What is the most misunderstood historical event?

[Arakhor]

it is definitely noteworthy that, according to Madden, the Muslims had conquered two thirds of the Christian world before the first crusade.

How does he work that out? I can't imagine that Mediterranean Africa and the Middle East are twice the size of Europe, even if you're including Moorish Spain at its greatest extent.

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe population-wise?

Also, the north of Europe was not all christian at the time. Of course if we go not by 1rst crusade era, but rise of the caliphate.

 

[Leoreth]

Are we still doing the thing where the First Crusade is painted as defensive action against the conquests under the first Caliphs? I mean I knew information traveled slowly in the Middle Ages, but 300 years is still stretching it a bit.

 

[aelf]

From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world.

And who enabled them? I cite Edward Gibbon, eminent historian of the late antiquity with a ridiculous number of citations. This is what he said in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, in sum:

Gibbon argued that Christianity created a belief that a better life existed after death, which fostered an indifference to the present among Roman citizens, thus sapping their desire to sacrifice for a larger purpose. He also believed that Christianity's comparative pacifism tended to hamper the traditional Roman martial spirit.

Christianity is to blame. Whosoever follows this faith will clearly perish in the hands of their betters.

Since, he's so well-known and actually way older than the Internet, Gibbon must be right.

 

[Leoreth]

But does Gibbon have a blog? I rest my case.

 

[Tahuti]

How does he work that out? I can't imagine that Mediterranean Africa and the Middle East are twice the size of Europe, even if you're including Moorish Spain at its greatest extent.

North Africa, the Levant and Anatolia were Christian before Islam was introduced there.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Gibbon argued that Christianity created a belief that a better life existed after death, which fostered an indifference to the present among Roman citizens, thus sapping their desire to sacrifice for a larger purpose.

There are people who really are like this, though, and some of them are either in the government or working on behalf of prospective MPs in the current election. One Conservative campaign worker shrugged off a question about climate change as "God's will."

Well, no. It's not "God's will." It's the will of short-sighted humans who don't think beyond the next year or two, and couldn't care less about the consequences 10 years in the future, never mind 50 or 100 years. After all, they won't be here, so why worry about it? Just grab everything now and let the (deity of your choice) sort it out later. Yes, Earth does go through natural climate changes, in very long-term cycles. But that doesn't mean we need to be helping along the changes that we know will be detrimental to our kind of life in the short term (ie. mammalian life and the plants we need as part of the food chain and that help to maintain the atmosphere in the proportions we need).

It's one thing to believe in a nice afterlife, and quite understandable. After all, nobody has come back from being dead to tell us what it's like. We don't know, so there's a hope for a pleasant existence afterward. The idea of nonexistence is scary.

But to use that belief as an excuse to ignore the problems in this life is reprehensible.

 

[Arakhor]

North Africa, the Levant and Anatolia were Christian before Islam was introduced there.

You don't say.

 

[Kyriakos]

Even Napoleon regarded Gibbon as a monkey (apt), or dog-like, and claimed that 'Gibbon just barks'.
Of course in the same sentence he hailed Machiavelli as the sole writer of good military-tied books

 

[abradley]

How does he work that out? I can't imagine that Mediterranean Africa and the Middle East are twice the size of Europe, even if you're including Moorish Spain at its greatest extent.

Mollweide projection might be his reference point.

And who enabled them? I cite Edward Gibbon, eminent historian of the late antiquity with a ridiculous number of citations. This is what he said in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, in sum:

Christianity is to blame. Whosoever follows this faith will clearly perish in the hands of their betters.

Since, he's so well-known and actually way older than the Internet, Gibbon must be right.

I'll stick with:

How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower by Adrian Goldsworthy

Book Review by Dr. Philip Matyszak

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/how-rome-fell-death-of-a-superpower.php

{Snip}

Goldsworthy is also good at looking at many of the myths surrounding the fall of Rome and pointing out where they do not match with the established evidence. He treats the phenomenon of Christianity with judicious impartiality, and argues that the Roman army remained a highly competent fighting force almost to the end. Nor, he maintains, were the Sassanian Persians a much more potent military power than the Parthians whom they succeeded.

So why, according to this book, did Rome fall in the west? And why did it not fall in the east?
(Continued)

{Snip}

But to use that belief as an excuse to ignore the problems in this life is reprehensible.

Finally, we agree on something.

 

[aelf]

I'll stick with:

Gibbon is more famous. Why don't you trust him?

Could it be that you're cherry-picking sources to suit your own agenda and then appealing to authority to make you seem right?

 

[abradley]

Gibbon is more famous. Why don't you trust him?

Could it be that you're cherry-picking sources to suit your own agenda and then appealing to authority to make you seem right?

