History questions? Fire away!

TheyCallMeC said:
what do you know about the romanian genocide?
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on which one you're talking about. Romania played a small part in the Holocaust of WWII; additionally, in 1989, the communist leader of the country was accused of the genocide of 60,000 people, although those reports were extremely exaggerated; at the max, it was only 2,000 people, and hardly genocide by any stretch of the imagination. Also, there's the whole idea of Cultural genocide, which wasn't a genocide in practice, but rather in ideology. They wanted all non-Romanians out of the country because of a variety of reasons.

I can talk at least a little about all of those instances, but which did you mean? They're all quite obscure. Unless, of course, I'm missing a big one somewhere... care to be a little more specific?
 
haha, ok. Well, it may have even been another one entirely; he may well have meant the armenian genocide, or one that was less obscure, in any case.

nonetheless, I feel bad; you've asked 2 questions and I haven't given you a proper answer for either :/
 
Alright.

Next Question: Weren't the English, Holy Romans, and French the "Strongest" armies back in 1080-1400 AD? If so, then why didn't they just ally up and overtake the Muslium armies (Turks, Egyptians, etc.)?
 
mayhem death said:
Alright.

Next Question: Weren't the English, Holy Romans, and French the "Strongest" armies back in 1080-1400 AD? If so, then why didn't they just ally up and overtake the Muslium armies (Turks, Egyptians, etc.)?
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. They were the strongest armies in Europe, but they were comparable to the Muslim armies, certainly.

Plus, they DID ally up and they TRIED to take out the Turks in Jerusalem... that's the third crusade right there. They failed.


Why the failed is a pretty interesting, but relatively easy question to answer: they didn't have home field advantage. Surely, if the Muslims had tried to attack France, they would have lost, because of unfamiliarity with the terrain; it's the same deal with the Europeans. They got into the Middle East and Africa (on later crusades), but they never excelled there. Deserts are a lot different than your standard European turf; Not only was it unfamiliar to the knights who went there, but their attire was completely unsuited to it.

Think about it: sitting in a desert in a full suit of armor. You're a living oven. As if the sun wasn't enough WITHOUT a hundred pounds of metal on your back, the metal happens to conduct heat very well, and that's really bad for you.

What were the Muslims wearing? Leather and cloth, and generally things that are light, both in weight and color. If they were to attack Scandinavia in that type of attire, they'd probably be very cold, and be much worse at the whole 'killing people' thing. As it turns out, the knights were markedly worse at fighting when they had a metal oven strapped to their bodies scalding them whenever they went into the sun.



So, two conclusions: Firstly, even if Europe had a stronger army, lack of familiarity with the terrain and clothing and armor that didn't fit the weather would have gotten them anyhow. In fact, they did team up, just like you said, and they still lost. Repeatedly.

Secondly, Europe didn't have a stronger army. It was pretty close to the same, all told. After all, we're talking about the the predecessors of the Ottoman Empire here; these guys had a LOT of people and a LOT of morale (although, to be fair, so did Europe). In any case, the numbers were roughly equivalent, and even if they weren't, it probably would have taken an advantage of more than 2:1 in order to actually fight a winning war in the middle east, because of the massive advantage given to the Muslims due to terrain.
 
Couple of Questions:

Irish Myth says that the last people to settle on the island (Milesians) supposedly landed there from Spain. Do you know if there is any actual proof regarding that?

Also,

Are the Greeks as a whole regarded as part of the "Sea Peoples" that migrated and settled in the Aegean, or is it more a mixture of seafarers, Cretans, Myceneans, and land-based tribes that ended up creating the Ancient Greeks?
 
Great answer. I get the metal and army thing. :)

Next Question: Has the Pope ever attended a Crusade?
 
mayhem death said:
Great answer. I get the metal and army thing. :)

Next Question: Has the Pope ever attended a Crusade?
Click to expand...



This is a quick question with a very quick answer: No.

Popes are 'too important' to be going on crusades. Aside from which, they had too much administrative work to be doing back home, what with being the sole leader of the entire Christian faith :p



Orange, I'm just hopping off for tonight, otherwise I'd answer your questions now. However, they require a bit more depth than 5 minutes will give, so I'll hit you up tomorrow.
 
Dreadmaker said:
Surely, if the Muslims had tried to attack France, they would have lost, because of unfamiliarity with the terrain.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a good example of that, about three hundred years before the first Crusade: The Battle of Tours. Although the Arabs were kinda familiar with the terrain, Martel was able to defeat them. Funny enough.
 
Orange_Kun!!! said:
Couple of Questions:

Irish Myth says that the last people to settle on the island (Milesians) supposedly landed there from Spain. Do you know if there is any actual proof regarding that?

