Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Check this out. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm or maybe this is propaganda again 8)
I think he is talking about the post-modern deconstructionism and revisionism of the Foucault and Derrida variety. You know, the nihilistic view that everything is relative championed and originated by 1960's and 70's French philosophers?
In English please. ;DActually what I'm talking about is the modern trend of attempting to minimize Ancient Greek and Ancient Rome cultures and placing an over-emphasis on other cultures by adding different, non-important, and sometimes non-existent elements because it makes people feel good and part of “the global community.” Modernists just can't stand that the history of Western Civilization is Euro- and Christian- centric. We're supposed to be “politically-correct” now by adding Orientalism and Islamicism to our history. Well, sorry, but with this student, it ain't gonna happen. I'm going to learn and teach history how it was, not how I or others want it to be because it fits in with the current trend of revisionism.And what do you mean this is others' opinions? By showing historical fact and archaeological evidence, I have refuted just about every claim you've made of alleged Islamic contribution and have shown that Greece and Rome already started it.
Very sorry and I have to apologize: I forgot that a student can be a genius as well 🙂
Now, Aeth, do you still want proof of Islam's view of science? I'm not talking about Arabs here, I'm talking about fundamentalist, orthodox Islam.The world of post-modern historical revisionism with it's overemphasis on Islamic contribution to Western society is such a fun thing to refute. ::)
Contribution. Definition: be partly responsible forAbout revisionism (Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements.) I would suggest some cautions when using this. A difference of opinion is not necessarily revisionism 8)
Vietnam was a proxy war we got embroiled in trying to hold back the spread of communist ideology. I say this because we were afraid to take the gloves off out of fear that our actions would serve only to unify the Soviets and Chinese against us. Because we only fought for the status quo (maintaining two Vietnams), we only garnered a partial retaliation from the Chinese who aided Ho Chi Minh without fully getting involved as they did in Korea. Korea probably had a lot to do with our strategies in Vietnam as well, that and the lack of support at home for escalation.
I'd say that Vietnam was more looking to Russia and received more from Russia than China.Due to the “eternal” conflicts between China and Vietnam, the Vietnamese were more trusting the Soviets than the Maoists. Several reasons for that:Ho Chi Minh was in France when he first met communism, historically a Russian politic government. That's where he became a communist advocate in order to get Vietnam independence from France.Vietnam and China history is a long list of wars and conflicts in any kind. A kind of cold hate.Moreover don't forget the 1979' Chinese-Vietnamese war, when Vietnam invaded Kampuchea and got rid of Pol Pot but China tried to invade Vietnam because of their agreements with the Khmer Rouge.
But didn't Rome bring irrigation tech to the Middle East?
Muslims developed a scientific approach based on three major elements; sophisticated systems of crop rotation, highly developed irrigation techniques, and the introduction of a large variety of crops which were studied and catalogued according to the season, type of land and amount of water they require. Numerous encyclopaedias on farming and botany were produced, with highly accurate precision and details.As early as the 9th century, an essentially modern agricultural system became central to economic life and organization in the Arab caliphates, replacing the largely export driven Roman model. Cities of the Near East, North Africa, and Moorish Spain were supported by elaborate agricultural systems which included extensive irrigation based on knowledge of hydraulic and hydrostatic principles, some of which were continued from Roman times. Muslims introduced what was to become an agricultural revolution based on several key areas:- Development of a sophisticated system of irrigation using machines such as norias, water mills, windmills, water-raising machines, dams and reservoirs.- The adoption of a scientific approach to farming enabled them to improve farming techniques derived from the collection and collation of relevant information throughout the whole of the known world.- The introduction of new crops transforming private farming into a new global industry exported everywhere, including Europe, where farming was mostly restricted to wheat strains obtained much earlier via central Asia. Spain received what they in turn transmitted to the rest of Europe, many agricultural and fruit-growing processes, together with many new plants, fruit and vegetables.And so on …Whether or not you dislike the Muslim world, it seems particularly strong to deny any contributions from them to the Western world , especially for historians! 😉
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.As such:Killing members of the groupCausing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the groupDeliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in partImposing measures intended to prevent births within the groupForcibly transferring children of the group to another grouphttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1701562.stm
Anyway the Romans miserably failed against some barbarians Germanic tribes … Where's the Art ??
The French miserably failed against the combined states of Europe that included at least partially the descendants of those same barbarians less than 200 years ago. Their Empire was also based on military might if slightly less longer lived than the Roman Empire.Update: Here is a picture of some French monumental artAnd here is an example of the art it was based on, which is in RomeWhat is your point and why are you so down on Rome or are you just playing Devil's advocate?
ok, let's compare: It took to Napoleon, less than 1 generation to subjugate most of Europe : From 1799 until 1811, after a streak of victories, he secured a dominant position in continental Europe and he maintained the French sphere of influence through the formation of extensive alliances and the appointment of friends and family members to rule other European countries as French client states.After the failure of the French invasion of Russia in 1812, his army was badly damaged and never fully recovered. In 1813, the Sixth Coalition defeated his forces at Leipzig; the following year the Coalition invaded France, forced Napoleon to abdicate and exiled him to the island of Elba. Less than a year later, he escaped Elba and returned to power, but was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815.This happened in 16 years …What about his legacy?Armypromotion based primarily on merit.mobile artillerypractice of modern conscriptionoperational mobilityconsidered as genius in the operational art of war “In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon.” WellingtonOthersthe metric systemthe Napoleonic codeended lawlessness and disorder in post-Revolutionary France (call him tyrant and usurper if you want)refused compromise and only accepted his enemies' surrender.offered Louisiana to a young nation struggling to survive to the EmpireSome occultists even consider Napoleon one of the anti-christs prophecized by Nostradamus :-Now tell me how to compare, and on what, Napoleon empire and the Roman one ? The Arc de Triomphe ? All Europeans countries were copying Rome since the Renaissance (some even dared to erect an obelisk in the district of Columbia) :PYou can compare warfare, strategy, accomplishments and failures. What else ? Valorous Romans vs “effeminized” French? ;D
Aeth, is it OK to compare Sparta with Athens? It's apples and oranges afterall…different political structure, different military, different outlook, etc.
Yes, it's ok: same area, same time, same context. Which city-sate do you prefer?
The Napoleonic empire seemed like a good example of an empire that failed and left no original artistic legacy. That is how Napoleon came into it he is not the focus, merely an example of a grandiose failure.
You can't compare Ancient Greece with Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome with Alexander the Great, Napoleon with the British Empire, not the same time, not same context, not the same History… ;)However when talking about the fall of Rome, is it wrong to say that they failed against some remote barbarian tribes ? (even if the worm-emperors were already in the apple)
