Dutch on islam

[Fragony]

by roman empire i take it you mean the byzantines?

You could call the byzantines the Roman-empire without being wrong. Different period than the historically accepted Islamic expansion though

[The Stranger]

You could call the byzantines the Roman-empire without being wrong. Different period than the historically accepted Islamic expansion though

i know you can, but its still unneccesary confusing :P

[Hax]

Islam, by contrast, is a very threatening religion - it's the religion of the people who destroyed the Roman Empire, conquered North Africa and completely re-drew the cultural map.

The notion of the "Arab Muslim horde" sweeping through the old remnants of the Roman Empire and completely destroying it has been discarded and thrown into the rubbish bin. There's no archaeological evidence anywhere to support a conquest of that type.

[Fragony]

The notion of the "Arab Muslim horde" sweeping through the old remnants of the Roman Empire and completely destroying it has been discarded and thrown into the rubbish bin. There's no archaeological evidence anywhere to support a conquest of that type.

It simply never happened. Maybe someone is confused with the fall of Constantinobel in 1453

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

Here is usefull map, the western part of the Roman empire was never conquered

[Major Robert Dump]

Muslims were in Dutchonia first. The Dutch just need to GTFO and go back to where they belong, and take their stupid Dutch cats with them.

[Papewaio]

Spain... Which at one point ruled the Dutch.

[The Stranger]

LOL...

[Husar]

The notion of the "Arab Muslim horde" sweeping through the old remnants of the Roman Empire and completely destroying it has been discarded and thrown into the rubbish bin. There's no archaeological evidence anywhere to support a conquest of that type.

It was the Turkish Muslim horde and I think there is a lot of evidence. I even saw Turkish guys wearing t-shirts featuring the event so not even they are denying it.

Yes, the Eastern Roman Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire, I don't see how that is confusing. In fact I always read about how they called themselves Romans and thought of themselves as Romans.
Even Wikipedia knows this:

The Byzantine Empire was known to its inhabitants as the "Roman Empire", the "Empire of the Romans" (Latin: Imperium Romanum, Imperium Romanorum; Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων Basileia tōn Rhōmaiōn, Ἀρχὴ τῶν Ῥωμαίων Archē tōn Rhōmaiōn), "Romania" (Latin: Romania; Greek: Ῥωμανία Rhōmania),[n 2] the "Roman Republic" (Latin: Res Publica Romana; Greek: Πολιτεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων Politeia tōn Rhōmaiōn), Graikia (Greek: Γραικία), and also as Rhōmais (Greek: Ῥωμαΐς).[11]

[The Stranger]

they hardly completely destroyed anything. I know they styled themselves to be the Roman Empire, but in history many nations have done so. I asked because in the way he was talking about the Roman Empire it wasnt entirely clear whether he meant the Byzantines/Eastern Roman Empire or if he just have a conception of what happened in North Africa I havent heard of.

As for Islam being threathening because of some military conquests... It pales in comparison by what "christians" have conquered or pagans for that matter.

[Ironside]

Yes, the Eastern Roman Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire, I don't see how that is confusing. In fact I always read about how they called themselves Romans and thought of themselves as Romans.
Even Wikipedia knows this:

True, but the massive cultural shift between the old Romans and the Byzantines does make it easier to speak about two different entities with a shared development. Otherwise you could call Greece a Roman legacy since they saw Constantinopel as their obvious capital during their independence war. The Byzantine empire did end up as a Greek empire quite quickly.

Of course, you also have the 3 self-proclaimed followers of the new roman empire. The Holy Roman Empire, tsarist (ceasarist) Russia and of course the Ottomans themselves.

[Fragony]

Spain... Which at one point ruled the Dutch.

Well only for a while, they were pretty mean

[Papewaio]

Well only for a while, they were pretty mean

Yes, nice guys do finish first.

[Husar]

they hardly completely destroyed anything.

Who? The Byzantines? Noone said so. The Turkish Muslim hordes as Hax would call them did at least destroy the walls and the Eastern Roman Empire as whole.

I know they styled themselves to be the Roman Empire, but in history many nations have done so.

Of course, you also have the 3 self-proclaimed followers of the new roman empire. The Holy Roman Empire, tsarist (ceasarist) Russia and of course the Ottomans themselves.

I'm not even a history buff but those claims are rather different given that the Byzantine Empire was directly created as the Eastern Roman Empire when the formerly united Roman Empire split into two parts to become more governable. None of the other claims came from a "direct inheritance", they were all made up. The Eastern Roman Empire was simply the eastern part of the Roman Empire, how does that compare to some Tsar in Russia claiming to be a Roman Emperor when he doesn't even live anywhere near an area that was ever part of the actual Roman Empire?