Also,

Are the Greeks as a whole regarded as part of the "Sea Peoples" that migrated and settled in the Aegean, or is it more a mixture of seafarers, Cretans, Myceneans, and land-based tribes that ended up creating the Ancient Greeks?
Click to expand...



Alright, so as to your first question, I'm just about as unclear as you are. I'm aware of the myth, but as far as I know, it is just a myth. I have seen no evidence proving its validity, so I suppose my answer is no. However, Irish history isn't a particular focus of mine, and so I haven't done any reading that would give me anymore of an informed opinion than you. Thus, your guess on this matter is just as good as mine.

Your second question, however, I can speak to a little more. There's a more definite time line there. Essentially, We know about the Minoans (that is, the people on Crete) as early as 7,000 BC, and it is THEM that we believe are more direct descendants of the 'sea people'. As the Minoan culture waned, the Mycenaeans of the mainland began to flourish, partly due to the influence of the Minoans. Following that, we have the development of our more familiar 'ancient Greeks'.

So, yes, after a fashion, there were descendant from the 'sea peoples', but it was a relatively distant relation. It was really more a combined effort on the part of the Minoans and the Mycenaeans.
 
Lol. Good point.

Next Question: Do you know what the "Bloodiest" battle is around the times 1080-1450?
 
I like this thread.. :P Btw I'm minoring in history and majoring in business. :D

Anyways...

Tell me about the Mongols, with Genghis Khan. O_O
 
Alright, 3 quick questions, 3 quick answers.


Mayhem: It depends on who you ask, because of course the records from that time are pretty inaccurate. Generally speaking, the Crusades are considered to be the bloodiest campaign of the era (and one of the top ones today), but in actual fact, to my knowledge, there is more blood being spilled by the Mongols in the framed time line; their attacks on the Song dynasty in China accumulated well over 100,000 deaths, and the siege of Baghdad was in the 50,000-60,000 range. So, generally speaking, if you're looking for bloodiest, those are the two areas you want to watch.


TheyCallMeC: The Egg. The question has always been strange to me; after all, eggs long predate the chicken. Sea life and other creatures that, to our knowledge, came before the chicken in the evolutionary development of the planet, had been using eggs for a long time. Dinosaurs used eggs. Clearly, then, it is the egg that predates the chicken.


Soldier: I've already answered at least something about the Mongols, way back on page 4. My answer was long enough that it needed its own blog post to deal with it: check it out here. After you've read that, I'll take any more specific questions you may have :)
 
I'm trying to think of who maintained the longest sustaining empire in history. The longest I can think of off the top of my head is the Byzantines.

Egypt, Persia, and China were broken up way too many times for me to say they were sustained the entire time. Any thoughts?
 
Mayhem: I did include a map with my blog post, go ahead and have another look. However, I can tell you that, from their base in Mongolia, they ended up severely harassing Russia and Getting as far west as the Belorussian states (i.e. the Ukraine, Belarus, etc.), and perhaps even creeping as far as Poland.


Orange: What I CAN tell you is that it is not the Byzantines. If you count their beginning as where it should be counted, at 476, the fall of the Western empire of Rome, it was only 977 years before they got formally destroyed by the Ottoman Empire in 1453. I would vote for Egypt, because even though there were some 'break ups', it has lasted for about 6000 years and I'm sure there was at least some period in there that was longer than 1000 years.


However, if you aren't a fan of those three that you mentioned, Here's an alternative that EVERYONE overlooks: Ethiopia. The Ethiopian empire lasted from roughly 1000 BC to 1974 when their Monarchy was overthrown. However, they were incredibly resilient; they were still considered an empire when they repelled Italy in the second world war.

Really, I'm not sure I like your definition of broken up; for me, while I can speak less for the others, Egypt and Persia stayed almost completely intact as a land mass for the duration of their respective empires, and the 'empire' status was never taken down. I think you might have to define your criteria a little better for me if you want to be more specific about it, but My vote goes to Egypt.

However, like I said, Ethiopia remained stable for close to 3000 years; my thought is that if you don't include the three you said there, that's the best you're going to get.
 
Oh my god. That is far. Great map btw.

Next question: Is there somewhere where it says who is the "greatest" warrior?
 
Dreadmaker said:
Alright, 3 quick questions, 3 quick answers.


TheyCallMeC: The Egg. The question has always been strange to me; after all, eggs long predate the chicken. Sea life and other creatures that, to our knowledge, came before the chicken in the evolutionary development of the planet, had been using eggs for a long time. Dinosaurs used eggs. Clearly, then, it is the egg that predates the chicken.
Click to expand...


my thoughts exactly when asked this question

i was just curious as to how you would answer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

masterofpuppets
  • Article Article
Team Fortress: The Complete History
Replies
4
Views
535
Legend
Legend

Latest posts

Back
Top