Medieval History

The Middle Ages began with the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and ended with the Discover of the New World or the Protestant Reformation. Historians debate the exact timeline because everything is so blurred together (for instance, some use the mass use of gunpowder as the end of the Middle Ages) but if we just shoot around like 450 AD to 1600 AD we should be alright.

Of course an Emperor or two in 2000 years is going to do something bad. But even what the Christians did to some Pagans was nothing like what the Pagans did to Christians. Not to mention that many Pagans were actively working against the Roman Empire because it had turned Christian.

Charlemagne was a ruthless conquerer under the false pretense of faith. He was a self-declared crusader.
I wont pretend like what he did was just. Honestly, the Pagans would've had a justification for retaking their land, except Charlemagne killed them all.

That's one of the greatest myths of Colonists in the New World. No, they were given regular blankets if they were given blankets in the first place. Disease spread through a slave who happened to have it during the journey from the Old World to the New World. It landed in Mexico and then spread north like a giant wildfire, wiping out entire villages.

If they were even given infected blankets, it was an accident. These are sailors with no education from the bloody 1500s. Like fuck they know how disease works enough to use in bio warfare. And even if they did, small pox is a horrible way to die. They would never want to handle it like that.

It's hardly our fault they didn't want to coexist.

No, they were quite reasonable and the Indians agreed in full every time. There was no trickery except on small scale swindlers who tricked both sides.

No, it's not because the Muslims had no claims to the Holy Land.

Only loosely. The real homeland of Islam is Mecca, Medina, and the surrounding regions. Christians and Jews have a far, far closer connection to Israel/Palestine than Muslims.

Debatable methods like buying the land, taking over rogue tribes, making treaties, and following the just war doctrine? And by the way, you don't have much higher standing either given what the Dutch did to Indonesia.

@Karakoran, did I not remind you this is not a thread on the natives? Go dig up an old thread for that

He started it!

No they didn't simply dissolve like the huns did, heck they still exist today -.-
I hardly think that a bunch of "uncivilized" barbarians would be able to take out nearly every realm they faced. They weren't uncivilized, Genghis Khan created their own set of laws and governed as a despot and had capable sons and grandsons that managed to hold out the biggest empire on landmass of history for about 100 years and then they just divided into smaler Khanates for better governing.

Maybe....but hes not continuing it.

Time zones, man.

Yes, and if you actually read the article you'd see there were actually only a few Emperors in the Christian Roman Empire that didn't massacre pagans and destroyed their holy places.

There was indeed persecution, I never denied that. But seeing as Christianity basically wiped out paganism in Europe, I don't see how that's not any worse than the persecution the Christians suffered under the pagans.
And the Christians worked against the pagans as well, I don't see what your point is. Of course you're going to work against a government that's actively trying to murder you for the sole reason of you not believing the same as them.
And even if their punishments were worse, that still doesn't make it right to destroy an entire religion.

Something we can definitely agree on, it seems.

I can't imagine they didn't mind, after seeing what the Spaniards did to Mesoamerica.

Yes, the Trail of Tears was the perfect example of coexistence.

Quote reasonable? "Here, have some booze, guns and mirrors for acre after acre of land, we'll murder you in a few weeks and you'll be too pissed to do anything about it".

And the colonists had no claim to the New World, or ANY place they colonised or conquered, remember?

Sounds pretty significant to me.

I was more thinking about making cheap deals, enslaving the population and massacring them while raping their women. Although, that of course falls under the "just war doctrine", right?

Don't forget the people from Suriname and South Africa. And in general any slave they traded. Now, I wouldn't have any higher standing if I actually agreed with the Dutch practices of the time. If you're honesty saying I don't have an argument because people that were born on the same piece of land as me did horrifying things (that, might I add, I disagree with fully) to people on the other side of the world centuries ago, you're an idiot. That, or you're assuming I'm one, and think you can get away with a ridiculous stab at me like that.

1. Are you serious? Are you? The biggest sacking of a city of the fist crusade was the siege of Jerusalem.... why didn't you @UnitRico point this out

2. Actually no, many of those conversions were done in sword point. And some times like the Saxon wars, Slaughtering the pagans.

BTW also I don't think the argument "they were there first" is a good one. Because Jews took Israel from others etc meaning it wasn't theirs from the beginning.

The Siege of Jerusalem was not a sacking.

I don't know too much details of the period, just that it was pretty damn bloody and nonsensical. When I want to read on certain parts some more, or want to validate something I want to post, I mash it into Google.

Yea of course not... I mean its not like there's nothing about the massacre here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade#Siege_of_Jerusalem
Also this also happened in the first crusade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'arrat_al-Numan

I bet you didn't read one of my posts entirely that saying that was as good as England retaking the US.

I didn't read your post at all. And thus I have no idea what you are saying

Actually the persecutions are way over hyped. Only a few emperors did it. And most of the time they only went after the leaders of chapters. If they would have wanted to. They could have destroys the whole religion. Unlike the early church who did want to destroy paganism.

My source is Adrian goldsworthy if you are interested

Then re-read the thread for a bit.

Actually that was waste of space. We were agreeing on something and then you just pointed out that I said same as you did...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)

Anyway...religious wars suck

That is technically not a sacking.

Oh Im sorry i didnt know we had to be 100% politically correct here. When you massacre a people of a city you just took over, I find that to be the equivalent of a sacking.

sack/sak/


Noun:

1. A large bag made of a strong material, used for storage and carrying goods.
2. The pillaging of a town or city.
3. A dry white wine from Spain.

Verb:

1. Dismiss from employment.
2. (chiefly in historical contexts) Plunder and destroy.

Synonyms:
noun. pillage - sacking - plunder
verb. plunder - pillage - rob - loot - ransack - dismiss - fire

Unless you're using it as an excuse in a paradox game

True words, taking only a fourth of the regular Infamy is amazing.