Ancient Aliens.

And I give you some very trustworthy sources:

http://www.alienswerehere.com/AncientAlienEvidence.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts

Now do remember, Poe's law always applies, but you never know in which direction.

[Burzum]

Ancient Aliens man, it's all Ancient Aliens.

And I give you some very trustworthy sources:

http://www.alienswer...enEvidence.html

http://en.wikipedia....ient_astronauts

Now do remember, Poe's law always applies, but you never know in which direction.

[Shield Bearer]

I see you have very nicely deluded yourself. Congratulations! So nothing I say will ever change your mind.

Your second question I will refrain from answering if you really want my honest opinion and view on that matter. All I can say that I probably will be labeled a sterotypical supremacist.lol.

No please, answer it, I want to hear it I want to know how you think the rest of the world was left behind with its superior knowledge while the West triumphed with its naked Germans

[Burzum]

I see you have very nicely deluded yourself. Congratulations! So nothing I say will ever change your mind.

I haven't deluded myself. I just refrained from answering your question.

As for the naked Germans, yes they did infact learn eventually how to dress themselves, although their fashion sense is a little bit ....woo woooo owooo ....

But compared to the emergance of Japanese fashion into the Middle east ....

The people of Islam were really dressed compared to the Germans etc.

Now, I think if we stick to the time frames as mentioned above, Medieval time periods is not really in the scope of this discussion.

[Shield Bearer]

As you wish, continue your discussion. I completely understand why you don't want to answer that question

[Burzum]

For the racial elements and sarcastic or otherwise flaming warfare that has been uttered here, and in particularly against the poor Germans.... We not being racist towards you... it's just that... Dudes, the poor Jews you persecuted weren't even that naked as you people in the hot bloody desert for 40 years.....

We have put all this under the table like gum, promise. As a naughty school kid would.

Kinda feels like school doesn't it? Only difference is we all believe that we the teachers here. *recipe for serious conflict*

Battle of the canes.....................

Or if your teacher loved throwing toilet rolls which broke open noses......There's a bit of snotty warfare there for you.

ANYWAY

We were discussing what civilization you think that was the most beneficial to us and our modern world. In what era and why?

Lets hear your thoughts.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Burzum

[Shield Bearer]

We have put all this under the table like gum, promise. As a naughty school kid would.

What's your point in mentioning it then?

[quantumstate]

This topic doesn't seem to be going anywhere desirable, I have locked it for now.

[Burzum]

quantumstate thank you for unlocking the thread.

This was a representation of history itself in a way.

Roman VS Barbarian. In this case I Burzum VS Shield Bearer.

I possess a more civilized approach to the conversation, and I try keep it orderly without letting it slide off into oblivion of nonsense, (i.e. promoting progress) Whereas Shield Bearer imitates a more barbaric way in veiling messages with sarcasm with a undercurrent of derogatory.

This is why Rome was great and why people hated her outside the Empire.

_____________________________________________________________

Anyway, let's please let this thread carry on without interference. If you want to troll, join nexus.

So the topic is left off from BCE civilizations and which one of that era was most beneficial and influential?

Edited May 3, 2013 by Burzum

[alpha123]

I possess a more civilized approach to the conversation, and I try keep it orderly without letting it slide off into oblivion of nonsense, (i.e. promoting progress) Whereas Shield Bearer imitates a more barbaric way in veiling messages with sarcasm with a undercurrent of derogatory.

This is why Rome was great and why people hated her outside the Empire.

Er... did you just say you're great and thus people hate you? Not to mention insulting Amish at the same time.

At least your derogatory isn't undercurrent, it's right out there in the open....

Anyway, I'd say the most influential civilization was Israel. They affected the histories of the Egyptians, Persians, and Seleucids, as well as being a great nation of their own for a while. But probably the most important part was that Judaism is the basis of Christianity (Jesus was Jewish, after all). Christian monks preserved knowledge during the (not quite so) "Dark Ages", Christian scientists like Newton and Pascal discovered all sorts of interesting things (motivated by trying to understand the world from a theistic worldview), and currently it's the most popular religion in the world (although that doesn't really mean much).

Just my 2¢. I'm not a historian by any means.

[Loki1950]

And let us not forget the other people of the book Islam thou they are out of bounds for the current incarnation of 0AD.

Enjoy the Choice

[Shield Bearer]

quantumstate thank you for unlocking the thread.

This was a representation of history itself in a way.

Roman VS Barbarian. In this case I Burzum VS Shield Bearer.

I possess a more civilized approach to the conversation, and I try keep it orderly without letting it slide off into oblivion of nonsense, (i.e. promoting progress) Whereas Shield Bearer imitates a more barbaric way in veiling messages with sarcasm with a undercurrent of derogatory.

This is why Rome was great and why people hated her outside the Empire.

I don't think you understand why this topic was locked in the first place...

but, besides that, this a very good example of biased opinion! Let the others decide who the barbarian is amongst us.

Anyway, call me a barbarian if you wish. I'll gladly be one, if the credit for building the Gothic Cathedrals came to me

[av93]

The Nuclear Bomb, a good example of the Civilization. This is basically an ideology conversation. My points is not to say that Civilization was or wasn't better than Barbarian , I just say that they were all just human. It isn't the Slavery of roman empire an example of "Barbarism"? We would live in an egalitarian world if the Roman Empire never invade Europe?

All that I want is that you think a little bit about your tough. I could say that your kind of thinking have been the speech of colonialism, what do you think about?

[Burzum]

Anyway, call me a barbarian if you wish. I'll gladly be one, if the credit for building the Gothic Cathedrals came to me

Gothic architecture evolved from Romanesque architecture

I wonder where those Medieval streakers got those skills in masonry from...

But also, apart from that, they can be credited by building them, what was their purpose and driving force?

What drove them to build it?

Ah, wait... Roman Catholicism!!!

Again the Romans twice claim the crown of sweet glory.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Burzum

[kosmo]

You know how much of greek, carthaginian and so on knowledge the romans absorbed, don't you?

Don't get me wrong, I like the romans, but not the slightest bit your absolutely obnoxious arrogance.

If you claim the Romans for Roman catholicism and thus the drive to build cathedrals, can I claim the Romans to be guilty for the sexual abused victims by priests? It's the same logical structure...

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Sorry to stray off topic, but perhaps this should be put in a different sub-forum like off-topic discussions. It isn't really a whole lot about in game material and would be more appropriate I think.