Next Total War Title

[irneh]

I'm telling you, you are wasting your time with him. You are going to achieve nothing but to get a headache

I wrote my previous post in order to resume the debate to demonstrate that we can't be agree because we have different way of judging civilisation by saying we have different criterions, i wrote this debate to close this debate which have no end because we turn around...

But in stead of replying intelligently in order to close the debate, you insulted me saying that my English is poor and saying that debate with me gives headhache.
Becides you continue to promote your criterions, and no sorry but administration of arabian civ is not elaborate, it is too centralized that make them innable to really controll their terrotories, the initiative of attacking France were not the initiative of the Caliphe himself but an initiative of arabians sub-leaders, administration has to be judged as a capacity from the central power to really controll his land, the alternative to the administration power is the feudal power, which is a different way of organizing territories.

[Yayattasa]

I like the part you avoided my previous post.

Chinese copied nomad horse archers and heavy cavalry. Actually they copied cavalry: they did not have proper cavalry before, only chariots. Also copied several elements from buddhism into taoism.

No, you said that chinese copy Taoism, you don't assume what you say.

I will say it again, are you really able to read? Re-redebunked.

Chinese copied nomad horse archers and heavy cavalry. Actually they copied cavalry: they did not have proper cavalry before, only chariots. Also copied several elements from buddhism into taoism.

[irneh]

I like the part you avoided my previous post.

Chinese copied nomad horse archers and heavy cavalry. Actually they copied cavalry: they did not have proper cavalry before, only chariots. Also copied several elements from buddhism into taoism.

>I tired to quarrel so it will be my last post.
You are right and wrong, they effectively copy nomad cavalry but not complitely because they had not the same horses so the techics were different, becides they don't use it a very long time, they fastly change their equipment to finally use heavy cavalry.
As i have said i am tired to quarrel because the debate has no more links with the starting debate so i stop to post evenf if your future post will be benevolent or not.

[Guidrion]

Several against one, with only "nationalistic" as "argument", i don't think you should be proud of yourself.

Ah, the usual "I'm all alone so I'm right like Galilea" and "that one word you used in one sentence is he only thing you ever said" arguments. You'd do well in the research field.

Re-read the post he was the first claiming that arabian civ is superior than christian civ.

He was enthusiastic towards the Alhambra which he considered superior over what both christian and arab build. This is hardly a civilisational judgement.

1) i already proove that you know nothing about albigeois's cusade, you showed you don't know who are Cathare.

I've known about catharism since I was twelve. Altough, I'll confess my knowledge was a bit basic at the time from, you know, being twelve.
The albigensian crusade (please have the curtesy of actually using English translation in an English conversation, tout le monde ne parle pas français par ici) was a military campaign against a group, specifically a religious group which was by all accounts pretty bloody in its execution.

2)You know nothing about occitan's culture

Not sure occitans would appreciate some guy from Orléans gloating about his knwoledge of occitan culture. One of the main point of the occitanist is that there was (and in some way still is) a cultural conflict between northern and southern France.

let French culture and History to French and keep your Marc Dutrouc culture LOL.

Aw, poor little frenchie is so afraid of the big bad belgian man coming to take away his toys that he starts throwing pedophiles at him. I hope you feel proud with Emile Louis and fitting every possible stereotype of the pedantic frenchman speaking in broken English.

Becides, it is not nationalist to say that judging the superiority or not of a civilisation is subjective and we have all our proper criterions, i really don't see what is nationalistic in that.

Coming from the man who reduces the culture of a whole country to a pedophile convict just because he disagrees with him.

it is too centralized that make them innable to really controll their terrotories

This is by far the most hilarious and ironic error you made.
Islamic administration has always been highly decentralized, a choice they specifically made to control the large territories they conquered initially and the legacy of their tribal origins. Ever opened a book on the matter?

[HigoChumbo]

Due to the personal allusions, I feel like I have to clarify a few things:

Re-read the post he was the first claiming that arabian civ is superior than christian civ.

My first comment that has anything to do with all this is:

Well, if this helps to clarify the point, I'll just add that the muslims made "Spain" (Al-Andalus/The Ummayad Caliphate of Cordoba) the most powerful and advanced realm of the western world (10th century). I would not call that a barbaric path of destruction. It is as well no question that Spain was in a much better state after the islamic conquest than before it, since the Westgoths had it in a extremelly unstable state.

Even today, the most impressive and most visited monument in Spain is actually muslim made, the Alhambra of Granada.

And was a response to the comment:

Path of destruction? Threatening to burn all? Spread your onslaught? That's not really how it happened and it's quite senseless anyways.