[Fragony]

Yes, nice guys do finish first.

Took a while, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years'_War

[The Stranger]

Who? The Byzantines? Noone said so. The Turkish Muslim hordes as Hax would call them did at least destroy the walls and the Eastern Roman Empire as whole.



I'm not even a history buff but those claims are rather different given that the Byzantine Empire was directly created as the Eastern Roman Empire when the formerly united Roman Empire split into two parts to become more governable. None of the other claims came from a "direct inheritance", they were all made up. The Eastern Roman Empire was simply the eastern part of the Roman Empire, how does that compare to some Tsar in Russia claiming to be a Roman Emperor when he doesn't even live anywhere near an area that was ever part of the actual Roman Empire?

Im sorry, i meant ofcourse the "Muslim Hordes...", destroying walls can hardly be seen as something unique and threathening about muslims right? :P So the Byzantines/Romans got conquered, so what? They conquered others before, as Pape said, live by the sword, die by the sword, it is a lesson the West (particularly America) shouldnt forgot.

Anyway again, unneccesary confusion, it is true that the people we call the Byzantines (from our historic perspective) actually called themself the Roman Empire, but Indians/Native Americans have also thought of themselves by different names, but since when has that ever stopped us? It is just a pragmatic approach to split them up since the Roman Empire (including the republic) has a timespan of about 2000 years...

Also they claim to be the heirs to the Legacy of Rome, the Tsars probably claimed it in the light of being heirs to Eastern Roman Empire and its religion (orthodox christinaity), after it fell by the hands of the murderous and barbarian muslim hordes of turks.

anyway back to the issue at hand, i think Hax has it right, i never heard that there was any more desctruction than normal in that time when a country was conquered by a foreign military. as for allowing other religions, in those times i thought the muslims were more tolerant, or atleast pragmatic, in their approach.

[rickinator9]

They conquered others before, as Pape said, live by the sword, die by the sword, it is a lesson the West (particularly America) shouldnt forgot.

The Muslims lived by the sword and now they are still here. Why is this an exception for them then?

[Papewaio]

Considering most of the Islamic violence is between different sects one only has to look at the Middle East to figure out how successful nations are that have so much violence.

Likewise how well did the Protestant vs Catholic violence help Ireland and NIs economies?

[The Stranger]

The Muslims lived by the sword and now they are still here. Why is this an exception for them then?

it is not

[Hax]

anyway back to the issue at hand, i think Hax has it right, i never heard that there was any more desctruction than normal in that time when a country was conquered by a foreign military. as for allowing other religions, in those times i thought the muslims were more tolerant, or atleast pragmatic, in their approach.

It's even better than that: there's no archaeological evidence for massive burning and looting at all. It's more like a rather smooth transition to power that went unnoticed by most people, or that's what we think nowadays.

[Ironside]

I'm not even a history buff but those claims are rather different given that the Byzantine Empire was directly created as the Eastern Roman Empire when the formerly united Roman Empire split into two parts to become more governable. None of the other claims came from a "direct inheritance", they were all made up. The Eastern Roman Empire was simply the eastern part of the Roman Empire, how does that compare to some Tsar in Russia claiming to be a Roman Emperor when he doesn't even live anywhere near an area that was ever part of the actual Roman Empire?

Yes, the ERE did evolve into the Byzantines rather than following a claim or change due to a conquest. So it does have a stronger claim. But for us living much later, it's easier a better to have different terms, since they still had big changes: A different religion, a different main language and aren't owning any or thier own original territory (that they still name themselves after). That's a pretty big shift.

About that Tsar, it's a church thing. The Patriarch in Constantinopel (was something like the orthodox pope) granted the title Tsar (it's basically emperor) to the Bulgarians earlier and after the fall of Constantinopel, the a few dacades later independent Russia (from the golden horde) did claim to be the new center of ortodox faith (it was more or less) and aimed to create the third Rome. The Patriarch of Constantinopel did remain though, he's still around today.

[Fragony]

Who? The Byzantines? Noone said so. The Turkish Muslim hordes as Hax would call them did at least destroy the walls and the Eastern Roman Empire as whole.



I'm not even a history buff but those claims are rather different given that the Byzantine Empire was directly created as the Eastern Roman Empire when the formerly united Roman Empire split into two parts to become more governable. None of the other claims came from a "direct inheritance", they were all made up. The Eastern Roman Empire was simply the eastern part of the Roman Empire, how does that compare to some Tsar in Russia claiming to be a Roman Emperor when he doesn't even live anywhere near an area that was ever part of the actual Roman Empire?

