>tfw you realize almost everything you learned about medieval history is a debunked meme
So, what should a general pleb read for a remotely plausible survey?
>>599683
>medieval history is a debunked meme
What do you mean by this?
>>599690
He probably means it was actually advanced and not some dark age of scientific repression by the Church, as the memes typically go.
>>599691
Oh, is this the case? Now that my interest has been kindled too, I must join OP in asking if there are any good books one can educate himself with?
>>599690
>the dark ages
>Christianity systematically oppressed european civilization and banned classical knowledge from peasants
>the crusades were aggressive conquests against peaceful enlightened islamic states
>the inquisition was barbaric and killed 50 bazillion people
>nobody could read the bible until the reformation heroes gave it to the masses
>Catholicism was fundamentally opposed to scientific progress
etc. etc.
>>599697
I hope this is bait
>peaceful enlightened islamic states
>50 bazillion people
kek
>>599702
He's saying those are the incorrect memes.
>>599683
whoa weird seeing this illustration here. its my jewbook profile's cover photo.
>>599704
Oh, my bad.
>>599697
>banned classical knowledge from peasants
They did
>the inquisition was barbaric and killed 50 bazillion people
Nobody exaggerates the Inquisition, but it is vilified, and for good reason.>nobody could read the bible until the reformation heroes gave it to the masses
Pretty much true
>Catholicism was fundamentally opposed to scientific progress
Not fundamentally, but did suppress some progress
The rest are either true misconceptions or I am unsure of them
>>599707
Is monk manuscript shitposting a valuable contribution to shitposting culture after the Romans?
>>599719
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/211193/real-inquisition-thomas-f-madden
>>599683
Academic papers and such?
>>599697
the crusades WERE aggressive conquests
and to some extent the muslims were a lot more peaceful and enlightened than the christians
>see: 1099
>>599737
>the crusades WERE aggressive conquests
Retaliation for* aggressive conquests, and also resulting in aggressive conquests by the Europeans.
>>599741
>Implying Muslim conquest was not a retaliation for Ptolemy taking Jerusalem
>Implying Ptolemy taking Jerusalem was not a retaliation for Persians taking part in Greek affairs
>Implying Persian intervention in Greek affairs was not justified by the Ionian revolt
We can go on like this for a long time.
Thomas Madden has pretty good books about the Crusades.
In my opinion, Runciman did more bad than good when it comes to "History of the Crusades". I have no idea why he is still so widely regarded, considering most of his points that differed from traditional history (such as saying that Crusaders were second sons without land in search of riches) were debunked. Heck, he would only need to read J.B. Bury's (who he knew personally) excellent "History of the Middle Ages" collection to know that was not the case.
>>599750
>>Implying Muslim conquest was not a retaliation for Ptolemy taking Jerusalem
Uh, what? There were no Muslims when Ptolemy took Jerusalem.
>>599766
He's being intentionally retarded and pretending that the Crusades was an inevitable act of aggression by the Europeans and not a literal retaliation.
>>599683
What?
So the Battle of Hastings is a debunked meme now is it?
>>599771
>The Battle of Hastings
the single most meme'd and overrated battle in the history of man.
>>599750
>Implying Muslim conquest was not a retaliation for Ptolemy taking Jerusalem
It's retaliation for Pompey, Titus and Hadrian taking Jerusalem, fucking Romans with their aggressive conquests had it coming.
>>599775
That is a largely meaningless statement and is most certainly doesn't mean it has been debunked as something that never happened.
>>599767
That pretty much.
The conquest of Jerusalem was around 630-something, the first crusade around 1095.
Europeans don't hold grudges that long.
>>599815
>Europeans don't hold grudges that long.
I still want Constantinople back.
>>599820
Why the fuck did the European powers decide to let the Ottomans keep a tiny sliver or land in Europe?
>>599820
>Constantinople
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sl4XCVmoXg
>>599857
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcI5rNR5TGM
>>599834
Eternal Anglo strikes again:
>Under pressure from the British, Russia accepted the truce offered by the Ottoman Empire on January 31, 1878, but continued to move towards Constantinople.
>The British sent a fleet of battleships to intimidate Russia from entering the city, and Russian forces stopped at San Stefano. Eventually Russia entered into a settlement under the Treaty of San Stefano on March 3, by which the Ottoman Empire would recognize the independence of Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, and the autonomy of Bulgaria.
>>599864
The European balance of power is more important than your butthurt.
>>599872
Slavic butthurt
>>599862
Jaysus what a fucking dirge. I'd suggest using this in future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8DzEoYIYb0
>>599872
90% of the cities population was muslim Turk after you take it you would either own a metropolis of people that hate you or a empty city if you decided to kickout or genocide the Turks living there.
>>599834
Dunno really.
The Ottoman Empire didn't collapse until WW1 and I guess by that point, with enormous trading empires and advanced shipping the land trading route between Asia and Europe just wasn't the important strategic location it had been in centuries past.