So, no, as you can see, my comment was not meant as a comparison in the way of "muslims are superior to christians" but as a proof that they did indeed build and improve and did not mean a path of destruction. The historical data I mention are not my subjetive impressions but actually references to external sources. For instance:

The period of the Caliphate is seen as the golden age of Al-Andalus. Crops produced using irrigation, along with food imported from the Middle East, provided the area around Córdoba and some other Andalusī cities with an agricultural economic sector that was the most advanced in Europe by far. Among European cities, Córdoba under the Caliphate, with a population of perhaps 500,000, eventually overtook Constantinople as the largest and most prosperous city in Europe.[17] Within the Islamic world, Córdoba was one of the leading cultural centres. The work of its most important philosophers and scientists (notably Abulcasis and Averroes) had a major influence on the intellectual life of medieval Europe.

I don't know, but to me that does not look like "the islamic occupation of spain was a wound for spain" as you said (quoted you word by word).


In the other hand, your very first post after that:

There is much more beautifull construction made by christian, becides the islamic occupation of spain was a wound for spain was the attribute of dihmi for the none-muslim people, becides the Ummayad Caliphate try to invade and loot France to take the treasures but fortunately Charles Martel stop them at Poitier, If the islamic occupation was as good as you said spanish people would'nt do the reconquista.

So, as you can see, proper quotation and fact-checking proves you wrong again. You were the first one to bring the dick contest in, my post was clearly aimed just at prooving that the muslims were not destroyers, but builders and contributors. By the way, saying that a work of art is more beutiful than other, coming from someone who has lately been pretending to be the wielder of the sword of objetivity (with the "no culture is superior to other" line of argumentation) is kind of hypocritical, if you ask me, because I know few things as subjetive as art appreciation. I never pretended to imply that the Alhambra is the most beautiful monument on Earth, I merely said that it is the most impressive (out of scale and location, objetively, it is) and visited (just check the data) monument in my city. There is nothing subjetive about that. You are the one who brought comparisons in with the EXTREMELLY SUBJETIVE "There is much more beautifull construction made by christian", which was completelly out of place since, again, the point was not to debate wether the muslims were superior or not, but to proove that they contributed.






This one comes just for fun:

Chinese [...] Also copied several elements from buddhism into taoism.

2)Taoism is a chinese religion.

Are you even able to read? I said they copied buddhist elements INTO taoism, not taoism itself. Illiteracy these days...

No, you said that chinese copy Taoism, you don't assume what you say.

=======>

Also copied several elements from buddhism into taoism

Also copied several elements from buddhism into taoism

Also copied several elements from buddhism into taoism

I wrote my previous post in order to resume the debate to demonstrate that we can't be agree because we have different way of judging civilisation by saying we have different criterions, i wrote this debate to close this debate which have no end because we turn around...

This debate was pointless since long ago, since, again (and now I'm 100% that you know this, since you have already said it), the objetive of the debate was to proof that the muslims develoiped and contributed to the places they conquered, something that, as proven in this very post, I did since the VERY FIRST COMMENT of the discussion. (And that, just in case, I prooved with external quotes again in this same post). Now you can keep going in circles for as long as you want.

But in stead of replying intelligently in order to close the debate, you insulted me saying that my English is poor and saying that debate with me gives headhache.

I refuse to take accusations of "insulting" from the only person in this thread who has got comments removed by moderators because of insulting others (specifically for calling me a certain p***y word).

By the way, saying that your english is sometimes unintelligible (and that comes from a non-native speaker who doesn't preciselly have a perfect dominion of the language) and that debating with you has given me actual headaches are not insults, they are facts.

It's also not my problem that you decided to ignore every piece of "intelligent replies" I brought to the table, like the fact that you decided to ignore or even plainly deny most of the external facts I copied and quoted here (like the whole conversation about the mongols being outnumbered, in which you still refuse to aknnowledge that you made false/erroneous statements).

Becides you continue to promote your criterions, and no sorry but administration of arabian civ is not elaborate, it is too centralized that make them innable to really controll their terrotories, the initiative of attacking France were not the initiative of the Caliphe himself but an initiative of arabians sub-leaders, administration has to be judged as a capacity from the central power to really controll his land, the alternative to the administration power is the feudal power, which is a different way of organizing territories.

As usual, this has nothing to do with the thing we were discussing, which as I have already said, it's already proven, making further continuation of this nonsensical debate pointless. By the way, it is beSides. I just point this out because I have read you writting it several times so I'm guessing it's not an accidental typo, and trust me, it has a genuine intention of helping you improve your English. I'm not the kind of guy who tryes to debunk the arguments of another person by mocking his/her lack of knowledge of a language.

He was enthusiastic towards the Alhambra which he considered superior over what both christian and arab build. This is hardly a civilisational judgement.