Maybe, for his day he was possible the best, but this isn't his day.

To plagiarize/paraphrase a blogger 'If you want to know how 18th century historians saw everything, he's worth a read.'

Otherwise IMO be modern.

 

[Nathiri]

And who enabled them? I cite Edward Gibbon, eminent historian of the late antiquity with a ridiculous number of citations. This is what he said in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, in sum:

----------

Christianity is to blame. Whosoever follows this faith will clearly perish in the hands of their betters.

Since, he's so well-known and actually way older than the Internet, Gibbon must be right.

Actually not true. The Bible does not teach total pacifism. It teaches against unlawful wars ('unlawful' is used according to God's Law). Defensive wars are to be fought and Christians have a duty to fight to win (by lawful means). You can see this all over the Bible.

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

Not as much an event... though, I always see people lump Mao Zedong in with Hitler and Stalin as one of the most despotic dictators in history, based on the millions that died under his rule of China. I could be way off here and I'm sure I could be easily convinced that I'm wrong, but my impression is that it is less that Mao was a ruthless authoritarian the way Stalin and Hitler were, and more that Mao was one of the most horrifically incompetent rulers in world history. I get the impression a lot of the deaths were caused by Mao creating policies and and movements with zero idea of what he was actually doing. With the Great Leap Forward, Mao was trying to create a China that could compete with the western world through the introduction of communes and collectivization. Something near 30 million people starved to death though due to horrible management at all levels of governance though, due to the fact that the farmers were giving the government basically all their food and then had nothing to feed themselves with. Then there was the Cultural Revolution, where he inspired the youth to revolt against the communist party, since he felt the communist party was full of traitors. People who were educated were sent to work on farms in the country while uneducated teenagers tried to fill in their shows. One example I can think of is in a movie I saw where a hospital had no qualified doctors since they were deemed spies by the youth movement, and so unqualified teenagers were doing all the medical work, which caused a pregnant woman to lose her life due to the poor care at the hospital.

Got real wordy. I'm not saying Mao wasn't a dictator. Just that I feel that many of the tragedies that occurred under his rule had less to do with despotism and more to do with Mao being an astonishingly awful leader.

 

[Formaldehyde]

A couple of notes regarding the Great Leap Forward and the resulting Great Famine.

1) A sizable percentage of the deaths was caused by droughts and floods, but nowhere near as high as China originally claimed. The majority are attributed to mismanagement, but that should be factored in.

2) The population of China was 658M at the time, so even if 30M died that is less than 5% of the population. It is still a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. But put that into perspective of the percentage of various countries which were killed during WWII, which caused nearly the same proportion of deaths in China:

 

[EnglishEdward]

While the earlier Christians were very pacific, the leadership
that converted to Christians was certainly not.

There has been much study about the fall of Rome since Edward Gibbon's time.

The so called barbarian tribes in the North and the Persians had few slaves and
could raise an army where very nearly all the able bodied men were soldiers.

The Christians made the strategic mistake of sanitising large scale slavery
rather than abolishing slavery which meant that they had a much smaller
proportion of their population base who could serve as soldiers.

This had been a problem for the Jovian Roman empire, but they had largely
got away with it because they had raised professional armies that were
qualitatively very much better than that which the disorganised tribes could
raise against it in the West (e.g. Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul/Britain).

This was less successful in the east against the Persians where one might
assess the overall outcome as a draw.

An issue is that military technology does not stand still. The barbarians had
several centuries in which to try out various techniques against the Romans.
In the end they found some that proved successful. An example of this is
the horse archer which caused great problems when the Persians used them, but
the game changer was the composite bow that the Huns on horses developed.

The Romans were aware of these technologies, but they became over confident
and were reluctant to use such techniques and to vary their order of battle.

This was probably more due to organisational conservatism than Christianity.

A few mistakes by generals, appointed for political reasons, e.g. sending exhausted
troops into battle rather than encamping and resting, and parts of the Empires
were overrun, and could no longer provide the money to finance professional armies.

The slave population and much of the poorer free peasantry had no loyalty to the
patrician system and were content with, if not preferring, rule by "barbarians" who'd
treat them on merit rather than by birth and whether they'd studied Roman classics.

 

[Nathiri]

While the earlier Christians were very pacific, the leadership
that converted to Christians was certainly not.

There has been much study about the fall of Rome since Edward Gibbon's time.

The so called barbarian tribes in the North and the Persians had few slaves and
could raise an army where very nearly all the able bodied men were soldiers.

The Christians made the strategic mistake of sanitising large scale slavery
rather than abolishing slavery which meant that they had a much smaller
proportion of their population base who could serve as soldiers.

