Did the Jews save Christian Europe?

[Thunder]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Rise

Before the year 1,000 A.D., the Khazar Kingdom fought numerous battles against the Muslim Arabs, who were trying to move northward through the Caucusus. The Khazars, many of which converted to Judaism, defeated the Muslims, thus preventing their expansion into the Caucuses, Russia, and perhaps even Eastern and Central Europe.

"You see, the Arab armies couldn't get to Europe by the geographically obvious route, through Turkey, because the Byzantine Empire stood squarely in the way. Therefore, they tried to go around it, thinking that they would enter into and conquer Europe through the land we know today as Russia. They were stopped, however.
Who stopped them? A rarely-mentioned tribe of barbarians known as the Khazars, who ruled the lands we know of today as Russia and Eastern Europe. In a series of prolonged wars, the first from 642-652 AD, and the second from 722-739 AD, armies of up to 300,000 Khazar warriors fought against, and ultimately prevailed over the invading Muslims. They saved Russia and Eastern Europe for Christianity."

Did this victory prevent young Christian Europe from becoming Muslim? Perhaps.

So, when you see a Christrian European curse or insult Jews, remind them of this little fact.

:D

[Eyeron]

I'll never understand why some people are so obsessed with Jews.

[Thunder]

I'll never understand why some people are so obsessed with Jews.

maybe because I am Jewish?? :)

don't you find this story fascinating? I sure do.

[hgc]

I'll never understand why some people are so obsessed with Jews.


Like Jesus, for instance?

[dropzone]

No, it was the Irish. (http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493) If you wish to enter into a discussion comparing Irish and Jewish surnames, I may be interested.

[pakeha]

What about that story of them being turned back at the gates of Vienna?
Is it an urban myth, after all, to explain the origins of the croissant?

[pakeha]

A bit of Googling shows me I've been lied to all these years about croissants.
Apparently their origin is from Jeremiah's time.
Off to learn more about Khazars.

[Foolmewunz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Rise

Before the year 1,000 A.D., the Khazar Kingdom fought numerous battles against the Muslim Arabs, who were trying to move northward through the Caucusus. The Khazars, many of which converted to Judaism, defeated the Muslims, thus preventing their expansion into the Caucuses, Russia, and perhaps even Eastern and Central Europe.

"You see, the Arab armies couldn't get to Europe by the geographically obvious route, through Turkey, because the Byzantine Empire stood squarely in the way. Therefore, they tried to go around it, thinking that they would enter into and conquer Europe through the land we know today as Russia. They were stopped, however.
Who stopped them? A rarely-mentioned tribe of barbarians known as the Khazars, who ruled the lands we know of today as Russia and Eastern Europe. In a series of prolonged wars, the first from 642-652 AD, and the second from 722-739 AD, armies of up to 300,000 Khazar warriors fought against, and ultimately prevailed over the invading Muslims. They saved Russia and Eastern Europe for Christianity."

Did this victory prevent young Christian Europe from becoming Muslim? Perhaps.

So, when you see a Christrian European curse or insult Jews, remind them of this little fact.

:D


Parky, can I ask, honestly..... Where do you dream these things up? This is the worst dot-connecting this side of Childlike Empress.

What would the defeat of the Caliphate have to do with Khazak Jews? The conversion date is debated but no one places it prior to the wars with the Caliphate. At minimum, however many Khazars converted, the conversion was a hundred years after the wars with the Caliphate.

In short, they weren't Jews when they stopped the expansion of the Caliphate.

This is like crediting the USA with the defeat of the French in the Seven Year(French and Indian) War. "Well, they became the USA a couple of decades later, so it was Americans who beat the frogues, yeah! That's right!"

[Thunder]

In short, they weren't Jews when they stopped the expansion of the Caliphate.

r u sure about that?

[The Fallen Serpent]

r u sure about that?

According to the Wikipedia article you linked while Jews existed in the Khazar since Classical times, the conversion of the upper classes happened in the later decades of the 8th century and the early 9th century. Either a notable portion or a majority of the general populace followed in conversion. Peace existed between the Khazars and the Abassids since the mid-8th century. Placing the wars before the mass conversion to Judaism.

I am all for recognizing Jewish contributions throughout history. Let us not however inflate the control they had over nations they were a minority in at the time of the actions. They likely heavily contributed in those battles, being citizens of the Khazar at the time those battles happened. The Khazar culture appeared to be more cosmopolitan at the time and does not appear to have been officially nor majority Jewish during the time of war with Islamic Caliphates. The earliest date of Jewish dominance is placed in the 740s by rabbbincal scholars, putting the conversion to a Jewish state at best in the midst of the second Khazar-Arab Wars. It is clear that it was complete by the early 9th century but the earlier claims are all contested.

[Thunder]

I am all for recognizing Jewish contributions throughout history. Let us not however inflate the control they had over nations they were a minority in at the time of the actions.

man... such a buzzkill.

:(

[The Fallen Serpent]

:p Don't worry, you can find some people who claim the Jews controlled the UK and the US during WWI & II so you can use that as a basis for the Jews saving Europe. ;)

[HansMustermann]

To be honest, what I find insulting is the whole notion of "saving Europe from the Islam". Not just here, but in the other end by the Franks.

As if when two aggressive empires fight, thank goodness that we got the fundie Christian one, instead of the Muslim one. 'Cause God knows that being plunged in the Christian dark ages, a millenium of intermitent internal religious wars and persecutions, the rise of Protestant fundamentalism, several hundreds of years of pogroms and witch hunts, etc, obviously must be better than the horror of being Muslim.