I even specifically said "in my city". The main christian construction in my city is the Cathedral, which is also really nice, but does not come even close to the Alhambra in terms of uniqueness and monumentality (it's just your usual christian cathedral stuffed in the middle of the town, while the Alhambra is a big ass complex built atop a quite big hill commanding the entire city). I think it's not subjetive to say that the main attraction of Instambul is Hagia Sophia. The Alhambra is, objetively the main attraction of Granada. And also, objetively, as a single monument and not as a whole city, the most visited monument in Spain.

This is what I get if I type Granada (which is the word used to name my city in most languages) in Google Images:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Those are the 32 first images to appear. Of the 32, 20 are actual pictures of the Alhambra, 4 are pictures taken FROM the Alhambra (3 of which depicting another muslim construction, the arab quarter of the Albaycin), 2 are pictures of that same arab quarter, and of the 6 remaining, not directly-related pictures, in 4 of them the Alhambra appears in the background. So, thats it, of the 32 first Google pictures, 28 of them are of the Alhambra, and only in 2 of the 32 not a single medieval muslim made construction is present. So I believe I made no "over the top" statement.

[NostalgiaFan]

Can anyone please take this somewhere else? Because this has gone so off-topic that you would need a huge underground digging crew just to find what the point was in the first place.

[walterbarrett]

Can anyone please take this somewhere else? Because this has gone so off-topic that you would need a huge underground digging crew just to find what the point was in the first place.

Came into the thread, saw that it was a poll on if people are interested in the "Next Total War" title, and most people had voted that no, they weren't.
Now considering that the poll doesn't really say what it thinks the next Total War title is, and most people that voted said they wouldn't be interested, does this mean they are categorically not interested in new total war games?

This place is cray.

[HigoChumbo]

Can anyone please take this somewhere else? Because this has gone so off-topic that you would need a huge underground digging crew just to find what the point was in the first place.

nvm. misread your post.

[irneh]

was a military campaign against a group, specifically a religious group which was by all accounts pretty bloody in its execution.

yes

Not sure occitans would appreciate some guy from Orléans gloating about his knwoledge of occitan culture. One of the main point of the occitanist is that there was (and in some way still is) a cultural conflict between northern and southern France.

I htink that a guy from Orléans is more closed to occitan culture than a guy from belgic, i have visiting a lot of time the south of France,your geographical prejudice is stupid, i know a bit about occitan culture and south of France, i love rugby so i have some links with the regions, becides there is a lot of occitans French in Orléans like everywhere in the country, moreover i know a man xho has a very old noble family in the south of France and he knows the story Albigians crusade by heart (i tink much more than you).

This is by far the most hilarious and ironic error you made.
Islamic administration has always been highly decentralized, a choice they specifically made to control the large territories they conquered initially and the legacy of their tribal origins. Ever opened a book on the matter?

Absolutely wrong !!! You confond decentralized and deconcentrate/devolved administration, the administration of muslim civ is deconcentrated/devolved but not decentralized, officially it is centralized and devolved/deconcentrate form of administration, it was just decentralized in the fact because the governors (emirs,...) have a great flexibility (because of the lack communication), that's why they renounce to controll some territories because it was too far away and not enough population in these territories. Have you ever study administrative law or open a book about History of law on the matter ?

[Josephus I]

no
i mean actual colonization when spain and portugese conquistadors first arrive on

Actual colonization started around 1840... till 1950. Scramble for Africa and that stuff.

[HigoChumbo]

no
i mean actual colonization when spain and portugese conquistadors first arrive on

Actual colonization started around 1840... till 1950. Scramble for Africa and that stuff.

Your comment is not clear. Are you saying that colonization did not start until 1840? By 1840 Spain had already lost plenty of its colonies and those colonies were... well "colonies" (hence, already colonized), so I would not call that the "start of colonization".

[+Marius+]

I think this thread perfectly illustrates why this title would be a very bad idea


Also, Hypnotoad, you need to calm the down m8.

But all in all, regardless of the ignorance and obvious bias on all sides shown in the thread, the OP's initial description is spot on.
The achievements of the Islamic civilization post conquest, simply cannot erase the fact that they wiped out swarms of christian/zoroastrian populations during their conquest.
Africa and Egypt had nearly a third of their entire (at the time christian)population butchered in a single onslaught, the other regions did not fare much better.
Not to mention slavery...holy Christ Marduk Anu Almighty dat slavery...so...much...slavery...slaves, slaves everywhere...

If you have any questions go google the ethnic map of Arabs pre and post the spread of Islam.