How early are you referring to? The Roman Catholic church did not come to power until about the Fall of the Roman Empire. Before this it was just the Roman Empire Church. The Roman Catholic Church did promote slavery because they had the Aristotle view that some people are meant to be slaves. Much of the corruption and additions of new doctrines also occurred then. During the Roman Empire Church, slavery was still a problem as it was common before it was made the national religion. Slavery was not likely to be abolished as not everyone in the empire were Christians, and some only claim to be Christians even though they do not really follow the teachings. Until there was discussion of abolishing it, was it better to let slaves be owned by worse masters? or owned by better masters? There was also a departure from many teachings of the Bible around this time as was already said to happen by the Apostle Paul.

Would be difficult to say if the early Christians were more pacifist as it took a while for it to be even recognised as a proper religion by the Roman Empire. Before this, Christians were not respected much and were poorly treated, so it wouldnt necessarily be very wise to even be in the Roman Army and it would be difficult to have much involvement in the local governments. Even if a Christian joined, or was already in the army when they converted, some of the methods of the Romans for taking lands or how lands were occupied would not be agreed to by a Christian who followed the teachings of the Bible.

 

[Arakhor]

Corruption and additions of new doctrines? Would you care to clarify what you mean?

 

[Ajidica]

The so called barbarian tribes in the North and the Persians had few slaves and
could raise an army where very nearly all the able bodied men were soldiers.

Slavery was rather common in Sassanid Persia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Iran#Under_the_Sassanids
There are some records to the Sassanids using slaves as soldiers -although the accuracy of those sources is dubious- and there are plenty of sources attesting to how the Sassanids took slaves in raids and when conquering cities.

An issue is that military technology does not stand still. The barbarians had
several centuries in which to try out various techniques against the Romans.
In the end they found some that proved successful. An example of this is
the horse archer which caused great problems when the Persians used them, but
the game changer was the composite bow that the Huns on horses developed.

Not really.
First, Roman armies definitely made use of horse archers, it appears horse archers may have been sent to Brittania. By the 6th century it was expected of Byzantine heavy cavalry that they be proficient in sword, lance, and bow. It can be presumed that this trend started earlier.
Secondly, European terrain and weather is really hard on steppe horse archers. Dampness causes the animal glues in composite bows to fall apart and finding fodder is difficult when compared to the steppes or Hungarian plains. Based off what we know of the various groups operating during the collapse of the Roman Empire, the general scholarly consensus (Peter Heather, Guy Halsall) is that the composition of the Hunnic armies at Chalons was not fundamentally different from the other 'barbarian' armies.

The Romans were aware of these technologies, but they became over confident
and were reluctant to use such techniques and to vary their order of battle.

Not sure where you are getting that from. The equipment of the Roman legionnaire and the military tactics varied significantly over the course of the empire.
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html
(Link also includes nice pictures of re-enactors in armor.)

A few mistakes by generals, appointed for political reasons, e.g. sending exhausted
troops into battle rather than encamping and resting, and parts of the Empires
were overrun, and could no longer provide the money to finance professional armies.

Again, not sure where you are getting that from. With the exception of Adrianople, a Roman field army never lost to the 'barbarians' during the entire collapse of the Empire. Battlefield incompetence is not why the Empire collapsed. The quality of Roman officers and generals was on the whole unmatched until the 're-discovery' of Greco-Roman tactical manuals during the 'Military Revolution' of the 16th century. The Empire was undone by civil war and political intrigue.
The loss of Gaul and Brittania didn't mean much to the Empire. Gaul, Hispania, and Brittania were expensive backwaters with political elites too rebellious for their own good. The loss of North Africa was what sunk the Western Empire and even that could have been reversed had there not been a freak wind that sent the Vandal fireships into the Roman Navy.

The slave population and much of the poorer free peasantry had no loyalty to the
patrician system and were content with, if not preferring, rule by "barbarians" who'd
treat them on merit rather than by birth and whether they'd studied Roman classics.

The thing about slaves is that their opinion of the rulers doesn't matter. The opinion of the local elites is what mattered and they proved more than willing to work with 'barbarian' kings for their own interests.

 

[Nathiri]

Corruption and additions of new doctrines? Would you care to clarify what you mean?

I think you know what I mean by corruption, but the other, I was referring to the Pope and the traditions that was brought in.

Slavery was rather common in Sassanid Persia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaver..._the_Sassanids
There are some records to the Sassanids using slaves as soldiers -although the accuracy of those sources is dubious- and there are plenty of sources attesting to how the Sassanids took slaves in raids and when conquering cities.

That isnt surprising to me. Most ancient nations probably took captives during war and brought them back to their country for increased work speed. I cant recall a tribe or nation that did not.