4 parts if I remeber correctly, tetrarchy

[Beskar]

4 parts if I remeber correctly, tetrarchy

That is correct, but there was an Augustus (Senior) and a Caesar (Lesser partner appointed to the Augustus), but they shared similar power. So it was split between West and East, then those territories were split. It came to an end by Constantine. Due to the bouts, civil wars and the later WestEast-Split, the Tetrarchy period is usually overlooked when speaking generally as Husar is doing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

by roman empire i take it you mean the byzantines?

Bit of a grey area in the "Dark Ages" - up until the 11th Century you can legitimately call it the "Roman" Empire - It was the Eastern Empire which lost North Africa to the Muslim Arabs, not the Germanic Barbarians.

I thought we had ready established Rome fell from within and out to Christians.

Also a civilisation who's economy relies on conquering to prosper deserves to be conquered. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Um - no Rome fell to internal decay and a lack of a machinery to manage a large Empire effectively, Edward Gibbon's thesis that the Christians were to blame is down to his attempts to excuse the Muslims (with Gibbons, also originates the attribution of the Alexandria-burning to Christians in the 4th Century).

The adoption of an apocalyptic-salvation religion is a symptom of the decline, not a cause.

The notion of the "Arab Muslim horde" sweeping through the old remnants of the Roman Empire and completely destroying it has been discarded and thrown into the rubbish bin. There's no archaeological evidence anywhere to support a conquest of that type.

In France, Spain, Italy - they speak Latin, they are nominally Roman Christians. In North Africa - they speak Arabic, they are nominally Muslims.

I'm not talking about physical destruction, physical genocide, I'm talking about a massive cultural shift, where the previously similar people in Carthage and Rome have become cultural divorced. That is the destruction of the Roman Empire, not episodes of mass-burnings.

I'm also talking here about cultural memory, not historical wars. Ask a Spaniard about the Reconquesta, or a Greek about Hagia Sophia.

[The Stranger]

i still dont really see how this is unique to muslims or islam inspired conquest :S or wasnt that your point?

[Fragony]

That is correct, but there was an Augustus (Senior) and a Caesar (Lesser partner appointed to the Augustus), but they shared similar power. So it was split between West and East, then those territories were split. It came to an end by Constantine. Due to the bouts, civil wars and the later WestEast-Split, the Tetrarchy period is usually overlooked when speaking generally as Husar is doing.

Look at this

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&si...ZpX4Qpxsv8M%3A

All drawing their swords or ready to, except one I don't know why.

[Hax]

In France, Spain, Italy - they speak Latin, they are nominally Roman Christians. In North Africa - they speak Arabic, they are nominally Muslims.

I'm not talking about physical destruction, physical genocide, I'm talking about a massive cultural shift, where the previously similar people in Carthage and Rome have become cultural divorced. That is the destruction of the Roman Empire, not episodes of mass-burnings.

I'm also talking here about cultural memory, not historical wars. Ask a Spaniard about the Reconquesta, or a Greek about Hagia Sophia.

I speak English near-fluently. Doesn't make me an Anglican.

Yes, a massive cultural shift did occur, but it took centuries upon centuries. Also I don't buy into this whole "cultural memory" concept, which sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

i still dont really see how this is unique to muslims or islam inspired conquest :S or wasnt that your point?

It wasn't my point.

I speak English near-fluently. Doesn't make me an Anglican.

Yes, a massive cultural shift did occur, but it took centuries upon centuries. Also I don't buy into this whole "cultural memory" concept, which sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

You don't buy into a cultural memory?

Consider our thread on Scotland - despite recent historical fact (Stuarts etc) what is remembered in Bannockburn, and the tyranny of Longshanks.

In England - out great national Heroes are men like King Arthur (defended Christians against pagan Saxon horde), Richard the Lionheart (Defended Christians against the Muslim Horde) and Henry V (Defended English against the perfidious French).

More recently, you have the Sepoy Rebellion in India, where the Hindus and Muslims rebelled because they believed the British were greasing the new cartridges with pig and cow fat (the cartridges were waxed, or greased with Pig fat) - which hasn't helped.

Look at the Irish - hell look at the Basques and Catelonians!

People remember the past as a part of their identity

Seriously Hax, did you get nothing like this as a child?

[Beskar]

People are indocrinated on certain limited/key aspects of the past as a part of their manufactured identity.

Corrected!

[rvg]

Consider our thread on Scotland - despite recent historical fact (Stuarts etc) what is remembered in Bannockburn, and the tyranny of Longshanks.

I blame Mel Gibson.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Corrected!

To paraphrase a former Archbishop of Canterbury - you only believe that because you've been indoctrinated to believe that.

Identity is not "manufactured" in a vacuum, it is constructed by a living society.

Just as the individual chooses what to forget and what to remember when constructing their identity - likewise the society of which they are a part.