Actually, scratch even that last part. Until the rise of the Wahhabi fundamentalism, the Muslims, whether Ottomans or Caliphate or Saracens or whatever, couldn't give a rat's rear about your not being Muslim. Sure, there were some advantages in being Muslim in their lands, but there was no inquisition like Christianity later produced. The Jews and Christians actually lived one heck of a lot better under the Caliphate of Cordoba, than the Jews and Muslims in Spain after the Reconquista.

So, you know, in the choice between (A) being plunged in the dark ages, having a bunch of people burned at the stake, being ruled by analphabet kings and emperors, having the devastating Hussite wars, the 30 year war, and generally endless conflicts between kings and popes (note the plural: there were as much as 3 at the same time at one point), and (B) just being ruled by a Muslim ruling class... obviously having a muslim Caliph has got to be the biggest possible evil. 'Cause, you know, eeeeww, it's Muslim. What could possibly be worse than the Islam?[/sarcasm]

So, yes, hearing the whole "X saved Europe from the Islam", as if the Islam were the worst possible fate, especially from people who aren't even devout Christians or anything... dunno, rubs me off the awfully wrong way. The kind where I'd need a doll to show the jurry where it rubbed me.

[HansMustermann]

Especially if you look at how the conversion to Christianity happened at this other end, even before the inquisition. The repeated massacres of the Saxons by Charlemagne and the destruction of their holy places, for example. The northern crusades. Etc. Yeah, I bet those people were so happy that they were being marched to the chopping block instead of getting a Muslim ruler.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I'd have to go with HansMustermann on this one. European history from the fall of the roman empire to after about Napoleon is mainly an endless series of petty wars between rulers with a powerful church egging them on while reaping the benefits and hiding most knowledge, this in contrast to the muslim states at the time which were internally far more peaceful. Maybe non muslims had a few more taxes, but whether they were worse than the taxes levied on the general european peasants/citizens to fight random war 12337 is very debatable. And at that time the level of medicine and general knowledge in the muslim states was much higher.
Perhaps a muslim europe would not have suffered the plague as much.

On the other hand, perhaps a muslim europe would have ment an endless series of petty wars between muslim rather than christian minor nobles. :)

[The Fallen Serpent]

[URL]So, when you see a Christrian European curse or insult Jews, remind them of this little fact.

:D

The post was intended to be chastising Christians specifically, and right now Islam does seem to be perceived as pretty bad by most Christians. Still a good point on Islam not being a horrible imperial force in comparison to its contemporaries for about a thousand years.

[ddt]

I'd have to go with HansMustermann on this one. European history from the fall of the roman empire to after about Napoleon is mainly an endless series of petty wars between rulers with a powerful church egging them on while reaping the benefits and hiding most knowledge, this in contrast to the muslim states at the time which were internally far more peaceful. Maybe non muslims had a few more taxes, but whether they were worse than the taxes levied on the general european peasants/citizens to fight random war 12337 is very debatable. And at that time the level of medicine and general knowledge in the muslim states was much higher.
Perhaps a muslim europe would not have suffered the plague as much.

On the other hand, perhaps a muslim europe would have ment an endless series of petty wars between muslim rather than christian minor nobles. :)

I agree with you and Hans wholeheartedly. I just want to raise one aspect of this for discussion (we're pretty much done with the Khazar thing aren't we?).

I've heard it argue that actually the fact that Europe remained fractured into "little" states which constantly warred with each other - in contrast to, e.g., the Ottoman Empire or China which were for most of the time one unified big state - set Europe up for world dominance. The constant warring meant that innovations in arms was much more important, and thus the European states were clearly superior in that department when they set their views to the rest of the world.

[The Fallen Serpent]

I have heard that arguement too. That due to the inability to truly organize a lasting stability Europe was quickly able to adapt to technologies and concepts flooding in through the Middle East from all over the world and evolve the technologies and mentalities to enact worldwide colonialism. Modern European colonialism had elements and flavors that differed from most forms of imperialism up to that point.

[HansMustermann]

Except unity wasn't necessarily what did China's tech level in. China was very much on par with Europe until the Ming dynasty went isolationist, and in some aspects slightly ahead.

It was only in the age of the isolationism that they stagnated. It wasn't just that it shut itself off from foreign ideas, but in the age where everyone else went colonialist, China actively closed itself off from foreign markets and resources.

And then came the Qing dynasty, where China's tech level actually devolved from muskets and cannons back to dadao (big swords) and guan-dao (polearm) regiments.

Sure, there's no guarantee that such a dynasty couldn't happen to a unified Europe too. But then it's not necessarily a given. China too had several other dynasties where the economy and science flourished.

[ddt]

Sure, there's no guarantee that such a dynasty couldn't happen to a unified Europe too. But then it's not necessarily a given. China too had several other dynasties where the economy and science flourished.

Point taken. But the divisiveness in Europe - until and including WW2 - meant that everyone had to keep up on their toes, lest they be gobbled up by a more advanced neighbor. A state couldn't afford a couple of years of stagnation.

ETA: Paul Kennedy discusses this thesis in the first chapter of "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers)".

[Cainkane1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Rise

Before the year 1,000 A.D., the Khazar Kingdom fought numerous battles against the Muslim Arabs, who were trying to move northward through the Caucusus. The Khazars, many of which converted to Judaism, defeated the Muslims, thus preventing their expansion into the Caucuses, Russia, and perhaps even Eastern and Central Europe.

