Medieval History

It sucks being the only educated person in your history class. At least @slydessertfox is in honors

I feel the same way in any of my World History/Geography classes.

You think that's bad, my teacher doesn't know half of the history on this site. She is a good teacher though.

Haha. Anyways, back on topic, lets talk about the medieval era. How about the black plague? Or the Fire of London? Or were those after the Medieval Era?

Lol surprise bubonic plague, problem east Roman empire?


I died a little in side.

Actually Justinian is the worst Byzantine emperor. Yes he conquered a lot, but he's wars left him with no money and thus he couldn't secure he's gains. So Justinian made the Byzantine empire less powerful

The Black Plague spread through Europe around 1348. The Fire of London was in 1666. I believe London also got hit by a black plague in the same year.

Well, then the Black Plague fits the time period. Fire of London obviously doesn't.

When I see you guys talking like that about your classes I wonder the state of inteligence of the future american generation...In my class almost nobody is dumb like that.

And to the people saying the crusades and reconquista were bad...they basically opened the eyes of the Western europeans to the world outside them, no wonder that after the first crusade europe goes on a slight technological advancement.

Its because being dumb is glorified in American society. Being smart gets you disliked. Fucking teenagers.

They may have opened Europe's eyes, but that doesn't mean they were ok. They were absolutely crazy. And I'd be happier if Europe was ruled by Muslims, there would probably have been no muslim extremists, considering the muslims of the time period were very open eyed and fair.

No, they did have extremists back then. The Ottoman Empire was about the first empire where religion was not a matter of state.

Until the young turks and Armenian Genocide, that is.

No, the bubonic plague made the Byzantine Empire weaker. The plague wiped out about half of the population in the Empire in the 6th Centuray AD.

That doesn't make sense, they were flourishing as a nation during that time.

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

I see, but I don't think a plague hitting only Constantinople could have curbed the entire empire to the point that they lose Italy, which they just conquered. But I see that it weakened them.

As the disease spread to port cities around the Mediterranean, the struggling Goths gained an edge in their conflict with Constantinople. The plague weakened the Byzantine Empire at a critical point, when Justinian's armies had nearly wholly retaken Italy and the western Mediterranean coast; this evolving conquest could have credibly reformed the Western Roman Empire and united it with the Eastern under a single emperor for the first time since the year 395. The plague may also have contributed to the success of the Arabs a few generations later in the Byzantine-Arab Wars.[1][7]


The number of deaths will always be uncertain. Modern scholars believe that the plague killed up to 5,000 people per day in Constantinople at the peak of the pandemic. It ultimately killed perhaps 40% of the city's inhabitants. The initial plague caused the deaths of up to a quarter of the human population of the eastern Mediterranean[10] New, frequent waves of the plague continued to strike throughout the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries AD, often more localized and less virulent. It is estimated that the Plague of Justinian killed as many as 25 million people across the world.[11]

As you can see, this was a pretty significant plague and ultimately, in the end, resulted in the Byzantine's demise.

I would argue that an army that is only motivated by money, takes huge areas of land and don't have men to secure the Ares. AND then the state can't pay you. Then the soldiers leave is more made the state weaker. Even if the bubonic plague would have never hit. They would have still lost all new areas they conquered, and be left with empty coffers....

Well also because the Muslims would constantly hang Christians and destroy their businesses and such. Religious Oppression, really.

Other than that, we have to fight over something. At least the answer to the Universe is important and its not like Gold or some materialistic shit.

Both were just retaking land the Muslims took from us. Especially the Reconquista. Hell, we didn't do much anything wrong in the Reconquista anyway. It was the Crusades, mostly the later ones, that could actually be considered as "evil". The 1st and to a lesser extent 2nd Crusades were entirely for Faith and a just cause. Notice, the Crusaders did far better when they were fighting for a just cause and thus had people support them. Unlike later when they weren't and thus had no one supporting them.

This.
People often forget those lands were christians and jewish much before the Muslims conquered them. The Muslims never had any right to those lands, so I guess its fair.