>>599872
>1878
>Still being paranoid about Russians in MUH INDIA
>Not wanting strong Russia to counter German-Austrian alliance
>Being unable to prevent Turkey from eventually allying with Germany
very balance
much diplomacy
such big game
wow
>>599719
Did they actually ban classical knowledge? I thought as a peasant you just didn't have the resources or time to research things like this
>>599890
Monks were the ones who preserved classical texts in the first place. Your whole life as a monk would be spent copying down shit until your eyes died.
>>599890
They certainly banned people from accessing the bible.
>>599890
Religion is static
Science is dynamic
>>599899
>peasants
>being able to afford huge texts in the first place
>actually thinking protestants printed the first bible
>>599905
>just greentexting some stuff
None of that changes what I said.
>>599708
god damn right it is you fucking autist
>>599900
Ah yes the umpteenth burning of the library of Alexandria by the Christians centuries after it had ceased to be of any value, and the "dynamic" science of Aristotle that went nearly unchanged and unchallenged for 2000 years until Copernicus
>>599926
Why are you like this to me
>>599886
but Russia is German and Austrian ally
>>599899
I am not allowed to fly a helicopter over my city and land in my own backyard by secular authorities though...
>>600010
That's great, lad. And entirely irrelevant.
>>600013
The situation is exactly the same.
It's something that I cannot use nor afford so the legal ban on it does not affect me and 99.99% of the population.
>48 replies
>not a single recommendation for a history book
Every fucking time, /his/. Every time.
>>600038
The Inheritance of Rome by Chris Wickham is a good read.
>>600038
Wikipedia is all you need
>>600077
History is a specialist subject.
To be completely honest familia I have an MA in History and I still use Wikipedia a lot, obviously it is a shallow source loaded with inaccuracies and errors and if you want to properly know what you are talking about then you have to go away and read the books and better than that the primary sources.
However a Professor on WW2 knows fuck all about Classical Rome and vice versa. Unless this board is going to consist of 3 or 4 PhDs in specific subjects replying to each other then discussion by anon's that have read Wikipedia and other shallow internet sources is OK.
Quite honestly it would be a good idea if MOST anons had bothered to at least read the Wiki page rather than spewing out whatever garbage popped into their mind.
>>599725
>the national review
D R O P P E D
R
O
P
P
E
D
>>600266
What do you think the biggest timespan a historian can specialize in is? Obviously a lack of source material in some era's might lead to a bigger timespan but what is typically the average?
I only really know my shit when it comes to late medieval western europe, so around 2 centuries.
>>600285
Yes, the fact it's written by a respected historian on the Crusades is totally irrelevant. What matters is the site that he posted it on.
>>600290
I couldn't even start to give you an average. I would simply agree you are basically right, the longer the time ago the longer the timespan you can specialise in.
You could spend an antire career looking at a couple of battle from WW1 or the ideology of fascism or an entire career getting aquainted with the archaeological evidence from various ancient civililisations from before written records even started, covering thousands of years. And everything in between.
Only communists dislike the Middle Ages because Medieval society was based on a decentralized power structure that they hate.
>>600327
>>600327
Back in the real world feudalism was based on a very centralised power structure.
>>599905
Wasn't the Protestant Reformation the first time bibles got printed in the vernacular? Prior to that, it was all in Latin, and you had to take the Catholic Church's word for it. After it was translated, the idea sola scriptura (everyone his own interpreter) took hold, breaking the Northern lowland countries away from the Catholic Church. Is this incorrect?
>>600031
>The situation is exactly the same.
By the situation is exactly the same you mean "I am making an extremely shoddy analogy that is completely different" right?
Laws against unlicenced pilots flying helicopters about the place are based on safety grounds.
So unless you are claiming that knowledge of the bible is a public safety risk....
>>600386
I think Wycliff might have written a translation too.
Before the movable type printing press and widespread literacy such a text wouldn't reach most of the population anyways.
>>600393
It is, vernacular translation lead to the biggest religious shitstorm Europe has seen.
Publish an international treaty or text in 27 different languages with 3 regional dialects each and no grammar or spelling rules, wait fifty years and then debate which interpretation of the treaty is the correct one.
Anyways what is your source on this ban of peasants not being allowed to read the bible? Many couldn't read in the first place, they certainly didn't read latin and if one could acquire a bible in terms of monetary means you'd probably not be called a peasant to begin with.
>>600386
>everyone his own interpreter
This wasn't always a particularly good thing. Iconoclasm, witch trials, etc. - all of that was mostly a protestant thing.
Having a central authority to set the doctrine isn't all too bad.
Islam suffers from that very thing, since every retard can call himself an Islamic authority and interpret the scripture the way he wants.
>>600407
The Reformation disproved its own theory, there has been so much shit and splits over Bible translations that it's completely clear now why you'd want to have a single authoritarian translation. Which was the Vulgate for Cathopics, the first printed Bible.