"You see, the Arab armies couldn't get to Europe by the geographically obvious route, through Turkey, because the Byzantine Empire stood squarely in the way. Therefore, they tried to go around it, thinking that they would enter into and conquer Europe through the land we know today as Russia. They were stopped, however.
Who stopped them? A rarely-mentioned tribe of barbarians known as the Khazars, who ruled the lands we know of today as Russia and Eastern Europe. In a series of prolonged wars, the first from 642-652 AD, and the second from 722-739 AD, armies of up to 300,000 Khazar warriors fought against, and ultimately prevailed over the invading Muslims. They saved Russia and Eastern Europe for Christianity."

Did this victory prevent young Christian Europe from becoming Muslim? Perhaps.

So, when you see a Christrian European curse or insult Jews, remind them of this little fact.

:D
When somebody cusses or insults jews i cuss and insult them back. I'm a goy but jews are ok with me.

[HansMustermann]

Point taken. But the divisiveness in Europe - until and including WW2 - meant that everyone had to keep up on their toes, lest they be gobbled up by a more advanced neighbor. A state couldn't afford a couple of years of stagnation.

ETA: Paul Kennedy discusses this thesis in the first chapter of "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers)".

Divisiveness in Europe or elsewhere couldn't be helped, simply because people are people, and the culture in Europe was like that. Plus, the infrastructure was such that you could only deal with an empire so big before the guys on the edges were out of control. (The Romans "cheated" a bit by having the Mediterranean in the middle, which was the ultimate highway between almost any two provinces.)

The Muslim world too fragmented into several states. And China fell apart spectacularly several times in its history, and was reunited by another people under another dynasty.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Europe would have been war-free under the Muslims or anything. Not even sure it would have been necessarily much better in other ways. But just saying it's not like Christianity = teh utopia and Islam = teh evil, which seems to be the underlying message of that "X saved us from the Muslims" theme. If anything, both religions played second fiddle to the greed and hunger for power of various medieval overlords. The muslim ones did seem better in many aspects than the ones we historically got in Europe, e.g., were not as narrow minded when it came to both religion and science, but in the end they still were warlords.

I tend to view those clashes as basically the clash of various aggressive, expansionistic empires, and one set of pricks defeated another set of pricks. One set being Christian doesn't make them good, and one set being Muslim doesn't make them evil. And seeing even secular historians discuss, say, Carolus Martellus's victory at Tours as basically "saved Europe from the Muslims", seems to me like propagating that "Christian = good, Muslim = evil" meme. Even by people who wouldn't say or think just that in any other context.

[Thunder]

When somebody cusses or insults jews i cuss and insult them back. I'm a goy but jews are ok with me.

whenever one of my co-workers, or even my Deputy Director, utters homophobic language, I tell him the following:

"studies have shown that people who are overtly homophobic tend to have a great deal of sexual insecurity or repressed homosexual feelings. which category do you think you fit into?"

;)

[Vic Vega]

When somebody cusses or insults jews i cuss and insult them back. I'm a goy but jews are ok with me.


Shalom, Cain!

[TriskettheKid]

So, you know, in the choice between (A) being plunged in the dark ages, having a bunch of people burned at the stake, being ruled by analphabet kings and emperors, having the devastating Hussite wars, the 30 year war, and generally endless conflicts between kings and popes (note the plural: there were as much as 3 at the same time at one point), and (B) just being ruled by a Muslim ruling class... obviously having a muslim Caliph has got to be the biggest possible evil. 'Cause, you know, eeeeww, it's Muslim. What could possibly be worse than the Islam?[/sarcasm]

I 100% disagree with you here.

It may have been filled with petty wars (seriously, name a period that isn't), but it was most certainly NOT the "Dark Ages".

[HansMustermann]

Well, lemme see: it was filled with petty wars, literacy dropped like a lead anvil, scientific progress pretty much stalled and was replaced by a doomsday religion's grab for power, millions of documents were "purified" (read: destroyed) by having the old text erased and replaced by some prayer, the economy turned to manorialism, logistics devolved to looting the peasants as you go, killing each other's serfs became just another way to make a point (not only between nobles, but also when cities wanted to make a point against the local nobles), kidnapping some rich person to make them ransom themselves was a perfectly legit way for knights to supplement their income (see the Knights' Revolt in 1522 when that kind of officially sanctioned banditry was finally forbidden), killing each other was a way of life (even the church had to keep trying to impose the "Peace And Truce Of God" scheme to stop it, except it didn't work), justice was replaced by nobles' local dictatorship and/or trials by ordeal by the church, etc, etc, etc.

Well, yes, maybe "dark ages" doesn't quite sum it up ;)

I'm all for another term if you have one. "Crappy ages" sounds too mild, and the more explicit version would get moderated ;)

At any rate, that's the kind of age that I'm supposed to see as "thank goodness we got _that_ instead of being conquered by the Muslims."

[Eddie Dane]

To be frank, I'd only heard about the Khazars in neo-Nazi rants about how the Jews are not actually Jews but Khazars who pretend to be Jews.
You see, that's how evil and deceitful the Jews are. They are even pretending to be Jews.

Never looked into it further.

But if you want heroes: The Serbs did a stellar job in stopping the Muslims. And they pretty much sacrificed themselves in the process.
Serbia was on it's way to becoming a significant local power. Then they took the brunt of the Muslim invasion and never really recovered.