[Yayattasa]

I think this thread perfectly illustrates why this title would be a very bad idea


Also, Hypnotoad, you need to calm the down m8.

But all in all, regardless of the ignorance and obvious bias on all sides shown in the thread, the OP's initial description is spot on.
The achievements of the Islamic civilization post conquest, simply cannot erase the fact that they wiped out swarms of christian/zoroastrian populations during their conquest.
Africa and Egypt had nearly a third of their entire (at the time christian)population butchered in a single onslaught, the other regions did not fare much better.
Not to mention slavery...holy Christ Marduk Anu Almighty dat slavery...so...much...slavery...slaves, slaves everywhere...

If you have any questions go google the ethnic map of Arabs pre and post the spread of Islam.

Again all this. Do you realise the Berbers were there before the islamization? They became arabs after that, not really wiped. That's why the map will show a growth of Arabic presence.
Also, why would the conquerors kill the population that had to pay the jizya? That's totally counterproductive. The churches were spared and greeks were allowed to leave. The remaining population that either converted or paid the jizya supported and respected their conqueror, Amr ibn al-Aas.

[+Marius+]

Again all this. Do you realise the Berbers were there before the islamization? They became arabs after that, not really wiped. That's why the map will show a growth of Arabic presence.
Also, why would the conquerors kill the population that had to pay the jizya? That's totally counterproductive. The churches were spared and greeks were allowed to leave. The remaining population that either converted or paid the jizya supported and respected their conqueror, Amr ibn al-Aas.

Yeah buddy, we have fairly accurate population sources before and after the invasion so you are talking to the wind here.
Certain regions and peoples are described as completely wiped from the map.
Berbers or not we are talking about various ethic groups from Portugal to India, does the fact that native (A)Syrians make up to 1-5% of the population of Syria not strike as somewhat strange to you?

Also, stop using the idiotic jizya argument, the productivity of land farming villagers did not stop the Mongols/Turks from slaughtering tens of millions of them for pure enjoyment, neither did the (would be extremely useful urban)muslim/jew population of Jerusalem had any luck after the first Crusaders came through the walls.

Ask the civilian christian population of Antioch how they feel about their rights under the Islamic rule, oh wait, they were all massacred/enslaved to the last man/woman/child...huh.


The argument about rights of Christians during Islamic rule is exactly like that of black slaves after the American Civil War, their rights were on paper only, muslims were privileged in every corner of the law.

Of course they had more rights than muslims in christian kingdoms, but the problem is that christian life under islamic rule was faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar worse than people like to claim/believe.

[Yayattasa]

It's obvious christians were second to third class citizens, that was expected at the time: the conqueror ethnos almost always had privileges in detriment of the natives.

The point is your argument about the spread of the Arabic ethnos is simply flawed, and has no meaning. It could be applied to every ethnos, ever.

[+Marius+]

It's obvious christians were second to third class citizens, that was expected at the time: the conqueror ethnos almost always had privileges in detriment of the natives.

What is not obvious is that the current view of muslims only limiting their opression to forcing "others" to pay tax is flawed.
They treated everyone else horribly, far better than the christians did, but still horrible.

The point is your argument about the spread of the Arabic ethnos is simply flawed, and has no meaning. It could be applied to every ethnos, ever.

No, it could not.
Stop defending what is an obvious spread of an ethnicity via warfare and extermination.
We are talking about millions of square miles, not some vague sets of migrations and interethnical mingling.

That is not even my point, my point was that the conquests themselves were extremely bloody and horrible, regardless of how the Islamic culture flourished afterwards.
The thing that bothered me was the fact that there was an active struggle on this thread to bury the horrible crimes of Islamic conquests under the carpet of their later achievements.

[Yayattasa]

Okay then, let put it this way. The conquest was (obviously) bloody, as any conquest at the time, but the Arabs remarkably showed more mercy than other conquerors.

[+Marius+]

but the Arabs remarkably showed more mercy than other conquerors.

No, they did not.

What part of constant mass murder and the start of the (by far)largest and most brutal slave trade in human history do you not understand?

[Yayattasa]

No, they did not.

What part of constant mass murder and the start of the (by far)largest and most brutal slave trade in human history do you not understand?

Constant mass murders? And why did the Arabs let the Greeks leave Egypt instead of simply enslaving them?
Are we really talking about the rise of Islam or are you talking about later dynasties?

[+Marius+]

Constant mass murders?

Yep.

And why did the Arabs let the Greeks leave Egypt instead of simply enslaving them?

Yes, and that exact same thing happened to Muslims in Spain after the Christians reconquered certain territories, they were offered to either convert or be forced to leave.
Just because sometimes this offer was made does not mean that such civilized practice was done predominantly by either Christians or Muslims.