Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
China is the name that Europeans use when talking about that country. For Chinese, the country is called “Chungkuo” , roughly meaning nation in the middle.The use of "Chungkuo" implied a claim of political legitimacy as they believed that they were the "center of civilization".Since the death of Emperor Xuande (Ming dynasty) and as a consequence of the Mongols wars (XVth century), it caused a political crisis in China. China abandoned the strategy of annual land expeditions and instead embarked upon a massive and expensive expansion of the Great Wall of China. In this environment, funding for naval expeditions simply did not happen. It's not until the XIXth century that European powers forced China to open its borders to Western imperialism (see Opium wars and , about Japan, Commodore Perry and the gunboat policy)
Gavin Menzies is a retired British submarine commander and amateur historian. No primary source could ever support his claims about how China first discovered America (centuries after the Vikings) or ignited the European Renaissance (European Classical culture, especially denying the Islamic importance in Western history).
Giambologna (1529 – 1608), was a sculptor, known for his marble and bronze statuary in a late Renaissance or Mannerist style.Mannerism is notable for its intellectual sophistication as well as its artificial (as opposed to naturalistic) qualities. It encompasses a variety of approaches influenced by, and reacting to, the harmonious ideals and restrained naturalism associated with artists such as Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, and early Michelangelo. I'm surprised that you talk about him; Giambologna is today almost unknown even if his influence was important throughout Northern Europe ! 🙂
Turkish massive cannon fired on the walls of Constantinople for weeks, but due to its imprecision and extremely slow rate of reloading the Byzantines were able to repair most of the damage after each shot, limiting the cannon's effect.The Ottoman fleet could not enter the Golden Horn due to the boom the Byzantines had laid across the entrance.The Turks had made several frontal assaults on the land wall, but were always repelled with heavy losses.The Ottomans even planned to overpower the walls by sheer force, knowing that the weak Byzantine defense would be worn out before they ran out of troops.The second final assault focused on a section of the Blachernae walls in the northwest part of the city, which had been partially damaged by the cannon. This section of the walls had been built much more recently, in the eleventh century, and was much weaker; the crusaders in 1204 had broken through the walls there. The Ottoman attackers also managed to break through, but were just as quickly pushed back out by the defenders. Some historians suggest that the Kerkoporta gate in the Blachernae section had been left unlocked, and the Ottomans soon discovered this mistake. The Ottomans rushed in. Around the same time, the defenders were being overwhelmed at several points in Constantine's section.I agree about the way gunpowder slowly but continuously arrived in Europe via the Muslim civilization which was playing as an intermediate between Europe and China in many fields. However, prior to the invention of gunpowder, many incendiary and burning devices had been used, including Greek fire (Constantinople).The oldest written recipes for gunpowder in Europe were recorded under the name Marcus Graecus or Mark the Greek between 1280 and 1300.The Battle of Cr?cy in 1346 was one of the first in Europe where cannons were used. In 1350, only four years later, Petrarch wrote that the presence of cannons on the battlefield was 'as common and familiar as other kinds of arms'. When you consider how armies and strategies evolved after gunpowder, nothing much changed, fortifications adapted, tactics as well.I state that one of the main consequences of gunpowder is more about the demise of cavalry at the beginning of the XXth century than warfare itself. Air Force has brought another significant evolution as well.In both case, the importance of industrial production (e.g. WWI and WWII) was the main element that could determine wars issue. Not the strength or the number of soldiers.Nowadays, it seems that traditional war are not won on traditional battlefields but more in a diffuse, overall threat e.g. Al-Qaeda.
I dont see how the church's position is very relevant.
I would have to research it
I bet
Do you mean Do as I say, not as I do? ???
This reminds me about 1421: The Year China Discovered America, a book written by retired submarine commander and amateur historian Gavin Menzies. 😛
By the way, did I mention the Inquisition ?? Furthermore, I look forward to your argumentation if what I wrote about the Church and feudalism is wrong. (without quotes or theoretical excerpts but facts) 🙂
Check this outhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340936.stm
Dear Scout1067,I fully agree with your quotes, especially the last one :
An historian must be objective, analytical, and critical, otherwise he/she is merely a propagandist.
😉
If you consider an opportunist as someone who takes advantage of any opportunity to achieve an end, often with no regard for principles or consequences. I still disagree: some opportunists were guillotined shot ...
I'v heard that early Viking settlements happened in an area called L'Anse aux Meadows in what is now the northernmost tip of the island of Newfoundland in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Did they send some scouts to Minnesota initiating some ritual games such games of chance in which each player has one or more cards printed with differently numbered squares on which to place markers when the respective numbers are drawn and announced by a caller. The first player to mark a complete row of numbers is the winner. ? ???
I agree with both of you. I think it's quite difficult to imagine how the whole society at the time was involved with religion. Religion seemed to be ruling all aspects of life: daily, political and even economic (remember the status of the Jews during that time when money was considered as impure even if necessary… although this deserves a new chapter…)
Lets do that then. Was the mass of people in Europe but particularly France aware of the intellectual ferment of the Enlightenment? I think not, evidence would suggest that the Philosophes were just as elitist as the nobility and clergy they so vigorously attacked. I stand by my assertions that the revolutionaries were simple opportunists, every revolutionary is an opportunist. They saw an opportunity to upset the established order and siezed it.
I agree with you when you state that most of common people were not aware of enlightenment ideals, especially when you have to struggle to simply survive. Even during the American Revolution, to which social class did the leaders belong?However can you give me a single example of a revolution that was not triggered or used by such so-called opportunists ?It's a nonsense to despise any revolutionary as being an opportunist, they are just catalysts that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences.
Well, I didn't bring any enlightenment view about the feudal sytem related to the organisation of the Church during that time.The role of the Church in the feudal system is a fact, just like I described it.The Church has always had a kind of dilemma between its religious function and its secular importance which started during the Roman Empire and throughout the decline of Rome, the migrations and the emergence of Germanic powers.The Church was the only preserved link between the "golden age" of Rome and the end of what was called "The Dark Age". According to the Roman fascination that most of German monarchs had, it can be understandable that some key-players in the Church were seduced by the feeling of power instead of their initial mission and the salvation of the souls.Why do you think the Reformation occurred if there were no such confusion ?