[TriskettheKid]

Well, lemme see: it was filled with petty wars, literacy dropped like a lead anvil, scientific progress pretty much stalled and was replaced by a doomsday religion's grab for power, millions of documents were "purified" (read: destroyed) by having the old text erased and replaced by some prayer, the economy turned to manorialism, logistics devolved to looting the peasants as you go, killing each other's serfs became just another way to make a point (not only between nobles, but also when cities wanted to make a point against the local nobles), kidnapping some rich person to make them ransom themselves was a perfectly legit way for knights to supplement their income (see the Knights' Revolt in 1522 when that kind of officially sanctioned banditry was finally forbidden), killing each other was a way of life (even the church had to keep trying to impose the "Peace And Truce Of God" scheme to stop it, except it didn't work), justice was replaced by nobles' local dictatorship and/or trials by ordeal by the church, etc, etc, etc.

Well, yes, maybe "dark ages" doesn't quite sum it up ;)

That's a stupendously narrow-minded, stilted, and wrong view of the time.

Scientific progress halted? Hardly. It may have been a backwater of sorts for a while, but by the High Middle Ages, it was overtaking the Islamic and Eastern worlds in scientific and technological breakthroughs. The scientific method as we know it today came to culmination under people like Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon. The Late Middle Ages saw the work of people like Occam and Buridan. And based on your previous admission about "up until Napoleon", we'd have to disregard the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment and the works of people like Locke, Hobbes, Voltaire, Rousseau, and countless others.

You've got the cross-cultural introduction of gunpowder, leading to the invention of the cannon. Cross-cultural introduction of the horse-collar, leading to the invention of the plough, in Northern Europe. The invention of the saddle. Movable type printing. Advances in ship-building.

In short, the period was not a "Dark Ages".

I mean, under your example, Antiquity was really a "Dark Ages" as well. As were the 1800s. And the 1900s.

I'm all for another term if you have one. "Crappy ages" sounds too mild, and the more explicit version would get moderated ;)

Well, it depends on what period you're talking about. Using "Middle Ages" would probably cover most of it, depending on what dates you choose to use.

At any rate, that's the kind of age that I'm supposed to see as "thank goodness we got _that_ instead of being conquered by the Muslims."

Not my judgment to make. I'm not really a fan of counterfactuals.

[bigjelmapro]

Especially if you look at how the conversion to Christianity happened at this other end, even before the inquisition. The repeated massacres of the Saxons by Charlemagne and the destruction of their holy places, for example. The northern crusades. Etc. Yeah, I bet those people were so happy that they were being marched to the chopping block instead of getting a Muslim ruler.
So in essence, what you're saying is that you DO in fact want to be ruled by Jews? Just sign over your lease to me, and we'll go from there :D

[HansMustermann]

The only mention of Napoleon is from Lukraak_Sisser, not me, so I'm not sure who you're arguing with about that point. If you want to accuse me of discounting renaissance, surely you can find something _I_ have said on the topic?

Also, gunpowder was an invention that came from China, as was its use in artillery. Yes, the Chinese actually used cannons and primitive individual firearms. They only devolved back to blades during the Qing dynasty. Also, the muslims made equally extensive use of artillery, so I'm kind of at a loss by what criteria would that be counted as a European invention.

The saddle, can be traced with incremental improvements all the way to the 8'th century BC Assyrians. The first solid saddle is actually from Asia, circa 200 BC, and the saddle design that the middle ages used (though it did add some gradual refinements) is a Roman design circa 1'st century BC. How that counts as a medieval invention is beyond me.

The earliest proper stirrups, another invention commonly credited to medieval Europe, come from northern China, circa 4'th century AD and were already used throughout China by the 5'th century AD. It only appears in Europe later, and likely brought over by Asian invaders like the Avars. But even the Chinese ones are a continuation of a much earlier Indian idea, the toe-loop stirrup, and arguably spread further via the Sarmatians who used it as a mounting aid.

And since we're talking "vs the muslims", you'll notice that, say, as Tours, the Berbers had heavy cavalry while the Franks had only light horse and a phalanx. Charles Martel actually recognized the importance of heavy cavalry and started the rise of the knightly class, after having to oppose the Berber heavy cavalry.

The padded horse collar, again, appears first in China during the Warring States period, circa 4'th century BC. That's well over a millenium before any trace or mention of it Europe, and over a century and a half before it gets widespread in Europe. Improved versions get depicted in China in the Three Kingdoms era (3'rd century BC) and then the final version in the 5'th century AD. Again, it's highly likely that it was brought to Europe by the migrating people from Asia, rather than an European invention.

The invention of a _plough_ that works on Northern European soil dates from roughly the first century AD, and was a major factor in why the germanic people grew populous and powerful enough to challenge Rome. Anyway, that is well before medieval times or before the horse collar. Don't confuse the advantage of using a horse to plough, with the invention of the plough itself.

Movable type was invented in China and spread in Korea, some 400 years before Johannes Gutenberg in Europe. The main limiting factor is that the letters were made of ceramic, so the costs were much higher. While Johannes Gutenberg does get credit for basically reinventing it from scratch (no mean feat, don't get me wrong), it's still a full 4 century later than China.

So, you know, so much for that greatness of the medieval ages in Europe...

[HansMustermann]

So in essence, what you're saying is that you DO in fact want to be ruled by Jews? Just sign over your lease to me, and we'll go from there :D

Sorry, I'm already owned by a jew. You'll have to buy my lease from him, I'm affraid ;)

[TriskettheKid]

The only mention of Napoleon is from Lukraak_Sisser, not me, so I'm not sure who you're arguing with about that point. If you want to accuse me of discounting renaissance, surely you can find something _I_ have said on the topic?

Apologies for that, then.

Also, gunpowder was an invention that came from China, as was its use in artillery. Yes, the Chinese actually used cannons and primitive individual firearms. They only devolved back to blades during the Qing dynasty. Also, the muslims made equally extensive use of artillery, so I'm kind of at a loss by what criteria would that be counted as a European invention.

