Metal Reviews

I would like to learn more about the development of Eastern Europe, from all of my years of schooling I've never heard anything about it...

WWII - Cold War was always pretty interesting to me.

That is indeed a gigantic gap in most history curricula. In Flanders, you learn nothing of the Slav race or any of its people until the time of Peter the Great and Kattarin, a little bit of Poland-Lithuania, etc. Stuff like the Teutonic Crusade isn't touched upon at all, everyone's just learning "oh, those poor Muslims, Christian knights: naughty naughty" but the entire Christianisation of Northern and Eastern Europe is a complete blind spot.

If you want to read more on Poland for example, I can heartily recommend Poland - A History by Adam Zamoyski. It's a subject I'm trying to get up to speed on in my spare time, these days.

Actually, i have a class: History of the Balkan which goes from the classical age up to the 1990's. It's a bitch to learn though

Well yeah, but I'm studying the high school teacher kind of history, so that's a lot more low profile than you ;) And we have a head teacher for history who is rather judeophile in the syllabi he composes, to the point of only fleeting mentions of other minorities and peoples in some cases (a general chapter about Mediterranean people, half a page for Phoenicians, five for the Jews). Same with the Crusades.

Probably the Roman period, as it has more in common with our current culture than practically any other period, and definitely more than any other ancient period. The Circus Maximus was probably even more of a spectacle than Nascar.

Bought translations of Thucydides- History of the Peloponnesian war and Herodotus- Histories. Didn't spend 15€ on it all, including shipment

Tell me what you think of Thucydides. Took Herodotus out from the library, not realizing that it's almost impossible to read without dipping in and out.

http://www.sporcle.com/games/emperors_of_rome.php I got 21 without cheating.

I got them all up to Elagabalus, which I tried a hundred times to spell just like that. It's spelled Heliogabalus in my literature. Then some of the random guys from the late Empire.

I've always spelt it as Heliogabalus too. Actually, I've never even seen it as Elagabalus anywhere.

Got 51/76. Got the whole first column except for Diadumenian. Then the Third Century Crisis comes along and I only know about 5-6 of them- the Gordians, Philip the Arab, Claudius Gothicus, Valerian, Aurelian. Got nearly all of the third column, but I missed out on a couple of the tetrarchs and Arcadius. Nerd pride!

The sources I have read seem to place minimal emphasis on that element as well. While it may be that Alexios (II?)'s call to arms provided an inspiration, there were probably much more important factors: the Pope's wish to bring the Eastern christians back into the fold, the relatively massive overpopulation of Western Europe, the failings of the feudal system, etc.

I'm telling you, the book I'm reading gives a fairly objective view on the Crusades. It's not biased, the author doesn't give in to the present day don't piss off the muslims-fad and it's wel written with enough references to other works.

Phillips does talk about the First Crusade was a response to Alexios but as Karma pointed out, it mostly was an attempt to bring peace back into christian Europe. The Franks were divided and at each others throat and the fact that two of the more prominent rulers on the continent were excommunicated several times doesn't really help.

I think the subsequent politicking(some would say backstabbing) between Alexios (I) and the Crusaders allowed for the later emergence for the idea that the Byzantines call for assistance wasn't important.

Completely agreed that there were several motivations at work for the Western Christians, and they surely acted according towards their own agendas. But I don't see a widespread call for or success of crusading without the Byzantine pretext: that the Crusades were inevitable is something I have trouble subscribing to without investigating the subject more.

I don't know, many historians agree that the pope didn't really care about the Byzantines problems. He saw their reaching out for help as an opportunity to improve their relations but also to emphasize the position of Rome over Constantinople. Further more, it was the ideal opportunity to rally the West-Europeans and prevent them from getting into dozens of wars. Sure, without the Byzanty cry for help, it is unsure if the Crusades were to happen as they did, or as soon as they did for that matter. However, to go as far as state that it was one of the more important catalyst for the Crusades is a little short-sighted.

Well we are done here then. After all, you are the expert.

I never said I was. I am simply pointing out the OPINIONS of both Phillips (who is a history professor after all) as well as my own Middle Ages professor at my university. I never said this was the absolute truth, seen that as you know, this is virtually impossible in history.

Being an history major in America I have been well educated on WWII and WWI. Such a fantastical loss of life and incredible evil interest me. Technological advances truly took millions of extra lives.

Also included.

Ancient Rome - The Golden Age and the Punic Wars

American Civil War

The Mongol conquests...

Let's make this thread for random little-known but interesting historical stuff, too.

Eg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Molasses_Disaster