I didn't say gunpowder was invented in Europe.

As for my remark about the cannon, I should have been clearer. Again, apologies. I'd count what the Europeans did as more in the realm of innovation.

The saddle, can be traced with incremental improvements all the way to the 8'th century BC Assyrians. The first solid saddle is actually from Asia, circa 200 BC, and the saddle design that the middle ages used (though it did add some gradual refinements) is a Roman design circa 1'st century BC. How that counts as a medieval invention is beyond me.

It was a new, sturdy, arched saddle. One that was needed for the mounted knights. This was a military tech.

The earliest proper stirrups, another invention commonly credited to medieval Europe, come from northern China, circa 4'th century AD and were already used throughout China by the 5'th century AD. It only appears in Europe later, and likely brought over by Asian invaders like the Avars. But even the Chinese ones are a continuation of a much earlier Indian idea, the toe-loop stirrup, and arguably spread further via the Sarmatians who used it as a mounting aid.

Don't know what you're talking about. Stirrups came from the Steppe.

And since we're talking "vs the muslims", you'll notice that, say, as Tours, the Berbers had heavy cavalry while the Franks had only light horse and a phalanx. Charles Martel actually recognized the importance of heavy cavalry and started the rise of the knightly class, after having to oppose the Berber heavy cavalry.

Ok.

The padded horse collar, again, appears first in China during the Warring States period, circa 4'th century BC. That's well over a millenium before any trace or mention of it Europe, and over a century and a half before it gets widespread in Europe. Improved versions get depicted in China in the Three Kingdoms era (3'rd century BC) and then the final version in the 5'th century AD. Again, it's highly likely that it was brought to Europe by the migrating people from Asia, rather than an European invention.

I never said it was invented in Europe. I said it was a cross-cultural introduction. The actual invention was a new type of plough.

The invention of a _plough_ that works on Northern European soil dates from roughly the first century AD, and was a major factor in why the germanic people grew populous and powerful enough to challenge Rome. Anyway, that is well before medieval times or before the horse collar. Don't confuse the advantage of using a horse to plough, with the invention of the plough itself.

I'm not. But a new kind of plough was needed for use with a horse, which lead to better farming.

Movable type was invented in China and spread in Korea, some 400 years before Johannes Gutenberg in Europe. The main limiting factor is that the letters were made of ceramic, so the costs were much higher. While Johannes Gutenberg does get credit for basically reinventing it from scratch (no mean feat, don't get me wrong), it's still a full 4 century later than China.

Would you have me instead quantify it with "practical"?

So, you know, so much for that greatness of the medieval ages in Europe...

You didn't touch on a majority of inventions/innovations from the Middle Ages in Europe.

You missed the works of Grosseteste, Bacon, Occam, and Buridan. There's also the major jumps in ship-building technology. There's things like the artesian well, the horseshoe, and the windmill (that turns to face the wind). Advances in surgery, chemistry, math, logic, and medicine. Innovations in glass making. There's also advances in art (stained glass, oil paint) along with art movements (like the Romanesque and Gothic).

Again, in short, the period was not a "Dark Ages."

[HansMustermann]

So basically if you use as weak a justification as "it was cross-cultural" for something invented elsewhere and brought over by various invaders, Europe starts to look less bad? There's nothing cross-cultural about most of the progress, except in the sense that it was invented elsewhere and over several centuries made its way to europe. How that says Europe continued to invent and innovate, is beyond me.

As for the argument that you knew that stirrups came from the steppe. Well, even skipping past its being factually wrong, it still says "came from" not "were invented here."

And I didn't touch them all, because, well, it would take a tome to cover every single invention imported from elsewhere. I just worked with your list.

Let me see about your new list then:

- artesian well... are you serious? Just digging a well in some place where the water is naturally under pressure is some big invention? Gimme a break. Now at least Heron's fountain contains its own way of creating a pressure, but an artesian well just means drilling down and discovering that water comes out.

- ship building technology. Fair enough. This is actually the only one that has some merit.

- horseshoe. Actually discovered in Europe indeed, but in late classical age to late antiquity, not in the middle ages.

- the windmill and the mechanism to turn it into the wind are two separate inventions. The former exists since at the very least ancient Greece, and the fantail that automatically turns it into the wind was patented in 1745 by Edmund Lee. Neither is medieval.

The others on your list are too vague to address in a single message. Covering the whole history of medicine for example would take a whole tome, so exactly which procedures do you mean were invented in medieval Europe? But if you come up with more speciffic, individually-addressable mis-conceptions like the above, I'll be more than happy to address them.

[TriskettheKid]

So basically if you use as weak a justification as "it was cross-cultural" for something invented elsewhere and brought over by various invaders, Europe starts to look less bad? There's nothing cross-cultural about most of the progress, except in the sense that it was invented elsewhere and over several centuries made its way to europe. How that says Europe continued to invent and innovate, is beyond me.

As for the argument that you knew that stirrups came from the steppe. Well, even skipping past its being factually wrong, it still says "came from" not "were invented here."

And I didn't touch them all, because, well, it would take a tome to cover every single invention imported from elsewhere. I just worked with your list.

Let me see about your new list then:

[quote]- artesian well... are you serious? Just digging a well in some place where the water is naturally under pressure is some big invention? Gimme a break. Now at least Heron's fountain contains its own way of creating a pressure, but an artesian well just means drilling down and discovering that water comes out.

Oh, please, quit it with the blasé attitude. It was a discovery that meant water would not have to be pumped from an aquifer.

- ship building technology. Fair enough. This is actually the only one that has some merit.

It's not. I'm sure if I brought up the stern-mounted rudders, you'd wax poetic about how they are actually Arabian, or Chinese, or something along the lines of that such rudders aren't actually "new" as they are just taking a bunch of other ideas and making something different.

- horseshoe. Actually discovered in Europe indeed, but in late classical age to late antiquity, not in the middle ages.

Well, the Romans did have the hipposandal, but that's more boot than shoe. However, unless you're using a timeline or descriptives that are different than the ones I used in my history studies, the Middle Ages started around the fall of Rome (so, around 476 BCE). There's some evidence of horseshoes in use by the Gauls by the 7th Century, with widespread use known by the First Crusade.

- the windmill and the mechanism to turn it into the wind are two separate inventions. The former exists since at the very least ancient Greece, and the fantail that automatically turns it into the wind was patented in 1745 by Edmund Lee. Neither is medieval.

Again, minimizing innovations of the Middle Ages. The Greek windmills were fixed. They didn't not turn to face the wind. Then, you say that it wasn't automatic until 1745. That is correct, of course.

But you minimize the importance of a windmill that can turn to face the wind. Which was invented, and innovated, during the Middle Ages, in the late 1100s.

The others on your list are too vague to address in a single message.

Grosseteste, Bacon, Occam, and Buridan? Too vague?

Shall we all make bets on which ones you claim didn't really do anything of value, or stole their work?

Covering the whole history of medicine for example would take a whole tome, so exactly which procedures do you mean were invented in medieval Europe?

Use of anaesthetics.
Concept of antiseptic surgery.
Concept of the hospital.

To name a few.

But if you come up with more speciffic, individually-addressable mis-conceptions like the above, I'll be more than happy to address them.

It's not the "Dark Ages". Can we at least clear that up?

As I've said, based on your posts, we can call practically every period a "Dark Age".

Furthermore, based on your posts in regards to advances and innovations that took place in the Middle Ages (especially if we limit things to just Europe), then it's hard to say that anyone actually invented anything outside of those in Antiquity.

[HansMustermann]

Oh, please, quit it with the blasé attitude. It was a discovery that meant water would not have to be pumped from an aquifer.

They didn't know how to make water come out in places where it wasn't already under pressure. They dug and if water came out, it was an artesian well, if it didn't, it was a normal well. That's it. That's all. Colour me unimpressed.

It's not. I'm sure if I brought up the stern-mounted rudders, you'd wax poetic about how they are actually Arabian, or Chinese, or something along the lines of that such rudders aren't actually "new" as they are just taking a bunch of other ideas and making something different.

And the problem with pointing out the ideas that were _not_ invented here is...? Or are you that determined to give Europe credit even when it just imported someone else's ideas? :p

But, anyway, I'm more like thinking of rigging, sails and keel construction techniques, rather than the rudder.

Well, the Romans did have the hipposandal, but that's more boot than shoe. However, unless you're using a timeline or descriptives that are different than the ones I used in my history studies, the Middle Ages started around the fall of Rome (so, around 476 BCE). There's some evidence of horseshoes in use by the Gauls by the 7th Century, with widespread use known by the First Crusade.

The transition from hipposandals to nailed hipposandals to the modern horseshoe was a more gradual process, but anyway, it seems to me like the basic invention was more important than who made it U shaped first.

Again, minimizing innovations of the Middle Ages. The Greek windmills were fixed. They didn't not turn to face the wind. Then, you say that it wasn't automatic until 1745. That is correct, of course.

But you minimize the importance of a windmill that can turn to face the wind. Which was invented, and innovated, during the Middle Ages, in the late 1100s.


Actually late 1100's IIRC was the first windmill with a horizontal shaft. Actually turning it around came later.

But ok, let's believe you there. So... in the rough time interval when China was inventing the movable type (btw, to answer that too, they did get a practical metal type before Europe too), the flamethrower, the first individual firearms, differential forging, etc... Europe's great contribution was putting a mill on a vertical pole so it could be turned around? :p

Sorry. Ok, so some innovations happened around these parts too, but my point is that they're fewer and farther in between than most people mistakenly think. Yes, I don't think that the tech level actually devolved during the middle ages, as was the graph in another thread, but most of the progress actually happened in Asia, Byzantium or the middle east, and only happened to find its way to Europe in this time.

Grosseteste, Bacon, Occam, and Buridan? Too vague?

I was talking about proper inventions, not about a rare few people which managed to still use their heads in that age. But I'll approach this from another angle:

- Grosseteste: his works on science are from the 1200's.

- Roger Bacon: late 1200's, and persecuted by the church for his work. (Not exactly the kind of thing that makes me go "thank goodness we weren't Muslim", ya know?)

- William of Ockham, early 1300's.

- Jean Buridan, ditto

They're all late middle ages, and almost borderline Renaissance. Also the first 3 of them are from the same Franciscan order in Oxford, so basically it paints more the image of an enclave in the middle of the darkness, rather than say that _Europe_ was like that.

And it's still doesn't change my mind by much about most of the Middle Ages. Yes, by the end of it, a few people were already waking up. It's the kind of thing that ended the middle ages, rather than the kind typical for the middle ages.

I mean, really, three of them are contemporaries with Petrarca who coined that "Dark Ages" phrase that you dispute, about what today we call the early and high middle ages. If anything, they serve as a contrast to those Dark Ages, than as an example of the best thinking _in_ it.

Use of anaesthetics.

That's news to me. Can you please be more specific about what anesthetic started being used in the middle ages, and by whom?

Concept of antiseptic surgery.

And here I was thinking that even in the Victorian era the surgeons hadn't yet started washing their hands. Or even figured out yet that you can carry an infection on your hands or scalpels. Or that in the middle ages, the barbers were the surgeons, and that taking a pint of blood was their main cure. Can you point me out at more information there?

Concept of the hospital.

Actually existed at the very least in ancient Rome.

It's not the "Dark Ages". Can we at least clear that up?

Fine by me. I'll start calling it the "Crappy Ages".

As I've said, based on your posts, we can call practically every period a "Dark Age".

Dunno whatever gave you that idea.

Furthermore, based on your posts in regards to advances and innovations that took place in the Middle Ages (especially if we limit things to just Europe), then it's hard to say that anyone actually invented anything outside of those in Antiquity.

Because Medieval Europe was really that crappy in that aspect. It's just working with the lists of examples you provided. And the majority of those didn't originate in Europe at all, or were older than the middle ages. I'm not going to rewrite history just to make the Crappy Ages look less Crappy.

[oggiesnr]

By the same token the innovations of the modern era (steam power, internal combustion, nuclear power, computing power et at) came out of the West. Does this imply that the Middle and Far East entered a "Dark Age" ?

Steve

[HansMustermann]

You'll notice that my reasons for calling it a dark age include more than just technology. It was a collapse of society and civilization on an unprecedented scale.

But if you want to narrow the domain strictly to technology, basically: yes.

[HansMustermann]

Just to clarify terminology, since now it occurs to me like we may be arguing about different things.

The term Dark Ages is usually used for te _Early_ Middle Ages, from the fall of Rome in 476 AD to circa 1000 AD. Hence inventions in the 1400's like the movable type or even the mill innovations from the 1100's are hardly representative for the actual Dark Ages. Oxford thinkers from the 13'th to 14'th century are also not quite representative for the Dark Ages.

Personally I'd include at least half of the High Middle Ages as not particularly bright either, though, at least as intellectual prowess went.

Drawing a single line is pretty hard, though, because Europe wasn't a single homogenous block.

E.g., in the 14'th century most of Europe was just entering the Late Middle Ages, but Italy was actually just entering Renaissance. Obviously they either skipped a stage, or their equivalent of the late middle ages was squeezed a bit earlier too.

E.g., Britain is a peculiar case too. By the 1200's they were definitely already waking up from the middle ages, and from the medieval Christian way of thinking. It's the century that produced the Magna Carta, signalling that even the nobles had enough with just living for the doomsday/rapture and were starting to think of living their lives in the present and in the real world. It's also the century that saw the rise of the Oxford school of scientific thought, and even the proto-ideas that would later evolve into Protestantism.

So at least for Italy and Britain, I'd draw the line somewhere around the year 1200. Although it's not quite renaissance yet, reason was already awakening from a long slumber, and it would pave the way for the later Renaissance.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

All I said was that up till Napoleon Europe was a patchwork of petty states (especially germany and italy) with later on a few bigger states that had a war pretty much every 10-15 years and fights between nobles on a smaller scale a lot more often.

I personally think that 'Dark ages' is misnomer invented much later and a lot of our current belief on how backward people were is plain wrong. As far as I know the scholars and sailors of the time were perfectly aware of the fact that it was round, nor was it deliberatly held secret from the populace at large, its just that after toiling the land for 12 hours there is little time for caring about such things.

I do believe that a lot of cultural and technological advances were made in that time. And at least some of that was military technology re-applied in civilian fields. Dutch example, windmills pumping water to clear the swamp around a city you want to besiege. But it also proved useful in getting more farmland.
By and large society functioned.

What I wanted to say with my post was that in this time the Ottoman empire held pace for most of the time, without all the internal squabbling. Or at least, less.
But I personally suspect that this might be more due to its organization and location than any influence of its religion. Most of its population was concentrated on coastal lands and along a few rivers, making communication easy and thus centralization. Europe doenst have this as much and had a more culturally diverse makeup.
Again, pure speculation, but a muslim europe would probably still have evolved pretty much the same way, or perhaps even less organized as the power of the pope from time to time functioned as a counterbalance to over ambitious rulers and as far as I know the muslim faith doesnt have such an institution.

[ddt]

Divisiveness in Europe or elsewhere couldn't be helped, simply because people are people, and the culture in Europe was like that. Plus, the infrastructure was such that you could only deal with an empire so big before the guys on the edges were out of control. (The Romans "cheated" a bit by having the Mediterranean in the middle, which was the ultimate highway between almost any two provinces.)
Don't forget you also need a professional administration & bureaucracy. The Romans did try this, but ultimately the provincial administrations were not interested in upholding the central government either.


The Muslim world too fragmented into several states. And China fell apart spectacularly several times in its history, and was reunited by another people under another dynasty.
But the Muslim world was reunited under the Ottoman Empire. And China's history is one of unity interspersed with occasional breaks, instead of the other way round. Between 476 and 1957, there were only three very short-lived attempts at European unity, neither of them quite voluntary (Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler).


Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Europe would have been war-free under the Muslims or anything. Not even sure it would have been necessarily much better in other ways. But just saying it's not like Christianity = teh utopia and Islam = teh evil, which seems to be the underlying message of that "X saved us from the Muslims" theme. If anything, both religions played second fiddle to the greed and hunger for power of various medieval overlords. The muslim ones did seem better in many aspects than the ones we historically got in Europe, e.g., were not as narrow minded when it came to both religion and science, but in the end they still were warlords.
Oh, I agree with you on that count.


I tend to view those clashes as basically the clash of various aggressive, expansionistic empires, and one set of pricks defeated another set of pricks. One set being Christian doesn't make them good, and one set being Muslim doesn't make them evil. And seeing even secular historians discuss, say, Carolus Martellus's victory at Tours as basically "saved Europe from the Muslims", seems to me like propagating that "Christian = good, Muslim = evil" meme. Even by people who wouldn't say or think just that in any other context.
It's indeed very easy to slip in a moral judgment in that statement. A historian should be above that and try to dispassionate analyze his subject. But he's also human. :)

[ddt]

But if you want heroes: The Serbs did a stellar job in stopping the Muslims. And they pretty much sacrificed themselves in the process.
Serbia was on it's way to becoming a significant local power. Then they took the brunt of the Muslim invasion and never really recovered.
You've been channelling the ghost of Milošević? ;)

The truth about the Battle of Kosovo Polje is a bit more complicated. Both sides, the Turks and the Serbs, had allies, and furthermore, both sides had Christian allies. So it wasn't just a matter of Christians vs. Muslims.

Secondly, the Serbian king Lazar kinda knew he was going to lose, having a much smaller army. Sorry, but I don't care much for this kind of defaitist heroism.

If you're really looking for a hero in this arena, Charles Martell, who defeated the Muslims at Tours/Poitiers, is a much better candidate.

[ddt]

You'll notice that my reasons for calling it a dark age include more than just technology. It was a collapse of society and civilization on an unprecedented scale.
Central authority collapsed, towns depopulated, and long-distance trade collapsed.


But if you want to narrow the domain strictly to technology, basically: yes.
You've overlooked one important aspect of technology: agriculture. Three-field crop rotation was a Roman invention, but forgotten. It was re-invented later and only around 1100 commonly re-introduced. It was also essential for growing oats, and thus for feeding those horses that pulled the plough.

[pakeha]

A fascinating disscussion, I'm learning a great deal.
About the origins of the 'Dark Ages':
Could it be that outbreaks of the Plague from the mid-sixth century to about 750, with climactic shift to colder temperatures had anything to do with the development of these centuries.
I understand the plague emptied the Iberian Penninsula to the point the Muslim Conquist of 711 was inevitable. the Islamic conquerers claimed "Allah has given us this land", IIRC.

Bubonic plague. It first appeared in Lybia and Egypt in the 3rd. century b.c., but it did not begin to ravage Europe until 542 a.d. where it flared up intermittently until 750, before disappearing. Around the 6th. century Europe entered one of its macroclimatic cold cycles, which lasted until the 10th.century. Crops failed, people starved, settled populations collapsed before waves of barbarians seeking warmer climates as well as escape from fiercer barbarians called the Hsing-nu ( the Huns )....

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:29OYk6GgHnUJ:www.midnightgraffiti.c om/historypg4.html+plague+7th+century+Europe&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es&lr=lang_en

[HansMustermann]

Don't forget the earlier repeated pox outbreaks that depopulated Rome and caused the western empire to pretty much implode. (And Britain to depopulate to the point where it needed to bring in the saxons, and so on.)

Though the bubonic plague did play a role too. Justinian's plague, generally accepted as bubonic plague, was brought to the west in that reconquest attempt. It caused the population to implode not only in cities but depopulated the country side to the point where it couldn't support any noteworthy cities. Italy collapsed, to the point where it was simply rolled over by a tribe as primitive as the Lombards.

[Eddie Dane]

You've been channelling the ghost of Milošević? ;)


He used to live within walking distance from me*, so I'm biased.;)

But i got that from a book by Robert Kaplan (http://www.amazon.com/Balkan-Ghosts-Journey-Through-History/dp/0312424930/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257845083&sr=1-1-spell) (who has since gone all Neocon and has lost a lot credibility with me)



*I live close to Scheveningen maximum security prison.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

One more detail that often gets forgotten about these times.

Its true that in muslim lands Jews and Christians had some restrictions placed upon them, however in most of Christian europe the restriction of not being Christian was to convert or die. Sure there were some area's where jews were allowed to live in ghetto's, but that still led to massacres from time to time. And god forbid that you tried to adhere to the religion of your ancestors once christianity took hold.
I can't recall any progroms recorded against christians or jews in the same time period in the muslim world. No clue on their stance on paganism, but since they mostly took over already christianized lands I guess they didn't meet many.
If I'm wrong, please correct me, I like history as a hobby.

[Doctor Evil]

One more detail that often gets forgotten about these times.

Its true that in muslim lands Jews and Christians had some restrictions placed upon them, however in most of Christian europe the restriction of not being Christian was to convert or die. Sure there were some area's where jews were allowed to live in ghetto's, but that still led to massacres from time to time. And god forbid that you tried to adhere to the religion of your ancestors once christianity took hold.
I can't recall any progroms recorded against christians or jews in the same time period in the muslim world. No clue on their stance on paganism, but since they mostly took over already christianized lands I guess they didn't meet many.
If I'm wrong, please correct me, I like history as a hobby.

On average, life under Islam was indeed comparatively better for Jews , but not always. An example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardi_Jews#Sephardim_under_Islam) from 12th century Spain:
The decline of the Golden Age began before the completion of the Christian Reconquista (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista), with the penetration and influence of the Almoravides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almoravides), and then the Almohads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohad), from North Africa. These fundamentalist sects abhorred the liberality of the Islamic culture of al-Andalus, including the position of authority which some dhimmis held over Muslims. When the Almohads gave the Jews a choice of either death or conversion to Islam, many Jews emigrated. Some, such the family of Maimonides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides), fled south and east to the more tolerant Muslim lands, while others went northward to settle in the growing Christian kingdoms.